America... Spying on Americans

Just a question? How many violations of cicl rifgts have been brought to court on this apying buisiness

sorry

spying

So far,none

New 'NY Times' Shocker: FBI Spied on Activist Groups
New 'NY Times' Shocker: FBI Spied on Activist Groups
By E&P Staff
Published: December 20, 2005
NEW YORK
The reporter, Eric Lichtblau, was also co-author of last week's spy bombshell, with James Risen.

Following up on its revelations about a National Security Agency domestic spy program approved by President Bush, The New York Times reports Tuesday that counterterrorism agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation "have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence-gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty and poverty relief, newly disclosed agency records show."

Documents were provided to The New York Times over the past week as part of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. For more than a year, it said, the ACLU has sought information in F.B.I. files on about 150 protest and social groups that it says may have been improperly monitored.

"One F.B.I. document indicates that agents in Indianapolis planned to conduct surveillance as part of a Vegan Community Project," the Times reveals. " Another document talks of the Catholic Workers group's 'semi-communistic ideology.' A third indicates the bureau's interest in determining the location of a protest over llama fur planned by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

"A.C.L.U officials said the latest batch of documents released by the F.B.I. indicated the agency's interest in a broader array of activist and protest groups than they had previously thought," Lichtblau writes. "In light of other recent disclosures about domestic surveillance activities by the National Security Agency and military intelligence units, the A.C.L.U. said the documents reflected a pattern of overreaching by the Bush administration.

"'It's clear that this administration has engaged every possible agency, from the Pentagon to N.S.A. to the F.B.I., to engage in spying on Americans," said Ann Beeson, associate legal director for the A.C.L.U.

"'You look at these documents," Ms. Beeson said, "and you think, wow, we have really returned to the days of J. Edgar Hoover, when you see in F.B.I. files that they're talking about a group like the Catholic Workers league as having a communist ideology."

Rockefeller Releases 2003 Note
As Storm Rises Over Spy Program, Rockefeller Releases 2003 Note
Published: December 19, 2005
WASHINGTON

Despite President Bush's defense, there was a growing storm of criticism from Congress and calls for investigations, from Democrats and Republicans alike, in the continuing controversy set off by The New York Times' domestic spy program scoop.

West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a handwritten letter expressing concern to Vice President Dick Cheney after being briefed more than two years ago.

Rockefeller complained then that the information was so restricted he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." He registered concern about the administration's direction on security, technology and surveillance issues.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he would ask Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, his views of the president's authority for spying without a warrant.

"Where does he find in the Constitution the authority to tap the wires and the phones of American citizens without any court oversight?" asked Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Bush's interpretation of the Constitution was "incorrect and dangerous."

Appealing for support, Bush used the word "understand" 25 times in a nearly hour-long news conference. "I hope the American people understand-- there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they're very dangerous," he said. Similarly, he said he hoped that blacks who doubt his intentions "understand that I care about them."

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle said he was briefed by the White House between 2002 and 2004 but was not told key details about the scope of the program. "Even with some of the more troublesome -- and potentially illegal -- details omitted, I still raised significant concern about these actions," Daschle said.

Daschle's successor, Reid, said he received a single briefing earlier this year and that important details were withheld. "We need to investigate this program and the president's legal authority to carry it out," Reid said.

Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has been regularly briefed and believes the program is consistent with U.S. laws and the Constitution, his office said. A statement said he was talking with Senate leaders about how to expand Congress' oversight.

Bush was cool toward investigations, saying, "An open debate would say to the enemy, `Here is what we're going to do.' And this is an enemy which adjusts." He said the administration had consulted with Congress more than a dozen times.

Re: New 'NY Times' Shocker: FBI Spied on Activist Groups

source: The White House - President George B. Bush

What? Wiretaps require a court order? Constitutional rights are guaranteed?

'Newsweek': Bush Asked Keller, Sulzberger to Stop Spy Story
'Newsweek': Bush Asked Keller, Sulzberger to Stop Spy Story
By E&P Staff
Published: December 19, 2005 8:30 PM ET
NEW YORK

Less than two weeks ago, on December 6, President George W. Bush was so desperate to stop The New York Times' secret spy program story he summoned Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Executive Editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office to try to talk them out of running it, Newsweek reported on its Web site on Monday.

The Newsweek article was written by Jonathan Alter and terms the latest spy scandal "Snoopgate."

"The Times will not comment on the meeting," Alter writes, "but one can only imagine the president's desperation."

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush has claimed, Alter comments. "No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story?-which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year?-because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker," he alleges.

"This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

"In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

"This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason?-and less out of genuine concern about national security?-that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story."
At his Monday press conference, the president denounced the leaks to the newspaper and said the Justice Dept. was looking into it:

"There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Bush's Snoopgate
Bush's Snoopgate

The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times' eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper's editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn't just out of concern about national security.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
Updated: 6:17 p.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate?-he made it seem as if those who didn't agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda?-but it will not work. We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting,
but one can only imagine the president's desperation.

The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists?-in fact, all American Muslims, period?-have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a "shameful act," it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.

No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story?-which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year?-because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow?-as the president seemed to claim in his press conference?-or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

This will all play out eventually in congressional committees and in the United States Supreme Court. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.

In the meantime, it is unlikely that Bush will echo President Kennedy in 1961. After JFK managed to tone down a New York Times story by Tad Szulc on the Bay of Pigs invasion, he confided to Times editor Turner Catledge that he wished the paper had printed the whole story because it might have spared him such a stunning defeat in Cuba.

This time, the president knew publication would cause him great embarrassment and trouble for the rest of his presidency. It was for that reason?-and less out of genuine concern about national security?-that George W. Bush tried so hard to kill the New York Times story.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/

The Constitution in Crisis: Censure and Investigate Possible
The Constitution in Crisis: Censure and Investigate Possible
Rep. John Conyers
12.20.2005

Today, I am releasing a staff report entitled, "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War."

Before talking about the report, I must express my profound gratitude to the readers of this site, who kept this story alive when no one would cover it, and continued to talk about it after some in the media moved on.

Much of the research in this report is a product of the input and hard work of DailyKos, Huffington Post and Conyersblog readers over the last six months (the help with my "timeline project" was particularly useful). I also am so grateful to progressive talk radio hosts and listeners, who have refused to allow the American people to forget the nation was deceived into war.

Now on to the Report and what I plan to do about it. In sum, the report examines the Bush Administration's actions in taking us to war from A to Z. The report finds there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice-President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war in Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

The Report concludes that a number of these actions amount to prima facie evidence (evidence sufficiently strong to presume the allegations are true) that federal criminal laws have been violated. Legal violations span from false statements to Congress to whistleblower laws.

The Report also concludes that these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable conduct. However, because the Administration has failed to respond to requests for information about these charges, it is not yet possible to conclude that an impeachment inquiry or articles of impeachment are warranted.

In response to the Report, I have already taken a number of actions. First, I have introduced a resolution (H. Res. 635) creating a Select Committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war and report on possible impeachable offenses. In Watergate, for example, the Congress did not begin matters as an impeachment inquiry, but investigated matters -- through the Ervin Committee -- and referred impeachable evidence to the Judiciary Committee.

Second, I have introduced Resolutions regarding both President Bush (H. Res. 636) and Vice-President Cheney (H. Res. 637) proposing that they be censured by Congress based on the uncontroverted evidence already on the record and their failure to respond to Congressional and public inquiries about these matters and have never accounted for their many specific misstatements in the run up to War.

As you know, taking these steps means that I am likely to be criticized by the political and media establishments in Washington and attacked by the right wing noise machine. There is a school of thought among Washington political consultants that criticizing the President about Iraq will make Democrats appear to be weak on national security. There is a media establishment that marginalizes politicians for espousing beliefs held by the majority of Americans. The right wing noise machine in turn retaliates against the President's critics.

Be that as it may, I just could not be silent any longer. The title of the report is exactly right: the Constitution is in Crisis. There are serious and well-substantiated allegations that the Executive Branch has usurped the sole power of the Congress to declare war by deceiving the Congress about the evidence for war. There are serious and well-substantiated allegations that the Executive Branch has deceived the American people to manufacture the people's consent for war.

If you agree with me, I am going to need your help like never before. Please go to my website, johnconyers.com, where you will find an action center, including a copy of the Report via Raw Story, and ways you can help. Also visit censurebush.org to join with other activists who want to move this issue forward.

For more information, go to johnconyers.com

Cross Posted at DailyKos and ConyersBlog

Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct
John Conyers, Jr.
40 Years Of Jobs, Justice And Peace

Stand with Congressman Conyers
Demand Censure for Bush-Cheney Misconduct
Investigate Impeachable Offenses

I am taking steps against the Bush Administration's handling of the Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. I am going to need you to stand with me in fighting for accountability.

Join me to demand censure for Bush and Cheney in addition to the creation of a Special Committee to investigate impeaching the Bush Administration for its widespread abuses of power.

I have sought answers from the administration to questions arising from the Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame leak, and scores of other abominable abuses of power that pervade the activities of this White House. 121 Members of Congress and many citizens like you have joined me in asking these questions of the President.

I have just completed a thorough review of this administration's misconduct and have produced a 250-page report that provides evidence suggesting further steps to be taken. [A copy of the report may be found at RawStory.com, and also at CensureBush.org where additional action items may be found.]

It is time to take bolder measures in our pursuit of justice. This White House has responded to questions about its conduct with misleading statements, obfuscation, and vicious attacks against their critics. We must take the next step towards restoring accountability in our federal government. To this end I have:

• Introduced a resolution of censure for both President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, and;

• I am calling upon Congress to create a select committee similar to the Ervin Committee, which investigated President Nixon's Watergate crimes. This select committee should investigate those offenses which appear to rise to the level of impeachment.

This administration must be held accountable for its misdeeds. We have considerable work to do and I am going to need your help to make this effort successful. Join me in sending a message to the President, the media, and the American people that we are not going to stand for an imperial presidency any longer.

Sincerely,

John Conyers

so far?

it was a secret program.

even a FOIA request about it would have been rejected.



Double Secret Probation for Animal House!

Then how do you know anything illegal was done?

Because it was a violation of FISA and of the Constitution and of basic American principles. That's right, it's anti-American.

Cheney Defends Presidential Powers
Cheney Defends Presidential Powers
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer
12/20/05

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday vigorously defended the Bush administration's use of secret domestic spying and efforts to expand presidential powers, saying "it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years."

Talking to reporters aboard his government plane as he flew from Islamabad, Pakistan to Muscat, Oman on an overseas mission, Cheney said a contraction in the power of the presidency since the Vietnam and Watergate era must be reversed.

"I believe in a strong, robust executive authority and I think that the world we live in demands it. And to some extent, that we have an obligation as the administration to pass on the offices we hold to our successors in as good of shape as we found them," he said.

Cheney spoke from his plane's private cabin as he was making a trip aimed at boosting the United States' image abroad and its relationships with its war-on-terror partners. But after visiting Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, he was cutting his travels short, skipping planned stops in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to return to Washington to be on hand for session-ending Senate activity that could require his tie-breaking votes.

Cheney said he believes the American people support President Bush's terror-fighting strategy. "If there's a backlash pending," because of reports of National Security Agency surveillance of calls originating within the United States, he said, "I think the backlash is going to be against those who are suggesting somehow that we shouldn't take these steps to defend the country."

Cheney talked about terrorism and national security amid a burgeoning controversy at home over Bush's acknowledgment of a four-year-old administration program to eavesdrop ?- without court-approved warrants ?- on international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the United States with suspected ties to the terrorist network al-Qaida.

Some legal experts described the program as groundbreaking. And until the highly classified program was disclosed last week, those in Congress with concerns about the National Security Agency spying on Americans raised them only privately.

Since the program's existence was revealed, lawmakers from both parties have objected and begun discussing a congressional investigation. Cheney said the opposition is politically unwise.

"Either we're serious about fighting the war on terror or we're not," the vice president said. "The president and I believe very deeply that there is a hell of a threat."

The vice president also told reporters that in his view, presidential authority has been eroded since the 1970s through laws such as the War Powers Act and anti-impoundment laws.

"Watergate and a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam both during the '70s served, I think, to erode the authority I think the president needs to be effective, especially in the national security area," Cheney said. But he also said the administration has been able to restore some of "the legitimate authority of the presidency."

Cheney said the White House helped protect presidential power by fighting to keep secret the list of people who were a part of his 2001 energy task force. The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of discussions on developing a national energy policy while corporate interests were present. A protracted lawsuit ensued.

"I believe that the president is entitled and needs to have unfiltered advice in formulating policy," Cheney said. "He ought to be able to seek the opinion of anybody he wants to and that he should not have to reveal, for example, who he talked to that morning. That issue was litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court and we won."

Cheney said that "many people believe" the War Powers Act, enhancing the power of Congress to share in executive branch decision-making on war, is unconstitutional and said "it will be tested at some point. I am one of those who believe that was an infringement on the authority of the president."

Cheney noted he had served in the House for 10 years and said he has "enormous regard" for the legislative branch.

"But I do believe that especially in the day and age we live in, the nature of the threats of we face ?- and this is true during the Cold War as well as I think is true now ?- the president of the United States needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," the vice president said.

Cheney conceded that arguments over eavesdropping won't likely pass any time soon, saying, "It's an important subject."

"I would argue that the actions that we've taken there are totally appropriate and consistent with the constitutional authority of the president," he added.

"You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," Cheney said. "I think there's a temptation for people to sit around and say, 'Well, gee that was just a one-of affair, they didn't really mean it.' "

"The bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressively defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," he said.

Of course what I meant to say was, "how do you know did wiretap American citizens without a warrant?" I apologize if this caused irritation.

This is a complete false argument. You could just as easily state that since no one went to court in Iraq about being tortured and killed under Saddam then it must not have happened.

Because the person is unaware or unable to bring the violation of their rights to light doesn't change the violation at all. Simply claiming that no one has come forward doesn't validate the violation of people's rights.

The lawsuits will be filed in the next few years as the information comes out.

So, let me get that last bit straight...

It doesn't matter whether or not you KNOW if your rights have someohow been infringed upon, but just that they COULD have been?

Wow... that's deep.

So according you, McG, if the police search your house while you're gone, and you don't notice anything disturbed, then you have not been a victim of an illegal search?

Sorry McG but your argument cuts both ways. How do you know people will lose the right to own a gun if certain laws are passed? You seem to be willing to argue on COULD on some issues.

Not only that, but if they make you dissappear into a secret prison system you haven't lost any rights either.