Bush Defends NSA Program, Calling it a Terrorist Surveillance Program
President Bush and the nation’s deputy national intelligence chief today defended the legality of a controversial domestic spying program, describing it as a vital tool in the war against terrorists and denying that it violates the civil liberties of Americans.
Calling the effort a “terrorist surveillance program,” Bush said in a speech at Kansas State University that he authorized the eavesdropping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in an effort to detect any continuing plots involving members of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist network overseas and persons operating inside the United States.
“If they’re making phone calls into the United States, we need to know why — to protect you,” Bush said.
The comments, made during a wide-ranging speech and question and-answer session that lasted about two hours, came after Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the deputy director of national intelligence, told the National Press Club in Washington that the program is “targeted and focused” on al Qaeda and does not cast a “drift net” over Americans’ telephone and e-mail communications.
Bush said of the intercepted communications, “These are not phone calls within the United States. This is a phone call of an al Qaeda — known al Qaeda suspect — making a phone call into the United States.”
He said, “I’m mindful of your civil liberties, and so I had all kinds of lawyers review the process. We briefed members of the United States Congress . . . about this program.
“You know, it’s amazing that people say to me, ‘Well, he was just breaking the law.’ If I wanted to break the law, why was I briefing Congress?” Bush said with a chuckle.
Bush said he has “authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance against our enemies,” and that a 2001 congressional authorization for the use of force gave him “additional authority” in waging war against al Qaeda.
“Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn’t prescribe the tactics,” he said. “It said, Mr. President, you’ve got the power to protect us, but we’re not going to tell you how.”
This is the first of a series of speeches planned for the week defending the program.
The debate is growing tiresome, only leaving us to repeat the same talking points on both sides, when the facts are still unknown, and we may never know the full details. The program is supposed to be secret anyway.
Andrew McCarthy sums it up well today, so I’ll just quote him.
We are either at war or we are not. If we are, the president of the United States, whom the Constitution makes the commander-in-chief of our military forces, is empowered to conduct the war — meaning he has unreviewable authority to employ all of the essential incidents of war fighting.
Not some of them. All of them. Including eavesdropping on potential enemy communications. That eavesdropping — whether you wish to refer to it by the loaded “spying” or go more high-tech with “electronic surveillance” or “signals intelligence” — is as much an incident of warfare as choosing which targets to bomb, which hills to capture, and which enemies to detain.
It was critical in the Civil War, when, by definition, it was done domestically — and without the slightest suggestion that federal courts should be involved. It was critical in World War II, when concerns about enemy infiltration were very real. And it is perhaps more critical today than during any war in our nation’s history.
Al Qaeda is an international terrorist network. We cannot defeat it by conquering territory. It has none. We cannot round up its citizens. Its allegiance is to an ideology that makes nationality irrelevant. To defeat it and defend ourselves, we can only acquire intelligence — intercept its communications and thwart its plans. Nothing else will do.
Al Qaeda seeks above all else to strike the United States — yet again — domestically. Nothing — nothing — could be worse for our nation and for the civil liberties of all Americans than the terrorists’ success in that regard. For those obvious reasons, no communications are more important to capture than those which cross our borders. Al Qaeda cannot accomplish its ne plus ultra, massive attacks against our domestic population centers, unless it communicates with people here. If someone from al Qaeda is using a phone to order a pizza, we want to know that — probable cause or not.
On another note, the president recieved a rather odd question while he was there. His answer, no, he hasn’t seen Brokeback Mountain. Here is the full text of the speech.
Meanwhile the ACLU lawsuit is being prepared, and we will be an intervening party. If you would like to join us, and help out, Click Here.
Others: Blogs for Bush
The Political Teen has a video
Email This
Posted by Jay on January 23, 2006 5:27 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL:
- RightWinged.com: VIDEO: Bush Hasn't Seen Brokeback Mountain. President Receives Odd Question at KSU.
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator: Bush defends tactics in war on terror
- Ms. Underestimated: Bond of Wounded Warriors Crosses Generations
- RightWinged.com: Follow-Up Photoshop: Brokeback Bush & Cheney?
- Mensa Barbie Welcomes You: ACLU and other Concerns
- TMH's Bacon Bits: Data-Mining, the FISA Court, and Wartime
- The Strata-Sphere: Fly By 01/24/06
- The Strata-Sphere » Blog Archive » Fly By 01/24/06 pinged this post.
- NIF: Department of Redundancy Department
Comments
19 Responses to “Bush Defends NSA Program, Calling it a Terrorist Surveillance Program”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Why do you wingnuts continue to frame it as a ’spy v. don’t spy’ issue? as opposed to the ’spy lawfully vs. spy unlawfully’ issue which it is?
Intereesting comment by a left leaning observer. It is being done by the letter of the law and has been forty some years. tom
Why do you wingnuts continue to frame it as a ’spy v. don’t spy’ issue?
They’re either stupid or profoundly dishonest, and they seem too earnest for the latter.
We are either at war or we are not.
We’re not. The congress specifically declined to declare war, and opted to grant the president more limited powers by giving him “specific statutory authorization” (see: War Powers Act).
“On another note, the president recieved a rather odd question while he was there. His answer, no, he hasn’t seen Brokeback Mountain.”
But the odds are fair to high that RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has seen it at least seven times
Hey Repubs, You’re supporting the creation of a police state under the pretense of protection.
You’re all cowards! Go change your pants after you’ve soiled them. No wonder none of you yellowbellies are in the army.
36% approval rating? Not looking good for Bush
Wow… I am overwhelmed by the superior intellect that it took to author these past couple of comments. Name calling and the utter ignorance to the actual facts of the issue adds nothing to the conversation.
I am not a fan of using this as some sort of “debate” especially since the word debate gives the illusion of the exchange of ideas in a civil and productive way. But since this is a forum for such discussion, I fail to see the logic and the abilities of individuals who hide behind anonymity by not providing valid links to ones own blog or website. It is no different than making prank phone calls in the middle of the night.
It is sophomoric and totally non productive.
If you wish to actually try to convince anyone with a brain that you know what the hell you are talking about, might I suggest that you refrain from trolling sites, dropping venom filled name calling, and ill informed comments. Parroting the moronic Communist, I mean Democratic, talking points is adding nothing. Therefore, you comments are irrelevant.
“’spy lawfully vs. spy unlawfully’ issue which it is?”
Its not, unless you have proof that Congress doesn’t that they were done illegaly.
“They’re either stupid or profoundly dishonest”
I repeat, there must be evidence you and your buddy have that Bush broke the law. That is two of you now and you should know that Congress does not have this evidence so the both of you are guilty of obstruction of justice if you have evidence you are withholding. Either that, or your mouths are writing checks that your brains can’t cash; much like every other liberal suffering from the impotent frustration of no one listening to them.
“You’re all cowards! Go change your pants after you’ve soiled them. No wonder none of you yellowbellies are in the army.”
Some of us have. Watch your mouth. Its pretty insulting to listen to what couldn’t be anything but two dope-smoking graduate students disrespect what they don’t understand. If either of you served in the military than you should be ashamed. If you knew what a “police state” consisted of you’d retract that statement. By the way, by your logic, we’ve always lived in a police state. The NSA has done this for years. Someone who is not a coward would get on the right side and start working to protect their home. Grow up.
“36% approval rating? Not looking good for Bush”
Except Bush isn’t up for re-election. I love it when libs spout about Bush’s dropped approval. Go ahead and keep humiliating yourselves. The fact that Bush’s numbers have dropped that low and America still tells the Dems and libs to get bent makes me deliriously happy.
I am currently in the military, so why someone would make such a wild assumption is just ignorant.
“Its not, unless you have proof that Congress doesn’t that they were done illegaly.”
That’s the discussion. Nobody is discussing whether to spy or not. We are all discussing how to do it legally.
We will see Bil. I really don’t believe you are that confident. I also have no idea what poll you are citing, but don’t put too much faith in the polls. They didn’t come through for you last time did they?
I’m sorry I just assumed that a real soldier, rather then one who fantasizes to be one on the internet, wouldn’t support Bush. Go shave your triangle you [edited].
Trolling? Aweeee poor Repubs….You don’t like it when the choir isn’t there to preach to do you? No Kool-Aid to drink?
Hey you guys hear that there are at least 5 pics of Jack Abramoff and Bush together? Man that can’t be good. Looks like Bush was in on it all too.
That coupled with Bush’s whole ignoring the 4th amendment…Geez you wingers must be nervous about impeachment. Or do you think a blow job is more a impeachable offense then actually breaking the law?
As far as watching my mouth? [edited]…Just because you pretend to be a man online doesn’t mean you pee stanidng up. In person I doubt any of you faux patriots are fit to carry my jock strap.
If you’re a veteran and you support Bush, you need to learn to read, and pay attention to him cutting veteran’s benefits. You’re getting robbed
No profanity!
“If you knew what a “police state” consisted of you’d retract that statement. By the way, by your logic, we’ve always lived in a police state. The NSA has done this for years. Someone who is not a coward would get on the right side and start working to protect their home. Grow up.”
This should seem obvious, Protecting my home involves preventing [edited] like you from surrendering our civil liberties because you’re too afraid.
Coward, stop pretending to be a hero!
“435 house members are up and it’s not looking good for the GutlessOP. Bush is going in the [edited] and so are you. How appropriate.”
That’s what was said the last 3 elections. Who holds the majority?
“That coupled with Bush’s whole ignoring the 4th amendment”
Prove it.
” Or do you think a blow job is more a impeachable offense then actually breaking the law?”
Of course not. Getting a blow job and lying under about it under oath is breaking the law. Glad to see you’re educated in these matters.
“Just because you pretend to be a man online doesn’t mean you pee stanidng up”
Exactly. You seem to have a good grasp on this concept. Must feel pretty tough from a few hundred miles away.
” If you’re a veteran and you support Bush, you need to learn to read, and pay attention to him cutting veteran’s benefits. You’re getting robbed”
Well, since everything educated people read says Bush has INCREASED pay for the military, now you can prove your ridiculous claims instead of trying to be tough guys on the internet.
“Protecting my home involves preventing [edited] like you from surrendering our civil liberties because you’re too afraid”
That’s rich. Internet tough guys lecturing real men on cowardice. Now, if you could just point to what civil liberties of your have been violated according to the Constitution genius, we’ll take you seriously. Now go away and let the grown ups talk. You have school tomorrow.
“The 2006 Congressional elections will decide your fate.”
Another Einstein. Since we go by polls around here, maybe you genius trolls could take a look at all the public opinion polls regarding “illegal” wiretaps. No one cares. 06′ will be just fine for me, as will 08′, what with the almost every possible Republican candidate ahead of the Dems, including Hillary.
Where are the victims? Where are the numerous people from the Middle East and other areas lining up to join this suit? Who are the victims?
I thought so. Just a few fringe lunatics that the ACLU dug up. Most people in this country do not care about the so called domestic spying issue for one very good reason- we love, absolutely adore our safety and security. We do not want a repeat of 9/11, no matter how large or small scale.
We want to know that our government is protecting us against an enemy. The terrorists do not play by any rules, why should we?
DAV said “This should seem obvious, Protecting my home involves preventing [edited] like you from surrendering our civil liberties because you’re too afraid. ”
Please elaborate on exactly which of your civil liberties have been surrendered. Please site the section of the US Constitution that is being violated as well.
I saw your the head of the NSA’s recollection of the 4th ammednment yesterday. Pretty sad.
No wonder you people don’t think warrantless wiretapping are a big deal. None of you have read the Constitution before.
Fortunately the people that have, are already calling for Impeachment.
Hold on before I go.
LOOK OUT A MUSLIM!!!
Just kiddin you guys… Wait did you just soil yourself again?
No wonder you easily hand over the duty of your personal security to the Federal Government.
Some Hero…
“No wonder you people don’t think warrantless wiretapping are a big deal. None of you have read the Constitution before.”
And I see you didn’t cite from the Constitution to back up your charge. I guess we won’t get any sources on this.
Wait before I go.
LOOK OUT Bin Laden!!
Just kidding. Put your pen away. He can’t speak English to give you his autograph.
“Fortunately the people that have, are already calling for Impeachment”
The same people that think abortion is protected under the Constitution.
LOOK OUT A BABY!!!
Just kidding. Put your knife away.
” No wonder you easily hand over the duty of your personal security to the Federal Government.”
If your implying that its my job to eliminate all threats to me and my family, then I’ll get right on loading liberals on to trains and shipping them to the camps.