Bush Admits To Authorizing Domestic Spying,...

Here is the full text of the President's address, along with video.

The idea of clandestine monitoring of communication by American citizens is troublesome, but its not exactly anything new. Courts already routinely authorize the covert monitoring of conversations, telephone call and electronic communication for domestic criminal cases involving things like drug trafficking and organized crime. All this action by the President has done is extend the tools already employed by domestic law enforcement agencies to the war on terror, but instead of a judge authorizing things we have the President authorizing them.

Personally, I have no problem with the FBI monitoring the phone calls of mob bosses when said monitoring is authorized by a judge. I also have no problem with the NSA monitoring the communication of suspected international terrorists when said monitoring is authorized by the highest ranking elected official in this country. And, aside from my personal opinion on the matter, it also appears as though the President's actions are well within the legal scope of U.S. law.

What the media really isn't focusing on (for obvious reasons) is the fact that the reason this stuff is making headlines is because highly classified national security information was leaked to the press by an unknown official. If we can spend two years and tens of millions of tax dollars investigating the rather inconsequential leak of the identity of a CIA desk jockey (who's identity may or may not have been covert to begin with) we should certainly devote a significant amount of attention to finding out who leaked this information, which resulted in directly undermining and on-going and highly classified anti-terror operation.

You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com

Comments: 6

stephen wadlow Dec 17, 2005, 9:58pm EST

I disagree that the leak of the identity is inconsequential. I do believe that that sort of thing has the ability to put the agent, and possibly much more at risk, both for any current operation, and other activities they may have been involved with in the past. It's also a serious blow to the morale of active agents in the field to know that the politicians pulling the strings would sell them out for political gain.

reply to this comment

Dan Merritt Dec 18, 2005, 1:17am EST

"All this action by the President has done is extend the tools already employed by domestic law enforcement agencies to the war on terror, but instead of a judge authorizing things we have the President authorizing them." By the excerpt from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: shown in your own sayanything blog The president has no authority to authorize any such monitoring, as an extension of domestic law enforcement agencies or for any other reason.
Furthermore why should we, as you say, " certainly devote a significant amount of attention to finding out who leaked this information, which resulted in directly undermining and on-going and highly classified anti-terror operation." if the President's action is such an acceptable and documentably legal practice? Were that the case, surely any terrorist, domestic or otherwise, would be operating always under the assumption that they were subject to electronic eavesdropping and monitoring, and no harm would be done by the confirming an acceptable and legal practice was in fact being done.

reply to this comment

Gurn Blanston Dec 18, 2005, 7:51pm EST

Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government." The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act specifically says, "Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." But, of course, the left cares not about this little tidbit. The Cut and Runner's plan is simple: Scream, scream, scream that the sky is falling and the public will believe.

reply to this comment

jeff jacobs Dec 19, 2005, 11:05pm EST

The problem is not that the Bushies are spying on foreign powers. What has people up in arms, including a number of Republicans, is that they are spying on American citizens - and that is specifically illegal without a court order. According to Bush, everything is a matter of national security and to disclose anything would compromise an investigation. I have had enough of the lies, deceptions, misinformation and propaganda spewed out by the White House. I applaud those people who are helping us shine a light on the illegalities perpetrated by this administration. Unfortunately, you would rather condemn the whisle blowers rather than appreciate being told the truth.

reply to this comment

Rob Port Dec 19, 2005, 11:49pm EST

Jeff, I have not seen a single concrete bit of evidence to indcate that any American citizen was monitored without a warrant. Plenty of reporting has suggested that people in America were monitored, but that doesn' t mean that they were citizens.

reply to this comment

Dale Cooper Dec 20, 2005, 1:55am EST

CIA desk jockey? Come on, you can do better than Rush Limbaugh talking points.

Valerie Wilson/Plame WAS an undercover agent (Non-Official Cover to be more accurate) and that has looooong since been established.

Leaking information on criminal activity by government officials IS NOT THE SAME as leaking information on the identity of an undercover agent, thereby ruining her careers and possibly compromising any contacts she had ever worked with.

Why is that so hard for you to differentiate?

BTW, the NYT sat on the story for over a year at the request of the administration. So it should't be a surprise to the WH that it eventually was printed

reply to this comment

Bush Admits To Authorizing Domestic Spying, Chastises Those Responsible For Leaking

Comments: 6

Join the Conversation

You might also like

More by Rob Port