Bush defends warrant-less wiretaps

Legality of program questioned; Senate probe on way
by William Spain

President Bush defended his use of warrant-less wiretaps Saturday, saying the eavesdropping is necessary to protect the nation from terrorists, vowing to continue even as the legality of the program is called into question.

“I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations,” he said in his weekly radio address, broadcast live form Washington. “This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies.”

News of the program broke in the New York Times on Friday, setting off a legal and political furor. The newspaper revealed that the National Security Agency has been monitoring international communications of hundreds of people in the U.S. and that NSA officials have questioned the legality of the program.

Bush attacked both the story and those who provide information for it.

“Our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk,” he said. “Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”…

But, by ordering the wiretaps directly, Bush may have violated laws requiring the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to sign off on intelligence surveillance on American soil.

People within the borders of the U.S. are typically protected from this kind of government activity by the Fourth Amendment, which reads in part: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation …”

The nation’s largest civil liberties group flatly labeled the program illegal.

“Eavesdropping on conversations of U.S citizens and others in the United States without a court order and without complying with the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is both illegal and unconstitutional,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, in a written release. “The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law,” she said.

Fredrickson called on Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the program and said that “Congress must investigate this report thoroughly.”

One top Senator and member of Bush’s own party vowed to do just that.

The wiretaps are “wrong, clearly and categorically wrong,” said Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, quoted in various wire reports.

Specter, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, promised that a Senate probe of Bush’s actions will begin “as soon as we can get to it in the new year — a very, very high priority item.”

The revelations came on the same day when most Senate Democrats, joined by a handful of Republicans, beat back an attempt to renew the controversial USA Patriot Act, a measure passed in wake o the Sept. 11 terrorists attacks that vastly expanded the powers of law enforcement. Some provisions of the act are set to expire at midnight on New Year’s Eve.

In his speech, Bush also took a shot at them: “A minority of senators filibustered to block the renewal of the Patriot Act when it came up for a vote yesterday,” he said. “That decision is irresponsible, and it endangers the lives of our citizens….In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment.”

Senators from both sides of the aisle had proposed various changes to the law, including new expiration dates — moves opposed by the White House and most Republicans in Congress.

One exception is Sen. John Sununu of New Hampshire.

“No substantive material has been provided to argue how our specific changes would weaken or undermine law enforcement’s ability to do its job in pursuing terrorists,” he said on his official website. “A standard should be to put in place to protect civil liberties no matter who holds the power in the executive, the legislative or the judicial branches.”

Sununu also quoted Benjamin Franklin’s famous words: “Those who would give up essential liberty in the pursuit of a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. VT has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is VT endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)