The official blog of the Libertarian Party
January 05, 2006
National Security Agency Acted On Its Own Before President's Approval
Citing newly declassified documents, the New York Times reported that the National Security Agency (NSA) expanded its domestic spying activities shortly after the Sept. 11th attacks without formal approval from President Bush.
The former head of the NSA, General Michael Hayden informed the House Intelligence Committee in October 2001 that the agency had expanded its surveillance powers right after 9/11, according to the Washington Post. In testimony to the House Intelligence Committee , Hayden cited Executive Order 12333, which allows warrantless searches "against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power," as his justification for taking a more expansive view of the agency's powers without explicit approval from the president.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in a recently declassified letter to General Hayden, stated, " I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting."
The Washington Post reported that the NSA forwarded the intercepts of electronic communications to the FBI, even though many of these communications were made by American citizens. This discovery led to calls for a comprehensive investigation into the NSA's activities. Even Admiral Bobby R. Inman, who served as NSA director from 1977 to 1981, expressed concern as to why the Bush administration did not attempt to have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act amended, thereby giving explicit legal authority to the NSA for domestic eavesdropping.
Posted by at January 5, 2006 03:39 PM
Reader Comments:
The only way to curtail abuse of power is to curtail power. Let's get rid of the NSA.
Many agencies such as the CIA, NSA or FBI would go to emergency status after an attack such as 9/11. This is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. General Hayden was probably acting well within the scope of his authority. I have no problems with monitoring the communications of foreign nationals, it is the monitoring of our own citizens that subverts the Constitution unless they are known, identified agents of a foreign power. I consider monitoring Embassies of hostile governments and known spies perfectly acceptable and prudent.
The trick lies in making certain these agencies stay within their specified boundaries. What needs to be examined and if necessary modified is the NSA Charter if anything was done out of line. It isn't always necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The interesting thing is that many people of what I have termed "Super-Patriots" becuase they invariably question the patriotism of anyone who does not agree with Bush, use the FISA court argument that FISA was not established by Bush so the secret wiretapping must be OK becuase it was reviewed by a FISA Judge.
Of course, we now know that none of this was true. None of it was reviewed by anyone. It will interesting if the Super-Patriots, conservatives that they claim to be, will now say that FISA is not needed becuase Bush didnt use them? :D
Just for the record, there is no so-called "patriotism" more dangerous and insulting to the nation than the phony patriotism where the President's policy is never questioned or examined, and those that would do so are condemned by the Super-Patriots.
I condemn their "Patriotism" as phony, becuase it is not the country they love, only the leadership, and it is scary that such people can be called "conservatives" about anything.
Timothy West -
Goldwater is turning in his grave as we speak.
Chuck. Not sure but I think the constitution proffers teh same rights in the criminal process to aliens as well as US citiznes. Hence, the belief that foreign nationals, unless strongly suspected of being foreign agents or such, could have their rights randomly rescinded, is unconstituional. I think?
What I think you are referring to are enemy combatants in times of war. They are protected under the Geneva Convention. Espionage agents, I THINK, fall under a different classification. Any Constitutional scholars out there who can help Van and me?
Chuck -
Foreign nationals are subject to the same rights as American citizens. The only difference between them and us is that our country has a document guaranteeing the protection of our rights. All persons are born with those rights, and they are unalienable.
My understanding from what I have read on the subject was that many of the numbers monitored were obtained through contacts with terrorist ties. These were not numbers randomly picked out of the air, they were known numbers of terrorist contacts...if that is the case I have no problem with that.
Also when you have known terrorist supporting groups and people living or based in the US I have no problem with them being monitored, I would prefer they were removed. Muslim clerics the US preaching jihad on the US, collecting monies and sending it over seas to fund terrorist training. We cannot turn a blind eye to this activity.
Phil...
The problem with your comments is that a system exists -- provided for in our Constitution -- to enable law enforcement to monitor the activities, including communications, of suspected criminals and/or terrorists.
The President, et al, chose to ignore that system (warrants issued by a judge) and therefore, rather than making us any safer, instead contributed to yet another dimunition of our rights.
The guys in charge of this surveillance who acted without even the President's approval need to be thrown in jail.
Granted, the rest of the bastards need to go too, but at the very least these guys need to see the inside of the slammer.
Isnt it time to shoot the bastards yet? I think it is.
I'm glad to hear this debate within the LP.
Too often, libertarians have a knee-jerk
reaction to anything the government does.
We sometimes forget, we need government
to counter aggression, including Islamic
Jihadism.
US FISA courts should be able to react quickly, almost in real-time. Threatening actions and communication are no longer limited to sailing ships across the Atlantic. Roving wiretaps should be allowed, so terrorists can't avoid surveillance by simply getting a new cell phone number each day.
At the same time, FISA wiretaps should be limited to fighting terrorists, and not used for other purposes such as the drug war.
Please, join our discussion by post-9/11 libertarians, at: fightforliberty@yahoogroups.com
Kevin
Awareness is the problem that glares in my eyes. Many, many American people are coddling themselves in consumer culture, resulting in non-awareness of any of the above mentioned; resulting in a public that needs to keep it's lifestyle without knowing what is going on.
Libertarian Party, thanks for helping in the fight for what was granted to us. I'm independent, but in the trenches with you.
James
"I'm glad to hear this debate within the LP.
Too often, libertarians have a knee-jerk
reaction to anything the government does.
We sometimes forget, we need government
to counter aggression, including Islamic
Jihadism..."
Who are "WE" Kimo-Sabe? I do not buy into the governments 9/11 B.S., I do not accept their rationale for shredding the Constitution and WILL not sacrifice ANY personal liberty for any form of their "protection".
If you do, go hide under your bed with the rest of the Neocons.
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck, take a breath!
Chuck, has but one vote, like the rest of us. Beyond that influence on others is founded on their perception of credibility. A fragile thing too easily lost in illogical overly emotional statements. Makes one sound like a conspiracy theorists that some unknowns (neocons?)are doing something nefarious.
Nefarious like shredding the Constitution? If that isn't "nefarious" enough for you, the Republicrats wil welcome you home.
What will it take to shake you people out of your stupor? Another 9/11 and the Patriot Act II? You breathe, I'll act.
| 
The only way to curtail abuse of power is to curtail power. Let's get rid of the NSA.
Posted by: Nigel Watt at January 5, 2006 04:04 PM