Bush Says Leaking Spy Program A "Shameful Act"

[Gold9472]

Bush says leaking spy program a ‘shameful act’
President vows to continue domestic eavesdropping

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10530417/

(Gold9472: Can someone please tell me where in the Constitution it says the President can wiretap anyone he wants. Please)

Updated: 11:01 a.m. ET Dec. 19, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday said disclosure of his domestic eavesdropping program was a “shameful act” and said he will keep using it “for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens.”

“As president of the United States and commander in chief I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country,” he said in an opening statement at a year-end White House news conference.

Asked if the Justice Department would be investigating who leaked the existence of the program, first disclosed last week by The New York Times, Bush said he presumed the process had started.

“It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy,” he said.

‘Legal to do so’
Normally, no wiretapping is permitted in the United States without a court warrant. But Bush said he approved the action without such orders “because it enables us to move faster and quicker. We’ve got to be fast on our feet.

“It is legal to do so. I swore to uphold the laws. Legal authority is derived from the Constitution,” Bush added.

The existence of the program triggered an outpouring of criticism in Congress, but an unflinching defense from Bush and senior officials of his administration.

The president spoke not long after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Congress had given Bush authority to spy on suspected terrorists in this country in legislation passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Bush and other officials have said the program involved monitoring phone calls and e-mails of individuals in this country believed to be plotting with terrorists overseas.

Call for Patriot Act's renewal
Bush also called on Congress to renew the anti-terror Patriot Act before it expires at the end of the year. “In a war on terror we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment,” he said.

The legislation has cleared the House but Senate Democrats have blocked final passage and its prospects are uncertain in the final days of the congressional session.

The news conference was announced just a few hours earlier Monday.

Sunday night, Bush addressed the nation on his Iraq policy, asking that Americans “not give up on this fight for freedom.”

The news conference was the president’s 21st. The previous one was on Oct. 4.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[PhilosophyGenius]

Well how about leaking a spy? Wouldn't that be a "shameful act" also?

[Se7en]

I am not a fan of Bush, as many of you know, but he does have the discretion/authority to in fact do this. Executive privilege in the name of national security allows it to happen. Presidents as far back as Ulysses S. Grant set precedent in this area.

[Gold9472]

I am not a fan of Bush, as many of you know, but he does have the discretion/authority to in fact do this. Executive privilege in the name of national security allows it to happen. Presidents as far back as Ulysses S. Grant set precedent in this area.

First of all... HOW THE HELL ARE YA?... secondly... what good is the Constitution if the President can bypass it anytime he likes?

[Se7en]

First of all... HOW THE HELL ARE YA?... secondly... what good is the Constitution if the President can bypass it anytime he likes?

1st - doing good. Miss our discussions.

2nd - Have ya read the Constitution? I mean, actually read it. Read the entire thing, and then you will be able to answer your question.

[Se7en]

To follow up: I was setting you up. Of course you have read the Constitution - no where in it, does it state anything about Executive privilege. However, what makes our establishment the greatest in the world, is the fact our Constitution is a living Document.
Nixon asserted that the Constitution granted him the absolute right of executive privilege, or the ability to withhold information from the press, the public, the Congress, and even the courts. The Supreme Court disagreed, though it did recognize a limited degree of privilege. Those limits have to do with military or diplomatic secrets - but even then, the information in question could be reviewed for relevancy. (See 418 U.S. 683 (1974)) Some argue that executive privilege is a myth; it certainly is not codified in the Constitution. The truth is likely that though there is no specific mention of privilege in the Constitution, the Framers would have been comfortable with the definition the Court has set down.

[Gold9472]

1st - doing good. Miss our discussions.

2nd - Have ya read the Constitution? I mean, actually read it. Read the entire thing, and then you will be able to answer your question.

I've read it (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4715).

Article II, Section IV... "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The President is not above the law. Wiretapping people's phones without a warrant is against the law. Unfortunately, because of the Republican run House, Senate, and Judicial branches of government, he is not accountable for his actions. That actually isn't the post I was looking for. If Beltman713 were here, he would know...

[Gold9472]

To follow up: I was setting you up. Of course you have read the Constitution - no where in it, does it state anything about Executive privilege. However, what makes our establishment the greatest in the world, is the fact our Constitution is a living Document.
Nixon asserted that the Constitution granted him the absolute right of executive privilege, or the ability to withhold information from the press, the public, the Congress, and even the courts. The Supreme Court disagreed, though it did recognize a limited degree of privilege. Those limits have to do with military or diplomatic secrets - but even then, the information in question could be reviewed for relevancy. (See 418 U.S. 683 (1974)) Some argue that executive privilege is a myth; it certainly is not codified in the Constitution. The truth is likely that though there is no specific mention of privilege in the Constitution, the Framers would have been comfortable with the definition the Court has set down.

And we all know how honorable Nixon was... :hump:

[Gold9472]

My problem with the whole thing... There's NO clear definition as to who they're listening to. Here's the closest thing we've got.

"all communications into and out of Afghanistan, including those to and from the United States (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7113)"

Does that mean they're literally going to monitor every single phone call going in and out of Afghanistan? They're trying to promote farming there (supposedly), what if Americans want to do business with them? Are they going to monitor those phone calls as well? That's a hypothetical argument because I doubt that will ever happen, but this is the kind of thing that starts, and then grows into a "Big Brother" scenario. Which already exists within Echelon unfortunately.

[Gold9472]

I FOUND IT

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4610

Bush is not above the law...