Cheney has replied to these comments by stating, “He (The President) has made clear from the outset, both publicly and privately, that our duty to uphold the law of the land admits no exceptions in wartime. The president himself put it best: He said, ‘We are in a fight for our principles and our first responsibility is to live by them.’”
What is not being commonly discussed is the fact that the NSA chief Michael Hayden was beginning to expand surveillance measures before Bush actually enacted his new policy. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi recently got letters to congress from the NSA chief declassified. In the letters it is reported that NSA chief Hayden told lawmakers he was taking “an expansive view” of his authority to conduct electronic surveillance. Pelosi has since raised questions about clarification of that statement. She stated, “I am concerned whether, and to what extent, the National Security Agency has received specific presidential authorization for the operations you are conducting.”
Hayden responded to Pelosi by advising her he was attempting to describe how he had adjusted the way the NSA collected and reported surveillance information. The President did advise Chief Hayden to expand the surveillance but many feel the expansion was already under way.
Is there any way to alleviate the fears of individuals who feel their rights are being violated by this policy? Where should the line be drawn between providing protection while at the same time preserving Americans’ civil liberties?
Cheney On Eavesdropping
Pages: 1 2
This is a very delicate issue, to balance our safety with our liberties. I know the left wants to rail Bush for this issue but is the rhetoric justified? I don’t really hear any valid arguments. The right does not really offer any better arguments either. Bring it on if you feel you can convince me.
There are numerous individuals who feel their civil liberties have been encroached upon, numerous times have they voiced their disregard for this policy. Is their a balance between liberties and protection, that is a good question, one many offer their opinions on but not really any real good answers. I think the issue is discussed in a very partisan manner when in reality it should be discussed as bi-partisan as possible.
Absent the Congressional oversight of intelligence activities required by the Constitution and the warrants explicitly required by FISA, and given this President’s history of unilateral decision-making, not following treaties and international law, and blatant belief that his own sense of right and wrong is the supreme law of the land, any intelligent person who cares about this country should be deeply troubled by the NSA program. No liberal I have heard has expressed contempt for the idea of eavesdropping on Americans. The President could have and needs to follow federal law to get the required warrants. His secracy and contempt for U.S. law and the constitutional balance of powers invites presumptions of illegality. The only logical reason that Bush would avoid the necessary warrants is that the NSA program is far larger than advertised and involves the NSA using robots to comb millions of cell phone, land-line, and e-mail communications, not just those suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda.