Bushladin responds to question about wiretapping without court approval

In this excerpt, Bushladin uses the constitution to justify illegal wire taps. He also confuses Osama Bin Laden with Saddam Heussein.Lets see now, which manufactured enemy am I referring to in this answer, aha!

The American people take in this Orwellian double speak without questioning… What is the motivating factor behind all of Bush’s reasons? FEAR.

He always says September 11 this, September 11 that, we have to protect our freedoms from others who want to harm us…

9/11 doesn’t give this man the right to abrogate the constitution. Where in the document does it give the president the authority to order wiretaps without court approval? Why doesn’t he cite the amendment? Are there now “secret” amendments, sort of like the “secret” provisions of the patriot act?

The fact is, these wiretaps are strictly forbidden; Bush is using classic Orwellian doublespeak to mask this and make himself seem officially “correct.”

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984, there are no laws; people are simply taken away for whatever reason the government sees fit. It appears as if this may be happening in the United States; indeed it is a plague which is sweeping through the western world.

Press Conference of the President


Question: Mr. President, thank you, sir. Are you going to order a leaks investigation into the disclosure of the NSA surveillance program? And why did you skip the basic safeguard of asking courts for permission for these intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: Let me start with the first question. There is a process that goes on inside the Justice Department about leaks, and I presume that process is moving forward. My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.

You’ve got to understand — and I hope the American people understand — there is still an enemy that would like to strike the United States of America, and they’re very dangerous. And the discussion about how we try to find them will enable them to adjust. Now, I can understand you asking these questions and if I were you, I’d be asking me these questions, too.

But it is a shameful act by somebody who has got secrets of the United States government and feels like they need to disclose them publicly.

Let me give you an example about my concerns about letting the enemy know what may or may not be happening. In the late 1990s, our government was following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone. And then the fact that we were following Osama bin Laden because he was using a certain type of telephone made it into the press as the result of a leak. And guess what happened? Saddam — Osama bin Laden changed his behavior. He began to change how he communicated.

We’re at war, and we must protect America’s secrets. And so the Justice Department, I presume, will proceed forward with a full investigation. I haven’t ordered one, because I understand there’s kind of a natural progression that will take place when this kind of leak emerges.

The second part of the question is? Sorry — I gave a long answer.

Question: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of asking courts for permission for the intercepts?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I — right after September the 11th, I knew we were fighting a different kind of war. And so I asked people in my administration to analyze how best for me and our government to do the job people expect us to do, which is to detect and prevent a possible attack.

That’s what the American people want. We looked at the possible scenarios. And the people responsible for helping us protect and defend came forth with the current program, because it enables us to move faster and quicker. And that’s important. We’ve got to be fast on our feet, quick to detect and prevent.

We use FISA still — you’re referring to the FISA court in your question — of course, we use FISAs. But FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am — I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress.

Similar Posts:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *