A LITTLE LATE? Bush may ask Congress to OK domestic spying

[kpete]

Bush may ask Congress to OK domestic spying
By Stewart M. PowellHEARST NEWSPAPERSWASHINGTON -
President Bush and the nation's No. 2 intelligence official on Monday defended "targeted" post-9/11 domestic spying without court approval, amid hints that the White House may ask Congress for a green light to continue the wiretaps.

Bush said he had constitutional and congressional authority to order the National Security Agency to carry out secret surveillance on two-way international communications between individuals in the U.S., including American citizens, and suspected al-Qaida operatives overseas.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said NSA eavesdropping was not "a drift net" ensnaring innocent international communications by ordinary Americans.

But in a potential U-turn by the Bush administration, Hayden, White House senior counselor Dan Bartlett and White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan cracked the door for the first time to the White House asking Congress to revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to accommodate "hot pursuit" of fleeting communications by suspected members of al-Qaida -- the ones that are now being targeted by the NSA program without court approval.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/13698129.htm

[bigtree]

1. "hot pursuit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x223210

[Marleyb]

2. "can you make all them war crimes legal too he he"

Does Bush even know about all the evidence of spying on peace groups?

He keeps repeating the same lie "only al-Qaida he he". Are his handlers trying to make a fool out of him?... because he already does a pretty good job himself.

[Innocent Smith]

3. clever politics

Bush's arguement will be if you vote against then you are soft on terrorists. If it passes then it will be "see even congress doesn't think I did anything wrong." The soft on terrorist worry may be enough to get quite a few Democrats to vote for it.

[underpants]

5. Doesn't change him breaking the law

It is currently illegal. He admitted to it.

Period.

Yeah that is clever of them and the MSM will cover for them as much as they can but still it doesn't change the fact that he broke the law.

Not arguing with you on this just adding my 2-cents
Welcome to DU :hi:

[Innocent Smith]

7. Yep

These guys are masters at changing the subject and framing an issue. This is about doing both at once. Look for a vote on this close to mid-term elections.

[kentuck]

4. Yes...We'll get right on that...

right after we have the hearings and get more facts. But, don't hold your breath.

[gratuitous]

6. Why is Bush asking for permission?

I thought their argument was that Congress had already authorized reckless violation of the Fourth Amendment. If Bush has that authorization already, why does he need to ask Congress for it?

Additionally, why was this program in place for two or three years in secret before the New York Times stumbled upon it -- and then kept hidden for another year? If the Bush administration wasn't doing anything wrong, and they were fully authorized to violate the Constitution by Congress, then why did they keep what they were doing hidden away? Why did they put the screws to the Times to keep a lid on this story if they weren't doing anything wrong?

Just wondering if the arguments against me for opposing this illegal spying can be used the other way. Or has the Bush administration decided that turnabout is no longer fair play?

[librechik]

8. I thought they were sure they couldn't get approval for what THEY want

or at least, they didn't want to bring the actual case to the Congress.

This is a red herring. They will do no such thing.