Prison Time For Bush

…This new threat required us to think and act differently. And as the 9/11 Commission pointed out, to prevent this from happening again, we need to connect the dots before the enemy attacks, not after. And we need to recognize that dealing with al Qaeda is not simply a matter of law enforcement; it requires defending the country against an enemy that declared war against the United States of America.

As President and Commander-in-Chief, I have the constitutional responsibility and the constitutional authority to protect our country. Article II of the Constitution gives me that responsibility and the authority necessary to fulfill it. And after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda.

… We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.

So, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, I authorized the interception of international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.

… My personal opinion is it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important [illegal] program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.

… 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.

… these calls are not intercepted within the country. They are from outside the country to in the country, or vice versa. So in other words, this is not a -- if you're calling from Houston to L.A., that call is not monitored. And if there was ever any need to monitor, there would be a process to do that. … an open debate about law would say to the enemy, here is what we're going to do. … there is a difference between detecting so we can prevent, and monitoring. And it's important to know the distinction between the two. … if there is a need, based upon evidence, we will take that evidence to a court, in order to be able to monitor calls within the United States.

… there was a universal feeling that [Saddam Hussein] had weapons of mass destruction.

… without revealing the operating details of our program, I just want to assure the American people that, one, I've got the authority to do this; two, it is a necessary part of my job to protect you; and, three, we're guarding your civil liberties.

… along the diplomatic path, there's always the United Nations Security Council.

… it's really important for people to understand that the protection of sources and the protections of methods and how we use information to understand the nature of the enemy is secret. And the reason it's secret is because if it's not secret, the enemy knows about it, and if the enemy knows about it, adjusts.

Press Conference of the President, The East Room, 12/19/05.

“…this electronic surveillance is within the law, has been authorized. That is our position.”

Officials with knowledge of the program have said the Justice Department did two sets of classified legal reviews of the program and its legal rationale. Mr. Gonzales declined to release those opinions Monday.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, comments to reporters.

Eric Lichtblau and David E. Sanger, “Administration Cites War Vote in Spying Case,” New York Times, 12/20/05.

“There is an emergency provision within FISA, and one could ask for more authority. If they had good reason [to perform warrentless wiretaps], Congress would have given it to them.”

Jamie Gorelick, fmr. dpty atty gen.

Charles Lane, “White House Elaborates on Authority for Eavesdropping,” Washington Post, 12/20/05.

“I think the authorization of use of military force is probably adequate as an authorization for surveillance.”

Cass Sunstein, law professor, University of Chicago.

Richard B. Schmitt and David G. Savage, “Legal Test Was Seen as Hurdle to Spying,” Los Angeles Times, 12/20/05.

“It is a murky area. It is an area in which Congress has legislated but, to be sure, they didn't anticipate Al Qaeda in 1978. It is also an area where obviously Americans have high expectations about their privacy.”

Ruth Wedgwood, international law professor, Johns Hopkins University.

Warren Richey, “Can the government spy on citizens without a warrant?” Christian Science Monitor, 12/21/05. [emphasis added]

“I think the president clearly broke the law.”

David Cole, law professor, Georgetown University.

Tim Harper, “Bush defends right to spy on Americans,” Toronto Star, 12/20/05.

...the one piece of it that amazes me is that the President admitted that he personally ordered the National Security Agency to violate a federal statute. Now, he has no Constitutional authority to do that. The Constitution says he must take care that all laws be faithfully executed, not just the ones he likes. The statute says it's, as you said at the beginning of the program, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the exclusive law governing these international intercepts, and he violated it anyway. And the law also says that any person who violates that law is guilty of a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. By the plain meaning of the law, the President is a criminal.

Christopher Pyle, Professor of Politics, Mt. Holyoke.

“An Impeachable Offense? Bush Admits Authorizing NSA to Eavesdrop on Americans Within Court Approval,” Democracy Now, 12/19/05.