Bush Stands By Wiretap Program

'Strongly Disagrees' With Judge's Ruling Against Warrantless Wiretaps

(CBS/AP)  President Bush voiced strong objection Friday to a federal judge's ruling that his administration's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional and should be shut down.

In his first public comment on the matter, Mr. Bush said he "strongly disagrees" with the judge's ruling and believes the program is needed to protect the nation, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports.

"I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live. I strongly disagree with this decision," he told reporters at the presidential retreat in Camp David.

"We strongly believe it's constitutional and if al Qaeda is calling into the United States we want to know why they're calling," he said.

The Justice Department is appealing the ruling.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

"Plaintiffs have prevailed, and the public interest is clear, in this matter. It is the upholding of our Constitution," Taylor wrote in her 43-page opinion.

The parties in the lawsuit agreed to a delay of the injunction to stop the surveillance until they can argue before Judge Taylor for a stay pending appeal, CBS News producer Beverley Lumpkin reports.

U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the surveillance program has been "very effective" in protecting Americans.

"We believe very strongly that the program is lawful. ...," Gonzales said in Washington. "We respectfully disagree with the decision of the judge and have appealed the decision."

---

Read the district court opinion.

---

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves monitoring phone calls and e-mails between people in the U.S. and those in other countries, without obtaining warrants from a judge, when a link to terrorism is suspected.

The government argued that the program is well within the president's authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.

The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.

"At its core, today's ruling addresses the abuse of presidential power and reaffirms the system of checks and balances that's necessary to our democracy," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a conference call with reporters.

He called the opinion "another nail in the coffin in the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror."

The Justice Department said it had appealed Taylor's ruling because the program is "an essential tool for the intelligence community in the War on Terror."

"In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the department said in a statement. "The Constitution gives the President the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties."

Taylor's ruling won't take immediate effect. The Justice Department said it had reached an agreement with the ACLU to postpone implementing the order until Taylor hears its request for a stay pending appeal. A hearing on the motion was set for Sept. 7, Snow said.

While siding with the ACLU on the surveillance issue, Taylor dismissed a separate claim by the group over NSA data mining of phone records. She said not enough had been publicly revealed about that program to support the claim and further litigation would jeopardize state secrets.

The lawsuit alleged that the NSA "uses artificial intelligence aids to search for keywords and analyze patterns in millions of communications at any given time." Multiple lawsuits have been filed related to data mining against phone companies, accusing them of improperly turning over records to the NSA.

However, the data mining was only a small part of the Detroit suit, said Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney on the case.

In the decision, Judge Taylor quoted Justice Earl Warren from the 1967 case, U.S. v Robel, Lumpkin reports.

"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. ... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of ... those liberties ... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile," Taylor wrote.

[joe_x-2009]

If Cheney & his cronies executed this illegal war with an inkling of competence I may be willing to give them some benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, for America and our ally (UK), the Cheney Admistration's & the Grand Oil Party's incompentence is surely going to be seen by history as legendary. I for one am not willing to idly watch while Bush reneges on his Inauguaral Day oath to "protect & defend the Constitution of the USA"-- the one document that separates us from the rest of the world.

[tms02]

What have learned, or worse forgotten, about men like Hitler? These Islamic militants want power. They want to rule the world. And guess what, you and lazy-boy and sitting directly in their path. So what, the govt is listening to someone's call to Tehran. The government's job is to prevent attack, not react to them. "It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required." --Winston Churchill

For those of you who think this is a "Blood for Oil issue", what influence will the middle east have in the world, when the oil runs out. What contirubtions in the fields of science, art, or medicine have they made? Can you not see that they are willing to fight to the death to become something other than a 3rd world country.

Here is a quote (since you like quotes) that might help you understand their plight. --
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

[bronzestick]

Its a sad day indeed when when we berate the intelligence of educated Americans for sake of religious conviction. The germans in WW1 used mustard gas as a weapon of war. What is considered today a Weapon Of Mass Destruction. Did they have the freedom to question there leaders about constitutional rights? Hell no! So for many Amercians to grow concerned about the constitution and the rights it provides us, is very sensible to me. What seperates us from any other country in the world who's leaders have no checks and balances? Our Constitution. So we should be very careful to protect it from any president from any party who trys to take advantage of it for a good cause or not.

[sharncedar]

"Unfortunately, it will take another catastrophic strike before people realize we are at war"


Hmmm ... I wonder why no one realizes we are at war? In WWII, it wasn't a problem. Maybe because the war we are in now doesn't involve countries, armies, tanks, and planes. It is fought by miracle angels flying in the sky. So only the priviledge red-neck lunatics can see these angels, what a great mystery. Perhaps if I wish very hard, I can also see the war, this huge war, Newt Gingrich says it WWIII and he is magic. I see them! I can see the tanks and the planes fighting in the sky. I see now that the US is at war, not just for 4 years like WWII, but forever, against everyone in the whole world! Why are so many Americans mistaken? It must be you-know-who, the bad one, deceiving, yes that ol' prince of peace making us think that peace is the answer. When will our master, the prince of war, defeat him at last? Then we can have everyone "realize" we are at war, as death and mayhem rain down on the earth. Let us pray, red-neck cousins, let us pray for WWIII.

[ringleader69]

Can someone who supports Bush please post an intelligent comment? He needs your help, especially now. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. Those who would sacrifice liberty for a little temporary security deserve neither - Ben Franklin.

If you don't want to know the dangers you're being 'protected' from (by an entity as inefficient as government), you're a complete and total fool. Just because he won an election doesn't make him god or always right. But ok, go ahead and repeat after me... Our father, who art in Crawford, hallowed be thy war record. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is on your ranch. We are at war (echo: we are at war). Some people hate Americans for our freedom (echo: hate us for our freedom). We'll show them our love for freedom by forsaking it (echo: forsaking our personal freedom, for national security). Give us this day, our daily fear (echo: lest we forget each day is a gift to us from Bush who protects us.)

[mbaxt1]

I support President Bush. The American people do NOT need to know during a time of war who the government is targeting. We should put our faith in the people in positions of authority and give them whatever means they deem necessary to protect us. Unfortunately, it will take another catastrophic strike before people realize we are at war, then there will be cry that the President and his Admin. is not doing enough or are somehow to blame. This has nothing to do with becoming a police state. If we had fought the Second World War with the same lack of support and public second guessing we would all be living in a very different world.

[swirlsofcolo]

Unfortunately most people to not understand that in order to find all people involved in al Qaeda monetoring is necessary. Don't be fooled, these people are smart. It is impossible to those involve in terrorist activities unless we monitor calls and the internet. The administration has stopped many attacks because of these processes. If it was not montitored they would not have known about many planned attacks and we would have been VERY sorry.

I support Bushes efforts and pray they will continue.

[sixpack6t9]

"We strongly believe it's constitutional and if al Qaeda is calling into the United States we want to know why they're calling," he said.

No one is saying he can't monitor terrorists calling in---He just can't monitor all US citizens, especially without a warrant!

Hey Bush---WE ARE NOT TERRORISTS, so go fight some terrorists somewhere besides MY house.

[lottcharmer]

Bush is an idiot and a LIAR! I wouldn't believe him if he told me that the sun rises in the east. Bush keeps saying that he needs this "tool" to protect the american people, no one is saying that he should stop using it, what most people are saying is that the moron should get FISA approval to use it! The only reason he won't go to FISA is because he doesn't want a record of WHO he's spying on, which leads me to believe that the extent of this program goes much farther than anyone has ever said.

[niche505]

It's easy to understand why Mr Bush doesn't know that warrantless surveillance violates the Constitution, but shouldn't the top government lawyer, Mr Gonzales, know something about the constitution, checks and balances, and the rights of US citizens. His pandering to Mr Bush will come back to haunt him, just as Colin Powell's has done.

[ringleader69]

CarlyLaine:

In fact, YOU are the enemy you describe. You seem to love having a republican president so much that you don't care if what he does is actually best for the country, or just what you think is best for you. If you want to have your pet president first, and freedom second, guess which one you'll get? The rest of us are upset because Bush talks of protecting freedom while his actions whittle it away. If you have more freedom now than before, then would you care to expound on it in detail, instead of adopting the lamest, oldest anti-anti-war chants. We're smart enough to understand if you're smart enough to explain. WE'RE the Americans who make America strong. What kind of America do you want? Please share your plan, if it wouldn't embolden the enemy too much...

The obvious unstated point of your comments was to try to shut out intelligent conversation on the subject, and to instead turn the fight into an emotional one, which you may have the ability to win, unlike this argument. Since you would so easily subvert free speech, I can only assume that you regard all American principle with similar disgust. You and Bush are using fear to influence our actions. There%u2019s a word for that%u2026

To quote that brilliantly ironic Maj. Frank Burns (yes, from MASH), "The way I see it, unless we each conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free." You would seem to have swallowed this one whole, CarlyLaine.

[mochapman522]

This goes hand in hand with the multitude of signing statements Bush has attached to laws that were passed by congress. Bush beleives he is completely above the law. Let us pray that the electorate wakes up during the upcoming mid-term elections and sends a strong message to the administration that we do not need nor desire an imperial presidency.

[lizziedidnt]

Exactly how have we been "very effectively" protected by the illegal wiretaps? (quote, Alberto "Berto" Gonzales) Pardon, that is probably secret. But I am also curious about the Federal Gov't's failure to close our borders to illegal immigrants. Now that would seem to be a REAL, and legal, move to protect us. "The government is a ***." Alas, those connected with it have both power and money, though not necessarily much intelligence.

[bronzestick]

Make no mistake about it De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. Most attempts to get Bush to see that he must protect our constitution as he fights this war against terror have failed. He is an insulated President that has lost touch with the basic principles that make this country free and democratic. Any president is obligated to protect his people, but to make choices that reflect an insensitivity towards the principles that protect their freedom, is a President who is in denial of the basic principles that make us a free society. To many Presidents in the last 40 years have used there power to insert there agenda's into all kinds of domestic and foreign policy's, as the american public stands by wondering if there isnt some form of small print at the end of our constitution ( similar to the print you cant read at the end of a bad TV comercial) that gives him the authority to implement some bad choices. I was floored to learn that President Nixon believed there was a silent majority of the public who thought after 60,000 casualties we should still stay in Viet Nam and win that war. There is a striking similarity here with this president. Thank God for the courts. At least there is an outside force that can bring some objectivity back to this President, for as long as he believes in his version of constitutional interpretation his polices will prevail.

[joe_x-2009]

Hey Irish: is your last name McCarthy?

We are fighting here in American to retain our rights as well as yours, while our brave soldiers fight in Iraq, for what "noble cause" again? it's very easy to extinguish the rights our forefathers fought for (getting those rights back wont be)..you must think that becoming a police state will insulate us from terrorists, just like your Uncle Joe thought it would insulate us from the Commies!...I have news for you, there are many hard-working Americans who love this country who have grandmas living in Pakistan, Iraq & Iran and I don't want Cheney & his minions listening to their conversations without a warrant..PRETTY SIMPLE ISN'T IT??

P.S. Let's "cut & run" out of Iraq to Afghanistan!!

[joe_x-2009]

Let's just get right to the crux of the matter. Bush does not want anyone, be it the FISA court, Judge Taylor, Congress, etc. to be able to tell him "NO". He just doesn't understand that the Constitution REQUIRES a check on his power and since there is no way this "do nothing Congress" is going to check him, I applaud the Judicial branch for telling him "NO". Through 2004, 18,761 warrants were issued through the FISA court and only 4 were rejected and even those 4, with some modification, went through. What is so wrong with following the law that is already on the books??

[joe_x-2009]

If we are going to compare & contrast President Clinton & King George....I think ALL of us can easily agree that "W's" rap sheet is much longer and definitely more serious....I can still hear the echoes of the self-righteous house impeachment managers..."it's all about the rule of law....it's all about the rule of law....it's all about the rule of law" as they drug our Country through the mud because our President lied to Congress about a personal matter....that's how much the repugnants love America. We can only hope and yes, even PRAY, that this King of America will be forced to abdicate his throne before 2008 for his egregious crimes against America!!

[geshe]

"Nothing that comes out of your mouth is constructive. You are practically crazed with your maliciousness."

Have you looked in a mirror lately? Crazed indeed.

Your hysterical admonition to "Love it or leave it" is eerily reminiscent of what was being said during the Viet Nam conflict to those who opposed the war.

In both the Viet Nam conflict and the current tragedy in Iraq, American military personnell were placed in harm's way based on lies. That is Bush's greatest crime.

From the

Final Investigative Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff

"Our investigation has found that President Bush and members of his Administration made numerous false statements regarding linkages between Iraq
and the September 11 attacks, and also may have sought to manipulate intelligence to support these statements. This includes misstatements concerning general linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda; an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officials; and allegations that Iraq was training al Qaeda members to use chemical and biological weapons."

Illegal domestic surveillance is bad enough, but it pales in comparison to this. Instead of creating democracy in Iraq, Bush has simply created a "live-fire exercise" for extremists, and a new breeding ground for terrorist. Do you remember a few months ago when there was talk of taking some troops out of Iraq, but then some 3500 were sent to bolster the situation in Bagdhad?

Dear Bush supporters; Imagine Hillary spying on you without a warrant. Also, please read the constitution, if you think checks and balances are a bad idea - please amend the constitution. In the meant time, obey the law.

[carlylaine]

To SharnCedar

I'll just bet when Clinton lied under oath you thought it was ok.