For the Republican opportunists, Bush actually spied on people.

[ProSense]

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications.

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

<...>

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html

Bush says he signed NSA wiretap order

Adds he OK'd program more than 30 times, will continue to do so

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In acknowledging the message was true, President Bush took aim at the messenger Saturday, saying that a newspaper jeopardized national security by revealing that he authorized wiretaps on U.S. citizens after September 11.

After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.

During an unusual live, on-camera version of his weekly radio address, Bush said such authorization is "fully consistent" with his "constitutional responsibilities and authorities." (Watch Bush explain why he 'authorized the National Security Agency ... to intercept' -- 4:29)

Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

Republicans are desperately trying to conflate actual illegal wiretapping with obtaining phone records via a FISA court.

[elleng]

1. Yes and, unfortunately, NOT only republicans are

'trying to conflate actual illegal wiretapping with obtaining phone records via a FISA court.'

[ProSense]

5. Yup, and

this is pretty clear, from the OP:

"N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time"

Illegal spying.

[elleng]

10. as to the 2005 article first cited in the OP,

'Because of an editing error, a front-page article on Dec. 16 about a decision by President Bush to authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying misstated the name of the court that would normally issue those warrants. It is the Foreign - not Federal -Intelligence Surveillance Court.'

[JaneyVee]

30. Don't forget this article, Bush spied on soldiers overseas as they spoke to their spouses:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/spying.on.americans/

[uponit7771]

25. +1

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Thank-you, Mr. Carney.

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications

After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal.

international vs. wholly domestic

specific people vs. wholesale record seizure

If you liked Bush so much you should have just tossed the 22nd Amendment on the same dust heap you've casted the 4th.

[ProSense]

3. Separate issues.

On top of actually spying on people, Bush also conducted massive data surveillance without going through the FISA court. Remember retroactive immunity?

What You Should Know About The Government’s Massive Domestic Surveillance Program

By Igor Volsky

<...>

Warrantless surveillance began shortly after the September 2001 terrorist attacks. The Bush administration began a secret surveillance program in 2001, asking AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to turn over communications records to the National Security Agency (NSA). The agency’s goal was “to create a database of every call ever made” within the nation’s borders, the USA Today reported in 2006.

Program fell under court supervision in 2007. Following public uproar, administration placed the program under the surveillance of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In 2008, Congress expanded the Act to allow both foreign and domestic surveillance “as long as the intent is to gather foreign intelligence.” The measure also provided “retroactive immunity to the telecom companies that assisted the Bush administration.”

Congress extended the law through 2017. In December of 2012, Congress voted to reauthorize The FISA Amendments Act until 2017. The Act “allows federal agencies to eavesdrop on communications and review email” with a warrant from the secret FISA court. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a critic of the program, offered an amendment during floor debate that would have required the NSA disclose an estimate of how often information on Americans was collected and require authorities to obtain a warrant if they wish to search for private information in the NSA databases. In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Wyden, along with Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), wrote, “We believe most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act.” Wyden and Udall also noted that the administration promised August 2009 to establish “a regular process for reviewing, redacting and releasing significant opinions” of the court, though “not a single redacted opinion has been released.”

What the Verizon order says. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ordered Verizon — which has 121 million customers — to turn over metadata “on an ongoing daily basis” for a three-month period between April 25, 2013 and July 19, 2013. The order does not require the government to turn over the content of the calls, but it must share information about the numbers dialed and received, length of call, and customers’ name and address or financial information.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/06/06/2111741/what-you-should-know-about-the-governments-massive-domestic-surveillance-program/

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. I'm sure your support is appreciated.

[gcomeau]

6. You're not even bothering to pay attention are you? -eom

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. I paid attention in the campaign when I was told this would be stopped, not expanded.

[gcomeau]

11. Like I said... not botherning.

It HASN'T BEEN EXPANDED. This was all already happening. ALL of it.

And the actual wiretaps,... the things that allow the NSA to look not just at the surface data like "call from X to Y" but actually see what is being SAID and SENT? All without getting warrants or going through the courts to get it? THAT HAS STOPPED. That only happens wit legitimate warrants now.

Pay. Attention.

[JaneyVee]

31. You must have stopped paying attention around July 2008, because:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html

[ProSense]

7. What the hell are you talking about?

You want to absolve Bush and jump on the Republican whitewashing, go ahead.

Start a thread. This one is to call out Republicans for trying to conflate Bush's illegal wiretapping with a FISA court order. One doesn't have to approve of either to realize that the former was illegal wiretapping.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. How can we condemn Bush when we're being told to shut-up and get back in line

over something as bad if not worse?

[ProSense]

12. Again, what the hell are you talking about?

"over something as bad if not worse?"

Like I said, if your goal is to absolve Bush, start your own thread.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Your masters are spying on citizens in a solely domestic operation w/o probable cause

Why are you hiding behind the Bushes?

[ProSense]

18. Oh, I understand now

"Your masters are spying on citizens in a solely domestic operation w/o probable cause Why are you hiding behind the Bushes?"

I'm dealing with someone who has issues.

[msongs]

13. bush did it "illegally" = bad, obama does it "legally" = good. ok nt

[alp227]

19. do you think FISA court is unconstitutional? nt

[Savannahmann]

23. The Fourth Amendment

Allow me to highlight the text for you.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

What probable cause does the Government have to demand every single persons phone information? What probable cause can they have except that perhaps someone is calling a bad guy? What crime is being investigated?

[uponit7771]

26. Good enough for me

[JoePhilly]

28. Not exactly.

Bush did it illegally with no judicial review or warrants, nor with any Congressional oversight.

Which means his administration allowed the executive branch of the government to make decisions on surveillance unilaterally.

The Obama administration is making decisions on surveillance with the oversight of BOTH of the other branches of our government.

Now, you may not like either of these approaches. But one of them is clearly, on its face, better than the other.

Anyone trying to equate the two approaches is either pushing an agenda disingenuously, or needs to take a civics class.

[The Link]

14. Got it.

Blame Bush.

Blame the judge that issued the warrant.

Blame Verizon.

Blame my phone.

[ProSense]

15. You forgot:

Blame Bush.

Blame the judge that issued the warrant.

Blame Verizon.

Blame my phone.

..."Blame" Obama: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022959738

[The Link]

16. He is powerless in all this.

Why blame him?

[uponit7771]

27. Democracies stink!!!

[JI7]

20. this issue has really showed how fucking stupid republicans are

they are so outraged over this and calling it a scandal.

[achile]

21. Obama voted for the 2008 fisa compromise which grants immunity to the telcom companies.

During the primaries, he said he would support a filibuster on any bill which would grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies. After securing the nomination, he withdrew his support for a filibuster and voted for it anyway, blocking effectively 40 lawsuits against the telcom who participated in the Bush warrantless wiretapping program.
And there is something i don't get. If you want to monitor/spy on a million u.s citizens, don't you need several warrants for that? like a million of them? What about the whole notion of probable cause. Is it thrown out of the windows too?

[Savannahmann]

22. Hello, and welcome to my arguement

That is it. President Obama taught Constitutional Law. Bush was an idiot, you would expect that he wouldn't understand, but we're smarter. What probable cause do you have that the individual who's records you are getting is committing a crime? You can't claim you have probable cause if you are getting everyone's records.

[brett_jv]

24. It's really pretty simple ... 'your' phone records are not really 'yours'

What you think of as 'your' phone records are actually NOT, the de-facto 'owners' of this information is considered to be the 'phone company'. And I'm sure every phone company tells you this when you sign the contract, if anyone actually read such things.

The Constitution only protects us against unlawful search of our persons and our property and effects, paperwork, etc, without a Warrant.

The content of Phone CONVERSATIONS (and also I believe our Mail) has also been been declared by courts to be considered 'our property' and are effectively 'protected under the Constitution'.

However, this order/program is not ABOUT the actual content of conversations. It's phone call meta-data, which I'd imagine that no court has every declared 'belongs to' ... the person making the phone calls.

We can rail all we want about the 'unfairness' of this 'intrusion' into 'our privacy', but the sad fact is ... your phone records simply are not 'your property', and hence, the regular 'warrant' requirements (like probable cause) ... they don't apply here.

[JoePhilly]

29. Shuush ... you will ruin the outrage with details.

I think the situation is similar to the police going through your trash. Once you push the can down to the curb, its not "yours" anymore.

When you make a call, you could write down who you called, and how long you talked. That would be yours until you threw it away.

The records the phone company keeps are used for billing, and as such those belongs to them.