How So?

[andyfox]

"The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the United States," President Bush said before returning to Washington from a holiday break at his Texas ranch. "There's an enemy out there."

I can't see how.

Anyone? Thanks.

[BluffTHIS!]

Because it obviously allows those who are legitimate targets of investigation and enemies of the US to know that the possibility of their being spied on is much greater than they may previously have thought, leading them to be more stealthy in their communications which can equal less intelligence for the US to be able to use to twart terrorist attacks.

But I know you are going to say you don't "think" that likely, and that even if there is a "small" chance of that being the case, it's not worth the "potential" for abuse against targets that might be considered such on "flimsy" probable cause grounds.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
"The fact that somebody leaked this program causes great harm to the government of the United States," President Bush said before returning to Washington from a holiday break at his Texas ranch. "There's an enemy out there."

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't see how?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Because it obviously allows those who are legitimate targets of investigation and enemies of the US to know that the possibility of their being spied on is much greater than they may previously have thought, leading them to be more stealthy in their communications which can equal less intelligence for the US to be able to use to twart terrorist attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. The President's justification here doesn't address the failure to use proper procedure, but the fact that the leak hurts our counter-terrorism is 100% true. I'd imagine the more sophisticated potential terrorists were already using encryption, but certainly there's a decent chance that some weren't, and now are being more careful.

[andyfox]

"it obviously allows those who are legitimate targets of investigation and enemies of the US to know that the possibility of their being spied on is much greater than they may previously have thought,"

Can't be. Ten thousand wire taps have been approved by the FISA court under Democratic and Republican presidents. Five have been turned down. The administration has vowed to hunt down and kill every member of Al Qaeda and invaded and occupied Iraq. But now that they find out there might be a few wiretaps without going to the FISA court for post-wiretapping approval they'll decide to be stealthier in their communication?

My objection to the warrantless wiretaps is based more on presidential hubris than on anything else. It's part and parcel of the administration's claim that the president can do anything he wants because of his "inherent" powers and its claims that any restrictions on those powers should be done away with. I want them wiretapping the bad guys. I want them possibly "overreacting." But I want them to follow the law in doing it, not claiming they can do it just because they want to. They can follow the law, keep them secret, and do their job to protect us.

[canis582]

THIS is not about terraism, its about spying on the government's political opponents.

Congress should revoke Bush's 9-11 war powers. Bush swore to uphold the consititution and he's done nothing but piss on it since.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
My objection to the warrantless wiretaps is based more on presidential hubris than on anything else. It's part and parcel of the administration's claim that the president can do anything he wants because of his "inherent" powers and its claims that any restrictions on those powers should be done away with. I want them wiretapping the bad guys. I want them possibly "overreacting." But I want them to follow the law in doing it, not claiming they can do it just because they want to. They can follow the law, keep them secret, and do their job to protect us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, 100%.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
But I want them to follow the law in doing it, not claiming they can do it just because they want to. They can follow the law, keep them secret, and do their job to protect us.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you expect the administration to follow the law when barely 97% of the wiretap requests get approved without any modifications, and a whopping 0.1% get rejected outright?

Apparently, the law requiring court approval only applies if the court is going to rubberstamp every request.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because it obviously allows those who are legitimate targets of investigation and enemies of the US to know that the possibility of their being spied on is much greater than they may previously have thought, leading them to be more stealthy in their communications which can equal less intelligence for the US to be able to use to twart terrorist attacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto. The President's justification here doesn't address the failure to use proper procedure, but the fact that the leak hurts our counter-terrorism is 100% true. I'd imagine the more sophisticated potential terrorists were already using encryption, but certainly there's a decent chance that some weren't, and now are being more careful.

[/ QUOTE ]



Assuming this is true, doesn't the President bear some responsibility for not planning for a leak? He must know that warrantless wiretaps are going to be extremely controversial, and he must recognize the possibility of a leak. So in weighing whether to do it, shouldn't he weigh the very real possibility that it will be leaked and judge what damage that will do to not only the warrantless wiretaps but other counter terror efforts? The answer is obviously yes, but I wonder how much this was analyzed. Only a blithering idiot thinks that this counter terror effort is going to happen in an information/media blackout, particularly since it is obvious that the media-worldwide- are going to play a huge part in how the open ended war on terror is fought and perceived. So I hope the question was analyzed carefully and it was judged that the value of the intelligence gathered outweighed the damage to the counter terror efforts and the Presidency. My hopes are just that however. It isn't clear that this administration has adequately planned for some important contingencies, although maybe what we are seeing the President do is the plan. I dunno.

[tolbiny]

"Because it obviously allows those who are legitimate targets of investigation and enemies of the US to know that the possibility of their being spied on is much greater than they may previously have thought, leading them to be more stealthy in their communications which can equal less intelligence for the US to be able to use to twart terrorist attacks."

So what your saying is that with the information being leaked terrorists are going to have more problems communicating?