Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

George W Bush Made Retroactive NSA 'Fix' After Hospital Room Showdown

Posted by samzenpus on from the and-that's-how-it-happened dept.

circletimessquare writes: New details have emerged about the 2004 conflict between George W. Bush and his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, who was hospitalized when he forcefully disagreed with the president's authorization of the NSA's sweeping new collection powers after 9/11. The New York Times has discovered that the conflict was about a retroactive alteration of the President's wording on the legal theory by which the NSA is allowed to siphon up metadata on all Americans, not just certain targets or classes of targets, such as suspected terrorists. 'Mr. Bush, for the first time, explicitly said that his authorizations were "displacing" specific federal statutes, including the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and criminal wiretapping laws... the president had "made an interpretation of law concerning his authorities" and that the Justice Department could not act in contradiction of Mr. Bush's determinations.' The president faced a severe backlash from the Justice Department, including a threat of mass resignation.

19 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. A discussion of constitutional limits of power? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A discussion of constitutional limits of power ten years ago? How quaint. In 2015 we pretty much expect the president to do whatever he/she wants without regard to law of any kind.

    1. Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no 10th Amendment. "Commerce" clause overrules everything.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sigh. Is this about Obamacare? (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/explaining-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare.html). If it is that big of a headache, let's make healthcare universal and remove every aspect of "commerce" from it's implementation in the US. Let's be like the rest of the civilized world.

    3. Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regarding the Commerce Clause.

      To paraphrase the fictional character, Dr. Alan Grant, "Tyranny Finds a Way."

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? by bugs2squash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would have said the opposite - I like the idea of each state having substantial differences per the will of the locals. As you say, the travel difficulties of the 18th century are largely eradicated now, people can move to the state they wish to live in fairly easily. The fact that, generally, people tend not to migrate to more up-market areas from within the US is, I think, the best indication that dropping the border restrictions around the world would not result in simply everyone in the world moving to Beverly Hills or wherever all the money is nowadays.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    5. Re:A discussion of constitutional limits of power? by tsotha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally kind of like the idea that law would be uniform from state to state.

      Not me. Regions have different cultures, different geography, different levels of wealth. That means they like to do things differently. A national approach means one-size-fits-all, which is never going to be as efficient.

      The 55 mph federal speed limit is a perfect example. It may seem reasonable to people who live in hilly places that get bad weather, but if you live in Nevada, say, or Nebraska it's just a dumb idea.

  2. Re:And that means... by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The DOJ promises to thoroughly investigate its boss and find no wrongdoing."

  3. Re:Hypocrisy by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When someone we don't like does an evil, it's because they are evil. When someone we do like does an evil, it's okay, because they have goodness in their hearts.

  4. Re:Hypocrisy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One evil doesn't excuse another. But overlooking an evil because it is your kind of evil is the worst kind of evil.

    Further, Obama has had six years to fix this "evil" and hasn't. And yet, nobody is blaming him for not doing anything about it ... because he is "your kind of evil" so you overlook it.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  5. Re:Hypocrisy by Nick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congratulations! It only took a few minutes before someone already brought the ACA into this.

    --
    Fuck Ajit Pai
  6. Re:And that means... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, anyone about to post condemnations of Bush should consider the fact that Your Hero as he same policies and have argued in court to keep them.

    Never mind that President Obama implemented the Republican agenda — Middle East foreign policy, tax policy and healthcare policy — with the Progressives looking the other way. He's probably the best moderate conservative president since Ronald Reagan.

  7. Re:Hypocrisy by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about "I hate Bush for creating this mess, and Obama for continuing it on his watch"

    He's had six years in power and hasn't done shit. So he is equal to Bush, no better, no worse.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  8. Re:Hypocrisy by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama has increased the violations of privacy started under Bush; he is worse

  9. Re:Hypocrisy by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When a plan or process exists it can be revised. No plan, no process, it's tough to even get the ball rolling.

    ACA is a start. It's far from perfect. Its shortcomings hopefully will lead to further revision, now that we have something to actually revise.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  10. Actions speak louder than words... by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's funny.

    Reading this just made me realize that Ashcroft took a stronger stand against spying than Obama has, if I judge only actions and not words.

  11. Re:Ashcroft hospitalized over NSA showdown? by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a great language, you just write it shit.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  12. Re:Hypocrisy by ChrisMaple · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The wording in Obamacare was deliberate. Parts were necessary to get it passed; it would not have passed without those "bugs" in place. Other parts were there to punish uncooperative states; that backfired on Obama.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  13. Re:Wow... by tbannist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pretty much, yeah. John "No boobs on the statue of Lady Justice" Ashcroft, and even James "No secure crypto for anybody" Comey, for all their faults, still believe(d) in the rule of law.

    The memos that authorized torture came from the Justice Department on John Ashcroft's watch, so I'm not so sure about the "believing in the rule of law". Once you decided that you're ok with torturing people, you've already completely forgotten what the rule of law is.

    --
    Fanatically anti-fanatical
  14. Re:Hypocrisy by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Stealing from me to keep you alive incites my fury.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate