It's a mixed bag. The Attorney General believes the President has the final say in issues of national security. This blogger believes the President has the constitutional authority to do it, but the FISA act (ironically) may have erased his ability to be the final determinant. "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." "It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
The Wall Street Journal editorial, not surprisingly, comes out on the side of the President. I'm with the President here, too. And here's Michelle Malkin's take on the entire issue noting the 60 Minutes' piece in 2000 about Echelon with the observation that (surprise!) nobody called for President Clinton's impeachment over this issue. Oh, I know he was ALREADY impeached, but I guess the lesson here is if you're IGNORING the terrorists or toying with them instead of ENGAGING them, according to the MSM, that's a more tolerable approach when you go about wiretapping citizens.
Has this ever been done before? Uh, yeah. Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43. Read Byron York's piece in the National Review today about this very thing.
But here's his main point about the honorary member of the united brotherhood of brick layers:
Please keep your comments short. If you need to go longer please use links.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Does the President have the ability to conduct wiretaps of Al Qaeda Friends/Suspects in the US?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
This too is just another attempt at slamming Bush. Removing this from his ability, the same ability previous Presidents had, means we are left open for another 9-11 style attack.
Agree with it or not, we are at war. Not against a uniformed military of another country, but against a band of radicals bent on imposing their radical view of a religion on everyone, at any cost.
Neville Chamberlain found out that tyrants cannot be appeased, they just snow you and keep on.
To me, tying the hands of the President, to prevent him from protecting the country, just as previous Presidnets were allowed to do, is sheer suicide for our country. War is not pretty nor should it be. But, if we do not allow for our country to be protected and stop these terrorists, that war will be on our own streets soon.
As President Bush said a while back, "we have to be right 100% of the time. They only have to be right once."
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" Benjamin Franklin
Our Troops Are Not Above the Law, and Neither Is the President
Anonymous, Do you think Franklin was meaning that we should have no security measures to prevent attacks like 9-11? Had he witnessed that, do you think he would still feel the same?
No one has lost any freedoms, my friend. Then again, think of the freedoms those poor souls in the Twin Towers and their families have lost because surveilance of suspected Al Qeada members was denied due to protecting their freedoms.
You are right when you say no one isa bove the law. Military members have been tried, prosecuted and sentenced for violations of the UCMJ.
With all the cries of "Bush broke the law," I still don't hear the cry of the previous 4 Presidents also breaking the same law.
Before you cry about Bush breaking laws, perhaps you could actually discover the law. It was Carter that inititally decreed by Presidential Proclamation that "eavesdropping" could be done without a search warrant.
Do you propose he be prosecuted also?
Bush’s dismissal of the law, which he stood before the country to defend yesterday, is outrage enough. But even more outrageous is what it represents: the belief that the President, or more specifically, President Bush, is above the law; that authority emanates from him and him alone; that the social contract has only one signatory and he sits in the Oval office. Didn’t we fight some kind of war about that some time in the late 18th century?
It is deeply troubling for our Troops to see the President and his top advisors demonstrating such ineptitude and disregard for the sanctity of due-process and equal protection under law. It is this Pollyanna-esque view of the world, and of the war, that has consistently made it unnecessarily difficult for our military leaders to get the job done. It undermines our national and individual credibility and contradicts the very principles our Soldiers are fighting for.
Watch for the Republican "smear session" to start tomorrow.
Spy Court Judge Quits in Protest
Anonymous, you fail to even think about what you are really saying. If it is so illegal, why then has there been no outcry over previous administrations also spying on citizens to garner information?
After the Okla. City bombing, it was the Clinton Administration that used satellite reconnaissance to spy on a nearby White Separatist camp. Using satellites for domestic spying within the country to spy on US Citizens is against the law. But, the NY Slimes didn’t seem to think that was so horrible.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2005/mm_1221p.shtml
You state how “deeply troubling it is to our troops.” May I ask if you have really spoken to any of them? As a member of the VFW and a Veteran myself, I find none I have spoken to who feel as you do.
Given that the left has decided to now be appalled by this so called controversy, which in reality is nothing more than the latest “get Bush scheme,” and have not been appalled or even the slightest bit worried by previous Presidents following the same laws and eavesdropping, I find this to be especially troubling that we may end up being attacked again by Al Qaeda and maybe worse.
Another little point ignored is that these “selective” eavesdropping were not just on citizens for no reason, as is the random searches, but on people who had ties with Al Qaeda one way or another and only after 9-11. All along the left cries that Bush failed to connect the dots and did not provide protection for the country. When he does, he is a criminal who broke some law that other Presidents used with impunity. Double Standard!
Oversight Committees were informed and briefed, even they who are crying about it have admitted it. And now you come in saying Bush has placed himself above the law. No, he hasn’t. He has taken the proper measures to safeguard the country and prevent another 9-11. If it happens again, who will be the first to cry that Bush failed to connect the dots again and prevent it? You?
Eric, one Liberal Judge appointed by Clinton is hardly proof. A smear? No, just what is said within the article.
I'll ask you to. When we get hit again because of blocking appropriate measures to block and discover the plans of Al Qaeda, will you join in the chorus bashing Bush for not protecting the nation?
Remember Rule No. 2. It's always Clinton's fault
Clinton hasn't been in office for 5 years. George W. Bush, the President of the United States ordered "ILLEGAL" wiretaps on American citizens. This man and his entire administration are hazardous to our country and its people and should be removed from office.
Just guessing that this judge "will be" a victim, you know the drill:
(Rep.) Judge quits, oh well he was a liberal appointed by Clinton...
(Dem.) He quit because he felt it was illegal and he should know...
(Rep.) Well his career was crap and he is just another liberal putting the nation in danger because he was appointed by Clinton. Did we mention he was appointed by Clinton, who did it too? Oh and he must hate America because he didn't want Bush to protect us...
See where I am going here lew? You should stop and take a breath in-between your long-winded responses, to actually read, understand, and respond to what I really said instead of accusing me of things I neither said nor implied.
(Apologies for the large post)
Clinton's executive order:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
Carter’s executive order:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.”
Clinton/Carter Executive Orders
Conservatives' ultimate goal for the judiciary branch of the government is a bench full of strict constructionists. Conservatives loudly decry judges who peer into the Constitution and find new rights, laws, etc.
We now know that the Bush administration -- which lays claim to the title of conservative, though many honest cons either shudder or chuckle at the notion --has been spying on U.S. citizens at home in apparent contravention of publicly-known law.
check out the new blog
http://lewanderic.blogspot.com/
username-lewanderic
password-ericandlew
have at it you guys
Nice! But who would read it?
;)
Recklessly and audaciously, George W. Bush is driving the nation whose laws he swore to uphold into a constitutional crisis. He has claimed the powers of a medieval monarch and defied the other two branches of government to deny him. Eventually, despite his party’s monopoly of power, he may force the nation to choose between his continuing degradation of basic national values and the terrible remedy of impeachment.
All smoke and mirrors by the anti-Bush crowd, I'm afraid. Seems others have come forward from previous administrations to defend this practice.
From John Schimdt, former Clinton Associate Attorney general, "If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
Anonymous, if you are worried about the government intercepting calls of all citizens, may I suggest you research the Echelon Program and who started it.
I would like to know where the cries for revealing the source of these leaks are, that have damaged National Security in a time of war. The left was salivating to reveal who leaked Valerie Plames name and no damage was done to National Secuirty.
More Double Standard?
Eric, I read of the Judge stepping down from FISA last night. Although the headline says he did it in protest, the article also says he stepped down without comment. It also says his reason was stated by associates.
Since he did not reveal his reasons, isn't it a bit disingenious for the media to state they know a reason?
How do we know he wasn't asked to step down? He stepped down "without comment."
For the generations who came of age after the mid-1970s, it is worth recalling why warrantless domestic surveillance so shocks the political system. It needs to be repeated that the same arguments cited by Bush--inherent presidential power and national security--sustained the wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr., unleashed illegal CIA domestic spying and generated FBI files on thousands of American dissidents. It needs to be repeated that in 1974, the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon included abuse of presidential power based on warrantless wiretaps and illegal surveillance. It needs to be repeated that a few months later, presidential aides named Cheney and Rumsfeld labored mightily to secure President Ford's veto of the Freedom of Information Act, in an unsuccessful attempt to turn back post-Watergate restrictions on homegrown spying and government secrecy.
Anonymous, not one of the examples you gave was for an enemy bent on wholesale slaughter of American People.
Every single person 'eavesdropped on' had some tie to a group that had just killed nearly 3,000 Americans.
Will you be one who helps hold the door open for them in their next attack?
Would you like to comment on Echelon?
Incidentally, Nixon was not impeached. He resigned first.
The Senate passed a six-month extension of the UnPatriot Act late Wednesday night. Never Give a Tyrannical Government the Power to Take Away Our Liberty. They are Bumblers in the War on Terror. It's Like Giving a Can of Gasoline and Matches to Pyromaniacs.
The recent 911 Commission Report shows that the Bush administration has not been diligent since 911 in taking the necessary steps to protect Americans against terrorist attacks.
Incidentally, articles of impeachment against Richard M. Nixon were passed by the House Judiciary Committee but not voted on by the full house before Nixon's resignation. He got the message.
If Bush has not been "dilligent," then why the uproar over his authorizing steps top stop and prevent another terrorist attack, as he has done?
Of course, you could ask for Racial Profiling, would that be appropriate?
Funny how you wish it both ways. Bush overstepped the bounds in protecting America, but he did not do enough either.
No wonder ya'll are so confused.
Go back up and rad the Chicago Times article I linked to. Clinton's former Associate Attorney General has stepped out and stated Bush acted legally.
DEAR LEW: It's hopeless...they are mentally ill! (BUT WE KNEW THAT)
Thanks for being there.
I notice no one wishes to tackle the 'Echelon Program' either ;)
Comments regarding Echelon are misleading and false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00
Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.
Odd how Echelon under Clinton is perfectly legal, when it was used for domestic spying for economic means. It was also used to eavesdrop on a White Seperatist group after the Oklahoma Bombing.
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2005/mm_1221p.shtml
I hope they do initiate an investigation of this and force Clinton and all of his aides to testify publicly about all they did with NSA eavesdropping. Carter too.
Again, a Clinton former Associate Attorney General has stated in the Chicago Times that Bush was well within the law as have several others.
The real problem here is who is leaking secret material to the media? Shouldn't they be revealed and prosecuted as any who revealed Valerie Plame?
If it is so certain that Bush acted both within his granted power, in accord with the constitution and the law, then why is the first rebuttal (always) that previous administrations may have done the same? Did they, so what? If they did and they broke the law, then get their butts back in here and hold them accountable too. It's a ridiculous argument to make, and gives ammunition to those of us who see some gray area in what Bush has done. If you feel in your heart that Bush acted 100% within his power and the law, then that's your argument. Stand on it. The same thing can be said about both those under the alleged illegal wire taps and the administration that set them - an innocent man "should" have nothing to fear.
Lew has at least one good point, where is the effort to find the leak? They have without a doubt broke the law and also need to be held accountable.
I ponder, should any administration get a free pass because of what a previous one may or may not have done? And if the case, God help us what the next President will be able to do.
The reason that previous administrations are mentioned is because some wish to portray this effort as unprecedented. It isn't and it has been accepted and cleared by nearly all, until now.
Of all that has invoked this, Bush, I feel, has the best reason to use it, to protect citizens and prevent another 9-11.
Remember, this wasn't against random citizens, but those that had a link to Al Qeada somehow.
Another pretty good read on it;
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_22_05_JKE.html
Concentrating on what previous administrations did and who leaked the fact of the Bush spying are merely diversions. We need to remain diligent to protect our rights, whether it is the right to be free from warrantless searches which the right is confortable in ignoring or the the right to bear arms, a right it wants to protect.
The president says that his highest duty is to protect the American people and our homeland. And it is true that, as commander in chief, he has sweeping powers to, as his oath says, “faithfully execute the office” of president. But the entity he swore to “preserve, protect and defend” isn’t the homeland per se—but the Constitution itself.
Outing Valerie Plame and leaking the administration policy of domestic warrantless spying are apples and oranges. As a citizen, I do not need to know that Plame is a CIA operative. The outing served no purpose other than a political attempt to discredit Joe Wilson because he embarrassed the administration by pointing out yet another lie. As a citizen, I need to know if this administration is trampling upon my constitutional rights. Go ahead and seek to identify and prosecute the leaker, if you must. However, I wish to thank him or her.
Don't fall into the 9-11 trap set in the previous entries in this thread.On his own, without consulting the Congress, the courts or the people, the president decided to use secret branches of government to spy on the American people. He is, of course, using 9-11 to justify his actions in this, as he does for everything else -- 9-11 happened so the Constitution does not apply, 9-11 happened so there is no separation of powers, 9-11 happened so 200 years of experience curbing the executive power of government is something we can now overlook
9/11 is a "trap" set by our government? It's a reality. Your disbelief notwithstanding.
Anonymous, without the Homeland, there is no need for a Constitution.
The comparisons are not apples to oranges either. Plames so called "outing" did nothing to harm National Security. Revealing secrets about this program as well as the possibility of secret prisons has done great harm by informing the enemy we are currently fighting of how we are intercepting their messages to find and destroy them.
Imagine if we had told Japan we had cracked their code during WW2. They would just change what they were doing and that war would have most likely gone on a lot longer with a larger loss of life.
Al Qeada is a formidable enemy bent on world domination, not just a small patch of desert. We need to take every step available to us to defeat them, if we expect to retain our freedoms.
Your emotional arguments are all well and good, but to paraphrase Bush you are either for the rule of law or against the rule of law.
Virtually no serious Bush defenders claim any longer that the Administration's warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens was authorized by FISA.To the contrary, FISA expressly prohibited such surveillance. Thus, to defend George Bush they must literally claim that the President has the right during "wartime" to violate Congressional statutes which relate to national security."
If a theory of limitless Executive power is not what Bush defenders are advocating, then it is incumbent upon them to articulate what limitations they believe exist on Presidential power in times of undeclared war. What is it that courts or Congress can do, if anything, to serve as a check on these powers?
Anonymous, if you would read some of the articles linked here, you would see that some very efficient legal minds have argued and won cases of this practice being perfectly legal!
What you and other Defeatocrats fail to grasp is that we are at war. This is not petty crimes we are talking about. This enemy is determined to destroy us and our way of life.
If you Defeatocrats get your way, will you stand proud and claim victory when a few thousand more Americans are needlessly slaughtered in the next Terrorist Attack?
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General. It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities." Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, July 14, 1994
Kind of a long response to avoid answering the question. The question still stands. Anyone out there besides Lew who will actually suggest an answer?
If I use Neocon logic, I don't have a satisfactory answer to your question. We need to wait until Snoopgate to play out.
By the way, I see in the news that Defeatocrat Rumsfeld is cutting and running with up to 7,000 of our troops.
Its great to hear from someone other than the Lew and Eric pony show.
"Its great to hear from someone other than the Lew and Eric pony show."
Amen to that!
If a theory of limitless Executive power is not what Bush defenders are advocating, then it is incumbent upon them to articulate what limitations they believe exist on Presidential power in times of undeclared war. What is it that courts or Congress can do, if anything, to serve as a check on these powers?
This is the fallacy of your comment. No one is advocating “LIMITLESS Executive Powers.” The usual checks and balances are still there. All that is being advocated is that this Administration has the same legal power to act as did the previous 4 Administrations.
Another fallacy being repeated is to insinuate these were eavesdroppings on Americans, giving the impression that innocent people were targeted. The goal of the program was to eavesdrop on those calls from known Al Qaeda operatives to people inside the country. Don’t forget, the 19 responsible for 9-11 were in the country for some length of time before and received communications extensively by cell phone overseas.
However, I can see no justification in announcing our secret methods of gathering intelligence to our enemy while at war, undeclared or not. What better way to arm our enemy and snatch another defeat from victory? If any are really that concerned about abuse of Presidential Powers, they need to contact Democrats in D.C. and demand the Barrett Report be released in total and immediately.
Foreign intelligence collection, especially in the midst of an armed conflict in which the adversary has already launched catastrophic attacks within the United States, fits squarely within the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. Foreign intelligence collection undertaken to prevent further devastating attacks on our Nation serves the highest government purpose through means other than traditional law enforcement. See In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745; United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59, 72 (2d Cir. 1984) (recognizing that the Fourth Amendment implications of foreign intelligence surveillance are far different from ordinary wiretapping, because they are not principally used for criminal prosecution).
Intercepting communications into and out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda in order to detect and prevent a catastrophic attack is clearly reasonable. Reasonableness is generally determined by "balancing the nature of the intrusion on the individual’s privacy against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." Earls, 536 U.S. at 829. William E. Moschella, Assistant Attorney General, to Intelligence Committee Chair Pat Roberts December 22, 2005
Case For Spying
Despite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency’s domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush’s illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
this is for anonymous,please read the FISA LAWS before you open up your mouth,you sound like a democrat so where was your outrage when clinton was doing the same thing to the WHITE SUPREMACY groups after the oklahoma city bombing
Post a Comment