Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…†It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
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.
The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
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.†So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
My God, what a LYING douchebag Drudge is.
I guess he’ll do or say anything for a shot at premium quality cock.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:18 pm[Comment deleted by admin.]
December 20th, 2005 at 11:22 pmYou guys are quick on the research. It’s great to get the facts out to counter the lies. Nothing deflates a propaganda balloon quicker than the pinprick of truth.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:23 pmyou guys are quick. and good.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:24 pmDRUDGE IS ALWAYS A BIT TOO CONCERNED WITH ALL THINGS HOMOSEXUAL ON HIS SITE, AND HIS RADIO SHOW PLAYS THE GAYEST MUSIC ON THIS SIDE OF THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD
NOT THAT THERE’S ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:24 pmWell, if someone is gay, that’s their business.
But, when someone is gay, and aligns himself with a far right agenda, and panders to a bunch of right wing, moralistic wankers, then I DO have a problem with it.
And David Brock, in his book “Blinded by the Right,” wrote that Matt Drudge admitted to him that he is into men.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:34 pmThis Just in? Imagine. 550 lbs explosives. could that be dangerous?
$50,000 reward offered for info on missing explosives
ATF: 550 pounds of explosives missing in New Mexico
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; Posted: 4:29 p.m. EST (21:29 GMT)
December 20th, 2005 at 11:38 pmUh, bobooooo, you’re not helping.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:38 pmcome on, this is still indicative of court order-less surveillance… do you think the text of the recent program says “if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.”????
December 20th, 2005 at 11:40 pmYou can clearly see from this information that the right is not concerned with facts, only smearing others to try and remove blame for their own deceit.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:41 pmFact check this you whinging liberal he-men! Whaaaaaaaaaa!
December 20th, 2005 at 11:42 pmJonah Goldberg and Drudge. Would make a perfect couple.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:43 pmJonah Goldberg and Drudge. Would make a perfect couple.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they in actuality already ARE a perfect couple.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:45 pmThe AG is Executive Branch
What spin.
The AG is an Executive Branch of the Government person, he/she is bound by the law to report to the Legislative Branch, not seek approval. The Judicial Branch is not required to approve these actions, only reivew that they have been certified them under this provision. The AG is also a political appointee of the President by the way, and for the most part does what the President says to do, well except for Archibald Cox, but that’s another kettle of fish.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:50 pmThe AG is not the highest power in the land — the SCOTUS is. So, is it any wonder why Bushie wants his toadies on the Court? He has involved us in an endless war, for which he takes unlimited powers and gives himself power to conduct any and all business in secret, defying the Constitution.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:54 pmThe man must be impeached, removed from office and tried.
I’m doing blog cruising tonight and look what I found on GOP blog. Apparently a certain blogger named cassy thinks striking transit workers are terrorists.
The strikers are terrorists, they shut everything down, and Pataki & Bloombbg should fire them all.
Posted by cassy on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:59 PM | Reply”>
Alrighty then…
http://www.gop.com/ Blog/ BlogPost.aspx?BlogPostID=1548#37445
December 20th, 2005 at 11:58 pmToo bad the american people don’t give a shit about their country.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:59 pmI’m doing blog cruising tonight and look what I found on GOP blog. Apparently a certain blogger named cassy thinks striking transit workers are terrorists.
Groov, Kerry was a coward when he came home. The strikers are terrorists, they shut everything down, and Pataki & Bloombbg should fire them all.
Posted by cassy on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 6:59 PM | Reply
Alrighty then…
December 21st, 2005 at 12:01 amSo what if Clinton and Carter broke the law too? Is that supposed to absolve Bush of a similar crime? It’s the old “do 2 wrongs make a right” chesnut. SO WHAT! Throw them all in jail as far as I’m concerned.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:08 amJudd - the WSJ today cited a FISA Court of Review case which found that the president had inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information, and that FISA could not “encroach on the President’s constitutional power.” But in 1972 the Supreme Court had unanimously rejected Nixon’s claim that he had authority for warrantless wiretapping for national security purposes. So, where does the law stand on this?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:19 amAbove the Law
December 20, 2005
Bush’s hand been caught in the cookie jar and the apologists are up and running. In “Concentrated decisiveness vs. arbitrary power†by George F. Will is his attempt to minimize President Bush’s illegal surveillance charges on American citizens by supporting attorney John Yoo’s memorandum on presidential authority in conducting military operations against “terrorists†is to be considered “plenary.†As Will explained, “plenary†means: complete, entire, not deficient in any element or respect. Translation: When a president deems necessary he can go above the laws to “protect†the nation; apparently, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter weren’t afforded such a privilege, thanks to partisans such as George F. Will. But Will’s position on plenary isn’t so off the track. Plenary is what Bush been living on since 2001. How the president allow the bin-Laden family to skip the US just a few days after 9/11 and then had other Arab-Americans arrested, not involved in downing the Twin Towers? How the president been allow to hold hands with the Saudis whose philosophy and money had fueled the terrorists who attack the U.S. on September 11? How Bush was allow to stifle further an investigation on Iraq’s prewar intelligence as promised after the 2004 Presidential Election? How was he allow to lied about invading Iraq and would it again despite the revelation of falsified intelligence? Answer: Plenary, a president above accountability. What Will offering is an apologist, not an apology.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:36 amRead Marty Beckerman’s take on the transit workers strike.
Forget the fourth amendment, just some words about illegal search and siezure blah, blah, blah.
It’s just a piece of paper. If I had every terrorist in the world come looking for my ass, I’d be listening to people talk on the phone, too.
Bush lives in fear, and I can understand why.
The terrorists have him on the run flying around Air Force One all of the time.
George Bush has the most dangerous job in the world these days. I wouldn’t want it for all of the money in the world. If he hadn’t bombed the bejesus out of Iraq, and killed thirty thousand people, he might be able to sleep at night.
Life ain’t easy for a boy named ‘George.’ He goofed big time when he went to war.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:50 amPlus, Clinton and Carter issued their Executive Orders to implement the new powers that Congress gave them. Bush issued his to avoid judicial oversight and without getting that kind of permission from Congress.
Drudge’s links make the case that Bush was wrong.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:07 am…just left the following “tip” at The Drudge Report:
“You preach to your choir, and we’ll preach to ours:
December 21st, 2005 at 1:09 amhttp://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/“
This gets even better:
The reason that the FISA judge quit is because “the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court’s work.”
How so?
“Robertson indicated privately to colleagues in recent conversations that he was concerned that information gained from warrantless NSA surveillance could have then been used to obtain FISA warrants. FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who had been briefed on the spying program by the administration, raised the same concern in 2004 and insisted that the Justice Department certify in writing that it was not occurring.”
“They just don’t know if the product of wiretaps were used for FISA warrants — to kind of cleanse the information,” said one source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the FISA warrants. “What I’ve heard some of the judges say is they feel they’ve participated in a Potemkin court.”
December 21st, 2005 at 1:40 amMan, I feel guilty now. I just reread Judd’s peice above, and it was stupid of me to get off topic with my O’Reilly rants. Sorry Judd.
Cause this is a good thread.
See, theres that pesky,but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section., statement that the Sludge Report conveniently left out, a tactic steadily increasing in necessity by the right wing pundits and apoligists with each passing day.
But the bitch of the bunch is the quailifier stating the Attorney General must actually swearin writing that the only communications intercepted are “communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers”.
Now, like everyone else that I have heard on the news shows saying for the last 48 hours, “I’m no laywer”.
Hell I’m not even a pundit, but even I can clearly see in my own, lowbrow left wing layperson mind, that Mr. Bush clearly broke the law.
How come the folks over at The Drudge Report can’t see that?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:25 amSpy Court Judge Quits In Protest Over Bush Domestic Spying
The ripples over President George Bush’s secret go-ahead for domestic spying, and his subsequent defense of it, morphed into a bigger wave with the announcement that a federal spy court judge has quit in protest.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:28 amgloriosky
Thats pretty serious. Where did you get that in post #26?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:28 amOk, wow, this is crazy.
Spy Court Judge Quits In Protest
Jurist Concerned Bush Order Tainted Work of Secret Panel
By Carol D. Leonnig and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; Page A01
Washington Post - 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
A federal judge has resigned from the court that oversees government surveillance in intelligence cases in protest of President Bush’s secret authorization of a domestic spying program, according to two sources.
U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. late Monday notifying him of his resignation without providing an explanation.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:31 amOur criminal President is explained at:
December 21st, 2005 at 2:45 amhttp://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/21/2947/0424
Frankly, who even cares if it’s true? Why sit there and argue about what Clinton did or didn’t do. That is just another talking point. When you shoot that one down they put up a new one and after a few days they can put the “Clinton did it too” talking point back up and it will have to be shot down again, etc. Just focus on the only talking point that matters: IMPEACHMENT. Cut off the head and the tail dies.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:51 amAnother step towards a republican dictatorship and none of our representatives seems to mind too much, Sen. Arlen Spector says “were going to investigate this as soon as we get back from vacation.” I’ll bet he forgets all about it after vacation. Just look back on all other dictators and how they took over. first: FIXED ELECTIONS, next: CENSORSHIP,after that: A DRAMATIC EVENT TO CHANGE THE LAWS AND THE WAY THE COUNTRY IS RUN, next: INVASIONS FOR NO REAL REASON and LYING TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE REASONS FOR WAR,next up SPYING AND INVASION OF PRIVACY, NO NEED FOR WARRANTS, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE. THIS IS FACISM AT IT’S PEAK. THIS IS IN COMPLETE AND TOTAL EQUIVALENCY WITH THE RISE OF ADOLPH HITLER WHO ONCE SAID “WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE THAT PEOPLE DO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DOING” GET READY TO LIVE A NEW WAY OF LIFE, ONE W/O FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS WE WERE USED TO .IF YOU LOOK AROUND IT IS HAPPENING ALREADY
December 21st, 2005 at 3:12 amWell said steve expat (#32)!
This has been the typical tactic of this administration, used over and over agian. When they can’t defend their position, they either attack their accusers, for their motives, or deflect the accusations in some similar manner such as this. It just proves that they have no defense. I really believe that it’s actully better to ignore these types of stories as they only serve to sidetrack the real issues. Who cares what Clinton did? If these guys feel so compelled, let them investigate his actions to but lets not waste any energy defending him. It only serves as a distraction!
STAY ON POINT! Many inportant things are beginning to happen. Spread the word and ignore the chatter.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:35 amDrudge ia a pitiful apologist for Bush. If a Democrat spits on the sidewalk he will list it in a headline while ignoring the latest Republican who is charged with crimes.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:58 amI come from South Africa and you can’t believe just how similar Bush’s govt is sounding to the Nationalist govt who ruled during apartheid. Next thing you know there’ll be detention without trial for Americans and Americans being tortured simply because they don’t support the Republicans. Scary how a govt who is supposedly so opposed to regimes like Saddam’s and communism, is behaving more and more like them everyday. What will he do next? I lived through those terrible times and I wouldn’t wish them on anyone.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:09 am“Cut off the head and the tail dies” — Steve Expat.
I sympathize, but I have two words about impeaching Bush and Steve’s comment: “President Cheney.”
Slightly off topic, but I say, careful what you wish for. If, and I doubt this could ever be done by current Congress, Bush were successfully impeached, do you really think for a minute that Cheney would be BETTEER?!?! He’s the primary source of all the lying, secrecy, and unlimited executive power, not to mention heading Bush’s transition that placed all those raving mad neocons into Defense, NSA, and a few at State (i.e., Bolt-on).
If an impeachment leaves Cheney untouched, it will be even worse because he’s no longer defacto President, he’s ACTUAL President.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:10 amWell, how long do you think Cheney will last trying to be the dictator from the front? I wouldn’t give him too long. Impeachment of Bush would soon be followed by impeachment of Cheney. Lets just go down the line until we get all the crooks out of the White House, and if that means removing the two majority parties entirely, well then fine - our representative governemnt should be representing us, not attacking us, lying to us, or spying on us: they work for us, not the other way around, and any politicians who don’t believe this (and we have a few) need to be removed from office.
December 21st, 2005 at 8:31 amActually, I’m beginning to like the arguments “Well, Pres. Clinton did it too!”
Why, you might ask?
“Well, they impeached Pres. Clinton, so we should impeach Pres. Bush as well!”
December 21st, 2005 at 8:40 amsteve expat and JPV (#32 and #34),
So correct. Somehow this comes from a mentality of the underdog. Libruls haven’t quite realized yet they have the upper hand now.
Why not just smile at Drudge and ask him “Oh my, is that so? Where does it say?
December 21st, 2005 at 8:43 amDrudge isnt’ the only toadie to float this shit out in hopes it sticks and gets Bush off the hook.
Yesterday, Texas Senator John Cornyn, appeared on the the cable MSM and kept referring to Clinton, Reagan and Carter ordering the NSA to spy on American citizens.
None of the cable MSM anchors challenged the accuracy of his statements.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:03 amThank you for this! I used it three separate times last night to refute trolls and their bogus Drudge Report. Amazingly enough, this one shuts them up. As they would say: ‘Nuff said.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:03 amJUDD, please read this.
You are correct about Clinton and Carter not authorizing warrantless searches, but you’re partially correct about why it wasn’t a warrantless search in their Executive Orders. FISA doesn’t hand out “warrants” as we know them.
The certification describes the process by which the Attorney General gets the warrantless “warrant†paperwork started.
P.S. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the FISA Court, resigned in protest today.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:08 amYour discussion of what is a US person is not quite right. It is not anyone within the US - it is only US citizens, permanent resident aliens, US-incorporated corporations, and unincorporated associations composed mostly of US citizens or permanent resident aliens. It doesn’t include aliens not admitted for permanent residence. See 50 USC 1801(i).
December 21st, 2005 at 9:10 amMysticagent — your comment helps me rethink mine a bit. How long would Cheney get away with contiuing or worsening the Adminstration’s behavior? Maybe not as long as Bush’s 5 years, given that a successful impeachment would mean that there suddenly exists an opposition with both teeth and balls. If Cheney suffered the same fate (albeit after pardoning Dubya), then Hastert could try his hand!!
It might become a popular sport! Republican Thug Hunting. OK, I feel little less awful now….
Lirbuls may have the upper moral hand, High5, but over the last 10 years it’s been hard for them to do anything with it. Maybe they’re soon to wake up and kick some a**. Let’s hope. Maybe angry, capitalized letters to our various reps and sens are in order.
It seems no one could bring suit to stop these wiretaps, b/c no one could know they’ve been harmed/investigated whatever. I think only Congress can do anything in the courts, following from an investigation that identifies specific instances of lawbreaking. Can anyone expand on that? This issue must get to the courts.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:49 am“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.â€
That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.”
No it doesn’t. How stupid is that statement anyway? Here is the relevant part of the code previous to what you losers quote.
“i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title); ”
As used in this subchapter: (a) “Foreign power†means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. (b) “Agent of a foreign power†means— (1) any person other than a United States person, who— (A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section; (B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or (2) any person who— (A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States; (C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power; (D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or (E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
There’s plenty of wiggle room there to tap any one of you losers. Be careful what you say. We’re listening. “Can you hear me now?” Yes, we can.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:23 amReading Comprehension Difficulties Continue at Powerline / Right Wing Blogs
John Hinderaker is ostensibly an attorney, and thus an educated man. However, in light of his recent coverage of Snoopgate, (in particular the wording of FISA and previous presidential executive orders) I’m beginning to wonder if the nation’s literac…
December 21st, 2005 at 10:51 amI-RIGHT-I - even if you’re right that there’s some wiggle room there (I’m not a lawyer and I’m not well-versed on this subject), the whole point is that Bush circumvented the law in order to avoid even those restrictions.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:24 amwow..i really wish people wouldn’t put caps and bold on when trying to put across mildly intellectual views (G Savage)
I’m from England and as far as I know, MI5 or 6…or 7 or whatever (i get confused by organisations with somewhat secretive and utterly pointless names - why not call them ‘Super Cool Spies!!!1! W00t!! V1.0?) has the technology and power to do this sort of thing over here too, including reading any email from any web host, listen in on any phone call, etc. i think it’s always been like this - it’s only now that things are coming to light. Hell, at least one of you have probably had one of your emails read by some ’security’ agency. It seems more and more obvious that countries like ours and the US are getting closer to a crude charicature (sorry if thats spelt incorrectly) of 1984.
But just to distance myself from any of the few hysterical reactions that have been posted here from wannabe-noam chomskys, remember that we still are living in mainly free societies. When hasn’t there been propaganda coming from the media or the governing body? We do still have rights, that’s why women aren’t forced to wear burkahs. I can’t stand to see all this sort of hysterical fuss made about such a predictable event, everything is blamed on Clinton for god’s sake, that’s how the Republicans try to justify their actions, and it’s also where the core hypocrisy lays. Calling someone who would have been a prime republican candidate a lefty moron because he ran for president as a democrat, whilst stealing pages from his note book. Also another point of hypocrisy is that if bill were a Republican, you can bet your ass that they wouldnt have made such a huge fuss about ‘family values’. The republicans are all morons, masters of spin - there is no real politics with them. I mean, they had a ‘left wing’ president who was doing their jobs for them, and what did they do? Unleashed a huge smear campaign, but now they have bush - a man who gets a cookie for signing his name in readable hand writing - and are desperate to keep him in.
Don’t you see what a pointless effort calling someone a right wing nut or a republican apologist is? Your country all ready knows, its just that for some reason they’ve forgotten how to launch an impeachment trial.
- Joe
December 21st, 2005 at 11:38 amThere’s plenty of wiggle room there to tap any one of you losers. Be careful what you say. We’re listening. “Can you hear me now?†Yes, we can.
I-RIGHT-I
We’re losers? that’s pretty rich coming from someone who is defending a gestapo-esque act of goverment immorality on a left wing blog.
Never ceases to amaze me how many idiots the Right Wingers produce day after day.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:45 amFirst Nutwing argument I’ve read that insists that something’s correct because Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter did it. Face it, if they permitted secret intelligence ops against law-abiding ciatizens, they were wrong, just like the Rovians are now. Or does free-wheelin’ libertarian strict constructionism come to a complete stop when it butts up against the Holy Church of Corporate Capitalism? Yeah, thought so.
December 21st, 2005 at 11:50 amHey Joe #49 - Tell that to the parents of the guy who was shot to death by the British secret police, who were exonerated of course. I guess they forgot to eavesdrop on him.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pmSelectively presenting facts is a trademark fo the right. Fully presenting them makes the right look foolish. Even int heir propaganda. Heck look at the pill popper radio show. He will give facts. For instnace he will tell his lsteners that the alphabet includes 16 letters and that any attempt to tell them otherwise is a dirty liberal plot to undermine the alphabet as it was given to us by the founders and by our American traditions. And sadly these pill popping fans will believe him 100% with out taking one second to verify anything.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 pm#52, it wasnt the secret police, it was the metropolitan. i think his parents have only used it to get tv exposure - the paul bigley.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:19 pmhow many times can GW get up there and say “trust us” with a straight face? especially after being busted as an outright liar or at least as a misrepesenter of the facts so many times? does no one remember Hoover’s abuses? or Nixon’s? it’s nice of GW and crew to say they are not abusing their new powers, but it’s certainly not unreasonable -no matter if you’re R or D- to ask for some kind of judicial or legislative oversight to such things. for a guy who was happy to see saddam go, he certainly knows how to copy his moves at controlling the domestic population. no flies on him it would seem.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:22 pmcome on people, lets be honest. If Bush was using this eazedropping thing to spy on his political enemies, then he deserves all this crap. If you loony leftists provide validated proof that he was using it to spy on political enemies, or trying to find out dirt on law abiding citizens other than reasons of national security then go ahead and try to impeach him, he deserves it.
So far I have not seen any proof of that. And the fact that he hit this thing head on and had not denied it leads me to believe that he was doing what he believed to be right! He was using it to listen in on SUSPECTED TERRORIST and their phone calls to other nations. Since I am not a suspected terrorist or making phone calls to caves in Tikrit, i feel pretty confident that no one has been listening in on my phone calls. I feel better knowing that i have a president willing to do what it takes to protects us from terrorists.
And another thing, remember Zacharias Moussaoui? One of the 9/11 terrorist. the FBI was trying to search his laptop which might have prevented 9/11 for weeks before the attack. But the hold up in the FISA courts did not allow it to be searched. Its in the 9/11 report. He was believed to be linked to terrorist groups before the attacks, don’t you wish Bush maybe listened in on some of the phone calls or seen the emails that he was making? Or are you loonies happy 9/11 happened like Mr. Moore, the biggest hater of America? Or sad that is just happened with planes from Boston, heading to California, and hit towers in New York? All places known for their extreme liberalism, and wish it happened to red states?
December 21st, 2005 at 12:39 pm‘Liberals are the worst’ are you a moron? A retard? Or both?
Michael Moore is happy that 9/11 happened? that is one of the most infuriatingly stupid things I’ve ever heard. Seeing as it’s clear you haven’t seen fahrenheit 9/11, or heard anything michael moore has ever said, or even seen him - and are just basing this hideously stupid statement on the fact that “everyone I know does so it must be right”, let me clear a few things up for you, because its obvious you’re clearly a very stupid and confused person.
The checking of a laptop would not have prevented 9/11, because this attack was so well planned, and so well thought out that is more likely that someone like? Oh I don’t know…Osama Bin Laden had the 9/11 information, and the would be terrorists wouldnt have been careless enough to leave vital information on a lap top.
Also, if the FBI thought he posed a enough of a threat to want to search his laptop, why didnt they arrest him? They clearly had alot of information on him, hense the reason why they wanted to search his hard drive.
And back to the michael moore thing (you stupid moron), how exactly is a man who dedicated a film to those who died in the tragic events of 9/11 glad it happened. You’ve asked for evidence that bush is spying on his political opponents, fair enough. Well I’d like for you to present me information that proves michael moore is glad about the events of 9/11. Hopefully you’ll be able to find it, unless you’re as stupid as you sound
December 21st, 2005 at 12:54 pmL.A.R.T.W.,
Answer me this. If he was only spying on Terrorists, why did he do an end run around FISA. FISA lets you spy on someone without a warrant so long as you apply for one within 72 hours. So no reason not to get one unless you are doing something you shouldn’t like spying on domestic opponents. Bush was handed a memo a month before 9/11 the title of which was “Bin Laden determined to attack US”. It warned they wanted to attack New York and planned to hijack planes. W. did nothing. And since he claims this power to spy is inherant in his role as CIC he had it then anyway. No matter what talking point you resort to it doesn’t make your boy President look good.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:56 pmRe “WIGGLE ROOM”
compare:
USCA 1801 (b)(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages…
USCA 1801(b)(1)”any person other than a United States person”.…
The “any person” standard of 1801(b)(2) is Definitely looser than the 1801(b)(1)”any person other than a United States person”.
However note that 1801(b)(2)(A-E) all use the term “knowingly engages“, which to me implies a higher burden of proof than probable cause, and those qualifiers seem to be the implication that someone OTHER than the AG has to evaluate if a suspect has acted “knowingly”.
I’m not familiar with any other statutes that allow the executive to solely construe very subjective terms like “knowingly”, especially due to the deference given by the supreme court in numerous cases regarding the 4th amendment.
But as they say on TV, I’m no lawyer…
see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/ html/ uscode50/ usc_sec_50_00001801—-000-.html
December 21st, 2005 at 12:59 pmDid anyone else notice that the link that takes you to the proof about “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party” takes you to a donation site for some law group and proves nothing. These Think Progress guys don’t even try to be convincing. Trust them at your own peril.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:00 pmYeah Kevin, facts aren’t convincing.
Just like the sky is green and air kills you.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:05 pmif you click ‘no thanks’ you go straight through to the site. Try thinking…pfft, republicans
December 21st, 2005 at 1:07 pmThe trouble with saying that Zacharias would have been investigated if the President had these powers is that actually, the FBI field officers were begging to investigate, but it was Pentagon Lawyers and the highest levels of command in the FBI, not the ACLU, that prevented the investigation. The 911 commission was headed by a former business partner of Condi’s and, don’t you remember, wasn’t really trying to investigate anything, it was “forward looking”, so please don’t quote that whitewash as presenting any evidence. It kind of ignored the fact that WT7 came down all by its lonesome. No mention.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:09 pm#56
Bush has admitted that he did this without warrants!!!! How much more proof do you need than an admission????
You are attacking Michael Moore? You guys REALLY are deperate to attack a film maker. Who is next Mickey Mouse???
Where do you live so I can avoid visiting?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:10 pmAw come on Joe. They were from the Metropolitan police’s elite S019 firearms team and in plain clothes. I used lower case when I referred to them as secret police, so I think it’s an apt description. They shot him seven times in the head after he had been subdued, which tells me that those officers were either sadistic or so on edge or scared that they shouldn’t have held such a post in the first place.
And that’s a downright nasty thing to say about his parents. They should be seeking all the publicity they can get. That’s their only hope for justice.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:11 pmim not defending the attack M. Liberal. I think it is a disgusting example of police taking advantage of the current climate. They also tried to cover it up, but an independent report showed them up. They had flat out lied - claiming he was wearing a puffy jacket, a huge backpack and running for the train. They also said they told him to stop and he kept going. It now appears that there was not bag, no puffy jacket, and no running. Rather than admit a mistake, a murderous one at that, they decide to lie and hope for the best.
as for the family, i think we have justice, the police arent hearing the end of this - which is the way it should be. Im just not that happy seeing them on the news everyday, visiting his house, his girlfriend, his favourite toilet, the bin where he threw away that empty bottle of cola. It gets to a point where they clearly are just doing it for attention, not to find any sort of closure.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:23 pmHow is Matt Drudge’s lie any diffrent than the obvious lies which can be found in Farenheit 911, Bowling for Columbine etc. Michael Moore lives in the house made of the most glass while throwing the largest stones.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:40 pmOk ….. I the uk if you mention the word bomb on the telephone or any other BAD word its atomatically starts recording Im sure you guys probably invented this system of word recognision anyway …phone taps are nothing new …IM SURE aL qUAEDA DONT USE WORDS SUCH AS bOMB THEY PROBALLLY SPEAK ABOUT WEDDINGS OR FISHING OR OF TO SEE A MAN ABOUT A DOG OR SOMETHING. what im saying is yes its ilegal and against your constitution …so do something dont just expect george bush to put a gun to his head …just hurry up and shoot him ….the world waits for the glorious day
December 21st, 2005 at 1:44 pmWhat lies are there in Fahrenheit 9/11? The claim that Bush rigged the election has been proved by the BBC, the claim about Bush and Saudi money has also been proved by numerous people. What ‘lies’ are you referring to? and where is your evidence?
December 21st, 2005 at 1:47 pmJoe,
I realize that you probably believe what you want to believe but here is a starting point for you. Conspiracy theories are fun but lets get serious. Do you really think Michael Moore is concerned with the truth. He is looking for shock value. His audience wants badly to believe the creative lies he tells so they don’t bother to ask questions.
http://moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/f91
December 21st, 2005 at 2:08 pmFirst -
Right-wing water carriers, talking point regurgitators, and wurlitzer generators need to settle on one baseless defense of these actions, because right now — there are two…. and the 2 are mutually exclusive by their very arguments.
1. The official administration line is that the President’s “war powers” granted him this extraordinary ability to spy on Americans….
2. The babblings boors of bile are trotting the out the “Jimmy did it/Clenis did it” BS - the administration is in no way staking its claims on those precedents (and for good reason, see below).
So which is it?
Based on the trolling - it seems the nattering nimrods of know-nothings have settled on #2.
A few key points on that….
First - when you cite these Executive Orders — whether Carter’s EO, Clinton EO, or even EO 12333 from Reagan that Byron York seized on — notice that they all cite FISA as the authority allowing implementation.
While its true that an EO carries the weight the law - and yes, Executives (governors and presidents) have sometimes used grey areas to legislate through EOs - the primary raison d’etre of EO is usually a bit closer to a regulation than a statute –i.e., EOs generally are instructions to executive branch agencies on implementing statutes or law, NOT generally meant to function as stand-alone law.
If you don’t believe me — just read the EOs you love to mention…. Notice how they all refer to FISA? Notice how they all carry wording like “in accordance with section XXXX” or “pursuant to section XXXX” or “as defined by section XXXXX”? None of these EOs were written to circumvent, overrule, or otherwise disregard FISA, rather — they spell the means of agencies (generally, the NSA) to IMPLEMENT FISA. An EO that directly and clearly legislates on a broad area like…. oh…. invalidating all of the 4th amendment would be a very short-lived EO.
Second - just read FISA.
It’s that simple… In particular - since we’re talking about electronic surveillance (wiretapping) - read 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(B) which states (per 1802(a), which authorizes electronic surveillance):
There is NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SURVEILLANCE WILL ACQUIRE THE CONTENTS OF ANY COMMUNICATION TO WHICH A UNITED STATES PERSON IS A PARTY
What’s so unclear about that?
50 USC 1802 remains law. Erego - since Bush has already admitted spying on Americans without a court order, the administration violated 50 USC 1802. It’s just that simple.
Notice that FISA differentiates between “physical searches” — which was the issue Gorelick and the “Clinton issue” were attached to — and “electronic surveillance”. They are 2 seperate issues.
…so whining about “Gorelick said” is pure misdirection. It’s the standard noise and chaff thrown up by the right to obscure the issue to the point that no one except the blogosphere and punditocracy follow the issue to its confusion. It’s a despicable tactic in public discourse, but one the right uses quite successfully.
Even beyond all that, an LTE in a Seattle paper probably sums it up perfectly. If you think spying on American citizens is no big deal — will you feel the same way when President Hillary Clinton uses this new power in 2009? Unlike a Monarchy or dictatorship - we don’t have different sets of laws for different heads of state. Since I sincerely doubt the “War on Terror” will be over in 2009, whomever occupies the Oval Office would have the same powers. Maybe instead of spying on LBGT groups, PETA, or Greenpeace — perhaps a Hillary administration will be a might bit more concerned with clinic bombers, gay bashing, ID crazies…. etc.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:14 pm…so Bush can illegally wiretap thousands of American citizens for no good reason except to prove to everybody that he’s above the law and can do whatever he wants to.
..but when Clinton gets a perfectly legal blow job in the oval office, the fascists make a federal case out of it and have him impeached.
What a country.
BTW: I don’t believe for a minute that Bush’s illegal wiretapping is all about terrorism. He’s beeen doing the same thing that Nixon did - he’s spying on his domestic political opponents. That’s the only way all of this makes any sense. The Bush administration is the biggest criminal conspiracy since Lucky Luciano organized the mafia in the 1930’s.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:15 pmPlease read and shut up.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/ opinion/ chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed
December 21st, 2005 at 2:16 pmPlease read and shut up.
Oh… well… God and the entire judicial branch have spoken in the form of John Schmidt. Strange that God and SCOTUS as one entity are partnering at a Chicago law firm, but I guess I’ll shut up now…. because God and SCOTUS wrote an LTE.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:24 pmI think you liberals are bunch of idiots, crying baby that rather hugh a treee than protect your land within the people that could be a danger to my family…If something ever happen to my family and it caused because of you liberals. I promise to run for office at local level and start cleaning up all of you.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:29 pmBush has to spy on all the FBI that have proof he knew 911 was gonna happen and justify the start of the new world order …except it aint gonna work Russia will take you out long before you even get close
December 21st, 2005 at 2:33 pmGetting to the heart of God…errr… John Schmidt’s column.
#1 In the Supreme Court’s 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Ahem… THREATS FROM ABROAD! Quite simply, a US citizen, acting on US soil, cannot be a threat from abroad.
#2 Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.
No kidding… Since FISA allows just that! An unwarranted wiretap is perfectly legal — so long as you go to the FISA court within 3 days after the fact.
#3 In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that “All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence … We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”
Again — “OBTAIN FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE”!!! fer chrissakes - no one is arguing in any way whatsoever the President’s ability to wiretap whomever or whatever foreign entities he damn well pleases (well — at least — that’s a wholly separate matter).
#4FISA contains a provision making it illegal to “engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute.” The term “electronic surveillance” is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication “sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person” (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by “intentionally targeting that United States person.” The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act’s prohibition on electronic surveillance.
Ahhh… finally - halfway through the column, we get to the heart of the matter…. or - well, sort of. While Schmidt quibbles over what “electronic surveillance” means - he glosses over the main point of this WHOLE DAMN ARGUMENT!
No one is arguing about non-US persons, entities, etc and what methods are used to gather intelligence about them.
The argument is about whether wiretapping was performed on US citizens.
Both you — as well as whatever editor wrote the headline — would have done well to read the column rather than blinding saying “SEE!?!?! SEE!?!?!” based on a quick goodle search.
Schmidt may be arguing something — but it’s hardly whether or not US citizens can be wiretapped without a court order.
All in all — this is just more misdirection that’s largely irrelevant to the issue at-hand.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:40 pmcdubs, I admit im a Moore fan, but you can’t justgive me the link to a partisan right wing group that just disagrees with what Moore says and ‘proves’ it by using crypto logic. There are hundreds of sites like these, just as there are hundreds of pro Moore sites. I think that facts are more important than anything else, and admittedly i get slightly sceptical about how Moore uses some footage. But there are many facts in 9/11, and the counter evidence from right wing critics is constantly being proved false, or a half truth.
I have a link for you in return: http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/995
December 21st, 2005 at 2:44 pmI think you liberals are bunch of idiots, crying baby that rather hugh a treee than protect your land within the people that could be a danger to my family…If something ever happen to my family and it caused because of you liberals. I promise to run for office at local level and start cleaning up all of you.
??? While I’m a bit confused by “crying baby that rather hugh a treee than protect your within the people” - I’m assuming the argument here is that the 4th amendment should be ignored because our national security would be at risk if we don’t choose to trample on individual rights.
Fair enough.
I assume, then, in 2009 — you will have no problem with President Hillary Clinton (or President Howard Dean… or whomever) authorizing wiretaps on members of churches, conservative groups, etc because I’m worried about MY family members being killed by bombings at clinics or beaten to death because they’re gay.
Right?
December 21st, 2005 at 2:47 pmTake a look at executive order 12333. It too authorizes a President to have pretty broad powers in authorizing wiretaps and electronic surveillance. Here’s the Attorney General Section 2.5:
2.5 Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
This is certainly a complex issue, however, I believe you are misunderstanding a few things here. First, do you know with certainty that President Bush didn’t get general authorization from Attorney General Ashcroft for these wiretaps. What the media has been reporting is that Bush’s wiretaps are “illegal” because he didn’t get some outside judge to issue a warrant. I don’t think its been established by the Bush-haters that he didn’t get this authorization from Ashcroft - I would think he did. Which then means you will have to start excoriating Ashcroft as simply a Bush puppet. Also, I don’t think the Attorney General needs to issue “a warrant” as you’ve been claiming, but rather can issue a broad “authorization” which in turn empowers the President to wiretap crime syndicates or terrorists within or outside the borders of the Unites States. See, your problem is you think the AG has to make a case-by-case authorization for such wiretaps and such is not the case … unless you care to cite a federal courts decision to the contrary.
I’ve looked at the various executive orders and am aware of both the New York Times take in 1982 with respect to EO12333 and the Washington Post take on Clinton’s executive order is that in essence the President has broad discretionary power to authorize wiretaps where America’s national security interests are at stake. But now both the NYT and WaPo have changed their tune about wiretaps which demonstrates their partisan inability to report a straight story.
Now you people can rant and rave all you want, but you’re playing games with words in order to advance your political agenda. If you have a problem with these policies and executive orders, then work to change them. But don’t lie and say Bush is “illegally wiretapping Americans”. Such sophomoric tactics on your part only further undermines your own credibility on a very complicated issue.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:52 pmElectronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
You can’t just ignore the last sentence when it suits your purposes, either — IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT ACT.
“THAT ACT” clearly states that there be “no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents to which a United State person is a party”.
Like I said - you can’t read the EO without also including the statutory citations it directs compliance with.
Show me how you get around 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(B) - and you have a point.
If you don’t like the law, fine. Get it changed - but under no circumstances can you just ignore it.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:00 pmIf you have a problem with these policies and executive orders, then work to change them. But don’t lie and say Bush is “illegally wiretapping Americansâ€. Such sophomoric tactics on your part only further undermines your own credibility on a very complicated issue.
I should also point out how incredibly disengenous this statement is –
By allowing the executive branch to dictate by fiat - you remove ANY method short of revolution to make those changes. This administration circumvented both the judicial and legislative branch — so pray tell, how would you suggest we “get the policies changed” considering the legislative branch wasn’t (and isn’t now) being asked to rewrite all of, portions of, or new law in addition to FISA; nor, do the actions of the administration in this matter allow for any sort of judicial oversight?
The whole point is that this administration sought to circumvent the law - so the only folks that truly have any need to “work to change them” are the folks THAT DIDN’T FOLLOW THEM!
FISA is fine from my perspective - if you want to change it, then let’s have that discussion/argument/brouhaha.
My problem isn’t with any law as written (PATRIOT Act aside) - it’s with the administration not following law.
I’m honestly flabbergasted that this isn’t a slam dunk issue that ALL Americans of any political stripe aren’t royally pissed about.
I mean - we’re tossing out critical civil liberties like they’re 3 day old donuts.
I wouldn’t give a damn if it were President Kucinich wiretapping US citizens — it’s ILLEGAL! It’s an affront to liberty, and affront to our constitution(/Bill of Rights), and an affront to our system of checks and balances.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:21 pmBush has to spy on all the FBI that have proof he knew 911 was gonna happen and justify the start of the new world order …except it aint gonna work Russia will take you out long before you even get close
Liverpool
What? Bush has to spy on all the FBI? theres more than one? Also, that isnt the FBIs business, that’s the CIA’s and Bush’s Inner Circle’s. What new world order? And russia? one of the US’s biggest allies taking them out?
Remember earlier when i said “wannabe noam chomskys”? ….Yeah.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:22 pmThe AG can not give the rest of the executive wiretap authorization. The 4th amendment does not say you can spy on citizens if your own lawyer says its okay.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:23 pmTo Rider (#21)
First, the WSJ “article” you’re talking about is an Opinion. Second, I went to the case quoted in the article. The language the author quoted refers to the President having inherent power to authorize wiretaps on FOREIGN AGENTS, not U.S. Citizens. That is the distinction here. The President does not have inherent constitutional power to authorize warrantless searches or surveillance of U.S. Citizens because of the 4th Amendment proscription on warrantless searches. Nixon was trying to surveille citizens for “national security” — hence, not Constitutional. President authorizes search of FOREIGN AGENT for “national security” — okee-dokee.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:33 pmLet’s get something straight here - because the right-wingers seem to be missing the entire point. These aren’t wiretaps involving foreign embassies or foreign citizens living in this country. These are wiretaps involving thousands of ordinary Americans citizens like myself, and the law says that even the president cannot wiretap another American citizen without eventually obtaining a warrant.
Lets get something else straight: George Bush works for me. I don’t work for him - he is my employee, and I pay his salary. I am not above the law, and so certainly my megalomanic hired hands are not not above the law either. I cannott tap someone else’s phone without obtaining a warrent, and certainly my employees have no right to tap my phone or read my email without obtaining a legal warrent. That’s the law. If I catch any of my employees illegally spying on me without obtaining a legal warrant, I want them fired PERIOD.
This crooked megalomanic employee of mine - George Bush - CLAIMS that he has the right to read my emails and listen into my phone calls anytime he wants to. He CLAIMS to be above the law, and says that he has been given the right to do anything to protect this country. But who is going to protect this country from him when he is above the law? As my employee, I actually have more right to tap his phone than he has to tap mine. I pay his salary - he doesn’t pay mine. And the law says that he has to give some evidence that I am conspiring or communicating with terrorists before spying on me, an American citizen. The law says that he cannott invade my privacy while remaining accountable only to himself.
Why? Because I am is employer - he is not my dictator. At least not yet. Though there seem to be a lot of confused, bootlicking and unAmerican right-wingers around here who would like to make him our dictator.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:57 pmThis is all nonsence the minute you mention bomb on the telephone line automatic word recognision systems start recording your call anyway…..
December 21st, 2005 at 4:15 pmThe only reason they didn’t get warrants is because they don’t want records of who they are snooping on. I wouldn’t be suprised if they are snooping on people with influence and power that are American citizens ie… John Kerry, George Soros etc… However, I’m sure the NY Times knows exactly who was being spied on and the White House knows it. Now they are buying time to get out of this mess. The administration was protecting the US citizens by spying on Howard Dean speaking to John Kerry. Ask yourself this? How many American terrorist been hanged for treason? I’m sure they must have caught so many by snooping on their phones. And can terrorist be so stupid to have a telephone conversation without thinking they are being listened to? Come on !!! Its sad, but the terrorist are a lot smarter than our current administration. That is why we got hit in the mouth. Bush was asleep at the wheel. Who in thier right mind believes they care about the Iraqi people and thier freedom? The don’t even care about the citizens of America.
December 21st, 2005 at 4:15 pmsame with email keywords automatically stored for reading
December 21st, 2005 at 4:16 pmBush new 911 was gonna happen and let it happen he spying to see who all knows and hes getting ready to jump ship soon
December 21st, 2005 at 4:18 pmThe New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
David Ray Griffin, Michael Meacher MP
This is a must read BUSH new of 911 theres hundreds of bit of proof in this book
December 21st, 2005 at 4:21 pmEveryone knows he knew about 9/11, we found out he knew a few months after 9/11 happened
December 21st, 2005 at 4:44 pmBush new 911 was gonna happen and let it happen
911 saved Bush’s presidency. The only way Bush can keep ridistributing income to the richest, is to keep everyone scared and focused on terrorism. It was never in Bush’s political interest to do anything to stop terrorism. It still isn’t. We’re in Iraq training more terrorists for Bin Laden who is still alive and free. The experts say that this country is no more prepared for another terrorist attack than it was 4 years ago. Bush has done almost nothing to protect the ports or protect vulnerable targets like nuclear plants, and he has cut funding for first responers. Which makes his claim that he needs free reign to spy on American citizens all the more ludicrous.
What Bush really needs right now is another major terrorist attack on American soil to boost his crashing poll numbers. He needs a way to rally the nation around him once again, and he’s not about to do anything to hinder it. On the contrary - he’s done everything he possibly can to promote it by training more terrorists, keeping Bin Laden alive and making America more hated around the world. After he gets his poll numbers up, then he can gut Social security and push through another tax cut for the rich. Don’t think he’s given up on that yet. He can also invade Iran, because they have a lot of oil as well. With Bush, it’s always all about the money. Sacrificing American lives and fundamental Constitutional rights are only the means to that end.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:11 pmDoes anyone here understand what a “US Person” is?
“US Persons” does not include an association with a foreign power, and that would be anyone who engages in activities in preparation for terrorist activities on behalf of a foreign power. It’s straight out of the definitions portion of the code:
(i) ”United States person” means a citizen of the United States, … but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power…
(b) ”Agent of a foreign power” means - …
(2) any person who - …
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power.
If you are speaking with a terrorist then you are not a “US Person” as defined by the FISA statute. “US Person” does not mean US citizen - read the statute.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:24 pmLet’s face it, folks. The reason Bush didn’t bother to deny what he’s done is because the man is absolutely shameless. He invaded a country that did nothing to even threaten us, let alone attack us first, and manipulated information to do so. He lies all the time, looking right into the camera with a straight, albeit chimplike, face.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:43 pmHe and his whole administration are bald-faced liars, and they keep getting away with it.
But what would you expect from a group that rigged an American election not just once, but twice?
What we should really be horrified about is that so few people in the this country are even trying to do anything about it.
While Bush and his buddies make me physically ill, what really gets me in the gut is that it has taken five years and countless lives for us Americans to wake up and smell the bullshit.
I’d say “better late than never,” but that won’t be much consolation to the families of those brave soldiers who died in Iraq or the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have Bush to thank for their further misery.
And before you go calling me unpatriotic or a terrorist, know this: America is a great country; it’s current government is not, and those are two separate things. I support the troops in coming home safely, not further risking their lives for a bullshit war.
I love my country and I want it back.
P.S. to Trebor: I think I love you.
December 21st, 2005 at 5:48 pmJerry writes: “US Person†does not mean US citizen - read the statute.
I don’t have to “read the statute” or listen to some sleazy republican lawyer to know what I am. I am a US citizen - and NOT just a ‘US person’ I fought, and my father fought to protect the rights of all American citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures by the govenment. While Bush dodged the draft and then went AWOL from the National Guard. Maybe he’s only a ‘US person’ - he certainly never risked his own life to defend the rights of US citizens. Why don’t you ask him?
The Constitution says that because I am a citizen of this country, that nobody - including a cowardly employeee of mine named AWOL George Bush - has the right to tap my phone or read my email without demonstrating that it is, in fact, reasonable, rather than the unreasonable political vendetta that we all know he is fully capable of.
That’s what’s in the Constituition, and that’s exactly why it’s in the Constitution - it’s there because of cowardly would-be dictators like Bush. Look it up.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:23 pm“If you are speaking with a terrorist then you are not a “US Person†as defined by the FISA statute. “US Person†does not mean US citizen - read the statute.
Comment by Jerry”
Americans do business daily with foreigners, as do american diplomats. By your ‘unreasoning’, every international businessmen, and diplomat are not US Persons. That’s not only whacko, it’s insanely unamerican of you to even suggest. Just because of who someone ‘talks to’, does not undermine their citizenship. The ‘freedom to associate’ is also a fundamental constitutionally protected right. Until a person is ‘proven’ to be someone who’s an ‘agent’, they are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY you moronic fool.
Just ‘talking’ to someone does not invalidate your citizenship, nor do acts of crime. If that were true, then Bush being AWOL would have revolked his citizenship, as that was clearly illegal.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:30 pmtrebor:
Peace. You sound angry or something. I did not write that you are not a US Citizen. I explained that the statute applies to “US Persons” When writing this statute, Congress purposefully did not use the term US Citizens, they used the term US Persons because it has a specific definition. Within the FISA statute, they define what a US Person is, and that definition does not include anyone, citizen or not, who collaborates with a foreign power.
Just because you are a citizen it does not mean that you cannot be searched without a warrant or probable cause; ask other commenters here. The President and the Federal government are permitted to:
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;
etc. etc. etc.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:49 pmBZZZZZ!!!!
Try again, Jerry.
You should cite all of 50 USC 1801(i):
(i) “United States person†means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
The excpetions spelled out by 1801(i) apply ONLY to “corporations” or “associations”, and those exceptions are spelled out solely by 1801(a)(1) through (a)(3).
The definition of 1801(i) is in neither enhanced, limited, nor modified by 1801(b).
I think you want 1801(b)(2) — irrespective of the definition in 1801(i).
The problem is — 1801(b)(2)(A)-(C) aren’t very good support for wiretaps unless:
1801(b)(2)(A) — any person cpnducting esponiage for a foreign power… presumably, this was the Clinton justification in regards to the 94 Gorelick testimoney (the issue was the Aldrich spy case)
1801(b)(2)(B) — pertains to someone basically getting ready to spy
1801(b)(2)(C) comes closest to circumventing Amendment 4-
“knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;”
1801(b)(2)(D) pertains only to foreign nations, while 1801(b)(2)(E) is pretty much boilerplate aiding and abetting activities in 1801(b)(2)(A) through (C).
So - you can hang your hat on 1801(b)(2)(C) (or (E)), but the definitions are pretty damn restrictive (i.e. “sabotage” or “terrorism”)
…and, of course, none of these excuse skipping the procedural requirements of 50 USC 1805.
Sorry - as much it seems you want to do away with the 4th amendment, even FISA doesn’t let you.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:50 pmRyan:
There’s no need to name call.
I am not invalidating anyone’s citizenship by pointing out that provisions of the statute apply to “US Persons” and the definition of US Persons in the statute does not include a person, citizen or not, who “knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power.” I did not wriote that the statute says you aren’t a citizen if you engage in illegal activity. Certain provisions of the statute apply to QUOTE US Persons QUOTE as defined in the statute. You do not become an “Agent of a foreign power” by merely speaking with a businessman overseas, you become one by engaging in “sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power.” It would be easier to discuss this if you would read the definitions section of the FISA statute. While I may be a moronic fool, I at least understand that innocence or guilt is not in question here; we are writing about persons suspected of engaging in these activities and whether you need to go through the FISA warrant procedure to eavesdrop on their conversations.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:03 pmsay Zonk, i can cut and paste too!
Doesn’t that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): “United States person,” which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly “does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power.”
Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an “Agent of a foreign power” as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who “knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power,” and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.
Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect “foreign intelligence information,” which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as “information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”
December 21st, 2005 at 7:05 pmObfuscate, blur, obscure, confuse, misdirect…
I realize you’re not responding to me - but as I said above, you’re being wwaaaaayyyyy tooooo fast and loose (if not dishonest) when you talk exceptions. The statute certainly calls for one hell of a higher threshhold than “collaboration” (i.e., espionage, sabotage, or terrorism). You’re either being dishonest or lazy.
As for the rest
Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;
No kidding. Public areas are not protected, I don’t know of anyone that thinks so.
Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;
Right - which is why the statute specifies “US Persons” and “United States” in a geographic sense.
Again - irrelevant to this matter.
Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;
What’s your point? I think anyone that’s ever seen a mob movie or watched The Sopranos is well aware of this.
Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;
Yes - WHILE A WARRANT IS BEING OBTAINED No warrant was obtained or sought in this case. The law certainly allows exceptions where emergencies arise that require quick action. So does FISA — to the point that you can wait 72 hours after the wiretap to get the warrant.
Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;
Sure - same as above. Of course - there’s a difference between “Physical search” and “electronic surveillance”, but again — if you need to act immediately, FISA allows you to do that.
Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;
Sure - anyone that’s ever signed a lease for an apartment knows this (or should know this). Again - the point is irrelevant.
Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;
The key is “probably cause” - which is the subject of volumnous case history… Again, though — we’re talking specifically about “electronic surveillance” not search and seizure.
Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;
Again, this isn’t electronic surveillance.
Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;
As with no expectation of privacy in a public place, same deal.
Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);
Public place and again, not electronic surveillance.
Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;
Sure - because working in these industries is not a guaranteed right. TECHNICALLY - these rights are still inherent, you just sign them away when you apply for employment at a place that requires such searches as a condition of employment.
None of these have much of anything to do with “electronic surveillance” of “US Persons”.
December 21st, 2005 at 7:15 pmMA: Romney Plugs False Drudge Scoop
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more ridiculous, the governor of Massachusetts–while answering questions about his potential presidential candidacy in 2008