Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[Mom2be]

Because Bush could and he could find enough house shills to justify it.

Interesting enough I just read an editorial that stated that FISA has only rejected 4 request for wire tapping in the last 25 years. The writer when on to guess that since the FISA is essentially in the back pocket of the President why did he feel it necessary to go around the court. He speculates that maybe it is because the need for surveilance was so far fetched that even FISA would have to reject the request. A little bit of conspiracy theory there but it makes a bit of sense when you add in:

"Two years ago, the New York Times reported that the administration is using the FBI to "collect extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators." Then, just a few months ago, the Times reported that the FBI "has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups." And just this past week, NBC News obtained a 400-page Pentagon document outlining the Bush administration's surveillance of anti-war peace groups. The report noted that the administration had monitored 1,500 different events (aka. anti-war protests) in just a 10-month period.

These are exactly the kind of surveillance operations even a government-tilted FISA court would reject, and it raises yet more questions: Are these anti-war peace groups the targets of Bush's warrantless, illegal surveillance operations? Who else has the President been targeting? Has it been his partisan political enemies a la Richard Nixon? Or has he been invading the privacy of unsuspecting citizens in broad sweeps with no probable cause at all? "

~Amanda

 

[M:SteveO]

Seeing how Sodaseller has already washed away the word twisting to make it sound like Clinton did something illegal I doubt you'll be able to prove anything. Sodaseller is a smart guy and one who understands legal mumbo jumbo that most people can't.

I doubt I'll be able to prove anything either. How about the actual executive orders themselves. Both Clinton and Carter (along with Reagan) authorized warrantless secret searches on Americans. Here's your proof right here via the Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm. If you don't believe it, the actual executive orders themselves are linked to the report. And your unbiased 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick had an interesting quote as well when she was in the Justice Department: the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." If you think this president did something illegal, then all these other presidents did too. But, I understand, it's not convenient to use the facts because because they don't fit your Bush Is A Fascist argument. I don't think anybody was arguing that Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were fascists. I certainly wasn't. They understood, like this president, that national security is of upmost importance. Interesting, isn't it. Wonder if this gets reported in the press.

 

[Mom2be]

I doubt I'll be able to prove anything either. How about the actual executive orders themselves. Both Clinton and Carter (along with Reagan) authorized warrantless secret searches on Americans. Here's your proof right here via the Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm. If you don't believe it, the actual executive orders themselves are linked to the report. And your unbiased 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick had an interesting quote as well when she was in the Justice Department: the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." If you think this president did something illegal, then all these other presidents did too. But, I understand, it's not convenient to use the facts because because they don't fit your Bush Is A Fascist argument. I don't think anybody was arguing that Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton were fascists. I certainly wasn't. They understood, like this president, that national security is of upmost importance. Interesting, isn't it. Wonder if this gets reported in the press.

Before I read these reports (and I will) I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth. I have never said Bush is a fascist. In fact I haven't called Bush any names at all. I also never claimed that Clinton or Carter were perfect men, in fact I fully support the fact that Clinton was held accountable for breaking the law when he lied under oath.

If you are going to continue to be absolutely unreasonable and put words in my mouth then perhaps you would prefer to just talk to yourself.

~Amanda

 

[M:SteveO]

Before I read these reports (and I will) I would appreciate it if you would not put words into my mouth. I have never said Bush is a fascist. In fact I haven't called Bush any names at all. I also never claimed that Clinton or Carter were perfect men, in fact I fully support the fact that Clinton was held accountable for breaking the law when he lied under oath.

If you are going to continue to be absolutely unreasonable and put words in my mouth then perhaps you would prefer to just talk to yourself.

~Amanda

I wasn't referring to you, I was just using your quote to begin my post. I was responding more to those like Puffy, who like to think Bush really is a fascist. I apologize if you took offense to that.

 

[bsnyder]

I don't find that fact troubling. What I find troubling is the fact that the White House illegally tapped US citizens which is against the law. While I'm happy that is supposively worked - I still believe that they should have pursued this through legal channels. Especially since there was a legal way to do it. I'm not sure what is so hard about that.

~Amanda

Where are you getting your "facts"? We don't know exactly what this survellience is, or whether the issues involved will prove that Bush did anything illegal.

There's a lot here we don't know. But reading between the lines of the reporting that's been done, it's reasonable to assume that these are not garden variety phone taps that the FISA court could or would routinely approve.

I say bring on the investigations. And let the Democrats explain to the voters why they'd rather tie the governments hands and prevent them from using a technology that's been successful in preventing further attacks on American citizens at home.

And maybe Jay Rockefeller can explain in more detail the CYA chicken-**** memo that he wrote in 2003 to all his loyal leftist supporters. Any good Bush-hater should be at least as angry at him as they are at Bush.

 

[Mom2be]

Where are you getting your "facts"? We don't know exactly what this survellience is, or whether the issues involved will prove that Bush did anything illegal.

There's a lot here we don't know. But reading between the lines of the reporting that's been done, it's reasonable to assume that these are not garden variety phone taps that the FISA court could or would routinely approve.

I say bring on the investigations. And let the Democrats explain to the voters why they'd rather tie the governments hands and prevent them from using a technology that's been successful in preventing further attacks on American citizens at home.

And maybe Jay Rockefeller can explain in more detail the CYA chicken-**** memo that he wrote in 2003 to all his loyal leftist supporters. Any good Bush-hater should be at least as angry at him as they are at Bush.

I should change the word fact to alledgedly.
I say bring on the investigations as well - if he did nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide. As far as Democrats tying the government hands - I don't see how that would happen. The patriot act gives them 72 hours - they ignored that. If FISA wouldn't approve of these survellances (which they've only turned down 4 in the last 20 years or so) then what were they based on?

~Amanda

 

[M:SteveO]

I should change the word fact to alledgedly.
I say bring on the investigations as well - if he did nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide. As far as Democrats tying the government hands - I don't see how that would happen. The patriot act gives them 72 hours - they ignored that. If FISA wouldn't approve of these survellances (which they've only turned down 4 in the last 20 years or so) then what were they based on?

~Amanda

Did we have investigations into how Clinton and Carter used warrantless searches? I don't think so. I didn't see those Democrats up in a huff about those, though they are under the same premise: claiming executive power to conduct warrantless searches on Americans in the name of national security. Funny, huh?

 

[bsnyder]

I should change the word fact to alledgedly.
I say bring on the investigations as well - if he did nothing wrong then they have nothing to hide. As far as Democrats tying the government hands - I don't see how that would happen. The patriot act gives them 72 hours - they ignored that. If FISA wouldn't approve of these survellances (which they've only turned down 4 in the last 20 years or so) then what were they based on?

~Amanda

Again, as I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm presuming we're talking about a type of survellience technology that is not "warrant" friendly. So FISA approval (either before, or after) wouldn't be an applicable tool to use.

 

[M:SteveO]

As far as Democrats tying the government hands - I don't see how that would happen.

I don't see how that would happen either. Maybe filibustering the Patriot Act comes to mind. All those supposed civil liberties abuses, and I have not heard of one specific instance where the Patriot Act was abused, not one.

 

[bsnyder]

As far as Democrats tying the government hands - I don't see how that would happen.
~Amanda

Did you read any of the 9/11 Commission report?

The government's hands were tied for years, prior to 9/11. We didn't see the the full ramifications of this until it was too late.

 

[Judge Smails]

Look it's very simple and it's not a matter of security. Bush can at any time make warrantless taps.

To argue that security is an issue is a weak attempt to muddy the water. It is meaningless.

Bush decided not to follow the process. That's illegal, unconstitutional and an impeachable offense.

I reiterate...it is not a matter of Bush being able to provide security for the US.

 

[DawnCt1]

Because Bush could and he could find enough house shills to justify it.

You seem to have all ThAnswrs LadyBlu ...I mean Lady Day.

 

[M:SteveO]

Bush decided not to follow the process. That's illegal, unconstitutional and an impeachable offense.

I reiterate...it is not a matter of Bush being able to provide security for the US.

So were Clinton and Carter's policies illegal as well? They authorized the same exact things. I haven't found a liberal yet or is disputing this point. All the liberals seem to have disappeared, curiously. Your reasoning really makes no logical sense whatsoever. Bush can wiretap without warrants, but its illegal, and he's not doing it to provide security. Then why exactly would he do it. And why exactly would Clinton, Reagan, and Carter DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

 

[DawnCt1]

So were Clinton and Carter's policies illegal as well. They authorized the same exact things. I haven't found a liberal yet or is disputing this point. All the liberals seem to have disappeared, curiously. Your reasoning really makes no logical sense whatsoever. Bush can wiretap without warrants, but its illegal, and he's not doing it to provide security. Then why exactly would he do it. And why exactly would Clinton, Reagan, and Carter DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

And Clinton's Justiced Dept. permitted physical warrantless searches. Furthermore, we don't even know if the wire taps that President Bush permitted were on U.S. citizens or just people who happened to be inside the country.

 

[dcentity2000]

UN -- Billions to Saddam under food for oil bribery program.
Iraq -- 0

Iraqi's give their thank you's to the US not the UN.

UN wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Arafat wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

What do people want when barbaric dictators are killing their families and fellow countrymen -- a UN resolution or the US Marines?

Nobel peace prize: sore point
Joe: fail

[EDIT] I found a picture for you!

Rich::

The US and its allies will succeed where the bribe-taking, emasculated UN has failed.

EDIT: Nobel peace prize: very sore point



Rich::

 

[crcormier]

From the American Progress Report:

DEBUNKING THE WAR RESOLUTION MYTH: President Bush said on Monday that he did not have to secure warrants to spy on Americans because "after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the same case, in greater detail. But Congress clearly did not intend for the AUMF passed after 9/11 to authorize such activities. When the authorization was debated on September 14, 2001, members of Congress were extremely clear about the limited authority it gave the President. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) noted that it provided "no new or additional grant of powers to the President." Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) argued, "Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept." Several additional statements here.

DEBUNKING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MYTH: Conservative activist Matt Drudge yesterday posted the following headline on his popular website: "Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search on Americans Without Court Order." This is false. Drudge highlights one sentence from an executive order issued by President Clinton in February 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order." But the order also includes the following text: "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act (FISA), 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 of FISA requires the Attorney General to certify that 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. In stark contrast, Bush’s program permits, for the first time ever, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Neither Clinton’s 1995 executive order, nor President Carter's 1979 executive order (which Drudge also claims allows warrantless searches of Americans) authorizes that.

DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony that "the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under FISA. It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches. The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore.

DEBUNKING THE ECHELON MYTH: Another variation of the "Clinton did it" argument involves a top-secret surveillance program employed by the Clinton administration, code-named Echelon. The conservative outlet NewsMax presents the basic case: "During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks." This is false. The Echelon program complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. Then-CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00: "We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."

 

[Tigger_Magic]

From the American Progress Report:

Well, yes indeed... this must be the truth because according to their website "Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility." Oh they also claim to be "nonpartisan."

 

[M:SteveO]

I am not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here. Liberals object to the idea of warrantless searches, which is exactly what Clinton and Carter and Bush did. All that stuff you put up really doesn't negate the fact that they approved the idea. And from the Washington Post in 1994 (which in case you don't remember was during the Clinton administration) in an article entitled "Administration Backing No-Warrant Searches":

Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Now I'm not really sure how you can debate that. And this from another former Justice Department official:

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
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.

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. 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."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "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."

We cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept. 11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

I am just flabergasted as to how you can possibly debate this. Gorelick simply stated: "the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Now that is a quote. You don't need to analyze it or anything. It says all you need to know. If you want accuse Bush of doing something illegal, then previous presidents did things illegal too.

 

[crcormier]

I am just flabergasted as to how you can possibly debate this. Gorelick simply stated: "the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Now that is a quote. You don't need to analyze it or anything. It says all you need to know. If you want accuse Bush of doing something illegal, then previous presidents did things illegal too.

So you just choose to ignore the post that said this quote by Gorelick is from 1994 when no warrant physical searches were not covered by FISA and so in fact were not illegal at that time, and that FISA was amended in 1995 to require a warrant for physical searches?

ETA: Apparently it is possible to debate this.

 

[crcormier]

Well, yes indeed... this must be the truth because according to their website "Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility." Oh they also claim to be "nonpartisan."

I never claimed them to be non-partisan. I mean, heck, Progress is in their name. But I do find them to be a pretty verifiable source of information because their articles are filled with links to various other news sources when they cover a subject. Just like Drudge is not exactly non-partisan, but I find his site to be valuable because he does link to a variety of sources for news stories.