Echalon Under the Clinton Administration.

[sodaseller]

Actually LadyDay, you are incredibly rude.

I think this a warning to "use all your well-learned politesse"

 

[sodaseller]

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.

You haven't looked - what you state is false. Not debatable. Look at the first thread on identifying an unconstitutional act

 

[Tigger_Magic]

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.

Just because someone links to some "news sources" doesn't make them reliable. Just because something is posted on the Internet doesn't mean it is the truth.

 

[crcormier]

Just because someone links to some "news sources" doesn't make them reliable. Just because something is posted on the Internet doesn't mean it is the truth.

No, but a story that provides sources to back up their claims is more reputable than one without it.

 

[sodaseller]

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.

Your argument is a lie - delberately disseiminated to rile the rubes, and it worked

The text of the EO in question

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.

Note that the EO addresses section 102(a)(1) of the Act, and requires that the AG make the requisite certifications. I'm certain you never loked at the Act, because you would have seen the following had you did:

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court

Release date: 2005-03-17

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title,[/] a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

All EO 12139 is is the enabling EO to trigger Section (b), so that warrantless searches can occur of exclusively foreign communications, not involving a US citizen (or entity) and with minimization procedures taken to ensure no domestic communications are intercepted, or any involving a US citizen or national, all certified under oath to the court. That is the exact opposite of what Pres. Bush authorized and is being criticized for.
To ensure there is no confusion, the definitions in Sec 101 provide as follows:

Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—

and

“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.

 

[M:SteveO]

What liberals seem to object to is that these warrantless searches violate civil liberties. What Clinton and Carter did did the same thing that Bush's policies do - warrantless wiretaps. If you object to Bush's policy on ideological grounds, why don't you show the same frustration towards the same power that previous presidents have claimed under Constitutional grounds?

 

[sodaseller]

What liberals seem to object to is that these warrantless searches violate civil liberties. What Clinton and Carter did did the same thing that Bush's policies do - warrantless wiretaps. If you object to Bush's policy on ideological grounds, why don't you show the same frustration towards the same power that previous presidents have claimed under Constitutional grounds?

You're still lying. I think Bush corrupts you all - the cult of the soulless

 

[Judge Smails]

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.

Look it's simple. He has to get a court order at some point. If it's an emergency he can tap now and get a warrant in 72 hours...but he HAS TO GET A COURT ORDER. There has to be oversight. It's one of the things that separates us from a dictatorship.

Bush did one of two things here; here's either too arrogant to bother getting the warrant or he doesn't want to leave a paper trail on who he's tapping.

Your choice.

I'd advise some of you folks to read up on your recent history. Read a book on the Nixon years.

 

[dcentity2000]

What liberals seem to object to is that these warrantless searches violate civil liberties. What Clinton and Carter did did the same thing that Bush's policies do - warrantless wiretaps. If you object to Bush's policy on ideological grounds, why don't you show the same frustration towards the same power that previous presidents have claimed under Constitutional grounds?

If they indeed did that - and I'm not exactly an expert on the subject - then yes, I'd disagree with their actions too.



Rich::

 

[Tigger_Magic]

No, but a story that provides sources to back up their claims is more reputable than one without it.

I've found it helpful to always consider the source. Some people/sources have been shown to be a little more than fast and loose with the facts/truth. I've yet to find any single source/outlet that is 100% reliable 100% of the time.

 

[Puffy2]

Look it's simple. He has to get a court order at some point. If it's an emergency he can tap now and get a warrant in 72 hours...but he HAS TO GET A COURT ORDER. There has to be oversight. It's one of the things that separates us from a dictatorship.

Totally agree. Hopefully there will be an investigation, and, if a crime has been committed, an impeachment.

 

[crcormier]

I've found it helpful to always consider the source. Some people/sources have been shown to be a little more than fast and loose with the facts/truth. I've yet to find any single source/outlet that is 100% reliable 100% of the time.

I agree with that. All I am trying to say is that I find them to be a pretty reliable source of information, using various news outlets (Post, Times, WSJ, AP, etc.) as their documented sources for conclusions. I wasn't professing it to be the be all and end all of all things true all the time, but from looking at their work I also don't believe that it is justifiable to dismiss them as an unreliable source simply on the basis that they are a liberal organization.

 

[crcormier]

Look it's simple. He has to get a court order at some point. If it's an emergency he can tap now and get a warrant in 72 hours...but he HAS TO GET A COURT ORDER. There has to be oversight. It's one of the things that separates us from a dictatorship.

Bush did one of two things here; here's either too arrogant to bother getting the warrant or he doesn't want to leave a paper trail on who he's tapping.

Your choice.

I'd advise some of you folks to read up on your recent history. Read a book on the Nixon years.

Nice summation.

 

[dcentity2000]

I've found it helpful to always consider the source. Some people/sources have been shown to be a little more than fast and loose with the facts/truth. I've yet to find any single source/outlet that is 100% reliable 100% of the time.

I have to agree with you here. Cited facts are not always solid facts and it is important that all sources are scrutinised as thoroughly as is reasonable, on both sides.

I also have to agree with crcormier; even flimsy citation is better than no citation.



Rich::

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I also have to agree with crcormier; even flimsy citation is better than no citation.



Rich::

I can go along with that to a point. A flimsy citation is something, but I am reminded of Dan Rather's National Guard memos re: President Bush. Flimsy is better than nothing, but I'm not going to rush to hang my hat on it.

 

[momof2inPA]

MOre significantly, I will guess that there will always be those that do not understand the depth and lengths that this enemy will go.

Watch out, Dawn! They're behind you! They're living next door! They're watching your every move!

I can't believe you are buying into the paranoia that Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, and the others are feeding you. If we adequately protected our borders, there would be no chance of Al Qaeda being here, instead of the miniscule chance there is now. They should concentrate on screening immigrants and visitors and sealing our borders from illegals, instead of spying on U.S. citizens.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

If we adequately protected our borders, there would be no chance of Al Qaeda being here, instead of the miniscule chance there is now. They should concentrate on screening immigrants and visitors and sealing our borders from illegals, instead of spying on U.S. citizens.

I'll agree that we need to protect the boarders and do some serious screening of immigrants, but that's not a fool proof plan. Other Al Qaeda members could have slipped in to the country legally, be it for educational purposes or immigration and are just waiting for orders. Before I'm jumped all over and beaten, I'm not defending the President in what he is doing.

 

[momof2inPA]

Other Al Qaeda members could have slipped in to the country legally, be it for educational purposes or immigration and are just waiting for orders. Before I'm jumped all over and beaten, I'm not defending the President in what he is doing.

The idea of Al Qaeda members waiting under deep cover for years and years, living amongst us, and not being influenced toward our way of life, is an extremely remote possibility made popular by movies, but the less we watch our borders, the more likely it is that a terrorist will sneak in. Still, we ignore our borders and spy on U.S. citizens.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The idea of Al Qaeda members waiting under deep cover for years and years, living amongst us, and not being influenced toward our way of life, is an extremely remote possibility made popular by movies, but the less we watch our borders, the more likely it is that a terrorist will sneak in. Still, we ignore our borders and spy on U.S. citizens.

So was 9/11/2001 just a myth? The people that perpetrated that tragedy lived here for years, rejecting the influences of America. This idea is very plausible.

I will agree that not protecting our borders increases the threat. But I have no problem spying on any U.S. citizen anywhere who may be involved with terrorists.

 

[CapeCodTenor]

The idea of Al Qaeda members waiting under deep cover for years and years, living amongst us, and not being influenced toward our way of life, is an extremely remote possibility made popular by movies, but the less we watch our borders, the more likely it is that a terrorist will sneak in. Still, we ignore our borders and spy on U.S. citizens.

Can you say that with 100% certainty