D'OH! Clinton's Excecutive Order of ELINT Without Court Order, D'OH! Carter Too!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

D'OH! There goes the "Imperialist Dictator" argument.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

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."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: 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."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Developing (http://drudgereport.com/flash8.htm)

More sure to come about the hypocracy of the left.....

[kakomu]

More sure to come about the hypocracy of the left.....
Did they actually search anyone?

Did they delegate the authority to authorize these searches to any FBI investigator?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

BTW, I'd just like to ad one thing.

Executive orders carry full weight and standing of Federal law unless recinded or declared unconstitutional.

For example; President Ford signed an Executive Order forbidding assination of foreign leaders or heads of state. That is the legal precedent cited by all government agencies when they categorically deny it happens as it is illegal and against American foreign policy.

So now that you're all complaining about Bush "illegally" ordering ELINT gathering on domestic to international or vice versa phone calls? You can blame Carter and Clinton who signed off on the executive orders that were never repealed or challenged legally or congressionally.

Sorry, maybe next time your wet dreams will come true.

[Quillion]

For foreign intelligence purposes, in "places where you wouldn't find, or would be unlikely to find information involving a US citizen." (from your post)

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibits wiretapping and searches of US citizens without court approval. Bush did. He is a traitor to the United States of America.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

EDIT for clarification: The executive order that the GOP/Conservative media/Political Hacks at the White House is/are using to obfuscate the blatant disregard for U.S. law that Bush has demonstrated here is simply an order clarifying the 1978 FISA. In no way does it conflict with the law as written.

[Quillion]

Second, executive orders do not carry the weight of federal law.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html
The answer rests in part with the growth of presidential rule through executive orders and national emergencies. Unfortunately, the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order—except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers.

The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking.

Nevertheless, the courts have acted in two cases—in 1952 and 1996—laying down the principles of the matter; the nation's governors have just forced President Clinton to rewrite a federalism executive order; and now there are two proposals in Congress that seek to limit presidential lawmaking. Those developments offer hope that constitutional limits—and the separation and division of powers, in particular—may eventually be restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Executive orders do not have legal force by themselves. Most are simply orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.

If they did, why would the president submit a budget when all he would have to do is issue an "executive order"?



On a personal note, I'm still shocked as hell that you're supporting this president through this. I thought, and you claim to be, that you are/were a Libertarian. This should shock and infuriate you. It's a little sad to see you toeing the company line.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'm not at all infuriated.

To the contrary I will express my same statement in regards to all terrorist suspects.

Guilty until proven innocent, no legal standing, no rights.

Scum of the Earth deserve no quarter.

The line between executive orders and proclamations is often blurred. Both executive orders and proclamations can have legal effect. Generally, executive orders are used by a president to exercise executive authority. For example, E.O. 12370 was issued to create an emergency board to investigate a railroad dispute. Proclamations are often used to announce something ceremonial in nature, such as National Medal of Honor Day (Proclamation 6263).
University of Florida Law School (http://www.law.ufl.edu/lic/guides/federal/orders.shtml)

If Executive Orders had no legal weight no legislation is on the books to prohibit the U.S. government to assasinate foreign heads of state.

They do have legal standing. Otherwise they have zero meaning.

The reason the budgetary process and taxation cannot be done by Executive Order is because spending of government money and raising taxes/tarrifs are clearly enumerated rights to the legislative branch in Article I, Section II of the Constitution.

[usickenme]

Hey numbnuts..both of those orders were still within the context of FISA which means it the "target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power"

Developing...into a picture of PAD blowing Drudge.

You lose; try again

[alonzomourning23]

PAD, how exactly do you prove someone innocent when you pick them up off the street and conduct everything in secret (preventing others from testifying in his defense)?

[Quillion]

I'm not at all infuriated.

To the contrary I will express my same statement in regards to all terrorist suspects.

Guilty until proven innocent, no legal standing, no rights.

Scum of the Earth deserve no quarter.

The line between executive orders and proclamations is often blurred. Both executive orders and proclamations can have legal effect. Generally, executive orders are used by a president to exercise executive authority. For example, E.O. 12370 was issued to create an emergency board to investigate a railroad dispute. Proclamations are often used to announce something ceremonial in nature, such as National Medal of Honor Day (Proclamation 6263).
University of Florida Law School (http://www.law.ufl.edu/lic/guides/federal/orders.shtml)

If Executive Orders had no legal weight no legislation is on the books to prohibit the U.S. government to assasinate foreign heads of state.

They do have legal standing. Otherwise they have zero meaning.

The reason the budgetary process and taxation cannot be done by Executive Order is because spending of government money and raising taxes/tarrifs are clearly enumerated rights to the legislative branch in Article I, Section II of the Constitution.

Let's hope that you're never a terrorism suspect, but that is a society that I do not want to live in. You can wish to trade your freedom for security, but don't try to give mine away.

Your assessment is correct that there is no legislation on the books that prohibits the US from assassinating foreign heads of state. Simply an executive order that presidents continue to abide by. Because there is no federal law stating otherwise, Carter's executive order stands.

Allow me to use a better example than a budget, a current one. Couldn't the president, since he wants more law enforcement power, simply issue an executive order permenantly codifying the "Patriot Act", Granting "Guest Worker Rights", prohibiting gay marriage, or rescinding the 1978 FISA for example?

He can do none of those things. The president's job is to enforce the law, not create or change it. He can't even (constitutionally) introduce bills into congress. He has to arrange a sponsor.

A federal law is on the books prohibiting the federal government from surveilling U.S. citizens without a court order, a warrant. Bush countermanded that in the interest "National Security". He tore up the Constitution to save the Constitution, so to speak. But in this case it didn't need saving.

The court has to approve or reject the application within 72 hours. The government can begin the surveillance and apply for a warrant retroactively. Of 13,000 applications, 4 were rejected. Why didn't he just ask, unless there was no evidence of terrorist ties? Unless he was sure they were going to be rejected, unless there were thousands, or hundreds of thousands of communications to sift through.

He cannot simply take more powers for himself.

[Drocket]

Let's hope that you're never a terrorism suspect, but that is a society that I do not want to live in. You can wish to trade your freedom for security, but don't try to give mine away.

Anyone happen to catch the exchange on the floor of the Senate that happened today?

Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."
Sen. Russ Feingold: "Give me liberty or give me death." (http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/122005/patriot.html)

A truly great retort, one that perfectly illustrates what this entire debate is about. Our founding fathers believed that liberty, justice and freedom were worth more than life itself. The Republicans, it appears, disagree with that assessment.

[RedvsBlue]

Anyone happen to catch the exchange on the floor of the Senate that happened today?



A truly great retort, one that perfectly illustrates what this entire debate is about. Our founding fathers believed that liberty, justice and freedom were worth more than life itself. The Republicans, it appears, disagree with that assessment.

You forgot the retort to the retort: "Talk is cheap".

[Drocket]

You forgot the retort to the retort: "Talk is cheap".

Talk IS cheap. WOULD Feingold give his life for abstract concepts such as freedom? I have no idea. What I do know, though, is that Cornyn today (well, yesterday at this point) went on the floor of the Senate and publicly spit on the ideals that our Founding Fathers built our country on. They WERE willing to give their lives for freedom, and Cornyn has all but called them fools for doing so.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

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.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

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."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

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."

FISA 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.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But 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.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
Link (http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-0512210142dec21,1,2062394.story?coll=chi-technology-hed)

Now, which one of you is going to stand up and argue against a former Assistant AG for Clinton on the issue.

[MrBadExample]

You know Dubya is in deep doo-doo when his best defense is "Clinton did it too!"

That should rally the Republicans to impeach him. :lol:

[E-Z-B]

Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."
Sen. Russ Feingold: "Give me liberty or give me death."


:applause:

I'm going to add that to my sig.

[MrBadExample]

Shot down!

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/)

[E-Z-B]

And...........exit stage left: PAD. :lol:

[rabidmonkeys]

And...........exit stage left: PAD. :lol:

Just like every other thread he starts. He hears something on 104.7 and runs to the keyboard, giggling as he types. "HA, wait till those bastards hear this, now they will all know the power and strength of Republicanism!"

Cut to 4 hours later when everything has been fact checked and proven wrong.

{sounds of crickets}

PAD goes to bed, wakes up the next day knowing he can't visit his old post because its been shredded and his credibility has somehow sunk even lower. Seeking solice, he turns on the radio. And the cycle begins again.

[evanft]

God damn, PAD got owned in the ass so hard.

[1modernboy]

Shot down!

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/)

Well, if... if you're gonna brings in facts and logic to the equation... well... I'm... I'm just not gonna play! ;)

[Quillion]

Shot down!

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans (http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/)

That's what I've been saying all along.
Stuff.
PAD, unless you're going to address the central issue of warrantless searches violating Americans' 4th ammendment rights, I have nothing more to say in this thread.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

None of you will even admit one simple thing.

These weren't wiretaps on Americans talking to Americans. This wasn't a "spy" effort on anti-war activists, DNC leadership, Congressional opponents or special interest groups.

They were terrorist suspects.

Denial just isn't a river in Africa.

You can say PWN3D all you want. Just know, you're all wrong.

When the Democrats protest, seek out cameras, appear as talking heads and say they want hearings it's all political posturing BS. They don't want Clinton put on the stand. They don't want Carter put on the stand. They don't want former AG's and Assistant AG's put on the stand, like the one that wrote the Chicago Tribune article saying what was done clearly had legal and historical precedent. The only thing the left wants is the appearence of wrong doing.

They don't want the truth of the matter on public display because the facts would bury them neck deep.

You've all swallowed the Kool Aid and mainstream propaganda on this issue. Factcheck.org? Hell man, why not just post "experts" from democraticunderground.com.

BTW for those that suggested that my follow up article this morning came from talk radio? I posted it well before any national show was even broadcast today.

You want to say this violated 4th Ammendment rights? Bring forth one example of a harmed citizen or someone that was charged through information obtained with a non-illegal "illegal" wiretap.

Without no victim how can there be a crime. You're all talking in the theorhetical and have no examples to bring forth to show real harm done to completely innocent citizens.

The central tennant of every argument put forth today and yesterday has one common thread throughout.... you all hate George W. Bush. That's all you have. That's all you care about.

I can't wait to see how bad Democrats get skunked again in 2006. They're a shameful disgrace of a political party and you're all willing lemmings following the lead about to go over the cliff.

Hey, fine by me. The country needs more issues like this to clearly illustrate how incapable the left is of engaging and realizing the nature of the enemy. I hope to get three or four more stories like this in the next year.

You'll lose as bad as you did in 1994.

[evanft]

I can't see PAD's post, but I'll assume it's about his ass hurting from being owned so hard.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I can't see PAD's post, but I'll assume it's about his ass hurting from being owned so hard.

NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NYAH NYAH NYAH YOU DON'T EXIST! NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M A CHICKENSHIT THAT CAN'T READ AN OPPSING VIEWPOINT! NYAH NYAH NYAH.

Corrected for truth.

[evanft]

Again, can't see the post, but it's a safe bet that PAD is confirming what I said about his anal pain and is discussing the treatment he will seek for his afflicition.

[Kirin Lemon]

I can't see PAD's post, but I'll assume it's about his ass hurting from being owned so hard.
Pretty much, yeah.

[evanft]

Pretty much, yeah.

I'm Miss fucking Cleo, aren't I?

http://www.thewavemag.com/images/articles/8001-9000/8686.jpg

Call me now for your free readin'!

[MrBadExample]

You're really making this too easy now. I don't even think you're trying anymore.

These weren't wiretaps on Americans talking to Americans.
Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=4ef661fe7d71febe&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

They were terrorist suspects.
Terrorist suspects not terrorists. We do still have a presumption of innocence for citizens (although I'm sure Bush is working against that).

You even go on to say (in your eloquent, double-negative style) Without no victim how can there be a crime.
I'll presume these terrorist suspects haven't killed anyone yet unless you can show me otherwise. In the meantime, it's perfectly understandable and prudent for Bush to eavesdrop on people with ties to terrorism. That's why FISA was set up. All he had to do was get a warrant. So far, he, nor you, nor anyone else, has given a reasonable explanation why a FISA warrant would undermine the War on Terror™.

PWNED (I had to do it)

[Danro]

Not that I agree with him, but here so you can see what he wrote.

None of you will even admit one simple thing.

These weren't wiretaps on Americans talking to Americans. This wasn't a "spy" effort on anti-war activists, DNC leadership, Congressional opponents or special interest groups.

They were terrorist suspects.

Denial just isn't a river in Africa.

You can say PWN3D all you want. Just know, you're all wrong.

When the Democrats protest, seek out cameras, appear as talking heads and say they want hearings it's all political posturing BS. They don't want Clinton put on the stand. They don't want Carter put on the stand. They don't want former AG's and Assistant AG's put on the stand, like the one that wrote the Chicago Tribune article saying what was done clearly had legal and historical precedent. The only thing the left wants is the appearence of wrong doing.

They don't want the truth of the matter on public display because the facts would bury them neck deep.

You've all swallowed the Kool Aid and mainstream propaganda on this issue. Factcheck.org? Hell man, why not just post "experts" from democraticunderground.com.

BTW for those that suggested that my follow up article this morning came from talk radio? I posted it well before any national show was even broadcast today.

You want to say this violated 4th Ammendment rights? Bring forth one example of a harmed citizen or someone that was charged through information obtained with a non-illegal "illegal" wiretap.

Without no victim how can there be a crime. You're all talking in the theorhetical and have no examples to bring forth to show real harm done to completely innocent citizens.

The central tennant of every argument put forth today and yesterday has one common thread throughout.... you all hate George W. Bush. That's all you have. That's all you care about.

I can't wait to see how bad Democrats get skunked again in 2006. They're a shameful disgrace of a political party and you're all willing lemmings following the lead about to go over the cliff.

Hey, fine by me. The country needs more issues like this to clearly illustrate how incapable the left is of engaging and realizing the nature of the enemy. I hope to get three or four more stories like this in the next year.

You'll lose as bad as you did in 1994.

[evanft]

And Danro is added to the list.

[Quillion]

When the Democrats protest, seek out cameras, appear as talking heads and say they want hearings it's all political posturing BS. They don't want Clinton put on the stand. They don't want Carter put on the stand. They don't want former AG's and Assistant AG's put on the stand, like the one that wrote the Chicago Tribune article saying what was done clearly had legal and historical precedent. The only thing the left wants is the appearence of wrong doing.

...

You want to say this violated 4th Ammendment rights? Bring forth one example of a harmed citizen or someone that was charged through information obtained with a non-illegal "illegal" wiretap.

Without no victim how can there be a crime. You're all talking in the theorhetical and have no examples to bring forth to show real harm done to completely innocent citizens.

We're not talking about a prison 8,000 miles away, searches or wiretaps on foreign nationals in this country or abroad. We're also not talking about political parties or political gain. We're obviously not talking about people with clear ties to extremeism, since the administration didn't get the warrants.

What we are talking about is spying on American citizens by our own government. Nobody has been charged. That's the best example of how frivolous these searches have been. The only possible reason that I can think of that they didn't get the warrants is that there were to many to get approved, or that they had no evidence in the first place.

As far as violations of our 4th ammendment rights, the administration has admitted to a secret eavesdropping program at least 30 times.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1416154&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
People who have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations. No mention of these people's legal status. If the link was so clear, why not get court approval? One can only conclude that they are American citizens, and the court would have rejected the warrant for some reason. Read the 4th ammendment again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_%28law%29) shall issue, but upon probable cause (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause), supported by Oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath) or affirmation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmation), and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Stop shutting off the thinking centers of your brain because the administration throws around the designation "terrorist suspects".

I would like to read this Chicago Tribune article.

[Quillion]

And Danro is added to the list.

Please stop posting.

[1modernboy]

I think the insinuation that anyone, and I mean motherfucking anyone, on this board is not (politically) biased one way or another is asinine. If some of us have “swallowed the Kool Aid” of the liberal media on the issues at hand, it could be likewise asserted that others have gladly purchased the Nikes and lined up for the ritual castration of the paranoid Right with its ersatz righteousness, misplaced animosity, and delusions of persecution.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Quillion, the Tribune article is on the previous page. It was an opinion piece written by a former Clinton Associate Attorney General.

There are facts that no one wishes to discuss or acknowledge with this issue.

1. Point to point communications in the United States cannot be intercepted without warrant. Though since they can be obtained after the fact that in itself is nearly an abstract.

2. Calls intercepted internationally despite having a domestic and a foreign party are 100% legal. If a satellite or listening post in Europe, Middle East or Asia captures voice or data transmissions originating from or flowing into the U.S. that information is 100% legally obtained.

If a call between terror suspect 1 in America and terror suspect 2 in Austria is intercepted via satellite, microwave or other eavesdropping methods in Europe through Echelon the call is not subject to U.S. wiretapping laws.

What has been clearly stated time and time again is that while there have been a domestic end to this the second end was foreign. This is where the law, precedent and executive orders provide not just political cover but unquestioned legal authority.

The inaccurate MSM portrayal and what the baying sheep on this board keep repeating is that this was domestic spying akin to J Edgar Hoover's keeping of private files, infiltrating civil rights groups etc. It's not even close.

It's more akin to the monitoring of suspected American spies.

Clinton's XO on the issue dealt specifically with Aldrich Ames passing along information to the Russians and the KGB successor.

We're talking about American citizens, aliens legal or illegal, having questionable contact with foreign nationals in foreign countries with either or both ends having suspected terrorist ties.

Of course all of that has to be completely ignored because it ruins the talking points of the vs. Board members and they hate George W Bush so they need the facts to be different than the reality.

[MrBadExample]

What has been clearly stated time and time again is that while there have been a domestic end to this the second end was foreign.
That completely ignores this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=4ef661fe7d71febe&ei=5094&partner=homepage) that they also intercepted purely domestic calls WITHOUT WARRANTS.

[Quillion]

1. Point to point communications in the United States cannot be intercepted without warrant. Though since they can be obtained after the fact that in itself is nearly an abstract.

...

We're talking about American citizens, aliens legal or illegal, having questionable contact with foreign nationals in foreign countries with either or both ends having suspected terrorist ties.


Thank you for the intelligent response.

1) I don't consider that some intra-US calls were obtained an abstract at all, I consider it the central issue at hand.


But if everything else you have said is true, why not just get approval? 13,000 applications, 4 denied. Approval within 72 hours, and surveillance can begin immediately, with the warrant/court order acting retroactively.

It can't get much easier than that. Unless the ties aren't as strong as the government is suggesting.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Technically Verizon, SBC or any other regional phone company running line tests during a call could constitute "interception" if they're testing line quality.

First two paragraphs of MBE's posted "example" of malfeasence....

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

Hardly meets the threshold of an out of control, dictatorial President don't you think? Especially given the fact that the article in question is from the New York Times?

Now, for example, how are you ever rightfully ever to determine the point to point origin and receipt of VOIP calls.

By the threshold members of this board and the baying sheep of the left here's the easy example for terrorists to ensure secure communication. Buy two Vonage kits, give them both domestic phone numbers. Wallah, the left has now given them completely untappable secure communications.

Apparently no one sees the folly in this.

I can take a Vonage kit, Voice Wing kit (Verizon's VOIP service.) to any country with a broadband connection and my domestic U.S. number will look like, to any caller, like a domestic or even local call.

[MrBadExample]

It's just a shame Bush can't follow the law and get a warrant.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

How many times do I need to state, restate, clarify and draw the example that calls intercepted internationally do not require a warrant?

You can't possibly be this dense.

[Drocket]

How many times do I need to state, restate, clarify and draw the example that calls intercepted internationally do not require a warrant?
Considering that you're still wrong, a whole lotta times. Internationally intercepted calls do not require a warrent - UNLESS ONE OF THE PARTIES IS A US CITIZEN. You can cherry-pick lines from executive orders from Clinton until the cows come home, it doesn't change the fact that he never, ever authorized spying against US citizens without a warrant. Why? Because its illegal.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Drocket, you're as wrong as the Flat Eath Society.

Call intercepted overseas require no warrant.

Period.

[Drocket]

You can repeat it until you're blue in the face: doesn't make it true.

Its nice to see that you agree the Flat Earth Society is wrong, though. At least you have SOME connections to reality.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Prove to us you're right.

Back up your claim.

[Drocket]

Shall we start with the actual law (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html) under which Carter and Clinton gave their executive orders?

(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

Which is to say that its only legal to wiretap without a warrant if BOTH ends are on foreign soil, AND no US citizen is involved. The only exception is 'technical intelligence', specifically excluding spoken communications.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Wow, you just proved my point for me. Thanks.

The President, through the AG, may authorize ELINT without a court order, aimed at non-citizens, relating to foreign powers for the acquisition of technical intelligence.

My point exactly.

Thanks for playing.

[Drocket]

Yes, he (Carter and Clinton) did, as specifically authorized by Congress. How exactly does this relate to Bush's breaking of the law, though? In case you've forgotten, Bush authorized wiretapping of voice lines within the United States, which is specifically made illegal by the section of law I previous quoted.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Bring us proof.

There is none. Go find us examples of people that have had their phone lines tapped, pressed charges against the government for such invasions. Bring us examples of citizens that have been indicted, charged, tried or found guilty from illegal wiretaps. Find us someone that has been let off on charges due to illegal wiretaps.

Go find us these phantom instances you insist have taken place. Bring us proof.

Hearsay and conjecture are not proof.

BTW, the law you used as a flawed example only relates to common carriers. VOIP has not been determined to fall under that same category. Neither has email or any kind of IM technology.

[Drocket]

I really don't need to, since Bush has admitted to such crimes on public radio.

[mykevermin]

This page makes me giggle; good form Drocket.

[Quillion]

Bring us proof.

There is none. Go find us examples of people that have had their phone lines tapped, pressed charges against the government for such invasions. Bring us examples of citizens that have been indicted, charged, tried or found guilty from illegal wiretaps. Find us someone that has been let off on charges due to illegal wiretaps.

Go find us these phantom instances you insist have taken place. Bring us proof.

Hearsay and conjecture are not proof.

BTW, the law you used as a flawed example only relates to common carriers. VOIP has not been determined to fall under that same category. Neither has email or any kind of IM technology.

The reason there have been no complaints/people pressing charges is because this was done completely in secret, without oversight. We didn't even know it was going on until Bush failed to kill a NYT story (which they held for a year on his request).

despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soilhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa.html?hp&ex=1135227600&en=4ef661fe7d71febe&ei=5094&partner=homepage

We don't have specific examples, but the administration itself admits what they were doing. Spoken conversations, between someone in a foreign nation, and somoene in the US. It doesn't get much clearer than that.

Also, the law doesn't cover VOIP and IM, but I'm sure legal precedent will include VOIP in the description of "voice/spoken conversations"

Second, as to tracking VOIP based on phone number: you could easily determine the location of someone using VOIP, regardless of the phone number used. You simply track the IP. An IP is assigned first based on geographical location.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

This page makes me giggle; good form Drocket.

He's proven NOTHING.

You're applauding failure?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Also, the law doesn't cover VOIP and IM, but I'm sure legal precedent will include VOIP in the description of "voice/spoken conversations"

Second, as to tracking VOIP based on phone number: you could easily determine the location of someone using VOIP, regardless of the phone number used. You simply track the IP. An IP is assigned first based on geographical location.

So IP masking is now impossible? Sorry, if message board posters use it to circumvent bannings so can a terrorist use it to mask a VOIP call.

Another interesting technology that isn't covered by common carrier restrictions is your phone service through a cable company. Cable companies are not regulated as common carriers.

Also, the law doesn't cover VOIP and IM, but I'm sure legal precedent will include VOIP in the description of "voice/spoken conversations"

Second, as to tracking VOIP based on phone number: you could easily determine the location of someone using VOIP, regardless of the phone number used. You simply track the IP. An IP is assigned first based on geographical location.

So IP masking is now impossible? Sorry, if message board posters use it to circumvent bannings so can a terrorist use it to mask a VOIP call.

Another interesting technology that isn't covered by common carrier restrictions is your phone service through a cable company. Cable companies are not regulated as common carriers.

[E-Z-B]

Those examples might be coming soon. Howard Dean's filing a FOIA:

Ms. Elizabeth Farris
Supervisory Paralegal
Office of Legal Counsel
Room 5515
950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-2038

Re: Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Ms. Farris:

This letter constitutes a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. §552 (“FOIA”), and is submitted by the undersigned individuals who are concerned about the Bush Administration’s reported decision to undertake a massive program of spying on American citizens in apparent violation of the law and the Constitution.

President Bush stated on December 19 that his legal authority to have the National Security Agency conduct such spying derives from his inherent constitutional powers and from the congressional authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan. Of course, these assertions made no sense, in view of the express statutory provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. §§1801 et seq. that flatly prohibit any such spying without a court order. It is the duty of your Office to advise the President on precisely such questions relating to his constitutional and statutory authority. The American people certainly have a right to know whether the President has knowingly acted in blatant violation of the law or believed he was acting within the law based on advice of your office.


· We therefore request all documents in the possession, custody or control of the Office of Legal Counsel, prepared on or after January 20, 2001, referring, relating to or discussing the authority of the President of the United States to authorize any agency of the U.S. Government, including but not limited to the National Security Agency, to conduct electronic surveillance of a United States person, as defined in FISA, 50 U.S.C. §1801(i), or where there is a substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of a communication to which such a United States person is a party, without obtaining a court order as required by FISA.


We urge you, in considering this request, to forego invoking Exemption 5 to FOIA allowing the government to withhold documents based on deliberative process or attorney client privilege. In these exceptional circumstances, where the President of the United States may have acted in gross disregard of the law and the Constitution, the stakes for the American people are too high for the Bush Administration and the Department of Justice to hide behind legal privileges as an excuse for withholding these documents.

The undersigned requestors fall in the category of “other requestors” for purposes of FOIA and the Department’s FOIA fee regulations. On behalf of the undersigned requestors, the Democratic National Committee will pay any fees for searching or copying the requested records.

We look forward to your response within twenty (20) working days as the law requires. If you have any questions or need any further information concerning this request, please contact the first signatory below, Governor Howard Dean. Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
Governor Howard Dean
430 South Capitol Street SE
Washington, DC 20003

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Good old Coward. Perfectly willing to play the fool and foil for easy partisan attacks. God love him.

I'm glad he continues to have his interests in topics unrelated to fundraising, his main job, just makes beating donkeys that much easier.

He's going after NSA activities and documentation with this. He might as well ask where the alien bodies are hidden.

[Drocket]

He's proven NOTHING.

You're applauding failure?

I've proven that what Bush admitted to publicly was illegal. I've also proven that your attempt to equate Bush's actions with Carter/Clinton's is entirely false: Carter/Clinton's executive orders specifically mandate that said spying is performed within the laws created by congress. Bush's executive order explicitly violates the law by authorizing wiretapping of voice communications on lines within the US.

You're now reduced to technical arguments over the differences between telephone lines and VOIP (despite the fact that it probably doesn't matter, because the law specifies voice communication without making reference to the technology used.) I'm taking this as a win.

[Quillion]

This page makes me giggle; good form Drocket.

No love for me? I'm hurt.

Those examples might be coming soon. Howard Dean's filing a FOIA:

Good. I'd like to see more information. I still don't like Dean.

So IP masking is now impossible? Sorry, if message board posters use it to circumvent bannings so can a terrorist use it to mask a VOIP call.

Another interesting technology that isn't covered by common carrier restrictions is your phone service through a cable company. Cable companies are not regulated as common carriers.

Surely you're not saying that the NSA is limited to using the same tools that the moderators on a message board use? Because I assure you, IP masking is not the last word by any stretch of the imaginiation.

The cable carrier? Now you're just being silly. What do you think that is? It's VOIP.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

N.Y. Times, Get Your N.S.A. Stories Straight
Posted by Mithridate Ombud on December 20, 2005 - 13:32.
Dear journalists of the New York Times,

Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications.

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES
By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Reverses 1979 Ruling

The Oct. 21 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit involves the Government's surveillance of a Michiganborn lawyer, Abdeen Jabara, who for many years has represented Arab-American citizens and alien residents in court. Some of his clients had been investigated by the F.B.I.

Mr. Jabara sued the F.B.I, and the National Security Agency, and in 1979 Federal District Judge Ralph M. Freeman ruled that the agency's acquisition of several of Mr. Jabara's overseas messages violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free of ''unreasonable searches and seizures.'' Last month's decision reverses that ruling.

In earlier court proceedings, the F.B.I. acknowledged that it then disseminated the information to 17 other law-enforcement or intelligence agencies and three foreign governments.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals held, ''The simple fact remains that the N.S.A. lawfully acquired Jabara's messages.''

The court ruled further that the lawyer's Fourth Amendment rights ''were not violated when summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages'' were furnished to the investigative bureau ''irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent.''
Link (http://newsbusters.org/node/3298)

You're only winning in your own mind and amongst the Kool Aid drinkers.

[Quillion]

STUFF

Link (http://newsbusters.org/node/3298)

You're only winning in your own mind and amongst the Kool Aid drinkers.

You should read a little further down before posting.
Though it is a very interesting precedent, and kudos to Mithridate for finding it, it doesn't seem to apply to the subject at hand.

The decision (which the Supreme Court later declined to review) was really not about whether the government could conduct surveillance without warrants, but whether intelligence agencies who already had information could pass information on to the FBI even though the FBI didn't have a warrant. The lower court's decision read, "We do not believe that an
expectation that information lawfully in the possession of a government
agency will not be disseminated, without a warrant, to another
government agency is an expectation that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable."

The difference between the surveillance conducted on Jabara and the surveillance in question now is that, in fact, no surveillance was conducted on Jabara - the NSA was monitoring international communications for certain key words, and intercepting those communications that contained those key words. Some of Jabara's communications were thus intercepted. The issue today is that FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, deals with "intentional" surveillance, which appears to be what the Bush administration was allowing without warrants, something FISA makes clear is a no-no.

That was from the link you posted. You just reinforced my/our argument.

[kakomu]

Someone else goes a little further on that page and says:

according to FISA, the NSA can conduct random and undirected interceptions of foreign communications if those communications contain certain key words. (I'm not a supporter of that, by the way, but regardless...) What FISA does not allow is warrantless directed surveillance, that is, a specific wiretap against all communications of a certain person, and that appears to be, by Bush's own statements, what was going on

[rabidmonkeys]

Frankly, this has gotten off-topic. The original post, which we proved incorrect and now through PAD's factless rhetoric has gotten swept under the rug, (just like a good republican bait and switch), was about clinton and carter supposedly doing the same thing, not about whether Bush was in the right.

[Quillion]

Frankly, this has gotten off-topic. The original post, which we proved incorrect and now through PAD's factless rhetoric has gotten swept under the rug, (just like a good republican bait and switch), was about clinton and carter supposedly doing the same thing, not about whether Bush was in the right.

Yes and no. The OP maintained subordinately, that Bush was in the right, because others had done it before him.

I don't think PAD will be back.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Still no one has challeged or refuted the legal opinion of one of Clinton's Associate Attorney Generals.

You know, someone that actually worked on this type of case law within the government and actually knows what they're talking about?

Say all you want about how you think I personally am wrong but not one person has assailed the facts and opinions of the legal expert I put forth.

[kakomu]

Still no one has challeged or refuted the legal opinion of one of Clinton's Associate Attorney Generals.

You know, someone that actually worked on this type of case law within the government and actually knows what they're talking about?

Say all you want about how you think I personally am wrong but not one person has assailed the facts and opinions of the legal expert I put forth.

I think the key word here is "opinion". Much like assholes, everyone has one. Bush's opinion is that he can circumvent the 4th amendment. Guess what? If he does, he's liable to be punished. So what if a previous atty Gen has the opinion that Bush was in the right? Gonzales' opinion was that it was A-OK to torture prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Look how well that turned out. Just because someone high ranking lawyer has an opinion does not mean that he is correct.

That being said, we've already provided more than enough evidence to show that A) NSA only has authority to search transmissions for keywords
without a warrant and
B) NSA has no authority to direct searches towards any single person or group.

Both of which prove that Bush commited a crime, outside of his open acknowledgement of perpetrating the crime.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Of course his opinion is more valuable in the free market, legal and government circles and more likely based in truth, law and precedent than a message board asshole such as yourself whose main reason for declaring guilt is "I HATE GEORGE W BUSH.".

[kakomu]

Of course his opinion is more valuable in the free market, legal and government circles and more likely based in truth, law and precedent than a message board asshole such as yourself whose main reason for declaring guilt is "I HATE GEORGE W BUSH.".

A) Just because his opinion is worth more doesn't make it right (*points at Gonzales again*)
B) You didn't refute anything. Just reverting back to your usual asshattery.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What do I need to refute?

That your opinion isn't worthless? You have nothing close to expert status, background, education, qualification, aptitude or practical experience in the legality of foreign intelligence gathering. You cite no persons expert opinion, no statute, no precedent, no historical context, offer nothing insightful, factual or intellectually honest and just say....

I hate Geroge W. Bush?

Who's the asshat? You bring nothing to the table or substance. You're the forensic equivilent of bringing green bean casarole to a Thanksgiving dinner and go home thinking you fed the entire family with your paltry and insignificant contribution to the cause.

[kakomu]

What do I need to refute?

That your opinion isn't worthless? You have nothing close to expert status, background, education, qualification, aptitude or practical experience in the legality of foreign intelligence gathering. You cite no persons expert opinion, no statute, no precedent, no historical context, offer nothing insightful, factual or intellectually honest and just say....

I hate Geroge W. Bush?

Who's the asshat? You bring nothing to the table or substance. You're the forensic equivilent of bringing green bean casarole to a Thanksgiving dinner and go home thinking you fed the entire family with your paltry and insignificant contribution to the cause.
Ah ha, so any and all posts prior to my previous post (regardless of the poster in question) mean nothing to you?

That being said, what exactly do you know of my education, background and expertise? Put your intelligence gathering to the test, and let us found out how good you really are at this. That being said, just because an opinion is worth a lot doesn't make it right. That's something you can't refute. Sure, you can jeer at it, but, it really does nothing more but level your credibility from, well, 0 to negative.

Also, since you posed the question, YOU are the asshat. You seem to relish in providing blogquip after news article of intellectually devoid "arguments" that have more to do with convoluting the argument, point fingers, and blaming it all on "librrals" then to actually get to the point at hand. You are a living contradiction whose only purpose is to try and blame everything on liberals. Hell, the guy in your avatar delegated powers to Ollie North to sell weapons to the very terrorists you hate!

In the end, your posts degenerate into just being a mouthpiece of conservative bloggers and Washington Times/FOX news Op-Ed pieces. Or, they go even further into poorly written (possibly copied) rants with similes that make little to no sense rather than actually defending your position. You are a gigantic asshat.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Find me one place where I blamed liberals for anything.

Go ahead.

I'll wait.

[E-Z-B]

lol, Andrea Mitchell was forced to read a statement on MSNBC explaining how the RNC are a bunch of liars:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv

[mykevermin]

She was forced?

[E-Z-B]

She's a republican supporter, married to Greenspan. I'm sure the last thing she wanted to do was to expose the RNC lies.

[mykevermin]

Alan Greenspan?

[E-Z-B]

Yup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Mitchell)

[mykevermin]

Oy vey. That, in itself, doesn't make her a Republican hack. I can't say she is for certain, because I know better than to watch MSNBC (unless it's Olbermann, of course).

Look at Carville, for example.

[kakomu]

lol, Andrea Mitchell was forced to read a statement on MSNBC explaining how the RNC are a bunch of liars:

http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv
Wow, the press release did the exact same spin as PAD...and MSNBC caught on pretty fast.

[coffman]

You know what the best thing to come out of this is? For the first time, I heard a politician mention the word "impeachment". Between this and the Plame leak and the lies about Iraq, I believe Bush will not finish his second term. The Republicans will pay dearly during next year's elections (assuming the Democrats play their cards right and keep reminding the public of the sins of Bush, Frist, DeLay, et. al.).

[usickenme]

Still no one has challeged or refuted the legal opinion of one of Clinton's Associate Attorney Generals.

.

What is there to refute? The opinion doesn't authorize the president to search US citizens. The phrase "foreign intelligence searches" would indicate that the opinion is consistant with the FISA defination of suspects- which is a narrowly defined population.

The whole issue here is the presidents apparent broader search of US citizens. Gorelick didn't say that was okay.