More proof that liberals every thought and move are for political gain...
CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER
CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
More liberal hypocrisy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
As usual Drudge and York are making it up as they go along.
I can copy and paste quotes too:
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
That is the Att. Generals testimony...is he lying too? Everyone who has facts is always a liar to a lib.
Boortz digs for the facts about the liberals, and delivers:
From www.boortz.com
THE PSYCHE OF THE LEFT
I found this gem in James Taranto's on-line column yesterday. In 2003 a sociologist from Rutgers University named Ted Goertzel wrote a paper in which he offered some insight into the psyche of the left. Interesting reading. Here you go:
In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of "new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. . . .
The unwillingness to offer alternatives reveals a lack of self-confidence and self-esteem. If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism. They would run the risk that their ideas would fail, or would not seem persuasive to others. This is especially difficult for anti-capitalists after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has also been difficult in the war against terrorism because Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are such unsympathetic figures. Psychologically, it is easier to blame America for not finding a solution than it is to put one's own ideas on the line.
SOMETHING TO CONSIDER:
OK .. before we get into this, let's explore a scenario. Some reports over the weekend have suggested that this scenario might be more fact than fiction. U.S. Intelligence agencies overseas discover the phone number of Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. Osama makes a satellite phone call to a U.S. citizen living outside of Chicago. Nobody's home. Intelligence operatives are certain that bin Laden will try to place the call again, but it may be from a different phone. They know that Osama changes phones frequently, so there is no time to waste in mining this resources. Their best chance to intercept bin Laden's next phone call is to place a tap on the U.S. citizen's phone. The next phone call may be in a matter of minutes, or hours. There is no time to go before a court to get a wiretap order. So ... what do you do? Do you put the wiretap in place immediately, or do you take the chance of missing the next phone call from Osama while trying to get a court order? Now, before you answer, imagine that this might have been a phone call from bin Laden to Mohammed Atta an hour before Atta was to board that American Airlines flight in Boston. The call was bin Laden giving Atta the final go-ahead for the attacks of 9/11. Without a court order you intercept the call, discover the plot, and save 3000 lives. Wait for a court order and the 9/11 attacks go forward.
OK .. there's your scenario. You're the president. You've taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and to uphold its laws. Obviously this character living outside of Chicago has some ties to Osama bin Laden. Something may be in the works: another terrorist attack may be just hours away. Do you spend those hours trying to get a warrant? Or do you spend those hours trying to prevent the impending terrorist attack.
Now, with Bush there is, of course, no way he can win on this. In retrospect, if he goes ahead and orders the wiretaps on people who have clear ties to terrorism, he will be assailed by the left for violating the law and ignoring our rights. If it is later discovered that he was aware of someone in this country with direct ties to terrorism but didn't take immediate action to monitor their activities, he will be accused of ignoring clear threats to our country.
If you consider this situation fairly, you will probably come to the realization that you are just happy that it isn't you that has to make the decision as to how to proceed.
Another gem from Boortz :)
Yet another example of liberal hypocrisy at it's finest.
From Opinion Journal:
It reminds me of an episode of "Seinfeld" in which Jerry and George were suspected of being gay. Throughout the whole show, anytime anything potentially negative towards homosexuals was mentioned, someone would say, "Not that there's anything wrong with that!" This would give them coverage to be as vicious or insensitive toward the gay lifestyle as they were toward anything else. In later interviews, Jerry Seinfeld admitted that the phrase was added in to the scripts late just to give them coverage. It was a wink to political correctness, and it was funny because you knew it was just a wink.
Today's Democrats feel free to say anything they want about this war--including John Kerry's recent claims of war atrocities by the troops, and Howard Dean's feeling that the war is unwinnable--as long as they follow up with, "But I support the troops!" Every time I hear them say they support the troops I think of that "Seinfeld" episode. Both phrases ring hollow and insincere, calculated to give them coverage. Seinfeld's "coverage" was funny because you knew he didn't really mean it, and such is becoming the case with the Democrats.
Democrats don't seem to understand that they're in danger of becoming a tag-line joke.
This is an excellent idea. We may even be able to work it into our John Kerry* footnotes.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way thinks American servicemen are war criminals and terrorists. But he supports the troops!
James Taranto
Regarding Stephanie Rose's scenario:
The answer is easy, obvious, and and a win-win for the administration. The wire taps could be put in place and initiated WITHOUT FIRST getting a court order IF one was sought and granted within 72 hours. Then they'd have the wire tap when they needed it, the court order, AND they would be following the law.
Since FISA went into effect in 1978, thousands of warrants have been requested and granted. Fewer than 10 have been denied.
So, warrants are almost NEVER denied and you can get one up to three days AFTER the fact. Why would you need to bypass FISA? Because Clinton may have done it? This is your standard of behavior?
You're out of touch Jim. A lot can happen within 72 hours...a few bulidings blown up, a few jets blown up....etc. So if Bush waited 72 hours...after learning that bin Laden was contacting US citizens....see the scenario for the rest.
Bona Fide Proof that Jim "just ain't right".
you are right Jim, comparing one's self to Clinton should never be a standard of decent behavior
Read these 3 excerpts which clearly show that searches and wire tappings occurred while Clinton was in office....read the rationale given for these occurrences. Face it Jim, Bush did not do anything that any other President, Democrat or Republican would not have done under the same circumstances.
#1 Regarding the Aldrich Ames case. I don't see a word about certifications being done.
WAS THE COUNTERESPIONAGE INVESTIGATION COORDINATED PROPERLY WITH THE FBI?
48. Under Executive Order 12333, CIA is authorized to conduct counterintelligence activities abroad and to coordinate the counterintelligence activities of other agencies abroad. The Order also authorizes CIA to conduct counterintelligence activities in the United States, provided these activities are coordinated with the FBI. Under a 1988 CIA-FBI Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the FBI must be notified immediately when there is a reasonable belief that an individual may engage in activities harmful to the national security of the United States.
49. CIA-FBI cooperation in the Ames case after the spring of 1991 generally exceeded the coordination requirements under the 1988 MOU. The FBI could have taken over the Ames case completely in 1991 but apparently concluded that it did not have sufficient cause to open an intensive CI investigation directed specifically at Ames. The FBI officers who were part of the team were provided unprecedented access to CIA information related to Ames and to other CIA cases. These FBI officers indicate that they had full access to all of the CIA information they needed and requested. Once the FBI did take over the case in 1993, CIA cooperation with the Bureau was excellent, according to FBI and CIA accounts.
http://www.loyola.edu/dept/politics/intel/hitzrept.html
#2
FBI Special Agents and Investigative Specialists conducted intensive physical and electronic surveillance of Ames during a ten-month investigation. Searches of Ames's residence revealed documents and other information linking Ames to the Russian foreign intelligence service. On October 13, 1993, Investigative Specialists observed a chalk mark Ames made on a mailbox confirming to the Russians his intention to meet them in Bogota, Colombia. On November 1st, Special Agents observed him and, separately, his Russian handler in Bogota. When Ames planned foreign travel, including a trip to Moscow, as part of his official duties, a plan to arrest him was approved.
\
http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/ames/ames.htm
#3
"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.
http://nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
OOPS...Clinton DID authorize searches without warrants. OOHHH, so sorry to make you cry now that you know your comic book 'hero' did this too. AAAWWW Shucks for you Jim.
This is my favorite of the pastes.... from the very last (#3. Let's rub it in a bit so you remember how it feels.
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court.
Colin Powell on the spying program:
"My own judgment is that — it didn't seem to me, anyway, that it would have been that hard to go and get the warrants [through FISA]. And even in the case of an emergency, you go and do it [begin surveillance]. The law provides for that. And three days later, you let the court know what you have done, and deal with it that way." From an interview with George Stephanopoulos featured on ABC’s "Nightline."
This reiterates the most important point. There is nothing in the law that would keep the Bush administration from doing a wire-tap immediately with no waiting for a warrant. They just need to go to FISA within 72 hours of beginning the tap to get a retro-active warrant.
The issue, of course, is accountability. Nobody argues that the president shouldn't take steps necessary to protect the US. But somebody, in this case the FISA court, must be told what these steps are to make sure that the steps are not abusive of the US Contitution and US laws. Since there is nothing keeping the administration from doing a wire tap as and when needed as long as it is reported to FISA within 72 hours AFTER THE FACT (they've only rejected 6 out of thousands of rquests), the only reason not to report it to FISA is that they believe the FISA court will find that it abuses the Constitution and law. Otherwise, why not comply with the law?
There is no reason for anybody to believe one administration would or would not abuse the Constitution more than another administration.
Unless, of course, you are a partisan lunatic.
Whit...I have noticed how Jim frequently takes bits and pieces from documents and articles, places them out of context, arranging phrases in a manner so that the author's original intended meaning is completely lost.
It seems he does this in an attempt to make conservatives sound bad, and makes liberals sound better.
That is not a very healthy thing to do....rearranging things to fit what one wants reality to be, instead of what it is.
It would be really nice if he would stop doing this.
OK Jim...then explain why the Clinton administration conducted searches and wiretaps without court ordered warrants in the Ames case. I want to hear your outrage at that. Go ahead say it, just like you would relish bashing Bush. Your words should be the same as they are for Bush. I'll even help you out: "Clinton was a lunatic infringing upon the rights of citizens. Clinton tried to take all our rights away. Clinton was a lunatic communist obsessed with power." (That's the way the libs would tell it IF Clinton had been a conservative.) When Clinton did this, it wasn't blasted all over TV, Internet, and Front page Newspapers, now was it? REMEMBER...your buddy Clinton DID SEARCHES AND WIRETAPS WITHOUT WARRANTS BEFORE BUSH..
Rationalize that.
Just in case you are still in denial that Clinton did this, go to the links I provided and read.
One of them is a government document, so don't try to pull that "your conservative sources are worthless BS", as an excuse not to inform yourself.
The simplest way for a lib to dismiss "inconvenient" facts is to discredit the source.
It is almost instinctual for them to complain that conservative sources are illegitimate.
SR,
Boortz article on Taranto article. Radicals does not equal liberals by any means.
You have ignored my answer to your scenario.
I believe Kerry was saying that our troops should not be bursting into private Iraqi citizens' homes in the middle of the night; Iraqi troops should be doing that kind of search.
I believe the full Dean quote was that the war could not be won "in the way we are doing it."
You are still missing it, SR. Bush wouldn't have to wait 72 hours. He has to report what has been done in 72 hours of HAVING ALREADY DONE IT.
The Aldrich Ames material you present here is interesting and I learned a lot. But this is a counter-espionage case having to do with an employee of the CIA. Ames was not a private citizen. There is nothing in the articles you cited that indicates that any of the Ames case has anything to do with FISA.
More later...
Lots of writting...
it seems like Jim has been skipping parts of his copy and paste missions. He also forgot to explain how it was okoy for Clinton to do it but not Bush. I"m not sure why Bush didn't get the warrents later, but it seems clear that the act of getting the wire taps done was not unconstitutional or illegal like you and other keep saying.
Jim:
Your wrong about Ames not being a citizen, along with many other errors. Why don't you just print out the articles from the links JIm, and then have your mother read them to you. Maybe she'll let you sit on her lap.
Jim:
This is the post that I was responding to when I wrote my reply:
Jim said...
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.
Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.
What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.
As usual Drudge and York are making it up as they go along.
December 20, 2005 11:30 PM
Mine:
Stephanie Rose said...
You're out of touch Jim. A lot can happen within 72 hours...a few bulidings blown up, a few jets blown up....etc. So if Bush waited 72 hours...after learning that bin Laden was contacting US citizens....see the scenario for the rest.
Bona Fide Proof that Jim "just ain't right".
December 21, 2005 10:59 AM
I didn't see your other post regarding my scenario before I posted the above reply. Yes I see the point concerning why warrants were not obtained within 72 hours.
However, you still have not explained why your hero Clinton did not seek warrants within 72 hours after he authorized warrantless searches and wiretaps on Ames, who is a US citizen, and Ames was living in the US at the time, and Ames residence which was searched (without warrants), WAS in the US. Explain that for me Jim. I'll be waiting.
Although Ames was a CIA officer, he was also a citizen. Private citizen? BFD Jim...where does it say that the private home of a CIA officer may be searched and wire tapped without a court order? And if this is truly legal, than why was the Clinton administration after the fact QUIETLY lobbying to get authority for these warrantless searches? Why was the Clinton adm. SO AFRAID that Ames would fight them in court over the warrantless searches? Answer that Jim.
Face it Jim...your buddy Clinton did warrantless searches and wire taps LONG before Clinton. I'll give you an A for effort though, in your feeble attempts to change reality to fit with your delusional state of mind.
Other's that Ames had contacts with were also subjected to wire taps and searches...and they were not CIA.
Here's Aldrich Ames...convicted after Clinton authorized warrantless searches of his private life, and those around him.
Aldrich Ames : Aldrich Hazen Ames (born June 16 1941 in River Falls, Wisconsin) is a former Central Intelligence Agency counter-intelligence officer and analyst, who in 1994 was convicted of spying for the..
The paragraph above should read Clinton did warrantless searches long before Bush. By mistake I put Clinton in twice.
I know how Jim loves to talk about mistakes in text, when he has lost an argument and is dead wrong about Clinton being a saint....lots of libs do this as a distraction technique. Pathetic.
Will Jim apologize for being an asshole toward Bush? Will Jim condemn Clinton with the vehemence that he does with Bush, now that he knows the truth?
After all, if you judge one person for something, it shouldn't matter who 'dun it'.
Will any of the libs be remorseful about their hasty judgments of Bush over this?
I bet not.
FROM THE WASH.TIMES:
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
I LOVE THIS BELOW PART...ALL THE LIBS SCREAMING AGAINST BUSH CAN NOW TALK ABOUT THAT EVIL VILLAINOUS CLINTON WHO TOOK AWAY THEIR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY...I'M WAITING JIM.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic (READ THAT WORD AGAIN...DOMESTIC!)situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
Looks like Clinton infringed on the rights of domestic citizens for far less serious things than terrorist attacks.......looks like Clinton should be the left's real enemy...he's the one that authorized warrantless searches over things like gang fights at housing projects...that's as domestic as you can get.
OH...I suppose Jim will try to say none of those people living in the housing projects were PRIVATE CITIZENS. Let's hear it Jim.
Game said:
"I'm not sure why Bush didn't get the warrents later, but it seems clear that the act of getting the wire taps done was not unconstitutional or illegal like you and other keep saying."
It seems clear based on what? If it were "clear" there'd be no controversy.
Whit claims apparently based on a Robbins analysis of FISA that I am quoting only part of the law, that I am not entirely right. The problem is that nowhere do I quote FISA at all. My quotes are of the executive orders by Clinton and Carter cited by Drudge.
Stephanie tells Whit that I rearrange quotes to change their meaning. Where have I done that? Have I changed Powell's quote somehow?
Stephanie says, "Will Jim apologize for being an asshole toward Bush? Will Jim condemn Clinton with the vehemence that he does with Bush, now that he knows the truth?"
Can you show me where I have said anything on this page disparaging Bush? Can you show me anything I have said on this page that is Bush bashing?
There is no clear indication in any of your citations that Clinton broke any law. Maybe he did. Nothing in your citations provides any evidence, guidance, or court decision that he did. Maybe if the Republican Congress wasn't busy invesigating a blow job, they might have looked into it.
I don't know if Bush has broken a law or abused the Constitution. I question why he would bypass FISA when FISA gives him every opportunity to perform the required surveillance without breaking the law.
I'm asking people on this blog to read THIS post separate from all the others. Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks ON SOME OTHER POST, but PLEASE read this post and simply answer the question:
Can one of you conservatives provide some rationale for THIS ADMINISTRATION to bypass FISA when FISA allows it to act first and get permission later? When FISA has denied 6 requests out of thousands of requests per year since 1978?
Post a Comment