<p>Wow, this thread is unique particular being that so many have such heated opinions and long responses (me being one exception) …</p>
<p>
Dig, I think the answer is that Carter and Clinton issued identical secret executive orders, and there was no outcry. Bush does it, and it’s time for impeachment. There was no “offense,” as multiple federal courts have decided–including the FISA review court. The president has the authority to order surveillance in the interest of national security–without a warrant, period.</p>
<p>The hypocrisy is the issue-- the totally phony, breast-beating partisanship. The issue of “liking” these presidents–or not–comes from the actions and statements of the fervid Bush haters in the MSM and those that believe them, who have tried everything imaginable to bring this president down. We’ve now had two very serious breaches of classified programs–the secret detention facilities for terrorists, and the NSA program, which apparently uses state of the art technology. Where is the Plame Platoon? Where are those who were so certain that the “outing” of this soccer mom with a desk job at Langley should bring down a presidency? I think those who purveyed this latest phony scandal have finally bitten off way more than they can chew, and the explosion within the Wile E. Coyote crowd will be nearly fatal.</p>
<p>Jonathan Schell makes a good point: “The alarming argument is that as Commander in Chief he possesses “inherent” authority to suspend laws in wartime. But if he can suspend FISA at his whim and in secret, then what law can he not suspend? What need is there, for example, to pass or not pass the Patriot Act if any or all of its provisions can be secretly exceeded by the President?” It’s a scary thought that even if the Patriot Act is not renewed, Big Government can do what it wants anyway, simpling declaring it legal because of “inherent powers.”</p>
<p>
I don’t think anyone has said that, though. Both the Carter and Clinton EOs specifically cited the relevant FISA section that authorized presidentially-ordered surveillance without a court order. There are exceptions in FISA that recognize the president’s authority and responsibility to act independently against foreign aggression, and all the court cases to date seem to reinforce that presidential power.</p>
<p>From a Knight-Ridder feed:
It’s not just the liberal MSM, but Republicans in the Senate as well. Five members of the Intelligence Committee (2 Republicans and 3 Democrats) have called for inquiries. Many other Republicans (Specter, Snowe, Hagen, and even Bill Frist) are discussing the need for probes. This is not a lefist-wacko plot here. We’re talking serious business. I’m glad to see True Conservatives talking a stand here.</p>
<p>Cheney’s remarks warning of repercussions against critics of the administration are downright chilling and un-American.</p>
<p>
C’mon…there’s nothing “chilling” about pointing out the obvious. There are certainly going to be <em>political</em> repercussions (what the quote said!) for these folks…not government repercussions. They’re playing a losing hand by betting that the American people think active surveillance for the purpose of identifying Al Quaeda in our midst is a bad thing.</p>
<p>Driver, there is no provision of FISA that authorizes presidentially-ordered surveillance without any court orderf or any executive order to cite. (If you think there is, then I would suggest you find it and post the citation) On the contrary, FISA specifically prohibits any such wiretapping, making it a is a felony carrying a sentence of up to 4 years imprisonment and substantial fines.</p>
<p>FISA does allow <em>retroactive</em> warrant, allowing eavesdropping to be put in place for up to 72 hours before the warrant is obtained. Of more than 19,000 applications under FISA, the court has turned down warrant applications only 4 times – so basically all that needs to be done to comply with FISA is a little bit of paper work, which I am sure could easily be reduced to a boilerplate, fill-in-the-blank form (such as name of target, numbers to be monitored, one-paragraph summary of facts supporting probable cause).</p>
<p>I decided to help you – here’s the law – of course it doesn’t have the exception you claim because that doesn’t exist, but you might have fun hunting for it:</p>
<p>TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511<br>
§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
<a href=“18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>18 U.S. Code § 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
<p>TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2518<br>
§ 2518. Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
<a href=“18 U.S. Code § 2518 - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>18 U.S. Code § 2518 - Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
<p>TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > § 2703 </p>
<p>§ 2703. Required disclosure of customer communications or records
<a href=“18 U.S. Code § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>18 U.S. Code § 2703 - Required disclosure of customer communications or records | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute;
<p>TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE > SUBCHAPTER I </p>
<p>SUBCHAPTER IELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html[/url]”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html</a></p>
<p>Good discussion of the law here:
<a href=“http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/2005/12/a_little_honest.html[/url]”>http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/2005/12/a_little_honest.html</a></p>
<p>
That’s the problem when one thinks in terms of ideological labels. I don’t subscribe to an ideology from which my views are defined. Instead, I look at what I think as “right” and then see which politicians come closest to those views. In my view, in today’s world national security trumps most other concerns (this view is also shared by such Dems as Ed Koch). We have been extremely lucky since the days of the Civil War to not see massive bloodshed on our shores (and I don’t even count 9/11 as a case of massive bloodshed). I think that we now live in a time that unless we are extremely diligent, that we will look back at the events of 9/11 as more akin to Bunker Hill - just the beginning of a far more serious struggle … happening right here in our towns and cities.</p>
<p><<c’mon…there’s nothing=“” “chilling”=“” about=“” pointing=“” out=“” the=“” obvious.=“” there=“” are=“” certainly=“” going=“” to=“” be=“” political=“” repercussions=“” (what=“” quote=“” said!)=“” for=“” these=“” folks…not=“” government=“” repercussions.=“”>></c’mon…there’s></p>
<p>driver, it’s one thing to acknowledge there will be political repercussions, (in Washington if a Senator doesn’t say ‘God bless you’ when someone sneezes there are political repercussions) it’s another thing to hold the second highest political/governmental office in the country and say it. Don’t think Cheney has influence with the RNC anymore? Sounds like a warning to me. And yeah, chilling.</p>
<p>Digmedia, your post #120 was well done. Precisely sums up my thoughts on this matter. I enjoyed George Will’s column very much today, and not just because I happened to agree with his conclusion, but because he is a political commentator who always seems to rise above the fray and the pettiness (nastiness) of many who try to debate the issues but cannot help slinging mud around while they do. I, for one, take no glee in our President’s political problems. I love this country and I respect the Constitution. I’m not reading the headlines, thinking “gotcha!” Rather, I’m saddened (and angered). I’m not longing for impeachment or for Bush’s fall; I’m longing for a President I can respect and who will re-earn the respect of our allies and others in the world. If Bush could do that, I’d be satisfied for the remainder of his three years in office. I wish FF, driver and others would stop accusing people who are critical of the President’s policies and actions as being haters.</p>
<p>Calmom, what is your retort to the Clinton associate AG when he quotes court findings that Bush has the legal right to order wiretaps w/o warrants when it comes to national defense … and that any attermpts to use the FISA law to enforce such prohibitions are not constitutional?</p>
<p>Driver, in fairness to you regarding your previous post, I’d like to note that
there IS a section of FISA that allows the president to order wiretapping of communications exclusively “between or among foreign powers” – which is probably where you got the idea that this is o.k. from executive orders. That is, Bush (or Clinton or Carter) could order monitoring phone calls between the Kremlin and Iran if they wanted. But for the order to be valid, there must be certification that there is absolutely no likilihood that the monitoring would include any “United States Person” - which is exactly what all the uproar right now is about. Bush has done exactly what the statute expressly prohibits.</p>
<p>Fundingfather, my response to anyone who argues anything is to READ THE DAMN STATUTE. It’s rather unequivocal in its terms.</p>
<p>
Not all are, but if it is not the majority it is a very sizeable minority. How else can you explain the hypocrisy of giving a pass to previous administrations who have maintained the right to do what Bush is doing (and in some cases actually going further than what Bush is doing), but then throw out accusations of “fascism” when Bush does it. Sure sounds like hate-driven politics to me.</p>
<p>
Here’s section 1801, to save you some trouble in finding the crucial sub-references:<a href=“a”>quote</a> Foreign power means
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
(b) Agent of a foreign power means
(1) any person other than a United States person, who
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such persons presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities
[/quote]
I really do appreciate you helping me out, as I am about to head next door for the neighborhood holiday party. Merry Fitzmas! And read the damn Truong Case!</p>
<p>
As long as you are giving reading lessons, I’ll return the favor: READ THE DAMN OP-ED before you respond out of ignorance.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read the part in bold face, Driver – or else read my above post #131, where I already made this point. The law specifically says that the President can NOT authorize surveillance of any “United States person” without a wiretap – that’s what the uproar is about. </p>
<p>Spying on foreign powers == OK</p>
<p>Spying on people using phones from the US == NO WAY. FELONY.</p>
<p>To FF: In this country, the law is determined by the Constitution and statutes – NOT by OP-ED pieces. So I don’t really care what someone might have opined.</p>
<p>Did George Bush break the law? This has nothing to do with any other president, talk radio, or any opinion piece.</p>
<p>Did George Bush break the law? Yes or no?</p>
<p>To the Clinton associate AG, or anyone else who claims FISA unconstitutionally limits the president’s Article 2 powers, I would point out that if there’s a conflict between Article 2 and the 4th Amendment, the 4th Amendment prevails. (It’s the very nature of an amendment to change the document it’s amending.) And if the historical record reveals that Clinton, like Bush, and like Nixon, believed that “*f the President does it, it’s not against the law,” I’ll condemn him as vociferously as I condemn Bush today.</p>
<p>I really don’t want to see Bush impeached over this issue, recent history notwithstanding. I’d far rather see principled, conservative Republicans have a “come to Jesus” talk with Bush, and have him acknowledge that, “hey, I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve come to believe that John Yoo was taking too liberal a view of the president’s powers under the Constitution, and, hey, my intentions were good, but I recognize that I’m subject to FISA, and will act accordingly for the rest of my term.” </p>
<p>That would end this discussion, as far as I’m concerned.</p>
<p>Calmom, you’re focusing on 1802, without addressing the all-important definitions helpfully provided in 1801. You aren’t considered to be a “US person” if you’re believed to be an agent of a “foreign power.” Now, there might be reasons that a genuine US person, who is not acting as an agent of a foreign power, would want to contact a known Al Qaeda cell overseas; however, the “substantial likelihood” clause begins to work against you, in such cases.</p>
<p>GB said:
I certainly agree with this, but would only point out that an “unreasonable” search is not necessarily the same thing as one conducted without a warrant. There are a whole host of reasonable searches conducted–without warrants–every day in the US, as former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy has pointed out. <a href=“http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp[/url]”>http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp</a></p>
<p>And to dstark, my answer would be “no.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dunno, Driver, it seems pretty clear that it excludes “United States persons” completely from the definition of “foreign powers.”</p>