Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Even if that's the case, the obvious answer is to streamline the process; not pretend it doesn't exist and make up the law as you go.>> <LOL!!! Fix the bureaucracy. Yes, I've heard it all before.> Yeah, you know, obey the law.
Originally Posted By woody "The executive can do whatever he damn well pleases without Congress even knowing about it." The Congressional leaders knew all about it. Pelosi knew.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >> President George Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for international wiretaps because the court was challenging him at an unprecedented rate. << Poor widdle pwesident. Never gets to do what he wants to do.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 That congress knew is on the larger level immaterial. The Congress can no more violate the Constitution than the President. If the President proposes, say, that he should have the authority to imprison US citizens indefinitely without charge, and informs congress, who does nothing, that does not make it legal.
Originally Posted By woody "What that says to me - if FISA didn't do that sort of thing before but DID do it with Bush even after everyone in the country was security-minded after 9/11 - is that Bush and co. were overreaching, and asking for questionable wiretaps." An amazing mind-reading exercise. And I was the one criticized for making things up. "So Bush and co. decided to do an end run around the law. Lovely." Clinton AND Bush are claiming the "inherent authority" to do warrantless wiretaps. It's the truth.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But Clinton's warrentless wiretaps were explicitly allowed by the FISA law. Bush's were not.
Originally Posted By woody Repost. Aldrich Ames Aldrich Ames Aldrich Ames <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA" target="_blank">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA</a> NSCRIPTS/0601/16/lkl.01.html ALBERT GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, I didn't see the speech of the former vice president. What I can say is that this program from its inception has been carefully reviewed by lawyers throughout the administration, people who are experienced in this area of the law, experienced regarding this technology and we believe the president does have legal authorities to authorize this program. I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The Aldrich Ames case is a good example. The FBI was very careful about obtaining FISA warrants for the wiretaps. The FBI agents did perform a warrantless search of Ames' home, but at the time FISA did not prohibit that. Physical searches were added to FISA a year after the Ames case. Aldrich Ames did not have any warrantless wiretaps. The FBI obtained warrants under FISA for the wiretaps.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"What that says to me - if FISA didn't do that sort of thing before but DID do it with Bush even after everyone in the country was security-minded after 9/11 - is that Bush and co. were overreaching, and asking for questionable wiretaps.>> <An amazing mind-reading exercise. And I was the one criticized for making things up.> It's a perfectly logical inference. Why would the FISA court deny or insist on altering the request in the first place unless THEY considered it an overreach or a non-legitimate target? They approved 97% that they obviously felt were legitimate - doesn't that indicate how they felt about the 3% they turned down? <<"So Bush and co. decided to do an end run around the law. Lovely.">> <Clinton AND Bush are claiming the "inherent authority" to do warrantless wiretaps. It's the truth.> <<<<<But Clinton's warrentless wiretaps were explicitly allowed by the FISA law. Bush's were not.>>>>>> Tom, kindly don't confuse woody with facts. Let him continue to quote Gonzales' justifications as though they were gospel. I love the "we believe we have the authority" bit. Maybe next time Nick Nolte gets dragged in for DUI he can tell the judge "I believed I was sober, your honor."
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder More self-exculpatory phrases- "She looked 18 to me." "I only had five beers. It usually takes a 12 pack to get ME buzzed." "I forgot armed robbery was a crime." "He needed killin'." "Yellow means speed up, right?" "Everybody else did it." "It's only sex." "And sex is not oral copulation." "Someone musthave altered the videotape." "I am not a crook."
Originally Posted By woody "Tom, kindly don't confuse woody with facts. Let him continue to quote Gonzales' justifications as though they were gospel." At this point, TomS should provide the links as I kindly did with your request and insult at the same time. FACT or INTERPRETATION. TomS, its up to you. Still: You are rather amazing. You took TomS assertions without backup. That's where your bias lie. Very interesting. "It's a perfectly logical inference." With no factual basis. Great way to make argument where it cannot be backed up.
Originally Posted By woody "The Aldrich Ames case is a good example." "The FBI was very careful about obtaining FISA warrants for the wiretaps. The FBI agents did perform a warrantless search of Ames' home, but at the time FISA did not prohibit that. Physical searches were added to FISA a year after the Ames case. " "Aldrich Ames did not have any warrantless wiretaps. The FBI obtained warrants under FISA for the wiretaps. " Actually, this response is a bit of a dodge. Clinton still reserved the right to go outside of FISA for any warrantless searches. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ york/york200512200946.asp</a> "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."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"It's a perfectly logical inference.">> <With no factual basis. Great way to make argument where it cannot be backed up.> Nonsense. A law enforcement agency applies for a warrant to a court. The court decides that the agency has a legitimate interest in the target, or it does not. If the former, they grant the warrant. If the latter, they either deny it or tell the applicant to alter the request and why the alteration is necessary. This is basic stuff, woody. If 3% of Bush's FISA requests got turned down, by a court that had been more or less a rubber stamp until then, that pretty much by definition means that the court considered them non-legitimate. As for your quote by Gorelick, 1) note that he's talking about physical searches, not electronic ones, and 2) it's possible Clinton overreached too; two wrongs don't make a right, and "he did it too" is not a viable defense. I'm not sure if any court ruled on Clinton's authority, or if he was claiming the identical things that Bush is claiming. Based on the above quote, it appears not.
Originally Posted By woody "If 3% of Bush's FISA requests got turned down, by a court that had been more or less a rubber stamp until then, that pretty much by definition means that the court considered them non-legitimate." They could have other motives like being more critical. You really don't know. Stop trying to read the tea leaves. There is no rubber stamping. "I'm not sure if any court ruled on Clinton's authority, or if he was claiming the identical things that Bush is claiming. Based on the above quote, it appears not." There was Supreme Court ruling on an older case. They chose to not disallow it. You could dig it up or request me to do it for you. Nonetheless, the President is claiming a right. It is a bit comical to see the assertion of a right of a separate branch of government is challenged by the other branches. Who has what rights? Yet, is the court the impartial observer who is ready to say who has the right? Or perhaps the legislature believes it can assert the right to grant it to the executive. Then again, what if the President always had the right and power to conduct his foreign policy as he sees fit. I find the Legislature to be negligent in how it organizes the FISA Court. FISA is ineffective. The talk about making it "legal" (new legislation) tells me that what Bush is doing is right all along. It's only that the law wasn't passed to make it right. BTW, the public thinks there's nothing wrong.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"If 3% of Bush's FISA requests got turned down, by a court that had been more or less a rubber stamp until then, that pretty much by definition means that the court considered them non-legitimate.">> <They could have other motives like being more critical. You really don't know. > Being "more critical" isn't a motive. It's a description of how they acted. The question becomes WHY were they more critical. The only logical explanation is that they found the requests non-legitimate. The FISA court has only one function, and it's a yes/no answer. A pass/fail. Before Bush they failed only 4 out of 20,000. With Bush they failed 3% - not many but still a much higher percentage. That tells you something. Or it should. <There is no rubber stamping.> 4 turn-downs out of 20,000 requests is as close to rubber stamping as it gets in the world of warrants. <<"I'm not sure if any court ruled on Clinton's authority, or if he was claiming the identical things that Bush is claiming. Based on the above quote, it appears not.">> <There was Supreme Court ruling on an older case. They chose to not disallow it. You could dig it up or request me to do it for you.> Based on what you just wrote, I couldn't, because you aren't specific enough. So maybe you could show me what you think you're talking about. <Nonetheless, the President is claiming a right. It is a bit comical to see the assertion of a right of a separate branch of government is challenged by the other branches. Who has what rights?> What you don't know about the constitution is a lot. That document itself outlines the powers. When there is a dispute, the courts - ultimately, the Supreme Court - decides what is constitutional and what is not. That is its authority and no other branch's. <Yet, is the court the impartial observer who is ready to say who has the right?> See above. <Or perhaps the legislature believes it can assert the right to grant it to the executive.> It can assert so, and the court may uphold it if challenged. Or it may not. But ultimately it's the court's decision. <Then again, what if the President always had the right and power to conduct his foreign policy as he sees fit.> That's also for the court to decide. <I find the Legislature to be negligent in how it organizes the FISA Court. FISA is ineffective.> That's a sweeping statement. You base that on what? That Bush got turned down some? That may well indicate it doing its job. So what else are you basing it on? <The talk about making it "legal" (new legislation) tells me that what Bush is doing is right all along. It's only that the law wasn't passed to make it right.> No, that's not how it works. Sigh. <BTW, the public thinks there's nothing wrong.> It has depended, in the polls I've seen, on how the question is framed.
Originally Posted By woody "Based on what you just wrote, I couldn't, because you aren't specific enough. So maybe you could show me what you think you're talking about." Maybe you're the one who haven't read the arguments. I knew about the Supreme Court decision a long time ago when this story erupted. ------------- Key words (google): Supreme Court, FISA, NSA. First hit: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/ news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21</a>,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed "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." 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." (no ruling against it) ----------- "What you don't know about the constitution is a lot. That document itself outlines the powers. When there is a dispute, the courts - ultimately, the Supreme Court - decides what is constitutional and what is not. That is its authority and no other branch's." I was asking a rhetorical question when the President asserts a power that cannot be granted by the Legislature. And sometimes I think the Supreme Court cannot makes a ruling where it has no right to do so as in the case where I mentioned.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I was asking a rhetorical question when the President asserts a power that cannot be granted by the Legislature. And sometimes I think the Supreme Court cannot makes a ruling where it has no right to do so as in the case where I mentioned." What??
Originally Posted By bboisvert RE: Clinton performing warrantless searches... From CNN "The Situation Room" 12/21/05 Jeffery Toobin "In 1994, when Jamie Gorelick made that statement, physical searches were not covered by the FISA law. And that was changed in 1995." If Clinton searched without a warrant, it appears to have been legal at the time. Since 1995, it is no longer legal to do so. <<The talk about making it "legal" (new legislation) tells me that what Bush is doing is right all along. It's only that the law wasn't passed to make it right.>> That tells me that they know that it is currently wrong and illegal. <<BTW, the public thinks there's nothing wrong.>> <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_ap_poll" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60111/ap_on_go_pr_wh/eavesdropping_ap_poll</a> "Yet 56 percent of respondents in an AP-Ipsos poll said the government should be required to first get a court warrant to eavesdrop on the overseas calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens when those communications are believed to be tied to terrorism."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"Based on what you just wrote, I couldn't, because you aren't specific enough. So maybe you could show me what you think you're talking about.">> <Maybe you're the one who haven't read the arguments. I knew about the Supreme Court decision a long time ago when this story erupted.> I think you're misinterpreting what's here, or perhaps the people you read have done so for you... ------------- <Key words (google): Supreme Court, FISA, NSA. First hit: <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/</a> news/opinion/chi-0512210142dec21,0,3553632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed "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."> It's possible (hard to say without the context) that doesn't say that the court held he DID have the authority - only that they weren't ruling on that at this time. But the larger point is they may have been ruling on the authority to wiretap in foreign countries, which has long been established - what makes the recent case different is the domestic (or half domestic) component. <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."> Again, the key word is foreign intelligence. What is different now is the domestic component. Does the president have the authority to conduct wiretaps without a warrant WITHIN the US, if the other end of the conversation is outside? That's the question. He says he does, but neither of the things you cite says that explicitly. ----------- <<"What you don't know about the constitution is a lot. That document itself outlines the powers. When there is a dispute, the courts - ultimately, the Supreme Court - decides what is constitutional and what is not. That is its authority and no other branch's.">> <I was asking a rhetorical question when the President asserts a power that cannot be granted by the Legislature. And sometimes I think the Supreme Court cannot makes a ruling where it has no right to do so as in the case where I mentioned.> I'll join STPH: what the... ???
Originally Posted By woody "That tells me that they know that it is currently wrong and illegal." No law is necessary. The whole stunt by the New York Times made it seem illegal, but it never was. More legislation will never impede on the power that ALL PRESIDENTS have claimed as their own to fight a war and preserve the country. "But the larger point is they may have been ruling on the authority to wiretap in foreign countries, which has long been established - what makes the recent case different is the domestic (or half domestic) component." There is no difference. The foreign aspect was always acknowledged as the problem. Nice try. Funny how you never heard about these cases before. Try to argue on information and facts. Your logical opinion is a rather bizarre way to make a point based on facts of law. Since you don't get my rhetorical question, I'll pass on it. I wonder where TomS is? He was supposed to provide some links to his facts.
