RICKAMAVEN
Thursday, December 22, 2005 3:49:00 PM

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

The top of the Drudge Report claims “CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER…” It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –

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.

Tuckersdad
Thursday, December 22, 2005 4:07:00 PM
Well, somebody's been going through my shorts drawer, I saw tracks.
rugrunner
Thursday, December 22, 2005 5:44:00 PM
FDR did it first. And back then it wasn't legal even with a court order.
Homebrew
Thursday, December 22, 2005 6:20:00 PM
Who Cares who did it first. It doesn't make it legal. I'm all for a hearing for Bush, Clinton, hell any president who has violated this law should be held accountable.

Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)

P.S. The republicans remind me of a bunch of 8 year olds caught stealing. "Well they did it first."

Still doesn't make it right.

rugrunner
Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:42:00 PM
Homes, Clinton did it. And he (or his wife) had 400 or so FBI files they refused to give back, and they used the IRS (report due out but it's being blocked in the senate)against it's foes, And they killed folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and kidnapped Elian Gonzolez, and sold missile tech. to China for campaign cash, and had Jamie Gorelik put up a wall between all the agencies while she argued that the President had constitutional authority to spy on people without a warrant (was the wall to keep the FBI from seeing what Clinton was digging up on people?) etc etc etc.

Bush has authorized listening in on overseas calls of 500 people. Big difference.

The republicans saying "Clinton did it too" are only saying it to counter morons like Maven (in this post) that are screaming foul, and claiming it never happened before.

Clinton had Aldrich Ames' door kicked in and his home searched without a warrant. I was for it then and still am. He was a spy against the US. It's only the left that has changed its position (as they always do) when it's an R instead of a D doing the deed.

adroomi
Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:01:00 PM
Rug,

You need to pay attention to details a bit more.....

Bush did NOT authorize listening in on the calls of 500 people as you say (and obviously believe).

He authorized the listening in of THOUSANDS of people over several years, with as many as 500 PEOPLE at any given time being spied on. International AND DOMESTIC calls were recorded!

Get it right.

TrannyMk
Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:09:00 PM
Name just one person who has been violated. JUST ONE WILL DO!!!

Ha ha! You cant!!!

Game over...

adroomi
Thursday, December 22, 2005 11:14:00 PM
...well, you got us there.

Who knows...maybe it was you.

rugrunner
Friday, December 23, 2005 3:40:00 AM
Adroomi, seeing you are so much more aware of the facts then I, and seeing that you love to correct us less informed types, can I assume that that is the only flaw in my post? Cool.

I wouls be interested in your source on the numbers. I would also like to know what your definition of domestic is in this context. I think of a domestic call as one between two people within the US. I would define a call with one person in the US and one not as international. Please clarify and if your definition is the same, give me your source on that too please.

I do pay attention and have heard it the way I posted it from several sources. But if I missed something or am wrong I'd like to know. Thanks.

Wagner
Friday, December 23, 2005 5:43:00 AM
Adroomi:

The way he's trying to parse this it's like he's trying to explain what the definition of "is" is.

Wags

adroomi
Friday, December 23, 2005 6:10:00 AM
up to 500 people at any given time over a 3-4 year period....the numbers are suspected to be in the thousands.

Several hundred instances of cell phone traffic being monitored between domestic (USA to USA calls). Most of these on "accident" since the caller was using a foreign phone and roaming his service in the USA.

My God man, don't you read the papers? Perhaps you should.....and steer away from those crappy political news shows and look for the facts! Go to the US Government websites and read the news as it happens!

Are you really that blind?

rugrunner
Friday, December 23, 2005 5:05:00 PM
Wagner, how many times and from how many people do you have to hear "piss off" before you slink away?

Adroomi, I take it that means you have no source for your bull sh*t?

Just saying "don't you read the papers" might get you somewhere with Maven or that simpleton Wags, but not with me. I asked you for simple clarification, I know non fiction isn't your forte, but maybe this once you could delve into the realm of reality? If you read it in so many papers, telling me the name of one should be simple.

I see you have nothing to say about the rest of my post so I'll assume you agree.

donutboy2000
Friday, December 23, 2005 6:56:00 PM
Adroomi wrote:

Go to the US Government websites and read the news as it happens!

Why would the government tell us the truth?

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, December 23, 2005 8:44:00 PM
rugrunner

RE 9

you don't really care. you just want some numbers so you can disagree.

you start wrong and go downjhill from there.

merry christmas.

RICKAMAVEN
Friday, December 23, 2005 8:46:00 PM
rugrunner

re 12

argumentative. slink away? why?

rugrunner
Friday, December 23, 2005 9:19:00 PM
Because it's another inane comment from wags. I wasn't parsing or saying "what is is" I was asking what adroomi meant by domestic. I asked a serious question and got a generic deflection (don't you read the papers dude?). Wags was looking for a shot to take at me and that was all he could muster? He isn't bright or funny in his wrongness (at least you can be both in yours) and is always the first to call names and then the first to bitch about name calling. Almost every post he makes gets blasted from all sides. So he should slink away.

Since adroomi's tongue seems to belong to the cat, do you have any source that says it was thousands and the calls were domestic? Or is it just the tried and true "oh you heard that in the right wing media" thing?

Drathaar
Friday, December 23, 2005 10:44:00 PM
...Which brings me to this week's scandal about No Such Agency spying on "Americans." I have difficulty ginning up much interest in this story inasmuch as I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East, and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

But if we must engage in a national debate on half-measures: After 9/11, any president who was not spying on people calling phone numbers associated with terrorists should be impeached for being an inept commander in chief.

With a huge gaping hole in lower Manhattan, I'm not sure why we have to keep reminding people, but we are at war. (Perhaps it's because of the media blackout on images of the 9/11 attack. We're not allowed to see those because seeing planes plowing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon might make us feel angry and jingoistic.)

Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent).

That is why war is a bad thing. But once a war starts, it is going to be finished one way or another, and I have a preference for it coming out one way rather than the other.

In previous wars, the country has done far worse than monitor telephone calls placed to jihad headquarters. FDR rounded up Japanese — many of them loyal American citizens — and threw them in internment camps. Most appallingly, at the same time, he let New York Times editors wander free.

Note the following about the Japanese internment:

1) The Supreme Court upheld the president's authority to intern the Japanese during wartime;

2) That case, Korematsu v. United States, is still good law;

3) There are no Japanese internment camps today. (Although the no-limit blackjack section at Caesar's Palace on a Saturday night comes pretty close.)

It's one or the other: Either we take the politically correct, scattershot approach and violate everyone's civil liberties, or we focus on the group threatening us and — in the worst-case scenario — run the risk of briefly violating the civil liberties of 1,000 people in a country of 300 million.

Of course, this is assuming I'm talking to people from the world of the normal. In the Democrats' world, there are two more options. Violate no one's civil liberties and get used to a lot more 9/11s, or the modified third option, preferred by Sen. John D. Rockefeller: Let the president do all the work and take all the heat for preventing another terrorist attack while you place a letter expressing your objections in a file cabinet as a small parchment tribute to your exquisite conscience.

~ Ann Coulter

---------------

That about sums it up, thanks for playing.

adroomi
Saturday, December 24, 2005 6:55:00 AM
Drathar,

We are NOT at war......please tell Ms Coulter to get her facts straight....folks are BELIEVING here for goodness sakes!

However, she did say this:

"Among the things that war entails are: killing people (sometimes innocent), destroying buildings (sometimes innocent) and spying on people (sometimes innocent)."

She's right in that aspect......When Osama Bin Laden and his cronies declared war on us in 2001, we saw the effect of collateral damage firsthand. We blew up their tv and radio stations (and killed numerous innocent civilians), and they blew up our financial center (and killed numerous innocent civilians). Sort of hurts our pride, and horrifies us when we get a dose of our own medicine don't you think?

Peace to ALL the innocents that have been lost in this senseles war.......and God Bless them.

jetblasted
Saturday, December 24, 2005 8:39:00 AM
adroomi . . . how can you say we are not at war . . . I bet the hundreds of soldiers I see everyday wouldn't agree with you . . . do you know how sad it is to see a soldier on an arrival flight to my gate ask how to get back to Iraq? The long face and sullen look, asking me how to re-deploy?

I bet if you ask all the "insurgents" . . . they'd agree that we are at war . . .

HockeyDad
Saturday, December 24, 2005 2:37:00 PM
Jetblasted,

Ask the US Congress.

There has been no formal declaration of war.