• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches

IGBT

Lifer
Text

..so if it's determined that an American is working in conjunction with a forign power..the president has inherent authority to conduct warrentless searches.
December 20, 2005

President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps.


Independent from the question of whether this is legal, of course, is the separate charge that the program represents a Bushitlerian departure from prior standards. That seems to be hard to maintain -- in many ways, Bush's policies are merely a continuation of those under Clinton, only with somewhat more vigor post 9/11. If you want to look back on the Clinton Administration as some sort of civil-liberties golden age, you probably shouldn't read this report from the CATO Institute entitled "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton." But here's a relevant excerpt:



The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.

The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .

It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]


Text


Censoring the Internet

President Clinton supports federal censorship of the Internet. In February 1996 he signed the Communications Decency Act into law. That act makes it a crime to transmit or allow "indecent" material to be transmitted over computer networks to which minors have access. But since there is no affordable, effective way for nonprofit or low-profit speakers to restrict children's access to such a broad, ill-defined category of material, the CDA has the effect of banning much speech from the Internet. [28] As civil liberties attorney Harvey Silvergate observed, "Overnight, the federal government transformed the newest and freest medium of communication into the most heavily censored." [







 
Actually didnt the original law that created the FISA courts also allow warrantless wiretapping? But you of course had to bring it in front of the court eventually. Like I htink within 72 hours or something.
 
CATO? :roll:

From the NSA Spying thread:

Originally posted by: conjur
Shooting down the RW BS talking points that Carter/Clinton spied illegally, too:
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv
(The amazing thing on this one is that it's Mrs. Greenspan - Andrea Mitchell - doing the smackdown. Nice to see her stop shilling for the admin for once)

Shooting down the phony justification given by the Propagandist for his illegal spying:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1220-22.htm

Also,

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/
 
Jebus, not this crap again. Apples and oranges, please do some background checks before you regurgitate RNC talking points.
 
IGBT,

What exactly are you getting at? You seem to be attempting to make three points while putting together a post that fails to make it's primary point.

1. post title: "President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches"

When did president Clinton do this? It's not stated in your article. Your examples show no direct or inferred connection to Clinton's administration. And what's up with "The Clinton administration claims..."? Bush runs the current administration- like it or not.

2. "President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,..."

Um, okay- this has nothing to do with the title of the post which remains unsubstantiated.

3. "In February 1996 he signed the Communications Decency Act"

Once again you are wandering.

I did take the time to read the full Cato article which you are quoting from and I?d have to agree with you- it's not worth posting.

PS. If this is an attempt to show how Bush is as bad as Clinton you should make an attempt to understand constitutional law (or follow up on Conjur's post). Otherwise you risk looking like a hack.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Actually didnt the original law that created the FISA courts also allow warrantless wiretapping? But you of course had to bring it in front of the court eventually. Like I htink within 72 hours or something.

From my understanding, you could pretty much do everything you wanted as long as you got the papers in within 72 hours, so they addressed the whole emergency issue.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Actually didnt the original law that created the FISA courts also allow warrantless wiretapping? But you of course had to bring it in front of the court eventually. Like I htink within 72 hours or something.

Yes, I believe this is true. As far as I understand, the AG can authorize "emergency" wiretaps in time sensitive cases that would then later be reviewed by the court. Technically these are not warrentless, as it is really a backdated warrent process. Which makes the arguments for truly warrentless wiretaps even less logical, the argument goes that time could be a problem in some cases...but there was already a mechanism in place to deal with that. So just what problem is being solved here?
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Andrea Mitchell of all people... destroys this retarded notion and exposes the RNC talking points as a fraud.

Republicans embarrass themselves once again.

This type of blatant lying should be illegal. Does the RNC have no standards, they can just say whatever they feel and hope no one fact checks them? They have resorted to swift boat tactics for everything now, how embarrassing for Republicans.
 
Regardless of what Clinton may have asserted, unlike Bushwhacko, neither he, nor Carter tried to circumvent the law against warrantless searches.

What Carter signed begins:
By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
What Cinton signed begins:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Even if you have some evidence that Clinton or Carter issued other orders without legal warrants, it doesn't make it right, and if they did they should be prosecuted for it. It doesn't excuse such illegal actions by Bush.

Bush is the only one who claims he doesn't have to obey FISA or any other U.S. law and is in a position to continue his illegal actions. The main difference would be that he's in office now. As such, he poses a clear and present immediate danger to our Constitutional rights.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
Regardless of what Clinton may have asserted, unlike Bushwhacko, neither he, nor Carter tried to circumvent the law against warrantless searches.

What Carter signed begins:
By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
What Cinton signed begins:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Even if you have some evidence that Clinton or Carter issued other orders without legal warrants, it doesn't make it right, and if they did they should be prosecuted for it. It doesn't excuse such illegal actions by Bush.

Bush is the only one claiming he doesn't have to obey FISA or any other U.S. law and in a position to continue his illegal actions. The main difference would be that he's in office now. As such, he poses a clear and present immediate danger to our Constitutional rights.
The Bush-God fanbois are making the same illogical argument they did re: Joseph Wilson and the Plame leak. They smeared Wilson calling him a liar, saying his wife sent him on the trip, etc. as a way to distract and dismiss the FACT that someone (multiple someones) in the White House leaked classified information re: a CIA agent to the press and then proceeded to lie to the FBI and under oath to a grand jury.
 
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."

High court of little help on spying

In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review seemed to accept the administration's argument that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

Pretty much sums it up. Also listened to a Georgetown scholar the other day stating he actually worked on FISA and they specifically did not include language that would infringe on presidential war powers. Like I've said, not going anywhere, anytime soon.
 
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Constitutional power to do what? Conduct foreign intelligence searches.

Furthermore, even if there was substance, FISA Court does not set precedent, since it is a secret court.
A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."

High court of little help on spying

Correct, not U.S. citizens.

In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review seemed to accept the administration's argument that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

Pretty much sums it up. Also listened to a Georgetown scholar the other day stating he actually worked on FISA and they specifically did not include language that would infringe on presidential war powers. Like I've said, not going anywhere, anytime soon.

Like we've said, it's all been debunked.
 
Originally posted by: totalcommand
Originally posted by: jlmadyson
'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

Constitutional power to do what? Conduct foreign intelligence searches.

Furthermore, even if there was substance, FISA Court does not set precedent, since it is a secret court.

A Washington Post report at the time said the new FISA law permits "the government (primarily NSA with the occasional help of an FBI 'black bag job' or break-in) to continue electronic spying without a court order if it is directed solely at the premises or communications of 'official' powers, such as governments, factions or entities openly known to be directed and controlled by foreign governments."

High court of little help on spying

Correct, not U.S. citizens.

In 2002, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review seemed to accept the administration's argument that the president has "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

Pretty much sums it up. Also listened to a Georgetown scholar the other day stating he actually worked on FISA and they specifically did not include language that would infringe on presidential war powers. Like I've said, not going anywhere, anytime soon.

Like we've said, it's all been debunked.[/quote]

Keep thinking that, lol.
 
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Jlmadyson needs a bigger shovel... the hole he's digging is too small.

Yea all the libs in anandtech needed a nice shovel in 2004 with all their predictions for Bush's and the GOP's huge losses.

You think I'm going to buy all the arguments around here now? Yea......
 
The debate isn't about spying on foreign persons. It's about the Propagandist spying on American citizens!

When will you fanbois get that thru your head?



And, war powers? What war powers? Only Congress can declare war and we are certainly not at war. Also, the President is sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, not the American people. The Constitution does that on its own. People come and go, the Constitution is here forever.
 
Back
Top