Posted on 12/20/2005 5:11:24 PM PST by NormsRevenge
And we don't need to as the Supreme Court has rejected this very argument time and time again. I can not support Bush (or Clintoon, or Carter) on this one.
That's the impression that the press would like you to have. This is about foreign intelligence. The law that allows the president to electronically eavesdrop via the Department of Defense (NSA) is the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. The law in question has been tested in court and the President's powers in this area affirmed.
We have been monitoring foreign electonic communications since before World War II. Ever heard of Enigma, Ultra? What has changed is the type of war. Rather than intercontinental missiles, we have sleeper cells.
If we discover electronic communication coming from an Al-queda leader to someone in the US, do you want us to ignore that? Spend 72 hours getting a warrant rather than perhaps learn what their imminent plans are?
The problem with this is that it says that the President, as CIC in time of war, is not subject to any statute. While I don't have a lot of problems with Bush's actions to date, this is not a power I want future, unknown, Presidents to have.
FISA lets us listen immediately; the 72 hours is the time we have to get the warrant after we start listening.
It really takes very little time to read the actual statute. To be an informed citizen we all should do this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001801----000-.html.
If you read the definitions (admittedly complex), a US person who knowingly is involved in terrorism is considered an agent and subject to warrantless searches. Hint, this is how US spies like Aldrich Ames are caught. Clinton was quite active in authorizing warrantless electonic eavesdropping I am sure you are aware. Do you recall the name Goerlick discussed frequently as the builder of the wall between domestic and foreign intelligence? Here is what she said in 1994
The (Christian Science) Monitor also quoted former deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick as being in support of these warrantless searches:
“Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general, insisted in a written statement to the House intelligence committee that ‘the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes….’
This morning, I read an excerpt from the NYT that one example of eavesdropping in the US occurred when an Al Queda figure BROUGHT HIS INTERNATIONAL CELL PHONE into the US. Is the eavesdropping now domestic? Does this person deserve the rights of a US citizen just for taking a plane trip to the land of the infidels where he intends to kill them?
You don't like the latitude in the law? Well it was passed by Congress, strengthened at the behest of Bill Clinton. It has been legally reviewed by an appellate court as recently as two years ago. Read the definitions and tell me how else to define the members of sleeper cells of Al Queda.
Funny how quickly people forget the statment of the 911 commission that significant problems remained in securing FISA approval......
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512191334.asp
Why Bush Approved the Wiretaps
Not long ago, both parties agreed the FISA court was a problem.
In the days since the revelation that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to bypass, in certain cases of suspected al Qaeda activity, the special court set up to provide warrants for national-security wiretaps, the question has come up repeatedly: Why did he do it?
At his news conference this morning, the president explained that he believed the U.S. government had to "be able to act fast" to intercept the "international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda." "Al Qaeda was not a conventional enemy," Bush said. "This new threat required us to think and act differently."
But there's more to the story than that. In 2002, when the president made his decision, there was widespread, bipartisan frustration with the slowness and inefficiency of the bureaucracy involved in seeking warrants from the special intelligence court, known as the FISA court. Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court — problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission — and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.
People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check." And even though the attorney general has the authority in some cases to undertake surveillance immediately, and then seek an emergency warrant, that process is just as cumbersome as the normal way of doing things.
Lawmakers of both parties recognized the problem in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. They pointed to the case of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings. Investigators wanted to study the contents of Moussaoui's laptop computer, but the FBI bureaucracy involved in applying for a FISA warrant was stifling, and there were real questions about whether investigators could meet the FISA court's probable-cause standard for granting a warrant. FBI agents became so frustrated that they considered flying Moussaoui to France, where his computer could be examined. But then the attacks came, and it was too late.
Rowley wrote up her concerns in a famous 13-page memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, and then elaborated on them in testimony to Congress. "Rowley depicted the legal mechanism for security warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, as burdensome and restrictive, a virtual roadblock to effective law enforcement," Legal Times reported in September 2002.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.
Exactly. You have to apply the "Hillary Test" to these actions. Ask yourself, "Would I trust Hillary Clinton with these powers?" Because she could inherit them.
Could someone here answer a question? I've been reading this website for a while, but this is my first post.
My question is about the 2nd amendment? Has President Bush come out in full support of it? That is my only concern when hearing about surveillience because I don't want it used to take my firearms.
I have felt this way for a long time, long before this came up. I know this is the place to find out the answer. Thank you everyone.
President Bush says that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual Right but that all existing gun laws are 'reasonable' restrictions on that Right; in other words, lip service to the RKBA but no effort to enforce it.
At least, that's my opinion.
I can understand your pause. I guess right now there is no political answer. Truly we will have to suffer a couple more 9/11's to answer the question. Good luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.