Skip to comments.“Thank you Jimmy Carter”--Carter Agrees With Bush Spying
Posted on 12/23/2005 11:23:24 AM PST by SBD1
U.S.OFFICIALS DEFINE POLICY ON SEARCHES; Lawyers Assert President Still Has 'Inherent Authority' to Order Entries Without Warrants 'Concurrent Jurisdiction' 1978 Executive Order Cited No 'Foreign Connections' Found By ROBERT PEAR Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 9, 1980. pg. 35, 1 pgs
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8--Justice Department lawyers say that the President still has the "inherent authority" to order searches without warrants to collect foreign intelligence within the United States, despite the criminal conviction this week of two former officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who said they had approved such searches in 1972 and 1973.
An executive order issued by President Carter in January 1978 established the standard that governs the use of searches for intelligence purposes today. Such searches, it said, shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power.'
(Excerpt) Read more at pqasb.pqarchiver.com ...
Everytime I think of Carter, I am reminded what an awful, awful president he was, and what a despicable friend of dictators and thugs he has been.
Interesting that this sort of article was published less than 100 hours before the 1980 Presidential election (also considering how recent the Iran hostage situation was at the time). NY Times trying to help get Peanut Farmer reelected, no doubt.
This company owns the L.A. Times:
Both stocks have a price spike in September.
What happened then that made the stocks more desirable? dead cat bounce?
Can Democratic presidents order wiretaps on U.S. soil without a court order, but not Republicans? We ask because that's the standard critics appear to be using against President Bush over National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda operatives. Every president, Democrat or Republican, has exercised this authority since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act became law in October 1978. But it appears to be deemed problematical only for President Bush, whose wiretaps are said to have caught Iyman Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen who wanted to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge.
The ink on FISA was barely dry when the first president to order extrajudicial surveillance -- a Democrat -- did so. Jimmy Carter exercised his authority on May 23, 1979 with Executive Order #12139, seven months after signing FISA into law, declaring that "the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order," subject to the section's requirements. The order cites a FISA section helpfully titled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."
The precedent was even more firmly established by President Clinton. Top Clinton administration officials are on record defending the practice. As Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994: "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 and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." She remarked that: "It's important to understand 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."
September is the largest month for wrapping fish, training puppies and other uses for newsprint.
Did Jimmy Carter say this in the last few days, or is the NYT just getting around to acknowledging that it was he who started the practice?
I'm betting the latter. If Jimmeh makes a current statement, it will be to say that HIS domestic spying was lawful and warranted, and Bush's is somehow different and therefore illegal.
November 8, 1980
There is NOTHING to thank Jimmy Carter for.
He used the same powers, that's all.
He is NOT coming out and endorsing what President Bush is doing.
NYT = NY Slimes WPO = Washington Post TRB = Chicago Tribune and LA Slimes
I saw that, but thought it was part of a current article flashing-back to when a Democrat President began the practice. What in the WORLD was I thinking? This IS the New York Times, after all.
After what commie carter did to this country...I'd never thank him for nothing.
From 9/11 Commission Report, 2004
In July 1995, Attorney General Reno issued formal procedures aimed at managing information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI. They were developed in a working group led by the Justice Departments Executive Office of National Security, overseen by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. These procedures - while requiring the sharing of intelligence information with prosecutors - regulated the manner in which such information could be shared from the intelligence side of the house to the criminal side.
These procedures were almost immediately misunderstood and misapplied. As a result, there was far less information sharing and coordination between the FBI and the Criminal Division in practice than was allowed under the departments procedures. Over time the procedures came to be referred to as the wall. The term the wall is misleading, however, because several factors led to a series of barriers to information sharing that developed.
The Office of Intelligence Policy and Review became the sole gatekeeper for passing information to the Criminal Division. Though Attorney General Renos procedures did not include such a provision, the Office assumed the role anyway, arguing that its position reflected the concerns of Judge Royce Lamberth, then chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The Office threatened that if it could not regulate the flow of information to criminal prosecutors, it would no longer present the FBIs warrant requests to the FISA Court. The information flow withered.
. . . which no true conservative would ever do.
Has such probable cause been claimed in this case? Earlier in the week, Bill Kristol and Gary Schmitt wrote a column defending the President's actions, and their defense specifically argued that the "probable cause" requirement is too stringent. An excerpt:
FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is "probable cause to believe" that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. Yet where is the evidence to support such a finding? Who knows why the person seized in Pakistan was calling these people? Even terrorists make innocent calls and have relationships with folks who are not themselves terrorists.Did Kristol and Schmitt misread the situation? Is there information out there that contradicts them on this?