Posted on 12/23/2005 11:23:24 AM PST by SBD1
SBD
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."
====
FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant
Unit 8 Investigation: Nuclear terror threat to Portland?
Bin Laden deputy aimed to kill Bush, Musharraf, officials say
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 Department’s 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 department’s 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 Reno’s 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 FBI’s warrant requests to the FISA Court. The information flow withered.
SBD
. . . 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?
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.
