Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Facts On Warrantless Wire Taps:
2/8/06

Posted on 02/08/2006 6:19:03 AM PST by excludethis

George Washington used warrantless interception of mail between the British and Americans. In fact, Washington contrived a means of opening British letters without breaking the seals, take copies of the contents, and then let them go on. That fascist Washington, reading mail without a warrant!

Abraham Lincoln used warrantless telegraph wiretapping. Lincoln even arrested newspaper publishers. That fascist Lincoln reading every American's telegraph messages and arresting newspaper men without a warrant!

President Wilson ordered the warrantless interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe. That fascist Wilson reading every American's cable wires without a warrant!

President Roosevelt order gave the Government of the United States access without a warrant all communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country. FDR in a letter to his Attorney General: "You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigation agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices directed to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies." On December 8, 1941, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt gave the Director of the FBI “powers to direct all news censorship and to control all other telecommunications traffic in and out of the United States.” That fascist FDR, reading and listening to every American's communications and censoring the news without a warrant!

Kennedy used warrantless wiretaps on Martin Luther King that were simply approved by his little brother, the attorney general at the time. That fascist Kennedy, listening to a preacher's telephone calls without a warrant!

Jimmy Carter signed Executive Order 12139 on May 23, 1979, declaring that “the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”Then there is Carter's AG testifying in front of Congress as it was debating FISA: "the current bill recognizes no inherent power of the President to conduct electronic surveillance, and I want to interpolate here to say that this does not take away the power [of] the President under the Constitution.” That fascist Carter, doing foreign intelligence without a warrant and asserting FISA did not take away the President has the inherent Constitutional power to conduct warrantless wire taps!

Clinton also authorized the NSA to wiretap and search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. He soon broadened the NSA’s authority to include “classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes.” The balls of Clinton, search a man's home in the USA of without a warrant. That fascist Clinton, catching a spy and sending him to prison with information obtained without a warrant!

President Bill Clinton’s Echelon program intercepted “literally millions of communications involving United States citizens.” An NSA source says this included then-U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond. Under the ECHELON program, the NSA and certain foreign intelligence agencies throw an extremely wide net over virtually all electronic communications world-wide. There are no warrants. No probable cause requirements. No FISA court. And information is intercepted that is communicated solely between U.S. citizens within the U.S. That fascist Clinton, listening in on every American's communications and even a Republican Senator that was 90 years old. Probably looking for some good phone sex, but not outrage from any Democrats here.

Jamie Gorelick, the 9/11 Commission member and former high-ranking Clinton Justice Department official, told the Senate Intelligence Committee 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.” That fascists Clinton Justice Department, asserting the President has the inherent Constitutional power to conduct warrantless wire taps!

On February 9, 1995, Clinton signed Executive Order 12949, stating, “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.” That fascists Clinton, authorizing warrantless wire taps!

Eavesdropping is less heavy-handed than firing missiles or holding terrorists in detention. Supreme Court found it was appropriate to detain an American citizen for fighting alongside al-Qaida. "How can it be that merely listening to al-Qaida phone calls into and out of the country in order to disrupt their plots is not?"

Of course it is not as the above shows was the case under every war time President. Democrats are playing pure politics with the safety and security of all Americans. The below items clearly show the courts have already found warrantless searches by a President is proper.

However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."--United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (1973)

"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."--U.S. v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (1980)

"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."--United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (1984)

"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."--In re Sealed Case, 310, F3d. 717, 742 (2002)

"If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority." --The Amy Warwick (The "Prize Cases"), 67, U.S. 635, 668 (1862)

"The Founders in their wisdom made [the President] not only the Commander-in-Chief but also the guiding organ in the conduct of our foreign affairs," possessing "vast powers in relation to the outside world." Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160, 173 (1948). Foreign affairs power the “exclusive power of the President as sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations - a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936).

Protecting the national security is also Presidential domain. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 812 n.19 (1982). The President's constitutional primacy flows from both his unique position in the constitutional structure, and from the specific grants of authority in Article II that make the President both the Chief Executive of the Nation and the Commander in Chief. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 749-50 (1982).

As Hamilton explained: "the circumstances which may affect the public safety are [not] reducible within certain determinate limits, . . . it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community in any matter essential to its efficiency."

”The command and application of the public force . . . to maintain peace, and to resist foreign invasion" are executive powers. Application of Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 12 (1946). The authority to protect national security is not limited to actions necessary for "victories in the field." Id. The authority over national security "carries with it the inherent power to guard against the immediate renewal of the conflict." Id.

The President “has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity" for emergency measures. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. at 336. "[T]he President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific statutory authorization." Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 The Constitution gives the power to the President “to preserve order and insure the public safety . . . . when other branches of the government . . . functioning would itself threaten the public safety." Duncan v. Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 335 (1946) (Stone, C.J., concurring).

The courts have affirmed it is President’s constitutional responsibility to respond to that threat with whatever means are necessary. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 635.

The Supreme Court has made clear that it will not construe legislative powers so as to prevent the President "from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions." Nixon v. Administrator of General Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 443 (1977).


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: facts; heynicelink; spying

1 posted on 02/08/2006 6:19:04 AM PST by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: excludethis

Funny how liberals right now are not talking about the constitution as a living document. Libs will also say things about this (can't give up freedom for security) that they won't say about guns.


2 posted on 02/08/2006 6:21:13 AM PST by feedback doctor (Socialism, the opiate of liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

But...but...George Bush is doing it now so it's got be illegal.


3 posted on 02/08/2006 6:21:16 AM PST by perez24 (Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

This history proves one thing...Presidents throughout American history have violated the Constitution and the Supreme Court has, in most cases, acceded to these violations...but we all knew that


4 posted on 02/08/2006 6:24:08 AM PST by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

Helluva good post !


5 posted on 02/08/2006 6:27:35 AM PST by genefromjersey (So much to flame;so little time !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis
The United States is one terror event away from the Constitution being suspended - General Tommy Franks

Wire taps might very well prevent this from happening...

On the other hand we are in the fix we are in because the door was left wide open for terrorists by many administrations..and the door is still wide open to our south..and millions of invaders of all persuasions have infiltrated.

6 posted on 02/08/2006 6:33:06 AM PST by joesnuffy (A camel once bit our sister..but we knew just what to do...we gathered rocks and squashed her!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

BINGO


7 posted on 02/08/2006 6:35:37 AM PST by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

BINGO


8 posted on 02/08/2006 6:36:33 AM PST by snowman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

BUMP!

This is one of the best posts I've ever read on FR.


9 posted on 02/08/2006 6:37:06 AM PST by Preachin' (Enoch's testimony was that he pleased God: Why are we still here?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

Good post.


10 posted on 02/08/2006 6:39:37 AM PST by Focault's Pendulum (I'm not a curmudgeon!!!! I've just been in a bad mood since '73)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: feedback doctor; All

This is why the 2nd Amendment is so important. As long as we have that trump card, the abuse can only be taken so far. Why do you think the Government banned machine guns the way they did?

I have a big problem with the Patriot Act and these wire taps and if this isn't reason enough to force Congress to repeal some of the BS gun laws, then we are doomed as a nation. To quote "Star Wars"... "So, this is how freedom dies, to thunderous applause."

Mike


11 posted on 02/08/2006 6:45:35 AM PST by BCR #226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum

Hire this man to be the President's spokesperson!!!


12 posted on 02/08/2006 6:50:19 AM PST by Wristpin ("The Yankees announce plan to buy every player in Baseball....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: excludethis
BRAVO
It is good that someone is finally speaking the truth about this. It seems as though the Dems are only worried because it is GW.
13 posted on 02/08/2006 7:28:27 AM PST by edgrimly78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis
My phone clicked all the time during the Clintoon Administration. Every time I said Clinton was a miserable SOB the clicking would start. :P
14 posted on 02/08/2006 7:34:30 AM PST by TheForceOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

Excellent research and information. Thanks.


15 posted on 02/08/2006 8:12:34 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done, needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank; All

How wrong you are.

The judges of the United States Supreme Court have not "acceded to...violations" of the Constitution by "Presidents throughout American history".

What they have done is "acceded to" the demands of the Constitution, recognizing its deliniation of the powers and duties of the Chief Executive of the government, the President. They have not allowed Congress to politicize the excercise of those specific executive powers, when it upsets Congress that the Constitution did not divide those specific powers between them, Congress, and some President they don't like.

The founders created a Constitution that wisely established that foreign policy, war making and national defense activities are best handled by a single, highest elected authority, the Chief Executive and that Executive's role as Commander in Chief, and that they not be conducted by a committee from Congress.

They have also recognized that in as much as that division of powers is laid out specifically in the Constitution, mere legislation, as opposed to a Constitutional amendment, cannot unilaterally subdivide those powers, nor can the courts, unilaterally do so - just because they may like to enhance their own power (as does Congress).

In practical terms, what the Courts have done is avoided joining the Congress in its political disputes over constitutionally deliniated Executive Powers. The Courts have forced Congress to recognize it has a remedy to such disputes, if it so willing to attempt that remedy - seek an amendment or amendments to the Constitution. No Congress has been willing to do so and its doubtful any such attempt would succeed.

Given the temerity (unwillingness to act decisively), hypocrisy, political rangling and infighting, backstabbing, deal-making, grandstanding, demogoguery, media-attention-grabbing that passes for Congressional committee "hearings", we must thank God that the authority and powers regarding foreign policy, war making and national security operations are not exercised by such committees.

Try watching the series "24" some time, and afterwards you will thank God that such a "CTU" (Counter Terrorism Unit), as we may have operating somewhere in the country, as depicted on that show, is not running to Congress or a FISA judge every five minutes. They are too busy getting done the job that you, your children and your grandchildren hope to God they are getting done. They have no time or resources to listen into a recitation of the ingrediants to your aunt Mable's secret sauce, even if they wanted to.


16 posted on 02/08/2006 8:21:12 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Irontank; Wuli
Now liberals do not want the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution since their liberal friends are being run off it! So who then, their liberal friends on a lowly Senate committee? The poor liberals cannot face the fact that the President has this power under the Constitution and no amount of whining or unconstitutional legislation will change it. If liberals do not like the President's EXCLUSIVE power to CONDUCT WAR and FOREIGN AFFAIRS under the Constitution, I dare you to try and amend it!
17 posted on 02/08/2006 9:28:27 AM PST by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
The founders created a Constitution that wisely established that foreign policy, war making and national defense activities are best handled by a single, highest elected authority, the Chief Executive and that Executive's role as Commander in Chief, and that they not be conducted by a committee from Congress.

I don't think the text of the Constitution supports your position. The Constitution delegates to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power …
"To declare War …
"To raise and support Armies …
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia....

--U.S. Constitution
(Article 1, Section 8)

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States....
--U.S. Constitution
(Article 2, Section 2)

Most war powers were given to Congress because the Founders feared a too-powerful Executive who, history has shown, are too often prone to commit their governments to war

Mr. M(adison) and Mr. Gerry moved to insert 'declare,' striking out [the legislative power to] 'make' war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.

"Mr. Sharman [Sherman] thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. Be able to repel and not to commence war....

"Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the Executive alone to declare war....

"Mr. Mason was agst giving the power of war to the Executive, because not (safely) to be trusted with it.... He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred 'declare' to 'make'."
--Constitutional Convention
(Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts. demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl: But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it.
--James Madison
(Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 2, 1798)

In this distribution of powers the wisdom of our constitution is manifested. It is the province and duty of the Executive to preserve to the Nation the blessings of peace. The Legislature alone can interrupt those blessings, by placing the Nation in a state of War.
--Alexander Hamilton
(Pacificus #1, June 29, 1793)

[W]ar is a question, under our constitution, not of Executive, but of Legislative cognizance. It belongs to Congress to say - whether the Nation shall of choice dismiss the olive branch and unfurl the banners of War.
--Alexander Hamilton
(Americanus #1, January 31, 1794)

Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [1787] Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.
--Abraham Lincoln
(Letter to William Herndon, February 15, 1848)

We're told we're in a state of war so that the explicit and clear language of the 4th Amendment requirement that no warrants shall issue "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" does not apply...in other words, the President's authority as commander in chief of the armed forces conveys authority to ignore the 4th Amendment during wartime. First...the 4th Amendment does not contain any exceptions to its applicability during wartime...so its a tough argument to make that the Founders would have believed violations of it to be Constitutional at any time.

More importantly, even if the 4th Amendment does not apply during wartime...are we even in a war? What is this War on Terror? When do we win? How do we win? When there's no act of terrorism in the world for a certain period of time? I suspect that the "war" will never end...which, if the argument supporters of warrantless wiretapping are making is true, means the 4th Amendment is no longer of any effect...along with any other Constitutional provision that any President determines to be in conflict with his (or her) authority as "commander in chief of the armed forces"

That may be OK while President Bush is in office...but what about when a President Rodham takes office? Do you really want the executive to have the authority to ignore clear Constitutional limitations on executive power?

I don't blame the President for any of this...its the feckless Congress that deserves our contempt. Its up to Congress to make a clear statement as to the scope of this war and who the enemy is...but Congress is happy to turn its authority over to the President by authorizing military force against whoever the President determines to be a threat whenever the President so decides. The Congress is happy to just sit back and either take credit for the war or criticize the President depending on how his military adventures are going at any one time. That's not how it was supposed to be

18 posted on 02/08/2006 10:38:59 AM PST by Irontank (Let them revere nothing but religion, morality and liberty -- John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: excludethis
Your list is so impressive a collection of historic precedent that I have bookmarked your thread as a reference source. Have you considered providing links to each assertion? I think that would vastly enhance its value. Be glad to assist on that project.

You might also want to include a note about Benjamin Franklin, who as Postmaster General, regularly opened mail on a national security basis, and did so without warrant.

19 posted on 02/08/2006 2:14:12 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irontank; Wuli

I'm really hoping that you don't mean to imply that the clause you highlighted was made in reference to "The President shall be Commander in Chief..." clause. That would be a disastrous mis-reading of the Constitution, not only from the standpoint of English grammar, sentence construction and punctuation, but also an error in regards to the intent of the founding fathers. That clause only applies to its immediate antecedent, "and of the Militia of the several States". That has been settled law for over 200 years.

That is incorrect and nearly opposite of what occurred. At the time of the Constitutional convention, they were trying to undue the disaster of the Articles of Confederation, which limited the authority of the national government so severely that it was an impotent shell that could accomplish nothing.

They were so sure of the power they wished to impart to the national government through the new Constitution, that they founded it primarily on the basis of a separation of powers, so that no branch could any longer infringe on the authority of another branch. To limit abuses of those new powers, the founding fathers included carefully delineated powers and a limited system of checks and balances, but the primary focus of the Constitutional Convention was empowerment.

And more to the point of your quote, the war powers were not "mostly" given to Congress, they were divided more or less equally, along the lines of the roles assigned to each branch. Congress was given the power to declare war, while the executive, as Commander-in-Chief, was given the power to make war.

Even your quotes from James Madison's Constitutional Convention Notes, show this to be the fact. Read them again and note that the primary debate was whether to give the executive the power to initiate war through the power of declaring war. Of course that motion failed, yet there was no simply no debate raised by anyone against the necessity of empowering the executive to fight a defensive war, as was clearly noted in those quotes you provided.

Pointedly, it was no less than James Madison who led the ultimately successful effort to limit Congressional authority to the much narrower "declare war" provision, rather than the far broader "make war" provision, which was done specifically so that the executive would maintain the authority to fight a defensive war.

In deed, it was James Madison who as President fought the final two Barbary Wars without a formal Declaration of War. Madison did this because, as the "Father of the Constitution", he knew that the "declare war" clause did not prevent the Commander-in-Chief from engaging the military in armed conflict, once the United States had been attacked.

And let there be no doubt that in the present case, the President is fighting just such a defensive war. America was attacked by foreign terrorists on 9-11 and in fighting this defensive war, the President is in no way limited to merely repelling an attack solely at our own doorstep, but as Madison did, once attacked, the President may defensively pursue both the attackers, as well as any who aid, conspire with, sponsor, or provide sanctuary to those attackers, even if that includes the necessity of invading and subduing a foreign nation in that process.

20 posted on 02/08/2006 3:02:59 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
The United States is one terror event away from the Constitution being suspended - General Tommy Franks Wire taps might very well prevent this from happening... On the other hand we are in the fix we are in because the door was left wide open for terrorists by many administrations..and the door is still wide open to our south..and millions of invaders of all persuasions have infiltrated.

Those LLL morons over at Err Amerika were ranting yesterday about how it was much more important to save the Constitution than their own life. The feel a compelling need to pass the Constitution down to their kids and grandkids even it means they die in the process. Meaning I guess the Evil Bush/Rove WH is destroying the Constitution by intercepting communications of our enemies, and the saving of the Constitution should be the #1 priority and WOT kicks in later. Actually many of the LLL do not believe there is a WOT and it is simply something Rove keeps the publics eye on so the Repubs can stay in power. THESE MORONS MUST NEVER AGAIN IN MY LIFE TIME BE ALLOWED TO BE IN CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT, not even as dog catcher.

21 posted on 02/08/2006 6:26:00 PM PST by p23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Irontank; Boot Hill
While Boot Hill has already made many fine points, I will try not to duplicate them as I add the following:

As you correctly note, but fail to understand the implications of, it the President who must, by the powers deliniated to that office by the Constitution, preserve and protect the "peace" of the nation. That is why matters of foreign policy, maintaining the national defense structure and foreign intelligence lie, Constitutionally, within the province of the Commander in Chief. It is opposite of prudent, necessary or "constitutional" that the Commander in Chief act as if the world is at "peace" with us simply because some foreign agent has not yet acted so as to create a need for Congress to "declare war". In fact, the Commander in Chief has every constitutional obligation to prevent foreign interests from being able to initiate such acts, before they happen, before any need for Congress to "declare war" arises. That was the whole premise of the 9/11 commission fiasco - how did we fail to "maintain the peace". That is what the purpose of a national defense structure and national intelligence operations are for. Congress can refuse to fund those structures, legislate ways in which they ought to be structures, refuse to approve the President's appointments to those structures, ask questions (hold hearings) about their operations, to better ascertain the appropriateness of requested funding, but Congerss does not operate them, does not manage them, does not run them over the head of the President and they have no power to. The DOD is not a Congressional operation.

As Boot Hill reminds you more eleoquently and thoroughly than I - congress can "declare war", but maintaining the defensive posture of nation, which includes foreign intelligence, is the Constitutional role of the Commander In Chief and it must operate and defend the nation from potential enemies whether or not there is a declared war. And, it is from the actions and by the powers of the Commander in Chief that the Constitution expects those defensive efforts to be conducted, not Congress.

We're told we're in a state of war so that the explicit and clear language of the 4th Amendment requirement that no warrants shall issue "but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" does not apply...in other words, the President's authority as commander in chief of the armed forces conveys authority to ignore the 4th Amendment during wartime.

The 4th amendment requirement has been, continuosly, interpreted as relavent to "law enforcement" activities and not to the collection of foreign intelligence. The NSA and all the "electronic signals" information it collects could not even exist, in practical terms, under your misguided idea of applying the "warrants" clause of the 4th amendment to foreign intelligence. The fact that one-half of a conversation, to or from, a suspected foreign operative, begins or ends on United States soil does not consitute "domestic spying", anymore than FDR's intercepting of all telephone communications leaving or coming into the United States, to or from Japan or Germany, constituted "domestic spying". What J.Edgar Hoover and Bobby Kennedy did without warrants in the case of Martin Luther King constituted "domestic spying", an abuse of federal powers in law enforcment and was in violation of the intent of the 4th amendment requirement for a warrant; but Bobby's warrantless intercepts of conversations between Castro and phone locations in the United States was not.

You have this matter 180 degrees off balance. It is politicians in Congress and their little bruised egos, lacking the Constitutional powers of the Commander Chief, who have continually tried to limit the powers that the Constitution and the founders deliniated to the chief Executive. The "dictator" charge is always dragged out by the little dictators in Congress, deflecting from the fact that the President and the President's successors are and will be the highest elected officials in the nation, representing all the people. That is why the people, in have generally supported their Presidents in matters of national intelligence issues, preferring an active defense to a timid, bumbling and ineffectual congress. In fact, the national leaders who have historically made the grade, in the eyes of the people, were leaders who, whether in war or in peace, led the country, above following Congress. Weak Presidents, like Carter and Clinton have, by historians and the people, failed to make the top grades, and rightly so - they failed to "actively" defend the nation.

22 posted on 02/09/2006 9:31:11 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Wuli; Irontank; Boot Hill

Even searches "without probable cause" can be constitutional "when special needs, beyond the normal needs for law enforcement make the elements of a warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." Ver- onia School District 47j v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995)


23 posted on 02/09/2006 2:09:32 PM PST by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wuli; Irontank; Boot Hill

United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970). The court held that a federal statute could not forbid the President from ordering wiretappeing when gathering foreign intelligence in the national interest. Thus FISA is unconstitutional to the extent it is trying to limit the President's own power under the Constitution.


24 posted on 02/09/2006 2:23:11 PM PST by excludethis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: excludethis

I know that, you know that, the President knows that, the AG knows that, Mark Levin knows that, but apparently Arlen Specter and some Democrats are not interested in either the Constitution or the case law in these type of cases. But what can we say, doesn't a Senator's job description include the requirement "Love to hear yourself talk".


25 posted on 02/09/2006 2:47:01 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: excludethis
President Wilson ordered the warrantless interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe. That fascist Wilson reading every American's cable wires without a warrant!

Before Katz v. U.S., 389 US 347 (1967), warrants were not needed for ANY wiretaps, and were specifically okay under the rule of Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

President Roosevelt order gave the Government of the United States access without a warrant all communications by mail, cable, radio, or other means of transmission passing between the United States and any foreign country.

I'd have to look it up, but I believe there were Congressional grants. 100% of international mail to and from the US was -openly- censored.

Kennedy used warrantless wiretaps on Martin Luther King that were simply approved by his little brother, the attorney general at the time. That fascist Kennedy, listening to a preacher's telephone calls without a warrant!

That one actually raised a bit of a stink. So did the blackmail threats and suggestions that he commit suicide in order to avoid embarrassing disclosure of personal activity. The FBI at its finest hour! Oh for a return to those days.

Clinton also authorized the NSA to wiretap and search the home of CIA spy Aldrich Ames.

He got a warrant for the wiretap, but the FISA Court had no mechanism -at all- for issuing a physical entry order. Not that I think the search was unreasonable - but using Ames as a parallel is an argument that can be turned against you.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553690/posts?page=109#109
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1567288/posts?page=1043#1043

Jamie Gorelick, the 9/11 Commission member and former high-ranking Clinton Justice Department official, told the Senate Intelligence Committee 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." That fascists Clinton Justice Department, asserting the President has the inherent Constitutional power to conduct warrantless wire taps!

Similar to above, but here you jump from physical entry to wiretap. The wiretap of Ames was done -with- a warrant. There was plenty of cause to get the wiretapping warrant.

Eavesdropping is less heavy-handed than firing missiles or holding terrorists in detention. Supreme Court found it was appropriate to detain an American citizen for fighting alongside al-Qaida. "How can it be that merely listening to al-Qaida phone calls into and out of the country in order to disrupt their plots is not?"

This is really a disjointed argument. It takes a military battlefield scenario and compares reasonable action used there with a completely unrelated situation with quite difference balancing of competing interests. I agree the argument makes a good sound bite, but it's logically twisted.

As for limiting eavesdropping to conversations involving terrorists, I'm confident that if that is in fact the case, the surveillance is eminently reasonable. If we know who the terrorists are (how else could we decide which conversations to listen to?), why don't we pick them up and deal some justice?

"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."--U.S. v. Truong

Just picking that one as an example, I think it captures a phrase that is at the center of the issue, "foreign intelligence." This is good and honest ground to debate from, and avoids trying to conform with "wartime v. peacetime," "authority granted by the AUMF," and all other traps involving grants of power from Congress.

The firmest ground for the administration is based on finding authority in "foreign intelligence" and the duty to "resist foreign invasion."

26 posted on 02/09/2006 4:00:54 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: excludethis
Thus FISA is unconstitutional to the extent it is trying to limit the President's own power under the Constitution.

The "problem" with this class of case, and I think it's in a similar class as War Powers Resolution of 1973, is that there is no neat and tidy way resolve the dispute between Congress and the President. Professor Rober Tirner argues in this article that Congress overstepped its bounds in the War Powers Resolution, and calls on Congress to repeal it.

The alternative, which is always possible, is for a President to flout the law. What is Congress going to do about it?

I see a different sort of future for the warrantless surveillance cases, should they come up. The first venue for that dispute will be the courts, criminal charges or not, and I thik the present line of detention cases gives some insight into how a line of surveillance cases might develop.

27 posted on 02/09/2006 4:19:23 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson