Posted on 02/10/2006 6:05:52 AM PST by conservativecorner
Different Rules apply. Sorry your emotio based perception of reality cannot expand to fit these facts.
Well George it is nice you have feelings on this matter, too bad they are completely irrelevent to anyone but you.
I provided you with factual data to back up the argument in post #20 and provided a link to all the cases in post #22.
Why won't you read them? Why won't you read Article II of the constitution? Why won't you read the cases that have proved the constitutional authority of the President to conduct surveillance in the course of national security?
Hey Justa,
Seems we have a twit just trolling for a fight. He fools no one. You nuked him. I wouldn't waste anymore time on him. Excellent work BTW.
Thanks Johnnie. I posted and left. It's Friday and Friday is my special "Support the Troops" day! Just got home. ;*)
The FISA Court is, in fact a creation of Congress, and can be dismantled. Some have advocated exactly that, and IMO, that is not an unreasonable proposal (to dismantle the FISA court). Then, each case and any evidentiary issues would be handled in regular courts, with the regular arguments, such as "state secret" and so forth.
The system ran okay for many years without something that resembles the FISA Court.
I'd also point out something in Specter's speech that this article left out, and I think it's an important statement.
The thrust of the legislative proposal I am drafting and have talked to a number of my colleagues about, with some affirmative responses, is to require the administration to take the program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.Specter's complete speech, as well as some comments, are at this thread.I think that they ought to do it on their own because I think that there are many questions which have been raised by both the Republicans and Democrats.
At any rate, by noting that he thinks the administration should ask of it's own is a concession that Congress' power is limited in this matter.
And to the idea that it's ludicrous of the President to submit to the Court at all, I think that at some point, contact with the Court is inevitable - at least on a case-by-case basis. It happens now, as the administration goes to the FISA Court with requests for warrants, and it happened in In re: Sealed Case, where the the government appealed certain "wall of separation" requirements and limitations imposed by a FISA Court.
The Congress is a cowardly lot and they are trying to kick the intel can down the road.
It will be interesting to see the form of the bill, will the bill require the Executive Branch to submit to the augment of the FISA Court? Will it be a sense of the Congress resolution. I doubt that the bill could stand a filibuster or Presidential Veto.
ping
Balance of power struggles are fun to watch. The principle -- Congress has no more right to tell the President how to do his job, than the President has telling Congress how to do its (e.g., line-item veto steps on Congress' toes) -- is especially intriguing when the order itself impinges on the role of the Court to adjudicate cases.
The Congress is a cowardly lot and they are trying to kick the intel can down the road.
The easiest way for Congress to punt the issue is to wash their hands of it. Disband the FISA court and have the cases handled one-by-one in the Courts.
But the administration values the FISA apparatus, because where the FISA tools are used, they facilitate obtaining convictions, and result in uniformity among the various involved Courts.
Fun stuff. Not as "simple" as most of the posts attempt to make the issue.
In Keith, the Court recognized that Congress did not intend to regulate every aspect of the executive branch's constitutional authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance for national security purposes under the Crime Control Act of 1968. [FN581] Instead, Justice Powell obliquely extended an invitation to Congress to create a framework for judicial review of internal security surveillance, parallel to its system for domestic law enforcement. [FN582] Although Congress did not react immediately to the Keith Court's prescription for a flexible, Fourth Amendment standard in internal security investigations, it provided an important impetus for the development of such legislation. [FN583]Through trial-and-error, the Executive and Congress sought to find a legislative solution to the problem of warrantless searches. [FN584] In 1976, President Ford submitted a bill to the Senate that would have codified existing executive branch practices, and Attorneys General William Saxbe and Edward Levi pledged their cooperation to work with Congress to create legislation to regulate electronic *76 surveillance. [FN585] Debate and discussion centered on the extent of the executive's inherent authority and whether the traditional criminal law standard should be included in the legislation. [FN586]
Senator Kennedy introduced a bill in 1977 that would have specifically repealed the disclaimer in the 1968 Crime Control Act and thus expressly eliminated congressional recognition of inherent executive power in this sphere. [FN587] During hearings on the Kennedy bill, the most controversy centered on the appropriate standards for targeting Americans who were not accused of criminal acts. [FN588] The Carter administration supported the legislation in principle, and after hearings in the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, both chambers approved the amended Kennedy proposal to drop the disclaimer repeal. [FN589] The proposal included a "quasi-criminal" targeting standard and more limited protections for aliens representing foreign governments in the United States. [FN590] In this climate of reform and inter-branch compromise, Justice Powell's invitation was finally accepted when Congress passed, and President Carter signed into law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). [FN591]
EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY FOR NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE
50 Am. U. L. Rev. 1 (October 2000)
A warrantless search of Ames's office was used to develop the government's case against him, and, according to Ames's lawyer, a challenge to the constitutionality of this particular warrantless search was planned. [FN599] Although Ames's guilty plea mooted the constitutional challenge, the threat prompted the change of stance by the Justice Department. [FN600] According to Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, [FN601] "[o]ur seeking legislation in no way should suggest *78 that we do not believe we have inherent authority . . . . We do . . . but as a policy matter, we thought it was better to have Congress and the judiciary involved." [FN602]Clinton, Reno and/or Gorelick sought Congressional involvement, sought legislation.
And as a matter of securing convictions, I think most people will agree the path is smoother when all three branches are working against the accused.
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.