President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps!!

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ^ | June 13, 1979 | OPINIONBY:FREEMAN

[Steel Wolf]

It's ironic, because under those circumstances probable cause is airtight, and getting a warrant should take about five minutes. IOW, the argument for a warrantless tap is in reality the strongest argument why they should certainly go for a warrant.

It should take a few minutes, but it's often a few weeks. While it's true that the approval rate is very high, that's because the vetting process is extremely stringent. So the 'tap now warrant later' line doesn't work, because it the warrant request wouldn't be ready by the deadline, and may not be approved anyway.

On that note, you don't want judges to simply rubber stamp warrants anyway. They're doing their job correctly. A warrant can be used in building a criminal case, and so needs to be a legitimate tool of law enforcement. But for intelligence collection purposes, you don't care about pressing charges, only disrupting incoming attacks. Authorizing 'rubber stamped warrants' is a threat to our personal liberties far, far greater than any secret wiretapping program.

That said, FISA judges are not going to give a warrant to wiretap a phone based on no evidence other than calling contacts. It could be a wrong number, there could be a U.S. citizen on the other end of the line that may not realize they're talking to a terrorist, you just don't know. It's suspicious, sure, but there's no proof, in the legal sense, that the person on the other end of the phone is doing anything illegal.

You could probably do some quick research into a suspicious number and determine if there's a bad guy at the other end, but if you're waiting on a warrant, you aren't going to get anywhere based on a 'hunch'. If you had corroborating information like a source on the inside passing us information, that would be good grounds, but our HUMINT is still underdeveloped and weak.

In short, it seems that this program is closing a legal loophole that created a blind spot in our intelligence collection. The same blind spot that allowed Al Qaida to sneak past us prior to 9/11. With a transnational enemy you need a tool to combat the threat effectively. We simply didn't have one before this.

[trisham]

NSA is listening to calls into the USA from AQ and known AQ contacts. They are not listening to you, unless you are getting calls from such people.

*************

A fact conveniently ignored by those who oppose President Bush on this issue.

[scannell]

I understand your point on the separation of powers and that the Congress cannot pass laws restricting the right of the President, but what about the fact that the President signs such law? Does he thereby subordinate his rights to the legislation voluntarily?

[antiRepublicrat]

"Reasonable" is what a president thinks it is, regardless of whether that decision has any basis in the larger reality. Remember, this is the same government that says "anything that gets us more tax revenue" means the same as "public use."

[Recovering_Democrat]

Or we could just follow the Constitution, which is what I proposed.

[Cboldt]

Or we could just follow the Constitution, which is what I proposed.

We're in agreement then! Follow the Constitution, voila. I just don't get all the ruckus when everybody is in agreement.

[Cboldt]

"Reasonable" is what a president thinks it is, regardless of whether that decision has any basis in the larger reality. Remember, this is the same government that says "anything that gets us more tax revenue" means the same as "public use."

It would be much more tidy if it was out of the public dialog.

[antiRepublicrat]

With the help of your watch list, you now observe which connections "light up".

You're talking about what in the phone business is known as a pen register or trap and trace, and it extends to the Internet. This data is considered to have no real constitutional protection, the only protections existing in current law. To get a warrant for that, law enforcement just has to tell the judge they need it in relation to an ongoing investigation, and the judge "shall issue" it.

[antiRepublicrat]

So you think that G.W. is the first President ever to do this?

He isn't. Of course, the results of previous presidents having spied on Americans using the "national security" excuse were scandal, congressional investigations, new laws to prevent it, and even articles of impeachment drawn-up.

[antiRepublicrat]

They are not listening to you, unless you are getting calls from such people.

A fact conveniently ignored by those who oppose President Bush on this issue.

A fact? Are you sure?

[trisham]

A fact? Are you sure?

****************

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

[antiRepublicrat]

Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

Shamrock, Minaret, CHAOS, COINTELPRO. Presidents have a firm history of doing it when they believe they have the power. History tends to repeat itself when it comes to government power, so there are decent odds that it has been abused. Far from "fact" that it has not.

[Shalom Israel]

Not with a democrat judge playing politics with our safety.

If a judge should be impeached, or arrested, then impeach, or arrest him. I wouludn't start using it as an excuse to just bypass the judicial system entirely.

[saganite]

Better to have al Qaeda cut my head off than to give up everything that makes life worth living. bravado Dictionary bra·va·do (brə-vä'dô) n., pl. -dos or -does. Defiant or swaggering behavior: A pretense of courage; a false show of bravery. A disposition toward showy defiance or false expressions of courage.

[101st-Eagle]

Hmmmm. So, what's the difference between the Stasi in East Germany saying it was for 'National Security' and a democratic White House under Hillary Clinton saying it's for 'National Security'? And when it's no longer Al Qaeda they're worried about? When they begin to consider political action groups to be a threat to 'National Security'? What then?

The rest of you can lap this up if you want- that's you're choice of course- but nothing on this Earth can make me like this. If that makes me a 'bad conservative'- I don't care.

If she is in power under your terms, what's to stop a Clinton sympathizer judge from authorizing a bad search on you with a warrant? De facto bad ending for you if you extrapolate. IOW, in this new paradigm we a living in, you have to trust the good guys RIGHT NOW. We can deal with Hillary later, namely at the polls.

[101st-Eagle]

I guarantee that if this were Al Gore doing this right now, you would find narry a Freeper to go along with it and that they do it now just to support this President is a bit sickening in my opinion.

I don't know about that. I think conservatives are different than traitorous liberals because, in general, we rally behind even a Democrat in times of war when the enemy is real, as this one has been for many years.

[antiRepublicrat]

It would be much more tidy if it was out of the public dialog.

Definitely. The Pentagon Papers and COINTELPRO were really messy and embarrassing too once they hit the public dialog.

[steve-b]

I'm glad someone else is thinking of the future and not just the here and now.

Indeed. People around here seemed a lot clearer on the concept that this country has a President, not a King, prior to 20 January 2001....

[Badray]

I think that I replied to the wrong post. When I posted that I was up damn near 24 hours. Sorry.

[mnehring]

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

- - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, 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, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:

(a) Secretary of State;

(b) Secretary of Defense;

(c) Director of Central Intelligence;

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(e) Deputy Secretary of State;

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.