America... Spying on Americans

If it is "Illegal" or "Unconstitutional" the courts will decide. IN THE MEANTIME, IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, IT IS ENOUGH TO SHOW THAT REAGAN, AND CLINTON HAD SIMILAR ORDERS.

I did not use the word "legal" in my post.

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

Yes that I did do Tico, is your definition different that currently used by the Bush Admin? and a follow up question when you are finished answering this one.

dyslexia wrote:

Yes that I did do Tico, is your definition different that currently used by the Bush Admin? and a follow up question when you are finished answering this one.

As I said, my definition is a secret.

Ticomaya wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

Yes that I did do Tico, is your definition different that currently used by the Bush Admin? and a follow up question when you are finished answering this one.

As I said, my definition is a secret.

Then I take it you can't compare your definiton with the Bush Admin definition because it too is secret?

The point is that Clinton, and those in his Administration, were also of the opinion that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.

there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

woiyo wrote:

"Now in re-reading, he was probably talking about the president's insistence that the authorization to use force in response to 9/11 was authorization to spy."

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

Possibly here from the test of the authorization

"(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. "

Or a broad power from the Patriot Act.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1739539#1739539

Debra_Law wrote:

woiyo wrote:

"Now in re-reading, he was probably talking about the president's insistence that the authorization to use force in response to 9/11 was authorization to spy."

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

Quote:

[snip] . . .

c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
[snip]

. . . If you believe either the Constitution or an authorization to use the United States Armed Forces (Military) Force against Iraq" includes implied authorization to violate the civil rights of Americans secured by the Constitution against governmental denials or deprivations, you are indeed one of Bush's useful idiots. . . .

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1739754#1739754

Ticomaya wrote:

Fine, Debra. Why are you quoting from that resolution, when woiyo was obviously talking about a different one?

Now analyze the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, which authorized Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force" against those responsible for 9/11 in order to prevent further attacks.

Ticomaya:

Prove to me that woiyo was "obviously talking about a different" resolution.

Rather than making unfounded accusations about my alleged inability to discern the obvious, why don't you provide me a with a link to the precise resolution that you want me to address to avoid future confusion on your part.

Debra

Ticomaya wrote:

The point is that Clinton, and those in his Administration, were also of the opinion that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.

Not exactly. Clinton's order was in line with FISA (to the point of actually referencing it in the order) and not indicative of a belief that the power to conduct warrantless searches on US citizens was "inherent" to the president.

Ticomaya:

How dare you!!! Don't you know who you are questioning? Debra L A W!

That's who.

But apparently Debra L A W does not know that in the FEDERAL REGISTER-60 fr 8169- DATED Fe. 13, 1995- there is an Executive Order # 12949 HEADED FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES


IT READS:

"By the authority vested in me as President by THE CONSTITUTION and 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 103-354, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forward in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section l- 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 UP TO A YEAR, if the Attorney General makes the Certifications required by that section.....


signed by

William Jefferson Clinton

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

Maybe Debra L A W fell asleep in class when they were discussing that one.

Ticomaya:

Your last post was an absolute waste of time. Not only are you making false accusations about my alleged inability to discern the obvious, you have clearly demonstrated the lack of the basic ability to see the obvious when it's highlighted in bold.

LOOK UP!

I provided you with a copy of woiyo's entire post where he specifically provides the text of the authorization that he was referring to.

The only resolution where that particular text appears as subsection (c) is the exact same resolution that I quoted.

Nowhere in the text of either resolution was the president granted authority to conduct a domestic spying program. Congress has no authority to grant the president power to subvert the Constitution and spy on the American people in violation of the Fourth Amendment. With respect to the gathering of foreign intelligence and intercepting electronic communications, the president must comply with the requirements of FISA. Since the president has acknowledged that he did not comply with FISA, he is a lawbreaker and a violator of civil rights. He has committed offenses making him liable to both impeachment and criminal prosecution.

Just to clear up any confusion -- hopefully it won't take more than this one post -- I was specifically referring to the position taken by Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton Administration in her testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994.

LINK

Hey, if Clinton couldn't define IS why should Bush define "wiretap"?