America... Spying on Americans

FreeDuck wrote:

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.

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

Even though York claimed that after the law was amended, "the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary," neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president's inherent "authority" allowed him to ignore FISA.

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

ABC Nightline, "Above the Law" segment:

The Nightline segment began with an announcement that Judge James Robinson, a sitting judge on the secret FISA court, resigned in protest of the president's illegal conduct.

A constitutional expert stated that the president's domestic spying program was clearly unconstitutional and criminal.

Another constitutional scholar also stated that president's domestic spying program was indeed a federal crime--a SERIOUS FELONY--and a violation of the Constitution. The president is subect to impeachment for these offenses.

kuvasz wrote:

Even though York claimed that after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary,” neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA.

York disagrees with you:

Byron York wrote:

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

In fact, during her testimony, Gorelick said the President would go along with Congress' decision to place physical searches under the FISA, if it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

So Tico it seems you are sticking with the idea that because it's been done before (Clinton specifically) it's alright to continue doing it? You're running out of wiggle room on this one. The only question that should be at hand is "is there a violation of civil liberties?"

Hey. It was funny.

kuvasz wrote:

Even though York claimed that after the law was amended, "the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary," neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president's inherent "authority" allowed him to ignore FISA.

York disagrees with you:

Byron York wrote:

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

In fact, during her testimony, Gorelick said the President would go along with Congress' decision to place physical searches under the FISA, if it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President's authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted.

The language currently found in the Senate Intelligence Committee bill raises a number of significant concerns and is not acceptable to the Administration without some additions and modifications. We are working with that Committee to address these concerns, and there do not appear to be any major areas of disagreement. I am hopeful that an agreement will be reached.

That being said, the Department of Justice believes that Congress can legislate in the area of physical searches as it has done with respect to electronic surveillances, and we are prepared to support appropriate legislation. A bill that strikes the proper balance between adequate intelligence to guarantee our nation's security, on one hand, and the preservation of basic civil rights on the other will be an important addition to our commitment to democratic control of intelligence functions. Such a bill would also provide additional assurances to the dedicated men and women who serve this country in intelligence positions that their activities are proper and necessary.

In considering legislation of this type, however, it is 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.

Rule 41 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires a judicial warrant to search and seize (1) property that constitutes evidence of a crime; (2) contraband, that is the fruits of a crime or things otherwise illegally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use as the means of committing a crime. Normally, the federal officer conducting the search is required to serve a copy of the warrant on the person whose property is being searched and to provide a written inventory of the property seized.

These rules would defeat the purposes and objectives of foreign intelligence searches, which are very different from searches to gather evidence of a crime. Physical searches to gather foreign intelligence depend on secrecy. If the existence of these searches were known to the foreign power targets, they would alter their activities to render the information useless. Accordingly, a notice requirement, such as exists in the criminal law, would be fatal.

Likewise, only in extremely rare cases could a good faith representation be made that the purpose of the search was to gather evidence of a crime. In addition, because of the nature of clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, it is usually impossible to describe the object of the search in advance with sufficient detail to satisfy the requirements of the criminal law.
Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise. Information gathering for policy maker and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus. Prosecution is but one of many possible options that may be pursued at a later date. The Rule 41 requirements for the purpose of the search and ultimate notice to the person searched simply cannot be squared with the clandestine nature of searches directed at foreign powers or their agents.

section 1801 a (1), (2), or (3) of this title[/u]; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 a (1), (2), or (3) of this title

nimh wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

and this will be a very very long thread of nothing but corrections of one another that add nothing to the conversation. Perhaps that's what you're aiming for.

I think thats exactly what Tico is aiming for in instances like these.

I'm aiming for accuracy, nimh. Posters on this board have a habit of making remarks that are misleading, confusing, vague, ambiguous, or inaccurate. We all do it. Some do it intentionally, and some do it purely on accident, and don't even know they did it. In any event, when I point out any of the above, its disconcerting to hear from those that would apparently prefer for posts to remain innaccurate, confusing, vague or ambiguous, rather than have Tico seek clarification.

As I've said, it makes sense if it's an emergency need, but as you point out they have 72 hours to get the probable cause finding with the FISA court, so that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. I imagine there are facts to which we are not privy.

So Tico it seems you are sticking with the idea that because it's been done before (Clinton specifically) it's alright to continue doing it? You're running out of wiggle room on this one. The only question that should be at hand is "is there a violation of civil liberties?"

Ticomaya wrote:

kuvasz wrote:

Even though York claimed that after the law was amended, "the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary," neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president's inherent "authority" allowed him to ignore FISA.

York disagrees with you:

Byron York wrote:

Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

In fact, during her testimony, Gorelick said the President would go along with Congress' decision to place physical searches under the FISA, if it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

Regardless of whether Clinton, or the Clinton administration, argued or maintained that the president has "authority" to order searches without a warrant--no president has that power.

No where in the Constitution will you find any delegation of authority authorizing any branch of the government or any agent of the government to violate the people's civil rights. If there was any doubt, the Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless, nonconsensual search is presumptively unreasonable. There is no "national security" exception to the warrant requirement that would allow domestic searches and seizures. A president's ability to curtail civil rights during a time of war is limited to suspending the writ of habeas corpus. He has no other authority, explicit or implied, to conduct a domestic spying program that circumvents both the Constitution and federal law.

dyslexia wrote:

So Tico it seems you are sticking with the idea that because it's been done before (Clinton specifically) it's alright to continue doing it? You're running out of wiggle room on this one. The only question that should be at hand is "is there a violation of civil liberties?"

Neither Mysteryman or Ticomaya have supported any contention that Clinton specifically conducted a warrantless domestic spying program.

tico, you really should go back to the original sources instead of relying on the selective cherry picking of propagandists like York.

<snip>

gorelick was talking about warrantless searches conducted on foreign powers. As cited earlier, an even more clear distinction was made under FISA as to what "Foreign Power" was defined as, and still further which target definition was included as acceptable for warrantless electronic surveillance authorization.

<snip>

York is stating that since Gorelick maintained that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreign powers and their agents, then Bush had a right to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans on American soil suspected of terrorism, even thought FISA specifically stated otherwise.

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.

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:

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.

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