Clinton's "inherent Authority" to wire tap in `94.

I was listening to Limbaugh today (I can only take small doses of his lies) and this idiot is spewing this crap about an article in the National Review and how every president from Reagan on has done this without court approval. I attached it below. My take on the article is that even though Clinton may have asserted that he as within the law to wiretap, he still didn't do it and stayed under the scrutiny of the FISA act. Also it looks as though Clinton's only intention was to use the authority on foreign offices in the US, not private US citizens. All still moot as he stayed under the oversight of the FISA court.
Anyone else see something different or know more about it than is available from York's piece? Also, the article mentioned Reagan signing into law the authority that Clinton cited. What precipitated Reagan's action? Did he get caught also?





BY Byron York

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. 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.




"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," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

Oh, that was for lying about a blow job. Never mind.

Bush should be too! :sarcasm: for the idea that he will, not for impeaching Pissypants.

somehow sees that as a parallel to excuse Bush flagrantly breaking a specific law? I honestly don't understand how these idiots can spew such nonsense. I mean, isn't there a little voice somewhere that warns them that their lies are so ridiculous that they shouldn't be uttered?

The article is pretty clear. Clinton's Justice Department was arguing in favor of a Reagan executive order justifying warrantless searches of foreign agents. Congress wanted to force warrantless searches to fall under the same protection as wiretaps--thus requiring them to receive a court order to perform them. Congress won (thankfully--it was still Democratic then) and Clinton's justice department issued a statement that "the administration would go along with a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she (Gorelick) testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

So Clinton followed the law, then tried to lobby Congress not to change it, then when Congress changed it said he would follow the law as long as it didn't interfere with his ability to collect foreign intelligence. Bush broke the law, wiretapped American citizens without approaching a court to determine if they were a high enough risk to justify wire-tapping (and one can only conclude that Bush did not seek a warrant because he expected them to turn down his warrant), and now claims he'll keep doing it.

Rush sees the two cases as similar, and thinks Clinton's actions clear Bush? That's like saying someone who argues that the death penalty should remain legal justifies someone else who brutally murders a victim he feels threatened by.

1. 9/11 changed everything
2. It’s Bill Clinton’s fault
3. It’s the evil liberals
4. through 10. repeat excuses 1, 2, and 3

and realize it's bullshit. He only needs it to sound good for a little while, until a butterfly goes by or something else distracts his audience.

They lie about the opposition and by the time the media has figured out they lied, they've moved on to their next lie. If there's any retraction it's after the fact and on page 13.

there was the distraction tactic of saying "Hey look Kerry got worse grades than Bush in Yale" so that people wouldn't notice that Kerry got glowing reports by some of the very people who smeared him later.

Bastards.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: \'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE\' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: \"The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order\"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: \"Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.\"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to \"places where you wouldn\'t find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order.\"

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president \"has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes.\"

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames\'s office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

...GRANTED THEY NEVER GIVE ME LINKS WHEN THEY POST THIS STUFF:puke:

Here's what Clinton signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) <50 U.S.C. 1822(a)> 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.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrant less searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?


the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Translation: You can't search American citizens.

and there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Translation: You can't search American citizens.


The attempt to put the Aldrich Ames into this is really laughable. Ames was a CIA employee with a TOP SECRET Compartmented clearance. I don't know how many of you have a clearance like that but when you apply for and are briefed on with one of these you basically sign forms that give away your constitutional rights if the FEDs think you are abusing your access to classified material. Mr. Ames's office was in a Federal Facility and the FBI/CIA had every right to search it with or without a warrant. Before the OCT 9th search of his home the FBI had previously conducted two searches of his trash on a public curb (also quite legal). In all of these searches they found evidence to indicate that he was engaged in spying. Therefore they certainly had probable cause to search his house.
I would like to see some actual documentation that verifies that the house search on OCT 9th was actually conducted without a warrant. This story seems to have gotten started because of a call in to the CNN Situation Room program from a Republican Attorney. The right wing blogs and commenter's picked it up and started reporting it as gospel.

Hard to believe some here actually believe the "Clinton/Carter did it" crap..

But then again, it always amazes me that some here would actually listen to that racist, addicted druggie.

To each their own I suppose.

Welcome to DU!! :toast: