Posted on 12/23/2005 8:03:41 AM PST by FairOpinion
Can Democratic presidents order wiretaps on U.S. soil without a court order, but not Republicans? We ask because that's the standard critics appear to be using against President Bush over National Security Agency surveillance of al Qaeda operatives. Every president, Democrat or Republican, has exercised this authority since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act became law in October 1978. But it appears to be deemed problematical only for President Bush, whose wiretaps are said to have caught Iyman Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen who wanted to bomb the Brooklyn Bridge.
The ink on FISA was barely dry when the first president to order extrajudicial surveillance -- a Democrat -- did so. Jimmy Carter exercised his authority on May 23, 1979 with Executive Order #12139, seven months after signing FISA into law, declaring that "the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order," subject to the section's requirements. The order cites a FISA section helpfully titled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."
The precedent was even more firmly established by President Clinton. Top Clinton administration officials are on record defending the practice. As Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994: "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 and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general." She remarked that: "It's 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."
The authority is not disputed in case law.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I guess people would rather if the terrorists had blown up the Brookly Bridge...
And who knows how many other attacks we foiled by listening to the plans of the terrorists.
After 9-11 the battle cry was "intelligence failure", and now when we are gathering intelligence and preventing attacks, Congress wants to dismantle our ability to do this.
The battle cry may have been "intelligence failure", but the message has always been "blame Bush", regardless of the words they use.
Now that would have made the walk from Brooklyn a little more difficult during the transit strike now wouldn't it?
You must not have read Jeffery Toobin's explanation. The Democrat's don't count because they didn't believe they were violating the FISA act. You see the difference don't you? There is a difference isn't there?
Spot on, short and sweet. This issue should be dead by now.
That's why the President's poll numbers are rising. The media and the Democratic leadership may think they can get some mileage out of trying to play both sides, but the American people aren't buying it.
The ink on FISA was barely dry when the first president to order extrajudicial surveillance -- a Democrat -- did so. Jimmy Carter exercised his authority on May 23, 1979 with Executive Order #12139, seven months after signing FISA into law, declaring that "the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order," subject to the section's requirements. The order cites a FISA section helpfully titled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."
Which part of this don't the left get?
The really sad part is that the Dems used their power to spy on political enemies. The Repubs used it to spy on terrorists. Just a tiny difference!
For the Dems? .. yes
Because for them and their greed for power trumps national security and american lives
The major difference is that the MSM is nothing more than DNC Operatives, and they ignore these facts
"That was different."
Do you want to know why the Dems are so bent out of shape over this? Two reasons.
1. They have something to hide (adultery, porn addiction, bribe-taking, whatever).
2. They know that they have used it to get the dirt on political enemies and since that is what they did or would do, they assume that everyone else is just as corrupt as they are.
BTW, in principle, I'm against a blanket ok on spying, eavesdropping, etc, but I'm in favor of authorizing it for specific purposes such as watching terrorists, drug dealers, organized crime.
I'm just furious at the 'Rats for this constant, steady assault on everything we've done since 9/11/01. News this morning is that Daschle is now claiming the 'Rats never knew what they were signing, and so on and so on--it never stops.
On the plus side, it doesn't seem to be playing well with the public, because the President is polling very well since he started speaking out. He just needs to keep responding to their lies; otherwise, the public will side with the 'Rats.
This editorial in the Washington Times is excellent, and I can only wish it could be published in all the papers and "news" magazines.
You're right. So are they, it IS different. GWB did these things for the security of the country, NOT for personal gain or to bring down his political enemies. I'm just absolutely flabbergasted that the Dems can say stuff like this with a straight face. How can they possibly be so blind? This is what scares me so much about the left - either they are so cold-blooded that they know exactly what they are doing or that they are so incredibly stupid that they have no idea. Lieberman is one of the very few exceptions that has both a conscience and intelligence.
That's what makes this issue such a loser for Democrats. Very few Americans would be okay with wild, unchecked police state monitoring, however, very few Americans are upset over specific, targeted wiretappings of persons in contact with foriegn Al Qaida facilitators.
So long as the investigatiosn show that this is a limited focus program designed to save lives, then most Americans will simply shrug and say, 'That's fine with us'. If it turns out that the government has been wiretapping political enemies to try and blackmail them, then that's something 100% different.
That is the most important difference--and, in fact, the one difference that kind of gives me the heebie-jeebies thinking about powers like these in the hands of the 'Rats, should we see another 'Rat president. We've seen what some of them--most notably the Clintons--did even without such massive powers. I would like to see the Patriot Act passed, but expiring the moment a 'Rat is elected.
Maybe they'll get the NY Times building...
bttt
That's one reason I'm happy that it's been reauthorized for only 6 months. (Actually, I'm not sure if it's passed both houses or is still working its way through.)
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.