Posted on 12/20/2005 7:55:51 AM PST by SueRae
n 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."
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "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."
Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline on page A-19 read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."
In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."
The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.
Why didn't we impeach him for this? Seems like the GOP gave him a pass on an awful lot of stuff he did.
Has it been confirmed this was done on American citizens? On Fox this morning they were saying it had not yet been confirmed these were American citizens, just that they were phone calls coming in to and going out of the US.
Interesting point. That being said, do any one of us have the Constitutional right to have a private conversation with Bin Laden? Certainly FDR would not have tolerated phone calls from Adolf to say... Charles Lindberg. Would Jefferson have refrained from reading communications from the Barbary Pirates to American citizens? I don't know the answer but it's interesting to think about.
It seems clear to me that any branch of government that tried to usurp the President's powers to protect the country is flat wrong.
See Executive Order by William J. Clinton dated February 9, 1995.
I have to go to work..yeh..I'm behind royally.
I thought I heard Pelosi say that Rockefeller never actually sent the July 17 2003 letter to Cheney. I'll check when I come back...unless someone wants to be diligent for me. :-)
BUMP for later read and passing it along.
I wonder about that very thing every time the impeached one is mentioned. This is the first time I recall seeing it in print. Thank you.
OK, so this is 50 USC 1802.
Sorry folks, it was all legal.
Russ Feingold tried to get a bill passed that would exclude "American Citizens" from the "Foreign Powers" clause in FISA. It was tabled. Feingold must not be aware that Al Queda used citizenship as a cover. He is aggressivly stupid.
"THAT WAS THEN, THIS IS NOW [Cliff May]
The issue here is this: If youre John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, why would you think that limits anything if the executive branch can ignore can ignore it by asserting its inherent authority?- Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general under President Clinton, in todays Washington Post, p. A10.
"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 has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.
"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." - Jamie Gorelick testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, as quoted by Byron today elsewhere on NRO.
Gorelick is making a simple point: The rules are different when there is a Democrat in the White House. What about that dont you understand?
Posted at 10:30 AM"
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_12_18_corner-archive.asp#085176
Yup.
Criminals get consistutional rights in criminal proceedings...
This is why you can't fight terrorism in the courts.
These wiretaps could never be used in a criminal court, however they are essential to prosecute a war.
Indeed, recognizing things as they are, you speak truth.
Looking at things as they should be, something else troubles me. Observing FReeper posts in general (not yours), it seems that many conservatives have the misconceptions that the Constitution does not apply to foreigners in the US, and that it does apply to Americans anywhere in the world.
Every DemocRAT who is opening his/her big fat mouth blathering about everything from abuse of power to impeachment...needs to shut up, sit down and READ the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.
Good point. Out of curiosity, are there any articles from a conservative point of view, about what REALLY happened at Waco? So much of what I've heard about it has come through a liberal filter.
We covered it extensively here while it was happening.
I dunno, but it would be a great time for our side to demand the Barrett report be released.
Oops... actually it happened before FR. But we did go over it extensively here... look up keywords WACO, BRANCHDAVIDIAN, etc., you'll see plenty.
Thanks. I'll do a "search" a little later. I didn't know if FR was around at the time. The Clinton DOJ just had a grand ole time, didn't it? Waco, Elian, and a whole host of other things...
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.