Posted on 12/21/2005 3:47:01 AM PST by johnny7
I thought maybe jay rockefeller would keep his trap shut for awhile since we found out about his foreign adventures prior to the Iraq War. Wonder if the jay-bird has been singing again.
So, apparently, is Bush himself. Nowhere in his recent press conference did he give a hint that previous presidents had done this. His primary justification was the authorization of force following 9/11.
Why isn't he making use of this defense?
bttt
Do you have a link??
Jabara v. Webster
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:P179VjTLYCEJ:www.jurisearch.com/newroot/caselink.asp
Also these make interesting reading
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_hr/103003yoo.pdf
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/092502sup.html
" I have not seen any major newspaper or the MSM report on the PREVIOUS presidents who had executive orders authorizing warrantless searches." Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
"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."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543995/posts
The campaign season for the mid-term elections ought to be just delicious to watch as Pub candidates, one after another, play footage of Harry Reid saying proudly "we killed the Patriot Act", then asking the voting public whether they want to elect more candidates such as these.
This was posted at an early time of the morning and I feel it didn't get nearly enough viewing. Can you post it again tomorrow in the 8-10 am time frame?
This guy was deputy attorney general under clinton and knows whereof he speaks.
I saw Schmidt's article early Wed. morning and I knew it was of some value. Rush brought it up and commented that the MSM would ignore it... and focus on Clinton FISA judge who quit-in-protest.
Well... that's EXACTLY what happened.
It's too valuable a contribution to the debate to get lost in the shuffle. I'm glad you found it and posted.
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.