Wiretaps for me, not thee?

Washington Times ^ | Dec. 23 2005 | Washington Times Editorial

[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.

[Plutarch]

Sauce for the Democrat goose apparently is not for the Republican gander.

[Jonah Johansen]

from the Official Democratic Party Play Book

If you can not win on the facts or logic, just demagogue the issue,
be patient the mainstream media will repeat our talking points until our demagogery becomes the accepted wisdom.

[logician2u]

GWB did these things for the security of the country,

As allegedly did Richard M. Nixon. We were, after all, at war. The left-wing, anti-war crowd was blowing up weapons labs, transmission lines, townhouses. Something had to be done to stop the violence.

No man should be above the law, and that includes the President of the United States. If the law is intended to prevent abuses, as I believe it is, then the natural conclusion people will draw when it's not followed is . . there must be an abuse going on.

Lieberman is one of the very few exceptions . .

Tell me, was that how you felt about him before the war, like in the election of 2000? Or did 9-11 change all that?

[ottothedog]

For all those travelling over Christmas, you might want to inform the TSA that they cannot search you and your bags without a warrant. Also, if you are shipping/receiving items from overseas, feel free to ignore any Customs forms...ha ha...

[logician2u]

would like to see the Patriot Act passed, but expiring the moment a 'Rat is elected.

Dream on.

What are they going to do, make an exception in the law for "those not currently in power?"

[gov_bean_ counter]

IMO, it is not the wire taps in and of themselves that are causing the Dems heartburn. It is programs like Able Danger that can take this data and sift through the degrees of separation that isolate the bad guys from MSM types, Democrats or their supporters. The translation of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Defense Ministry document most certainly has identified more US and European contacts that can be matrixed into existing open source programs. More Democrat/MSM heartburn.

Couple this with the OFF revelations and you have the makings of a Democrat scandal of epic proportions.

The only question that remains is whether or not the Pubbies have the balls to finish this off. I fear we already have the answer to that.

[generally]

I actually liked Lieberman in 2000, though I admit I didn't care for his whiny voice and still don't. I had a lot of respect for him, with one hiccup when he joined the Gore ticket. I forget now what it was, but I thought he compromised himself on some issue in order to get the VP slot. I would have liked to be able to vote for a Cheney-Lieberman ticket that year. I still hold them both in high regard, and I have been pleasantly surprised at how good a job Bush has done.

I was fairly young when Nixon was President and did not follow that story and still don't really have a good understanding of what it was all about. No, I don't think that just because he was a Republican that he was above the law. I suspect he was guilty of some bad stuff. I also suspect that the left was guilty of blowing things out of proportion. But, like I said, I've never really read up on that part of our history.

[Rakkasan1]

but Carter only spied on rabbits.

[Dr. I. C. Spots]

yea, I see the difference...Democrats are hypocrites.

[75thOVI]

I think that certain of the republican congresscreatures have the stones to try to make a difference. However, too many of them are just as dirty and complicit as the dems. And W himself may find that there are a few boats that he dare not rock.

[cwb]

What's really ironic is that Clinton used the CIA and this technology to engage in Economic Espionage...against both allies and enemies. This, more than anything should really tick off the liberals (re: Chomsky) since their greatest complaint against American has always been its unfair economic hegemony.

The very fact that you have a Democrat president using espionage to advance America's economic interests...and "capitalism," should've sent these people through the roof....especially since according to these same people, this is the cause of most our wars. Yet, not a peep is heard from those on the Left over this surveillance.

[logician2u]

But, like I said, I've never really read up on that part of our history.

You really should. By doing so, you will have a better appreciation for the issues that divide the Republican Party.

For the record, I was a "Goldwater Republican" before I could vote. It was during Nixon's term in office when I began to have serious reservations about Republicans' sincerety when they say they want to roll back the welfare state, reduce the size of government, etc.

These days, George Will calls Nixon a "conservative."

Nixon was no conservative, either in his domestic policy or in his disastrous foreign policy. It was the Republicans' good fortune to have Jimmuh Cawtah in the White House when Ronald Reagan ran in 1980 or the Nixon legacy would have probably kept Democrats in power long after that. Nixon's misdeeds, miscalculations, and abuses of presidential power were just that significant.

[etlib]

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?

Yes, Democrats are always right, Republicans are always wrong, just ask Howard Dean or the NYT.
</sarcasm>

[greccogirl]

Yes, I see them going on and on about the 'rats had a clause in theirs that allowed them to do it, something to do with a reivew or some such nonsense - heck on the one of the politics boards they are actually defending Clinton not taking Osama when he had the chance. They are saying "there was absolutely no reason to do so".

I think they've all lost their minds.