Posted on 12/23/2005 11:23:24 AM PST by SBD1
U.S.OFFICIALS DEFINE POLICY ON SEARCHES; Lawyers Assert President Still Has 'Inherent Authority' to Order Entries Without Warrants 'Concurrent Jurisdiction' 1978 Executive Order Cited No 'Foreign Connections' Found By ROBERT PEAR Special to The New York Times. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Nov 9, 1980. pg. 35, 1 pgs
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8--Justice Department lawyers say that the President still has the "inherent authority" to order searches without warrants to collect foreign intelligence within the United States, despite the criminal conviction this week of two former officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who said they had approved such searches in 1972 and 1973.
An executive order issued by President Carter in January 1978 established the standard that governs the use of searches for intelligence purposes today. Such searches, it said, shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person is an agent of a foreign power.'
SBD
(Excerpt) Read more at pqasb.pqarchiver.com ...
***Both stocks have a price spike in September.
What happened then that made the stocks more desirable? ***
My guess is that the hurricanes increased sales of newspaper and interest in other forms of media.
I would just as soon have Jimmy Carter stay off my side since he's been such a crackhead on a lot of other issues. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
All this stuff has been repeatedly posted on FR. I didn't save any of it. Use search and you'll find it.
Not over a debt. The Shah owed nothing to us or to Carter. Carter sent a delegation of his crooked friends to Iran to tell the Shah to cancel the contract he had with an American co. to make Iran a deep water port for oil export. The crooks were to tell the Shah to add a %age to the new contract for Carter and then re-let the contract to the same American co. at the higher price. There are also writings of the Shah's that verify this meeting in addition to the Soviet records. The Shah was shocked that an American president would demand a bribe from him and he said, "No." Carter told him he would take him down and began to work with the Commies to bring Khomeni to power and create a revolution in Iran. The Shah became seriously ill at the same time Carter and the Russians were busy stirring up the Islamic revolution to bring Khomeni to power and lost his ability to fight back. As for Carter caring about the hostages - he cared when they threatened his political life and tried to make a deal with the Soviets to use their influence to try to deep-six Reagan by having them released to him, but Khomeni wouldn't play along. Carter is still damaging US by running around the world "certifying" stolen elections like Chavez' to bring more Commie America haters to power and bad mouthing US policy every opportunity he gets. Somebody up the thread listed a book about the real Carter that you might be interested in reading.
Jimmy Carter will write a lengthy op-ed piece for the NY Slimes detailing why his spying without court orders or permission was totally different and Constitutional from G.W. Bush's.
The fix is in: the Slimes and the 'rats (but I repeat myself) will do anything to undermine President Bush and the War on Terror!
Jimmy Carter Under Fire for Recruiting Soviets Against Reagan
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002
WASHINGTON Former President Jimmy Carter owes an explanation to the American people for his behavior during the Cold War, says the author of a new book.
"Reagans War reveals new information that Carter, as president and later as a private citizen, sought the help of an avowed foreign enemy of this country to undermine Reagans candidacy in 1980 and, even more shocking, tried to cripple President Reagans foreign policy in 1984.
The former Democrat president, who had been ousted by voters four years earlier, wanted the Soviets to help him put a Democrat back in the White House.
Speaking Tuesday at a seminar at the Institute of World Politics, the books author, Peter Schweizer, said Jimmy Carter owes a full explanation, and then depending on his answer, a decision could be made as to whether the former president "stepped over the line from pure dissent to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
NewsMax.com CEO Christopher Ruddy has written that Carter "may well have committed treason by enlisting the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections.
"Its a fair question for him [Carter] to give his account of what happened, and a response, which he has not done, the author told NewsMax.com. "Then, you know, depending on his reaction and response, there needs to be further discussion. The other thing potentially that perhaps ought to be asked [is] that Moscow release any files it has on the meetings.
"All we have right now, Schweizer added, "is based on these accounts by [former Soviet Ambassador] Dobrynin. And it begs the question: Is there any more material based on his [Carters] dealings with Moscow?
'Carter Won't Forget' Soviet Assistance
Schweizers book, which is going straight to the top of the best-seller list, reveals that during the 1980 campaign when Reagan was gaining in the polls, Carter "dispatched [pro-Soviet industrialist] Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy for a secret meeting with Ambassador Dobrynin to ask for Soviet help with Jewish emigration and other potential vote-getting issues for a sitting president. The Soviets were promised that "Carter wont forget that service if he is re-elected.
Schweizer reports that when Reagan was running for re-election in 1984, Carter himself visited Ambassador Dobrynin warning there "would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan was in power.
Carter wanted the Soviet Union to help the Democrats regain the presidency. History shows his prophecy about no hope for a nuclear arms agreement to be wrong. It was a part of Reagan's success in ending the Cold War on Americas terms.
Asking Carter to explain to Americans this part of his stewardship is most "reasonable, in Schweizers view. When he asked the former president about this, all the author got was "No comment.
location: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/201145.shtml
Peter Schweizer, a Hoover Institution research fellow, has just written a new book, "Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism."
This book may well force historians to revise the history of the Cold War.
Schweizer, after scouring once-classified KGB, East German Stasi and Soviet Communist Party files, discovered incontrovertible evidence that the Soviets not only played footsie with high-ranking Democrats, they also worked behind the scenes to influence American elections.
In "Reagan's War," Schweizer shows how the Democrats worked with Moscow to try to undermine Reagan before and after he became president.
Jimmy Carter's Dirty Tricks
Soviet diplomatic accounts and material from the archives show that in January 1984, former President Jimmy Carter dropped by Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin's residence for a private meeting.
Carter expressed his concern about and opposition to Reagan's defense buildup. He boldly told Dobrynin that Moscow would be better off with someone else in the White House. If Reagan won, he warned, "There would not be a single agreement on arms control, especially on nuclear arms, as long as Reagan remained in power."
Using the Russians to influence the presidential election was nothing new for Carter.
Schweizer reveals Russian documents that show that in the waning days of the 1980 campaign, the Carter White House dispatched businessman Armand Hammer to the Soviet Embassy.
Hammer was a longtime Soviet-phile, and he explained to the Soviet ambassador that Carter was "clearly alarmed" at the prospect of losing to Reagan.
Hammer pleaded with the Russians for help. He asked if the Kremlin could expand Jewish emigration to bolster Carter's standing in the polls.
'Carter Won't Forget That Service'
"Carter won't forget that service if he is elected," Hammer told Dobrynin.
Carter was not the only Democrat to make clear to the Russians where their loyalty lay. As the election neared in 1984, Dobrynin recalls meetings with Speaker of the House Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill.
O'Neill told Dobrynin that no effort should be spared to prevent "that demagogue Reagan" from being re-elected.
location:
http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2002/10/16/214040
Jimmy Carter and the 40 Ayatollahs
Diane Alden
Wednesday, Oct. 30, 2002
By Middle East standards the Shah of Iran was a progressive democrat. In the eyes of President Jimmy Carter and certain foreign policy factions in the State Department and various think tanks, the Shah represented the heart of darkness.
In an article in May 2002, NewsMax's Chris Ruddy pointed out:
"Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini? "No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders about 150 of them to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.
"The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.
"By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever."
[See: Jimmy Carter's Trail of Disaster.]
As has been reported in NewsMax previously, Carter still receives a great deal of money from the Arab world for his Carter Center in Atlanta.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/29/170201.shtml
Sounds kinda like what the Democrats are doing now!
"But apparently, the courts seem to have ruled otherwise, at least according to what some freepers have posted. I'd have to look at those rulings myself, though, to see exactly what kind of latitude they purport to give him. But my gut feeling is that his actions were illegal."
Thanks for your reply. I truly am just trying to figure this out.
I just can't help but wonder, why so much debate? Should not someone be able to prove a law was broken or not?
I truly hope that none were, but I may have to say, in this case, I feel it neededto be done. But, better if he could prove it was done legally.
I would like to read what the courts ruled as you mention. I have not seen that.
Well, he did sign the Foreign Intelligence Survelliance Act into law.
I was just flipping through James Bamford's Body of Secrets and landed on a page that detailed how the NSA discovered that Billy Carter was acting as an unregistered agent for Libya.
How despicable, spying on your own brother. What else is Jimmy going to say?
Thanks, Michael. That is an excellent comparison. Free Republic's Daily Page Views are up and the stocks for the NY Slimes, Compost and Tribune are down.
Merry Christmas Jim Robinson!
Apparently not without a security clearance, because all we got was very limited information. But I'd think someone in Congress would be able to. And that probably goes to show that this is being made out to be more than it is, because the President has insisted that Congress has been informed of the program, and to my knowledge, no one in Congress has directly contradicted him on that.
I still don't understand why the President agreed to confirm this story in the first place. Predictably, it has resulted in a feeding frenzy of leaks. We even have one idiotic magazine reporting on a classified program to monitor potential nuclear radiation around mosques (thread here).
I would like to read what the courts ruled as you mention. I have not seen that.
Another poster directed me to this ruling (warning: PDF) by the FISA court. Page 48 contains the pertinent excerpt:
"We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the Presidents constitutional power."
I haven't had time to peruse it, because there's a lot going on around here ('tis the season), but I'd like to look it over in further detail when I get the chance.
RE:Liberals"Are they deliberately obtuse or just plain evil?"Both,and i'd say desperate too.They also know they can get away with it.If the allegations don't stick, the story will be forgotten by the msm.The msm/libs/dems will simply move on to something else they believe they can exploit.
Good question.
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.