Posted on 12/23/2005 4:13:29 PM PST by Sen Jack S. Fogbound
Former Clinton Official Contradicts Leahy on Spying
By Jeff Johnson
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 23, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- Claims by a top Senate Democrat that the Clinton administration's warrantless surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists was different from what the Bush administration has employed are being contradicted by a former Justice Department official who served under President Bill Clinton.
John Schmidt, who served as associate attorney general between 1994 and 1997, argues that both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized presidents' "inherent authority" to bypass warrants in ordering the eavesdropping of U.S. citizens suspected of conspiring with foreign governments or terrorists to injure or kill Americans.
On Wednesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, chided reporters for suggesting that Clinton ordered the same kinds of surveillance of U.S. citizens as Bush. Leahy claimed in a press conference that Clinton acted under an "entirely different power.
"If you go back to Clinton and (President Jimmy) Carter, those are searches under a FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) provision into embassies, foreign embassies, things of that nature," Leahy argued. "It's an entirely different situation."
But in at least one well-documented case, Clinton authorized domestic electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen without a warrant. FBI agents were allowed to break into the home of 31-year CIA veteran Aldrich Ames in 1993 to install eavesdropping devices.
An FBI summary of the case described it this way: "FBI Special Agents and Investigative Specialists conducted intensive physical and electronic surveillance of Ames during a ten-month investigation. Searches of Ames's residence revealed documents and other information linking Ames to the Russian foreign intelligence service."
The book "Main Justice: The Men and Women Who Enforce Our Nation's Criminal Laws and Guard Its Liberties," by The Washington Post's Jim McGee and U.S. News & World Report's Brian Duffy had much more detail.
"In the early morning hours of an autumn morning in 1993, an unmarked government sedan rolled slowly down an empty tree-lined street in Arlington. The FBI agents inside parked just up from a handsome two-story home. The agents knew the place well. Three months earlier, an FBI team had gone inside to bug the place. That operation had been a quick in and out. This time the agents planned to stay for a while. The owners were out of town on vacation. The house was vacant," the pair wrote. "With several hours to go before dawn, the FBI team slipped inside. They had with them the necessary equipment, but they did not have a warrant."
Though Ames's attorney initially planned to challenge the admissibility of the evidence collected through the warrantless searches and surveillance, Ames decided to plead guilty to espionage charges instead. He is serving life in prison without possibility of parole.
Law provides exceptions for surveillance without court order
Warrantless searches to gather foreign intelligence information are not new. In fact, there is language justifying them in the FISA law Leahy referenced.
The subchapter on electronic surveillance begins as follows: "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath" and if several other limiting conditions are met. Those conditions include that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."
A "United States person" is defined by the law as "a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence," and most associations and corporations, unless they are controlled by a foreign government or terrorist group.
Bush administration opponents have latched onto that limitation to condemn the White House's decision to bypass the federal courts and order the surveillance of calls and emails between U.S. citizens or lawful permanent aliens in the states and suspected terrorists or their supporters elsewhere.
"Requiring a judge to approve a wiretap is not a nicety that can be avoided by presidential decree -- it is a fundamental rule of American democracy," wrote Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, in a press statement. "The government ignored the system authorized by Congress in favor of limitless power to spy on Americans."
But one section of the statute seems to contradict Beeson's claim.
"[N]o contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under [FISA] is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person." (Emphasis added.)
Schmidt, writing in the Chicago Tribune Thursday, hinted that Presidents Clinton and Bush both may have relied on the "death or serious bodily harm" exception.
"Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next," Schmidt wrote, analyzing Bush's decision-making dilemma after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. "FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation."
A handful of congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), have suggested that Bush could be subject to impeachment for his decision. Republicans have dismissed those calls as political posturing. Other administration critics are threatening lawsuits to block similar surveillance in the future, but Schmidt doubts that tactic would be successful.
"What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment," Schmidt wrote. "It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment."
Copyright © 1998-2005 CNSNews.com - Cybercast News Service
Leahy at his usual blowhard untruths!
Ahhh... bring it on Nancy.
Leahy, Kennedy, Kerry, Byrd == the four most compelling reasons for term limits.
Gee. During the Clinton impeachment vote in December 1998, the Democrats argued against continuing the proceedings because our troops were in harm's way. Wonder where Ms. Pelosi and her fellow Democrats were when then-Democratic House minority leader Gephardt made the following statement:
REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, Minority Leader: We strongly object to this matter coming up tomorrow or the next day or any day in which our young men and women in the military are in harm's way, protecting the interests of the people of the United States. I would simply say the reason we believe that and we believe it strongly is that we think we must think not only of how this activity will be received by members or other Americans around the country. We believe we've got to also look at how Saddam Hussein will perceive the idea and the information that while he is under physical attack by the United States and its people, we are having a debate in our House of Representatives to remove the commander-in-chief from his office.
Exactly right. They will use it as their rallying cry in 2006 elections. The moonbats will be wild about it.
At least he was married to their sacred cow.
Hillary was impeached?
"Claims by a top Senate Democrat that the Clinton administration's warrantless surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists was different from what the Bush administration has employed..."
Of course it was different! What fool can not see that? The difference was that it was Bush this time and they hate Bush.
Impeachment will bring Bush's approval ratings to the mid 60s if not higher.
Is anybody else already tired of the latest non-scandal?
Leahy, Rockefeller, Pelosi, Reid and several others have clearly been conspiring to weaken the position of the United States in an attempt to gain back political power. They bitch about the US government placing true stories in the Iraqi press while they plant false stories in the American press. All while they tacitly call for Al Qaeda to kill more Americans, both our soldiers in the field and our civilians at home.
They need to be hung by the neck until dead.
"No, Mr. Leahy. I'm not challenging you patriotism. I'm flat out calling you a traitor."
What do you mean other than the Democrats making stupid remarks?
That was all I meant.
Unfortunately, Leahy is one of my US Senators. So is Jumpin Jim Jefford. Why the hell am I living in a state full of idiots who would vote for these two morons.
God help us !!!!
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.