Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Boston Republican
Of course, it's not true, but whatever

My reference was to Bill Clinton specifically, but it also applies to Jimmy Carter, both of whom authorized electronic surveillance of US citizens for national security purposes.

You may be opposed to this, but we need to be clear that his predecessors did the same thing. That was the statement that he made last night and that was what Hillary was frowning about.

59 posted on 02/01/2006 12:46:48 PM PST by Michael.SF. (Things turn out best, for those who make the best of the way things turn out.--- Jack Buck (RIP))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: Michael.SF.

OK, I'm willing to hear you out; please provide a link. As I understand it, however: The Clinton authorization of warrantless physical searches in the Ames case came in 1993, two years before FISA law required warrants for physical searches. The Clinton authorization WAS compliant with FISA laws governing wiretapping, as I understand it. It may have been wrong, but it did NOT violate the law. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know (I'd love to be wrong about this!).
Let's be clear; I'm not opposed to a reevluation of the laws that govern the WOT or wiretapping, but Bush can't just ignore laws willy-nilly. If the FISA requirements were too strict (and I am skeptical about that), the present probably would have had the necessary support to change them legally. As it is, he is basically claiming now that he can wiretap whomever he wants.


60 posted on 02/02/2006 5:12:42 AM PST by Boston Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson