Specter: Administration broke law

UPI ^ | February 5, 2006

[West Coast Conservative]

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says President George W. Bush's warrantless surveillance program appears to be illegal.

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Specter called the administration's legal reasoning "strained and unrealistic" and said the program appears to be "in flat violation" of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Hearings into the surveillance program are scheduled to begin Monday on Capitol Hill.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency, defended the surveillance on ABC's "This Week" and the Fox News Network, the International Herald Tribune reported.

"It's about speed," General Hayden said in his ABC appearance. "It's about hot pursuit of al-Qaida communications."

The Bush administration says the surveillance has been carefully monitored and targeted at individuals with known or strongly suspected terrorist ties. But officials have also given different estimates of the amount of monitoring.

[gov_bean_ counter]

It would seem Specter has established the framework for these hearing. So what if the administration was in violation of the law. FISA is unconstitutional if it inhibits the President in the administration of his constitutional duties. Gonzales along with every other administration will argue just that. End of discussion.

[Casloy]

Specter is a total sleaze. The Republican party should have cut him off last time instead of coming to his rescue.

[moonman]

Come on Arlen! We both know that obscure Scottish Law you keep in your back pocket can be whipped out at anytime and end this issue.

[festus]

This nut should never have been chairing the judiciary committee.

He does run in PA but that's still no excuse.

[Digger]

This is the thanks Bush/Rove gets for saving Specter's rear during the 2004 GOP Senatorial primary

It's far & above just political parties. It is what these "bought & paid for" pols must say & do to keep their funding from the elites.

[Racehorse]

The waging of a civil war in this country while we are trying to smash world terrorism really isn't as desirable an outcome as the Democrats think.

How serious do you think is this notion of civil war?

It caught me rather by extreme surprise.

The last time I listened to such a thought was back in the mid-seventies.  An otherwise bright, wannabe radical student was prepared, he claimed, to go to the barricades.  He didn't.  And, the world went on about its business.

With all due respect, at the moment, the contest is between Congress and the President.  Obviously, it is largely partisan politics at work, but the present and future stakes are constitutional.  Once that's resolved, well, once upon a time our forefathers did claim a right to revolution.

There is this nasty thing about rights, though.  They only exist when you can assert them, and then you must accept the consequences of a probable denial of that particular right.

I, for one, would do everything possible to deny that right.

[muawiyah]

Having bothered to read through many different leftwing and Democratic party related blogs, websites, etc., I think the Democrats (and their leftist allies) actually do have a sort of civil war in mind.

It would be one where they disable the Republicans in the courts, and then turn their attentions to the suppression of folks like us, with force if necessary.

They only want power. None of them are patriotic. None of them can be trusted.

[Captainpaintball]

This is the thanks Bush/Rove gets for saving Specter's rear during the 2004 GOP Senatorial primaries.

What will all those schmucks on radio and FR who lectured us about strategery say now?

[Uncle Vlad]

This is the thanks Bush/Rove gets for saving Specter's rear during the 2004 GOP Senatorial primaries.

Yes, tell me again why it was necessary to support the RINO?

[Captainpaintball]

So in short what Specter said was that; it appears Congress may have written a law that is against the law in 1978.

The point is that he even went as far as to say that.

[MHT]

Broke Scottish law?

[joseph20]

Your reading of FISA is incorrect.

Section 1802, subsection (a)(1)(A)(i) states that warrantless electronic surveillance can only be directed at communications that are "exclusively between or among foreign powers". The definition of foreign powers comes from Section 1801, subsection (a)(1)(2)(3):

(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

Note that the definition of a foreign power does not include subsections (4)(5) and (6) of 1801(a).

And then there is there is Section 1802, subsection (a)(1)(B) which states that warrantless electronic surveillance can only be conducted when "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". The definition of a United States person comes from Section 1801, subsection (i):

“United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

There is no way around it. Under FISA, it is plainly illegal to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on a US citizen (even if that person is involved in terrorism).

[Once-Ler]

This is the thanks Bush/Rove gets for saving Specter's rear during the 2004 GOP Senatorial primaries.

It gives Specter cover with his liberal constituents over the Alito nomination. This issue doesn't hurt Dubya with voters. It tells them that Dubya will push the law to the limit to defend us against terrorists. It's possible Rove asked Specter to keep this winning issue on the front page.

[Para-Ord.45]

Article II of the Constitution, to defend the United States,

trumps FISA.

FISA attempts to limit the power of the commander-in-

chief to

conduct warfare by its attempt to transfer the power to

judges, to decide some sort of pre-requisite to surveil

terrorists and enemies.

Besides,here`s what can already be done without a warrant:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen's car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car — regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search — including a strip search — at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole

[krb]

Specter called the administration's legal reasoning "strained and unrealistic"

This, from the guy who gave us the "magic bullet"?

[Redleg Duke]

Isn't this old bastard's 15 minutes of fame over?

[joseph20]

I agree that Article II trumps FISA.

All I am saying is that under FISA, it's illegal to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of United States citizens (even if they are terrorists or are helping terrorists).

Your previous post is stating the opposite--that FISA somehow makes it legal to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on United States citizens.

[Redleg Duke]

Based on Scottish Law, no doubt.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

I'm not much of a Specter fan, but this article is a wonderful example of the difference between spin and an outright lie.

Specter didn't say what the liars are saying he said.

[Republican Wildcat]

Shew. This stinks worse than ten-day old road kill. Selective reporting...