Posted on 02/11/2006 2:38:12 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Speaking of FISA, the 72-hr rule is unconstitutional because it allows warrantless searches to be used for criminal prosecution as long as a warrant is obtained within the next three days.
The FIS Court of Review has already stated that FISA cannot encroach upon the inherent authority of the President (see: Article II).
I'm not concerned about "foreign" intelligence.
This whole issue has to do with domestic intelligence.
What domestic intelligence? I haven't seen one single example of that yet.
If no US citizens have been surveilled without a warrant, then there's nothing to worry about, and this issue will not go anywhere.
But I don't think that's the case.
Based on what?
Initially, based on the news reports that Americans were targeted for surveillance under this program.
Then, based on the fact that the President confirmed the reports.
Do you really have no idea what the controversy is about?
At some point, the MSM substituted the term "Domestic Spying" in place of "exclusive surveillance on international communications".
Intercepting international communications outside US borders is one thing. Tapping someone's phone and listening in to all domestic calls is something else. So far, there has been absolutely no indication that the latter has occurred. If you can find me an article which affirms this, then by all means post it. Until then, I would be careful in repeating the lie that individual Americans were under surveillance.
As my understanding, the targets of the surveillance have been international al Qaeda operatives. To suggest that surveillance of these operatives cease once they have contacted someone inside our borders is ludicrous.
No, the President's authority is based on all the constitutional grants of power to the President, as described the appellate courts below...
"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."
|
"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."
|
"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
|
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
|
LOL, if "case law doesn't matter", and "the president does not get to decide the constitutionality of laws", then when case law is made that decides the constitutionality of the law, then according to you, the President wouldn't be obligated to follow that case law, because as you said, "case law doesn't matter"!!!
In any event, it is an inescapable fact, that the courts have already spoken and established the fact that the President's actions are in deed 100% constitutional. He needs no more authority than that for these intercepts, and has no need or obligation to get a determination as to the constitutionality of FISA. FISA is Congresses problem.
"We should not require the warrant procedure and the magistrate's judgment if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of [foreign threats to] national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable."
|
"However, because of the President's constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, supra, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence."
|
"We agree with the district court that the Executive Branch need not always obtain a warrant for foreign intelligence surveillance."
|
"Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment."
|
"The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent [constitutional] authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
|
You do realize that is not even remotely on point?
Sure it is.
Your point is that it's not what the Constitution says, but what the court's decide what is says.
Otherwise, you would be quoting the Constitution, not Court rulings.
Yup! Foreign intelligence, fine.
Wanna spy on Americans? Get a warrant first.
Incorrect, my point is that the President has a right to rely on the holdings of the most authoritative sources to have addressed this matter to date.
You mis-understand what is meant when the courts refer to "foreign" intelligence.
The difference between "domestic" and "foreign" national security intelligence intercepts has nothing to do with the point of origin, destination or interception of the communication. Nor does it depend on whether either party is a U.S. citizen or resident. The difference between "foreign" and "domestic" national security intercepts, as the term is used by the courts, the law, and the intelligence agencies, is the source of the threat, i.e., whether the source of the threat is a foreign source, and at least one party to the communication was acting as, or on the behave of, an agent of a foreign power.
That distinction was never made more clear than it was in the Truong case. Truong, a U.S. resident alien, and Humphrey, a U.S. citizen and an employee of the USIA, conspired to commit espionage by delivering confidential government documents to the communist government of Vietnam from 1976 to 1977. In this case, the court held that the intercepts did not require a warrant since both defendants were acting as agents of a foreign power and thus the intercepts were a legitimate exercise of foreign national security intelligence gathering.
Note that in Truong, both the origin and destination of the intercepted calls were within the United States. Note also, that both defendants were U.S. residents, and in Humphrey's case, a U.S. citizen, as well. Yet the court held that these were foreign national security intercepts.
Thus, your contention that if the government wants to "spy on Americans, get a warrant first", is demonstrably incorrect, when it comes to intelligence matters where the source of the threat is foreign one.
"Incorrect, my point is that the President has a right to rely on the holdings of the most authoritative sources to have addressed this matter to date."
In Doe Eyes, You are dealing with a person of limited mental capacity as she has demonstrated over the last two days. She has resolutely refused to understand the concept of the Constitution as interpreted by the Courts.
She has insisted that only the words of the Constitution control and therefore if the legality of anyone's acts are not specified in that document, then the person is acting illegally.
She has been asked to pose any kind of legal argument she wants to support her position but ignores this request altogether.
I must therefore conclude she is of severely limited intellectual ability.
To discuss any matter further with her, is a sad waste of bandwidth and intellectual activity on our part.
But if a poster wants to play the "only the words of the Constitution control" game, then they'll find that argument to be a very sharp two-edged sword. For instance, I would enjoy watching such a poster explain how a president can order the Army to war, since the words "Commander-in-Chief" are not explicit in granting him the authority to do go to war.
The Scotus has no enforcement power. They just issue rulings. There are 2 legal remedies. If Congress really believes that the NSA is acting illegally on the Presidents orders, they can defund them and that will immediately shut them down. Lindsey Graham said as much during the "hearings". The other is to impeach for "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Since neither remedy is being acted upon, it would suggest that the Presidents actions are legal and the screamers are playing partisan politics with the nations safety.
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.