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

Skip to comments.

Carter Allowed Surveillance in 1977
The Washington Times ^ | 11 Feb 2006 | Charles Hurt

Posted on 02/13/2006 4:55:15 AM PST by seanmerc

Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies. "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign. "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said. The next day at Mrs. King's high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the "secret government wiretapping" of civil rights leader Martin Luther King. But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights. In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons." That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S. The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Georgia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 1977; alqaeda; bush; jimmycarter; nsa; president; spying; surveillance; terrorist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last
To: Boot Hill
Congresses authority to regulate the powers granted the executive, extends only to "carrying into execution" those powers

Or declining to carry them into execution, or carrying them into execution in only a limited fashion.

61 posted on 02/15/2006 5:53:25 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Which wouldn't affect the President's inherent constitutional power to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.

62 posted on 02/15/2006 5:59:29 AM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty
But Carter loves communist dictatorship. Why would he authorize warrantless wiretaps unless VN had a beef with Cuba?

They were probably working toward the democratization of Vietnam...

63 posted on 02/15/2006 6:04:11 AM PST by BlueMondaySkipper (The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Well, if he feels like manning the headsets himself, I guess he can have at it.

Not only that, but he'd have to actually set up the technical hardware himself, and maintain it himself, but hey, if he's got the energy for it, more power to him. ;-)

64 posted on 02/15/2006 6:12:02 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Or any other person he chooses from within the executive department.

65 posted on 02/15/2006 6:15:31 AM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: seanmerc

Peanuthead is afraid of bunny rabbits. What else could we expect from such a character?


66 posted on 02/15/2006 6:27:19 AM PST by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Congress gives them the legal authorization to do those things. The President has the power to fire them for not carrying out his orders, but not the power to immunize them against the legal consequences of their actions if Congress doesn't provide for that, either implicitly or explicitly.

Congress, not the President, determines the laws for carrying into execution his powers.

67 posted on 02/15/2006 6:48:32 AM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: inquest

You're missing half the formula since it is the Constitution, not Congress, that determines the lawful extent of any such laws, and limits them to only those laws that aid in "carrying into execution" the powers granted by the Constitution. Thus, any laws that violate, infringe or limit the execution of any Constitutional powers are not within their authority to create.

68 posted on 02/15/2006 4:12:37 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
it is the Constitution, not Congress, that determines the lawful extent of any such laws, and limits them to only those laws that aid in "carrying into execution" the powers granted by the Constitution.

And, of course, withdrawing or limiting the scope of such laws. Without them, none of the President's subordinates can be exempted from the legal consequences of their actions.

Thus, any laws that violate, infringe or limit the execution of any Constitutional powers are not within their authority to create.

Unsupported falsehood. The power of making rules for the military expressly "limits" the exercise of executive power.

69 posted on 02/15/2006 4:53:37 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: inquest

You are incorrect on multiple counts.

First, the Congressional authority to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", by its express and unequivocal terms, extends only to the armed forces of the United States; the NSA is a civilian agency of the Department of Defense and not such an armed force.

Second, since the President's authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence wiretaps resides not only in the President's duties as Commander-in-Chief, but also in his duties as this nation's sole representative in matters of foreign affairs, the "make rules" clause can not be extended to cover the President's foreign affairs powers.

Third, the only way Congress can take away a power that the Constitution grants the President is through a constitutional amendment, and an ordinary Congressional enactment is not such an instrument.

70 posted on 02/15/2006 5:57:19 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
First, the Congressional authority to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces", by its express and unequivocal terms, extends only to the armed forces of the United States

And the President is given command of said armed forces. The fact that Congress can still make rules for them therefore enables it to limit his power. You said Congress can't do that. That is demonstrably incorrect.

71 posted on 02/15/2006 6:37:30 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Beth528

"I've only lusted in my heart." hmmmm.....is THAT his heart???

72 posted on 02/15/2006 6:39:37 PM PST by bannie (The government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: inquest

One again, you are wrong on multiple counts.

First, since the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has been given no constitutional rule-making authority over the armed forces, then Congress can't limit the President's power where he had none in the first place.

Second, since the office of Commander-in-Chief is a civilian position, that makes him the civilian head, and not a member, of the armed forces, then Congressional authority under the Make Rules clause, which applies only to the armed forces, could not circumscribe or limit the President's own powers.

Third, even if the Make Rules clause did apply in this case (it doesn't), it in no way could be used to limit the President's authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence wiretaps, which are powers granted to the President, not the armed forces.

Fourth, nor could the Make Rules clause be used to limit the President in his conduct of foreign affairs, including foreign intelligence gathering, since that clause is limited in applicability solely to the armed forces.

Fifth, nor could the Necessary and Proper clause permit Congress to circumscribe a constitutional grant of power, since that clause may only be applied to aid in "carrying into execution" the powers granted by the Constitution, not limit, violate or infringe them.

Sixth, the only way Congress can take away a power that the Constitution grants the President is through a constitutional amendment, and an ordinary Congressional enactment is not such an instrument.

73 posted on 02/15/2006 7:35:08 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
First, since the President, as Commander-in-Chief, has been given no constitutional rule-making authority over the armed forces, then Congress can't limit the President's power where he had none in the first place.

Come on. You're really stretching words all over the place to make your artificial "point". Being a military commander doesn't involve the power to set rules for one's subordinates? Since when?

74 posted on 02/15/2006 7:41:12 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Since the Constitution was ratified.

75 posted on 02/15/2006 7:44:17 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
The Constitution didn't change the rules of the English language. Whatever the term "commander in chief" meant before the Constitution was ratified, that's what it meant afterwards also.
76 posted on 02/15/2006 7:50:54 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: inquest

And whatever the phrase Congress may "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces" meant before the Constitution was ratified, that's what it meant afterwards also.

77 posted on 02/15/2006 8:04:47 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Certainly. So Congress has its powers, with whatever those words imply, and the President has his powers, with whatever those words imply. Putting them together, it means that being commander in chief involves, by default, the power of setting rules, and Congress can impose its own rules that supersede them. Hence, Congress is limiting his power. Hence, you were wrong when you said that Congress can't do that.
78 posted on 02/15/2006 8:34:49 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: inquest

LOL, by "default" maybe, but that's a reputable presumption and the Constitution, through the Make Rules clause, expressly and unequivocally rebuts your presumption!

Where the framers have chosen to explicitly provide a specific grant of authority to Congress, the Enumerated Powers doctrine would forbid holding that such power is also held "inherently" by others.

Therefore, since the Constitution's express language grants Congress the sole authority over the rules governing the armed forces, then Congress can never be said to be limiting or infringing the power of the President, since no such commensurate power exists for him.

79 posted on 02/15/2006 9:20:59 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: bannie

LOL!


80 posted on 02/16/2006 3:50:47 AM PST by Beth528
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-136 next last

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.

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