AQ on the run, or a ruse?

[GG]

That is part of what they are arguing.  It appears to me that their first line of defense on this is that Congress implicitly allowed this in their resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken.  I haven't had time to research this as much as I normally would.  I'm thinking that they need that idea to stick so that the President's war time powers kick in despite the lack of a declaration of war.

 

Yes, you are correct on this. That's why IMO, that Specter is calling for an investigation. This is a battle between executive powers & congressional powers. There was a reason that Bush signed every order to snoop, because the admin's interpretation is that he is exercising his executive privilege in military surveilance.

 

The key issue is the declaration of war. At this point, it is very ambiguous that the executive powers ion question can only be invoked in an official declaration of war by Congress. Certainly, history dictates that many military actions equivalent to a war have taken place without a formal declaration of war. Which begets the natural question of how does one actually declare an official war on AQ?

 

 

If what they are apparently arguing as far as the constitution is concerned is correct, then FISA itself is unconstitutional.  Clearly, it has never been found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS but I can't tell you that they ever had a case challenging its constitutionality and if that is the case, then its plausible that it could be found to be unconstitutional. 

 

Without getting into it in detail, I find the notion that FISA is unconstitutional to be pretty iffy.  Clearly, the constitution protects against warrantless searches.  At least that part is a no brainer.  At the same time the President does have certain powers under the Constitution.

 

And as per above, the existing laws have not been properly updated to deal with declaring war on non-nation states. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Congressional approval to use force to combat AQ, is as close to a declaration of war on this non legal entity, which in turn would invoke executive privilege to conduct military surveilance without a warrant.

 

When and if this thing ends up at SCOTUS, I don't see FISA standing up.

[Chilly]

I think that was a bad decision on their part and I bet that they might start losing columnists who aren't happy having lost the oppotunity for their work to be viewed by 55 million hits per month

 

Who wrote the column you were referencing and can you give us the highlights?

575320[/snapback]

 

Ah, I finally found the article. I thought I had thrown the paper out, but I still have it. :-)

 

The article is by Bob Herbert, and its entitled "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution?"

 

The first part of the article is just outlining what the NSA did, but the meat of the column is when he starts talking about why the president did it. I'll type some of it out for you here:

 

So why si the president illegally spying on Americans when the administration can so easily comply with the law by secretly getting warrants from the terminally compliant court established by FISA?

 

Clues can be found in a couple of lawsuits seeking to stop the illegal spying that were filed this week by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights.  In addition to arguing that the domestic spying program should be shut down because it is illegal, both groups express the fear that the NSA has been spying on individuals who have had nothing whatever to do with terrorism.

 

That fear was bolstered this eek by an article in The Times that said the NSA had all but overwhelmed the FBI with raw tips, phone numbers, email addresses, names - all manner of information - in the aftermath of the Sept 11 attacks.  Hundreds of FBI agents were required to check out thousands of NSA tips a month.

 

Citing interviews with current and former officials, the article said that virtually all of the tips "led todead ends or innocent Americans."

 

Warrants for domestic eavesdropping were not only easily available, but could even be obtained retroactively.  Nevertheless, as Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, remarked yesterday, "The president chose to completely disregard the rules of the road."

 

"That means," said Mr. Romero, "that the NSA has been unleashed in a much broader way on Americans."

 

In a seperate interview yesterday, Bill Goodman, the legal director for the CCR, spelled out his belief that the government was using the cover of terror investigations to spy on the private conversations of law-abiding individuals.

 

"I think that they are engaging in survelliance that they don't want even the FISA judges to see.  They don't want them looking over their shoulders and seeing that they are doing things like listening in on attorney-client conversations, listening in on journalists takling to their sources, engaging in the kind of Big Brother tactics that will turn this society from a free one into an authoritarian one."

 

I don't really think these allegations hold merit, given the source that its coming from. However, the revelation that the NSA was spying on so much stuff is rather interesting.

 

The conspiracy theorist and bored person in me hopes that its true, just for the entertainment value of the situation.

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

We all must convert.  Do Muslims get a big party when they come of age like a Bar Mitzvah?  Even though we're over 13, do we get one when we convert?

574002[/snapback]

 

They blow up so quickly.....

[Peter]

How hard is it to get a friggen wire tap?

 

I heard that, over the years, the special court has only denied about 5 out of 17,000 wiretap requests.

 

If the Bush Administration had been smart, it would have made the requests.

 

As for the exigent circumstances argument, there is a specific procedure for going in after the fact.

 

This was pure stupidity and/or hubris on the part of the Bush Administration.

[Mickey]

Ah, I finally found the article.  I thought I had thrown the paper out, but I still have it. :-)

 

The article is by Bob Herbert, and its entitled "Who Will Stand Up for the Constitution?"

 

The first part of the article is just outlining what the NSA did, but the meat of the column is when he starts talking about why the president did it.  I'll type some of it out for you here:

I don't really think these allegations hold merit, given the source that its coming from.  However, the revelation that the NSA was spying on so much stuff is rather interesting.

 

The conspiracy theorist and bored person in me hopes that its true, just for the entertainment value of the situation. 

575393[/snapback]

I've speculated along those lines myself. The argument is that FISA compliance was easy and always (99.5%) resulted in a warrant plus there were at least two provisions which permitted tapping without getting a warrant from FISA (72 hour emergency provision and the tapping of non-US persons for a whole year with extensions available). There just seemed to be no need to sidestep the FISA rubber stamp. The argument then proceeds to conclude that since FISA compliance was not too cumbersome to comply with, that FISA compliance was not an obstacle to tapping to get the info needed for security, they must have had a different motivation for going around the law.

 

One motivation for doing so would be to hide tapping of people no one in their right mind would consider to be a legitimate target. That is what this writer is getting at. The only way to know that one way or the other is to find out who was tapped. Until then, it is just speculation.

[Mickey]

How hard is it to get a friggen wire tap?

 

I heard that, over the years, the special court has only denied about 5 out of 17,000 wiretap requests.

 

If the Bush Administration had been smart, it would have made the requests.

 

As for the exigent circumstances argument, there is a specific procedure for going in after the fact.

 

This was pure stupidity and/or hubris on the part of the Bush Administration.

575562[/snapback]

Or there was a reason to proceed as they did that hasn't yet been brought to light. Maybe something having to do with the technology involved or maybe they were tapping people for reasons other than security. We just don't know but that is why I would like to see an independent investigation.

[Mickey]

Yes, you are correct on this.  That's why IMO, that Specter is calling for an investigation.  This is a battle between executive powers & congressional powers.  There was a reason that Bush signed every order to snoop, because the admin's interpretation is that he is exercising his executive privilege in military surveilance.

 

The key issue is the declaration of war.  At this point, it is very ambiguous that the executive powers ion question can only be invoked in an official declaration of war by Congress.  Certainly, history dictates that many military actions equivalent to a war  have taken place without a formal declaration of war.  Which begets the natural question of how does one actually declare an official war on AQ?

And as per above, the existing laws have not been properly updated to deal with declaring war on non-nation states.  I think that it's perfectly reasonable to assume that Congressional approval to use force to combat AQ, is as close to a declaration of war on this non legal entity, which in turn would invoke executive privilege to conduct military surveilance without a warrant.

 

When and if this thing ends up at SCOTUS, I don't see FISA standing up.

575383[/snapback]

I've since done just a bit of research, nothing huge, but some. A good thing to read on this is the report of the Congressional Research Service which you can check out here.

 

You have to remember that you start off with the Fourth Amendment which is very clear:

 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Electronic surveillance is considered to be a "search" so it applies to the NSA taps. You can't get much clearer than "shall not be violtated" or "no warrants shall issue".

 

In 1972, the supreme court rejected the argument that domestic security requirements were an exception to the warrant requirement:

 

"These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch..."

 

Accordingly, there had to be prior judicial approval, ie, a warrant. That was the case anyway prior to FISA. It may be that the real constitutional problem with FISA is not that it is an impermissible encroachment upon one branch's power by another but that it practically amends the Constitution by altering the applicability of the Fourth Amendment. Congress can't amend the Constitution by any procedure other than that established for a Constituional Amendment.

 

As for the separation of powers, both the congress and the President have constitutionally allocated powers that arguably include control over surveillance. Too many people seem to assum that because the President is Commander in Chief that he must also have in his hands all of the various war powers and that the Congress has none of those powers. Congressional powers related to national security include:

 

The Constitution specifically gives to Congress the power to “provide for the common Defence,” 11 U.S. CONST. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1; to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water,” id. § 8, cl. 11; “To raise and support Armies,” and “To provide and maintain a Navy,” id. § 8, cls. 12-13; “To make Rules for the Government and

Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” id. § 8, cl. 14, “To declare War,” id. § 8, cl. 1; and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

 

The President's power is simply to act as the C-n-C and to enforce the laws.

 

I could go on but clearly, if you read that report, this is a seriously important issue and if it becomes a case, it will bo one of the most important constitutional questions addressed by the court in a long time.

[The Avenger]

"The Department of Justice believes -- and the case law supports -- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."

573994[/snapback]

 

 

As usual, the talking points of the right don't seem to give you all the facts before feeding you a sound bite that appears to score one for their side.

 

Attorney General Jamie Gorelick said this in July of 1994. At the time, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not bar the use of warrantless physical searches, and Gorelick's statement was indeed fact. In her testimony she went on to say that the Clinton administration actually supported expanding FISA to cover physical searches (and indeed this expanded coverage occured in 1995). After expanding FISA in 1995 the Clinton administration never argued the right to condict warrantless physical searches.

 

By contrast, Bush is asserting a right to conduct warrantless electronic searches, something barred by FISA for the last 27 years. He is directly stating that the legislated law of the land does not apply - something Gorelick did not do despite the "smoking gun" statement being circulated by conservative talking points.

 

Few people have issue with the government's right to conduct searches that will keep us safe, however there must be guidelines. Bush says he needs to take action and getting warrants ahead of time severely hampers the ability to conduct valuable searches. That's not a valid argument - he has plenty of leeway to conduct searches and still remain within FISA (remember - that's the law). Understanding teh need to move swiftly, FISA provides for a "search now, get a warrant later" wherby you can actually do a wiretap now and get a valid warrant for the action up to 3 days afterwards, by a secret court dedicated to authorizing such things (you won't have to wait months for a day in court to make your case for a warrant). Failure to abide by FISA is a blatent disregard for the law of the land and shows and incredible arrogance by the current administration.

[GG]

I've since done just a bit of research, nothing huge, but some.  A good thing to read on this is the report of the Congressional Research Service which you can check out here.

 

.....

 

In 1972, the supreme court rejected the argument that domestic security requirements were an exception to the warrant requirement:

 

"These Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch..."

 

I'm sure it's not surprising to some here that if you actually take the time to research the quoted precedents, little nuggets come out that refute a lot of popular theories. Such as the of-cited Keith case of 1972, that you and the rest of the cacklers were quick to jump on. You are 100% correct that SCOTUS unanimously ruled that US govt cannot wiretap without a warrant any cases involving domestic security, where the targets were purely domestic.

 

What is ignored, is a more importantly relevant passage from the SCOTUS decision:

 

As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion [407 U.S. 297, 322] as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.

 

How many people would qualify AQ as "domestic" or US citizens who contact AQ as not potential "agents?"

 

I could go on but clearly, if you read that report, this is a seriously important issue and if it becomes a case, it will bo one of the most important constitutional questions addressed by the court in a long time.

575677[/snapback]

 

Agreed that it is important, and it will be tested. But there's nothing that shows that there was a clear violation of law.

[KRC]

You are 100% correct that SCOTUS unanimously ruled that US govt cannot wiretap without a warrant any cases involving domestic security, where the targets were purely domestic.

 

What is ignored, is a more importantly relevant passage from the SCOTUS decision:

How many people would qualify AQ as "domestic" or US citizens who contact AQ as not potential "agents?"

575724[/snapback]

If I understand your point correctly, SCOTUS forbids warrantless phonetaps of people like Timothy McVeigh, since he is strictly a domestic terrorist. The gray area arises if he were to have contact with foreigners?*

 

 

*I know that he did have contact with foreigners, but I am just looking at the issue of U.S. citizens performing terrorist attacks in the U.S. seemingly independent of foreign intervention or assistance.

[GG]

If I understand your point correctly, SCOTUS forbids warrantless phonetaps of people like Timothy McVeigh, since he is strictly a domestic terrorist. The gray area arises if he were to have contact with foreigners?*

*I know that he did have contact with foreigners, but I am just looking at the issue of U.S. citizens performing terrorist attacks in the U.S. seemingly independent of foreign intervention or assistance.

575744[/snapback]

 

My uneducated reading of the opinion leads to the same conclusion. Surveilance of McVeigh & Nichols would need warrants if done in peacetime and they had no contact with foreign powers.

 

I think those are the critical provisions, administration views the GWOT as a real war (it is) and US citizens being spied on without a warrant were all sourced through AQ contacts abroad.

[Mickey]

If I understand your point correctly, SCOTUS forbids warrantless phonetaps of people like Timothy McVeigh, since he is strictly a domestic terrorist. The gray area arises if he were to have contact with foreigners?*

*I know that he did have contact with foreigners, but I am just looking at the issue of U.S. citizens performing terrorist attacks in the U.S. seemingly independent of foreign intervention or assistance.

575744[/snapback]

The domestic/foreign distinction originally was one based on where the intel was gathered. It was important because the US Constitution and the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement doesn't extend to foreign territory. The Fourth Amendment does not have an exception that I know of that permits unreasonable searches and seizures, ie warrantless searches, on US territory simply because a foreign threat is involved. The President certainly has no express constitutional authority to conduct warrantless taps on US soil involving US persons.

 

FISA tries to recognize the situation where you have essentially foreign intelligence being gathered on domestic soil. There, the temptation and the need to gather intel without having to demonstrate probable cause is at its greatest. How then to balance security needs and the constitution? The answer was FISA.

 

If a foreign agent is involved, under FISA they can tap for one year plus extensions without a warrant here in the US. They can tap anyone for 15 days without a warrant after a declaration of war by congress. In an emergency, they can tap anyone without a warrant for 72 hours.

 

When a target is a "US person" the constitutional concerns are at their greatest because you have a US person on US soil. Applicability of the Fourth Amendement there is clear. There a warrant must, apart from the exceptions I described, be issued. The security people were properly concerned about applying for warrants and maintaining secrecy. Thus the special FISA courts were set up with all their classified procedures. I don't think any leak of a requested warrant has ever occurred from that court. Not only that but in practice, the court has awarded the warrants requested virtually all the time (99.5% since 2000).

 

The hope was that FISA satisfied the Fourth Amendment on the one hand and permitted the intel gathering that needed to be done without security people having to worry about exposure or piles of turned down warrant requests.

 

The standard rule is that when the President acts with congressional approval, his power is at its greatest for he acts with the power of both branches. When he acts where congress has already acted, his power is at its lowest and usually is only upheld, at the expense of congress, if he is exercising an express grant of authority to him under the constitution. Where congress has not acted one way or the other, that is where the question gets complicated and one might find an implied power to act. FISA however contains an exclusivity clause which, the argument goes, means the Presidents power here is at its weakest and must be supported by an express power.

 

It is pretty complicated and I am learning more and more so please don't take this as a declaration of the rights of man, I am just trying to reason through this. I don't think anyone is even seriously arguing as I think GG is trying to say, that in passing FISA, the congress impermissably infringed upon a power reserved to the President. It has been upheld as constitutional but the challenges were from defendants trying to get tapes of their calls tossed out of court because FISA violated the Fourth Amendment. No President has ever challenged it that I know of as being unconstitutional because it limits his ability to circumvent the Fourth Amendment on domestic soil as to US persons. Maybe that is where the argument is going to go, I don't know.

[GG]

It is pretty complicated and I am learning more and more so please don't take this as a declaration of the rights of man, I am just trying to reason through this.  I don't think anyone is even seriously arguing as I think GG is trying to say, that in passing FISA, the congress impermissably infringed upon a power reserved to the President.  It has been upheld as constitutional but the challenges were from defendants trying to get tapes of their calls tossed out of court because FISA violated the Fourth Amendment.  No President has ever challenged it that I know of as being unconstitutional because it limits his ability to circumvent the Fourth Amendment on domestic soil as to US persons.  Maybe that is where the argument is going to go, I don't know.

575852[/snapback]

 

No, what I'm trying to say is that for a month there's been a loud chorus screaming that the administration has broken laws, without pointing out which law has been broken. Meanwhile, a 10 minute web search will point that the issue is far from clearcut.

 

The only reason that I brought FISA into this, is because that's the law most often cited as deemed to be broken, when evidence shows that FISA may not be applicable, and may not even withstand a constitutional challenge.

 

But feel free to use your interpretation of what I said.

[Chilly]

No, what I'm trying to say is that for a month there's been a loud chorus screaming that the administration has broken laws, without pointing out which law has been broken.  Meanwhile, a 10 minute web search will point that the issue is far from clearcut. 

 

The only reason that I brought FISA into this, is because that's the law most often cited as deemed to be broken, when evidence shows that FISA may not be applicable, and may not even withstand a constitutional challenge.

 

But feel free to use your interpretation of what I said.

575885[/snapback]

 

The issue becomes, though, what if the people that the US did these wiretaps on had no contact with foreign persons, as the lawsuits alledge?

[GG]

The issue becomes, though, what if the people that the US did these wiretaps on had no contact with foreign persons, as the lawsuits alledge?

576046[/snapback]

 

Q - How can these lawsuits claim that people being spied upon didn't have any contact with foreign persons, when everything is still highly classified, and under US law, you cannot proceed with a court case hich would lead to discovery of top secret info?

 

A - The lawsuit is a PR campaign. Read carefully, ACLU suspects that there may be innocent people imbroiled.

[Mickey]

No, what I'm trying to say is that for a month there's been a loud chorus screaming that the administration has broken laws, without pointing out which law has been broken.  Meanwhile, a 10 minute web search will point that the issue is far from clearcut. 

 

The only reason that I brought FISA into this, is because that's the law most often cited as deemed to be broken, when evidence shows that FISA may not be applicable, and may not even withstand a constitutional challenge.

 

But feel free to use your interpretation of what I said.

575885[/snapback]

In this discussion, you have said:

 

"This is a battle between executive powers & congressional powers."

 

"When and if this thing ends up at SCOTUS, I don't see FISA standing up."

 

"FISA may not be applicable, and may not even withstand a constitutional challenge."

 

 

Which I summarized as:

 

"...I think GG is trying to say, that in passing FISA, the congress impermissably infringed upon a power reserved to the President."

 

Based on your reaction, if this is an unfair "interpretation" of what you are arguing, please tell me what you were really saying in those quotes if not that FISA is unconstitutional ( ie, not withstand a constitutional challenge) because congress overstepped its bounds (ie, battle between executive and congressional powers)?

 

If you don't think and are not arguing that FISA is an unconstitutional infringement of the Presidents implied powers as I "interpreted", upon what grounds are you arguing that FISA is unconstitutional? What clause of the constitution is being violated by FISA and in what manner?

[Mickey]

The issue becomes, though, what if the people that the US did these wiretaps on had no contact with foreign persons, as the lawsuits alledge?

576046[/snapback]

I don't think it is just that but who knows? At this point, this administration doesn't have a lot of credibility and since they went outside of FISA, there is simply no oversight by anyone, zilch. So you just have to take their word for it when they say they only tapped people with AQ contacts or who were talking to someone on the phone who was outside the US. If that were the case though, why in the world did they go outside of FISA which, in those situations, lets them tap without warrants anyway?

 

I really don't see what the problem is in understanding that what was done violated FISA. FISA would allow them to tap the crap out of people with AQ contacts even without a warrant for a full year with extensions available. All they have to do in that case is notify the court; notify, not ask permission. So, if all the people tapped were tied to AQ, why conduct warrantless taps outsided of FISA when they could have easily conducted the same warrantless taps within FISA?

 

One answer is that they are lying about having tapped only AQ related persons. Another is that there was some technical problem that made it impossible for them to get what they needed and comply with FISA.

 

Maybe they were casting out some huge electronic net and had no idea whose conversations they were snagging until it was later analyzed so that they had no way of providing FISA with a name of the target. I don't know.

 

At this point though, this administration has so little credibility in so many quarters that not many people are willing to take at face value their claim that they only tapped AQ because if that were the case, no credible reason for proceeding outside of FISA has been presented.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

As usual, the talking points of the right don't seem to give you all the facts before feeding you a sound bite that appears to score one for their side.

 

Attorney General Jamie Gorelick said this in July of 1994. At the time, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not bar the use of warrantless physical searches, and Gorelick's statement was indeed fact. In her testimony she went on to say that the Clinton administration actually supported expanding FISA to cover physical searches (and indeed this expanded coverage occured in 1995). After expanding FISA in 1995 the Clinton administration never argued the right to condict warrantless physical searches.

 

By contrast, Bush is asserting a right to conduct warrantless electronic searches, something barred by FISA for the last 27 years. He is directly stating that the legislated law of the land does not apply - something Gorelick did not do despite the "smoking gun" statement being circulated by conservative talking points.

 

Few people have issue with the government's right to conduct searches that will keep us safe, however there must be guidelines. Bush says he needs to take action and getting warrants ahead of time severely hampers the ability to conduct valuable searches. That's not a valid argument - he has plenty of leeway to conduct searches and still remain within FISA (remember - that's the law). Understanding teh need to move swiftly, FISA provides for a "search now, get a warrant later" wherby you can actually do a wiretap now and get a valid warrant for the action up to 3 days afterwards, by a secret court dedicated to authorizing such things (you won't have to wait months for a day in court to make your case for a warrant). Failure to abide by FISA is a blatent disregard for the law of the land and shows and incredible arrogance by the current administration.

575705[/snapback]

 

Actually, the case law routinely supports the interpretation of FISA as covering wiretaps. The courts routinely rule that electronic surveillence and physical searches are indistinguishable from the point of view of the Fourth Amendment. There is absolutely no legal basis for assuming Gorelick's statement applies to one in exclusion of the other. And there is also the practical matter that the Clinton Administration used warrantless wiretaps to gather evidence that was accepted in court in criminal cases against American citizens. Not that I'm saying anything like "Clinton bad, therefore Bush good"...neither administration should be so wantonly violating the Fourth Amendment. But:

1) Both the judicial and legislative systems have already accepted the expansion of executive powers in this regard.

2) Al Gore should shut the !@#$ up and stop complaining that the sitting administration is engaging in the same illegal activity his administration set the precedent for.

 

And the reason I know all this is...because I've been digging in to the subject for the past two weeks and gone beyond "talking points". You should try it.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If I understand your point correctly, SCOTUS forbids warrantless phonetaps of people like Timothy McVeigh, since he is strictly a domestic terrorist. The gray area arises if he were to have contact with foreigners?*

*I know that he did have contact with foreigners, but I am just looking at the issue of U.S. citizens performing terrorist attacks in the U.S. seemingly independent of foreign intervention or assistance.

575744[/snapback]

 

And despite that...the executive branch has done it anyway. The FBI had warrantless wiretaps on "domestic terrorist organizations" (i.e. "militias" in Montana and the Michigan upper peninsula) after Oklahoma City. Abuse of power or not, it's been going on for at LEAST a decade.

 

So let's all keep pretending it's a partisan issue.

[The Avenger]

Actually, the case law routinely supports the interpretation of FISA as covering wiretaps.  The courts routinely rule that electronic surveillence and physical searches are indistinguishable from the point of view of the Fourth Amendment.  There is absolutely no legal basis for assuming Gorelick's statement applies to one in exclusion of the other.  And there is also the practical matter that the Clinton Administration used warrantless wiretaps to gather evidence that was accepted in court in criminal cases against American citizens.  Not that I'm saying anything like "Clinton bad, therefore Bush good"...neither administration should be so wantonly violating the Fourth Amendment.  But:

1) Both the judicial and legislative systems have already accepted the expansion of executive powers in this regard.

2) Al Gore should shut the !@#$ up and stop complaining that the sitting administration is engaging in the same illegal activity his administration set the precedent for.

 

And the reason I know all this is...because I've been digging in to the subject for the past two weeks and gone beyond "talking points".  You should try it. 

576591[/snapback]

 

There's a tremendous difference in asserting a right to conduct warrantless searches not explicitly barred by FISA, and unilaterally claiming a right to warrantless searches covered for years by FISA.

 

If Bush wants warrantles searches, let him make the case why he needs it and if Congress agrees they can ammend FISA. I think it is very dangerous when a President claims war powers and then uses these powers to pick and chose which laws passed by Congress he does and does not have to abide by, particularly when it pertains to civil liberties.