Gore on the erosion of constitutional balance

[Luke T.]

The way I understand all this verbage is that prior to 1994, the Clinton Administration believed there was a loophole in the FISA act which allowed the government to search someone's property without a warrant if the investigation was related to foreign intelligence gathering.

In 1994, Congress then closed that loophole and required such searches to be approved under FISA, but allowed for emergency circumstances where a delay in seeking a warrant might result in intelligence being lost. In such cases, the Atty. General could approve a warrantless search but must follow it up with approval by a FISA judge within 24 hours. If the emergency search was then found not to be worthy of a warrant, any evidence gathered during the warrantless search could not be used in court.

Bush knows all this, and has acknowledged it. However, he claims a new giant loophole was created when Congress approved the war on terror and said it could be fought using "all means necessary", or words to that effect.

Where that exact text is that he is relying on, I have not taken the time to discover. Mabye someone else can take the ball.

 

[gnome]

Of this thread? Absolutely. This thread is not about the program, it's about Al Gore's opinion of the program. Al Gore's opinion is clearly that his boss could do things as President that his opponent cannot. His argument is, frankly, despicable.

I don't see it that way at all. His point is that such violations have gone too far under Bush. It's not a simple "Yes he did it, no he didn't" question--it's also a matter of how much. You could convince me that it should have stopped under Clinton, but that doesn't make it any less important to stop it now, or any less worrisome that Bush intends to continue it.

The implications of surrendering too much power to the Executive remain, no matter which executive it has been given to. Gore acknowledges that in the speech as well. So you can't make the problem go away by saying "Clinton did it too!"... it's still got to be stopped and the speech explains a lot of what's at stake. If Bush directly opposes a change to this practice, then to go against it is to go against Bush.

 

[Jocko]

You could convince me that it should have stopped under Clinton, but that doesn't make it any less important to stop it now, or any less worrisome that Bush intends to continue it.

No, but I believe Manny's point is that Gore could have done something about the practice while he was in an elected position to do so, and chose not to. The fact that, as a private citizen, he now chooses to express his outrage over the practice is cynical, disingenuous... or despicable, as Manny said.

Unless you think Gore had no idea what was going on during his eight years at Clinton's side, which I find to be equally plausible on many levels.

 

[jj]

Well into Bush's second term, and the best defense the apologists can come up with for his un-American shenanigans is an inaccurate, "Well, Clinton did it, too."

So, in other words, they defend their guy by comparing him to the president they hate more than anything else in the world. Life is weird.

Well, yes, that does appear to be all they have to offer, more vilification of Clinton, and a morally relativistic argument that "he did it too".

What's more interesting is that it appears that the law at least attempted to change between Clinton's time and 'W's, so they are blowing smoke when they argue that, as well.

Of course, both attempts would appear to violate the constitution, ignoring FISA.

But how does what Clinton did excuse Bush? It doesn't. Any attempt to suggest otherwise, which is all that anyone's offered here in defense, is simply arguing for moral relativism and legal relativism.

 

[Lurker]

No, but I believe Manny's point is that Gore could have done something about the practice while he was in an elected position to do so, and chose not to. The fact that, as a private citizen, he now chooses to express his outrage over the practice is cynical, disingenuous... or despicable, as Manny said.

Did you read the previous posts? Under Clinton, FISA was changed to make these sorts of warrantless searches illegal. So you are wrong in saying Gore did nothing. FISA was modified in 1995 under Clinton.

Lurker

 

[jj]

Did you read the previous posts? Under Clinton, FISA was changed to make these sorts of warrantless searches illegal. So you are wrong in saying Gore did nothing. FISA was modified in 1995 under Clinton.

Lurker

Lurker, the point is simple, it's 'We will raise the spectre of Clinton, the spectre we manufactured from whole cloth, and ran a ridiculous, absolutely idiotic impeachment over, after a Starr chamber inquisition that spent 5 years, and even after violating every right of the president, found nothing wrong, over and over and over, until we have a big enough majority to just arrest all those nasty commie pinko symps and shoot them, and then we'll live in utopia".

THAT is the point these people are making, regardless of what they think they are saying.

 

[Jocko]

Did you read the previous posts? Under Clinton, FISA was changed to make these sorts of warrantless searches illegal. So you are wrong in saying Gore did nothing. FISA was modified in 1995 under Clinton.

Lurker

Yes, I know. Did you know Clinton took office before 1995?

So Gore was apparently unopposed (or clueless) for three years instead of eight. Well played, Lurker.

 

[Mark]

But how does what Clinton did excuse Bush? It doesn't. Any attempt to suggest otherwise, which is all that anyone's offered here in defense, is simply arguing for moral relativism and legal relativism.

At this point that is pretty much a Bush apologist's only option, isn't it?

 

[Grammatron]

But how does what Clinton did excuse Bush? It doesn't.

Except this isn't about Bush or Clinton, this is about Gore.

 

[Jocko]

Lurker, the point is simple, it's 'We will raise the spectre of Clinton, the spectre we manufactured from whole cloth, and ran a ridiculous, absolutely idiotic impeachment over, after a Starr chamber inquisition that spent 5 years, and even after violating every right of the president, found nothing wrong, over and over and over, until we have a big enough majority to just arrest all those nasty commie pinko symps and shoot them, and then we'll live in utopia".

THAT is the point these people are making, regardless of what they think they are saying.

Completely wrong, JJ. The point is, no one raised flags against Clinton because no one really had much of a problem with it. I support what he did, even if my politics disagree with his. The point that is being made (and dodged) is that a lot of folks seem to have changed their opinions on the justification (if not the legality) based on who's in the White House.

I'm not the one tailoring my outrage to pathological hatred of Bush. I support a democrat authorizing wiretaps, and I support a republican doing it. No hypocrisy there. Gore can't make the same claim.

 

[Luke T.]

Okay. I guess nobody wants to pursue the "all means necessary" angle and would rather take potshots at each other.

Here is former Senator Daschle's take on it.

On Tuesday, Vice President Cheney said the president "was granted authority by the Congress to use all means necessary to take on the terrorists, and that's what we've done."

Congress chose...to authorize "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided" the attacks of Sept. 11. With this language, Congress denied the president the more expansive authority he sought and insisted that his authority be used specifically against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Here's where it gets really interesting:

Just before the Senate acted on this compromise resolution, the White House sought one last change. Literally minutes before the Senate cast its vote, the administration sought to add the words "in the United States and" after "appropriate force" in the agreed-upon text.

The Bush administration now argues those powers were inherently contained in the resolution adopted by Congress -- but at the time, the administration clearly felt they weren't or it wouldn't have tried to insert the additional language.

 

[Luke T.]

The text at issue here is in SJ RES 23 (PUB. L. 107-40), which can be read here.

That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

 

[Lurker]

Yes, I know. Did you know Clinton took office before 1995?

So Gore was apparently unopposed (or clueless) for three years instead of eight. Well played, Lurker.

Are you aware that the LAW CHANGED IN 1995? Let me review for you:

1992: Clinton/Gore elected
1993: Clinton conducts warrantless search on Ames
1995: Clinton/Gore change FISA laws to make the search in 1993 illegal
2000: Bush elected
2001-today: Bush conducts warrantless searches in defiance of 1995 FISA law

I'll grant that it should have been illegal all along, but at least Clinton/Gore changed the law to close that loophole. They did not disobey the law as Bush appears to be doing.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

I'm not the one tailoring my outrage to pathological hatred of Bush. I support a democrat authorizing wiretaps, and I support a republican doing it. No hypocrisy there. Gore can't make the same claim.

Um, then why did Clinton/Gore change the FISA law to make it illegal?

And I don't care which party is in charge, I think all warrantless searches are wrong no matter when. Clinton/Gore were wrong prior to 1995. Bush is wrong today.

Lurker

 

[Luke T.]

Clinton/Gore did not change the law. The Republican Congress did.

 

[Lurker]

Okay. I guess nobody wants to pursue the "all means necessary" angle and would rather take potshots at each other.

I do not think "all means necessary" means the President can ignore the Constitution. I don't recall anything in our laws that say he is above the Constitution. After all, he takes an oath to defend the Constitution, not the people of the US.

Lurker

 

[jj]

Except this isn't about Bush or Clinton, this is about Gore.

Come now, grammy, when Gore came up, the "spectre of Clinton" was what you guys raised loud and clear.

It's about "use Clinton any time a democrat makes a decent point", and little else, Grams.

 

[Luke T.]

According to this letter from Congressman Don Edwards in opposition to adding "black bag" jobs to FISA, the original idea to do so came from the Bush, Sr. Administration but was not followed through on.

 

[jj]

Clinton/Gore did not change the law. The Republican Congress did.

Clinton signed it. Get over that.

 

[Luke T.]

According to this letter from Atty. Gen. Reno in response to Congressman Edwards' letter, the Clinton Admin supported adding black bag jobs to FISA.