No, it wasn't. FISA was expanded to clarify that physical searches, when done with a warrant, were admissible and could be done against United States Persons (as defined) just as wiretaps were and are. That's exactly what Ms. Gorelick was testifying about in the linked passage. She believed, correctly I believe, that against Foreign Powers and their agents the President has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Gore on the erosion of constitutional balance
- Thread starter gnome
- Start date
-
- Tags
- balance constitutional erosion gore
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
And for all you people who say "no problem" to Bush having warrantless search abilities - what is to stop him from using it to spy on his political foes and use that info in campaigns? No impartial judge to put his actions in check.
Those of you who are willing to give up a little liberty in order to keep your freedoms deserve neither. It seems you are saying, "Give me liberty or at least a close approximation, or give me death."
Lurker
Those of you who are willing to give up a little liberty in order to keep your freedoms deserve neither. It seems you are saying, "Give me liberty or at least a close approximation, or give me death."
Lurker
What? Are you under the impression that there is a judge at every airport in the country?
If you want to play dirty I can. I guarantee you'll lose.
Because the "all necessary means" joint resolution he is hiding behind specifically states it applies to nations, organization, and individuals behind the attack on 9/11.
I'm sure some people would like to believe Bush would somehow tie Senator Clinton to the attacks on 9/11 so he can bug her campaign headquarters, but let's be serious.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Yes, the Clinton administration realized that FISA was written too loosely so they made sure you needeed a warrant. I don't call that an expansion so much as a restriction. Nothing changed except now you needed a warrant. If you think that is an expansion fo powers I think you are spinning.
And regarding foreigners, the Consittution does not apply to them anyway so Clinton/Bush don't need warrants to listen in on foreign calls. But we are not talking about soley foreigners. FISA is explicit in saying that communication that with a US national requires a warrant.
Lurker
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
No, my words don't make it so, the OP and reactions make it so. I merely point it out, grams.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
I did not know the resolution was so specific. So we cannot wiretap phone calls from Saddam to an American because he was not behind the 9/11 attacks?
Lurker
Saddam, we could -- at least while he was still running Iraq. That's because Iraq is a country and clearly a "foreign power." However, a warrant might be required to wiretap a phone call between a US Person and a member of Hamas, for example -- they may not be a foreign power. And a warrant would definitely be required to tap a call between a US Person and a member of the Cali drug cartel -- they are clearly not a foreign power, despite being foreign. That's what people aren't getting about this whole thing. The inherent authorization only applies to foreign powers and their agents and in the current program that specifically means al Qaeda.
No. We could not. Not under that resolution. Unless Bush felt Saddam was behind the 9/11 attack.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
I was under the impression that under FISA, if a foreigner calls a citizen in the US, that the call would require a warrant? Am I wrong? I thought that was how FISA was worded.
I'd rather ot get into the Bush resolutionc alling for all measures as it is far too vague as to what power is involved. I doubt Congress was giving him the power to break the law.
Lurker
I'd rather ot get into the Bush resolutionc alling for all measures as it is far too vague as to what power is involved. I doubt Congress was giving him the power to break the law.
Lurker
Folks, please read the links I have been posting.
If you read Congressman Edwards' letter, all the joint resolution accomplished was transferring black bag job approval authority from the Attorney General to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. From the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
Edwards felt the resolution did not address other issues about black bag jobs. He felt it didn't go far enough in restricting such searches.
If you read Reno's letter, the Clinton Administration felt it went far enough and should go no further in restricting black bag jobs.
If you read Congressman Edwards' letter, all the joint resolution accomplished was transferring black bag job approval authority from the Attorney General to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. From the Executive Branch to the Judicial Branch.
Edwards felt the resolution did not address other issues about black bag jobs. He felt it didn't go far enough in restricting such searches.
If you read Reno's letter, the Clinton Administration felt it went far enough and should go no further in restricting black bag jobs.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,843
Spying on American citizens for political purposes is clearly and obviously illegal.
Situation with judicial oversight:
Because such spying is illegal, in order to do it, Bush cannot go to a court. Instead, he needs the cooperation of whoever is doing the spying. It is a conspiracy, and that person must keep it a secret because both he and Bush are breaking the law, and will get in trouble if it is exposed to either the judge or the public.
Situation without judicial oversight:
Because such spying is illegal, in order to do it, he needs the cooperation of whoever is doing the spying. It is a conspiracy, and that person must keep it a secret because both he and Bush are breaking the law, and will get in trouble if it is exposed to the public.
In both cases, the illegal spying can happen as long as Bush and whoever is doing the spying are willing to form a conspiracy to break the law. If Bush cannot find or trust someone to form such a conspiracy, he will not do it. I don't see that judicial oversight provides any protection. The protection I do see it providing is only in situations where those doing the spying don't think it is illegal, and hence are willing to submit it to a judge. It can stop the slow expanse of government powers, but it cannot stop someone determined to leap right over the law and break it explicitly. So I don't see judicial oversight as the primary line of defense against truly outrageous abuses of power, because it simply isn't.
Okay. Here's another summary.
Under FISA, to search the property, or tap the phones, of an agent of a foreign power, you need a warrant approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If an emergency arises where a search is needed immediately, the Attorney General can approve the search, but he/she must follow up within 24 hours with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and get an ex post facto warrant approved or else any evidence gained is not admissable in court.
Along comes a "War On Terror" joint resolution which authorizes the President to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against the people behind 9/11. Bush interprets this to mean he can tap the phones of U.S. citizens he believes are in communication with Al Qaeda without getting a warrant, ex post facto or otherwise, from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
So why does Bush not want to do that one thing; get a warrant? If these are real bad guys planning real bad things, what's the big deal about a warrant?
The only reason I can see that Bush does not want to follow FISA is because of Squillacote v. United States in which the Supreme Court ruled you have to notify someone when their property has been searched, and Bush doesn't want to tip off the bad guys we are onto them.
Thoughts?
Under FISA, to search the property, or tap the phones, of an agent of a foreign power, you need a warrant approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. If an emergency arises where a search is needed immediately, the Attorney General can approve the search, but he/she must follow up within 24 hours with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and get an ex post facto warrant approved or else any evidence gained is not admissable in court.
Along comes a "War On Terror" joint resolution which authorizes the President to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against the people behind 9/11. Bush interprets this to mean he can tap the phones of U.S. citizens he believes are in communication with Al Qaeda without getting a warrant, ex post facto or otherwise, from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
So why does Bush not want to do that one thing; get a warrant? If these are real bad guys planning real bad things, what's the big deal about a warrant?
The only reason I can see that Bush does not want to follow FISA is because of Squillacote v. United States in which the Supreme Court ruled you have to notify someone when their property has been searched, and Bush doesn't want to tip off the bad guys we are onto them.
Thoughts?
Then why wouldn't he attack that issue?
I'm not arguing with you in particular here, but I see two issues:
1) Congress has written a law that at least may appear to contradict the constitution, and have written it in a way that suggests they intend to override the constitution. Do they have this power?
2) Do you have to notify both parties of a phone call, or only the US resident/citizen? Don't know.
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
What law? According to Bush, he does not need a warrant for wiretaps. Once you remove the warrant and having to show a 3rd party some probable cause then it becomes easier to abuse this power.
Lurker
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
Actually, it is 72 hours.
Does Squillacote apply to wiretaps? Also, does it apply to foreign nations talking to US citizens? Were all the FISA warrants serveed such that the people now know? I doubt it so I would assume Squillacote has limited scope on notification. I would imagine when the FBI taps a mobster's phone line they don't head over there a coupel of weeks later and tell the mob guy they tapped his phone. That makes no sense so I doubt Squillacote applies to wiretaps but I could be wrong.
I do agree that we (including Bush) should not have to tell someone even after hte fact that we listened in on their telephone calls.
Lurker