Gore on the erosion of constitutional balance

[gnome]

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.

I see your point about this: the reason I disagree is that I don't think that someone's hands must be clean of wrongdoing to express outrage if someone takes that wrongdoing to an excessive level.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

No. The Bush administration has claimed it does not need warrents to wiretap foreign agents in the US contacting foreign agents outside the US for the purposes of collecting national security intelligence. That claim may be broader than you're comfortable with, but it clearly does NOT cover for example the democratic campaign chairman on a phone call to his strategy advisor.

 

[gnome]

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.

Don't distort the issue: it's not about whether wiretaps are justified... it's about following the law when doing so. I fully support the president wiretapping conversations with potential foreign agents... if he follows the procedures put in place to allow him to do so.

 

[gnome]

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.

Luke: The problem here is... if he can tap people without consulting anyone... and (if he has his way) make it illegal to expose potentially illegal wiretapping, then it doesn't matter whether it falls under the joint resolution, because according to him, he doesn't have to tell anyone with the authority to stop him, why he did it, or in fact whether he did so at all.

 

[Lurker]

Luke:

I just did a search on Squillacote.

With regard to the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal of the Squillacote-Stand appeal, Aftergood notes that "the FBI requested and received 20 separate FISA authorizations for surveillance" during the Squillacote-Stand investigation. Their attorneys "were never permitted to see the underlying documentation that the government used to justify the surveillance." The government said that "all required procedures were followed at all times,... that access to the FISA applications by the defendants' attorneys was correctly denied on national security grounds[,] ... that the investigation and prosecution of Squillacote and Stand survived multiple layers of judicial review and that their conviction was upheld on appeal."

The appeal was rejected. So it appears it was more about them having to notify the defense about evidence obtained in searches for a court proceeding. I don't see anything in there or what I read about having to disclose, in general, that you listen in on someone's phone.

Lurker

 

[Lurker]

No. The Bush administration has claimed it does not need warrents to wiretap foreign agents in the US contacting foreign agents outside the US for the purposes of collecting national security intelligence. That claim may be broader than you're comfortable with, but it clearly does NOT cover for example the democratic campaign chairman on a phone call to his strategy advisor.

Oh really? Where does it say this? Claims are great but law is usually written. I would like to see which law Bush is allegedly referring to. Or is he referring to the Congressional Resolution which has no verbiage concnering foreign nationals or agents or anything. My point is, are you and Bush adding that language to the resolution and we are just supposed to trust you despite there being no law?

Lurker

 

[Luke T.]

Luke:

I just did a search on Squillacote.

The appeal was rejected. So it appears it was more about them having to notify the defense about evidence obtained in searches for a court proceeding. I don't see anything in there or what I read about having to disclose, in general, that you listen in on someone's phone.

Lurker

After Congress amended the FISA to authorize secret physical searches, the Supreme Court ruled in a different context that the Constitution requires the government to give individuals notice that their homes have been searched, as the civil liberties community had argued that it did. Squillacote v. United States, 532 U.S. 971 (2001).

FISA history.

 

[Luke T.]

Oh really? Where does it say this? Claims are great but law is usually written. I would like to see which law Bush is allegedly referring to. Or is he referring to the Congressional Resolution which has no verbiage concnering foreign nationals or agents or anything. My point is, are you and Bush adding that language to the resolution and we are just supposed to trust you despite there being no law?

Lurker

If Senator Daschle's claims (which I linked above) are correct, and Bush tried to add "in the United States and" to the joint resolution, then it seems pretty plain that Bush planned on spying on U.S. citizens and using that resolution as his authorization.

And even though "in the United States and" didn't get explicitly added to the joint resolution, Bush has proceeded as if it was, and claims now that it is, implicit in the joint resolution.

So, yes, Bush has added language to the resolution that isn't there.

 

[Lurker]

FISA history.

Excellent. Thanks Luke. I note that it is specific to physical searches of premises so I don't know if that covers phone lines. Also, it seemed to be around a non-FISA case so I don't know if it applies.

But I am not a lawyer and have no idea if Bush broke the law or not. It sure looks like it to me and I sure hope so (not due to Bush so much as due to my faith that warrantless searches should be illegal otherwise what use is our Constitution).

Lurker

 

[Ziggurat]

my faith that warrantless searches should be illegal otherwise what use is our Constitution).

Except that the constitution isn't quite as explicit as you apparently think, because there is no categorical prohibition on warrantless searches in the constitution. The fourth ammendment reads,

"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."

So we have a probable cause requirement for warrants, and we have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But we do NOT have any constitutional requirement for warrants for all searches. Nor, in fact, should we, as a few moments consideration will show. For example, let's say a policeman hears screams for help, followed by silence, from a house. He may choose to search the house, without a warrant, because the search is not unreasonable given the particular circumstances. Waiting for a warrant in such a case is not reasonable. So there is no categorical requirement for warrants in all cases, there have always been exceptions and there's nothing unconstitutional or improper about having exceptions.

I do not know enough about the particulars of these NSA wiretaps to know if they were legal, and I do not know enough about the particular laws involved to know whether, even given their legality, they SHOULD be legal (because certainly it's possible to make the exceptions to warrants too broad). But I suspect that the matter is likely not quite so black and white.

 

[Luke T.]

Except that the constitution isn't quite as explicit as you apparently think, because there is no categorical prohibition on warrantless searches in the constitution. The fourth ammendment reads,

"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."

So we have a probable cause requirement for warrants, and we have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But we do NOT have any constitutional requirement for warrants for all searches. Nor, in fact, should we, as a few moments consideration will show. For example, let's say a policeman hears screams for help, followed by silence, from a house. He may choose to search the house, without a warrant, because the search is not unreasonable given the particular circumstances. Waiting for a warrant in such a case is not reasonable. So there is no categorical requirement for warrants in all cases, there have always been exceptions and there's nothing unconstitutional or improper about having exceptions.

I do not know enough about the particulars of these NSA wiretaps to know if they were legal, and I do not know enough about the particular laws involved to know whether, even given their legality, they SHOULD be legal (because certainly it's possible to make the exceptions to warrants too broad). But I suspect that the matter is likely not quite so black and white.

The thing is though, just as a policeman responding to a cry for help is covered by "probable cause" and has met court challenges, such searches/wiretaps as Bush/NSA are doing are also clearly covered by statute (FISA), and certain requirements have to be met under that statute.

Bush is claiming that statute has been nulled and voided under the "necessary and appropriate force" joint resolution.

I would really like to know his motive for not obtaining warrants. How could obtaining a warrant jeopardize national security? That has not been explained.

 

[Bob Klase]

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."

I assume you were trying to reproduce the quote usually credited to Benjamin Franklin. If so, you missed (and changed the meaning somewhat in the process). The Franklin quote is "Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security deserve neither."

So first, it's not "giving up a little liberty in order to keep your 'freedoms'". And it's sacrificing "basic" liberties in favor of security.

Every law on the books is a limit to your liberty. Obviously everyone in the country (and world) gives up some liberty to gain more security.

 

[Ziggurat]

I would really like to know his motive for not obtaining warrants. How could obtaining a warrant jeopardize national security? That has not been explained.

I would like to know too, but that might not be an option. Hopefully the issue will be examined by the courts (not that they necessarily need to issue warrants, but that they confirm that the program is legal and constitutional or, if they aren't, make sure that the government starts complying with the relevant laws). However, given the fact that the deciding factors may come down to technicalities which cannot be made public for security reasons, we might never know what the basis for any such evaluation really is.

So I actually agree calls for independent evaluations of this program, it's the sort of foregone conclusion in the minds of so many that the program must be illegal, despite the lack of real information about what was really going on, that I'm pushing back against.

 

[gnome]

No. The Bush administration has claimed it does not need warrents to wiretap foreign agents in the US contacting foreign agents outside the US for the purposes of collecting national security intelligence. That claim may be broader than you're comfortable with, but it clearly does NOT cover for example the democratic campaign chairman on a phone call to his strategy advisor.

And to my point: that if there are some cases where he can act without review, who is to know whether he is only acting without review according to those guidelines? There's no review!

It may be that he's not authorized to tap the democratic campaign chairman, but if he doesn't have to tell anyone what he's doing, how does that restrain him?

 

[Luke T.]

And to my point: that if there are some cases where he can act without review, who is to know whether he is only acting without review according to those guidelines? There's no review!

So how did we find out about it?

 

[gnome]

So we have a probable cause requirement for warrants, and we have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. But we do NOT have any constitutional requirement for warrants for all searches. Nor, in fact, should we, as a few moments consideration will show. For example, let's say a policeman hears screams for help, followed by silence, from a house. He may choose to search the house, without a warrant, because the search is not unreasonable given the particular circumstances. Waiting for a warrant in such a case is not reasonable. So there is no categorical requirement for warrants in all cases, there have always been exceptions and there's nothing unconstitutional or improper about having exceptions.

I do not know enough about the particulars of these NSA wiretaps to know if they were legal, and I do not know enough about the particular laws involved to know whether, even given their legality, they SHOULD be legal (because certainly it's possible to make the exceptions to warrants too broad). But I suspect that the matter is likely not quite so black and white.

However, in your case, the policeman would need to fill out a report after the fact indicating that he searched the house without a prior warrant. Bush is denying that he needs even to take this step.

 

[Jocko]

Don't distort the issue: it's not about whether wiretaps are justified... it's about following the law when doing so. I fully support the president wiretapping conversations with potential foreign agents... if he follows the procedures put in place to allow him to do so.

Considering the OP relates to Al Gore's opinions on the matter, and the fact that he was part of an administration that carried out similar measures is quite relevant indeed.

One can't point to Gore's statements with the gravitas of his former position, and blithely dismiss his own complicity in similar practices while in that position. It's intellectually dishonest.

Therefore, I find it likely that the statement that formed the basis of the OP is political, not legal.

And to demonstrate my neutrality on the political aspect, without specific regard to the legality, I merely pointed out that I did not begrudge a democrat the same authority claimed by Bush. What you wish to make of that is your business.

 

[gnome]

So how did we find out about it?

Someone leaked it... and Bush clearly intends to treat that as an illegal and dangerous act. "Leaks" cannot be the only safeguard.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If the character of a man can be judged by the dishonesty of his critics, then Bush must be a great man. Do you people really not understand that the more you lie and post BS, the less seriously all criticism of Bush is taken?

Gore is a hypocrite.
The activities of the Clinton administration are relevant to the above.

All your excuses don't change those facts.

 

[jj]

Gore is a hypocrite.
The activities of the Clinton administration are relevant to the above.

Gosh, look at the moral relativism here.

You guys have to realize, you'll eventually have to stop shrieking CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON every time somebody catches your guys breaking the law, cheating, etc.

Heck. He got a blow job. Ken Lay messed over all of California, but all we hear is CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON!

The guy was an idiot. Yeah, everybody knows it, but using CLINTON to vilify GORE is frankly dishonest.