More As the World Turns...

[southsider2k5]

Turns out there was a coordinated effort by the Presidents administration to "first block and then limit the probe as a way of taking pressure off an administration that was already beset by scandals."

 

Not surprised? The investigation was of former Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cicsneros.

 

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9277

 

Also the White House is alledging specifically that the Clinton/Gore administration executed warrentless searches. Also they stated that the Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick had testified that the President did have authority to engage in physical searches without warrents.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6GR08O.html

[Rex Kickass]

The Gorelick story has been debunked. He did argue that case, but it was rejected and the Clinton administration did not act on it.

 

And there's also a big difference between Aldrich Ames and eavesdropping over thousands of random citizens who might be tied in to someone who might be tied into someone.

 

In either case, if the Ames case is true, the Clinton adminstration was just as wrong. The question would be who in the FBI authorized that search. Did that go up all the way to an executive order? Because the administrations actions regarding wiretapping did.

 

I love the "They all do it" defense, because it's so four year old in nature. It's OK for you to do the wrong thing, because everyone else did!

[FlaSoxxJim]

The Gorelick story has been debunked. He did argue that case, but it was rejected and the Clinton administration did not act on it.

 

And there's also a big difference between Aldrich Ames and eavesdropping over thousands of random citizens who might be tied in to someone who might be tied into someone.

 

In either case, if the Ames case is true, the Clinton adminstration was just as wrong. The question would be who in the FBI authorized that search. Did that go up all the way to an executive order? Because the administrations actions regarding wiretapping did.

 

I love the "They all do it" defense, because it's so four year old in nature. It's OK for you to do the wrong thing, because everyone else did!

 

Abu Gonzales was equally uninformed on the Ames issue during the Larry King interview from which this comes. The Aldrich Ames home search occurred in 1993. As such, it could not have been done in violation of FISA because FISA was not espanded to include physical searches until 1995 (by Bill Clinton).

[Cknolls]

The Gorelick story has been debunked. He did argue that case, but it was rejected and the Clinton administration did not act on it.

 

And there's also a big difference between Aldrich Ames and eavesdropping over thousands of random citizens who might be tied in to someone who might be tied into someone.

 

In either case, if the Ames case is true, the Clinton adminstration was just as wrong. The question would be who in the FBI authorized that search. Did that go up all the way to an executive order? Because the administrations actions regarding wiretapping did.

 

I love the "They all do it" defense, because it's so four year old in nature. It's OK for you to do the wrong thing, because everyone else did!

 

 

Who are these thousands of people? How do we know there are thousands?

 

Do they have names? Or haven't they been leaked yet?

 

Ames is different because it was Clinton doing it. No outcry from MSM, just praise

 

and adulation. Do you think the Gorelick wall had anything to do with the gov't.

 

not being able to look into Moussauis' computer files?

 

Clinton was the best. :puke :puke

[southsider2k5]

I love the "They all do it" defense, because it's so four year old in nature. It's OK for you to do the wrong thing, because everyone else did!

 

Who me? I am just being patriotic.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Who are these thousands of people?  How do we know there are thousands?

 

Do they have names? Or haven't they been leaked yet?

 

Ames is different because it was Clinton doing it. No outcry from MSM, just praise

 

and adulation. Do you think the Gorelick wall had anything to do with the gov't.

 

not being able to look into Moussauis' computer files?

 

Clinton was the best.   :puke  :puke

 

The 'thousands of people' comes from FBI staff who have been sent out on wild goose chases for four years. The report said the bureau got about a thousand phone numbers a month to investigate and they have been doing that for 4+ years since 9-11.

[Balta1701]

Ames is different because it was Clinton doing it. No outcry from MSM, just praise and adulation. Do you think the Gorelick wall had anything to do with the gov't.

 

not being able to look into Moussauis' computer files?

 

Clinton was the best.   :puke  :puke

No, Again, Ames was different, as was said above, because FISA was amended in 1995 to specifically make illegal searches like the Ames search. At the time there was no law on the matter.

 

And on Moussaoui's computer files...it was the FBI which decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence against him to apply for a FISA warrant to search his computer files. However, a bi-partisan investigation by the Senate found that in fact the FBI agents were clearly wrong and that their evidence certainly met the standards required by a FISA warrant.

 

Via a letter from Colleen Rowley...

    The bottom line is that THE FISA LAW ITSELF WAS NOT THE REASON THE FBI FAILED TO INSPECT MOUSSAOUI'S PERSONAL EFFECTS AND COMPUTER FILES. Rather, the faulty interpretations and failure to share and analyze intelligence sufficiently is what enabled Moussaoui to escape further investigation. [emphasis Rowley's]

[kapkomet]

No, Again, Ames was different, as was said above, because FISA was amended in 1995 to specifically make illegal searches like the Ames search.  At the time there was no law on the matter.

 

And on Moussaoui's computer files...it was the FBI which decided that there wasn't sufficient evidence against him to apply for a FISA warrant to search his computer files.  However, a bi-partisan investigation by the Senate found that in fact the FBI agents were clearly wrong and that their evidence certainly met the standards required by a FISA warrant.

 

Via a letter from Colleen Rowley...

Oh, yes, indeed, Clinton "tramples all over the Constitution" (which Bush is accused of here), but there was no law, so that makes it "ok"? Well, guess what? There's no law on the specific instances Bush did it, either. It's the same damn thing when all is said and done.

[Balta1701]

Oh, yes, indeed, Clinton "tramples all over the Constitution" (which Bush is accused of here), but there was no law, so that makes it "ok"?  Well, guess what?  There's no law on the specific instances Bush did it, either.  It's the same damn thing when all is said and done.

Bush is not trampling over the constitution by any sort of invasion of privacy. There is, as far as I know, no detailed explanation of a right to privacy in the constitution as of now (I would support that amendment if it were offered). Therefore, simply infringing on people's rights to privacy is not a violation of the constitution. It wasn't right when Clinton did it, which is why FISA was amended a few years later by the Republican Congress, but it wasn't illegal.

 

If there is any trampling of the Constitution, it is against this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed". Given that there is a law which specifically prohibits those wiretaps without a court warrant, his actions seem to be in conflict with that statement. This is why they point to the post-9/11 resolution authorizing force as justification, because without that language (flimsy as their defense may be), then the WH would be openly in violation of the law and would clearly not be faithfully executing the law.

 

And yes, FISA is a law, and it specifically covers electronic surveillance involving U.S. citizens. Here is the Text of the act.

[YASNY]

Bush is not trampling over the constitution by any sort of invasion of privacy.  There is, as far as I know, no detailed explanation of a right to privacy in the constitution as of now (I would support that amendment if it were offered).  Therefore, simply infringing on people's rights to privacy is not a violation of the constitution.  It wasn't right when Clinton did it, which is why FISA was amended a few years later by the Republican Congress, but it wasn't illegal.

 

If there is any trampling of the Constitution, it is against this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".  Given that there is a law which specifically prohibits those wiretaps without a court warrant, his actions seem to be in conflict with that statement. This is why they point to the post-9/11 resolution authorizing force as justification, because without that language (flimsy as their defense may be), then the WH would be openly in violation of the law and would clearly not be faithfully executing the law.

 

And yes, FISA is a law, and it specifically covers electronic surveillance involving U.S. citizens.  Here is the Text of the act.

 

That's funny, I could have sworn that the constitution was "the supreme law of the land". How can subsequent legislation make it any more illegal?

[Balta1701]

That's funny, I could have sworn that the constitution was "the supreme law of the land".  How can subsequent legislation make it any more illegal?

The Constitution doesn't speak directly about a right to privacy. This is one of those many cases where the Constitution can only provide the framework around which a system of laws can be constructed. Therefore, the wiretaps themselves do not violate any explicit clause of the constitution, given that there is no right to privacy. However, those rights were granted to the people by the FISA Law which was passed by Congress, and that law, well, should have the force of law unless some portion of it were ruled unconstitutional, which has not happened.

[NorthSideSox72]

Bush is not trampling over the constitution by any sort of invasion of privacy.  There is, as far as I know, no detailed explanation of a right to privacy in the constitution as of now (I would support that amendment if it were offered).  Therefore, simply infringing on people's rights to privacy is not a violation of the constitution.  It wasn't right when Clinton did it, which is why FISA was amended a few years later by the Republican Congress, but it wasn't illegal.

 

If there is any trampling of the Constitution, it is against this clause: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".  Given that there is a law which specifically prohibits those wiretaps without a court warrant, his actions seem to be in conflict with that statement. This is why they point to the post-9/11 resolution authorizing force as justification, because without that language (flimsy as their defense may be), then the WH would be openly in violation of the law and would clearly not be faithfully executing the law.

 

And yes, FISA is a law, and it specifically covers electronic surveillance involving U.S. citizens.  Here is the Text of the act.

 

I think that Bush (via the NSA) is pretty clearly trampling the 4th amendment, and it's generally accepted interperetation regarding due process of law.

Edited January 17, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[Balta1701]

I think that Bush (via the NSA) is pretty clearly trampling the 4th amendment, and it's generally accepted interperetation regarding due process of law.

Prior to FISA...were things like the wiretappings done by the Hoover FBI and the Nixon admin explicity illegal? The text of amendment IV says:

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.

I can see how that could be construed to apply to electronic assets, but prior to FISA, was that ever really established? Did anyone go to prison for wiretapping King, Lennon, et al. without warrants before FISA?

[NorthSideSox72]

Prior to FISA...were things like the wiretappings done by the Hoover FBI and the Nixon admin explicity illegal?  The text of amendment IV says:

I can see how that could be construed to apply to electronic assets, but prior to FISA, was that ever really established?  Did anyone go to prison for wiretapping King, Lennon, et al. without warrants before FISA?

 

I don't know who was monitored. But I think it's unconstitutional and just plain wrong in any case.

[Rex Kickass]

Also the White House is alledging specifically that the Clinton/Gore administration executed warrentless searches.  Also they stated that the Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick had testified that the President did have authority to engage in physical searches without warrents.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6GR08O.html

 

Worth the bump. Here's today's AP update on this story.

 

http://www.forbes.com/business/manufacturi.../ap2456266.html

 

But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.

 

Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live" and Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

 

Gore said Gonzales made a "political defense" of the president, showing why the attorney general should not be in charge of reviewing charges against Bush and should instead name a special counsel.

 

"His charges are factually wrong," Gore said in a written statement Tuesday. "Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton-Gore administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law."