Jimmy Carter = asshat supreme!

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060210-110722-2189r.htm

 

Carter allowed surveillance in 1977

By Charles Hurt

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

February 11, 2006

 

 

Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar surveillance against suspected spies.

    "Under the Bush administration, there's been a disgraceful and illegal decision -- we're not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we're spying on the American people," Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign.

    "And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act," he said.

    The next day at Mrs. King's high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the "secret government wiretapping" of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.

    But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.

    The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.

    In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."

    That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.

    The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.

    Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.

    Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.

    The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."

    Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, agreed. In 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Miss Gorelick said case law supports the presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches and electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes.

    Earlier this week, however, Mr. Carter said it was "ridiculous" for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to say the spying is justified by Article II of the Constitution.

    Republicans say they welcome such criticism because it proves Democrats can't be trusted with national security.

    "Just when you thought that the Democrats' image of being soft on defense issues couldn't get any worse, enter the sage wisdom of President Jimmy Carter to save the day," said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

 

Bush should just grab him some day and b****-slap him back to the peanut farm.

[Balta1701]

Yes, what an asshat. How Dare Jimmy Carter violate a law that wasn't on the books at the time! He should have traveled forward to the time after FISA was passed and gotten a warrant from that court once the procedure for court approval was established, then brought the warrant back in time thus proving he had probable cause! He should be impeached right now! Just send our current Congress back in time to do it!

Edited February 11, 2006 by Balta1701

[EvilMonkey]

Balta, are you saying that domestic spying is ok, as long as there is no law against it? So that would mean that slavery was ok, until there was a law against it? The point I was trying to make is asshat Carter did the very thing he criticized Bush for doing, only worse! Both Carter's and Clinton's administrations defended this very act,but now that it is Georgie-boy doing it, well, it must be the work of the devil!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Balta, are you saying that domestic spying is ok, as long as there is no law against it?  So that would mean that slavery was ok, until there was a law against it?  The point I was trying to make is asshat Carter did the very thing he criticized Bush for doing, only worse!  Both Carter's and Clinton's administrations defended this very act,but now that it is Georgie-boy doing it, well, it must be the work of the devil!

Just because another President did it/does it, does not make what Bush did any less illegal and any less wrong. The equivalent is like saying "Well, my one child misbehaved, so I need to let all my children do that."

 

One can be against domestic spying without being a Clinton/Carter lover. One does not have to love every last aspect of a person/politician to support them. There are parts of politicians that I like and parts that I dislike. It does a dis-service to American politics to try to pigeonhole a person into a bichromatic view of the world based on a D or R near their name.

 

From Glen Greenwald and Crooks&Liars.com

true conservative believer Bob Barr -- whose conservative credentials include serving as House Manager of the Clinton Impeachment and being the primary sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act -- was treated like an evil traitor at the Conservative Political Action Conference held this weekend all because he is critical of The President's violations of FISA.

 

Conservatism in some circles really has morphed into The Cult of George Bush, which is why any criticism of the Leader -- even when the criticism is based on conservative principles -- is deemed to be blasphemous to the Cause. This excerpt from Milbank’s column really tells you all you need to know about what "conservativism" has come to mean in certain circles:

 

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes."

 

But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.

 

For them, even to be subjected to the idea that "Bush is off course" is traumatic and wrong. Such an opinion has no place at a "conservative" event, where only praise and reverence of the Commander-in-Chief is appropriate. One sees this time and again: "conservatism" these days very rarely has anything to do with actual conservative principles of government and has come to be distorted shorthand for "George Bush follower."

 

The more one agrees with and praises the Commander-in-Chief, the more "conservative" one is, even when his actions aren't even remotely "conservative." That really is the definition of a creepy cult of personality, and it has consumed a large segment of the Republican Party.

[GoodAsGould]

I always liked Jimmy Carter... didnt think much of him as a president but as a politician and as a person.

[BHAMBARONS]

I always liked Jimmy Carter... didnt think much of him as a president but as a politician and as a person.

 

 

Right on, he has done a lot of stuff for our region. While not a good president he is a good person and has done the most charity work of any president

[Cerbaho-WG]

Balta, are you saying that domestic spying is ok, as long as there is no law against it?  So that would mean that slavery was ok, until there was a law against it?  The point I was trying to make is asshat Carter did the very thing he criticized Bush for doing, only worse!  Both Carter's and Clinton's administrations defended this very act,but now that it is Georgie-boy doing it, well, it must be the work of the devil!

 

You've heard of ex post facto, right? And please don't bring in a moral issue like slavery in comparison to wire tapping; they're not even close to similar.

[YASNY]

You've heard of ex post facto, right? And please don't bring in a moral issue like slavery in comparison to wire tapping; they're not even close to similar.

 

He brought it up to make a point. It's nothing that hasn't been done by the liberal faction of this board.

[Texsox]

I think there is a difference in breaking a law and not. I also think it shouldn't take a law to show us right from wrong. I think probable cause is a great thing.

 

Carter is easily the best ex-President we have ever had. His efforts spreading democracy, building homes, and his works as an author are all outstanding. His actions speak loudly. I believe he holds the most sincere of Christian beliefs compared to the Presidents in my lifetime. I believe some other have wrapped themselves in religion to gather votes and support. As a politician, he still fumbles and misteps.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think there is a difference in breaking a law and not.

 

It sure seems intuitive, doesn't it?

[Rex Kickass]

He brought it up to make a point.  It's nothing that hasn't been done by the liberal faction of this board.

 

Nobody said it was right Yas. But, it was legal at the time. FISA changed that. So tell me, since you seem to be all about moral equivalency here, which is worse - doing something wrong that's legal? or doing something wrong and breaking a law to do it?

[soxman352000]

Balta, are you saying that domestic spying is ok, as long as there is no law against it?  So that would mean that slavery was ok, until there was a law against it?

Oh damn Balta you got owned

[G&T]

Yes, what an asshat.  How Dare Jimmy Carter violate a law that wasn't on the books at the time!  He should have traveled forward to the time after FISA was passed and gotten a warrant from that court once the procedure for court approval was established, then brought the warrant back in time thus proving he had probable cause!  He should be impeached right now!  Just send our current Congress back in time to do it!

 

I think the fourth amendment, written before Carter's presidency, made it illegal for the government to spy on its own people. FISA creates an exception to that rule for the purposes of national security as long as congress is informed. Furthermore, the idea of "zones of privacy" was created under Griswald v Connecticut, also before Carter. While Carter did not violate FISA, he still broke the law.

That's the way I interpret these laws anyway.

[Balta1701]

Balta, are you saying that domestic spying is ok, as long as there is no law against it?  So that would mean that slavery was ok, until there was a law against it?  The point I was trying to make is asshat Carter did the very thing he criticized Bush for doing, only worse!  Both Carter's and Clinton's administrations defended this very act,but now that it is Georgie-boy doing it, well, it must be the work of the devil!

Here's the question you should be asking yourself...was there probable cause in both cases? As far as I can tell the answer is yes...both Clinton and Carter were using wiretaps in domestic situations against a target which would almost certainly have been granted a FISA warrant if FISA was applicable in those circumstances.

 

However, for Carter, it would be extremely difficult for him to have obtained a warrant, since there was no procedure that I know of before FISA to go and obtain a secret warrant to conduct an intelligence investigation consistent with the President's duties as commander in chief. There was no secret court which could be gone to in order to obtain the warrant in Carter's case, and in Clinton's case, FISA was simply not applicable because the law didn't cover the personal search that they did.

 

When there is simply no legal procedure, then there is no way to judge the probable cause criteria, which is why FISA is so important. It creates a method through which the rights granted under the 4th amendment can be protected but where the government can still have the power it needs in order to conduct an investigation.

 

I have no problem with the principle of domestic spying, and in that regard, it is fundamentally different from slavery, as should be obvious to anyone on this board. There is no reason why domestic surveillance is wrong if it follows the guidelines laid out in the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution - following a probable cause standard. All we're asking is for the President to follow the constitution and the law which allows for it to be applied to these circumstances, or to tell us how to change and improve the law to make it work. That is all.

[YASNY]

Nobody said it was right Yas. But, it was legal at the time. FISA changed that. So tell me, since you seem to be all about moral equivalency here, which is worse - doing something wrong that's legal? or doing something wrong and breaking a law to do it?

 

Wrong is wrong. Is that morally equivalent enough for you?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Wrong is wrong.  Is that morally equivalent enough for you?

And laws and Constitutional amendment are superfluous because wrong is wrong.

 

The slaves eventually would have been freed because the rule of wrong is wrong eventually would have kicked in. We're wasting billions of dollars on IRS enforcement because all the tax scofflaws are going to realize wrong is wrong any day now and cough up all those back taxes. This bruhaha over Kyoto is much ado about nothing because the corporate polluters who acrue all the benefits to themselves while we all suffer the consequences of global climate change are on the verge of groking the wrong is wrong mentality, I can just feel it.

 

Yes, it's so black and white I'm not sure why anybody ever thought we needed laws anyway.

[mr_genius]

shocking, a democrat contradicts himself.

 

do as i say not as i do.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm not defending Carter. I think what he did was wrong, even if it was found to be legal in court.

 

But if it was wrong for Carter to do it for two people who were spies, its wrong for Bush to do it for several hundred suspected people of interest and determined by an NSA shift supervisor and to do it in flagrant disrepect for FISA law. Really wrong.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think the fourth amendment, written before Carter's presidency, made it illegal for the government to spy on its own people. FISA creates an exception to that rule for the purposes of national security as long as congress is informed. Furthermore, the idea of "zones of privacy" was created under Griswald v Connecticut, also before Carter. While Carter did not violate FISA, he still broke the law.

That's the way I interpret these laws anyway.

 

I agree. It was wrong for Carter, wrong for Clinton and wrong for Bush. Was it more wrong for Bush because FISA had been installed to make it easier? I'd say so - I think he was more reckless with his powers than the others. But it was still wrong for any of them.

 

And the argument of probably cause doesn't fly with me, because that label can only be acceptable legally when a court says so (or by a citizen of law enforcement while in situ act of commision of a felony, or immediate public safety in situ, neither of which apply here). No warrantless searches, period.

[kapkomet]

I agree.  It was wrong for Carter, wrong for Clinton and wrong for Bush.  Was it more wrong for Bush because FISA had been installed to make it easier?  I'd say so - I think he was more reckless with his powers than the others.  But it was still wrong for any of them.

 

And the argument of probably cause doesn't fly with me, because that label can only be acceptable legally when a court says so (or by a citizen of law enforcement while in situ act of commision of a felony, or immediate public safety in situ, neither of which apply here).  No warrantless searches, period.

The problem I have is that the whole premise is based on the courts having jurisdiction over any of this, or for that matter, the law Congress made to begin with.

 

I go back to the Federalist papers when they were talking about the executive branch - and during "wartime" the president was (is) to be given pretty broad powers. I know that there is a witch hunt to make sure that the verbage "DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" sticks in the media. But if we are intercepting communications in an effort to nail these scumbags, that can supercede any law written by Congress or any powers granted by a court (FISA Court). You can argue, and rather strongly, that neither of these two apply in this case.

 

Now, I'll get the argument that this isn't "wartime" because Congress didn't "declare war". The resolutions passed by Congress are pretty clear that the president was given powers to "conduct a war" even though there was never any formal declaration. And besides, there is no traditional "sovereign nation" to declare war on this time.

 

Let me come full circle and say that FISA and other laws passed by Congress are applicable most of the time, and it's my understanding that FISA procedures ARE followed most of the time, but you wouldn't think that by all the lashings that are out there on ALL sides of the media.

[NorthSideSox72]

The problem I have is that the whole premise is based on the courts having jurisdiction over any of this, or for that matter, the law Congress made to begin with. 

 

I go back to the Federalist papers when they were talking about the executive branch - and during "wartime" the president was (is) to be given pretty broad powers.  I know that there is a witch hunt to make sure that the verbage "DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" sticks in the media.  But if we are intercepting communications in an effort to nail these scumbags, that can supercede any law written by Congress or any powers granted by a court (FISA Court).  You can argue, and rather strongly, that neither of these two apply in this case.

 

Now, I'll get the argument that this isn't "wartime" because Congress didn't "declare war".  The resolutions passed by Congress are pretty clear that the president was given powers to "conduct a war" even though there was never any formal declaration.  And besides, there is no traditional "sovereign nation" to declare war on this time.

 

Let me come full circle and say that FISA and other laws passed by Congress are applicable most of the time, and it's my understanding that FISA procedures ARE followed most of the time, but you wouldn't think that by all the lashings that are out there on ALL sides of the media.

 

I have a different argument than the declared-war thing. My stance is that war powers should never extend to any action against US citizens, per my interperetation of both the Constitution and the Comitatus Act. Therefore, any spying of this sort against citizens without a warrant is not protected under war powers and is inherently wrong.

Edited February 13, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[YASNY]

I have a different argument than the declared-war thing.  My stance is that war powers should never extend to any action against US citizens, per my interperetation of both the Constitution and the Comitatus Act.  Therefore, any spying of this sort against citizens without a warrant is not protected under war powers and is inherently wrong.

 

That's the key word ... interpretations. If and when it comes to point that Bush and Co. are proven guilty of breaking the law, or even legally charged with it, as opposed to liberal rhetoric stating so, then I'll have a different outlook on it. Until then, it's just a bunch of politicians playing politics.

[samclemens]

I'm not defending Carter. I think what he did was wrong, even if it was found to be legal in court.

 

But if it was wrong for Carter to do it for two people who were spies, its wrong for Bush to do it for several hundred suspected people of interest and determined by an NSA shift supervisor and to do it in flagrant disrepect for FISA law. Really wrong.

 

two or two thousand- no difference.

 

rationalizing!

[Rex Kickass]

Read what I said. It's wrong.

[EvilMonkey]

Read what I said. It's wrong.

You said 'wrong' and 'really wrong', implying a difference between the two. He read what you wrote correctly.