PatsFanInMaine

Paging Mrs. Gorelick......


The Washington Post Archives | August 5, 1994 | Jamie Gorelick, Dpy. Atty. General



The Post's editorial asserts that warrantless searches to gather intelligence on the activities of foreign powers or their agents in the United States are "sharply at odds with the Fourth Amendment.



The federal courts of appeal have recognized that such searches, carried out since the earliest days of our republic, are a valid exercise of the president's constitutional responsibilities to conduct foreign affairs and protect national security and fall within an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

Electronic surveillance and physical searches of property provide critical information about the conduct of foreign powers that threaten our national security. They were instrumental in stopping Aldrich Ames and the Walker spy ring. They have frustrated terrorist plots to strike targets within the United States. It is critical to the success of such operations that the hostile power remain unaware that its activities have been discovered. Criminal warrant requirements would negate the purpose of the search. In addition, these searches often must be conducted before the government has enough information about the activities under investigation to specify precisely what would be found in the premises to be searched -- which is a requirement for a criminal warrant.

pats-blue

OK Patters, since you are using Clintons Deputy Atty Gen as someone you would use to bolster your point how is this article. The whole article deals with the FISA and wiretaps and such and the conduct of MANY Presidents.

Anyway here is the quote from Jamie Gorelick...

"Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

link to very interesting article...http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

Well how about a response to that Patters?

pats-blue

OK Patters, since you are using Clintons Deputy Atty Gen as someone you would use to bolster your point how is this article. The whole article deals with the FISA and wiretaps and such and the conduct of MANY Presidents.

Anyway here is the quote from Jamie Gorelick in this article...

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

link to very interesting article...http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...commentary-hed

Well how about a response to that Patters?

Patters

JLC, Political parties are alway simplifying the issue. What Bush did is not as clearcut as what Nixon did, for instance, but it raises important Constitutional questions.

As I understand it, FISA includes provisions that allow a President to ask for more authority and flexibility. The President simply chose to circumvent FISA and the Congress. The danger here is that if the president is allowed to do whatever he wants based on his perception of a situation, then where are the checks and balances? Congress negotiated and gave him his Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act, but why should they bother if the President can simply ignore their intentions? The President has ignored the courts and ignored Congress. What is to stop him from going out and ordering that people be shot? Don't you think there needs to be some checks and balances?

As far as the column, what I've read is that many experts feel the President had a strong case in the days after 9/11, when the apparatus was simply not set up to deal with such a terrorist strike. But, once the legislation was passed, the President had no legal right to ignore the intent of Congress. He, in effect, acted like a dictator would. And now there's evidence that he was engaged in wiretapping before 9/11 as well, but I haven't seen anything definitive yet.

JLC, I oppose the President on many issues, but this is by far the most serious issue, because he's threatening our rights and our freedom, and trying to usurp too much power. There's no guarantee that power won't be abused unless checks and balances are in place. It's true that Clinton too argued for more power, but basically gave in. He worked through the system, lost, and agreed to checks and balances. That's the marvel of the American system of government ... up until Bush came along.

All_Around_Brown

The difference as I see it is simply foreign vs. domestic spying. FISA established greater leniency for foreign surveillance- no question. The illegality comes with domestic eavesdropping, which is currently being argued as an extension of foreign eavesdropping. Pats-blues quote specifically refers to foreign intel.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

ELOrocks17

Well, its quite clear that the liberals on this board want to make absolutly sure that we get hit again. Why else would they complain about EVERY EFFORT TO STOP TERRORISM??????

They whine about the patriot act
they whine about Wiretapping
they whine about securing our border
they whine about the war on terrorism


WTF??? Get with the freekin program.

Oh, and by the way, NEM keeps on harping about "clinton handing bin laden to Bush. THAT IS TOTAL BULL*****!!!! CLINTON HAD 3 CHANCES TO GET BIN LADEN, BUT HE WAS TOO BUSY GETTING THAT "BLOWJOB"

Pujo

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" is utterly moronic. I don't think there's one person on this board, from NEM to Harry Boy, who doesn't want what they think is best for America. You're not scoring any points or discrediting anyone by accusing them of wanting America to be attacked, you're just showing ignorance of the fact that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.

All_Around_Brown

ELo, do you think Bob Barr is a liberal?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsFanInEaglesLand

I find it funny that you throw that name out of the air that is against wire tapping. How about you read his book "The meaning of Is" since you are such a Clinton rump sucker.

Pujo

This only proves AAB's point. Bob Barr is by no means a liberal and even he's concerned and outraged over President Bush, a member of his own party, spying on Americans.