Authority for "Wiretapping"

That - a declaration of war - is exactly what the Congressional resolution immediately following the President's action provided.

The repeated funding of the war every two years since is further confirmation that this is, in every respect, a legal war approved by the people through their elected representatives.

It is fully in accordance with our Constitution.

 

Kiffen,

What poncho said, that I disagree with is,

He didn't say, although he may have meant, that the President doesn't have specific powers short of a declaration of war. That may be, and that would be dependent on both the Constitution and statutes, but the text of the Constitution is clear, as I demonstrated earlier, that the President IS Commander in Chief. There is nothing there that makes that power conditional. I am very curious as to the statements by Madison you alluded to, though.

 

Here's an interesting article in the Washington Times detailing a huge contradiction between the recent criticism by President Carter of the Bush Administration's surveillance program, and his actions in 1977:

Carter allowed surveillance in 1977

"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.
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." "

I can respect diversity in opinions, but inconsistencies like this suggest political grandstanding by the former President. The arguments his admin detailed then are the same arguments that Bush is using.

 

This is a very interesting find in case law. It seems someone got right the difference between investigations for law enforcement and intelligence for war fighting. We should all feel more secure in our person and property because of it.

 

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
– George W. Bush

 

In 2008 it will be an official dictatorship once the minor formalities are taken care of.

 

Did you read my quote? I think not because it said that all the requirements of FISA were handled lawfully in the case under discussion.

"The FBI followed proper protocol for searches of Ames's home and office through the Attorney Generals (AG) office. Also, as required by FISA, all electronic surveillance of Ames was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."

 

For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read this article at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?

Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.

Source: Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive is accountable to the Congress and the Courts?

Clinton illegally bugged Aldrich Ames and I did not hear an uproar! </font>[/QUOTE]&lt;personal attack deleted - LE&gt;, or are you going to ignore the facts?

[ February 17, 2006, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: LadyEagle ]