Alberto Gonzales Sets the Record Straight on Surveillance

So was child labor, Jim Crow, discrimination against women, and other stuff. Then the courts decided those things were not inferred by the Constitution and certainly not supported by case precedent. This is more clear-cut than any of those.

 

Let's let Dick field that one:

 

thats not the point.. the point is organizations can have mission statements and do the opposite

 

link?

 

Surveillance against enemies of the state vs. the forced labor of a posse of 9 year-olds.... it ain't even close, but I disagree.

 

we're speaking legally. it has nothing to do with which is more disagreeable.

secondly its not surveillance against enemies. its spying of phone calls made by american against the explicit law that congress passed.

 

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Directive 18, and the law.

Directive 18 is the equivalent of company policy. The law is the law, and the law takes precedence.

If I worked at a company that said employees could use mar1juana at work, if they had a medical prescription, or written note from the companies COO, and the police came in while I was holding mar1juana, I could still be arrested. I would still be in violation of the law.

My company could complain and say that it was Directive 'M' that made having that weed ok. The company could argue that their directive was derived directly from OSHA standards, but that doesn't make it true.

 

translation: We just packed the supreme court biatch!

 

man. that would be amusing if it wasn't so damn scary.

by the way look here. even our friend lindsay graham agrees.

times

this administration is taking a dump on the constitution. and hopefully the rhetoric wont be bought in november. i dont necessarily agree with pat buchanan on much but i think he has a firm grasp on politics. his contention that the president is gonna win everytime playing the national security card...scares the hell out of me.

 

In addition to the following story we must remember that the finding Truong case stated that when surveillance is conducted primarily for foreign intelligence reasons, it falls under the inherent powers of the executive branch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

 

That was before FISA was introduced.

 

I know. But in the case in question, the court made a determination that I noted at the beginning of my post.

 

I guess that really is the crux of the biscuit.

Is the spying being done under warrant on American soil or does the president have the right to spy on anyone, anywhere in the name of national security with out warrant?

 

I think the big thing is that one of the subjects in question is indeed on American soil. That's probably what they're using to define "on American soil."

EDIT: Also, you all seem to be ignoring the beginning of my post. Carter's AG argued (and won the argument) that this falls under the inherent powers of the executive branch.

 

Agreed

But the president is saying that he should have no constrains on how or who should be monitored without any oversight? I just can't give him that. I wouldn't give that to any president.

 

So, this case came before the enactment of FISA. In spite of the Times saying previous Administrations support the actions taken by the current administration, we see that the quote by Carter's AG actually says he's in favor of FISA and it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." That's another way of saying FISA is constitutional.

The Gorelick issue has been shot down many times. Gorelick was talking about physical searches not specifically mentioned in FISA. FISA was amended in 1995 to include physical searches and both Gorelick and the Clinton administration were in favor of amending FISA to include physical searches.

This article is illustrative of the argument the administration's water-carriers are making... it is not factual, it is contradictory, and there is no supporting evidence for the administration's position.

 

It is insane that people are defending the President on this.

What has any president done to earn such trust in them?

More specifically what has this president done to earn that kind of trust?

The idea that an executive branch can spy on anyone it wants, and there is no place for anyone in any other branch of govt. to provide any kind of oversight is mind boggling.

Govt. isn't about just trusting the President to do the right thing. It is about holding them accountable.

This President who has had members of his staff blow the cover of a covert CIA operative who was actively involved in investigating terrorists and WMD's in the middle east, but won't revoke the people involved's security clearance, somehow has demonstrated the trustworthiness to spy on anyone he wants without any oversight at all?

I don't want to hear that he is just spying on Al Qaeda and nobody else needs to worry. Because without oversight there is no way to know that without oversight.

This is the same administration that told workers it was safe to go back to work near the WTC after 9/11 when it knew that it wasn't.

This is the same administration that claimed there were hundreds of battle ready Iraqi battallions, when there was actually 1.

This is the same administration that listened to Chalabi and all his bunk regarding Iraq/nukes/WMD's. Then after hosting Chalabi as a guest of honor, claimed not to know him.

These are the guys we are supposed to trust with unchecked power?

Despite all of this, I am willing to give them the power to wire tap. There just has to be a check, and some form of oversight to make sure we are all protected, from abuses. That isn't too much to ask. I can't believe people are arguing against that.

 

I agree.

 

Righteous anger from FB!

Here's an Atrios observation...

http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/

 

God help us if Rove manages to stay out of jail, and Jeb gets the money and smear machine of the current Republican Party behind him. I wouldn't be concerned if a charismatic Democrat, someone who can give a damn speech, has ideas the American people can get behind and actually articulates them in a way that's understandable, ran in '08. I haven't seen that person yet. An "average" Democrat should be able to win in '08 against just about anyone I see right now on the Republican side, but Jeb concerns me.

For a country founded to end aristocracy and privilege based on someone's birth, we seem to have a fascination with political dynasties, be it Republican or Democratic. Rather strange, isn't it.



Keep D&D Civil.