Clinton, Carter: Secret Search and Surveillance WITHOUT court orders

[igloo]

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

END

[ou812]

A couple of things to consider here.

First it says acquiring "foreign" intelligence. The issue that's in question here is domestic spying, which requires the approval of FISA.

Second, these all mention the Attourney General, not the President giving the OK to the NSA.

Thirdly, according to he law, the FISA even allows warrants to be obtained retroactively if timing is so sensitive that intelligence officials don't have time to go to court for the warrant.

My ultimate question is very simple. If there are provisions in place to allow for domestic spying to take place anyway under FISA law and all you have to do is simply follow the proper procedures and channels, then why try to side-step them and potentially risk something like this happening? Is it because you are lazy, stupid, or have something you are trying to conceal???

At the end of the day this is all really very subjective until an investigation takes place to say one way or the other.

[igloo]

A couple of things to consider here.

First it says acquiring "foreign" intelligence. The issue that's in question here is domestic spying, which requires the approval of FISA.

Second, these all mention the Attourney General, not the President giving the OK to the NSA.

At the end of the day this is all really very subjective until an investigation takes place to say one way or the other.

Here is my subjective opinion: Good job by the Bush Administation, no matter how you look at it.

[drlogic]

For craps and giggles, let's just asume Bush did this with intentions other than protecting America against it's enemies.

I mean, if people want him to burn for this, it must be because they believe he's up to no good, right?

So, what EXACTLY do the "critics" believe was Bush's intention, if not to protect Ameirca? What EXACTLY are the critics implying?

HUMOR ME, PLZ!

[ou812]

Who the hell knows. He's not earned an ounce of trust during his time in office, respect is earned not given. So whenever he does something like this he better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what his intentions are.

Maybe he wants to protect the US by nuking every single other continent into the stoneage. Would that work, maybe............is it the right way of going about doing things, no.............for example of course.

[igloo]

Who the hell knows. He's not earned an ounce of trust during his time in office, respect is earned not given. So whenever he does something like this he better prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what his intentions are.

Maybe he wants to protect the US by nuking every single other continent into the stoneage. Would that work, maybe............is it the right way of going about doing things, no.............for example of course.

50% of the country would not have trusted him no matter what---let's be realistic hear, and put things into perspective........

Secondly--drlogic was on point----do u really think Bush has sinister intentions? Morons like destruction do, but you seem like a bright person, so I doubt you do. It is obvious you are not fan of Bush-so be it. But there was no diabolical plan here.

And again here is the bottom line----the very same people who are screaming about this now, if there is another 9/11, would be first in line screaming about "what Bush knew" and why didn't he take all measures to protect us...

I am afraid you my fall into that category.....I find it remarkable how many people have selective memory and revisionist thinking----thinking about the uproar during the 9/11 commision, and the August PDB, and why Bush did not connect the dots in 7 months, but Clinton could not in 8 years, , Hillary standing in the Senate and demaning "what did Bush know", the cover of TIME magazine, etc, etc, etc, ect..........

The anti-Bush blinders has gotten so ridiculous that people who oppose him, oppose his policies, and of course those who never accepted him in 2000 has gotten completely out of control, and is hurting this country in more ways than one.....