Jump to content


Clinton And Carter Authorized Surveillance/Search On Americans


Passion
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

 

*gasp*

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Key difference:

 

Clinton and Carter let this be known BEFORE they did it. "Hey this is what we are going to do, just so you know." Bush on the other hand... well he left it up to the NYT to enlighten the American public years after he let this kind of thing start. I mean Bush still hasn't made any offical comments or releases about this thing yet has he? I mean, it's out there now, why not disclose what is being done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have really dug deep for that information.

 

The Patriot Act is still totally unnescessary and against the freedoms made explicit and implicit by the constitution. You have trouble countering the fact that it's flat out wrong.

 

I don't care who does it. It's still f***ing retarded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, so three people've gotten it wrong.

 

All fags.

 

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for national security...

 

:whistle

 

This will never effect me as I dont have ties to terrorists and I am not plotting an attack. People act like government surveillance is something new, it has been around for a long time, hell, Robert Kennedy wanted to wire tap Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Also, how many people have been wrongly accused or detained because of information gathered this way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love the spin carriers. Some of you even know what this issue is about? Bush could probably urinate on the bill of rights and some of you would be ok with it because Rush told you it was ok. Here you guys go:

 

 

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

 

The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER?" It's not true. Here's the breakdown ?

 

What Drudge says:

 

 

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

 

 

What Clinton actually signed:

 

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

 

 

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

 

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

 

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

 

What Drudge says:

 

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."

 

 

What Carter's executive order actually says:

 

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

 

 

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge...#comment-330522

 

 

 

 

Wait, can I now whine that this board is being turned into Rush Limbaugh's policy center?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love the spin carriers. Some of you even know what this issue is about? Bush could probably urinate on the bill of rights and some of you would be ok with it because Rush told you it was ok. Here you guys go:

 

 

 

 

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

 

The top of the Drudge Report claims "CLINTON EXECUTIVE ORDER: SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS WITHOUT COURT ORDER?" It's not true. Here's the breakdown ?

 

What Drudge says:

 

 

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

 

 

What Clinton actually signed:

 

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

 

 

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

 

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

 

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

 

What Drudge says:

 

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."

 

 

What Carter's executive order actually says:

 

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

 

 

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge...#comment-330522

 

 

 

 

Wait, can I now whine that this board is being turned into Rush Limbaugh's policy center?

 

 

 

.

 

:o

 

 

 

(mocking the pointless response of some in this thread)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, so three people've gotten it wrong.

 

All fags.

 

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for national security...

 

:whistle

 

This will never effect me as I dont have ties to terrorists and I am not plotting an attack. People act like government surveillance is something new, it has been around for a long time, hell, Robert Kennedy wanted to wire tap Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Also, how many people have been wrongly accused or detained because of information gathered this way?

 

Lincoln did so in the middle of an actual war that was on US soil. Are you suggesting that it would be ok for Bush to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties in this day? That he could detain anyone he wanted for no reason necessary(the thrust of habeas corpus)?

 

Youre totally missing the point. Its not about how it affects you. If it were as easy as that there would be no issue. There was a mechanism in place for the government to show the ties to terrorists and get judicial approval. Not even normal judicial approval. Special tribunal approval. If that is undermined, there is no way for us to know if the AG is getting approval because of terrorist ties or because he wants to spy on democratic political groups for political reasons(as has improperly be done before). Government surveillance with a warrant isnt something new. Carte blanch allowance with no warrant is not ok. Thats why this was against the law as done to Americans.

 

How many of you guys that are ok with this have said that you dont like big government liberal? Well this is expanding the power of the executive to abhorant levels. There was once a time when conservatives would have been all over this. Too bad conservatives today LOVE big government.

 

And why dont you tell us how many people have been wrongly accused or detained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Moneyball

I think a better comparison to Bush today would be Nixon. But hey, thats just a rational man's thought.

 

 

 

And I am not saying Bush rigged elections or anything or stole from the Democrats but the secrecy this administration uses is of Nixon levels.

 

 

But hey, Nixon was a republican, so it must've been for a good cause.

 

 

Yeah, because all the other guys didn't. :rolleyes: Nixon was just caught plain and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, so three people've gotten it wrong.

 

All fags.

 

Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus for national security...

 

:whistle

 

This will never effect me as I dont have ties to terrorists and I am not plotting an attack. People act like government surveillance is something new, it has been around for a long time, hell, Robert Kennedy wanted to wire tap Martin Luther King Jr.

 

Also, how many people have been wrongly accused or detained because of information gathered this way?

Lincoln did so in the middle of an actual war that was on US soil. Are you suggesting that it would be ok for Bush to suspend habeas corpus and other civil liberties in this day? That he could detain anyone he wanted for no reason necessary(the thrust of habeas corpus)?

 

Youre totally missing the point. Its not about how it affects you. If it were as easy as that there would be no issue. There was a mechanism in place for the government to show the ties to terrorists and get judicial approval. Not even normal judicial approval. Special tribunal approval. If that is undermined, there is no way for us to know if the AG is getting approval because of terrorist ties or because he wants to spy on democratic political groups for political reasons(as has improperly be done before). Government surveillance with a warrant isnt something new. Carte blanch allowance with no warrant is not ok. Thats why this was against the law as done to Americans.

 

How many of you guys that are ok with this have said that you dont like big government liberal? Well this is expanding the power of the executive to abhorant levels. There was once a time when conservatives would have been all over this. Too bad conservatives today LOVE big government.

 

And why dont you tell us how many people have been wrongly accused or detained.

Not at all, but thanks for putting an implication on my words.

 

I was just bringing up some things for the democrats that believe history started in '01.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush spends too much to be a Nixon clone. Nixon actually refused to spend money budgeted to him from Congress until he was later ordered to by the Congressional Budget Act.

 

Bush, in many ways, is a Reagan clone. Cuts taxes, spends highly, is comfortable with a deficit.

 

All that other secrecy and behind the scenes stuff happens in every administration, some are just less fortunate than others and get caught doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush spends too much to be a Nixon clone. Nixon actually refused to spend money budgeted to him from Congress until he was later ordered to by the Congressional Budget Act.

 

Bush, in many ways, is a Reagan clone. Cuts taxes, spends highly, is comfortable with a deficit.

 

All that other secrecy and behind the scenes stuff happens in every administration, some are just less fortunate than others and get caught doing it.

 

 

well bush should be a reagan clone. i mean half his administration are recycled from the reagan administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...