What is Digg?38 Comments
- zensmile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2President Clinton had defended his executive authority to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant and in fact, in February of 1995, authorized the attorney general "to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information."
Now it turns out that presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have authorized such actions. An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
Looks like there is precedent. - aratika, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was in Wired? BFD
- johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Co-Worker: So, it was all right if Bush allowed wire taps, because he was only doing it to bad people!
Me: Interesting. You know, the other day, my daughter got in trouble for eating a piece of candy.
Co-Worker: OK. So what does that have to do with anything?
Me: Well, you see, she knows that after dinner, as long as she asks me, she'll be allowed a piece of candy for dessert. She knows that if she brings me the candy, I'll still probably tell her OK. All I ask is that she come ask me, and I'll tell her it's acceptable to have the candy. The other night, she didn't ask - she took a piece and ate it, and now she gets no candy for the next few days.
Co-worker: And?
Me: It's the same thing. Bush could have asked for permission to do the wire taps. It would have cost him nothing, it wouldn't have gotten him into trouble, and it would take hardly any effort since he could even do it after he started. But he couldn't even be bothered to follow the law. Couldn't be bothered to say "Hey, this is what I'm doing" to a third party just to make sure. Instead, he found it easier to keep it hidden from everything - including the people he swore he would serve when he swore an oath to the Constitution. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I didn't care that my daughter ate the candy - I cared the didn't respect me enough to ask first. I didn't care that Bush had people listening in to phone conversations - I cared he didn't respect us enough to ask first. Especially when the people he would have asked would have said "Yes."
Me: And if I can trust him with the little things - like getting a warrant even when he can wait until 3 days after he starts to get one, that a warrant for wiretaps has been denied only 4 times since 1976 so he's got no fear of someone saying "no" (far less than my daughter has than I will say "no" to candy) - if he can't even follow the law on such a simple and direct thing, how can I trust him to follow the law when it's hard? Like Dumbledore said: You have to choose between what is easy, and what is right. He choose the easy. I can no longer trust him with the right. - chalkboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The New York Times is a piece of trash. What he did was legal and approved by congress.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1WTF does wired know?! Do they have top secret clearance or something? Give me a break! They don't know jack! I'd expect this kinda report from NY Times, but not from a place like wired.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like that'll be the last time I bother reading Wired. I had no idea they were so politically slanted until the last few weeks. Shameful!
- dusingaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read the Washington Times Bush Haters-
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051222-122610-7772r.htm
Previous administrations, as well as the court that oversees national security cases, agreed with President Bush's position that a president legally may authorize searches without warrants in pursuit of foreign intelligence.
"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 and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general," Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick said in 1994 testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
That same authority, she added, pertains to electronic surveillance such as wiretaps.
More recently, the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court -- the secretive judicial system that handles classified intelligence cases -- wrote in a declassified opinion that the court has long held "that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."
Such warrantless searches have been at the center of a political fight in Washington after the New York Times reported Friday that the Bush administration had a program to intercept communications between al Qaeda suspects and persons in this country, a story whose publication coincided with the congressional debate over reauthorizing the USA Patriot Act.
In a 2002 opinion about the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the USA Patriot Act, the court wrote: "We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
Indeed, previous administrations have used that same authority.
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames' home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases. - desertcoyote, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Unfortunately this isn't the first president that has done this, nor will it be the last.
- brandonvan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"As with these policies, the interceptions are almost certainly illegal."
Unfortunately they are legal and have been used by multiple presidents. You can debate the lawfulness of this legislation but you cannot debate whether Bush has commit ed a crime. - apollos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0What a responsible news story on the issue would say:
Perhaps this shocks you.
It's legal.
He's not the first to do so.
Get over it you.
You should thank him for protecting you.
Any other questions? - apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dharh--
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
--Benjamin Franklin
I hope you don't cry when terrorist blow up your house because... you wanted your precious civial rights to extend to people who are known to be associated with terrorist. If democrats approved this, then it had to have been somebody on the hot list or they wouldn't have okayed it. - DisgruntledDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm tired of this "We havn't been attacked since." ***** thats been flying around here lately. I have a wreath on my door, and I havn't been attacked by Pirates yet this year, I'd better keep the wreath up!
Please. It's called luck, or that they're not interested.
If anything saved you after 9/11, it's that the US united after the attacks, instead of panicing and those responsible (whoever it was) realized it was pretty much a failure. - ZrO-1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The story directly talks about wiretap policies that have been place since the PATRIOT Act (among other things) and it's on WIRED.com! For cripes sake...
- cusoman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Name one modern President who didn't do something that investigations later showed to be Impeachable.
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Bleh....not more political articles. Digg is becoming yet another boring political blog.
I swear, politics on the internet seems to bring out the most stupid of conspiracy theories and arguments in everyone. I already see some obvious examples above. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Bah, if he confessed to this, it only makes me wonder what else is going on.........
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0they just moved it here http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,69886-0.html?tw=wn_tophead_16
- djhifisi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0hmm, and now the page is 404... very suspicious...
Hey, someone's knocking at the door... - dognose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The only exceptions are following a declaration of war, when the president has very narrow, time-limited powers to order surveillance to obtain information to prevent attacks, terrorism or espionage, and under special circumstances when no U.S. citizens are involved. The administration's actions clearly fall outside these boundaries."
Huh? Isn't this the exact provision that they are following? In a time of war to prevent terrorism? - DisgruntledDave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@apt
It was something approved quickly and without thought because your entire country was overcome by fear.
Also, you may want to remember that those "precious civil rights" you don't care so much about are things like your right to vote, your right to breathe, and your right to live. Somepeople take those things very seriously, because without them, what exactly are you protecting? - Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@zensmile
You're editing out the last phrase of that executive order. The complete order says, "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."
It's that last bit that is significant. The Attorney General has to certify that he's not investigating Americans.
Typical republican talking-point *****. - Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@bonchbonch
I'll keep repeating this as long as you don't read the comments...
"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."
The last sentence means they CANNOT SPY ON AMERICANS. That's where Carter, Clinton and Bush differ. - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Citizens of the USA are covered by much more than just FISA. FISA being used with the Patriot ACT for surveillance of citizens in the united states violate some of our most basic rights.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So, I guess the fact Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter also gave the government the ability to wiretap you on demand isn't getting as much play...because a Republican is in office.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
Man, I hope Digg.com doesn't become the biased, leftist hellhole that Slashdot is. - nebrfan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"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...and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General." More evil from the Bush Administration? No - this quote is actually from Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick who was testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994 re: President Clinton's opinion on Presidential powers.
- apotropaic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sorry but you can hardly compare this to waiting for some CANDY after dinner. This is something they knew they were going to get permission for, they had an emergency meeting with as many democrats and republicans as they could gather in short notice to run it by them. They all approved. They HAD to get this on ASAP or risk loosing valuable info. The media is so STUPID for blowing this way out of proportian. They did get permission from congress, just didnt have time to run through the 3-5 day process that it would normally take for the vote. Thats it!
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
--Benjamin Franklin - StevePoling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0theoretically, the congress could pass all manner of laws constraining the president's actions. but those laws must be consistent with the constitution. that separation of powers thing. if ***** has broken the law, either the law is unconstitutional or he should face legal sanction. are there no lawyers willing to bring this suit?
if you want to impeach emperor palpatine, you already have grounds under the constitution that says the president is responsible for protecting this country from foreign attack. obviously, there are two demolished buildings in New York that show his administration failed to "connect the dots." I recall a lot of bitter complaints about this just after 9/11.
but i am confused, should Mr. Bush to be impeached for failing to connect the dots or for taking steps to connect the dots? i suppose any stick will do so long as it is used to beat the administration. - Fraize, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0... in fact, anybody who believes the Carter/Clinton myth as reported by drudge should go check this out: http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/
- Markyologist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@dognose
"Huh? Isn't this the exact provision that they are following? In a time of war to prevent terrorism?"
Read the text you quoted again, especially this part: "...when no U.S. citizens are involved"
That's the tricky part, these wiretaps were on U.S. citizens. - aburd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not that I like what Clinton was doing, but he specifically did it in Government owned housing. This is a completely different situation from privately owned homes, and much different from phone conversations which have this whole FISA rule set for them.
The reason this situation is different is that FISA sets up a secret and supposedly fast method for doing these searches. I don't know if what he did is illegal or not, but it is really a completely different situation from what any of the past administrations have done since FISA was put in place. - dharh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@apotropaic. Thanks for quoting BF for me. There are plenty of lawful ways to prevent terrorists from blowing my house up. One includes merely getting a judge to approve surveillance. I have no problem with trying to prevent terrorism, what I have a problem with is blanket violation of civil rights. I personally feel my civil rights are being violated even though I have no knowledge of being under surveillance in this manner.
- mocheeze, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0How often to Presidents openly admit to impeachable crimes?
- zediker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0FISA has been available to the public eye for years, it clearly states what the administration can and cannot do when it comes to wiretaps. The administration clearly broke the law regarding wiretaps, and arguing he didnt just proves your incompetance over the entire situation.
- dharh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0They know enough that it violates our civil rights and breaks the law. If we fight terrorists by destroying our own rights we not only are doing exactly what many of the terrorists want but lose the very thing that makes this country great. It's not our military complex or economy that makes this country what it is, its the freedoms and discourse we take for granted.
- ZrO-1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0^^ For real. Bush is all but daring a special prosecution to go after him.
- Hypersapien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Anyone want to bet that any members of congress that try to get him impeached will quickly end up in Guantanamo?
- dharh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0That previous post was targeted @apotropaic.
- schwit, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0If a story is not technology related it doesn't belong on Digg.
That's new story guideline number 1:
http://digg.com/submit
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is