Why Do Anti-Bush People Pretend Domestic Spying Is Wrong?

Question

In reality it is legal. Even Clinton did no warrant searches.

Here the FISA Judge Allan Kornblum said:"
As you know, in Article I, section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans."
" The Supreme Court said that the Fourth Amendment was highly flexible, and that the standard for criminal, what they call ordinary crimes, what I would call traditional law enforcement, need not be the same as that for foreign intelligence collection, and that different standards for different Government purposes are compatible with the Fourth Amendment.
That decision served as the basis for the FISA statute."
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/nsasurv.pdf

CLINTON WANTED TO SPY MORE THAN BUSH.
Even Republicans in congress even voted against what Clinton wanted.

(I agree with most of this stuff. America is at war with terrorists and they don't wear uniforms.)

READ #4, and then read the rest.

http://www.cdt.org/security/usapatriot/19950426cnss-analysis.html

"On February 10, 1995, a counterterrorism bill drafted by the Clinton Administration was introduced in the Senate as S. 390 and in the House of Representatives as H.R. 896 ...

The legislation would:
1)authorize the Justice Department to pick and choose crimes to investigate and prosecute based on political beliefs and associations;

2)repeal the ancient provision barring the U.S. military from civilian law enforcement;

3)expand a pre-trial detention scheme that puts the burden of proof on the accused;

4)loosen the carefully-crafted rules governing federal wiretaps, in violation of the Fourth Amendment;

5) establish special courts that would use secret evidence to order the deportation of persons convicted of no crimes, in violation of basic principles of due process;

6) permit permanent detention by the Attorney General of aliens convicted of no crimes, with no judicial review;

7) give the President unreviewable power to criminalize fund-raising for lawful activities associated with unpopular causes;

8) renege on the Administration's approval in the last Congress of a provision to insure that the FBI would not investigate based on First Amendment activities; and

9) resurrect the discredited ideological visa denial provisions of the McCarran Walter Act to bar foreign speakers. "

What Congress says about Judge Kornblum:
"I think, easily the most experienced person ever on the issues of the FISA Court"
"
"Judge Kornblum to be the lead witness, and that has been done because of his very, very extensive experience with the FISA Court. The other judges will appear in alphabetical order.
Judge Kornblum has an extraordinary academic record, a bachelor's degree from Michigan State University, a master's in
public affairs from the Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School, a Ph.D. from Princeton in 1973. Then he served in the Department of Justice, and from 1979 to 1998, served as Deputy Counsel for Intelligence Operations at the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and for the 2 years from 1998 to 2000, as Senior Counsel. And during that time he supervised the preparation of more than 10,000 FISA warrant applications, ..."

Referring to the landmark 1972 case on warrantless domestic spying:

Expert Witness Judge Kornblum:
"The Supreme Court said that the Fourth amendment was highly flexible, and that the standard for criminal, what they call ordinary crimes, what I would call traditional law enforcement, need not be the same as that for foreign intelligence collection, and that different standards for different Government purposes are compatible with the Fourth Amendment. That decision served as the basis for the FISA statute."

WARTIME EXECUTIVE POWER AND THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY'S SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY
(Congress hearings in 2006)

Answer 1

It's only wrong if a Republican does it. Democrats have LONG held two sets of rules.

Answer 2

Admendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Wow. What part of this is not clear? No search without a warrant. I guess the politics du jour determine what a reasonable search is. First we had probable cause, now we have reasonable suspicion. You know, there are places in the world today, right now, where they just come take you away in the middle of the night, never to be seen again, because you express the "wrong ideas". It's a slippery slope. And what does the fact that Clinton did it have anything to do with the question? Whats wrong with having FISA issue the warrants after the fact, like they've been doing since 1978?

Answer 3

You seem to be too busy responding avidly to criticism, but I will try to get word in anyway.

The FISA court is a court in name only & not part of the Judicial branch. It was established by Congress for hearing cases involving classified info. The judges are appointed by the President for 7 year terms. That means Bush has appointed 6 of them himself.The ONLY reason Bush turned over eavesdropping authority was because he was about to lose his case in a real court, which could conceivably be used against him in future criminal cases. Doing it this way let him keep the most possible control.

And where do we draw the line? After all, Nixon was involved in domestic spying. So was Bill Clinton, & possibly every President between. J. Edgar Hoover kept his job only through shrewd use of domestic spying of politicians of his era. The people of our govt have given themselves the right to search your house w/o your knowledge, listen in on phone calls on your phone simply because someone else may use it for nefarious purposes, open your snail mail, Catalog your reading preferences - all on the word of an anonymous tip. How much more are YOU willing to give up? I've had my fill, myself. I am not pretending. It IS wrong; The Constitution &, so far, the courtsw say so.

Answer 4

It's a misunderstanding of law and of how to read a statute.

1) Statutes have a definitions section. A word in the statute has its ordinary English meaning unless it is defined - limited - in the definitions section. Thus if a statute defines "pie" to mean blueberry, cherry, mince or apple, and in a later section outlaws baking "pies," the statute has NOT made it illegal to bake strawberry-rhubarb pies.

The FISA statute section clearly defines "electronic surveillance" to mean one of 4 types of surveillance none of which describes the program as it has been described to date by the Administration. THEN it gives warrant requirements for "electronic surveillance" - requirements that don't apply to activities that don't fit the definition, even if in common parlance you might call the activities "electronic surveillance."

2) The next distinction is fairly new - it is whether the FISA statute is a limiting or enabling statute. Because it's cross-border surveillance, the laws concerning actual "domestic" surveillance don't apply. The question is, if FISA doesn't apply, does that mean the NSA CAN do it (FISA is a limiting statute that hasn't limited activities outside of the definitions section) or that the NSA CAN'T do it (FISA is an enabling statute that hasn't enabled activities outside of the definitions section). FISA has been described as a limiting statute for years - it has always been described as a matter of the NSA was doing X, Y and Z, some people were concerned about X so they tried to rein it in via FISA to govern X. That means if we're talking about Y, the fact that FISA doesn't apply means the NSA CAN do it. FISA reads like a limiting statute. The definitions section identifies surveillance of communications of the type that you'd want protected, not the type that you'd want to make it easier to monitor. The novel idea that FISA was an enabling statute is clever but it's revisionism at best.

I don't think most people get to 2). I honestly think that the pie analogy escapes 90% of us. I think no matter how many times you explain it, 90% of us will think that the anti-pie law that defines pie to mean one of those four kinds of pie would still render meat pies illegal.

By the way, I actually AM an attorney by training, although I left to make more $$$ in finance.

Answer 5

Please present any evidence that Clinton did illegal wire tapping.

Bush subverted the FISA court established to allow the president to make instant wiretaps, and worry about a warrant later. Bush felt he was above this law established by Congress.

Now, that we have a Dem congress, suddenly Bush shifts gears..."Well, ok then, I'll use the FISA court in the future, so you don't have to take me to trial."

This is like a bank robber saying..."Ok, so I robbed 5 banks in the past, but now I promise not to do it anymore, so you don't have to take me to trial."

If the investigation reveals Bush did illegal wiretaps, this is a violation of the Constitution, an impeachable offense.

Good riddance, chimpy.

Answer 6

You, like most of your ilk, seem to have your facts mixed up. The problem isn't the spying, Jackass. It's called OVERSIGHT. One of those things that's so integral to a democracy ruled by balanced power. If you want a dictatorship where there is no such thing as oversight, there are plenty out there for you to choose from.

May I suggest somewhere in the pits of the ME? I also recommend that you pack plenty of white and even more sunscreen.

Answer 7

I have to say that Bush screwed up.......and I really hate to say this but Bill O'Reilly is right on the money on this one.

Bush is not out to get the people selling bags of weed, calling friends for Xanax, busting up Crips and Bloods, Buying alcohol for minors over the phone.........not even the kiddie molestors. We literally have billions invested in state and federal investagations for those type of infringments.

If your a person living in my country for 12 years and your a member of some sleeper cell that has a crazy plane idea for a couple of towers...........then your right to privacy is up sh it creek as far as I'm concerned. If you have nothing to hide then who's to worry?? If you are hiding something........terror related, and you know what I'm talking about..........then F-You in your thoughts to breaking the law with illegal wire tapping. I hope we find out what your grandmother is having for dinner in Zimbabawe if that is what it takes to stop a person from doing a terroristic idea in my country.

Yes, it's illegal..............I don't care!

I do illegal things some times, but I'm not worried about getting caught from the Homeland Security Dept, or the Secret Service, or the CIA............C'mon, if your committing crimes that warrants the feds attention...........you deserved to be caught........no matter the color of your skin.

FYI : I'm neither Rep / or Dem.......I vote for the better person.

Answer 8

Bush signed a secret order after 9/11 that allowed the NSA to listen in to american citizens, in direct violation of the law. That is the issue.

Saying "clinton did it too" is like you telling mommy your brother broke the toilet, so it must be ok for you to do it too. Irrelevant.

Answer 9

Because they want to make us think everything they say is right. Big deal. I don't have anything to hide, and I think the government should be able to do what needs to be done to protect the country. You will too when time comes that we are terrorized more in this country than in Iraq.

Answer 10

You see it doesnt matter if you lay down facts, people will ignore it and say well Bush is stupid, or your not an attorney.
The ones who will actually look will just rationalize it away.

most wont even give evidence a fair look.

Answer 11

Two things: because it is Bush in power at the moment. if it were a Democrat as president , the domestic spying would be supported.
The other reason is people who have things to hide, perhaps connections with terrorist organizations or other secrets. Those people hate the idea that they might be caught.