Why Don't Liberals Know Clinton Did No Warrant Searches?

Question

Clinton Executive Order in 1995:
"the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayeo.cf...

Clinton had no warrant searches and congressional liberals had no constitutional problem with it. They had no outrage when Clinton's executive order actually called for warrantless searches of people and possessions. Clinton's E.O. went far further than what liberals are currently upset about.

Clinton wouldn't need to write the E.O. unless he wanted to do no warrant searches. The searches were used on Americans, and I have no problem with that. American born muslim extremists have been caught in the U.S. with FISA.

Also, liberals fail to realize President Bush has more authority than Clinton to conduct searches. President Bush has "Presidential War Powers" which Clinton did not have.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayEO.cfm?id=EO_12949_

To Brian: FISA is not unconstitutional. It takes into account the Supreme Court's ruling about wiretaps. Pay attention to the part "are compatible with the Fourth Amendment.""

In March 2006 a hearing was held that was called "Wartime Executive Powers and the FISA Court"

The most famous FISA Judge Allan Kornblum (also a constitutional expert) said: " 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."

"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."

Clinton used FISA to catch an American. FISA was used to catch Padilla who is an American (1993 to 2001)
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/August/07_nsd_624.html

Again, Clinton wouldn't need to write the E.O. unless he wanted to do no warrant searches. The searches were used on Americans, and I have no problem with that. American born muslim extremists have been caught in the U.S. with FISA

To Bill T:
The power vested in the President by the Constitution gives presidents the authority to write executive orders and proclamations. Without the power, Lincoln could have never written the Emancipation Proclamation.

Article II, Section 1.
"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

Answer 1

You'll get nowhere with this.

Libs don't grasp the fact that when Mahmoud comes from Yemen to America, he'll be in........

America,
hence Domestic surveillance.

Shaz:
If you look back to America's domestic security measures during WWII I think it would be discovered they were far more invasive.
It was necessary..

Back then the Democratic Party was pro-American and prevented our relatives from becoming candles for Goering.

What has the Patriot Act done? Name one instance where an American citizen has had his or her civil rights abused.

Just one.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

The media (for the main area) is liberal so as that they twist and report issues the way they like it to be perceived. They suport Clinton (whether he's somewhat bit !*#$) and that they talk against bush. that's often been like that. i observed too, that yahoo solutions has a extensive liberal objective audience additionally, so which you will no longer locate plenty sympathy here. As a conservative, I in simple terms study their clinton-liberal-loving-solutions and snicker out loud and pass onto the subsequent ridiculous element they are asserting.

Answer 4

Sorry, but you're wrong. Maybe that's why you listed a non-working link, hoping nobody would call you on it.

Clinton's EO authorized the AG to perform searches without a court order as long as the"physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers." Which means no US citizens would fall under this authority.

In addition, you're wrong about Bush having war powers, since we're not technically at war.

OK, now you claim the warrantless searches were done on Americans, which is simply incorrect. FISA is not warrantless. The problem with what Bush did was he did it without using FISA, which is a very easy process, virtually a rubber-stamp for warrants. Since you are clearly wrong, why don't you just admit it?

Answer 5

I understand your position, however; show me where it says in the Constitution that Executive Orders and Constitutional.

I realize every President has used them, however; why do they need to bend the Constitution to suit their needs?

Is it so hard just to follow what the Constitution says without adding to it?

I guess the law only applies to the citizens of the U.S. and not the upper echelon.

Answer 6

well
1) your link doesn't work
2) That is to obtain FOREIGN intelligence (notice you didn't add that part)...not for domestic...so apples and oranges there buddy
3) Bush doesn't have war powers anymore. He declared mission accomplished and War was won...war is over..this is a military occupation..not a war. Please respect the language and don't water down the term "war" anymore or pretty soon it will be the War-bowl for football and War Series for baseball.
4) Even if we were in war his powers would not extend into domestic spying unless there was an invasion of American soil by an encamped and armed military.


illiberal Illuminati> Thanks..it is refreshing to hear someone say "I f'n hate American ideals and freedoms and wish the Nazis had won WW2..the world would be a better place". instead of wrapping their betrayal+cowardice in a flowery "I love America" speech which tries to claim it is ok to turn our backs on all the rights+freedoms that our country has fought for because the world is scary.

Answer 7

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, however what Clinton did is going to be relevant as long as one of them is in the campaign. Anyone think Hillary will stray very far from Willie's direction on policy?
Any change Hillary will burn Americans alive on our own soil?
Clinton was a demon. Liberals loved him because he talked so slowly that even they could understand him.

Answer 8

CLinton's Searches excluded US Citizens, unlike Bush's

Answer 9

because i can't change the past. i care about what i can do right now.

[[Also, liberals fail to realize President Bush has more authority than Clinton to conduct searches. President Bush has "Presidential War Powers" which Clinton did not have.]]

there is no such thing as 'presidential war powers' when it comes to the 4th amendment. bush invented the concept.

Answer 10

Between their rose-colored glasses and sheepishly bowing down to their diety(Billary)...it's no surprise... Clintons are the do gooders according to Libs...the Clinton's epitomize what is righteous.