Bullypulpit
Senior Member
...Don't make a right. Yet that is exactly what right-wing pundits are doing when they point to Bill Clinton's alleged use of warrantless searches in 1995. I say 'alleged', as Clinton did sign an exectuive order which states,
<blockquote>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, <b>if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.</b></blockquote>
(Full Text of U.S.C. 1822 found <a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/ii/sections/section_1822_notes.html>HERE</a>)
Section 2 states, unequivocally, that the AG can authorize physical searches without a warrant "...for the purpose of collecting <b>foreign</b> intelligence information...." so long as the premises on which the search is conducted and all information gathered therein, are used <b>"exclusively" by a foreign power</b>.
It should be noted that in 2004 a "lone wolf" amendment was added to FISA. A 'lone'wolf is defined as a non-US person who engages in, or plans for,international acts of terrorism.
If Clinton did engage in an abuse of power as Bush has already admitted to doing, why didn't the Republican controlled Congress begin impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors? They could have surely gotten more traction out of such a proceeding than they did with consensual sex in the Oval Office, and he would have richly deserved whatever punishment was meted out by Congress
The upshot of this is that the President, under Title III and FISA can order warrantless searches against <b><i>non-US citizens</i></b>. The president does not, however, have carte blanche to order domestic surveillance of US citizens on US soil without a warrant. The Constitution trumps presidential perogative on this matter at every turn. And for those who have forgotten, the Constitution was established to protect US citizens from the abuses of power by the government, such as those perpetrated by Bush, regardless of the circumstances.
The remarkable lack of imagination shown by the conservative talking heads as they continue to point their grubby fingers at Clinton is indicative of just how indefensible Bush's actions are in this matter. Their shrill whining about how "Clinton did it too!" are nothing more than a vain attempt to distract from Bush's sins. But, Bush, having confessed to high crimes and misdemeanors in a nationally televised address makes it very difficult to put any polish on that turd. And if Clinton engaged in such an abuse of power, he should be have to pay the price. But a Republican controlled Congress seems to have chosen to ignore that particular sin, if it ever happened at all.
<blockquote>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, <b>if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.</b></blockquote>
(Full Text of U.S.C. 1822 found <a href=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/ii/sections/section_1822_notes.html>HERE</a>)
Section 2 states, unequivocally, that the AG can authorize physical searches without a warrant "...for the purpose of collecting <b>foreign</b> intelligence information...." so long as the premises on which the search is conducted and all information gathered therein, are used <b>"exclusively" by a foreign power</b>.
It should be noted that in 2004 a "lone wolf" amendment was added to FISA. A 'lone'wolf is defined as a non-US person who engages in, or plans for,international acts of terrorism.
If Clinton did engage in an abuse of power as Bush has already admitted to doing, why didn't the Republican controlled Congress begin impeachment proceedings for high crimes and misdemeanors? They could have surely gotten more traction out of such a proceeding than they did with consensual sex in the Oval Office, and he would have richly deserved whatever punishment was meted out by Congress
The upshot of this is that the President, under Title III and FISA can order warrantless searches against <b><i>non-US citizens</i></b>. The president does not, however, have carte blanche to order domestic surveillance of US citizens on US soil without a warrant. The Constitution trumps presidential perogative on this matter at every turn. And for those who have forgotten, the Constitution was established to protect US citizens from the abuses of power by the government, such as those perpetrated by Bush, regardless of the circumstances.
The remarkable lack of imagination shown by the conservative talking heads as they continue to point their grubby fingers at Clinton is indicative of just how indefensible Bush's actions are in this matter. Their shrill whining about how "Clinton did it too!" are nothing more than a vain attempt to distract from Bush's sins. But, Bush, having confessed to high crimes and misdemeanors in a nationally televised address makes it very difficult to put any polish on that turd. And if Clinton engaged in such an abuse of power, he should be have to pay the price. But a Republican controlled Congress seems to have chosen to ignore that particular sin, if it ever happened at all.
:funnyface
