Re: Government Wire Taps (nbc)

If Congress doesn't move to impeach this guy immediately then we should all
hang out heads in shame.


JH



"Rev Highway Dan" <Dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:sbKdnUbvNIhUfzjeRVn-pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> So, I am curious what you all think about this? I would be interested in
> hearing what the folks here on the right and the left think. Let's make
> this a no spin thread...
>
>
>
>
>
> December 18, 2005
> LA TIMES
> Legality of Wiretaps Remains in Question
>
> By David G. Savage and Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writers
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON ? Is it legal for the president, acting on his own authority
> and without a court warrant, to order federal officials to eavesdrop on
> people within the United States?
>
> President Bush gave one answer to that question Saturday, saying he was
> justified in ordering the National Security Agency to spy on "people with
> known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."
>
> But a Supreme Court decision more than 30 years ago raises questions about
> Bush's position. And several legal experts note that a special court
> exists that could rule on the surveillance requests.
>
> As a result, the controversy over the program Bush approved is not likely
> to end quickly.
>
> In making his case, Bush argued that the program was targeted, not an
> open-ended one that encompassed a group of people, such as Muslim men.
> Moreover, the NSA was listening to "international communications" made by
> possible terrorists, he said.
>
> And the purpose of the spying was clear: "to detect and prevent terrorist
> attacks" by intercepting the calls of plotters, the president said.
>
> But Bush did not explain why he chose to bypass the procedure established
> in a 1978 law for such operations. That measure requires the approval of a
> special court before conversations can be intercepted and recorded. The
> court may authorize warrants to obtain "foreign intelligence" information
> if the target is linked to "international terrorism."
>
> Throughout his administration ? and especially since the Sept. 11, 2001,
> attacks ? Bush has been aggressive in asserting executive powers. And part
> of his explanation for approving the spying program fits this pattern.
>
> Bush said his decision was "fully consistent with my constitutional
> responsibilities and authorities." And the president's lawyers have
> maintained that the commander in chief has the "inherent" authority to act
> in the interest of national security, even if he overrides the law.
>
> But the Supreme Court did not accept that claim when it was tested in the
> past.
>
> In 1972, the justices unanimously rejected President Nixon's contention
> that he had the power to order wiretapping without a warrant to protect
> national security. The decision came in the case of three men who had
> allegedly plotted to bomb a CIA facility in Michigan. After the ruling,
> charges in the case were dismissed.
>
> The 4th Amendment protects Americans from "unreasonable searches and
> seizures" by the government, said then-Justice Lewis F. Powell, a Nixon
> appointee, delivering the court's ruling, and such freedoms "cannot be
> properly guaranteed if domestic security surveillances are conducted
> solely within the discretion of the executive branch."
>
> He said Nixon's lawyer should have obtained a search warrant from a judge
> before the government tapped the telephones of the alleged plotters.
>
> "We recognize, as we have before, the constitutional basis of the
> president's domestic security role, but we think it must be exercised in a
> manner compatible with the 4th Amendment," Powell said.
>
> But in the decision, Powell said the court was not ruling on the
> "president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign
> powers, within or without this country."
>
> Bush on Saturday said the spying by the NSA that he authorized was
> reviewed thoroughly by the Justice Department and the NSA's top legal
> officials.
>
> But some legal experts said Saturday that they did not understand why Bush
> did not rely on the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as
> FISA, and seek a warrant for the spying from the special court that
> operates within the Justice Department.
>
> Jeffrey H. Smith, former general counsel to the CIA, said the FISA process
> "should have permitted, or enabled, the president to conduct this
> surveillance." Smith said the court sometimes was slow to act in the past
> but became "much more responsive" after the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> One senior U.S. counterterrorism official familiar with both the
> intelligence and law enforcement aspects of the controversy said FISA
> warrants ? even under emergency conditions ? can take 24 to 48 hours to be
> approved.
>
> The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing
> classified operations, said that not long after the Sept. 11 attacks, the
> administration's use of wiretaps without warrants was applauded within the
> counterterrorism community. But potential problems arose when it continued
> long after "chatter" among possible terrorists of large-scale attacks had
> died down.
>
> Kenneth C. Bass III, another expert on FISA, said the administration might
> have thought it did not have enough evidence to obtain a warrant. Bass, a
> Washington lawyer who worked on intelligence matters during the Carter
> administration, speculated that U.S. authorities might have seized a
> computer or a phone that was used by an Al Qaeda operative.
>
> "The scuttle*** is they were then using all the links or phone numbers
> they found," Bass said. "It certainly sounds reasonable to say, 'We are
> targeting people with links to Al Qaeda,' but it may be just a list of
> phone numbers," he said. "That probably wouldn't satisfy the FISA court."
>
> The law says the government must show probable cause to believe the
> targeted person is involved in a terrorist group.
>
> The simple explanation may be that the president's lawyers believed he had
> the power, regardless of the law or the past court rulings. Three years
> ago, then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft asserted that the president could order
> wiretapping on his own.
>
> "The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct
> warrantless intelligence surveillance [electronic or otherwise] of foreign
> powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that
> constitutional authority," Ashcroft said in a legal brief filed in
> September 2002. Ashcroft was appealing a decision by the FISA court on
> surveillance activity.
>
> Civil libertarians say the president is claiming he is above the law in
> matters of national security.
>
> "The president simply cannot pick and choose which laws he will or will
> not follow," Lisa Graves, senior counsel for the ACLU, said Saturday.
> "This approach ? leads our nation into the wilderness of lawlessness."
>
> Times staff writer Josh Meyer contributed to this report.
>
>
> --
>
>
> Dan
>
>
> MERRY CHRISTMAS EVIL REV!!!
>


.