The disgraceful right-wing distortion on the domestic spying issue

[Rockatansky]

[ QUOTE ]
From Drudge Report and links below to sources:


Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994 : Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your point? It was wrong when Clinton did it and it is wrong now.

[ QUOTE ]

What's your point? It was wrong when Clinton did it and it is wrong now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except of course, that BluffTHIS! is wrong, and Clinton complied with the law.

[BluffTHIS!]

Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Elliot, since in a post earlier in this thread, it seems that courts have upheld warrantless searches/wiretaps in general, the only question is the target of such searches. And since the Attorney General of the US has vetted the wiretaps going on now, and since you thankfully don't sit on SCOTUS, then my presumption will be that those actions of the president's are in fact legal until and unless SCOTUS holds otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt that this will continue to be your presumption regardless of whether any court or congress actually declares these searches to be illegal. When you believe that the law is whatever the president says it is, then by definition you believe that anything the president does is "legal".

In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In any event, the point of my recent posts was to rebut this "Clinton did it too" nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you haven't actually. The fact that Clinton did similar things as well makes it much more likely that such actions are in fact legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except, of course, that the "similar things" were different in that Clinton supported legislation requiring court oversight and complied with the law, whereas Bush claims that he has the inherent authority to do as he pleases no matter what the law is.

[BluffTHIS!]

Bush's AG has told him that he does have inherent authority, the same as Cinton's asst AG advised him.