Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:11 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convenient argument where you purposely assume that there are not more terrorist attacks if we let world terrorism and the rogue states who could help them go unchecked.

The future costs of not dealing with today's problems are always greater than the price to be paid today to eliminate them.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-21-2005, 06:14 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter

[ QUOTE ]
Are you 100 percent sure that the government is just spying on Terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Show intentional cases where they are not and I'll start having a problem with the president's actions. Until then, I am content to allow the president in conjunction with bipartisan congressional oversight to operate to keep our homeland safe.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-21-2005, 07:37 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too

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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:02 AM
ACPlayer ACPlayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Foxwoods, Atlantic City, NY, Boston
Posts: 1,089
Default Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too

... and is it a good thing when politicians are making decisions that infringe on individual liberties. If you are, as claimed, a libertarian republican (whatever THAT is) you should be less than sanguine.

The executive order does have some checks in it and in limited to one year. Two good things in an other not so desirable document.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:26 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong

[ 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"

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see what the order actually says, shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the 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, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

[/ QUOTE ]

That certification is one that the 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".

In other words, these are FOREIGN searches, and routine compliance with FISA by Clinton, rather than the "we're-at-war-so-the-law-is-what-I-say-it-is" lawlessness of the Bush administration.

Indeed, the different attitudes of the administrations are readily apparent even in the Byron York NRO piece that you link to as if it was a 1994 Washington Post article. But since it is Byron York/NRO, and BluffTHIS!, and therefore likely to be a total hack job, let's go to Gorelick's actual testimony and see what our firends have left out, shall we?

"Second, the Administration and the Attorney General support, in principle, legislation establishing judicial warrant procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for physical searches undertaken for intelligence purposes. However, whether specific
legislation on this subject is desirable for the practical benefits it might add to intelligence collection, or undesirable as too much of a restriction on the President's authority to collect intelligence necessary for the national security, depends on how the legislation is crafted."

...

"As I stated earlier, we believe that existing directives that regulate the basis for seeking foreign intelligence search authority and the procedures to be followed satisfy all Constitutional requirements. Nevertheless, I reiterate the Administration's willingness to support appropriate legislation that does not restrict the President's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security. We need to strike a balance that sacrifices neither our security nor our civil liberties.

If we can achieve such a balance -- and I believe we can if we use the basic provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- we can accomplish a number of things. First, we will reaffirm our commitment to democratic control of intelligence functions. Second, by mirroring the FISA process including the involvement a neutral judicial official, we will remove any doubt from the minds of reasonable persons concerning the legality of these searches. And finally, we will also provide additional assurances to the patriotic individuals who serve this country in intelligence positions that their activities are proper and necessary."

Soooooo, let's recap. The Clinton administration supported bringing physical searches under the FISA umbrella, and when Congress did so the Clinton administration complied with the law. The Bush administration acknowledges that the law prohibits what it is doing but claims that it has the authority to unilaterally nullify any law that it dosen't like, secretly, because we are at "war". [howie mandel]Equivilant, or not equivalent?[/howie mandel]
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:44 AM
BluffTHIS! BluffTHIS! is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 375
Default Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong

Any premise or coummication channel used by an agent of a foreign power while on US soil qualifies, and regardless of whether such an agent is a US citizen.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:52 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Well Lookee Here! BLUFFThis! is wrong

[ QUOTE ]
Any premise or coummication channel used by an agent of a foreign power while on US soil qualifies, and regardless of whether such an agent is a US citizen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. Read the statute . The read the rest of the executive order. The paragraph you rely on is specifically directed at subsection (a)(1), which is directed to foreign physical searches. Searches "on U.S. soil" are covered by subsection (b), and are the subject of another paragraph of the executive order.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:52 AM
Rockatansky Rockatansky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Table \"unknown\"
Posts: 69
Default Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:57 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Well Lookee Here! Clinton Approved Warrantless Searches Too

[ 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.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-21-2005, 08:59 AM
Rockatansky Rockatansky is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Table \"unknown\"
Posts: 69
Default Re: The disgraceful left-wing distortion on the law in this matter

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Despite all my comments in these forums, and the fact that I am a conservative christian, I actually am quite a bit of a libertarian republican and regret what I see as the temporary necessity for restrictions on our liberties. I despise government intrusion into one's private affairs, but when terrorists have obviously operated among us, there has to be sacrifices made for the time being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you think these things are necessary in order to prevent another 9-11.

9-11 Death Toll: 2,752
9-11 Economic Impact: $83 Billion

Iraq Invasion Death Toll: ~2100 Americans, Tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Iraq Invasion Cost: > $200 Billion

[/ QUOTE ]

Very convenient argument where you purposely assume that there are not more terrorist attacks if we let world terrorism and the rogue states who could help them go unchecked.

The future costs of not dealing with today's problems are always greater than the price to be paid today to eliminate them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm obviously not a security expert, so, honestly, I have no idea whether and to what extent the government's domestic activities have prevented another large-scale terrorist attack.

I just wanted to point out that the human and economic cost of the Iraq war is already 2-3 times that of 9-11. I think a lot of folks are justifiably skeptical that the Iraq war has prevented another 9-11, much less two or three of them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.