Can the President wiretap without court authorization?

[The Insomniac]

And if you think he can, then can the next President? What if the next President is Hillary? What about domestic terrorist groups?

 

I think this is real alarming stuff. If he is allowed to do this, what

[bottomfeeder]

Supposed Security over Freedom!

 

most people seem to be ok with it?

[johnny6644]

The problem is, there's no need for the illegal searches anyway... there's a mechanism in place already.

 

At what point does it stop? Which laws must he follow? These are very dangerous times... in more ways than one.

[bholder]

Apparently the pragmatic answer is "yes, he can".

 

Is it legal or constitutional? Obviously not.

 

I don't see what relevance whoever the next president may be has, whether it's Hillary or Rudy or Jessica Simpson. The questions of legality and consitutionality do not depend on what individual holds the office.

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by bholder Apparently the pragmatic answer is "yes, he can". Is it legal or constitutional? Obviously not. I don't see what relevance whoever the next president may be has, whether it's Hillary or Rudy or Jessica Simpson. The questions of legality and consitutionality do not depend on what individual holds the office.

 

 

The relevance is who is able to get away with it, in the eyes of the public.

[The Insomniac]

Originally posted by bottomfeeder Supposed Security over Freedom! most people seem to be ok with it?

 

Wow - just wow.

 

 

 

Goverments have been using that argument forever. We will keep you warm, safe and dry. Look the other way while we take away your freedom. Isn't this what we fight for? The land of the free.

[BEAD]

You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists.

[burdizzos]

It seems to me that if any agency could get a warrant in a hurry, it would be the NSA.

 

I'm sure there'd be no problem with paying for a duty judge for such occaisions that require rapid warrant procurement.

 

Not only is this whole thing illegal, it's entirely unnecessary.

[The Insomniac]

I think the Prez has really screwed the pooch with this one... but I could be wrong.

 

from Reuters...

 

Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine joined Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan, Dianne Feinstein of California and Ron Wyden of Oregon in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees into whether the government eavesdropped "without appropriate legal authority."

 

Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers have already backed a plan for a congressional hearing into the program, first revealed by The New York Times last week.

[The Insomniac]

 

Originally posted by burdizzos It seems to me that if any agency could get a warrant in a hurry, it would be the NSA. I'm sure there'd be no problem with paying for a duty judge for such occaisions that require rapid warrant procurement. Not only is this whole thing illegal, it's entirely unnecessary.

 

 

The law stipulates for this. You can start wiretapping immediately as long as you apply for the warrant within 72 hours.

[illidian]

As Johnny said, there are already mechanisms already in place.

 

If you can prove in court that someone is a terrorist suspect, then tap him. If you've got no evidence whatsoever, you've got no right.

[The Aardvark]

This isn't new. It's been legal in certain cases since the Carter administration. Do a google search on "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" and you can read about the act in Wikipedia. But here is a snipet.

 

Provisions of FISA

Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios. The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, the surveillance without a court order , or the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.

[The Insomniac]

 

Originally posted by The Aardvark This isn't new. It's been legal in certain cases since the Carter administration. Do a google search on "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" and you can read about the act in Wikipedia. But here is a snipet. Provisions of FISA Electronic surveillance Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios. The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, the surveillance without a court order , or the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.

 

 

That applies to foreign intelligence investigations not American citizens. That's completely different.

[Tag]

Ha, this is nothing. Have you guys read about what the Patriot Act entitles the president to do? It's a real blasphemy, as far as the Constitution goes. If Thomas Jefferson was alive today, he would be wondering why no one is bearing arms.

 

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."

Benjamin Franklin

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Originally posted by The Insomniac That applies to foreign intelligence investigations not American citizens. That's completely different.

 

 

It applies to anyone who may be involved in a terroristic act against the US and supported by a foreign source.

[The Insomniac]

Originally posted by Craigv It applies to anyone who may be involved in a terroristic act against the US and supported by a foreign source.

 

Then this should all blow over in about 24 hours.

[johnny6644]

 

Originally posted by Craigv It applies to anyone who may be involved in a terroristic act against the US and supported by a foreign source.

 

 

note (B)

 

quoting FISA:

 

Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--

 

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; [and]

 

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.

[The Aardvark]

 

Originally posted by The Insomniac That applies to foreign intelligence investigations not American citizens. That's completely different.

 

 

That's not exactly true. It applies to "approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information"

 

If you read the definitions in the act you see that

(b)

[zachoff]

...away go our rights in the name of freedom.

[Thumper]

Civil rights are usually one of the first casualties of war. Case in point, interning Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast during WW II. No one really raised a big fuss at the time.

 

Can Mr. Bush do it? Again, pragmatically yes.

 

Should he do it? IMHO, no. There is a mechanism already in place to authorize taps.

[chris-dax]

If you'd like a little factual background please

 

click here

[lug]

 

Originally posted by Thumper Civil rights are usually one of the first casualties of war. Case in point, interning Japanese-Americans living on the West Coast during WW II. No one really raised a big fuss at the time. Can Mr. Bush do it? Again, pragmatically yes. Should he do it? IMHO, no. There is a mechanism already in place to authorize taps.

 

 

Agreed. Also, did you know that EVERY piece of overseas mail going overseas for several years during WWII was opened and checked for spy material such as microdot info? I just don't understand what is to be gained by NOT getting the warrants. If it is truely as easy to obtain as it's been made to seem, I don't see any advantage unless there was some fear of leaks.

[takeout]

 

Originally posted by chris-dax If you'd like a little factual background please click here

So... Clinton and Bush have something in common in that they were both wrong?

 

Not sure where you're going with this.

[The Insomniac]

Originally posted by lug snip- I just don't understand what is to be gained by NOT getting the warrants. If it is truely as easy to obtain as it's been made to seem, I don't see any advantage unless there was some fear of leaks.

 

 

Maybe because his requests wouldn't hold up in court.

[Crescent Seven]

 

Originally posted by takeout So... Clinton and Bush have something in common in that they were both wrong? Not sure where you're going with this.

 

 

He's saying that the people who had no problem with Clinton authorizing it are the same people trying to crucify Bush for authorizing it.

It may not be right in either case, but if you are going to point fingers over it, point them at everybody involved. Another shining example of forgiving Clinton and blaming Bush.

C7