in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000.
| Heritage | 0 | |
| Reuters | 2012 Watch: Mitt Romney’s message from GOP: Step it up |
0 |
| Fox News | Hmm: Obama to give 10 states a pass on No Child Left Behind deadline |
0 |
| CBS LA | Wha? LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches |
0 |
| Ballot Box | AZ: Aide injured in Giffords shooting will run to replace her in House |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
Gaffetastic:
Vice President Joe Biden had his “oops” moment Wednesday speaking in a 49er-crazed SF when he told a crowd at a city political fundraiser that “the Giants are on their way to the Super Bowl.” - SF Chronicle, 1-18-12
Brief history of warrantless searches
… conducted in the name of national security, without huge sensational splashes about them in the New York Times, I might add:
One of the most famous examples of warrantless searches in recent years was the investigation of CIA official Aldrich H. Ames, who ultimately pleaded guilty to spying for the former Soviet Union. That case was largely built upon secret searches of Ames’ home and office in 1993, conducted without federal warrants.
In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.
Previous administrations also asserted the authority of the president to conduct searches in the interest of national security.
In 1978, for instance, Attorney General Griffin B. Bell testified before a federal judge about warrantless searches he and President Carter had authorized against two men suspected of spying on behalf of the Vietnam government.
That same year, Congress approved and Mr. Carter signed FISA, which created the secret court and required federal agents to get approval to conduct electronic surveillance in most foreign intelligence cases.
Well, whadda ya know? Precedent set by other – presidents – in the interest of national security. Yet we have to have hearings on the Hill this time around.
More: Jay at Stop the ACLU and Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House blog today about the ACLU’s attempt, under the Freedom of Information Act, to do the following (via the ACLU’s site) – emphasis added:
[...] seek all records about “the policies, procedures and/or practices of the National Security Agency for gathering information through warrantless electronic surveillance and/or warrantless physical searches in the United States …”… Information received by the organization will be made public on its Web site.
Amazing.
Update I: John Schmidt, the associate attorney general who served in the Clinton admininstration from 1994-1997 says the President does indeed have the authority to OK the wiretaps. Thrown that one in with the rest of the legal opinions being volleyed back and forth.
(Cross-posted at California Conservative)
Update II: Read more via Dean, QOAE, and Junkyard Blog (thanks, PCD)
Related Toldjah So posts:
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The terrorists must be smiling
- The politics of the torture agreement
- “If 1941 Were 2005″
- The media’s war
- Winning in spite of defeatist attitudes
- W’s approval rating rises
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
37 Responses to “Brief history of warrantless searches”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Island of Misfit Bloggers
Stats
The Junkyardblog has a very good write up on this bound to infuriate the lefties on your block.
http://junkyardblog.net/scgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/5193
PCD, that link didn’t work – but I visited Bryan’s blog .. he blogged on the Chicago Tribune link yesterday and I’m a bit behind on blogging and was just adding it apparently as you were posting the link to JYB
Damn it. I’m a mainframe system’s programmer, not a html guy. The write up is very good.
Well the ACLU gets carried away with some of their activities. Maybe if the Bush 43 Adminstration weren’t so keen in fighting tooth and nail on soooooooooo many issues that are affecting our national security,energy policies,humane treatment of enemy combatants,border security,the over-hyping of WMD’s, to sheer incompentance at FEMA,cronyism,etc,etc,etc….. the left just may be willing to give to President the benefit of the doubt. Until that day expect resistence to the right-wing agenda in this country.
tommy, if the ACLU wasn’t so anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, and trying to implement a Communist society, they wouldn’t be considered such low life scum.
Also, the Bush Administration is trying to solve problems created or ignored by the Democrats, especially Clinton.
Just like God if the ACLU did not exist we Americans would need to invent it. This is an intellectual argument not a slam on God. Any takers? Peace
steve, why? You’re not satisfied with the Democrat party’s efforts to tear down the country?
tommy in nyc- this sentence of your’s caught my eye;Maybe if the Bush 43 Adminstration weren’t so keen in fighting tooth and nail See I appreciate an administration that fights tooth and nail for me. I appreciate that this man doesn’t run the country based on poll numbers. I appreciate the fact that when he stood in the rubble of the WTC, he said never again, and he meant it.
Has it occured to you that those screaming the loudest on this, really have no comprehension of the law? People keep picking an amendment here and an amendment there to make their case, yet they really have no idea what it is they are talking about. Can you explain to me how The Presidential Powers work in correlation to the COTUS?
Does George Bush have the same POTUS Powers that Bill Clinton did?
When dealing with the terrorists, how many people think that if you can’t see them, they don’t exist?
I want him to fight tooth and nail. That’s his job.
Precedents set by other presidents……before a catastrophic 911 terror attack……yet Bush gets his integrity and notions questioned on this ???
Assholes.
Tommy, have you figured out why the Patriotism of the Democrat big mouths is being questioned yet? Maybe it is because you and they side with those FIGHTING A WAR AGAINST THE US!
Yeah Pam what I meant was he was fighting tooth and nail AGAINST keeping America safe from terriorists. I woud also like to add is this guy has created more terrorists than he’s killed soooooooo………….. that’s just the truth. Deal with it
tommy, that is BULL! You are palming off your prejudice as a fact. That don’t wash here. Maybe on ScamAmerica or with your strikiing TWU buddies, but not here.
Tommy wrote, “I woud also like to add is this guy has created more terrorists than he’s killed ”
inaccurate accusation after inaccurate accusation. Gotta love the pattern…. There are people who’ve given estimates that from 1%-10% of the Islamic population is the extreme “kill the infidel type”. Have these numbers changed to 2%-11% or something from these same sources or something? Or is it just another liberal assertion talking point?
Said Tommy- AGAINST keeping America safe from terriorists. I woud also like to add is this guy has created more terrorists than he’s killed soooooooo………….. that’s just the truth. Deal with it
So let me get this straight, Clinton allowed the 1st attack in 93 and the subsequent attacks on the Cole and Embassy to go unpunished and we were hit big time in 01. With Bush pissing you and the entire left wing off, we have not been attacked again and have proof of thwarted plots. Hmm. It looks like the facts don’t back up your statement. GWB doesn’t create terrorists, nor does any POTUS. Terrorists make conscious decisions to harm us and I thank God everyday that I have a POTUS with the balls to push back.
This country is great. Allows for lots of different opinions. Diversity is the spice of life.
I suppose we should’ve dealth with terrorists as Clinton or Kerry would’ve, “a law enforcement action”. That way there would be nothing for the liberals to inaccurately assert?
Pam, I think he’s saying that since 2001 terrorists have increased in numbers… I’d say that’s patently false as we are making it hard for these operations to continue “FINANCIALLY” as well as physically. And… we are finding out what their conversations are with people INSIDE the United States and the liberals are mad about that…
Liberals by the way (in general) have a problem with personal responsibility. As you were saying in your LAST sentence, the terrorists have free will and choose to be a terrorist and the responsibility lies on them for being a terrorist. GWB doesn’t create them anymore than GWB doesn’t make Tommy write the stuff he writes. Tommy chooses to write the irresponsible stuff he writes.
Well Baklava understood exactly what is saying since 2001 bush 43 has created more terrorism because of his decision to invade Iraq. Terrorism is both a military/criminal problem. The only insurgency that was won by an colonial power in the 20th century were the British in Malayisa. Finanically while we have made it more difficult for terrorists moving money really didn’t stop a terrorist attack in Spain or London. Youse can talk about elections and the creation of the new Iraqi army all you want but nobody really knows how it’s going to end up until the Iraqi government can run independtily and responsibily.
bush invaded Iraq because bin Laden told US to get out of Saudi Arabia or he would crash more airplanes into buildings. We got out of SA and stuck the troops into Iraq,illegaly.We haven’t heard from bin Laden in over a year. The terrorists have a problem with America’s “foreign policy” not how the common folk live in the USA. They don’t like our music but, then I’m not that keen on theirs. I think we can work the music thing out Peacefully. Peace
Just like France has created more street thugs?
The thugs and terrorists existed Tommy.
BTW, Terrorism is being dealth financially, criminally and through the military and in ways you haven’t or I haven’t thought of. To act like WE don’t know it’s a criminal/military problem is laughable because at every turn you criticize like an armchair general and act like you know better and you have more morals and W is “wanting” (as if you know what anyone wants) to tell lies to get us into a war for what I don’t know. If you simply report what the intelligence agencies were saying it doesn’t make you a liar. If the intelligence agencies around the world were not accurate then there was intelligence failure. Within the intelligence agencies if there were dissenting opinions it doesn’t mean W manipulated or created or ignored or whatever FALSE accusation you want to say. If you disagreed with going to Iraq then that is all you have to say. You don’t need to go all half cocked making inaccurate accusations.
Your last sentence was true. Nobody knows what will be. But at least try to present yourself as someone who is interested in America succeeding and Iraq succeeding in not being a dictatorship anymore. Only you can control yourself and how you present yourself. Our perception is controlled by us. We perceive that you are presenting yourself as someone not interested in the success of America or Iraq. Isn’t that an interesting way to present yourself?
They’ll always have a reason Steve. Murderers/Terrorists always do. You actually are correct this time that one of Bin Laden’s reasons for being angry at the U.S was that were were in Saudia Arabia from 1991 through the present. In 2001 Bin Laden stated this as a reason.
If you remember we were there to free Kuwait with a large coalition of countries from Iraq’s invasion. We achieved that objective and I suppose you wish we didn’t. If you remember what appeasers did for Germany… they gave Germany the feeling that they can keep going and take over other countries. It led to more death (which you keep saying you are against but your solutions would lead to more of it). None of us Steve are for needless death. We all would be happy with peace. To callously call people warmongerers is not a solution nor very humanizing. We all would be happy with peace but how do you have it when you have evil (not utopia) in the world? Appeasing or turning the other cheek to evil is not what leaders should do. You can do it as an individual (turn the other cheek) but leaders are sworn to protect us and the constitution.
We didn’t see it in our best interest to let Kuwait be taken. If you disagreed with that then just say that. To call something “illegal” when that isn’t factually correct is to fall into the liberal pattern of not having personal responsibility for your words.
tommy, you create more terrorism because your uninformed repetition of moonbat nostrums encourage the foreign fighters in Iraq to hold on until the American left can get the country to cut and run.
Tommy, answering from your prejudice again? You’ve proven you don’t have anything to back up what you say.
Tommy, let me make it simple for your “black gang” mind, “Loose Lips Sink Ships”. Your lips have been pretty loose.
That’s even better PCD you start quoting stuff from 60 years ago to prove a point which your totally wrong on. I’m not the guy who creates more terrorists. Bombing Iraqi civilans will increase the amount of hatred towards the U.S.A. I didn’t order it that’s all I know. Let’s see ordering the death of innocent people or writing on a blog which do you think was a more likely cause of some 19yrs old kid joining the insurgency hmmmm……..
tommy, we do not target civilians. That is a Liberal BLOOD LIBEL. Only fools believe and promulgate that. You, sir, are such a fool.
I didn’t say the U.S Military targets civilians. Of course we don’t but you’ll always have collateral damage in a society where if your family is harmed then it’s an honor thing to get revenge whenever possible. That’s what happens in ME.
And you think that is recruiting terrorists? How about Saddam paying families of Homicide Bombers? Did that recruit terrorists.
Before we go down this road, most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. Where did we bomb their homes turning them into Terrorists?
Tommy in NYC said Well Baklava understood exactly what is saying since 2001 bush 43 has created more terrorism because of his decision to invade Iraq. Terrorism is both a military/criminal problem. No Tommy, I didn’t read it that way. And no GWB did not create more terrorists because we invaded. He woke up the sleeper cells and forced their hand. He did not create them, they did this all by themselves. The terrorists were there and Bak provided the percentages before and after the invasion. There was no spike in membership.
So bush’s plan was to “wake up sleeper cells”? The militarist Fascist Republicans never cease the lies. Bin Laden wanted the USA out of Saudi Arabia, we left and you haven’t heard from him since. Zarqawi is an Eqyptian who wants Israel out of Palestine. Zarwahri is a Jordanian who wants the USA out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine. The people of the Middle East care less how the common folk in the USA live. They care about our foreign policy which seems, to them, to allow the Zionists in Israel to do what they like to the Arabs. This is a very simple set of variables. 50% of the Israelis support turning East Jerusalem over to the PLA and the Zionist do not want that to happen so war goes on. All Israelis are not Zionists. Peace
Steve, a lot of JEWISH Israelis are Zionists and do not want anymore of their country turned over to terrorists. I guess you can’t get that because you side with terrorists.
“Amazing.”
Why? if its released by FOIA, anyone can get it.
I side only with people who reject violence and work for Peace. That is not the description of the Zionists or the Wahhabists or the Armageddonists. Each of those groups is controlled by people who pursue violence as a political policy. Peace
This comment is too far down to get any traction, but Roosevelt and Truman also signed documents authorizing the NSA/FBI/NIO and others to do warrantless searches and eavesdropping.
History is conveniently re-written by schmucks like Daschle-duck.
Red State Patriot