Authority for "Wiretapping"

That's easy, constant propaganda and Hollywood conditioning, they were very successful in seizing peoples minds and turning them into liberals weren't they? Eh, weren't they?

Information over a wire or wave is just manipulation of electrical current that can be seized by recording it. That would mean you're mind would first have to be revealed through speech which is then manipulated and sent on it's way and can be seized along the way.

I'm not smart enough to answer you're question EL, that's why I'm glad it's all left up to neutral (?) magistrate.

 

poncho, any Constitutional basis for your belief that Commander in Chief powers aren't in effect without a declaration of war? See my post on last page re that question?

 

I don't rightly know FTR I think I've already said that but I am curious about it so what do you think is there any constitutional basis for a belief that the POTUS does have commnder in chief powers without a formal declaration of war? And by a declaration of war I mean other than labeling either an armed struggle as in "the global war on terror" or an unarmed struggle as in "the war on illiteracy" and repeating it ad infinitum?

Just because the government or Fox news or CNN label a struggle as a war doesn't mean there has been a formal declaration. I think we could agree on that right?

 

Nope, I'm arguing that American citizens shouldn't have our constitutional protections taken away or even taken lightly just because there may be a terrorist threat or terrorists inside the US.

Are you saying that you can't show me where I am wrong? Sounds like it.

 

In reality, the Ames case is a textbook example of how the FBI was able to uncover a deadly foreign agent without the use of extra-legal authority from the President.

The FBI followed proper protocol for searches of Ames's home and office through the Attorney Generals (AG) office. Also, as required by FISA, all electronic surveillance of Ames was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. According to Aldrich Ames's Criminal Complaint form:

"Paragraph 11: As a result of information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, searches authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, trash covers, and other investigation which is detailed herein, I believe AMES has traveled abroad to meet surreptitiously with KGB/SVRR."

By the way, just in case Mr. Hunt is reading this, the text of section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 reads:

"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."

The issue is wiretaps, not searches.In other words, if the feds wanted to tap a suspect's phone because they thought he was dealing in child porn, they'd be forced to acquire a warrant first. However, the AG can authorize a warrantless search if they have probable cause that an American is an agent of a foreign power.

It's important to note that even in such a case, the executive order specifically states that the government may not ignore FISA.

http://www.brainshrub.com/aldrich-ames-case

 

Since you didn't post the counterpoint link, I have:

Clinton's Use of Warrantless Searches - a Fact - Except for the Reality Challenged Left

'Warrantless' searches not unprecedented

Signals intelligence (which my father directed as Sergeant-Major of the old U.S. Army Security Agency, now Intelligence & Security Command (INSCOM)) is a war-fighting function legimately under the authority of the President's CinC powers, under Article II. There are multiple agencies involved in this critical function. FISA, with regards to any attempt to modify that authority, is an unconstitutional statute.

 

I think the whole problem is accountability. The President is accountable to both Congress and the Courts. He is not a King. The problem really may not be with what Bush does with this authority but what a future president 10-20 years does. Then we may not be able to close the Pandora's box opened by this President.

I do think if this was Clinton. The GOP would be probably going nuts while the Democrats would be defending him.

 

The US Constitution puts checks and balances on all three branches. The executive is accountable to the legislative branch because Congress approves money. The Senate approves nominees to the Supreme Court and treaties. There are others, but those are the main ones. The executive is accountable to the judicial branch through judicial review of executive decisions. Warrants are covered in Amendment IV.

 

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The implication from this is the Executive branch cannot violate the right of people to be secure in their homes unless there is probable cause. In that case a warrant from the Court is required.

It also appears from James Madison’s on writings (Who wrote the US Constitution) that the President is not Commander and Chief until the Congress makes him with a Declaration of War.

Madison stated,
The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war…. The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse… The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison.html

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0204a.asp

What has Clinton to do with this? I never knew about it. I voted against him every time he ran and consider him to be an inept President who disgraced his office.

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive is accountable to the Congress and the Courts?

Clinton illegally bugged Aldrich Ames and I did not hear an uproar! </font>[/QUOTE]Since you missed my previous post.

In reality, the Ames case is a textbook example of how the FBI was able to uncover a deadly foreign agent without the use of extra-legal authority from the President.

The FBI followed proper protocol for searches of Ames's home and office through the Attorney Generals (AG) office. Also, as required by FISA, all electronic surveillance of Ames was authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. According to Aldrich Ames's Criminal Complaint form:

"Paragraph 11: As a result of information obtained through electronic surveillance authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, searches authorized by the Attorney General pursuant to section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333, trash covers, and other investigation which is detailed herein, I believe AMES has traveled abroad to meet surreptitiously with KGB/SVRR."

By the way, just in case Mr. Hunt is reading this, the text of section 2.5 of Executive Order 12333 reads:

"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."

The issue is wiretaps, not searches.In other words, if the feds wanted to tap a suspect's phone because they thought he was dealing in child porn, they'd be forced to acquire a warrant first. However, the AG can authorize a warrantless search if they have probable cause that an American is an agent of a foreign power.

It's important to note that even in such a case, the executive order specifically states that the government may not ignore FISA.

http://www.brainshrub.com/aldrich-ames-case

 

"The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes , provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order."

We are not talking law enforcement , we're talking about intercepting war-time communications . Even an Executive Order does not supercede an inherent constitutional power, nor can a statute. Furthermore, an Executive Order produced by one president is not binding on future presidents, and this order may have been amended or even revoked (look at the date -- December 4, 1981).

 

Very well said and, again, I say we are fighting a war against - not conducting an international police action!

 

poncho,

I am curious about it so what do you think is there any constitutional basis for a belief that the POTUS does have commnder in chief powers without a formal declaration of war?

Let's try the Constitution for starters. As I quoted on page two of this thread:

Please see the rest of that post. It is not a conditional power. He is Commander in Chief by virtue of his position as President.

 

We are not according to the US Constitution at War. That is the problem when neither the President or the Congress abide by the Law of the land. Most Republicans have joined with Democrats as viewing the US Constitution as a living document that can be interpreted to fit on's political agenda rather than abiding by a Madison or Jefferson view of the US Constitution.

 

Are you sure? Madison's other writings seem to contradict that. The Constitution is very clear the President has no authority to send troops to war without Congressional approval.

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;