EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949 FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. 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. Sincerely, William Jefferson Clinton February 1995
EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE EO 12139 By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows: 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter May 1979
Hee, hee, hee, Chicago1871 did you delete something? Like, when you said I didn't understand the definition of "physical".
A Few Highlights The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 SUBCHAPTER I—ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 > TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1811 SUBCHAPTER II—PHYSICAL SEARCHES SUBCHAPTER III—PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES SUBCHAPTER IV—ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES
Figured instead of quibbling over your lack of understanding of some basic premises, I'd go right to the source.
Re: A Few Highlights Any POTUS that is believed to have unlawfully spied on a US citizen should be tried in a court of law, regardless of party or ideology. Period. End of discussion. I don't care if it was Bill or St. Jimmy or the Shrub. Bring it on.
From FISA: (i)the physical 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 (as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title); (ii)there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and (iii)the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such physical search meet the definition of minimization procedures under paragraphs (1) through (4) [1] of section 1821(4) of this title; and (A) through (D)'.
Public record, not secret. Also, since you're into research now, what are the certifications required by that section. Once you've figured that out we'll move on to the numerous other differences.
Re: A Few Highlights I don't give a ********. Like I said, bring it on. I don't care who is doing it. The point is that it's ********ing WRONG!!!!!
One day hopefully neocons will learn the difference between supporting one's country and supporting one's president. The dems would unquestionably want Clinton, or anyone else, impeached for such a blatant infringement of civil rights.
George W. Bush spied on Americans, something expressly forbidden under FISA without a court order. Clinton and Carter didn't or at least didn't admit to this on national television.
It wasn't my impression that Bush was claiming this power under The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Rather, he was claiming this power by virtue of being Commander in Chief in a time of war - the war declared by Congress with the September 2001 resolutions which authorized the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." In that case Ian's citations aren't at all relevant here.
How are these XOs even applicable to arguments about the current situation? These were executive orders, publicly available and explicitly referring to the statutory language contained in FISA. To quote just the Clinton XO A search without a court order is not the crux of this matter. The central point is that the executive abides by and acts according to the terms laid out in the legislation. This is what Clinton's XO did, which is clearly evident from the language of the XO (which was in addition publicly available). Bush claimed boundless authority granted to the executive to do whatever he deemed necessary, regardless of, and in violation of, statute. Now, Republicans are excellent at muddying the water. But the central point of this whole matter is in the difference between first bolded section above and what Bush did.