Al Gore Is At It Again
Attorney General Says Al Gore's Criticism of Domestic Surveillance Inconsistent With Clinton Policy
Former Vice President Al Gore gestures
while addressing the American Constitution Society on the threat to the Constitution from President Bush's domestic wiretap policy, Monday, Jan. 16, 2006 at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washigton. Gore asserted Monday that President Bush "repeatedly and persistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant.
WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Al Gore called Monday for an independent investigation of President Bush's domestic spying program, contending the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the administration's actions and said Gore's criticism is inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.
On CNN's "Larry King Live," Gonzales said, "it's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants."
Gonzales said he sees no need for a special counsel to investigate the National Security Administration surveillance operation because, "what I can tell you is that from the very beginning, from its inception this program has been carefully reviewed by the lawyers at the Department of Justice and other lawyers within the administration and we firmly believe that the president does have the legal authority" to gather intelligence in a time of war.
Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday, Gore was interrupted repeatedly by applause as he called the anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government."
The former vice president said Gonzales should name a special counsel to investigate the program, citing the attorney general's "obvious conflict of interest" as a member of the Bush Cabinet as well as the nation's top law enforcement officer.
The man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a special federal court that authorizes requests to eavesdrop on Americans. One judge on the court resigned last month, voicing concerns about the National Security Agency's surveillance of e-mails and phone calls.
A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Tracey Schmitt, attacked Gore's comments shortly after his address.
"Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America," Schmitt said. "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger. "
Gore's speech was sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and The Liberty Coalition, two organizations that have expressed concern about the policy.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that two other organizations -- the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights -- planned to file lawsuits against the Bush administration alleging the NSA program illegally monitored defense lawyers, journalists and scholars with ties to the Middle East.
The ACLU will file it's suit in federal court in Detroit and the Center for Constitutional Rights plans to file in New York.
Gonzales has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program. He defended the surveillance on cable new talk shows Monday night.
"This program has been reviewed carefully by lawyers at the Department of Justice and other agencies," Gonzales said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "We firmly believe that this program is perfectly lawful. The president has the legal authority to authorize these kinds of programs."
Gore, speaking at DAR Constitution Hall, said his concerns are especially important on the King holiday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.
King, as a foremost civil rights activist in the 1950s and '60s, had his telephone conversations wiretapped by the FBI, which kept a file on him and thousands of other civil rights and anti-Vietnam war activists.
Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.
"What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," the Democrat maintained.
Bush has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.
Gore had a different view, contending that Bush failed to convince Congress to support a domestic spying program, so he "secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother."
He said the spying program must be considered along with other administration actions as a constitutional power grab by the president. Gore cited imprisoning American citizens without charges in terrorism cases, mistreatment of prisoners _ including torture _ and seizure of individuals in foreign countries and delivering them to autocratic regimes "infamous for the cruelty of their techniques."
Gore didn't only criticize government officials. Referring to news reports that private telecommunications companies have provided the Bush administration with access to private information on Americans, Gore said any company that did so should immediately end its complicity in the program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So it's ok for the Clinton/Gore administration to wiretap, but if it's to Protect our National Security and the people of this Country AFTER we had been attacked it isnt ok for Bush?
Gore is never going to get over his loss in 2000.
Former Vice President Al Gore gestures
while addressing the American Constitution Society on the threat to the Constitution from President Bush's domestic wiretap policy, Monday, Jan. 16, 2006 at the DAR Constitution Hall in Washigton. Gore asserted Monday that President Bush "repeatedly and persistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant.
WASHINGTON -- Former Vice President Al Gore called Monday for an independent investigation of President Bush's domestic spying program, contending the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended the administration's actions and said Gore's criticism is inconsistent with Clinton administration policy.
On CNN's "Larry King Live," Gonzales said, "it's my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding physical searches without warrants."
Gonzales said he sees no need for a special counsel to investigate the National Security Administration surveillance operation because, "what I can tell you is that from the very beginning, from its inception this program has been carefully reviewed by the lawyers at the Department of Justice and other lawyers within the administration and we firmly believe that the president does have the legal authority" to gather intelligence in a time of war.
Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday, Gore was interrupted repeatedly by applause as he called the anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government."
The former vice president said Gonzales should name a special counsel to investigate the program, citing the attorney general's "obvious conflict of interest" as a member of the Bush Cabinet as well as the nation's top law enforcement officer.
The man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a special federal court that authorizes requests to eavesdrop on Americans. One judge on the court resigned last month, voicing concerns about the National Security Agency's surveillance of e-mails and phone calls.
A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Tracey Schmitt, attacked Gore's comments shortly after his address.
"Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America," Schmitt said. "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger. "
Gore's speech was sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and The Liberty Coalition, two organizations that have expressed concern about the policy.
The New York Times reported Tuesday that two other organizations -- the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights -- planned to file lawsuits against the Bush administration alleging the NSA program illegally monitored defense lawyers, journalists and scholars with ties to the Middle East.
The ACLU will file it's suit in federal court in Detroit and the Center for Constitutional Rights plans to file in New York.
Gonzales has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program. He defended the surveillance on cable new talk shows Monday night.
"This program has been reviewed carefully by lawyers at the Department of Justice and other agencies," Gonzales said on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "We firmly believe that this program is perfectly lawful. The president has the legal authority to authorize these kinds of programs."
Gore, speaking at DAR Constitution Hall, said his concerns are especially important on the King holiday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.
King, as a foremost civil rights activist in the 1950s and '60s, had his telephone conversations wiretapped by the FBI, which kept a file on him and thousands of other civil rights and anti-Vietnam war activists.
Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.
"What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," the Democrat maintained.
Bush has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.
Gore had a different view, contending that Bush failed to convince Congress to support a domestic spying program, so he "secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother."
He said the spying program must be considered along with other administration actions as a constitutional power grab by the president. Gore cited imprisoning American citizens without charges in terrorism cases, mistreatment of prisoners _ including torture _ and seizure of individuals in foreign countries and delivering them to autocratic regimes "infamous for the cruelty of their techniques."
Gore didn't only criticize government officials. Referring to news reports that private telecommunications companies have provided the Bush administration with access to private information on Americans, Gore said any company that did so should immediately end its complicity in the program.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So it's ok for the Clinton/Gore administration to wiretap, but if it's to Protect our National Security and the people of this Country AFTER we had been attacked it isnt ok for Bush?
Gore is never going to get over his loss in 2000.
posted by Marie's Two Cents | 8:31 AM
9 Comments:
Source: http://tinyurl.com/akne8
"McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.
But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live" and Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
Gore said Gonzales made a "political defense" of the president, showing why the attorney general should not be in charge of reviewing charges against Bush and should instead name a special counsel.
"His charges are factually wrong," Gore said in a written statement Tuesday. "Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton-Gore administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law."
Your post is wrong.
Source: FISA
EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.
1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:
(a) Secretary of State.
(b) Secretary of Defense.
(c) Director of Central Intelligence.
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(e) Deputy Secretary of State.
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any 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.''.
1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
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.''.
Jimmy Carter.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think this pretty much sums it up, not only did and does the President have the authority to wiretap but a whole list of people I never knew about!
And Jimmy Carter wrote and got this law passed!!!
Hey Marie,
Good Research their, and All I did was rant about it. Check out my blog.
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.
1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.
The act does not give the president the power to conduct electronic surveillance on American citizens. Period.
It cleary states "foreign intelligence information."
Bush broke the law.
Shaw is correct. You might check out the section referenced in FISA, which says things like "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 President has admitted to authorizing taps on phone calls to the US, which by definition have a likelihood of aquiring the contents of a US person.
The President broke the law. He also violated the 4th amendment and in doing so broke his oath of office.
Source: US Constitution
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you people know how to read?
BUT UPON PROBABLE CAUSE....If talking to Al-Quiada isnt probable cause then what is?
And as far as Shaw goes:
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.
Which was done!
It must be easy for you to sit back see the facts pointed directly in your face and pick and choose what parts you think are valid.
No matter which way you look at it, choose to admit it or not, the President, The Attorney General and a list of others had the authority to wiretap those in other Countries from there to here, or here to there!!!
Why dont you people actually read something for once and quit picking and chosing what YOU want out of the FISA act and the 4th amendment to the Constitution!
The President nor the Attorney General NEVER broke the law!!
Not to mention the fact it is done everywhere every day, if a Police officer pulls you over, suspects you of being under the influence, has you get out of the car and take a test to prove you are not intoxicated or you are intoxicated THAT IS A WARRENTLESS SEARCH!!!
You people need to understand the law, not pick and choose what you want out of it!
Not that it would persuade anybody who hates George W. Bush as much as some of these people, but there's an ongoing analysis of the legal arguments for and against the NSA surveillance at PowerLine (www.powerlineblog.com).
Reduced to its simplest form, the argument in favor of allowing the surveillance is, the President has constitutional power to eavesdrop on enemy communications in time of war, and to the extent FISA conflicts with that power, FISA is unconstitutional.
If you're interested in technical legal arguments, or are just unspeakably depraved, some of the relevant cases are:
United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970)
United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3rd Cir. 1974)
United States v. Truong, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir. 1980).
What I want to know is, how come we're not hearing anything about throwing the New York Times reporters in jail for revealing the program in the first place.
Good Point Uncle!
I have posted on one of these blog's the FISA provistons and the Constitution and some other provisions but do the Dems Listen? Hell No! I am sorry but the Liberals do NOT care about our National Security whatsoever!!!
Post a Comment
<< Home