[Federal Register page and date: 60 FR 8169; February 13, 1995]
THE WHITE HOUSE - Office of the Press Secretary -
THE WHITE HOUSE - Office of the Press Secretary -
For Immediate Release February 9, 1995
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.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, 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 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
(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; and (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, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
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.
Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.
Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, 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 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches:
(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; and (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, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 9, 1995.
Yes, Clinton issues a publically available and well-known executive order stating repeatedly that the government will comply with all FISA regulations and Bush issues a secret order that Alberto Gonzales and President Bush both admit violates FISA. Your point is what exactly?
ReplyDeleteFISA allows warrantless searches with limits one of those limits is that "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". This is the part Bush violated. As far as I know, Clinton never did. Certainly, what you quote provides no evidence of that. Do you have some other evidence suggesting that he did have warrantless searches conducted that violated the above clause?
Do you understand the difference between "electronic surveillance without a court order" that complies with FISA and "electronic surveillance without a court order" that doesn't.
Here's an analogy that might help. Let's say that Congress passed a law that stated that it was permissible to administer a lethal injection with the following restrictions:
1) the person having the lethal injection administered has been found guilty of a capital crime and senetenced to death by a court of law
2) the person administering the lethal injection is a duly appointed agent of the court, employed to carry out the injection
Now, obviously, you couldn't use this law to lethally inject a random person on the street. However, neither could you use it to inject a person on death row, unless you met requirement #2.
By analogy, Clinton issued a public order that said the executive branch would now start executions in full compliance with #1 and #2. Bush just secretly sent people to inject everyone on death row. Does that make the difference a ltttle clearer?
If the answer is still no, try this link:
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/drudge-fact-check/
clinton authorized surveillance on US persons witout a court order.
ReplyDeleteis that too hard for leftist idiots to understand!?
reliapundit said -- "clinton authorized surveillance on US persons witout a court order"
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can point me to the part of Clinton's executive order where it says that this authorizes surveillance on US citizens at all. Actually, this executive order covers "physical searches," not surveillance, but that's a minor point. Once again, the backing laws that this is "pursuant" to state, "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)" and further as a restriction, that "there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.
There was a change in the law in 1994 that made this new executive order to comply with the update necessary. As I noted, this Presidential order was not secret and stated specifically that all the FISA guidelines would be followed. Just asserting that this executive "authorized surveillance on US persons witout a court order" doesn't make it so. Can you actually point to the part of the order that states that? Your highlighted section, that you presumably thought was important, doesn't mention US Persons and, if fact, says that the Attorney General must make the certifications required by that section that I cited above (i.e. that the searches WON'T involve US Persons).
BTW, "leftist idiot" sounds a little like a personal attack. Next time: leave out the personal attacks and stick to the arguments on point. Thanks.
you are an idiot; this is NOT a derisive comment; it is a clinical diagnosis!
ReplyDeletethis post and two other were about how previous presidents had ORDERED SURVEILLANCE WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. and these two posts were TITLED as such CLEARLY so NON-IDIOTS would know.
you did not get it becasue you are a moron, clinically speaking.
the FACt that previous presidents ordered surveillance WITJOUT A COURT ORDER establishes ONE ASPECT of this controversy BEYOND ANY DOUBT: that Bush was asserting NOTHING NEW, AND SOMETHING ALLOWED WITHIN FISA. Clinton and Carter BOTH did it. (Clinton on Ames - who was an American citizen.)
The second aspect of this controversy is whether Bush can order that surveillance on US persons.
FISA says he can - if they are foreign agents. And a 2002 Fed Dist. Court decision SPECIFICALLY upheld that; it was based on the definiton for freign power/foreign agent in US 50 - 1801 (a) (2).
Since Bush only ordered INTERNATIONAL calls to be INTERCEPTED if one side of the communication was a known or suspected agent of al Qaeda or an affiliate of al Qaeda IT IS REASONABLE to ASSUME that the other party on the call was also an agent.
And one could ONLY be sure BY INTERCEPTING THE CALL.
Calls from al Qaeda agents to the USa are ESPECIALLY impoortant for our national security.
non-idiots can see that.
reliapundit said -- "the FACt that previous presidents ordered surveillance WITJOUT A COURT ORDER establishes ONE ASPECT of this controversy BEYOND ANY DOUBT: that Bush was asserting NOTHING NEW AND SOMETHING ALLOWED WITHIN FISA. Clinton and Carter BOTH did it. (Clinton on Ames - who was an American citizen.)"
ReplyDeleteObviously, warrant-less searches are nothing new as I've said repeatedly. There is no controversy there. It's purely the "US Persons" part and the secret Executive Order part that make Bush's program noteworthy and troublesome. Do you agree that Carter didn't allow those under his administration?
As far as the Ames case goes, I certainly agree there is good fodder there for both sides. Before I go into a full-fledged lecture on the subject, I’d be interested to see just how much you know about the Ames case, the warrant-less activity involved in the case, and any subsequent fallout over it. Please be as specific as possible. Here’s a further hint. Clinton's Executive Order you put on your front page is involved. We’ll see how much you know, and then I’ll fill in any important pieces you left out.
reliapundit said --"The second aspect of this controversy is whether Bush can order that surveillance on US persons."
That’s really the only aspect. A President's ability to order warrantless searches on non-US Persons is generally what is referred to as a "straw-man" argument, since it's clearly provided for by FISA. In any further conversations with me, you can ignore what you consider the first aspect. We’ve always agreed on that; warrant-less searches are legal if performed as provided for in FISA.
reliapundit said --"you are an idiot; this is NOT a derisive comment; it is a clinical diagnosis!"
So, you're a doctor, and one that makes diagnoses based on blog posts. Interesting, where's your degree from? In any event, I feel no need to make personal attacks and appreciate that you're ceding the high ground to me. Also, I'm not one to run away from name-calling, so feel fire away with whatever invectives you’ve got.
reliapundit said --"FISA says he can - if they are foreign agents. And a 2002 Fed Dist. Court decision SPECIFICALLY upheld that; it was based on the definiton for freign power/foreign agent in US 50 - 1801 (a) (2)."
If you read over the 2002 decision, you'll find that it is primarily involved with a FISA warrant that was granted with restrictions ("The FISA court authorized the surveillance, but imposed certain restrictions, which the government contends are neither mandated nor authorized by FISA."). In accordance with FISA and the Patriot Act, the review court determined that the FISA court did not have the authority to impose those additional restrictions that it desired on the warrant. It's strange that you would assert that this case, where the administration had requested and been granted a warrant for surveillance of a US Person, supports your claim that they didn't need to do so.
reliapundit said --"Since Bush only ordered INTERNATIONAL calls to be INTERCEPTED if one side of the communication was a known or suspected agent of al Qaeda or an affiliate of al Qaeda IT IS REASONABLE to ASSUME that the other party on the call was also an agent."
If all this were true, it's the perfect time to get a warrant from the FISA court. That's exactly what they exist to do and have done more than 19,000 times since they were created. Now, if you don't have very good evidence that your suspicions are correct, and you wanted to intercept the calls anyway, you'd have to break the FISA restrictions and skip that step.
This has been debunked.
ReplyDeleteHere:
www.brainshrub.com/aldrich-ames-case
Nice try 'tho.