Skip to main content

View Diary: Debunking the Carter/Clinton Myth (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's what (none)
    I've been asking. I read in your diary where Carter administration ordered electronic surveillance and Clinton administration expanded that to physical searches of premises and property. I got that.

    What is the Bush administration doing that is  different? These calls that are being intercepted are international that are either incoming or outgoing. Also, both CNN and Fox reported (with the graphics and everything) that the AG can suspend the need for warrants. So I'm missing something that everyone else is getting.

    •  I think you are being deliberately obtuse (none)
      as your "questions" have been answered multiple times.  A careful reading of the diary would easily dispel your errors.  Unsurprising, as you have stated elsewhere that your means of evaluating information is to find a "middle" between the assertions of the left and right.  No wonder you are confused.
    •  Exhibit A (none)
      "Also, both CNN and Fox reported (with the graphics and everything)"

      Anybody wonder how we're being manipulated so deftly?  I think this little nugget encapsulates it perfectly.

      Shiny graphics on a screen telling you things that COULD be true (but in fact do not apply) are influencing your opinion on well established law.  One wonders why we even bother anymore...but here goes:

      The law is quite clear when it comes to the NSA conducting any kind of surveillance against domestic subjects.  They have to obtain a warrant.  If time is of the essence, surveillance can begin as long as the FISA (which has jurisdiction in this area) court is notified within 72 hours.

      Clinton and Carter dealt with INTERNATIONAL communications.  This means communications where an American is not involved at all (confused by what CNN and Fox are telling you concerning this issue - don't be.  If an American is involved its not an international surveillance operation).  The NSA is allowed to spy on international communications.

      What do you say about people who have issues distinguishing between international and domestic communications and how current US law dictates surveillance operations be conducted concerning the two?  

      I say stop watching the "graphics and everything" and start reading more.

      •  SEE! (none)
        That was easy. I went back and reread the diary after you mentioned domestic surveillence. And I see now the diference you are getting at. The Carter administration precluded the intercept of domestic surviellence. THAT'S what I was missing. Thank you.

        LOL...Now, I understand where you are coming from with CNN and Fox. TV is a quick and easy source of information. I hit as many blogs as I can as well. They all have their own ways of reporting things. But if I see something reported in multiple places I do tend to give it more credence. In my morning preusal of online headlines, I saw something about the AG authorizing no warrant surviellence as well. SO I guess what I need to figure out why is, does this include domestic sources?

    •  It's quite clear (none)
      Carter, Clinton:  warrant
      Bush:   no warrant, violates 4th Amendment (which gets amazingly little mention), violates FISA

      "Everything seemed possible to the powerful and the privileged, so cowed by fear, so broken to repression had the American people become." -- W. Karp

      by Mass Man on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:20:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No quite (none)
        I don't have much info on what the Carter administration did with its ability to use no warrent surviellence. But as I understand it, the Clinton administration conducted warrantless searches of the residence of Aldrich Ames, as has been discussed.
        •  Warrantless search (none)
          You're right that they were warrantless.  I've just been reading about it.  Technically, the FISA-sanctioned searches are warrantless too, but there is a procedure, which was not followed by the Bush Administration.  And Carter's warrantless searches were perfectly legal because foreign nationals were the subjects of the search.  I doubt very much that Clinton conducted such a search of Aldrich Ames' residence, because that law says that you have to run the search by the Attorney General, who in turn is required to determine that it is highly unlikely that any American would be subject to the search.  

          "Everything seemed possible to the powerful and the privileged, so cowed by fear, so broken to repression had the American people become." -- W. Karp

          by Mass Man on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 09:20:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You right (none)
            about the Carter administration. From what I've read that was between foreign nationals...I couldn't give a hoot about that. But that makes me wonder....can you surveil foreign nationals in the US? I've no clue.

            I've read in several place wheres the Ames residence was searched at least once (the way a couple read though it was multiple times) without a warrant. As someone pointed out he was considered a foreign power be cause of his spy status......

            Which brings up another point I'd pondered over my deli sub at lunch; Are Americans who 'work' for terrorist (stateless) groups considered working for foreign powers and how does that work in relation to how Ames has been classified? Does the fact that foreign powers can be surveiled electronically cross over to American citizens being in the employ of foreign powers can have their premises searched or is that an apple oranges thing?

    •  As I have written twice and others even more often (none)
      Bush acted in violation of the law.  Bush is the only issue here.  

      Please stop trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant nonsense about Clinton, Carter, and arguments about the propriety of wiretaps and other surveillance.  That muddy waters stuff might play well over at Redstate and "Freerepublic," but not here.  

      The only issue that matters now is what are we as a supposed "nation of laws not men" are going to do to punish a President who believes that he is above the law.  

      Reality is just... a point of view - Philip K. Dick; Beautiful thing, the destruction of words. (from Orwell's 1984)

      by LionelEHutz on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site