Skip to main content

The blame Clinton game has already started. I think it is highly important to point out this catch.

http://nsi.org/...


Over one year ago President Clinton asked Congress for legislation to strengthen our ability to combat international terrorism. On April 24th the President signed S. 735, the ?Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996? into law. Congress included many of the Administration's proposals in their bill, giving our law enforcement officials tough new tools to stop terrorists before they strike, and to bring them to justice if they do. The legislation bans fundraising in the United States that supports terrorist organizations. It also allows U.S. officials to deport terrorists from American soil without being compelled by the terrorists to divulge classified information, and to bar terrorists from entering the United States in the first place.


Nevertheless, as strong as the bill was, it should have been stronger. For example, President Clinton asked the Congress to give U.S. law enforcement increased wiretap authority in terrorism cases. But the Congress refused. After the President proposed that the Secretary of the Treasury consider the inclusion of taggants in explosive materials, so that bombs can be traced more easily to the bomb makers, the Congress exempted black and smokeless powder -- two of the most commonly used substances in improvised explosive devices.

I know their excuse from reading this is going to be, but the democrats tried to do it to. I'm pointing this out because as they blame Clinton for 9/11 and not wiring tapping A REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED congress felt CLINTON shouldn't have these powers. They are already attacking Clinton for not doing this as seen here.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/...


BILL KRISTOL: I wish Bill Clinton had done this. I wish we had tapped the phones of people that Mohammed Atta, that Mohammed Atta here into the United States, if we discovered phone calls from Afghanistan to him. That's why 9/11 happened. That's what connecting the dots is.

JAUN WILLIAMS: If you're going after the terrorists so would a FISA court support it, just as you support it.

What did they fear back then about allowing Clinton the power to do this? Was it maybe the fact that a democrat was asking for this power and they were worried that it would be used against them? Maybe the Republicans would like to explain why Clinton wasn't to be trusted, but Bush is? The point of this is to kill the talking points before they start up on other networks. If you see any show trying to blame Clinton and use the excuss that it was Bill Clinton's fault then blast them on it.

Originally posted to AHiddenSaint on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:44 PM PST.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  not that I agree with Clinton on this... (4.00)
    ...at least he ASKED for the authority and didn't assume he could just order it legal.

    He at least recognized it wasn't kosher and covered his legal behind far better than Bush did.

    The GOP Love the soldiers like they love children: Seen but not heard.

    by DawnG on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 02:57:32 PM PST

  •  Excellent catch... (4.00)
    I mean, this frames the debate:

    NOT ONLY DID CLINTON KNOW IT WAS ILLEGAL, the Republican Congress EXPLICITLY REFUSED TO LEGALIZE IT.

    There is no gray area here.  The question was posed in 1996, and answered.  The Republicans decided that it should stay illegal by refusing to keep it in the bill.

  •  Good Catch.....AHiddenSaint..! (none)
    I too read the Crooks and Liars report where Bill Kristol was again framing the debate with Juan that if Bill Clinton had pursued wiring tapping of terrorist then 9/11 might not have occurred!

    Not only did my President, William H Clinton pursue wiring tapping of terrorist groups in the U.S. ,but he did so by asking permission. He realized that there were certain area's of the American's rights to liberty and privacy that he just couldn't circumvent.

    That said....

    Great post....now how are you going to get this into the hands of Juan and Kristol so we can see Kristols stupid red faced smiley grin when he say's he was incorrect...I know,I know!...they don't ever admit it......

    This info needs to be sent to MSM tho. The GOP will use the Clinton thing if they think they can get milage. Shutting it down immediately is taking another spoke out of the wheel.

    Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. Author: Groucho Marx

    by JellyPuddin on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 03:25:08 PM PST

  •  what a great example of hypocracy (none)
    this should be front page everywhere. Great job
  •  Google search (none)
    http://www.google.com/...

    Clinton + wiretaps

    Where are these anti-Clinton assholes now?

  •  Didn't Let Clinton Spy (none)
    and what about all the "Rule of Law" talk we heard so much about while they were trying to pull a coup and impeach Clinton. Republicans made themselves out to be "law and order" everytime (to steal a line from tombstone) The hypocricy is amazing!  
  •  Ashcroft (none)
    Was the point guy in Senate Judiciary on this. While I don't know about published sources, I recall Feingold in an early 2002 speech citing this as a factor in his decision to pass the Ashcroft AG nomination, ie as a Senator he'd shown defence to privacy.

    A Senator YOU can afford
    $1 contributions only.
    Masel for Senate
    1214 E. Mifflin St.
    Madison, WI 53703

    by ben masel on Sun Dec 18, 2005 at 07:37:48 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site