My first diary. Here's an email I just sent to Byron York. Alberto Gonzalez is probably reading it so I figure why not you guys. . .
Hello,
Your article on Clinton and the inherent powers of the Presidency, "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches," commits a serious and journalistically unethical sin of ommission. You suggest that the Clinton administration held, as the Bush administration is now arguing, that the inherent powers of the Presidency in regards to national security intelligence are not subject to statutory limitation. However, this was not the Clinton administration's position.
At the time of the authorization of physical searches of Ames' home, physical searches were not covered by the FISA statute. There was no statute expressly addressing the matter. The Clinton administration argued that absent ststutory limits the President's inherent powers gave him the authority to authorize searches. Your article ought to have mentioned that the Clinton administration sought FISC authorization for wiretaps in the Ames investigation, and thus did not assert that the inherent powers of the Presidency are beyond statutory limitation.
After the Ames case, FISA was ammended to include physical searches. Jamie Gorelick's testimony before Congress in 1994 clearly indicates that the opinion of the administration was that the passage of such an ammendment limits the President's inherent powers. She expressed concern that those limits by properly legislated, in fact.
The Clinton administrations authorization of unwarranted searches thus falls within statutory limitations. Clinton did not claim that the inherent powers of the President place him above the law. Bush, on the other hand, appears to have authorized wiretaps in direct violation of the FISA statutes. If this is the case, then his assertion of inherent powers is fundamentally different than Clinton's insofar as it is unchecked and not subject to statutory limits.
Please issue a clarification. Important national debates on issues as important as the balance between liberty and security must not be obfuscated.
Thank you,