12/22/2005

Surveillance

Dick Morris thinks that the surveillance story (amazingly timed to blow the successful Iraqi elections off the front page and influence the Patriot Act vote) will end up hurting the Dems more than Bush. He thinks homeland security is a winner for the President.

I agree with him to a point, but I believe there is another important factor here. I think the evidence coming out shows a) that many Democrat lawmakers knew about and accepted the program and b) most recent presidents, including Democrats, have done similar things.

1 comment:

Greg said...

More facts are coming out and it is crazy to think that these constitutional law experts and congressional leaders did not know what I post below. I think it shows that they are puttingpartisanship over national security. I believe in truth over ideology.

I believe we have to search (sometimes far and wide) to get to the truth, especially as we are constantly being bombarded with distorted images and others' agendas.

ISSUE: Is Bush doing something wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional?

Many legal issues can go either way, but apparently Bush has done nothing wrong (unless most other Presidents have done the same wrongs). The President apparently has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches in order to obtain foreign intelligence information.

There are three pieces of research posted below that indicate that Bush has done nothing wrong (in re. surveillance). None of the sources cited below are binding authority and provide an absolute vindication but they are very persuasive and will ultimately lead to an absolution of any wrongdoing (in re. surveillance).

This information was NOT difficult to find and is not hidden in secret databases. The research shows such compelling support for Bush's position that the "consitutional experts" that keep getting cited in the media should be called out as idealogical hacks because they should know better and should not be hyping this scandal as something that could lead to impeachment.

Only through real debate and not idealogical rantings can we possibly get to the truth.


RESEARCH:

1st: Check out the only reported case to come out of the Foreign Intelligence Surviellance Court (In re. Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (2002)).

In pertinent part is reads"...The Truong court (United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir.1980))., as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. FN26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power..."


2nd: Check out President Carter's executive order at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12139.htm

In pertinent part President Carter's executive order states that "... the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order..."

3rd: Check out President Clinton's executive order at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

In pertinent part, President Clinton's executive order states that "...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..."