Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Didn’t Authorize Warrantless Searches Of Americans.

From ThinkProgress.org:

The top of the Drudge Report claims “Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search On Americans Without Court Order…“ It’s not true. Here’s the breakdown –
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order.”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] 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.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.“ That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.“ So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

1 Comments:

Blogger M A F said...

OUCH!

The homesteading comment blogger will find himself rather dismayed at the information contained herein.

It does appear that after review that there are marked differences between what Clinton and Carter did as contrasted to Bush.

This is another example where those that decry the importance of personal accountability fall short. Far too often does this administration and its supporters resort to the "they did it first" defense.

2:10 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home