Clinton Nor Carter Did NOT Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans

I've seen the contrary sentiment displayed on a few sites, all because Drudge posted it:

Fact Check: Clinton/Carter Executive Orders Did Not Authorize Warrantless Searches of Americans
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 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.

I saw a couple of similarly-worded innuendoes last night and began to wonder how long it would
take the people who do not read anything closely to begin to inaccurately begin to spew the
contrary nonsense as if it were true.

I could be wrong though.

My b.

that i recieved...


your continued allegations of law-breaking rests solely on the fact that the president authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

there has been on president then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President\\\'s power to make exceptions to FISA, i.e. HE DOESNT NEED THE WARRANT FROM THE COURT if national security required it.

FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.

The courts have all agree, most recently in a Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion,

the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal \\\"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue

nm

As usual, they are trying to deflect blame by claiming Clinton did it, too. Don't waste any effort explaining what Clinton did or didn't do, or explaining that he really didn't do any illegal wiretaps, because the issue isn't what Clinton did; it's what Bush is doing NOW. So, the point is this: even assuming for the sake of argument that Clinton did use illegal wiretaps, does that justify Bush using illegal wiretaps? Hell, no. Surveillance of American citizens without a warrant is illegal no matter who does it. Period.

Why can't and don't Clinton and Carter sue Drudge over this on the ground of defemation of character.

It's almost impossible for a public figure to win a defamation suit unless they can prove the defamatory statements were made with actual malice. True, Drudge is a malicious scumbag, but proving actual malice (in the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan legal sense) is really difficult.

A myth that the Republicans have crated is that you can sue for everything. I'm not saying that you necessarily believe this. But, many people do. In reality, there is actually very little that you can sue for.