| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 869
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 12:00 am: | 
|
McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.
"I think his hypocrisy knows no bounds," McClellan said of Gore.
------------------------------
Maybe someone should have done their homework. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4226
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 12:13 am: |
|
You're going to have to do better than simply quoting the Lackey General of the United States, Scott McClellan. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 15
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - 1:34 am: |
|
http://mediamatters.org/items/200601170014
"But the examples Gonzales cited in support of his accusation do not demonstrate that the Clinton administration also acted contrary to the law. In fact, Clinton's use of warrantless physical searches, which Gonzales cited, did not violate FISA because FISA, at the time, did not cover physical searches." |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 891
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 19, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
Gonzales should buy us coffee for blowing that one--
Thanks- Eponymous - I set it up and you hit the home run.
Aldrich Ames was busted ahhhhh IIRC in 1993, the FISA law was ammended in '95 to cover physical searches.
Why do they lie like this?
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 400
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
FOJ/Eponymous-
I cannot believe you are actually trying to justify a "warrantless physical search" only because FISA didn't cover them at the time?
So that makes it ok? Whatever....talk about a legality... |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4240
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 4:40 pm: |
|
You know, it seems like half the time you guys are saying, "well Clinton did it so it's alright," and the other half you're saying "Clinton did it so it's wrong."
Depending, of course. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 404
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 4:48 pm: |
|
to say something is ok merely because of a technicality is downright preposterous...! |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Scrotey;
The justice system is written full of technicalities. There is an old expression: "he was set free on a technicality."
Preposterous or not, a "technicality" could get you or me out of jail.
And the law is the law: during Prohibition in the late 20s and early 30s, you'd get thrown in jail if you sold hard liquor. The same day Prohibition was overturned, in 1933 I believe, you could have drowned yourself in whiskey and the law wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
It's all a question of timing, and that's part of what makes the law. |
Eponymous
Citizen
Username: Eponymous
Post Number: 18
Registered: 6-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 6:47 pm: |
|
Scrotis,
I certainly am not "trying to justify a 'warrantless physical search' only because FISA didn't cover them at the time", but merely responding to McClellan's argument. He was wrong to argue that because it was ok under Clinton, it should be ok now. The law has changed. Something that was once legal (though IMHO of dubious justification) is no longer. You can call that a technicality, but I think laws are something more than that. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 896
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 20, 2006 - 8:28 pm: |
|
It was Gonzales that made the Argument first.
Scotty just repeated the point--
It may be that both are idiots or incompetent, or liars. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10357
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 6:24 am: |
|
Yo0 guys miss the point. The spinners in the current administration know truth isn't important, only the perception of truth. Gonzalez is a smart guy and a decent lawyer, he knew that FISA didn't cover physical searches. However, by splashing this all over the news media the spinners know that most of the base will buy the story, just like something like seventy five percent of the GOP voters in the last election believed Iraq attacked us on 911.
This crew isn't selling the steak, they are selling the sizzle.
Wonder who initiated the legislation amendig FISa. By 1995 Congress was controlled by Newt and the boys. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 545
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 8:18 am: |
|
Bob K,
You're right on the money. This is an election year so I hope the conservatives in Congress sell whatever it takes to maintain control. Both sides sell sizzle. I'd rather the sizzle I agree with wins than the sizzle the other side has. And if anyone believes for a minute the liberals will be bringing steak then they have a short memory. It's campaign time so let the games begin! |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 407
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 9:48 am: |
|
Just because technicalities exist doesn't exonerate one from being guilty a crime.
I don't care about Gonzalez or Scotty, they are playing politics (what they get paid to do).
Maybe I am juts misintepreting some on these boards, but I hope no one is arguing that a warrantless search is ok only because it wasn't covered....
As I remembered, the 4th Amendment reads as such (my emphasis in bold):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
After a few years of studying our beloved Constitution, I always found the some of the verbiage our forefathers used fascinating.
Our forefathers threw such words in as "UNREASONABLE" searches or "PROBABLE" cause...precise in their wording yet also alot of room for interpetation...
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
Al Gore:
" A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government."  |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2278
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 11:27 am: |
|
"I hope the conservatives in Congress sell whatever it takes to maintain control."
It's not about right and wrong, just Right and Left. Does whatever it takes include lies? Do you have any limit on "Whatever it takes?" |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 904
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, January 21, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
BobK- it may be that Clintons executive order preceded the legislation ammending FISA to cover Pysical searches. Certainly if FISA already covered Pysical searches, there might have been NO NEED for Clintons E/O. |
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 417
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 8:29 pm: |
|
I am not totally convinced that the first search of Ames' home was a warrantless search justified by the FISA exception. Te was criminally prosecuted. Under the Justice Dept's interpretation at the time, there was a "wall" between information gained through FISA (intelligence/national security) and information which could be used in a criminal prosecution, which has to meet 4th amendment standards. If information was gained from a search permissible under FISA but in violation of the 4th amend., if challenged the Govt would have to show an independent source for all information which arguably flowed from the search. It could be that Ames decided to plead to get Rosario off the hook so in the end the search wasn't challenged. It just doesn't seem prudent, from the FBI and US Attorney's perspective, to search a guy's house without regard to how the information or evidence gained thereby could be used later.
My brief reading of the facts seems to indicate that there was an initial search, then at some point there were warrants executed at the time of arrest (the guy had classified stuff he wasn't entitled to all over his house). With a guy like that, there would be a serious risk of flight if he got wind you were on to him before you were ready to arrest. All of which leads me to believe that if there was an initial search, some time prior to the search executed at the time of arrest, it was a sneak and peek search --which, by the way, have long been permissible with a warrant. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 911
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 9:11 pm: |
|
s8mon-
Not sure what you refer to as an exception-
"I am not totally convinced that the first search of Ames' home was a warrantless search justified by the FISA exception. "
Fisa was ammended to cover Pysical searches well after the Aldrich Ames case. This search had nothing to do with FISA, as FISA didnt cover the situation, IMHO.
My guess is that, as prior to FISA, Judges would issue the court order, not in secret court though--AG Reno went to a judge to obtain an order much as it was done prior to FISA, AKA during the Cold War.
|
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 418
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 28, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
What I meant was, from what I've read -- and I haven't found much -- is that I'm not sure the FBI proceeded with the search of the home of someone they might want to prosecute in court on the basis that FISA didn't cover physical searches so no warrant was necessary. If they wanted the evidence and its fruits to be admissible in court someday, they would have wanted to comply with the 4th amd. and not consider this a case solely governed by FISA. (hence my discussion of the 'wall' at that time) So, to pile inference upon inference (since I haven't seen any real facts to rely on here), they would have gotten a warrant. However, arguably, it could have been a sneak and peek warrant, if they didn't want Ames to know they were on to him.
I in turn don't understand what you mean in your last para. A search warrant is a court order. Do we share the same speculation, then? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 929
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
I assume that there was a warrant issued on Ames house.
I doubt it was sneak & peek-- the Ames case was prior to Patriot act.
Last para- I was refering to what happened before FISA- and/or what happened in the Ames case.
|
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 424
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Delayed notification warrants, a/k/a sneak and peek, have been used long before they were codified in the Patriot Act. The Govt's defense of that provision in the PA has referred to this. I have mostly seen them used where a so-called 'controlled delivery' is being made -- ie, it is suspected that a container (package, truck, shipping container, etc) contains contraband; law enforcement wants to check to see if it does, but not disclose the search to the carrier at that juncture, because if there is contraband, law enforcement are going to covertly track the delivery of the package until its delivery to the recipient, at which point arrests will be made. The fact of the search warrant is disclosed at that point, not before (contrary to Rule 41's requirement that the warrant be left when the search is executed). Frankly, I had never heard of a delayed notification warrant being used on someone's home (of course, surreptitious entries are made to install a listening device, but I'm not sure that isn't specifically provided for in the electronic surveillance statute). Then again, I can't say I'm familiar with the legal possibilities when investigating a case of the magnitude of the Ames case.
In Ames, search warrants for his home and other places were executed simultaneous with the arrest warrant. I could not find any reference to an earlier search of the home. Gonzales suggests there was. If it wasn't an issue in the litigation, or come out publicly somehow in it, there's no way to casually research it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4347
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 12, 2006 - 3:34 pm: |
|
Here's some great stuff. One of the bloggers uncovered an opinion piece from "Free Republic," a conservative GOP organ, back in 2000. Turns out they were very, very worried about this whole FISA thing, which let Clinton do surveillance without anyone knowing. You can get what you need from this link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/11/233148/167
Be sure to read towards the bottom, when kos reproduces the comments made, in 2000, by conservatives who were alarmed that it was too easy to get a warrant, and that it could even be done after the fact!
some fine examples. Remember now, these were all written by conservatives in 2000:
Quote:The aftershock of the Oklahoma City bombing sent Congress scurrying to trade off civil liberties for an illusion of public safety. A good ten weeks before that terrible attack, however with a barely noticed pen stroke President Bill Clinton virtually killed off the Fourth Amendment when he approved a law to expand the already extraordinary powers of the strangest creation in the history of the federal judiciary.
Quote:I don't see that as a possibility. This is wherein the danger lies in the precedent set by the Clinton criminal administration. God only knows who will be in power next, but there are no checks and balances anymore. This is exactly the SORT of thing I've been protesting all along. Libs just don't see this!
But when and where do they find this in the major media? They don't even know!
The hypocrisy of course is simply staggering.
Quote:Any chance of Bush rolling some of this back? It sounds amazing on its face. Why didn't Wen Ho Lee just "disappear" into one of these Star Chambers, never to return?
Dream on, baby. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 960
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 9:59 pm: |
|
With the ABA most recently coming out saying Bush broke the law and many prominent republicans saying the same-- this Issue may have some long term traction. We'll see. |
hariseldon
Citizen
Username: Hariseldon
Post Number: 432
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 14, 2006 - 11:25 pm: |
|
This wiretapping debate needs to get back on focus.
The objection to having radical Republicans wiretap without checks is simply that this bunch of coup artists will use the cover provided to identify and suppress domestic opponents of the the regime - much the way the Red Chinese and Russian Communists used secret police powers to keep themselves in power by intimidating and eventually liquidating opponents.
Bush, Cheney and their fellow travelers are for ending American freedon as we have known it. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 680
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
haris,
I feel you man, but the wiretapping issue is on its last legs. It had a good 3-4 week run but it is quickly going the way of Sheehan and Plamegate. Get your shots in now because it's almost over. And please don't blame the Repubs. The Congressional Democrats are the ones letting this issue die because they interpret polls and realize it is a losing proposition for them in November. The Dems are actually starting to play the game. Now, if they can only figure a way to handle Hillary..... |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page