Redstate

But dont both those executive orders specifically note the Fisa law?

Fisa allows for electronic surveilance without first getting a court order, as long as one goes to the fisa court within 72 hours after the surveilance was gotten.

Im not sure how this is proof of anything.

Here is EO 12949 signed by Clinton, and the provisions it refers to in the FISA text.

For section 1 of the EO see FISA 1822(a)

For section 2 of the EO see FISA 1822(b)

For section 3 of the EO see FISA 1823(a)(7)

Here is EO 12139 signed by Carter. Pretty much the same.

These EOs conform to FISA. They do not igore or subvert them. In this Drudge is ignorant and/or irresponsible.

are "Bush shill and stooge."

For many of us, this whole NSA/FISA ordeal is still a fairly vague shade of grey. I am not in the camp that says the President committed an inexcusable crime.

However, it is difficult to look past clearly inaccurate arguments that are being made in certain cases.

Specifically, it's hard to know where the mental laziness ends and a willful desire to mislead begins, but the latest example can be found with Drudge.

And naturally, he's snapped up some poor unsuspecting soul (hopefully they're unsuspecting) who does the old link and paste of Drudge, and so it goes. I've already heard this all over talk radio. And quickly it will be accepted as fact.

Unfortunately, it's not accurate.

Drudge says (and dpayton links):

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed (and Drudge neglected to include):

"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  the search will not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." That means U.S. citizens.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001822----000-
.html

Come on, people. Let's at the very least cite accurate information when making our arguments.

I do not believe that the president knowingly broke any law.

Nor do I believe that any of the surveillance done rises to the level of a Watergate type offense.

It is apparent that what was done, was done for the sake of security and protecting the american people.

However, we are a nation of laws, and the administration must show how no laws were broken.

I have been very frightened by some posts made on this blog (and others) and from some calls to talk shows, where people are more than willing to give up civil liberties in the guise of having more security.

Now while I trust this president, I am not sure about future presidents.

Seriously, do you want Hillary to be allowed to spy on american citizens without a warrant? (hypothetically speaking)  

if bush is allowed to bypass the fisa rule  he is setting a line in the sand for future presidents to abuse our civil liberties.he can spy all he wants but as far as i can tell he can do all this using fisa.he is playing with fire and should come out and say he will go through the court in the future, the dems can pound away at this and eventually wear down american opinion against the prez.

However, if Alberto Gonzales were to say that Bush has "inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes", the Left would be up in arms (well, more so than they are now).  Does anyone recall outrage of this magnitude from them in '94?  For that matter, does anyone recall outrage of that magnitude from the Right in '94?  

Certifying that a search wouldn't be of a US citizen still allows for a warrantless search/wiretap.  It's the "warrantless" part that is causing the hysteria today.  With 45-day briefings and even the temporary suspension due to legal concerns, and with the limited scope of the investigation (phone numbers from a known terrorist), you essentially have the same practice.  Only difference is that a citizen calling or receiving a call from a foreign terrorist isn't automatically exempt (and, as pointed out by others in different threads, may in fact still be covered by NSA rules).  

I appreciate the folks here who have shown more of the details of the EOs, but the fact remains that warrantless searches have been used in the past with not nearly this amount of blustering by the Left.  And, regarding the Plame reference, their blustering over that would also have more credibility if they were as upset over this leak.  It's yet another acute case of selective outrage, brought on solely by the party of the man sitting in the Oval Office.

"Certifying that a search wouldn't be of a US citizen still allows for a warrantless search/wiretap.  It's the "warrantless" part that is causing the hysteria today."

Sigh. It's unclear to me why there is continued to need to muddy these waters.

No one is complaining about "warrantless" searches of non-US citizens. Who cares about that? If the US government feels like a Saudi Arabian citizen is in the US, no one has a problem with a warrantless wiretap on them.

"I appreciate the folks here who have shown more of the details of the EOs, but the fact remains that warrantless searches have been used in the past with not nearly this amount of blustering by the Left."  

And I appreciate you digesting and acknowledging the clarifications.

But again, you're creating a false analogy here. The concern over these searches is NOT that they were "warrantless" in and of themselves. It's that they are "warrantless" searches of US Citizens.

There was no "blustering from the Left" when Clinton authorized conducting "warrantless" searches because they specifically prohibited "warrantless" searches of US citizens.

So, setting aside the fact that the Drudge links (which have been gobbled up by some without taking the time to actually read beyond Drudge's links) were inaccurate if not misleading, the argument is apples and oranges.

It's a false premise, in short.

What bothers me (as a representative person on the left) is the fact that the President feels he has the authority to break the law. FISA is clear that you can eavesdrop on US citizens without a warrant, so long as you apply for a warrant within the next 72 hours. This allows for surveillance when you need to move too fast to go to the judge first, but also keeps judicial oversight in place.

It's the fact that the administration feels that it can unilaterally decide, not to try to change the laws (and recall, the PATRIOT Act was debated and passed while this was going on; it's not as though there was no occasion to revisit FISA), but to ignore it. That's the problem.

was a citizen of the United States, and was the subject of a warrantless search.  Is that an apple or an orange?

Good question.

Let me check with Drudge first, and see what he has to say.

I'll report back, accordingly.

Via NewsBusters:

COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES

By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982

A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.

Even a lower threshhold to clear than the Bush EO, which, according to my reading of the Times, was limited to phone numbers captured with known terrorists.

An interesting historical story, but one, if you analyze more than simply the NewsBusters link you cut and pasted, does not directly apply to question at hand.

The difference between the surveillance conducted on Abdeen Jabara (the guy referenced in your link) and the "warrantless" surveillance in question now is that, in fact, no direct surveillance was conducted on Jabara.

Rather, the NSA was monitoring international communications for certain key words, and intercepting those communications that contained those key words. And some of Jabara's communications were thus intercepted in what was a random, anonymous NSA sweep.

His communications were then shared, without warrant, between government agencies, and eventually landed with the FBI.

The lower court's decision read:

"We do not believe that an expectation that information lawfully in the possession of a government agency will not be disseminated, without a warrant, to another government agency is an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."

Thus, according to FISA, the NSA can conduct random and undirected interceptions of foreign communications if those communications contain certain key words. What FISA does not allow is warrantless directed surveillance, that is, a specific wiretap against all communications of a certain person.