We know that the 4th Amendment permits warrantless searches based on exigent circumstances. Is the war on terrorism such a circumstance?

Gore says no. What do you say?

Gore slams domestic wiretapping program

Associated Press

WASHINGTON � Former Vice President Al Gore called today for an independent investigation of President Bush's domestic spying program, contending the president "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on Americans without court approval.

Speaking on Martin Luther King Jr.'s national holiday, the man who lost the 2000 presidential election to Bush was interrupted repeatedly by applause as he called the anti-terrorism program "a threat to the very structure of our government."

Gore charged that the administration acted without congressional authority and made a "direct assault" on a special federal court that authorizes requests to eavesdrop on Americans. One judge on the court resigned last month, voicing concerns about the National Security Agency's surveillance of e-mails and phone calls.

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, Tracey Schmitt, attacked Gore's comments shortly after address.

"Al Gore's incessant need to insert himself in the headline of the day is almost as glaring as his lack of understanding of the threats facing America," Schmitt said. "While the president works to protect Americans from terrorists, Democrats deliver no solutions of their own, only diatribes laden with inaccuracies and anger. "

Gore's speech was sponsored by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and The Liberty Coalition, two organizations that have expressed concern about the policy.

The former vice president said that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should name a special counsel to investigate the program, citing the attorney general's "obvious conflict of interest" as a member of the Bush Cabinet as well as the nation's top law enforcement officer.

Gonzales has agreed to testify publicly at a Senate hearing on the program, and he told a news conference recently that the president acted "consistent with his legal authority" to protect Americans from a terrorist threat.

Gore, speaking at DAR Constitution Hall, said the concerns are especially important on the King holiday because the slain civil rights leader was among thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government.

King, as a foremost civil rights activist in the 1950s and 60s, had his telephone conversations wiretapped by the FBI, which kept a file on him and thousands of other civil rights and anti-Vietnam war activists.

Gore said there is still much to learn about the domestic surveillance program, but he already has drawn a conclusion about its legality.

"What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and insistently," the Democrat maintained.

Bush has pointed to a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that authorized him to use force in the fight against terrorism as allowing him to order the program.

Gore had a different view, contending that Bush failed to convince Congress to support a domestic spying program, so he "secretly assumed that power anyway, as if congressional authorization was a useless bother."

He said the spying program must be considered along with other administration actions as a constitutional power grab by the president. Gore cited imprisoning American citizens without charges in terrorism cases, mistreatment of prisoners � including torture � and seizure of individuals in foreign countries and delivering them to autocratic regimes "infamous for the cruelty of their techniques."

Gore didn't only criticize government officials. Referring to news reports that private telecommunications companies have provided the Bush administration with access to private information on Americans, Gore said any company that did so should immediately end its complicity in the program.

Where does it say that a warrantless search is permitted in the fourth?

Don't get me wrong, I'm with the president on this one, congress gave him the authority when they voted that he could use "any means he deems necessary", but I was just wondering where you find it in the fourth.

Gosh, the man who lost the Presidency to Bush once again thinks Bush is doing a bad job as President. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

...Anyone miss the days the newspapers reported news?

The Fourth Amendment says you need probable cause for a warrant. Then it says searches should be reasonable. That has been interpreted to mean that, under some circumstances, a warrantless search is justified.

For example, if you know that the evidence is being destroyed while the warrant is being obtained, you can go in without the warrant. Or, if there is an emergency (such as someone's life is in danger), a warrantless search is acceptable. Another example is hot pursuit.

So, the question may be whether imminent war is another justification, especially since it is unlikely that the information obtained is going to be used in a traditional courtroom setting against the defendant. Sort of like collecting intel on the battlefield, except terrorism has blurred the battlefield.

There is some case law relating specifically to the issue of electronic surveillance. Tell me if I do not understand it correctly, but it looks like in Olmstead v. United States it was decided that because there was no search or seizure of a person�s physical property, electronic snooping was not within the confines of the 4th. Then, after the FCA, in Nardone v. United States the court ruled that electronic snooping violated section 605 of the FCA if the info was both intercepted and made public. However the info could be used inside of the governmental agency. Berger v. New York closed that loop hole, but allowed for national security wiretaps without a warrant but with consent from attorney general (which Bush did). Katz v. United States held that on domestic subversion the 4th still applied and a warrant should be sought. These rulings set limits on governmental agencies, they have not limited or even defined inherent presidential powers.

Back to congress now, they enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which does not condone �electronic surveillance under color of law, except as authorized by statute.� To the president, as well as little old me, the joint resolution of force is such a statute.

Bottom line is that there is no definitive answer as to what the president can do and when he can do it with regard to electronic surveillance. FISA even states as much in a memo from the 5th of January 2005. (44 pages of nothing)

I�m not sure the question should be weather it this falls under the 4th more than it should be what powers the president has in time of war. Part of the confusion is like you said, the battle field is blurred, and the �theater of war� is the entire globe including the US, and all of the laws and regulations divide the permissions and limits into two separate parts, domestic and foreign.

Like it or not, and despite the fact the Carter amended FISA and gave himself the power to conduct unwarranted surveillance, I�m afraid this is going to come down to a court decision or congressional act to specify administrative powers as it relates to the new kind of war.

As to Gore, I would point out how useless he and his opinions are since he was part of an administration that did this very same thing but with out the benefit of a statute. However, I think he needs no help from when to prove his worth.

I personally don't care if he taps my phone or looks at my checkbook. I wouldn't mind giving a urine sample every day before I started work (some days, starting the work day a little later than others because I usually look at this site during morning coffee, which puts my actual work day, per se, back a little toward lunch time, and other days I actually peruse this site when the boss thinks I'm only playing Hearts or Texas Hold 'Em on the computer, so the work day tends to blend in on those occasions with Saturday to the outside observer) where was I...oh yes: What I have to hide probably pales in comparison to what a would be terrorist has to hide, so the feds and real cops can go ahead and take a look -- but, fair warning, they should be prepared to be bored.

I find it somewhat remarkable, par for the course, but remarkable, that no one such as Al Gore or news folks have taken notice that when the story broke, the president didn't deny, hem & haw, clear his throat or use odd definitions for the word is -- he pretty much admitted that "Yes, we did it. And here's the deal." Am I the only one in the Milky Way who noticed that he confessed and took responsibility in public to what Al Gore and others want him put in Leavenworth for? Is there not something to be said for taking responsibility, pretty much a rarity in the White House in the past eon or so, when such a horrendous, and I'm being facetious, accusation erupts? Or, could they be looking for reasons to discredit and/or cause dissention, and this one came up? Whoa, now, that's an odd thought.

And my other question to those who are so concerned that personal liberties were compromised, is: Who was harmed? Did anybody not get their two gallons of milk for one special at Kroger that week? Did anyone lose parental rights of their 21-year-old sometimes- works-sometimes-doesn't offspring who finds fulfillment and purpose in living at the folks' house and eating their groceries? (Almost got personal with myself) Did anyone end up in a dungeon for sedition? Or, did someone who was a pretty good bet to have designs on killing American children and old people, teenagers and newlyweds, handicapped, rich, poor, smart and not so smart, taxpayers and tax-gatherers get caught in their dealings with others of the same violent intentions/desires?

Who was harmed Al? Oh, I see, the American experiment was harmed, the principles of freely pursuing one's life and liberty were harmed. I don't believe that, but I say it to beat you to the punch, Al. I don't believe anyone was harmed. And as the donator, so to speak, of the life of a young American man of impeccable honor, integrity and belief in what is right and good in the fight against those who would do their wickedness again, if they had the chance, I say please tap, bug, search, listen-in, peer, snoop, watch, monitor, whatever it takes, those who exhibit reasons to be wary of.

Let me get this right. The ACLU, not even knowing whether its "client" has been harmed by the searches, files a global lawsuit?

2 suits seek to ban NSA's electronic eavesdropping
Law requiring court approval of monitoring being bypassed, one says

Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

NEW YORK - Two lawsuits were filed Tuesday in federal court that seek to end President Bush's electronic eavesdropping program, saying it is illegal and exceeds his constitutional powers.


The lawsuits � one filed in New York by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the other in Detroit by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups � say the program bypasses safeguards in a 1978 law requiring court approval of electronic monitoring.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is suing Bush, the head of the National Security Agency and the heads of the other major security agencies.

The organization, which represents hundreds of men held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, must now audit old communications to determine whether "anything was disclosed that might undermine our representation of our clients," said Bill Goodman, the center's director.

The Detroit lawsuit, which names the National Security Agency and its director, said the program has impaired plaintiffs' ability to gather information from sources abroad as they try to locate witnesses, represent clients, do research or engage in advocacy.

It was filed by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Greenpeace and individuals on behalf of journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations that communicate with people in the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere.

A spokesman for the Justice Department disputed the lawsuits' assertions.

Bush maintains the program is legal under a congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The 1978 law requiring court approval was established after public fury erupted over surveillance of individuals, including Martin Luther King Jr.

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Scott McClellan lashed out at former Vice President Al Gore and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., for their criticism of Bush.

In a speech Monday, Gore accused the president of "breaking the law repeatedly and insistently."

Also Monday, Clinton called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history and asserted that Republicans run the House like a "plantation" in which the opposition has no opportunity to advance contrary views.

McClellan said, "We know one tends to like or enjoy grabbing headlines. The other one sounds like that the political season may be starting early."

Good points Jeff and John, wish I understood most of them, but any commentary with that much law while using proper grammar must be pretty well on line.

It's like I always say, or sometimes mention anyway: In this rodeo of life, I don't know which is worse, being gored by a bull or bulled by a Gore.

Thanks for the excellent contribution to colorful prose. Politics aside, that is one great line "In this rodeo of life, I don't know which is worse, being gored by a bull or bulled by a Gore."

Thanks, you know I tried to use that in an op ed piece for a local paper during election time, and they threw it out. But I found a better podium from which to editorialize here.

Exit only

Well, it looks like the ACLU has pushed this decision to door number one; the court making a decision.

It looks like the law the article was referring to and the one that the ACLU is claiming Bush violated is FISA the one that I referred to in my previous post.

So if they do rule that this goes against FISA (1978),I wonder what will happen to the former presidents who preformed the warrantless searches while operating, and even claiming authority, under the same rule.

Clinton did not even stop at electronic surveillance.

President Clinton EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949, February 13, 1995:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitutionand the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978("FISA")
...blah, blah, blah....
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...

President Carter
EO 12139, 23 May 1979

blah, blah, blah

..the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order..

Clinton followed up on his little EO by ordering the physical search Aldrich Ames' house without a warrant.

(UPI)
In his newest video, Usama Bin Laden has offered a truce with the American people and is willing to lend his expertise to the U.S. government in helping bring peace to Iraq and Afghanistan. And that's not all -- UBL has decided to plan another attack on America while we think about his generous offer.

The buzz around D.C. is that senators were seen early this morning lining up at the phone banks, jostling for position to be the first one to get UBL on the horn and schmooze from him the answers we have all sought for over 4 years. There were a few holdouts, however. Ears to the ground in the city by the Potomac have related to this reporter that Johnny, Al, Eddie, Sugar from N.Y. and a few others won't use any form of electronic communication until the case against W is finalized and he and his wiretapping scandal are put to bed. Said one senate intern on her way to the 14th Street Cleaners, "They'll come up with their own ways to bring peace to Iraq, ooh, your shoes are cute."

We should have some breathing room and time to consider UBL's offer, though, according to those in the know. It seems Usama has goten word to cell members in Omaha and Toledo that operations against the infidels will be postponed until his and his followers' civil rights, in the form of telephone privacy and options to refuse breath tests are restored, or at least until February.

In a non-related story, the Tattletale has learned that a former Benihana chef and shrimp-tosser, recently placed on probation for negligent homicide by crustacean, has found himself in dutch with the authorities again. Working his new job at the local high school basketball games, selling peanuts, our friend evidently made an errant toss of a bag of goobers, and the Pilskiddler triplets ducked to avoid the airborne bag. When the trio ducked and dove for cover, they knocked over a fan's Diet Coke which poured through the bleachers and into a floor outlet which promptly shorted and blacked-out the auditorium. Pandemonium broke out and word is that one of Anna Ayala's children ended up with a human finger in her box of Cracker Jacks. A lawsuit is said to be in the works.

The Stupid Party have allowed their opponents to once again frame the issue. The NSA, et al, listen in on the conversations of known and reasonably believed to be Al Queada (or other terrorists) who are not in this country. The parties within the country they speak with, intelligence services hear incidently.

But really now: If FDR could intern American citizens and Lincoln had the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, does anyone doubt the president enjoys the power to act in the national interest by listening to our enemies, thereby foiling them? This could be the equivalent of the Enigma decipher and some nut leaks it to a paper? And that paper finds the news "fit to print?" Get your head in the game, folks. This is a WAR. Someone much wiser than I has pointed out that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.