Scott McClellan Spin Zone
Scotty's been watching Bill O'Reilly. Unfortunately, the press is paying attention. Via Daily Kos:
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.
But at the time of the Ames search in 1993 and when Gorelick testified a year later, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act required warrants for electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes, but did not cover physical searches. The law was changed to cover physical searches in 1995 under legislation that Clinton supported and signed.
Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, made the same arguments as McClellan during interviews Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live" and Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
Posts
8 comments:
Which is worse, a warrantless physical search or a warrantless electronic search? I'd say the Clintonesque physical search was far worse. If the Russians, or any other organization wealthy enough to have the equipment, can listen in on your electronic conversations regardless of where you live, why shouldn't the NSA, and without a warrant! Use the airwaves at your risk is my feeling. If you don't want to risk being eavesdropped on, don't use those hndy wireless devices.
I'm going to assume that the above commenter is being facetious.
bad assumption, somewhat like your political persuasion
Whatever your opinion of physical versus electric searches, Clinton acted within the law of the time. It seems increasingly clear that Bush did not. FISA didn't work for him so he went around it and claimed executive privalege. This is a consistent theme with his administration (just look at the recent McCain torture ammendment). What the Russians, or any other country do, has no bearing on what our government should be able to do to its own citizens. Whether you like it or not, we have a Constitution. You don't just bypass it because times are getting rough.
constitutional experts will be discussing this issue forever, what powers does the President have in times of war? did the act of Congress after 9/11 give the President such powers? some argue yes, some no. I'm on the side of the yea sayers, obviously you are not. Let's let the Supreme Court decide; unfortunately it has a poor record of deciding constitutional issues between the President and Congress.
How was Clinton's physical search legal. What is the Fourth Amendment all about?
President Clinton's search was legal as he followed the law according to FISA. The presiden't powers shouldn't change just because we are at war (in my opinion). If you discard our system of checks and balances then we are open to all sorts of abuses. The Founding Fathers managed to craft a Bill of Rights even under the threat of death from the British. I think we can manage to protect ourselves and maintain our freedom at the same time.
are you saying the Ames warrantless physical search was constitutionally legal just because it wasn't prohibited by FISA at the time? don't think so! again, what law superceded the Fourth Amendment in that specific instance to make that search legal? perhaps moveon.org knows.
The Ames search wasn't illegal. The Fourth Amendment does not require warrants in all cases, as has been decided by the Supreme Court. The FBI had reason and probable cause. As you say, perhaps this is an issue the Supreme Court will pick up again in the future.
Post a Comment