Debunking Republicants BS: Borrowed from American Progress Action fund: Watch out for more Republican lies
NATIONAL SECURITY
Warrantless Spying Apologetics Continue
Concern over President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program is growing. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret FISA Court, took the extraordinary step of resigning on Monday "in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program." Associates of Judge Robertson, who was appointed to the court by late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said he had "privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work."
Also yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators, including Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), called "for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program."Meanwhile, the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress continue to mount defenses of the President's activities. Some are simply rhetorical flourish: Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said on Monday, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) retort, borrowed from Patrick Henry, was fitting: "Give me liberty or give me death."
But other defenses of the program require deeper analysis: President Bush has argued that his authority to spy on Americans without a court order derives from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after September 11. Others have issued defenses that boil down to the claim, "President Clinton did it too." None are accurate.
DEBUNKING THE WAR RESOLUTION MYTH: President Bush said on Monday that he did not have to secure warrants to spy on Americans because "after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the same case, in greater detail. But Congress clearly did not intend for the AUMF passed after 9/11 to authorize such activities.
When the authorization was debated on September 14, 2001, members of Congress were extremely clear about the limited authority it gave the President. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) noted that it provided "no new or additional grant of powers to the President." Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) argued, "Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept." Several additional statements here.
DEBUNKING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MYTH: Conservative activist Matt Drudge yesterday posted the following headline on his popular website: "Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search on Americans Without Court Order." This is false. Drudge highlights one sentence from an executive order issued by President Clinton in February 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order." But the order also includes the following text: "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act (FISA), 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 of FISA requires the Attorney General to certify that 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. In stark contrast, Bush’s program permits, for the first time ever, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Neither Clinton’s 1995 executive order, nor President Carter's 1979 executive order (which Drudge also claims allows warrantless searches of Americans) authorizes that.
DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony that "the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under FISA. It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.
The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore.
DEBUNKING THE ECHELON MYTH: Another variation of the "Clinton did it" argument involves a top-secret surveillance program employed by the Clinton administration, code-named Echelon. The conservative outlet NewsMax presents the basic case: "During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks." This is false. The Echelon program complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained.
Then-CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00: "We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."
Warrantless Spying Apologetics Continue
Concern over President Bush's warrantless domestic spying program is growing. U.S. District Judge James Robertson, one of 11 members of the secret FISA Court, took the extraordinary step of resigning on Monday "in protest of President Bush's secret authorization of a domestic spying program." Associates of Judge Robertson, who was appointed to the court by late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, said he had "privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work."
Also yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators, including Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), called "for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program."Meanwhile, the Bush administration and its supporters in Congress continue to mount defenses of the President's activities. Some are simply rhetorical flourish: Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said on Monday, "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead." Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) retort, borrowed from Patrick Henry, was fitting: "Give me liberty or give me death."
But other defenses of the program require deeper analysis: President Bush has argued that his authority to spy on Americans without a court order derives from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed by Congress after September 11. Others have issued defenses that boil down to the claim, "President Clinton did it too." None are accurate.
DEBUNKING THE WAR RESOLUTION MYTH: President Bush said on Monday that he did not have to secure warrants to spy on Americans because "after September the 11th, the United States Congress also granted me additional authority to use military force against al Qaeda." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made the same case, in greater detail. But Congress clearly did not intend for the AUMF passed after 9/11 to authorize such activities.
When the authorization was debated on September 14, 2001, members of Congress were extremely clear about the limited authority it gave the President. Rep. James McGovern (D-MA) noted that it provided "no new or additional grant of powers to the President." Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) argued, "Some people say that is a broad change in authorization to the Commander in Chief of this country. It is not. It is a very limited concept." Several additional statements here.
DEBUNKING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER MYTH: Conservative activist Matt Drudge yesterday posted the following headline on his popular website: "Clinton Executive Order: Secret Search on Americans Without Court Order." This is false. Drudge highlights one sentence from an executive order issued by President Clinton in February 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order." But the order also includes the following text: "Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act (FISA), 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 of FISA requires the Attorney General to certify that 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. In stark contrast, Bush’s program permits, for the first time ever, warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Neither Clinton’s 1995 executive order, nor President Carter's 1979 executive order (which Drudge also claims allows warrantless searches of Americans) authorizes that.
DEBUNKING THE GORELICK MYTH: A related argument was made yesterday by Byron York in a National Review article titled "Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches." The article cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony that "the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes." Sen. Cornyn cited the testimony several times yesterday. What York obscures is that, at the time of Gorelick's testimony, physical searches were not covered under FISA. It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches were not covered by FISA. They weren't. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.
The distinction is clear. The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed FISA as a set of recommendations they could ignore.
DEBUNKING THE ECHELON MYTH: Another variation of the "Clinton did it" argument involves a top-secret surveillance program employed by the Clinton administration, code-named Echelon. The conservative outlet NewsMax presents the basic case: "During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks." This is false. The Echelon program complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained.
Then-CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00: "We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department."
Comments