And claimed he had the “inherent authority” to do so
At the funeral of Corretta Scott King, former President Jimmy Carter made a back-handed attack onPresident Bush’s terrorist surveillance program by comparing the Kennedy Clan’s illegal wire taps on the Martin Luther and Correta King with those on current known foreign terrorist suspects.
Well, why are we not surprised to find out that former President Carter authorized warrantless surveillance for national security purposes when he was President in 1977?
But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.
The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men’s rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the “inherent authority” to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is “conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.”
The position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity that President Carter inapproriately attacked at Mrs. King’s funeral.
Jimmy Carter may not have been the worst President in U.S. history (but he is very close to the bottom of that list). But he has proven that he is the worst person to have ever held that position.
***
OTHERS:
- Greg at Rhymes With Right isn’t impressed with former President Carter, either — “He [President Carter] condemned activity that he himself engaged in and defended — and he knew it. That makes him a hypocritical SOB of the first order. Too bad we cannot impeach him retroactively.”
- Ed at Captain’s Quarters uses the H word to describe President Carter, too — It also shows what a complete hypocrite Carter has become in his bitter pursuit to damage George Bush in any way possible.
- Heather at Lady Heather of Suburbia chimes in — “…he’s either now saying he was wrong then, or, President Bush doesn’t have the same powers that he (and President Clinton) had during their presidencies.
- Rob from Three Sources wonders —”Since Democrats are hot lately on the idea of stare decisis, I wonder if the fact that it was ruled “ok” by the 4th Circuit matters.”
- Rob at Say Anything summarizes why Congress doesn’t have a dog in this hunt:
The ruling states warrantless monitoring taking place domestically for the primary purpose of gathering intelligence on foreign threats falls under the inhereht powers of the executive branch.
That is an important word, because “inherent” powers means powers laid out for the chief executive in the Constitution. Any statute passed by Congress – FISA, for instance – cannot trump the President’s inherent, constitutional powers. Congress cannot remove the President’s constitutional power to veto legislation (as laid out in Article I) and they cannot remove his constitutional power to gather foreign intelligence domestically without a warrant.
Linked at Stuck on Stupid, Stop the ACLU, Everyman Chronicles, and Jo’s Cafe
My Muslim Students Speak about the Danish Boycott » Rhymes With Right links with: Jimmy Carter — Hypocritical SOB » Rhymes With Right links with: An Experiment In Open Trackbacking — February 11-12, 2006 » UrbanGrounds links with:President Carter Used Warrantless Electronic Surveillance » Stuck On Stupid links with: The *PIAPS Factor (Redux) Trackback Party & Linkfest: Weekend Edition
Lynn Swann gets weepyUrbanGrounds trackbacked withPresident Carter Used Warrantless Electronic Surveillance
, on February 12, 2006, 07:24 PM Excerpt: Scott @ Powerline has more on when Carter spied,, and Ed Morrissey when he spied and lied….More @ John Stephenson’s and Rhymes With Right » UrbanGrounds links with:President Carter Used Warrantless Electronic Surveillance, on February 12, 2006, 07:25 PM Excerpt: Why are we not surprised to find out that former President Carter authorized warrantless surveillance for national security purposes when he was President in 1977? …
Pings:UrbanGrounds
Political Satire Fake News – The Nose On Your Face linked with Top 9 Signs Your Religion May Not Be So Peaceful Point Five linked with Moderate Muslim Demonstration Turns Violent UrbanGrounds linked withPresident Carter Used Warrantless Electronic Surveillance Slapstick Politics linked with Rocky Mountain Values II–Denver Paper A Bastion of Free Speech and Liberty Mark in Mexico linked with Shocking Images: Muslim & Hindu anger over Valenti Rhymes With Right linked with
Dhimmi Carter Hypocrite On Spying
Hat tip: Rhymes With Right
Via Washington Times
Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar sur…
Good lord, you people are stupid. This is exactly why the FISA law was written.
Nice try, though. Keep on trying to justify a president who violates your rights.
Dan blathers, Good lord, you people are stupid. This is exactly why the FISA law was written.
How can FISA trump the Constitution Dan?
Explain yourself…or just continue to call names like a juvenile.
Likwid- Dan is right- you raise a different issue. The post acts as if nothing had changed from 1977 to 2006 and uses the occassion to libel President Carter.
If you want to argue that FISA is unconstitutional that’s a different story. But the fact that it was unchallenged by 5 Presidents over 28 years is going to be a strong precedent.
Even beyond the issue of precendent I find it incredible that ‘conservatives’ are willing to give the executive branch unchecked authority for the duration of this war- 25 years? 50 years? Forever?
In my mind, at least, it’s clear that the unending nature of this war undermines the claim that that the President can constitutionally act without Congressional oversight.
All this coming from the people who were so worried about civil liberties when President Clinton extended FISA to included physical searches.
The most satisfying moment resulting from a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential election might be watching ‘conservatives’ regain their concern for civil liberties and checks and balances.
Well, wetshoe, the short answer to your question is that FISA does not trump the Constitution (neither does 9-11). But unspecified (inherent) powers are broader where they have not been addressed by Congress.
Yes. The warrantless wiretapping was why FISA was created. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT. Because a need for surveilance of foreigners for inltelligence purposes was necessary. But doing it warrantless was seen to be an overreach of Exective power. So the law was created.
And the Bush broke the law and ignored the law because he believes he is above the law – that he IS the law. Well, he is not and an honest conservative would know that this is another step toward authoritarinaism. Save Democracy – vote Democratic.
This isn’t that difficult, Eddie.
The 4th Circuit court ruled unanimously in 1977 that the executive branch has the “inherent authority” to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is “conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons.”
Now, as you probalby also know (but just hate to admit), the only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, is through an amendment to the Constitution.
Which they haven’t done.
As badly as the Left wants the President to have broken the law, he hasn’t. And saying it over and over again doesn’t make it true.
Robbie, partisan politics aside, is this really the country you want to live in where the executive can tap phone calls with no counter balance?
What’s the difference between giving the President this authority and allowing him to search the homes of anyone while they are not there? Just because the technology makes it easier it doesn’t change the principles.
It’s ironic that the right claims that terrorists hate us for our freedom.
Preston it’s because I believe our President has the best interest of our country and its citizens in his heart and mind.
I strongly believe the President is using this authority as he has described it: to monitor foreign communications from known al Queda contacts and leads.
I don’t believe, as many on the Left and some on the Right have illogically jumped to, that the President is using this same authority outside of that constraint. I think it’s a huge leap and shows an amazing degree of cyniscim to think that the President is using this constitutional authority to monitor ordinary citizens in any other fashion.
So, let me correct your initial but flawed question:
“…is this really the country you want to live in where the executive can tap foreign phone calls from known al Queda contacts or leads with no counter balance?”
Because that’s what’s really happening. And the answer is “Yes”, that’s precisely the kind of country I want to live in. One with a President that is doing every thing he is legally allowed to do in order to protect the citizens of his country — despite an obstructionist minority party.
I’m not advocating nor would I support in anyway the President being able to conduct warrantless domestic spying on American citizens. But that’s not what’s happening here.
You think it will lead to that. I don’t.
I’m not advocating nor would I support in anyway the President being able to conduct warrantless domestic spying on American citizens. But that’s not what’s happening here.
Sources in the government disagree with your assessment:
Bush Administration uses U.S. Army to spy on war critics.
Bush Administration uses FBI to spy on war critics.
Bush Administration forced to turn over records revealing FBI is spying on Bush critics.
Bush Administration uses Pentagon to spy on Bush critics.
The Bush Administration may have wiretapped a CNN reporter.
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/2/6/1628/90153
I have to say I find this quote to be a bit chilling: Preston it’s because I believe our President has the best interest of our country and its citizens in his heart and mind. You’re probably right yet the Founding Fathers recognized the dangers of power and developed a government that dispersed that power- even if all of the wiretapping is indeed focused on al Qaeda the powers of the Executive branch must be balanced.
I followed links over here from Obsidian Wings, as I was curious (and I did follow both your links and Hilzoy’s
).
You have a point here, I think — but I also think a lot of the concern over the current wiretapping is the breadth of the sweep, which doesn’t seem comparable to the 1977 Carter case. I’m not comfortable with warrantless surveillance in general, but IIRC, even the FISA law does provide for it, provided that there’s a reasonable belief a warrant would have been granted based on the specifics of the case. Based on the Bush administration’s own figures, in the current scenario, we’re talking about 10 good leads in the last few years out of thousands of taps per year (and those taps are, in fact, based on millions of automated “keyword” scans). So I think it’s important to consider, at the very least, whether the current surveillance scheme is circumventing FISA precisely because of an administration belief that the warrants would never be granted, even after the fact.
Also, as to your last comment: with all due respect, granting a president a specific power that you acknowledge has a wide potential for abuse because you trust that particular person to use that power wisely is a terrible idea. The powers are not being granted to the person, they are being granted to the office. Any time you think that a given power is a good idea, ask yourself if you would stillthink it was a good idea if John Kerry had won the last election, or if Hillary Clinton wins the next. If your answer becomes “no,” then the power is not a good idea.
I’m sure you all realize that your employer has the legal right to watch and listen to practically everything you do on the job. Unless you work at home, you have virtually no privacy. I’m not saying companies all do it, but you’d be surprised at what they can do. So…am I concerned about the government hearing one of my phone conversations compared to what my employer can do…no…
http://www.epic.org/privacy/workplace/
What are you saying, Dianne? I’m all for privacy rights with regard to employers as well. (In fact, just being on the internet at all you are likely giving up privacy unless you are taking serious steps to protect it)If you are seriously concerned with the unfettered power of corporations I think you know which of the two parties will at least make some small gestures…
But regardless- the government has the power to put people in jail and use violent force. I’m going to guess that Martin Luther King was more concerned with the FBI spying on him than ATT.