Comparing Executive Claims – Clinton & Bush
By Denise Best | Related entries in General Politics, In The NewsGiven the opinions offered to date on degree of latitude involving executive powers, I would guess the response to the headline “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches,” would be …
It doesn’t matter who is in the role of President, this is an example of overreaching beyond the defined bounds of the executive branch.
In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches â€â€? including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens â€â€? for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body.
Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.
“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes,” Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, “and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”
My questions are …
- Why wasn’t there the hue and cry then, almost 12 years ago, that’s being demonstrated today?
- What’s so dramatically different now?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 and is filed under General Politics, In The News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 20th, 2005 at 9:56 pm
Speaking for myself, I barely noticed it back then. It didn’t register because there was no chance that Congress or the American people would tolerate it. It was as if he’d announced he had droit du seigneur — the right to have first crack at any virgin. It was laughable.
But with a president panicked by 9/11 and determined to try to scare the American people into ceding power to him? Different situation.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:50 am
Clinton talked (and talked and talked) about lots of things, went on about theories and generalities, and we didn’t pay much attention. That’s because we came to understand he was just into “loving being our President” with no particular agenda except to be President for as long as he could. And be loved. Do something potentially “unpopular” on principle? Not likely. He was a ready, aim, aim, aim person.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:18 am
Gee, I guess it couldn’t possibly be press bias! We have been attacked can’t anybody remember. How many more need to die before this country wakes up.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:03 am
We have been attacked can’t anybody remember. How many more need to die before this country wakes up.
I swear to God that the GOP needs to change it’s descriptive from the “daddy party” to the “I want my mommy party.” Your cowardice is a disgrace to the people who founded this country.
December 21st, 2005 at 9:02 am
to the best of my recollection Clinton did not sign a secret executive order to actually have the NSA conduct these private searches. Or if he did we did not know of it. If he had done that, and it had gotten out, then there would have been a backlash. And go ahead bring up Echelon. Echelon was different, it was sifting through data that was being transmitted, not a direct wiretap on a specific American citizen.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:27 am
I noticed it, and I certainly noticed libertarians bringing the issue up again and again, especially after the attack on the Branch Davidians. But I also noticed Cheney’s remarks on executive privilege back before Bush was elected. I tend to pay more attention to what people in power say than to the actual news.
But as others said, this issue has more urgency because Bush went farther than Clinton ever did. How much of that was due to 9/11, we’ll never know. But we do know that the Bush Administration favored expanding executive privilege even before 9/11.
December 21st, 2005 at 10:39 am
If Bush doesn’t have th authority, then neither did Clinton. I think that the article that Denise links to proves that Clinton’s actions were not ignored.
If there is more attention being paid to Bush’s actions now, I would think that it is because this practice has apparently been used by the Bush adminstration hundreds or thousands of times. Meanwhile, from what I can gather from the article that Denise links to, there was only a single confirmed instance of Clinton using these methods.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:03 pm
I believe that part of the uproar is that the President is not only reserving himself this “right” but is exercising it on a regular basis. Furthermore, he has made efforts to keep this fact from coming to light. Finally, while he was obtaining wiretaps without court order, he was telling the public “a wiretap requires a court order.”
I think that this might be the dramatic difference you seek.
December 21st, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Because that dog won’t hunt. Look, I am not non-biased, I think W is an incompetent slacker. But this site looks to be named Donklephant. So I expect some middle road. All I am seeing is Denise parroting GOP talking points.
From KOS
CLINTON DID NOT ORDER WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF AMERICAN CITIZENS
Here’s what Clinton signed:
You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that Clinton allowed warrantless searches if and only if the AG followed section 302(a)(1). What does section 1822(a) require?
• the “physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers.” Translation: You can’t search American citizens.
• and there is “no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” Translation: You can’t search American citizens.
Moreover, Clinton’s warrant waiver consistent with FISA refers only to physical searches. “Physical searches,” as defined by 1821(5), exclude electronic surveillance.
December 21st, 2005 at 1:56 pm
rob, just which contributor here at Donklephant sticks to the middle of the road? Denise gives a right-of-center viewpoint, just as Justin gives a left-of-center viewpoint. There is no consistently middle-of-the-road contributor here. Sure, Denise can be more strident than Justin, but given the fact that most posts here reflect a left-of-center viewpoint, I think it all more or less balances out.
As for the name, this isn’t “Centerfield” or “The Moderate Voice”, this is “Donklephant”. The imagery is of 2 party lines rather than moderation.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Bill Clinton had congressional oversight.
December 21st, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Please: all of this BS that is being brought up about Bush is political crap…. everything has already been done by past Presidents.
Secret Prisons outside of US – Clinton started that in the mid 1990’s along with the rendition policy….
Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act was signed into law by Carter in ‘78, it was used by every President since then. This isn’t anything new.. Clinton no only had the Echleon program but he had the Carnivore program to monitor the internet e-mails, etc. also.
There have been cases brought before the courts in the past over this very same thing, the Federal courts have always upheld the Constitutional Authority that the President has to warrentless searches for foreign intelligence, they have even said that the FISA creation, in and of itself cannot infringe on or limit the Constitutional Authority that the President already has.
Put this into context here, In the past we have had Presidents that rounded up over 100,000 Japanese Americans and lock them up, without any kind of charge, until the war was over. We have had a President that tried a Congress member with being an Agitator, found him guilty and deported him to the Confederate States, he also had 9 Maryland Congressmen arrested so they couldn’t pull out of the Union. Not to mention he had some reporters arrested and put in jail for writing against him during a war and being agitators….
our Republic never fell down around our ears over these things, because we can be realistic about what needs to be done. What on earth makes you think that it will now???? Those very same ‘wiretaps’ that you are claiming are illegal are what saved the Brooklyn Bridge in NY from being targeted. They have led to addtional captures of terrorists.
Instead of being ‘rational’ we have people being political…. it’s like selling your soul to the Devil.
This crap has already gone through the Federal Courts – it is legal.
December 21st, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Those very same ‘wiretaps’ that you are claiming are illegal are what saved the Brooklyn Bridge in NY from being targeted.
Not true. The plan you were talking about had already been abandoned by the time the suspect in question was picked up, basically because it was a very stupid idea.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:26 pm
When will the Republicans respond to a charge without invoking the name of Clinton? Even if Clinton did eveything as charged, it doesn’t make it right. It’s ironic how the Bush administration came into office promising to change everything, yet every action they take was somehow already taken by Clinton.
What people are really losing sight of is what the debate is about. It’s a red herring for the Republicans to respond to the charges against Bush with arguments for why we need wiretaps. The President has the power to wiretap American citizens. He just needs to go through the FISA court to do it, and can even go to the court after the fact. All of the emotional “we’re at war” sturm und drang is pointless. This isn’t about whether to wiretap; it’s about whether the President can whip up enough fear so he feels comfortable completely circumventing the law.
And if the frightened Republicans want to give up their rights, go ahead. They still don’t have the right to give up mine. And by the way, neither do Jay Rockefeller or Nancy Pelosi, not that I think they did.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:35 pm
Well as it happens this will explain the problem with reasoning from the right.
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/mitchellclintoncartersmackdowndec2105.wmv
December 21st, 2005 at 9:21 pm
The “everyone does it” argument is pretty weak. If we operate on the basis of accepting that anything done once may cointinue to be done in perpetuity we never improve. I’m pretty sure that in my role as a father I shouldn’t be pressing the “everyone does it” argument on my kids.
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:17 pm
I don’t think the argument is “everyone does it” as much as is “why is everyone so upset at it NOW, when everyone does it”?
But, I have to agree with Chris, and I’m part of the GOP – I’m really sick of my fellow party mates bringing up Clinton… What was he, a role model?