US v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980. Being used as repub talking point

[FogerRox]

If you see a quote like this:

Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, see id. at 914 n.4, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence

This is text from the Motion by Ted Olson, the Solicitor General for the Bush (Administration) Regime. From here-

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html

To read the ruling on Olsens Motion, from the Presiding Judge of the FISA Court, go here-

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fisc051702.html

"These modifications are intended to bring the minimization procedures into accord with the language used in the FISA, and reinstate the bright line used in the 1995 procedures, on which the Court has relied. The purpose of minimization procedures as defined in the Act, is not to amend the statute, but to protect the privacy of Americans in these highly intrusive surveillances and searches, "consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information."

DOnt be fooled by a quote from Olsens Motion. If I read the opinion correctly, nowhere could I find mention of " the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches"

[snowbear]

1. I won't be fooled by them.....

Or their pets....

...........

[FogerRox]

2. gulp-- the dreaded BUSH FUR BALL

I'll be back with more on a Supreme court case that spells out a clearly defined limit on Executive power.

[Scout1071]

3. I called Senator Roberts office and they said this case was their

basis for supporting President Bush.

[FogerRox]

5. After reading the Motion by Ted Olson

and the ruling I dont see how. I'm no lawyer-- but the ruling clearly doesnt go to the motion.

The Ruling was about minimalization, and the primary and secondary purpose of an investigation.

Olsons motion at one point speaks to the presidents authority to conduct warrentless taps.

I've been over the Executive orders by Clinton and Carter, that seem to also have been cited.

The E/Os do allow for a certification process, after which a court order is applied for-- and then sealed, for up to a year. But Bush says he has to re-authorize these taps every 45 days--- IIRC-- I have yet to find a reference to 45 days in FISA law. Or any doc Ive read

On edit--

The Younstown case during the Korean war should trump the shit out of the 1980 Troung case, which, at the level I looked at it, was a FISA review court. Younstown Steel & Tube, clearly deals with the Constitutional issue of Executive authority, Troung does not

[terryg11]

4. so, who is this Troung?

was he a convicted spy? was there a public trial?

[FogerRox]

6. I think so--

There was a foriegn FISA tap-- that became more a Criminal investigation- in 1980. But the FISA court seemed to think the ammended FISA act was fine w/minimalization.

Of course a FISA review court does not decide Constitutional issues like executive authority.