What about Clinton authorizing warrantless searches?

[Kingshakabobo]

It came up during a "discussion" with my "libertarian" co-worker. I'm beginning to have my doubts about this guy I just met since he has already brought up Waco, Ruby Ridge and Jamie Goerlick(sp?). He says he's a "true" conservative.

Can someone explain to me what Clinton did and what the difference is?

My basic understanding is that it related to the FBI doing a sneak and peak against a suspected spy. Did he get a warrant after the fact?

Thanking you in advance.

[ET Awful]

1. Do a search re: Aldrich Ames and you'll have your answer.

At the time it occurred, FISA did not cover physical searches and Clinton's administration operated in strict compliance with FISA. After the AMES case, FISA was specifically expanded to cover physical searches, and Clinton signed that expansion into law.

Just study up on the Ames case and you'll have your answer.

[medeak]

2. yep

before FISA.... not the same circumstances

[ET Awful]

9. To be 100% accurate . . .

not before FISA, but before FISA offered any authority re: physical searches. FISA was enacted in 1978.

[Kingshakabobo]

14. How did a warrantless search EVER square with the 4th.....

amendment?

Would I be correct in asserting that Clinton actually expanded our protections under the constitution by bringing warrantless physical searches under the umbrella of FISA?

[ET Awful]

17. You would indeed be correct.

Previously, under FISA, physical searches did not require warrants, and could be conducted without a warrant pursuant to FISA. After the amendment signed into law by Clinton, FISA was expanded to require warrants for physical searches as well.

In any event, Clinton operated within FISA without question.

[Kingshakabobo]

22. Did FISA specifically "OK" warrantless physical searches prior to.........

the amendment? Or was it something not covered and, therefor, an assumed power of the POTUS?

[ET Awful]

24. Not covered under FISA, so authority was presumed to my understanding

That is why a specific amendment was passed and signed into law.

[Kingshakabobo]

25. Thanks for your help on this.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[zbdent]

3. Asshole brought up Ruby Ridge

and he believes that Clinton did that, too???

That was Bush 41 . . .

[Kingshakabobo]

6. He started blabbering about it but I cut him off.

I don't even know what his point was.

[eve_was_framed]

23. Ruby Ridge is usually a buz word for militant leanings and the veeeeeerryy

right.

[rpgamerd00d]

4. READ THIS - PRINT IT OUT

[brainshrub]

7. The graphic is not entirely correct.

There are certain cases where the govt can do a physical search without a warrant. (ie: If the police hear screaming and cries for help from your house.)

Warrantless wiretaps of Americans, on the other hand, is strictly illegal.

[brainshrub]

5. Here you go. (Very good essay, if I do say so myself.)

Here is the difference:

Aldrich Ames spy case is not an example of illegal warrantless wiretaps or searches by the Clinton Administration.

While it is true that there is some legal framework for warrantless searches, it's warrantless wiretaps that are at issue here. Republicans are attempting to blur the line between the two in a vain attempt to muddy the debate. <snip>

In other words, if the feds wanted to tap a suspects phone because they thought he was dealing in child porn, they'd be forced to acquire a warrant first. However, the AG can authorize a warrantless search if they have probable cause that an American is an agent of a foreign power.

It's important to note that even in such a case, the executive order specifically states that the government may not ignore FISA.

Here's the main point:

[Kingshakabobo]

8. Deja Vu. I'm reading, as we speak, what appears to be your blog.

LOL At first I though you were plagiarizing the other guy till I read your screen name. Sometimes I forget there is an internets outside DU...thanks!


:)

[brainshrub]

11. That's funny.

I'm laughing because there recently was a blogger going around and plagiarizing my work. She also got Jaundice James, another DUer.

I'm happy to report that the content-thief in question was not a member of this forum.

[Kingshakabobo]

10. Soooo, if I'm reading correctly, warrantless searches...

of suspected "foreign agents" was legal prior to the Clinton amended FISA??

And wire tapping of suspected agents was specifically outlawed in 1978.

[brainshrub]

15. Yes.

The courts consider wairetaps and surveillance more intrusive than physical searches, therefore they have ruled that the govt must obtain a warrant for them.

[Kingshakabobo]

21. I still don't get how warrantless searches of citizens was EVER legal

according to the 4th amendment to the constitution? FISA or no FISA

[brainshrub]

26. I suggest you read these two cases:

VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT 47J, PETITIONER v. WAYNE ACTON 1995
Warrantless drug testing of school athletes.


GRIFFIN v. WISCONSIN, 483 U.S. 868 (1987)
Searching people on probation without a warrant.

These will give you some context into how the courts deal with warrantless searches.

[eggman67]

28. Yeah, and frankly I consider this dangerous ground.

The implication is that prior to FISA the CIC did in fact have inherent Constituional authority. OK fine, then how can a normal statute rescind or restrict power granted by the Constitution? It can't, essentially rendering the FISA statute itself unconstitutional. A statute passed by Congress cannot alter a power granted by the Constitution. I'm not saying the power really is there, but that was the argument at the time in the Ames case.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying don't be surprised when this argument gets trotted out, and you know how it's going to go when it gets to the SCOTUS.

[Ksec]

13. question for ya

"In other words, if the feds wanted to tap a suspects phone because they thought he was dealing in child porn, they'd be forced to acquire a warrant first. However, the AG can authorize a warrantless search if they have probable cause that an American is an agent of a foreign power."

So if a suspect is suspected to be an agent or a foreign terrorist, are warrantless wiretaps legal or not?

[brainshrub]

18. Not.

Even in cases of kiddie porn, the govt must obtain a warrant for a phone tap.

The govt can conduct a warrantless search if they have probable cause that the American is an agent of a foreign power.

Even if the suspect is suspected of being a foreign terrorist, the govt must obtain a warrant if they want to wiretap. (Keep in mind that warrants can be issued in retrospect.)

The court simply wants a review for each case to make sure abuse isn't happening.

Keep in mind that the govt does not need a warrant to wiretap a Russian making a call to Kuwait from China. This deals with Americans and American residents.

[Ksec]

19. OK Thanks brainshrub

I just wanted to make sure I had this crystal clear in my head.

[PunkPop]

12. What about it?

First of all, and most importantly, as other posters have pointed out Clinton didn't break the law.

But besides that, who cares what Clinton did? Does Clinton's term as president serve as complete legal precendent for what future presidents can and cannot do. God, these people are idiots.

JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY DID SOMETHING IN THE PAST AND GOT AWAY WITH IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OK TO DO IT NOW. I think my mom might have taught me that one when I was 7.

[Kingshakabobo]

16. I agree. Someone, in another thread, said repugs.....

must think of Clinton as the pope since he was able to waive his hand and make his dictates legal or moral.

I don't believe in answering every "Clinton did it" burp but I'm just trying to get a handle on what I know to be complete bullshit.


Mike Mallloy cracks me up when he does his baby talk voice: "Clinton did it Clinton did it"

[blm]

20. Waco was a 4yr investigation by Bush1's ATF and they hurried to bring it

to a close before Clinton people settled in. They talked Reno into it by exaggerating some of the evidence - even though true, it was still exaggerated as an emergency.

Ruby Ridge happened during Bush1, and the freepers refuse to get that point through their skulls, because they don't WANT to hear it.

[realisticphish]

27. ah, libertarians

republicans who want to smoke pot :D

(no offense to REAL libertarians on DU)