GOP talking point, Clinton/Carter did warrantless spying, need...

[usregimechange]

refuter juice.

[wryter2000]

1. Oh, man

Clinton and Carter were for it if the applicable laws were followed. There's a wonderful clip of a news anchor pointing out the RW's utter dishonesty on what Clinton said. They simply cut out the phrase that the applicable laws had to be followed.

[usregimechange]

5. I have seen that on the EX orders but did they do it and did they

obtain warrants? They are claiming they did. I doubt it is true but not sure where to research this. Googling now.

[wryter2000]

9. Media Matters to the rescue

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002

Read #4

[bluestateguy]

2. Here's the refutation

It's false, that the refutation.

It amazes me that the same people who think that everything Clinton and Carter did was bad an illegitimate are the same people who use the "Clinton did it too" defense to justify their child's actions.

[NMDemDist2]

3. tell em to prove it, since it's not true, they can't n/t

[acmejack]

13. Exactly, they thrive on making unsubstantiated assertions.

They count on their bs being accepted as true because they say it is. By this time we should all be keenly aware of their propensity to create "facts" whenever it is convenient to whatever fiction it is they are attempting to peddle at the moment.

[GrantDem]

4. Courtesy of MediaMatters...

Clinton, Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens

Another tactic conservatives have used to defend the Bush administration has been to claim that it is not unusual for a president to authorize secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without a court order, asserting that Democratic presidents have also done so. For example, on the December 21 edition of Fox News's Special Report, host Brit Hume claimed that former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton issued executive orders "to perform wiretaps and searches of American citizens without a warrant."

But as the ThinkProgress weblog noted on December 20, executive orders on the topic by Clinton and Carter were merely explaining the rules established by FISA, which do not allow for warrantless searches on "United States persons." Subsequent reports by NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and The Washington Post also debunked the conservative talking point while noting that the claim was highlighted in the December 21 RNC press release.

From ThinkProgress, which documented how internet gossip Matt Drudge selectively cited from the Clinton and Carter executive orders to falsely suggest they authorized secret surveillance of U.S. citizens without court-obtained warrants:

What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) <50 U.S.C. 1822(a)> of the Act, 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 requires the Attorney General to certify is 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.

The entire controversy about Bush's program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton's 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

What Carter's executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain "the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party." So again, no U.S. persons are involved.

[usregimechange]

8. Clearly the ex orders did not authorize but did they do so?

This would be a topic worthy of an article in a major media source I would think.

[GrantDem]

11. Here's the link...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002

The highlighting places a little more emphasis on the importance.

[melody]

6. They don't need proof, they just pull it out of their sphincters

Just the fact it's a GOP "talking point" should immediately call it into question.

[jobycom]

7. Wouldn't matter if it were true. Bush/Cheney broke the law. Even if

they could prove Carter and Clinton broke it, too (and they can't), it wouldn't exonerate Bush. Serial killing wasn't made legal just because Jack the Ripper was never caught.

[Rose Siding]

10. Here's a link to some refutations from Think Progress

Several posts cover the topic at this link

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?s=clinton%2C+warrant&SubmitButtom=Search

[DanCa]

12. Irrelevant why do they pass blame on others?

I thought that this was the party of personal responsibility.

[usregimechange]

14. Excellent point, think I will use myself in LTTE

[LSK]

15. they did it under the previsions of THE LAW

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

[usregimechange]

16. Here is more:

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."

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 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.

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=914257&ct=1742133