Liberal hypocrites (wire-tapping)

[Mulhollanddose]

A Florida couple who admit they taped a recorded a cellular phone conversation involving House Speaker Newt Gingrich and other GOP House leaders on Dec. 21, 1996, have agreed to plead guilty in an agreement announced by the Justice Department Wednesday evening.

The Justice Department says John and Alice Martin, of Columbia County, Fla., have agreed to plead guilty to intentionally intercepting a cellular telephone call in violation of federal law. They have agreed to pay a $5,000 fine each. The violation carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The Martins have publicly acknowledged they taped the Republican cell phone call and provided it to Rep. James McDermott (D-Wash.). It was then turned over to The New York Times.

After the contents of the phone call were reported in the Times, McDermott was widely suspected of leaking the tape. He recused himself from the ethics committee deliberation of Gingrich's case.


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/04/23/email/cellphone/

[fintstone]

December 20, 2005, 9:46 a.m.
Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches
Does anyone remember that?
NRO

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — 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."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security." In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.

[creaturecat]

" In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court". Fint - thanks for the clarification.
Given this post - I assume that you will support criminal charges against Bush.

[Mulhollanddose]

[nostatic]

what the dems did was wrong too.

ok...now where's that hypocrisy? I know I left it around here somewhere...

[gaijindabe]

Originally posted by creaturecat

Given this post - I assume that you will support criminal charges against Bush.

Umm. No.

"the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary."

A computer full of AQ phone numbers and e-mail addresses? I would say that was necessary.

[bryanthompson]

The hypocracy is in the selective outrage we are seeing right now. It was okay then, but it's not now?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
The hypocracy is in the selective outrage we are seeing right now. It was okay then, but it's not now?

Who said it was OK back then?

Gotta love the NeoCon defense mechanism though. Very creative!

[Tobra]

SO, both sides are populated with sketchy characters. How is this supposed to be convincing that it is okay? Saying, "This is what the Clinton administration thought about it, and we agree," is a lot more likely to make me say, STOP, don't give in to the Dark Side!

[stevepaa]

Which ever way the wind blows.

Good for the goose then good for the gander.

Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Badges, we don't need no stinkin' badges.

Don't you know we are at war?

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by nostatic
what the dems did was wrong too.

ok...now where's that hypocrisy? I know I left it around here somewhere...

This isn't about Bush's abuse of power, this is about slandering a sitting President during wartime in order to undermine his credibility. For Democrats and the media to pound Bush falsely, leaking intel gathering information, is the height of hypocrisy. You understanding that what the Democrats did was wrong does not demonstrate that what Bush has done to protect your ass was equally wrong. This false shock that the Democrats are playing is hypocrisy.

[legion]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
The hypocracy is in the selective outrage we are seeing right now. It was okay then, but it's not now?

Bryan, you have a problem. We are your friends and we are here to help.

Bryan, you need to start out by saying: "Hello, my name is Bryan and I am addicted to OT."

(I thought you blocked OT from your router?)

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
The hypocracy is in the selective outrage we are seeing right now. It was okay then, but it's not now?

Bryan, you're back! where were you man?

[bryanthompson]

i had to get in my router settings to add some port forwarding junk, and unchecked the box for a few minutes.

Anyway, i'm not back. I'm sure this thread will end up like EVERY OTHER ONE IN THIS GODFORSAKEN PLACE, and without my help