Surveillance Courts upholds Bush on Warrantless Wiretapping

The New York Times reports that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review - the specialized federal appeals court created by the 1978 FISA statute to rule on questions involving national security surveillance - has reaffirmed that the President of the United States has inherent constitutional authority to monitor international communications without court permission.

A federal intelligence court, in a rare public opinion, issued a major ruling validating the power of the president and Congress to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.

...

"In validating the government’s wide authority to collect foreign intelligence, it may offer legal credence to the Bush administration’s repeated assertions that the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping."

Click to expand...

Yeah, it may... :roll:

Translation: it does offer legal credence to the administration's assertion of such constitutional authority.

h/t to Andy McCarthy at NRO.

That's ridiculous. What part of the constitution says that?

Yay!
:bravo:

Kernel Sanders said:

That's ridiculous. What part of the constitution says that?

Click to expand...

Says what?

JMak said:

Says what?

Click to expand...

the president has constitutional authority to act without specific court approval in ordering national security eavesdropping.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering what part of the constitution gives him that authority

Kernel Sanders said:

I'm wondering what part of the constitution gives him that authority

Click to expand...

Well, the FISA Court of Review, created by Congress to act as an appellate jurisdiction for the FISA Court, has ruled before (In re: Sealed Case) that the president has an inherent authority from the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant.

"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 information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power.

Click to expand...

It's nice to see a little vindication for Bush on matters he's been wrongly demonized on. Shame people put politics before country, and abuse the Constitution for their own outlets of rage.

And this is one of those areas where the deranged ones on the left argued that Bush was behaving as a King as he allegedly ignored Congress and ignored FISA.

Meanwhile, what In Re Sealed (2001) demonstrates is that the administration consistently sought guidance from the FISA Court in creating procedures to administer this surveillance program. And that the administration went even further by appealing to the FISA Court of Review which was subsequently empaneled for the first time since FISA was enacted. So not only was the administration working within the law but that it also responded to the FISA Court's directions and subsequently adhered to the FISA Court of Review's ruling.

This example also reveals again how congressional power was bumping up against presidential power. FISA is a legislative tool designed to limit a President's authority. Since, and including, Carter, all US Presidents have claimed such an inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance despite FISA's existence. Bush was bucking that legislative encroachment and forcefully (and rightly) pushing back.

He's 2 for 2 on this stuff...Obama should be thanking him.

Kernel Sanders said:

I'm wondering what part of the constitution gives him that authority

Click to expand...

Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The protection afforded by the 4th is against unreasonable searches and seizues, not ALL searches and seizures.

Thus, not ALL phone taps require a warrant, just those that would be otherwise deemed 'unreasonabe'.

Further, the 4th amendment really only comes into play when the governemnt brings a case to trial. Most of the information from these taps is used to act against terrorists somehere other than here, in some manner other than a trial.

JMak said:

He's 2 for 2 on this stuff...Obama should be thanking him.

Click to expand...

Want to have fun?

Make a bet with a liberal, taking the side that Obama will continue to use these warantless wiretaps.

Be sure you get him to bet big.

iirc, the bush admin sought to also circumvent the fisa courts and guideline