Obama administration Refuses to Release Bush’s Legal Excuse for Illegal Surveillance

[The Straight Story]

Obama Refuses to Release Bush’s Legal Excuse for Illegal Surveillance

The Obama administration has refused to declassify a secret memo from the George W. Bush presidency that justified the warrantless spying conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

Matthew Aid, a writer who’s covered the NSA and surveillance policy, requested a copy of a 2001 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion by John Yoo that discussed the legal grounds for electronic spying without permission from a special federal court. The Department of Justice mostly denied Aid’s Freedom of Information Act request, saying the redacted information in the OLC opinion was “classified, covered by non-disclosure provisions contained in other federal statutes, and is protected by the deliberative process privilege.”

One thing from the memo that was released by the Justice Department was a brief assertion involving the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which dictates when the government can snoop on those deemed a threat to the nation. The statement read that “unless Congress made a clear statement in FISA that it sought to restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless searches in the national security area—which it has not—then the statute must be construed to avoid such a reading.”

As noted by Steven Aftergood in the Secrecy News blog, some members of Congress have taken exception to the Bush administration’s insistence that FISA does not restrict the White House, unless specifically stated.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obama_Refuses_to_Release_Bushs_Legal_Excuse_for_Illegal_Surveillance_110829

[Bluebear]

1. When does his transparency promise actually kick in?

[frylock]

2. as soon as they win in 2012..

for reals this time.

[Bluebear]

4. 2012 - this time we really, really mean it

[CelticThunder]

3. Gotta protect the Bush admin's criminal ass, so the next admiistration protects theirs.

[roguevalley]

5. bingo. makes you wonder what obama has done that will make us all cry

[OnyxCollie]

6. LOL!

"Constitutional scholar"

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

7. Kick

[Major Hogwash]

8. So, unless a bill specifically lists all of the things it does not allow, it is allowable?

According to that court ruling.
Well, we need to add stupendously long and unnecessary pages to every bill passed now to prevent another President from saying "it didn't say so" again.

That's like saying people shouldn't chew on glass shards because the bottles don't have warning labels telling people not to.
If someone chews on glass shards, that would just be stupid.

But, Bush was spying on Americans long before 9/11, so this ruling is just bullshit.

[Major Hogwash]

9. This is the same stupid court that said "we just assume shit" -- because we can!

Post FISA --
(1978)

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

In the United States v. Nicholson, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the Sixth Amendment.

However, in a third case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “ll 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.”

This last paragraph is from 2002, post 9/11, when we lost a lot of our freedom in this country.

These 3 paragraphs are from wikipedia, for the FISA act.

[Major Hogwash]

10. There's a big difference between "inside" this country and "outside" this country.

Clearly no one challenged the United States about spying on American citizens outside of this country, but the consequences of having them spy on American citizens inside this country should wake everyone up to the fact that this country is headed in the wrong direction.

We are becoming a fascist nation due to stupendously stupid rulings like this one from this dinky court. Their ruling should be appealed, and then overturned.

[OnyxCollie]

11. Don't trust Wikipedia.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/OnyxCollie/17

The Bush Administration contends it has authority to conduct warrantless surveillance in the United States under its Commander-in-Chief authority. In the OLA Letter, the Administration asserts:

This constitutional authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) (“(A)ll 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….”)

This is a misleading statement. The full quotes from In re Sealed Case are

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 (p. 48).

and

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. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable. (Pp. 48, 49).

In the Truong case, the surveillance was done pre-FISA (629 F.2d 908 at 4). It is true that before FISA, courts had ruled that due to the complexity of conducting foreign intelligence gathering, the strict requirements necessary to obtain warrants under a law enforcement purpose would hamper the ability of the President. What In re Sealed Case illustrates is that FISA allows the President to conduct surveillance without the restrictions of a standard warrant for law enforcement purposes, but with the safeguards necessary to protect Fourth Amendment guaranties.

[Major Hogwash]

12. I don't care if you don't trust wikipedia.

I don't trust any anonymous sources on the internet.

[OnyxCollie]

13. Then why cite Wikipedia?

Especially when it's wrong, as I pointed out in my journal, which included links and citations?

[Major Hogwash]

14. Because I wasn't talking to you.

I think everyone can read and decide for themselves what is what.

[OnyxCollie]

15. You can't.

But then, you never came across as being intelligent.

[Major Hogwash]

16. I just did.

LoL

[OnyxCollie]

17. Oh, okay.

You got me, I guess.

:eyes:

[Bluebear]

18. :)

[Bluebear]

19. :)