Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US News: The Letter of the Law (physical searches)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:48 PM
Original message
US News: The Letter of the Law (physical searches)
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi.htm

In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval. Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News. "There was a fair amount of discussion at Justice on the warrantless physical search issue," says a former senior FBI official. "Discussions about--if happened--where would the information go, and would it taint cases."

FBI Director Robert Mueller was alarmed by the proposal, the two officials said, and pushed back hard against it. "Mueller was personally very concerned," one official says, "not only because of the blowback issue but also because of the legal and constitutional questions raised by warrantless physical searches." FBI spokesman John Miller said none of the FBI's senior staff are aware of any such discussions and added that the bureau has not conducted "physical searches of any location without consent or a judicial order."

In December, the New York Times disclosed the NSA's warrantless electronic surveillance program, resulting in an angry reaction from President Bush. It has not previously been disclosed, however, that administration lawyers had cited the same legal authority to justify warrantless physical searches. But in a little-noticed white paper submitted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Congress on January 19 justifying the legality of the NSA eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers made a tacit case that President Bush also has the inherent authority to order such physical searches. In order to fulfill his duties as commander in chief, the 42-page white paper says, "a consistent understanding has developed that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches and surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes." The memo cites congressional testimony of Jamie Gorelick, a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, in 1994 stating that the Justice Department "believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

"Black-bag jobs." Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse says the white paper cited the Gorelick testimony simply to bolster its legal defense of the NSA's electronic surveillance program. Roehrkasse points out that Justice Department lawyers have told Congress that the NSA program "described by the president does not involve physical searches." But John Martin, a former Justice Department attorney who prosecuted the two most important cases involving warrantless searches and surveillance, says the department is sending an unambiguous message to Congress. "They couldn't make it clearer," says Martin, "that they are also making the case for inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless physical searches."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MissWaverly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. another step closer to the abyss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is the one...Everyone be sure to recommend this one.
Edited on Sat Mar-18-06 07:57 PM by TomInTib
KO was talking about this last night.

If this doesn't cause outrage nationwide, I'm headed to Costa Rica.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
3.  "Don't worry, Mr. President, we have Kansas surrounded." nt
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. I don't think a king of England had this power 300 years ago. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
many a good man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Every man was king of his household
English common law decreed that the King's authority ended at your doorstep. Inside your house the King couldn't touch you. Inside your house YOU were the king.

The Quartering Act of 1765 violated this central tenet of English citizenship and led American colonists to rebel. It consequently led directly to the establishment of the Third Amendment and indirectly to the Fourth, as well as being the basis for the unwritten right to privacy inherent in the Bill of Rights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
daleo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
22. Good information. Thanks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RazzleDazzle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #10
24. I didn't know all that. Fabulous info. Explains a lot. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. Nixon thought he had this kind of power.
Look what happened to him. But, then again, what do you expect when a lot of the senior administration officials were mid-level true believers in the Nixon Admin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is so stupid (re; the Clinton legal opinion)
I've heard again and again that the Clinton administration supported changing the law to regulate physical searches through FISA and the administration absolutely never challenged the legality of THOSE statutory restrictions, which render the previous opinion obsolete. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gelliebeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. Keith Olbermann
was talking about this Friday night on Countdown with Jonathon Turley and even said that this article will be the dominate debate in Washington next week----Here is a K&R to kick it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. The money paragraph
Martin, who has handled more intelligence-oriented criminal cases than anyone else at the Justice Department, puts the issue in stark terms: "The failure to allow it to be used in court is a concession that it is an illegal surveillance."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
9. OMG They wouldn't DENY that they'd spied on this guy's lawyer
without a warrant-

snip>
In October, Immergut wrote to Nelson reassuring him that the FBI would not target terrorism suspects' lawyers without warrants and, even then, only "under the most exceptional circumstances," because the government takes attorney-client relationships "extremely seriously." Nelson nevertheless filed requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, with the NSA. The agency's director of policy, Louis Giles, wrote back, saying, "The fact of the existence or nonexistence of responsive records is a currently and properly classified matter."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-18-06 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. FeckaDee - when y'all gonna wake up down there?
.
.
.

They've been spying on y'all for centuries

Now they are just making it LEGAL!!

that's the only difference I see

But I's just a Dumm Canuk

Whadda I know?? :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
12. USN & W Report: The Letter of the Law (warrantless physical searches?)
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 12:07 AM by Pirate Smile

The Letter of the Law
The White House says spying on terror suspects without court approval is ok. What about physical searches?


By Chitra Ragavan

3/27/06

In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval. Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News. "There was a fair amount of discussion at Justice on the warrantless physical search issue," says a former senior FBI official. "Discussions about--if happened--where would the information go, and would it taint cases."

FBI Director Robert Mueller was alarmed by the proposal, the two officials said, and pushed back hard against it. "Mueller was personally very concerned," one official says, "not only because of the blowback issue but also because of the legal and constitutional questions raised by warrantless physical searches." FBI spokesman John Miller said none of the FBI's senior staff are aware of any such discussions and added that the bureau has not conducted "physical searches of any location without consent or a judicial order."

-snip-
At least one defense attorney representing a subject of a terrorism investigation believes he was the target of warrantless clandestine searches. On Sept. 23, 2005--nearly three months before the Times broke the NSA story--Thomas Nelson wrote to U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut in Oregon that in the previous nine months, "I and others have seen strong indications that my office and my home have been the target of clandestine searches." In an interview, Nelson said he believes that the searches resulted from the fact that FBI agents accidentally gave his client classified documents and were trying to retrieve them. Nelson's client is Soliman al-Buthe, codirector of a now defunct charity named al-Haramain, who was indicted in 2004 for illegally taking charitable donations out of the country. The feds also froze the charity's assets, alleging ties to Osama bin Laden. The documents that were given to him, Nelson says, may prove that al-Buthe was the target of the NSA surveillance program.

-snip-
White House lawyers, in particular, Vice President Cheney's counsel David Addington (who is now Cheney's chief of staff), pressed Mueller to use information from the NSA program in court cases, without disclosing the origin of the information, and told Mueller to be prepared to drop prosecutions if judges demanded to know the sourcing, according to several government officials. Mueller, backed by Comey, resisted the administration's efforts. "The White House was putting pressure on Mueller to broadly make cases with the intelligence," says one official. "But he did not want to use it as a basis for any affidavit in any court." Comey declined numerous requests for comment. Sources say Mueller and his general counsel, Valerie Caproni, continue to remain troubled by the domestic spying program. Martin, who has handled more intelligence-oriented criminal cases than anyone else at the Justice Department, puts the issue in stark terms: "The failure to allow it to be used in court is a concession that it is an illegal surveillance."

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Deplorable!
Is it almost-Fascism yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Great article, posted previously-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Ahh, sorry about that. I missed it earlier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tuesday_Morning Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. A cleaning crew
from the same article...

Late at night on two occasions, Nelson's colleague Jonathan Norling noticed a heavyset, middle-aged, non-Hispanic white man claiming to be a member of an otherwise all-Hispanic cleaning crew, wearing an apron and a badge and toting a vacuum. But, says Norling, "it was clear the vacuum was not moving." Three months later, the same man, waving a brillo pad, spent some time trying to open Nelson's locked office door, Norling says. Nelson's wife and son, meanwhile, repeatedly called their home security company asking why their alarm system seemed to keep malfunctioning. The company could find no fault with the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mind_your_head Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
16. Giving this thread a kick (and R) with this cartoon......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemoVet Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
17. Clearly, Cheney/Bush hate us for our freedoms
Okay, all you so-called Democratic Senators. Monday morning, get right behind Russ on the Capitol steps and BACK HIS RESOLUTION. All 44 of you (I'm not counting Joementum).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
18. I've got a counter proposal for our imperial leader...
Edited on Sun Mar-19-06 12:21 PM by Selteri
How about since he gets to listen to our calls, read our emails, watch what web sites we go to, go through our homes and effectively spy on us without warrant or regulation that we get to do the same, we have access to every phone call, email, transmission and be allowed to search any room in the places he lives in without warning at any time and place surveillance devices in his residence, without notification for a good reason to any form of over site comittee...

I think he and Dick both would have a heart attack at that idea since they are the most secretive white house in the history of the country to my understanding and they have chosen to act with impunity to protect their rights to privacy while stripping the American people of theirs.

They are Swine, if the election somehow goes Republican in this off term election cycle... I'm moving to Belize, South America or some island out in the middle of nowhere that isn't too likely to be hit too hard by this Fascist Mussolini Wanna-be.

(Edited for unspellcheckedcked typo.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Jefferson_24 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
20. "They couldn't make it...
...clearer," says Martin, "that they are also making the case for inherent presidential power to conduct warrantless physical searches."

After Reichtag II, which I'd guess is coming fairly soon, civil liberties will become a thing of the past. I also think international travel will involve much new and cumbersome red tape, possibly with hefty exit fees designed to discourage attempts to flee the country. All done in the name of National Security, of course. It's for your own good.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WestMichRad Donating Member (92 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. Patriot Act provision?
Didn't the original "Patriot Act" permit authorities to perform "sneak and peek" searches? Aren't these warrantless searches?

See, if it's done under the guise of "national security," that would be what the misAdministration will say made it legal - they had express allowance by Congress to go ahead and do whatever it takes to secure our safety. Ya know, whatever is a threat to the authority of the current misAdministration, like free elections .

Hope I'm wrong on this, and note I'm not supporting them in any way on this. I think it's a crock of shit and clearly counter to the 4th Amendment. Just saying what i'd expect misAdministration supporters to use as the central part of their argument.

Worst. Administration. Ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jschurchin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-19-06 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
23. Constitution? What fucking constitution?
I am Adolph Bush and I will do what ever I damn well please!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trevelyan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
25. I sure hope there are some decent people left in the FBI and Joint Chiefs
of Staff and maybe the CIA. From the leaked material that shows bush corruption and the public statement of the CIA saying that people do not join the CIA to become torturers and that they did not want the power to torture and the periodic quotes by Generals that bush is breaking the best fighting force in the world and countering bush's happy reports about the "progress" in Iraq for a more realistic assessment, I would bet there are still some decent people left in positions to stop bush/cheney and the PNAC and it may seem like we are not effective in posting about bush's latest outrages but I think and hope that it is encouraging those in a position to stop bushco to do something soon.

'FBI Director Robert Mueller was alarmed by the proposal, the two officials said, and pushed back hard against it. "Mueller was personally very concerned," one official says, "not only because of the blowback issue but also because of the legal and constitutional questions raised by warrantless physical searches."'

:dilemma:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trevelyan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
26. Kick - Too late to recommend. Worth posting twice. Maybe this will light
a fire under all of us...including Congress, I hope.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
27. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
november3rd Donating Member (653 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-20-06 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
28. This came up
I remember this coming up obliquely during the first set of Judiciary Committee hearings with Gonzales about this, the ones when he wasn't sworn in.

The sense is that Gonzales was talking about the NSA wiretapping program as "this particular" program or "just this" program, because there are other programs involving warrantless wiretaps OR SEARCHES.

So Gonzo is supposed to go back again and talk about this some more, but I doubt he's going to. Specter won't make him cough anything up.

The best bet is ACLU and FOIA requests.

I'm sure the NSA wiretaps are the tip of an iceberg that isn't reduced by global warming one cubic centimeter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 05:53 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC