Four Who Dared (GOP Senators Edition)
Nick Gillespie | December 21, 2005, 7:50am
What do Republican Sens. Larry Craig (Idaho), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) have in common? They are standing firm against renewing the PATRIOT Act because, in the words of the Wash Post:
They say the bill is slanted too heavily in the government's favor when it comes to letting targeted people challenge national security letters and special subpoenas that give the FBI substantial latitude in deciding what records should be surrendered. The targeted people should have a greater ability to challenge such subpoenas and require the government to show why it thinks the items being sought are connected to possible terrorism, the Republicans contend.
Whole thing here.
While fellow GOPpers might be steamed, this senatorial quartet may well be hailed by voters. As Dave Weigel explained in the November ish of Reason, "Standing up to the PATRIOT Act can be good politics."
John | December 21, 2005, 12:21pm | #
FDS,
You don't have to ask your question in the hypothetical. We already know what would happen. From the CATO Institute, "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton"
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]
President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps.
I don't necessarily agree with CATO and think as long as Clinton was wiretapping people with foreign connections, it is fine. That said, everyone who is so shocked now, ought to have to explain why they were not shocked then. It is not as if CATO is some fringe organization writing stuff no one ever reads.
John | December 21, 2005, 12:30pm | #
FDS,
You don't have to ask your question in the hypothetical. We already know what would happen. From the CATO Institute, "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton"
The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping.
The Clinton administration claims that it can bypass the warrant clause for "national security" purposes. In July 1994 Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick told the House Select Committee on Intelligence that the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." [51] According to Gorelick, the president (or his attorney general) need only satisfy himself that an American is working in conjunction with a foreign power before a search can take place. . . .
It is unclear why the president made warrantless roving wiretaps a priority matter since judges routinely approve wiretap applications by federal prosecutors. According to a 1995 report by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, it had been years since a federal district court turned down a prosecutor's request for a wiretap order. [68] President Clinton is apparently seeking to free his administration from any potential judicial interference with its wiretapping plans. There is a problem, of course, with the power that the president desires: it is precisely the sort of unchecked power that the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause was designed to curb. As the Supreme Court noted in Katz v. United States (1967), the judicial procedure of antecedent justification before a neutral magistrate is a "constitutional precondition," not only to the search of a home, but also to eavesdropping on private conversations within the home. [69]
President Clinton also lobbied for and signed the Orwellian Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which is forcing every telephone company in America to retrofit its phone lines and networks so that they will be more accessible to police wiretaps.
I don't necessarily agree with CATO and think as long as Clinton was wiretapping people with foreign connections, it is fine. That said, everyone who is so shocked now, ought to have to explain why they were not shocked then. It is not as if CATO is some fringe organization writing stuff no one ever reads.
Stevo Darkly | December 21, 2005, 3:26pm | #
I completely agree with the comment by wellfellow at December 21, 2005 10:53 AM.
I think there is generally (but not rigidly) a left-leaning bias in the media -- or at least what I call the Big Media or the Archaeomedia (because I like to coin words). It's not because media types get together in some kind of deliberate conspiracy. However, I think common leftish assumptions do lead to some biases in what is covered (or not covered).
As to Auntie Baley's assertion that reporter's are not only unbiased but should also be assumed to have become particularly "well-informed" about a story topic in the course of researching it -- har har hardy har har!
Very few reporters become particulary well-informed in the topics they cover -- they don't have time. They have to really on sources, who are either experts or able to pose as such. Reporters' own biases will affect who they contact as sources, the questions they ask (or fail to ask), their understanding of the answers, and the quotes they decide to use or not use.
Reporters often struggle to understand the topics they are covering, and they often get it wrong. They tend to favor rhetoric over logic. And the more complicated a topic is, the less well-suited it is to coverage by the Archaeomedia.
I will also observe that, with a very few exceptions by those who specialize, that reporters have an especially difficult time understanding scientific and military topics. In fact, "interest in or ability to understand science" and "ability to write good stories" sometimes seem to be mutually exclusive abilities as a general rule -- although there are also many prominent exceptions to this.
Although to be fair, many scientist types aren't particular good at explaining their specialties clearly to lay people. And military types are even worse. (And IT types are the worst of all.)
I render my opinion as someone who has both worked in corporate PR and as a journalist of sorts (although only on an in-house or free-lance basis), as an interviewer, writer and editor, and who has worked with scientists, engineers, academics, real journalists, ex-journalists, journalism students, journalism teachers, military personnel and defense contractors.
joe | December 21, 2005, 5:13pm | #
Yeah, you point me to a lot of pundits expressing their opinions. I point you to Clinton's executive order authorizing a warrantless search under FISA:
"Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] 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."
and to Carter's similar executive order:
"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."
Now, you see those phrases "...if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section?" Whatever could that mean?
Let's take a look at the section:
"(a) Presidential authorization
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if?
(A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that?
...
(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person;"
So, to sum up, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter authorized warrantless searches only when the Attorney General certified in writing, under oath, that Americans won't be spied on. George Bush, on the other hand, authorized warrantless searches of Americans.
In doing so, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter were obeying the law. George Bush, on the other hand, was breaking federal law limiting the power to snoop on Americans, by approving warrantless searches that did not meet the criteria spelled out in the law.
Game, set, match.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
