Media desperately trying to make Bush's case? IBD: Unwarranted Flak

[ProSense]

Unwarranted Flak
Ibd (Investor's Business Daily)
1 hour, 22 minutes ago

Intelligence: A presidential executive order reads: "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence without a court order." So wrote Jimmy Carter.

That's right: Warrantless surveillance is neither unprecedented nor illegal. Carter, a president not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, signed Executive Order 12139 on May 23, 1979. Even he recognized that in his role of commander in chief he had extraordinary responsibilities that might require extraordinary tools.

The civil liberties police were largely silent when Carter authorized essentially what President Bush has authorized, which is a far cry from Attorney General Robert Kennedy's decision to wiretap the phone of Martin Luther King.

During the Clinton administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick told the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994: "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."

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20051223/bs_ibd_ibd/20051222issues



Does Carter statement say anything about spying on Americans?

Hasn't it been said over and over again that even in an emergency involving foreign intelligence, the law requires notification of the courts within 72-hours (not three years by whistleblower):


Secret court judges to be briefed on spying
Judges question Bush program's legality, how information was used

snip....

The highly classified FISA court was set up in the 1970s to authorize secret surveillance of espionage and terrorism suspects within the United States. Under the law setting up the court, the Justice Department must show probable cause that its targets are foreign governments or their agents. The FISA law does include emergency provisions that allow warrantless eavesdropping for up to 72 hours if the attorney general certifies there is no other way to get the information.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10564931/

[blm]

1. Who wrote that biased piece of shit opinion piece and why is yahoo

carrying it as a news article?

[pretzel4gore]

2. yahoo is part of the infestation

the bushviks are like lice, they get into the family and before long, they're biting perfect strangers....

[DRoseDARs]

3. Good God, how many times does this need to be debunked?

And why aren't Clinton and Carter screaming, "FOUL!" ?

[PetraPooh]

6. Your text is the best question yet, WHY haven't they said anything?

[MadisonProgressive]

4. Just like Drudge the conveniently left out the part that says

they can't be US persons. Isn't there some kind of law to prevent these 'news' organizations from purposefully lying by omission?

Anyway, there should be!

[acmejack]

5. No, it is perfectly legal to lie & claim it is the "News"

Freedom of speech don't you know. Thank corporate personhood.