• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The RNC misrepresents to make a politcal point? NO!

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Remember yesterday when posters were saying that Clinton and Carter had issued executive orders allowing searches and such without a warrant? Well, the RNC did the same thing. But, guess what? The RNC failed to provide the more pertinent wording of the executive orders:

RNC Points To Spy Orders By Carter, Clinton

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102253.html

Surprise surprise *sarcasm*
 
H

hipsterdufus

aps said:
Remember yesterday when posters were saying that Clinton and Carter had issued executive orders allowing searches and such without a warrant? Well, the RNC did the same thing. But, guess what? The RNC failed to provide the more pertinent wording of the executive orders:

RNC Points To Spy Orders By Carter, Clinton

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person." Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102253.html

Surprise surprise *sarcasm*
It seems like the RNC is cutting and pasting from the Sludge Report for their marching orders of the day.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Dueling Executive Orders

The WP article cited in a post above is somewhat misleading and certainly incomplete in its so-called quotes of the Carter and Clinton EOs. The WP published what it said were quotes that were deleted from the Drudge/RNC material on the Carter EO. The complete text of Carter's EO 12139 is below; see if you can find the quotes attributed to it by the WP.

By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

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.

1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information.

1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
to conduct electronic surveillance:

(a) Secretary of State.

(b) Secretary of Defense.

(c) Director of Central Intelligence.

(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(e) Deputy Secretary of State.

(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
Act as well as this Order.''.

Jimmy Carter.
Give up? Ok. The quotes in the WP are actually from another source. What the WP conveniently overlooked is the reference to E0 12036 which was revoked by EO 12333.

E0 12036, which was revoked, said:

(b) Activities described in sections 2-202 through 2-205 for which a warrant
would be required if undertaken for law enforcement rather than intelligence
purposes shall not be undertaken against a United States person without a
judicial warrant, unless the President has authorized the type of activity
involved and the Attorney General has both approved the particular activity and
determined that there is probable cause to believe that the United States person
is an agent of a foreign power.

EO12333, which replaced 12036, provided that...

The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the
use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against
a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant
would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes,
provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the
Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable
cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign
power or an agent of a foreign power.

So, believe what you will, but those are the texts from the various EOs. Neither Drudge or WP have it exactly right. I probably don't either, but this is how it looks to me as of this moment.
 
Top Bottom