Cold War Warrantless Wiretapping 85
somanyrobots writes "President Gerald Ford secretly authorized the use of warrantless domestic wiretaps for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes soon after coming into office, according to a declassified document. The Dec. 19, 1974, White House memorandum, marked Top Secret / Exclusively Eyes Only and signed by Ford, gave then-Attorney General William B. Saxbe and his successors in office authorization 'to approve, without prior judicial warrants, specific electronic surveillance within the United States which may be requested by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.'" And reader jlaprise1 adds, "My research [from 2009] makes the news! President Ford authorized warrantless wiretaps in December 1976 and laid the foundation (PDF) for US telecommunications security policy."
History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A small correction: (Score:2)
That should read:
And the unauthorized (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And before folks start bashing me for being a democrat troll or something, I am not even American. It just seems to me as an outsider though, that based on statistics, having a Republican President usually ensures that American Democracy is turned into a mockery. And it is definitely a gra
Re:History Repeats Itself (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's just that with a press corps that overwhelmingly identifies with the Democratic party, the excesses of Republicans are more likely to be investigated and reported on.
Not quite. It's fun to believe in, but really, you're just an idiot with a persecution complex for doing so.
They "always seem" to be Republicans because there's a terribly small sample size. There's only been 44 P's OTUS, and 2 of them have now been indicated as having "corrupted and subverted existing [wiretapping] laws", so it's not surprising at all that they are both affiliated with the same party.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only been 44 P's OTUS, and 2 of them have now been indicated as having "corrupted and subverted existing [wiretapping] laws", so it's not surprising at all that they are both affiliated with the same party.
It's exactly as surprising as two heads when flipping a coin twice.
Btw as long as they get to choose the candidate, it doesn't matter whether you vote D or R, they still win.
Re: (Score:2)
Polls of news staff find self identification as left leaning to be something in the range of 80%.
Oh, and go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
who cares if you're a Republican or not if you "self-identify" as "right-leaning"? You feel persecuted, and it's fun to believe, but it's a fucked up complex of yours that the rest of us don't care to deal with. I mean really, you try to point out that journalists are trying to dig up dirt on the political right in order to prove the point that the stereotype of Presidents with a disregard for law aren't likely to be Republicans. What kind of idiotic logic is that? If you're going to judge entire groups
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the one who has done any stereotyping here -- you are. You painted both the news media and business schools with your broad stereotyping brush. In fact, feeling like you're being stereotyped may be part of your potential persecution complex!
I said if you believe x, then you are y. If you think that the reason that the only presidents who have willfully ignored wiretapping laws are both Republican and not Democratic is the result of leftward media bias, then you are not very bright nor logical.
If
Re: (Score:2)
Read it again. You imply that with a more Republican identifying press corps, that there would be Democratic presidents as having ignored or violated wiretapping laws.
Logic doesn't have a political affiliation.
Re: (Score:2)
That last line ruins the quality of the rest of your reaction...
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican party has been subverting the Constitution since it's inception.
Hell, the very idea of political parties is a subversion of the constitution - where loyalty to the party is more important than loyalty to the country.
Re: (Score:1)
So, are you saying: "The press made me do it."?
Or that everybody has done it, but that EVERY reporter and EVERY newspaper, magazine and tv station give Democrat Presidents a free pass on things that are obviously illegal.
If it's the second, then thank heaven we are saved. FoxNews is finally here.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just that with a press corps that overwhelmingly identifies with the Democratic party, the excesses of Republicans are more likely to be investigated and reported on.
What a load of horse shit. Whichever party is currently in power is much more likely to be investigated and reported on by the media.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it that always Republicans (both Ford and George Bush) who have been usually eager to subvert and corrupt existing laws, and don't even have the guts or decency to publicly accept the responsibility for doing so?
Too much power, not enough accountability. I'm not sure why you mention "Republicans" explicitly, since this is a problem common to both dominant parties.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With respect to electronic surveillance, legality wasn't at issue. In 1974, the law did not recognize the existence of electronic surveillance. It did however regulate lawful and unlawful physical entry.
The originally redacted text was "That the minimum physical intrusion necessary to obtain the information sought will be used."
This clearly contradicted constitutional protections for unlawful search and seizure. Until the advent of FISA, all of the other aspects of the memo were legal or perhaps better defi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> This can't really surprise anyone. I'm sure there are plenty of things our
> government has kept from us either "for our own good" (their rationale for
> hiding their actions) and for national security reasons (we can't disclose
> everything).
1/ it shouldn't surprise anyone who has been watching the actions of the USA over the last 10 years because the government of that country has proven that it cannot be trusted.
2/ The government of the USA demonstrates repeatedly that it doesn't trust the peo
Re:Forgot who said this (Score:4, Informative)
If you believe in Democracy, then you implicitly endorse secret police.
If you believe in anything else, then you explicitly endorse those same powers out in the open.
Citation needed so we can better understand this apparent crazy talk.
The only difference is how much we are willing to delude ourselves. We call ourselves Free, but we haven't been so since September 24, 1862.
Nice semi-cryptic pseudo-conspiracy-like reference.
September 24, 1862 is the date President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War, a time of rebellion (certainly as defined from his perspective). It was only suspended for those considered to be in rebellion.
Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Nothing unconstitutional or illegal with what Lincoln did no matter how much you dislike it. At least he did it out in the open.
I would argue that until there are no others who wish to control us, no one will never be "Free". That won't occur until there is only one person left on Earth. Until then, your point is moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Is "Joe Biden" a secret code for one of your talking points, or do you specific evidence that points to Biden taking a anti-civil liberties position? I mean, if you can prove that he's "Dick Cheney" in another body, I'm all ears.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, Biden was right, though at the cost of destroying his argument... The Vice President is mentioned in both Article I (as President if the Senate) and Article II (as the runner up in a Presidential election),. The Amendments draw the VP closer to the President, but what gave Cheney his authority was a delegation of power from the Executive ( which was bound by certain disclosure rules.) By arguing that the VP was a legislative officer, or worse, an officer insulated from both legislative and execu
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the longer answer that addresses your uninformed objection.
Article I, Section 9 is specifically identified as limitations on the legislative branch, and in particular for any legislation concerning Habeus Corpus it chooses to enact. It is not explicitly forbidden to the other branches; the Constitution only states Congress can only make laws about suspending H.C. subject to that limitation. Also note that H.C. is only a privilege, not a Right.
Lincoln implemented his suspension under the limitations d
Re: (Score:2)
but Ex parte Merryman (1861) decided that the president cannot suspend habeas corpus.
Which was successfully ignored by Lincoln and then invalidated by Congress. So as a practical matter, Lincoln not only could do it, but in fact, did it; it just took a few years to do it properly.
The reality is that the President can do whatever the President can do when the other branches fail to exercise their "checks and balances" responsibilities. The blame lies with Congress for bending over too often.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
September 24, 1862 is the date President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the American Civil War, a time of rebellion (certainly as defined from his perspective). It was only suspended for those considered to be in rebellion.
No. Lincoln suspended it in 1861 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Merryman [wikipedia.org], but he did issue the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on Sept 22, 1862
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation [wikipedia.org], so it would appear that the OP objects to the loss of freedom to ensl
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
LOL! I knew this thread would be a humor trove!
Re: (Score:2)
Recruiting campaign... (Score:4, Funny)
I remember an old joke that went something like this...
"NSA is conducting advanced research in the fields of applied mathematics, signal processing, and cryptography. To apply for one of these exciting positions, just pick up the phone, call your grandmother, and ask for one!"
Life imitates art :-)
So, what are they doing and hiding *right now* ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess we'll find out in ~40 years, when we are either dead, or too old to care any more.
Although, "Get off my lawn!" crimes have no statute of limitations, and you are never to old to scream it.
So what secret authorizations were issued by Bush . . . and are still in effect under Obama?
I guess I will probably never know.
Ah, isn't ignorance bliss?
Why bother to ask? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't be too upset about these, because the a
A Little HIstory (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A Little HIstory (Score:5, Interesting)
All true...though Ford was really concerned about the Soviet threat. He genuinely believed that this was the only way to deal with the threat of soviet eavesdropping on US microwave telecommunications. Ford was actually a champion of personal privacy. It's just that competing with the personal privacy that we think of everyday , there is a second kind of privacy which the government is concerned with. Their focus is protecting citizens from foreign surveillance threats and as these and other documents show, the responsibility of government to protect citizens' privacy from external threats trumps citizens' right to avoid surveillance from their government.
This duality is clear in the documentary record but does not show up in public. It's only a debate held in the White House. Perhaps it should be entertained elsewhere as well...
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Very interesting. All supporting my claim that Bush Jr. was basically a facade for those really running the show.
What good is the Constitution without mandatory jail time for violating it? These men all knew (and we can now throw Ms. Rice into that mix) that they were violating the Constitution they swore to uphold. Yet our Congress will not hold those accountable. Where is the office of Special Prosecutor when you really need it?
Obligatory Image Link (Score:3, Informative)
President Gerald Ford secretly authorized the use of warrantless domestic wiretaps for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes soon after coming into office, according to a declassified document.
Obligatory image link:
http://images.google.com/images?q=ford+cheney+rumsfeld [google.com]
I am (Score:2)
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Should've Impeached Nixon (Score:5, Informative)
What finally pushed the Congress into preparing to impeach Nixon was the revelation that Nixon was secretly (and, of course, warrantlessly) wiretapping Congress. Keeping Vietnam going, using the CIA to break into Democratic campaign HQ at the Watergate (and a shrink's office) - all just "business as usual". But the wiretapping was enough to push them over the edge.
So George Bush Sr, Republican National Committee Chair, went to Nixon to explain that enough Congressional Republicans would vote to impeach that he would be impeached. So Nixon resigned. And Ford, who Nixon had got to replace his original VP, Spiro Agnew, when Agnew was convicted of income tax evasion (on massive bribes he'd taken but not reported to the IRS), inherited Nixon's evil empire. George Bush Sr inherited the CIA.
And then Ford started warrantlessly wiretapping people, just like Nixon had. Nixon was wiretapping not only Congress, but all kinds of political enemies, including anti-war and environmentalist activists, counterculture figures like John Lennon. Nixon turned the White House into a Republican Kremlin. And Ford kept it that way.
In 1978, with Democrat Carter in the White House a Democratic Congress passed FISA, which was designed to be the supreme law controlling wiretapping. Nominally subordinate to only the 4th Amendment, which it violated by allowing exceptions to the Amendment's requirement of a warrant issued prior to any wiretapping.
Republican George Bush Jr inherited the presidency in 2000. And soon wiretapped every American, all our phonecalls and email, without a warrant. Even though the FISA court issued a warrant, before or after the fact, for every single one of the hundreds of thousands of requests it got, however invalid any of those requests might have been.
Even to the point of wiretapping conversations between defendants and their lawyers in cases brought by the Bush "Justice" Department, which was just ruled illegal [scienceblogs.com], years later. With Bush leaving office unimpeached.
The Congress should've impeached Nixon. It should have impeached Bush. Hell, it should've impeached Reagan, for running the secret Iran/Contra wars, illegally supplying Iran with weapons and shipping drugs like cocaine and opium around on CIA planes - the investigation probably would have turned up warrantless wiretapping to protect the other illegal programmes.
But we didn't. And Republicans, even Bushes (and Cheneys) get to walk around free, free to run for office. And a large section of the public that believes "it's only a crime if you get caught" treats those criminals and traitors to their oaths to protect the Constitution as "statesmen".
As every time before, the next one will be even worse. Hi, president Romney, how ya doin'?
Re:Illusion of Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
I am afraid you folks down south of the border (I am Canadian) have been reduced to having an illusion of democracy and your Constitutional Rights. I know the average American supports the Constitution and believes implicitly in the American system of government etc. Its a great system overall, but I think its been abused for the past 50 years or so - at least by the Republicans when in power. You don't have a right to privacy, you don't have the right of free speech, you don't have the right to avoid unlaw
Re: (Score:2)
Its a great system overall, but I think its been abused for the past 50 years or so - at least by the Republicans when in power.
It's been abused by politicians and bureaucrats of all political persuasions for as long as there have been politicians and bureaucrats.
And the US doesn't have a monopoly on that kind of behavior BTW.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I love how you always have to get Reagan in on it. It's the moonbat circle of truth.
The vast majority of people that actually did the acts you speak were around for administrations of both parties. You choose to see the evil figure head in your ideological opposite party. Shocking, I know. This is what happens when you build a giant central government with large police and intelligence organs. To think it would magically be less of a problem when your team is in office is delusional. The only differen
Re: (Score:2)
Except Reagan was guilty of violating the Boland Amendment. As well as guilty of supplying our enemy, Iran, with weapons. And guilty of letting the CIA ship addictive drugs into the US.
The fact that others were also guilty doesn't mean that Reagan wasn't also guilty.
It's your problem that the facts interfere with your deification of Reagan.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nominally subordinate to only the 4th Amendment, which it violated by allowing exceptions to the Amendment's requirement of a warrant issued prior to any wiretapping.
Um, no. The Fourth Amendment says no unreasonable search or seizure, not no unwarranted search and seizure. It does, however, set out what a warrant requires, but it does not require a warrant for a lawful search:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There are many cases where a warrentless search has been held to be reasonable, and thus not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
That being said, warrantless wiretapping of the entire US population is, indeed, an unreasonable intrusion, in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The Supreme Court has repeatedly and consistently held that no search is reasonable without a warrant, except in "exigent circumstances", where delay for a warrant is likely to give the suspect time to destroy the evidence required for a warrant. The only other exceptions, automobiles and consented searches, do not apply here. And the FISA requirements for post facto warrants do not limit issuance in only exigent circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, wiretapping by the US Federal Government was long standing Standard Operating Procedure since Telephones were deployed in the 1900 and telegraphs since the 1860'. It was around a long time before Nixon. I don't think the government didn't need a warrant up until the 1920's.
Even then, phones can be tapped, it's just that evidence gathered isn't court admissible. But the type of work the NSA et. al. are doing is intelligence gathering. Whether or not it's court admissible isn't a grave concern.
Understanding Datamining vs. Terrorists (Score:1)
On the contrary, I doubt the government is doing anything illegal. They are using techno-legal arbitrage.
Current laws do not protect metadata. The government likely analyzes metadata to find possible terrorist suspects by looking for patterns. It presents those analyses to the FISA court as evidence to look at the content of suspect individuals and FISA grants a warrant. All of this is strictly legal or at least extralegal.
The problem is that telecommunications companies are likely complicit. Private teleco
And Obama, right? (Score:2)
Where does the Constitution mention wiretapping? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wiretapping is not mentioned in the Constitution, but one's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" have been interpreted in many but not all cases to include electronic communications. Some of the cases where the courts have not extended constitutional protection in this way are for foreign communications and for domestic communications with agents of foreign powers.
A few years after the Ford memo mentioned above, Congress passed the FISA statute, in an attempt to somewhat restrict these constitutionally-permitted warrantless wiretaps. However, it is not a settled question whether the Congress has the right, through legislation, to restrict the President's authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to conduct otherwise-constitutional foreign intelligence operations.
The bottom line is that the issue is not as clear as you might think.
Trying to recast crime (Score:1, Insightful)
What I find so sad is that every time a leader commits a crime in the United States someone finds new history to say "they've always done it that way". I think the country and the system deserve to actually follow their own laws maybe that way it might get better. Laws should apply to people in power, not just the downtrodden.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find so sad is that every time a leader commits a crime in the United States someone finds new history to say "they've always done it that way". I think the country and the system deserve to actually follow their own laws maybe that way it might get better. Laws should apply to people in power, not just the downtrodden.
It makes you wonder if the business of government could be done without all this skullduggery or if we just consistently elect petulant egomaniacs that only feign any sense of morality while they do whatever the Hell they want.
Well surprise surprise... (Score:1)
And we tried "hopey changey" with Jimmy Carter... It's not much of a stretch to say we are in Nixon's 11th term in office.
learning from history (Score:1)
Seems our overlords learned from history and chose to repeat it.
Understanding the Earlier Redaction (Score:2, Interesting)
The really big deal in the document is the redaction. In the earlier version, item C allowing minimal physical intrusion was redacted. In the version I FOIAed it was declassified.
What's the big deal? In 1974, electronic surveillance wasn't covered by the law. The law didn't even envision such a thing. Breaking and entering, however the law was well prepared to deal with.
Ford authorized the DoJ to conduct break-ins without a warrant. I know really ironic coming on the heels of Nixon, but I have to reiterate;
One of the biggest problems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. The constitution specifically makes room for such emergencies. If you think it is meant to be laid aside for any emergency, you are probably loved by a government eager to declare emergencies.
2. Your order of operations is offensively backwards. First pass laws in your state. Why do you need to pass constitutional ammendments as your first option?
3. You don't want to speed up the amendment process. It is not that difficult to raise a hopenchange mob, the damage to our nation would be irrevocable.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The constitution specifically makes room for such emergencies. If you think it is meant to be laid aside for any emergency, you are probably loved by a government eager to declare emergencies.
I know. I meant if they did it properly (with Congress' approval and in an actual emergency). I didn't properly word my original post.
2. Your order of operations is offensively backwards. First pass laws in your state. Why do you need to pass constitutional ammendments as your first option?
You are correct. That was rather stupid of me to post that.
3. You don't want to speed up the amendment process. It is not that difficult to raise a hopenchange mob, the damage to our nation would be irrevocable.
Yes, you're probably correct. That's why I said "(if that is possible to do without damaging it)." I personally haven't thought of a quicker method that doesn't pose a threat to the process.
Hopefully... (Score:1)
But if the idea was to use it to figure out stuff like which previously trusted CIA employee shouldn't have further access to classified information, or should be deliberately fed misinformation, during the cold war, I suspect a lot of people would have been pretty okay with that.
Nothing new (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
All modern presidents have done the same thing. http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=75&aid=96665 [poynter.org]
Which makes it right in which way?
The citation implies that it all started with Truman and, I assume, the "threat of Communism" which, in retrospect, was mostly a boogeyman. Are you arguing that fear alone is a valid basis for surrendering any freedom?
Republican, Democrate (Score:2)
What strikes me is that some of the discussions here are STILL about Republicans Democrates. Those people don't get it.
The topic SHOULD be about the fact that a president that spies on his own citizens.