Jimmy Carter falsely linked Democrat-authorized, politically-motivated, warrantless domestic spying on Dr. & Mrs. King with national-security-imperative listening to terrorist-connected telephone calls that originate outside the US during Mrs. King's funeral this week. It was shameful and wrong of him to do so.
But now we find out that warrantless surveilance for national security purposes was conducted by President Jimmy Carter -- with his personal authorization -- in 1977.
But in 1977, Mr. Carter and his attorney general, Griffin B. Bell, authorized warrantless electronic surveillance used in the conviction of two men for spying on behalf of Vietnam.The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionage convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which unanimously ruled that the warrantless searches did not violate the men's rights.
In its opinion, the court said the executive branch has the "inherent authority" to wiretap enemies such as terror plotters and is excused from obtaining warrants when surveillance is "conducted 'primarily' for foreign intelligence reasons."
Notice -- that is "inherent authority". Authority which exists as a part of the authority granted each and every president by Article II of the US Constitution, independent of any statute or law. It is power that Congress cannot restrict or eliminate, and that the courts must recognize.
That is why all of the discussion of the FISA law is irrelevant, and the position of the Bush administration is correct.
That description, some Republicans say, perfectly fits the Bush administration's program to monitor calls from terror-linked people to the U.S.The Truong case, however, involved surveillance that began in 1977, before the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established a secret court for granting foreign intelligence warrants.
Democrats and some Republicans in Congress say FISA guidelines, approved in 1978 when Mr. Carter was president, are the only way the president may conduct surveillance on U.S. soil.
Administration officials say the president has constitutional authority to conduct surveillance without warrants in the name of national security. The only way Congress could legitimately curtail that authority, they argue, is through an amendment to the Constitution.
The administration's view has been shared by previous Democrat administrations, including Mr. Carter's.
I realize that must stick in the craw of a lot of liberals, but the Constitution trumps any statute. Congress cannot limit the constitutional powers delegated to the other two branches by statute, any more than the president can issue an executive order ending a filibuster or preventing the courts from hearing a case. Congress cannot prevent the exercise of such inherent powers of the Executive branch, any more than the Judicial Branch could issue an order prohibiting ta declaration of war or preventing the president from vetoing a bill.
Let's look at what the Carter Administration had to say about FISA.
When Mr. Bell testified in favor of FISA, he told Congress that while the measure doesn't explicitly acknowledge the "inherent power of the president to conduct electronic surveillance," it "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution."
Did you get that -- the position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity Carter so inapproriately criticized at Mrs. King's funeral. He climbed on to her corpse to deliver a political attack that he knew was false. He condemned activity that he himself engaged in and defended -- and he knew it. That makes him a hypocritical SOB of the first order. Too bad we cannot impeach him retroactively.
MORE AT Captain's Quarters & Powerline.
OPEN TRACKBACKING: Stuck On Stupid, Adam's Blog, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Jo's Cafe, third world country, Everyman Chronicles, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bullwinkle Blog, Stop the ACLU
FRead more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
o said:
rfIRead more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
l said:
pXgRead more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
Ƚо said:
åRead more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
dymphna said:
Thanks for this...people will be linking back to it as things move forward....I was surprised at
Read more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
Dan said:
The Constitution and rule of law always suit my purposes, thank you.
Read more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOBLike I said -- when it suits your purposes.
Read more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOBEveryman - that's a fair criticism - I haven't laid it out as well as I should. I outlined it in
Read more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
Rhymes With Right said:
Dan, being a Democrat, doesn't really need to make a logical argument -- emoting on the issue and
Read more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
everyman said:
Dan, it seems that you're the one avoiding arguing the issue here. You claim that Rhymes With Ri
Read more in Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
 |
Trackback Information for Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/150566Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB'.
» Stop The ACLU links with: Dhimmi Carter Hypocrit On Spying, on February 12, 2006, 07:23 PM
Excerpt: Hat tip: Rhymes With Right Via Washington Times Former President Jimmy Carter, who publicly rebuked President Bush’s warrantless eavesdropping program this week during the funeral of Coretta Scott King and at a campaign event, used similar sur...
» All Things Beautiful links with: America's Useful Idiots, on February 12, 2006, 07:24 PM
Excerpt: Scott @ Powerline has more on when Carter spied,, and Ed Morrissey when he spied and lied....More @ John Stephenson's and Rhymes With Right
» UrbanGrounds links with: President Carter Used Warrantless Electronic Surveillance, on February 12, 2006, 07:25 PM
Excerpt: Why are we not surprised to find out that former President Carter authorized warrantless surveillance for national security purposes when he was President in 1977? ...
» Blue Star Chronicles links with: Jimmy Carter Allowed Surveillance in 1977, on February 12, 2006, 07:49 PM
Excerpt: Most of us know that the screaming and moaning about the suveillance issue right now is just the lastest attempt to discredit our President in the eye of the public. It's just politics.
» Random Thoughts Of Yet Another Military Member links with: Jimmah Carter, Hypocrite Extraordinaire!, on February 12, 2006, 07:59 PM
Excerpt: According to the Washington Times, Jimmah Carter allowed “warrantless” electronic surveillance on two men convicted for espionage on behalf of Vietnam in 1977. The men, Truong Dinh Hung and Ronald Louis Humphrey, challenged their espionag...
» The Paladin Blog links with: Quote Of The Day: Greg Rhymes, on February 12, 2006, 08:01 PM
Excerpt: "The position of the Carter administration was that the FISA law permitted exactly the sort of activity Carter so inapproriately criticized at Mrs. King's funeral. He climbed on to her corpse to deliver a political attack that he new was false. He cond...
» The Median Sib links with: The War, Protesting, Political Shenanigans - what I think, on February 12, 2006, 08:02 PM
Excerpt: It seems clear to me that the ones who are fearful are the Democrats. So fearful that when it comes to dealing with Muslim terrorists, they're covering their ears, eyes and mouths - hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil - and believing if they do ...
» The COLOSSUS OF RHODEY links with: Carter was referring to himself, on February 12, 2006, 08:09 PM
Excerpt: Perhaps Republicans overreacted to former president Jimmy Carter's words at Coretta Scott King's funeral, specifically his words on warrantless wire-taps. After all, Mrs. King's husband was spied on by those Democrat "icons" John F. and Robert Kennedy....
» Maggie's Farm links with: http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/2385-.html, on February 12, 2006, 08:18 PM
Excerpt: Steyn on Mustafa Shag: If I were a Muslim, I'd be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males...It's too good: Europe is Taking The Wrong Stand.Is Old E...
» Watcher of Weasels links with: Submitted for Your Approval, on February 15, 2006, 03:29 AM
Excerpt: First off... any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now... here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher's Council for this week's vote. Council link...
Comments on Jimmy Carter -- Hypocritical SOB
This must be the lamest excuse ever for non-patriotic Americans such as yourself to support the overthrow of our constitutional democracy. If you had shame, you would be feeling it now.
1977 - No FISA.
1978 - present - FISA.
Inherent authority where no congressional action - broad.
Inherent authority where congressional action - restricted.
Jimmy Carter - great American.
|| Posted by Dan, February 11, 2006 06:06 PM ||George Bush - Worst. President. Ever.
Also, did you notice that the Bush administration only took this constitutional-authority position after they were caught lying about whether they violated FISA? There's no need to lie about something or change your story unless you know what you're doing is wrong.
|| Posted by Left Behinds, February 11, 2006 06:36 PM ||Actually, Congress may not restrict an inherent power, as argued by Jimmy Carter when FISA was passed. Congress may not strip the President of such powers, any more than it can strip him of the pardon power or the veto power.
After all, there are three co-equal branches, and no branch can strip or limit the inherent powers of the others.
If either of you believed in the Constitution, you would not have made the arguments you din.
And as far as Jimmy Carter goes, historians have already weighed his presidency in the balance and found it lacking. They will no doubt find him to be even mor eof a mediocre American than he was a president.
On the other hand, Bush 43 will likely rank nearly as hugh in the pantheon of presidents as America's two greatest 20th century presidents -- FDR and Ronald Reagan.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 11, 2006 07:58 PM ||Oh, and Left Behind, had the NY Times committed a similar act of treason in 1943 or 1944 by disclosing details of our espionage operations against Japan and Germany (AKA The Enemy -- the WWII analog of al-Qaeda and its associates), I don't doubt that FDR would have initially tried to minimize the damage to national security by denying the whole thing.
The major difference would have been that in the 1940, the NY Times would have been closed by executive order and the publisher, editors, and reporters involved in reporting the sotry would have been arrested and put on trial for their misdeeds. Today's seditious media get book deals and television interviews. I guess the major difference is that in the 1940s, the party out of power was still loyal to the US -- the party out of power today is not.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 11, 2006 08:07 PM ||Your argument is childlike in its lack of constitutional understanding. Please do a little reading on zones, etc., so you don't embarrass yourself again.
|| Posted by Dan, February 11, 2006 08:46 PM ||I have done more than a little reading in the area -- enough to earn a Masters degree in political science and to teach US Government on the college level (high school is the day job -- the college is adjunct work).
And the argument I make on the matter was made by both the Carter and Clinton administrations, not just the Bush administration.
I realize that you prefer different standards for failed presidents you like (Clinton & Carter) and successful presidents you dislike (such as GWB), but the same rules apply to both -- and since we not only have the executive branch making the inherent power argument, but also a court ruling to that effect (what Al Gore would call "controlling legal authority), your argument is pretty weak.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 11, 2006 09:06 PM ||All Things Beautiful TrackBack America's Useful Idiots
|| Posted by Alexandra, February 12, 2006 03:40 AM ||Dan, it seems that you're the one avoiding arguing the issue here. You claim that Rhymes With Right should "not embarrass" himself yet he's made very strong points about the President's Constitutional authority while you have made none. Looks like you're the one who needs to do some research on the Constitution. As with anything with you liberals it's okay when your man does it but God forbid Bush do the same thing.
|| Posted by everyman, February 12, 2006 07:33 PM ||Dan, being a Democrat, doesn't really need to make a logical argument -- emoting on the issue and slinging unsupported insults is sufficient.
I mean its not like the Democrats really believe in the Constitution or rule of law,
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 12, 2006 07:52 PM ||Everyman - that's a fair criticism - I haven't laid it out as well as I should. I outlined it in my original comment, but haven't explained much beyond that. I'll try to pull together a better analysis this evening . . .
RWR - I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law.
|| Posted by Dan, February 13, 2006 12:40 PM ||Like I said -- when it suits your purposes.
|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, February 13, 2006 12:52 PM ||The Constitution and rule of law always suit my purposes, thank you.
|| Posted by Dan, February 13, 2006 02:08 PM ||Thanks for this...people will be linking back to it as things move forward....I was surprised at the attack on your credentials, but obviously that's misplaced...liberals don't know how to think anymore. They've given it up for ad hominem attacks and vitriolic emoting.
I listened to the reverend who attacked Pres. Bush at the funeral as he tried to defend his position. I was embarrassed for him: he might as well have been out there wearing gauze veils...
And, boy, do I wish we could retroactively impeach Carter. He did so much damage in office, it's amazing to see how he continues to leave a trail of misery, still. What a small-minded, mean little man.
|| Posted by dymphna, February 15, 2006 11:35 AM ||åեSEX¯ʥˡвåեåввåǿåϽϽSEXϽ
|| Posted by Ƚо, January 29, 2009 10:38 PM ||pXglGAj܂lWRpsϏolȏonoۂoSMo؍loNolotBslo
|| Posted by l, January 30, 2009 09:45 PM ||rfIZuςIbpCRLB[^ƏoƏofޏގReNlߏqZq吶wo܂C
|| Posted by o, January 30, 2009 09:57 PM ||FCvqC\[vhfo[wXf[gipߐetF`ItFttCu`bgozXgoonTCgoUTCgႤ҂Loj
|| Posted by , January 30, 2009 10:24 PM ||Post a comment