Dhimmi Carter Hypocrite On Spying
Posted on February 11, 2006
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 surveillance against suspected spies.
“Under the Bush administration, there’s been a disgraceful and illegal decision — we’re not going to the let the judges or the Congress or anyone else know that we’re spying on the American people,” Mr. Carter said Monday in Nevada when his son Jack announced his Senate campaign.
“And no one knows how many innocent Americans have had their privacy violated under this secret act,” he said.
The next day at Mrs. King’s high-profile funeral, Mr. Carter evoked a comparison to the Bush policy when referring to the “secret government wiretapping” of civil rights leader Martin Luther King.
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.”
Not only does Jimmy Carter betray his hypocrisy here, but his Attorney General told Congress when it debated the FISA law in 1978 that FISA would not impede the president from exercising precisely this power under the Constitution. The Times also notes that Jamie Gorelick said much the same thing in 1994. In any case, the appellate court certainly agreed with both Bell and Carter in 1980, even after passage of FISA the year after the surveillance took place.
Keep in mind that this surveillance took place to fight a simple espionage case, not to defend the country against an enemy that has already attacked American assets on numerous occasions and killed 3,000 civilians in one attack on American soil. Carter did not get an authorization for the use of military force against Viet Nam — can you imagine him asking for one? — and yet still claimed Constitutional authority for warrantless surveillance on Ronald Humphrey, an American citizen. And the courts agreed with Carter.
That gives a very strong precedent for Bush’s argument that both Article II and the AUMF against Al-Qaeda gives him the authority to surveil international communications that may involve American residents without a warrant. It certainly has more common-sense standing than the case against Truong and Humphrey, which the 4th Circuit upheld and for which the Supreme Court denied cert, giving it the authority of precedent. It also shows what a complete hypocrite Carter has become in his bitter pursuit to damage George Bush in any way possible.
As much as the Bush hating liberals hate it, the Constitution trumps any kind of statutes. Rhymes with Right is correct in saying, “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.”
AJ Strata puts things in perspective.
Laws and our constitution are not a Jim Jones suicide pack. In this situation, the priests of the FISA Temple are offering us real Kool-Aid. If we follow them to FISA town we will be lining up to drink our last drink.
Exactly, that “things are different because of FISA” is a load of crap. The Congress can not pass a law that overrules the Constitution. If there is a conflict the Constitution wins every time.
Others: The Anchoress
Urban Grounds
Liberty Just In Case
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
21 Responses to “Dhimmi Carter Hypocrite On Spying”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
The key point being argued here is that the Constitution authorizes the President to conduct warrantless wiretaps. There are two key flaws in this argument that deserve discussion.
First, the Constitution at no place explicitly grants any such powers. The closest relevant clause is “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States”. If somebody would like to quote some clause I have missed, by all means do so, but I think we can all agree that, if you want to read such powers into the existing text of the Constitution, then Roe v. Wade is much better supported by the text of the Constitution.
Second, the closest clause in the Constitution explicitly addressing this issue is as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and siezures, shall not be violated…”
So what we have here in terms of strict construction is:
1. Nothing in the Constitution supporting such Presidential powers; and
2. The 4th Amendment explicitly denying such powers.
I realize that there are many other, subtler arguments that apply here. But if we want to take a plain and simple, strict reading the text, then the Constitution is clear on this point: The President has no such powers.
Strange, isn’t it, how Jimmy Carter failed miserably as our worst president ever and now he knows everything about everything. Why he knows all about terrorism but stood with his thumb in his mouth for over 400 days while radical Iranians kept our hostages taken in an act of war.
He knows all about wiretapping because he has done it.
Again, this is a case of a failed man so jealous of his betters that he cannot stop trying to destroy them and the America he hates for rejecting him.
Poor Jimmy, so incompetent and so intent on revenge. Do they teach anything about sin, forgiveness, etc. in those churches of yours Jimmy?
Sometimes, when I look at my children, I say to myself, “Lillian, you should
have remained a virgin.”
– Lillian Carter (mother of Jimmy Carter)
You people just did not understand what he said. He mouth was stuck tight together with peanut butter causing him to mumble.
We now have eleven comments on this topic whose only content is to denigrate Mr. Carter. Are personal attacks the only form of political discussion in this forum? Is there any interest in issues?
Erasmussimo,
Article II Section 2 does indeed state: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States, …
First lets take into consideration that the founding fathers could not forsee the technology of electronic communication. However, I’m sure they understood the value of intellignce gathering during time of war. Also, this necessity is not diminished when the enemy is waging war against the United States on its own soil. Even if the enemies are US Citizens.
Furthermore Article IV section 4. reads as follows: The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION; AND ON APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, OR OF THE EXECUTIVE (WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT BE CONVENED)AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
Now, terrorism is domestic violence. The legislature or executive of the states can’t possibly be convened nor apply to the Federal Government for protection against attacks they’re not aware of. However, that doesn’t mean that Union’s promise to protect the territory of the US (the States) is eliminated. Also, the Federal Courts are in no way mentioned in article IV or II concerning military operations, and have no jurisdiction under these circumstances. Finally It is obviously true that the Constitution, to borrow a phrase, is not a “suicide pact”. I think most would agree that the President is responsible for repelling a sudden attack with military force, in context of this discussion using the NSA to prevent terrorist attacks.
Next, the 4th Ammendment reads as follows: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and siezures, 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.
The language of, and precedent pertaining to the 4th Ammendment make it clear that it’s application respects crimminal investigations or searchs. Not matters of national security or prevention of domestic violence via foriegn terrorist colaborating with US Citizens.
As far as FISA is concerned, it does not limit the above Constitutional powers or responsiblities of the President. (See the 4th Circuit case sighted above)
Erasmussimo,
I almost forgot… Jimmy Carter is total embarrassment to USA and if he is making any argument, that argument should immediately be suspect.
Gee, I evaluate arguments on their merits, not on the person making the argument. Ever heard the phrase “ad hominem”?
I honestly think Carter should be charged with Treason, aiding and abetting the enemy. Did we take that off the books, when, what and where?
From here on out we should refer Democrats and Dhimmicrats.
Jay, it is great to be back in the wonderful United States of America.
I had heard that the ACLU was running anti-spying ads, and thought that you might take a stab at this horrible association.
I find it somewhat amusing that they are attempting to protect the civil liberties of a foreign terrorist.
Also the fact that this is truly a reasonable search and seizure (which is constitutionally valid), and for someone to declare this an unreasonable search is just silly.
Keep up the great work Jay.
Michael, there are two questions I’d like to ask you:
1. Since you find it amusing that the ACLU is attempting to protect the civil liberties of foreign terrorists, would you object if the eavesdropping program were applied to American citizens who aren’t terrorists?
2. Is the determination of whether a search is “reasonable” one for you to make, the President to make, or for a court to make?
Erasmussimo: The fact that Carter is being judged on past behavior is a necassary evil when debating national security. Carter is responsible for the collapse of the Middle East under the weight of Muslim terrorists. Carter gave Iran, one of our biggest allies at the time, the middle finger when asked for aid against Muslim regimes. He felt it better to let the Middle East be oppressed for the next 30 years by American-hating idiots whose only thought is to kill us and Israel. So forgive us when national security remarks made by Carter are suspect.
“So what we have here in terms of strict construction is:
1. Nothing in the Constitution supporting such Presidential powers; and
2. The 4th Amendment explicitly denying such powers.
I realize that there are many other, subtler arguments that apply here. But if we want to take a plain and simple, strict reading the text, then the Constitution is clear on this point: The President has no such powers.”
One big glaring hole in that whole argument: The Constitution doesn’t protect your right to privacy either by this logic. The point would be moot anyway since neither you nor anyone else has any proof that Bush or the NSA have eavesdropped illegally. The NSA monitoring outside calls from terrorists into the U.S. is a military operation and is completely legal. The only way it is illegal is monitoring calls WITHIN the U.S. Since this isn’t happening, the whole argument is pointless.
Hmm…
On the matter of Mr. Carter, I’ll suggest that the problems in the Middle East cannot be laid at the doorstep of any single American President. The history of American involvement in the Middle East is long and complicated. Did Eisenhower do the right thing during the Suez Crisis? How about the 1967 war or the 1973 war? Although you might think that the Camp David accords were a bad deal, they represent the only obvious success of American diplomacy; all of our other efforts have been ad hoc measures to prevent a disaster from growing worse. But I won’t ask you to credit Carter for Camp David; I will instead ask you to not lay all the blame on him. Every other President had the (difficult) opportunity to make peace in the Middle East, and nobody else succeeded in any way.
As to the latter argument, I agree that the Constitution does not, when strictly interpreted, protect a right to privacy. It protects all persons (not just citizens, by the way), from unreasonable searches. A “reasonable search” is accepted to be one that has been approved by an independent court. (That’s where the “warrant” part comes in.) That’s why we have the FISA court — to perform that function. Inasmuch as Mr. Bush has declared that he conducted searches in violation of the 4th Amendment (that is, without obtaining a warrant), he has declared himself to be violating the Constitution.
Lastly, the Fourth Amendment does not make any exceptions for military applications. It applies to ALL actions by the Federal government, regardless of whether the action is criminal, civil, or military, or undertaken during peace or war.
Again, you can cite a number of Supreme Court decisions that water down the absolute nature of the Fourth Amendment, but so long as we want to talk about strict construction, there just isn’t much room to manuever around the Fourth Amendment; it’s pretty plainly worded.
“from unreasonable searches”
Eavesdropping isn’t a search, strictly worded. The fourth amendment by the way, does NOT protect outside citizens against “unreasonable searches.” The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, nor is it even implied. Eavesdropping on incoming calls made by terrorists does not in any way violate the Constitution.
I’ll lay full blame of the collapse of the Middle East on Carter. You may argue that many Presidents have had the opportunity to “make peace” with the Muslim regimes controlling the area, (an ubsurd idea) but had Carter done his duty, the Muslim regimes would not control the Middle East, and Iran, Saudia Rabia, and Iraq would continue to be our allies.
Wow! I find myself in disagreement with just about every sentence in your post! Let’s take it a step at a time:
1.”Eavesdropping isn’t a search, strictly worded.” That’s a novel idea. The Fourth Amendment says that the “right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches…” You’re saying that people can be secure against searches but not secure against eavesdropping? That’s a huge non sequitur to me. And certainly I cannot recall ANY court decision supporting that interpretation. Perhaps I am ill-informed; can you provide an example?
2. “The fourth amendment by the way, does NOT protect outside citizens against “unreasonable searches.” The Constitution does not apply to the enemy, nor is it even implied.”
Here’s what the Fourth Amendment actually says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons…” The governing term here is “the people”. Now, this topic has been debated at length and the key argument is the opening line of the Constitution, “We the people of the United States”. The argument is that this means that “the people” refers only to citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, this argument has a lot of holes in it. After all, the people of the United States who ordained and established the Constitution are all dead now; you and I weren’t there then so you and I don’t deserve any Constitutional protections either — by that line of reasoning. In the Fifth Amendment it says that “no PERSON shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In this context a person applies to anybody, citizen or non-citizen alike. Does that fact that they used “person” in the Fifth Amendment and “the people” in the Fourth Amendment imply a different intent? That’s a question to argue over all night. (BTW, the Fifth Amendment, strictly interpreted, definitly applies to the prisoners at Guantanamo.)
3. “Eavesdropping on incoming calls made by terrorists does not in any way violate the Constitution.” The problem with this is that the term “terrorists” has no legal meaning. At the time that the eavesdropping takes place, we don’t know whether the caller (or the recipient) is a terrorist. That’s why the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant based on “probable cause”. Sure, if we KNEW that the call was from a terrorist, then we could proceed without legal problems. But it’s precisely because we DON’T KNOW that we require a warrant.
4. “I’ll lay full blame of the collapse of the Middle East on Carter.” Well, OK, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I’ll ask you this: what’s your assessment of Eisenhower’s actions in 1956?
OK, let me clear some things up Erasmussimo, because I’m really enjoying conversations with you. You are actually the first person in a long time providing somewhat reasonable debate…enough to actually get me into the comment sections.
1. I agree we can not blame Carter for all the problems in the Middle East. But, I will lay a HUGE chunk of the blame on him. Of course other Presidents have added to it, and of course we can’t forget that the tribal mentality of their theocracy stuck in the dark ages must take the majority of blame.
2. There is a difference between searches and eavesdropping. Your use of the word terrorist does not matter. They can be suspected terrorists…it is collecting foreign intelligence.
OK, Jay, I can agree that eavesdropping is not the same thing as a search. Our difficulty here is that the Constitution itself is silent on the difference, because there was no technology for eavesdropping back then. As I understand the court decisions, the criterion used is whether the government action would violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy”. In other words, it’s OK for the Feds to watch you through the window of your house, because any passing person could do so. It’s OK for the Feds to monitor your spoken conversation in a public place. But if you’re home and have every right to think that you’re in private — and phone calls definitely belong in this category — then the Feds can’t eavesdrop without a warrant.
There was an interesting case involving analog cordless phones some years back. I think in that case the court ruled that anybody could intercept such cordless phone trasmissions and so it was OK for the Feds to do so. However, nowadays most of those transmissions are digitally encrypted and so the user has a “reasonable expectation” of privacy. But my memory of the specifics is poor on this question.
It doesn’t really matter WHY the government is seeking to eavesdrop. The Fourth Amendment makes no such distinctions, hence the fact that the eavesdropping is part of foreign intelligence is irrelevant. That’s why FISA was set up in the first place: to establish an effective way to meet the demands of the Fourth Amendment while not compromising national security.
FISA gets in the way of National Security, and no one should think they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in an international phone call.
Let me ask you this, would you have a reasonable expectation of privacy if you were to surf the net in a public library?
Erassmussimo: Its pretty much common sense that the Constitution is intended for Americans and Americans only, unless we are going to go and enforce all the amendments in other countries.
“And certainly I cannot recall ANY court decision supporting that interpretation”
That means nothing. We have court decisions that uphold abortion and same sex marriages but that does not give them Constitutional veracity.
“At the time that the eavesdropping takes place, we don’t know whether the caller (or the recipient) is a terrorist”
No one in the U.S. is being eavesdropped on (if that is grammatically correct) unless a terrorist is on the other line. Otherwise no eavesdropping is taking place.
“You are actually the first person in a long time providing somewhat reasonable debate”
Too true. Erassmussimo, you must forgive my harsh tone but I’m use to people calling me every swear name in the book rather than actually discuss things with me.
“what’s your assessment of Eisenhower’s actions in 1956?”
Have to get back to you. I didn’t research that one as extensively.
Erasmussimo:
1. “Since you find it amusing that the ACLU is attempting to protect the civil liberties of foreign terrorists…”
~Yes, I do find it quite amusing that we should coddle the enemy, and protect them under a constitution for which they seek to destroy.
“…Would you object if the eavesdropping program were applied to American citizens who aren’t terrorists?”
~I think that you may be misguiding the reader, because you have failed to say if they are innocent or not, or if they are suspected terrorists, or if they are just plain innocent law abiding citizens of the greatest nation on God’s green earth. If they are suspected terrorists it is “reasonable”, and that is exactly what the President is doing. Another thing not adressed is the fact that the President is still allowing the NSA to seek warrants on US to US calls.
2. “Is the determination of whether a search is “reasonable” one for you to make, the President to make, or for a court to make?”
~I think that the President absolutely traveled the right course by getting this approved by a bi-partisan senate Jusiciary Committee… The guys that make the laws of our great nation.