Sunday, March 19, 2006
More Warrantless Searches
US News & World Report used to be the ultimate conservative news magazine. But whatever they said was going on could be deposited in the bank: it was that solid. I assume that’s more or less still true.
The White House went against the FBI because the FBI believed there were too many “legal and constitutional questions,” according to the report. Now, when the FBI raises concerns with the WH over constitutional issues, you know the behavior is as questionable as a baseball balanced on a pin’s head. But, that didn’t matter to the President and his posse; what mattered was making sure the executive office really was in charge of the government and the nation. Which it ain’t, at least according to the Constitution.
White House lawyers argued for warrantless searches after 9/11
03/17/2006 @ 10:03 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
http://www.rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1664
According to a news magazine, White House lawyers argued for the right to conduct warrantless searches of terrorism suspects on U.S. soil after the 9/11 attacks based on the "same legal authority" as President Bush's controversial wiretapping program, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
The U.S. News & World Report article reveals that FBI Director Robert Mueller bitterly opposed warrantless physical searches "not only because of the blowback issue but also because of the legal and constitutional questions raised."
Excerpts from the article written by Chitra Ragavan:
#
In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval.
Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News. "There was a fair amount of discussion at Justice on the warrantless physical search issue," says a former senior FBI official. "Discussions about--if [the searches] happened--where would the information go, and would it taint cases."
....
At least one defense attorney representing a subject of a terrorism investigation believes he was the target of warrantless clandestine searches. On Sept. 23, 2005--nearly three months before the Times broke the NSA story--Thomas Nelson wrote to U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut in Oregon that in the previous nine months, "I and others have seen strong indications that my office and my home have been the target of clandestine searches."
....
In October, Immergut wrote to Nelson reassuring him that the FBI would not target terrorism suspects' lawyers without warrants and, even then, only "under the most exceptional circumstances," because the government takes attorney-client relationships "extremely seriously." Nelson nevertheless filed requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, with the NSA. The agency's director of policy, Louis Giles, wrote back, saying, "The fact of the existence or nonexistence of responsive records is a currently and properly classified matter."
#
The rest of the article can be read at the U.S. News & World Report Website at this link.
(Updated to reflect published story instead of press release)
The White House went against the FBI because the FBI believed there were too many “legal and constitutional questions,” according to the report. Now, when the FBI raises concerns with the WH over constitutional issues, you know the behavior is as questionable as a baseball balanced on a pin’s head. But, that didn’t matter to the President and his posse; what mattered was making sure the executive office really was in charge of the government and the nation. Which it ain’t, at least according to the Constitution.
White House lawyers argued for warrantless searches after 9/11
03/17/2006 @ 10:03 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
http://www.rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=1664
According to a news magazine, White House lawyers argued for the right to conduct warrantless searches of terrorism suspects on U.S. soil after the 9/11 attacks based on the "same legal authority" as President Bush's controversial wiretapping program, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
The U.S. News & World Report article reveals that FBI Director Robert Mueller bitterly opposed warrantless physical searches "not only because of the blowback issue but also because of the legal and constitutional questions raised."
Excerpts from the article written by Chitra Ragavan:
#
In the dark days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a small group of lawyers from the White House and the Justice Department began meeting to debate a number of novel legal strategies to help prevent another attack. Soon after, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to begin conducting electronic eavesdropping on terrorism suspects in the United States, including American citizens, without court approval.
Meeting in the FBI's state-of-the-art command center in the J. Edgar Hoover Building, the lawyers talked with senior FBI officials about using the same legal authority to conduct physical searches of homes and businesses of terrorism suspects--also without court approval, one current and one former government official tell U.S. News. "There was a fair amount of discussion at Justice on the warrantless physical search issue," says a former senior FBI official. "Discussions about--if [the searches] happened--where would the information go, and would it taint cases."
....
At least one defense attorney representing a subject of a terrorism investigation believes he was the target of warrantless clandestine searches. On Sept. 23, 2005--nearly three months before the Times broke the NSA story--Thomas Nelson wrote to U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut in Oregon that in the previous nine months, "I and others have seen strong indications that my office and my home have been the target of clandestine searches."
....
In October, Immergut wrote to Nelson reassuring him that the FBI would not target terrorism suspects' lawyers without warrants and, even then, only "under the most exceptional circumstances," because the government takes attorney-client relationships "extremely seriously." Nelson nevertheless filed requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, with the NSA. The agency's director of policy, Louis Giles, wrote back, saying, "The fact of the existence or nonexistence of responsive records is a currently and properly classified matter."
#
The rest of the article can be read at the U.S. News & World Report Website at this link.
(Updated to reflect published story instead of press release)
