RUSH: It's called Article II, it's real simple, it's called Article II. My friend Bill Buckley has a column today. He says, you know, the Constitution oftentimes is said to be so esoteric and so complicated that average people cannot read it and understand it. That's BS. They have lawyers argue the -- like the various elements of the Constitution, we have arguments on both sides, no, it means this, no, it means that. Article II is very plain. There's a reason why the commander-in-chief was given this kind of authority instead of a mindless committee of 535 bubbleheads like Carl Levin. It's real simple. The authority comes from Article II of the Constitution. Let me go to the New York Sun editorial today. Actually, the lead editorial from yesterday. Couple of excerpts here. But contrary to what you may read in some other newspapers, that law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which, by the way, Jimmy Carter was president then, a Democrat -- that law, the FISA law, does not require that all such surveillance be authorized by a court. Somebody tell Jerry in West Milwaukee. "The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the US Code, chapter 36, subchapter 1, section 1802," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, one such provision is helpfully headed "electric surveillance authorization without a court order." That's the title of the law, electronic surveillance authorization without a court order. It's in the FISA law from 1978, Jimmy Carter was president, what more do I need to say?
Well, I've got a lot more and I'll do it now. "This 'without court order,' was so clear that even President Carter, a Democrat not known for his vigilance in the war on terror, issued an executive order on May 23rd, 1979, stating, 'pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.'" He said "without a court order" in his executive order. Carter did it. Reagan did it. Ronaldus Magnus did it. Bush did it. Bush needs to be impeached. Now, there is some discussion by the editors at the New York Sun of qualifications and circumstances in section 1802, that's what they go to next in the editorial, and then the argument continues. "If section 1802 isn't enough, regard section 1811 of the same subchapter of the United States Code, authorization during time of war. It states, notwithstanding any other law, the president, through the attorney general, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed 15 calendar days following a declaration of war by Congress." Now, the important thing there is to mark the phrase "without a court order." Then the rest of the editorial, the Sun editorial writers expand on the question of whether Congress has declared war in this circumstance by authorization the use of force in their numerous resolutions, and they conclude that Congress did formalize a state of war against our enemies after September 11th. But note the recurrence in the FISA law of the phrase "without a court order" in the context of intelligence surveillance.
It's all over the place. All of this is moot, folks, all of this is literally nothing. It is legal. It has been done before, as Jamie Gorelick signified and indicated in her testimony in 1994. Carter, Reagan -- it's tiresome. This is like saying, pick any law that has been on the books for a long time that people have utilized, and then say Bush utilized the same law, except when he does, it's illegal. That is essentially what case Democrats -- and this is all a derivative of the New York Times story that ran on Friday that they held for a year. Interesting note about that. The Los Angeles Times has a story that the Times did, the New York Times did hold that story from James Risen for a year to be more closely aligned with the publication of his book. Now, the New York Times is out today with chapter two of this whole thing. "FBI watched activist groups, new files show. Counterterrorism agents at the FBI have conducted numerous surveillance and intelligence gathering operations that involved, at least indirectly, groups active in causes as diverse as the environment, animal cruelty, and poverty relief, newly disclosed records show." So what! This is an ongoing attempt here, folks, to destroy this nation's ability to defeat this enemy. Now, it may not be with that intention. The intention may solely be to destroy George W. Bush. But the net result of this, if they succeed, is the destruction of our ability to conduct war, wage war, against this enemy. And I will lay you a dollar to a doughnut that this information, the news in this story is not new. I will lay you a dollar to a doughnut, we've read it before, it's been out there before. I've been reading these stories about the FBI since the sixties, for crying out loud. They want to make it sound like it's something new, precedent-setting, never been done before, just like that NSA article appeared on Friday, and it's all bunk, it is all lies, it is the New York Times... |
) when he went over the law as was written under Jimmy Carter and was used in the same manner from both Carter and Clinton? Here is the transcripts with the articles citing the legality according to FISA and it's use under previous administrations.
Now let's see if the other one takes the bait.
