Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wendybeth
your finger-pointing is a trifle....irritating.
|
You're being way too kind, IMO. Yes, it's irritating, but also sloppy and misleading. But come on, Wendy... you gotta love it when the wingers start pointing to Clinton, their sworn enemy, to try to justify Bush's messes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
What! This type of thing happening before Bush?!?! And from someone who so highly values our civil rights?!?!
|
And this is the problem. You are trying to compare an executive order from Clinton with what's been happening under Bush. Yes, it's a great little "gotcha" you can throw out there to try and confuse someone into thinking there's equivalence, when there is none.
Let's take a link at that Clinton executive order, the link to which you were so kind as to provide.
Quote:
|
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
|
So what does 302(a)(1) provide?
Let's see:
Quote:
|
the "physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers."
|
In other words, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS
and...
Quote:
|
there is "no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."
|
Again, NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS
To continue, notice that Clinton's executive order is confined to physical searches. That's important, as well. Physical searches exclude electronic surveillance.
So, NO... Clinton did not do the the same type of thing. There is no equivalence, no matter how much Michelle Malkin shrieks otherwise.