February 12, 200620 yr By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES February 11, 2006 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." http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060210-110722-2189r.htm Guess he forgot about this when he was dissing Bush at Kings funeral.... :rolleyes:
February 12, 200620 yr where both of these men residing in the US at the time? Or was one of them living outside the country??? because if its the latter... then I can see the justification in this wiretapping...... its when both parties reside within the US that I think people are having a hard time with.....
February 14, 200620 yr I want 'facts'... I don't want to hear your hypotheticals..... prove to me that what he did was the exact same thing.. and I'll shut the hell up. :)
February 14, 200620 yr Author the program was no different. they wire tapped enemies of the state who posed a threat and bush did the same. only its ok for carter but no for bush.
February 14, 200620 yr open your ears dude...... wiretapping within the US is unlawful without a court appointed warrant. Yes?? Ok.. so this is what Buch has done.... prove to me that Carter did the same.. and I'll fuckin eat my words. Prove me wrong...... I'm not saying thats its ok for Carter to do it... Its injust either way... its still a violation of our rights.. no matter who did it.. but the fact remains.. you said 'I think' they men where both within the US.... I want you to prove it..... :)
February 14, 200620 yr Author did you read the article? i read it and unless i missed something it didnt say. but by the sound of it, its sounds like it was in the US.
February 14, 200620 yr uh. it doesn't specify.... all it does say... 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. I want specifics.. :P
February 18, 200620 yr Author http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Ba6LCpUCEQMJ:www.jurisearch.com/newroot/caselink.asp%3Fseries%3DF.2d%26citationno%3D629%2BF.2d%2B908+%22Truong+Dinh+Hung%22+%22Ronald+Louis+Humphrey%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
February 18, 200620 yr ok did you actually read all that jargon.... the woman was a US citizen... HOWEVER she was not in the US when she was being tailed. Coincidentally.. she was set up... (by the CIA) which is a good thing... I don't disagree in saying that what she was doing was wrong.. I'mglad she got caught... BUT the survailance wasn't conducted within the US. She was already being investigated...... and the key word here is 'foreign'.. not 'domestic' as they are doing here...... if in fact Carter did the same.... he's a fucker. I would've said the same thing about him.... LIKE i said before.. its the PRINCIPLE!!!! Where are my rights?? If infact he did contribute to domestic survailance.. he was just as wrong as this cat is now..
Create an account or sign in to comment