◆ SpookStack

Pe near Lee Te etree a welt Pere aa ty aH eee dy oe ee a HO tp > tek Ma Wn. ae epanaaenn iin iit tO _ Memorandun to Mr. E, S. Miller —_ a ae Re: Electronic Surveillance for Intelligence Purposes, etc. states: to the general requirement of a warrant, it would be necessary to consider the question of whether the surveillance in this case came within the exception and, if so, whether the statutory exception was itself constitutionally valid, But viewing Section 2511(3) as a con- a gressional disclaimer and expression of neutrality, we hold that the statute is not the measure of the executive authority asserted in this case. Rather, we must look to the constitutional powers of the President." So . Later in Part IV 6f the opinion, at page 322, Keith "Nor does our decision rest on the. language of Section 2511(3) or any other section of Title III,..That Act does not attempt to define or delineate the powers of the President to meet domestic threats to the national security. . ee Moreover, we do not hold that the same | type of standards and procedures prescribed by Title III are necessarily applicable to this case. «- ‘Given,..potential distinctions between ow. Title III criminal surveillances and those involving the domestic security, Congress may wish to consider protective standards for the latter which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III. Different standards may be compatible with the Fourth | Amendment if they are reasonable both in rela- tion to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information (my emphasis) and the protected rights of our citizens." In short, I disagree with OLC's conclusion that we are ‘prohibited by statute from undertaking electronic surveillances of 2a domestic organization except under the procedures prescribed ~3e So CONTINUED - OVER .