Can a president order covert actions that will be completely off the record?

[JoeMoma]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. Is this just in the movies, or does this really happen? If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Of course not! Sheesh ... who would think? Nahh ....

 

[Andylusion]

I am absolutely convinced that ever covert action ordered by the POTUS, throughout all US history, we know about.

That's why they call it 'covert'.

 

[JakeStarkey]

People are reading too much Tom Clancy.

 

[JoeMoma]

People are reading too much Tom Clancy.

Tom Clancy would disagree.

 

[JoeMoma]

I am absolutely convinced that ever covert action ordered by the POTUS, throughout all US history, we know about.

That's why they call it 'covert'.

Sarcasm understood.

 

[danielpalos]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. It this just in the movies, or does this really happen. If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

We have a Constitution and a Commerce Clause. Our defense clause cannot be used to "justify everything under the sun", in the name of national security, allegedly.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sure there is plenty of stuff that isn't made public, but that doesn't mean nobody knows about it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. It this just in the movies, or does this really happen. If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

We have a Constitution and a Commerce Clause. Our defense clause cannot be used to "justify everything under the sun", in the name of national security, allegedly.

Who says so?

 

[Missourian]

The NSA was collecting phone metadata and intercepting emails of every American for years and the FBI either didn't know or didn't uphold their duty to defend the rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution. The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress under oath. We only know about it because of Snowden and Wikileaks. If the NSA can illegally spy on every American, how hard would it be for a President to illegally spy on one person without leaving evidence?

​

 

[oldsoul]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. It this just in the movies, or does this really happen. If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

From Wiki:
The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy ("warrantless wiretapping") concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of allegedly foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the touted war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the terrorist surveillance program,[1] part of the broader President's Surveillance Program, the NSA was authorized by executive order to monitor, without search warrants, the phone calls, Internet activity (Web, e-mail, etc.), text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S., even if the other end of the communication lies within the U.S. However, it has been discovered that all U.S. communications have been digitally cloned by government agencies, in apparent violation of unreasonable search and seizure.

Critics claim that the program was an effort to silence critics of the Bush Administration and its handling of several controversial issues during its tenure. Under public pressure, the Bush administration allegedly ceased the warrantless wiretapping program in January 2007 and returned review of surveillance to the FISA court.[2] Subsequently, in 2008 Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which relaxed some of the original FISA court requirements.

During the Obama Administration, the NSA has allegedly continued operating under the new FISA guidelines despite campaign promises to end warrantless wiretapping.[3] However, in April 2009 officials at the United States Department of Justice acknowledged that the NSA had engaged in "overcollection" of domestic communications in excess of the FISA court's authority, but claimed that the acts were unintentional and had since been rectified.[4]

Also from Wiki:
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (also called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, H.R. 6304, enacted 2008-07-10) is an Act of Congress that amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.[1] It has been used as the legal basis for mass surveillance programs disclosed by Edward Snowden in 2013, including PRISM.[2]

That's just a small sample of what we know. What do we not know? Well, that is the million dollar question. Just remember this:

Me: Google, when was the first stealth fighter flight?
Google: June 18, 1981
Me:When was the stealth fighter announced to the public?
Wiki: The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk is a single-seat, twin-engine stealth attack aircraft that was developed by Lockheed's secretive Skunk Works division and operated by the United States Air Force (USAF). The F-117 was based on the Have Blue technology demonstrator, and was the first operational aircraft to be designed around stealth technology. The maiden flight of the Nighthawk took place in 1981, and the aircraft achieved initial operating capability status in 1983.[1]The Nighthawk was shrouded in secrecy until it was revealed to the public in 1988. (emphasis added)

So, yeah, I think there is a thing or two we don't know about.

 

[oldsoul]

The NSA was collecting phone metadata and intercepting emails of every American for years and the FBI either didn't know or didn't uphold their duty to defend the rights granted to all citizens by the Constitution. The Director of National Intelligence lied to Congress under oath. We only know about it because of Snowden and Wikileaks. If the NSA can illegally spy on every American, how hard would it be for a President to illegally spy on one person without leaving evidence?

​

Not too hard, I would say.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's a "record" of just about everything the President does - and there would always be a paper trail for any sort of "wiretapping", as well as countless people involved who would know about it.

 

[yiostheoy]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. It this just in the movies, or does this really happen. If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

Supposedly Reagan ordered Iran-Contra but Lt.Col. North took the fall for it.

And Tip ONeill was not fooled by did not have the heart to impeach his bosom buddy Reagan.

 

[yiostheoy]

There's a "record" of just about everything the President does - and there would always be a paper trail for any sort of "wiretapping", as well as countless people involved who would know about it.

Nixon had his tapes.

 

[yiostheoy]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. It this just in the movies, or does this really happen. If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

Reagan proved that the POTUS can.

Whether Obama had the loose morals of Reagan I do not know.

Trump strikes me as someone with no morals.

From my own personal experience based on my friends, the CIA and the NSA can do about anything they want without telling anybody except their top cat.

The top cat in each agency has to know everything.

Ultimately the Director of the FBI is the top cat over all the other top cats, but he would not necessarily know what the others are doing at any given moment unless he opens an investigation on them.

 

[depotoo]

Yes, for clandestine operations, which are totally hidden, and denied.

 

[pismoe]

There's a "record" of just about everything the President does - and there would always be a paper trail for any sort of "wiretapping", as well as countless people involved who would know about it.

-------------------------------------------------------- seems to me that the criminal president that was in charge can do most anything that he wants if his criminal underlings just do the criminal acts . No orders need to be exchanged as the underlings KNOW very well what their boss wants .

 

[shockedcanadian]

Just a thought! Does a sitting president have the ability to order a covert action such as wire tapping or other surveillance activities that will be completely off the record? Of course, if the results of the surveillance is used for legal reasons, it would need to be on the record. However, the president may want information simply to make some decision without having to explain the to the public the real reason for that decision.

We have all seen in movies where a "secret agent" is sent into a situation in which he is told the government will deny any knowledge of him and his mission if he gets caught. It this just in the movies, or does this really happen. If it does really happen, then is it really so far fetched that a president can order "off the record" surveillance?

If they do so through a foreign government, yes. I've read about it before, so all that I hear from the apparatus is not accurate, the Five Eyes help each other out in many ways so the denials that it cannot or has not happened before doesn't fly with me personally. I am the most supportive of honest, hard working and genuine efforts by the security apparatus, as long as the objective is genuine and justifiable. There are probably plenty of examples of such cases leaked online and in books written by former agents, many more well known within certain tight circles.

There is no special information I have about any specific case obviously, I am speaking in generalities. Now, could they do so domestically? I suppose. That would come with great risk depending on the operation as unlike a foreign agency or government, these agencies and individuals are accountable to the Home government.

 

[JoeMoma]

I'm sure there is plenty of stuff that isn't made public, but that doesn't mean nobody knows about it.

But someone knowing about it does not necessary mean official channels are used. Also, ever hear of plausible denial?