Well put as ususal Froggy.
A couple thoughts and a question.
1) The intelligence commitees in Congress were briefed when these taps went into place.
2) They were done in secret so as not to tip our hand and let the bad guys know what we were doing or how we were doing it.
3) To expose those means and methods is a direct threat to the security of the United States. This applies to the CIA which is obviously at war with the President and members of Congress.
4) Anyone that directly threatens the security of the US is an enemy combatant and should be arrested.
5) The President is sworn to protect the country from all enemies, foriegn and domestic.
Question- At what point do the actions of Congressmen and Senators make them enemies deserving of incarciration and trial?
I'd be interested in an informed discussion on this point because it seems that some are getting very close.
JCW,
While your point is well taken with respect to the letter and intent of the law, its application is completely politically unfeasible. The only way your scenario could play out is if a Congressman were to sell the US out directly to the terrorists, ala George Galloway in the UK. Short of that happening, the prosecution of legislators for treasonous behavior would do nothing more than serve to obstruct the war effort by taking up all other topics of discussion. It would be nice though.
The timing is even more interesting when you consider that the writer of the NYT story allegedly has a book coming out that has this story and others as the topic. I'll try to get more concrete information about this.
"You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Nothing else need be said.
"Use their systems, passports, citizenship, laws, traditions, books and media, create internal divisions among them, and inflict defeat on the kuffars [infidels], for in the current balance of power, all we need to do is to use their weaknesses as our strength."
– Abul ala’ - Al-Ansar chat room, September 2005.
The left in this nation does not fully comprehend, or is willfully ignorant of the enemy that we face. Their continued attempts to destroy Bush are harming our national security. Be it MSM hacks or CIA flacks leaking information, there actions border on treason.
Well stated, Gabe.
Keep it up Froggy. I did a google search on your name and found countless discussions of your blog on liberal websites. Apparently you get under their skin terribly. Their feeble attempts to argue against your posts, with the obvious cowardice in not coming here to do it so you can respond, brightened an otherwise bad day. Apparently your no bullshit assessments are not popular with the sugar tit cowards on the left. Thanks for putting yourself out there to face public ridicule from an insane left, so the rest of us can find the truth and sanity in your blog.
With you on this 100% Matt. We need to use all the tools available to us in order to stop these terrorists.
I can understand why we can't arrest members of Congress, even when it's obvious they are aiding and abetting. But the freakin' CIA? And the pocking State Dept.? Don't they work for the NCA? I don't give a fat rat's ass about that petty fallout, the NCA needs to find those traitors, and show them the pocking door at the least, and indict and convict would be to my liking.
Keep it up, Froggy! You're one hell of a not-so-secret weapon!
Sugar tit cowards.....there's a blog title for ya!
Froggy's marksmanship hasn't suffered from the time off, I'm glad to see.
You might think of all the journalists in the country, the New York Times should remember better than most what the War on Terror is all about, since it started down the f@#%&*ng street in '93 and then in '01. Then you would have to remember that the alternative world in which liberals live doesn't allow for such simplicity and clarity of purpose. Somehow, in the most nuanced of ways, this is all because the USA is unfairly an unchecked hyper-super-megapower and the playing field must be leveled. They're self obsessed, churlish and just plain damned ARROGANT.
Now they are harming National Security. What do you think would have happened to a London Times reporter who published a page 1 expose on the "ULTRA" program at Bletchley Park in 1943? What about the civil rights of the Kriegsmarine coded dispatches? How dare Churchill intrude on any coded transmissions?
This crap has really just got to be investigated. Put the leakers away, the sooner the better.
Welcome back Froggy.
I guess it must be OK to kill a US Navy diver. The Germans just let Hammadi go.
RIGHT ON. But I'm starting to question the "coward" label...these a$$holes aren't anti-war peace lovers, they are ON THE OTHER SIDE.
The writer of the NYT story does have a book coming out in Jan. this book is called "State of War: the secret history of the CIA and the Bush Administration".
I saw the cover somewhere, and it's a photo of Pres. Bush speaking and gesturing aggressively, and the whole picture is tinged blood red. What subtle symbolism.
The book is co-authored by the same reporter of the story. It's also part of the Viacom liberal media empire, so expect the full court press of CBS evening news, long 60min. feature and don't forget John Stewart.
I think the publisher is Simon&Scheister, who gave us Richard Clarke's timley released book, among others(Viacom again). So watch for the same promotional blitz that Clarke got. This is just so damn transparently coordinated.
Investigate. Indict. Prosecute. Convict. Incarcerate. For our people, ou troops, our nation.
The writer of the NYT story does have a book coming out in Jan. this book is called "State of War: the secret history of the CIA and the Bush Administration".
I saw the cover somewhere, and it's a photo of Pres. Bush speaking and gesturing aggressively, and the whole picture is tinged blood red. What subtle symbolism.
The book is co-authored by the same reporter of the story. It's also part of the Viacom liberal media empire, so expect the full court press of CBS evening news, long 60min. feature and don't forget John Stewart.
I think the publisher is Simon&Scheister, who gave us Richard Clarke's timley released book, among others(Viacom again). So watch for the same promotional blitz that Clarke got. This is just so damn transparently coordinated.
Investigate. Indict. Prosecute. Convict. Incarcerate. For our people, ou troops, our nation.
Sorry about the doublepost.
Unbelievable, the NY Times. Well, at least people are seeing it all more clearly now. It isn't just us right wing wackos. Though this morning I went to Arianna Huffington's site ONLY because the headline for it on RCP was "NY Times blows it again." I thought, could it be? But no, she is blasting them for not exposing the wiretap story sooner. I should've known.
Peg is right: people like this are ON THE OTHER SIDE. They don't want us to intercept anything. If the US gets attacked it will only, in their minds, bolster the arguemtns they've been making: we started it, we were mean, we are too christian, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
I was so glad the pres spoke twice this week...finally he isn't taking it lying down.
Great post, as usual.
Not only should the NSA be prohibited from monitoring communications from suspected foreign-based terrorists to persons in the U.S. who are not subject to FISA-warranted monitoring, U.S. Customs agents should be prohibited from searching the luggage and persons of U.S. citizens returning to the U.S. from foreign countries. It seems only fair.
Regards,
Starbucks-Drinking Surrender Monkey
That's good toungeboy.
How about this to illustrate the gulf of understanding about war and peace:
"Finally, actress Alyssa Milano: "I went to Iraq on a USO tour. This was two months after the war was declared over. When we got on the ground, they started throwing us helmets and bulletproof vests. I'm wearing a little Prada shirt, you know. I wanted to look good for the boys. Basically, I was doing my service to the country. And so I put this vest on, which was about ten pounds, and this helmet and I go over to Tommy Franks, General Franks? And I said, 'I have to be honest with you. I'm freaking out a little bit right now. I just need to know that we're going to be okay.' And he said, 'Little darlin', I guarantee you this: We've got more bullets than they got assholes.' Not quite the answer I was looking for."
Pretty damned good answer from Gen. Franks, as far as I'm concerned.
Here's the rest of this neat little nugget:
http://
www.realclearpolitics.com..._of_wisdom.html
The RCP Blog: Four Pearls of Wisdom
Glad to have you back Frog. Was starting to think you were on permanent blog leave!
Keep up the good work sailor.
Glad you're feeling better Froggy!
Great post, as usual
Since the Libs like to sue everyone, why not form an ACLU like group to sue the leakers and their enablers for violation of the soldiers' and their families' Civil Rights?
For very soldier that dies, is it possible to sue the MSM for it because they give the Terrorists a voice? Can the MSM be considered an Arm of AQ, even unwittingly?
If someone falls off a ladder, you can sue, but what about suing the MSM for giving the Terrorists an avenue? Is the MSM 100% guilty or just 10%? Can you conjoin the Terrorists and the MSM into a class action suit?
The MSM is putting out a defective product and needs to compensate the victims of its product.
http://www.latimes.com/news/prin...ack=1&
cset=true
The LA Times takes the NY times to task for the timing of its wiretap story.... I feel like I drank koolaide or something.
Like the requirement for finger prints for driver's liscence and a picture ID to vote this is just a formality.
If you have nothing to hide who cares if the Government knows you.
My finger prints and photo has been on file with the government since 1970 "Who cares" anybody researching me is going to be bored really fast LOL
Well, at least there is actually going to be an investigation into this leak. Perhaps it will even result in criminal prosecution- God knows it should. The Defeatocrats are a bunch of suicidal lemmings...
Under the laws we can easily go after the person who leaks the information, but the press isn't held accountable. Just the person who leaked it. So unless we can figure out who, the New York Times is doing okay.
Anybody who can point me to a further summary of what FISA requires for wiretaps and how Bush's program works differently with respect to foreign vs. domestic and where we get the numbers would be thanked. It's all very interesting, I'm trying to soak up everything I can. Thanks, Matt.
Matt,
Again well said and I agree with you 100%. This again, shows me that the Dems and the MSM are a bunch of sedicious dirtbags. I am of the opinion that if you don't have anything to hide, then why care about the damn wiretaps? Personally, I don't care if the NSA listens in on my phone conversations. About the only interesting thing they might hear is me asking my wife what she's wearing when I might be away on a business trip or something. And I don't think the NSA is interested in that. If I hear another left wing wack job complain about infringing on Civil Liberties, its going to give me the sh!ts. The fact of the matter is we live in a new world now, a world that requires this kind of action to be taken in order for us to survive. The Left hasn't figured out yet that we ARE in a war.
-Steve O.
On the day something else goes biff in the night will we remember that the democrats decided to give the president all of the responsibility and none of the authority to prevent the devastation? He did after all, cause the hurricanes. I am so fed up with politics I am ready to spit nails. The democrats all need to be fired and a few republicans need to go with them starting with McCain. Welcome back Matt, a little vicodin a little ice, and that 7th food group ibuprofen goes a long way. The gel caps work better than the tabs, or so I've heard.
Dead on Froggy. I've had it with debating the barbarian supporters in our country. Let them rant. Our voices are better served hammering our elected folks in DC to support and defend our Country and Constitution. Granted, we may have to have remedial training on what that means but it beats the hell out of ranting with the moonbats.
They don't want anything other than the destruction of the Country. Pity that they are citizens, otherwise we could label them for what they are, Enemy Combatants, and put them away.
Brian, that was pretty funny!
Tongueboy, not all us Starbucks drinkers are surrender monkeys. 
I like cheese and starbucks (have you tried chantico?!!) ... I hope to God that doesn't make me French.
Glad to see you back, Froggy. Hope you are feeling better.
The content and timing of your post is perfect. The NY Times and the democrats have put this country at greater risk all for the sake of their pursuit of power. Now, today we have that idiot Rockefeller revealing his secret note to the file - like an excuse from mommy for being late for class - proving yet again that he shouldn't be let out without a keeper let alone serve on the Senate "Intelligence" Committee.
The American public is not buying the latest bag of treasonous goods that the liberals are trying to peddle. President Bush's response has been excellent - quick and unforgiving. I hope that he keeps after them. Our future safety depends upon it.
It's pretty clear the MSM has decided that 9/11 was no big deal and a "one off" that will never happen again.
That's what they decided (besides it was just little Eichmans anyway) and that's the way it's gonna be.
However when Iran nukes one of our cities the President can and should say "I tried everything I could but the Dems and Media tied my hands."
The NSA leak and the CIA prison leaks were a follow up of the Plame protection from indictment(not that Fitz would do his job after Kerry paid them off)put in place by Congress last month requiring DOJ and Pentagon report to Dircetor of the CIA. A conflict of interest alot like getting your husband hired as a contractor at CIA.
Congress seems to be asking other countries for understadning of Plame and, well, France and Italy were'nt, so Iraq went the Plame way as well. 'Dr. WMD, not Rice,' was released by the Iraqis today as Plame and Wilson convince us they are just two more bad actors who need to do their time. They all knew Hillary and that's why Bill is speaking out.
Not that they have were outed by Plame like the ones in Iraq and Spain.
Oh ya, Congress seems to want to control the new investigative agency to handle all the Plame type stuff. Adding it to the two other agencies they control and Bush bribes with by doubling those federal union employees.
Sure are greedy when they have a Plame right in front of them.
A major error in your hypothetical scenario about incoming calls from foreign evil-doers to US citizens renders it completely false and useless.You wrote:
"With respect to the monitoring of calls from those foreign numbers to US persons, the only way to obtain FISA warrants PRIOR TO the initiation of any of those potential calls would be if a list of PREVIOUSLY called numbers in the US could be determined. Calls made from the foreign numbers to US numbers not previously known (it is tradecraft SOP to periodically change these numbers on both ends) could never be monitored under the absurd “interpretation” of the Constitution by liberals in the US Senate."
FISA does not require prior warrants. They have 3 days to acquire one. If in your scenario a monitored caller from overseas - or a non-US person within the US - called a US person, the NSA would have that 3 days to then go get a warrant. What's the problem?
Additionally, consider another hypothetical scenario. Hillary is elected in 2008 and has the power you now advocate for the president - warrantless surveaillance of US citizens and who knows what other extra-legal powers can be claimed because "we're at war". Comfortable with that?
JFrent - Hilary's hubbie Bill in fact ordered warrentless taps search and seizures on two occasions.
Jimmy Carter also ordered warrentless taps during his tenure as President.
Jimmy Carter signed FISA in 1988 and also had his attn general spy on US citizens he believed posed a threat to Americans security.
The Courts ruled that suveillance without court order in these circumstances was NOT in violation of the US Constitution and was in fact UPHELD by it.
The courts held that the Pres DID have the authority to order warrentless taps, search and arrests- they cited that Title 15 states that ANY President may order wiretap without a court order to gather intelligence for up to a year!
Bill Clinton agreed and on two occasions acted on this ruling by ordering warrantless taps searches seizures and an arrest!
Three days is FAR TOO LONG to wait for a freaking court warrant when dealing with terrorists who blow themselves up on subways, streetcars, busses, in restaurants, and fly planes into buildings.
Imagine if we had overheard the 9/11 plot on 9/9 and had to wait for THREE days for a warrant??? Imagine if another 9/11 is in the making and we get wind of it two days prior? To we need to wait three days before we act to save thousands of innocent lives?
Apparently Jimmy Carter,Bill Clinton and now President Bush DISAGREE!
What Drudge says:
Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”
What Clinton actually signed:
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] 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.
That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.
Ditto for Carter.
Under FISA, you don't wait for 3 days for the warrant, you have 3 days of warrantless surveillance before you must apply for one. The special court for this purpose has turned down only 4 out of thousands applied for during it's nearly 30 years of existence.
I just dropped by to thank everyone for their kind words to me on the occasion of my Father's death. I left a comment on the prior post for everyone to read so I won't repeat it here. I just dropped by to find out what everyone was talking about...and to sign Froggy's cast if there is one 
Have a nice Christmas!
Carol
This is really about going back to the MSM's glory days when they brought down a president, lost a war and paralyized this country's military willpower for an entire generation. The question is, are we going to let them get away with it again? Merry Christmas to all, especially to everybody in uniform wherever they are. God keep you safe.
I don't understand something:
When they tap a mobster's phone, they are listening in on all sort of people who may call that mobster, who have nothing to do with the mob. These are US citizens who's conversations with the mobster we are listening to, only because they happen to talk to him.
No one has a problem with the above scenario.
When they want to listen who a known terrorist outside the US is talking to, they end up listening to many people who are not terrorists. It is the same thing, but suddenly the liberals are up in arms about it?
It doesn't make sense.
I am going to assume, just for the moment, that the wiretaps as described in the NYT and WaPo articles violate a statue. It's clear they don't violate the Constitution.
If there's a problem, then Congress needs to fix it, because Congress passes statues.
So, anybody who has a family member in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere else overseas, or one who flies, or uses a subway, or drives over a bridge, or uses a public water supply, should write their Senators and Representatives, particularly if they are Democrats, and tell them that, if there is a problem with the law, fix the law.
It might also be a good idea to ask them to avoid any discussion of the technology involved. There has already been 'way too much information about US intelligence capabilities highlighted for the terrorists' education. This must stop.
JFrent;
As far as I know, the Bush administration has not stormed any compounds resulting in fire and death noe have they stormed into private homes to sieze a child to send him to a communist country.
I'll take my chances with the GOP as opposed to the DEMs any day.
'Little darlin', I guarantee you this: We've got more bullets than they got assholes.'
**laughing** having met Tommy Franks, I can confirm that the above is something he'd be inclined to say. Too bad Miss Milano didn't appreciate the profound wisdom concealed in that little nugget.
Great comment thread! I don't care about wire tapping as I have nothing to hide, not that I would ever be considered a threat to anyone! Also, the dems make it sound like this has been going on continuously since '01, but it's only about 30 times and they were known to have involvement with terrorists.
Off topic: I just wanted to say Thank you to you guys for your service to our wonderful, crazy country! Oh, and Merry Christmas!
Plutos Dad said:
"When they want to listen who a known terrorist outside the US is talking to, they end up listening to many people who are not terrorists. It is the same thing, but suddenly the liberals are up in arms about it?
It doesn't make sense."
PD, haven't you learned at this point that logic and liberals do not go hand in hand?
I'm just having a good time picturing members of intel agencies violating statues. :-D
JFrent,
The other issue you may not be aware of is this. The NSA captures EVERY electronic communication coming from EVERY source in entire cities around the world. This massive dragnet includes untold thousands or probably millions of communications originating from these locations, many of them talking to US persons. It would be physically impossible for federal agents to write and the FISA judges to approve warrants within 3 days when it might take more than 3 days from the time the communication was intercepted to even KNOW that such a conversation was captured. This is the nature of the enormity of our SIGINT effort, and is not a pernicious act on the part of the President. I will post on this sometime this week in more detail so standby.
I'll tell you what
let's frame it like this
Liberals=Follow the Law to get the Job done
You=Screw the Law, I am the Law
Oh yeah and government's don't overreach ever, that whole spying on Martin Luther King, never happened, and if you think it did you're a terrarist
Scooter- yeah Clinton followed the law when he purjured himself and lost his Arkansas law license.
No laws have been broken. The Supreme Court (a bastion of liberal thought) has unheld the President's right to direct the NSA the way that he did.
So deal with facts, not emotion if you want to sway anyone on this blog.
QUESTION AND COMMENT TO BLOGGER: I really want to understand your position and why the FISO rules conflict with your second posting example "foreign numbers to US persons." If I accept your premise that a wiretap warrant would incapable of acquisition PRIOR (your capitals) to the wiretap be covered by the 72 hours clause for warrants obtained after the wiretap has been initiated? What am I missing? You make the distinction "PRIOR" but you fail to analyze the SUBSEQUENT application which would certainly be granted - as 99.9% (my percentage guess) are? Help me out here with an explanation of the problem.
Donna
Donna,
I don't think that the two posts are mutually exclusive. I took on the issue of obtaining warrants prior to in the first post and the difficulties that entails. In the second, I explained my position on warrants sought after the intercept. My knowledge and understanding of this issue is growing as I research the issue more and more, and I am posting those insights as I come across them.
I don't claim to be an NSA employee, NSC staffer, or even a ConLaw expert, but my purpose is to inform my readers of my impressions as to these issues as I learn more about them.
This goes back to attack journalism.
The response needs to attacked quickly.
There is a war in this country and the media needs to understand this.
Fox news and the radio is not enough.
We need the MSM especially newspapers.
Simple advertisements need to be place in Newspapers.
Heading: This advertisement is placed because the information is not reported in this newspaper.
Include simple one liners from previous administrations regarding the President's right to authorize warrantless interceptions.
Include the latest statement from the FISA court relating to the President's authority to authorize warrantless interceptions.
Include the fact that Congress is kept informed every 45 days.
Include a picture of a smiling Senator Reed saying that they have stopped the Patriot Act.
Include Statement regarding thae fact that no oversight has found any mistakes made when using the Patriot Act.
Statement: Why is the Democratic leader so happy about stopping the government from protecting America.
So essentially what the liberals are saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators under any circumstances
I see why the liberals like to call themselves the "reality-based community." ABSOLUTELY NO ONE is saying what you think liberals are saying.
Oberon -- the quote from Froggy you cite is what we would get if we took what the liberals are saying to its logical conclusion ... whether they are explicitly declaring it, or not.
And Scooter -- it's framed like this:
Liberals=Follow the Law ...
As in 800 FBI files on Hillary's nightstand (figuratively speaking)? As in possibly trading SECRET weapons information for campaign contributions?
Y'all strain at the gnats in the law whenever it can be used to discredit a conservative ... but are more than willing to swallow (and feed the rest of us) the camel of death and destruction in one gulp ... if it means that you get to jerk America's chain and yank it back to "just-another-nation" status, since in your relativist worldview, dictatorship and democracy are morally equivalent.
... to get the Job done
Leftist foreign policy, with its centerpiece of aversion to the direct, decisive use of American force for ANY reason, gave us the defeat and subjugation of the Vietnamese people ... humiliation and the entrenchment of Islamofascism in Iran ... the need to play footsy with dictators, to make the best of bad situations ... the betrayal of the Shiites in Iraq in the name of "diplomatic relations" after Desert Storm ... and the rise of Al Quada, which was, in practical terms, ignored by the Administration at the time.
OTOH, when conservative "cowboys" like Reagan and Bush ignored the Left and confronted those who perpetrate evil (defined as the denial of the individual's inalenable rights, combined with the intent to establish totalitarian rule over wide areas), people like you whined and moaned how we were "warmongers" ... but in the end, millions were liberated from totalitarianism, and the military threats associated with that totalitarianism virtually disappeared. In fact, we didn't get real nuclear-arms reductions until Reagan forced the issue.
Based on results, you should call these cowboys "peacemongers", instead ... for they did far more to advance peace and freedom around the world than all the UN resolutions and anti-war protests of the last 50 years.
You=Screw the Law, I am the Law.
The President's first priority is to protect your and my rights ... and the first thing on the agenda is to protect your and my right to live, for the other rights are rather useless if you are dead.
In that regard, using these surveillance techniques to ferret out terrorist plotting is in accordance with the most basic tenets of the law.
Prove to me where he is spying on others for political reasons, or any other reason besides the need to protect our national security.
We see right through you ... you strain at the gnats of the law, simply because you think such straining will remove a President you dislike for other, unrelated reasons.
"So essentially what the liberals are saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators under any circumstances..."
No, that's simply not the case at all. I think what "the liberals" (whomever they are) are saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators WITHOUT A WARRANT -- a warrant that can be obtained up to three days AFTER the call has already been intercepted.
What I can't understand is, why is the White House so averse to getting a warrant? It's not as though it's a particularly public procedure. It's not like getting a warrant is going to tip the NSA's hand any more than the actual wiretap itself will.
There are reasons that things like these warrantless searches are illegal. The protection from these searches is just one of the provisions in the Constitution that provide you with the freedom that you so proudly are fighting for.
Smell the irony here. You're saying it's OK for the President to act in a way that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional -- as long as he's doing it to protect our Constitutional freedoms. It just doesn't fly. If the rules don't work for you, try to CHANGE them. Don't just break them.
Without things like statutes that prohibit warrantless searches, we'd be ruled by an oligarchy. There'd be no freedom -- no democratic society to fight for.
Rich, you said, "The President's first priority is to protect your and my rights ... and the first thing on the agenda is to protect your and my right to live"
Clearly you haven't seen the Medicaid news.
No, that's simply not the case at all. I think what "the liberals" (whomever they are) are saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators WITHOUT A WARRANT
Does anyone else see the warped sense of logic in this statement, or is it just me?
It's not OK to spy on calls from known terrorists if the other party is an unknown US co-conspirator, even if the "unknown US conspirator" (I prefer the term, "traitor," myself) is potentially engaging in a plot to murder thousands (maybe millions)?
Ever hear of this thing, it's called a war?
No, that's simply not the case at all. I think what "the liberals" (whomever they are) are saying is that the US should not monitor calls from known terrorists abroad to previously unknown US co-conspirators WITHOUT A WARRANT
Again, who is saying this? It perfectly legal and widely accepted that the NSA can intercept calls made from almost ANYONE abroad (terrorist or not) without a warrant. Everybody agrees that calls from terrorists abroad should be monitored (at least until we use the phone to guide a missile from a Predator).
The only issue is when can the U.S. government can wiretap "U.S. persons". People -- liberal and convesvative -- who believe in imposing even slight restrictions on the federal government believe that IN SOME INSTANCES the government should get a warrant from its secret FISA court before secretly spying on Americans -- hopefully before wiretapping, but afterwords is okay too.
Kerri,
You're about a retard...
Since you're about...
First, I agree with the need for expedited wiretaps and other means of intervention and discovery of "terrorist" information. Second, it is undisputed and that the President through his own ADMISSION states that no President or administration prior to Bush II has ever foregone or disregarded the FISA warrant procedures. With that being said, and respectful of your right to your opinions, among those who vigorously defend Bush, does your defense of him extend to a scenario where his actions would be declared unconstitutional and/or illegal in nature? Would it matter to your position if it were determined that President Bush knew or likely knew at the time he chose to act that he was breaking the law(s)? What if you were to learn that the wiretaps involved members of Greenpeace and the like where some of its actions interfered with fishing or logging but that there was never any issue reasonably related to national security or remotely any "Al Queda type group" terrorist information or activities? (I am NOT a member of these groups at all)
I am really concerned about the level of animosity and attack directed uniformly against either Democrats and/or "liberals." When did this country come to this - when the mere membership in the Democratic or Republican political parties equated with diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive belief systems across the boards? Political party membership historically associated its members with broad guidelines for voting. Let's say "the little people" vs. "big business" or "helping the poor" vs. corporations (i.e. welfare benefits and inner city youth groups vs. the wealthy, tax and corporate financial benefits).
Does this type of stereotyping bother anyone? It really troubles me that we have lost our individuality of thought.
We follow the leader right or wrong, is that it? Since when would ANY PRESIDENT of our great nation literally "call out" a country with words like "bring em on" or antagonizing a potential nuclear armed enemy by calling them "evil"? How did we become so detestable in the world? Doesn't anyone think that the statement Bush made to other countries (paraphrasing) "if you are not with us then you are against us" is incredibly arrogant and could only result in enemies? After all, other world leaders (of sound minds) have a right to their opinions too. What good does it do to make a statement like that? How does that help world peave? Anyhow, that's a whole other subject. Since when have we become so enamored of bullying tactics like that? It's almost as if we are angry as a country and Bush vents it for us against others.
I'll just stop here.
Donna
Donna,
I would definitely have a problem with President Bush if he was wiretapping Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan to see what kinds of criticism and scorn they were planning to launch against him. That kind of surveillance would certainly be unconstitutional and wrong. But you are creating a straw man in this situation. First, I suggest that you check out Powerline's post on the actually legality by citing SCOTUS and Appeals court decisions on the issue. You will find that the President's inherent authority allows warrantless searches of any kind if the purpose is to gain foreign intelligence information.
To be honest with you, I expect my President to use every tool in our arsenal to defeat the terrorists that want to kill us all. I have heard impeachment bandied about on this one, but to me, if the President knew that he had this capability and chose NOT to use it so as not to risk himself politically, THAT would be an impeachable offense in my book. I encourage you to read my more previous posts on this matter and follow the links
Since when would ANY PRESIDENT of our great nation literally "call out" a country with words like "bring em on" or antagonizing a potential nuclear armed enemy by calling them "evil"?
Ronald Reagan, Donna ... his opponents got downright apopolectic when he called the Soviet Union an "Evil Empire". Many thought he would trigger a nuclear war.
However, we now see how many people his confrontation of evil liberated from totalitarian rule ... and without firing a single shot. (Unfortunately, our present enemies are so biased towards fanaticism/away from reason, that shots are required.)
He also paved the way for REAL arms reductions ... in large part, thanks to his skillful playing of the SDI bluff in the ultimate hand of nuke poker.
The most significant progress in the areas of world peace, arms reduction, and freedom itself in the last 50 years, has come almost exclusively at the hands of "cowboys" like Reagan and our current President ... precisely because they were willing to confront evil when they saw it ... even in the face of strident and shrill opposition from their allegedly "sophisticated" and "progressive" opponents, who in fact were so caught up in their sophistication that they discounted simple, absolute truths about how people and nations act.
When we have heeded the words of the Left -- that war is NEVER the answer -- and instead tried to go down their preferred path of negotiation and peace-through-universal-impotence, their good will and respect for "self-determination" was folded/spindled/mutilated by those who had no qualms about denying others their most fundamental rights, allowing these thugs to grow in power and become more entrenched as we were played for fools in the UN and elsewhere.
Show me one totalitarian ruler in history with expansionist tendencies, that has stopped oppressing his people AND seeking to expand his empire ... ON HIS OWN ... without the credible threat of force to back it up. I don't think you can. When we heeded the words of the Left on these matters, tyrants like these (including OBL and Saddam) got the message that our ability to project force in the defense of ANYTHING was not credible. That made them bolder ... bold enough, in the case of Al Quada, to perpetrate 911; in the case of Saddam, to thumb his nose, obstruct, and shell-game weapons inspectors for twelve years.
A prime example -- we egged on the Shiites after Desert Storm, to take down Saddam themselves ... but pulled up short when they needed active support instead of words. Not only did Saddam get the message that we were a paper tiger ... so did the Shiites, which made the INEVITIBLE war we are in today harder to fight. We simply didn't have their trust, thanks to an otherwise wise President Bush (41) putting diplomatic relations over sound principle.
Another example ... notice that the Iranians made sure they released our people just as President Reagan took office. They considered him a credible threat to their well-being, precisely because he was willing to confront evil.
Some advice ... do not place a lot of value in "world opinion" when it comes to America. Too many loud voices there seem to believe that their progress will come, not by doing the hard work like we have to lift themselves up, but by dragging us down to their present level.
As you say, they may have their opinions ... but we have had to live with the real consequences of those opinions for far too long, in the form of dysfunctional societies and growing totalitarian threats.
Doesn't anyone think that the statement Bush made to other countries (paraphrasing) "if you are not with us then you are against us" is incredibly arrogant and could only result in enemies?
That statement was in fact (1) limited to the support or opposition of terrorism, and (2) was far from arrogant -- it was a declaration of the truth. It acknowledged the OBJECTIVE consequences of the choices nations have made and will make regarding support of vs. war on terror.
In this highly-interconnected world, terrorism cannot be tolerated in any form, for it threatens the freedom and prosperity of EVERYONE.
Look at the results, and you will see why conservatives finally found their voice to stridently oppose the shrill voices of Leftism ... the increase in rancor you are seeing is actually the result of the Left losing their near-monopoly on shaping the debate.
Being "civil" doesn't always mean you're right.
We tried it the Left's way -- and it didn't work.
Cowboys like Reagan and Bush 43 have shown us the way that works ... and it's time for the rest of the world to get on board, not because we think we are better than they are, but because the course we have chosen is OBJECTIVELY the better way to preserve the rights (and the deriviative prosperity) of ALL men. History has shown that our course is the right course.
We can no longer, in the name of "tolerance" or "self-determination" let dysfunctional societies degrade to the point they are hijacked by thugs like Saddam & Sons, or fanatics like Al Quada ... to be leveraged into totalitarian threats to both their own people and the rest of the world.
Our lives depend on this ... and they always have, but too many thought we had "evolved" as a species beyond the need for direct, decisive action to correct such dysfunction.
We won't be fooled again.
We must not be fooled again ... or we may meet a fool's death.
. You're saying it's OK for the President to act in a way that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional -- as long as he's doing it to protect our Constitutional freedoms. It just doesn't fly. If the rules don't work for you, try to CHANGE them. Don't just break them.
If you don't provide references, I have to think you are making this up as you go. This morning I read that the Supreme Court has ruled foreign wiretaps constitutional three times. Most recently the FISA Appelate court ruled in Nov 2002 that the President has the inherent power to order warantless searches. See Powerlineblog.com. Gosh, I wish you liberals would come armed with facts.
With all the tainted chains of evidence out there, I would not be at all surprised if a lot of these people walk once the particulars are known.
So much for "give me liberty or give me death." guess the new saying should be.... "give me safety over liberty."???
ElGringo -- when a terrorist takes your life, he takes your liberty as well.
One thing is for sure though -- those on the "abroad" end of these conversations who are significant threatss will not "walk", courtesy of our imperial judiciary.
They will only "walk" if our resolve falters.
With all the tainted chains of evidence out there, I would not be at all surprised if a lot of these people walk once the particulars are known.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See, this is it in a nutshell. As a society we are so legalistic that we immediately frame this as law enforcement. 'Warrantless searches' rather than foreign electronic surveillance
This is why the Wall allowed 911 to happen. Suddenly information gained in foreign intelligence (terrorist's laptop) was subject to 4th ammendment protections and information gained could not be shared.
I can imagine circumstances where the interruption of terrorist attacks or sleeper cells is so exigent that legal prosecution is dispensed with. If this is war, as I believe is obvious, this requires a paradigm shift.
I need to clarify ...when I said legal presecution dispensed with I meant no attempt at legal prosecution... immediate deportment on visa grounds.. extradition to another country...I didn't mean something unlawful like exectuion or unlawful detentino.
I totally disagree with the way the search of the laptop went down. I wholeheartedly agree that to subject a non-citizen or illegal alien to the same standards as US citizens was ridiculous.
AND if that search was illegal on a US citizen I think that was ridiculous. On one side I am all for subjecting these individuals to all sorts of "unpleasantness" yet the problem is the terms "slippery slope." Where does it lead and when is the line drawn. Today it's illegal aliens and such and tomorrow we no longer have speedy trials for regular joes who just get into some everyday regular legal issues involving crime. What is your boss suspects you took money? Innocent people are put in jail all the time. So from terrorists it becomes average citizens. I don't have the answer. I wish it were possible to be sure that if you allow the government today to skirt the rules because they merely decided to that the city cops won't be able to skirt the rules when they feel they should.
I think it all boils down to oversight. Who's watching the watchers? Power corrupts and it takes power to be president. I sure dont think many would argue that it takes dirty tricks by all in policitcs to "win" and that is shame.
You know, I also think that some of this Democrat against Bush thing goes back to what Democrats believe was 8 years of Bullsh-- pointed towards Clinton and retribution for that. Weren't you totally wronged and knew it and then you watch your accusers get away with just an incredible amount of crap and they don't suffer any penalties or sanctions? Well...I think that Dems are looking for someone to say that Clinton's private behavior and lying about it was nothing compared to Bush doing all this stuff - new things daily. I remeber when the Cole was bombed and the Republicans said it was a political stunt by Clinton to change the conversation away from him. There is no denying that those comments were rampant back then. Clinton wasn't perfect but it just doesn't seem fair that Bush can act they way he does and get away with it. I really think a great deal of anger is still going around and it only feels worse each time Bush opens his mouth. When will the Bush supporters say they agree with that, at least?
And For Rich - I was reminded about Ronald Reagan when reading an on-line New York Times Article out today (12-25-05) entitled "The Agency That Could Be Big Brother" and quoting from the article "In 2002, it was revealed that the Pentagon had launched Total Information Awareness, a data mining program led by John Poindexter, a retired rear admiral who had served as national security adviser under Ronald Reagan and helped devise the plan to sell arms to Iran and illegally divert the proceeds to rebels in Nicaragua."
Is was Reagan and his administration
that went on to that illegal endeavor. In today's atmosphere, the one that has elevated Reagan to god-like status, one wonders what sanctions he and his adminsitration would have faced. So Bush and Reagan, may be alike in more ways than I had previously recalled.
I would take the liberty to quote from today's Times article again:
"The administration says it needs this technology to effectively combat Terrorism. But the effect on privacy has worried a number of politicians.
After he was briefed on President Bush's secret operation in 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Vice President Dick Cheney.
"As I reflected on the meeting today and the future we face," he wrote, "John Poindexter's T.I.A. project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance."
Senator Rockefeller sounds a lot like Senator Frank Church.
"I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." "
Donna
"ElGringo -- when a terrorist takes your life, he takes your liberty as well."
Yeah, but he does not take yours, and every other Americans with it. I would give my life, for your liberty. I am sorry you do not feel the same way.
FEEL THE FEAR???!!
Don't wrap yourself in false nobility, elgringo.
It is one thing to give your life to actively defend the liberty of others ... another thing entirely to allow your life to be taken by a passive response to a real threat.
Passively allowing your life to be taken does not reduce the threat of terror against mine, by one whit. In fact, if you do not engage in an effective defense of your life, you increase the threat to mine, by reinforcing terrorists' perceptions of our impoence ... making them bolder.
There is a fine line between bravery and stupidty, elgringo ... and people like you still cross it like lemmings cross a cliff.
FEEL THIS ... you fear an Administration that might have shreddable paper on you, more than thugs that do shred people.
You're concentrating on the wrong target, if you wish to protect our liberty.
not at all my man, the term is, "give me liberty, or give me me death." Noone ever claimed, liberty was easy...or that a Constitutional Republic based on Law, would be a convenient. Here is an exchange on this very issue, you might find interesting...
"Joining us now are two conservative Republicans who have very different views on this issue. From Atlanta, the former Congressman and CNN contributor, Bob Barr, and from Capitol Hill, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher.
Congressman Barr, what's wrong with what the president has decided to do?
BOB BARR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: What's wrong with it is several-fold. One, it's bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without court order.
So it's bad all around, and we need to get to the bottom of this. BLITZER: Do you agree, Congressman Rohrabacher -- I suspect you don't.
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER, (R) CALIFORNIA: No. What's really bad is the fact that we have an evil opponent who wants to blow us up and that six months after 3,000 of our American citizens were slaughtered right in front of our eyes, that we were confronted with this challenge. I'm really sorry that we have this kind of evil enemy that wants to slaughter us, but I'm very happy that we have a president that, six months after they slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens, he decided to follow up on a lead that was given to our people by breaking up an al Qaeda cell in Pakistan, and followed through on that to make sure that there wasn't another imminent attack, and thus probably saving many thousands of American lives. We can be proud of President Bush for protecting us.
BLITZER: Congressman Barr, what do you say?
BARR: Well, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution is the Constitution, and I took an oath to abide by it. My good friend, my former colleague, Dana Rohrabacher, did and the president did. And I don't really care very much whether or not it can be justified based on some hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that, if you have any government official who deliberately orders that federal law be violated despite the best of motives, that certainly ought to be of concern to us.
ROHRABACHER: 9/11 is not a hypothetical. We are at war.
BARR: No, but the hypothetical is the -- the other cases you were talking about.
ROHRABACHER: Bob, now that we are at war, that is not hypothetical. We have an enemy that has decided that they're going to terrorize the American population by committing mass murder. That is not hypothetical. We are at war, and sometimes at war you --
BLITZER: No, what you were saying, Dana, is that there were other case -- those are hypothetical --
ROHRABACHER: No, that's not -- Bob, you haven't read this. No, that's not hypothetical at all. One of the cases that was involved in this, was someone who was attempting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and because of these wire taps, we were able to stop that.
BARR: No, you're wrong there, Dana. First of all --
ROHRABACHER: And by the way, how do we know who wasn't deterred from blowing up other targets. The fact is --
BARR: Well, gee, I guess then the president should be able to ignore whatever provision in the Constitution as long as there's something after the fact that justifies it.
BARR: Bob, during wartime, you give some powers to the presidency you wouldn't give in peace time. BARR: Do we have a declaration of war, Dana?
ROHRABACHER: You don't have to do that.
BARR: We don't? That makes it even much easier for a president.
ROHRABACHER: No, you just have to make sure that the people of the United States understand that we are at war. They understand that al Qaeda slaughtered 3,000 of our citizens -- more people than the Japanese slaughtered at Pearl Harbor.
BLITZER: Congressman -- let me interject for a second, Congressman Rohrabacher.
ROHRABACHER: Sure.
BLITZER: Everything you say is true, but why not go through the process of either getting new legislation authorizing this or let the court orders be fully implemented? In other words, before the NSA goes and eavesdrops on Americans, get a court order?
BLITZER: First of all, let us note that all this eavesdropping on Americans were that, there were some people living in the United States, whether they're American citizens or not -- we don't know how many are American citizens -- that were involved with contacts overseas. This is eavesdropping on people who were doing international calls and the list that we got, came from what -- came from an al Qaeda cell that we broke up in Pakistan.
I am very pleased that our president didn't wait around but, instead, ran right forward immediately to try to follow up on this and find out what they were planning. I believe he probably thwarted several major attacks by doing that.
BLITZER: Congressman Barr, do you want to respond to that?
BARR: Here again, this is absolutely a bizarre conversation where you have a member of Congress saying that it's okay for the president of the United States to ignore U.S. law, to ignore the Constitution, simply because we are in an undeclared war.
The fact of the matter is the law prohibits -- specifically prohibits -- what apparently was done in this case, and for a member of Congress to say, oh, that doesn't matter, I'm proud that the president violated the law is absolutely astounding, Wolf.
ROHRABACHER: Not only proud, we can be grateful to this president. You know, I'll have to tell you, if it was up to Mr. Schumer, Senator Schumer, they probably would have blown up the Brooklyn Bridge. The bottom line is this: in wartime we expect our leaders, yes, to exercise more authority.
Now, I have led the fight to making sure there were sunset provisions in the Patriot Act, for example. So after the war, we go back to recognizing the limits of government. But we want to put the full authority that we have and our technology to use immediately to try to thwart terrorists who are going to -- how about have a nuclear weapon in our cities?
BARR: And the Constitution be damned, Dana?
ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does. So I'm very happy we have a president that's going to wiretap people's communication with people overseas to make sure that they're not plotting to blow up one of our cities.
BLITZER: We're out of time, but Bob Barr, I'll give you the last word.
BARR: Well, first of all, or last of all, this so-called plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was bogus because it had to do with a group of idiots who were planning to dismantle it with blow torches.
BLITZER: That will have to be the last word and we're going to continue this discussion down the road. Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman, thanks very much for joining us."
Now...you may think that people who disagree with you on this issue are "lemmings"... I disagree with you.
Commenting by HaloScan
