MoltenThought Logo
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
Sir Winston Churchill

12.19.2005

They Want Us To Lose

That's what this issue says about the LWM and the Democratic Party:

There are politically motivated criminals in our government who should be unmasked and punished to the fullest extent of the law. These people have leaked some of our most sensitive secrets and damaged our national security for no reason other than to discredit President Bush. Forget the Plame nonsense. That -- according to a CIA assessment -- caused no damage at all. No, I'm talking about the leaks of the secret CIA detention facilities in Europe and elsewhere where terrorist detainees are kept. I'm talking about the leak of a top-secret satellite program, apparently by three U.S. senators. And I'm talking about last week's New York Times report about the NSA's domestic intelligence gathering effort that's paying off handsomely. Or was, until the leakers told the Times.

Friday, in a report that the White House asked not be published because it could jeopardize ongoing anti-terrorist operations, the Times revealed that in 2001 the president authorized the National Security Agency to collect intelligence from conversations routed through the United States and possibly including people within the United States. And the media feeding frenzy aimed at declaring George W. Bush a criminal started all over again.

It's pretty clear that NSA's domestic intelligence gathering was -- and is -- legal. But before we get to that, we have to set the context for this debate correctly, which is more than the Times, the Washington Post, or any of the other politico-media will do. We need only two data points to accomplish that.

First, the last time a war was fought on American soil, the president then didn't merely authorize intelligence gathering within our borders, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for anyone held in military custody (even though we didn't yet have a base at Gitmo), and declared that anyone opposing the war would be tried and punished under martial law in military courts. Thank heaven that George Bush isn't as radical as Abraham Lincoln was when he signed that proclamation in September 1862. Or as radical as FDR was in interning Japanese citizens in World War II.

Second, the price of inaction in the war against terrorists is too high. We know, from Mansour Ijaz's accounts and from the admissions Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger has made in several interviews, that the Clinton administration turned down Sudan's repeated 1996 offers of bin Laden on a silver platter because its lawyers didn't believe we had enough evidence to indict him in a U.S. court. Instead of telling the lawyers to find a way to put OBL out of business, the Clintons took the easy way out their lawyers had provided and let bin Laden get away. Now, we have a president who apparently tells his lawyers what Andrew Carnegie once told his.

In what may be an apocryphal story, 19th century industrial baron Carnegie, in a long meeting with his planning staff, endured a few "you can't do that" objections from a new lawyer. Carnegie took the young man into the hall and fed him a dose of reality: "Young man, I don't pay you to tell me what I can't do. I pay you to tell me how I can do what I want to do." And that sums up President Bush's approach to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

FISA requires that intelligence gathering regarding conversations to which "U.S. persons" are a party can only be done pursuant to a search warrant issued (usually in secret) by the special FISA court, made up of sitting U.S. district court judges and located in the Department of Justice building in Washington.

Second, the FISA court issues warrants based on findings of probable cause, like other U.S. courts issuing criminal search warrants. There are too many situations -- like the one we were in before 9-11 -- in which too many possible terrorists are talking to each other and their helpers to sort them out one by one and get individual warrants. Which is why the law, and the regulations that implement it, allow the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court.


They want us to lose. It is that simple, and has always been.

Why on Earth do any Americans listen to these people?

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why?

Uhmmmm....Koolaid?

6:30 PM  
Blogger Teflon said...

No, Anonymous, power.

Keep in mind that the same gaggle of idiots in the Senate Democratic Caucus had no issue with Echelon when Bill Clinton launched it in the 90s, pre-9/11.

Now that we're at war, they're appalled by it.

What's changed in the interim to make it less palatable to the Left?

The occupants of the White House, plain and simple.

So they seek to deprive President Bush of a tool in the War on Terror that Bill Clinton thought indispensable in "peacetime".

The New York Times launches this story, which they had been sitting on for a year, on the day of the Iraqi elections.

This is due to the whacko Left's erroneous belief that honest-to-God Americans will elect Democrats on a cut-and-run platform in 2006.

It's what happens, frankly, when one reads to much Kos.

6:36 PM  
Blogger Teflon said...

And for a preview of just how badly the Left's miscalculated, check this out:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1421748

Look particularly at the "war worth fighting" numbers---the Independents and Republicans have moved Bush's way since Nov 2nd, right in the teeth of this Lefty blitz.

These guys are going to get massacred at the '06 polls, as well they should.

6:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home