The usual suspects [Democratic leadership and their compadres in the media] seem bound and determined to make an issue of the fact that the President of the United States actually lived up to the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.
As John at Powerline notes even Carter and Clinton were authorized to use warrantless surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. But the D behind their name stood for Democrat and not dictator and those silly rules that must be applied to conservatives like George Bush simply do not apply the bearers of the civil liberties torch.
No, their new motto, is Terrorists Have Rights Too.
The terrorists we are talking about here are folks like Zacarius Moussaoui who is awaiting trial right now.
He might have been apprehended sooner and his computer files with information relating to the September 11 attacks might have been investigated if law enforcement had been able to get a FISA warrant. It seems they tried and failed.
Dots were not connected. Remember the dots that everyone from Moore to Gore was ranting about? Well it seems we know now that if the Democrats have their way the next Moussaoui will not be caught in time either and the dots will go right on being unconnected, floating about in their own insulated little civil liberties haven.
Given a choice do most Americans want the President to do everything in his power to protect the public safety or do they want a bunch of hate mongering politicians and partisan media personalities to put us all at risk just to put the screws to George W. Bush?
Are they really stupid enough to believe that most Americans think they are big and bad and brave for trashing Bush and pandering to AlQaida? It seems so. In fact 62% of the people in this country want to see the Patriot Act renewed and there is Harry Reid bragging that he killed it.
Dumb as a bucket of rocks.
81 comments:
Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling .
(2005-12-21) — Al Qaeda announced today it would relocate its international headquarters to an unnamed U.S. city in order to take advantage of espionage-free local, and state-to-state, phone calls.
“Al Qaeda will thrive in the land of liberty,” said an unnamed spokesman on a 30-minute pre-recorded DVD.
“We’re still shopping for a primary location with great access to transportation and, Allah be praised, good public schools.”
ScrappleFace
From The Powerline Piece:
New York Times vs. History and the Law
It is quite remarkable that the New York Times has launched a campaign to persuade the American people that the President does not have the power to order warrantless electronic intercepts for national security purposes.
No court, as far as I have been able to determine, has ever so ruled.
As noted below, the federal courts have consistently held the precise opposite of the position urged by the Times, as in this article from tomorrow's paper, titled
"Cheney Defends Eavesdropping Without Warrants."
Has any administration ever backed the position now urged by the Times?
It doesn't appear so. Matt Drudge points out that the Clinton administration engaged in warrantless wiretapping.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick wrote that the President "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." That is an accurate summary of the holding of every federal court decision that has addressed the issue.
On May 23, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that said, "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
Marky,
What you need to understand is that we ended the great right-wing conspiracy when Clinton left office. What you should be worried about is that the whole group involved in that conspiracy is not out to get all Americans....just YOU. Watch out, we are everywhere. Probably under your bed right now. And those voices in your head? Implants....HA HA HA
Mark, you give new meaning to "tedious". This case is OVER--on the basis of inherent war powers, if not several narrower case-law precedents.
Have your hearings--fine. Try, though, to work toward the day when your bunch may have enough sense to realize that all this whining is just in the end going to cost you votes, votes, and more votes--as it confirms precisely what the entire electorate is inexorably moving toward understanding--that you guys are total hypocrites, opportunists, small-minded process-servers, unreliable, devious, and both unable and unwilling to protect the nation.
Let's have some more 911 Commissions, too--now that voters are catching onto the tactic--hearings so that you can say you "had to have" hearings, so that you can cherry-pick a few quotes while ignoring the contexts and conclusions--the idea that these witch-hunts "can't hurt" the out-party is beginning to disprove itself.
Even today's NYT article Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls seems to backing away - at least temporarily - from the stance that a law was broken. While the article talks about some unidentified US to US calls that were intercepted it clearly states, "was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact 'international.'"
But more interesting the NYT said, "Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Mr. Bush's order allowing some domestic surveillance." Note that they did not say the word "illegal" in this sentence.
Another interesting paragraph is, "But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years."
They finally admit that a small number of people have been targeted, and that maybe ONE time it was used on a US to US call - maybe ONE time. Geez...give us a break.
Last night on Nightline, good ole Jonathen Turley said that not only were these searches definitely criminal but, since Bush ordered them, were also impeachable offenses. That's going out on quite a limb considering other legal opinions I have seen suggest differently. The Times & Co. will be pushing this story full bore for a while.
I saw that by Turley. My thought was, here we go again, nagging little career concerns causing a case of numb nuts.
Missing the point, Mark. We know it's not going away--definition of terms will be plenty enough to keep your 20% howling thru the midnite fever swamps forever. Good. Hope it grates your nerves raw--couldn't happen to a nicer bunch. As far as most of the country is concerned, it's already over. So, fine, be our guests, pray continue to bury your silly selves.
Be nice to Marky....it's the voices in his head...
Just finished reading Hugh Hewitt's toasting of Jonathan Alter at Radio Blogger. If you haven't read it, or didn't hear the interview live, you should check it out.
Are They Really That Stupid?"
Mark continues to provide solid evidence in the affirmative.
If that's not enough a brief examination of the statements by Rockefeller, Reid, Pelosi, Dean ad nauseum infitum support the contention on a level that defies refutation.
I have been waiting for a coalescing statement that will bring some semblance of strategic thinking to light on the part of the Democrats. I think I'll give up on that idea now.
The Dems have a reasonably bright past, they just don't have any future at all.
But Peter - as we have heard from all the Demoncratic leaders - They all have their own little thoughts (translated as voices in their heads). And to them that is supposed to be a good thing. LOL
markg8:
I'm not following you at all.
Close your eyes and cover your ears and all the bad news will just go away? Is that how it works for you guys?
What are you talking about? What should I use to cover my ears?
Look I can understand not wanting to face facts.
I won't presume to question your understanding of human weakness, we all have our demons, but what facts are you talking about?
But sometimes ya just gotta suck it up and look reality square in the face.
What? Suck? Reality? Face?
This is bad and it's going to get worse.
What is? The reality face sucking?
It's not about winning votes,...
So the thing that's bad is not about winning votes. Okay, I think I got that part.
...the way things are going we're going to get all the votes we need by default if not by forfeit anyway.
What? Who is "we"? What do you mean "by default if not by forfeit"?
That's not necessarily a good thing, I want a strong opposition to keep my guys on their toes.
Me too!
But the kleptocrats in your party, and I don't use that term loosely, are sinking it.
What party? I'm a registered Democrat who tends to vote Republican - sorry, Rethuglican these days.
And is the bad thing kleptomania? I thought it had something to do with spying. Or something.
The rest of us are just trying to make sure they don't take the country down with it.
I appreciate all non-stupid efforts to keep the country from sinking. What are you and your guys doing to help?
exactly--case in point, the bubble poor Harry-the-Hyperbolic Reid lives in, announcing to Americans that the Dems "have just killed the Patriot Act"...wot a fricken genius.
"Mommy, mommy, I'm scared, that zombie guy just killed the patriot !
Well, that, and he lies uncontrollably.
So, since your Weather underground threats a day or two ago, you've changed your mind, and are no longer posturing as a tough guy?
Lastly, you, too, are not a Democrat, regardless of your registration. FDR, HST, JFK, and currently Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, are the real Democrats, and none of them would in their wildest dreams accept support from your bunch.
and, David, they'll be stuck there, too, as Mark plans to send his 6-footers out to burn their cars.
Har--just saw Reid excoriating the lack of a sense of shame in the nation's "multimillionaires"...wonder who booted his language up to "multi"? Must be those tens of thousands of new millionaires the economy has created in the party.
you mean "Howdy, reporting for Doody"?
Uh, Mark, I'm afraid your interpretation disagrees with a Clinton Associate AG.
Worked with Jamie Cyrillic.
What Mark fails to understand is that under FISA, an agent of a foreign power is by definition not a "US Person".
Thus, the certifications are generally made under the theory that anyone speaking with Usama or his minions are agents of a foreign power merely by reason of their communicating with one another.
There is a lot of terminology being thrown around on this issue (on both sides of the aisle, by the way) by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
vnjagvet, I'm sure the throwers know exactly what they're doing. Arguing all wide-eyed innocent, from the purest bad faith.
"Are they really that stupid?"
No. But they figure that with their control of the media they can con enough people to sell the latest Big Lie.
Exactly senate minority leader Harry-Half-Truth's speciality.
Michael Barone (yes, THAT Michael Barone) just said --in all seriousness--on a tv interview that, judging from the Dean & Pelosi act wrt Iraq, and now this SpyGate laugher, that he is beginning to suspect there's a Rove mole high up in the Dem party, leading them out on one broken limb after another. His debate partner Eleanor Clift was in frame as he said this, and immediately started coloring up like a neon barber pole accidentally plugged into the 220V outlet.
vnj, that's the way I read the statute too --- at least as long as al Qaeda is a "foreign power" under §1801(a)(1-3). The USA v bin Laden decision also seems to think that, but Orin Kerr and some others seem to think that it's only a "foreign power" under 1801(a)(4), and so §1802 doesn't apply. And here's where being not-a-lawyer seems to hit.
What do you think?
morgan: you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. If you voted for Bush you're not a Democrat regardless of your registration. You are what is commonly known as a fool.
Nope, still not following you.
Have a look at commenter "monkei" at CQ's thread on "Undermining the war effort".
Our mark seems to get around.
Meanwhile, a sane Democrat lawyer who served in the Clinton administration supports President Bush's legal position on the post-9/11 electronic surveillance program.
John Hinderaker wants a reply from the NYTimes reporters.
it's a big world out there in space.
Phomebank,
Slippery floored all night multiple
Phonebooth.
There's Words in Here in this Big Space in my Head.
STY:
Lawyers, of course, get paid to argue amongst themselves, and to take myriad positions.
I happen to believe the President's position is sound, but I think there is room for argument.
This area is not without its complexities.
Had to laugh at John Hinderaker's letter to the NYT Doug. Wonder if he'll get a response? I suspect it will be that the reporters will stop publishing their email addresses...ooops too late! NSA already has them...lol
Mort Kondracke on Hume last night : (from memory) "sure there should be hearings to see if the President has the authority to do this .. so that if he doesn't they can give it to him!"
People like Mark are helping though. In spite of, or maybe because of, all the NYT hype, Rasmussen has the latest Bush approval rate at 47% - Up 3 points in two days. The disapproval rate is down to 51%. Keep up the good work Mark.
11:33 AM
Is Specter a secret spying program?
Unless you are talking about Arlen Specter, the answer is no. LOL
exDem at BC,
BTW --- for those who argue that you can find lawyers to defend either side of any issue
I say, what's your point?
If there is no truth --- if the meaning of the law is whatever the loudest or highest paid elites say it is --- then let's drop all the high and mighty shouts of "law-breaker" and "impeach him."
---
Debates on fine points are a diversion.
Never before have we wasted our time and efforts on such a banal exercise in time of War.
See Peter's 11:29 AM
Saint Peter 11:29, that is.
12:01 PM, December 21, 2005
Bush's polls are rising since he started challenging the smears--and congress's are falling--to about 30 up 70 down, according to Fox.
Since you asked...I will admit that I am a spying program. A super-secret one established by Wild Bill Donovan during WWII. Since then I have grown to a self thinking and biologically replicating entity. You never know where I will be next.
Quick Mark...look in the closet...no behind the door....BUWAHAHAHAHA
Speaking of Specter,
One of the most chilling phrases that came out strong early on and is still around is:
"Well, we'll find out when the Senate Committee (Specter) takes this up."
As if the Senate, or Committees in general, ever arrive at the truth of a matter.
My Polls been rising since I heard about that Phomebank.
No, you Feuhl,
the Fernbewth!
Puhleeeeze don't compare me to him....he'd have already heard from me if he was my Senator.....
There's a Smear in our Fernbewth.
Arlen only replicates what he reads in the news.
Smear? It was only a Meuth, Feuhl!
Peter,
The source of the smear,
no doubt.
"Never before have we wasted our time and efforts on such a banal exercise in time of War."
Sure we have Peter. Just think "Plame".
Vallery, Please go back to your Rheum and put something on,
I'm dreaming of Jeanie.
(Levi wearing Babs Bodine, and their secret tryst in the Semeni Embassy)
"Yemeni"
No, yemeant semeni.
yemeni shmemeny,
You shtuck one ambassador,
You've shtucked them all.
"You could profitably omit the b."
Ok, "Never efore have we wasted...."
vnjagvet:
I kept my argument in the realm of 'what a bunch of dumbasses' because I am aware of my ignorance in this regard. I am not a lawyer.
Search and seizure laws always seem to be open to debate. Just look at the case in NYC when the ACLU argued that people going on the public transit system could not be searched. The public disagreed with that position too. People do not want to be blown up. Fancy that.
I think it is not only an argument between Democrats and Republicans, but between absolutists and pragmatists.
Hey, we run a high class place here, clean it up.
yas'm.
"Ali Wan Adu ez Kilyah-al."
Terrye and Doug:
I agree with your approach. The legalities are a sidelight, it seems to me. This is primarily a political and practical issue.
I was only pointing out the pretty obvious truth that lawyers can be found on all sides of any question. In the last analysis in most trials the final judgment in matters of fact and justice, the jury has the final word.
In matters of high political drama, like this the public has the final word eventually.
You guys are killing me.
I said cut it out.
What will mark think?
vnjagvet:
I remember after the attacks on 9/11 we went through that whole public bitch fest and most people were not concerned with the state bugging some guy's phone, they were afraid of more attacks. In fact I would say they expected the state to bug some phones.
It could always be argued that the primary role of the state is to provide for the welfare of the people and to protect them from foreign enemies.
To most people the fact that the enemy might be here on a student visa or might even be a citizen is secondary to protecting the public.
Tim McVeigh was a citizen. So were at least a couple of the Yemini born terrorists arrested in NY a couple of years ago.
I wonder if they were apprehended as part of this program?
Markg8,
You said:
What Carter’s executive order actually says:
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved."
Under section 1802 (A)(1)(a)(i):
the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
Now if you look up 1801:
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.
(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person who—
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
Notice that under 1801 (b)(2)(A, B or C) the definition is aimed at "any person", whether a US Person or not. Why didn't you quote the whole thing?
"Why didn't you quote the whole thing? " 2:14 PM
---
Specter is a Rhetorical Device.
I wish Clinton had had a few MORE tools, in the Oklahoma City investigation.
I correct you: I am in "Improvised Rhetorical Device" or an IRD.
There go those voices again Mark. maybe they are really in the closet...
Marky,
When you go see the doctor take this with you and show it to him:
paranoia
par·a·noi·a (păr'É™-noi'É™)n.
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.
The doctor will understand and give you something for it.
Not sure I understand Marky.
Is it that you want "a Zenith P60W26P 60" Plasma Flat-Panel HDTV and a Sony DAV-FX100W Wireless Home Theater Dream System with all of the accessories for each"?
what is an "osme reason"?
it's Osama's cousin osme
Mark visits his doctor
LOL...but which one is Mark?
Not even HE knows.
I think they plan to assassinate his parakeet.
No one with the sense God gave lettuce really believes that Bush is a dictator.
look at Sheehan and Clooney and Moore and all these people out there making movies and writing books and getting rich off of trashing George Bush.
Not only are they not persecuted, they live like the won the freaking lottery. They are celibreties...now the pics I have seen of the Cultural Revolution in China and the Gulags in the USSR and Dachau..don't look anything like these guys and gals whooping it up at some gala where the catering costs more than I make in a decade.
So spare me the melodramatic whining about speaking truth to power.
Ah, I love how the enlightened, compassionate party of the big tent so mocks the deepest beliefs of a hundred or two million of their countrymen. It's so juvenile, so utterly skulled-out dumb, that, well, I can't think of how to finish this sentence.
Merry christmas, Mark. I didn't mean you, above. At least you don't call yourself General Jesus. Hope your ma is feeling better, and that somebody gives you a shiny new brain for Christmas.
(apologies to Dickens)
"G*d Damn Us, One and All!"
--MarkG8
Post a Comment