Archive for the ‘FISA/Eavesdropping/Patriot Act’ Category

I know the media always gives us the same old mantra that they are the watchdog.  From a plain old Jane Q. Citizen perspective it looks like the media isn’t playing watchdog but aiding and abetting those who are looking to kill me. 

Dafydd does a review of many of the programs exposed by the media not only to the US public but to the world and all of it’s Islamic terrorists.

Even when enforcement is required, the media prefer the FBI (not DoD) to handle it, because they see terrorism as “just a crime,” after all (albeit a large one that kills hundreds): It should be handled entirely by terrorists being arrested, extradited, and granted fair trials in American civilian courts… where they can be represented pro bono publico by the biggest and most powerful law firms in the country.

Which is, of course, tantamount to wanting them to be acquitted and released. Civilian courts are ill-equipped to handle trials of global jihadists, because they are vulnerable to the standard defense technique of demanding so many critical, classified national-security documents in discovery motions — motions that are routinely granted by many Clinton-appointed federal judges — that the administraiton eventually has to drop the case rather than compromise our most vital anti-terrorism secrets.

The Times is not unaware of this loophole.

If somebody can suggest a more honorable reason for such a relentless crusade to blow every, single anti-terrorism program we have, I wish he would suggest it. It’s horrible to think that the people controlling what is ultimately our only source of national and international news deliberately manipulate that news in order to engineer a successful terrorist attack on America’s heartland, for political reasons of their own; but I have yet to think up an alternative motvation that fits the facts.

With the latest exposure I don’t think there can be any guessing what the media intends.  It certainly isn’t to keep the country safer, it’s to help the Islamic terrorists win!

Technorati Tags: Media bias, Media distortion, Islamic terror, US National Security

I think this is one of those classic or keeper quotes from John Hinderaker:

Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of Invincible Ignorance.

Power Line: Gonzales Crushes Arguments Against NSA’s International Surveillance

Leave it to Mark Levin to get the title exactly right. Levin enumerates the instances where McCain fights a war like former President Clinton fought wars and that would be through the the legal system. Levin calls it “Weakening our position by fighting like Clinton did.”.

And McCain did it again yesterday on Fox News Sunday and of course all of the dominent media are loving this because their darling that “they” call a Republican (John McCain) declared that he didn’t believe that the President had constitutional powers to intercept terrorist communications. Course, Levin goes on to repute and demolish McCain’s supposition.

Mark R. Levin on War on Terror on National Review Online

Go and read Matthew Heidt’s (Froggy Ruminations) commentary which is appropriately titled “Eavesdropping On Cowards”. Matt has affirmed my contention and support for President Bush’s actions stated here and here.

Here’s the reason for President’s Bush’s action:

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.

What I’m not getting is that not one reporter or columnist out there could research this information. Or is it that this isn’t right answer for them, so ignorance is bliss? Go read the Matt’s commentary.

I think this was the best news conferences he has ever conducted. I was on my way out the door and saw the initial opening from President Bush and thought maybe I should stick around to see what will be said. This was the GW Bush I voted for, the Cowboy Euro’s and Lefties love to hate. Maybe it was because of his anger with the leak. I don’t think I’ve heard him answer questions with so much decisiveness without the err’s and ahh’s which too often is his normal delivery.
Here’s one reporter’s question and GW’s response in which you could see the President’s anger and determination at this allegation:

QUESTION: I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a president during wartime.

And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we’re going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

BUSH: First of all, I disagree with your assertion of unchecked power.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.

There is the check of people being sworn to uphold the law, for starters.

There is oversight. We’re talking to Congress all the time.

And on this program, to suggest there’s unchecked power is not listening to what I’m telling you. I’m telling you, we have briefed the United States Congress on this program a dozen times.

This is an awesome responsibility, to make decisions on behalf of the American people. And I understand that. And we’ll continue to work with the Congress, as well as people within our own administration, to constantly monitor a program such as the one I described to you, to make sure that we’re protecting the civil liberties of the United States.

To say “unchecked power” basically is ascribing some kind of dictatorial position to the president, which I strongly reject.

I wish we’d see this President more often. The link below is to the transcript for the news conference.

CNN.com – Bush: U.S. must think, act differently – Dec 19, 2005

To read the dominent media or watch the talking bobbleheads you’d think there wasn’t a miraculous 3rd extremely successful election in Iraq. All I’ve heard or read is how there was an election BUT the Iraqi’s have to do this or do that or get this or get that. Hearing Harry Reid this morning I wish I could have played out a Twighlight Zone act where I was able to reach my hand through the television screen and choke Harry til he recanted all of his negativity.

One of the more aggregious points from Reid was said with a straight face that there had been 700 US Soldiers killed since the last election in Iraq(ahhh, Harry, you forgot about the election in October huh). Yes, that’s the level of attention Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democrats, has with the events regarding Iraq. Must be that Attention Deficit Disorder which seems to affect every Democrat politician in Washington (ok, I’ll give Joe Lieberman a pass on this one).

When are the Democrats and even some Republicans (Lindsay Graham are you listening?) going to wake up to the more serious problem with our intelligence community. That is the leaking of national security secrets to the media. How many leaks have there been just this year alone? And I’m not talking about the pseudo Plamegate fantasy. How about some genuine outrage and serious effort to stop this at once from our legislators. How about uncovering one of these leakers and going after them like the media has trampled Scooter Libby.

From Powerline we get a lesson on “Presidential Power and the Surveillance of Foreign Powers Conspiring with United States Citizens” which Hugh Hewitt wrote about:

Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits “unreasonable” searches and seizures, has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to do so.

“Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President’s surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.” That is from the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where the debate over the president’s executive order ought to begin and end. The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.

Now I have to learn about the Presidential powers relating to surveillance of foreign powers and remember it for Christmas at home with the family. I’m sure that I’ll need it considering I can bank on this topic coming up at the most inopportune moment.

And just in case you didn’t catch Powerline’s commentary: Do you believe in magic? You don’t want to miss this satire on the current Democrat strategy.