And The Spin Continues Over The NSA Program
The WaPo had this in their morning edition. (Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)
Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval.
Congressional approval came in the AUMF, which deemed that the president was authorized to use "any means necessary" in going after those responsible for 9/11, and extended it to include those that gave al Qaeda safe harbor. When you direct the president to use such menas, which included military forces, that includes our relevant intelligence agencies; the NSA is connected to the military intelligence community.
Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program.
First of all, why is Tom Daschle even being spoken to? He is a DC lobbyist now, not a Senate member. Second of all, he is about as relevant as Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Third, we are not making hay out of the program. The New York Times chose to blow the cover on this operation, not us. The Democrats immediately pulled a chinese fire drill and started attacking the president over it. The Democrats made this an issue, not our side.
At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it."
Pete Hoekstra is right. That was the time to make their concerns known, not three years down the road when this whole program was brought to national attention by a newspaper that should be facing severe criminal charges right now. On top of that, I criticize the numerous lawyers in Congress who should know better; you know the law, and your are twisting what the law says, and what the courts have stated. The president has the right and the obligation to use the NSA in an effort to stop al Qaeda in this country.
Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but "if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information."
A letter, I might add, that suddenly appeared just as the White House was gearing up to defend it's position, and one in which Vice President Cheney does not exactly remember receiving. Rockefeller was quick to drag it out, but after having the program up and running for more than a year, with no legal challenges to it, or serious entanglements brought up, all of sudden, Rockefeller got cold feet. I do not buy this. And the ink on that letter seemed a little too fresh, if you know what I mean.
Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program."
Rep. Harman has a JD from Harvard Law School, and served as special counsel to the DoD in 1979. Does she expect us to believe that she never once thought about the legalities involved in the program? Please. This is what we mean when members of Congress are not being intellectually honest. A good majority of those in Congress are lawyers. They know the law. They have studied the law. Thomas and I, on the other hand, are not lawyers, yet we can read, reason, and understand the law better than these fools can. The president's authority rests in his Article II powers; these powers cannot be trumped by anyone. And yes, he must abide by the Constitution at that point. No other laws concern him other than those enumerated in the Constitution. If he is surveilling foreign agents in America, they receive no Fourth Amendment protections.
She said it was not until Bush publicly spoke about the program, after it was revealed in the New York Times in December, that she was free to discuss it with House staff and constitutional lawyers.
Daschle said he wants the program to continue but maintained that the warrantless wiretapping of calls that came into the United States or calls made overseas, even those involving suspected terrorist sources, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
This is another reason why Tommy-boy is out of a job. FISA cannot trump the president's enumerated powers under the Constitution. One of the first rules in interpreting the Constitution is that no law, no statute, no resolution, no initiative sits higher than the Constitution. Those are subordinate to the Constitution, regardless of what they say.
He recalled that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Bush asked Congress to revise FISA -- to initiate wiretaps and get warrants after 72 hours -- to make it easier to use against terrorists. Those changes were made. But in the authorization to fight al Qaeda, Bush was denied language that would have covered activities on U.S. soil.
The FISA regulations were changed to assist the president in helping nail terrorists on our soil. However, ity has been documented that once the war on terror started, the FISC started to drag it's heels and amend the president's requests. In an effort to move more quickly in dealing with potential threats, the president ordered the NSA to begin intercepting phone calls and e-mails from suspected terrorists and their enablers aborad. People continue to howl that the 72 hour time window is enough time. It is not. In fact, the courts have stipulated and ruled precisely the opposite. That to go through FISA may indeed constrain the president's abilities to handle foreign intelligence.
Harman noted that the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed last week on domestic wiretapping. "We're only 36 members total that we're talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program."
It is legal, and no changes need to be made. And I do wish the media and the opponents of this program would quit calling it "wiretapping." We are not tapping phones. This is a communications intercept program where we are listening into the "ether-sphere," as a caller to Hugh Hewitt's show last week pointed out. These conversations are beamed from satellite to satellite until they arrive from Abu Dhabi or Yemen to NYC, USA.
The three current intelligence committee members talked about the article in Foreign Affairs by Paul R. Pillar, the former senior CIA intelligence analyst on Iraq. He criticized the Bush administration for "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, while ignoring assessments that problems would emerge after Saddam Hussein was removed.
Lord, another irrelevant CIA nutter. We did not "cherry-pick" intelligence. This man has an agenda and an axe to grind. If Thomas were writing this piece, the boy might end up with an education regarding the intelligence field. However, he is not; I am. The intelligence used by the president in the run-up to the Iraq Phase of the GWOT was confirmed through the CIA (Tenet proclaimed it a "slam-dunk), by British MI-5, German intelligence, French intelligence, and Israeli intelligence. And while a lot of that has not panned out as we had hoped, we have indeed found components for programs. A recent development last Frieday uncovered a hidden cache of chemical weapons shells and components. People like Mr. Pillar have next-to-no idea what they are talking about. And, we should remember that it was the UN itself that admitted the WMDs were smuggled out in the almost year-long run-up to the invasion.
Roberts said Pillar did not give his committee that kind of assessment. Hoekstra questioned why Pillar was speaking out now.
This is purely supposition here, but I would wager Mr. Pillar is one of those that Director Goss should have rid the CIA of when he took over. He sounds like one of the Clinton holdovers who believes the world that should be, the one that President Clinton was living in. Rose-colored glasses, flowers in your hair, and the "What? Me worry?" attitude that we witnessed for eight years. What Mr. Pillar seems to forget is our enemy will not simply go away if we leave them alone. This was proven for eight years inder President Clinton that the less we engage them, the more emboldened they become.
Harman said: "He was trying to get everyone's attention. Intelligence was ignored. Yes, everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the weight of the [intelligence community's] recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. And that's the part that the administration never let us hear about."
Contained? Oh yes, he was contained all right. He was so contained that he was still sending funds to the Palestinians for their suicide bombers (no offense, but Rep. Harman is Jewish; I would expect a little more sense from her in regard to the Jews), and his ties to al Qaeda. Thoise ties to al Qaeda included meetings with al Zarqawi and al Zawahiri where Saddam's people, with Saddam's permission, allowed them training bases, and training in the use of chemical and biological agents. This is documented already. Rep. Harman is living in the same rose-colored glasses world that the Left has been living in for the past thirteen, or so, years.
These people simply have no clue. And the fact that now we are hearing them talk about the NSA program as being needed and essential as opposed to the rhetoric we heard just a month ago shows that we are winning this argument. The Left is caving into it. They know that at this point they have a lot of problems in regard to the argument over the NSA intercepts.
--The American public supports it, and the president's decision to carry it out.
--The court precedents involved in the argument have shown that the Left does not have a leg to stand on.
--If challenged to the Supreme Court, they will rule with the precedent established, and uphold the president's Article II powers.
The New York Times did a great disservice to this nation in blowing this operation wide open. I do hope that criminal charges are filed against the reporters for doing the story, and a chain of editors that allowed it to be run. (Remember that the editors held this story back until the right moment even as the reporters were whining about wanting it released immediately.) They broke the law, and there should be apt punishment for that.
But the president did not break the law. He abided by it. He has worked within it. But he decided to take steps to safeguard the security of the nation. This past weekend, the Washington Times ran the story of when Carter ran his own NSA intercept operation, which painted him in a bad light, especially after his partisan swipes at Coretta Scott King's funeral. President Carter believed he was doing the right thing, and in Truong the court agreed with him. President Bush is doing precisely the same thing, and he is taking a beating over it.
Too bad the Democrats are not willing to admit defeat yet on this issue after the pummeling they have recieved not only fromt he White House, but the new media, in general. Our side is carrying the day. Their side is still wondering how they can jump on the bandwagon, and still look good for 2006.
The Bunny ;)
The WaPo had this in their morning edition. (Hat-Tip: Captain's Quarters)
Two key Democrats yesterday called the NSA domestic surveillance program necessary for fighting terrorism but questioned whether President Bush had the legal authority to order it done without getting congressional approval.
Congressional approval came in the AUMF, which deemed that the president was authorized to use "any means necessary" in going after those responsible for 9/11, and extended it to include those that gave al Qaeda safe harbor. When you direct the president to use such menas, which included military forces, that includes our relevant intelligence agencies; the NSA is connected to the military intelligence community.
Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) said Republicans are trying to create a political issue over Democrats' concern on the constitutional questions raised by the spying program.
First of all, why is Tom Daschle even being spoken to? He is a DC lobbyist now, not a Senate member. Second of all, he is about as relevant as Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. Third, we are not making hay out of the program. The New York Times chose to blow the cover on this operation, not us. The Democrats immediately pulled a chinese fire drill and started attacking the president over it. The Democrats made this an issue, not our side.
At the same time, the Republican chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees -- Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (Mich.), who attended secret National Security Agency briefings -- said they supported Bush's right to undertake the program without new congressional authorization. They added that Democrats briefed on the program, who included Harman and Daschle, could have taken steps if they believed the program was illegal. All four appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Roberts said he could not remember Democrats raising questions about the program during briefings that, beginning in 2002, were given to the "Gang of Eight." That group was made up of the House speaker and minority leader, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and the chairmen and ranking Democrats of the House and Senate intelligence committees.
At the briefings, Roberts said, "Those that did the briefing would say, 'Do you have questions? Do you have concerns?' " Hoekstra said if Democrats thought Bush was violating the law, "it was their responsibility to use every tool possible to get the president to stop it."
Pete Hoekstra is right. That was the time to make their concerns known, not three years down the road when this whole program was brought to national attention by a newspaper that should be facing severe criminal charges right now. On top of that, I criticize the numerous lawyers in Congress who should know better; you know the law, and your are twisting what the law says, and what the courts have stated. The president has the right and the obligation to use the NSA in an effort to stop al Qaeda in this country.
Harman countered that John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate intelligence panel, had voiced his concerns to Vice President Cheney in a classified letter in July 2003, but "if he had shared that letter publicly, I think he would have been in violation of the Espionage Act, the disclosure of classified information."
A letter, I might add, that suddenly appeared just as the White House was gearing up to defend it's position, and one in which Vice President Cheney does not exactly remember receiving. Rockefeller was quick to drag it out, but after having the program up and running for more than a year, with no legal challenges to it, or serious entanglements brought up, all of sudden, Rockefeller got cold feet. I do not buy this. And the ink on that letter seemed a little too fresh, if you know what I mean.
Harman said the briefings she received concerned "the operational details of the program," which she supported. "However," she added, "the briefings were not about the legal underpinnings of the program."
Rep. Harman has a JD from Harvard Law School, and served as special counsel to the DoD in 1979. Does she expect us to believe that she never once thought about the legalities involved in the program? Please. This is what we mean when members of Congress are not being intellectually honest. A good majority of those in Congress are lawyers. They know the law. They have studied the law. Thomas and I, on the other hand, are not lawyers, yet we can read, reason, and understand the law better than these fools can. The president's authority rests in his Article II powers; these powers cannot be trumped by anyone. And yes, he must abide by the Constitution at that point. No other laws concern him other than those enumerated in the Constitution. If he is surveilling foreign agents in America, they receive no Fourth Amendment protections.
She said it was not until Bush publicly spoke about the program, after it was revealed in the New York Times in December, that she was free to discuss it with House staff and constitutional lawyers.
Daschle said he wants the program to continue but maintained that the warrantless wiretapping of calls that came into the United States or calls made overseas, even those involving suspected terrorist sources, violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
This is another reason why Tommy-boy is out of a job. FISA cannot trump the president's enumerated powers under the Constitution. One of the first rules in interpreting the Constitution is that no law, no statute, no resolution, no initiative sits higher than the Constitution. Those are subordinate to the Constitution, regardless of what they say.
He recalled that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Bush asked Congress to revise FISA -- to initiate wiretaps and get warrants after 72 hours -- to make it easier to use against terrorists. Those changes were made. But in the authorization to fight al Qaeda, Bush was denied language that would have covered activities on U.S. soil.
The FISA regulations were changed to assist the president in helping nail terrorists on our soil. However, ity has been documented that once the war on terror started, the FISC started to drag it's heels and amend the president's requests. In an effort to move more quickly in dealing with potential threats, the president ordered the NSA to begin intercepting phone calls and e-mails from suspected terrorists and their enablers aborad. People continue to howl that the 72 hour time window is enough time. It is not. In fact, the courts have stipulated and ruled precisely the opposite. That to go through FISA may indeed constrain the president's abilities to handle foreign intelligence.
Harman noted that the House and Senate intelligence committees were briefed last week on domestic wiretapping. "We're only 36 members total that we're talking about, and those members should decide whether this program fits within the law, and if it does, which I think it does, we should all declare victory. If it does not, then we should be changing the law or changing the program."
It is legal, and no changes need to be made. And I do wish the media and the opponents of this program would quit calling it "wiretapping." We are not tapping phones. This is a communications intercept program where we are listening into the "ether-sphere," as a caller to Hugh Hewitt's show last week pointed out. These conversations are beamed from satellite to satellite until they arrive from Abu Dhabi or Yemen to NYC, USA.
The three current intelligence committee members talked about the article in Foreign Affairs by Paul R. Pillar, the former senior CIA intelligence analyst on Iraq. He criticized the Bush administration for "cherry-picking" intelligence to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, while ignoring assessments that problems would emerge after Saddam Hussein was removed.
Lord, another irrelevant CIA nutter. We did not "cherry-pick" intelligence. This man has an agenda and an axe to grind. If Thomas were writing this piece, the boy might end up with an education regarding the intelligence field. However, he is not; I am. The intelligence used by the president in the run-up to the Iraq Phase of the GWOT was confirmed through the CIA (Tenet proclaimed it a "slam-dunk), by British MI-5, German intelligence, French intelligence, and Israeli intelligence. And while a lot of that has not panned out as we had hoped, we have indeed found components for programs. A recent development last Frieday uncovered a hidden cache of chemical weapons shells and components. People like Mr. Pillar have next-to-no idea what they are talking about. And, we should remember that it was the UN itself that admitted the WMDs were smuggled out in the almost year-long run-up to the invasion.
Roberts said Pillar did not give his committee that kind of assessment. Hoekstra questioned why Pillar was speaking out now.
This is purely supposition here, but I would wager Mr. Pillar is one of those that Director Goss should have rid the CIA of when he took over. He sounds like one of the Clinton holdovers who believes the world that should be, the one that President Clinton was living in. Rose-colored glasses, flowers in your hair, and the "What? Me worry?" attitude that we witnessed for eight years. What Mr. Pillar seems to forget is our enemy will not simply go away if we leave them alone. This was proven for eight years inder President Clinton that the less we engage them, the more emboldened they become.
Harman said: "He was trying to get everyone's attention. Intelligence was ignored. Yes, everyone agreed there was WMD in Iraq, but the weight of the [intelligence community's] recommendation was Saddam was contained and he wasn't going to use it. And that's the part that the administration never let us hear about."
Contained? Oh yes, he was contained all right. He was so contained that he was still sending funds to the Palestinians for their suicide bombers (no offense, but Rep. Harman is Jewish; I would expect a little more sense from her in regard to the Jews), and his ties to al Qaeda. Thoise ties to al Qaeda included meetings with al Zarqawi and al Zawahiri where Saddam's people, with Saddam's permission, allowed them training bases, and training in the use of chemical and biological agents. This is documented already. Rep. Harman is living in the same rose-colored glasses world that the Left has been living in for the past thirteen, or so, years.
These people simply have no clue. And the fact that now we are hearing them talk about the NSA program as being needed and essential as opposed to the rhetoric we heard just a month ago shows that we are winning this argument. The Left is caving into it. They know that at this point they have a lot of problems in regard to the argument over the NSA intercepts.
--The American public supports it, and the president's decision to carry it out.
--The court precedents involved in the argument have shown that the Left does not have a leg to stand on.
--If challenged to the Supreme Court, they will rule with the precedent established, and uphold the president's Article II powers.
The New York Times did a great disservice to this nation in blowing this operation wide open. I do hope that criminal charges are filed against the reporters for doing the story, and a chain of editors that allowed it to be run. (Remember that the editors held this story back until the right moment even as the reporters were whining about wanting it released immediately.) They broke the law, and there should be apt punishment for that.
But the president did not break the law. He abided by it. He has worked within it. But he decided to take steps to safeguard the security of the nation. This past weekend, the Washington Times ran the story of when Carter ran his own NSA intercept operation, which painted him in a bad light, especially after his partisan swipes at Coretta Scott King's funeral. President Carter believed he was doing the right thing, and in Truong the court agreed with him. President Bush is doing precisely the same thing, and he is taking a beating over it.
Too bad the Democrats are not willing to admit defeat yet on this issue after the pummeling they have recieved not only fromt he White House, but the new media, in general. Our side is carrying the day. Their side is still wondering how they can jump on the bandwagon, and still look good for 2006.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home