The New York Times: Like Dog With A Chew Toy Over The NSA Intercept Program
As our readers know, we read the papers. Our favorite places in the paper revolve around the funny pages and current events. MOST of the time, we enjoy reading the idiocy within the op-ed pages from the Left, and the token conservative dealing with the endless barrage of liberal talking points. We can imagine how people like Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, and James Lileks respond to the likes of Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, and Michael Hiltzik. (And we are sure that a lot of it is focused around snickers and guffaws.)
But the New York Times, since revealing the formerly-classified NSA intercept program, has been like a dog with a chew toy. No matter how much their owner pulls and shakes, the dog refuses to let go. Today is no exception to that analogy, as the Times editorial staff is at it again.
President Bush is not giving up the battle over domestic spying. He's fighting it with an army of straw men and a fleet of red herrings.
In his State of the Union address and in a follow-up speech in Nashville yesterday, Mr. Bush threw out a dizzying array of misleading analogies, propaganda slogans and false choices: Congress authorized the president to spy on Americans and knew all about it ... 9/11 could have been prevented by warrantless spying ... you can't fight terrorism and also obey the law ... and Democrats are not just soft on national defense, they actually don't want to beat Al Qaeda.
Congress did give the president an "authorization for the use of military forces" not just in Afghanistan, but also for Iraq. For the record, the NSA is a part of the military. It is considered a military entity. It works closely with the Department of Defense and has never not had a military officer as it's director. Now, as the Constitution is explicit under Article II, the executive authority of the United States is "vested" in one President. That president is Commander in Chief of the Army and Naval military forces. When the authorization was approved by Congress, the president's wartime powers were activated. That authority included ordering the premier intelligence agency in our arsenal to begin surveilling foreign agents within the United States communicating with foreign powers hostile to this nation. And the president never said that all of Congress knew about this program. Indeed, in his State of the Union address the president stated the following:
"Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed."
And they have been. But, as the old adage goes, "loose lips sink ships." The revelation of this program to the whole of Congress would be too risky to keep the program's existence a secret. Even the Times cannot deny this fact. After all, how many "unnamed government sources" have they cited over the last five years. There were a few in their story that broke the program in the first place. As to whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented, again, I go back to the president's speech.
"We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late."
The president did not say that with the program in place, 9/11 could have been prevented. However, the Times is quick to disregard the logic in the assumption that we would have had a better chance to prevent 9/11 had it been in place and operating. They also point out that "you can't fight terrorism and also obey the law." He has NEVER said that. He has abided by the law, and all of it's restraints, since beginning this program. There is a fallacy that the Times continues to perpetuate that FISA overrules the president's constitutionally-mandated powers. This is a lie; no act of Congress, no law or initiative can deny the president's powers. And, the Fourth Amendment arguments made by the Left hold no water as they do not apply to foreign citizens, either within the United States, or outside her borders.
As for the al-Qaeda crack regarding the Democrats, I dare the Times to provide information to the contrary. We had Sen. Kerry in 2004 berating and criticizing the White House for the conduct of the war, claiming it could be done better. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has also stated that the war is being prosecuted wrong. And we have Rep. John Murtha, now joined by a calvalcade of Democrats--including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi--that our troops need to be withdrawn from Iraq immediately. These are not the actions of a party who believes in the mission we are on. These actions constitute retreat-and-defeat; and defeatism in the face of this enemy is not the right strategy. Indeed, take a look at Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters, Glenn Reynolds, Pajamas Media and Jen to see what defeatism will gain the world should the Danes give into the militant Islamicists demanding an end to "offensive" cartoons. (And keep in mind that Chris Muir, whose cartoon appears on our site, brings up a controversy from late last year where depictions of Piglet were forbidden because he is a pig, and well, Islamicists want NOTHING to do with pork or pigs, based on their religious beliefs.)
"Let me put it to you in Texan," Mr. Bush drawled at the Grand Ole Opry House yesterday. "If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know."
Yes, and so does every American. But that has nothing to do with Mr. Bush's decision to toss out the Constitution and judicial process by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant. Let's be clear: the president and his team had the ability to monitor calls by Qaeda operatives into and out of the United States before 9/11 and got even more authority to do it after the attacks. They never needed to resort to extralegal and probably unconstitutional methods.
Mr. Bush said the warrantless spying was vetted by lawyers in the Justice Department, which is cold comfort. They also endorsed the abuse of prisoners and the indefinite detention of "unlawful enemy combatants" without charges or trials.
((Sigh)). True that he had the aurthority, but at that moment, al Qaeda was not considered a "high priority" threat. They were a threat, but not one deemed to be immediately imperative. And the president's point to the nation--and hopefully to the Times--is that the extended powers of the NSA did not come until after the AUMF. To contradict the Times though, we had numerous communiques that had yet to be fully translated by the FBI and CIA; that was a serious point of contention three years ago. And I find it amazing that the Times, even here, still wants us to grant Constitutional protections to people who have none to begin with. Osama is not a US citizen. Neither is al Zarqawi, but the Times--and the Left, in general--would have us bestow to them the misinterpreted protections of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. And the dirty swipe surrounding the Justice Department is completely uncalled for. The Justice Department did not endorse or condone the abuse of prisoners. The soldiers involved in the incidents at Abu Ghraib were charged and tried for their crimes. And the Times, in stating that indefinite detention of illegal combatants as being wrong has shown that they have never read the Geneva Convention, nor have they read any history of warfare. AFTER the war is over, prisoners are released or charged.
And I would remind them that the most famous trial involving participants in war were the Nuremberg Trials. None of these men were put on trial until well after World War II was over. Other Nazi officials caught shortly after the war, whether they were "hiding out" amongst POWs, or caught later on the run were also not put on trial immediately. Further, it is not a trial these people will face. It is a military tribunal, in accordance with military law, and the rules of warfare.
The president also said the spying is reviewed by N.S.A. lawyers. That's nice, but the law was written specifically to bring that agency, and the president, under control. And there already is a branch of government assigned to decide what's legal. It's called the judiciary. The law itself is clear: spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal.
The FISA law cannot supercede the president's authority. No other law in the land is higher than the Constitution. In addition, the judiciary does, indeed, determine what is legal. The Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. Because of this position, the president has only the Justice Department and it's lawyers to "interpret" the law. And their final sentance regarding Americans is correct, however we are not dealing with Americans. We are dealing with foreign agents within our nation communicating with their "masters" abroad on how and when they should strike.
One of the oddest moments in Mr. Bush's defense of domestic spying came when he told his audience in Nashville, "If I was trying to pull a fast one on the American people, why did I brief Congress?" He did not mention that some lawmakers protested the spying at the briefings, or that they found them inadequate. The audience members who laughed and applauded Mr. Bush's version of the truth may have forgot that he said he briefed Congress fully on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know how that turned out.
The Times is attempting to revise history with this paragraph. Yes, he did brief the appropriate members of Congress--those that needed to be informed--such as those on their respective Intelligence committees. And yes, we do have memos and briefs from people who were not happy with the programs, but these did not surface until after the program was revealed; this simply makes me question their authenticity. That is to say, whether they were written then, or now. As for the weapons of mass destruction argument, the Times casually dismisses the WMDs that we have found in Iraq. Thomas covered the issue of WMDs back on the 26th of January. (That link included four significant links to other sites regarding WMDs in Iraq, which blows the Times' allegations out of the water.)
Add to the fact that the argument that there were WMDs in Iraq can be discounted by the Times, but were, at the time, argued by other countries, including Great Britain, France, Germany, and even Russia. Their intelligence services stated Iraq did have them, and the discoveries made by coalition forces after the invasion were enough to justify the invasion if that were the only reason for going into Iraq in the first place. However, it was not the only reason. We also went into Iraq to end the connection of terrorist groups to Saddam Hussein, of which The Asylum documented his ties to al Qaeda.
The Times does a great job at spinning and deceiving, as to be expected from a Leftist rag. But they could change their plight and eventual downfall if they would make better use of their newsprint in reporting the facts rather than uneducated commentary.
The Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM: For those that have been following this NSA story from the Times, and the Left's inexcusable defense of a major news outlet blowing a classified program, you might be interested in this column written by Gabriel Schoenfeld.
As our readers know, we read the papers. Our favorite places in the paper revolve around the funny pages and current events. MOST of the time, we enjoy reading the idiocy within the op-ed pages from the Left, and the token conservative dealing with the endless barrage of liberal talking points. We can imagine how people like Thomas Sowell, Ann Coulter, Charles Krauthammer, and James Lileks respond to the likes of Maureen Dowd, Molly Ivins, and Michael Hiltzik. (And we are sure that a lot of it is focused around snickers and guffaws.)
But the New York Times, since revealing the formerly-classified NSA intercept program, has been like a dog with a chew toy. No matter how much their owner pulls and shakes, the dog refuses to let go. Today is no exception to that analogy, as the Times editorial staff is at it again.
President Bush is not giving up the battle over domestic spying. He's fighting it with an army of straw men and a fleet of red herrings.
In his State of the Union address and in a follow-up speech in Nashville yesterday, Mr. Bush threw out a dizzying array of misleading analogies, propaganda slogans and false choices: Congress authorized the president to spy on Americans and knew all about it ... 9/11 could have been prevented by warrantless spying ... you can't fight terrorism and also obey the law ... and Democrats are not just soft on national defense, they actually don't want to beat Al Qaeda.
Congress did give the president an "authorization for the use of military forces" not just in Afghanistan, but also for Iraq. For the record, the NSA is a part of the military. It is considered a military entity. It works closely with the Department of Defense and has never not had a military officer as it's director. Now, as the Constitution is explicit under Article II, the executive authority of the United States is "vested" in one President. That president is Commander in Chief of the Army and Naval military forces. When the authorization was approved by Congress, the president's wartime powers were activated. That authority included ordering the premier intelligence agency in our arsenal to begin surveilling foreign agents within the United States communicating with foreign powers hostile to this nation. And the president never said that all of Congress knew about this program. Indeed, in his State of the Union address the president stated the following:
"Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed."
And they have been. But, as the old adage goes, "loose lips sink ships." The revelation of this program to the whole of Congress would be too risky to keep the program's existence a secret. Even the Times cannot deny this fact. After all, how many "unnamed government sources" have they cited over the last five years. There were a few in their story that broke the program in the first place. As to whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented, again, I go back to the president's speech.
"We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late."
The president did not say that with the program in place, 9/11 could have been prevented. However, the Times is quick to disregard the logic in the assumption that we would have had a better chance to prevent 9/11 had it been in place and operating. They also point out that "you can't fight terrorism and also obey the law." He has NEVER said that. He has abided by the law, and all of it's restraints, since beginning this program. There is a fallacy that the Times continues to perpetuate that FISA overrules the president's constitutionally-mandated powers. This is a lie; no act of Congress, no law or initiative can deny the president's powers. And, the Fourth Amendment arguments made by the Left hold no water as they do not apply to foreign citizens, either within the United States, or outside her borders.
As for the al-Qaeda crack regarding the Democrats, I dare the Times to provide information to the contrary. We had Sen. Kerry in 2004 berating and criticizing the White House for the conduct of the war, claiming it could be done better. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has also stated that the war is being prosecuted wrong. And we have Rep. John Murtha, now joined by a calvalcade of Democrats--including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi--that our troops need to be withdrawn from Iraq immediately. These are not the actions of a party who believes in the mission we are on. These actions constitute retreat-and-defeat; and defeatism in the face of this enemy is not the right strategy. Indeed, take a look at Michelle Malkin, Captain Ed at Captain's Quarters, Glenn Reynolds, Pajamas Media and Jen to see what defeatism will gain the world should the Danes give into the militant Islamicists demanding an end to "offensive" cartoons. (And keep in mind that Chris Muir, whose cartoon appears on our site, brings up a controversy from late last year where depictions of Piglet were forbidden because he is a pig, and well, Islamicists want NOTHING to do with pork or pigs, based on their religious beliefs.)
"Let me put it to you in Texan," Mr. Bush drawled at the Grand Ole Opry House yesterday. "If Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know."
Yes, and so does every American. But that has nothing to do with Mr. Bush's decision to toss out the Constitution and judicial process by authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant. Let's be clear: the president and his team had the ability to monitor calls by Qaeda operatives into and out of the United States before 9/11 and got even more authority to do it after the attacks. They never needed to resort to extralegal and probably unconstitutional methods.
Mr. Bush said the warrantless spying was vetted by lawyers in the Justice Department, which is cold comfort. They also endorsed the abuse of prisoners and the indefinite detention of "unlawful enemy combatants" without charges or trials.
((Sigh)). True that he had the aurthority, but at that moment, al Qaeda was not considered a "high priority" threat. They were a threat, but not one deemed to be immediately imperative. And the president's point to the nation--and hopefully to the Times--is that the extended powers of the NSA did not come until after the AUMF. To contradict the Times though, we had numerous communiques that had yet to be fully translated by the FBI and CIA; that was a serious point of contention three years ago. And I find it amazing that the Times, even here, still wants us to grant Constitutional protections to people who have none to begin with. Osama is not a US citizen. Neither is al Zarqawi, but the Times--and the Left, in general--would have us bestow to them the misinterpreted protections of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. And the dirty swipe surrounding the Justice Department is completely uncalled for. The Justice Department did not endorse or condone the abuse of prisoners. The soldiers involved in the incidents at Abu Ghraib were charged and tried for their crimes. And the Times, in stating that indefinite detention of illegal combatants as being wrong has shown that they have never read the Geneva Convention, nor have they read any history of warfare. AFTER the war is over, prisoners are released or charged.
And I would remind them that the most famous trial involving participants in war were the Nuremberg Trials. None of these men were put on trial until well after World War II was over. Other Nazi officials caught shortly after the war, whether they were "hiding out" amongst POWs, or caught later on the run were also not put on trial immediately. Further, it is not a trial these people will face. It is a military tribunal, in accordance with military law, and the rules of warfare.
The president also said the spying is reviewed by N.S.A. lawyers. That's nice, but the law was written specifically to bring that agency, and the president, under control. And there already is a branch of government assigned to decide what's legal. It's called the judiciary. The law itself is clear: spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal.
The FISA law cannot supercede the president's authority. No other law in the land is higher than the Constitution. In addition, the judiciary does, indeed, determine what is legal. The Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. Because of this position, the president has only the Justice Department and it's lawyers to "interpret" the law. And their final sentance regarding Americans is correct, however we are not dealing with Americans. We are dealing with foreign agents within our nation communicating with their "masters" abroad on how and when they should strike.
One of the oddest moments in Mr. Bush's defense of domestic spying came when he told his audience in Nashville, "If I was trying to pull a fast one on the American people, why did I brief Congress?" He did not mention that some lawmakers protested the spying at the briefings, or that they found them inadequate. The audience members who laughed and applauded Mr. Bush's version of the truth may have forgot that he said he briefed Congress fully on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know how that turned out.
The Times is attempting to revise history with this paragraph. Yes, he did brief the appropriate members of Congress--those that needed to be informed--such as those on their respective Intelligence committees. And yes, we do have memos and briefs from people who were not happy with the programs, but these did not surface until after the program was revealed; this simply makes me question their authenticity. That is to say, whether they were written then, or now. As for the weapons of mass destruction argument, the Times casually dismisses the WMDs that we have found in Iraq. Thomas covered the issue of WMDs back on the 26th of January. (That link included four significant links to other sites regarding WMDs in Iraq, which blows the Times' allegations out of the water.)
Add to the fact that the argument that there were WMDs in Iraq can be discounted by the Times, but were, at the time, argued by other countries, including Great Britain, France, Germany, and even Russia. Their intelligence services stated Iraq did have them, and the discoveries made by coalition forces after the invasion were enough to justify the invasion if that were the only reason for going into Iraq in the first place. However, it was not the only reason. We also went into Iraq to end the connection of terrorist groups to Saddam Hussein, of which The Asylum documented his ties to al Qaeda.
The Times does a great job at spinning and deceiving, as to be expected from a Leftist rag. But they could change their plight and eventual downfall if they would make better use of their newsprint in reporting the facts rather than uneducated commentary.
The Bunny ;)
ADDENDUM: For those that have been following this NSA story from the Times, and the Left's inexcusable defense of a major news outlet blowing a classified program, you might be interested in this column written by Gabriel Schoenfeld.
The piece is an extremely well-written indictment of the Times.
I would also like to point to this piece from the WaPo. Porter Goss, newly installed Director of Central Intelligence is calling for a grand jury to be convened, a full leagl investigation surrounding the leaks, and journalists compelled to testify.
The CIA director, Porter J. Goss, said in response to a question that leaks about the NSA program and other intelligence efforts have caused "very severe" damage, and he expressed hope that journalists would be forced to testify before grand juries on the sources of the leaks.
Thomas and I could not agree more. These leaks need to stop. There is no absolute right of free speech. Nor is there an absolute right to freedom of the press. With rights comes responsibilities, and the MSM has been more than irresponsible in their reporting; blowing classified program after classified program.
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:55 PM
1 Comments:
As far as I'm concerned the NYT's is a lackey for our enemies. By enemy, in addition to the terrorists, I'm also referring to those that would destroy our Constitution and way of life. As far as I'm concerned they have no credibility. And they do nothing to restore what little they have. I'm hoping that it will be indicted by a federal grand jury. They cannot hide any longer behind Freedom of the press. They make a mockery of it. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home