What They Did For "Love"

I’ve posted little on the NSA story, mostly because of time constraints and because of my pure fury at those in the NSA who would leak classified material to the press and at a press who would publish the material.

I’ve read the stories fronted by the New York Times and funneled by some unknown…person(s) with a Top Secret compartmentalized clearance who is sworn and signed to hold secret his/her government’s means of reconnoitering its enemies. Every new revelation leaves this Cold Warrior—who, once upon a time, swore to and signed the exact same agreements--more disgusted and angry.

The majority of the Big Media, a goodly portion of the Democrats and not a small portion of the government in Washington hate George W. Bush; if we doubted that before, there’s no doubt about that now. But for the hate to be so pathological that the haters would seek to thwart every one of the president’s endeavors, including classified NSA programs designed to keep another 9/11 from happening, leaves me flabbergasted.

The argument as to whether the Executive Branch-approved NSA program is legal is raging still all over the Internet and shows no sign of ending. Powerline has the best list of judicial precedent underlying the program’s legality and concludes that

The federal appellate courts have unanimously held that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to order warrantless searches for purposes of gathering foreign intelligence information, which includes information about terrorist threats. Furthermore, since this power is derived from Article II of the Constitution, the FISA Review Court has specifically recognized that it cannot be taken away or limited by Congressional action.

That being the case, the NSA intercept program, which consists of warrantless electronic intercepts for purposes of foreign intelligence gathering, is legal.

It’s worth noting that all of the cases cited above involved warrantless searches inside the United States. The NSA program, in contrast, involves international communications only, and the intercepts take place at least in part, and perhaps wholly, outside the United States. Thus, the NSA case is even clearer than the cases that have already upheld Presidential power.

Read this also.

Yes, the NSA monitors foreign communications. No hot news flash there, especially for those laymen who’ve read The Puzzle Palace. However, it is most assuredly illegal for a person with intimate knowledge of any specific NSA program to disclose the details of (even the existence of) that program to those who are unauthorized to receive that information.

1. A person without the formalized security clearance under which the program falls, and
2. A person without a ‘need to know’ about the existence and or the details of said program.

These would indeed include the New York Times.

Why would the person who leaked the existence of this NSA program do so? What do they believe?

That the program is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [this part has long been interpreted to include communications] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Does any part of the Constitution apply to foreigners located outside of the United States? Of course not. But what of those inside the US with whom these foreigners are communicating? That brings us back to the word ‘unreasonable.’ What of reasonable searches and seizures? Is it ever ‘reasonable’ for the federal government to conduct a warrantless ‘search and seizure’ on a US person, or rather surveillance of his/her communications? The Fourth Amendment implies that it is; otherwise why insert the word ‘unreasonable’ into it all?

Repeat, foreign operating outside of the US do not fall under the Fourth Amendment. When they are contacting people in the US of whatever nationality to coordinate plans for terrorist attacks on the US, it is reasonable to search (listen to) the conversation(s) between them. Sorry, but that’s my semi-learned take on the program’s legality. Apparently, all of the federal appellate courts' presumably learned opinions conclude at the exact same point.

So what will happen now?

Again, contemplate the magnitude of this: the legal legitimacy of what once was a Top Secret compartmentalized matter--its effectiveness dependant upon its confidentiality, having been designed to frustrate the plans of terrorists who would see another deadly attack on this country--is now being hashed out in the court of public opinion—informed and otherwise.

I predict that after every aspect of this matter is sliced to a fare-thee-well in the Senate, in the House and in the media—both old and new—its legality will be confirmed. During this evisceration of one of the means to keep Americans safe, members of the Senate, the House and the Big Media will get more opportunities to trumpet their goodwill toward the American public: “we are just trying to protect you from the evil plans of that evil George W. Bush, because even if he didn’t have his creepy, geeky NSA minions spying on you and your Grandma Ethel, you know he was thinking about it. That’s just how evil he is. EVILLLLLL!!!!” The program will be rendered useless (as will any other that uses similar means) and it will be scrapped (assuming it hasn’t been already), but it will be deemed clean and pure at its postmortem. Some government whistle-blower for this program that will have turned out to be totally legal and previously quite effective until its existence was broadcast to “our” enemies will be cast as the Grand Hero who saved America’s civil liberties from this “evil man.”

My hat's off to you, New York Times and to you, anonymous government official(s); certainly you’re just trying to ensure that my civil liberties are protected. I’ll try to be comforted by that when my family is dead.

Tom at Just One Minute knows that they won’t stop trying to destroy America to save it.

(Thanks to Memeorandum and thanks to old friend Marty—who, likely, is even more livid than I am. Thanks, Sweetie, for the CD, Romantic Warrior by Return to Forever! I need it to calm me down.)

UPDATE: DC at Toad Time has some excellent thoughts on the subject.

Comments

[Carole Philipps]

Thanks. I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I'm so angry, I emailed two of my representatives and demanded an investigation...into who leaked this information in the first place! I only wrote two because the third happens to be Harry Reid. No point in wasting my time there. Keep up the good work.

[Brian]

Cool your rage. It is doubtful that any deep secret has been "leaked" to/by the NYT. I recall reading a book (name and author escape me at the moment)about the NSA then (circa 1985)emerging use of computers to (data mine)scan the conversations recorded from the international ether. The computers would winnow the search before human intervention to see if it warranted further action. It would refer things like "That last joke the PRESIDENT told really BOMBED."

So what the Times is printing is reallly old old news. Just new and better tech.

I'm considering why now again publish? Possible answers.

?Administration wants the info out to? a. deter overseas terrorist activity. b. to get its message out that it is doing lots behind the scenes in the GWOT. and improve polls.

Karl Rove is behind everything and that's a good thing.

Recall the NYT editor Keller visited the White House with publisher Pinch S. in early December. Who know's who said what to whom?

[DC]

Agreed. Regardless of the legality of the President's actions, there's no doubt that the leaker has committed a felony. That person should be hunted down and prosecuted.

At one point in my life I had a Top Secret clearance, and I remember vividly the seriousness of the consequences promised should I violate that trust. Why should a person who works for an intelligence agency get a break just because they have a political agenda?

My take in full here

[LFCF]

Having some history in this field, I would not be too fast to assume that someone in the NSA leaked the info. A careful reading of the story gives me the suspision that the source is someone else.

[Marty]

You're welcome, Dax.

For those who would argue that nothing was disclosed since it was "in the press," I maintain that there is a sharp difference between an enemy assuming that we have a capability and us confirming their assumption.

It's the confirmation of sources and/or methods that is illegal and dangerous.

[baldilocks]

Brian,

The fact is, whether the disclosure hurts our nationality security or not, someone in the NSA most certainly violated his/her agreement, that is, broke the law. An neither you nor the NYT is in a position to determine whether the disclosure hurt us or not.

By the way, I've done more than "read a book" about NSA. Additionally, I know some people who are in such a position and, to a man, they are highly PO'd.

[Stephen Verbit]

No group should be more troubled by President Bush’s apparent violations of federal law than the Republicans who sanctimoniously impeached and tried President Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice charges for allegedly lying under oath about and trying to cover up his private sexual conduct. The Republicans insisted that the impeachment and trial of President Clinton was not about sex, but rather about upholding the Rule of Law. Their lofty and eloquent arguments about the Rule of Law are instructive in considering President Bush’s conduct.

During the Senate trial of President Clinton on the Articles of Impeachment, then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R.-Ill.) vehemently argued:

Let us be clear: The vote that you are asked to cast is, in the final analysis,
a vote about the rule of law. The rule of law is one of the great achievements
of our civilization. For the alternative to the rule of law is the rule of raw
power... The ‘rule of law’ is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook, The
rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power
by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law
is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others
while strengthening the common good.

House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ed Bryant (R.-Tenn.) argued to the Senate:

As the head of the Executive Branch, the president has the constitutional duty
to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’… In view of the enormous
trust and responsibility attendant to his high office, the president has the
manifest duty to ensure that his conduct at all times complies with the law of
the land.

In the House debate resulting in the impeachment of President Clinton, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. James Rogan (R.-Calif.) made this particularly pertinent argument:

There is no business of government more important than upholding the rule of
law. A sound economy amounts to nothing beside it, because without the rule of
law, all contracts are placed in doubt and all rights to property become
conditional. National security is not more important than the rule
of law, because without it, there can be no security and there is little left defending.... (emphasis supplied).

Equally relevant to President Bush’s authorization of warrantless domestic spying, and his administration’s justifications for it, is the argument presented to the Senate during President Clinton’s impeachment trial by House Judiciary Committee member Rep. Steve Buyer (R.-Ind.):

The president has a constitutional role of Commander in Chief.…[A]s the ‘single
hand’ that guides the actions of the armed services, it is incumbent that the
president exhibit sound, responsible leadership and set a proper example... In
order to be an effective...effective military leader, the president must exhibit
the traits that inspire those who must risk their lives at his command. These
traits include honor, integrity, and accountability…. America, again, is a
Government of laws, not of men. What protects us from that knock on the door in
the middle of the night is the law.

President Bush may believe FISA is unconstitutional. He may believe FISA’s procedures too cumbersome to adequately protect the American people. Nevertheless, FISA is the law of the land. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution authorizes the president to simply disregard, violate, or circumvent provisions of federal law he or she deems unconstitutional or impracticable. As long as FISA is the law of the land, President Bush must comply with it. If President Bush believes FISA must be changed in light of the exigencies of the “War on Terror,” our system of government mandates that he should try to get Congress to amend the law. Simply ignoring the law and violating the law are not permissible options for the president.

The righteous and high-minded members of Congress who sat in judgment of and prosecuted President Clinton believed they were articulating the standards by which all presidents should be judged. In assessing President Bush’s authorization of warrantless domestic spying in violation of FISA, the arguments leveled by the Republicans who impeached and tried President Clinton should not be overlooked or forgotten.

[baldilocks]

Stephen:

The next time you want to post a list of non sequiturs here, don't make it so long.

Thanks for your attention to this matter in the future.

[DarkStar]

That's good, but again I've read conflicting information. I'm confused.

On this:

But for the hate to be so pathological that the haters would seek to thwart every one of the president’s endeavors, including classified NSA programs designed to keep another 9/11 from happening, leaves me flabbergasted.

Agreed on the concept of what happened in this case.

I'm still wondering where those who have this concern, thought the same thing when the opposition to Clinton was loudly proclaiming that the moral in the military was at "an all time low", that they didn't support Clinton, and that many were leaving because of him. At the time, I thought that was a "wonderful" thing to show our enemies.

Those are thoughts, not meaning to be contrary.

Really.

Just sick of partisan b.s. when it's concerned with the security of my country.

[justin]

I haven't been following this for a couple of days, but isn't the issue whether the administration has authorized warrantless surveillance on persons within the US, in violation of FISA? No one disagrees that this sruveillance is legal if done outside the US. But, depending on the scope of these searches, and who they were done on (a lot of "ifs"), I would say the person who disclosed this information deserves our praise, not our condemnation. If, however, this is just a partisan attack, then I agree with Baldilocks. My general impression is that this is something that we have a right to know about, and the NYT was correct to run this story.

As for the Predident's Article II authority--a lot of people (Powerline included) are confusing two points: the power of the President to conduct warrantless searches, and the power of congress to set limits on those searches. From my reading of federal case law, the President can conduct warrantless searches for certain limited national security purposes. Those cases, however, do not give the president an inherent right to conduct these searches whenever he wants, nor do they speak to Congresses ability to set limits on that power (I could be wrong in the latter point, I'll re-read some of the cases when I have time). I find the idea of the executive branch having unfettered discretion to conduct this surveillance pretty frightening. I'm not saying that Bush has done anything wrong, but we should all be aware that Bush will not be the President forever, and some of you Bush supporters should consider whether you would be comfortable with Hillary Clinton, or Dean, or Kerry, having this sort of power.

[Richard Cook]

Baldy-

I really don't think there is an environment for prosecuting this kind of offense. Espionage yes but leaking? Isn't that seen as in the best traditions of democracy, etc? I know this sounds kinda juvenile but when was the last time a reporter or newspaper was prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of classified? Its not gonna happen.

[Steve]

I am back from vacation and I thought I would comment. I have not looked into this event much and I have not looked into what has been posted here either.

These intercepted communications are between individuals who have either made or received a phone call or email from an Al Qaeda affiliated indivdual or group and we are at war with Al Qaeda.

These communications are probably between people affiliated with the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood and/or Shia Hezbollah.

A New York Times reporter in, I believe it was, December 2001 tipped off a New York based Mulsim organization that it was about to be raided by the FBI.

The New York Times as got quite an extensive past of its own going back many decades that most everything it does must be looked into in that context. It is not a disinterested observer simply reporting on the events it sees. Maybe it is what is called an "open secret" in this county but the New York Times possibly plays a more intimate role in this country's government than may be thought appropriate for and organization calling itself a news organization.

[baldilocks]

Richard,

Everyone who has a TS compartmentalized clearance signs an agreement not to disclose to unauthorized sources the information to which they have access. The penalties for doing so are spelled out in plain language. Additionally, cleared personnel are briefed on the handling--and penalties for unauthorized disclosure--of classified information at regular intervals, just to preclude the "I forgot" defense.

If there isn't an "environment" for holding such trusted people accountable to their signed agreements, then we might as well toss all contracts (including military oaths) in the circular file right now.

Faithlessness isn't implicit in the word 'democracy.'

[justin]

But, is there any obligation or right (moral or otherwise) to leak classified information if a crime is being committed? If the President was indeed authorizing a program in direct contravention of federal law, then I'm glad someone had the guts to blow the whistle (I don't know if that's the case though).

[justin]

This is real nice--the FISA court starts pushing back on sweeping wiretap warrant requests, so Bush just stops going to the Court. To reiterate an earlier point--why aren't all the people who bashed Clinton over his indiscretions outraged?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi

[Steve]

It seems rather Clintonish to be outraged at wiretaps of Al Qaeda communications. A group we have declared war with and has declared war on us.

Being "outraged" at wiretaps of Al Qaeda would be in keeping with the policies of the Clinton administration from what I've read of that administration's behavior in the 1990s.

"Outrage" would be reserved for things like the over 1,000 FBI files on Republican congressmen that went missing and then mysteriously turned up and no one to this day knows where the information in those files went.

Or the use of the IRS to audit Clinton opponents multiple times in sequential years. Or, the selling to the Chinese militrary sensitive technology for campaign cash. Or selling encrypted communication technology to Syria.

Or, Robert Baer's plan to assassinate Saddam Hussein and the subsequent threat of being brought up on charges for doing so.

Lots of stuff like that in that administration would be worthy of "outrage" but wiretapping Al Qaeda communications today raises maybe some interesting questions if you were to think of some supposed wider possibilities but then again that isn't so interesting in many ways either because that kind of thinking could be applied to just about any direction one could go and is usually dismissed by others as childish.

The fact that democrats cannot decern the difference between the reason for "outrage" of this administration's behavior and their own behavior in the 1990s shows further (among many other things) why I'll never be able to vote for them. Seriously, if they cannot tell the difference then a few minutes of contemplation can bring to mind a lot of further implications for that inability.

I really doubt that anyone in Washinton or New York is really suprise or disgusted by it. Afterall Jamie Gorelick is quoted as saying that the president has this authority and was used by the Clinton administration in the arrest of the spy Aldrich Ames. The assumed authority to do this seems to extend back to the Carter and Reagan administrations. I think that a lot of this is postured outrage because it came as no suprise to me and it must have been no real suprise to many of these democrats. Especially the ones that have been briefed about this over a dozen times. The outrage is meant for public consumption to dupe them into feeling something they wouldn't otherwise feel just hearing about it. I am quite sure that most of the public, if they were honest with themselves, had already thought that the government was tapping the lines of international calls of persons who have had previous communications with groups associated with Al Qaeda (Osama, Zarqawi, Al Douri, Zawahiri, Saif Al-Adel).

The hype is bogus and created by the media. Many people I guess feel that if the news anchors feel that we the public should be insensed then maybe we should then. So little of the language being used on these news programs is accurately describing the nature of those being tapped and instead they are just being refered to as "american citizens" and the calls are often refered to as just "calls".

I guess I should go ahead and say this and that is that from what I've been able to learn of the structure of the leftwing and to see the behavior of the democratic party over the years it would be pretty dead-headed of me not to suspect their involvement in these groups is their real sensitivity to these wiretaps and that it is also in my mind possible that somewhere in that leftwing/Islamists/DNC mix is a more revealing answer to 911's causes or perpetrators.

[bman]

I'm not sure the leaker was part of NSA. Perhaps a senior senator or a resigned FISA judge is the culprit. Anyway thanks a lot NYT for helping our enemies and for giving lawyers a chance to exonerate the terrorists that we have actually been able to prosecute.

[Indigo]

Could be there was some classified material in those 1000 purloined FBI files too, but the best I remember that "outrage" was mostly pooh-poohed and soon forgotten. More goose and gander DC SOP, IMO.

[justin]

Steve, Don't try to change the debate. No one is outraged by the monitoring of Al Quada communications, or of the communications of suspected terrorists. Of course I expect the government to do that, and FISA would of course rubber stamp a warrant for that, even after the fact. We're speaking about the executive's right to conduct warrantless searches with no oversight--i.e., the President gets to decide who is "connected" to terrorism with no oversight. Would you have liked Bill Clinton to have this power?

And Steve, I can't believe that you are accusing left wing groups of being involved in terrorist organizations. WTF? Do you have any evidence?

Welcome back by the way.

Anyway thanks a lot NYT for helping our enemies and for giving lawyers a chance to exonerate the terrorists that we have actually been able to prosecute.

How is the NYT helping our enemies?

[Richard Cook]

Perhaps my comment was not clear enough. I said when was the last time a reporter or newspaper was busted for unauthorized disclosure. I do not think the environment for that kind of prosecution exists today both on the public side and the government side.

[Steve]

Mentioning the NSA's monitoring of the communications of those persons in the United States who are in, or have been in, overseas contact with Al Qaeda groups is the subject as far as I am concerned. This cannot be a suprise and had to have been something done in every war and especially every war since electronic communications have been used. It would not have disturbed me in the least if the Clinton administration had been doing this either. There seems to be a misunderstanding on your part as to the nature of the problem that Republicans (or any non-democrat) have had with the Clinton administration.

The mention of the Clinton adminstration was first yours, Justin, in relation to "outrages". So even there I was in keeping with the direction you took the conversation. The problem "we" had with the Clinton administration, and this has been written a lot about, is their inability to be aggressive in this area in the 1990s and it does appear to be a purposeful decision in order to facilitate Muslim groups. Groups like Sami Al-Arian's Damascus based Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Whose arrest was mourned by many on the left. Or, Lynne Stewart's defense being contributed to by George Soros. Or, George Soros' Code Pink's donations to the terrorists in Fallujah and on and on and on. One thing that I have read mentioned often is the rule set by the Clinton administration that the C.I.A. not be allowed to engage themselves with persons who have had a criminal past. From what I have read from people who have worked in intelligence that is just simply ridiculous if we are to have HUMINT.

George Bush briefed some members of congress over a dozen times over this NSA tapping and I do not therefore think that it qualifies as something that has had NO oversight. I caught the tail end of a interview on Foxnews with a man who had done these wiretaps for the government. He had said something to the effect that they would set the tap for as long as the warrant was in effect and then disconnect to go and renew the warrant. When they had reconnected the tap they had realized by the conversation they were listening to that they had missed some very important developments. That is what I heard him say and that is important for me to consider even though I do not fully understand that situation. It may be important for persons in this line of work to be allowed to get down to work when they are on to something and not be interupted with FISA warrant renewals. From what I know of what Steven Emerson has written about in Amercican Jihad and the Freedom House report of about a year ago as well as so many other things I've read I think it would be best to give the elected President the benefit of the doubt in these matters and especially one that has briefed some congress members over a dozen times about it. Besides, the way the democrats and their MSM news media are approaching this story it is obvious that it is really about something else. They (MSM news media and democrats) are using this non-story for more of their selfish politcal reasons and they are being directed to do so from unelected people somewhere beyond themselves.

As for the leftwing being involved in terror organizations? There as been a century of such incidents recorded around the world and in the United States. I believe that the Weather Underground was just one such group. Moscow and its use of such people during the Cold War and I believe that the city of Prague played a large role in that (Carlos the Jackal and Abu Nidal Organization and many more). You could read David Horowitz's book Unholy Alliance (I haven't read it). Or just get in the habit of looking at Frontpage Magazine website 3 or 4 days out of the week for a few months and you'll get a feel for what is going on in that regard. This leftwing-Islamist connection isn't a big dicovery of mine or even a secret. Its very easy to find on our campuses and many other areas.

I do think that it is quite possible Westerners were involved in 911 and that those people may not be too far removed from people the democrats meet regularly with in the whole scene of the Internationalist left. It could explain somethings. Even many things in science are dicovered by the odd behavior of something already known about and visible but acted upon by something previously unknown and unseen. The behavior of the left and the democrats and their media is the known and the seen but their behavior may give away something else. This idea about who gets to define a terrorist is somewhat interesting (a little). It isn't an uncommon question or expression in this world. But, I know from my experience from reading that that almost always indicates that someone is out to make the terrorists and their terrorism justified and those that fight them the unjust or even make them the terrorists. It wouldn't be too hard for me to see a possible plan in all of this pettiness on the left. And that plan is to have a judge of the Noam Chomsky persuasion, or worse, make the decisions as to whether or not someone is part of a group that congress and the President have declared war on because they declared war on us. After all I've seen and heard it appears that the "left" wants to justify the terrorists and vilify those that fight them by reversing definitions through our commonly ridiculous judges taught by our often ridiculous professors on our Dar al-Islam Saudi financed campuses.

[Justin]

Steve--stop revising history--while Clinton's attempts at fighting jihadists were pretty pathetic, Bush had absolutely no interest in it pre-9/11. So, don't go throwing blame around.

As for warrantless searches, I don't believe your Fox news story. Bottom line is that you think the President should be entitled to break the law in the interest of national security while I don't.

As for the left wing/islamistist connection--OK fine, I can find some fringe right wing groups that participate in neo-nazi activities and say there is a right wing nazi connection, but that would be ridiculous as is your point.

[Steve]

Actually there is plenty of "right wingers" who have taken up with the Islamists. I use to use the words "left" or "left wing" with quotes because they are not really very informative words. The Nazis were not "right wingers". They were pagan left occultist and socialist and were mostly homosexuals with their roots in the gay rights movement of Germany.

To say that there are "right wingers" in with the Islamists is not something that I should feel pertains to me now or historically. But rather it is all the same and all "left" as it always has been. The few I've seen speak do not like George Bush and much of their talk resembles socialist's language.

As for George Bush's attempts at fighting Al Qaeda it is not exactly correct to say that he was not interested prior to 911. Actually he did express a intention of ramping up our aggressiveness against Al Qaeda and the plan he called for was delivered to the White House on about September 4, 2001. So your "absolutely no" is inaccurate.

Neither you nor I know what it takes to put together the kind of plan he received on that date and as things go in Washington it doesn't seem to me to be an example of slow movement in putting the plan together. It was mainly Clinton's FBI and CIA at the time as well, just as it will be Bush's CIA and FBI until about 2010 or even a little after.

Jamie Gorelick (I'm sure you are already aware of the quote from I think 1994) said that the President has the inherent right to do such things for national security purposes. And again he briefed some members of congress on it over a dozen times.

If the democrats would like to look into making some changes to all of that then they ought to bring it up as adults with concerns and not with these feigned tantrums and theatrics of theirs that are meant for the incredulous and shrinking portion of adrenal glands of the public they are aware they may still own.

[Justin]

Steve, its the Democrats who insist that Bush obey the law, while the Republicans (many of them) are falling back on the "Bush can do whatever he wants in the name of national security" line. If Bush thought the FISA law was too restrictive, he has had four years since 9/11 and both houses of congress to try to make a change. Just because he does not like the law does not mean he can violate it (I'm not saying that he did violate it, however, but the argument that he is above the law is disturbing).

[Steve]

He is not acting above the law. He is the Commander and Chief in a time of war and he (we) is at war with Al Qaeda. And one such Al Qaeda member named Zarqawi has killed hundreds if not over a thousand of our soldiers in Iraq. He is part of an organzization that has killed over 3,000 American civilians.

"The law" is not something the Tammany democrats have historically been all that particular about but it is very curious just how and when the democrats do get particular about it. It seems more than a little curious that in this case they are concerned about international communications between Al Qaeda members much like they always seem to be more concerned about criminals rather than their victims or potential future victims all in the supposed name of "the law". I mean, just look at the criminal United Nations and all the business they were involved in outisde of "international law" with a thug like Saddam who was acting outside "international law". But this would be just one example of so many others that the United Nations has been involved in. There seems to be something very queer about the way the democrats or the "left" think of and define "the law".

Like I've heard said before the constitution is not a suicide pact and the law is not something that should be used to facilitate the future plans of murderous breakers of the law. A parent would not allow a child to take such logic against themsleves. Its foolish and the "left" will be the first to whine if their is another attack that kills hundreds that could have been stopped. People who know each other do not allow the other to play those kinds of law-for-anarchy-to-my-advantage games with them either.

A man named Faris who had plans to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was stopped by this kind of survailliance as well as one other that escapes me right now. And besides, given the situation we are in in Iraq, communications like these could help our soldiers in Iraq as well.

Again, we are at war with Al Qaeda and they are killing hundreds of our soldiers in Iraq and they have killed thousands here in the United States. George Bush is the Commander and Chief in a time of war and he has taken this wiretapping information to certain members of congress over a dozen times so it isn't like you've been insinuating. Otherwise then the members of congress are accomplices to a crime and that whole scenario is just nihilistic much like Zarqawi's group and Saddam's Baathists that are with him like Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and his two sons who swore fealty to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.

As for the German National Socialist Worker's Party and the Muslim Brotherhood? And in particular Aleppo's Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and their involvement in 911. They (the Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood) were together and in communication during WWII and Arafat's great uncle Hussein, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spent much of WWII in Berlin. Mein Kampf is the second largest seller in many Arab Muslim countries behind the Quran and it was originally translated into Arabic by the brother of Egypt's leader Nasser.

[justin]

He is not acting above the law. He is the Commander and Chief in a time of war and he (we) is at war with Al Qaeda. And one such Al Qaeda member named Zarqawi has killed hundreds if not over a thousand of our soldiers in Iraq. He is part of an organzization that has killed over 3,000 American civilians.

Right, so your basic argument is that the President can do whatever he wants in a time of war? Am I mis-stating you? And when did Congress declare war?

And I'm not sure of the relevance of him informing Congress, if that is really the case. What exactly was Congress supposed to do? The wiretapping is classified. Are you suggesting they should have broken the law and gone public?

A man named Faris who had plans to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was stopped by this kind of survailliance as well as one other that escapes me right now. And besides, given the situation we are in in Iraq, communications like these could help our soldiers in Iraq as well.

Yeah, the guy who tried to "blow" up the bridge with a blow torch or something--it was pretty much impossible for it to succeed.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/

If I hear that Brooklyn Bridge story one more time from Bush supporters I think I'm going to lose it. What is your argument here? Are you saying that the FBI has the right to monitor every conversation in the US? Please explain.

[Steve]

I think the point is is that it isn't every phone call in the United States. It is international calls made by individuals that have in the past made a call or email, or received a call or email, from an Al Qaeda organization. So was Jamie Gorelick wrong when she spoke of President Bill Clinton having this inherent ability? Did anyone speak up at that time and say that he did not?

That survailliance might even inculde me because I got some mysterious email from people purporting to be Arabs asking me to handle some money of theirs when I first hooked up my computer and I sent them back some really pretty mean emails which I shouldn't have done now that I think about it. But it was kind of fun and scary at the sametime but these emails have suddenly stopped. Kind of curious what that was all about but I suppose possibly based on that they may monitor my communication and I kind of care and then again I kind of don't. The emails were possibly actually government emails at the time and I knew that as I responded. The government may have only wanted to provoke a response just so they could have an excuse to monitor my mail and calls. If it gets to be too much here I may just leave to another country is all (not really likely though). After reading David N. Bossie's book called Intelligence Failure and some other things I kind of realize that a CIA or FBI person is not a "right winger" but may instead actually be a homosexual and/or cross-dresser that is the embodiment of their organization's pride, tolerance, multi-culturalness, open-mindedness, sensitvity training, and inclusive patch quilt making abilities that embody the underlying principles behind the internationalist Church of Scientology and its predeccessor cults down through history.

The point of the Faris example is not so much whether or not he could have personally succeeded but that such a plot was in development and may have been on its way to succeeding either with the Brooklyn Bridge or some other softer target. They nabbed a man willing to do such things is the main point.

It was during Bill Clinton's administration that something called ECHLON was developed I have yet to look much into it. And I also remember that the Clinton administration, and I think particularly Al Gore, were working on something called the Clipper Chip in the 1990s. I am a little busy right now so you can look up those two things as well as Hillary Clinton's war with the Internet. Also, the Executive Orders from the Clinton Administration or orders number 12319 and 12949 and I believe there was also an Executive order like those in the Carter Adminstration.

The problem though with the democrats is that it is all prosecution, prosecution, prosecution, at a time of war when the President got the votes he needed in the House and Senate and got U.N. Resolution 1441 passed with 15 votes. The measure passed the Senate after John Kerry gave a long long speech (I believe his speech was October 9, 2002) explaining his reasons for being for the resoluton. This constant search for a way to prosecute this President at this time is awfully strange because it really seems arbitrary and therefore for some other odd hidden agenda. A little French Jacobin and guillitine like if you know what I mean.

[justin]

i think the point is is that it isn't every phone call in the United States. It is international calls made by individuals that have in the past made a call or email, or received a call or email, from an Al Qaeda organization.

Steve, of course those people should be monitored, and the current law makes it pretty easy to do, and if doesn't, the law should be changed. Bush has had four years to ask the Republican controlled Congress to change the law, but he hasn't. So, then, is it your position that if the President doesn't like the law, then he can break it? I'm not really following your point.

So was Jamie Gorelick wrong when she spoke of President Bill Clinton having this inherent ability? Did anyone speak up at that time and say that he did not?

I'm not sure what you are talking about, please provide a link.

In any event, why do certain conservatives think that "Clinton did it too" is a good or compelling argument? It always seemed to come up in the Iraq/WMD debates too. Believe it or not, one can be a liberal and think that Clinton did a lot things wrong. Go back and look at left-leaning publications from the 1990s (e.g., the Nation), where Clinton and the DNC were blasted as being sell-outs.

As for your problem with the democrats going after the President--my we have a short memory don't we? Did the Republicans let up on Clinton during Kosovo?

[Steve]

Jamie Gorelick story. About the first half of the article appears below the link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200512200946.asp

In a little-remembered debate from 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has "inherent authority" to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress's decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

"The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."

"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."

Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."

Reporting the day after Gorelick's testimony, the Washington Post's headline — on page A-19 — read, "Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches." The story began, "The Clinton administration, in a little-noticed facet of the debate on intelligence reforms, is seeking congressional authorization for U.S. spies to continue conducting clandestine searches at foreign embassies in Washington and other cities without a federal court order. The administration's quiet lobbying effort is aimed at modifying draft legislation that would require U.S. counterintelligence officials to get a court order before secretly snooping inside the homes or workplaces of suspected foreign agents or foreign powers."

In her testimony, Gorelick made clear that the president believed he had the power to order warrantless searches for the purpose of gathering intelligence, even if there was no reason to believe that the search might uncover evidence of a crime. "Intelligence is often long range, its exact targets are more difficult to identify, and its focus is less precise," Gorelick said. "Information gathering for policy making and prevention, rather than prosecution, are its primary focus."

[Steve]

I didn't realize that I had posted/pasted just about the whole article in. I guess I might as well put in the last paragraph because it has a very interesting quote of Jamie Gorelick's.

----

The debate over warrantless searches came up after the case of CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Authorities had searched Ames's house without a warrant, and the Justice Department feared that Ames's lawyers would challenge the search in court. Meanwhile, Congress began discussing a measure under which the authorization for break-ins would be handled like the authorization for wiretaps, that is, by the FISA court. In her testimony, Gorelick signaled that the administration would go along a congressional decision to place such searches under the court — if, as

she testified, it "does not restrict the president's ability to collect foreign intelligence necessary for the national security."

In the end, Congress placed the searches under the FISA court, but the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.