Dan Froomkin has rushed into the fray with one of the sillier columns I’ve seen in mainstream media recently, especially in the normally more balanced WaPo, regarding Bush and the NSA situation. He accuses the President of employing “Bait and Switch” tactics by listing failed terror attacks in a speech to the National Guard today.
Under pressure to justify his warrantless domestic spying program, President Bush today with much fanfare disclosed new details about the thwarting of a terrorist hijacking plot four years ago. But what it had to do with eavesdropping, Bush didn’t say.
Well, of course, he didn’t say precisely, because that would be revealing intelligence methods in public, something that would be essentially moronic (but that doesn’t stop Froomkin for criticizing him for not doing it.) What we are reading in this column is a classic case of projection, because the real “bait and switch” going on is by Froomkin and his co-religionists (I say this because he is engaging in a form of fundamentalist thought). Like born-again Luddites who never used a cell phone or a wireless Internet connection, they attack Bush for not getting warrants for wiretaps without bothering to answer the most obvious question: How could these warrants be obtained speedily enough to act to prevent terror attacks in a high tech world? This is the essence of the problem, but it is completely ignored.
Later in his column, Froomkin criticizes Bush for revealing secret intellligence information, after he began his column by, in essence, criticizing him for not revealing enough. What tendentious crap!
Just what do the Democrats think they are doing by joining with the terrorists in denigrating the Presidents fight against the Fascist/Jihadist murderers. They have also in time of war and extreme danger to our county reveled secrets of the NSA which is trying to stop more terrorism on our shores. Just whose side are these MSM types and certain elected officials on, if you look at their words and actions and the attempts of misdirection and misinformation, they don’t seem to be on our side do they?
Dan Froomkin has rushed into the fray with one of the sillier columns I’ve seen in mainstream media recently,….
No small achievement, that.
Classic argument we’ve been hearing from the right this whole time:
Right:
There’s not enough time! We have to move fast!
Left:
Ok, that’s fine. Let’s take a look at the law and change it so it works quickly and provides some sort of oversight.
Right:
We don’t need oversight. The AUMF gave us permission!
Left:
That was a vote to invade Afganistan and use necessary force. Wiretaps are surveilance, not force.
Right:
By talking about this we are revealing secrets!
Left:
What secrets? Didn’t the terrorists know we were surveiling them before?
Right:
Um, yeah. But we did good stuff with this program-we just can’t tell you anything about it.
Left:
How about behind closed doors- why not let FISA look it over?
Right:
FISA is Broken!
Left:
Then why didn’t you ask to fix it?
Right:
Because we didn’t have to!
Left:
What do you have to hide?
Right:
Nothing! but we can’t tell you any more. It’s SECRET.
Blah blah blah….Rinse/Repeat
No secrets have been revealed. This can be resolved behind closed doors if need be. I’m tired of these straw man arguments.
For the record I AM a republican. Just one with Libratarian leanings.
“For the record I AM a republican. Just one with Libratarian leanings.”
For the record, what’s a Libratarian? Something to do with astrology perhaps?
“what’s a Libratarian?”
Ah, he must be one of those fabled “middle of the road” voters who need to balance perfectly…
– Didn’t the terrorists know we were surveiling them before?–
No, they didn’t. And that’s the point.
The problem is again, Dems who are unwilling to step up and say what they want.
Dems want a warrant for everything, including by extension the President’s military action abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan, down to the ability to target terrorists or not depending on a judge OK’ing the action.
This is … stupid.
If Dems do not like the President using his historic and constitutional powers to intercept comms going or coming abroad, connected to hostile powers at war with the US and intent on killing Americans, they are free to:
*Impeach the President and ask for some sort of surrender to Al Qaeda (a few have already argued for this in both instances).
*Cut off funding for all surveillaince activities.
Some actions by the President are NOT subject to judicial review, war fighting is one of them. No court can tell ANY President he lacks authority to surveill say Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. That’s part of his inherent Article II powers and backed by the AUMF in Afghanistan, and since Al Qaeda has not surrendered and bin Laden and other senior leaders still at liberty the AUMF still applies.
This is proof positive that most of the Democratic Party is like Code Pink, totally useless to respond to the constant terrorist threat that finds our very existence an affront to God. If a CARTOON can set them off to an orgy of violence god knows what our TV, movies, and such will do.
To manaics intent on killing as many of us as possible, Dems offer the “action movie” cliche of the spineless Mayor or Police Captainn carping about the rules to Dirty Harry chasing down a serial killer.
Where to begin? Inasmuch as we’re discussing foreign intelligence, the Administration can go ahead and wiretap someone without a warrant; however, they have to apply for a warrant within 72 hours. So, in my view the whole business about having to do things in a hurry is completely bogus, as the law already has a provision for such hurry-up surveillance. Also, of course, if one is simply listening to electromagnetic transmissions (which is not a wiretap), then it’s not clear to me that any warrants are required at all. We don’t know how the NSA was conducting its surveillance, and likely never will, but it typically simply monitors microwave and satellite transmissions.
And, Mr. Rockford (like that name!), Amendments to the U. S. Constitution really do change the Constitution. Hence, provisions in Amendment IV supersede King George’s powers as described in Article II. And, to clarify, we are NOT AT WAR because Congress has not had the gonads to declare war on terrorist regimes such as Iran. The President’s ability to conduct war comes from the instructions of Congress to wage war (note: the President cannot veto a Declaration of War).
We should seriously consider declaring war on Iran and dealing with it militarily (which would likely not result in any invasion).
I have to agree with Henry Bowman here. The timeliness argument just doesn’t wash – FISA allows the administration to file for a warrant up to 72 hours after they begin surveillance.
Of course I disagree with him about whether we are at war or not. Congress provided authorization to use military force against anyone associated with the attacks of September 11th. That includes the Taliban in Afghanistan, but I suggest that it includes anyone associated with Al Qaida as well.
The argument that Roger ought to make (and that the president CANNOT make for national security reasons) is the following. Rumours goign around suggest the NSA is doing 7,000 taps a month or so. That means they’d need to apply for 250 warrants on an average day, and presumably a lot more when a large number of high value targets are aquired. And I bet the phone numbers come in at large intervals and a bunch at once. To follow FISA would require enough lawyers to submit 250 warrant requests a day. I don’t know how many that is, but it’s a lot of lawyers, costing a lot of money. I think the resources to maintain all these lawyers for as long as the war lasts could be much better put to use fighting terrorists than filling in warrant requests. Anyone want to disagree?
The president doesn’t, and shouldn’t, need to get a warrant to intercept enemy communications coming into the US. Congrss has declared Al Qaida our enemy. If the constitution doesn’t include interception of enemy communications as a part of the war fighting powers of the executive it may well be a suicide pact.
The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare war. That phrase doesn’t contain the word “only”. A state of war exists, and has existed since acts of war were carried out against this nation.