Update (12/17): Bush responds to the dunces:
Defending the program, Bush said in his address that it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have “a clear link” to al- Qaida or related terrorist organizations.
He said the program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program.
Without identifying specific lawmakers, Bush said congressional leaders have been briefed more than a dozen times on the program’s activities.
So the screaming-banshee politicians were briefed ahead of time, the warrantless monitoring was done on international communications (as I wrote yesterday), the program is reviewed by the Justice Department, and Bush says he will continue monitoring international communications that may be linked to Islamofascists, despite what liberals say. Good for him.
I guess lazy reporters have got to create news out of something, don’t they?
————————————————————————————————————————————
Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat? - Senator Bill Frist
Islamofascists hiding out in the United States must be ecstatic, visions of 72 virgins dancing in their murderous heads.
Determined to undermine national security and leave Americans vulnerable to Muslim terrorist cells because they hate George Bush, Democrats in Congress decided that rejecting “the Bush Administration’s” Patriot Act is worth the gamble of another terrorist attack.
The America-hating journalist who wrote this story frames it as a defeat for President Bush, when it’s really a defeat for all Americans and a stunning victory for Muslim terrorists hiding in the woodwork like roaches.
The Supreme Court made a “law” that allows government to snatch private property for the lamest of reasons, yet the Bush Administration’s “defeats” make headlines. They put out headlines like this, and you can feel how painful it is for them to admit the “spying” involves warrantless monitoring of international communications, not domestic.
How do naysayers propose we get the goods on terrorist thugs if we can’t monitor their communications without them knowing? A little common sense is applicable. Obtaining a warrant would alert the thugs, and the communications would likely stop or go deeper underground. It’s a delicate balance between protecting “civil liberties” and ensuring that all limbs remain attached to our bodies.
Speaking of bodies, while Americans are getting felt up and removing their shoes in airports, and illegal aliens are downstairs working on the planes, Islamofascists will rest easy chatting up their brothers about which hotel or restaurant or public conveyance they plan to blow up, all without that nosy imperialist pig, Great Satan, listening in on the other end.
Dunces — journalists, politicians, people who disagree with me for no other reason than to be contrary— the whole lot of them.
Bloggers: Michelle Malkin, Outside the Beltway, Confederate Yankee, Captain’s Quarters…
Report: Bush Permitted NSA to Spy in U.S.
President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside t
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 12.16.05 @ 2:09 pm
The Democrats seem determined to prove that they are so partisan that they will compromise the safety of US citizens to thwart President Bush.
Comment by Evon — 12.16.05 @ 2:10 pm
Patriot Act Not Renewed
The U.S. Senate has blocked the renewal of the anti-terror USA Patriot Act via a Democratic-led fillibuster. Preventing the extension of the Patriot Act will, in effect, give terrorist cells in the U.S. more ability to carry out plans without being det…
Trackback by The World According To Carl — 12.16.05 @ 3:22 pm
Possible Filibuster of The Patriot Act Renewal
KRT Wire
I am not normally a fan of any democrat. If Fiengold filibusters and gets a few others with him, I’ll cheer him on until this despicable act dies and gets buried. Andrew Cochran of the counter-terrorism blog disagrees.
Next up, the …
Trackback by HCS's and Gen's Place — 12.16.05 @ 4:27 pm
Renew the Patriot Act!
There's a storm brewing in the Senate and among the blogs, today. The Patriot Act is up for renewal, and the Democrats decided to filibuste…
Trackback by Republican Jen — 12.16.05 @ 4:46 pm
notice that Bill Frist voted against the re-authorization also….what a fraud…
Comment by lukeNC — 12.16.05 @ 5:11 pm
Without the Patriot Act in force, the Gorelick wall goes back up. I am in hopes that the President can rescind it by “executive order”; anyone know for certain?
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.16.05 @ 5:28 pm
La Shawn, you are 100% correct. The 19 sky-jackers of 9/11 had what they used to call, “No visible means of support”. They would have qualified for frequent-flyer mileage on what?, a stipend from their parents to come to America and attend flight school and pay $50,000 in cash? You have to track the money, intercept all communications to get back at the people who WANT US DEAD! How about our civil rights?
Comment by Tom Bosee — 12.16.05 @ 5:38 pm
This plus McCain’s Al Qaeda Bill of Rights makes me wonder if the terrorists are right in their assessment that we are too weak to win.
Comment by Rancher — 12.16.05 @ 5:53 pm
lukeNC……..MyWay reports on Frist: Frist, R-Tenn., changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won’t approve it and the president won’t sign it.
Comment by Heliotrope — 12.16.05 @ 6:04 pm
Intelligence on Intelligence
Are the new revelations about intel operations that involve collecting information from certain phone calls that originate or terminate outside the US really some profound change in policy? Is it a critical violation of civil rights or harming the ri…
Trackback by A Blog For All — 12.16.05 @ 6:09 pm
george-orwell@orwellian.org
You might be interested in a report I did a few years ago
regarding the NSA spying on us domestically.
It includes a treatment of how they perform Internet email
monitoring, by way of my describing how I monitored the
emails of more than 7000 employees on Wall Street.
You’ll have a better understanding of the currently exposed situation, including that to find the people the NSA caught domestically: that the NSA has massive nation-wide monitoring going on. That’s instrinsically how it works.
http://orwellian.org/Cryptography_Manifesto.txt
Comment by George Orwell — 12.16.05 @ 7:52 pm
Libs and cons in the senate saw to the defeat.
Comment by DarkStar — 12.16.05 @ 8:50 pm
Liberals: “Big Brother Is Coming, Big Brother Is Coming”
I was reading a post at The Daily Kos, as I do sometimes, and I noticed that they had gotten some facts wrong. They believe that Bush was spying on Domestic homes, while according to La Shawn Barber, This statement is false. The spying is in fact happe…
Trackback by The Young Conservatives — 12.16.05 @ 9:14 pm
Civil rights… it seems the only civil rights I see eroding are being taken away by the left, not the right. My children can’t express their faith in school the way I could. I can’t express my faith in my children’s schools the way my parents could in mine. I don’t own a gun yet, but I’m considering buying one before yet another “safety” law keeps me from doing so. I am not allowed to express opinions in the workplace without risking official retribution (Yes, the retribution comes from a non-governmental entity, however, this limitation to the freedom of expression is sanctioned by the government, and would be supported by the courts).
As a reminder of blatant civil rights limitations by the left: during Bill Clinton’s presidency, he attempted to deny the right of public housing residents to own legally obtained firearms. Specifically those persons most likely to suffer from violent crime.
The patriot act has been challenged in court when it has over-reached constitutionality, and those portions of the act should be redacted. However, much of the patriot act is to enable law and intelligence agencies the same investigative capabilities for terrorism that they’ve had for criminal investigation for a long time.
The “spying” on Americans was surveillance done on international calls (incoming and outgoing from the USA, but still international) not domestic espionage. Additionally, when Judges became critical of the policy, it was modified to comply with the Judges’ direction. Both political partys’ leadership was briefed on this when it was started. However, you won’t find this until deep into the NY Times’ article.
Comment by el_riggo — 12.16.05 @ 9:17 pm
Don’t the Republicans have the majority? A guess instead of placing blame it would be a great idea to ask why did the administration not just changed the law. After 9/11 the momentum was there to change the law. They did change the parts of the law on how long they store domestic data that was intercepted.
Comment by Clayton Bigsby — 12.16.05 @ 9:38 pm
The terrorists must be smiling
… considering all the setbacks this week that have happened in the war on terror, thanks to the liberal media, former admin and intelligence agency employees with an axes to grind against the President, and politicians on both sides of the aisle…
Trackback by Sister Toldjah — 12.17.05 @ 1:03 am
The fact is, other than a few, currently prosecuted incidents, the U.S. generally does not engage in torture. That said, like all weapons, it is preferred to keep all options open as a deterrent – instead with the torture card off the table - U.S. troops and authorities will now kill more suspected terrorists on sight than spare them for data and investigation.
Comment by Mean Dean — 12.17.05 @ 1:39 am
Check out a funny site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying “It’s All George Bush’s Fault!”
http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com
Regards,
Notta Libb
Comment by Notta Libb — 12.17.05 @ 2:56 am
We eavesdropped on the bad guys! Oh, my!
Bottom line here, folks? It’s the NY Times and some traitors within the CIA putting their hatred of George Bush ahead of the welfare of the country again. First of all, no crime was committed by the President or NSA, and what was done shouldn’t be a …
Trackback by Small Town Veteran — 12.17.05 @ 5:26 am
I havent researched it heliotrope, but isnt a short term extension of the CURRENT act better than no act at all? Does this vote mean we dont have a patriot act?
Comment by lukeNC — 12.17.05 @ 6:27 am
I dunno… I do think the Patriot Act needs some serious revisions. The challenge (and fun) of American government is to always stay within the bounds of the Constitution. Have we not just changed our way of life, sacrificing some cornerstone Constitutional ideas, at the whim of the fear of terrorists? We have. I’m sure the same objective could be easily achieved by thinking outside the box, and clearly inside the bounds of the Constitution. The Patriot Act should not be overturned completely, but needs to be seriously looked over.
Comment by Kevin W — 12.17.05 @ 12:50 pm
I was very upset about this as well. Hopefully they will fix it before the Dec. 31st deadline but I don’t hold out a whole lot of hope. I mentioned this in my last post too after I got done venting about McCain and his rididculous torture ban.
Comment by Little Miss Chatterbox — 12.17.05 @ 12:56 pm
“Determined to undermine national security and leave Americans vulnerable to Muslim terrorist cells because they hate George Bush, Democrats in Congress decided that rejecting “the Bush Administration’s†Patriot Act is worth the gamble of another terrorist attack.”
La Shawn, as you know, they hate a lot more people than George Bush. He’s merely the lightning rod of the day on which to focus their hate. When they think about God — if they think about God — they hate “bible thumpers” like you just as much as they do “W.” This is just another skirmish in the cultural war at home, but one that drags in “libertarians” as temporary allies, due to their hatred of a strong federal government as a matter of “principle.”
Comment by Kevin — 12.17.05 @ 2:08 pm
It was an international call with one end point in the U.S. and another outside of the U.S. The legality of the eavesdropping depends on how it was targeted.
The law forbids the NSA from eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and U.S. concerns with the U.S. It also prohibits eavesdropping on U.S citizens and U.S. concerns overseas, without their consent.
Next, because there is a law against what the NSA can do against U.S. citizens, any president directing otherwise via executive order, bypassed a law. In other words, broke the law.
Whether or not other people were briefed is not material.
Next, unfortunately, the Justice Department is a political department.
Comment by DarkStar — 12.17.05 @ 8:16 pm
If this is lawful, why the fuss? I mean on both sides. Why does the NYTimes present this as illegal? Why is the President on the defensive? And why the need for justifying it in the name of ‘it saves lives’?
To me, that sounds like ‘the end justifies the means.’ But if it were lawful, you wouldn’t need a justification, right?
Is this it: what he did was unlawful, but he’s justified?
Or: what he did was legal under Executive powers, and all of this is just more Bush bashing?
Comment by mary — 12.18.05 @ 10:46 am
Aren’t you right wingers the same guys who were howling over “Filegate”, when the Clinton White House allegedly had secret FBI files on people?
I guess Civil Liberties matter depending on which party has control of White House.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 12.18.05 @ 11:21 am
Hmmm…FBI files kept on ordinary Americans for political reasons versus monitoring communications between Islamofascists in light of the fact that we were attacked by Muslim terrorist infiltrators 4 short years ago, partly because we didn’t rigorously keep tabs on suspected cells.
Cobra, I allow your comments on this blog for their comedic value and your hopelessly unbalanced and undiscerning way of expressing yourself. You “left wingers” crack me up.
Comment by La Shawn — 12.18.05 @ 11:50 am
Well the real question is why did they not seek a warrant from the FISA court? Another small fact that seems to be ignored that court has only turned down on request in 30 years. But why let our system of checks and balances get in the way. Bet you did not know that once a FISA warrant is granted it can be applied retroactively. If people understood how they system worked they would be appalled at the abuse that occurred. I know this are just silly facts and minor details.
Comment by Clayton Bigsby — 12.18.05 @ 5:43 pm
Clayton, are you saying what they did was unlawful?
Comment by mary — 12.18.05 @ 6:42 pm
Not sure if it was unlawful. But, if you read how the FISA court is designed this seems like a massive abuse of power or The President received some of the worst advice possible.
Comment by Clayton Bigsby — 12.18.05 @ 8:09 pm
once a FISA warrant is granted it can be applied retroactively.
:-\
Comment by DarkStar — 12.18.05 @ 9:36 pm
Once the warrant is granted it gives them the permission to retrieve anything they want that is stored electronically or otherwise. Which once again why it just boggles the mind on why they bypassed the FISA courts. Since terrorist are not stupid they already assumed we are listening.
Comment by Clayton Bigsby — 12.18.05 @ 10:52 pm
The President’s Week From Hell
I hate to say this, but are you waiting for another disaster to strike, just so that you can stop repeating how “nothing has happened in the last four years”? I suggest you thank God first and our President second for that, and not your pet Islamofas…
Trackback by All Things Beautiful — 12.19.05 @ 2:42 am
Er, excuse me, but isn’t the Pentagon now keeping files on just that, private citizens? For example, who has membership on churches that they deem a threat? And by “threat” I mean “the Quakers”?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1215/dailyUpdate.html
Comment by Aleira — 12.19.05 @ 10:48 am
Clayton’s pretty much right here. Everything Bush has said he wants to do is already legal - the Administration just has to get a warrant from a FISA court. It can even be done retroactively if time is short.
Seeing as how the FISA courts have rejected something like .02 percent of warrants, that’s not much of a hurdle. Which makes you wonder why they aren’t just getting the warrants - is it the principle that there should be no checks on a President’s power, or are they doing stuff that they don’t want even secret judges to know about, or would what they’re doing fall under the unpermitted .02 percent, or what?
Comment by ptm — 12.19.05 @ 5:45 pm
Addendum - from EPIC, from 1979 to 2004 4 wiretap applications were rejected (all in 2003) and 18,700 were approved, for a rate of .02 percent. (Sure am glad I remembered the number right the first time.)
Comment by ptm — 12.19.05 @ 6:39 pm
LaShawn writes:
>>>”Hmmm…FBI files kept on ordinary Americans for political reasons versus monitoring communications between Islamofascists in light of the fact that we were attacked by Muslim terrorist infiltrators 4 short years ago, partly because we didn’t rigorously keep tabs on suspected cells.”
But that’s the precise problem here, LaShawn. We don’t KNOW who the NSA was monitoring and why they were monitoring them because there was no warrant…no paper trial…no record.
If you’re saying that a President should be able to act without oversight, especially in light of Clayton and PTM’s revelations, then I don’t know what to tell you.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 12.21.05 @ 7:56 pm