Dec 29 2005
Liberal Insanity
The far left has gone over the cliff with impeachment fever. They have lost all their self composure, let alone any semblance of coherency and logic. Example, Molly Ivins:
Thirty-five years ago, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was crazy as a bullbat, and J. Edgar Hoover, who wore women’s underwear, decided some Americans had unacceptable political opinions.
I am sitting here wondering what in the world these comments have to do with whether we monitor Al Qaeda or not? Doesn’t it illustrate a serious lack of maturity and seriousness on the subject to bring up some fevered swamp rumor about Hoover’s personal peccadilloes? I could care less, Hoover was way before my time. And I am in my mid 40’s! We are talking about national security and a newspaper is bringing up this kind of stuff as part of the debate?
And liberals wonder why America believes they have a difficult time focusing on national security? Did it ever occur to them that they earned that reputation?
Anyway, this post was to be about the illogic of the left’s logic – which is redundant, I know. The left runs on emotions of hate for being spurned by America, not on logic. But think about their core argument (once you stop laughing about their terminal paranoia)
Bush established a secret program under which the National Security Agency could bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court and begin eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. As many have pointed out, the entire program was unnecessary because the FISA court is prompt and accommodating.
Let’s dissect this. They claim FISA would have allowed all the monitoring Bush asked for – which is doubtful since Bush used FISA when he could and went around it when he had to. But follow this argument through. If he could get what he wanted through FISA, then who cares what was monitored since it would happen under FISA anyway? If their claim is his monitoring of Al Qaeda would be sanctioned under FISA anyway then what is the big problem?
Besides, what basis do they have for their paranoid fears? Liberals are simply not worth monitoring. Of course, we should be monitoring these folks to make sure they don’t hurt themselves as they get all wound up with imaginary black helicopters surrounding their houses.
The truth of all this seems to be Judge James Robertson apparently did not like FISA being used the way Miss Ivins pretends it could be used, as a way to take a tip from the NSA monitoring and turn it into a criminal investigation through FISA. It is probable Robertson did not like getting tips from the NSA as a way to find people who should be handled by the FBI. My guess is that is why he starting modifying and rejecting requests the moment he joined FISA, and why he leaked to the NY Times and resigned when he was overruled by the higher FISA Review Court. He tried to be emperor of America and decide, by himself, what was right and wrong.
That is the crux of this problem and the answer seems to be for liberals that we cannot monitor or take to task people who plan to kill us in large numbers. What is the difference between this and a police stake-out watching a suspect?
Nothing. The police get tips all the time and investigate people without a warrant. They question people without warrants. They watch people’s activities without warrants. They perform sobriety checks without warrants or probable cause. Every time you are pulled over and questioned it is without a warrant.
The left will rue the day they began this fight. Because it will end in their self destruction. It is now too late to stop it. Ivins ends her career with this statement:
Either the president of the U.S. is going to have to understand and admit he has done something very wrong, or he will have to be impeached.
When playing poker Molly, it is best not to bluff with an empty hand. The third possible end to this is the left makes such asses of themselves no one will ever want to be called a liberal again because of what these overwrought people did to the good name ‘liberal’. Right now it represents a bunch of paranoid clowns.
You are so smart to see all of this. That chart you posted is fantastic!
This site really opens my eyes. It also gives me the confidence of my own convictions.
Thanks!
Molly Ivans writes “The program already has targeted vegans and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.”
First, we really don’t know who the NSA has targeted.
It was in that papers that the FBI took a look at some domestic groups.
The FBI said they only target groups where there is some evidence of possible violence (terrorism). Maybe the FBI does get tipped from the NSA about possibly dangerous people in domestic groups, but then they have to make their own case if they plan to use it in court.
Second, Ivans seems to assume that vegans and PETA would never be involved with Al Qaeda. How does she know this? Has she spied on them already? Maybe the NSA knows something Molly doesn’t. If Vegans and PETA activists are talking to Al Qaeda, they should be checked out.
Having the tip from NSA at least allows the government to thwart terrorism–even of they can’t make a case in court.
I am fairly sure that American radicals who are not Islamists are collaborating with Al Qaeda and that is why they are targeted.
Maybe Americans were even involved with 9-11. If that were the case, the government might not want to tip the terrorists that they are onto them. They might want to round them up first.
That’s what people don’t get–the terrorist infrastructure probably includes American radicals.
I think it is a good efficient plan for the NSA to tell the FBI that someone bears a closer look. Then the FBI can investigate them and develop a case that doesn’t compromise our national security.
Sometimes it may be more important to spy on these people, investigate their contacts, and thwart their terrorism than to put them in jail.
One time, in the Jurassic age, I was driving around with a boyfriend late at night in a wealthy suburb. We were stopped by the cops and questioned. They were looking for some burglars. They asked us a few questions, realized we were just college kids, and let us go.
With NSA, if they check you out, you are never even going to know.
I have family in Washington and New York City. If it keeps my family safe, they can listen to my phone if they have any concerns.
AJ–
How is the liberals exposing this NSA program different than
the Republican Congressman Weldon telling about the Able Danger program?
You bashed me when I said Weldon should have been quiet about that. I said Democrats would retaliate. And now they have–massively.
I am not trying to score points. I really don’t see the difference—except in degree.
Able Danger tracked Al Qaeda in America. They would have picked up some Americans.
Before Judge Robertson was appointed by Clinton to the Bench, he was a Criminal Defense Attorney. One of his clients was Washingtin DC’s most famous drug dealer named Rayful Edmond III. Defense attorney Robertson “cried” as his client was convicted of leading DC’s largest cocaine ring. When asked if he thought his client was guilty, his response was “It’s not my concern”.
Why would anyone appoint a former defense attorney who’s former duties included discrediting evidence gathered by FBI to the FISA court??
Edmond Convicted on All Counts in Drug Conspiracy Case
Life in Prison Mandated
10 Others Also Guilty
[FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) – Washington, D.C.
Author: Elsa Walsh
Date: Dec 7, 1989
Start Page: a.01
Section: A SECTION
Text Word Count: 1778
Rayful Edmond III, whose flashy lifestyle made him famous on the District’s streets, was convicted yesterday of leading what authorities said was the city’s largest cocaine ring, a verdict that mandates life in prison without parole.
The 12-member U.S. District Court jury, the city’s first anonymous panel, also convicted 10 other defendants of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. It was the longest and most expensive drug trial in the city’s history.
The other defendants — family members or close friends of the 25-year-old Edmond — were accused of helping to build a network that authorities say spanned four years and generated sales of $ 2 million a week at its peak. Of the 44 charges lodged against the defendants, the jury acquitted only one defendant, on one count.
U.S. Attorney Jay B. Stephens hailed the convictions as a victory “for all the people of the District of Columbia,” and a warning to other drug dealers that law enforcement officials “stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of this community to turn the tide of drugs that have so devastated this city.”
Flanked by the three prosecutors who tried the case, Stephens said the verdict affirmed “the ability of the criminal justice system . . . to bring to justice those who seek to bring bloodshed and violence to our cities.”
The convictions capped a massive two-year investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and D.C. police, which pursued Edmond as his operation grew from its base in a quiet residential neighborhood in Northeast Washington.
later in the article…
When the judge finished a half-hour later, Edmond hugged James Robertson, one of his attorneys, and shook the hands of other defendants and defense attorneys before being handcuffed and escorted back to the cell block. Two defense attorneys cried as they put their arms around their clients.[emphasis mine]
Robertson later said he experienced a feeling of “total helplessness as I sat next to my client.”[emphasis mine]
He called the convictions “absolutely devastating,” but declined to say whether he believes Edmond was innocent. “I am not in a position to say . . . . It is not my concern.”[emphasis mine]
Edmond’s other attorney, William H. Murphy Jr. — whose flamboyant courtroom style often set the judge on edge — said he plans to appeal the convictions.
“We’ve lost this battle, but as General MacArthur said, we shall return,” said Murphy, who called the District “the worst place at the worst possible time” for a drug trial, because of the city’s anti-drug climate.
Link to archive of article
SBD
Correction, after rereading the crying section, it leaves the posibility open that Robertson was one of the criers, but not does not say so absolutely.
SBD
One thing to note is that the referenced article is mixing apples and oranges with multiple programs. The reference to the Quakers is a linkage to a dod database of all consolidated domestic threats on military instalations, ie bomb threats etc. Even the original had something to the effect of a statement that reported meeting was at a quaker church , but the key revelation by one of the participants was that “a few of us at the meeting were Quakers”. Could go find that link again if necessary.
PETA? The same PETA that often serves as the political wing of the Animal Libration Front the way that Sinn Fein served as the political wing of the Irish Republican Army?
The reason Ivins is bringing up Nixon and Hoover is because the progresslaves, years ago, decided that President Bush was worse than Nixon. They concluded this before Bush was sworn in as the President. Ergo, their columns are a mold that they have already constructed. They just put the pieces in place.
What on earth possessed you to read something by Molly Ivans?