Dec 28 2005
Surprisingly, the liberals want a fight for the future of America over the issue of national security. In their world there is no war, simply crimes to fight in court. In their world we cannot monitor communications from people who are willing to die to kill as many of us as possible. We must protect the terroristsâ€™ rights to plan and execute deadly attacks once they have crossed our borders.
The left is West Wing, the rest of want something like 24. The liberals are for the Gorelick Wall that ensures we will not be able to stop a future 9-11 attack, since they are desperate to pretend 9-11 changed nothing.
Defense lawyers in some of the country’s biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.
The NY Times is expecting to put terrorists back on the street again. And they seem giddy about it:
The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises “fascinating and difficult questions,” said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.
“It seems to me that it would be relevant to a person’s case,” Professor Tobias said. “I would expect the government to say that it is highly sensitive material, but we have legal mechanisms to balance the national security needs with the rights of defendants. I think judges are very conscientious about trying to sort out these issues and balance civil liberties and national security.”
Yes, the idea is for the freeing of terrorists who have been caught red handed planning to kill Americans simply because the FISA Court could not accept their new, more limited role. FISA did not want to taint their process with NSA information. The prudes.
And the NY Times, like the rest of the liberal echo chamber, seem to not have sufficient intellectual horse power to discern between monitoring terrorist communications and monitoring anyone and everyone willy-nilly. They fear they are important enough to be monitored by Bush. Or maybe their plan is to try and be as much of a risk to our national security as terrorists so Bush will be goaded into partisan dirty tricks. They could be immature enough to believe partisan dirty tricks and illegally impacting on-going efforts to stop terrorist attacks will win them more votes next year? Apparently so.
He added: “The president believes that he has the authority – and he does – under the Constitution to do this limited program. The Congress has been briefed. It is fully in line with the Constitution and also protecting American civil liberties.”
While some civil rights advocates, legal experts and members of Congress have said that President Bush did not have the authority to order eavesdropping by the security agency without warrants, the White House and the Justice Department continued on Tuesday to defend the legality and propriety of the program.
Oh, those poor terrorists and their civil rights. They have such respect for rights and humanity themselves how could anyone even think of trying to listen in on their plans to kill people. Their actions and intentions are irrelevant – they need protection from the bullies in the Bush administration and the left will provide that protection.
Government officials, in defending the value of the security agency’s surveillance program, have said in interviews that it played a critical part in at least two cases that led to the convictions of Qaeda associates, Iyman Faris of Ohio, who admitted taking part in a failed plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, and Mohammed Junaid Babar of Queens, who was implicated in a failed plot to use fertilizer bombs against British targets.
David B. Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Faris, said he planned to file a motion in part to determine whether information about the surveillance program should have been turned over in the criminal case. Lawyers said they were also considering a civil case against the president, saying that Mr. Faris was the target of an illegal wiretap ordered by Mr. Bush. A lawyer for Mr. Babar declined to comment.
The left has chosen which side they are on. They are squarely with the terrorists and against our government trying to stop the terrorists. They are so obsessed with getting Bush they obviously have decided a few thousand dead Americans is the price we all must pay.
Personally, anyone who plans to kill innocent people is the one who must and will pay the price for their murderous ways. As will the enablers and protectors of these killers who allow the attacks to go forward for something as pathetic as political gotcha.
Bring on the court cases! Bring on Impeachment. Let’s get this over with!
And the centrist democrats are going to be running away from the rabid left….
Some centrist Democrats say attacks by their party leaders on the Bush administration’s eavesdropping on suspected terrorist conversations will further weaken the party’s credibility on national security.
That concern arises from recent moves by liberal Democrats to block the extension of parts of the USA Patriot Act in the Senate and denunciations of President Bush amid concerns that these initiatives could violate the civil liberties of innocent Americans.
“I think when you suggest that civil liberties are just as much at risk today as the country is from terrorism, you’ve gone too far if you leave that impression. I don’t believe that’s true,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a national-security analyst at the Brookings Institution who advises Democrats on defense issues.
“I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it,” said Mr. O’Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is “good legislation.”
These Democrats say attacks on anti-terrorist intelligence programs will deepen mistrust of their ability to protect the nation’s security, a weakness that led in part to the defeat of Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, last year.
“The Republicans still hold the advantage on every national-security issue we tested,” said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster and former adviser to President Clinton, who co-authored a Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) memo on the party’s national-security weaknesses.
Nervousness among Democrats intensified earlier this month after Democrats led a filibuster against the Patriot Act that threatened to block the measure, followed by a victory cry from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who declared at a party rally, “We killed the Patriot Act.”
After Mr. Bush sharply attacked Mr. Reid, saying lack of the Patriot Act “will leave us in a weaker position in the fight against brutal killers,” Senate Democrats dropped their filibuster and accepted a six-month extension. A Republican-backed five-week extension was adopted last week by the House and Senate.
Recent polls say 56 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Bush is doing to protect the country from another terrorist attack.
…as the calls for impeachment because Bush dared to try and stop terrorist plans to attack:
The movement to impeach President Bush is gaining momentum, according to US Liberals Guide Deborah White. An early December Rasmussen Reports survey suggested about one-third of Americans would support impeachment, and that was before revelations of domestic wiretaps without warrant.
That Rasmussen Poll shows a 32-58 support for Bush. What we will see is that number drift to the hard core left and come in around 20-80 if the media pickes up the impeachment call.