Jan 30 2006

War Without Warrants & Subpoenas

Published by at 7:33 am under All General Discussions

To all those misinformed folks who have become so confused about FISA and NSA let me simplify it for you. We do not wage war with warrants and subpoenas. We fight crime and protect peoples rights with warrants and subpoenas, we do not fight wars with them.

NSA is a military organization – part of our war fighting capability. FISA is a court and the FBI is domestic law enforcement. We do not send judges and US Attorney Generals and FBI Agents to fly sorties or execute special operations (though there could be a case for FBI agents in some scenarios). Conversely, we do not send the marines in to bust up drug rings, or US special operations forces for crowd control.

We do not issue warrants for the arrests of enemy soldiers – we attack them and either kill them, drive them back or hold them as prisoner without any legal representation.

Conversely, we do not send a platoon of our finest to take a into custody an expected criminal, and drag them in front of a military tribunal (well, unless the target is a little Cuban boy fleeing a communist military tribunal).

There are no Miranda rights in war. There is no public defender. There is no bail. There is no concept of parole (send them back to the enemy as long as they promise not to fight again for 12 months?). There are no subpoenas and there are no warrants.

And in a war we will have people who will help the enemy. We will have the American Taliban, the American dirty bomber. Just like there was the EU shoe bomber, and EU/UK train/bus/subway bombers. To help the enemy one must contact the enemy. When one contacts the enemy in order to help the enemy, whether he is a US citizen or not, he becomes the enemy.

Our military and our leaders understand that they hold awesome responsibility in their hands, and they have no intention of letting that power be misused – because it can easily be misused against them! The naivette on the left about war is only matched by the naivette on the left about people who work to protect us. They are career people who take their jobs seriously and who come from all political corners.

Bush doesn’t select the targets for NSA monitoring. He established a process of organizations and people to make sure the selection of targets overseas is done to meet the mission of stopping Al Qaeda – and then he placed that responsibility in their hands. People who think Bush or one of his WH aides can just call up and say monitor the ACLU are simply demonstrating ignorance – not defiance.

We do not wage war with warrants and subpoenas. We can engage law enforcement in the US to stop an attack or round up enemy elements. We do this when it makes sense to use domestic law enforcement. So far we have not had to call in the marines to stop an attack – we have only had to call in the national guard to help with hurricanes. But in war with Al Qaeda, the day may come when we do learn of a serious attack very late, and we need to stop a WMD from reaching a major city, and we may need to deploy military in the path of that weapon traveling in the US.

Will the left come back and say we need a warrant and subpoena? Judges do not fight wars.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “War Without Warrants & Subpoenas”

  1. Was the NSA Program Legal?

    Glenn Greenwald has been beating this horse for some time now here, here, here, and here. I thought I would bring an exchange between myself and one of the clear headed comments over here in attempt to get some more objective opinions weighing in.

  2. BIGDOG says:

    Exactly AJ, are you in my brain sir?…:)

    That whole write up is spot on. I have been telling my idiot friends (repubs and dems), in political conversations, all about what you just posted. I also like using the 2002 FISA ruling when the ACLU first complained and got the courts ruling on it.

  3. MerryJ1 says:

    Excellent! AJ, you’ve covered the entire NSA/FISA misinformation campaign and effectively refuted every talking point.

    It’s mind-boggling to me, but it has become entirely predictable that rank and file leftists who might be pulled by the ear to your item, or to any thorough and rational explanation of the whole kerfuffle, will simply look glassy-eyed and respond, “But how can you stick up for Bush when he …”

    And these are the ones who can walk and chew gum at the same time.

  4. Snapple says:

    Very tough talk, AJ, but where’s the beef? And where are the Marines?

    The government is still too constrained by the ACLU who is really protecting the terrorists and not our liberty or civil rights. They want us to fight this war in the courts while they fight it with bombs while hiding behind organizations that are for “rights.”

    Where are the Marines? There are terrorist here and the government knows pretty much who they are. I am waiting.

    And the terrorist in America aren’t just Arabs/Muslims. They are American communists and anarchists, too. PRobably also people on the extreme right who are white supremacists and anti-Jewish.
    They are all working together somewhat.

    Terrorism happens and the government doesn’t even admit that is what is going on.

    The newspapers attack the government and never write about the terrorists who are going after the few writers who are really trying to expose the terrorists.

    The reporters think they are so “tough” going after the government.
    Why don’t they investigate our domestic terrorists? They are helping the Baathists and the Islamists. Because they could really end up dead, that’s why.

    Charlie Brennan of the Rocky Mountain News and the editor Vincent Carroll are hounded constantly by Ward Chuchill’s minions.
    Brennan is even followed in the street by Maoists, Churchill’s defenders.

    Americans have a sense of fair play and toleration for different opinions, and that is great; but the terrorists are exploiting these decent instincts to intimidate and silence people. They only want free speech for themselves. They call Bush a terrorist, but if you call them terrorists, they act like you have stepped over the bounds of decent political discourse.

    When someone is actually a really scary terrorist, people tend to just decide not to see what he is doing. Everyone shuts up and doesn’t write about it.

    People are critcizing Bush because they know it is completely safe: he will not shoot them in an alley. When someone is really a terrorist, nobody wants to say so.

    If you challenge these people they tell you to put a gun in your mouth. They tell you that you deserve to be disemboweled.
    Meanwhile, they accuse Bush and American agencies of terrorism and murder.

  5. [...] AJStrata exhibits some more common sense: He makes the point of how screwed up libertarians and other moonbats are over “wiretapping” our enemies. [...]

  6. RINO Sightings for Jan 29!

    The RINOs have been sighted! (actually, their not that hard to spot, as they are scrambling to be noticed.) We have a good crop of free-ranging opinion and observation this week, as is traditional for the Sightings. Thanks to all

  7. clarice says:

    [quote]As noted on yesterday’s “Meet the Press” by National Review Online reporter Byron York, 9/11 Commission Report clearly states:

    “The FISA application process continues to be long and slow. Requests for approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct a surveillance.”

    In a passage not noted by Mr. York, the Commission blasts the FISA process even more harshly, complaining:

    “The ‘wall’ between criminal and intelligence investigations apparently caused agents to be less aggressive than they might otherwise have been in pursuing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) surveillance powers in counterterrorism investigations.

    “Moreover, the FISA approval process involved multiple levels of review, which also discouraged agents from using such surveillance. Many agents also told us that the process for getting FISA packages approved at FBI Headquarters and the Department of Justice was incredibly lengthy and inefficient.

    “Several FBI agents added that, prior to 9/11, FISA-derived intelligence information was not fully exploited but was collected primarily to justify continuing the surveillance.”

    [/quote] http://newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?s=pf&page=http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/30/90457.shtml?s=ic