Sep 11 2006
Al Qaeda Threatens, Dems Still Desparate To Surrender
If you stand back and look at how badly the Democrats are doing in their attempt to take Bush on over national security it is stunning. Sherrod Brown, OH Dem Senate candidate claimed Iraq was a training ground infested with Al Qaeda. His plan – get out of Iraq as quick as possible. Sen Jay Rockefeller came out pining for the days when Saddam was in power. Days when he was supporting terrorism across the ME. And who can ignore the left’s gleaful attempts to eliminate the Patriot Act – which simply treats terrorists the same a drug lords and organized crime figures. But the big one on everyone’s minds right now is the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program which a liberal-nut judge decided was unconstitutional (but without any legal basis for the decision, which itself should be illegal).
The NSA listens in on our enemies overseas. In doing so it picks up communications with people here in the US. The people here in the US are not being spied upon. They have been caught talking to our enemies. Prior to 9-11 these leads the NSA discovered were never passed onto the FBI. Intelligence leads were deemed unethical for establishing probable cause in criminal efforts. That was the tradition instantiated in the Gorelick Wall – intelligence and law enforcement rarely meet, and never give intelligence the lead or driving position.
After 9-11 Bush opened the information flow, because the 9-11 highjackers had been detected calling back to Hamburg and elsewhere for coordination and money transfers. They were detected but we stopped ourselves from acting because of some irrational fears about the ghost of Nixon using intel for dirty tricks. 3000 people died for that mistaken fear. The left is still calling for an end to this common sense approach. The NSA passes leads it gleans from monitoring terrorists to the FBI who investigate the lead. If it looks to be a serious threat the FBI-DoJ goes to the FISA Court for warrants (not bypassing the court as the NY Times so infamously misreported). The left want to end this practice.
Now we have another clear warning of impending attack by Al Qaeda:
A new videotape message from Ayman al-Zawahiri issued on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks contains a threatening message directed to “the Western peoples.”
“Your leaders are hiding from you the extent of the disaster which will amaze you. And the days are pregnant and giving birth to new events, with God’s permission and guidance,” says Zawahiri in a videotape message dated September 2006.
The Democrats are going to still call for the end of the NSA monitoring of Al Qaeda in the face of this threat? Are we going to see Ned Lamont and others say we should not pass leads to the FBI from the NSA because some theoretical risk to some mythical person’s civil rights might be violated? We have a self proclaimed threat right in front of us in this Al Qaeda missive, yet the Dems are looking back seeing the shadow of Nixon? Talk about not keeping your eye on the ball. The Dems deserve to lose the elections if their answer to threats is run away, change the subject, challenge the rightwing boogeymen.
AJ —
*You’re* the one asserting that the NSA cannot get FISA Court approval. Prove it. Simple. Just prove it AJ. Show me the money AJ. Show me the goods. You say it’s basic stuff. Just “too basic” to be able to support, huh? What’s the statute/sub-statute? What’s the caselaw? Oh, has AJ misplaced his internet and can’t find it now?
(LOL)
– Regards
DGF
So congressional hearings openly broadcast and reported on the in the main stream media, the congressional record, thousands of column inches in newsprint and an equal or exceeding discussion in the blogsphere should just be ignored. How quaint!
Merlin –
Are you trying to provoke me into remarking on how dense you are? OK. Merlin’s dense. Satisfied now?
Really, guy; do you think your last post helps anyone critically evaluate your assertions or my analyses or AJ’s remarks?
Regards
DGF:
Excuse me, what are you talking about?
Never mind, I am getting bored with this.
DGF
I note you are slipping from composite debate the attacking the messengers. Can I offer you a case or two of WD40?
BTW since I am so dense, it is implied that I am also thickskinned, ya know like natural body armour.
Look down , yer slip is showing!
Terrye
Repeat after me Seminar Poster!
Merl –
You write:
“I note you are slipping from composite debate the attacking the messengers. ”
Is that English? Take it from a native speaker: try a re-phrase.
(And where oh where is AJ with his support for his assertion that as a matter of principle the NSA cannot get FISA Court approval? Merl, instead of sending me the WD 40, maybe you can lend AJ your internet for a while…Much obliged)
— Regards
Oh gee now we are down to diagraming sentences.
Sigh…
As I said a few days ago , you seem to wish to burden us with educating you. Please present , if you can, proof in fact where we are wrong. You seem to want us to do that but can’t bring it upon yourself to do the basic research to support your position.
You more than us are light on facts and supportive arguments but somehow that just does not seem to matter. An interesting concept.
DGF, I notice you have resorted to typical neodem behavior, since you now realize you can’t argue the facts, you’ve started attacking the messenger. I have not once resorted to calling you names but you’ve now called me stupid. I, like Merlin, have thick skin. I quoted several things to you above: this:
FISA does not require a warrant to listen to non US communications
NSA does not require a warrant to listen to any wartime communications of the enemy.
AUMF gives President authority to use whatever force is necessary against the enemy and it does not limit his ability to intercept communications with the enemy.
Some of the enemy is within the US.
Any one, whether in the US or not, that would be covered by the AUMF can be dealt with in any way necessary, without a warrant,(by the military, which includes the NSA) and that includes listening to their conversations whether or not they are US citizens. (note: some US citizens ARE the enemy).
And…. you didn’t say one word, all you did was say I was stupid for saying you would have to call FISA to listen in on the Germans.
So of the facts I quoted above, tell me exactly which one or ones are not correct and then quote me the exact law that states that they are not true.
You seem to think that a demand for somebody to prove you are not correct makes you correct. If that is your stance, then you sir are an idiot. (excuse me for sinking to your level and calling names)
This little diatribe to AJ that you wrote:
“”*You’re* the one asserting that the NSA cannot get FISA Court approval. Prove it. Simple. Just prove it AJ. Show me the money AJ. Show me the goods. You say it’s basic stuff. Just “too basic†to be able to support, huh? What’s the statute/sub-statute? What’s the caselaw? Oh, has AJ misplaced his internet and can’t find it now?””
How about the opposite….. PROVE THAT THEY HAVE TO.
show me the money. Exact statue paragraph section and verse. where is it required. ” “too basic†to be able to support” come on prove it. It’s your turn big boy, step up to the plate and put up or shut up. These neodems……
I keep hearing the “I haven’t seen facts” bit from DGF. I see a lot of irrefutable facts above on this issue.
I haven’t seen DGF post anything cogent.
There are a few looming, major facts which DGF is not touching on. He is working on side issues which really are absolutely meaningless.
My impression is that he is abusing the Socratic method in a very hypocritical manner.
He is pretending to be open minded… but his mind couldn’t be more deeply shut.
He is a smart guy, and his own mind has deceived himself quite thoroughly.
I don’t think on this NSA issue – which he shows shocking ignorance of – is something where he is likely to wake up on and realize how deeply deceptive and hypocritical he is being.
No offense. Just need to call these things and be hard sometimes to help people. If that is ever possible.
Enforcement
Thanks for the uptake.
I am the son of a dutchman and the widowed husband of a German born wife of a Mafia Don.
Seems DGF is tanking on empty, but I will not discount the fact that he will continue. However having said that he has all the appeal now of going to an upscale coctail party and having some rugrat tuging at your inseam and asking the perpetual “Why”.
Whoops correcting the last my wife was the DAUGHTER of a Mafia Don. Grrrrrr
MerlinOS2 & For Enforcement–
I have set forth my analyses in the two posts set forth at the outset of this thread. Neither of you, apparently, have bothered to read them. The analyses are supported by newspaper accounts and congressional testimony, etc. The supporting materials are specifically referenced in the posts, and relevant portions of the referenced web-pages were likewise set forth there.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. If you don’t read the posts, well you’re not serious about discussion to begin with. It is relatively clear to me that you haven’t. (For example, For Enforcement, what portion or portions of my posts, specifically, gave rise to your assertion that:
“Can you imagine that during the D-Day landing, if we could have listened in to the Germans talking about their defenses, *according to DGF we would have had to get a warrant beforehand,*†[emphasis added]
Where, according to me, do you find this in my postings? Chapter and verse, “big boy”.)
And why in heaven’s name would you expect me to prove the opposite of AJ’s assertion (that on principle the NSA cannot get FISA Court approval), without (at least) demanding that he prove up his own assertion? He’s the one making the claim, after all – why shouldn’t he have to prove his case?
Nonetheless, in my prior posts I already demonstrated (that’s DEMONSTRATED, children, not simply ASSERTED) that the Attorney General concurs that FISA Court approval would be necessary for the NSA’s TSP (absent other Congressional authority). Likewise, in those posts I likewise DEMONSTRATED (not ASSERTED, children) that former NSA head acknowledged that pre 911 the NSA had sought FISA Court approval on occasion for its operations. Now, hmmmm, doesn’t that sound just a tad at odds with AJ’s assertion that as a matter of principle the FISA Court has no business in NSA matters. Jeez. Furthermore, I know of no provision of FISA which precludes the AG from seeking FISA Court approval for NSA operations like TSP. The burden, clearly and naturally falls on anyone who affirmatively maintains that the NSA cannot seek FISA Court approval (or that the NSA is not otherwise subject to FISA) to prove otherwise.
Of course, if you don’t actually bother to read the posts and then go shooting your mouths off, you can look the fool, now can’t you?
My apologies for the names.
-Regards
Mark for Senate:
Islamic jihad is a major threat to American Empire and a non-existent threat to American Nation. Since I believe we should “come home,”
protect our borders (in part,with some of the US troops in Iraq, incidentially) I do not believe the jihad,which is chiefly trying to force
America out of its region, is a threat to the real America the Founders intended. I concede Islam is a threat to Europe,it’s geophysical proper opponent.
For Enforcement
So you wish collective punishment employed for an individual’s
crimes in America? Or just validate Israel’s usage of it?(in
which case your atttitude, not atypical for an American, is
yet another cause for the anger resulting in jihad against us.)
DGF
I have already addressed the fact that by presidential news conference and confirmation from the SSCI that there is contining and ongoing periodic review of the legality and propriety of the NSA program to support our postion.
Just what part of this do you not get?
Why are you so stuck on this issue which you are so deficient on?
Perhaps you should take your own internet and look for some of the positions we have proposed.
Ken said
Islamic jihad is a major threat to American Empire and a non-existent threat to American Nation.
Explain 9/11, give three counter examples!
DGF, I certainly had read all your posts on those two articles PRIOR to today, but going back an re-reading some of your comments, I see several places where you say the NSA didn’t monitor US conversations. Here is one of your quotes:
“the NSA in fact did not freely monitor overseas communications which terminated in the US. This understanding of course is also directly contrary to AJ’s assertion. Can anyone point me to reliable sources in support of (or contrary to) AJ’s position on this factual question ?”
Read this: The creation of NSA resulted from a December 10, 1951, memo sent by Walter Bedell Smith to James B. Lay, Executive Secretary of the National Security Council. The memo observed that “control over, and coordination of, the collection and processing of Communications Intelligence had proved ineffective” and recommended a survey of communications intelligence activities. The proposal was approved on December 13, 1951, and the study authorized on December 28, 1951. The report was completed by June 13, 1952. Generally known as the “Brownell Committee Report,” after committee chairman Herbert Brownell, it surveyed the history of U.S. communications intelligence activities and suggested the need for a much greater degree of coordination and direction at the national level. As the change in the security agency’s name indicated, the role of the NSA was to extend beyond the armed forces.2
In the last several decades some of the secrecy surrounding NSA has been stripped away by Congressional hearings and investigative research. Most recently NSA has been the subject of criticism for failing to adjust to the post-Cold War technological environment as well as for operating a “global surveillance network” alleged to intrude on the privacy of individuals across the world. The following documents provide insight into the creation, evolution, management and operations of NSA, including the controversial ECHELON program. Also included are newly released documents (7a – 7f) that focus on the restrictions NSA places on reporting the identities of U.S. persons – including former president Jimmy Carter and first lady Hillary Clinton, and NSA Director Michael Hayden’s unusual public statement (Document 16) before the House Intelligence Committee. “” for the whole article, here is the link:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB23/index.html
Now if you just read what I quoted above, the PRIMARY purpose of the NSA was “”operating a “global surveillance network”. Now I may be wrong, but the last time I checked the USA was part of the globe.
but in the article itself you will see that it was primarily a UK-USA network. Now, it’s my humble opinion that a global surveillance network that didn’t include the USA wouldn’t be much of a “global” network. But if there is any doubt, the article clearly spells out that it is monitoring US communications within the global area.
This is a quote from you regarding what I had said about the 4th Amendment.
“and the law is always full of exceptions), the “default case†is that a govermental authority/agent who is otherwise empoweredto effect searches or seizures, cannot so search or seize absent the prior application for and issuance of a warrant by properly constituted legal authorities.
Now are you or are you not saying that a warrant is required PRIOR to an act of search or seizure?
Ok, you asked “Where, according to me, do you find this in my postings? Chapter and verse, “big boyâ€.) well,that is where you could interpret that you would have to get a warrant before you could intercept the German’s communications.
Sorry you must have forgotten you wrote that. I hadn’t forgotten. If you go back and read those comments, you will also find where you admitted you were probably wrong on that point. Hadn’t forgotten that too, had you?
Now DGF are you ready for your laugh of the day, I read this: you said:”””I have set forth my analyses in the two posts set forth at the outset of this thread. Neither of you, apparently, have bothered to read them. The analyses are supported by newspaper accounts and congressional testimony, etc.””
The analyses are supported by newspaper accounts and congressional testimony, etc
Ahhhh, I just had to say that again. You got your proof from “newspaper accounts and congressional testimony, etc.
When you get thru rolling on the floor with your laughter
You might try once again to get some proof from somewhere else.
I went back and read every single comment on those two posts and you did not quote even ONE actual law or statute that supports you. You only say how you interpret what you’ve heard.
I don’t know about you, but I’m still laughing. Are you a comedian by any chance? if not, you might’ve missed your calling.
Ken
I suspect that is very wrong to suggest that Islamic Jihad is not a threat to an America Nation is so woefully wrong on the anniversary of 9/11.
You may have chosen the chance to jump the shark because you seem to think that DGF has put blood in the water.
You are wrong in this assumption.
Compared to him you are the lightweight son of a heavyweight!
Get over it, get beyond it. You don’t have the tools, you are playing above you level.
You are perceived as minimized. I know it is hard to adjust too, but reality sometimes bites don’t ya know.
Give us a coherent comment to counter this trend, it can only help you.
Enforcement
Facts are for the few that endorse them, feelings are for the rest.
Contempary knowlede is the aggegation of many sources and always subject to revisison and restatement. I am so shocked!
For Enforcement & Merlin
I give up. You win. Believe what you want. Don’t address the Hayden quotes. Don’t address what AG Gonzales said. Disbelieve what virtually every reputable and informed reporter has to say on the subject. Decontextualize and cherry pick and twist, crumple up and flatten out whatever you want. My pro bono work here is done. God Save the Republic.
[Yaaay ! We won!]
If anyone wishes to actually have a discussion, my emails dgf at charter dot net. I check it occasionally.
— Regards