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.
DGF,
Go read up the FISA statutes kid. Forget it – you are too afraid.
First paragraph skippy.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802—-000-.html
US Attorney General only.
Next time trust me when I say you have no clue what you are talking about.
Also, the NSA has listened in on US persons – many times….
Try and pay attention.
DGF
We have presented you with facts, not linked to specifcs that you could have reasonably searched and chosed.
Google still works, no matter how it works against your agenda.
Winning was never our agenda, logic implied was the root of our effort.
We are not as a whole, or even in part agenda driven, we are factual driven.
That is why AJ appeals to us, you have never got that, it is something that you have never grasped.
340 links to factual items do not necessarily a leap of faith, but they create discomfort amoung decorum. Many things are hard too prove, but can still be a social interest item.
Also read up here on the historical context of FISA and how I learned, from the Congressional Record, that the NSA never exposed tips on the communications they intercepted which had one end in the US.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1243
Unlike you I do know how to do research. The Church Committee established FISA. Now do think I should listen to them or some journalist major is barely more capable at doing research than you? (let’s not even pretend I should listen to you -shall we?)
Learn this lesson well. It is not often I will take the time out to address someone so off base. I like my liberals naive. Makes them easier to debate.
Ken, are you serious? YOu said:
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.)
Are you living here on the planet Earth?
Saddam paying the families of bombers $25000 is not supporting terrorism? Wow. just wow.
I know you wrote this for someone else, but I just gotta say….
America is the problem?
you said:”Islamic jihad is a major threat to American Empire and a non-existent threat to American Nation. Since I believe we should “come home,â€
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.”
What?
American Empire? exactly which nations other than the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA make up this empire?
You said:
“I concede Islam is a threat to Europe”
The twin towers were in Europe?
Are you a real person? Are you an American?
If the answer to either of these questions are yes, then my question is when are you gonna start to show it?
I don’t think you have any idea of the America the founders intended.
DGF, to show you that you are living in the land of Oz,
you said:
“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.”
every reputable and informed reporter? Really, name one.
Also, I’d like to point out that you didn’t ‘address’ the Hayden quotes or what AG Gonzales said, you only said that they said it. The substance doesn’t support you as the 4th Amendment doesn’t support you. Quoting a source has no bearing to it supporting your point of view. It just means you didn’t understand what you read.
You didn’t have to give up. You were never in the contest.
AJ —
You wrote:
“Go read up the FISA statutes kid. Forget it – you are too afraid.
First paragraph skippy.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802—-000-.html
US Attorney General only.
Next time trust me when I say you have no clue what you are talking about.”
Yup yup yup. The AG brings the application. For whatever agency/”Federal Officer”. Yup yup. D’uh. That was never in question. He acts as that officer/agency’s lawyer. Yup. You got it. No question about it. Yup.
What *was* in question was (and is) your ridiculous assertion that the application could never be brought on behalf of the NSA. Yup. That’s what we were talking about. Yup. I remember it clearly. Do you? Yup. Thought so.
And you’re still wrong. Yup yup. (By the bye, the right statute is 1804. Yup.) (And it only took you 1437 posts to get oh-so-close to finding out the right answer. Good on you! Another 1200 posts or so, and maybe you’ll get it right)
See ya. (Wouldn’t want to be ya. Yup.)
Oh, yeah. Regards
DGF, while you’re talking about how close somebody is, do you think you’ll ever get in the ball game
And you’re still wrong. Yup yup. (By the bye, the right statute is 1804. Yup.) (And it only took you 1437 posts to get oh-so-close to finding out the right answer. Good on you! Another 1200 posts or so, and maybe you’ll get it right)
You seem to still be hung up on thinking the application is required. It’s not. Federal Officer? NSA is military. AUMF takes care of this.
For Enforcement –
“In the ball game” ? Babycakes, game’s over. AJ took two called strikes, pulled for the bleachers on the third, and missed com-plete-ly ~ whoosh.
LOL!
DGF – do you know anything about law? OK – whatever kid. I tried to tell you your mental fly was down and you went and peed yourself.
Later – much.
BTW DGF,
You do know the FIS Court disallows any warrant based solely on NSA intel….
You were aware of that – right? You know that the Chief FISA Justices mandated when the changeover occurred that no warrant would be allowed on the NSA leads alone. Which is the reason that the AG cannot come to the court and present NSA requests as you claim.
BTW, it took you long enough to admit the NSA can’t petition the court and had no standing. W0nder how long it will take you to get this next one???
ROTFLMAO
AJ –
~ Whoosh.
I guess that was a slam dunk for me then! Thanks.
Aj –
~ Whoosh. LOL.
DGF
The two post you referenced show and support your own lack of basis.
However I recognize that you will never ever conceed to that.
I stand by my first opinion of you.
To quote
DGF
You are well entitled to your opinion, but please do not attempt to burden USwith any additional requirement of having to “prove and document†to you our basis of reasoning. If you believe so strongly it is wrong, then by all means do YOUR homework and come back with concrete proof to debunk AJ’s position.
If you complete your homework assignment successfully, we are reasonable and we may give you extra credit!
The blogsphere’s strength is it’s point by point credible debunking of accepted mantras and improperly presented positions.
This is done by factual destruction of the proposed position.
Attempting to burden us with some insufficently specified lack of confidence by you is not our problem, it is yours. If you disagree it is your duty to provide a burden of proof for your position.
Otherwise all you present is the concept of looking for negative contrapositives, a tactic we have all witnessed too many times.
Left by MerlinOS2 on September 6th, 2006
Furthur on to quote yourself from the second link
An honest man would either pony up with his detailed authorities and counter-analysis, or admit his error(s) squarely.
So I am calling your bluff, pony up with your opposition authorities and don’t just make it something like it depends on how you define the word is.
DGF is like a little kid – by issuing the last “whoosh” he thinks he’s won the debate. But as he usually is, AJ is right on the money here. And as Enforcement noted, bottom-line is the AUMF provides all legal/constituitional justification.
The NSA has always picked up communications of US residents/orgs in the course of doing their mission. However, instead of being automatically discarded/redacted as they were prior to 9-11, they are now retained as common sense mandates. When time is of the essence, especially in wartime, it is incumbent of those with national security responsibilities to quickly act upon key intelligence. You can’t conduct a war if every military and national security decision is subject to judicial review (nor is it constitutional). Perhaps congress will get around to modifying FISA so that the lefties don’t have any wiggle room from which to cry foul (but we know they’ll find something).
http://www.amazon.com/Sorrows-Empire-Militarism-Republic-American/dp/0805070044
Yes , “for Enforcement” I meant American Empire. Also
depicted in Professor Andrew Bacevich’s “New American
Imperialism” and Buchanan’s “A Republic Not an Empire”
all available on Amazon.
The latter two recommended books are Right/conservative
When I said “threat” I meant serious threat to take over
politically and culturally, as in Europe. Obviously hit and runs
are possible, less so if we reduce the presence of Empire
in Moslem regions.
Correction: Bacevich’s book’s proper title is “New American Militarism.”