Why are the Democrats trying to stall, stop and gut the intelligence community's ability to protect Americans from new threats?
So why are the Democrats really trying to stall, stop and gut the intelligence community's ability to protect Americans from new threats? Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell wrote, "Some have claimed that expiration of the Protect America Act would not significantly affect our operations. Such claims are not supported by the facts. We are already losing capability due to the failure to address liability protection. Without the act in place, vital programs would be plunged into uncertainty and delay, and capabilities would continue to decline."
Yes, new threats. Now that the Protect America Act FISA enhancement has expired, we're back to the 1978 FISA bill, that was so out of date it took special action by congress to allow it to even recognize things like email and cellphones, and routers.
President Bush in his Saturday radio address,
Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.
Steny Hoyer (the House Majority Leader) accused President Bush of fear-mongering in an election-year. Edward Kennedy claimed, "It's nothing more than a scare tactic designed to avoid legal and political accountability and keep Americans in the dark about the administration's massive lawbreaking." Anytime the Administration does something that involves protecting Americans, or in the case of fired U.S. Attorneys, exercising the rights of the Executive Branch, Democrats scream lawbreaking. Why?
Democrats are constantly harping how FISA's lapsing causes no harm. Anything already in the works can keep on going, they say, for up to a year. Of course. But they ignore the point being made by the Administration. It isn't what has already happened they are concerned about. It is what has not yet happened they are concerned about. (Insert all of the persuasive arguments made for the August, 2007 revision of FISA here.) As typical as it may be for Democrats, defense lawyers and clinical morons to focus on topics out of context for personal gain, this process of ignoring the real topic, can have devastating effects on the nation.
The chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Silvestre Reyes, made a point that managed to ignore the irony of his party's own actions. "We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won." Isn't that what Harry Reid has already declared?
There are many possible reasons why Democrats refuse to permit a law that was passed to protect Americans, to be maintained. They can't stomach the idea of encouraging cooperation from telecommunication carriers in protecting Americans, as someone who is not a terrorist might have their email scanned by a machine, or their phone call recorded by a machine. I don't know about you, but I would think that anyone who has nothing to worry about, wouldn't be worried about it. Good grief. If you have Google's GMail, you are allowing Google to have a machine read your mail. That is so ads can be shown that match the mail. Do you not think that targeting terrorists is a bit more important than targeting consumers?
Another possibility is the one put forth by Scott Stanzel of the White House press office on February 15, 2008, in response to badgering from the caustic Helen Thomas:
Well, it's unfortunate, as you heard the President talk about this morning, that the House is departing Washington for 12 days off for Presidents Day. And it is important, I think — as you heard the President, it's important to note a few things. It's our view that leaders in Washington have no greater responsibility than to protect the American people. But at this time, this gap that we closed six months ago is going to reopen. And as Director McConnell has said, the Protect America Act has helped us obtain valuable insight on terrorist activities and it has led to the disruption of terrorist attacks. And unfortunately, tomorrow night that law will expire. So we will continue to work with members of Congress about the importance. But the issue really here is why is the House leadership, Democratic leadership, blocking a bipartisan bill?
Thomas then asked, "What right does the President have to tell any company or any person in this country to break the law? . . . No warrants and so forth; that they can go and spy on us without any warrants?"
Stanzel attempted to explain the facts to her. "The Protect America Act was passed by Congress last August, as you know, and signed into law. So it is a lawful program that is expiring tomorrow night." She interrupted, "Well, if it's lawful, why would you not get a warrant? It still prevails, doesn't it?"
Stanzel tried again.
Because it's — in 1978, as we talked about, during that period, in 1978, the law, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was passed, and that law was designed to help us gain intelligence on foreign targets in foreign lands. What we're not wanting to do here is to extend constitutional protections to terrorists in foreign countries. So it's important that this law was modernized. It was modernized in August. As we talked about then, that the law was significantly outdated. You could have sat in that chair in 1978 and not had the ability to make a phone call from a cell phone; today you can. Today, you can send an e-mail from anywhere in the world via a Blackberry. The law was outdated, so it needed to be improved. It was improved. But Congress set a deadline for it to expire so they could review it some more and that — they missed that deadline. We gave them a 15-day extension. The Senate used that time to pass a bipartisan bill that received over two-thirds support from the United States Senate, has a majority of support in the United States House. But the House leadership, which seems to be beholden to class-action trial attorneys in this matter, refused to let it come up for a vote. So they are more interested in protecting the interests of one of their constituencies than in protecting the interests of Americans.
Thomas was aghast. "That's a terrible indictment for you to say. They want to obey the law."
Do they? The Senate Democrats stalled and received an extension. Why did they stall? Why are the House Democrats now doing the same thing? Could it be their ownership by "class-action trial attorneys?" Or could it be deeper?
Dana Perino thinks so. On February 14, 2008, she said, "They'll have to ask themselves, 'Do you trust the intelligence community more than you trust Democrats who are beholden to their left-wing?' And that's the debate that this country is going to have."
This country is going to have a debate about the Democrats being controlled and owned by their left-wing (sedition)? I can't wait.
Perhaps the most damning evidence in support of Stanzel's accusation comes from a thoroughly researched and expertly written piece by Amanda Carpenter, National Political Reporter of TownHall.Com, published February 13, 2008. Entitled "Obama, Hillary, Dems Take FISA Trial Lawyer Cash," I am repeating portions of that article here, as the press has not picked up on these facts.
Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators. Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), who is in the running for the Democratic nomination, was given $28,650 from trial lawyers listed as counsel for plaintiffs who are suing those companies because they turned over phone records as a part of President Bush's covert phone surveillance program. $19,150 of that was donated in the last year. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y), the other main contender for the Democratic presidential bid, also accepted money from trial lawyers on the case. Records show those lawyers have poured $34,800 to her and her husband's campaigns over the years. $12,150 of those donations were made to her within the last year.
The other 22 senators who opposed the amendment and have taken similar donations are: Joe Biden (Del.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (M.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Teddy Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Carl Levin (Mich.) Robert Menendez (N.J.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.) Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).
Since 1997, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) accepted donations from three lawyers working the FISA case that amount to $10,000. The No.2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, who is charged with whipping votes, has accepted $18,350 from 1996 through 2007 from lawyers listed as counsel against phone companies.
Records show that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) accepted $3,750 in donations to her campaigns and PACs from these lawyers from 1996-2001.
When asked his take on the FISA problem, John McCain stated, "people that are patriotic Americans need to sit down together and work this out."
In his CPAC speech, McCain stated: "I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be 'nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.' I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives."
The President charged, "House leaders chose politics over protecting the country — and our country is at greater risk as a result."
So while we're having that sedition debate, let's have the public corruption debate as well. President Bush is demanding the ability to catch new threats and the congress is content to rest on known threats. Somebody is trying to make the country blind to new threats.
Wonder who that might be?! The question is really: Who's Zoomin Who?
lkh@enticy.org
http://www.enticy.org
Read more articles by Lee Kent Hempfling
What, exactly, is the downside of holding telecommunications companies liable for snooping without warrants? We should want them to obey the law. It's not like FISA warrants are all that hard to get - out of tens of thousands of requests, the number that have been denied are in the single digits. And they allow retroactive permission for wiretapping for up to three days.
I truly don't trust the current administration to do the right thing without oversight. Look up what happened to the CEO of Qwest (the only company to refuse to turn over data without a warrant), Joseph Nacchio. There were some pending contracts with government intelligence agencies that were all set, and suddenly they were pulled. Qwest's finances suffered, and Mr. Nacchio was indicted for insider trading because their projected profits (counting the aborted contracts) were much higher than the actual profits they received (once the contracts were pulled). But the administration refused to allow Mr. Nacchio to present any of this evidence at trial, claiming 'national security' privileges. He did so anyway on his (apparently still pending) appeal. The (heavily redacted) document (pdf): http://tinyurl.com/34hrvp
It's also worth noting that apparently the Bush administration was looking for this kind of access up to seven months before 9/11.
Remember, the government guarantees that census data, for example, will be kept confidential and will not be used in any way except demographically. And the government simply ignored those rules and used the census data to round up Japanese-Americans en masse during WWII anyway. I'm sorry, but holding to the rule of law is vital - let me quote James Madison in the Federalist Papers: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
And, finally, here's something that should give anyone pause - do you want a Democratic president to have these sorts of powers? If George can take your 4th Amendment, then Hillary can take your 2nd…
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 19, 2008
"Steny Hoyer (the House Majority Leader) accused President Bush of fear-mongering in an election-year. Edward Kennedy claimed, 'It's nothing more than a scare tactic designed to avoid legal and political accountability and keep Americans in the dark about the administration's massive lawbreaking.'"
Translation: Democrats and trial lawyers are talking to al-Qaeda overseas.
The fact is, Democrats won't be happy until the common soldier on the battlefield has to get a warrant to listen in on the enemy's walkie-talkie conversation, if then.
Comment by sedonaman | February 19, 2008
Turn the question around - if the ability to do this kind of snooping is so utterly vital, then why is the administration jeopardizing its passage by insisting that its renewal be tied to granting retroactive immunity to telecom companies? Why not drop that requirement for now, in order to get the 'vital' intelligence-gathering stuff passed, and worry about granting the immunity later? Why must it be a package deal? (I thought conservatives in general were in favor of line-item vetoes, regarding such 'tying' in bills as a bad thing…)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 19, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
It might be part of a strategy: propose the "package" that includes something secondary to give the Democrats something to take out so they can claim a victory also. If Bush proposed only the "vital" part, Democrats would gut the main provisions of the bill.
Comment by sedonaman | February 19, 2008
The failures that led up to 9/11 were not failures of FISA, FISA works. The Bush desire to destroy judicial oversight and to give the telephone companies a get-out-of-jail-free card for breaking the law is indefensible. As Raymond asked, "Do you want President Clinton or any other president to have unfettered ability to spy without any judicial oversight?" Remember, if there is no judicial oversight, you must assume that they will be spying on American citizens in the USA without a warrant. Our experience is that this is what happens when the spies don't have to justify their behavior.
Sedonaman, wouldn't it be nice if you offered some actual evidence next time rather than just making unsupportable defamatory remarks about those you disagree with?
Comment by freelunch | February 19, 2008
freelunch:
Just applying a little deductive reasoning. Why else would any American care about the government listening in on al-Qaeda conversations, overseas or hear for that matter?
Comment by sedonaman | February 19, 2008
sedonaman - And there you betray the key misunderstanding in all this. How do you know that these are al-Qaeda conversations? What data do you have to indicate that these are al-Qaeda conversations? If you don't have data, you're just fishing. If you do have data, why can't you get a warrant? Again, less than 0.05% - five hundredths of one percent - of FISA requests have been denied. If you can't even get that level of rubber-stamp, how critical can it possibly be?
This country is explicitly built on the notion that you're not guilty just because you're a suspect. It's not the guilty who need the protection from unlawful searches, it's the innocent. Maybe people really do think things are dangerous enough that we need to chuck the entire basis of our legal system. To quote H. L. Mencken, "But if that is their mood, then they had better proceed toward their aim by changing the Constitution and not by forgetting it."
How about a compromize? Y'all can do this kind of searching, but data gathered from such searches cannot be used in any kind of prosecution, or to justify a warrant; it can only be used to stop imminent threats. If you're planning on prosecuting anyone, you have to jump through all the usual hoops. Even that's open to abuse, but it's better than the current regime of "we'll do whatever we want whenever we want."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 20, 2008
Raymond I have seen your comments on here so I will not attempt to debate you on the data of FISA requests. I only have this to say, I nor anyone I know personally have knowledge of someone picked up by federal agents for suspected terrorist ties. I will go further and say that I have never read an article or seen a news show about people who were snatched up off the street questioned and released. If you have data pertaining to innocent people who were wrongly detained then please give me some links to explore.
Comment by KevinB | February 20, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
High school history teacher said, “Governments exist to guarantee certain rights for its citizens, ‘citizens’ being the key word.” The US Constitution does not, and was not intended to, protect the rights of everyone all over the whole world.
That aside, perhaps you missed my post last year: I have followed Dr. Jackson’s example http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/the-looney-liberal-chronicles-chapter-8 and also became a liberal Democrat: “…by changing my party affiliation I am now unfettered by the need to actually know what I’m talking about before I make a categorical statement. ‘Fairness’ (that is, what I define as ‘fair’), now guides my actions, rather than some archaic, abstract notion of the law, ethics, or morality. People who oppose me or call my motives into question are evil. The end justifies the means if the end is good and just, as I define those terms. What I say in this [post] is valid only insofar as it supports my present arguments; if I need to change my reasoning tomorrow to support a contradictory position, it’s unfair (again, what I define as ‘unfair’) to bring up my past position, because that is no longer relevant.” … For me, perception and feeling are reality; what is true for you might not be true for me. Therefore, I feel that Kennedy, et al, are in cahoots with al-Qaeda because Democrats and liberals (a redundant term) have never been for defending this country. I can understand someone being reasonably critical of some policies some of the time, but ALL the policies EVERY time? There’s something going on that doesn’t meet the eye.
“How do you know that these are al-Qaeda conversations? What data do you have to indicate that these are al-Qaeda conversations?”
I sorta know it like Congressman Murtha “knows” all US soldiers in Iraq are rapists, murderers, and baby killers. I hereby declare it is “unfair” for you to require proof.
“This country is explicitly built on the notion that you're not guilty just because you're a suspect.”
That might be partially correct, but the notion, “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man” has since mutated into “It is better to let ten guilty men go free than to convict a single one of them.” And this is where YOU betray the key misunderstanding in all this. Here we are, over six years into this war, and you are STILL trying to paint this struggle as a law enforcement issue. This is not (repeat, NOT) a law enforcement issue. As I indicated above it is a WAR, and running a WAR like you enforce civil law is a formula for defeat, which is what the Democrats have wanted all along.
Not to digress, but the only legal issue I see here is international law known as the Geneva Convention which allows the US actually to listen in on enemy communications without a warrant and use any information it gets for whatever it wants; it allows the US actually to shoot at whoever it perceives as enemy combatants, whether they are hiding behind non-combatants or in the open. Any non-combatant casualties caused by such action are deemed war crimes committed by the ones hiding behind non-combatants. It allows the US actually to take and hold whoever it perceives as enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities, however long they might be. It allows the US actually to try in military court whoever it perceives as having committed a war crime (note: fighting out of uniform is a war crime). It also allows the US actually to require those captives convicted of war crimes to serve their sentences in addition to time spent incarcerated as enemy combatants. These are just some things all the would-be Muslim jihadists should consider before joining the fight.
The above notwithstanding, a little practical reasoning is in order. The CIA, DIA, etc., cannot possibly listen in on every phone call that transpires every day between the US and overseas, much less every phone call in the world. They have to put their relatively limited resources into areas that are likely to pay off against the WAR on Islamic terrorists, as opposed to persecuting little old Lutheran lady librarians in Wisconsin.
“My country, right or wrong, is still my COUNTRY” after all.
And those are MY truths.
Comment by sedonaman | February 20, 2008
KevinB - See, for example, this article: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/arar/ this report: http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/ and this figure: http://trac.syr.edu/tracreports/terrorism/169/include/graph4.html or this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/11/AR2005061100381_pf.html or: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/06/arrested-imprisoned-and-dumped-innocent.html
The kind of thing this sparks: http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9559707/detail.html
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 21, 2008
sedonaman - Your satire about 'liberals' is way off-target here. If you could show that I argued that way, maybe it might have had a point, but I rather doubt anyone can produce an example of me doing so. (Go ahead, Google me, I don't hide behind pseudonyms.) In any case, just so we're clear - what would count, in your estimation, as an example of being 'for defending this country'? Can you come up with a definition that includes no Democrats? Consider how they've had the majority in the House and Senate but Bush-sponsored bills keep getting passed…
Of course, you've not really answered any of my questions - even when you've acknowledged any of them at all, you've just said things like "I hereby declare it is 'unfair' for you to require proof." Again, If you can find an example of me arguing like that, do so. Otherwise, I'll just have to assume you don't really have any reason to hold the positions you claim to - you've certainly shown no interest in providing any backup for them.
You also totally misunderstand the legal framework here. There are two different legal codes, true - but the current administration hasn't been following either of them. The Geneva Convention covers wartime activities, and as I've said many many many many many many times before, terrorists don't get protection from the GC. But, first they get a hearing to determine if they are terrorists, and even the administration admits that hasn't been done. Then there's the code that applies to citizens of the United States, and they have rights under the Constitution that can't be abrogated. You can convict a citizen, lawfully, but you can't just ignore their rights.
Jose Padilla was doubtless a schmuck, and probably did have some terrorist intentions. But the way the case was handled was almost unbelievably incompetent and illegal. It's fascinating how different the charges he was actually convicted of (eventually) were from what was initially, hysterically claimed. He's a schmuck, but he's also a citizen of the United States, and I take those rights very seriously. We were once willing to go nuclear to avoid secret prisons, torture, and indefinite detention. What happened?
Let me leave you with a final quote (since apparently you're not going to actually try to discuss the issues here): "Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 21, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
“Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.” - Ethan Allen
I think the Democrats/liberals should be forced to EAT those words.
And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Comment by sedonaman | February 21, 2008
sedonaman - I'm afraid I have to regard your words as deeply ironic, since I've seen no actual reasoning (or even argument) from you on the points I've raised. you bring up irrelevant side points like Murtha (and I'd be fascinated if you could back up your claim that he accused "all" U.S. soldiers of war crimes). See you around, I guess.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | February 22, 2008