Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
Never would I have expected this nation — which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty — would cower behind anyone just for promising to “protect us.”
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he’ll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president — or is that king? — has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America’s highest goal — preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, “What’s wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?”
This is part of a pattern of Bush doing exactly what Bin Laden wants. Leave Saudi Arabia? Inflame more jihadists? Sometimes it’s like they’re working on the same team.
Related
Osama Bin Laden: The Dumb Guy George Bush Can’t Catch
Radio Silence From Bin Laden
How Many Americans Have To Die?
Oliver
I m sure there s a valid point somewhere in this post. But the politically rabid association of Bush and bin Laden vitiates it completely.
It remains debatable whether Bush had the authority to do what he did. But at least he has his War on Terror to cover his ass. What excuse did former presidents Clinton and Carter have when, as the NY Times reported, they did the same thing?
Shorter Anthony:
Carter and Clinton did it!
Seriously, you guys need to get a new meme. I doubt “All the kids are doing it!” worked very well when you were a child, so I sincerely doubt the validity of it when applied to the actions of the President.
And incidentally, Clinton and Carter never bypassed the FISA court. So, in this case, your “All the kids are doing it!” defense doesn’t even hold water - not that it really did to begin with.
FISA court was holding up warrants on actionable intel obtain on a battlefield. What OW considers cowering, about 68% condsiders prudent defense . I have said it before: Bush stood up immediately and said he was doing this and would continue to do it. That tells me two things:
1. He has reason to believe that he is on extremely stable legal ground
2. Unlike the democrats in similiar situations (Carter, Clinton (in File-gate and Travel-gate too) didn’t have the courage of convictions to admit to the public what they were doing and why…..shows a lot of spine in my book.
Oliver you have set yourself up in a no-win situation. At this point, every day that America goes without a terrorist attack and Iraq improves, your world view is torn down another brick. You have fallen to the point that you have to pray for some sort of scandal, real or drummed up, in the Bush administration as your only “out” to justify your wrong-headed views.
You are on the wrong side of history buddy.
So the new GOP talking point is FISA wouldn’t allow the search the way THEY wanted, so Bush said screw the constitution, we’re doing it anyway. And it’s classified, so you can’t ask whose line we are tapping. Trust us, they are all terrorists. Even though we never charged anybody. Would we (Bush admin) lie to you?
If you were to read about what Bush did without knowing who did this, you would think we were in Eastern block Europe during the Cold War. But since Bush did it, that’s ok with the GOP parrots.
Think Progress links an excellent article about how bypassing FISA makes us less safe- what will happen when a terrorist is let out on the streets by a judge because the information gained from the wiretap is inadmissible?
BTW, Pedro, can you list the independent council’s findings in the Travelgate and Filegate investigations? What were the Clinton’s charged with?
Thanks in advance.
When you’re done, let me know what Constitutional protection Travelgate and Filegate violated.
Would that be the magic brick that Lisa Simpson says mysteriously keeps the tigers away?
I hope you realize that the terrorists count on the United States becoming more complacent with every year that we don’t experience a terrorist attack. That way, they can strike us again in another dazzling attack right at the point where we are feeling secure. Sound familiar? (Hint: How many years elapsed between WTC attack #1 and WTC attack #2?)
Bush stood up immediately and said he was doing this and would continue to do it.
Was this before or after he begged the NYT not to run the story?
And enough with the “wrong side of history” chestnut. It’s boring and carries no weight at this point.
He has reason to believe that he is on extremely stable legal ground
You mean, based upon the learned counsel of people like Miers
and Gonzalez?
Funny thing is, that all the bombers in WTC 1 were brought to justice. Where is bin Laden again?
So Pedro, what your saying is that the Filegate and Travelgate were nothing? I’m glad to see you admit it finally.
Not really BD, all he is telling us is we should trust GWB unconditionally, because there hasn’t been a terrorist attack since the anthrax attacks (except for the dozens daily on the military in Iraq and Afghanistan).
The founding fathers though that we should never trust someone unconditionally with the reigns of government, without oversight. Most Americans agree with the founding fathers.
Dr. Pedro apparently knows (a) the inner workings of the NSA and (b) the mind of George W. Bush.
We can all go home now, since Dr. Pedro has schooled us mightily.
Wiretapping isn’t a “law enforcement” activity anymore?
Wiretapping foreign spies is who were identified by foreign battlefield intelligence itsn’t…..
Sure, filegate and travelgate were nothing…if you consider the President using the FBI to smear american citizens “nothing”…I guess it just depends on what the meaning of “nothing” is. Or, alternatively, the President isn’t responsible for the sinister doings of his underlings….if the Chief of White House Security (formerly a bar bouncer) can be considered an underling…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filegate
Factcheck, I am waiting for your list of the independent counsel’s findings on the current Bush leftist accusations.
Yea, “thinkprogress” has done a GREAT job protecting america. Unfortunately, the lefties have returned to their old ways. “Fighting terrorists is a law enforcement problem”…not.even. The people we are tapping in this country are much more likely to be classified as “enemy combatants” not charged with some sort of felony. There are a WHOLE different set of evidenciary rules for that scenario.
John S. is exactly right. How many years were there between WTC 1 and 2? About 8. What did we do differently between the two? Not a damn thing. Hell, we even arrested the perps in the first one.
THAT is exactly why Bush is determined to change the rules this time….so it doesn’t happen again. I don’t know why that is so hard for leftists to understand…..Well, unless they WANT it to happen again so they can scream “see, the evil chimpy mcbushhitler can’t protect us….!”
Whuh?
We are talking about the Bush-ordered NSA-conducted data-mined surveillance, aren’t we?
peedro, the “lefties-see-this-as-just-a-law-enforcement-issue” idea has long passed its expiration date. The Bush administration’s military effort in the “War on Terrorism” is winding down. Haven’t you heard? Iraq is the “central front” and we’re “winning.”
The NSA wiretaps are not a military exercise, they’re a law enforcement activity. (Where did that “foreign battlefield intelligence” stuff come from?) The Bush administration seems to be shifting gears into law enforcement mode pretty quickly.
Best to start shoving all the evidence down the memory hole.
Pedro, you have a bad habit of not reading ALL of the articles you link. Do you do that in medical articles? I hope not.
“In March 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that there was no credible evidence of any criminal activity. Ray’s report further stated “there was no substantial and credible evidence that any senior White House official, or first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, was involved” in seeking the files”
BTW Pedro, I’m done chasing the rabbit. We know how you feel about civil liberties (you spit on them). Any other But Clinton diversions will be ignored from this point forward.
I stated as much in response to Anthony above.
It’s fun when you ask somebody what color the sky is and they respond, “Octagon.”
Fun in a root canal sort of way, that is.
Clinton and Carter didn’t just bypass the FISA court because the legal help they appointed said it was okay. They just didn’t, and as usual you guys just make shit up.
When a cop applies for a warrant and the judge denies it, the cop doesn’t just go ahead and do what he was going to do anyways. He isn’t above the law, and neither is the president. That’s all that matters. I’m just about done chasing the GOP created rabbits as you all continue to defend the indefensible.
No, he stood up after code-word clearance level national security information was illegally leaked to a major news organzation, who then sat on the information until publishing was most useful to one of their writers who had a book coming out.
Quaker , Where do you think the NSA got the phone numbers to tap? Barney Fife?
According to reports, 30 taps were undertaken without FISA clearance. Those numbers came from intel gathered in Afghanistan and Pakistan, taken from Al Qaeda computers/cell phones that were captured in operations over there.
DrPedro is both woefully ignorant to how events transpired AND unable to make any type of coherent argument.
“Bush stood up immediately and said he was doing this and would continue to do it.”
?WTF? Bush did this for years, and only “stood up immediately” when he could no longer surpress the story.
Then he makes an argument about Bush doing a great job because 4 years have gone by since 9-11 without a terrorist attack while then having to say there was 8 terror-free years prior. So is it Bush, or how Al Qaeda operates? It’s not like they haven’t been plenty active in those years.
And is Oliver overboard saying Bush did what bin LAden couldn’t? Bush says they hate us for our freedom. Then Bush moves to erode our freedom.
Frank, Pedro et al;
Not much news coming out of Iraq(that you want to talk about, that is)
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13495329.htm
How many taps on American persons without a warrant does it take for it to be against the 4th Amendment? I say one, some say, “As many as the Bush regime wants”.
And this would be the same Bush who stood up when other top clearance information–ie, the identity of a NOC CIA agent–was leaked to a major news organization?
Pedro, the fact that we were conducting wiretaps is not and has not been the super-duper secret you would proclaim. Everybody was aware we were wiretapping. Al-Qaida was aware we were wiretapping. Saying that the existence of wiretaps is a secret weapon is like saying that the M-16 rifle is a secret weapon.
What everybody assumed was that the president was following procedure to get these warrants, especially when the system in place is very generous with giving those warrants out.
The bottom line is unchanged: Bush considers himself above the law, the same way Nixon did. But Bush is not bigger than America. America is bigger than him.
I guess it is alright for Bush to do illegal things as long as he classifies them “top secret”. If that worked in the real world, I think Saddam Hussein would be walking free.
Pedro: According to reports, 30 taps were undertaken without FISA clearance.
Last time I checked, that was 30 times the program was authorized. Not 30 wiretaps, but 30 times the program was ‘reviewed’ and approved
sounds like this threat will never end.
you can defeat terrorists, not terrorism
According to the article in the NYT that broke this story, the information came from a source which a FISA court judge warned was inadmissible as probable cause for seeking warrants.
I’m a novice at these things and perhaps you can educate me. Why would the judge have any qualms if the information came from battlefield intelligence?
Even the director of the NSA once admitted to Congress that it must be regulated by FISA. When your own henchmen is contradicting you, it is time to reexamine your Constitutional claims, Mr. President.
anthony says:
I’ll have to remember that comment next time some dittohead says things like, “the left is doing exactly what bin Laden wants.”
Quaker I suspect that the judge is looking at like a judge, something that is supported by his comment on rules of evidence. If someone is judge to be an enemy spy or combatant, the normal evidenciary rules (Miranda etc, don’t apply). The Bush admin is likely going to make an argument like this, which is why they don’t think the FISA court is important in the taps.
They don’t get to make up the law. I know you think he’s the king, but he ain’t.
Here is the applicable FISA law:
The term electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by intentionally targeting that United States person.
I like your idea of simple, direct leftist talking points…but they need to have some factual basis if you want them to make sense. Just repeating “they don’t get to make up the law” over and over again, when the law is clearly in place and allows it, won’t cut it.
DrPedro is just looking for a defense in his upcoming stalking trial. He has his “Bush/Cheney” bumper sticker so he’s like part of the administration. It was secret surveillance, just like Peeping Bush. He brought a digital camera so it was electronic, just like Peeping Bush. He, like Bush, didn’t issue a warrant, although he did issue something else. That girl must have been a foreign agent, so it must have been legal. Good Luck DrPedro, come back when you are done registering with local auuthorities.
You mean, like a law-interpreting guy?
Quaker, see Pidge response above when I talk about you leftists avoiding the actual issue…..
The problem that you have DrPedro is that it has not been shown that Bush has lived by the law that you quote. Without proper oversight, that goes beyond the border and spirit of the law. You keep digging up old cases where Clinton and Carter partook of warrantless searches, believing they had the authority to do so, but the main difference is that their actions were reviewed by immediate judicial oversight and were subject to proper checks and balances rulings. Bush just kept doing it outside that kind of oversight. Use your limited understanding of applicable laws that you read off right wing talking pint mills and you still cannot get past that. Bush took action outside of the laws of this country. He did it deliberately, repeatedly and over a long period of time.
No, if I want to see avoidance, all I have to do is look at your most recent response to:
Actually I did not mention clenis or carter, just quoted out of the FISA law regarding wiretaps.
Here it is again, see no mention of clenis or carter or what they may have done.
” electronic surveillance is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA………”with the caveats about US citizens etc as the two previous posts above.
Here we are weeks after the leak, and still, no blanket condemnation by Pelosi, Dean, Reid etc. Why do you think that is? Hmmmm, maybe it’s all legal……
Just a thought
From the comments, it seems many people, especially the defenders of bush policy don’t understand the program they are defending.
The program works as follows:
NSA taps main switches of major telecommunications companies, these switches are the gatekeepers of traffic flowing in and ot of the country.
This is why bush and current NSA chief claims that one end of the communication must be foreign. What they don’t mention or do not understand, is that due to outsourcing and foreign cell phones used by american citizens there is no simple way to distinguish whether one of the end is truly a foreign agent in a foreign land or not. For example, when you call the help desk of a major company that has outsourced the call center to say india. Your call is now going over seas and goes thru the NSA eavesdropper.
Now for the next step, the NSA eavesdropper has the ability currently to tap a few percent of this traffic at a time, so they scan thru the traffic on a rotating basis. Even at a few percent at atime there is no way humans are there to listen to everyone of them, so they employ computer programs to scan all this traffic for key words. This process narrows the search some more. A message over some threashhold would then be passed on to human listeners, who further figures out which conversation is worth listening to. The human listeners flag the “interesting” conversations and notify the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor after reviewing the flaged conversations then decides which ones merrit further taping. And uses those to further train the software.
A cautionary point to be added here is that most training of software requires examples both what you want and what you don’t want. So it is essential from a technical point of view for any such massive program to be trained not only on terrorist conversations but also mundain ones as control samples. So some “inoocent” conversations must be tapped just to train the program.
So far I described the program operationally, now moving on to administratively. The secret presidential order aparent gives blanket authorization to NSA at 45 day intervals, at the end of every 45 days, the signature of president, white house legal counsel (sp?), and attorney general, is needed to extend the program. (Since both of these people are political appointees their signatures are just rubber stamps.) There is no way to trly calculate how many taps are made, since you have to define what is tapping. If the being listened in by a computer is defined as tapping, then there is millions of taps going on every second. If youbelieve it is tapping if the tapping is sustained over long periods of time by a human, then ther is probably 100s every day (depending on howmany supervisors there are, and how many in depth taps they approave each day)
And despite such a massive program, my opinion is that it probably isn’t very effective one. Al Queda’s main attribute is that it is very loosely organized, with many affliates that may at one time in the past or in the future at against the interest of Al Queda. Such a loose organization act more like the general poppulation than a well organized one. The lack of diffrentiation makes patternmatching difficult. And Al Queda can change fasterwe can keep track, just as spam can change faster than filters.
let’s extend the metaphor of spam filters a bit more so it match more to the situation. Catching Al Queda by this NSA program is like trying to find the messages in a torrent of spam, where the messages are at every point in time trying to be more spam like. Moreover never under-estimate human’s ability to code talk. For example:
A “I heard your twins are nine month old”
B: “well actually they are eleven days older than that now.”
could stand for: twin towers, on sept. 11th.
So ultimately it is only the confluence of details that can catch a terriost, massive eaves dropping puts too much emphasis on one of the details, and makes it more likely we miss others. So it is counter-productive in the end.
And remember you, I and anyone on this planet is less than or equal to six degree of separation from a terrorist.
I am not sure, but I think you are describing the ECHELON program that has been in effect for over a decade. The issue at hand is tapping particular lines of interest, in this case they were derived from intel obtained from captured computer/cell phones in overseas operations primarily.
Geez, Dr. bunion, are you going for all 12 talking point lies? You’ve tried #3 and #4, now you’re at #10.
Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration’s spying scandal
http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
10: Clinton administration conducted domestic spying
Conservative media figures have claimed that during the Clinton administration, the NSA used a program known as Echelon to monitor the domestic communications of United States citizens without a warrant. While most have offered no evidence to support this assertion, NewsMax, a right-wing news website, cited a February 27, 2000, CBS News 60 Minutes report that correspondent Steve Kroft introduced by asserting: “If you made a phone call today or sent an email to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it’s run by the National Security Agency.” NewsMax used the 60 Minutes segment to call into question The New York Times’ December 16 report that Bush’s “decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad.”
On December 19, Limbaugh read the NewsMax article on his nationally syndicated radio show. Limbaugh told listeners that Bush’s surveillance program “started in previous administrations. You’ve heard of the NSA massive computer-gathering program called Echelon. 60 Minutes did a story on this in February of 2000. Bill Clinton still in office.” The Echelon claim has also been repeated by Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund and radio host G. Gordon Liddy.
Man, for someone concerned with talking points, you sure do list them off with alacrity.
So where exactly in your verbose post do you show that ECHELON was not listening to overseas communications of american citizens?
I’m just pointing out that your talking points have been debunked long ago- I know you guys at the bottom of the RNC pyramid don’t always get the new talking points, and I’m trying to keep you from embarrassing yourself with worn out talking points. You should really be thanking me right now. Not too grateful, IMO.
Back to the actual topic of this blog entry, what goal of OBL’s has not been achieved by how Bush has prosecuted the “war”?
I am pretty sure OBL really wanted to “go to Disneyland!” after successfully pulling off the largest terrorist attack in history. In spite of the leftards and ACLU, he hasn’t been able to pull that off yet…..Score one for Bush!
And unlike the dhimmicrats, we conservatives don’t need talking points. Our opinions are based on solid principles. We don’t need a “Media Matters” to help homogenize our thoughts, but thanks anyway….
I will proudly say that the government can tap my phone anytime they want, and they can snoop on my computer anytime they want, if one, only one, terrorist can be prevented from harming my children.
The Constitution is just so much toilet paper if lame brained left wingers are going to worry more about Achmed talking to Abdul about his mother - in - law, then they are about catching terrorists getting ready to blow up their homes.
Are you hoping that the next terrorist attack is against the White House, so you’ll have something to celebrate?
Ooooh! If the government can spy on terrorists, then they’ve already won!