A good day and a bad day - Profiles in Cowardice

[Tigermike 3,054]

Profiles in Cowardice

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Human Events

February 15, 2008

Web site: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25017

On Tuesday, we got a double-winner. First, the senate voted to approve an overhaul of intelligence law which, though flawed, provides authority for American intelligence agencies to continue monitoring the savages trying to kill us. Second, we got inescapable confirmation that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two contenders to be the Democrats’ nominee, are not fit to be president of the United States.

Understand: this was the most important vote on national security in years.

In 2007, a ruling of the court created by the ill-conceived 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) required the intelligence community to seek court permission before monitoring terrorists operating outside our country -- that is, outside the jurisdiction of United States courts.

Let’s say al Qaeda operatives in Iraq captured a U.S. marine. In effect, our military and intelligence services, while desperately trying to rescue one of their own, would now have to seek court permission in order to eavesdrop on the foreign terrorists who carried out the capture -- alien enemies who have no conceivable privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. Such was the conclusion of an unidentified federal judge, in a ruling that radically altered three decades of FISA theory and practice, a ruling the American people have not been permitted to read. (Just imagine the hue and cry if George W. Bush had secretly reversed the foundations of surveillance law. Here, where the sea-change benefits al Qaeda rather than the American people, the silence is deafening.)

Democrats, of course, have fought every sensible national-security improvement since 9/11. Yet, so preposterous was the notion that the NSA should need a warrant from a judge in Washington in order to listen as, say, a terrorist in Pakistan gives directions to a terrorist in Afghanistan that even Democrats relented -- or at least enough of them to enact last August’s “Protect Act.” This stopgap measure (the Left would not agree to more than six months of common sense) enabled our spies to continue spying outside the U.S. without court interference, just as FISA intended.

Nevertheless, conspicuously absent from the lopsided 60-28 majority were Senators Clinton and Obama. So deep were they in the thrall of the anti-war, anti-security Left that they dared not vote in favor of preserving the intelligence-gathering powers necessary to protect -- even for just six months -- the nation they are vying to lead.

It is worth pausing to recall why we have FISA. Very simply, its point was to provide a modicum of due process before Americans inside the United States could be subjected to national-security monitoring. It was a reaction (in truth, an overreaction) to Watergate era domestic-spying on the Nixon administration’s political opponents. But even the reckless Congress of the 1970s did not seek to protect foreign spies and terrorists operating beyond our borders. FISA was never intended to bring tens of thousands of foreign communications under judicial supervision. Such a process would compel the Justice Department to file applications for all such surveillance, a burden that could not be met. The consequence would be a breakdown of our capacity to acquire the information most essential to safeguarding Americans against attack -- to say nothing of the 200,000 American men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The reprieve granted by the Protect Act expires at midnight tonight. Hence, the intense pressure this week to get a FISA overhaul enacted. In the Senate, the Intelligence Committee proposed a bill which accomplishes three major improvements. It streamlines the arduous FISA application requirements (though not as much as it should). It provides immunity from suit for telecommunications providers which cooperated in the NSA’s warrantless surveillance following the 9/11 attacks. (Though I am a longtime FISA critic, I note in the interest of full disclosure that my wife works for Verizon.) And most importantly, it solidifies the Protect Act’s reaffirmation that the American intelligence community’s foreign operations are beyond court supervision -- that is, Osama bin Laden is not protected by FISA or the Fourth Amendment.

It’s difficult to imagine more vital legislation. To be sure, the proposal has many flaws -- as any bipartisan legislation is apt to have given a Senate in the grip of the same Democrats who’ve fought intelligence reform for years and tried just as long to derail the Patriot Act. The Intelligence Committee would, for example, expand the role of the FISA court; create a new warrant requirement for overseas monitoring of American citizens working with the enemy; effectively nullify the president’s power, long-recognized by the federal courts, to order national-security surveillance without warrants; and sunset the intelligence overhaul after six years despite the patent need for a permanent fix. Still, with jihadists striving toward more 9/11-style attacks and our forces in urgent need of battlefield intelligence, these tradeoffs are unavoidable. It would be the height of irresponsibility to halt the intelligence flow.

Well, welcome to the height of irresponsibility.

By a quirk of fate, this week’s action in the Senate happened to occur on the same day as the so-called “Potomac Primary” -- the presidential nomination contests in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Which is to say: right in the shadow of Capitol Hill. The geographical demands of campaigning would be no excuse: Our three principal contenders for the Oval Office, Republican John McCain and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, all happen to be United States Senators and all happened, on Tuesday, to have business right in the neighborhood. There was no reason they couldn’t do their day jobs.

Senators McCain and Obama did theirs, and in starkly different ways. For McCain, it was an opportunity to show national security conservatives that his preening on coercive interrogation methods does not mean he fails to grasp the primacy of intelligence collection in our current threat environment. He strongly supported the bill.

By contrast, Senator Obama opposed the provision across the board, backing each (unsuccessful) amendment to weaken or scrap it. Exhibiting a Carteresque insouciance about national-security, he would not only vest our enemies with privacy protection while exposing our citizens to heightened peril; he would deny protection to the very telecoms whose cooperation he would sorely need if elected president.

Understand how limited is the immunity we are talking about here: the telecoms would be protected from suit only if they either did not help the government’s warrantless surveillance program at all or helped it only in good faith reliance written assurance from the government of its legality. Denying immunity would not just be counterproductive -- creating disincentives for cooperation from the industry whose expertise provides us with a technology edge over the people trying to kill us. It would be grossly unfair and eventually prompt the industry to question all government directives -- even court orders -- for fear that compliance would lead to ruinous litigation costs. In essence, Obama was laying the groundwork for a catastrophic breakdown in intelligence and law-enforcement that would wound his own presidency.

You have to hand it to Obama, though. Dangerous as his convictions are, he was willing to be accountable for them. The same cannot be said for the junior senator from New York, who proved herself a profile in no courage.

Less than a month ago, at their slugfest of a debate in South Carolina, Senator Clinton pointedly rebuked her rival, snarking, “Senator Obama, it’s hard to have a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any vote.” Homing in on Obama’s record as a state lawmaker in Illinois, Clinton singed him for failing to stand up and be counted on core Democrat issues, such as abortion rights. “On issue after issue,” she inveighed, “you voted ‘present’” -- refusing to take an accountable position.

Well, at least he was present. On Tuesday, for the most important national-security vote of her eight-year senate career, Clinton was a no-show. With the eyes of the country watching to see whether she would opt to continue pandering to the hard Left or protect the lives of the American voters at whose presidency she is clawing, Hillary made a calculated decision to sit it out.

So what are we to make of Mrs. Clinton? She is running on the strength of her purported vast experience. In essence, she relies on two things: her eight years as a very active First Lady in her husband’s administration, the supporting records for which Clinton officials refuse to release so we can study them; and her eight years as a U.S. senator, during which, when not repudiating her old positions, she now avoids taking new ones.

Tuesday was a good day. The Senate voted to give the next commander-in-chief the tools necessary to protect our nation, and our nation learned who is fit, and who is not, to be the next commander-in-chief.

Today is a bad day: the House is scheduled to recess without passing the Senate bill. If the Protect Act is allowed to expire, and our intelligence gathering is reduced or stopped, every Democrat responsible should be called to account. It would be an unfathomable dereliction, a lesson we'd inevitably learn with the next attack against Americans.

link

[LegalEagle 22]

If I'm awake at 11:00 tonight, I shall celebrate the passing of this illegal law. Let the bells of freedom ring throughout the land.

I'm glad to be in the central time zone, so I can sleep in peace tonight knowing our Constitutional Rights are no longer being raped in the name of security.

[Tigermike 3,054]

I'm so thankful that terrorists the world over can converse with no fear. But all will be OK, my boy Obama is going to talk to them. Then we can all have a communal jerkoff and sing kumbaya.

Fixed that for you.

BTW - You have been asked before, but have you ever found one American whose Constitutional Rights were raped because of this bill?

[RunInRed 16,487]

If I wanted a daily smattering of the far right talking points I'd subscribe or just watch Fox News. Enough.

Congrats TM you have now officially made it on to my "ignore user list"

[LegalEagle 22]

I'm so thankful that terrorists the world over can converse with no fear. But all will be OK, my boy Obama is going to talk to them. Then we can all have a communal jerkoff and sing kumbaya.

Fixed that for you.

BTW - You have been asked before, but have you ever found one American whose Constitutional Rights were raped because of this bill?

That's a bad side of illegal eavesdropping is that you don't even find a quarter under your pillow to let you know you've been raped! I think there is about 14 active cases alleging constitutional violations pursuant to the act. I guess they'll let us know.

In my opinion, the wording of the bill alone shows it is in violation of the 4th Amendment.

[Tiger Al 0]

Understand: this was the most important vote on national security in years.

Then why in the world would Bush threaten to veto it if it didn't contain immunities for the phone companies? If what they're doing is legal, what do they need immunity from? If this is, indeed, "the most important vote on national security in years," why would Bush want to protect the phone companies more than the American people by threatening to VETO it?

Here's a nice piece by Richard Clarke:

When I left the Bush administration in 2003, it was clear to me that its strategy for defeating terrorism was leaving our nation more vulnerable and our people in a perilous place. Not only did its policies misappropriate resources, weaken the moral standing of America, and threaten long-standing legal and constitutional provisions, but the president also employed misleading and reckless rhetoric to perpetuate his agenda.

This week's State of the Union proved nothing has changed.

Besides overstating successes in Afghanistan, painting a rosy future for Iraq, and touting unfinished domestic objectives, he again used his favorite tactic - fear - as a tool to scare Congress and the American people. On one issue in particular - FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) - the president misconstrued the truth and manipulated the facts.

Let me be clear: Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.

Simply put, it was wrong for the president to suggest that warrants issued in compliance with FISA would suddenly evaporate with congressional inaction. Instead - even though Congress extended the Protect America Act by two weeks - he is using the existence of the sunset provision to cast his political opponents in a negative light.

For this president, fear is an easier political tactic than compromise. With FISA, he is attempting to rattle Congress into hastily expanding his own executive powers at the expense of civil liberties and constitutional protections.

I spent most of my career in government fighting to protect this country in order to defend these very rights. And I know every member of Congress - whether Democrat or Republican - holds public office in the same pursuit.

That is why in 2001, I presented this president with a comprehensive analysis regarding the threat from al-Qaeda. It was obvious to me then - and remains a fateful reality now - that this enemy sought to attack our country. Then, the president ignored the warnings and played down the threats. Ironically, it is the fear from these extremely real threats that the president today uses as a wedge in a vast and partisan political game. This is - and has been - a very reckless way to pursue the very ominous dangers our country faces. And once again, during the current debate over FISA, he continues to place political objectives above the practical steps needed to defeat this threat.

In these still treacherous times, we can't afford to have a president who leads by manipulating emotions with fear, flaunting the law, or abusing the very inalienable rights endowed to us by the Constitution. Though 9/11 changed the prism through which we view surveillance and intelligence, it did not in any way change the effectiveness of FISA to allow us to track and monitor our enemies. FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies.

In order to defeat the violent Islamist extremists who do not believe in human rights, we need not give up the civil liberties, constitutional rights and protections that generations of Americans fought to achieve. We do not need to create Big Brother. With the administration's attempts to erode FISA's legal standing as the exclusive means by which our government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil, this is unfortunately the path the president is taking us down.

So it is no surprise that in one of Bush's last acts of relevance, he once again played the fear card. While he has failed in spreading democracy, stemming global terrorism, and leaving the country better off than when he took power, he did achieve one thing: successfully perpetuating fear for political gain.

Sadly, it may be one of the only achievements of his presidency.

LINK

[AFTiger 282]

If I wanted a daily smattering of the far right talking points I'd subscribe or just watch Fox News. Enough.

Congrats TM you have now officially made it on to my "ignore user list"

You should definitely stick to CNN and remain ignorant. Can I get on your ignore list?

[AURaptor 1,126]

If I'm awake at 11:00 tonight, I shall celebrate the passing of this illegal law. Let the bells of freedom ring throughout the land.

I'm glad to be in the central time zone, so I can sleep in peace tonight knowing our Constitutional Rights are no longer being raped in the name of security.

The enormity by which you could be so utterly and completely wrong cannot be expressed merely by numbers. Though 180 is the number of degrees you are off on this issue, there is a far greater level by which you're missing the point.

It's unfathonable as to how much you must hate this country, and how much you loathe freedom.

[Tigermike 3,054]

If I wanted a daily smattering of the far right talking points I'd subscribe or just watch Fox News. Enough.

Congrats TM you have now officially made it on to my "ignore user list"

What a surprise another close minded liberal.

Well then stick with Obama and you can continue getting a heaping dose of far left socialist talking points.

[LegalEagle 22]

If I'm awake at 11:00 tonight, I shall celebrate the passing of this illegal law. Let the bells of freedom ring throughout the land.

I'm glad to be in the central time zone, so I can sleep in peace tonight knowing our Constitutional Rights are no longer being raped in the name of security.

The enormity by which you could be so utterly and completely wrong cannot be expressed merely by numbers. Though 180 is the number of degrees you are off on this issue, there is a far greater level by which you're missing the point.

It's unfathonable as to how much you must hate this country, and how much you loathe freedom.

I clearly understand where the most realistic threat to my freedom lies.

Your view is much like a guy entering prison. He fears other inmates. He agrees to be one guy's "punk" in return for that guy protecting him from other "outsiders." And, of course, the price paid to the protector is to give up all rights and agree to be abused by the protector at will.

Hey BIG GOVERNMENT - get a frickin' warrant if you want to listen to my phone calls! Grow Up and Get Little like you are supposed to be!

[AFTiger 282]

If I'm awake at 11:00 tonight, I shall celebrate the passing of this illegal law. Let the bells of freedom ring throughout the land.

I'm glad to be in the central time zone, so I can sleep in peace tonight knowing our Constitutional Rights are no longer being raped in the name of security.

The enormity by which you could be so utterly and completely wrong cannot be expressed merely by numbers. Though 180 is the number of degrees you are off on this issue, there is a far greater level by which you're missing the point.

It's unfathonable as to how much you must hate this country, and how much you loathe freedom.

I clearly understand where the most realistic threat to my freedom lies.

Your view is much like a guy entering prison. He fears other inmates. He agrees to be one guy's "punk" in return for that guy protecting him from other "outsiders." And, of course, the price paid to the protector is to give up all rights and agree to be abused by the protector at will.

Hey BIG GOVERNMENT - get a frickin' warrant if you want to listen to my phone calls! Grow Up and Get Little like you are supposed to be!

As it stands now, terrorist overseas plotting to attack America on a phone call that happens to pass through a switch in the US cannot be monitored.

I don't really think the government would want to waste it's time listening to rantings from leagaleagle.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Then tell us why it is that career military and intelligence officers say this is something we need, and aren't merely pandering to a temporary office holders??

[Tiger Al 0]

As it stands now, terrorist overseas plotting to attack America on a phone call that happens to pass through a switch in the US cannot be monitored.

You are wrong. See the article by Richard Clarke.

[LegalEagle 22]

As it stands now, terrorist overseas plotting to attack America on a phone call that happens to pass through a switch in the US cannot be monitored.

You are wrong. See the article by Richard Clarke.

"You are wrong" is the comfort zone for these well intentioned folks.

Amend the Constitution, then follow the new Constitution. Don't violate the Constitution for any purpose.

[AFTiger 282]

per DNI Mike McConnell

Complete McConnell Interview

Question: Is the White House making the situation sound worse than it really is?

MCCONNELL: Chris, President Bush is repeating advice that I'm giving him. As you know, I am not a political figure. I am a professional. I've been doing this for 40 years.

And our situation now, when the terrorist threat is increasing because they've achieved — Al Qaeda's achieved de facto safe haven in the border area of Pakistan and Afghanistan — the threat is going up.

And therefore, we do not have the agility and the speed that we had before to be able to move and try to capture their communications to thwart their planning.

WALLACE: Well, let me ask you about that. We'll get to the telecoms in a moment. Let me ask you first, though, as you pointed out at the beginning, under the law that was passed in August, you had the ability, and you exercised that, to issue orders that allowed you to monitor terrorism suspects — communications involving alleged terrorist groups.

The law has expired as of midnight. But those orders to monitor are valid for a year, so they stay on the books and allow you to monitor them till at least August.

And the argument the Democrats make is that if there's somebody new that springs up, some new group that you haven't already covered, that you can go after them over old existing law. So they argue you haven't lost any operational capability.

MCCONNELL: Chris, last summer we were in extremis, because we had lost under the old law about two-thirds of our capability.

The issue is it's very dynamic, and the FISA court had ruled...

WALLACE: When you say dynamic, you mean that new groups are springing up, new possible targets?

MCCONNELL: New information, new personalities, new methods of communicating.

So when the program was returned to the FISA court in January of '07, initially we had coverage that we had asked for, but over time, because technology had changed and the law of '78 — it had not been changed, because technology had gone from a wireless world to a wired world.

Foreigners communicating in a foreign country — more than likely the communications would pass through the United States. Therefore, the court said if it touches a wire, consistent with the law, you have to have a warrant.

Now, a warrant means probable cause, which is a very time- consuming process to go through. So we were in that situation last summer. We passed the new act to make it — improve our situation. That act has now expired.

WALLACE: Isn't the central issue here that you've lost your power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with you and also your ability to offer them legal immunity?

Again, the Democrats would say, "Look, if the cooperation is legal, they don't need legal immunity."

MCCONNELL: Exactly right. The issue now is there's uncertainty because the law has expired and the law of August, the Protect America Act, allowed us to compel — compel — support from a private carrier. That's now expired.

So we can make an argument to a court but, you see, that makes my point. If I'm in court arguing for an authorization, then I'm missing a dynamic situation.

WALLACE: So just to summarize this, how — would you say that the country is in great — greater danger now of terrorist attack because this law has expired?

MCCONNELL: Increased danger, and it will increase more and more as time goes on. And the key is the — if you think about the private sector global communications, many people think the government operates that.

Ninety-eight percent of it is owned and operated by the private sector. We cannot do this mission without help and support from the private sector. And the private sector, although willingly helped us in the past, are now saying, "You can't protect me. Why should I help you?"

Chris, could I just read something I think is very important for the American people to know? This issue of liability protection — what I'm going to quote from is the Senate report when they debated the Senate bill for improving this law, if I could.

This is with regard to private sector immunity. "Indeed, the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without the assistance of these companies. Given the scope of the civil damage suits and the current spotlight associated with providing any assistance to the intelligence community, the community was concerned without retroactive immunity the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with a lawful request from the government in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation."

That's the issue. We go back into protracted litigation and debate, as opposed to being dynamic.

[AFTiger 282]

Amend the Constitution, then follow the new Constitution. Don't violate the Constitution for any purpose.

Isn't the preferred liberal tactic to "redefine" the constitution; after all it is a "living document".

[LegalEagle 22]

Amend the Constitution, then follow the new Constitution. Don't violate the Constitution for any purpose.

Isn't the preferred liberal tactic to "redefine" the constitution; after all it is a "living document".

You have it bass ackwards, my friend. "Conservatives" see the Constitution as an impediment to government. A significant portion of the Constitution is there for the purpose of limiting government. That portion is what protects our freedom. There have always been spies, crooks, terrorists, etc. I think our Founding Fathers took those into consideration prior to limiting governmental action.

[AFTiger 282]

Amend the Constitution, then follow the new Constitution. Don't violate the Constitution for any purpose.

Isn't the preferred liberal tactic to "redefine" the constitution; after all it is a "living document".

You have it bass ackwards, my friend. "Conservatives" see the Constitution as an impediment to government. A significant portion of the Constitution is there for the purpose of limiting government. That portion is what protects our freedom. There have always been spies, crooks, terrorists, etc. I think our Founding Fathers took those into consideration prior to limiting governmental action.

No I think I've got it right. You guys have been redefining the Consitution for years and are the ones claiming the Consitiution needs to change with the times. Conservative believe in legislation and amendments.

Abortion and homosexual marriages were rights granted through interpretation and invention and not law. Liberals have a long history of turning law upside down. Now the liberals on the court want to use international law to render decisions on the constitutionality of American law.

Conservative just want the ability to surveil foriegn enemies. You just want to fight conservative even if it cost American lives. Since the lawyers seem to be the combatants in this fiasco, who do we sue for the next intelligence failure?

[LegalEagle 22]

Amend the Constitution, then follow the new Constitution. Don't violate the Constitution for any purpose.

Isn't the preferred liberal tactic to "redefine" the constitution; after all it is a "living document".

You have it bass ackwards, my friend. "Conservatives" see the Constitution as an impediment to government. A significant portion of the Constitution is there for the purpose of limiting government. That portion is what protects our freedom. There have always been spies, crooks, terrorists, etc. I think our Founding Fathers took those into consideration prior to limiting governmental action.

No I think I've got it right. You guys have been redefining the Consitution for years and are the ones claiming the Consitiution needs to change with the times. Conservative believe in legislation and amendments.

Abortion and homosexual marriages were rights granted through interpretation and invention and not law. Liberals have a long history of turning law upside down. Now the liberals on the court want to use international law to render decisions on the constitutionality of American law.

Conservative just want the ability to surveil foriegn enemies. You just want to fight conservative even if it cost American lives. Since the lawyers seem to be the combatants in this fiasco, who do we sue for the next intelligence failure?

Would you show me where in the Constitution that abortion and gay marriage is illegal. I must have been asleep in class that day.

Anyone who argues that the government should do anything thing in violation of the Constitution ought be glad he lives in a country with freedom of speech. The government may "keep an eye" on him, but cannot violate his Fourth Amendment Rights in trying to produce evidence to be used against him. That's the kind of kick-ass stuff that makes this country great! Hopefully you are under watchful eyes as we chat.

I agree with you that a "Conservative" ought be totally against the violation of our Constitution. I'm a conservative. How people who want to run roughshod over the Constitutional Rights of our citizens ever got labeled as "Conservatives" is beyond me.

[AFTiger 282]

Would you show me where in the Constitution that abortion and gay marriage is illegal. I must have been asleep in class that day.

Anyone who argues that the government should do anything thing in violation of the Constitution ought be glad he lives in a country with freedom of speech. The government may "keep an eye" on him, but cannot violate his Fourth Amendment Rights in trying to produce evidence to be used against him. That's the kind of kick-ass stuff that makes this country great! Hopefully you are under watchful eyes as we chat.

I agree with you that a "Conservative" ought be totally against the violation of our Constitution. I'm a conservative. How people who want to run roughshod over the Constitutional Rights of our citizens ever got labeled as "Conservatives" is beyond me.

It was for nearly 200 years. Please show me the law that made it legal. Are you supporting original intent? Go back to sleep new.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Then tell us why it is that career military and intelligence officers say this is something we need, and aren't merely pandering to a temporary office holders??

Guess no one wanted to field that one. I can see why. Oh well.

[LegalEagle 22]

Then tell us why it is that career military and intelligence officers say this is something we need, and aren't merely pandering to a temporary office holders??

Guess no one wanted to field that one. I can see why. Oh well.

Honestly, I don't have time to answer all of your "points." Why would an "military" or "intelligence officer" not want as much information as he/she can get??? DUH. If he could sleep under your bed at night he'd do so if he thought he might obtain "intelligence." Fat chance. I have a full pedestal under my bed to keep the bastard out! *grin*

The military and intelligence officers liked hooking up guys to electric cords, like water boarding, tying guys together by their penises and pushing one down, etc. Hey, it's all good fun and they squeal like piggies. The fact that they like unbridled authority to gain information is a great reason to slap them with the Constitution.

Republicans have broken into the National Democratic Party offices to get "intelligence." The President wanted it. How come someone made a big deal out of it???

[AFTiger 282]

Then tell us why it is that career military and intelligence officers say this is something we need, and aren't merely pandering to a temporary office holders??

Guess no one wanted to field that one. I can see why. Oh well.

Honestly, I don't have time to answer all of your "points." Why would an "military" or "intelligence officer" not want as much information as he/she can get??? DUH. If he could sleep under your bed at night he'd do so if he thought he might obtain "intelligence." Fat chance. I have a full pedestal under my bed to keep the bastard out! *grin*

The military and intelligence officers liked hooking up guys to electric cords, like water boarding, tying guys together by their penises and pushing one down, etc. Hey, it's all good fun and they squeal like piggies. The fact that they like unbridled authority to gain information is a great reason to slap them with the Constitution.

Republicans have broken into the National Democratic Party offices to get "intelligence." The President wanted it. How come someone made a big deal out of it???

Because the FBI would not let him have 500 FBI files???

[AFTiger 282]

Democrats pay off the ambulance chasers

WSJ

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Pelosi's Wiretap Offensive

February 19, 2008

For the next 9/11 Commission, we nominate the first witness: Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He's the man now telling everyone to chill out, take it easy, there's nothing to worry about, after his fellow Democrats last week scuttled a bipartisan compromise on warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda.

"It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago," Mr. Reyes wrote in a letter to President Bush. By "actions" he means the cooperation with U.S. intelligence by private telecom companies after 9/11, for which the companies now face more than 40 lawsuits.

Mr. Reyes's letter is a political keeper -- all the more so because it is so divorced from intelligence reality. Nearly every other professional says that Friday night's expiration of the wiretap law will do significant security harm.

Intelligence Chairman Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, on the Senate floor last week: "What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest."

Or Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell on Fox News Sunday: "If something new comes along, we have to have a directive for a new private sector company -- now that's in question. So [the expiration of the law] introduces a level of uncertainty that is going to be very difficult for us."

Intelligence-gathering has changed since the end of the Cold War. We live in a world of fiber optics and packet switching. The National Security Agency can't get what it needs merely by scanning the airwaves for telephone calls and code words. Terrorists communicate through the Internet. To eavesdrop on those communications, the NSA needs the help of private companies, which voluntarily cooperated after 9/11 when Mr. Bush and the Attorney General asked them to do so.

And what did they get for their trouble? As Mr. Rockefeller put it last week, "What is the big payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No. They get paid nothing. What do they get for this? They get $40 billion worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it. But they don't have to do it, because they do have shareholders to respond to, to answer to."

We've long held that a President doesn't need a court order under the Constitution to order such wiretaps. But the reality is that, because of these lawsuits, the telephone companies now won't cooperate without the legal protection of a court order. That's how pernicious these lawsuits are.

We asked one phone company executive what he'd do, after Friday's expiration, in response to a government request for cooperation. His answer was blunt: "I'm not doing it. If I don't have compulsion, I can't get out of court [and those lawsuits]. . . . I'm not going to do something voluntarily." Having talked to telecom executives, we can tell you this view is well-nigh universal.

Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn't account for new targets, which may require new kinds of telecom cooperation and thus a new court order. Mr. Reyes can make all the assertions he wants about immunity, but they are no defense against a lawsuit. For that matter, without a statute in place, even a renewed order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is likely to be challenged as illegitimate. A telecom CEO who cooperates without a court order is all but guaranteed to get not merely a wiretap lawsuit, but also a shareholder suit for putting the company at legal risk.

Our guess is that Mr. Reyes knows all of this, but is trying to provide cover for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who decided last week to block the bipartisan bill that had already passed the Senate 68-29. The bill also has majority backing in the House, with 21 Democrats having publicly pledged support and another 20 or so privately on board. Ms. Pelosi tried to dodge the issue by passing another short-term extension of wiretap authority, but opposition was so strong that the GOP defeated her on the House floor.

What we have here is a remarkable display of the anti-antiterror minority at work. Democrats could vote directly to restrict wiretapping by the executive branch, but they lack the votes. So instead they're trying to do it through the backdoor by unleashing the trial bar to punish the telephone companies. Then if there is another terror attack, they'll blame the phone companies for not cooperating.

Mr. Bush has been doing his part in this debate, but his political capital is waning. The Republican who needs to make himself heard now is John McCain. The Arizona Senator is voting the right way, but he seems curiously disengaged from a debate that plays to his national security strengths. The time to speak up is before the next 9/11 Commission.

[Tiger Al 0]

Then tell us why it is that career military and intelligence officers say this is something we need, and aren't merely pandering to a temporary office holders??

Guess no one wanted to field that one. I can see why. Oh well.

I know how you feel.

Then why in the world would Bush threaten to veto it if it didn't contain immunities for the phone companies? If what they're doing is legal, what do they need immunity from? If this is, indeed, "the most important vote on national security in years," why would Bush want to protect the phone companies more than the American people by threatening to VETO it?