Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Thank You for Wiretapping


The WSJ Review & Outlook opinion piece today called "Thank You for Wiretapping" nails it. Once again senators (even some Republicans) are playing fast and loose because of political ideology with the result being to impede presidential powers and to undermine our military and our security agencies during a time of perpetual war to thwart terrorism against us and our allies. Tell me how I'm wrong? Tell me how this isn't a case of it's Bush so it must be wrong, abusive or illegal? You can't have it both ways "Stop them, catch them, but don't watch them or listen to them".

Update 1, Hugh Hewitt has a post on Jay Rockefeller's letters to the Vice President on his concerns over the NSA program he was briefed on. Like Hugh, and some liberal Bloggers, I agree that it appears Rockefeller wanted to distance himself without any outright disapproval of the program. As Hugh put it "Rockefeller's "feeble" note, as one lefty put it, is a great symbol of the entire Democratic Party's approach to the war. These are not the people you want running it, or even close to the controls."

Update 2, we now see that Carter and Clinton approved searches and surveillance without court orders. Michelle Malkin also has a nice post on the "spying on Americans" uproar with links to other sources. It turns out it was just made public that as part of the ongoing law enforcement work just after the Oklahoma City bombing the U.S. government used a spy satellite to gather intelligence on a white separatist compound in Oklahoma. Where is the outrage on this? From Michelle's post "The Left believes the government should do whatever it takes to fight terrorists--­but only when the terrorists look like Timothy McVeigh. If you're on the MCI Friends and Family plan of Osama bin Laden and Abu Zubaydah, you're home free."

Update 3, the ACLU demands (whatever) records regarding the NSA's surveillance...ya right! They don't however demand any records for the spying that was done on the skin heads in Oklahoma! The ACLU looks out for your civil liberties as long as you think like them or are a Muslim!

Update 4, John at Powerline posts his email exchange with one of the reporters at the NYTimes who "scooped" the NSA story. John's exchange is typical of a well thought out fact and referenced based conservative position on an issue, and the reporters responses (which have stopped coming) reflect the typical liberal terse hollow response that ignores the last retort! As I have said previously, numerous bloggers spent several days (versus the NYTimes having a year+) researching the NSA story and the legality of what has happened. It's pretty easy to build the case that this was legal based on the constitution and on recent precedent set by the actions of other presidents as well as rulings by SCOTUS. In fact, it's so easy to build the case for this being legal one could only conclude to put out a story suggesting the contrary was done knowingly to mislead.

Update 5, Democrats thankfully cave in (6 month Patriot Act extension) probably only because they checked polling numbers and found that most American's think their idiotic sky-is-falling civil liberties stance on intelligence measures that help keep us safe is just plain wrong.

5 comments:

MOV said...

"impede presidential powers" ??

I didn't know Bush had those presidential powers to begin with. I don't see many constitutional scholars racing to his defense...

Tiny said...

educate yourself on the powers of the executive branch if you want to know...most scholars are liberal, what do you expect...besides I don't care what a scholar thinks, titles and degrees mean nothing...facts and cogent arguments matter

MOV said...

"most scholars are liberal"
Now who's making assumptions?

And I do know the powers of the executive branch, and I know Bush has overstepped them more than once. Of course, it's not a first, everyone knows about Lincoln and habeus corpus and how he ignored the Supreme Court's decision to overrule him. His justification - it's wartime. Sound familiar?

Tiny said...

you "know" the president (you can't call him that can you?) has overstepped his powers more than once...so you know this but all the liberal politicians and lawyers I guess don't know what you know since they would using this to take him down...gee maybe you should give your evidence to the NYTimes, it will be a big scoop. Or better yet give me the details and we will have the scoop right here on Tiny's! Your a joke

Splash Two said...

Just another case of when a democrat does something it's fine but when a republican does it's facist:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

WASH POST, July 15, 1994,
"Administration Backing No-Warrant Spy Searches": Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.

Government officials decided in the Ames case that no warrant was required because the searches were conducted for "foreign intelligence purposes."

Government lawyers have used this principle to justify other secret searches by U.S. authorities.

"The number of such secret searches conducted each year is classified..."

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

Go figure