Not coincidentally, he's also one of the most dishonest commentators around. Here is what he said yesterday in his Chicago Sun Times column about the NSA scandal:
It shouldn't be necessary to point out the obvious. But, unmoored from reality, wafting happily into fantasy land safe in the hermetically sealed Democrat-media bubble, Sen. Barbara Boxer and her colleagues are apparently considering impeaching the president for eavesdropping on al Qaida calls made to U.S. phone numbers. Surely, even Karl Rove can't get that lucky.
Everyone knows by now that the objections to Bush's NSA program have nothing to do with opposition to eavesdropping on Al Qaeda, but are instead based upon the fact that in ordering this eavesdropping, Bush is breaking the law, because the eavesdropping is conducted in secret and without the judicial oversight required by FISA. Surely Steyn knows this, too. But rather than address the argument, he simply lies and says that the objections are based on the belief that the U.S. shouldn't be eavesdropping on Al Qeada.
That's the great intellectual hero of the Bush followers. And the celebration dances over this column are already underway.
Here is Steyn, in the same column, using the same cheap tactic some more:
By the way, I'd love to see the witness list for that trial: Muhammad al-Jihad testifying that a week before he blows up a Bali nightclub he always makes a perfectly innocent call to his cousin in Milwaukee to ask how the kids are; Abu Musad al-Zarqawi testifying that he only called Howard Dean to issue a formal complaint about congressional Democrats stealing his rationalizations. Etc. . .
See, Howard Dean and Al Qaeda terrorists chat on the phone with one another because the Democrats share the same world-view as Al Qaeda. And that's why Democrats don't want any eavesdropping on their Al Qaeda friends. Piercing brilliance, that is.
And, if you can stand it, there's still more:
The practical effect of the Dems' approach is to extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to any dodgy character anywhere on the planet who has a U.S. telephone number in his Rolodex. Indeed, given that perfectly ordinary cell phones can be used almost anywhere -- this week, I spoke to an American in London by dialing his Washington cell number -- if the Democrats have their way, all terrorist cells in Europe or Pakistan would have to do to put themselves beyond the reach of U.S. intelligence is get a New Jersey-based associate to place a bulk order for Verizon cell phones.
This isn't a hypothetical situation. Consider Iyman Faris, a naturalized American citizen also known as Mohammad Rauf and nailed by U.S. intelligence through the interception of foreign-U.S. communications. He was convicted in 2003 for doing the legwork on an al Qaida scheme to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. . .
Do you want Iyman Faris in jail? Or do you think he should have the run of the planet until he's actually destroyed the bridge and killed hundreds of people? Say, the Golden Gate Bridge just as you're driving across after voting for Barbara Boxer and congratulating yourself on your moral superiority.
So that's where we stand four years after Sept. 11. The arthritic $44 billion intelligence bureaucracy is insisting it still needs another five to 10 years to have a clandestine service capable of infiltrating al Qaida operations in the field, but, while we're waiting, don't think of using that $44 billion to keep tabs on their phone calls, because the Dems will impeach you.
So the "Dems" -- presumably along with the growing number of Republicans who oppose Bush's lawless NSA program -- are against eavesdropping on Al Qaeda and want the terrorists to be able to blow up bridges without us knowing about it in advance. That's what this scandal is about. The Democrats are angry because they are opposed to eavesdropping on Al Qaeda terrorists. By contrast, George Bush believes in eavesdropping on the terrorists. That's the difference of opinion. Mark Steyn just spit out a whole newspaper column based on that premise.
And he's not alone among columnists whom Bush supporters revere. Here is Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post expressing his "understanding" of what the NSA scandal is about:
Administration critics, political and media, charge that by ordering surveillance on communications of suspected al Qaeda agents in the United States, the president clearly violated the law. Some even suggest that Bush has thereby so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered.
Newspapers should absolutely include columns defending Bush's NSA eavesdropping program. But these columns are not that. This is just out-and-out lying. Nobody has been arguing that the Government should not eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, and yet these columns, with transparent falsity, claim that that is the position of Bush opponents on this issue.
When Bush supporters made comments like this in the first couple of days after the Times disclosed the NSA program - when they expressed bewilderment that anyone would be against eavesdropping on Al Qaeda - one could give them the benefit of the doubt and charitably assume that they were just confused and did not yet understand what the objections were. But we are well enough into the scandal now, and people like Mark Steyn and Charles Krauthammer know full well what the scandal is about. What else can it be called -- other than out-and-out lying -- for them to continue to characterize this scandal as resting on opposition to eavesdropping on Al Qaeda?
This is more than just out-and-out lying. The dishonesty now being displayed by Bush supporters has now sunk to the level of depravity.It is craven, obscene, and grossly hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteThis is not hyperbole. They are defending the torture of human beings as well as the "pogrom" of spying on Americans. It is now plain and clear- thre is nothing they won't say or do.
Mark Steyn should be fired. I think I'm going to send your post to the Ombudsman of the Sun-Times if there is one. Or the Op-Ed editor. Shouldn't a correction be run?
ReplyDeleteBartkid sez,
ReplyDeleteAm I missing something about the illegal wiretaps story or aren't the NSA, CIA, and FBI years behind in their translation work?
So, doesn't that sort of blow that "need to wiretap immediately" argument further out of the water?
Being so far behind in the translation work leads me to believe, like I did when I first heard this story, the wiretaps are on Bush's political enemies, not enemies of America's security.
When will one of the crack White House press corps ask how much overlap there is between the wiretaps and the no-fly list?
If the no-fly list is meant to keep terrorists off flights, why aren't the people on this list wiretapped?
If people on this list wiretapped, does this include Ted Kennedy and James Moore (author of Bush's Brain?
My memory is getting fuzzy on me: Were Al Gore and John Edwards also on the no-fly list or were they just selected for special inspection several times each?
"The practical effect of the Dems' approach is to extend the protections of the U.S. Constitution to any dodgy character anywhere on the planet who has a U.S. telephone number in his Rolodex."
ReplyDeleteWell, isn't that your take? that - no matter the urgency or necessity - if UBL himself called a number within the U.S., that, absent any "probable cause" to present to a judge that would indicate a crime has been committed, there should be absolutely NO eavesdropping on this conversation, merely because a number within the U.S. s being called?
How is this different from your anguished and melodramatic view of this comsec monitoring?
The case Steyn mentions - the thwarting of the Brooklyn Bridge plot - if it transpires that the intelligence / evidence to stop this was garnered exclusively via this NSA eavesdropping - would you argue that we should have, in effect, "hung up" and not have taken the steps necessary to expose/stop this plot, solely because of the way the intelligence was gathered?
absent any "probable cause" to present to a judge that would indicate a crime has been committed, there should be absolutely NO eavesdropping on this conversation, merely because a number within the U.S. s being called?
ReplyDeleteNope, that's not his take. You could, you know, actually read his post, or his previous posts on the matter, or take your cue from Senator Brownback of Kansas and his unhappiness with FISA being flouted. Or you could simply barf up the same predigested fact-free talking points as Steyn.
(1) The secret, retroactive-if-needed FISA warrants require a lower burden of proof. There does not have to be "probable cause" that a crime has already been committed.
(2) If a FISA judge were presented a request for a retroactive FISA warrant that involved bin Laden as the primary party, are you honestly asserting that the judge would not approve it?
(3) If the government learned the details of a nefarious terrorist plot from wiretapping, they could spring into action to thwart it without waiting for the retroactive warrant. Nothing requires the government to sit on its hands while waiting for FISA approval; curiously, the August 6, 2001 PDB apparently did have such a hand-sitting requirement.
(4) Yeah, thank God the government feels free to flout established law, since that's the only way they can protect us from the Brooklyn Bridge being destroyed by blowtorches. By the way, that bridge is for sale if you're interested.
I've bolded the word retroactive throughout, since all of you mindless god-king worshippers have such a goddamn difficult time grasping the significance of it. Caught wind of a plot to blow up all Dairy Queens in Illinois? Get a fucking rectroactive FISA warrant.
--mds
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting on this. I was going to do so last night, but ran out of time.
When I read Steyn's column yesterday, it made my blood boil. It was probably THE most dishonest column I've seen in a major newspaper in the last year. Not only is he engaged in an almost pathologically dishonest straw man argument, but even his basic facts are all wrong. He says that the FISA court has turned down hundreds of warrant applications. He also uses the hopelessly flawed Rasmussen poll which he damn well knows doesn't mean what he says it means (and which has been shown to be bogus by more recent polls).
What especially bothers me about Steyn is that many of my conservative-leaning friends view him as a "serious" conservative (similar to Krauthammer). Yet Steyn is at times unrivaled in his capacity for dishonesty and misdirection. Editors should not allow stuff like this to go to print.
I read Steyn's opinion piece and he does make an important point that Glenn cites--four years after 9-11 our intelligence agencies are not getting the job done. Add to Steyn's admission the fact that they are not getting the job done even with the president's disregard for the Constitution and the law, and the president's performance encroaches on the criminal. So, if as Steyn asserts, the intelligence community needs five or ten years to get on track, who is responsible? I think President Bush's 'Clinton excuse' has run out.
ReplyDeleteWhile Steyn stretches the truth over the NSA spy scandal, he does point out the utter failure of President Bush to get better performance out of the intelligence community. Mr. Bush recently received poor marks from the 9-11 Commision, and the Department of Homeland Security is perceived as dysfunctional. About the only things Mr. Bush appears capable of doing with any consistency are torture, internment, and domestic spying. Guess he has to go with his strengths.
Wow, I'm gone for a couple of days and Glenn and his leftnut sycophants are all foaming at the mouth, calling for censorship and repression of free speech, direct hate speech at those who dare to have thoughts they do not approve, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd I and the rest of America are supposed to take these crazy foam spitting thought police and censor's word for how Bush is trampling on my civil liberties, and his actions aren't needed to protect the country.
Forgive me if I find the book burners and thought control censors of the leftwing nuthouse unpersuasive. Steyn is hilariously funny in how he so adroitly skewer's the hypocrites and dullards of the left, and the reations he elicits from the likes of Glenn and those here are exactly the kind of irrational, the sky is falling, chicken little behavior that generates a lot of his entertainment value to those of us who are a bit more reality based in our outlook and thinking.
Says the "Dog"
I'm appalled at my "conservative" fellows. I had always thought that if Fascism came to America, it would be through the Democratic party, but "the dog" illustrates quite clearly that there is no respect for clear arguments or logic on the part of mainstream Republicans anymore, only party loyalty and the show of force. The Republicans no longer care about conservative ideals.
ReplyDeleteGoogle "Eurabia", a new talking point. The argument is that "demographic trends" are going to force the "West" to take action against Muslim immigrants, because "our culture" will be overrun by Islamic culture. This should ring big bells in the World History region of your memories.
the Dog: And I and the rest of America...
ReplyDeleteThat's a joke right? The "rest of America" thinks the President ought to obey the law.
Also, on behalf of canines everywhere, it's outrageous that someone is peddling this rightwing dribble in their name. Animals frankly have more sense.
Au Contraire,
ReplyDeleteI must agree with the Dogs observations. All of us are entitled to our own opinion, and before us we have a mostly theoretical discussion at this point.
The liberals, under color of "protecting civil liberties", seem a little too anxious to set aside another age old axiom: "Innocent until proven guilty".
Is that respecting the Constitution?
"I'm gone for a couple of days and Glenn and his leftnut sycophants are all foaming at the mouth, calling for censorship and repression of free speech, direct hate speech at those who dare to have thoughts they do not approve, etc etc."
ReplyDeleteWhere does Gleen call for censorship and repression of free speech? What Glenn said was:
"Newspapers should absolutely include columns defending Bush's NSA eavesdropping program. But these columns are not that. This is just out-and-out lying. Nobody has been arguing that the Government should not eavesdrop on Al Qaeda, and yet these columns, with transparent falsity, claim that that is the position of Bush opponents on this issue."
It might work to lie to an audience who will believe any and all streams of refuse that emanate from the mouth of a Pat Robertson or a Rush Limbaugh, but it won’t work on people who actually think for themselves. Freedom of speech does not mean that the Washington Post is obligated to print everything that the people in their employ write; it means that the government cannot censor what they write.
But then you already know that and are simply lying to try to divert the attention from the fact that Glenn is pointing out that someone else with your misguided beliefs is lying.
In a court of law, innocence must be presumed.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious to any interested citizen, however, that the law was indeed violated here. It's so bloody obvious that these ridiculous and un-Constitutional "inherent powers" have to be dreamed up to try to justify it.
I hated Clinton. I remember all my Republican friends getting so upset about Whitewater and Vince Foster and so forth. But as soon as Bush gets in office, they let even more egregious behavior slide by and even try to defend it!
The President broke the law. Plain as day. If you don't care, then you don't care about the Constitution and you don't care about America.
The liberals, under color of "protecting civil liberties", seem a little too anxious to set aside another age old axiom: "Innocent until proven guilty".
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, everyone wiretapped without a FISA warrant is a terrorist working for Al Qaeda. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, after all.
Conservatives, under color of "protecting America", seem a little too anxious to set aside another age old axiom: "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," which the President has openly acknowledged that he did not do.
Is that respecting the Constitution?
And yes, we "liberals" believe in "innocent until proven guilty." We do not, however, believe in "innocent entirely on the word of the accused; case closed," which is why we want this seriously investigated by Congress. Nor do we believe in "innocent due to being above the law," which is why we want this seriously investigated by Congress. Others apparently wish to "respect" the Constitution by denying the existence of checks and balances, and giving the Executive unlimited power until the war on terrorism ends. Congratulations. "A republic, if you can keep it."
--mds
I do not favor censorsing Mark Steyn or Charles Krauthammer or anyone else. I think that publishing this sort of plainly deceitful "argument" reflects very poorly on the newspapers which are publishing it, but it's mystifying how anyone could read my post demonstrating that these two columnists are lying and intrepret that as being some sort of call for suppression of their viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. It was the combination of your post and the comments that preceded mine to which I was commenting. Certainly several commentators called for directly or via strong implications for the censorship of thoughts they do not approve.
Regarding the obviousness of Steyn's lying. He isn't lying at all. He uses exaggeration and satire to make his quite correct points.
As for the anonymous writer who questioned the "America and I" comment. No joke. 51% of democrats, 57% of independents, and 85% of republicans want the NSA to monitor these Al Qaeda calls.
The president has protected us in the past; he is protecting us now; and he will continue to protect us for as long as he is President. The country as a whole sees all this as a good thing, and the best thing the democrats can do for republicans is to keep yelling hysterically and incessantly about how wrong it is for the President to exercise the authority of his office and protect us. As I said in a previous post, please all of you please, please, please keep talking about law breaking and impreachment. Please make sure all your candidates, ESPECIALLY, those in close contested elections keep talking about impeaching the President for preventing any additional attacks since 9/11.
Says the "Dog"
And it is true that Muslim birthrates far exceed those of the rest of the population in countries like France, which otherwise have long been below replacement level.
ReplyDeleteWe're off into OT Land, but France is hardly an example of the bitter fruit of embracing multiculturalism. Quite the opposite. Multiculturalism celebrates diversity within a larger whole; it does not deny the existence of diversity and shove it into ghettos, as in the French approach. Many of the European nations currently suffering from immigration issues do not have good historical mechanisms for dealing with multiple subcultures (e.g., Scandanavia). Britain actually has less trouble in general in this regard, because multiculturalism has made up much more of their historical fabric (with certain exceptions).
Now, what to do about it? Huge walls aren't the answer, and assimilation doesn't work at the point of a gun (except for the Borg). American-style osmosis might remain the best approach. What's wrong with Hyphenated Americans, as long as it has -American on the end? People have to want to be in the club.
but it's mystifying how anyone could read my post demonstrating that these two columnists are lying and intrepret that as being some sort of call for suppression of their viewpoints.
Well, I'm not sure if it's "mystifying." Either (1) they don't bother to read the actual posts, which is certainly plausible, or (2) they're simply lying about what you're saying, which is deliciously ironic (in the colloquial meaning of the term).
--mds
"The president has protected us in the past; he is protecting us now; and he will continue to protect us for as long as he is President.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad daddy Bush is watching out for me. Reminds me of Private Hudson from Aliens: "He's coming in...I feel safer already."
Regarding the obviousness of Steyn's lying. He isn't lying at all. He uses exaggeration and satire to make his quite correct points.
ReplyDeleteWhere was this "satire"? I must have missed it.
Looked to me on the contrary as if he set up strawmen arguments, then knocked them down. Presumably because he was unable to answer the real arguments.
the dog said:
ReplyDelete"No joke. 51% of democrats, 57% of independents, and 85% of republicans want the NSA to monitor these Al Qaeda calls."
Once again, and listen carefully, we are not talking about listening in on Al Qaeda, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.
It is plainly obvious that the admin could have gone to the FISC and gotten warrants for this type of surveilance inside the US.
Got it?
What are they trying to hide? Have you tried to honestly answer that for yourself?
Point 1:
ReplyDeleteHmm, one must wonder why the Dems cannot come up with a clever retort, something like:
"It's not the eavesdropping. It's the Preznit breaking the law!"
Sounds familiar? Oh well, parroting the Repugs is a form of flattery.
Point 2:
"the Dog" said...
I'm gone for a couple of days and Glenn and his leftnut sycophants are all foaming at the mouth
Why the absence, dog? The check from the NRC didn't clear? I guess that's to be expected, now that the flow of Abramoff funds has stopped, and other similar scumbags are sitting on their checkbooks, soiling their panties...
Well, how's your Russian? I hear Preznit Putin, who's already erected his Imperial Presidency, needs some legal talent to justify the constitutionality of his 3rd term in office. And then, his 4th term, 5th term, etc. After all, Putin is still a young man. Hurry up, dog -- Prof. John Yoo is already changing his name to Ivan Yoyovski.
It's disgusting and dishonest as hell, but I don't know if I'd call it lying exactly. It's an example of the false dilemma fallacy: either you must support Bush's illegal NSA surveillance program, or you are an Al Qaeda sympathizer and want OBL to come to Manhattan and lay it waste. It's a stupid argument, but it's the only one they've got. It's a purely political argument, of course. It would be laughed out of any court, and I doubt it convinces anybody except the other bedwetters that make up their base, but it is infuriating.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletesunny said...
ReplyDeleteOnce again, and listen carefully, we are not talking about listening in on Al Qaeda, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Yes we are. If Al Qaeda is calling you, we want to know why. I think that's reasonable. I'll be happy to volunteer to turn up the volume for them.
sunny said...
It is plainly obvious that the admin could have gone to the FISC and gotten warrants for this type of surveilance inside the US.
It is plainly obvious they couldn't do so timely, so the President rightly exercised his inherent authority and constitutional duty to protect the country. Most Americans are very glad he has shown such leadership. The minority chicken little squads screaming incessantly about the sky falling down and breaking the law notwithstanding.
Now I know its difficult for you leftnuts to focus and read material not filled with lots of meaningless democrap epithets and factless code word accusations, BUT FOR HOPEFULLY THE LAST TIME HERE IS WHY FISA DIDN'T WORK AND WHY THOSE WHO SAY IT DID OR COULD WORK ARE LYING TO YOU. (Real Lies, not satire as in the case of the hilarious and insightful Mr. Steyn).
From Powerlineblog.com: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012770.php
We've been getting emails from liberals demanding to know why we haven't written about the 72-hour provision of FISA, which, they say, definitively proves that there couldn't possibly have been any need to go outside the FISA structure for purposes of speed. Actually, there are quite a number of FISA provisions that we haven't written about, but, since the left seems to be putting so much emphasis on this one, here goes: why the 72-hour clause doesn't eliminate the problem of FISA delay.
First of all, here is the provision in question, 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1805(f):
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
So this is the Left's argument: the speed problem is solved. All the government has to do is begin the electronic surveillance immediately; notify the court; and the government then has 72 hours to get the necessary paperwork in front of the FISA judge, and get the judge to sign the FISA order.
Simple? Not exactly. FISA applications are detailed and require considerable time to prepare. Here are the requirements:
(a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents
Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include—
(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
(2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application;
(3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
(4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that—
(A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and
(B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
(5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
(6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
(7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate—
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.
So a FISA application is no simple document, and Sec. 1805(f), notwithstanding that it contemplates an "emergency," provides no relief from the full filing requirement of Sec. 1804. The government has 72 hours from the time when a telephone is found in, say, Afghanistan, and the Attorney General gives the order to begin surveillance, until a FISA judge actually signs the order based on the government's application. How does that compare to the length of time it normally takes to obtain a FISA order?
Byron York wrote on ths subject last month:
In 2002, when the president made his decision, there was widespread, bipartisan frustration with the slowness and inefficiency of the bureaucracy involved in seeking warrants from the special intelligence court, known as the FISA court. Even later, after the provisions of the Patriot Act had had time to take effect, there were still problems with the FISA court — problems examined by members of the September 11 Commission — and questions about whether the court can deal effectively with the fastest-changing cases in the war on terror.
People familiar with the process say the problem is not so much with the court itself as with the process required to bring a case before the court. "It takes days, sometimes weeks, to get the application for FISA together," says one source. "It's not so much that the court doesn't grant them quickly, it's that it takes a long time to get to the court. Even after the Patriot Act, it's still a very cumbersome process. It is not built for speed, it is not built to be efficient. It is built with an eye to keeping [investigators] in check."
Lawmakers of both parties recognized the problem in the months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. They pointed to the case of Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings. *** Rowley wrote up her concerns in a famous 13-page memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, and then elaborated on them in testimony to Congress. "Rowley depicted the legal mechanism for security warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, as burdensome and restrictive, a virtual roadblock to effective law enforcement," Legal Times reported in September 2002.
The Patriot Act included some provisions, supported by lawmakers of both parties, to make securing such warrants easier. But it did not fix the problem. In April 2004, when members of the September 11 Commission briefed the press on some of their preliminary findings, they reported that significant problems remained.
"Many agents in the field told us that although there is now less hesitancy in seeking approval for electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, the application process nonetheless continues to be long and slow," the commission said. "Requests for such approvals are overwhelming the ability of the system to process them and to conduct the surveillance. The Department of Justice and FBI are attempting to address bottlenecks in the process."
If it takes "days, sometimes weeks" to assemble a FISA application, then 72 hours is not long enough to be confident the process can be completed. Anyone who thinks that it is easy for multiple lawyers and officials to collaborate on a set of documents, present them to a federal judge and have the judge sign the order within 72 hours has, I'm afraid, no experience whatever at obtaining orders from federal judges.
And note what happens if the 72 hour deadline is missed. Suppose that the government gets the FISA application to a judge on time, but the judge has not yet signed the order when the 72nd hour expires. At that point, there is a forfeiture: the surveillance is to be terminated immediately, and information gained from the surveillance during that key 72 hour period cannot be used for any purpose--not even communicated to federal anti-terror employees--without a certification that it "indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person."
Given the complexity of the process, and the uncertainty whether a judge will actually sign an order on short notice even if it is presented to him in a timely fashion, the 72 hour "emergency" provision is completely inadequate to assure that surveillance can be initiated promptly, approved in a timely fashion, and continue without interruption.
There is a second, even more fundamental reason why FISA's 72-hour provision does not solve the "speed" problem. Note that even under a 72-hour "emergency" application, the government must certify that "factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists." That factual basis is the standard contained in Sec. 1805(a)(3)(A):
on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power
Now let's apply that standard to what must be a common situation where electronic surveillance is important: our forces capture a terrorist overseas who has a cell phone. Let's pretend that there are no procedural problems with the 72-hour provision, and that our soldiers can immediately begin intercepting communications to that cell phone in expectation of a warrant to be issued later. That won't do them a lot of good. There may be some incoming calls, but there will be no conversations to monitor since presumably our soldiers won't be answering the phone. So what they will be able to obtain is a list of phone numbers--numbers taken from incoming calls, and numbers recorded on the cell phone as having been called by the terrorist before he was captured. What we really need to do, to roll up the cell of which the captured terrorist was a member, it to begin monitoring those other phone numbers. Those are the telephones on which the other terrorists will be talking; among other things, they will be wondering what happened to their comrade.
But, as far as I know, the fact that a particular phone called a terrorist's (or suspected terrorist's) phone does not provide probable cause to believe that the owner of that phone is the agent of a foreign power. It could be the terrorist's mother; it could be his tentmaker or his landlord, dunning him for rent. Our soldiers could, of course, try to use means other than electronic surveillance to find out who owns the incoming and outgoing phone numbers; determine where those people are; follow them around and investigate; and perhaps, in some cases, after a lengthy delay, satisfy the FISA court that they have probable cause to believe that the person in question is the agent of a foreign power. That delay would have severe consequences. The optimum time to mine the phone numbers, and begin intercepting calls, is as soon as possible after capturing the original terrorist. This is, I would think, by far the most effective way to roll up a terrorist cell. But it isn't possible if probable cause for each phone number has to be proved to a FISA judge.
It's possible, no doubt, that in some cases the 72-hour "emergency" provision may work as intended. But, given what we know about the time it has historically taken to get FISA applications prepared and approved, it is obvious that there will be instances--unacceptable instances--where reliance on it will lead to a failed investigation. No wonder that President Bush was unwilling to put all of his eggs in that frail basket.
Sunny said:
What are they trying to hide? Have you tried to honestly answer that for yourself?
Yes I have, and my answer is they are hiding nothing, except sources and methods from the enemy against whom we are at war, and this brings out all the chicken little paranoia on the far left.
Says the "Dog"
Okay, Dog, so...the President is free to break the law because the paperwork is too hard? No wonder that August 6, 2001 PDB didn't provoke any action whatsoever; that paperwork is just too tricky! Oh, boo hoo hoo, I'm a superhero with a titanic codpiece, but my enormous staff and I don't know how to fill out forms expeditiously! Maybe I need more time to comply with legal oversight of my activities. I could go to Congress and get FISA amended...but I think I'll just ignore the laws of the United States in order to preserve freedom! 'Cause, you know, otherwise I'd have to sign my name on a goddamn piece of paper and everything.
ReplyDeleteWow, that is a compelling argument! Stumped by paperwork that the previous four presidents apparently had no trouble filling out, the President must break the law.
"he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," except when he can't figure out how to write cursive.
But it's "the Left" that's acting all chicken little over a President openly ignoring laws, while you brag about how he's doing whatever it takes to protect you from the scary terrorists that make you piss yourself. Nope, no projection there.
--mds
Anon/Mercury Said:
ReplyDeleteAs for Bush "protecting" us: Didn't work out so fucking well on 9-11, did it
Thanks to people like you, Frank Church, Democraps in congress, Clinton spending more time on getting laid than national security, and Sandy Burglar preventing actions to protect the country and then committing felonies to cover it up.
And yes I mentioned Clinton and his blow jobs in the oval office, because during his entire 8 years in office Clinton met with Monica Lewinsky more times than he met with the people in charge of protecting the country from terrorist attacks.
Says the "Dog"
Just more of the same old garbage from these people, but it's starting to get to the point where one really has to wonder if these people really have a clue what freedom, privacy and LAWS are all about.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone legitimately would question their trying to intercept calls from al-qaeda, but there is a LAW and a process within the confines of that LAW with which to accomplish that. And by not following the confines of that LAW, it raises a big red flag regarding the government's activities. That is why the FISA law requires oversight. That is why warrants are required in general...IN ORDER TO PREVENT ABUSE BY THE GOVERNMENT.
But, one may ask, is there any reason why we shouldn't trust the government? After all, they're just trying to protect us.
Sadly, there likely are many people who would say just that. And that is PRECISELY why we must call the government on this issue. One's naivete to entrust one's government on something like this is exactly why totalitarian regimes have come to power throughout history. In case these "ignorati" don't quite understand this, then perhaps they've forgotten that our country was founded on the premise that unfettered power by a single branch of government was the OLD way of doing things. The King George way of doing things.
Have these people completely lost their minds?!! This is very serious stuff!
Anon/MDS said:
ReplyDeleteWow, that is a compelling argument! Stumped by paperwork that the previous four presidents apparently had no trouble filling out, the President must break the law.
Well there was this little thing called 9/11 that the other Presidents didn't have to deal with. Perhaps you've hear of it? This 9/11 thing made the job of protecting the country a lot more imperative, and increased the volume of necessary activity by several orders of magnitude.
If Clinton had been more interested in meeting with the people charged with protecting the country from terrorists, instead of erecting walls to prevent the effective protection of the country, perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented.
Instead however Clinton met Monica for private meeting blow jobs in the oval office more times than he privately met with those charged with protecting the country.
No projections on the part of the chicken littles here. Nope. The sky really is falling and its all Bush's fault and not Al Qaedas. Bush is something over which the chicken littles can try to exert control, and that's far less scary to the chicken little types than an enemy who wants to detonate nuclear bombs in our cities, are completely irrational, and without a territory of their own to defend making retaliation not a viable deterrent option.
Says the "Dog"
That's great dog. So when your president sheepishly whines about his job being "hard work" as he did in the '04 debates, that is excuse enough to break the law. You are a moron if you don't think the admin's lawyers are incapable of providing the information for that "hard" application in 3 days. Of course that would be my argument, they are INCAPABLE, so they just go around the law like they do with every other decision they make. I've filled out job application longer than that in less than 3 hours, but we don't want it to be hard to be president do we. Like he said it would be much easier if this were a dictatorship, as long as he gets to be dictator. Apologies for baby wannabe fascists, that's all you offer. It such hard work...
ReplyDeleteSo a FISA application is no simple document, and Sec. 1805(f), notwithstanding that it contemplates an "emergency," provides no relief from the full filing requirement of Sec. 1804
ReplyDeleteRead the requirements again. From my count, at least 2 or 3 of the main requirements require the pasting in of a form block of text.
#2 for example, The authority conferred on the Attorney General of the US.. that is the same in EVERY FISA APPLICATION. Do you suppose the Attorney General has different authority to do his job every week?
#7 is quite clear that just about anyone related to national defense could be designated to approve this request.
I read all the requirements and though they look daunting if you don't actually read them, they are quite reasonable. From the detailed description, I fully belive I could fill out a FISA request in less than 5 minutes. If you doubt that, I'll write one in the space of a post.
Also dog says
"Yes I have, and my answer is they are hiding nothing, except sources and methods from the enemy against whom we are at war, and this brings out all the chicken little paranoia on the far left."
I'm glad you are so trusting.
Perhaps you can explain to us "dull liberals" why the NY Times are called traitors for simply mentioning that Bush flouted the law while Bush himself has given numerous details about what he might have actuall ordered? Who is giving sources and methods to the enemy? Do you think Al Queda didn't think we were trying to listen to them? Do you think the President should have attempted to defend himself by saying 'we only listened to calls coming in from forign numbers'? If I'm Al Queda I already assumed the CIA/NSA was trying to intercept my calls.. but thank you Mr. Bush for letting me know that my hidden cells can call me in Tora Bora without the NSA tapping the line.
Dog, your arguments would be funny if they weren't so sad. It must truely hurt to invest so much of your energy in supporting a group, only to find out that they have re-defined criminality, corruption, and incompetence.
Tell us, are you REALLY happy with the actions of the Republican party? Do they REALLY uphold your values?
Oh, my. The "Eurabia" bit and rising rule of the "Islamofascists" got a long run during the unrest in France late last year. What we confront now is fear of The Other coming from someplace out there to here, our homes, or The Homeland.
ReplyDeleteWhatever reasons put forth on the subject of the War on Terror and wiretapping (the latest error), all those reasons lay on top of a waiting, seething core of fear we are losing control of our world. This of course presupposes this is our world.
Great leeway is given and even more taken in confronting the chaos perceived at our doors and waiting to cross the threshold.
The problem when so many feel the fury of passion is that reason and the rule of law are first minimized, then disregarded, and finally forgotten. Process is too inconvenient to apply, even when process works. Oy.
A bit more on Steyn here.
Well there was this little thing called 9/11 that the other Presidents didn't have to deal with. Perhaps you've hear of it? This 9/11 thing made the job of protecting the country a lot more imperative
ReplyDeleteDog,
Thanks for reminding me of your other silly argument.
You seem to think that it was President Bush who has single handedly stopped Domestic terrorism in the U.S.
Perhaps you should step back and re-examine the facts.
How long was the last act of forign terrorism on US soil before 9/11?
The last time international terrorists attacked US Soil before 9/11 was the parking garage bombing in 1993! It took 8 years for Al Queda to launch another terrorist attack on US Soil.
Please explain how that was possible with Billy Clinton in office nearly the whole time?
Honestly, you are SO proud that after tossing our civil liberties on the bon-fire we've made it though roughly half the time it's historically taken international terrorists to attack us? We are just over half the period between the two Trade Center attacks.
In that time, we've lost over 2100 US citizens to terrorist violence. We've had nearly 20,000 Twenty Thousand Americans injured by Terrorist violence. How many Americans were killed and injured by forign terrorism between 1993 and 2001? Dozens?
The numbers don't lie. That Bushie is doing a heck of a job.
No, Dog, I lay 9-11 on the doorstep of G.W. Bush, who vacationed for a full month before his first year in office was up, who refused to act even when presented with explicit briefings on Bin Laden's activities, who didn't attend ANY anti-terrorist task force briefings, whose Vice President convened exactly ONE of those briefings, whose Justice Department marginalized and sidelined counter-terror activity, whose family's business interests are intimately connected with those of the Bin Ladens and the Saudi Royal family...
ReplyDeleteHe was in office for 9 full months when 9-11 happened, supposedly surrounded by the "grownups" and 'professionals''. And simple-minded chumps like you -- even now, after his botching of Hurricane Katrina -- cling to the delusion that this moron is capable of keeping anyone safe. You'll apparently believe anything.
On the other hand, maybe you really ARE a blog-commenting dog -- in which case I stand in awe of your language skills.
- mercury
Later in this story, we will learn that while the NSA had the technical capability to report on communications with suspected
ReplyDeleteterror its facilities in the Middle East, the NSA did not seek FISA Court warrants to collect communications between individuals in the United States and foreign countries, because it believed that this was an FBI role. It also did not want to be viewed as targeting persons in the United States and possibly violating laws that governed NSA's collection of foreign intelligence.
An almost obsessive protection of sources and methods by the NSA, and its focus on foreign intelligence, and its avoidance of anything domestic would, as will be seen, be important elements in the story of 9/11.
-9/11 report, p.88.
Read the 9/11 report's discussion of how FISA hampered the govt., it'll give you all something to chew over while bashing Bush.
Wouldn't it be closer to hyperbole than satire? Here's another example:
ReplyDeleteBLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.
DEAN: That’s not true either. There’s no evidence for that either. There is no evidence…
BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?
DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They’re not agents of Jack Abramoff. There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats.
ffakr: I think the reason for the Islamo-fascist tag is because of the influence that Nazism had on modern radical Islam. Al Husseini, who played a central role in the founding of the PLO in 1964 had previously worked with the Nazis in orchestrating anti-British jihads in the second world war. He broadcast messages on Radio Berlin calling for the extermination of all Jews, and among other things, blocked Eichmann's deal with the Red Cross to exchange Jewish children for German POWs, and came to be known as the "Fuhrer's Mufti" and the "Arab Fuhrer."
ReplyDeleteThe parallels in both ideologies are unmistakable: anti-Semitism, quest for world dominance, demand for the total subordination of the free will of the individual, belief in the abolishment of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community (in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism, the herrenvolk or master race), and belief in undemocratic governance by a "divine" leader (an Islamic caliph, or Nazi führer).
Al Husseini's nephew or grandson (can't recall which) was known as Yasser Arafat.
Go to http://elementropy.blogspot.com/2005/12/wingnut-all-star-mark-steyn-wingnut_26.html for all you ever want to know about Mark Steyn.
ReplyDeleteHey Dog, if the presnit and his ilk are so stressed by the paperwork requirement FISA imposes, why don't they just OUTSOURCE it? They do believe in OUTSOURCING don't they? I mean really, rendition is a sort of outsourcing too, and they certainly don't mind doing that now do they?
ReplyDeletethe flea sez:
ReplyDeleteliberals, under color of "protecting civil liberties", seem a little too anxious to set aside another age old axiom: "Innocent until proven guilty".
Nice try, flea. You make Grandpa Josef (as in: Josef Goebbels) so proud! Except that the real issue is not "protecting civil liberties"; it's "the rule of law".
"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply either, since the Preznit already publicly admitted his guilt, and even has pledged to continue breaking the law.
Ah, the pitfalls of choosing a moron as Der Führer. Jeb was such an obviously better choice...
Why do you profess such outrage when they've been doing it for so long? I agree that they're lying, but the reason they're lying and they keep lying is that no one calls them out as the right wing spin machine has more outlets than a lamp store.
ReplyDeleteIt is up to us and real conservative and liberal columnists to denounce these craven, zombie like defenses.
the puppy sez:
ReplyDelete[long cut-and-paste of trite, tiresome drivel from the NRC Politburo and one of its primary Politrucks deleted]
Nice try, puppy. With such a manly bark, you hold much promise to grow into a fearsome rottweiler. Of course, your NRC owners will never allow that, and, like every other GOP junkyard dog's, your fate is to be neutered and turned into a well-groomed, but sad and obedient robo-poodle -- with a berth at Faux News, if you're lucky. (Hey, they may even let you hump Anntrax Coulter's leg!)
Oh well, enjoy your freedom to pee all other this space -- while you can. I'm sure it's temporary. Let's hope that soon Glenn Greenwald and other smart contributors to this blog will conclude that arguing with GOP robo-poodles (aka trolls) is fruitless and a complete waste of time.
To paraphrase Rush Limbaugh, who knows a thing or two about the effectiveness of propaganda, conservatives e.g. "the puppy", "the flea", etc. should not be taken seriously. Instead, they should be ridiculed -- often and mercilessly.
(Dontcha wonder why "The Daily Show", Bill Maher, David Letterman, etc. are more effective than any Dem spokesperson at changing ordinary folks' perceptions of our Dear "L'état c'est moi" Leader ?)
Hey Dog,
ReplyDeleteHow does it feel to know that thanks to the modern Republican Party, you have committed multiple felonies just by posting comments in this blog?
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html
wow, what incredible polarity, what amazing tantra, what a dance to the death this all is.
ReplyDeleteI'm excited about the prospects for my daughter's future. I'm excited about the prospects for America's future.
On one side we have humans who have swallowed the cheney/rove lie hook, line and sinker. On one side we have humans who absolutely refuse to be taken in. And between them we have humans who aren't really sure what to believe.
Who will be first to die for their beliefs? You think this "Mark Steyn" person will die for his beliefs? Or the "Glenn Greenwald" person?
Or any of you other stupid fucks who don't realize we're ALL being funneled into a meat-grinder?
Social Engineering 101: The Seven Truths
ReplyDelete1. Be confident in the fact that the “rightwing” is the minority. A very loud and very dedicated minority. The Diebold vote fraud scandal is a fact.
2. The public is smarter than you think. Don’t buy into the socially engineered perception that the “public” doesn’t see the truth. Do your best to educate the stragglers.
3. The louder “they” get the closer we are to victory.
4. Happiness is not about how you look or how many gadgets you have. Stop watching television or do something to change the message. That’s a bubble that needs to be popped.
5. “Liberal” is a good word. Use it with renewed determination.
6. An attack by the rightwing thought police, pouring over blogs, sitting comfortably in their corporately sponsored office is ultimately a sign of weakness. Keep talking, you are on the right track.
7. Where’s Waldo…I mean Bin Laden? This magic show ends with a single question. We just haven’t matured enough to reach that point yet. Who benefits from the events of 9/11? The greatest act of social engineering was to convince the public that any info contradictory to this story is “Conspiracy Theory”. We’re not talking about UFO’s here, we’re talking about a long list of facts that just don’t add up. The answer is obvious to anyone with a brain. The only “wing nuts” here are those who have planted both thumbs firmly into their eye sockets so that they cannot see the truth in front of them. Get educated on the inconsistencies and connections. Don’t let them frame the debate.
And to the rightwing wing nuts who will retort…I’m not wasting a single breath in your direction. Move along.
I'll admit when my knowledge is lacking and my knowledge of Nazi and Middle-Eastern conspiracy is lacking.
ReplyDeleteThat said, Fascism is only tangentially related to anti-semitism.
The proposed in support of using the term "islamo-fascism" is that since the most noteable fascist regiem also happened to preach anti-semitism and racial purity then that's enough to make current radical islamists fascists.
Just because we supported the Northern aliance against Soviet Union in Afganistan should we be drawing comparisons beween Afgani warlords and the United States Government? We're talking about the most prolific Herion trafficers in the world here. Should we call US Administrations "Capitalist Drug Lords"?
Sorry, it's the best analogy I can come up with on a tight schedule but I think it basically outlines my point.
The basic and key points that make a fascist regieme Fascist are not present in fundimentalist islamic terrorist movements. Anti-semitism is not core to fascism.. it has been common to fascism but not core.
I can't fully explain it, but it really bothers me to see such consistent mis-use of an emotion trigger word like fascist to quash alternate arguments about a subject (islamo-fascist usually gets thrown out when the arguer is backed into a corner and they resort to 'if you don't agree with me, you support terrorism').
"calling for censorship and repression of free speech, direct hate speech at those who dare to have thoughts they do not approve"
ReplyDeleteThe Dog just piddled on the floor. Will someone take him out for his walk?
Idiot Dog, calling for professional standards of journalism, sometimes called "fact checking" and denouncing the publication of outright factual untruths is not censorship. Got it?
Hey Dog, your a good American. Here's proof: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11460.htm
ReplyDeleteHey Dog, thanks for bringing up Coleen Rowley in the discussion of FISA and 911. The fact that you cite her in your arguments tells me you value the brave efforts of patriotic whistle-blowers such as Rowley and Edmonds and those who exposed Bush's secret NSA spying.
ReplyDeleteThanks also for bringing her up because it reminded me that she is running for congress and has a web site, which I looked at and in just a few moments I was able to learn that your assertiion that ... "Rowley, the FBI agent who ran up against a number roadblocks in her effort to secure a FISA warrant in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the al Qaeda operative who had taken flight training in preparation for the hijackings."
is not true.
This from her web site:
"THE FISA LAW ITSELF WAS NOT THE REASON THE FBI FAILED TO INSPECT MOUSSAOUI’S PERSONAL EFFECTS AND COMPUTER FILES."
the caps were hers.
The FBI apparently never even went to the point of asking for a FISA warrant in the Moussaui case because an FBI lawyer never read the paperwork which would have indicated that the "20th Hijacker" had foreign terrorist ties.
Makes me think of the phrase "your doing a heckuva job."
Rowley seems quite upset that Consevrvative Bush backers are distorting her words.
I ask that others read her web site and continue to show how mendacious or duped Dog is.
I mean that with no disrespect, Dog, becuase I see you put effort into what you do, but you are wrong.
I'll close with thhis from Rowley
"Moussaoui did not escape inspection because the FISA law was not permissive enough."
Oh and this, regarding your Presidents choice for Attorny General:
In fact, Minneapolis agents were so convinced of the urgency of the situation involving Moussaoui that they requested use of this emergency provision, not the regular FISA process.
Unfortunately, this would have required Attorney General Ashcroft, who had just ranked terrorism as his lowest priority in early August 2001, to appreciate the danger and sign off on the “emergency”. And it would have required then FBI Acting Director Pickard to take the emergency request to Ashcroft after he (Ashcroft) had rebuked him (Pickard) earlier that summer, as Pickard testified to the 9-11 Commission, saying “he (Ashcroft) didn’t want to hear any more about terrorism.”
Thank goodness Bush is protecting us!
http://www.bostonphoenix.com/medialog/2003/12/how-stupid-can-you-get-this-past.asp
ReplyDeleteEven more dishonesty from Steyn, if anyone's interested.
nice response ffakr
ReplyDeleteI agree with you fascism is an emotional trigger word. To quote Mussolini "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of the state and corporate power."
Unfortunatly, those Americans who throw terms like islamo-fascist around, are woefully ignorant that it is their own country that is morphing into a modern fascist state with the veil of liberty and democracy wrapped around its evil face.
"the dog said"
ReplyDelete"If Clinton had been more interested in meeting with the people charged with protecting the country from terrorists, instead of erecting walls to prevent the effective protection of the country, perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented."
Just how true is this? The minutes from the 9/11 Commission said:
"ROEMER: You coordinated counterterrorism policy in both the Clinton and the Bush administrations. I want to know, first of all: Was fighting Al Qaida a top priority for the Clinton administration from 1998 to the year 2001? How high a priority was it in that Clinton administration during that time period?
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting Al Qaida, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.
ROEMER: With respect to the Bush administration, from the time they took office until September 11th, 2001, you had much to deal with: Russia, China, G-8, Middle East. How high a priority was fighting Al Qaida in the Bush administration?
CLARKE: I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/25/1537217
- If there was a problem in fighting terrorism, it wasn't with Clinton. But, I doubt whether anyone could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Even if the FBI had acted promptly on Moussaoui, they still wouldn't have known the identities of the WTC attackers.
Hey ffakr: I don't mean to be a dick, but I gave you several reasons for the fascist tag, that the foundation of the modern movement was by a man called the "Arab Fuhrer," who worked with the Nazis, and gave several parallels in both ideologies beyond just the anti-Semitism: quest for world dominance, demand for the total subordination of the free will of the individual, belief in the abolishment of the nation-state in favor of a "higher" community (in Islam the umma or community of all believers; in Nazism, the herrenvolk or master race), and belief in undemocratic governance by a "divine" leader (an Islamic caliph, or Nazi führer).
ReplyDeleteThis site is run by a lawyer, right? Assuming he didn't get his JD off the internet, even he should know that simply restating your original argument without responding to the facts brought up by the other party is a sure way to lose a case. I mean, simply repeating your original claim is like the behavior of a child (it isn't so, because I said it isn't so, and just to show you it isn't so, I'm going to repeat what I said).
My advice: take a logic class somewhere.
And to the guy who thinks terrorism was a high priority for Clinton, give me a break.
Anonymous said:,
ReplyDeleteI doubt whether anyone could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. Even if the FBI had acted promptly on Moussaoui, they still wouldn't have known the identities of the WTC attackers.
I agree it would have basically been just luck to have done so given the state of law and procedures that existed prior to 9/11. The Church committee reforms, Jamie Gorelick's wall under Clinton, and the effects of FISA that stymied the FBI in getting a look at Mousaui's laptop computer are examples of the kind that prevented detection before 9/11.
Regarding Clarke, your quotes aren't persuasive. Clarke actually testified/stated the reverse of those quotes a year or so prior to those hearings. Clarke's entire appearance before the cameras of the 9/11 commission were for two purposes: 1. By lying and making such inflammatory statements about the Bush administration sell his book that was released to coincide with his appearance. The timing of the release of his book and his appearance before the commission were obviously coordinated by the Committee and Clarke and his publisher; and 2. Clarke lied purely as a matter of small minded revenge as a disgruntled former employee who had been (in his eyes) demoted by the Bush administration when he was asked to report to a Black Women (and he thinks he's too good to ever report to any Black Woman), and then when he applied for the job of head of homeland security and then had the gaul to ask that same Black Women to help him get the job. He didn't get the job and basically resigned, did his book, told his lies, and made his self agrandizing and pompus appearance before the 9/11 commission.
Says the "Dog"
Hey Mr. A...
ReplyDeleteThat would be Richard Clarke, the chair of the Counter-terrorism Security Group and a national intelligence expert in the last four administrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke
Maybe it's just me, but I have to wonder why a person would make a derogatory comment about Clinton without including a shred of justification immediately following his comment to another blogger about responding to arguments with facts. It's a sure way to lose a case, I'm told.
Interesting comments, dog. Where did you find that?
ReplyDeleteDogfood:
ReplyDeleteIngredients
1 Horse.
chop or grind. Season to taste.