|
|
December 23, 2005It all seems just a little too neat…By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (”Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. Signed Bill Clinton, Executive Order #12949 signed 2/9/95 This whole NSA/FISA non-scandal seems just a tad too neat, for me. It just seems too easy, almost indiscreetly easy. A president about whom the press has complained is not “forthcoming” and “will not admit mistakes” etc, etc doesn’t just get out in front of the story - he acts as drum major. Hmm? The president is a man who - for all his chucklemouthed mispronunciations - is careful about what he says. He doesn’t give much away. He is famous for playing things close to his vest…so…all of a sudden, he’s out there saying straight up that he ordered wiretaps (which by all accounts seems to be quite the right thing to have done). All of a sudden he is taking sole responsibility - he’s thrusting out his chin and saying, “yeah, I did it. Whach’all gonna do about it?” Of course, he had to know full well what “they” were going to do about it. He had to know that the left would scream in glee and fake horror and immediately begin to talk “Impeachment.” Which of course, they did - reflexively, unthinkingly, giddily. Seems too easy, doesn’t it? A Texas poker player suddenly shows his hand - and he does it confidently? Only if he knows what everyone else is playing with. The Democrats are too blind at this point, too intent on their feeding frenzy, too hobbled by hate, they have no more instincts and their perspective and their sensors are completely skewed. If they’re being set a trap, they can’t even see it. Perhaps Bush WANTS to get them this riled up and set for impeachment, in order to coalesce the base…or…perhaps he finally has data that he can’t wait to show and he wants to show it in a certain way, and take down as many as he can. If so, then some doggedly unserious Democrats, and all of the unserious press have taken the bait. Smarter pols are waiting to see how things play out in the public before commenting - we know who they are; they do nothing without first testing the air - and the smartest pols (there are so few on either side, it seems) will recognise that Gorelickian/Clintonian doublestandards have lost their charm and simply tell the NY Times to try straight reporting, for a change - but that may, sadly, be beyond their ken at this point. This is gonna be interesting to watch. Tom Maguire has the ULTIMATE, ULTIMATE breakdown and round up on this. A total must-read. AJ Strata writes: I do not have the transcript, but Sen George Allen said last night on Hardball that there had been a change in communications strategies by the terrorists due to the news being leaked, and the intel coming in had been impacted. The NY Times better pray that no attacks come of this news. But a normal response by the terrorists would be to accelerate their timelines because the Feds probably mobilized immediately to bring them in. This is not some partisan game the left is playing - it is deadly serious. Politically they are toast. Now the question is are the legally in jeopardy as well. Related: A year end round up of NY Times being over-the-top Seems to me if you’re consulting with congress a dozen times, if your predecessors claimed “inherent authority” and if your country has just been attacked, and you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, and anthrax is floating around…you do what you have to do to protect your country and your citizens. And please don’t tell me about “civil liberties…” Last time I checked it wasn’t conservatives shouting down liberal speakers at colleges, it wasn’t conservatives throwing pies in the faces of liberals, it wasn’t conservatives trying to get their mitts on a man’s medical records for no compelling reason. It is not conservative America but liberal and “enlightened” Europe that is prosecuting people for daring to criticize Islam. I’m not really worried about conservatives and my civil liberties. Although I will concede that I am concerned about some precedents set under this presidency, and how they might be misused by future presidents. But from everything I’ve read, seems to me this is one more “get Bush” story that, in the end, is gonna blow up on someone else. Because, as I said…it’s all a little too easy. And Bush almost seems to be enjoying this fracas. Section 1802 of the FISA law: “the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order… to acquire foreign intelligence information…” Heh…and seems I am not the only one who has noticed that seriousness is an issue lately: “Like radio’s six-second delay to catch obscenities, maybe Washington needs a 12-hour delay on the public comments of senators to spare the public’s ears of offensive inanities.” - Daniel Henninger http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/12/23/it-all-seems-just-a-little-too-neat/trackback/ 11 Responses to “It all seems just a little too neat…” |
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:33 am
Anchoress, I agree with some of your post, but must object to the “just been attacked”. That was more than 4 years ago, hardly “just”.
And let’s not cofuse “civility” with “civil liberties”. Throwing pies, shouting down speakers, etc is not civil, I agree-but neither is it an invasion of civil rights. Now taking someone’s private medical records IS- which is why some of the most prominent organizstions on the LEFT have spent considerable time, effort and money to defend against those actions.
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:48 am
Steph - “just been attacked” meaning, he got this in motion “within months” (NY Times words -) of the attack…when Anthrax was still floating around and yes, we were all waiting for the other shoe to drop!
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:51 am
This is like the chief of the volunteer firefighters, on his way to the firehouse, responding to an alarm. He gets pulled over and caught without his drivers licence on him. He is not impaired and his licence is valid.
And now, the city council council wants to have him impeached from his position, becaus eeven though he’s done his job, he’s from a different political party.
In fact, the worst thing that can happen to the fire chief is that he gets a ticket- no more than that.
Of course, there is a fire raging and if the jackass city council wants to take the time and keep him from doing his job…
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:29 am
Mmmmmm, you could be right. What’s that saying– “never play poker with a man named Tex…”?
December 23rd, 2005 at 10:26 am
What it boils down to for me is the fact that I trust this President. I believe that whatever he does, he does with my (as a citizen of the US) interest in mind. He has never done anything that I’ve seen to break that trust with me.
Until he does, and does it in a way that can be proven, I will continue to follow him as the elected leader of my country.
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:09 am
Henniger also observes, “The larger the challenge, the smaller our politics becomes.” How perfect, and painfully true.
December 23rd, 2005 at 12:00 pm
[...] The Anchoress is musing along those lines today: Seems too easy, doesn’t it? A Texas poker player suddenly shows his hand - and he does it confidently? [...]
December 23rd, 2005 at 1:24 pm
I have wondered a bit about Bush’s willingness, even eagerness to defend this program.
.
My bet is that we have gotten some really good intelligence from this, and it has been instrumental in preventing attacks. If the Democrats force such facts to light, it could really backfire on them.
.
Leave aside the damage they would be doing to national security, we can probably bet that some of the biggest victories in the War on Terror have been, in George Bush’s words, ’secret even in success.’ Making those victories public would be a political boon for Republicans.
December 23rd, 2005 at 2:09 pm
had the President denied, obfuscated or diced words with Ginsu-knife precision (the latter being a specialty of his predecessor), he would have been taken to task just as badly by the MSM. In a post-Watergate world it is not only smart but a sign of confidence and character (bordering on the Lincolnian IMHO) to step out in this way, clearly state what is at stake and dare his critics to fight him in the open. Or in poker terms: “the call”.
December 24th, 2005 at 9:49 am
The Clinton order ends….”if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.”
Among the certifications required by that section is that the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or a legal resident of the U.S.
Here is the rest of FISA, par 1802 which you quoted: “…if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party,”
Clinton complied with FISA. Janet Reno complied with FISA. FISA is the law which was created in 1978 to protect us from terrorists by creating a special court to authorize wiretaps where a “U.S. person” was to be targeted. That is the purpose of the FISA law, to provide a legal means for the president to conduct counterterrorism intelligence against American citizens. FISA was occasioned by the findings of the Church Commission which investigated the egregious abuses of civil liberties by President Nixon who wiretapped political enemies and lawful dissenters, including Dr. Martin Luther King. FISA was also enhanced by the Patriot Act for the same purpose. We have the laws we need to protect our country and we have the means to amend them if necessary. The law says these are the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance can be conducted against U.S. citizens to protect our country. President Bush decided he could break the law if he wanted, and he got caught. No President has “inherent authority” to break the law.
I should have thought anyone who mocked concern about American civil liberties by definition belonged in the camp of those who “hate our freedoms.”
The NSA is never, never, never supposed to be turned around for spying on the American people. This is not the FBI we are talking about. It’s three times the size of the CIA. They have been monitoring ALL international traffic by EVERYONE. That means mostly U.S. citizens and it means mostly people who have no “known links to Al Qaeda.”
December 24th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred - Faulty analogy. FISA even allows the government to obtain federal warrants retro-actively within 72 hours of an emergency wiretap. FISA and the Patriot Act were written to provide a legal means for the president to protect the country from terrorist attacks whenever that involved surveillance of American citizens. President Bush decided he could violate both counterterrorism intelligence laws with impunity and now defiantly insists that he will continue to do so. (What does he need with the Patriot Act, if he thinks he can do whatever he wants anyway?). He has created a constitutional crisis, because he evidently does not believe in the separation of powers.