Walid Phares in FrontPage defends some controversial surveillance tactics:
"Use their systems, passports, citizenship, laws, traditions, books and media, create internal divisions among them, and inflict defeat on the kuffars [infidels], for in the current balance of power, all we need to do is to use their weaknesses as our strength." – Abul ala’, comment posted in the Al-Ansar chat room, September 2005.Opening the first salvo in the newly launched "battle of the terrorist surveillance," the Associated Press wrote: "President Bush said Saturday he personally has authorized a secret eavesdropping program in the U.S. more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and he lashed out at those involved in publicly revealing the program." When I read this far in the report, I thought the article was about finding who in America is helping al-Qaeda. The AP added: "He said it is used only to intercept the international communications of people inside the United States who have been determined to have 'a clear link' to al-Qaeda or related terrorist organizations." This would overlook homegrown jihadists, or those who infiltrated the country years ago and aren’t making international phone calls. Moreover, well-trained terrorists would not reveal their plans on international calls; hence, the administration will likely be criticized for not spending enough resources investigating internal networks of terror, those who will probably produce the next terrorist strikes. Obviously, the government – in a full fledged state of war with al-Qaeda and its allies – should be spending all possible resources to monitor, listen to, analyze, and act against potential threats. Despite that, the intelligence establishment has asked the president to only authorize 30 monitoring of possible cases since September 11. Most analysts believe al-Qaeda has 200 cadres operating within the U.S. Former Senator Bob Graham of the Senate Intelligence Committee cited this figure in 2002. Bush's ground troops have only tracked 30 of them, 15 percent.
That's why I was surprised as I continued reading the AP report that it did not criticize the administration for not doing enough surveillance of terror-related activities but for doing too much, or as it was framed in the media later: Spying on U.S. citizens! The argument was coined in pure theoretical – albeit erroneous- sculpture: The president was ordering spying on Americans, inside the country. Hence, he had – according to some – broken the law. Reading and listening to the surreal new debate, I thought of how al-Qaeda must be laughing. In one of his caves in middle earth, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri must be in disbelief, yelling, "By Allah, had we known we were barely monitored; we could have pulled out the big one!"
But America’s political debate is happening on a different planet: it’s about L.A. Law, finding scandals, and who can get a story out; regardless of reflecting on what we'll need to do to win the War on Terror. The new "story" was given a title before it is investigated: it is spying on Americans rather than being about gathering information on terrorists. So if the terrorists happen to be U.S. citizens (a citizenship no longer so difficult to obtain) their status of terrorist is overridden by their legal status. But the critics stated that it is not about the War on Terror, but about civil liberties. A president must use the FISA Act's process: ask a special court for authorization to wiretap a suspected terrorist.
Well, let’s examine the legal aspect before we look at the damage being made to Homeland Security and all American liberties by the promoters of this story.The legal debate
The administration says the "program is reviewed every 45 days, using fresh threat assessments, legal reviews by the Justice Department, White House counsel and others, and information from previous activities under the program." The president added that "it is designed in part to fix problems raised by the Sept. 11 commission, which found that two of the suicide hijackers were communicating from San Diego with al-Qaeda operatives overseas." But Senator and likely 2008 presidential candidate Russ Feingold, D-WI, saw it otherwise: "This is not the system of government we have and that we fought for," he told the Associated Press in a telephone interview." Yes, our system of government asks the chief executive to go through a court before gathering information on U.S. citizens suspected of illegal activities or crimes. But the issue isn’t about crimes or illegalities. And the issue isn’t about Americans who may have a connection with violent activities.
Indeed, testifying to the House Select Committee on Intelligence on October 30, 2003 on "Collecting Intelligence under the law," former DOJ attorney John Yoo wrote:
During wartime, the military engages in searches and surveillance without a warrant. We do not, for example, require the armed forces to seek a warrant when it conducts visual or electronic surveillance of enemy forces or of a battlefield, or when it searches buildings, houses, and vehicles for the enemy. Nor must military operations within the United States operate under a different rule.The question is clear: Are we or are we not at war with the terrorists? Osama bin Laden declared that war in 1998. The bipartisan 9/11 Commission wondered why the administration held off until October 2001. The jihadists are present within the U.S., including those who carry U.S. passports. So are other terror jihadists in Spain, Britain, Holland, or France. By pure rationale, the U.S. government has the duty to use all means (approved by war conventions) to resist the penetration and infiltration of the United States. Doing otherwise is unlawful, unconstitutional, and more importantly to the detriment of the security, and therefore the liberty of the American people. But regardless of any general legal argument, attorney John Yoo provides us with a technical legal provision. He writes:
Therefore, if al-Qaeda forces organize and carry out missions to attack civilian or military targets within the United States, government surveillance of terrorists would not be law enforcement so much as military operations. In such circumstances, when the government is not pursuing an ordinary criminal law enforcement objective, the Fourth Amendment requires no search warrant.So, legally speaking, the administration, while defending itself from a terrorist jihad, had to grant our would-be killers civil liberties. One must admit how difficult this task is: To fight a global and domestic war against terrorists who reject all laws of infidels, while using a legal system that wasn’t designed for these enemies. The American people have been left in the dark, because they do not understand how the enemy exploits America’s system. Now, instead of a discussing how to close those loopholes, the debate is famed around "the government spying on Americans."
While jihadist cells are constantly spying to find chinks in America's infrastructure, President Bush's critics are concerned about how America is watching the terrorists. So far, I haven’t heard a critic asking who are we watching? Or anyone requesting an update as to how many terrorists are within the U.S. So, in sum, they want the government to "catch" the terrorists but not to "watch" them. I must admit that if the 9/11 Commission was right on target regarding some fellow Americans; it is about "lack of imagination." For till further notice, I am not able to figure out how the U.S. can catch the jihadist terrorists if it doesn’t monitor them. And how can the defense and security institutions monitor an enemy in a state of war, if it provides them with the knowledge and the technology it is using.
The liberties of Americans are too cherished to be infringed. It is the terrorists' freedom that needs to be shrunk. We need to match our laws with the nature of the conflict, not allow the terrorists to use them against us. Laws are made to protect the people, not to be used against them by the enemy.
Al-Qaeda and the jihadists
Were the terrorists communicating among each other in the 1990s, and was the U.S. government able to detect them and disrupt their operations before 9/11? Obviously the terrorists of Mohammed Atta and their colleagues were free to communicate, even meet on U.S. soil for years. There was no War on Terror in the Clinton administration, no advice that a jihad was happening in the research of most of academia, and no court was instructed to indict Islamo-fascism before September 11, 2001. Presidents didn’t even need to develop techniques to monitor jihadists, since no doctrine on jihad was taught in military colleges. The country was on a different planet.
But Osama bin Laden changed the rules of engagement four years ago. The geopolitical reality changed, and laws had to serve the survival of Americans not to obstruct their global freedoms. Many questions are still being asked by the experts on terrorism: Are we fully prepared for them? Is our legal system, even when best interpreted ready to meet them? Apparently not: We are in a twilight zone. The Bush administration, inheriting a pre-9/11 American system, is struggling to balance between civil liberties and terror. But its critics haven’t moved past September 10th: They want to use a system designed against the mafia to play with the most lethal forces of the globe.
The public must be told the whole story and be left to judge for itself. Americans must be rapidly informed and educated as to the nature of this war, its length, the enemy they are facing, and the real threats that are clouding the future. I believe that the critics, in their rush to play politics, may have given the opportunity to America to open its eyes wide at Islamofascism. Indeed, I'd be more than interested in learning about "who the government has wire tapped and whose surveillance was not reviewed through the FISA process." Only then can we see the big picture.
Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is learning more about our system – not about the fact that the U.S. government has been monitoring them, but how little it has done and how easy it is to attack these measures within the U.S. system. The terrorists in charge of penetrating U.S. national security are better off this week than last. They would have learned how many times the president has authorized exceptional surveillance; we would have understood why the pressure was higher on terror between 2001 and 2005; and above all we would have realized that politicians in America (and their academic advisors) are detached from the reality of the post-9/11 world.
Al-Qaeda knew it was under surveillance in America, but it didn’t know much about that system. Soon, it will know and will use this knowledge to its advantage. While some among us are rotating their pre-9/11 planet back in time, future jihad is railing against another of its enemies' fatal weaknesses.
We ARE at war.
That is what many, many completely do not understand.
Mr. Phares writes:
"The American people have been left in the dark, because they do not understand how the enemy exploits America’s system."
And:
"Americans must be rapidly informed and educated as to the nature of this war, its length, the enemy they are facing, and the real threats that are clouding the future."
So, what's the hold up?
With regards to wiretapping surveillance, we should not forget that people can (and do) obtain cellular phones with U.S. area codes that can be used almost anywhere on the planet.
Since half of America has decided to not only sit out the war, but also to support those fools and knaves who will try and defeat America, it is about time the president should state the obvious.
The West is putting up with a list of bad actors from the cold war who keep bloviating in reaching for the microphone, from Edward 'not his brother' Kennedy to Hanoi Jane, from Clark in Bagdad, to Peanut Jimmie at a landfill.
The war is just continuing to heat up and we must continue to be serious in winning it.
"Americans must be rapidly informed and educated as to the nature of this war, its length, the enemy they are facing, and the real threats that are clouding the future."
So, what's the hold up?
-- from a posting above
An Administration whose officials have not studied Islam, have not read a single book by Spencer, by Bat Ye'or, by Ibn Warraq, and certainly not the compendium "The Legacy of Jihad," and whose guide, if not quite the espositos and other mesanostrans, has been Bernard Lewis, who in his 400page survey of "The Middle East" devotes 3 pararaphs, two of them exculpatory, to the treatment of dhimmis under Islam, who has been completely unsupportive of Bat Ye'or, keen not to offend personal and professional Muslim colleagues and with a history of misunderstanding of Islam (perhaps because his relations with the most attractive, Westernized, plausible, flattering, and altogether unrepresentative and misrepresentative Muslims have led him to not fully grasp as say, J. B. Kelly and Bat Ye'or (both of whom lived for long periods right in the middle of Muslim societies), have led him to misstate the Muslim past, and to misjudge the Muslim present. A great proponent of the Oslo Accords (he becomes irritated when reminded of this, or of any other little policy failing), a promoter of his friends and hosts (along with the ever-naive former C.I.a. head, James Woolsey, still determined to see "Wahhabis" as the problem, he wrote a Wall Street Journal piece proposing, without naming him, smooth-tongued Prince Hassan of Jordan as a plausible "Hashemite monarch" for Iraq, a country depicted as having been quite a pleasant and decent place until bad old Saddam Hussein came along, which is a complete travesty of the history of modern Iraq, with one act of violence and palace coup after another).
And then there is the failure of the Administraiton to articulate the nature of the menace, the scope and duration of that menace, because there is an unwillingness or inability to quite believe that Islam says what it means, that Muslims believe what Islam tells them to believe, that we have, all over the Western world, failed to listen to the real Western experts on Islam, including those whose works of course do not date, and who thrived, and were listened to, between 1880 and 1960, when uninhibited discussions of Islam were still possible. When Bush and Rice tell us that Islam is a religion of "peace" and "tolerance," and when the FBI goes out of its way to cooperate with CAIR, when the CIA boasts operatives of the mental level of Michael Scheuer (polite boy-scout who hasn't a clue as to Islam, but was the head of something called, with telling narrowness, the "Bin Laden" desk, when few in the press think they have a responsibility to study the canonical texts, and history, of Islam, and are perfectly satisfied to accept, and repeat, complacent assumptions about this "religion" that "must" mean such-and-such, when members of Congress, with a few exceptions, manage as well not to invetigate, as month follows month, as year follows year, the nature and teachings of Islam, instead perhaps harping on the error of Iraq without understanding the actual benefit that might be derived for Infidels from Iraq if only we pull out -- and let "Iraqis" be "Iraqis."
There is much more. But that's a start in explaining why so little has been done, among those things which Walid Phares correctly
identifies as being indispensable -- for Americans, and for all Infidels, everywhere.
"...create internal divisions among them, and inflict defeat on the kuffars [infidels], for in the current balance of power, all we need to do is to use their weaknesses as our strength."
-- from the article above
Sauce for the goose, sauce for...
Hugh -
Your comment below is an assumption, is it not?
I realize that you state this with conviction.
But do you really know this for a verifiable fact?
Do you know for a fact that every member of the current administration has only read Bernard Lewis and is totally unaware of any other information?
"An Administration whose officials have not studied Islam, have not read a single book by Spencer, by Bat Ye'or, by Ibn Warraq, and certainly not the compendium "The Legacy of Jihad," and whose guide, if not quite the espositos and other mesanostrans, has been Bernard Lewis, who in his 400page survey of "The Middle East" devotes 3 pararaphs, two of them exculpatory, to the treatment of dhimmis under Islam, who has been completely unsupportive of Bat Ye'or, keen not to offend personal and professional Muslim colleagues and with a history of misunderstanding of Islam (perhaps because his relations with the most attractive, Westernized, plausible, flattering, and altogether unrepresentative and misrepresentative Muslims have led him to not fully grasp as say, J. B. Kelly and Bat Ye'or (both of whom lived for long periods right in the middle of Muslim societies), have led him to misstate the Muslim past, and to misjudge the Muslim present."
See, I believe there are enough facts to argue, without having to make broad assumptions. I think what would be valuable is a discussion of the facts and education and influence of the current administration by only Bernard Lewis if that is indeed the case.
Just a general comment to follow-up from my postings from some other areas.
There is more than enough hard factual information to use in discussing the need to fight Jihad, and strategies to consider in fighting Jihad.
What I find troubling is those discussions that leverage assumption upon assumption, unnecessarily.
Credibility and national attention is going to based on working with facts.
Rhetoric is certainly more entertaining and more vivid reading, no doubt.
But in the long battle in the war for the hearts and minds of the people, we must be focused on the facts.
I have found the overwhelming success of Robert Spencer's books on Jihad and its religious basis has been by its uncompromising use of facts that explain, document, and provide specifics. That is why Mr. Spencer's books are so powerful and significant across the world.
...the failure of the Administraiton to articulate the nature of the menace...
Last night's presidential speech contained the following:
If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.
"...This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims – a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals – to de-moralize free nations … to drive us out of the Middle East … to spread an empire of fear across that region … and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield – and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaida to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.
The terrorists do not merely object to American actions in Iraq and elsewhere – they object to our deepest values and our way of life. And if we were not fighting them in Iraq … in Afghanistan … in Southeast Asia … and in other places, the terrorists would not be peaceful citizens – they would be on the offense, and headed our way."
He seems to understand what they will do, but not their motivation.
It is difficult to imagine that not one single member of his staff or advisors knows enough about Islam to be able to tell him what really drives the 'terrorists'.
So, as Americans aren't going to be informed from the top, and millions of Americans aren't going to tune in at 9pm Eastern time/6pm Pacific to listen to Dr. Phares...
Is that rapid education possible?
In order to be free, we must first be ALIVE. So the first order of business is to STAY ALIVE.
I shouldn't have to say that seeing how OBVIOUS A POINT IT IS.
But apparently there are enough dim-witted people (many of whom are Democrats and/or members of civil liberties organizations) out there driving a wrench into anti-jihad actions that we DO need to say this. One very signifcant and under-rated issue in combating terrorism and terrorists is the threat posed by SHEER STUPIDITY OF PERSONS IN THE US GOVERNMENT AND THE US POPULACE. Stated another way, anti-jihadists are up against stupid, uninformed people who may well have been misled by enemy jihadist factions penetrating our society. This is serious indeed!!!!
The populace absolutely has to be informed how critical is that we all get ourselves on the same page to protect our lives AND liberties from Islamic genocidists. That means we must establish the practice of spying on people in America in order to determine whether or not they are jihad-terrorists and intercepting their plans to kill Americans. 200 al-Qaeda cells is a frightening prospect as is the destruction they mean to incur on our people--and the thought that stupid folks could thwart efforts to halt that destruction.
Perhaps a few well-placed media public service ad and/or TV commercial campaigns would help in this matter. Many people probably haven't thought much about this and at first find the thought of domestic spying distateful. And if abused they would be right--spying COULD have ugly results. But of course as we know on this website worse things could happen if we don't HAVE ANY SPYING AT ALL GOING ON!!! The jihadists will continue unimpeded--and that would mean more mass murders....
Now that we have our priorities set, the question looms how do we manage to do this?
First by stopping those who want to kill us. One important way to accomplish this is to first IDENTIFY our potential killers and intercept their murderous activities before they strike. Now if someone obstructs us from doing this--and as can clearly be seen they ARE (again many of them Democrats and members of such politicsl pressure groups as the ACLU)we must take decisive action.
What might that be?
Perhaps we could begin a citizens' class action lawsuit that such political groups as the ACLU and the Democratic Party are endangering lives of MILLIONS OF American citizens by blocking the US government's actions to detect and thwart potential mass-murderers on American soil. Communication skills are EVERYTHING here. If a critical point is not spelled out perfectly there is very good chance it will be misunderstood and possibly thrown out. Remember we are fighting STUPIDITY here in addition to Islamic terror. We must not forget that!
A public service ad campaign to raise the topic with the public might help here. possibly Jihad Watch could get something like that going.
We have to get the legal system on our side! Our right to stay alive is at risk!! The courts will have nothing to preside over if Americans go extinct at the hands of Islamic terror!! Our right to find out who among us on US soil is plotting genocide against us can be plainly be made before judges and if necessary we must go to the highest courts in the land to see to it that we can spy on whoever we have reason to suspect is a terrorist and intercept them before they can strike and massacre our people. We must bring to the attention of the legal beagles WHY we MUST do this and WHY it is the court system's responsibility to protect American citizens from terrorists on our soil.
If we present our case as intelligently as Mr. Phares did there could be some light in this tunnel. Their MUST be judges in our legal system who will support our right to determine who on US soil might be terrorists and spy on those people--and intercept their deadly jihadist games. Stupidity needn't be the end of our world.
"Do you know for a fact that every member of the current administration has only read Bernard Lewis and is totally unaware of any other information?"
-- from a posting above
I know more about particular officials and what they have and have not read, and what they had or had not heard about, direct from them, and that's all that makes sense to say here. Judging by what I do know, the ignorance at the top, and the substitution, for a complete guide to nothing (esposito and mesanostrans and assorted "consultants") of Lewis (who dedicated a book to Harold Rohde), and the "Wahhabis-oare-the-problem" choir headed by Woolsey, and the "Sistani-is-great-and-there's-no-problem-with-the-Shi'a chorus at My Weekly Standard, and then of course there are the sufferers from the Weiss-Schwartz Syndrome, my description was accurate. Now, lower down, among some junior officers, reality has broken in, and the intelligent understanding of things is slowly percolating upward. How high upward, at what speed, I can't say.
9/11 was a damn rapid education for a lot of us, but most seem to think if we get rid of a few radicals the problem will go away. The President may not behave in the manner I would prefer but at least he can see there's a problem and he seems to understand it's scope. The Press is hopeless, I don't know what it's going to take to make these witless dhimmi's turn their back on the people who want to KILL them! As a result we have at least half of the country who seem to think 9/11 is a solitary incident and have no recollection or knowledge jihad in general. Meanwhile, bathist's run free;
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10529622
C'mon let's be grown up about this! For years we've known Big Brother was watching us as soon
as technology was available to do so.Now we are in a WAR SITUATION it is very important every surveillance method is used to track the enemy.
Reminds me of the hypocritical outbursts by E.U
Leaders who are 'SURPRISED AND SHOCKED THAT THEIR
AIRPORTS WERE USED FOR INTERROGATION FLIGHTS WHERE TORTURE MIGHT BE USED ON SUPECTS!!Dear oh dear. How many soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan must die, how many more bombings, killings and mutilations have to take place in our cities before we acknowledge the simple truth. OUR ENEMY IS RUTHLESS AND WANTS TO KILL AS MANY OF US
AS POSSIBLE IN THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIME. In a war situation you use whatever means you have to defeat the opposition. Before Peaceniks scream me
down will remind them I didn't invent this scenario-ever since the human species crawled out
of swamp/cave there has human blood 'n guts manuring the soil. Sad but true.
"We ARE at war."
-- posted by jeffreyimm
Oh really? If we are at war, then the analog would be that in WWII we sold weapons and ordnance to the Japanese and Nazis, and exchanged intelligence with them. That we actively imported tens of thousands of Nazis and Japanese Imperial soldiers, and then turned them loose on our shores. Yes, from 1940 through 1945 we even paid these belligerent soldiers welfare so that they could concentrate on their warfare.
SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT SWT
No, the word "war" doesn't capture what we're engaged in right now. We're involved in Jihad, that's what.
You see, in addition to redefining the concept of religion, Mohammed also redefined the concept of war. In fact, he melded the two.
Until we launch a successfully assault on the war of words, which we're losing badly, why, we won't even be able to name our enemy.
I checked primary sources, and can reveal to you here and now that FDR, Congress, the War Department, and the MSM did indeed name Germany, Japan, and Italy as our enemies during WWII. Korea, too. Vietnam, too.
Its high time the West got off their slumber and started to attack the enemy. The enemy is not at our door step; but inside the house. If no action is taken right now, its going to be too late.
Remember the Eastern Christian Empire with its capital at Constantinople??? One only reads it in history books. So, do we want to read what happened to our present civilization in future history books?
Our generation should act decisively and defeat Islam at all costs. We can criticize Islam for its lack of any intellectual achievment, its questionable beginnings, the horrible conduct of Muhammad, the Arab imperialism it carries with it, or its inherent evil & wickedness.
The critique of Islam should happen on all levels, till all who live in the enlightened western countries know the enemy within and act as a single force to defeat Islam.
Islam is our enemy plain and simple, the teachings of the koran are vile.
One could pontificate this forever, but I say spy , spy , spy
Project Echelon has been pretty much common knowledge for some time. So what is the big stink now?
Carolyn~ in a word: Elections.
A few more words: getting back control of congress from the Republicans. Who shall be painted as the bad guys no matter if all Hell comes down on the US.
Sorry. Been awake since 2am.
So true, Gary.
Looks like we have a war within too.
It is going to take a really big hurt to unite this country. (I'm afraid it will be sooner than later)
"We ARE at war.
That is what many, many completely do not understand."
The Constitution does not make exceptions to the Bill of Rights in wartime. That is something that far more people do not understand.
The Constitution was written by men who understood war, rebellion and civil disorder in ways that few of us can imagine. There is a silly argument that is popular with altogether too many people that goes:
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact".
True, but abandoning the Constitution is!
The president has assumed powers that no serious constitutional scholar would even attempt to justify. He has no more power to arbitrarily spy on Americans than he has to imprison people for unlimited amounts of time by declaring them to be enemy combatants. Scalia made this point in spades in his separate concurring opinion regarding arbitrary imprisonment.
Is Scalia an anti-American leftist hell-bent on sabotaging the war effort?
The president has foolishly committed an impeachable offense and he knows it. If he persists in this he guarantees victory for those who are hell-bent on sabotaging the war effort. Can this nation survive the impeachment of a president in wartime?
We're wrong to think that those high up in the Government here in the USA, and those in high places in the Euro communities are completely blind to the death cult that is islam. The PC world will collapse only AFTER the next islamic attack within our Western borders. Unfortunately, that's what it's going to take to destroy PC.. and who knows how many Western lives in the process.
People are fed up with the muslims, CAIR, and the ACLU. We really, really are. What muslims and their sympathizers and cohorts fail to remember is our 2nd Amendment...., at least in the USA. They should pay heed. Look at the Aussies.. great balls of fire... not going to put up with the Ropers raping their women, terrorizing their communities and sucking on the welfare teet. We in America feel the same way; we are just going to have to wait for several thousand of us to get hit again, before we can act, "legitimately".. for folks to say, "geesh, I really can't blame them"..
GWB can't get on a soapbox and declare what we all already know... and learned on 9/11 (that islam is a dumpster of hatred and a vile cult of death, oppression, destruction and mayhem)... We The People are going to have to be the ones to do that. And, we will.
Non-Believer.... what got us to this point? Tell us all... WHAT and WHO got us to the point we now face today? Was it:
Little old bingo ladies that flew planes into the WTC and murdered 3000?
Or those smarmy muslim terrorists?
It's people like YOU that have your head up your ass, and people like YOU that will be our doom. I surely hope you are proud of yourself. WE ARE AT WAR, you fool... rights can and will be suspended in times of war. Get over it, or move yourself to Fwance where they enjoy entertaining the terrorist enemy with smelly cheese and big welfare checks.
You make me ill.
APF,
Germany and Japan threatened freedom worldwide, Korea and Vietnam didn't. Jihad is war. Jihad threatens freedom worldwide. Although we can't point to a single government, we can point to a single idea. 50 years ago it was fascism, now it's jihad, islamo-fascism. But giving the war a name doesn't solve the problem of a borderless war. Time may solve this problem for us, terrorist attacks and sharia will push civilization over the edge.
I find it interesting that George insists that islam is the religion of peace on one hand; and whines that the patriot act has not mustered full support as he reminds those who work with him that the Constitution is a "god@amn piece of paper" as he is so fond of saying.
I also find it interesting that the FBI knew about Atta long before 9/11 and refused to do anything. In fact as I recall, the FBI agents were told to "drop it." Would the patriot act forced them to act?
Is my memory failing or did George say for the longest time that there was no clue that 9/11 as in the offing; then after a time admit that "yeah, sure" we knew something was going down after all?
If anyone doubts we are a war then take a little stroll down any Bagdad street. The "ping-ping" sound that you hear ain't rocks dropping in a paint bucket my friend! Yup, we're at war all right; no mistake about that one.
Somehow, I get the distinct impression that (be it Clinton, George, whoever)these folks running the show on our side are not serious about winning anything. For them, it seems to be a game.
You may rally round the flag pole for your guy in the oval office -- but he ain't gonna be there forever! Why the blazes you don't want to stop the jihadists with the laws on the books beats me.
After all treason is punishable by death and that means aiding and abetting enemies that seek to overthrow the country.
You don't need a patriot act to follow the law; just the stomach to obey it.
Again this whole issue smacks of politics > so what else is new.
If a leader wants to abuse people and the system of checks and balances, they can always do what Clinton did > he would unleash the IRS on people.
Opps, that's okay Clinton is a Democrat.
How anyone can be a politician is beyond me.
Project Echelon has been pretty much common knowledge for some time. So what is the big stink now?
Posted by: Carolyn2 [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 19, 2005 05:29 PM
the media has always given Clinton a pass, they are the mouth piece of the Democrats. there were senators on both sides that knew of what Bush was doing and this was with international calls coming into the US and US call going out to international calls,with known terrorist links.
As usual some still say Bush did not say enough, look at the start after 9-11, Bush said some statement about being a Crusade, and all the media, Democrats, etc jumped on the man for not being sensitive to islam!!! How can a president of a country come out and say... look islam a cult of death, we need to destroy it! the world, ie EU, UN would go more beserk! so Bush is trying to change things by bringing in democracy into the middle east. its a more difficult task, but on the right path. Bush knows the evils of islam, he knows it because of the word he used in the begining "Crusade"!!!
Lots of people know lots of things that they have either sworn not to say anything about; or know it would be political suicide to say anything.
Politicians are players no matter who is pulling the strings.
Would anyone really be "shocked" to see Clinton head of the UN? Is anyone really shocked to see Kissinger working for the house of saud?
And where do you suppose Rumsfield, Chenny, and George will end up working after they "leave politics?" The VFW? The VA? Catholic Charities?? LOL!
I don't think so. If they don't work as lobbyists for Senior Fox, they'll probably work with Henery.
Gad, Bagdad is looking better all the time -- at least you get to defend your own interests once in a while.
This smacks of the whole debate about Iraq. Either you view 9/11 as a crime or you view it as an act of war.
Those who view it as a crime cannot fathom why we invaded Iraq and I imagine those same people are the ones who are aghast at the fact the President spied on Americans.
Those who know 9/11 was an act of war understand perfectly that the 4th amendment does not apply to national security issues and are OK with what the president has done.
"the 4th amendment does not apply to national security issues..."
-- from a posting above
The fourth amendment applies to all acts of the government. But once you look closely at what Bush did to see if you think it could reasonably be characterized, under the circumstances, as a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on "unreasonable searches and seizures" one has a hard time finding what he did "unreasonable." It sounded completely reasonable to me. If this is an issue on which the Democrats wish to make a fuss, they are making a terrible political mistake.
And I hope they won't make a fuss. Not because I am on their side. But because I want the current American presence in Iraq to end, in order to achieve the only "victory" that can possibly be derived, by Infidels, from the situation in Iraq: a permanent crisis of jockeying for position, instability, and possibly low-level civil war, as Sunnis refuse to accept their new situation, and Kurds insist on retaining their new situation by not giving up a shred of autonomy to the central government of a mythical nation-state called "Iraq."
And if they attack Bush on this eavesdropping thing, his popularity will go up. And if his popularity goes up, then the misallocation of resources --- men, money, materiel -- in Iraq will be allowed to continue.
And in the larger scheme of things, in order to create a situation that will cause divisiion and demoralization and chaos and confusion within Islam, with non-Arab Musilms provided with the Kurdish example of throwing off the Arab yoke, and with Sunnis and Shi'a outside Iraq perhaps inclined to focus on co-religionists within Iraq, the West can buy time to educate itself about Islam, to prepare to do something much more drastic about the otherwise inevitably islamization of Europe, and to come to understand, despite the hideous E.U., and the clever exploitation by Muslims and others in Europe of the two pre-existing mental conditions of antisemitism and anti-Americanism, that once again the most sensible leaders (some as yet not known) in Europe can, with more presentable and articulate American leaders, renew the Western alliance, and the sense that there is a West.
My only question to these dingbats, is if you are using a cell phone your broadcasting on a public network, its not like the signal is private. So what's the beef? E-mails? Hah! We all figure some hacker is reading our stuff anyway, again what's the beef? I fear that something bad could happen because we may lose an interception of a "go" code.
"rights can and will be suspended in times of war. '
Do you understand what "unalienable rights" means? They are not gifts from the state. They are inherent in the nature of man and violating them is a criminal act even if, no, especially if the violation is committed by the president.
The Supreme Court consistently has maintained that rights are to be protected in times of war. Read Scalia's decision and see why the court had to come to the conclusion that it did.
Just Linda - I did not make you ill, you were born that way.
sheik yer'mami: What's there not to believe?
That Scalia maintained that the Bill of Rights still applies in times of war? If you doubt this then just read his decision.
If you are arguing that I don't believe that there is a war then re-read my post. The most serious challenge to western civilization is being mounted by Islamists right now and I agree with you that we are losing the propaganda war.
Doesn't it seem insane that we are losing a war of ideas with people who believe in the murder of infidels, who proudly decapitate people on television, who blow themselves up in an attempt to gain entry into paradise and who advocate the complete subjugation of the individual in every aspect of his life?
You cannot fight complete subjugation of the individual by using partial subjugation. Either rights are inherent and inviolable or they are luxuries to be dispensed with in stressful times.
If rights are truly important they must be protected in times of war as well as peace. The Founders placed no wartime exception to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They were not fools or tools of an America hating Left. They simply understood what "unalienable" means and they also understood how unscrupulous politicians would use people's fears to strip them of their rights.
Non-believer:
What good are inalienable rights to us if we are DEAD and cannot make use of them? The jihadists are doing everything in their power to see to it that this happens SOON!
If we do not fight jihad with everything we have in our arsenal we will most certrainly BE COMMITTING SUICIDE. The same sort of suicide you fear we will be committing if we abandon the Constitution! Non-Believer your goose appears to be cooked BOTH WAYS.
The Consititution states that all of us have the right to 'life liberty, and the right to pursue happiness'. JIHAD violates these rights-- something you have apparently overlooked. Unfortunately, the US constitution was written at a time when global jihad was so far removed from the minds of the Founding Fathers (who I greatly admire don't get me wrong) that no provisions were ever made to defend this country from it. The Constitution is in the case of defending American lives from jihadists of little help. Please understand that.
I have a right to stay alive AND a right to inalienable rights. We all do. But if the jihadists take over by military conquest or from subversion of our government I could lose BOTH. And so could millions of Americans and other persons throughout the free world. Lest you think I exaggerate, Islam has destroyed at least seven major civilizations throughout Asia, Africa and the Near East (I won't get into all that here but you can research this yourself of you don't believe me). The threat we face is real and ABSOLUTE.
If my right to privacy is impinged upon in order to stop the jihadists from committing mass murder on US soil I am willing to make that sacrifice. Aren't you? Rights in America have been violated before and have also been restored. I agree that it is crusial that suspended rights be restored ASAP in all cases. But you are being a big baby over this methinks.
A perspective from the Washington Times
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20621
"If my right to privacy is impinged upon in order to stop the jihadists from committing mass murder on US soil I am willing to make that sacrifice."
B.S.
It is not your right that you are willing to sacrifice, it is my right that you so willing offer.
The alternative of death or loss of rights is completely bogus. The jihadists cry is "submit or I will kill you", your cry is "submit or they will kill you". Have you have become like the jihadists, convinced that the only practical life is one of submission and obedience?
There is nothing new about fanatical internal enemies. New York had hundreds of thousands of Germans and German descendents at the beginning of WW II. The Nazi Bund rallies had tens of thousands of active participants. They dwarfed the number of Islamic jihadists in America and represented a far greater threat. Despite this, almost no sabotage occurred because ordinary citizens were constantly on guard, observing questionable people. That is the way that free people deal with saboteurs and terrorists.
Likewise there were tens of thousands of Communist agents operating in the US for more than five decades. They were enormously effective spies but none of the predicted sabotage ever occurred.
In both of these cases the threats were very real and very serious but little damage to individuals occurred. The only big losses were secrets that were stolen by Soviet spies who had government security clearances! The government had placed their stamp of approval on these security risks.
What Bush and company are unwilling to recognize is that it was government policies that made 9-11 possible. Could four hijackers armed with box cutters have overpowered two pilots with sidearms? No way! But to "protect" America the government had forbidden pilots to carry firearms (this was not a law, it was an FAA regulation that was less than six months old). Furthermore, the flight crews were instructed in the event of a hijacking to do whatever the hijackers wanted. Never did the government expect suicidal terrorists to steal planes and crash them into buildings.
It wasn't too much freedom that killed 3000 Americans on 9-11, it was too little. Too little freedom combined with extraordinary government incompetence. This is the same government that today demands greater unchecked power.
How many FBI, CIA and NSA people were fired after 9-11 for failing to detect the huge Islamist conspiracy? Answer - none.
To this day Bush has refused to allow pilots to carry guns and has done this in a typically deceitful way. It is not an outright ban, it is only necessary that a pilot undergo weeks of training at his own expense. Few pilots have the money or the time for such useless courses.
Do you really think that the FBI is capable of deciding who to spy on? This is the same FBI that refused to fire a Muslim agent who had outright refused to interrogate any Muslim suspect. Another Muslim agent refused to tape record a conversation that he was to have with Sami Al-Arian. Both of these agents are still employed. Insubordination in police forces is absolutely intolerable, yet PC pressures keep these men in their jobs. Can you trust a PC driven agency with such unchecked power?
Do you want those agents listening to your phone calls? What if they are traitors and are using illegally collected data to make a list of people to be executed after the Caliphate is restored?
Bush has consistently lied about this operation.
In 2004 he denied that any warrantless searches were approved. Lie!
He later stated that these were all emergency operations for which warrants could not be obtained quickly enough. Lie!
There is an emergency provision in the existing law that permits recording those conversations so long as a court is immediately notified and has the opportunity to review the request. If the request is granted then the recording is legal including the parts obtained prior to the court's OK.
Bush opted to violate the law because he knew that no court would ever approve the wiretaps that he wanted. In judging how appropriate these secret wiretaps were it is important to know that in over 4000 requests for wiretaps only 2 were refused by a FISA court. How bad was the evidence that even with a 99.95% chance of success, the government still felt it was necessary to avoid judicial oversight?
I wish that every thing I wanted to do had a 99.95% chance of success.
It is said that Bush believes that God called him to be president. Perhaps that makes him believe that he is above the law. His wreckless actions have jeopardized the war against the jihadists. How effective do you think Bush can be while being impeached?
Whatever side of this "debate" you come down on, first and foremost, I hope the reader will remember -- None of these measures would be happening if
1. Our leadership had not permitted vast numbers of Muslims to immigrate into America and Western Europe without first understanding the nature and character of Islam, and
2. Muslims had not proven themselves to be largely untrustworthy residents in the West...
If the reader falls on the side of criticising our Government for curtailing civil rights of all Americans, I would ask that reader to remember that blame should properly be affixed to MUSLIMS, who have failed, for whatever reason, to identify the traitors in their midst.
I, too, deeply regret and even resent the curtailments of my rights -- I, too, deeply deplore the necessity of enduring hours of waiting, extra security measures every time I travel, anxiety over the fate of my family, the fate of our brave fighting soldiers, the fate of my nation, for fear of Islamic terrorism, etc, because we have the "privilege" of hosting innumerable Muslims on our soil... These communities clearly are still harboring terrorists in their midst -- clearly still indoctrinating for Jihad, clearly still inhibiting law enforcement efforts to root out "extremists" in their midst... We see endless claims of victimhood, endless accusations of "Islamophobia", endless diversionary tactics to thwart our intrinsic rights to defend ourselves against onslaught and mayem at the hands of "Muslim fanatics..."
I am anguished to support these curtailments because I consider them necessary, but my resentment is beginning to smolder. And I agree, even with the most critical spokepersons that the price is far too high... though I affix blame squarely on the Muslims themselves...
If there is any truth to the claims Muslims make that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, despite the fact that all of these terrorist atrocities are enacted by Muslims in the name of Islam, and justified by them by copious quotes from the Koran -- increasingly I must wonder what possible value do these statements have?
Also, this cherished Muslim community in our midst is heavily engaged actively in thwarting our efforts to expose and eradicate the hatred filled fascists in their midst... We have seen a growing list of stories about "the leading figure in the Islamic community of..." who is "discovered" to be nothing more than a terror master at the epicenter of terrorist planning, financing, indoctrination, and recruiting... I am unaware of a single story coming to light in which the Muslim community was responsible for bringing these characters to justice -- Instead we hear their absolutely incredible bleatings, -- "I never would have suspected..." or "He was such a nice, pious Muslim!" or "this is just another case of Islamophobia..."
This article reminds me of what I said in this article
http://answer-islam.org/Islamicfundamentalism_christiantolerance.html
It is a very bad day when people question what type of war we are fighting. Al Qaida must be stopped at all costs or there will be no freedom for anyone.
A memo- to non_believer:
(although we're still not sure what it is you are a 'non-believer' OF).
So you believe that 9-11 occurred because of too little freedom? That is an illogical conclusion.
Virtually all Muslim nations are unfree and undemocratic by western standards, thanks to the nature of Islamic doctrine, yet virtually all governments in the Muslim world have no problem finding ways to conduct terrorist atrocities on their citizens to keep them in line. Furthermore Islamic terrorists routinely and clandestinely invade non-Islamic nations free or not and perpetrate acts of terrorism. The degree of freesom in a country apparently has little bearing on their capacity to commit atrocities.
As for 9-11 I therefore take exception to your statement that it occurred because of "too little freedom." 9-11 happened because counter terrorism officials and law enforcement agencies were unable to stop it from happening. Mohammed Atta and company were able to slaughter 3000 Americans because they were able to make use of freedoms including freedom of mobility (which they did not believe in) and hijack planes and crash them. You call this "too little freedom"? It seems to me that such people as the 9-11 hijackers deserved NO FREEDOM AT ALL!!They had absolutely NO RIGHT TO BE IN AMERICA EITHER!!!!
If anyone had too little freesom on 9-11 it was the US law enforcement agencies who were given too little freedom to stop these people. And people such as yourself would have proven, whether meaning to or not, beneficial to the terrorists' and their murderous actions. You have found a new form of political correctness to tie us up with here. If we are to remain safe (and democratic) from Islamic terrorists we cannot tie up these agencies and their actions (even if we do not always like what it is they are doing).
Safety of the populace IS a constitutional right that cannot be put on the back burner (unless you place a lower value on human life than most Americans). In order to stop people like Mohammed Atta and company it is necessary to first IDENTIFY SUCH INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR ACCOMPLICES AND THEIR PLANS TO COMMIT MASS MURDER AND THUS INTERCEPT THOSE PLANS AND THEREBY THWART THEM. You can't stop someone from committing murder if you do not who it is and who exactly it is they plan to kill. But since you seem to believe that rights to privacy, constitional searches and arrests and the like take first if not only priority, you and your political platform are probably going to undermine efforts to thwart terror attacks and thereby greatly increase the danger to the public.
Now for the rights issue in WW2. Yes, we had both German AND Japanese spies. What the USA at that time did was spy on those people and remove them from society--EXACTLY WHAT IT IS DOING NOW. I have no problem with that due to the fact that al-Qaeda operatives intend to commit mass murder of our citizenry.And to this day, there are lawsuits against the US government (particularly with regards to the Japanese-American camps such as Manzanar)for its human rights infringements during WW2.
Don't try to tell me that the US or any nation has able to remove a threat from its soil without infringements of inalienable rights. Because to date it hasn't happened. The rights that were lost WERE REINSTATED after the war. And I personally THANK GOD for the wisdom shown by the American government for following the practices it did during WW2! And as for our current war, with an estimated 200 al-Qaeda cadres in America plotting more 9-11 attacks I am as I previously stated personally willing to make sacrifices of my rights to see to it that they are stopped. You call that 'BS. ' Whatever you want to call it you can take it to the bank-- I stand by it, and I promise I will NEVER change my mind.
Do what you want with YOUR rights. But do not get people killed by interfering with counterterrorism. You could be held liable.
Now for Islam. You seem to think that Islam is no big deal in comparison with the Nazis and WW2. MISTAKE!!!!!!
Hitler himself was a great admirer of Islam. That should be a red flag....
The Nazis murdered 10 to 15 million people. AND THAT IS TRULY HORRIBLE!! But Islam over 13 centuries murdered at least 400 MILLION and took down whole civilizations with these hundreds of millions of largely innocent people. Hindustan comes to mind.
Islam is not merely saying to the world "embrace Islam or die." The Qur'an states-- and I quote-- "And when the sacred months have passed slaughter the infidels everywhere they are found; besiege them; capture them; prepare every stratagem of warfare upon them."
If you think that's nothing to worry about, on a NIGHTLINE broadcast an al-Qaeda manual in Ousamah bin Laden's penmanship was partly translated. al-Qaeda's stated goal is to 1-)CREATE A UNIVERSAL ISLAMIC STATE and 2-)KILL OFF THE WORLD'S FIVE BILLION NON-MUSLIMS BY BURNING THEM TO DEATH WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESRUCTION STARTING WITH THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITES STATES.
It was clear after 9-11 that THEY MEAN IT!!!
The most frightening thing about all this is that these al-Qaeda cadres could be building atomic weapons or EMPs on our near our soil under our very noses without our knowing it. We have to stop them whatever way we can. If we fail, they could physically destroy our country and render our Constitution meaningless. Something they are working overtime to make a reality.
We have inalienable rights to live free of threats to our existence like this posed by Islamic terror (and free of Islam). The US constitution guarantees us the right to life, liberty amd the pursuit of happiness. But that's little tough to do if you get blown up (which Islam means to do to us).
non_believer: If you or your political platform do anything to scuttle US counterterrorism efforts to identify, intercept and thwart terrorists and their missions to kill our people I will skin you alive. AND THAT'S NO "BS"!!!!!!!!!!!