Read Here

Posted by: ARAKIS at December 29, 2005 9:34 AM

'Mr. MacMahon said he was so skeptical about the timing of the investigation that he questioned the Justice Department about whether some sort of unknown wiretap operation had been conducted'

They showed the DAY after 9/11?

Wiretaps going on BEFORE 9/11?

Your choices:

1. The President and his people WERE on the ball prior to 9/11, which puts the LIE to what a lot of people have been saying about him dropping the ball.

2. It was a continuation of what Clinton had been doing.

Why would one be right, and the other Wrong?

Posted by: Gary at December 29, 2005 9:36 AM

(1) and (2) are both correct. The problem, or at least a very substantial problem, is and has been the FISA Court itself.

On applications for warrants, this court modified only one Clinton-DOJ request, but has modified and/or denied 179 Bush-DOJ requests - beginning before 9/11 and getting worse thereafter. The FISA judges' backgrounds, activism and political affiliations tell the tale.

The FISA Court's overt attempts at retaining the Gorelick wall and usurption of Presidential constitutional power and prerogatives is also seen in the August, 2001 (pre-9/11) reluctance of FBI management to request a FISA warrant to examine the Moussaoui laptop computer which, subsequently, was found to obtain specific 9/11 attack plans and information (Google Coleen Rowley - Time to review Rowley's memo to FBI Director Mueller).

There is growing suspicion that the 'resigning' FISA judge, Robertson, may have resigned by request and, with or without Rockefeller, could be the leak source on NSA monitoring stories.

Lots of good work on this by AJ Strata (http://www.strata-sphere.com/blog) and Mac (http://www.macsmind.blogspot.com). Both sites have source links.

Posted by: Merry Whitney at December 29, 2005 10:49 AM

Mr. MacMahon is mistaken. The Constitution doesn't apply to immigrants. At least not until they become naturalizied citizens. These Muslims are basically visitors to our country that are allowed to stay for a certain amount of time. Thats why a lot of the Muslim students are told to leave the country, unless there are circumstances, like a major crime. The Muslim converts that were born here are another matter. The Lackawana Six, the Portland Seven, and Danny Padilla were all trained in al Qaeda terrorists camps in Afganistan. All plotted to bomb bridges and/or buildings in the United States. Padilla was looking to detenate a dirty bomb in a major city here. All had continued ties to al Qaeda. This act is treasonous by Constitutional muster. The president is give the duty of protecting the United States from her enemies who would do her harm BY LAW!!!. Mr MacMahon must be really dumb on the Constitutional duties of the president. If no one is over heard communicating with an enemy overseas, they would have a leg to stand on. But they were plotting with the enemy. Thanks to the wiretaps, an untold number of lives were saved. Benidict Arnold was a traitor. He betrayed our country to the British and paid for it with his life!!! These 14 individuals forfitted their citizenships when they travelled to those terrorist camps to participate in jihad against the United States with al Qaeda. An act of treason punishable by death!!! If this were done during the early years of our country's beginning, they would've been executed on sight!!! No ACLU, no CAIR, no CNN, no Jesse "Jackass" Jacksons, no Al "Slim Shady" Sharptons, no New York Times, Washington Times, nor Los Angeles Times. Only true men with backbones in the Congress governing by the law and rule of the Constitution. The Lackawana Six, Portland Seven, and Danny Padilla should count their blessings. This country is still allowing them to be tried by the same laws that they've rejected. Try that in Iran and see what happens.

Posted by: Ironman Hondo at December 29, 2005 11:08 AM

We are at war, and covert operations are a necessity. Overturning convictions of obvious terrorists would be the gravest miscarriage of justice and would endanger both our national security and our personal security.

Posted by: WatchfulEye at December 29, 2005 11:48 AM

I believe we can win this war without discarding our own Constitution. I also think that narrow understandings of probable cause in jihad cases could be the death of us.

We can win this war, the problem is that there are people at the NYT and elsewhere who don't seem to understand that we are at war. The person who leaked the NSA to the NYT compromised national security and put American lives at risk. The NYT took the lead on the Valerie Plame story which could lead to 30 years in prison for Scooter Libby. NSA leaker should get 30 years at a minimum.

Posted by: Roxane at December 29, 2005 12:14 PM

Here are the results of a Rasmussen poll about the NSA story.The American people understand what's at stake even if the democrat party and their allies in the MSM don't.If the democrat party and the MSM continue to run with this NSA story look for big loses for the dems in the 2006 elections.

_______________________________________

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Americans say they are following the NSA story somewhat or very closely.

Just 26% believe President Bush is the first to authorize a program like the one currently in the news. Forty-eight percent (48%) say he is not while 26% are not sure.

Posted by: Roxane at December 29, 2005 12:20 PM

We are at war with an enemy who:
1. Has almost unlimited resources, the Arab countries are all piling up billions and billions from oil revenues at $60+ a barrel for oil. This trend will undoubtedly continue. Compared to the limited resources of the US which slides further into debt at at rate of 1.8 Billion a day due to our trade deficits, a huge portion of which is imported oil.
2.Will stop at nothing to destroy us,including sacrificing their women and children as suicide bombers in the name of jihad.
3. Has declared to continue the jihad untill all infidels are converted or killed.

So,from their point of view they are winning because they have time and money on their side, and they do, so we need to take every advantage we can because after the next attack, after the next attack, my friends, we may not be able to recover to continue what we are doing, and what many take for granted now. The jihadists move and communicate freely over the internet, with pre-paid long distance and cell phones in phony names, they may get 10,000 phones all in the name of Mohammed, which may not be phony but there are millions of Mohammeds out there and more coming, we must unshackle the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA while we still can, the next attack will be too late. Hard to beleive why anybody could be confused after 9-11 and with what we know about these treacherous bastards now. This is war. Go back and watch the 9-11 tapes multiply that scene x 100 with a nuclear device. Keep weakening the valiant people who are trying to fight this war and 9-11 will come to where you live.

Posted by: tsweeney at December 29, 2005 1:32 PM

Nobody really wants their phone tapped. Legally or illegally. Especialy if you have done something wrong. However, if I was FALSLEY accused of terrorism I would WANT my line tapped illegaly if nessasary just to prove I was innocent.
It seems like the PC crowd wants to hamstring our justice and defense department at all levels. How can we fight a war within the bounds of existing laws when these left wingers are always interfering by court actions.
I dont want to lose any of my freedoms however sometimes I think we have to MUCH freedom in some areas. With freedom comes responsibility and there seems to be to many iresponsible people ready to abuse those freedoms for there own gain even if it means the loss of freedom for others.

Posted by: frodnum at December 29, 2005 1:49 PM

It's what I said. Add one Moslem, take away a little bit of freedom. Add a million Moslems, take away a whole lotta freedom.

Let us not waste valuable time figuring how many angels can dance on a legal pinhead; let us figure how we can subtract Moslems.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 29, 2005 2:18 PM

I would like to echo tsweeney's points above and also state that a strong offence is a good defense. The coalition has to make jihad a liability the ME can't afford. Until then, we will be endlessly fighting off attacks police-style. The current strategy only reduces the frequency of failure.

Posted by: kevin at December 29, 2005 2:25 PM

Guys I've just finished reading an article by a retired police officer of New South Wales, Australia on FAITHFREEDOM. It was one of the scariest and most desolate things Ive read lately. Depressing to the core. After such misgivings right under Howard's nose, I wonder what the overt anti-dhimmitude will contribute?

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at December 29, 2005 3:27 PM

I believe we can win this war without discarding our own Constitution. I also think that narrow understandings of probable cause in jihad cases could be the death of us.

I agree with Robert on this. First, let me say that I'm all for wiretapping terrorists, and I voted for Bush twice, so this is not Bush bashing. Some comments:

1. The Dems are all psycho on this issue. They are just playing politics and need to sit down and shut up. The impeachment cries are really over the top.

2. I don't know if Bush has the constitutional authority to do this or not. It looks like a legal gray area. Even Clinton's administration was arguing that they did have more authority. Given this, the impeachment cries are really over the top.

3. Even if he does have the authority, the question I ask is whether he had to exercise it. Clearly, this was going to get out at some point. Given the rules for the way FISA works (as I understand them), it sounds like you can get a warrant after actually doing the wiretapping, so what's the big deal with going and getting it? If you find something in the initial wiretap that's incriminating, I would think that would make it easy to get the warrant. If you don't get the warrant, it isn't clear to me what you have lost anyway. Maybe somebody can educate me on the way this works a bit more. I'm loathe to read the NY Times articles on this subject.

4. In any case, I reject the notion that criticizing the President on this issue is undermining him. I believe in the full Bill of Rights, including the unpopular ones like keeping and bearing arms. I have heard many of the conservative talk radio hosts arguing that we're only wiretapping terrorists, so it's okay. Right. But what's the guarantee of this? And, what happens when we suddenly aren't just wiretapping terrorists? Or say the definition of "terrorist" changes to the Cindy Sheehan kinds, which basically means all white males in the USA? What happens if Hillary sweeps the whitehouse in '08, or some other kook in 2012 or 2016?

In short, if we are are just wiretapping terrorists, great. Go get the warrant and get on with it. I'm all for wiretapping terrorists.

Posted by: Open Eyes at December 29, 2005 3:39 PM

It is imperative that jihadist/terrorist organizations that have come to America to kill our people be identified and thwarted in their tracks BEFORE they massacre our citizens. The only way we can do this is through extensive surveillance. It is not going to mesh with the requirements of the US Constitution unfortunately but primarily because it was written at a time when the problem we now face did not exist here. There was no way to prepare for something that was not envisioned, despite the Founding Fathers' exemplary record on nearly everything else.

We have been here before. As in World War II when Nazis and Imperial Japanese spies roamed on our soil, we will step on a few toes as we spy our way into ridding our society of enemy combatants, and we will hear about it as we are forced to do some things that are decidedly unconstitutional. But better that than millions in NY, LA or Boston or Miami being murdered in cold blood by terrorists.

The Constitution DOES say we all have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and we can not have the latter two if the former is not met. The Constitution here I feel DOES support the Bush Administration despite yowling by lefties and others.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 29, 2005 4:10 PM

Ok, everybody is 100% in favor of wiretapping terrorists. The problem is, under the current laws, probable cause is required to get a warrant, technological change has morphed way too fast for the current set of probable cause requirements to be able to keep with the array of communications that millions of jihadists are using and discarding each day 24-7. Say they bust some bomb factory in Pakistan and Osama jr. has a sat phone with 40-50 numbers dialed on it but 3 of those numbers are in the USA, without any other sort of corraborating evidence there is not enough probable to wiretap those 3 lines, even if we thought an attack on US soil was imminent. so what do do? you do what Bush did and authorize a Presidential wiretap based on the point of origin of those calls and the potential threat to US citizens. It's no small co-incidence that there has not been another attack here since 9-11. I just got a smart last month and I am bombarded with e-mails,text messages, phone messages on it, this is the first generation of smart phones, the ability to send data through many different channels is quickly evolving into a much faster thing, through countless broadband, sat phone, blackberry, internet,etc. and therby harder to track in a timely way. I don't think the people who are objecting to the use of these wiretaps understand the volume and speed of this data they are trying to datamine.

Posted by: tsweeney at December 29, 2005 4:16 PM

I find it difficult to understand the intense motivations of the lawyers.

I know that people are entitled to a defence..... but really!!!!!

Posted by: marilyn at December 29, 2005 4:20 PM

Marilyn, these lawyers are motivated by money and greed. For huge wads of cash, they'll defend anyone, including Bin Laden and Zarqawi. No terrorist is too terrible or wicked to defend for these money grabbers. And these lawyers have the luxury of knowing that they'll be financially made for the rest of their lives, and be dead by the time the consequences of their actions impact fully upon Western civilization itself.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at December 29, 2005 5:36 PM

If you have a problem with the fed's listening to your conversation, then quit calling the Jihadists. Dummies!

Posted by: Sharku at December 29, 2005 5:44 PM

I agree with Spirit of 1683--I'm 59 and have farmed all my life--papa was a lawyer and an honorable one--worked with the farmers all his life--my eyes were opened long ago about the legal profession--there are good lawyers out there, but I have seen enough. All men should be monks, or farmers, or both.

Posted by: bob the good at December 29, 2005 6:02 PM

tsweeny wrote:

Say they bust some bomb factory in Pakistan and Osama jr. has a sat phone with 40-50 numbers dialed on it but 3 of those numbers are in the USA, without any other sort of corraborating evidence there is not enough probable to wiretap those 3 lines, even if we thought an attack on US soil was imminent. so what do do?

Ummm... I'd go get a warrant and wiretap those lines. Perhaps I'm not understanding why catching Osama Jr. in the middle of a bomb factory is Paki doesn't constitute probable cause? What insane judge would nix those wiretaps? (Now, that's information I'd like the NY Times to make public!)

I just get the heebie jeebies when people want to hand essentially unlimited power over to the executive branch. I mean, please people, remember history. Hitler didn't seize power, the people voted him full control, using similar sorts of unusual circumstances as justification.

Even if you don't think Bush will abuse this sort of authority, what stops the next President? Or the next? Anything that relies on the goodwill of the one in power not to abuse his power is fundamentally flawed, as our founding fathers knew so well. Anybody with an attitude of, "they wouldn't be spying on them if they weren't terrorists" is making a fatal mistake.

As Robert said, I think we can actively fight terrorism without compromising on warrants when US citizens are involved.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to the range. ;-)

Posted by: Open Eyes at December 29, 2005 6:04 PM

Good questions, Open Eyes. I don't have all of your answers, but I do have a couple:

The President's constitutional authority is not a gray area, and he does have it (Article II, Sec. 1 & 2), both in 'vestment of executive Power' and as "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States; (...); and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

The 1978 Foreign Services Intelligence Act (FISA) is a mere act of Congress, trumped by the constitution. Neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch -- nor, for that matter, the executive branch -- has the authority or power to override constitutional provisions. But in any event, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling on Executive authority would preempt any FISA requirement regarding that power.

Your point #3, "Even if he does have the authority, my question is whether he had to exercise it ... Given FISA rules, it sounds like..."

Not so. Scroll up to the 2nd comment (mine), and check the links. There is a FISA court turf war in progress. As to "wiretaps," actually, that's not what we're talking about (regardless of how the NY Times & CNN report the story).

This is very high tech stuff -- think "Able Danger" and data-mining. Now, extrapolate that thought to a cave in Afghanistan, where a sat phone or cell, or a laptop, connects to a destination inside the US.

The Bill of Rights, specifically the 4th Amendment, is in no danger here. Warrantless searches are not, per se, unlawful. However, the impact of an unlawful warrantless search is on presentation at trial of evidence thus collected. Terrorism cases are not destined for criminal courts.

Merry

Posted by: Merry Whitney at December 29, 2005 8:10 PM

Who ever leaked this NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OUT BACK AND SHOT FOR TREASON!!

And the MSM needs to be deported as enemy spy's wonder what the islamic terrorist do to spy's??

This is treason pure and simple!!

It is called aiding and Abiteing the enemy!

Lets not pussyfoot around these monsters want to kill the USA and destroy our way of life and I AINT GIVING UP MY SHORT SKIRTS FOR A BUNCH OF WHINY LIB'S!!

Remember they all take a Oath that says to DEFEND AGAINST ALL ENEMIES FORGEN AND DOMISTIC!!

NOW WHO IS NOT UNDERSTANDING ISLAMIC TERRORIST ARE OUR ENEMIES????????

talk to the 3000 Dead from 9/11/2001 about wire tapping or freedom of speach...

OH YEA YOU CAN'T BECAUSE ISLAMIC TERRORIST WHO WERE IN THE USA KILLED THEM....

The MSM and Democrats give aid and comfort to the Enemies of the USA.........

Now what are the People going to do about it??

I say use their freedom of info act and post all addresses to where they live let them feel the heat.

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTYROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND TOGETHER AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AND FINNISH THE JOB AMEN

Posted by: Catherine at December 29, 2005 11:22 PM

l think the if there was an innocent person who was wiretapped without a search warrant you would of heard about it by now.. l am sure the legal beagles for the lawyers ucla would of found one by now. we can therefore assume that any wiretaps,etc was done very carefully to people who had contact with out of country side terrorists! Bush is right to demand the right to do this at his command. it seems the NYT and it's cohorts including the Dems should tried for treason! its hard enough to fight the enemy, but when you own is helping the enemy is disgusting!

Posted by: Lulu at December 29, 2005 11:28 PM

its hard enough to fight the enemy, but when you own is helping the enemy is disgusting!

Posted by: Lulu at December 29, 2005 11:28 PM

Gold Star for you today!!

Amen

Posted by: Catherine at December 30, 2005 12:47 AM