Getty Images
Michael Barone has an excellent article today, dealing with the denial of the Democrats that al-Qaeda had any connections to Saddam Hussein, and that inherently America had no right to insist on dethroning the dictator, who has suddenly become an angel like figure who should have been left to carry on torturing his country's inhabitants. Simply to deligitimize our war effort
Why, for two distinct groups of Americans, has it become a matter of conviction held with religious intensity that there cannot have been any relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?
The Minnesota Democratic Party recently protested as "un-American" an ad showing military veterans and their families supporting the president's policies for saying, "Our enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida -- the same terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on 9-11, the same terrorists from the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, Madrid, London and many more."
The Democrats, unfactually, say that these words "make a connection between Iraq and the 9-11 terrorists attacks and suggest that the war in Iraq will prevent an attack by al-Qaida in America." But of course, the ad is factually correct -- al-Qaida is attacking Americans in Iraq -- and the Minnesota Democratic Party is in no position to guarantee that al-Qaida will not attack America.
The other group consists of intelligence and other career government professionals, many of them Arabists. Case in point: Paul Pillar, CIA national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, now retired, writing in the most recent Foreign Affairs magazine. The "greatest discrepancy between the administration's public statements and the intelligence community's judgments concerned not WMD (there was indeed a broad consensus that such programs existed), but the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida. The enormous attention devoted to this subject did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed." But the Senate Intelligence Committee report showed that the CIA did obtain evidence of an al-Qaida-Saddam relationship from foreign intelligence and open sources.
So why do these Democrats and these government professionals seem to have such a conviction that there must have been no collaboration between al-Qaida and Saddam?
[...]
Light on the Saddam regime's collaboration with terrorists will almost certainly be shed by analysis of some 2 million documents captured in Iraq. But, as the intrepid Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard has pointed out, almost none of those documents has been translated or released either to the public or to the congressional intelligence committees. It appears that career professionals and, perhaps, political appointees have been blocking release of these documents.Why do their superiors not order them released? Many Americans cling with religious intensity to the notion that somehow Saddam had no terrorist ties -- a notion used to delegitimize our war effort. We should bring the truth, or as much of it as is available, out into the open.
As Scott Johnson said recently: "The adage that politics stops "at the water's edge" has apparently long since been laid to rest. At the least, we need a new adage counseling American politicians not to defame their country or grovel before the potentates of the homeland of many of America's enemies."
Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us. The old laws that would prevent FBI agents from stopping the next al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were built on the bedrock of a 35-year history of dark, defeating mistrust.
More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate President Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities.Those who cite the soaring principle of individual liberty do not appear to appreciate that our enemies are not seeking to destroy individuals, but whole populations.
Al-Qaeda will certainly carry on it's terror, with or without proof of past collaboration with Saddam Hussein, but to remain agnostic on whether Saddam possessed stocks of germs and chemicals and had an active nuclear program prior to the 2003 American invasion, is simply naive, or even worse self serving.
The more interesting question, however, is why so many government professionals seem to have no interest in translating Iraqi documents that might show links. One possible answer, as Michael Barone points out, is that there are some who do not want to be shown to have been wrong about such a relationship. Another is that if some relationships are uncovered, there may be repercussions involving some countries we are not now ready to take a position against. Yet another possibility is that there are some in the government and intelligence communities that do not want to let any information that would be supportive of George W. Bush see the light of day because they are committed to his failure.
If I were a Rove conspiracy freak, I might think that this is actually the mother of all rope-a-dopes and that the longer Democrats are on record denying any connection between Saddam and terrorism, the worse they will look when one is documented and the closer to 2006 or 2008, the better. Any other theories?
Ron,
Good to have you on board, and I very much appreciate your compliment. I am delighted you are commenting on God vs Allah.
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 03:59 AM
Sorry about the 'chameleon' - I sang it as in the 80's tune to try and let you know it was relatively light-hearted. I wans't talking about your opinion, but that your characterization of yourself as just waiting to see what the 'experts' do about the issue, while I chase Greenwald around defending my 'team.'
Once again, I appreciate the sources, and will look them over. However, I have a problem, and an obvious bias. It isn't that I'm a Democrat - I'm a lefty but I just haven't met a Dem I felt good about. It's that I have an inherent distrust, as many do, of the Government - especially this government. It's not paranoid - Americans (like anti-war groups and environmental groups) participating in legal activities are, and have been, without a doubt, infiltrated and surveiled by the federal government. The legal intricacies of the issue do not interest me, because I've read FISA, and an administration that followed it would set my heart at ease. I believe that competent intelligence agencies can protect Americans while following the letter of FISA and submitting to judicial oversight. For this reason it offends me when you say I blindly believe Greenwald. I am totally, unequivocally, against Bush's warrantless spying program, whether it's legal or not - unless it can be proved to me that there is NO other way to stop terrorism... which seems ludicrous.
I do have to thank you for the availability of comments on your site, and for your incredible dilligence in replying. It seems kind of rare in the right blogosphere.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 03:39 AM
Ron,
You are exhausting, especially because you seem to be obsessed with this one subject, rather than participate in other discussions. (I have to immediately retract, as I see you on the great God vs. Allah thread. I am glad.)
I have never said that I do not have an opinion, it would be ludicrous to claim that, given what I have written on my blog, and my responses to you above. I do not need you to remind me, nor is it appropriate in this misleading context.
The point is however that "the final judgment", which I stated clearly, I defer to the final outcome, and you don't. To you as to Glenn, the final judgment rests with almighty Glenn's opinion. Guilty until proven innocent. I am not as arrogant as that. This is Glenn's blog ticket, although I am disappointed that he did not pay heed to my advice, and has let his comment section deteriorate, leading to now any opposing view being derided as 'trolling'.
I stand by the sentence I wrote.
To call a blogger like me a chameleon, is disingenuous in the extreme, and I do not appreciate it. I have never hidden my views or sat on the fence on any subject, nor does my defense of the President's authority constitute an aversion to being subjected to a final judgment.
As for the senators not being up to their duties, you are mistaken, they are just far too conscious of their political standing to continue a fight that they are very uncertain of winning. Bloggers like Glenn however, have nothing to lose, and if I am right, and he is preparing a law suit or an intervention of some kind, good luck; whether a success or a failure, for Glenn it's a win either way.
In any event, we are going in circles here. There is nothing new; only talk of activism, what more the opposition can and ought to do, which is of no interest to me. Nevertheless, I do recommend, that you re-read the more interesting parts of Glenn's comments section of old, with some challenging his assertions; now difficult to locate, as dissenting opinion is no longer tolerated or debated in his current echo-chambers (courtesy of Liberty & Justice liberal blog):
Another blogger points out:
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, March 14, 2006 at 02:31 AM
Alexandra,
I am not of the opinion that the American people are very well informed. I am of the opinion that the majority of Americans are against the warrantless program, don't trust President Bush, and don't think he has the power to authorize this program. So, given that, I am of the opinion that it is essential that an investigation go forward. As you have said, a clear argument exists that the President has broken the law.
You wrote:
I personally defer the final judgment, should it ever occur, to more qualified people. And that's the difference between you and me. You 'believe' Glenn and rally for the cause; I wait.
You wait? Karma-karma-karma-karma-chameleon, you come and go, you come and go-o-o-oo. You've campaigned quite hard here on your site against those who oppose Bush's power grabs. In quite a partisan way. You continually bring up "teams," etc. You title your posts on this subject "Enemies of the State" and "America's Useful Idiots." You accuse those who oppose the program of "aiding the enemy" and imply that those who oppose Bush will cause the deaths of thousands. That's why I started posting here.
I've always loved the idea that the will of Americans, the regular, sound-byte fed kind, is only expressed in our democracy at election time. Supposedly that's their moment, their only moment. It's "just talk amongst yourselves" in the meantime, don't disturb the important business of Senators and Presidents. There's no reason to wait for the election, since we have members of Congress who work for us to, among other things, provide oversight on our behalf of federal government activities. It appears that few are up to their duties.
Thank you, I do appreciate the links to opposing arguments.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Monday, March 13, 2006 at 05:24 PM
Ron,
Don't make me laugh. Any public, anywhere in the world, forms its opinion on soundbites. Deny that and our debate is over for lack of common ground established as common knowledge.
Besides, your own party confirmed this simple reality a few days ago when Reid and Pelosi appeared before the Democratic Governors Association to present the party program and define the message for the election. The problem discussed: Both Reid and Pelosi had six points prepared, most not even overlapping. WaPo wrote: "At one point in the conversation, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, noting that the two leaders [Pelosi and Reid] had talked about a variety of themes and ideas, asked for help. Could they reduce the message to just two or three core ideas that governors could echo in the states?"
You either understand or ought to have understood what I am saying or you weren't reading properly: The NSA controversy is based on intricate legal statutes from a variety of branches, involving both federal and constitutional law, with much greater legal scholars than Greenwald disagreeing completely on this topic, and from both sides of the aisle. In other words, this isn't a clear cut story, no matter how much Glenn purports it to be--mind you, he only manages to put forward such a convincing aspect of the issue after having spent 10 years as a litigator, specializing on constitutional law; just as your average you and me, huh.
And you now mean to tell me that the public reads and understands this stuff not only on fed soundbites, such as "Do you believe the President should be allowed to spy on Americans without a warrant?!", that these summaries are a reflection of the actual facts and procedural intricacies? They are not. They are opinions summarized in catchy soundbites.
My point is that we haven't as of yet had any definitive conclusion as to the accuracy of these various opinions, irrespective whether they are left or right.
Consequently, you are mixing apples with bananas: If your case is, that the Americans agree with the soundbites, "Should Bush be allowed to spy on American citizens without a warrant", then of course you have very definitive replies and opinions. But you still have not yet established whether that soundbite is a true reflection of the overall issue and complex legal facts in their entirety. And, as I have said before, whilst I believe that Glenn for instance, is doing a splendid job of presenting his version, his accusations, complete with legal supporting evidence, it remains just one side of the story, and that being the side of the opposition. Your case is, I think adequately summarized by this statement:
I have read equally compelling legal commentaries, rejecting the charges put forward by the opposition, which I believe are adequately summarized like this:
It is clear to me that this is a wide open debate, requiring highly specialized expertize and for that reason I say the public, including you and me, can not know the conclusion, because it hasn't been established, but obviously can choose to adopt any opinion put forward in the form of punch-lines, or as I call them soundbites from either side of the isle.
I personally defer the final judgment, should it ever occur, to more qualified people. And that's the difference between you and me. You 'believe' Glenn and rally for the cause; I wait.
As to trust. If what you say is correct, that most Americans no longer trust President Bush and the Republicans, then you don't have anything to worry about. You'll win the election hands down. If not, then your assertion was simply wrong. But it is pointless to debate this here. Even the legal experts don't agree, so who are we?
Some information for you to explore, since you are of the belief that the American people are so well informed, and seem to think they have thoroughly researched the subject:
The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens --50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.
Eavesdropping Ins And Outs [Mark R. Levin]
Executive Order 12333 - This is the Executive Order that provides NSA with their authority. Written by Reagan in 1981.
In 1982, The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled, "A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
In USA v. Bin Laden, the US District Court, New York, reads, in part, "All of the cases which have
established the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement (and which are
relied upon by the Government) arose in the context of electronic surveillance."Â This case rejected the
reasoning of a US citizen who was charged with crimes based upon warrantless surveillance done by the NSA and accepted into evidence the results of that surveillance, which went on for more than one year.
John Schmidt who was associate Attorney General of the US under Bill Clinton writes, "It's legal."
The Clinton administration argued it was legal. "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law
supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign
intelligence purposes," Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the Senate Intelligence
Committee on July 14, 1994, "and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General."
"It is important to understand," Gorelick continued, "that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities."
Executive Order 12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, provides for such warrantless searches directed against "a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
The FISA Court itself recognizes that the President has a right to warrantless surveillance for foreign
intelligence purposes. "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that
authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power."
Furthermore, USSID 18 clearly states that NSA does not need FISA approval for warrantless foreign
intelligence purposes. The Attorney General has the authority to authorize the surveillance if "the person is an agent of a foreign power" and the purpose of the surveillance is "to acquire significant foreign intelligence information".
Jimmy Carter asserted the right to conduct warrantless surveillance just seven months after he signed FISA into law. "An executive order signed by President Carter in May of 1979 reads, "The attorney general is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.""
Judge Posner, who is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer in
law at the University of Chicago says, "These programs are criticized as grave threats to civil liberties.
They are not."
According to one former federal prosecutor, there is court precedent supporting the view that FISA is an unconstitutional encroachment on the President's powers. "The Supreme Court reversed in a 7-2 vote, with only Scalia and Thomas dissenting. The Court held that Miranda was "constitutionally rooted," and on that account could not be modified by statute.
The Left was of course quite pleased with this result (which the Clinton Administration supported, causing my resignation from the US Attorney's Office). But it seems much less thrilled with the notion that the President's Article II powers -- which are not merely "constitutionally rooted" but established by the text of the Constitution -- effectively nullify any attempted limitation by Congress, whether in FISA or elsewhere.
Thus, in my view, it makes no difference what the exact provisions of FISA are in this area, because any of its language that even arguably limits the President's Article II authority is, under the rationale of Dickerson, invalid."
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 07:27 AM
When you write :
"I am not concerned, nor do I believe, that even a fraction of the polls that you quote, remotely understand what we are talking about."
Do you mean that those Americans who were polled don't understand remotely what we're talking about? The public doesn't "grasp the true extent of the case?" If this is the case, than it's an interesting relationship that you have with the American public... first writing that this is what Americans want and then, when the American people actually are asked what they think, writing that the sound-byte fed masses don't even remotely understand the issue. Damn, I thought we should at least talk like this is a democracy. If they're ill-informed, why is it that the majority of Americans agree that the NSA program is illegal? Many legal scholars and conservatives believe that the program and Bush's authorization of it are illegal. Just by the power of sound-bytes the majority of Americans are in agreement with Greenwald? I haven't seen much on this in the popular news media. It's more likely that Americans know their rights, there is the 4th amendment, you know. Many probably remember Watergate, remember the spying on Civil Rights and Anti-War groups... and see an eery resemblance and a feeling of deja-vu.
The polls I cited show that most in the US think Bush broke the law with his warrantless program. They also show that most people (a)don't trust Bush (b)believe he should get warrants when wiretapping Americans. Those Senators who blocked an investigation into the NSA program have let down their constituents, specifically Sen. Snow from Maine and DeWine from Ohio. Americans are uneasy with the program, don't trust Bush, and receive nothing from the administration to ease those fears except Gonzales dancing around after being excused from having to give sworn testimony. Of course, the job of overseeing federal intelligence activities falls to Snowe, and Hagel, and DeWine. A 45 day period review of the program, not by judges but by a senate subcommittee... whew! I'm sure we'll hear that collective sigh of trust all over America once they hear that sound-byte.
Of course, the administration has already made it clear that they don't have to listen to Congress in these matters... in fact, if doesn't matter a bit what Congress does.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Friday, March 10, 2006 at 03:41 AM
Ron,
I hear you loud and clear; and yes, I didn't address your point specifically because, frankly, I believe it can't be done in a black & white fashion--and I'm not dodging the bullet here.
From all that I have read and listened to thus far, I verily believe, that both sides have valid points in fact and in law. I believe that Glenn Greenwald for instance may have identified certain points of law, and I can understand, that once you've taken to that position, you'll run with it as far as it possibly goes.
But I also believe that the Administration acted in good faith, explicitly on a temporary basis and due to a number of legal statutes, which we may very well find to have been in conflict with those statutes upon which Glenn is basing his charge, within the law.
You ask, "Why give up your liberty, especially a liberty that has been abused so often with this same kind of unchecked power, without rationalizing whether it's even necessary?", and I shrug my shoulders and ask, which liberties have I given up? I am aware that any private detective can spy on me in ways far more draconian than warrantless wiretapping or any other civil-liberties-infringement-charge brought against the Administration.
My point is this, I am not concerned, nor do I believe, that even a fraction of the polls that you quote, remotely understand what we are talking about. They may have answered polls, which by definition can only ask the broadest of questions, but you are not really suggesting that they actually grasp the true extent of the case--they react to the bottom-line sound-bites which makes it irrelevant to me in respect to the actual issues, but of course highly relevant in respect of shaping public opinion, which I believe was your point.
Glenn understands the details and thanks to his splendid blogging effort more of us do now. But with a spin. Glenn and you guys make no effort to hide that this is a political move to wind elections and not that of a neutral legal scholar. It is therefore disingenuous to portray the findings and legal positioning as absolutes. They are not, and neither are those of the WH, as far as I am concerned.
It's a grey area, which I believe is further confirmed by the compromise reached on Tuesday.
Posted by: Alexandra | Wednesday, March 08, 2006 at 06:05 PM
So you think when Bush side by side with Tony Blair clearly answered this question - they both did - and said there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda --- they were what? Lying? badly informed?
Posted by: DavidByron | Wednesday, March 08, 2006 at 02:56 PM
Why, for two distinct groups of Americans, has it become a matter of conviction held with religious intensity that there cannot have been any relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq?
This is not a matter of religious intensity. It is a matter of ordinary and commonplace logic. You cannot absolutely prove that something does not exist.
In the absence of real evidence that there was such a significant linkage of Saddam and Al Queda, the rational presumption remains that it did not exist, and certainly no one intelligent has any business either asserting or implying that it did exist in the absence of such evidence.
As to fighting Al Queda, the last I heard, Osama Bin Laden went to Pakistan, not Iraq. The fact that we have not bothered to follow him into Pakistan might have something to do with why he is still at large.
There is certainly evidence that at least some of the people we are shooting at in Iraq are members of Al Queda. But there is plenty of evidence that there are all sorts of other people we are shooting at there, too. And I, for one, hardly think that the members of Al Queda in Iraq are busily plotting to do something in America. There are far too many good targets available locally.
So, there we stand, shooting whole bunches of people, after which we sort out who was a member of Al Queda and who wasn't, and check them off one by one.
Of course, since this whole enterprise has so far cost us $245 billion dollars, one could make a case that this approach to a War On Terror is not very cost effective--particularly since it is hardly likely that many of the leaders of Al Queda are anywhere near our line of fire in Iraq. And if there is any plotting to do big attacks on America, it is probably being done by those leaders who are elsewhere than where we are shooting.
Cost effectiveness, of course, is not our long suit. From all I can gather from the published reports what the NSA is largely doing is "traffic analysis"--automatically screening an incredible number of electronic messages for words like "bomb", "jihad", and "as Allah wills", like a Baleen Whale lapping up tons of plankton.
The whale, however, gets real nourishment out of every drop. I hardly think the NSA is so effective.
And then, of course, there is the possibility that we might have spent some of that $245 billion dollars making a serious effort to secure and protect the most vulunerable American targets. We have spent virtually nothing on this, or, if we have spent it, it has been to no purpose. Such targets are clearly not secure and protected.
To do this, however, would actually require us to think through what is the most likely way our enemies would attack us. And also to think through what kind of likely attack would do the most damge.
We would then have to give up our paranoid expectation that a stroke of evil genius like 9/11, is the norm of how terrorists operate. We would have to come down to earth and realize that genius in evil is as rare as genius anywhere else.
Then we would have to apply something like ordinary and commonplace logic to the problem. That means we would have to do things like relearn that there is no reason to believe something exists if there is no significant evidence that it does.
Now, frankly, it is a crying shame that we have wasted so much money and unintelligent effort. But it does have its good points, and, in any case, it is water under the bridge.
We are not going to get any more intelligence and effectiveness out of the Bush Administration however hard we may try. The limits of our leadership are something which we must endure for several years, and we will simply have to deal with the consequences, come what may.
But one of the consequences of truly bad management is that, sooner or later, all but the True Believers finally figure out that it is bad management, and start looking for something better.
I strongly suspect that this process has already begun. I also think that the really awful consequences of our adventure in Iraq are now inevitable. So I, for one, am far more receptive to the President's "stay the course" rhetoric than you might think.
For I want the "buyer's remorse" with the now inevitable consequences of Iraq to be burned so deeply into the consciousness of all but the True Believers that it lasts for a generation or more.
People then just might start demanding some more intelligence in our leaders in the way they run our War On Terror.
At the moment, I think I'm highly likely to get this, particularly if the President "stays the course" and we remain in essentially the same situation in November of 2008.
And, even if I'm wrong and staying the course actually accomplishes something, then something will be accomplished. And something beats nothing.
Posted by: Joseph Marshall | Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 10:39 PM
There has never been a war fought wherein it was not neccessary to take extraordinary precautions to prosecute said war. In this case it is vital to develop intelligence on suspected terrorists PRIOR to any commencement of operations. This is nothing new in warfare.
During every major war there have been steps taken that people don't like; it is part of sacrificing now so that we may live in freedom tommorow.
Posted by: Washington | Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 04:22 PM
Sorry, clarification: I wrote:
if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, I’ll be here opposing your applause, barring some significant increase in the threat of terrorism.
I meant if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008 and continues the Bush precedent of warrantless wiretapping, I'll still feel very compelled to write in opposition to what must be your continued support of the program.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 06:35 AM
I agree with much of your reply, Alexandra. Sure I'm glad Faris is in jail. They apparently caught him with foreign-domestic communications interception. GREAT! I wonder why you bring this up, because it addresses none of my points. I look around this room and wonder, who is she talking to? I stand up and ask, "Is there anybody here who is against intercepting the domestic phone calls of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists?" Everyone in the room looks back at me blankly, the look on their face says it all: "What the hell kind of a question is that, of course we're not!"
I'm going to put this in bold... I apologize. I'm not shouting, I'm not hyperventilating, I'm looking at you with a look that says, "please, I know I've said this many times, we both speak the same language, I respect you, I hope you respect me." They could've caught Faris 10 years ago by intercepting his foreign-domestic communications. That's because it's always been legal to wiretap domestically - with a warrant. Intercepting communications in the US isn't the issue - the issue is how they're intercepted: whether it's legal (with a warrant) and with some kind of oversight (the FISA court)
Sorry. About the bold font and the look pleading for substantive linguistic understanding. I know terrorists are a major threat - I know people could die in the future. I know we need to spy on al-Qaeda. These are all things I know, so no need to bring them up to challenge me. However, I don't trust one single branch of government, without judicial oversight, to conduct warrantless domestic wiretaps, wiretaps that are in effect, secret. As of now I don't believe this is necessary to combat terrorism. If that makes me one of your "anti-government paranoids," well, it seems to me that I'm with a whole bunch of good Americans.
My questions remain - is warrantless wiretapping by Presidential order necessary? Is the power Bush has given himself necessary to combat terrorism? Why give up your liberty, especially a liberty that has been abused so often with this same kind of unchecked power, without rationalizing whether it's even necessary?
So what about what Americans want? What about the majority of Americans not wanting a President who has decided he can authorize warrantless wiretaps? Americans have shot you down in the polls. Polls show that they're concerned with Bush's self-appointed powers... are they just not recognizing the value of an Executive branch that affords itself illegal powers?
As for your Clinton snippet… I’m just, really, not that partisan. Besides, it doesn’t have a bearing on this discussion. If Clinton had the wrong intelligence on Iraq, well, he didn’t lead us into a war in Iraq. Concerning warrantless domestic wiretapping, if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, I’ll be here opposing your applause, barring some significant increase in the threat of terrorism.
btw - since we were talking about Negroponte, the Bush-appointed Intelligence Chief, the czar, I came across a funny little article about what he does all day.
http://public.cq.com/public/20060303_homeland.html
“He spends three hours there [every] Monday through Friday,” gripes a senior counterterrorism official, noting that the former ambassador has a security detail sitting outside all that time in chase cars.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bon Jovi | Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 06:29 AM
Ron,
Steyn put it very well. It's very hard to fight a terrorist war without intelligence. By definition, you can only win battles against terrorists pre-emptively -- that's to say, you find out what they're planning to do next Thursday and you stop it cold on Wednesday. Capturing them on Friday while you're still pulling your dead from the rubble is poor consolation. For example, in 1988, a British SAS unit shot dead three IRA members on the streets of Gibraltar. The United Kingdom's Joint Intelligence Committee were acting on information that the cell was planning to blow up the changing-of-the-guard ceremony on the Rock. The two men and a woman were subsequently found to be ''unarmed,'' and as a result various civil liberties groups protested and critical TV documentaries were made. But there was no dispute that they were IRA members and that they had bomb-making materials in their car. If the state cannot take action until its sworn enemy uses those materials, it had better be prepared to lose the war.
Now let's sit here and have the democratic dream, totally unmoored from reality, wafting happily into fantasy land safe in the hermetically sealed Democrat-media bubble, and consider impeaching the president for eavesdropping on al Qaeda calls made to U.S. phone numbers.
Now here 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.
The Democrats and the media want to upgrade every terrorist into O.J. Simpson, insulated by legalisms and entitled to his own dream team. (Their figleaf, the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which previously denied not a single request, has turned down hundreds in the years since 9/11.) 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 Qaeda scheme to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. A "hardworking truck driver," he was introduced to Osama bin Laden while enjoying a well-earned vacation at a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan in 2000. At the request of bin Laden's aides, he researched the terrorist possibilities of "ultralight" aircraft. In 2002, he was commissioned by al Qaeda to return to America and procure the materials for severing suspension-bridge cables and derailing trains.
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.
But, if you want Iyman Faris in jail, you better consider how you're going to get him there -- because, as a rule, the only way you find out details of a terrorist plot is by intercepting communications. And these days that means electronic communications, like telephones. If Iyman Faris was sporting enough to communicate with his handlers in Pakistan through sealed parchment delivered by steam packet via the Cape of Good Hope, no doubt the Democrats and media would be happy to consider allowing surreptitious unsealing in international waters provided you got a warrant from the Hague.
As for Iraq, let's not endlessly hyperventilate, just wait and see. Why on earth Clinton's intelligence at the time, who as far as I recall played for your team, is being blatantly and may I say conveniently ignored by the Dems today, simply why, because he did not have sexual relations with that woman, is beyond me.
Posted by: Alexandra | Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 01:15 AM
Why is there always such a narrow, limited choice presented when it comes to Bush's warrantless wiretapping?
Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us.
This paragraph, from Alexandra above, is a case in point. It is either annihilation by our enemies, because the government is "hamstrung by civil liberties laws" or be protected by our government who "is coming to our rescue." Since she links to her post on those who oppose warrantless NSA wiretapping, I suppose she had this issue in mind. There is a couple of reasons this simplistic "this or that" approach fails.
(a) No one, that I have ever heard, is against wiretapping. This has had to be said over, and over again. Those who oppose warrantless NSA wiretapping are against the warrantless part of it. It's irresponsible to continually suggest that FISA or those who oppose Bush's warrantless wiretapping will result in American deaths.
(b) There has not even been a real suggestion that this warrantless NSA program is more effective than the legal way of spying terrorist communications. In fact there has only been evidence to the contrary - that out of thousands of potential leads, none developed. If we're going to let the President spy on Americans with no judicial oversight, shouldn't we at least be assured that it's worth it?
Here's another of Alexandra's "death by terrorism or submit to warrantless surveillance" statements:
"More Americans should not die because the peace-at-any-cost fringe and antigovernment paranoids still fighting the ghost of Nixon hate President Bush more than they fear al Qaeda. Ask the American people what they want."
This statement also lacks any suggestion of why Bush's warrantless program is better than the legal route. It also lacks evidence of what the American people DID say about the "antigovernment paranoids" side of the issue. Sure, you'll say you don't care for polls... but you're the one who said ask the American people. In one recent poll, voters say 55 - 42 percent that the government should get court orders for this surveillance. A total of 57 percent of voters are "extremely" or "quite" worried that phone and e-mail taps without warrants could be misused to violate people's privacy.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11367.xml?ReleaseID=880
This comes as less than 40% of Americans approve of Bush's overall job as President.
Another poll puts those who don't believe the President has the authority to authorize warrantless wiretaps at 51, compared to 43 who believe he does.
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_022706.pdf
This last polling statistic is what I, and virtually everyone opposed to the NSA issue, am arguing. I don't believe the President has the authority, or should ever have the authority, to authorize warrantless wiretaps. And the majority of the American people agree. They just don't trust George W. Bush, and I don't blame them.
About Iraq and WMDs and al-Qaeda. Why in the world would Negroponte want to withold any information contained in Saddam's audio tapes and other records? Let's take a look at this. He was appointed by Bush to Director of National Intelligence. He is working for an administration that would obviously use any kind of information available to bolster support for the occupation of Iraq, support that is flagging at best. So why the reluctance?
You write about this wealth of Iraqi documents like it is certain to produce evidence of both WMDs and operational ties to al-Qaeda. Barone writes that "career professionals" and "political appointees" are blocking the release of the Iraqi documents. These people are the Bush administration! Why would the administration want to block the release of any information that backed up our reason to go to war - WMDs? One reasonable answer is that it contains no evidence of WMD programs or al-Qaeda connections.
So far the only denial has come from those who support Bush... there still is no evidence of WMDs, no real evidence of al-Qaeda connections. If evidence is produced of these, and Democrats continue to deny their existence, well, then you can call it denial.
Posted by: Ron Jon Bovi Jovi | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 10:52 PM
Far too many people are confusing Bush with the war on terror-thus they dislike Bush therefore they must dislike the war on terror.
As someone who has spent a lifetime in the military/studying military history I can tell you that it is dangerous to confuse a man with the defense of a way of life. Bush has erred in many ways - but those errors do not include fighting the war on terror.
If anyone here understands what went on in World War II, when liberties were curtailed owing to a need to prosecute the war, that person will also understand that it was not permanent-that in fact personal liberty soared after WWII. War is brutal and unfair but if we expect our men and women to sacrifice why can't we sacrifice as well.
Posted by: Washington | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 08:32 PM
Samurai Sam (great name, by the way :-),
The terrified Conservatives that are willing to give up their civil liberties to the power hungry “Neo-Cons” headed by the nefarious Dictator Bush is a Liberal “straw-man.” I’m sure you’ll remember to refrain from using it in the future, huh?
The point is not that our democracy withers in the face of radical Islam but that democracies have a tendency to become complacent. We are the “sleeping giant”. It is very difficult to wake us up but when we are awake we are very powerful. The problem is that America fell asleep after the Cold War was over. We heaved a collective sigh of relief and proceeded to busy ourselves by looking inward and drowning ourselves in the trappings of material wealth: conveniences, entertainments, distractions, and the buzz of extravagance that went with the “Dot-com” river of cash. We elected a “hip” baby-boomer President who played the sax on late-night TV and smoked weed. We thought we were safe. We didn’t take anything seriously any more and we had no collective will to fight anything but empty and petty PC jargon battles.
What drives me up the wall is that Democrats (I could care less if they didn’t support the War in Iraq) just simply refuse to concede any point or lend any elbow-grease to anything President Bush does. It is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is so blindly partisan that it boggles the mind. Civil liberties guys, where were you when Janet Reno was sending tanks into Waco, Texas and burning all the Branch Davidians to a crisp? Or sending in the Jack Boots to snatch away a little Cuban boy whom the Justice Department was free to “pick-up” at any time? How about Clinton’s unwarranted domestic searches? Although, the ACLU did file a brief against that one, none of the Democratic Party’s “domestic wire-tap” doomsayers said a damn word.
I agree that we should conduct ourselves in accord with our Constitution and protect our Liberties at all costs. No argument there. I also agree that history shows that most people who have unchecked power behave very badly. Problem is that Bush has nothing even remotely close to “unchecked power”. If you believe that he does then I think you need to seriously (and fairly) re-evaluate the situation. Lastly, when people are talking about all the Civil Liberties that Bush is taking away it makes me think…Really? Which one have we lost exactly? A detailed list would be very helpful. Seems that no one can actually name one...hmmmm...very interesting.
Posted by: Stefan | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 05:30 PM
Alistair Cook in his "Letters from America" (August 11, 2003) refers to the time of the year 1998 concerning Iraq:
"The United States Secretary of State had just said, after a tour of the Middle East to recruit allies, "We should prefer to act multilaterally but if necessary we shall act unilaterally." So - which Secretary of State said that? Madeleine Albright, that's who!"
A similar thing has been said by President Clinton at that time, implying to do the same as has President Bush done. So now to blame all on the present administration by the Democrats is absolutely the lowest political prank.
Posted by: Lilly | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 05:01 PM
Samurai Sam,
What you say is without fault in principal, and without doubt in law. We are however in danger of splitting hair. If what you say does indeed encroach on the civil liberties of the U.S. citizen, rains must be checked in. If however, the concern is of a mere academic nature, as I believe the NSA issue happens to be, then the debate boils down to politics. Then it degrades to a battle over scoring points so as to sway voters by appealing to their emotions. It becomes an election campaign, devoid of much real substance.
I grant you, that the Bush administration has ignored many concerns from both right and left. There are many flaws and the state of affairs are far from being perfect. Many things could and should have been handled differently both domestically and internationally. I do however believe, that 9/11 was a wake-up call. And I do believe, that drastic changes predominantly in respect of our perception of Islam were required and that a stand had to be taken. This may sound all too unsophisticated to you, but sometimes the most obvious realities tend to present themselves just so.
I believe the democratic fabric of this great nation is in no threat of a dictator or any Nixonian abuse anytime soon; nor do I believe, that the issues at hand warrant real concern. I do however feel that politics have gotten in the way of dealing with the real issues.
Case-in-point: Conservatives are all too quick to blame Clinton for dropping the ball in the Middle East because of Lewinsky. My reply to them is in principal the same as it is to the NSA-et-al warriors: Had a way too overzealous Kenneth Stark not wasted President Clinton's time, he might very well have dealt with pressing issues more effectively. Now the boot is on the other shoe.
I also believe that this President lacks crucial statesman qualities, which, if present, would have avoided quite a large number of current hot-button topics. But what we must not forget, is that this Administration has been facing some extraordinary challenges, during which it showed strong leadership, which is what I believe was of the utmost importance. Many decisions were based on rather basic and fundamental principals, the results of which were bound to pose new challenges. Communication has often been terrible. But all of that I prefer any day to an overly refined, overly idealistic, and I hope if you forgive me if I say, overly intellectual approach in the given situation.
Posted by: North by Northwest | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 04:57 PM
Samurai,
The AUMF is not a blank check for the president to cash at the expense of the civil liberties of Americans, you are absolutely right. The NSA's terrorist surveillance program is narrowly focused on the international communications of persons believed to be members or agents of al-Qaeda or affiliated terrorist organizations. The rest is simply a liberal fantasy.
If the liberals feel that their liberties have been violated why are they having so much trouble proving it? Discussed ad nauseam by all liberal bloggers and the MSM alike, why not get closure, to what has been portrayed by some as a simple case of breaking the law.
Everything hinges on the volume of intelligence gathered and speed with which it needs to be acted upon. The cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses obtained after the Zubaydah capture, for example, were probably rendered useless within hours--presumably not enough time to seek and win warrant approvals from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court.
The terrorist surveillance program protects both our security and the rights and liberties we cherish. Your newly crowned dictator said in his state of the union speech: "the terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America." You obviously refuse to believe it despite having been given proof to the contrary, and nothing I can say will change that.
As far as I am concerned the president had the authority to use this effective anti-terror tool, and it would have been irresponsible for him not to employ this weapon to prevent another attack on the US. And herein lies the body of our respective strawmen, and our disagreement. Until that argument is settled, it's difficult to move on.
As for Iraq, just imagine if you had allowed Hussein & Co. to continue his cat-and-mouse game with the UN and the West at large - all the while not knowing for sure what Iraq's WMD status in fact was - remember, the chief gripe lies in the assertion that in order to justify operation Iraqi Freedom, the Bush administration had told the world that they knew for sure that Hussein had WMD at his disposal when, as you claim, they were in fact not as certain. Nobody claims that they had in fact definitive knowledge that there were no WMD at all.
As for your liberty vis-à-vis your security, don’t get me started on that, a little bit like NSA is Glenn Greenwald’s baby, this is mine, and my blog is full of lengthy dialogue on this issue. As I have always said, the liberals hate the President far more than they fear al-Qaeda, therefore any arguments of this nature will simply be filed as some sort of phobia on the part of the cons.
You in turn are advocating tolerance, which you think will buy you the multicultural civil liberty and freedom of existence to which you feel entitled to, and which you hold in high regard (the civil liberty that you think is being taken away from you by the president).
But the trouble with stipulating tolerance as your first principle is that you cannot possibly be faithful to it because sooner or later the culture whose core values you are tolerating will reveal itself to be intolerant at that same core; that is, the distinctiveness that marks it as unique and self-defining will resist the appeal of moderation or incorporation into a larger whole. Confronted with a demand that it surrender its viewpoint or enlarge it to include the practices of its natural enemies--other religions, other races, other genders, other classes--a beleaguered culture will fight back with everything from discriminatory legislation to violence. And that is a place I do not wish to get to.
Posted by: Alexandra | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 04:54 PM
Ask the American people what they want. They will say that they want the commander in chief to use all reasonable means to catch the people who are trying to rain terror on our cities.
Speaking as a liberal, I don't disagree with idea in any substantive way. I agree that the President should take all reasonable and legal steps to prevent terrorists of any faith or none from attacking Americans. The problem comes in deciding what is "reasonable".
I don't think allowing the President to exercise unitary executive power is a reasonable method to achieving these ends. I also don't think a preventative invasion of Iraq was a reasonable strategy either. At what point does the end no longer justify the means?
All you've done in your post here is build and burn the same liberal straw man that conservatives seem to love: The Irresponsible Libertine. A belief in peaceful prosperity and personal liberty are the ideals upon which our nation was founded. If we decide that, in the name of safety and security, civl liberties must be curtailed, then we've given Al-Qaida exactly the victory they've been seeking. We will have proven that our "Western-style" democracy crumbles in the face of religious fundamentalism. An unyielding committment to civil liberties is what makes up the character of our nation.
Fearful conservatives often need to plaintively question, then, what shall be done to protect us from the loss of American life, such as on 9/11? Everything within our laws, our Constitution and our fundamental committment to civil liberties must be the answer. However, that committment may cause to arise a situation where terrorists may be able to exploit our free society, as happened on 9/11. To that I say: So be it. That's the true price of freedom and sometimes Americans other than just our soldiers are called upon to pay it for the rest of us.
The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us.
Again, you're making a comparison to some imaginary position that doesn't exist. We "civil-liberties hard-liners" do indeed believe that it is always imperative to question authority. The reason being that history has always shown that those with unchecked power will abuse, regardless of the nobility of their intentions. Every dictator the world has ever seen believed they had a good justification for their limitless power. A quick study of dicatorships back to the Roman Empire easily bears out this truth of human nature.
Patrick Henry famously said "Give me liberty or give me death!" American conservatives have twisted this noble ideal into something more like "Give me liberty or give me life!." What kind of value does life have when you're willing to tell the Bush administration "Take my liberties away, take what it means to be an American away from me, so long as you keep me safe,"? If, as Bush claims, the goal of Al-Qaida is to "destroy our way of life" then what could be more destructive of that way of life than to allow the government to revoke our civil liberties in the name of safety?
Posted by: Samurai Sam | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 03:17 PM
I am truly concerned about protecting U.S. sovereignty above all else, when I hear individuals talk about the “Political Corrective” language of the Democrats or anyone who would propose putting this country at risk. As an amateur historian of WWII, just the very thought of “appeasement” makes me shiver with a cadaverous pall falling as a shroud over this great nation.
Reza F. Safa, a former Radical Shiite Muslim, said, “We’ve closed our eyes for far too long…” In his book “Inside Islam,” he also states, “Did you know that most radical fundamentalist Muslims believe: The Bible is corrupt, Eternal life is only attained by sacrifice in a holy war, Christianity is a naïve and weak faith, and Christians are cursed for believing in the deity of Christ.”
More apathetically inclined Americans (and that certainly includes a large portion of Hollywood who many individuals believe the words and not the intrinsic value of data) would gain from reading history or books written by Bernard Lewis, “What Went Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response,” and “The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror.”
If this country wants a Dantesque nightmare on its hands, then continue with appeasement.
Posted by: Edd | Monday, March 06, 2006 at 12:33 PM