I'll be "enjoying" a nasty case of strep throat that has more or less ruined my holiday trip to the in-laws in New York, but I sincerely hope that everyone has a Happy New Year... well except for liberals, who I expect will have another long disappointing year of paranoia, outrage, and failure.

Hey, everybody can't be happy...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Four months after Hurrican Katrina slammed ashore, the catastrophic destruction of the Mississippi and Alabama Gulf coasts have been all but forgotten by the media (and Wikipedia).

On December 14, the Sun-Herald posted an editorial, Mississippi's Invisible Coast asking for at least some media attention by focused on those outside of New Orleans.

It begins:

As Aug. 29 recedes into the conscious time of many Americans, the great storm that devastated 70 miles of Mississippi's Coast, destroying the homes and lives of hundreds of thousands, fades into a black hole of media obscurity.

Never mind that, if taken alone, the destruction in Mississippi would represent the single greatest natural disaster in 229 years of American history. The telling of Katrina by national media has created the illusion of the hurricane's impact on our Coast as something of a footnote.

The awful tragedy that befell New Orleans as a consequence of levee failures at the time of Katrina, likewise, taken by itself, also represents a monumental natural disaster. But, of course, the devastation there, and here, were not separate events, but one, wrought by the Aug. 29 storm.

There is no question that the New Orleans story, like ours, is a compelling, ongoing saga as its brave people seek to reclaim those parts of the city lost to the floods.

But it becomes more and more obvious that to national media, New Orleans is THE story - to the extent that if the Mississippi Coast is mentioned at all it is often in an add-on paragraph that mentions "and the Gulf Coast" or "and Mississippi and Alabama."

Read the whole thing.

The mainstream media has once again dropped the ball. It is up to us to tell the tale of a battered land and a proud people outside of New Orleans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

What this NSA executive order matter will boil down to in the end is a separation of powers issue.

Did Congress have the legal authority to bind the Office of the Presidency in conducting warrantless searches performed for national security reasons, stripping the executive branch of an inherent constitutional power?

Every President from the dawn of international wire communications well over 100 years ago until 1978 assumed this right, and the courts have always deferred to this particular power inherent to the Presidency. This is supported by case law and precedent, and is summed up in the five-page Department of Justice briefing (PDF) delivered last week. In short, the Department of Justice seems willing to make the case that Bush was well within his constitutional powers. If anything, Congress may have exceeded their constitutional powers in passing FISA.

Even after passing FISA, Carter himself did not feel strictly bound by it, nor has any President since, from Reagan, to George H. W. Bush, Clinton, to George W. Bush. They have all asserted (and over the past two weeks, their DoJ attorneys have as well) that the Office of the Presidency has the Constitutional authority to authorize warrantless intercepts of foreign intelligence. This power has been assumed by every president of the modern age before them, dating back, presumably to the Great Eastern's success in 1866 of laying the first successful transatlantic telegraph cable. From Johnson, then, through Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland (again), McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and Taft, through Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, to FDR and on to Truman, Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and into the Carter administration, the Presidency has had the inherent and unchallenged power to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign powers for national security reasons.

This is a simple, unassailable fact, not matter how loudly demagogues shriek.

FISA is a case of Congress infringing upon the inherent power of the executive branch, and if it comes up as a direct constitutional challenge, FISA will most likely be struck down as Congress infringing upon the constitutional authority of the executive branch to perform foreign intelligence functions.

By creating and using this executive order, Bush merely used a right the executive branch has always maintained since the very first "President George" in 1789.

Note: While I've made the specific case of warrantless wiretapping authority by the President back to Andrew Johnson in 1866, Robert F. Turner in WSJ.com's OpinionJournal takes the case back 216 years to another George's Administration, and beyond that back to Ben Franklin the Continental Congress in 1776.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:34 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 4 kb.

Like addicts jonesing for a fix, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the NY Times just can't help themselves:

Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

If I understand things correctly (and let's be honest, no blogger nor journalist has seen the executive order), the President's order was for national security-related wiretaps, not criminal-prosecution-related wiretaps.

Odds are that all of those terrorists convicted were done so using information from criminal wiretaps obtained via 5,645 requests that were made to FISA courts. This distinction is an important one, and if accurate, utterly undermines the case made by Risen and Lichtblau.

Woe be to Arthur Ochs "Pinch" Sulzberger.

His reporters are putting the paper in a position where casual (and many not so casual) readers are going to think that the Times utter disregard for the nation's security has morphed into grandstanding, even cheerleading support for convicted al Qaeda terrorists, while not offering any support for either the Times long-running political case against the president, nor the terrorist's attempt to slip prosecution by any means necessary.

Karl Rove simply isn't paying him enough.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

David Bernstein notes over at The Volokh Conspiracy that there is distinct possibility that Israel will strike Iran within the next few months in an effort to disrupt or destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions. As Bernstein himself notes, "this is hardly an original insight."

The Iranians certainly know this, which is why they've entered into a deal to buy 29 TOR-M1 mobile air defense missile systems (another source strongly suggests that the actual number is actually 32 TOR-M1 systems, or the equivalent of two regiments).

Despite the deployment of these new systems however, Israel will not only probably engage Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with the international community falter, they will likely succeed.

Despite the commentary of some "experts," to the contrary, the Israeli Air Force has significant deep strike capability. According to Global Security, the IAF currently has 25 advanced multi-role F-15I "Ra'am" (Thunder) strike fighters, a custom built Israeli variant of the American F-15E Strike Eagle that can carry the 5,000 pound GBU-28 "Bunker Buster" capable of penetrating 20 feet of concrete or more than 100 feet of earth. Congress was alerted to the possible sale of 100 GBU-28s and supporting equipment in in April of 2005, and did not object, making it reasonable to conclude that the IAF probably has both the strike aircraft and the weaponry to take out the most heavily-fortified of Iranian facilities.

IAF F-16I "Soufa" (Storm)

In addition to the deep strike/deep penetration capability of GBU-28-armed F-15Is, the IAF also has "nearly 50" of the highly advanced F16I "Soufa" (Storm) two-seat, long-range interdictors most recognizable for two conformal fuel tanks mounted on the upper fuselage as seen in the image above. These F-16Is are equipped with long-range AMRAAM and short range Python 5 imaging infrared-guided high agility dogfighting missiles in an air-to-air role, or a mix of HARM anti-radiation missiles, Maverick air-to ground missiles, and a large variety of unguided and guided bombs

If Israel opts for a aerial assault, these roughly 75 planes should be more than a match for any air defenses Iran can project. Iranian airpower has suffered significantly since the shah's regime in the 1970s, and land-based radar and SAM capabilities are probably insufficient to the task of defending against modern strike packages.

If Israel opts for an early March strike as some sources suggest, we will know both Israel's and Iran's capabilities in very short order.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:45 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 403 words, total size 3 kb.

The kerfluffle around Bush's executive order to the NSA just keeps getting more and more interestingÂ…

On Christmas Eve, Stewart Powell of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer released a column showing that the secret FISA court that is supposed to approve government surveillance efforts was apparently exceeding its authority, forcing the Administration to go around a judicial roadblock to protect the American people:

Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

If the FISA court was being dangerously obstructionist in the Administration's view, then the President would appear to not just have a right, but a Constitutional responsibility to go around the court if he felt American lives were at risk. To act otherwise would be criminal negligence, would it not?

Today's neo-copperheads can't be trusted in matters of national defense, and seem more intent on proving that fact for the foreseeable future. Marshall Grossman vividly proves that point in this article today at The Huffington Post.

Grossman—University of Maryland English Professor Marshall Grossman—apparently doesn't possess the reading comprehension needed to discern the meaning of the following sentence and apply it properly to today's world:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The above is of course the Fourth Amendment, which Grossman goes out of his way to misunderstand.

He breathlessly intones:

That's it: the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, complete and entire: One, single, gloriously clear, and grammatically explicit sentence. If some enterprising entrepreneur will put it on a tee-shirt, I'll wear it proudly.

In my naiveté I thought a few of us wearing those tee-shirts would be enough to put an end to the inane discussion of whether or not the President has the right to order the NSA to sustain a vast, warrantless, data-mining operation aimed at the international telephone and e-mail communication of Americans. On my stupid reading, the fourth amendment says no twice: no search or seizure without a sworn warrant and no warrant without specifying the places, persons or things sought.

But wait. On the Op Ed page of this morning's New York Times, a couple of strict constructionists from the Reagan and H. W. Bush Justice Departments are out to set me straight. These guys are lawyers. I'm just a guy who makes his living reading and understanding the English language.

But you are not understanding the language Professor Grossman. Either you canot understand it, or you are trying to cleverly lie with it. I'll leave the reader to decide which.

The Fourth Amendment purposefully does not outlaw all searches and seizures as Grossman would intentionally mislead readers, it only outlaws those that would be regarded as unreasonable, nor does it outlaw warrantless searches as legal precedents have shown time and time again. His entire position is predicated upon misrepresentation and ignoring the professional opinions of Justice Department lawyers from the Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton Presidential administrations, applicable case law, legal briefs, and judicial precedent, all of which which inconveniently seems to refute his purposefully obtuse position.

Ever out of his depth from a legal perspective, the good professor cannot even hold his own in an honest reading of the language. Professor Grossman should stick to 17th century English literature.

21st Century national policy matters are clearly beyond his understanding.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:45 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 661 words, total size 5 kb.

Today marking the one year anniversary of what much of the world knows as the Asian or Boxing Day Tsunami, which took over 200,000 lives in South Asia. Glenn Reynolds has a roundup of roundups on his site.

Please say a prayer for those that never returned home, and for those that were left behind to face a shattered world without them.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:54 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

⁴ And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

⁵ To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

⁶ And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

⁷ And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

⁸ And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

⁹ And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

¹⁰ And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

¹¹ For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

¹² And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

¹³ And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

¹⁴ Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

Happy birthday, Jesus, and a Merry Christmas to all.

I'll see you all again on the 26th.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:36 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

While trying to find a nativity image for my last post before Christmas, I did an search for "baby jesus" on Google.

This is the result.

Notice that the top search result is for a sex toy that mocks Jesus.

Other results on this search results page have more link traffic. A quick review of page's code shows no HTML meta information that should give it a favorable ranking. The page itself has a raw relevance ranking (search word divided by total words) of less than five percent. The only conclusion I can draw is that this page position ranking was done manually by a Google staffer.

Google's message to the Faithful seems obvious:

"Merry Christmas, assholes."

Update: Some folks have made the argument that this is the result of Googlebombing or other SEO tricks. Others say that it is merely the result of Google's search programs. They would absolve Google of all responsibility.

I do not.

Google's algorithms are man-made, coded by human programmers, as are any exclusionary protocols. These people ultimately decide if search results are relevant. I think it is fair to say that a butt plug is not a relevant search result for 99-percent of Google users searching for information on Jesus Christ as a baby.

So either Google has manipulative coders, or a fouled algorithm in their baseline technologies that suggests their massive capitalization is based upon a a house of cards. I'll leave individual readers and investors to make the call.

Update 2: Crooks and Liars calls this post 2005's Worst Post of the Year. Coming from such a den of delusion and paranoia (not to mention abject political failure), I consider it a compliment.

Also, I guess he didn't see this, though technically it isn't a blog post, just the worst idea of the year.

Good Friday Update: As I said previously:

Google's algorithms are man-made, coded by human programmers, as are any exclusionary protocols. These people ultimately decide if search results are relevant.

A current Google search reveals that Google has changed their search algorithm to exclude the sex toy site from at least their top 50 results in a unfiltered search. I was right, liberals were wrong.

Not that this comes as a shock to anyone...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.

First there was the Bush Executive Order to have the NSA intercept messages outside the country to and from the terrorists that upset liberals. Then the NEST surveillance of predominately Muslims sites for dirty bombs which made them livid.

And then there is this, perhaps the most intrusive surveillance of all.

The ACLU will not be happy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

1 This is appalling; do these people have no idea that certain “programs” can only be effective if conducted in absolute secrecy? Surveillance under this “program” has existed for a long time without any court issued warrants and has been accepted as being within the constitution for decades. To expose it now is just beyond the pale. Merry CHRISTmas to all; and to all a goodnight!

Posted by: Old Soldier at December 24, 2005 11:07 AM (9ABza)

2 Nice link. Actually had me going for a bit as I wondered what he was talking about. Merry Christmas to you.

Posted by: joated at December 24, 2005 01:08 PM (M7kiy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

You've got to wonder just how fast today's mainstream media would have leaked the breaking of Enigma to the Germans.

From U.S News & World Report:

In search of a terrorist nuclear bomb, the federal government since 9/11 has run a far-reaching, top secret program to monitor radiation levels at over a hundred Muslim sites in the Washington, D.C., area, including mosques, homes, businesses, and warehouses, plus similar sites in at least five other cities, U.S. News has learned. In numerous cases, the monitoring required investigators to go on to the property under surveillance, although no search warrants or court orders were ever obtained, according to those with knowledge of the program. Some participants were threatened with loss of their jobs when they questioned the legality of the operation, according to these accounts.

I would certainly hope that U.S. mosques, where terrorists have already attempted to purchase surface to air missiles, are under surveillance for radiological weapons. I should hope they are being monitored for suspicious chemicals and biological agents as well.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the main ingredient in the U.S. News story is the "surprising" fact that - get this - some suspicious Muslim sites were monitored without obtaining warrants. The rest of the story - including the "omitted details of how the monitoring is conducted" - has been public knowledge at least since June 9 of 2002 when much of this same ground was covered by the Boston Globe:

[NEST] teams have been driving around urban areas in vans known as ''Hot Spot Mobile Labs,'' armed with instruments that detect alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. Other teams are equipped with backpacks that hold smaller detectors...

...

Though the effort has relaxed somewhat since the October scare, one official said NEST units still go on random, weekly search missions in different cities, focusing on ports, warehouse districts, and other locations where a smuggled weapon might be housed.

NEST teams may have driven their vans onto mosque property to sniff the air for radioactive isotopes. Backpack-equipped NEST team members may have walked through a neighborhood or apartment complex.

The government holds that these sniff tests are legal. Not surprisingly, U.S. News was able to find a dissenting expert.

Georgetown University Professor David Cole, a constitutional law expert, disagrees. Surveillance of public spaces such as mosques or public businesses might well be allowable without a court order, he argues, but not private offices or homes: "They don't need a warrant to drive onto the property -- the issue isn't where they are, but whether they're using a tactic to intrude on privacy. It seems to me that they are, and that they would need a warrant or probable cause."

U.S. News might have also mentioned that Georgetown University Professor David Cole, "a constitutional law expert," is also the legal affairs correspondent for The Nation, a far left liberal magazine.

It gets worse.

Cole points to a 2001 Supreme Court decision, U.S. vs. Kyllo, which looked at police use -- without a search warrant -- of thermal imaging technology to search for marijuana-growing lamps in a home.

Because of course, sensors used for national security are the exact same thing as local cops making a pot bust. Brilliant comparison, Professor Cole.

Perhaps because of his politics, Cole does not bother to mention the blatantly obvious fact that these radiation-sensing technologies should not violate the "unreasonable search" clause of the Fourth Amendment because of the "special needs" exception.

Nor does Cole mention that going into publicly-accessible driveways and parking lots without a warrant is not necessarily unconstitutional.

You would think that Cole or U.S. News would have tried to seek a more balanced approach to this story.

Of course, if they did, there wouldn't be a story, would there?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:15 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 636 words, total size 5 kb.

This segment of a radio talk show transcript is interesting, especially coming from self-described liberal Constitutional law Professor Cass Sunstein on the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show:

Hugh Hewitt (HH): ...First, did the authorization for the use of military force from 2001 authorize the president's action with regards to conducting surveillance on foreign powers, including al Qaeda, in contact with their agents in America, Professor?

Cass Sunstein (CS): Well, probably. If the Congress authorizes the president to use force, a pretty natural incident of that is to engage in surveillance. So if there's on the battlefield some communication between Taliban and al Qaeda, the president can monitor that. If al Qaeda calls the United States, the president can probably monitor that, too, as part of waging against al Qaeda.

Hugh Hewitt (HH): Very good. Part two of your analysis...If...whether or not the AUMF does, does the Constitution give the president inherent authority to do what he did?

Cass Sunstein (CS): That's less clear, but there's a very strong argument the president does have that authority. All the lower courts that have investigated the issue have so said. So as part of the president's power as executive, there's a strong argument that he can monitor conversations from overseas, especially if they're al Qaeda communications in the aftermath of 9/11. So what I guess I do is put the two arguments together. It's a little technical, but I think pretty important, which is that since the president has a plausible claim that he has inherent authority to do this, that is to monitor communications from threats outside our borders, we should be pretty willing to interpret a Congressional authorization to use force in a way that conforms to the president's possible Constitutional authority. So that is if you put the Constitutional authority together with the statutory authorization, the president's on pretty good ground.

Radioblogger has the entire transcript.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:24 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

The FISA Court in the center of the Bush/NSA surveillance kerfluffle just got interesting, as the presiding judge is apparently setting up a briefing for her fellow judges next month, according to the Washington Post.

The presiding judge of a secret court that oversees government surveillance in espionage and terrorism cases is arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges to address their concerns about the legality of President Bush's domestic spying program, according to several intelligence and government sources.

Is it just my reading of this passage, or does this article seem to suggest that presiding judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly—attempting to assuage their concerns, as the passage states—has knowledge of the Bush executive order and it's legal justifications, and buys into it enough to sponsor a briefing for other FISA judges?

It is also interesting to note that “protest resignation” of Judge James Robertson occurred before the briefing, lending some degree of credibility to the theory that his divorce from the FISA court was political in nature.

Among the more interesting bits of information in this WaPo article is how the FISA judges could chose to react after the briefing, which is expected to be made by NSA and Justice Department attorneys.

The judges could, depending on their level of satisfaction with the answers, demand that the Justice Department produce proof that previous wiretaps were not tainted, according to government officials knowledgeable about the FISA court. Warrants obtained through secret surveillance could be thrown into question. One judge, speaking on the condition of anonymity, also said members could suggest disbanding the court in light of the president's suggestion that he has the power to bypass the court.

Bold in the above is mine.

I would think that the step of disbanding the court would prove to be an emphatic acknowledgement of the shortcomings of the FISA law itself, and would be seen as an affirmation of the Article II powers inherent to the Office of the President.

If this is the final decision of the court—and at this point, it is simply impossible to tell—it will have to be seen as a huge blow to the credibility of the “impeach him now, ask questions later” faction of the Democratic Party running in the 2006 elections, and to the Jimmy Carter-era “Dazed and Malaised” Congress that brought FISA into existence.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:52 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

In case you haven't heard, December 19-25 is Thank a Soldier Week.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

No wonder President Bush has been at ease the past few days.

While details of Bush's NSA Executive Order to conduct warrantless surveillance on suspected terrorist operatives remains classified, the "smoking gun" case of Presidential misconduct made by the New York Times is showing signs of falling completely apart under the weight of Constitutional law and similar national security precedents made by previous presidential administrations.

President Jimmy Carter's Executive Order 12139 approved electronic surveillance above and beyond FISA to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order as long as it was certified by the attorney general. This executive order issued by Carter has never been challenged, and seems to be very close to the content of Bush's current still classified order.

President Bill Clinton's Executive Order 12949 expanded upon Carters provisions to include warrantless physical searches.

So what damning new information does the Times crusading book promoter James Risen and his faithful sidekick Eric Lichtblau bring us today?

The most evil of all horrors: the accidental surveillance of international cell phones and email addresses suspected to belong to terrorists once they've crossed into the United States:

A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

Telecommunications experts say the issue points up troubling logistical questions about the program. At a time when communications networks are increasingly globalized, it is sometimes difficult even for the N.S.A. to determine whether someone is inside or outside the United States when making a cellphone call or sending an e-mail message. As a result, people that the security agency may think are outside the United States are actually on American soil.

Jump to:

But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants.

Say a Canadian al Qaeda suspect checks his email on his laptop in a flat in Fort Erie, Canada. He takes a short bus ride across the Peace Bridge to Buffalo, New York, grabs a gingerbread latte at the Starbucks on Delaware and Kenmore, and he checks this same email account again. By monitoring this same email account accessed on the same computer, the NSA committed the kind of accidental illegal intercept that Risen and Lichtblau are complaining about.

I don't know about you, but I'm just livid with outrage... but not at the NSA, nor President Bush.

The Times has been reduced to complaining that a handful of suspected terrorists targeted for international surveillance got into the United States and were accidentally still monitored.

Ahem. I never suspected that NY Times reporters would ever be charged with being Administration cronies, but by advocating against the best interests of the United States over such trivial details, Risen and Lichtblau give us every reason to doubt their true motives and allegiances.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 598 words, total size 4 kb.

1 You may want to add F-A-M-E That way they can go on a talking circuit after the books and TV interviews. By the way, if you read CY's post on the ROVEING the TIMES story, he addresses where those two mindless twits could be used by the Intelligence community, in that case the aren't "Useless Idiots" but the Useful ones so Army may have gotten a point over Navy. )

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 21, 2005 08:12 AM (cqZXM)

2 The Carter and Clinton executive orders were directed only at foreign agents, and did not authorize warrantless searches nor surveillence of U.S. citizens. Get your facts straight before you echo crap from Drudge.

Posted by: ross at December 21, 2005 12:25 PM (f30nY)

3 Ross Here is an interesting link you may wish to read http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200512201735.asp

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 21, 2005 12:52 PM (BuYeH)

4 Ross, you should probably read this in addition to Retired Navy's link, but more importantly you should read what John Schmidt, associate attorney general under Bill Clinton had to say. He states flat out the President's authority in this matter is a constutional obligation. Whats more, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review says, and I quote: "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority." Got that, Ross? "We take for granted" means that the court views the Constitutional authority of the president in this role is so absolute in this matter as to be beyond question. Goldstein has the link to the Tribune article Schmidt wrote and far more. Ross, you either do not know, or have simply forgetten, that information monitored that the information monitored had at least one-leg outside of the United States. Clinton also authorized and used warrantless physical searches of U.S. citizens, and evidence collected in such searches put away CIA spy Aldrich Ames. Please do try on the long pants. You will find that you aren't ready for them yet.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 21, 2005 01:22 PM (g5Nba)

5 I feel that we should expand the surveillance so that we can monitor those engaging in the war on Christmas. The ACLU is attacking our heritage. I would feel more comfortable if I knew that their communications were being monitored. And I think 53% of the population probably agrees with me.

Posted by: Smithy at December 22, 2005 12:17 PM (V4LLQ)

6 I think what Ross was trying to say, and what none of you have disproved, is that Drudge, and the idea that Clinton did the exact same thing as Bush, have been totaly debunked. You want a link here ya go.

Posted by: Fred at December 22, 2005 05:31 PM (fqmuR)

7 Fred: How in the hell do YOU know what Ross meant in his flimsy statement? Are you and Ross one in the same person - or just joined at the brain? Ross stated that "[those] executive orders were directed only at foreign agents, and did not authorize warrantless searches nor surveillence of U.S. citizens." Your references state, in essence, that there needed to be authorization by the Attorney General. The same provision is covered under FISA section 1802. There was nothing in your references that prohibited surveillance of American citizens. Ross made no mention of Drudge. You did! Don't give us any sh*t about authorization only against foreign Intelligence, either. If American citizens or persons residing in the United States are communicating with known terrorists overseas, they become de facto agents of the foreign entity. That is what Bush has done in tasking the NSA. The target is international communications with known connections to terrorist organizations. Did you even bother to read what CY posted here? You lefties are so easy.

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 22, 2005 06:50 PM (AaKND)

8 "Get your facts straight before you echo crap from Drudge," is what I believe Ross stated, and thats what this post appears to echo indeed. Read my post, I'm not going to hog space here. http://fredbieling.blogspot.com/2005/12/theyve-already-got-us-on-some-list.html

Posted by: Fred at December 22, 2005 08:19 PM (fqmuR)

9 I read your Blog, Fred. I was not impressed. I can't imagine that anyone with an IQ above room temperature would be impressed either - except for the extreme left moonbats ..... You're right. Ross DID mention Drudge. I guess I was so unimpressed by his first sentence than I knew nothing else could have been of value either. I was right!

Posted by: Retired Spy at December 22, 2005 09:51 PM (AaKND)

10 Well thank you for at least giving me a chance. I was sure you'd have liked my "In praise of a Republican" post, or the one I sited above, but hey... can't please everyone. It's the comments section where I really shine anyways.

Posted by: Fred at December 23, 2005 07:11 AM (fqmuR)

11 It's the comments section where I really shine anyways. If that's true, why waste money on a blog? You can bloviate er, "shine" on someone else's dime.

Posted by: Elephant Man at December 27, 2005 08:51 PM (iAa89)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Quadruple murderer and co-founder of the violent drug-dealing Crips street gang Stanley "Tookie" Williams was eulogized and buried today. News coverage was often as sickening as his crimes.

ABC News runs the apologetic headline Activists, Rap Star Say Farewell to 'Tookie' Williams.

The San Francisco Chronicle almost makes him sound like the victim, proclaiming Throng gathers in LA for funeral of executed former gang leader.

Reuters UK proclaims, Executed Calif. killer Williams hailed at funeral.

Fox News ran the Associated Press story and its too generous headline Hundreds Gather for Tookie Williams' Funeral, but the Fox News Web Team voiced their opinion with their Web link from the home page.

It's nice to knew that someone remembered Tookie Williams for the craven murderous thief he really was, and not some sort of martyr.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:59 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 141 words, total size 2 kb.

With James Risen presumably off reading the galley proofs of his forthcoming book Screwing Over America (For Fun and Profit), David Sanger joined in the next installment of Eric Lichtblau's year-long fevered pursuit to tip al Qaeda to the nature of NSA-run surveillance operation authorized by a White House executive order in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

Despite the ill will of the Times, the present administration is standing firm. Law professor/blogger Ann Althouse even notes of Bush's impromptu press conference Monday morning:

I'm just reading, but it seems to me that he's awfully relaxed, joking like this, when he's under fire about not complying with FISA restrictions...

And later:

I'm watching the C-Span replay of the press conference now, and I'm even more impressed by the strength of Bush's confidence. This man is happy.

It does seem like very odd behavior for a man that is, if the Times is correct, on the edge of not only losing one of American's most effective surveillance tools, but of facing a political firestorm that have some of his fevered foes calling for impeachment.

As some of the nation's top legal minds spent Monday building an unfavorable case against him based upon what the Times has leaked, and what his own administration had confirmed... hey, wait just a cotton-pickin' minute.

I think I've seen this film before.

Indulge me, please, for just a moment.

The NY Times discovers a top secret internal spying effort by the Bush Administration. The Times presumes that their sources are accurate (indeed they may be), and presumes to know most if not all of the facts. They then hold onto this information for approximately one year, flushing it out with information from confidential sources, before finally breaking the story last week. Bush's only known attempt to quash publication?

As a breathless Jonathan Alter explains:

I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation.

Indeed. Bush was so desperate, in fact, that he gave two of his most relaxed press conferences in recent memory. Perhaps the NY Times can't see it, or perhaps I'm just a bit fevered, but the Bush Administration appears to be writing this story in the national media as much as they are starring in it.

Let me offer up these simple thoughts for you to consider:

The Bush administration has known for a year that the New York Times was investigating and intended to run at some point a story about the executive order NSA.

The government probably figured out exactly what James Risen and Eric Lichtblau knew about the program within the first week of their investigation coming to light.

The government could easily "turn" any of Risen's and Lichtblau's informants with the very real, legally valid threat of long-term accommodations of the government's choosing. It could then use these turncoats to feed "fake but accurate" information to the NY Times.

The result?

The release of a story with just enough truth to be thought credible by enemies both "foreign and domestic." The story causes a cascade of irregular signal activity that "paints" terror cells as clearly as active sonar on a submarine. Unwittingly, the Times contributes to the NSA project.

If you are willing to go that far, one then has to ask this question: is the NSA program mentioned in the Times the program actually being run, or was the Times misled into being "useful idiots" for an entirely legal program out of the reach of FISA entirely?

My contention? Military intelligence operates outside of FISA restrictions that control domestic surveillance organizations, and if the NSA is collecting intercepted information offshore and is feeding it directly to the military to kill or capture bad guys overseas, the Bush's AUMF justification is both crystal clear and perfectly legal. If this is true, teh seemingly murkey explanations the Adminstration had been giving for the past week would be perfecty accurate, as well, would they not?

The fake civilian spying program can run its course to be "shutdown," while the real military program continues to run and provide for our safety in the cover of its own apparent grave.

This is of course, all just wild speculationÂ…

Isn't it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:20 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

Mother Sheehan was on the whine in Madrid. via Breitbart:

Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan led a small protest Saturday outside the U.S. Embassy to denounce the war in Iraq.

About 100 protesters carried banners criticizing President Bush.

Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, called Bush a war criminal and said, "Iraq is worse than Vietnam."

Of course it is, Cindy. This time we're winning.

Cindy apparently still has grass in her eyes from her last stomach-churning photo op.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:03 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

How is that again, Harry?

"Don't lump me in with Jack Abramoff. This is a Republican scandal," Reid told Fox News Sunday, saying he never received any money from Abramoff.

Reid, like many members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, has received campaign contributions from Abramoff clients. Some lawmakers have returned those donations, but Reid gave no indication he would do so.

He never received any money, and he won't give back the money he didn't take in the first place. What is the definition of a honest politician again?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He tried the same line on the wire-tapping thing. Yes I was informed months ago, but it's all the president's fault (and it was wrong). Something like that. It was too funny watching him try to dodge the question the first time, and get really pissed when Wallace repeated the question, forcing him to answer Chris Wallace rocks.

Posted by: Kevin at December 19, 2005 01:16 PM (Eq/i5)

2 I lived in Nevada for 17 years and listened to our Senator Reid talk way too many times. He always seemed to manage to work in the fact he'd grown up poor in Searchlight and had spent most of his adult life in service to Nevada. Since he became a multi-millionaire in the process one can't help but wonder just who he was really serving.

Posted by: Fish at December 19, 2005 01:38 PM (KpjA/)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

New York Times reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau continued their assault on America's domestic security today in an article that sensationalizes the scope of Bush's executive order, studiously avoids the Administration's legal justification for NSA surveillance of terror suspects, and avoids addressing their own moral culpability in the almost certainly illegal leaking of classified intelligence information in on-going anti-terror operations.

Risen (who just happens to have a book coming out very soon) and Lichtblau start their article with this bit of willful misdirection:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday defended President Bush's decision to secretly authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without seeking warrants, saying the program was carefully controlled and necessary to close gaps in the nation's counterterrorism efforts.

To read Risen and Lichtblau today one might get the impression that any and all Americans are subject to a warrantless search. That is not the case, as Risen and Lichtblau themselves state just a few days ago:

Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said.

Only those people thought to be communicating and collaborating with al Qaeda terrorists overseas were subject to surveillance. Risen and Lichtblau purposefully conflate the limited number of people affected to drum up hysteria in the American people their nation is spying on them.

This is a dishonest attempt to engender fears (and no doubt advanced book sales) that a narrowly-tailored executive order targeting just a few hundred or few thousand terrorist-linked email addresses and phone numbers, is general surveillance of all citizen communications in a nation of 295 million.

Legally Blind
Risen and Lichtblau are more than willing to mention that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) requires a court order to seek surveillance on suspected terrorists or spies, but somehow, they seem unable to find a legal precedent from 2000 entitled U.S vs. bin Laden (h/t Instapundit) that says in part:

“Circuit courts applying Keith [that's the FISA law] to the foreign intelligence context have affirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement for searches conducted within the United States that target foreign powers or their agents.”

While I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on television), it would seem to me that that U.S. courts have an established judicial precedent for bypassing FISA in certain circumstances - the circumstances that two Attorney Generals, Justice Department, lawyers and White House Counsel all seem to affirm that President Bush was within his constitutional authority in addressing with his executive order to the NSA.

Other useful bits of information the Times crack reporters seem to have trouble finding—or at least reporting—were Executive Order 12333 issued while Ronald Reagan was in office, stipulations of FISA itself, and the President's constitutional authority, as noted by Hugh Hewitt:

Overlooked in most of the commentary on the New York Times article is the simple, undeniable fact that the president has the power to conduct warantless surveillance of foreign powers conspiring to kill Americans or attack the government. The Fourth Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures has not been interpreted by the Supreme Court to restrict this inherent presidential power. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (an introduction from a critic of the Act is here) cannot be read as a limit on a constitutional authority even if the Act purported to so limit that authority.

"Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."

That is from the 1972 decision in United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan et al, (407 U.S. 297) which is where the debate over the president's executive order ought to begin and end. The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.

In short, a truthful, competent year-long investigation of President Bush's executive order regarding surveillance of terror suspects should have reflected the legal basis from which the authority was drawn.

It is a shame that honest reporting, or for that matter, the safety of the American people, are of little apparent concern for the Times and its reporters.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:12 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 765 words, total size 6 kb.