Here in North Carolina, a sick story has been developing about a woman that murdered her adopted 4-year-old son last month and beat two others with lengths of plumbing pipe. Most of us would prefer to think of the murder of Sean Paddock as the depraved act of an isolated psychopath. But Lynn Paddock, now charged with first-degree murder and possibly facing the death penalty, did not come to such acts of brutality without guidance.

No, Lynn Paddock got her ideas on how to discipline her children from the web site and books of an evangelical minister and his wife that advocate something that certainly sounds like child abuse.

From the Raleigh News & Observer:

Paddock -- a Johnston County mother accused of murdering Sean, her 4-year-old adopted son, and beating two other adopted children -- surfed the Internet, said her attorney, Michael Reece. She found literature by an evangelical minister and his wife who recommended using plumbing supply lines to spank misbehaving children.

Paddock ordered Michael and Debi Pearl's books and started spanking her adopted children as suggested. After Sean, the youngest of Paddock's six adopted children, died last month, his older sister and brother told investigators about Paddock's spankings.

Sean's 9-year-old brother was beaten so badly he limped, a prosecutor said. Bruises marred Sean's backside, too, doctors found.

Sean died after being wrapped so tightly in blankets he suffocated. That, too, was a form of punishment, Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell said.

The Pearls' advice from their Web site: A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give 10 licks at a time, more if the child resists. Be careful about using it in front of others -- even at church; nosy neighbors might call social workers. Save hands for nurturing, not disciplining. Heed the warning, taken from Proverbs in the Old Testament, that sparing the rod will spoil the child.

The Pearls' website No GreaterJoy.org does indeed condone the "advice" such as that above, which most sane people would consider not only outright child abuse, but an acknowledgement that is could invite investigation if used "in front of others." Of "¼ inch supply line" they state, "It's a real attention-getter."

I am no opponent of corporal punishment. I got spankings as a kid when I deserved them, I earned every one, and avoided a few I deserved. But there is no "fine line" between discipline and beatings worse than we'd allow any al Qaeda POW to suffer.

Michael and Debi Pearl seem to be advocates of outright child abuse, calling on parents to hit children with PVC pipe no less than ten times, and "more if the child resists", as the News & Observer reports.

The Pearls have a Contact page on their web site. I suggest you use it, and politely tell them you do not condone the beating of children with construction products.

Better yet, contact:

Mr. Davis is up for re-election in the Williamson County Republican Primary Election for the 21st District on May 2, 2006. While Mr. Pearl is running unopposed in the primary, I'm sure that his electorate would like to know why the Pearls have been allowed to sell more than 400,00 copies of a book advocating what sounds like child abuse under his very nose.

Also contact the newsroom at the Nashville Tennessean , at newstips@tennessean.com and ask them why this has been allowed to go on in Williamson County.

"Suffer the little children," no more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:58 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 617 words, total size 4 kb.

Via Instapundit, I see that a blogger by the name of Miss Kelly is looking for shotgun advice:

National Buy a Gun Day is only 30 days away! I have a great little .22 Browning rifle for plinking, but my husband and I are looking to purchase a shotgun for home security. Not sure what's the best shotgun to get for this, although I'm leaning towards a pump action for the sound effects, which I'm told can be a good deterrent. Would love to hear recommendations from folks. Also wondering if we can get a shotgun that can also be used for trap or skeet, or are guns just too specialized these days? Looking for cost info too, for new and used. Thanks for your advice!

As you may imagine, she's picked up a lot of advice... and most of it is bad. As a matter of fact, I guarantee someone reading this post right now is already thinking about a 12-gauge pump stoked with 00-Buck, without first bothering to really digest the questions in her post.

Let's look over her request again, shall we?

What she did and didn't sayÂ…
She wants a shotgun ("leaning towards a pump") for "home security" (we'll define that later) and possibly trap/skeet shooting. She is willing to look at used firearms. Let's go from there.

Looking at her profile, it seems she lives in Massachusetts (not the most gun-friendly state), and she lives with her husband and some animals, but no children seem to be present in the household.

We do not know if she lives in an apartment or condominium, or if she lives in a home, if she lives in a high-density suburban area or if she lives in a rural location. We do not know if she or her husband have any physical limitations. We do not even know the basic layout of her dwelling. It would be nice to have more specifics about all of these things, but we'll make do with information we have.

We'll have to assume she and her husband are healthy, and probably in middle age. As we don't know for certain that there aren't children present, and as Massachusetts is a fairly dense state population-wise, we'll assume for safety's sake that there are other inhabited dwellings in close proximity.

Defining weapon parameters
First, we know that Miss Kelly is looking for a shotgun. This fact has been no deterrent to at least 13 people make comments about other weapons so far. Nice to know they are listening, isn't it?

We also know that the users of this shotgun will be a male and female. While Miss Kelley didn't give her measurements, lets assume she is the "average" American woman of about 5'4" with proportional arms and legs for her height. Any shotgun we pick must be able to be used effectively by her to be, well, effective.

So what do our intrepid commentors at Miss Kelly's give us (those that can remember to focus on shotguns, that is)? No less than 18 posts about variations of the tricked-out pump-action 12-guage combat shotgun, a weapon designed for relatively large, healthy, men.

Following the "Viagra" theory of defense, these folks think bigger and the more enhancements and attachments you can add on, the better it is. That might work for some devices that a woman might to keep in her bedroom, but Miss Kelly is interested in shotguns.

She needs one that will fit her needs, not theirs.

"Home Security"
The phrase “home security” means different things to different people, and a lot of the weapons choices made, paint a picture of people preparing for sustained offensive urban combat operations.

Unless we wake up in al-Anbar in the morning, this is not our reality.

In our world, home security means retreating to a defensible point in your home and firing your weapon only when given no other choice, and firing only until the threat ends. Nothing more than that is legally justifiable.

This is a defensive situation, not an offense one.

Choosing the Home Defense Shotgun
Miss Kelly would be best served by a shotgun designed for the smaller stature of women and teens, and many men will be surprised to find the shortened stocks, smaller gauges and lighter overall weight of these weapons can be desirable, especially in the close confines of a home security situation.

As she has only noted experience with a .22 rifle, and the defensive shotgun will be used indoors in the confined spaces of her home and possibly at night, recoil, flash, noise and penetration are all critical factors in choosing a shotgun as well.

Luckily, O.F. Mossberg, the company that won the U.S. Military contract for combat shotguns in 1979, was diligent, and did their homework for the home security market as well. Their suggestion is a .410 pump called the HS 410.

A .410?

The smallest of the shotgun calibers does seem like an odd choice to those of the "bigger is better" philosophy and it would be an odd choice for a police or military weapon, but it makes perfect sense for a home security shotgun.

A .410 shotgun, at the typical home security distance of near-contact range out to 25 feet, has more short-range stopping power than the vaunted .45 ACP, the .357 Magnum, or the .44 Magnum. The .410 won't deafen you the way a 12 or 20 gauge shotgun could, not will it have excessive muzzle flash or recoil.

In addition—and this is very important—the .410, loaded with birdshot will not over-penetrate walls as 12 and 20 gauge shotguns typically will. All bullets fired by pistols and rifles (even .22s) will easily over-penetrate multiple layers of sheetrock, going into other rooms or even other homes, potentially wounding or killing someone other than your intended target.

Not a great choice for the beginning skeet or trap shooter, a 410 pump is a shotgun Miss Kelly and her husband can learn to shoot well and confidentially in a minimal amount of time, with enough stopping power to immediately stop anyone who invades her home at a reduced danger to others in the area.

Bigger may be better for some applications in the bedroom, but not for home security shotguns.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:45 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1057 words, total size 6 kb.

No, not really.

Just Arianna Huffington herself, busted for being fake, but accurate about a George Clooney blog post he never wrote.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.

"It's like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet."

Sure, we could be talking about the ballistic missile intercept program, but we're not.

We're talking about much more elusive targets:

"I haven't read it," demurred Barack Obama (Ill.).

"I just don't have enough information," protested Ben Nelson (Neb.). "I really can't right now," John Kerry (Mass.) said as he hurried past a knot of reporters -- an excuse that fell apart when Kerry was forced into an awkward wait as Capitol Police stopped an aide at the magnetometer.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) brushed past the press pack, shaking her head and waving her hand over her shoulder. When an errant food cart blocked her entrance to the meeting room, she tried to hide from reporters behind the 4-foot-11 Barbara Mikulski (Md.).

"Ask her after lunch," offered Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines. But Clinton, with most of her colleagues, fled the lunch out a back door as if escaping a fire.

Even though Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold was firing blanks in his pandering to the far left for his expected '08 Democratic Presidential primary run, the shots scattered Senate Democrats as effectively as live rounds.

While Democrats are more than willing to play partisan politics with American lives as they continue attacking the President for his executive order authorizing an NSA terrorist surveillance program, they are not willing to put their own reputations on the lines during an election year, even if they believe the program is wrong.

Cowardly to the core?

Obviously.

But this is politics, and today's Democrats have a tradition of trying to hide what the really believe in order to get elected.

As this is an election year, Democrats are more than willing to snipe at the President if they think it helps them. They'll quickly turn and run, however—as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and almost every other Democrat has done—if there is the threat of any accountability for their actions from voters.

Top Democrats cannot say what they really feel, which is in line with Radical Russ and the MoveOn.org/George Soros wing of the party that finances their campaigns, because they'd then lose the moderate voter that they must have to win elections. For Democrats, being pinned down and forced to display their true colors (white or yellow) is a losing proposition.

They have no choice now but to duck and cover, and hope they can outlast the storm.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:54 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

1 After they duck and cover, they are going to cut and run. It's a classic liberal tactic

Posted by: Kevin at March 15, 2006 12:36 PM (o/IMK)

2 Awesome catch, and great job of kicking while they are down. They deserve it!

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 15, 2006 02:51 PM (CdK5b)

3 The Demos are acting like a bunch of weenies. Still politics are politics and Democrats are no worse than Republicans in 'hiding what they really believe in to get elected." No monopopoly there. What Republican came out and said 'vote for me and I promise to turn the country back into a Christian theocracy in a perpetual state of war'?

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 07:01 PM (ijyAZ)

4 "What Republican came out and said 'vote for me and I promise to turn the country back into a Christian theocracy in a perpetual state of war'?" He'd get my vote!

Posted by: Constantine at March 15, 2006 09:34 PM (PD1tk)

5 'promise to turn the country back into a Christian theocracy' Back? Damn, I knew I was born too late. Tob

Posted by: toby928 at March 15, 2006 09:48 PM (PD1tk)

6 Back into a Christian theocracy? What have you been smoking, Thurston? It never was a theocracy; it never will be a theocracy; and no Republicans running for office ever made such a stupid promise. Stick with your "artsie" stuff, Stoned One. You're in way over your head on any other subjects.

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 16, 2006 10:37 AM (rhncG)

7 What Stoned One can't understand is that, politically speaking (especially on the strategic and then tactical arenas), the left is a bunch of bumbling talking heads. Why did people like Reagan so much - because you knew what he would do. He didn't waffle like Clinton - remember he took more public opinion polls than any other president - and acted on them no matter if he was changing his stance on an issue or not. Bush is a strong leader and has hung together no matter what the left throws at him. Feingold just threw another monkey wrench into the Democrats works - and set them back again. But what do you expect from the party with Splash "I Didn't know I Belonge to That Club" Kennedy, Howard "AIIAIIAAAYEEEEEEEEE" Dean, Harry "We Killed the Patriot Act - But Then I Voted For It" Reid, etc. as their leaders?

Posted by: Specter at March 16, 2006 04:04 PM (ybfXM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

In this modern age of on-demand printing, it takes almost no time at all before current events can be turned into a book.

This one is about Russ Feingold's attempt to censure President Bush without his own party's apparent knowledge.

.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

...let the nuts out?

Watch for updates...

Update: Where did it go? I guess the bong hits finally wore off...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:27 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 22 words, total size 1 kb.

I've written several times in the past about Beauchamp Tower Corporation and their plan to convert retired Navy ships into a small fleet of state-of-the-art disaster-response vessels that would greatly increase the nation's capability to respond to both major terrorist attacks and natural disasters such as hurricanes, all without costing the taxpayer a single dime. As a matter of fact, the corporate sponsor-backed program could save the government up to $100 million by taking over old ships the government is spending millions to scrap.

The BTC blog has a new/old post up called Shall...We...Play..A...Game? Part 1, which discusses the birth of what I've dubbed the "Salvation Navy" in narrative form.

If you like to see how things work, BTC will be putting up a post a day describing in both broad strokes, and in small detail, what the program will be like from it's inception and the first "Pimp My Ship" refitting process, through BTC's first hypothetical hurricane response.

I think you'll like it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Don't you just love truth in advertising?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Being something of a gun geek, I usually can identify modern military firearms at a glance, but this photo of Jordanian Army counter-terrorists has me almost stumped.

To me it looks like a H&K G36C. Can anyone confirm this?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Pentagon is looking into the possibility of striking Iran's nuclear facilities, as Iran may force a military response by refusing to back down from the further development of a nuclear weapons program, despite growing international pressure.

I covered the subject in Thunder over Iran in December in some detail, and do not doubt for a second that the IDF/AF is capable of inflicting significant damage on Iran's nuclear facilities if they do take this route. Damage, of course, could be far more extensive if Israeli commando units on the ground, or other allied air and ground forces also participated in the strike. Unsurprisingly, Great Britain and the United States have assets in the region capable of conducting such a strike.

What remains shrouded in doubt is the retaliatory capability and intentions of Iran and its allies.

Iran is rumored in some circles to already have some nuclear weapons capability, but those rumors are far from confirmed. Iran can, however, potentially strike Israel with its Shihab-3 missile carrying conventional or non-nuclear WMDs that it may have in its possession. A WMD strike by Iran would be counterproductive and justify more reprisal attacks against it, but as Iran has not missed a chance to make a bad decision to date, so it would hardly be surprising if this eventuality happened.

There is also the probability that Iran's ally Syria might be pushed by Tehran to honor their mutual defense pact by launching an attack against Israel, but I suspect that Syria would not uphold their end of the agreement. Faced with an unstable regime at home and the quite real possibility of crushing military defeat at the hands of the IDF in the east and an a nearly-assured response (or threat of a response) from U.S. air and armored forces stationed in Iraq's al-Anbar province to the west, not to mention the very real possibility of a coup at home, Syria's strongman would likely chose to sit this one out.

If Assad does not honor the pact, he risks losing the support of his Iranian ally. If he does honor the pact, he risks losing his country. Either eventually is a plus for the United States and Israel.

Iran-supported terrorist organization Hamas would almost certainly attack Israel with a spate of suicide bombings and rocket attacks in response to an Israeli strike on Iran, but this would actually play into the hands of the Israelis, further delegitimizing the Hamas-led Palestinian government and providing Israel with an excuse to crack down harder against Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the West Bank, Gaza, and southern Lebanon. Again, an armed retaliatory response is likely to be more of a benefit to Israel.

In many respects, the continued press forward by the Iranian government with their nuclear ambitions could very well trigger a small war that changes the fate of Iran's mullahs, their relationship if not the very existence of their Baathist allies in Syria, and the continued existence of Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

I have a better question for the Pentagon's planners: Why shouldn't Israel bomb Iran's nuclear sites?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

Aurora, or Batesville?

I turn 35 today. Funerary contributions are appreciated...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:27 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

1 35? Hell, I have socks that old!!!

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 13, 2006 07:49 AM (rhncG)

2 Happy Birthday! Oh, I'd go with Batesville.

Posted by: seawitch at March 13, 2006 09:25 AM (k2vnA)

3 Happy Birthday. Almost enough candles to worry about the smoke alarm.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 13, 2006 11:00 AM (iI6rf)

4 Suck it up. I've got 20 years on you and was already 3 years into a 25 year run in the USMC when you born. You've got some amazing times ahead of you. Enjoy them and Happy Birthday!

Posted by: USMCVet at March 13, 2006 12:48 PM (oQofX)

5 Hey Old Timer! I turned 32 yesterday! Happy Birthday! Marshall Neal Bakersfield, CA

Posted by: Marshall neal at March 13, 2006 01:14 PM (Qa0tQ)

6 Have a good one CY. I go over the hill this year - you know - 50!

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 04:14 PM (ybfXM)

7 Happy Birthday, CY! I was 35 once, and my 85 year-old mother confirms it!

Posted by: Tom TB at March 13, 2006 05:05 PM (y6n8O)

8 Happy birthday, young 'un! I wouldn't order that casket just yet.....

Posted by: lady redhawk at March 13, 2006 06:09 PM (SkAw4)

9 Happy Birthday!!!!!!!

Posted by: Ray Robison at March 13, 2006 07:45 PM (4joLu)

10 Wait until you hit 42, cowboy. In the words of Monty Python... "I'm not dead yet..." Happy Birthday!

Posted by: WB at March 13, 2006 08:13 PM (v7W1e)

11 I thought Monty Python's words were: "It's a Norwegian Blue and it is sleeping!"

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 08:48 PM (ybfXM)

12 More Python Words... "If you hadn't nailed it to the perch he'd be pushing up daisies by now..."

Posted by: WB at March 13, 2006 11:19 PM (v7W1e)

13 I should have YOUR problems! Thirty-fve...it was a very good year. Happy Birthday, 'KID'.

Posted by: Maggie at March 14, 2006 08:01 AM (QKXCW)

14 Young pup- by the time you need a casket they will be converting us into dog food.

Posted by: olddawg at March 16, 2006 09:31 AM (7nc0l)

15 Cowboy up! Jeepers, I hit 50 this past October. You don't hear me whining, do you? Okay, just there, now that was a whine, but nowhere else! Lord knows I haven't the stamina for long-term whining anymore. Hmmm ... wonder if I can stay awake for the evening news ... hmmm...

Posted by: benning at March 18, 2006 06:12 PM (GXvlP)

16 What is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam? • Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities. • Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure. • Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam. What is Clonazepam? • Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures. • Clonazepam is used to treat seizures. • Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

Posted by: CLONAZEPAM at April 08, 2006 11:39 AM (xOmTJ)

17 I am a Wisconsin resident who is absolutely ashamed of my communist senator. I relaize he wants to be President, but the price he is willing to pay is startling. Can you good people imagine compromising the ability of your President's Intel gathering in order to gain some headlines for yourself? Ultimately though, I love his methods. It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the dems CANNOT be trusted with national security. Geezzzz.

Posted by: Jim Hellen at May 12, 2006 11:06 PM (uVx2d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) has announced that on Monday, March 13, he will introduce a resolution into the Senate to censure President George W. Bush for the warrantless surveillance of suspected terrorists in foreign countries trying to communicate with contacts here in the United States.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Democratic Presidential hopeful for this unexpected and quite welcome 35th birthday present.

The good Senator was nice enough to post the rationale for his censure resolution on his Senate web site. Not surprisingly, the political left is utterly delighted with Feingold's charges. They are not the only ones.

So what exactly does the good Senator advocate? He begins:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has announced that he will introduce a resolution in the U.S. Senate on Monday to censure the President of the United States. Feingold's resolution condemns the President's actions in authorizing the illegal wiretapping program and then misleading the country about the existence and legality of the program. Feingold calls the resolution an appropriate and responsible step for Congress to take in response to the President's undermining of the separation of powers and ignoring the rule of law.

"The President must be held accountable for authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and then misleading the country about its existence and its legality," Feingold said. "The President's actions, as well as his misleading statements to both Congress and the public about the program, demand a serious response. If Congress does not censure the President, we will be tacitly condoning his actions, and undermining both the separation of powers and the rule of law."

The President's illegal wiretapping program is in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FISA law makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order. The Bush Administration has obtained thousands of FISA warrants since September 11th and has almost never been rejected by the FISA court. FISA even allows wiretaps to be executed immediately in an emergency as long as the government obtains a warrant within 72 hours.

"This issue is not about whether the government should be wiretapping terrorists – of course it should, and it can under current law" Feingold said. "But this President and this Administration decided to break the law and they have yet to give a convincing explanation of why their actions were necessary, appropriate, or legal. Passing more laws will not change the fact that the President broke the ones already in place and for that, Congress must hold him accountable."

Feingold's basic charges are these:

• President Bush created a program that violated FISA which, "makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order."
• President Bush mislead the country about the existence of the program.
• President Bush mislead the country about the legality of this program.
• Congress must hold President Bush accountable because, "this President and this Administration decided to break the law and they have yet to give a convincing explanation of why their actions were necessary, appropriate, or legal."

Let's address these charges point-by-point.

Charge 1: President Bush created a program that violated FISA which, "makes it a crime to wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order."

Feingold is correct only in that FISA does make it illegal to "wiretap Americans in the United States without a warrant or a court order."

But the NSA surveillance of these suspected terrorist communications only intercepted communications, outside of the United States. Former NSA director General Michael V. Hayden implemented the surveillance program and states [ed. - my bold]:

This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda. We bring to bear all the technology we can to ensure that this is so. And if there were ever an anomaly, and we discovered that there had been an inadvertent intercept of a domestic-to-domestic call, that intercept would be destroyed and not reported. But the incident, what we call inadvertent collection, would be recorded and reported. But that's a normal NSA procedure. It's been our procedure for the last quarter century. And as always, as we always do when dealing with U.S. person information, as I said earlier, U.S. identities are expunged when they're not essential to understanding the intelligence value of any report. Again, that's a normal NSA procedure.

So let me make this clear. When you're talking to your daughter at state college, this program cannot intercept your conversations. And when she takes a semester abroad to complete her Arabic studies, this program will not intercept your communications.

Not one soul, not one single soul, has ever in any way, been able to substantiate the false charge that this was a domestic spying program as it has been reported in the media and by politically motivated Democrats, including Russ Feingold, in the past.

On the first charge of his censure resolution, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold is not only incorrect, but wildly incorrect in his assertions as stated by the very man who implemented the program to intercept terrorist communications outside of the United States.

Charge 2: President Bush mislead the country about the existence of the program.

Is Senator Feingold making the charge that the President has the obligation to announce to the country and the world that he has authorized the NSA to intercept the communications of al Qaeda suspects if someone merely asks about it? The President is under some sort of obligation to blurt out top secret information if someone merely gets close?

It appears that is exactly the Wisconsin Democrat's argument.

He then cites three instances where President Bush did not inform the nation about warrantless wiretaps.

Note that Senator Feingold focuses on the word wiretaps. Note in General Hayden's speech that he never uses the word wiretap once.

Not only is Senator Russ Feingold—a potential Democratic Presidential contender in 2008—making the astonishing claim that secret intelligence programs should not apparently be kept secret, he appears to make the attempt to mislead the American public about the very nature of the NSA intelligence program by calling it wiretapping.

Russ Feingold makes an insane "rule" about being utterly revealing to the point of self-defeat, and immediately violates that rule himself.

Charge 3: President Bush mislead the country about the legality of this program.

Once again, Senator Feingold makes a charge, but has shown neither the willingness nor the ability to support it.

Two Attorney's General, White House counsel, the top legal minds of the National Security Administration, and top Justice Department lawyers have maintained, and existing case law such as the FISA Court of Review's decision in In re: Sealed Case, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, and other evidence in this 42-page Dept. of Justice brief (PDF) strongly asserts that warrants are not required for this kind of international surveillance. FISA simply does not apply. Even if FISA did apply to this program, FISA would be illegal, not the NSA's program. The President has a duty as Commander-in-Chief (sorry Glenn, but those are the facts as they are, not as you would have them) to direct military assets such as the National Security Agency to conduct foreign surveillance, as collecting intelligence about enemy forces is a unquestioningly part of normal war-fighting activities.

No one—not one single soul—can say categorically with any objectivity that the President's executive order is illegal. A case against the program has not been adjudicated, and the majority of those with explicit access to the details of the program hold it to be legal. It may be in doubt, but it is far from being held to conclusively be illegal.

Once again, Democratic Senator Feingold falls far short of supporting his charges.

Charge 4: Congress must hold President Bush accountable because, "this President and this Administration decided to break the law and they have yet to give a convincing explanation of why their actions were necessary, appropriate, or legal."

And yet, Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, has not provided any evidence that so much as one single law was broken. No case has been decided or even tried to show that this foreign terrorist surveillance program was illegal, immoral or even improper, and those experts (not pundits, but experts) most familiar with the specific, classified details of the program overwhelmingly support its legality.

Senator Feingold doesn't seem to regard the increasingly bold attacks of radical Islamic terrorism over the past 30 years is "a convincing explanation of why their actions were necessary, appropriate, or legal."

Why is the President is more worthy of attack from this Wisconsin Democrat than is radical Islamic terrorism? Because Russ Feingold's Presidential aspirations comes first. Defending America... well, that's further down the line.

Update: Minor language revisions made for clarity.

Update 2: A.J. Strata has what is (IMO) a pretty fair assessment of how Feingold's grandstanding is ripping liberals apart from the rest of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:23 AM | Comments (88) | Add Comment
Post contains 1514 words, total size 11 kb.

1 So it's more grand-standing from Senator Feingold; after the attacks on 9/11/01, the charge was that the various agencies didn't "connect the dots", now the Dems want them wearing blindfolds! It's funny how they keep saying wire-tap, like there's an agent in the basement putting alligator clips and a recorder on your phone line, when it is just signal interception of radio waves, that are in the public domain anyway!

Posted by: Tom TB at March 13, 2006 06:49 AM (wZLWV)

2 Good for Finegold. Let's have an investigation, debate and a vote. Surely the Administration has nothing to hide.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 13, 2006 10:30 AM (iI6rf)

3 Arthur, There is nothing to investigate. You don't waste time and money investigating something that is on its face not illegal. Unless you are a Democrat with no agenda except trying to tear Bush down at the expense of our national security.

Posted by: TWM at March 13, 2006 10:36 AM (QsqSQ)

4 Excellent breakdown of what really amounts to the Dem's talking points attacking the President's/NSA program. Now that the cat's out of the bag (thanks to lefties like Senator Feingold,) should be required reading for all. Semper Fi, M

Posted by: E. MAGOS at March 13, 2006 10:37 AM (gs39i)

5 Dems don't need to 'tear Bush down' at the 'expense of our nat'l security'. He's doinng it himself. For example, nearly five years after 9/11 there still is no program in place to track & secure shipping containers entering this country from foreign ports. One of the unintended consequences of spending hundreds of billions of dollars invading Iraq? And I for one am not completely confident the administration has limited the intelligence gathering under discussion here to 'foreign terrorists contacting persons in this country'. I don't buy it. Of course as I've read here on occasion, 'if you have nothing to hide what's the problem?' A reasonable question in my view.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 13, 2006 10:45 AM (iI6rf)

6 Rather than debate the legality of this issue, take it to court. The supreme court, as directly as possible.

Posted by: Robert M. Mels at March 13, 2006 10:59 AM (gUoTS)

7 All Feingold is attempting to do is to position himself as Hillary's running mate.

Posted by: Paul Gabel at March 13, 2006 11:05 AM (6VFW4)

8 Bring it on Russ you stupid little cheesehead

Posted by: James Pickard at March 13, 2006 11:26 AM (ESis7)

9 Does the good Senator also censure the so-called 'Gang of 8' who were briefed in detail about this program numerous times? Sen. Frist, Sen Reid and the House leaders were briefed. Does this motion also censure the FISA court for its failure to stop this program? The FISA court was/is briefed every 45 days. If not, then the Republicans should amend the motion before voting it down.

Posted by: Marvin at March 13, 2006 11:28 AM (MGpg/)

10 Please explain to me, what does the rightwing wackos have against the Constitution? George Bush, ADMITTED that he did in fact break the law with the NSA spying, and that he would keep doing it. Every single day, Bushie and company break the law and violate HIS Oath of Office.

Posted by: Bellebrooke at March 13, 2006 11:34 AM (oO7R1)

11 Since there are all the facts that Feingold has no case, can we have him censured for attacking the Commander and Chief in time of war?

Posted by: John Dahle at March 13, 2006 11:39 AM (bLauD)

12 "And I for one am not completely confident the administration has limited the intelligence gathering under discussion here to 'foreign terrorists contacting peersons in this country'." Based on what FACTS? This is a pretty serious charge to be based on a feeling or theory. Mr. common man Arthur knows more about this than the experts in congress that have been frequently briefed about the specific details of the program? The Bush administration has not been hiding this from congress!! There IS very good reason to not make this program transparent to the whole world!! Are you that stupid?!

Posted by: Andy at March 13, 2006 11:43 AM (WmD2K)

13 The constitution, article II, gives him the authority he needs. If FISA,which is statutory law tries to limit that authority, FISA is unconstitutional. What is so hard to understand?

Posted by: Robert Randall at March 13, 2006 11:50 AM (nnDFM)

14 Senator Feingold's political posturing is what we have come to expect from the unhinged left - it is transparent to the point of absurdity. If this were simply a case of one more bloviating liberal gasbag we could ignore it, but the Senator's comments lend aid and comfort to our enemies. To put it simply, if Senator Feingold's ilk gains control of either chamber of the Congress or the White House, we may expect many more Americans to die at the hands of terrorists than would otherwise be the case. No other way to slice it.

Posted by: Kris at March 13, 2006 12:03 PM (4Aki9)

15 I just don't get it. Bush is vulnerable on so many issues: immigration, spending, Department of Education, Mineta, border security. And the Democrats attack him on how he's conducting a war? The Democrat party is soooo out of touch it's scary.

Posted by: Fritz at March 13, 2006 12:16 PM (OX/IM)

16 The democratic party IS irresponsible! Just take a look at this, folks: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Posted by: julie at March 13, 2006 12:29 PM (RowKO)

17 In the opinion of most of the world, no doubt the defining moment of the Presidency of George W. Bush was his response to the events of September 11th, 2001. I respectfully disagree. The defining moment of his presidency, marked by a major news conference on August 9, 2001, was his decision to ban additional stem cell harvesting while letting research on those cultures already in existence continue... George Bush, The Indian Nuclear Agreement and International Law

Posted by: Solomon2 at March 13, 2006 12:34 PM (30Bh+)

18 Please do not think that Feingold represents everyone in Wisconsin. Just because we have not been able to vote him out does not mean we agree with him. It would be interesting to know what his ex wives think about him.

Posted by: Charlie K at March 13, 2006 12:46 PM (Rq1uE)

19 It is amazing how the Democrats continue to complain about this administration on almost every topic and there is a lot to complain about. But, they never give any solutions. Why is that? Maybe it is because they have none.

Posted by: Andrew at March 13, 2006 01:06 PM (uSkBa)

20 You're doggone right that Feingold is doing this for political reasons. That is the game in Washinton and he knows how to play it. He knows how to take advantage of the failures of his opponents. You need to review his opponents in the last election try to defend the Patriot Act and use his vote as a weapon against him. Feingold dispatched them easily. Feingold is a true leader in the mold of Fighting Bob Lafollette.

Posted by: Victor at March 13, 2006 01:38 PM (P4eAQ)

21 What a blithering idiot Sen Feingold is. Does anyone expect anything else from a Democrat? I continue to shudder when I think of what would have happened to our Country if that raging lunatic Gore had won the 2000 election. We'd all be under Sharia and women would be in Burkas by now.

Posted by: Chas VS at March 13, 2006 01:49 PM (4RMFQ)

22 bellebrook, mind pointing out where exactly Bush ADMITTED he broke the law? He admitted the existence of the program, but he never said he broke the law.

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 02:01 PM (ybfXM)

23 Oh...the STONED one is back with more rhetoric. Great! I'll tell you a few opinions. Besides trying to set himself up as a candidate, the only other reason Feingold has is because the dems have been shut down on every other front on this issue. There will be no court case in it because it is too strongly a political issue. A clear majority of Americans think the NSA program was a good idea - even in the biased polls put together by AP/IPSOS, FOX, ABC, WaPo, CBS, etc....in every single case people think it was and is a good idea. If the dems keep pushing it they are going to feel the bite at the polls in the Fall. So go for it Feingold. It's kind of like Murtha calling for immediate withdrawal and then the Republicans put up a measure which was soundly defeated. I guess Howlin' Howie has been talking to Russ - you know - masterminding the election strategy. "Hey Russ - let's make yet another complaint about the NSA program. How much lower can the public's views about COngress sink anyways?"

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 02:07 PM (ybfXM)

24 I address this to Arthur Stone. It is raining here. It's Bush's fault. Cold and snow are predicted for tomorrow. It is Bush's fault. This morning on my way to work I was delayed by a fallen tree across the road. It is Bush's fault. I didn't get that raise I wanted. It is Bush's fault. Get the picture. You and the rest of the liberal lemmings have allowed your Bush hatred to consume whatever judgement you once possessed. You've no constructive ideas to add to the mix, no suggestions with any merit, no proposals of any value. You remind me of those bearded guys in the long robes who used to walk around with the signs saying "The End Is Near".

Posted by: Joseph at March 13, 2006 02:37 PM (UqDXY)

25 The Shame of Wisconsin! Osama is Smiling. Can't we here in Wisconsin Impeach this Idiot? I've had enough of his Hate-Mongering! Please Vote him out like they did with Daschle!

Posted by: Gerard Bonnette at March 13, 2006 02:56 PM (CxxEm)

26 Yes Andy, Arthur is that STUUU PID, I call them "Village Idiots! If you'll notice, accusations with NO logic, proof, or documentation!! Commonly known as a "Circle Jirk!" This is why the DIMS will continue to Destroy the Democratic party, which is not a good thing, this country needs two strong parties! I cannot imagine the people of this country trusting the security of this nation to the Wacked out Extreme Left! Can you?

Posted by: mike at March 13, 2006 02:57 PM (HiWxc)

27 Bellebrooke, Since you are so sure that what Bush did broke the law I give you a very easy task. Please indicate the court case that concluded that a President needs a warrant to gather foreign intelligence. Given that you seem to think it is illegal you should be able to find the case(s) that have ruled this way.... p.s. (good luck, there is no court that have ruled this way)

Posted by: drm at March 13, 2006 02:58 PM (YFFpo)

28 Everything in the method and timing of this says it has absolutely no chance for consideration. Exactly as Feingold wants. Now he has his next straw man to defeat: "Evil Republicans blackaed his attempt at justice." Those of us in Wisconsin are all too familiar with Fiengold's ability to manipulate issues to his advantage. Its actually part of his popularity. We love our underdogs and mavericks - as per Fighing Bob LaFollette. This is more likely part of a strategy move to gain support from the hard left who still remember and are still angry about his positions and statements concerning the Clinton impeachment. I highly doubt Hillary would even consider him for a position as the guy who picks up after the WH canines after that. As stated above, a deep thanks are due him for the appalingly bad image he is helping create for the Dems.

Posted by: Jim at March 13, 2006 03:07 PM (YwdKL)

29 What happens to the trolls when confronted with facts and questions about their facts....They go back under their bridges until something else tap, tap, taps across.....

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 03:51 PM (ybfXM)

30 Bellebrooke and Artie Stonewalled [AKA, Richard Thurston] are about as clueless as any two Donks I have ever witnessed. They make ridiculous statements they cannot support with documented fact. When challenged they run the other way for a while - until they can Google some other talking points without substance. Does anyone take these two seriously? Idiocy that only a mother could love and respect ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 13, 2006 06:14 PM (rhncG)

31 By the way, CY ... It's the National Security Agency - not Administration

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 13, 2006 06:17 PM (rhncG)

32 Add this to the list for Feingold. I still cannot believe that this idiot thinks these asinine political stunts endure himself to the American people. I only wish Scott Walker (Milwaukee County Executive) would run against this idiot (Feingold) instead of our idiot governor (Jim Doyle).

Posted by: emoney22 at March 13, 2006 06:52 PM (tfyzx)

33 Why is the President is more worthy of attack from this Wisconsin Democrat than is radical Islamic terrorism? First, this is completely absurd logic. If someone yells "Duke sucks" while they're watching the ACC tournament, do you ask "Why is JJ Redick more worthy of attack from this Carolina fan than is radical Islamic terrorism?" Second, why you might want to look at what constitutional law experts, rather than former NSA officers, think about what is constitutional. After all, the NSA didn't even officially exist until recently - not exactly the folks you want to trust went it comes to secrecy in the executive branch. Con Law Profs - "On NSA Spying: A Letter to Congress."

Posted by: Thad Anderson at March 13, 2006 07:41 PM (BsS76)

34 Specter- Rep. Murtha never called for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He called for them withdrawn as soon as is prudent. There's a huge difference Retired Spy- Ask your blogmaster why I don't post here for periods of time. And not everyone is as sanguine as you that this administration is doing its job in securing our borders and protecting us from terrorist threats.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 13, 2006 07:52 PM (iI6rf)

35 Actually, come to think of it, to use your logic, "Why is Senator Feingold more worthy of attack from Confederate Yankee than is radical Islamic terrorism?" Unless you're arguing that every single one of us has to spend every second of every day "attacking radical Islamic terrorism" (which I wish President Bush would have stuck to, instead of getting into a war against a secular dictator in Iraq) - you can't really talk.

Posted by: Thad Anderson at March 13, 2006 07:53 PM (BsS76)

36 ...the NSA didn't even officially exist until recently... May 20, 1949 is "recent?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 13, 2006 07:54 PM (0fZB6)

37 Stoned One, We know why you were cut off. So what. His site. BTW - the Republicans tried to oblige Feingold today by having a vote on the censure issue. They backed down - again. Why do you suppose that is? Is it really because Harry "I got $68K But Didn't Take Any Money and I'm Not Giving it Back!" Reid really needed to be involved in the timing? Gee....Or might it be that the dems look like idiots again if they go forward? Why don't you answer the substance of questions rather than just respoinding with rhetoric? Like we are going to take your "word" on anything.

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 08:46 PM (ybfXM)

38 I'm glad there's someone like Feingold in the Senate to question this type of program. It's not that the program is necessarily wrong in itself, it's the fact that Bush didn't have the legal ability to authorize it. Why do you think Sens. Specter and DeWine have proposed legislation that would retroactively make this program legal? There's nothing wrong with wiretapping suspected members of Al Qaeda to protect Americans... but even the President needs to follow the law. Thanks, Russ.

Posted by: Mike Westling at March 13, 2006 09:10 PM (OQiFq)

39 mike, What do you base this on: ...it's the fact that Bush didn't have the legal ability to authorize it. Please show us the court rulings etc. that backs up your statement. Not news articles or opinions - actual cases and facts. Hmmmmm? Where's the proof? Could it be that maybe, just maybe you don't have any? Could it be that they proposed the legislation was simply to defuse the situation?

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 09:38 PM (ybfXM)

40 Interesting news over at Michele Malkin: ...Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution that would censor the President of the United States for "eavesdropping" in the wake of 9/11. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, moments ago, made a unanimous consent motion that the Senate vote on the resolution tonight. Maryland Democrat Paul Sarbanes rose to object to the motion. Frist then motioned to vote on the resolution again tomorrow. Sarbanes objected, saying no vote should take place on the resolution until Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid had cleared the timing. In other words, Democrats know this is a political stunt, without a chance of passage, but want to time it politically for maximum impact. Later, Harry Reid took the floor to say he was offended that Frist would go to the floor and motion for unanimous consent on such an "important issue" without talking to him first. Reid's two-facedness knows no bounds. Does he not remember last year taking the Senate floor and invoking Senate Rule XXI, thereby shutting down the Senate? When he made that parliamentary move to score political points over pre-war intelligence, he broke all Senate precedent by invoking the draconian measure without first seeking the compliance of the Senate Majority Leader as has always been done in the past. Outrageous? Yes...Surprising? No... Imagine that...the Society of Subversion with yet another Scandal du Jour. Just how long until this bogus censure motion actually comes to a vote? I suspect that after a big splash in MSM it will quickly disappear - like Quailgate...Another one bites the dust.....

Posted by: Specter at March 13, 2006 09:47 PM (ybfXM)

41 Does anyone know if the President can SUE for slander if someone accuses him of something that is a proven lie..Or maybe the American People can initiate a Class Action against the Accuser for Willfully demeaning with proven Lies ,the Leader of our Country..Which results in degrading America and causing disrespect and irreversable harm to America in the Eyes of the World... Remember,I said PROVEN LIES... Just a Thought....

Posted by: Garnett at March 13, 2006 10:36 PM (f4f0b)

42 Specter- Not quite the same as walking away is it? Believe me I know who's blog this is. I liked this exchange between Sens. Specter and Durbin on the wiretaps/intelligence gathering where Specter clearly states he doesn't know the extent of these efforts. 'Trust us'. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Specter-Durbin-censure.mov

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 13, 2006 11:14 PM (iI6rf)

43 I can't wait for November!! The democrats will be running on "I won't wiretap Osama!"

Posted by: JoeS at March 13, 2006 11:22 PM (0Chju)

44 I can state definitively that NSA were recruiting openly in 979, because they flew me down to MD for an interview my senior year in college.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 13, 2006 11:43 PM (D1Ao2)

45 FISA is the law of the land, having been ratified by congress, thus it's constitutional. If W didn't like the law he could have EASILY gotten it changed or modified to suit him. After 9/11 he had all the cooperation he ever needed from BOTH sides of the isle. Complaining now that FISA was too restrictive is a poor alibi and its use AFTER the fact is HILARIOUS! So despite playing down the motion to censure, the bush-bots are shorting-out, their arms flailing like wet spaghetti. They know WHERE they want to pin the blame but not HOW to make it stick: Feingold? No way, Jose! Feingold voted FOR the articles of impeachment against Slick Willie. No partisan hack he! Try again, beady-eyes! I could rub it in but suffice it to say: Feingold-Buchanan in '08!

Posted by: bryanD at March 14, 2006 12:59 AM (3QDge)

46 FISA is the law of the land, having been ratified by congress, thus it's constitutional. Um, NO. Just becuase a law is ratified by Congress it does not mean it is Constitutional. Laws passed by Congress are struck down constantly as being unconstitutional by the courts. Bad liberal. No donut. As Bush has inherent Article II powers, he did not need to obtain any additional powers to conduct foreign surveillance. His powers to do so are a recognized part of the CIC's war-fighting powers going back 200+ years to the first "George" in the White House. The President's powers far outstrip that stipulated in FISA, and if challenged, FISA will be struck down. The President, by the way, has a legal duty to ignore laws that he and the White House Consel feel are unconstitutional. Bush simply didn't ask for an expansion of FISA becuase it is useful for some purposes (the Bush Adminstration has filed more FISA requests than any previous adminstration), but it is not useful for all purposes, and the 1978 law could not envision the technology of 30 years later. FISA doesn't cover Bush's program because it doesn't have the technological scope to do so. The "Bush-bots" actually called twice for the motion to come to a vote last night, and Democrats blocked it. Feingold pushed for censure against Clinton to try to keep the more serious articles of impeachment from going forward. Then, like now, he is partisan failure playing to people like you who are completely ignorant of history and of law. bryanD, thanks for wasting the taxpayer's education dollar. You got exactly nothing right.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2006 07:21 AM (0fZB6)

47 Garnett- I somehow don't think the president is going to sue anyone for slander. The defendants would be allowed to ask way too many questions of the plaintiff. But it would be entertaining.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 14, 2006 10:07 AM (iI6rf)

48 CY wrote- As Bush has inherent Article II powers, he did not need to obtain any additional powers to conduct foreign surveillance. His powers to do so are a recognized part of the CIC's war-fighting powers going back 200+ years to the first "George" in the White House. The President's powers far outstrip that stipulated in FISA, and if challenged, FISA will be struck down. The President, by the way, has a legal duty to ignore laws that he and the White House Consel feel are unconstitutional. The question remains "is the surveillance program we're discussing strictly 'foreign' or, is there a domestic component the administration doesn't want made public?" Senator Spector doesn't even know. And I'm unaware of the President's 'duty' to ignore laws he and the White House Counsel feel are 'unconstitutional'. Nixon said it can't be illegal if the president did it. He was wrong.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 14, 2006 10:31 AM (iI6rf)

49 No one, who posted a comment, knows anything about the program because no information has been provided. Maybe the NSA has limited the surveillance to Al Queda communications, but nobody outside the administration knows. Nobody knows if the program is effective. If the program were only directed to Al Queda, then surely the FISA court would issue a warrant. The FISA court cannot hold the administration accountable, because it does not have a case before it. Article II of the constitution does not grant the president this authority. Frankly, it is the height of intellectual hypocrisy when a strict constructionist administration relies on that argument. This program and its secrecy diminish the Constitution and rule of law. Its defenders are wimps who are afraid to defend the constitution.

Posted by: ben at March 14, 2006 10:46 AM (JKQGb)

50 Richard Thurston/Arthur Stone wrote: The question remains "is the surveillance program we're discussing strictly 'foreign' or, is there a domestic component the administration doesn't want made public?" No that question does not remain. There has never even been a domestic component alleged, except by conspiracy theorists. General Hayden said specifically this was a foreign program, and stated that in the rare instance domestic conversations are compromised, the infomation is destroyed. Period. Unless you have evidence you can cite to the contrary, you are simply engaging in conspiracy theories and paranoia. Ben said: No one, who posted a comment, knows anything about the program because no information has been provided. Maybe the NSA has limited the surveillance to Al Queda communications, but nobody outside the administration knows. Nobody knows if the program is effective. If the program were only directed to Al Queda, then surely the FISA court would issue a warrant. The FISA court cannot hold the administration accountable, because it does not have a case before it. The White House Counsel knows. The NSA knows. Two Attorney's General and a bevy of Justice Department Lawyers know, as do the leading members of both parties in both the House and Senate. I think that is enough. Or are you arguing that our intelligence capabilities and programs should all be public knowledge, perhaps circulated in detail in the press? No wonder we cannot trust teh future of this nation to people such as yourself. Article II of the constitution does not grant the president this authority. Frankly, it is the height of intellectual hypocrisy when a strict constructionist administration relies on that argument. Actually, sir, it is your ignorance of the Constitution that is on display here. Under Article II, the President is named as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. A primary concern of war-fighting is intelligence gathering, and it has been for thousands of years. The National Security Agency is part of the Department of Defense, and is another component the President commands. If "This program and its secrecy diminish the Constitution and rule of law" as you state, prove your charge. You cannot, becuase it is a false charge. You will not, because there is not one bit of evidence to support your wild accusations. I defend the Constitution as it is written, and the President's Constitutional authority to conduct foreign surveillance is not even questioned, as the FISA Court of Review itself stated in In re: Sealed Case (2002), when they stated: 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 PresidentÂ’s constitutional power. It is real simple, Ben. Show your evidence. Put up, or shut up.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2006 11:38 AM (g5Nba)

51 CY- Sen. Specter says in this tape that he doesn't know what our surveillance program does. He cannot say that there is not a domestic component to the program because they don't have the information to say one way or the other. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Specter-Durbin-censure.mov The question is not simply being raised by 'conspiracy theorists'.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 14, 2006 01:02 PM (ijyAZ)

52 So a senator on the judiciary commitee doesn't know about classified intelligence operations that happen outside of his perview. Those who need to know, do. Those who do not need to know, don't. RINO Specter, not being on the Intelligence committee (take that any way you wish) doesn't know and shouldn't know the details of this program. It appears the system is working as it should. What exactly is your point? Of course, I've yet to see any liberal or would-be libertarian do anything but dodge the Sealed Case decision. What part of "FISA could not encroach on the PresidentÂ’s constitutional power" from the FISA Court of Review itself do you not understand? I do want you to keep arguing over this though, loudly, and longly... at least until November.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2006 02:23 PM (g5Nba)

53 I agree completely with "Confederate Yankee" re this issue...It is really scary that so many people are simply willing to believe anything that they want to hear---regardless of the FACTS... I'm sure they all believe the Oliver Stone theory in "JFK" also...When people lose the abaility to do analysis and fact-finding, we are truly at risk...

Posted by: Jim Ullery at March 14, 2006 02:50 PM (VKWf2)

54 I have never been more proud of Russ Feingold. Deep down, you know he's right. It truly will be an interesting year. Good luck Republicans, you're going to need it !

Posted by: Proud Wisconsinite at March 14, 2006 03:13 PM (+Srjw)

55 My question is "Who in Congress could you trust to keep any Secret program, Secret"? Every time there is a "leak" of information we have months and months of conspiracy theories and accusations of lying and grandstanding. You cannot brief the DEMS we have years of evidence that they hate this administration and will go to extremes to try to embarrass and deride Bush at every turn. Mostly to there own embarrassment. So why does the left wonder why they are not included in all briefings. Do you think that mainstream America trusts loud mouth politicians like Pelosi, Durbin,Reid,Clinton and Feingold. This crap has got to end. When does politics outweigh the security of this nation. Outweigh the need to intercept and deter an attack on our homeland. All I see is a bunch of POLITICIANS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS at any cost to you and I. I challenge anyone to give a name and an instance in which the Govt intruded on your privacy and surveiled your phone and radio communications illegally. If you can.... If you can't then SHUTUP about the WIRE TAPPING. Everyone assumes they are spying on us. AS CY said "PUT UP OR SHUT UP"!!!! You liberal suck asses need to stop whining and get over it. Come up with some original ideas, solve some problems instead of creating illusions. No one on the left has an original idea on problem solving. A.S. you need to come up with all the facts, your run and gun tactics will not hold up here.. WE NEED THE PROOF!!!!

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 14, 2006 03:21 PM (NmR1a)

56 Faithful Patriot- Since no one outside the administration and the people doing the surveilling know the extent of the spying it's impossible to know just who is being watched/observed/listened to. So your suggesting folks outside the intelligence community and the administration offer proof that the program is doing only what the admninistration claims its doing is disingenuous. It's the administration which needs to put up or shut up.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 14, 2006 03:53 PM (ijyAZ)

57 Stoned, As far as CY and HIS site - get your own if you don't like his rules. Gawd.... Prove this. You said: Since no one outside the administration and the people doing the surveilling know the extent of the spying it's impossible to know just who is being watched/observed/listened to. You said it. Now prove it. Gee - I guess the Gang of 8 wasn't informed. I guess the reason the Senate backed down on having an investigation in Specter's (not me) committee is because they were afraid that Bush would be proved wrong. Isn't it more likely that they finally had their eyes opened and realized how dumb they were all being. It probably didn't have anything to do with the polls that state that the majority of Americans think that the NSA program is a good idea. Unfortunately - your side lost this battle a long time ago. We continue to hear from the likes of Feingold that it is "illegal" - but no proof whatsoever. Who cares what someone THINKS? ben, Oh learned one - since you obviously follow this issue so closely - perhaps you could give us some idea of how much paperwork is involved in applying for a FISA warrant and how long it takes to get one approved. Do you know? There has been quite a bit published on it - try googling it and see what you come up with. The publish some facts here rather than just your words.

Posted by: Specter at March 14, 2006 04:31 PM (ybfXM)

58 More: From the Drudge Report: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to push Democrats for a vote of censure against President Bush! After facing down Senator Russ Feingold's censure bill on Monday and seeing Democrats of all ranks fold, Frist thinks it's time to call Democrats on their antics, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned. "He pushed them to the mat today, and they blinked," said one Frist associate. "He dared them to vote, and Democrat Leader Harry Reid looked like he was going to be sick as he said 'No.''' Frist is going to continue to dare Democrats to vote on censuring the President. "When it comes to intercepting phone calls from Tora Bora to Topeka, Frist thinks Senate Democrats have made a huge blunder, and he will lead the charge to make Democrats put up or shut up on censure," the top insider claimed. Don't like that Stoned? Try this from the WaPo no less: Some party strategists, however, worried that voters will see the move as overreaching partisanship, and Republicans pounced, practically daring Democrats to vote for the measure. "The big question now," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), "is how many of his Democrat colleagues will follow him over the cliff?" LOL - actually in the pages of one of the propaganda arms of the Scandal du Jour crowd. How funny is that?

Posted by: Specter at March 14, 2006 04:42 PM (ybfXM)

59 Since when does Feingold care about the Constitution? His DNA is all over the McCain, Feingold campaign finance law.

Posted by: Scott at March 14, 2006 05:26 PM (EGL9+)

60 Specter- What are the rules you're suggesting I refer to? But enough of that. The fact remains that neither the "Gang of 8", the Senate Judiciary Committee or Senator Frist knows how the spying program we're discussing works. A majority approves if the surveillance is between US citizens and suspected terrorists living in other countries. The poll results would be quite different if the spying was strictly domestic. And since no one knows how the program actually works and what it actually does we don't know if the administration is really doing what it says it is. The reason that investigation in the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't proceed is that there are more republicans than democrats (10- on the committee. Which likewise explains the difficulty in getting the entire senate to do its job. Thanks for the quote from Cornyn. There's a statesman.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 14, 2006 05:28 PM (ijyAZ)

61 The put up or shut up argument is baffling. The program is classified, only administration officials know the details. The congressional members have received only limited briefings. They do not know the full scope of the program. Finally, the FISA court does not know the details, because the administration never applied for a warrant. So the people claiming the program is legal and constitutional all have a self serving interest in that argument. Maybe they were right, but nobody outside of the administration knows the whole facts, including you CY. The founding fathers did not trust an executive's word, hence the 4th amendment. CY, no one questions the president's authority to conduct foriegn surveillance, unfortunately you are confusing the issue. That is not the same as domestic surveillance. Additionally, Troung was pre FISA law. The FISA statute changed the rules. The president need only get a warrant to listen to Americans. It is not a huge burden. Just demonstrate reasonable suspicion, which is a lighter burden than probable cause. Article II as argued by you is in direct contradiction to the 4th amendment. Article II does not enable the president to order agencies to break the law. Article II authorizes the president to direct the military while he faithfully executes the law. Hell, who cares about the text of the constitution? Certainly not the president's supporters.

Posted by: ben at March 14, 2006 06:03 PM (JKQGb)

62 Ben, So according to you, the President and his staff, the Vice President and his staff, two Attorney's General, the staff of the White House Counsel's office, the Justice Department legal teams, the NSA's legal staff, and the NSA staff, technical staff and operational employees are all willing criminals. I'm glad I'm not stewing in the vat of paranoia you live in. As far as teh rest of your muddled thoughts go, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the gathering of foreign intelligence in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't even apply to American citizens entering or leaving the country, nor their effects. It is called the border search exemption. Look it up. Better yet, try to tell Customs Agents that they don't have a right to search your bags on your next trip to Cancun becuase you are an American and you are claiming your Forth Amendment rights. I trust you'll enjoy the resulting cavity search. You are purposefully trying to conflate domestic and foreign intelligence, Ben, and failing miserably. FISA cannot override the power afforded the Executive Branch by the Constitution, and does not "change the rules" even if you really, really don't like the President. I'm sorry if that comes as a shock. The President does not need a warrant for communications intercepted outside of America's borders, even if Americans are one of the parties intercepted in these foreign communications. Read again what the FISA court said in 2002: FISA could not encroach on the PresidentÂ’s constitutional power. The constitutional power being spoekn about are the Article II powers that enables the President to conduct normal war-fighting, including the gathering of foreign intelligence, exactly the kind he ordered the NSA, as a branch of the military, to conduct. I'm sorry you do not understand that, but I'm not surprised. You are, if anything, consistant.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 14, 2006 08:06 PM (0fZB6)

63 OK. This is where the rubber meets the road. No one here knows my true identity. Artie (Richard Thurston)knows me only by one of my numerous official and unofficial pseudonyms. That being said, I just returned from a trip to the East Coast, and that is why I have not been posting here recently. Artie and others from the Left know absolutely nothing about the true nature of the NSA foreign surveillance program. That is the good news because I would not trust the lefties with anything pertaining to the security of the United States. I don't give a crap if Artie or other lefties believe me or not, but I was at NSA and at the CIA as a consultant. The NSA surveillance program is exactly as our President has described it. The primary objective is to gather Intelligence on terrorist adversaries - not on innocent American citizens. Those who understand the workings of the Intelligence Community and the U.S. military may appreciate this. Others? You are not worth the effort.

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 14, 2006 08:32 PM (rhncG)

64 You see Stoned One and Ben, You came back with words again. No proof offered. Not one shred of evidence. Not one court case you can point to that would suggest that the law was broken. Strictly innuendo on your part. Don't you think that if Feingold truly believed that Bush had broken the law he would be going for impeachment? Why only censure? That has no official standing in any way shape of form anyways. The fact is that the court cases that have reviewed this have ALL COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENTIAL POWERS. Sorry. Game's Over. Stop whining and try to support.

Posted by: Specter at March 14, 2006 09:54 PM (ybfXM)

65 Retired Spy- I don't know you by any of your 'official' or 'unofficial' pseudonyms. You're right about that. But you say that you 'consulted' for the CIA and the NSA and that you 'know' that the NSA surveillance program is 'exactly as the president described it'. How do you know? The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee doesn't even know how the program works. Yet you 'know' this and post that to usenet? Thanks for the laugh. CY- No one is against spying on terrorists. But if the president's program is only about monitoring the communications of terrorists, it could be conducted legally, under the oversight of a secret court. The fact that Bush refuses to submit the program to court review suggests it goes beyond what's legal. I think the actual criminal enterprise resides in the White House and the Justice Dept. Attorney General? Does what he's told, as he did what he was told when he was White House Counsel. NSA? Does what its ordered to do. Can't happen? Dick Nixon. John Mitchell. Bob Halderman. John Ehrlichman et. al. It did happen and it may be happening now. Specter- Criticizing administration policy is not whining. And criticizing senators who vote strictly on party lines not to follow a legitimate field of inquiry into a dubious intelligence gathering program is required. Hey I can't help it if Republican senators are slightly more cowardly than Democrats. It's my right.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 12:31 AM (iI6rf)

66 You are so ignorant, Artie/Richard. There is no need for the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to be read into the NSA foreign intelligence surveillance program. The more non-professionals read into the program, the more likely it is that there will be leaks. I worked directly with a similar program prior to my retirement. It required some of the highest clearances that exist in the Intelligence Community. No brag. Just fact. I am read in to these and other sensitive programs whenever I do consulting work for the Intelligence agencies. When the work is finished I am debriefed, and the my clearance status is voided. And what classified information have I devulged? None. And what do you know about U.S. Intelligence? Nothing. You are a gadfly blowhard who runs an art gallery. Stick to what you really know, Richard. BTW, had you paid any attention to the return address on the email response I once sent you - after you had whined to me about being kicked off this forum - you would have seen one of those identities. It was an unofficial one. You know, like ArthurStone. Your moniker is far more telling. Like a box of stones ....

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 15, 2006 05:38 AM (rhncG)

67 Stoned One, Still no facts? Where's the proof a law was broken? You've been on here stating that for months. Show some evidence.....What's that? You can't? Oh...now I understand why you can only use rhetoric. I'll put the same challenge to you as to benjy - how much paperwork is associated in getting a FISA warrant? How much probable cause must be shown? How do we get that probable cause so that judges can issue a warrant? How much time does it take to properly file a FISA warrant and get it approved? Answers? I suspect that none will be forthcoming from you and your troll-friends. But- hey - that is what we expect.

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 08:20 AM (ybfXM)

68 Specter- The answer to your question is that the requirements for obtaining an FISA warrent aren't so onerous they need to be avoided.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 10:26 AM (iI6rf)

69 RS- Again. No one is against spying on terrorists. But if the president's program is only about monitoring the communications of terrorists, it could be conducted legally, under the oversight of a secret court. The fact that Bush refuses to submit the program to court review suggests it goes beyond what's legal. Far from allowing bad guys to get away, revealing details of the NSA intelligence gathering operations are likely to be a huge political embarassment to the administration and congress. Given the endless screwups and over reactions the administration has made in the 'war on terror' it's our obligation to ask a question or two. Now if you want to sit quietly and not make a peep about any of this that's your business. Others have had more than enough of the administration saying 'trust us'. And what about all those shipping containers flowing through our ports 24/7? Still unsecured aren't they?

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 10:41 AM (iI6rf)

70 AS: Have you ever actually seen or transported all those required documents to the FISA Court? Do you even know anyone who has? Do you know someone who knows someone? I didn't think so .... You're urinating into a head wind, Sir. As for letting the bad guys get away, we are all thankfull that you will never be in charge of protecting national security. We value America much more than that.

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 15, 2006 11:06 AM (rhncG)

71 So far as protecting our national security RS, I probably wouldn't do worse than this bunch. I would deal the shipping containers I assure you. Here's a suggestion: 'Someday, every container might be equipped with a high-tech sensor that can tell officers whether it's been opened since it left the company that stuffed it full of clothing, food or electronics. Every container could be run through a gamma ray machine before it leaves Rotterdam or Singapore.' And this doesn't make me sleep easier: FBI watch on peace group revealed Agency documents on Pittsburgh activities prompt information request from three WNY organizations By JONATHAN S. LANDAY KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS 3/15/2006 WASHINGTON - An FBI counterterrorism unit monitored - and apparently infiltrated - a peace group in Pittsburgh that opposed invading Iraq, according to agency documents released Tuesday. The disclosure raised new questions about the extent to which federal authorities have been conducting surveillance operations against Americans since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Previous revelations include FBI monitoring of environmental and animal rights organizations, scrutiny of anti-war organizations by a top-secret Pentagon program and eavesdropping by the National Security Agency on domestic communications without court authorization. What a surprise.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 01:14 PM (ijyAZ)

72 Specter, You may be in over your head. Your "facts" are that administration officials claim the program is constitutional. Saying so don't make it fact. The supreme court has held that a warrant is needed to wiretap a phone call, that is a fact. Therefore, the burden is on the administration to provide evidence justifying a warrantless wiretap. That has not happened. The burden is theirs, and they have not provided facts to meet it. Thus, wiretapping laws appear to have been broken. What is the relevance of the FISA paperwork? Completing the paperwork is part of following the law. If the president says he can wiretap without following the procedure, because a warrant would take too long to acquire then what is the point of having laws. However, warrants are issued quickly all the time by regular state and federal courts. Probable cause is the burden of proof, you either have it or you don't. If you cannot obtain a warrant from a court, then you don't have probable cause. The fact that you ask how much probable cause is needed demonstrates that you do not know the law. However, the FISA court will issue a warrant for reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause. FISA process is the following: (a) Submission by Federal officer; approval of Attorney General; contents Each application for an order approving electronic surveillance under this subchapter shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title. Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon his finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this subchapter. It shall include— (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application; (2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application; (3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance; (4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures; (6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance; (7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate— (A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information; (B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information; (C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; (D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and (E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that— (i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and (ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; ( a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance; (9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; (10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and (11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. (b) Exclusion of certain information respecting foreign power targets Whenever the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title, and each of the facilities or places at which the surveillance is directed is owned, leased, or exclusively used by that foreign power, the application need not contain the information required by paragraphs (6), (7)(E), ( , and (11) of subsection (a) of this section, but shall state whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance and shall contain such information about the surveillance techniques and communications or other information concerning United States persons likely to be obtained as may be necessary to assess the proposed minimization procedures. (c) Additional affidavits or certifications The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application. That is not particularly onerous. If one thinks it is, then one does not understand criminal procedure. Furthermore, the NSA can eavesdrop up to 72 hours before going to FISA for a warrant. So if they did not have probable cause before the warrant, then that evidence can be obtained and used to procure a warrant. That did not happen. CY, Do not repackage my words. Foriegn surveillance and bag checking by customs is not the same as wiretapping your phone conversations. You relinquish 4th amendment rights when you travel internationally and through public commercial transportation. The case law is clear. Domestic Wiretapping is different. The communications are with one person inside the US borders, therefore the 4th amendment does apply. Furthermore, I have not said anything about the president. All I am saying is court review is the constitutional safeguard that is required. That is far more important than political players knowing.

Posted by: ben at March 15, 2006 01:29 PM (JKQGb)

73 Stoned One, Interesting that you did not post the whole article. Why not? Just to fuel the new conspiracy? Do you know why the FBI was investigating the group? The article does not say why - in fact all of the information about the investigation itself was redacted. Now the group itself claims that it was simply because of: "The documents say they were conducting some kind of investigation," Jim Kleissler, the Thomas Merton Center director, said in a telephone interview. "That implies we were under surveillance simply because we were against the war. Our freedoms are being undermined." But what were the things the paper did tell us: William J. Crowley, a spokesman for the FBI's Pittsburgh office, said that the monitoring of the center was legal and related to an ongoing investigation. He didn't provide any details of the probe. He said that when the FBI found no link between its investigation and the center, it ended the surveillance. The ACLU contended that the documents are the first to "show conclusively" that an anti-war group was targeted for "its anti-war views." "These documents show that Americans are not safe from secret government surveillance, even when they are handing out fliers in the town square, an activity clearly protected by the Constitution," said Marty Catherine Roper, an ACLU staff attorney. So let's see. The innuendo is that since these folks were handing out leaflets they were targeted. No proof of that of course. Just innuendo. The FBI did not say that, and from the documents obtained obviously the ACLU didn't either - speculated yes - but actual statement of fact - no. But there's more: An FBI agent photographed center members handing out leaflets, said the report, which added that "one female leaflet distributor, who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent, inquired" if the picture-taker worked for the FBI. Wow - someone got their picture taken. That is so revealing. It is obviously a gross violation of civil rights...imagine that. A Feb. 26, 2003, FBI report titled "International Terrorism Matters" detailed a schedule that the center posted on its Web site of anti-war rallies in Pittsburgh, New York and elsewhere. Oh man - clear evidence of spying. The FBI determined they were holding rallies from STUFF POSTED ON THEIR OWN PUBLICLY ACCESSED WEB SITE. Wow. Big stuff here. Probably another Scandal du Jour. Now - could, just could, the investigation have been due to other reasons? None of US know - and neither did the reporter. What if the group they were trying to hold meetings with - to promote muslim tolerance - was somehow, in some obscure way, tied to OBL? Just speculation on my part. But it is as reasonable as the info from Knight Ridder.

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 01:36 PM (ybfXM)

74 Specter- 'Trust us'. Right?

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 01:51 PM (ijyAZ)

75 ben, good. You actually found the "requirements". Now go bact to google and find the numerous statements from officials saying that getting a warrant approved in 72 hours is impossible. Try it. You won't like it. BTW - you are still trying to argue that FISA is the overriding law here. Tell me this os constitutional scholar - what trumps? A law that may impinge on the President's constitutional powers or the constitution?

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 01:54 PM (ybfXM)

76 Well Stoned One, The press also reported that there is a full blown civil war in Iraq, which subsequently was proved untrue. They also reported that Bush was warned about levees "breaching" in NO before the fact - a story that they had to print retractions for because it was untrue. You want me to give 40 or 50 more examples? Why should I trust them?

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 01:57 PM (ybfXM)

77 ben, Let me give you a starting point since it is obvious you are in way over your head. The Attorney General of the US said: Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time. Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours. A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge. Do you understand. Before the AG can even allow the NSA to begin a 72 hour "emergency authorization", the paperwork has to be signed off. Now picture this - terrorist A is captured and he has a cell phone in his possession. That cell phone has quite a few numbers of contacts around the world in it's speed dial. Terrorist B knows that A has been compromised. He begins calling the same numbers to tell them to get new phones. To operate under FISA (assuming you ignore certain provisions within FISA itself - which I will be glad to get to later), before we can even begin tracking calls to the numbers on A's speed dial, we need several days to even get the "emergency authorization" into place. By then all the contacts have gone down to Wal-Mart and purchased new pre-paid cell phones. Now - on the other hand - if the cell numbers from A's phone are put into the system for surveillance immediately we get information. Why are you against protecting Americans?

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 02:24 PM (ybfXM)

78 ben, better yet - make it a computer that has Terrorist B's and Terrorist C's numbers in it....

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 02:27 PM (ybfXM)

79 What part about secret doesn't the left understand? How can people be so dense? What part of they cannot go public with the way they are surveiling the enemy don't they understand. How are you going to catch these people and there organizers and supporters by telling them how they do it. For over 229+ years we have lived in a free society, are they so insecure that the end of our freedom hinges on the fact that our government is trying to protect us. The framers intended for the govt to protect the people. They had no idea that we would face HIGHJACKERS AND SUICIDE BOMBERS. It boils down to this, if you are not doing anything illegal why are you worried about it? I personally feel safer because of the surveilance measures GW is taking. Do you think they are listening in on my conversations with my wife or children they are specifically targeting certain groups that are known or suspected to have ties to terror. Get a Life!!!

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at March 15, 2006 02:30 PM (Mv/2X)

80 ben, Tell me how you would define a person who lives in the US and is in contact with a known terrorist overseas. Explain your definition.

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 02:44 PM (ybfXM)

81 Specter- I was refering to the White House. Faithful Patriot- "If you're not doing anything illegal why are you worried about it?" What a trusting soul you are. The President is operating outside the law and frankly I'm a little worried about that. You should be too.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 04:52 PM (ijyAZ)

82 Stoned One, There you go again: The President is operating outside the law... Where is your proof? Any? Any at all? Care to post your source? I know...it's only conspiracy theory and speculation on your part.

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 05:01 PM (ybfXM)

83 AS: The President is operating outside the law... The Stoned One is obviously operating outside his sphere of expertise by making such a ludicrous statement without supporting evidence. It reminds me a bit of the idiotic accusations made by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950's. Don't tell us, Thurston. We already know that, and it is immaterial.

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 15, 2006 05:36 PM (rhncG)

84 Wiretaps require warrants. If current law is too restrictive, change the law. Shouldn't be difficult with a republican congress.

Posted by: ArthurStone at March 15, 2006 06:21 PM (ijyAZ)

85 Stoned One, Prove it. Show how the President it bound by FISA. That is not even his claim - although he could make an argument that way. Don't just say it - PROVE IT. Give us the law and case law that has been used to show this. You can't. There have been 4 appellate level decisions about warrantless surveillance and one FISA case. All ruled in favor of the President's inherent Constitutional power. Can you name one that doesn't? If you can't stop saying it. You've obviously been programmed to say this. Maybe you should visit one of the deprogrammers that help people who are part of cults.....

Posted by: Specter at March 15, 2006 06:56 PM (ybfXM)

86 They are not wiretaps, Stoned One. They are intercepts of foreign international communications that are intercepted in much the same way - in principle - as listening to a &^$% radio. Wiretaps are performed on physical devices inside the United States. They require warrants, and the wiretaps are most often perfomed by the FBI. They are NEVER performed by the NSA. You just can't seem to get it through that thick skull of yours that warrantless surveillance of foreign international communications is permitted in accordance with FISA Section 1802, and Americans or foreign persons living inside the U.S. who are involved in that communication are defined in Section 1801. These warrantless communications can be authorized by the United States Attorney General - and they have been. This does not even address the inherent powers of the President under the United States Constitution. And what evidence do you have that the NSA has spied on U.S. Citizens? The New York Times? Now there is a credible outfit! California Democrat Jane Harmon, who was briefed into the NSA program, tells us that the Times got the story completely wrong. I know, I know .... You will continue to believe all those fools out there who also cannot support their claims. How pathetic is that?

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 15, 2006 07:18 PM (rhncG)

87 what happened to ben and Stoned? Ahhhh....I know..."cut and run..."

Posted by: Specter at March 16, 2006 01:24 PM (ybfXM)

88 No, Specter, I am more apt to believe they are googling up a storm somewhere, pitting hope against hope that they may find some points to lay out on the table - without substantiation or proof, of course.

Posted by: Retired Spy at March 16, 2006 05:20 PM (rhncG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I just found out that someone I know was shot in a hunting incident that sounds eerily like Vice President Cheney's accident with Harry Whittington several weeks ago.

I don't have all the facts, but apparently "E." had a successful quail hunt and swung by the club. He ran into another member and his son who wanted to go out, and being more experienced, he volunteered to take them.

They flushed the first bird, and the young man froze. They flushed a second bird and again the young man froze. I'm sure he was probably embarrassed, and when they flushed the third quail, he concentrated so hard...

He fired at the quail just as he swung into both E. and his own dad. His father took four or five birdshot without any serious injuries.

E. wasn't quite as lucky.

He took 44 birdshot to the right side of his face, including two in the right eye. One of those continued through his eye, into his brain. Miraculously, he wasn't killed. He'll find out later this week if they can repair his right eye. He could lose his sight. They'll also try to determine if they will need to remove the shot lodged in his brain, or if it is safer to let it remain where it is.

If any of my readers are praying folks, I'd ask you to say two prayers.

The first is for E. and his family, asking that E. has a full recovery. The second prayer is for this young man, who was only 12. He certainly meant no harm, and this is bound to have devastating effects on him and his family as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:47 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 1 kb.

We went to my hometown today to meet the newest member of my family today, and I was tickled at not only how cute he was, but how quickly Phin adapted to the "Mr. Mom" role as the new mom recovered from her ordeal. He looked like he'd been raising kids all his life. Color me impressed.

We also found out that my new nephew willl only be the newest baby in the family for about seven months. My other brother and his wife revealed tonight they are expecting in early October.

It's all part of a Rovian plot, of course.

We don't only out-think liberals, we out-breed them as well.

That's strategery, baby.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

Certain liberal bloggers are all atwitter over the "racism" displayed in a web site put forth by the National Republican Senatorial Committee called FancyFord.com that targets Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford, Jr.

Jesse Berney runs the screamer, Elizabeth Dole is a racist, and calls FancyFord.com, "a racist attack site" that in Jesse's bleary eyes, has but one goal:

What's the message behind this site? The line of white women on the front page, the fact that it highlights his attendance at NBA All Star events featuring Biz Markie, the emphasis on opulence all combine to portray Ford as a pimp. The site tries to be subtle in its racism, but it fails.

Pam's House Blend agrees:

The Fancy Ford web site is something to behold and cherish. It tells you all that you need to know about where the great minds of the GOP are when it comes to campaigning -- it's still all about playing on race, racial history and the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways of invoking the uppity Negro in Southern politics.

Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest senses the theme:

A black man is runing[sic] for Senator in Tennessee. How does the Republican Party campaign? With blatant racism, what else? Basketball, white women, portraying him as a pimp... There's probably something about driving a Cadillac, but I got sick of looking at the site.

And last but not least is Steve Gilliard, who puts up a picture of hip-hop star 50 Cent (a George W. Bush fan) and says, "When you see Harold Ford, the NRSC wants you to see him."

It seems that among these liberals at least, there is pretty close to unanimous agreement that FancyFord.com is a vile, racist site set up with the goal of portraying Tennessee Democratic Congressional Representative Harold Ford, Jr as a pimp.

As a southern white racist RepubliKKKan (if you don't believe that I am, just ask any of those named above), I took off my hood, put down my copy of Lynching for Dummies, and eagerly clicked over to FancyFord.com to see what all the hubbub was about.

Boy, were the Kleagle and I disappointed.

Try as I might to find some good, old-fashioned references to plantations, Sambo, the master-slave relationship, and the inability of black folks to swim, I just couldn't find it. (Well I could, but it was here, instead). Nor could I find any modern-day references to gangs, homies, or gats (though I did find two mentions of a Playboy Superbowl Party at Hef's that is close enough for "ho's," I suppose).

Imagine my disappointment when the site seemed not to be about race, but a Congessman living the high life off his campaign money!

Jesse, you got my hopes up, just to let me down.

You didn't mention that the "NBA All Star events featuring Biz Markie" was a political fundraiser featuring such notables as Sheila Jackson Lee, U.S. Congressman Al Green and Texas State Senator Rodney Ellis. Granted, I'm sure something was being sold for all that cash, but I think it was influence, not honeys. That isn't racist. It's Congress.

Pam got me going with all her talk about, "the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways of invoking the uppity Negro in Southern politics," But all I found was several pages showing sourced material that puts him in the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, or passing out expensive Davidoff cigars to those hosting his fundraising receptions. Now, being a dumb old racist redneck, I'm not sure how exclusive Hollywood hotels, imported cigars, and Armani suits play into "the subtle (and not-so-subtle) ways of invoking the uppity Negro," but if it actually does that, can he be uppity at my place, please?

And Dave, I tried, but I couldn't find any references to "pimped out" Caddy either, no matter how hard I tried.

You know, I'm starting to think y'all were just putting me onÂ…

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 653 words, total size 5 kb.

Chancellor James Moeser of UNC-Chapel Hill refused to name last week's attempted mass murder of Carolina students a terrorist act, even though the suspect admitted that perceived affronts to Islam were the motivation for his attack.

Moeser said of the vehicular assault that intended to kill students in his charge:

"The fact is, this is not the university's call," Moeser said. "The U.S. attorney will determine whether or not this is an act of terrorism."

Perhaps the chancellor is waiting for the U.S. Attorney to read this definition of terrorism to him from Dictionary.com:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Mohammed Taheri-azar's "Jeep Jihad" was an unlawful use of force by a person against people with the intention of intimidating and coercing a society he thought was hostile to Islam. He stated in his 911 call, "It was really to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." Is this nakedly an ideological reason? This was a textbook case of the very definition of terrorism, and yet Chancellor Moeser lacks the fortitude to address this terrorist attack for what it was.

Instead, he argues:

"I agree, this could feel like terrorism, especially if you're standing in front of a Jeep that's heading toward you trying to kill you," Moeser said. "As we have investigated this, we've come more and more to the conclusion that this was one individual acting alone in a criminal act."

Perhaps Moeser would like to pretend that crazed individuals and isolated groups are not capable of terrorism. I'd have him remember Timothy McVeigh, Eric Robert Rudolph or Theodore Kaczynski. Dare he not call them terrorists?

Or does Moeser object more to the method of the madness? Will only pipe-bombs full of ball bearings or a spray of machine gun bullets meet his lofty threshold of acceptably terrorist behavior?

Perhaps he is not psychologically equipped to handle the fact that his university was the target of a terrorist act, and so he would like to ignore it and return to business as usual. But ignoring the problem is not the kind of leadership we expect from our flagship university, or it's chief adminstrator.

Waiting for the permission to state the obvious isn't leadership at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 410 words, total size 3 kb.

Can we bring Michael Brown back? At least he has experience handling quadrupeds:

Game wardens Wayde Carter and Roger Guay said Louisiana apparently didn't make the proper arrangements with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to guarantee them housing after Thursday night, and their supervisor, Maj. Greg Sanborn, has called them back to Maine.

The wardens were to stay in New Orleans until March 21.

Carter and Guay, on loan from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, arrived in Louisiana from Maine late last week.

The story goes on to mention:

According to FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews, the agency has paid for a block of rooms at the hotel, and she promised to follow up on the men's dilemma Thursday.

Carter and Guay said that Tuesday night, a FEMA representative greeted them at the hotel with a disclosure form asking them to identify themselves as long-term evacuees needing financial assistance; the men said they refused.

A canine team from south Georgia also may leave New Orleans.

To sum up: Louisiana's government is still bumbling and incompetent and unable to handle even small-scale outside help, and FEMA is still strangling in irrelevant paperwork instead of getting the job done.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:09 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

David Ignatius hits the nail on the head in his Washington Post editorial:

Arab radicals will be gloating, admonishing the UAE leaders, "We told you so." But officials here recognize that they're in a common fight with us against al-Qaeda. And unlike some Arab nations, the UAE really is fighting -- reforming its education system to block Islamic zealots and taking public stands with the United States despite terrorist threats. They have created one of the best intelligence services in the Arab world, and their special forces will be fighting quietly alongside the United States in Afghanistan tomorrow, and the day after.

President Bush tried to do the right thing on the Dubai ports deal, but he got rolled by a runaway Congress. The collapse of the deal was a measure of Bush's political weakness -- but even more, of America's traumatized post-Sept. 11 politics. The ironic fact is that the UAE is precisely the kind of Arab ally the United States needs most now. But that clearly didn't matter to an election-year Congress, which responded to the Dubai deal with a frenzy of Muslim-bashing disguised as concern about terrorism. And we wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like us.

Congress failed America last night. Try to remember that in November.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:08 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.

Sorry, Ramstein. Mother Sheehan won't be protesting you after all.

Sheehan is due to arrive in Frankfurt on Thursday. Despite uncertainty clouding Sheehan's visit, protesters and counterprotesters still plan to gather outside Ramstein Air Base on Saturday afternoon.

Sheehan was arrested Monday in New York City outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations when she and other protesters attempted to deliver a petition calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Her condition raises doubts as to whether she will make the trip to Germany and France.

"If I am there, I won't be anywhere near the air force base ... or participate in the march," wrote Sheehan on Wednesday. "I was brutalized in New York the other day by the NYPD (New York Police Department) and I need to go to the doctor today (Wednesday)."

Perhaps Sheehan's injuries resulted from police brutality, but if that occurred, no one else seemed to have noticed, except for Sheehan ally al-Jazeera, which found something else repulsive about the event. I'll let you guess what:

No muffin tops in Mecca, kids.

Sheehan was part of a miniscule gaggle of anti-war activists (a dozen total), four of which were arrested Monday as they blocked the doors to U.S. Mission to the United Nations. The four were arrested for criminal trespassing and resisting arrest.

Was Cindy Sheehan "brutalized" as she claimed to the media? She hasn't filed a complaint against the police force, nor has anyone other than Sheehan made the allegation despite heavy press coverage of the event, but you be the judge of these pictures of the arrest pulled from Yahoo!

Sheehan is pulled away from the other protestors who have locked arms and legs with her. You can see someone's right hand grasping tightly to Sheehan's left thigh, and the same protestor locking both legs around both of Sheehan's legs. Sheehan appears to be holding on tightly to her fellow protestors with her left hand as well, as a police officer, screen by another officer, attempts to separate Sheehan by pulling on her right arm. There is a grimace on Sheehan's face, but I think it is one resulting from her determination not to let go of her friends rather than any brutality by the police.

A police officer controls Sheehan and reaches for his handcuffs after Sheehan is separated from her group. Note he is not being rough on her, or using force or a great degree of leverage against her. His control consists of grabbing a handful of fabric. There is no brutality evident, except in the face of the police officers, who appear to have become nauseous for some unexplained reason.

I'm starting to appreciate the photo-editing of al-Jazeera, if not their editorial slant. As Sheehan is being led away, she has a grim smile on her face, but does not appear to be in any physical pain. Note the officer on the left escorting her only has his hand lightly looped around Sheehan's arm.

Sheehan's smile persists as she is led away by the same officer as in the previous photo, who appears to be far more bored than abusive.

Was Cindy Sheehan exposed to police brutality as she was arrested? Not in any way that any sane or sober person would note. Could she have been injured during her arrest? Possibly, but any blame for that is surely shared by Cindy and her fellow protestors, who locked limbs and attempted to resist arrest, while police used only necessary force to disengage them and affect arrests.

Cindy Sheehan appears to be fabricating her story of police brutality to bring herself more attention.

Shocking, I know.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 5 kb.

I'm "Uncle Bob" again.

My blogging brother's beautiful wife gave birth to their first child last night, a handsome baby boy, weighing in at 8-14. Head on over and congratulate them, won't you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.