May 24, 2006

The Nerve of This Guy

Would somebody have the decency to tell this man that he is losing the war?

Iraqi troops will be able to handle security in all 18 of the country's provinces by the end of 2007 with additional training and equipment, the country's new prime minister said Wednesday.

[snip]

It is the second time in a week that al-Maliki has discussed a timeline for the handover of security responsibilities to Iraqi troops -- a development that President Bush has said would enable U.S. troops to leave.

With more training and better equipment, "Our security forces will be capable of taking over the security portfolio in all Iraqi provinces within one year and a half,"...

[snip]

During a joint appearance with British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Monday, al-Maliki said his government could take over security for 16 of Iraq's 18 provinces by the end of this year.

Obviously, Prime Minister al-Maliki has not asked permission to win the war from "liberal hawk" John Murtha, who said Iraq was unwinnable. He has not heeded the common wisdom of the New York Times, that Iraq was, is, and always will be a quagmire.

This Prime Minister Nouri Kamel al-Maliki ignores the pundits and the fatalists that long ago consigned his nation to the status of a lost cause.

Just who does he think he is to win?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:40 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

And Now For Something Completely Different

Any custom bike fans out there?

My brother-in-law made a sweet-looking custom chopper, one built at some of the most famous chopper shops in the United States. Fabrication and paint came at Orange County Choppers and J.B. Grafix of American Chopper fame in New York, and it was completed in West Palm Beach at Eddie Trotta's Thunder Cycles.

Believe it or not, he's selling it on eBay, so if you want it, go get it.

Alternately, if you happen to be one of my visitors for the left side of the tracks and you'd really like to see me offline, raise $20K or so and put it in my Paypal tipjar to the right, and I'll take it.

Think of it as your chance to "stick it to the Man."

Donations for my expected medical bills would be nice, too.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:57 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Arrogance

This past Saturday, FBI agents bearing a signed search warrant signed by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan entered the Congressional Offices of Democrat William Jefferson of Louisiana in pursuit of evidence in a felony bribery case. The warrant was granted after an affidavit was filed that stated agents recovered $90,000 in bribery payments from a freezer in his home, and in light of the fact that Jefferson refused to comply with a subpoena for documents last year.

Showing abject ignorance of the applicable law and more than a little arrogance, Republican House Speaker Denny Hastert demanded that the document seized in the raid should be returned, and the FBI agents involved in the raid, "ought to be frozen out of that (case) for the sake of the Constitution."

As you might expect, the NY Times is having a field day:

After years of quietly acceding to the Bush administration's assertions of executive power, the Republican-led Congress hit a limit this weekend.

Resentment boiled among senior Republicans for a second day on Tuesday after a team of warrant-bearing agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation turned up at a closed House office building on Saturday evening, demanded entry to the office of a lawmaker and spent the night going through his files.

The episode prompted cries of constitutional foul from Republicans — even though the lawmaker in question, Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana, is a Democrat whose involvement in a bribery case has made him an obvious partisan political target.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert raised the issue personally with President Bush on Tuesday. The Senate Rules Committee is examining the episode.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, predicted that the separation-of-powers conflict would go to the Supreme Court. "I have to believe at the end of the day it is going to end up across the street," Mr. Boehner told reporters gathered in his conference room, which looks out on the Capitol plaza and the court building.

A court challenge would place all three branches of government in the fray over whether the obscure "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution, which offers some legal immunity for lawmakers in the conduct of their official duties, could be interpreted to prohibit a search by the executive branch on Congressional property.

A "separation of powers" conflict? Do either Hastert or Boehner or anyone else protesting the execution of this search warrant, have even the slightest reading comprehension? Folks, it isn't that hard.

Congressional office have any special protections from search warrants, as noted by White Collar Crime Prof Blog:

The Fourth Amendment does not afford any specific protection to legislative offices so long as there is probable cause to believe that there is evidence of criminal activity at the location specified, and the House of Representatives would not have standing to raise a Fourth Amendment claim on its own.

Thus, Jefferson's Office has no special immunity, or "specific protection," and the FBI had enough evidence to obtain a search warrant from District Court Judge Hogan.

Hastert seems to base his claims on his understanding of the Constitution—proving for once and for all that he understands it about has much as you might expect a former high school wrestling coach would.

Section Six of Article I of the U.S. Constitution clearly and unambiguously states:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

One does not need to graduate from a top flight law school to easily discern in the passage above that the commission of a felony is specifically cited as one of three exemptions from the privilege from arrest. The charges being pursued against Jefferson are indeed felony charges.

The "speech and debate" clause only applies to a Congressman's official duties, and if Hastert, Boehner and other congressmen think that accepting bribes is part of their official duties, then perhaps we need more search warrants executed on Congressional offices, not fewer.

A "culture of corruption" indeed exists in Washington, and this corruption manifests itself in the very souls of Congressmen who are so arrogant as to believe their offices are some sort of sanctuary from the law.

November.

Faster, please.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:34 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Disaster Plan (Bumped)

According to Fox News, New Orleans has begun a hurricane evacuation drill.

So far, I'm not that impressed.

4/24 Update (via Drudge): and it seems that things are even worst than first thought. A mock evacuation was cancelled because no one could figure out who was responsible for evacuating FEMA's largest trailer park in Louisiana.

And here's the really bad news (my bold):

Last year, as Hurricane Katrina approached, thousands of New Orleans' poor were left behind because they had no transportation, could not afford to leave or did not know where to go. The Louisiana Superdome and the convention center became shelters of last resort where thousands sweltered for days, suffering through shortages of food and water.

Mayor Ray Nagin has said there will be no shelters in the city this time.

The authorities can't figure out how to evacuate you, and there will be no central shelters to retreat to.

Sleep tight, New Orleans.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:52 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 23, 2006

Over the Top

It seems that at least a few blogs on the left side of the blogosphere have taken offense to Mort Kondrake's recent editorial in the Pasadena Star-News.

Mort, it seems, has had it with those on the political left that he feels have taken partisanship to the extreme:

ENOUGH already! It's harmful enough that ideological conflict and partisan politics are preventing this country from solving its long-term challenges on health care, fiscal policy and energy. Now it's threatening our national survival.

Liberal State of the Day doesn't quite agree trying to make a parallel between the presidential administrations of WWII and the War on Terror:

… back then the US attempted to strictly adhere to the Geneva Convention. The US populace was not concerned that "The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" was torturing its enemies. We weren't trying to form opinion and policy based on the latest episode of '24'. Now we have a Torture Veep; back then we had a something completely different - a reasonable and honest human being.

State's Jeff doesn't quite seem to grasp that his hyperbole would seem to bear out Kondrake's point about extreme partisanship to the letter, but let's focus merely on what he understands to be facts.

Did the United States "strictly adhere" to the Geneva Convention in World War Two? We would certainly like to think so and indeed in the vast majority of cases we did, but as Victor David Hanson notes:

We know about the horrific German massacres of American prisoners, but little about instances of Americans' shooting German captives well before the Battle of the Bulge. Such murdering was neither sanctioned by American generals nor routine — but nevertheless it was not uncommon in the heat of battle and the stress of war. No inquiry cited Generals Hodges, Patton, or Bradley as responsible for rogue soldiers shooting unarmed prisoners.

Biscari. Dachau. Chenogne. Very un-Geneva massacres did occur, and those involved, when tried, suffered few lasting penalties. We occasionally murdered, and we did in dire situations torture our enemies if we thought it could save American lives. The U.S population, at the time, certainly wouldn't have blamed Presidents Roosevelt or Truman for that if they knew the details, if it meant Johnny would come marching home instead of being unloaded from a train's baggage car.

Then, at least, partisanship has its limits.

Kondrake was imperfect in his arguments, as Bill Quick notes, but his overall argument remains:

…the fundamental problem infecting much of Congress, the media and the political class - especially those left of center - is that they are consumed with loathing for President Bush and all his works and are prepared to do anything to undermine him, even if it makes the country less safe.

I await a point-by-point rebuttal from the media, the Congress, and political liberals of these basic charges. It should be easy to prove that these claims are false… shouldn't it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:16 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Guns & Poseurs: Use Your Delusion, Too

Yesterday, our favorite internet deity Allah dug up a story about a supposed Army Ranger by the name of Jesse MacBeth who claims in a series of videos that he witnessed and even participated in officially-sanctioned atrocities while serving in the U.S. Army in Iraq, such as:

• He and other U.S. Army Rangers were ordered "...do whatever it takes...to strike fear in the hearts of the Iraqis..." (1:07);
• He and other Rangers routinely executed children as part of the interrogations of their parents (6:15);
• He personally killed almost 200 men, women, and children, many at close range, and most or all noncombatants (7:30);
• He and other Rangers infiltrated a mosque, waited for about 200 worshipers to arrive and pray, slaughtered them with guns, ignited the bodies, hung them from the rafters, wrote anti-muslim graffiti on the walls, and left bodies in the streets (9:30);
• He and other Rangers shot and killed unarmed protesters and children who threw rocks (12:20);
• He personally killed a mother pleading for mercy, and her three children, including an infant, because he "had to."(16:05)
  
  

This willingness to call American soldiers murderers made him immediately popular on the fringe left, where he spoke at antiwar rallies and found himself the darling of the leftwing alternative media.

The problem was, Jesse MacBeth was never a Ranger.

Jesse MacBeth was never in any branch of the military, and his lies are almost too numerous to mention... except for those for which he garnered convictions, perhaps. MacBeth is currently wanted on bench warrant issued today for "violation of a court order" and "assault in the fourth degree" in Washington State and probation violations in Arizona.

I guess sooner or later, this fraud will get to wear a uniform after all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:56 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Blegging the Taxman

I know I have a few regular readers at the Internal Revenue Service, and I'd like to ask for your help if at all possible.

I'm trying to obtain a 2005 W-2 from a former employer, but I've been unable to contact them so far. I know that I can request a 2005 tax return transcript, but I was told on the phone that for whatever reason, these are going to be unavailable for several months. I need it this week.

If you can provide any help in getting this, please shoot an email to the email address listed on the right column.

Thanks!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:04 AM | Comments (0) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 22, 2006

Is Hezbollah's Preemptive Surrender a Tip-Off?

It looks liked Iran's hoped for "second front" in the event of U.S. military intervention into the future of its nuclear program development has just signaled a preemptive surrender:

Lebanon's Hizbollah, a close ally of Iran, would not jump to Tehran's defence if the U.S. launched a strike against its nuclear programme but would step in if the conflict spread to Lebanon, its deputy chief said on Monday.

Sheikh Naim Kassem told Reuters that the guerrilla group, which was established by Iran in the early 1980s but has since grown into a political party with 14 seats in parliament, had no plans to get involved in regional battles.

"Hizbollah is not a tool of Iran, it is a Lebanese project that implements the demands of Lebanese," Kassem said in an interview in the Hizbollah-controlled southern suburb of Beirut.

"Iran is a big country with real capabilities and can defend itself if it is exposed to American danger."

Kassem's message is more circumstantial evidence for those of us who feel that Iran is likely to be a nuclear provocateur if allowed to continue uranium enrichment unmolested. His statement of Hezbollah's military neutrality and defensive posture in the event of an Israel-Iran conflagration would seem to indicate that:

1. Hezbollah has reason to believe that a conflict between Iran and Israel is a near term possibility.
2. Hezbollah believes that the conflict will be of sufficient magnitude that a potentially debilitating counterstrike would pose a serious threat to their operations.

But what magnitude or retaliation could be so sufficient as to threaten a decentralized organization such as Hezbollah? The final graph of the article seems to indicate the expected conflict could be a region killer:

"If we assume the worst possible scenario, that Iran was completely cut off, Hizbollah would continue because it is based on faith. We are a political, ideological and jihadist party...," Kassem said. "This is a religion we believe in whether Iran is there or not."

Sheikh Naim Kassem, friend of Iran, speaks of a worst possible scenario that envisions his ally no longer existing.

Determing why he might feel this way, and why he might feel this way now is of the utmost importance.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:33 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 19, 2006

Completing the Circle

Update: Claims that religious minorities inside Iran would be forced to wear identifying colored badges are now being challenged and appear to be false.

Source

Something old is new again:

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.
"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Au contraire, my good Rabbi. Iranians are not acting like Nazis. As Michael Rubin
points out, they simply are acting more like Iranians:

The Nazi practice of forcing Jews to wear a yellow star had its origins in what is now Iran and Iraq when a ninth century caliph forced his Jewish subjects to wear yellow patches. From time to time, subsequent rulers revived the practice. Shiite clerics long deemed any food touched by Jews to be unclean. While blood libel only took root in Iranian society after the sixteenth-century arrival of European ambassadors, as Iranian society wrestled with modernity, violent anti-Semitism grew. Pogroms wiped out the Jewish community in some towns and villages in Iranian Azerbaijan in the mid-nineteenth century, and serious pogroms also swept through Mashhad, a Shiite shrine city in northeastern Iran in which the current supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, was born and raised. It was also in Mashhad that, despite the oft-cited mantra that there is no compulsion in Islam, Shiite clerics forcibly converted the remaining Jews to Islam under threat of death.

Hitler's SS learned much from Iran, as Rubin notes above. It is reasonable, based upon history, to assume that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is once again moving his country in the direction of another pogrom, another Holocaust, though one created not by sword and fire, but fission.

As Jeff Goldstein noted yesterday, Ahmadinejad has taken steps that a pious member of his sect would before unleashing war, including the issuing of a da'wa:

In last week's post, "An Islamic Declaration of War?", I (and a number of other bedwetters and paste-eaters) tried to divine (sorry) the intent behind Iranian President Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush—a letter that Robert Spencer noted at the time was curiously like a da'waan Mohammedan mandate required before waging war against unbelievers.

Today, we're again confronted with the prospects of a letter from Ahmadinejad, this one to be addressed to the Pope...

Jeff then links to Hot Air's Bryan Preston, who reminds us:

These letters are hardly unprecedented, as al-Reuters says. Their origins go all the way back to Mohammed, who often issued letters to the kings of lands he was about to attack to invite them to accept Islam before Mohammed would invade to convert them by the sword. Thus, the religion of peace spread far and wide. This, now second letter from the hand of Ahmadinejad is a da'wa—a call to Islam. It follows Mohammed's traditional letters. Implicit in such letters is the threat that if the recipient doesn't accept Islam voluntarily, he and his land will accept it by force. Or die resisting.

In Crazy Mahmoud's mind, he has now written to the chief of the world's top secular superpower and is writing to the chief of the world's unbelieving (vis a vis Islam) religious superpower (there being no equivalent of the pope in Islam). He is inviting them both to accept Islam, both personally and on behalf of their nation and church. Unless I miss my guess, in the letter to Benedict he will be, in essence, calling upon the Catholic Church to accept Islam–or die.

These letters are not well-wishes for the holidays or get-to-know-you cultural exchanges. They are threats. Mahmoud has something planned, and it would seem to me to be in the latter stages of finalization before it goes forward.

While I must admit that I'd earlier missed the significance of the da'wa letters, their historical precedence cannot be ignored. Every note played by Ahmadinejad so far has been played before, if via a different instrument, and this time, the Iranian instrument of choice is all but certain to be a MIRV.

Where would that lead?

I wrote two weeks ago in "Recalling the Twelfth Imam:

Recently, Iranian government officials went far enough to state that they could destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and absorb an expected Israeli nuclear counterstrike.

Tens of millions of people throughout southwest Asia would be likely to die in such an exchange.

[snip]

Israel would be gone. The Palestinians would be gone. Iran would be gone. Jordan, Syria and Lebanon would suffer millions of casualties from the blast and intense fallout from the Iranian strike, and the Israeli counterstrike would likely blanket most of the "–stans," as well as China and India with a plume of radioactive fallout, exposing close to a billion people both indirectly and directly to airborne fallout and food-borne consumption of the same for many years to come.

As you may expect, a glowing Middle East wasteland would destroy the global energy market, collapsing economies around the world, including our own. No human on this planet would be untouched by the effects, which could take decades to recover from, if ever. It would also make Muslims hunted around the globe, setting the stage for a crusade the likes of which the world has never imagined. Islam, and what remains of 1 billion Muslims, would be targets for an entirely different kind of genocide born of fear.

Wow.
Yeah, "wow."

Most of the punditry that has discussed the building nuclear crisis with Iran has discussed it in terms of asking when would we attack them, but as these da'wa letters indicate, it seems like it is Iran that is preparing to take the offensive. Considering that some think that Iran may already have nuclear weapons and that traces of uranium have been discovered in Iran that are close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads, this seems like it should be a contingency we should be preparing for.

Indeed, it may very well be something we are planning for, as strategic planning contractors working for the Pentagon have already delivered presentations predicting an Iranian offensive.

VII, Inc is one of these contractors with apparently deep ties in the Gulf Region. They compiled a 42-page presention in January titled "Iranian President-Islamic Eschatology Near Term Implications" which was presented to the U.S. military.

Eschatology is defined in the presentation as "a part of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or the ultimate destiny of human kind, commonly phrased as the end of the world or end of the age." The document explored the religious psychology of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian mullahcracy, as well as historical, political, economic, and military influences.

VII saw just two possible scenarios as a result of their studies if Iran is left to function unimpeded, and both of those involve preemptive Iranian military strikes. One of these saw the possibility of the possible use of nuclear weapons in an Israeli response to a massive Iranian/Syrian rocket attack supported by Russia. This use of nuclear weapons was predicted well before recent developments that suggest the possibility that the Iranian nuclear program may be much more advanced than we first thought. It seems quite probable that Iran will use any nuclear weapons it may acquire or develop preemptively in an attack against Israel.

Should we wait, and allow them to make that rash choice instead of taking that option away from them, we will have but little choice in response.

Hitler's maniacal vision of how to unite the world under his power on the mid-twentieth century cost roughly 62 million lives before it was snuffed out in 1945. I'd prefer to see us act preemptively before things really do come full circle again.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:37 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Dim Bulb In Searchlight

Via the Washington Times:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid called a proposal to make English the official language "racist" on the Senate floor yesterday.

"This amendment is racist. I think it's directed basically to people who speak Spanish," the Democrat said during the already tense debate over immigration reform.

So, asking people to speak English is a nation that speaks predominately English, is not only wrong, but racist?

Somebody better tell these folks.

Even though these people can tie their ethnic origins to Mexico, Africa, Korea and India, they all speak English here, even though at least two are fluent in other languages.

I work with people from Spain, Sierra Leone, and Germany as well as the United States, and they all speak English in addition to their native languages of Spanish, French, and German. Why? Because we are predominately an English-speaking country, and to integrate into American society and get all of it that it has to offer economically and culturally, you need to learn English.

Perhaps it is because I work with immigrants that I understand this basic fact that seems lost on the good Senator from Searchlight.

If anything, encouraging people to keep to their native tongues after they immigrate to another culture is to invite isolationism and advocate resisting assimilation. Of course this amendment is directed to people who speak Spanish, as they are our largest immigrant group at the present time. If people are going to legally immigrate to this country, we want them to be able to take advantage of all America has to offer. So much of that opportunity can be crippled by a language barrier, and therefore it is vital they learn English. To encourage people to remain illiterate in a nation's primary language is to isolate them and leave them as second-class citizens Balkanized from the rest of society.

To pander to people in such a way as to isolate them, to try to convince them that their language barrier—which robs them of so many opportunities—is a source of pride, well, that is a racist sentiment, Harry.

Got that?

Good.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:29 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Elephant

A thoughtful letter about "seeing the elephant" from a 101st Airborne Division soldier in Iraq to his blogger dad, at Blue Crab Boulevard.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 18, 2006

Dishonorable John

Ex-Marine John Murtha has taken the extraordinary step of accusing U.S. Marines of war crimes before a joint NCIS/Multi-National Forces investigation has been completed of an incident that occurred on November 19, 2005.

On that date, a U.S. Marine convoy in Haditha, Iraq was hit by an IED, killing Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and wounding two others. After the explosion, the Marines stormed nearby building and killed 15 people inside, three of them children.

Army Times provides Murtha's exact charges:

Rep. John Murtha, an influential Pennsylvania lawmaker and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, said today Marines had “killed innocent civilians in cold blood” after allegedly responding to a roadside bomb ambush that killed a Marine during a patrol in Haditha, Iraq, Nov. 19.

[snip]

“It's much worse than was reported in Time magazine,” Murtha, a Democrat, former Marine colonel and Vietnam war veteran, told reporters on Capitol Hill.

“There was no firefight. There was no [bomb] that killed those innocent people,” Murtha explained, adding there were “about twice as many” Iraqis killed than Time had reported.

No official investigation report has been released by the Pentagon and a spokesman for Murtha was unable to add to the congressman's remarks.

[snip]

Murtha said combat stress prompted the Marines' alleged rampage.

“It's a very serious incident, unfortunately. It shows the tremendous pressure that these guys are under every day when they're out in combat,” he said. “One man was killed with an [improvised explosive device] and after that they actually went into the houses and killed women and children.”

Let's take a step back for a second, and take a deep breath before we proceed.

. . .

First off, it is unconscionable for any legislator to accuse U.S. military personnel of multiple counts of premeditated murder before an investigation into these charges is complete. Prosecutions must proceed at their own logical pace as evidence in the case dictates. Premature accusations by a public figure in such a case imposes an artificial timeline, endangering the accuracy and thoroughness of an investigation.

At the same time, such heated rhetoric as charges of murder of "innocent civilians in cold blood" is prejudicial against the defendants, poisoning public opinion against them. This would be an explosive charge in a civilian court, but to make such charges against members of the U.S. Military when they are engaged in military operations in that country is absolutely fissionable.

To make such strong charges while our soldiers are in that combat theater of operations is to unnecessarily inflame Iraqi public opinion against our soldiers and place the lives of U.S. servicemen and women in danger of reprisal attacks based upon Murtha's claims, which to date, are unsupported.

John Murtha makes claims that the civilians were killed by the Marines "in cold blood." This is an inflammatory charge that does not seem in the least possible by the undisputed events of the case.

"In cold blood" is defined as "Deliberately, coldly, and dispassionately." It is also generally referred to in legal terms as premeditated murder whereby the accused is said to have planned out his homicide beforehand. In this event, an IED killed an American Marine and injured two others, at which point the surviving Marines stormed a nearby house and killed the occupants. Whether or not these deaths were justified or not is for the investigation to determine, but no credible individual could ever make the claim that these deaths were preordained.

Murtha also makes a claim that I've heard nowhere else, where he alleges that "about twice as many" people died in that house that day, putting the number of civilians killed at or near 30. This claim is not supported by the original Time article, nor can I find support for anything approaching this number from any other sources. Murtha does not even even attempt to provide support for these extra charges, he simple ascribes roughly 30 premeditated murders to U.S. Marines as casually as if he was ordering a cappuccino.

He does so before they have even been so much as charged with a crime. Murtha seeks to leave no doubt that this was anything other than a massacre of innocents. But is that actually what occurred?

I first came across this story on March 20th of this year, and at the time I wrote:

There is the possibility that the Marines did gun down innocent civilians as local Iraqis claim.
But it is equally as possible that one or more people inside the house opened fire upon the Marines in an ambush after the IED went off. It has happened that way frequently, and that exact scenario left ABC anchor Bob Woodruff and cameraman Doug Vogt seriously wounded, when the IED attack that wounded them was followed by small arms fire from nearby buildings. The attack was broken when coalition forces counterattacked.

Someone who truly supports the troops, even if they do not support the war, would want this incident fully investigated to uncover the truth. They would want to know the facts.

They would want to know if the Marines fired out of blind rage at the loss of their friends, and they would be equally interested in finding out if the Marines assaulted that location because someone inside fired upon them, as they claimed. Was it a slaughter of innocents, or were insurgents firing from within civilian homes? Were those that triggered the IED among the dead? We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment.

"We do not yet know, and some are already passing judgment."

I had no idea just how accurate those words would prove to be. Congressman John Murtha has now gone so far as to accuse American Marines of cold-blooded murder before an investigation has been completed, and roughly doubled the number of dead without any support for his charges, with the sole apparent goal of inflaming outrage at the expense of our military's safety.

It would seem appropriate that the United States House of Representatives should at the very least censure Congressman Murtha, who has gone so far out of his way to initiate such inflammatory and potentially dangerous rhetoric. He has dishonored his seat, the military criminal justice system, the Marine Corps and the United States of America.

How a man can make such vicious, unsupported claims and still claim to love the Marine Corps and America is beyond my understanding.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:54 AM | Comments (113) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 17, 2006

10 Un-Angry Men

I had something that might be an epiphany, or not, when arguing with the Daou Report crowd that came by to visit my FISA judges post earlier today.

The left is still screaming that without a case being brought before the judiciary for review, that various top secret National Security Agency programs just must be illegal. The fact that this program has been reviewed by the NSA Inspector General's office, the NSA General Counsel's office, and a bevy of career Department of Justice lawyers is irrelevant. In their minds, all Executive Branch employees are automatically Bush Administration frontmen. Apparently, when George W. was inaugurated, they all went Agent Smith, and could no longer be trusted to have any sense of professionalism, integrity, or patriotism.

Since the 42-page document supporting the Administration position comes from the Department of Justice, an executive branch agency, then they are automatically to be dismissed according to the prevailing leftist eschatology. Those of us who actually think that the President and career government employees actually care about this country would seem to be effectively disarmed by what they would disallow.

But are we?

Much has been made about the fact that the legality of the NSA program has not gone through the FISA Court challenge of some sort. I'd make the argument that while it has not gone through the traditional route, all ten active FISA judges were briefed on the program January 9, 2006, four months and eight days ago. While sworn to secrecy and unable to discuss the case with the public, any of these ten judges could have resigned from the FISA court in the past four months, and that resignation would have been unmistakably read as a sign of protest against the NSA surveillance program.

As of today, all ten of these FISA judges are still on bench.

It could mean absolutely nothing, but one would hope that if FISA judge was seriously opposed to the program in any way, that he would resign. As these judges would not have to resign their federal district judgeships along with their FISA roles, the effect on a concerned judge would seem to be a fairly low burden. If they were in fact exposing what some pundits have described as "a major illegal act" by a sitting President, one that some are certain is a step towards totalitarianism, wouldn't they act? Certainly, giving up whatever minor perks that come from being on largely-unknown court would be worth saving the Constitution wouldn't it?

And yet, knowing what they know, all ten of these FISA judges have failed to resign in protest.

I wonder why that is.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:30 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

A Border Wall that Works

Whether you are for or against illegal immigration, we can all agree on one simple fact: a continuous border barrier is far more effective than the current erratic use of border barriers, which tend to merely direct illegal immigrants and smugglers into more remote and dangerous areas.

A key gripe against building a continuous border barrier is one of construction and maintenance costs. Another complaint is that the barrier would not be effective. I think I can prove both of these theories incorrect. By using existing prefabricated construction materials, we can build a barrier system that is all but impervious to illegal immigrants that has low maintenance costs.

I propose a relatively simple system, composed of:

• a vehicle barrier.
• a primary wall-type barrier
• two rows of fencing

It would look in profile something like this:

It would use very simple components starting with a vehicle barrier system. For that, we look to history.

Dragon's teeth were used in World War II as fortifications to stop tanks. While specialty vehicles and combat engineers combined with flanking maneuvers limited their wartime impact, these structures are extremely durable, and many can be seen in Europe to this day. Made of reinforced concrete, they get harder over time and they can be mass-produced in forms and transported to their installment sites. These "teeth" would be very difficult for civilian vehicles to penetrate, and the point of their use would be to force would-be illegal immigrants to approach the primary barrier system on foot.

The primary wall-type barrier would serve two purposes. First, it provides an imposing physical barrier that will slow or stop illegal immigrants. It will also screen the American side of the border from view, making it difficult for illegals to judge the location of Border Patrol agents on the American side.

The wall itself only needs to be 15'-20' tall, and can be made of post-and-cap prefabricated systems. I-beam posts are driven into the ground, and cranes lower pre-cast interlocking concrete slabs into place to the desired height. This system is very common, and is often used to create sound barriers on U.S. highways. The walls would be armed with sensors to detect anyone attempting to chisel through, tunnel under, or scale over them, and those scaling the walls would encounter electrified concertina wire at the wall's top.

The current through the wire would not be lethal, but it would be very uncomfortable for those attempting to enter the country illegally.

Concertina wire, a type of coiled razor wire, is effective when combined in layers and in conjunction with other barriers, such as fencing.

Any illegals that successfully bypassed the primary wall barrier would then face two rows of chain-link fencing, faced with multiple rolls of concertina wire and topped with another.

Prefabricated guard towers placed at key vantage points, when combined with sensors, would be used to direct border patrol agents to vector in on those who would attempt to enter the country illegally.

A typical intercept of illegal aliens might work something like this.

Illegals approach the U.S. Mexican border from the Mexican side. Cameras and other sensors would detect the presence of movement day or night when the illegals are still hundreds of yards away from the wall. The dragons' teeth would assure that the illegals cannot rely on vehicles to make the crossing, forcing them to proceed on foot.

As the pedestrian illegals approach the primary wall on foot, alerts are already being sent to the border patrol via sensors so that U.S. Border Patrol agents can begin to deploy to the area. Many illegals may not have the capability to easily surpass the primary wall. They many not have access to a ladder of sufficient length, or they may not wish to challenge the electrified concertina, which while not lethal, is painful and startling. Those who do decide to proceed will be slowed by the concertina, which will snag on clothing and flesh if the person navigating it is not very careful.

In many instaces, once an illegal tops the wall he may find himself facing Border Patrol agents staring back at them, after the agents have been tipped off by sensors.

If agents haven't yet arrived, the illegal still faces a 15-20' drop onto hard ground, and two tall chain-link fences faced and topped with more layers of concertina wire. A smart illegal will bring wire cutters with him, but it would still take precious minutes to cut through or try to crawl over and through the concertina, at which time the U.S. Border Patrol would be able to close in and affect an arrest. any damged concertina could be easily be replaced at a rate of up to a kilometer an hour.

Will this barrier system completely stop the flow of illegal aliens? Of course it will not, but it is vastly superior to the current system, where a simple post fence only serves as a visual reminder of the border in some areas. This barrier will create a “catch zone,” and should significantly hamper the flow of illegal aliens and complicate the lives of drug smugglers.

Of course, this barrier is only part of a working system. The other major component must be removing the motivation to attempt to enter the country illegally, and that is generally an issue of economics, a subject I'll tackle at another time.

Update: The Senate has voted for a triple-layer barrier 370 miles long, and 500 miles of vehicle barriers. Think there is any shot they'll use these ideas?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:02 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Landmines. Nothing says stay out like landmines.

Posted by: lip at May 17, 2006 06:26 AM (EJHD4)

2 love the fence. and the landmines!

if we are SERIOUS about defending the nation and enforcing the law, then we will build a fence/wall.

it's simply unavoidable. if you have a leaky pipe, you do not simply put a bucket under it; you must fix the leak.

Posted by: reliapundit at May 17, 2006 06:52 AM (v8XNn)

3 Confederate Yankee:

I like your idea. Only thing is I think (like lip) that we might want to look at putting a MINE FIELD outside the Dragon's Teeth to keep vehicles from getting to close.

Rick Watson
(Somewhere in MAINE.)

Posted by: Rick Watson at May 17, 2006 07:22 AM (/GBA1)

4 Human rights orginizations will never go for a land mine area. The electrified portion of the fence along with the razor wire will be pushing it (but I like all the ideas). Razor wire, for those that have never been near it, is designed to catch, snag, tangle, and basically make a body bleed, sometimes to death for those unfortuneately enough to fall and tangle themselves into it. First illegal that does that will have the HR people yelling foul at the top of their lungs.

Don't get me wrong, like I said, I like the idea. The Triple fence with the vehicle blocks is a great idea.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 17, 2006 07:44 AM (y6dNe)

5 Rough caculation, correct me if I'm wrong (just doing the chain link portion)

around 3000 miles of fence needed (some already there so whole border doesn't need fence)

13200000 feet

12 foot fence about $4000 for 250 ft (may be able to get it cheaper)

comes to $211 million for just the fencing, add another $50 mil for clamping wire, and other misc. Then add in for the cement for each hole (didn't calculate that)

Just the chain link alone will be over $500 mil.

It won't be cheap but I'd rather send tax money that way instead of the billions we lose on what illegals cost us.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 17, 2006 08:20 AM (JSetw)

6 Here is another way illegals are costing us. I just finished a meeting in which we are deciding for cardiology fellows for two years from now. Many of these are from other countries. One very promising person was brought up yet there was concern as to if his visa would allow entrance into the program. We thought that if he claimed he was Mexican rather than Indian he could likely stay.

Posted by: David Caskey at May 17, 2006 10:03 AM (6wTpy)

7 CY, I like the fencing and wall, but replace the towers with these: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/tars.htm (We already have TARS covering some of our southern border). It becomes a matter of coordinating rapid response teams to dispatch the invaders. There is no doubt - we must control our border. Our "ally" Mexico seems more inclined to ignore our sovereignty than aid an "ally" in maintaining that sovereignty.

Posted by: Old Soldier at May 17, 2006 11:11 AM (X2tAw)

8 By contracting all the fence construction to local firms along the border, we'll save some tax dollars. To maximize their profit, these firms will hire the cheapest labor available. Ummmm. Ahhh. I thought I was going somewhere with this thought, but --- ummm -- ahh. I guess not.

Posted by: Skeezix at May 17, 2006 11:41 AM (GgSCc)

9 Skeezix,

I'd pay a couple extra dollars in taxes this year if they hired U.S. Citizens to build the wall.

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 17, 2006 12:21 PM (elhVA)

10 I think this is a certain way of keeping all but the most technologically advanced and determined out. It gives me the heebie jeebies to think about such a thing actually being built, but I'd support it. I don't know quite where I'm going with this comment...I'm sick to my stomach at the thought that this is what it will take, but I'm not in disagreement. Sometimes the right decision SUCKS!

Posted by: Chris at May 17, 2006 12:30 PM (XCo9J)

11 If we use a bunch of those lazy louts on welfare to help build the fence, they will be more than happy to pick lettuce instead.

Posted by: Old_dawg at May 17, 2006 12:55 PM (7nc0l)

12 I say round up illegals, make them build the wall, and then toss them back over when they're finished.

Posted by: BobG at May 17, 2006 05:45 PM (VrAwY)

13 Confederate Yankee, I read your stuff a lot, but I seldom post, and for that I apologize, but you do an absolutely FABULOUS job. I love your work, and more than that, I love your outlook.

As for this particular issue of the border fence or wall, I can tell you as one who lives in Texas, 2 hours from the Border, that rich Mexicans like to put BROKEN GLASS atop their walls, and large and dangerous cactus at the base of the wall on the inside, they like Adobe or brick walls, which means anyone braving the very high wall who finds glass at the top, will BLINDLY drop into cactus below on the other side, and it isn't unusual they find the kind of guard animals on the inside that most folks would rather not come face to face with, especially from the disadvantage of being caught by said animals while in the cactus and bleeding from assorted glass and cactus-inflicted wounds.

So I'm thinking a nice trench with a lot of broken glass, or other debris of similar kind, would also be quite helpful, along with some wild havelina hogs to run insde the fences.

Whatever it takes to make sure the coyotes and their freight get the idea the Red Carpet for ILLEGAL INVASION has been rolled up.

And the judges who declare that making things uncomfortable for ILLEGAL ALIENS is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and are jailing Americans who are defending their property or doing their duly constituted JOB of LAW ENFORCEMENT - they need to be facing charges of their own, FOR TREASON!

I also like the idea of giving the ILLEGAL ALIENS here 30 days to clear out or else - then turn BOUNTY HUNTER LOOSE to root them out, at which point ALL their worldly goods are CONFISCATED to pay the Bounty and to pay for the PROCESSING to boot them from this nation - A LIFETIME BAN for scorning our laws!

Wasn't that usual, for most of our history? The lifetime ban for being caught here ILLEGALLY?

Confiscate all the assets of the Foundations such as Tides, Heinz, Ford, etc which pay $$$Millions to RECONQUISTAS organizations, just like we do "Charities" that fund Middle East Terrorists!
Redirect the funds from those foundations to pay for the walls, and recompense those who own property and businesses on the border that are constantly vandalized by coyotes and ILLEGAL ALIENS and who get brought to court for harrassing ILLEGAL ALIENS by local and federal judges!

Meanwhile, Confederate Yankee, KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK! THANKS FOR BEING HERE!

Posted by: Rose at May 17, 2006 08:30 PM (SEkKq)

14 Retired Navy, don't get me wrong, I beg you - do the "Human Rights" groups have any armies or militias that are going to come at us, like some Mexican militias are currently doing?

If not, then why should we care what they think about us. THEY don't care what the third world DICTATORS are doing, even when the UN apoints them to the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS of the UN!

And if they are not legal in the USA, then tell them to watch out for land mines, too! NO VISAS for THEM!

Posted by: Rose at May 17, 2006 08:35 PM (SEkKq)

15 Sometimes the right decision SUCKS!

Posted by Chris at May 17, 2006 12:30 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Often, like parents of spoiled brats, we soon discover that making a tough stand will bring such nice results when the miscreants realize you are serious and mean business, that after a brief time of cracking the whip, one can usually accomplish the majority of the work with the most minimalist approach immaginable. Like being able to get your kids to wash the dishes the first time you say, "Honey, will you please?", instead of after 3 hours of screaming and yelling back and forth, until it is too late because it is so way past bedtime, anyway!

Just a little respect for authority - in this case - the righteous authority of the VOTERS, can go a tremendously long ways towards solving the problems.

Posted by: Rose at May 17, 2006 08:44 PM (SEkKq)

16 Hah! I read the 'landmine' post about 30 minutes ago. I'm a sicko I guess, because I'm still laughing

Nothing says 'stay out' like landmines.

Denny Crane should have said that.

Posted by: Kevin at May 18, 2006 07:44 AM (F6rb1)

17 I was thinking the diagram looked familiar and then I realized where I'd seen it before.
http://www.wall-berlin.org/gb/mur.htm

Posted by: jeff at May 21, 2006 10:40 PM (Z3lrm)

18 Similar Jeff, but pretty different. They had to set up a wall to keep people from escaping. We have to put one up to keep them from invading.

It's a pretty significant difference if you think about it.

Posted by: Kevin at May 23, 2006 07:06 AM (F6rb1)

19 I stumbled across a link to this. I live in SE Arizona - close enough to see Mexico in the distance, and have worked in a border town.

I really believe that we MUST have a wall.

Please anyone who feels as I do, would you please support the 21st Century Paul Revere Ride? Publicity, offers of hospitality, motorcycle riders in the various states, calling in to local talk shows - ANYTHING you can think of would be great.

My husband and I are not wealthy, but we believe that SOMETHING must be done - we believe in that so strongly, that he is going to be part of the ride.

I'm posting alink to the PRR - I hope that that is ok - my apologies if it is not.

http://www.21stcenturypaulrevereride.us/

Posted by: Melinda at May 25, 2006 03:55 PM (TtsA5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

FISA Judges Were In The Loop

I can only imagine how the Left will try to spin the revelation that FISA judges were briefed about the NSA's controversial surveillance programs the entire time:

Two judges on the secretive court that approves warrants for intelligence surveillance were told of the broad monitoring programs that have raised recent controversy, a Republican senator said Tuesday, connecting a court to knowledge of the collecting of millions of phone records for the first time.

[snip]

Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said that at least two of the chief judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had been informed since 2001 of White House-approved National Security Agency monitoring operations.

"None raised any objections, as far as I know," said Hatch, a member of a special Intelligence Committee panel appointed to oversee the NSA's work.

Hatch made the comment in answering a question in an interview about recent reports of the government compiling lists of Americans' phone calls. When pressed later, Hatch suggested he was also speaking broadly of the administration's terror-related monitoring.

Asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

If Hatch's comments are correct, it would seem to throw a considerably large wrench in the theories of those who are calling these programs an illegal conspiracy by the Bush Adminstration. It seems rather difficult to have a "conspiracy" if everyone was in on it.

The White House Counsel cleared these programs. The National Security Agency's lawyers—who specialize in this area of law—cleared these programs. The programs were also cleared by not one, but two Attorneys General and a cadre of lawyers from the Justice Department, as well.

We also know that members of the House and Senate from both parties were in the loop since 2001 and apparently not one ever batted and eyelash until the NY Times went public with information about the programs with information gathered from anonymous sources, including one who has been diagnosed with psychotic paranoia.

If two FISA judges were also in the loop about these programs, it won't keep conspiracy theorists like Glenn Greenwald quiet, but it might just make their shrill cries a bit easier to ignore.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:14 AM | Comments (56) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Informed does not mean approved. They didn't go publiic because they werew not allowed to go public, by law. And what Hatch doesn't know (and doesn't want to know) could fill libraries.

Posted by: zen_less at May 17, 2006 08:51 AM (BkYcc)

2 FYI to my regular readers: Peter Daou of Salon.com's "Daou Report" has linked this post, so you can expect some foul language and unsupported contentions from those bitter souls killing time until their next shift at Applebee's.

This isnt' the first time he's linked and I thank him for the traffic, and I'm just trying to figure out if Peter likes me, or hates me since he keeps sending them back.

:-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 17, 2006 09:00 AM (g5Nba)

3 Well, if they tell someone and that person doesn't have an opportunity to say whether it's okay in a judgement and that person also isn't allowed to talk about it to anyone....how does that qualify as review?

I don't follow.

Posted by: danjr0802 at May 17, 2006 09:10 AM (HI+XQ)

4 ...unsupported contentions from those bitter souls killing time until their next shift at Applebee's.

Talk about unsupported contentions. =)

I've gotta agree with zen_less on this - simply briefing a couple of FISA judges is not an adequate substitute for following procedure and obtaining a warrant. Briefing someone simply involves telling them "this is what we're doing, and we thought you should know about it." It's a one-way process.

Posted by: Scott M at May 17, 2006 09:16 AM (rB7or)

5 Yankee,
I just linked in from the Daou Report. First I'd like to point out that I'm an electrical engineer and a former Marine, not a waiter. Second, I've read a great deal more foul language and slander from "wingnuts" than "moonbats". So far you're batting 0 fo 2.
Third, as your first poster pointed out, the 2 judges on the 11 judge panel that were "briefed" weren't even asked wheither they approved. Nor were they asked for their opinion on the legality of the program. Not to belabour the point, but the administration has been careful to avoid giving any judge the opurtunity to offer a legal opinion on the program. Three strikes, you're out.
This issue doesn't need any more spin. People like you are giving it plenty. What it needs is full disclosure and a day in court.

Posted by: IaintBacchus at May 17, 2006 09:17 AM (mYHGQ)

6 Ah common' now laintBacchus let'em spin. It's fun to watch-lately they've been getting dizzy and pukin' on each other. Maybe their "balences" are off.

Posted by: moonbat at May 17, 2006 09:31 AM (BINGb)

7 Hear, hear. "were notified of" is not the same thing as "granted a warrant for." All this stuff -- NSA warrantless wiretapping, FBI phone-record gathering, NSA phone-record gathering -- needs to land before a judge without further delay. I don't necessarily expect it all to be tossed out, but I no longer trust the administration to give us a straight answer, either.

Just for the record, also, I ain't a moonbat. I'm a red-state Republican of almost 30 years' standing who has a little love affair going with the rule of law.

Posted by: Lex at May 17, 2006 09:31 AM (Aj+nl)

8 What does this have to do with anything? The question is whether the administration broke the law with respect to warrants and informing the appropriate Congressional committees. If the best that they can offer up is that they chatted with a couple of friendly legislators and judges, isn't that tantamount to an admission of guilt?

Posted by: trrll at May 17, 2006 09:39 AM (6ORla)

9 Just another "Moonbat" here, though I'm a CPA, not a waiter at Applebee's. I'm just wondering if I can cheat on my taxes now as long as I "brief" the court while I'm doing so. I see a nice new legal precedent here.

Posted by: Pug at May 17, 2006 10:03 AM (r5zYa)

10 The arrogant way you look down on others is painful. Although I'm a physician, career air force "moonbat", I'd love to prepare your next meal at Applebee's. My treat and I promise a special surprise.
Points have been made: Informing doesn't mean approval much less legal warrants. We don't know how appalling the truth really is because it's all double-special secret.

Posted by: jeff at May 17, 2006 10:06 AM (z/Bt9)

11 The only thing I'll add here is that some FISA judges did raise a stink. U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned in December of '05 in protest. Another, FISA court Presiding Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, brought up the issue in 2004. She thought they were using information obtained illegally by the NSA to get a warrant from FISA. "What I've heard some of the judges say is they feel they've participated in a Potemkin court."

Also, they weren't told about the NSA program until 2005 when it began in 2001.

Now, who wants ribblets?

Posted by: John Gillnitz at May 17, 2006 10:16 AM (eHLUP)

12 Lawyer moonbat here, but it doesn't take 33 years of practice to recognize the post hoc nature of this argument. This is an argument created by a public relations firm, not by a competent attorney. I suggest you try a nice glass of hot milk and try again.

Posted by: masaccio at May 17, 2006 10:27 AM (hN9YH)

13 het conf. yankee...what flavor is that kool-aid you're guzzlin'?

Posted by: jay at May 17, 2006 10:30 AM (yu9pS)

14
Hear, hear. "were notified of" is not the same thing as "granted a warrant for." All this stuff -- NSA warrantless wiretapping, FBI phone-record gathering, NSA phone-record gathering -- needs to land before a judge without further delay.


Apparently, real experts who actually know what the program was (none of the citics do) tend to differ from your opinion somewhat uniformly.

The Department of Justice, White House Counsel, NSA Inspector General and General Counsel and two Attorney's General apparently maintain the position that warrants were not needed as the obtained statutory authorization to support the President's inherent constitutional powers to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance in a time of war (PDF, pages 17-1:


The President’s exercise of his constitutional authority to conduct warrantless wartime electronic surveillance of the enemy, as confirmed and supplemented by stature in the AUMF, is fully consistent with the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). 5 FISA is a critically important tool in the War on Terror. The United States makes full use of the authorities available under FISA to gather foreign intelligence information, including authorities to intercept communications, conduct physical searches, and install and use pen registers and trap and trace devices. While FISA establishes certain procedures that must be followed for these authorities to be used (procedures that usually involve applying for an obtaining an order from a special court), FISA also expressly contemplates that a later legislative enactment could authorize electronic surveillance outside the procedures set forth in FISA itself. The AUMF constitutes precisely such and enactment. To the extent that thee is any ambiguity on this point, the canon of constitutional avoidance requires that such ambiguity be resolved in favor of the president’s authority to conduct the communications intelligence activities he has described. Finally, if FISA could not be read to allow the President to allow the President to authorize the NSA activities during the current congressionally authorized armed conflict with al Qaeda, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied in this narrow context.


The Administration doesn't want the program go through the public court system because the findings of such a trial, specifically which part of FISA would be deemed unconstitutional, might give away the essential characteristics of the program that the government seems to think makes it effective. How soon you forget that the full FISA Court, in addition to the 2 individual judges that have been notified since 2001, was briefed upon this program months ago and they have not raised any apparent objections. Some might certainly argue that a closed meeting objection would go unheard and unnoticed, but that is hardly likely. The judges would not likely make public statements, but they may resign as a form of protest .No judges have resigned since the briefing, though one resigned before being briefed. Nor has there been any indication that the program has been modified or tinkered with since the briefing, which would suggest that the program was above board without revision.

People need to get past the misguided notion that secret intelligence should be conducted in public view, and that warrants are required for all kinds of surveillance. They clearly are not. Warrants are required for most (by no means all) criminal cases, and certainly do not apply to foreign intelligence gathering in a time of war. Of course, when you place your faith in a media and a liberal punditry that can’t understand that communications intercept between two countries is by definition international and not “domestic spying,” I can’t expect you to get but so much of the rest of it correct, either.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 17, 2006 10:35 AM (g5Nba)

15 So, now your whole premise has been blown out of the water and you'll have people from Daou coming in all day to remind you of the weakness of your argument. You might as well go fishing and live to blog your nonsense another day.

Let's recap, shall we? 2 of the 11 FISA judges were briefed about the "Total Information Awareness" program the Bush administration has put into place. We have no idea how much information they were given, only that Orrin Hatch as said "None raised any objection, as far as I know." We do know that every person who has been briefed has been sworn to secrecy. It's illegal for any person briefed on this program to breath a word about the details to anyone, even staff members, making oversight and research into the details of the program an impossibility.

Sorry Orrin Hatch won't make this go away.

Posted by: Duke Cunningham at May 17, 2006 10:40 AM (opo1O)

16 There we go, the old "in times of war" canard. It didn't take long for you to bring up that all-purpose talking point did it? Now that we've got a very convenient open-ended war on the tactic known as terrorism, we can scrap the constitution. You people are the real danger to the republic.

Posted by: Duke Cunningham at May 17, 2006 10:47 AM (opo1O)

17 "The Department of Justice, White House Counsel, NSA Inspector General and Two Attorneys General apparently maintain the position that warrants were not needed as the [sic] obtained statutory authorization to support the President's inherent constitutional powers to conduct foreign surveillence in a time of war [ham-fisted emphasis omitted]."

Another moonbat lawyer here, but isn't this the logical equivilent of "its legal because we say it is"? So the same people accused of breaking the law say they didn't, and that's enough for you? Is it because they have such a flawless record of being right all the time? I guess by that same logic, when Nixon denied any connection to Watergate, or when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" you just said "okay, that's enough for me, case closed."

And more importantly, the quote above says "conduct foreign surveillence." How does this relate to the compilation of a database of every phone call made in the US, including domestic to domestic?

Posted by: Retardo Montleban at May 17, 2006 11:06 AM (ckA9W)

18 "The Department of Justice, White House Counsel, NSA Inspector General and Two Attorneys General apparently maintain the position that warrants were not needed as the [sic] obtained statutory authorization to support the President's inherent constitutional powers to conduct foreign surveillence in a time of war [ham-fisted emphasis omitted]."

Another moonbat lawyer here, but isn't this the logical equivilent of "its legal because we say it is"? So the same people accused of breaking the law say they didn't, and that's enough for you? Is it because they have such a flawless record of being right all the time? I guess by that same logic, when Nixon denied any connection to Watergate, or when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman" you just said "okay, that's enough for me, case closed."

And more importantly, the quote above says "conduct foreign surveillence." How does this relate to the compilation of a database of every phone call made in the US, including domestic to domestic?

Posted by: Burt Reynolds at May 17, 2006 11:06 AM (ckA9W)

19
It's illegal for any person briefed on this program to breath a word about the details to anyone, even staff members, making oversight and research into the details of the program an impossibility.


Utter rubbish. As stated before, this program had oversight from multiple layers of government lawyers beholden to the American people and the Constitution, not the Bush Administration. While you could certainly suspect the appointed lawyers of the White House Counsels Office and the appointed Attorney Generals, you cannot explain away the career Justice Department legal corps that were here before Bush, and will be hear long afterward. By your warped reasoning, they threw away all ethics at precisely the moment George W. Bush was sworn into office. Nor does this paranoid approach of yours account for the career lawyers of the NSA Inspector Generals office and General Counsels office, two groups of legal experts specifically versed in this sort of law, that exist to make sure that the agency does not run afoul of the Constitution. Nor does it account for the silence of the FISA judges and Members of the House and Senate who knew of this program. Surely, if they thought this was such a grave constitutional infraction, the media would be more than willing t expose it to the light of day in a live press conference at the time and place of their choosing. But no, you don’t give them credit for having any integrity at all.

You also purposefully overlook (as do your cronies in the media) that there is in fact a series of whistleblower statutes to even cover top secret programs such as this, which provides legal mechanisms for almost anyone to appeal a program they felt was illegal, including the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998.

Your “big theory” on the left seems to revolve around the idea that the entire federal government is populated by people that will run roughshod over the Constitution at the slightest opportunity or provocation, and are swayed by the powers of BushCo like no other President before him.

So I find myself being forced to choose between career civil servants that owe no particular allegiance to the Bush White House, and those conspiracy theorists that predicate their entire premise on the thought that when President Bush was inaugurated, every career civil servant chucked the Constitution and swore and oath to the Dark Side.

I’m sorry, but I’m not willing to make that incredible leap into Evil America Fantasyland, even if you are.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 17, 2006 11:43 AM (g5Nba)

20 If you read the entire article being discussed, it includes:

Asked if the judges somehow approved the operations, Hatch said, "That is not their position, but they were informed."

They clearly did not approve or Hatch would have stated it instead of tiptoeing around it. If the administration has their way, we will never know how earnestly they may have disagreed.

The vicious circle of all this is that those who are informed of these programs (judges, intelligence committee members) are pledged to never ever talk about these programs to anyone, under serious threat of punishment. Those that do not break the secrecy are then used as pawns in the disingenuous "We informed the proper channels" justification.

Posted by: laura at May 17, 2006 12:01 PM (XFh+3)

21 Since you addressed your comment specifically to mine, Conf Yank, I'll address my response specifically to you.

I Am Not A Lawyer. However, I infer from the Supreme Court's ruling in the Youngstown Co. v Sawyer case that the administration is on very, very thin constitutional ice here, wartime or no.

As I read the ruling, it seems to be saying:

-- If president claims a wartime authority Congress hasn't legislated on one way or the other, that's OK.

-- If president claims a wartime authority that Congress has specifically authorized, that's definitely OK.

-- If president claims a wartime authority that Congress has expressly forbidden him, it might, possibly, still be OK, but he's going to have a very heavy burden of proof.

I see no way claims based on Article II or the AUMF meet that burden, and I have yet to read a convincing argument that they do.

Posted by: Lex at May 17, 2006 12:20 PM (Aj+nl)

22 Kind of like saying if I tell you I'm going to break the law by robbing your house before I actually do it, that somehow makes it legal.

CY "cherry-picked" his favorable quotes from the story of course. Read the whole thing. It's more informative than this highly edited post.

Posted by: Renne P. at May 17, 2006 12:34 PM (y6n8O)

23 The Department of Justice, White House Counsel, NSA Inspector General and General Counsel and two Attorney's General apparently maintain the position that warrants were not needed

Ohmygosh! The Bush administration is arguing that what the Bush administration is doing is legal? What a controversial stance for the Bush administration to take on the Bush administration's activities.

Posted by: jpe at May 17, 2006 12:39 PM (5ceWd)

24 This is obviously a huge concept for you to fathom, jpe, but the tens of thousands of employees that work for the executive branch are not automatically part of the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 17, 2006 12:46 PM (g5Nba)

25 Yankee's at it again. The only "expert" to weigh in on the subject that can be presumed to know all of the details is Alberto Gonzalez(sp?). And we all know what an unbiased, law respecting "expert" he is. I'll say it one more time, give all the details to a federal judge, in a court proceeding and let HIM weigh in with a judgement on the legality of all of these programs. Because right now all I'm hearing from the administration is "trust us" and "It's legal becaus we say it is". I heard those same two arguments from the Nixon administration over essencially the same issue back about the time I graduated from high school. That's where the FISA law came from in the first place.
And just for the record, we were at war at the time with an actual enemy, as opposed to a tactic.

Posted by: IaintBacchus at May 17, 2006 12:59 PM (mYHGQ)

26 "How soon you forget that the full FISA Court, in addition to the 2 individual judges that have been notified since 2001,"

Where did you see that? Two members were briefed in 2001. They were not told everything and were not allowed to tell anyone else what they were told.

"No judges have resigned since the briefing, though one resigned before being briefed."

Obviously some reading comprehension issues here. The article you linked to said one resigned in December of 2005. Last time I checked 2001 comes before 2005.

The idea that the AUMF authorizes this does not pass legal muster.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at May 17, 2006 01:05 PM (eHLUP)

27 And just for the record, we were at war at the time with an actual enemy, as opposed to a tactic.

Posted by IaintBacchus at May 17, 2006 12:59 PM

Just curious as to how a "Tactic" flew two planes into the trade center, another into the Pentagon and made a smoking pit in PA? To me, they were hard-core blood thirsty enemy troops in a holy war against us, as in our IDEALS and the way that we live.

I'm not for throwing out the constitution but we are at it with people with no morals, the NSA wants to see who is calling whom because they know of certain terrorist cells/locations. Big deal. It doesn't infringe on my rights to call who I want in any way. If they come knocking on my door and ask some questions they will find out very soon I have no connections what so ever. If all of this helps to stop another 9-11, where's the problem?

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 17, 2006 01:32 PM (lNB+R)

28 Ever get the feeling that no matter what you say, people are going to hear what they want to hear?

IaintBacchus makes the assertion that I only trust the word of Attorney Genral Alberto Gonzalez, even when I specifically exempted appointees in the White House Counsel's Office and the Attorney Generals themselves. I stated:


While you could certainly suspect the appointed lawyers of the White House Counsels Office and the appointed Attorney Generals, you cannot explain away the career Justice Department legal corps that were here before Bush, and will be hear long afterward. By your warped reasoning, they threw away all ethics at precisely the moment George W. Bush was sworn into office. Nor does this paranoid approach of yours account for the career lawyers of the NSA Inspector Generals office and General Counsels office, two groups of legal experts specifically versed in this sort of law, that exist to make sure that the agency does not run afoul of the Constitution. Nor does it account for the silence of the FISA judges and Members of the House and Senate who knew of this program. Surely, if they thought this was such a grave constitutional infraction, the media would be more than willing t expose it to the light of day in a live press conference at the time and place of their choosing. But no, you don’t give them credit for having any integrity at all.


I also pointed out that any one of the people familiar with the program could file a protest against it and be protected by whistleblower laws, and yet, we've seen none of that, either.

Of course, IaintBacchus likes to hide behind the silly wordgame that we are at war with a tactic instead of al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists, so perhaps that should guide how seriously you should take into account his views.

Adn yes, john Gillnitz you do have some reading comprehension issues. Whether it was the two judges who have known about the program the entire time, or one of the ten that was briefed about the program in early 2006, any or all of them could have easily resigned in protest from the FISA court without any sort of penalty, and still retained their federal judgeships. They would face no significant penalties for such a protest resignation, and yet, not one has resigned in the months since the briefing. A reasonable person might infer they they therefore had no strong objection to the program, and might even take the leap to suggest that perhaps, they had no objections at all.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at May 17, 2006 02:03 PM (g5Nba)

29 To boil down CY's argument, it's " I trust my government. If they say it's legal, that's OK by me. Involving courts and judges an' such is just overkill."
The idea that an open ended conflict justifies the trashing of the balance of powers, is really breath taking. It's tragic how little it takes for Americans to trash the Constitution.

Posted by: careful1 at May 17, 2006 02:07 PM (Gjug+)

30 To sum up the destruction of this articles' arguments:

a) telling a couple of judges you're doing something, with no possibility of them doing something about it, is not oversight!

b) those members of Congress who were notified, were also specifically not allowed to tell anyone else about it. This is not oversight either!

c) the Executive Branch is not intended by the Constitution to be the only Branch able to oversee itself. That's the whole point of checks and balances.

Why is it so difficult for Confederate Yankee to see this?

Posted by: jim at May 17, 2006 02:22 PM (pjusE)

31 "you can expect some foul language and unsupported contentions from those bitter souls killing time until their next shift at Applebee's."

The suspense is killing me! Can you please bring these people on before my next shift starts? If not I'll have to wander over to LGF for some real abuse.

Posted by: Angryflower at May 17, 2006 02:46 PM (Bss6w)

32 Surely we all know by now - especially you, CY - that you will never sway the (?thinking?) from the Moonbat Left. Their minds are made up.

I still believe this should be presented to the Supreme Court, taking it first through both houses of Congress. Guess what! The weak-willed Donks will not vote for it to be taken before the SCOTUS. They know what the outcome will be.

One person will vote to take it before the SCOTUS - Russ Feingold. He's an idiot anyway, with little or nothing to lose.

When the SCOTUS rules that all actions of the Bush administration are in keeping with the U.S. Constitution, however, the loons on the Left will just claim that the Court is under Bush's control too.

Ya can't win with these fools.

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 17, 2006 03:30 PM (fMYGX)

33 Retired Navy, your handle explains it all. None of you squids have ever understood war or how to fight it. That's what we have always been for.
Religious fundimentalists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bush did not go to war on religious fundimentalists. He continued to pander to religious fundimentalists in order to get reelected.
Saudi Arabians flew airplanes into the world trade center. Bush didn't go to war with Saudi Arabia because the royal family has given him and his family billions over the years.
Al Quada, at the order of Bin Laden flew airplanes into the world trade center. Bush hasn't done anything to catch Bin Laden because he needs a boogie man to keep sheep like you scared so you'll continue to vote for him.
Not one single Iraqi was invloved in the planning or execution of 9/11. But Bush did go to war with them, because he thought they would be an easy target and he needed a successful war in order to get reelected.
And now he's using the "War on Terror", which he isn't even fighting, as an excuse for policies that would have made Nixon or even Stalin blush.
The United States in not now and has never fought a "War on Terrorism". You can't fight a war against a military tactic. And as soon as Bush called it a "War on Terror" he elevated a group of international criminals to the status of enemy warriors. They are not warriors. They are fundimentalist sociopaths who need to be hunted down, captured, tried before a legitimate court for mass murder and punished. I do not favor the death penalty for these men only because they think they are going to heaven for their atrocities. I see no reason to allow that when they can spend many years in solitary confinement contemplating what they have done.
Even more foolish than your "War on Terror" myth is the "I have nothing to hide" myth. We have no reasonable expectation that this government will use a nation wide all enclusive database only to go after "terrorists". If you are retired from the Navy you have to be old enough to remember CoIntelPro. Nixon wasn't using national intellegence assets solely for "national security". He was using them to attack his political enemies. Why should any of us believe that Bush is using even greater assets, with zero judicial or congressional oversite, and in apearant violation of the law, solely to prosecute an imaginary war on an intangable concept?

Posted by: IaintBacchus at May 17, 2006 03:34 PM (mYHGQ)

34 laintBacchus?

You are a flaming idiot!

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 17, 2006 03:44 PM (fMYGX)

35 Yankee, The Justice department, CIA and Military have all been loosing carreer professionals for five years precisely because when they object to a policy are not being listened to. Gonzalez's torture rational for instance was vetted and rejected by DoJ lawyers twice. And then implemented. And let's not forget what Richard Clarke had to say after he quit. But the opinions of anyone but a federal judge is irrelevent. Bush will never let this get into a court. Domestic spying without a warrant is illegal and even Scalia won't be able to say any different if it ever gets that far.
Now as to "word games". What do you call the War on Terror if not a word game. It isn't a war and we haven't actually attacked a "terrorist" since early 2002 in Afghanistan. If Al Queda, et. al. had been treated as the international criminals that they are, they would all have been dead or in jail 2-3 years ago.
Now you can resort back to calling me names and dismissing me out of hand because I don't agree with you and, hence don't know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: IaintBacchus at May 17, 2006 03:56 PM (mYHGQ)

36 LOL. The moonbats are in the house!

Posted by: Kat at May 17, 2006 04:57 PM (ITHS7)

37 laintBacchus:

In addition to being an idiot, you also know nothing about the causes for reductions in the Intelligence agencies. The NSA, for example, had more than 25K professionals employed there when I retired. They were offering early retirements and retirement bonuses because we had too damn many people onboard.

The same has been true of the CIA, DIA and the military. Too many people were there with skills no longer needed. Not too much need for Soviet specialists after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Many folks had a choice of being trained in some skill that was needed or opt for retirement - sometimes early retirement.

BTW, moonbats ... there IS NO DOMESTIC SPYING. There is no evidence of it, and Congressional members of the Intelligence committees know it has not been conducted without warrant.

Just how, dim one, would you have rounded up all those international criminals and presecuted them?

You are living in a dream world.

You also need to brush up on your spelling a bit. Of course, I realize it is hard to stay on task while hyperventilating.

And you have the nerve to criticize the Navy?

You are completely clueless.

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 17, 2006 05:13 PM (fMYGX)

38 And Confed Yank, contrary to what you claim, all departments in the executive branch are part of the Bush Administration. That is what the President does. He administers the executive branch. The NSA the DOJ the Pentagon are all part of the Executive branch. Now if counsel to the Judiciary commitee weighed in, you might have an argument, or if the Supreme Court has weighed in, or if the 4th Amendment didn't exist.

And just a little help to you. When you have explicit language as exists in the 4th Amendment, and you have explicit language in a law like FISA, arguments rarely survive in the face of plain language that stretch a constitutional interpretation of executive powers qua commander in chief, and stretch a reading of a congressional act granting certain war powers to the President.

What is most disturbing is how many people actually defend this program, when every REAL Republican I know, (you know the kind that have old money and fear government intrusion into their lives and the market and have libertarian leanings) is totally freaked out about the power grab Bush has made for the executive branch.

Posted by: lazerlou at May 17, 2006 06:28 PM (pBKzg)

39 "not one has resigned in the months since the briefing."

You said all FISA judges were breifed 2001. Incorrect. You are still saying none have resigned since finding out. One resigned in December of 2005 a couple of days after finding out that he had not been told the full extent of the program. Those are the facts.

"A reasonable person might infer they they therefore had no strong objection to the program, and might even take the leap to suggest that perhaps, they had no objections at all."

A reasonable person might spend a couple of seconds on Google and find out: "Five former judges on the nation's most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush's domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program." NYT, March 29, 2006

"BTW, moonbats ... there IS NO DOMESTIC SPYING."

Just keep chanting it, dude. 2+2=5, 2+2=5, 2+2=5, 2+2-5... With the size of potential settlments of class action law suits the telcom companies know they have just perked the ears of every lawyer in the US. If you think the Repubs poll numbers are low now just wait until the general public starts figuring out the extent of the snooping.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at May 17, 2006 07:30 PM (6G+OS)

40 I see the interloping liberals are being far more civil in their discourse than the upright wingnuts. Maybe Peter Daou should have a warning on his page about the language and vitriol on yours.

"Just curious as to how a "Tactic" flew two planes into the trade center, another into the Pentagon and made a smoking pit in PA?"

Well, you're not attacking a nation, a race or a religion. Your vague and ever shifting definition of terrorism usually highlights the tactics used by people it labels your enemy.

Of course, those same tactics are used by your allies, so you're not even fighting that, really.

Posted by: Railroad Stone at May 17, 2006 08:09 PM (51E0l)

41 John Gillnitz:

"BTW, moonbats ... there IS NO DOMESTIC SPYING."

Just keep chanting it, dude. 2+2=5, 2+2=5, 2+2=5, 2+2-5... With the size of potential settlments of class action law suits the telcom companies know they have just perked the ears of every lawyer in the US. If you think the Repubs poll numbers are low now just wait until the general public starts figuring out the extent of the snooping.

You, too, are a total numbskull. You do not know how these collection programs actually work, nor do you know squat about all the safeguards in place to protect the Amercian public and individual freedoms.

You read all the misinformation in the Press, and you start salivating and hyperventilating, pitting hope against hope that this will be Bush's undoing.

Why don't you go out and do something actually constructive? Because you are one of those without ideas or vision or imagination or creativity. You are wasting your time.

I spent 36 years working with these Intelligence gathering programs. You have only read press releases and misinformation.

I know from experience how these things actually work. You know nothing.

Case closed.

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 17, 2006 09:46 PM (fMYGX)

42 "I'm right and you're wrong" "You know nothing" "case closed" are not compelling arguments.

And with all due repect to your 36 years of service in government intelligence, that gives you absolutely zero authority on constitutional jurisprudence and statutory interpretation. And it shows in your arguments.

FISA is explicit and contemplates any surveillance on an American citizen related to foreign intelligence gathering requires a warrant. It was amended to include intelligence gathering on foreign terrorists, not just states, as a part of the the Patriot act.

Thus Congress purposefully dealt with this very issue in the Patriot Act which was passed AFTER the grant of war powers on which the Bush administration relies for its authority to violate FISA.

FISA was also legislated to be as expansive as 4th amendment Constitutional limits allow, so claiming these searches/ surveillences are constitutional is a tough argument to advance.

Therfore, an argument that a grant of war powers by congress included the authority to spy is just plain wrong. Nor can you argue that such powers are inherent in the President as commander in Chief, not when the 4th amendment is so clear.

And this is to say nothing of the high probablility that this NSA program harvests data that is purely domestic. FISA is not an issue there. The 4th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause are, and there is simply no constitutional argument that the powers of the executive branch, even in war time, allows it to search or survey American citizens, talking to other American citizens, without a warrant.

I know from 7 years of experience in con law how these things actually work. You know nothing.

Case closed.

Posted by: lazerlou at May 17, 2006 10:29 PM (J7EvK)

43 First, while I can't speak for Peter Daou, I can suggest a way of determining the purpose of his linking. Actually, you can help me out here because I have always been curious. Are the ones Peter links to your best posts? Your worst? The ones with the most trackbacks? How do you suppose this particular post made the cut? Does this post represent your blog well or not?

Second, I have never seen a more pathetic fake than the poster who calls himself "retired spy." Sure you are. And I work at Applebees.

And no one is "pitting hope against hope that this will be Bush's undoing." The guy is already toast. His ability to govern is gone. People are legitimately concerned about their privacy and are legitimately concerned about a branch of government which feels it is beyond the reproach of the other two.

Posted by: Seattle Slough at May 18, 2006 01:52 AM (8OvSd)

44 "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

I think this might come close to summing up why Peter Daou has a "Blogs from the Right" section on his page. Many of us "moonbats" actually enjoy chewing on an issue from many angles. It's part of the concept of "reason," I think.

Oh, and not to be too much of a snipe, but rather than "LOL! The moonbats are here," why not welcome a different perspective? Why is it so scary to actually reason through multiple facets of an issue? If you never heard an opposing position, how can you ever really feel confident in your own stance?

I hated it when my ninth grade social sciences teacher decided in the second half of that year to focus on critical thinking...It was as if she came back from a conference held over winter break that radically changed her pedagological philosophy. I was forced to actually THINK through the words I put on paper...I had to DEFEND my statements with rational arguments. And I even had to take into account the VIEWS OF OTHERS!! Whew..it was rough..And my approach to the world was never the same again. Thank you, Mrs. Kennedy, where ever you are today!

Posted by: JasonM in NH at May 18, 2006 07:28 AM (Whluo)

45 I don't believe that I claimed to be an expert in constitutional law, lazerlou, but, as CY has noted in the past, some of us are capable of reading simple English - especially when it is found in case law.

While you moonbats are peeing on your shoes, AT&T, Verizon and Bell South claim they provided NOTHING to the NSA in the form of database information. And what did the NSA actually request from these three telcos and Qwest? They requested that those four telcos NOT DESTROY existing customer database information that may be required for investigating known connectivity between known al Qaeda operatives and persons residing inside the United States. Looks like your credibility stops at the door of misinformation published by USA Today, Newsweek, the NYT and some others. Where is the real evidence? You have NONE.

As for case law, lazerlou, CY noted the case Maryland vs. Smith (1979). It was the ruling of the SCOTUS that it was not unlawful to release telco records to the government.

Ya want to resurrect Youngstown too? I already know that you have done that elsewhere. Or was someone else using your moniker?

I don't give a crap what you think, Seattle Slough. You are far too insignificant to matter. I can laugh back at you losers each month when my federal annuity check - probably more than you earn for full-time work - is deposited in my bank account. You see, I actually served MY country for more than 36 years. What have YOU done? Whine?

Gotta go now. Don't wish to discuss things with those incapable of understanding. Got some gardening to do. There are some pesky slugs there too.

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 18, 2006 07:38 AM (fMYGX)

46 Not to snipe myself here Jason from NH "I hated it when my ninth grade social sciences teacher decided in the second half of that year to focus on critical thinking"
but some of us learned that much earlier in life than High School. Your Dauo Report is nothing but an echo chamber. That Mrs. Kennedy that was your teacher, she wasn't Teddy's mummie now was she? Cause that would explain your LACK of thinking skills.

Posted by: Kat at May 18, 2006 09:12 AM (ITHS7)

47 tap-tap-tap ...

Is this thing working?

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 18, 2006 01:06 PM (fMYGX)

48 So now we 'moonbats' are treated to the spectacle of right-wingers, who so pride themselves on their common sense, living in the "real world" and "practical reality", and love of country and constitution:

a) avoiding the subject of warrants
b) attempting to claim that people in the Executive Branch aren't under the Bush administration's control
c) attempting to claim that notifiying some few members of other branches, without letting them tell others or do anything, is oversight
d) attempting to claim that the NSA needs no oversight, it's word can be taken at face value
e) when these facts are brought up, utterly ignoring them, and switching to emotional arguments
e) attempting to claim that, anyway, this is all necessary because terrorists are so baaaaaaddd!! Mommy they scare me!

This last baffles me utterly. Where's the manliness? We go along for 200 years, face unprecedented World Wars, unrest within and without, recessions, face down the Soviets with the stakes being nuclear armageddon of all humanity - all while saving the constitution.

But a bunch of criminals who can't even meet us on a battlefield have you so frightened, that we're supposed to just sell out all the freedoms and rights that our parents fought and DIED for?

But these are the ways in which you get twisted, in continuing to defend this administration's policies.

Aren't you getting tired of making excuses for Bush? He's a grown-up man. He deserves the fallout for his failures. You do yourselves a disservice by continuing to give him outs for his actions.

Posted by: jim at May 18, 2006 01:59 PM (pjusE)

49 a) avoiding the subject of warrants
b) attempting to claim that people in the Executive Branch aren't under the Bush administration's control
c) attempting to claim that notifiying some few members of other branches, without letting them tell others or do anything, is oversight
d) attempting to claim that the NSA needs no oversight, it's word can be taken at face value
e) when these facts are brought up, utterly ignoring them, and switching to emotional arguments
e) attempting to claim that, anyway, this is all necessary because terrorists are so baaaaaaddd!! Mommy they scare me!

And some wonder where the term Moonbat came from?

Insofar as you surely know this Jim Guy's IP address and other pertinent data, CY, maybe he will consent to having you pass that info on to al Qaeda. He's obviously not afraid of all those baaaaaaadd terrorists - as long as he can hide behind his fantasy-generating keyboard.

That OK with you Jim Boy?

Before agreeing to that, however, please explain the validity of the accusations made in each one of those entries on your itemized list.

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 18, 2006 02:16 PM (fMYGX)

50 Man oh man CY, I don't know if the crazy blog money is worth this deluge of battery.

Tob

Posted by: Toby928 at May 18, 2006 04:23 PM (ATbKm)

51 I know from experience how these things actually work. You know nothing.
Posted by: Retired Spy at May 17, 2006 09:46 PM

Well, gosh! That convinced me. Sorry, RS, but you have to do better then that. Unless you have direct knowledge of the specific program you are in the same boat as us. I don't think the NSA program is business as usual so knowledge of how things used to work doesn't apply.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at May 18, 2006 04:30 PM (eHLUP)

52 FISA judges were briefed

FISA judges issued warrants

OK, even for a conservative, you should be able to see the difference.

Posted by: Arlan at May 18, 2006 08:41 PM (lh3c2)

53 For all the difference it made the administration may as well briefed the judges seat cushion and hat rack too !! They would have made the same amount of meaningful feedback.

Posted by: PatD at May 18, 2006 09:02 PM (0gOAn)

54 I DO have specific knowledge of specific current programs, Gillnutz. You have no first-hand knowledge of anything or you would not be making such ignorant accusations.

Do I give a flying flip what you think? Absolutely not - except that fools like you are dangerous.

Posted by: Retired Spy at May 18, 2006 09:41 PM (fMYGX)

55 This last baffles me utterly. Where's the manliness? We go along for 200 years, face unprecedented World Wars, unrest within and without, recessions, face down the Soviets with the stakes being nuclear armageddon of all humanity - all while saving the constitution.

WWII

-Phones were monitered
-Japanese Americans were re-located into armed camps
-Rationing was in place for just about everything
-Drafting people into the military was common
-invading forign countries became common
-innocent people were bombed by us
-News orginizations were controlled as to what they could put out by the govt.
-Americans UNDERSTOOD why this was happenening then, why not now?

Posted by: Retired Navy at May 19, 2006 05:25 AM (JSetw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

May 16, 2006

Other "Jobs Americans Won't Do"

Though looking at his poll numbers, I think the President is doing the best he can to mimic the effect politically.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Shots Fired in the Immigration War

Via Drudge, it looks like the immigration debate is heating up:

A parting gunshot from a vehicle leaving Waffle House in West Asheville shattered a window and caused a minor injury, police said.

The shooting happened around 3:00 a.m. Saturday after a group of whites argued with a group of Hispanics at the 24-hour restaurant on Smokey Park Highway, Asheville police Lt. Wallace Welch said.

“The two groups were jawing back and forth with each other over citizenship issues and whatnot,” Welch said.

As the Hispanic group drove off, someone in the vehicle fired at least once into a large window near the front door, he said.

Whether from a ricocheted bullet or flying glass, Welch said, one man's arm was bleeding when police arrived. He declined medical treatment.

Police were looking for a white Dodge Intrepid that left the restaurant going west.

Most of the legal immigrants I've heard from in North Carolina (via my own conversations and local talk radio) are very strongly against illegal immigration, usually even more than native-born Americans. I'm be willing to go out on a limb and make the assumption that the shooter in this case was one of the millions of illegal aliens that this and previous administrations have allowed to come into this country. Asheville, by the way, is one of the most liberal cities in North Carolina.

This is not the first time shots have been fired over this contentious issue, and I fear that it will not be the last. It could get much worse. As the Heritage Foundation notes it almost certainly will get worse:

An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years.

The vast majority of these immigrants will be low-skilled workers without even basic English language skills. It is nothing less than the mass importation of poverty from a foreign culture.

Have we learned nothing from the riots in Europe? Unskilled, uneducated immigrants will cluster in ghettos, become understandably outraged at their inability to have what they see others having. We will run the distinct risk of having riots in New York and Los Angeles on par with what we saw in Paris.

I cannot support a Republican Party or a Republican candidate that seeks to ensure the Balkanization of America, and frankly, few of the front-runners in either party are offering me much in '06. Sitting out '06 is a growing possibility.

For '08, give me a Tom Tancredo or based upon this article, a candidate like John Cox.

If the Republican Party won't do it, I'm sure we can create a conservative third party that will.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 15, 2006

Live-blogging Jorge's Immigration Speech

I'll be live-blogging President Bush's immigration speech tonight here at 8:00 PM (Eastern). Quite frankly, I'm prepared to be disappointed.

Michelle Malkin has deconstructed the speech preview. N.Z. Bear is compiling a list of others live-blogging the speech at The Truth Laid Bear.

I'll be watching this on Fox News, and will be primarily concerned with his delivery and reaction.

And so it begins...

Going pretty much by the playbook several minutes in. No surprises yet, he's keeping to the script... Keeps talking about high technology security… don't we just need good masons?... Confirms 6,000 National Guard soldiers will play support role only, for one year, and the will start standing down as new border patrol agencies and technologies come online... Playing up role of state and local law enforcement, but I don't hear a pledge of monies. Can you say "un-funded mandate?"... Pledges to end catch-and-release, and just when he starts to win me back a little, he starts in on his temporary worker program, pushing his "doing the jobs Americans won't" angle. Don't make me laugh…

I do agree that we do need biometric ID cards to cut down on document fraud, and Bush scores points. AND THEN... he says deportation is "unrealistic" losing those points and more... Oh, no, he really is trying to convince us his amnesty plan is not an amnesty plan.

Bush seems completely unwilling or unable to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration...

Delivery-wise, this was a good effort, and I spotted no flubs of note...

Jorge was sharp, but I don't think he was able to change anyone's mind, especially the conservative base. He might have assuaged moderates with this speech, but Bush lost the base. I think he is now quite possibly a lame duck.

Fox News is reporting mixed reviews from conservative Senators.

Give me a few minutes to digest this, and I'll be back, but my initial reaction is that Bush just split the Republican Party.

He's "The Divider."

* * *

Glenn Reynolds posts the full text of the speech.

Ian Schwartz at Expose the Left has the video.

* * *

I've watched a few minutes of commentary from the television pundits, did a quick tour of some of the top blogs, and now I've had a while to think about it, I think I'll stick with with my original statement that Bush has split the Republican Party. But now a new question arises: is it a permanent split in the party, and if not, how long with it last?

I'm guessing it won't be a permanent split, and that most Republicans will "come home" by the '06 elections, but given this administration's near-Palestinian capability to make the wrong choices at the wrong time, I don't know that anyone can say that such a reconciliation is by any means automatic.

Update: The first blogospheric immigration split has occured, as Lorie Byrd has parted ways from Polipundit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:05 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hunting Anonymous

Isn't this interesting:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.
ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

The far left, of course, has started hyperventilating about this, even though the story has just a single anonymous source. It apparently doesn't pass the credibility threshold needed to be published as a news story.

But let us assume for the sake of argument that the information above is true, and that Brian Ross and Richard Esposito are having their phone records tracked. We should then ask ourselves the following questions:

• What exactly do they mean by "tracking" in the paragraphs above? Do they mean wiretapping?
  
• Who are they tracking, or trying to track, and why?
  
• Is it legal and ethical?

What exactly do they mean by “tracking” in the paragraphs above? Do they mean wiretapping?
In this instance, tracking means that the government was looking at which phone numbers were called by these reporters. They were not listening to the actual content of the calls, which is called wiretapping.

Who are they tracking, or trying to track, and why?
The goal in such an effort would be to see if U.S. government employees were illegally leaking classified information to the press. If a government employee thinks that a crime is being committed, they are protected by legal processes on both the State and Federal level as long as they follow rules in reporting alleged infractions to higher officials via an accepted and well-defined process. If these employees instead leak these charges to the press or other outside agencies, they may guilty of serious crimes themselves.

Is it legal and ethical?
It would seem that this is legal, as this seems to be the point of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) under President Clinton.

From the standpoint of ethics, I can come up with very little justification for employees to leak to the press. Well-defined procedures are in place to deal with illegal and unethical behaviors that they may uncover, and the government has every right—indeed, they have a duty—to enforce the law.

In short, based upon what little information contained in this ABC News blog post, it appears that the reporters are very upset that their access to leakers inside the government might be at risk. I will assume that they'll only be more disturbed if these leakers are prosecuted for the crimes they've apparently committed, and finding a willing source becomes that much more difficult for the reporters.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:47 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Problems of Addiction

If you've ever seen a chronic addict, one thing you'll almost always notice is their inability to accept blame for their problems. They blame it on others in their family, the police—anyone and anything but themselves. They cannot accept responsibility for their actions, and always search for excuses instead of a cure.

The people who do recover from additions don't succeed because of gimmicky cures or 12-step programs. They succeed or fail based upon the strength of their will. All too often, though, their will is weak, and their families are crushed and ripped apart as the addict slowly implodes.

I've seen it before, and I fear I'm about to watch it again.

Tonight at 8:00 PM President Bush will deliver a speech on immigration that cynically uses National Guard troops as a prop, promises to crack down on employers with more “catch and release” raids, and push for his “amnesty by any other name” guest worker proposals. A junkie looking for his fix, an alcoholic reaching for one more glass, President George Bush simply can't seem to help himself.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.8468 seconds.
36 queries taking 0.8106 seconds, 349 records returned.
Page size 348 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.