Audacity of Truth
Rahmbo:
"Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil's spawn. He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive."
-Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) on Obama's COS, 3/7/10
Velvet Lair- Legends March 18, 2010
- Some things are just not cute March 18, 2010
- The adventures of the lady spider killer continue March 11, 2010
- Intermission February 19, 2010
- People who allow their dogs to poop in other people’s yards February 16, 2010
Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)
Joe Klein, no friend of the administration, writes a critique on Democrats who he thinks are playing too fast and loose with national security issues:
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, engaged in a small but cheesy bit of deception last week. She released a letter, which quickly found its way to the front page of the New York Times, that she had written on Oct. 11, 2001, to then National Security Agency director General Michael V. Hayden. In it she expressed concern that Hayden, who had briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the steps he was taking to track down al-Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks, was not acting with “specific presidential authorization.” Hayden wrote her back that he was acting under the powers granted to his agency in a 1981 Executive Order. In fact, a 2002 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committees concluded that the NSA was not doing as much as it could have been doing under the law—and that the entire U.S. intelligence community operated in a hypercautious defensive crouch. “Hayden was taking reasonable steps,” a former committee member told me. “Our biggest concern was what more he could be doing.”
The Bush Administration had similar concerns. In the days after 9/11, it asked Hayden to push the edge of existing technology and come up with the best possible program to track the terrorists. The result was the now infamous NSA data-mining operation, which began months later, in early 2002. Vast amounts of phone and computer communications by al-Qaeda suspects overseas, including some messages to people in the U.S., could now be scooped up and quickly analyzed.
The release of Pelosi’s letter last week and the subsequent Times story (“Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show”) left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn’t exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, “Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it’s all fruit.”
A dodgy response at best, but one invested with a larger truth. For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are “fruit,” and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders.
Read the whole thing. Make sure to note his information on how there is evidence that, thanks to the leaker as well as the reporting of this story in the NYTimes, that the terrorists are modifying their behavior, which obviously hampers our ability to track them.
Looks like Orin Kerr was right.
To the (mostly) partisans who wanted this story pushed: are you happy now?
Read more via AJ Strata, Betsy Newmark, Powerline, Outside the Beltway, Say Anything
Related Toldjah So posts: Related Toldjah So posts:
- Why it was important to keep the cat in the bag
- The Rep. Jane Harman flip flop
- NSA initially acted on its own after 9-11
- Investigations begin into the NSA eavesdropping leak
- “… the only thing outrageous about this policy is the outrage itself”
- Michael Barone on the MSM’s ‘eavesdropping’ coverage
- Brief history of warrantless searches
- Past presidents and the NSA
- Bill Clinton and the NSA
- WSJ: “Thank you for wiretapping”
- The Prez fires back
- Prez essentially says ‘let me do my job’
- The undermining of this war
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
76 Responses to “Joe Klein: How to Stay Out of Power (and undermine the war in the process)”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
PCD,
Boo, you’re easily scared and manipulated!!
Do you know how to keep us safe from terrorists?
Do you think we can stop this from happening by spying on phonecalls to and from American citizens?
If so, please let the White House know which American’s citizens phonecalls we should wiretap.
They can then request and get a warrant and listen in on the calls.
Doesn’t seem that hard to me.
But then again, I didn’t vote for “shit for brains” for President.
Also, why did Cheney tell people in his speech that if we had done this before September 11th we might have stopped the planes from being hijacked, crashed and Americans killed?
It wasn’t from a lack of inmformation. it was from a lack of communication.
Also, it’s because Cheney never thought of a lie he wouldn’t try to push by the American people.
Robert wrote with no regard to history, “Boo, you’re easily scared and manipulated!!
Yeppers. That addresses that 9/11 happened. Do you have your head in the sand?
Robert wrote, “Do you think we can stop this from happening by spying on phonecalls to and from American citizens?
It’s 1 of a 1,000 tools. There is the financial aspect of the war on terror and there is this aspect and Robert I guess isn’t in favor of having his phone call monitored if he’s on an international call with a terrorist. Me? I don’t mind. I’d be HONORED to help the government uncover a plot or two. I’d want to pay the government for doing a good job. I’d say to people, “here’s a token of my appreciation”.
Robert (aka sh*t for brains) wrote, “But then again, I didn’t vote for “shit for brains” for President.
Nice name calling. Way to deal with substance. I dealt with your substance by holding up a mirror.
Robert accused, “It wasn’t from a lack of inmformation. it was from a lack of communication.
Without evidence and spouting off more accusations. Great pattern. Should we make accusations without evidence about you?
Baklava,
Sorry. Me use bad word.
Thanks for admitting you’re easily scared and manipulated. A li’l honesty like that will go along way in helping others interact with you.
You’re right that if I wasn’t doing anything wrong, I should be happy to let others know. Only those with something to hide would hide something like this.
By the way, what went down at Cheney’s meeting with Energy executives in 2001?
See Baklava,
First those of us who are evil do something wrong. Then we rely on things like our civil rights as American citizens (me) or executive privilege (Cheney/ Bush) to be our shield.
Then when we’re accused of maybe covering something up. We scream “where’s your proof?”
Assumptions without evidence.
Hmm, where have I heard those before?
Oh yeah, in Cheney’s speech about how if we had wiretapped American citizens (without a warrant), we might have stopped what happened to us on 911.
God, I hate those who make-up stuff without evidence.
Ok kids, I’m off for a well needed vacation.
Take care.
“God, I hate those who make-up stuff without evidence.”
Presuming you meant that about the people you are posting with here (even though I’m not sure why you’d say that), I hope on your vacation you get enough R&R to rethink about some of the things you’ve said about people “making up stuff” here as well as talking down to people by calling them “kids.” We’re all adults here, Robert, and just because everyone doesn’t automatically agree with you doesn’t mean their arguments are any less mature nor does it mean they are without merit. A willingness to consider the playing field level on your part will go a long way.
The ABB comment is the stupidest thing you ever heard?? OMG Man try reading some of the stuff Steve posts.
Also I am abit lost about your Saddam comment. You know it seems to me that I hear alot more leftist say this war should never of happened than I do on the right. The whole pull out now would only leave the Iraqi people helpless, and allow someone to either take over or put Saddam back in power. So whatever you are trying to say, it is not even close to reality.
I know that Robert is on vacation, but I could not let his comment go unchallenged.
Lastly, as far as the “poo poo for brains” comment. It really is in bad taste and it clearly shows a lack of intelligence to make such comments. It is not a good debate style to swear, and if you were on a debate team you would not last long. Of course I am abit old fashion and believe that swearing should be reserved for when you shoot your toe off. – Lorica
“Lastly, does FISA cover the prosecution of the War?” – Lorica
1) Yes. It does. It specifies 15 days of warrantless wiretapping. Reference the actual FISA section here
” It was created in 1978 when we were not at war. I have not seen any place in it where it specifies intelligence gathered for the purposes the war. I know I am cutting a pretty fine line and I have no doubt that I could be corrected, reading the FISA act is abit dull and makes one sleepy, but I didn’t see it. I am moving onto the War Powers act tonight, and then the Patriot act if I can stay awake for all of it. – Lorica
“
and I know that you weren’t sure, so I’m really just using the post as a springboard to make the points that I’d like to make =)
2) I’d also say that the “war on terror” being a never ending war is a very valid concern, if War Powers are being invoked for its duration and are being extended onto Domestic Soil against citizens.
Part of that extension is unavoidable because of the very fact that we’re not in conflict with a foreign country, but against citizen militias with political/religious grievances; the conflict is not defined by national boundaries and so laws built upon the presumption of wars having national boundries are proving contentious.
Traditionally, War is a very specific activity that takes place between two sovereign states. Thus it ends in either victory for one or a truce agreement.
The Current “war” is an inappropriate use of the term. The actors of the conflict are neither prosecuted under international criminal law as Criminal Foreign Citizens, nor under Geneva Convention War Articles as Foreign Soldiers… a new term for the actors is created so that legal obligations can be selectively chosen, and yet the conflict is still trying to shoe-horn its way into the ill-suited “war” terminology.
We did not declare a “War on Terror” after the Timothy McVeigh Oklahoma bombing, or the Unibomber. They were, rightly, seen as Law Enforcement issues even though both were actually acts of domestic Terrorism with very political agendas.
International Law enforcement issues are a little more disturbing then domestic ones, because we don’t have any direct jurisdiction and those Nations might not be fully cooperative in their investigations. Being uncooperative enough suggests that the nations are aligning themselves with the terrorist organizations (which sets things more comfortably in the nation vs. nation frame of reference ie. Afghanistan – although the Al-Queda organization seemed to be dominated by Saudi-Arabian nationals).
The “War on Terror” is more akin to the recent sloganeering of “War on Drugs”. It’s a war against an abstract concept, in this case an (ineffective) guerrilla technique of killing civilians in horrific ways to exert political influence.
It is not possible to stop terrorism by killing everyone. A War on Terror should be more of a political/propopganda war against Terrorist recruiters, then a conventional ground war. Creating more martyrs only exacerbates the conflict.
Accusations that “Liberals” are soft on National Security because some have the perspective outlined above are horrifically misguided. National Security is not just about macho posturing. Macho posturing just seems to poll better, especially when revenge impulses are directed against foreign nationals that are an ethnic minority in the States.
3) To address the actual topic of the current Blog entry. Everyone in the world already knew that the United States was wiretapping everything and everyone. Al Queda did not suddenly learn of any new wiretapping techniques. Carnivore is sifting through digital communications, the U.S. is sifting through Satellite communications, and had been wiretapping U.S. citizens under FISA supervision. Everyone already knew FISA wiretaps existed, and people have no more likelihood of knowing they’re being tapped now then they did before. The only thing anyone knows that is new, is that there is no longer any oversight.
Logically, the disclosure regarding the lack of FISA does not effect national security in any way. Anyone blankly asserting that it does is playing politics, and tugging on patriotic heartstrings.
Robert wrote, “admitting you’re easily scared and manipulated”
Yeppers was sarcasm. Your pattern of accusations is amusing…. not really. I’m a realist. I recognize that 9/11 has happened and future attack s are being planned. Are you going to tell us with a straight face and deny that they are being planned? Nope. So. Why make inaccurate accusations? Why continue that pattern?
Robert, ALL calls, email, and other forms of communications to and from known terrorists should be immediately examined. Forget the FISA crap. You aren’t thinking. I don’t know what world you live in, but it isn’t a real one.
People like you, such as Jaime Gorelick, made it easy for 9/11 to happen, and if you have your way it will happen again and again…
Give me a break PCD blaming people like Jamie Gorelick are making easier for terrorists easier to attack is country is bunk. We as a nation can’t keep drugs and illegial immigrants out of this nation after 5 years of a Bush 43 in charge but you’ll make left responsible for questioning the erosion of our civil-rights as a pretext for this nation’s failure to protect against another terrorist attack is simply unture. You fail to realize that we domestic terrorists also. Man dude wake up and smell the coffee.
tommy, why should I do what you haven’t done?
Gorelick put up the wall which kept DOJ from sharing information from the 84 bombing of the Trade Towers from the National Intelligence agencies. You must have been sleeping when this was brought up in the 9/11 hearings. Gorelick should have been kicked off the commission and put into the witness chair UNDER OATH, althogh she’d perjure herself like a true Clintonista. Also, remember Sandy Berger stealing and destroying documents that implicated the Clintons in weakening our defenses that allowed 9/11 to happen.
You have to get a clue, Tommy.
PCD, and you say that Tommy better get a clue?!
Both the Gorelick and Berger allegations proved to be unfounded (do a cursory google search) even though their continual recitation among the faithful might make you think otherwise.
But don’t let the facts get in the way of your IT’S ALL CLINTON’S FAULT conspiracy.
Likewise, no one wants bureaucracy to get in the way of our safety. HOWEVER, the FISA court is NOT an example of bureaucracy. 1) It issues retroactive warrants, in the case of “boom, you’re dead” potential situations. 2) Its been a rubber stamp court that has rejected one or two possible warrents out of THOUSANDS over the years. So where’s the bureaucracy there? Bureaucracy is the setting up a hugely expensive prescription drug program that’s administered by the state.
Its nice to keep repeating sentiments and talking points that sound good. But it helps if they’re also true.
shingles,
You couldn’t find anything on Berger like his conviction? True he got a slap on the wrist sentence, but he was convicted. Blows your credibility to crap, shingles.
Shingles,
You are a poor researcher. I found plenty on Sandy Berger’s conviction on Google. Try this article from the Clinton News Network:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/
Do you have a clue now, shingles, or are you going to be Stuck on Stupid by continuing your false claims?
How did I miss that?! And where was I when that happened.
Point taken, I was wrong.
See, I can admit when evidence proves me wrong.
My other point about the FISA court still stands though.
No, it doesn’t shingles. Your point on Gorelick has been shotdown so many times, too.
Baklava has shot you FISA misinterpreters down so many times here that it is not funny.
Explain exactly how I am misinterpreting FISA. Do you even know what I said about FISA or are you mixing me up with someone else? All I said is that it allows for retroactive warrants. And that its historically acted like a rubber stamp. Both statements are true.
From there I went on to question the NEED for the NSA to bypass the FISA courts. Who knows, maybe there IS a need to bypass them. My larger point was a larger Constitutional issue, about handing over unchecked power to the executive office (particularly during a potentially never ending war). I find it strange that conservatives seem to have no concerns about this at all. Particularly since governmental power will ALLWAYS expand, if given the opportunity.
And for the record, I think its crap to blame Bush for not preventing 9/11 just as I think its crap to go further back in time and blame the Clinton administration.
shingles, the left doesn’t want W to be able to exercise ANY of his Constitutional powers as Bush sees fit. The courts do not run wars, nor are they to try combatants. You might have an argument if the President was like Clinton and used the NSA to spy on Jesse Helms, but he’s not spying for personal political reasons or payback. It is for legitimate security reasons.
FYI, Has former FISA judge Robertson heard any cases? You may see that he’s going to be identified as the leaker of the NSA stories to the NYTImes, and that is why he’s not hearing any cases.
The courts are NOT the supreme power in the US, nor is Congress, nor is the President. It is just SOME people who can’t win an election with their ideas have to resort to the courts with unelected judges to implement them or thwart elected officials.
PCD, this is turning into the “PCD and Shingles Show”.
I didn’t say that the courts should run wars. You’re missing what I’m saying, which is that you don’t give the executive branch unlimited and unchecked powers. During a time of war, yes, powers should be broadened – I have no problem with this. My point is that there needs to be some sort of minimal, minimal, minimal, I repeat, minimal oversight. I simply do not trust giving the executive branch unlimited and unchecked powers. No matter who’s in charge. Period.
No, the courts are not the supreme power in the US.
But neither is the executive branch.
It is just SOME people who can’t win an election with their ideas have to resort to the courts with unelected judges to implement them or thwart elected officials.
I agree.
But this has nothing to do with what I’m saying here.
Oh, shingles, in case you are also ignorant of Judge Robertson, here’s a link to “The Right Politics” page with links for you to follow to see why Liberal Judge Robertson may be the leaker and why he’s not hearing cases.
http://therightpolitics.com/page/3/
OK. So there’s speculation that Judge Roberson is the leaker who leaked information about the NSA bypassing the FISA courts. My question is, how could Judge Robertson leak something if the FISA court that he sat on was in the dark about the fact that they were in the dark?
This doesn’t make any sense.
In order for him to leak, someone from inside the executive branch would have had to leak it to him.
Shingles, you’ve talked yourself in a circle. It’s not that hard. Robertson didn’t like the spying stuff at all. He couldn’t rule against it because he’d be overturned and too many overturns, and he’d be known as the 9th Circuit of FISA. He did what Democrats from Jim McDermott and David Bonior have done, taken secret stuff to the NYTimes and demanded to be an anonymous source. The Times probably started running Robertson like a KGB Spymaster runs his traitors.
PCD, this guy pretty much hits on the head what I was saying:
http://markearnest.net/news.cgi?nid=188
..’This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration’..
This type of thinking is not correct. We keep hearing this…somehow you writers always need another reason for not saying that the Dems are lying and doing what they do to get Bush, not some old theory to back you up. So..come on grow up and start stating what is really going on! We readers get it now, this is not the 70’s any more. Start writing without flourishes like above. You are beginning to sound like network news. You are smarter and need not use cruches as they do.