“A Good Program…to Make Us Safer…Is Over.”

Byron York at National Review Online has a must read column up:

Thomas Kean, the co-chairman of the September 11 Commission, was briefed several weeks ago about the Treasury Department’s terrorist-finance program, and after the session, Kean says, “I came away with the idea that this was a good program, one that was legal, one that was not violating anybody’s civil liberties…and something the U.S. government should be doing to make us safer.”

Kean tells National Review Online that the New York Times’s decision to expose the terrorist finance effort — Kean called Times executive editor Bill Keller in an attempt to persuade him not to publish — has done terrible damage to the program. “I think it’s over,” Kean says. “Terrorists read the newspapers. Once the program became known, then obviously the terrorists were not going to use these methods any more.”

I can't understand those who want to defend The New York Times.  I can't understand it at all.  And yet they're out there.

Loons.

Comments

[JohnP]

You like fascism then, do you? It is nothing to be embarrased about. Hitler just gave them a bad name, that's all.

[Zossima]

I can't understand those who want to defend Bush. He has willingly conducted illegal surveillance. Do you refute that? You sure don't demand accountability. You betray American principles to defend a president that would likely have gotten legal permission to do everything he's done (and is doing) illegally.

I would like to think that you're intelligent enough to realize that if Bush can get away with this, it would be possible for a Democrat president to use the same unchecked, imperial authority in ways you don't like. (Maybe Al Gore would make you buy a Prius---heh-heh.) That alone should make you want accountability. But you're so caught up in Republicans=good and Democrats=bad that you can't see the bigger Consitutional and American principles and values that are at stake.

The NYT finger-pointing is going to backfire, just like all similar McCarthyism has in the past. McCarthy-Nixon-Bush. Nice crowd you've chosen.

Funny how none of this illegal activity was necessary to combat the Soviet threat, which was far better organized, better-led, better-funded, and potentially far more dangerous (uh, they actually had WMDs) than the Iraqi or alQaeda threats. Quit living in GWB's world-o'-fear and join the thinking.

[Rick]

Zos... your... wide-eyed, fanatical, breathless, lunatic, claims are all built on the illegality of what Bush has done and that illegality is far from proven unless you belong to the moonbat fringe who think proof is all about whether or not the claim has been made...

You're consistently siding now with the moonbat fringe Zoss... and that is of course your choice...

But understand that over here, there's no credibility whatsoever with that position...

None...

So go back to your house of cards and return when it's a given that what Bush is doing is illegal... even the New York Times isn't questioning the legality of the Swift stuff Zoss...

Damn man, you are in serious need of changing your meds...

[nickrk@gmail.com]

Zossima,

Please explain why it freedom of the press when NYT or Mike Moore speaks, but censorship if a republican voices disapproval. Or why when republicans are critical of the NYT, its finger-pointing and McCarthyism.

Sounds like your equation is
Republicans = bad and Democrats = good.,
GWB = world-o'-fear and Democrats = thinking.

Nicks

[Zossima]

For the moment, I'll just respond to Nick's stupidity. Uh, where have I ever said Repubs are censoring? It's McCarthyism when people who are doing their jobs are accused of being unpatriotic in an effort to silence their reporting facts that aren't convenient to the agenda. And I don't give the Dems much credit for brains. They'll blow the coming election yet.

[Zossima]

Yap-yap-yap. I'm part of the "moonbat fringe" because I disagree with Bush. From your extreme vantage point, most Americans nw qualify as moonbats. You have no credibility with that b.s.

Rick, wiretapping US citizens without a warrant is illegal, plain and simple. It's not some half-assed claim. It's the f'ing law. Bush both said so and claimed they weren't doing it over 2 years ago, which was a lie. Bush couldn't be bothered to obey the law by going to the FISA court. It's that simple. Now I know you'd try to explain away Bush's (and other similar administration statements) using Clintonian legalisms, but that doesn't work. Your protests to the contrary just reveal what a mindless shill you are for people who are destroying the Constitution.

Stand for what this country was founded on! Or maybe that has no credibility over here either.

[Rick]

Zos,

If you sounds like a duck, look like a duck, walk like a duck, then you're likely a duck... or you're impersonating one...

Quit yer quacking, hide your big yellow beak and stop waddling and we'll quit acusing you of being a duck...

Capece?

There is no proof whatsoever that what Bush is doing is illegal... in fact, quite the contrary, he's gone to the courts and covered his arse...

Why don't you cover yours?

It's quite unsightly guy...

[Zossima]

More clap-trap. Can't make an argument, call names. It doesn't work.

There is no proof whatsoever that what Bush is doing is illegal... in fact, quite the contrary, the courts have approved of what he's doing... legally, he's covered his arse...

Proof? Links?

[Rick]

You're making the charge bud... you got links? Proof? Typical moonbat behavior... make a wild claim and then put the onus on the other guy to rebut the claim...

Stupid is as stupid does...

Quit being stupid...

[Zossima]

I'm not sure what is 'wild' about my claim. Jeebus, even the administration has copped to ignoring the FISA statute. Maybe that's just too much reality on Planet Rick?

Here are just a few quotes/snippets:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. --Bush, April 2004

Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas...

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," [Bush] said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups." here

"Because the President has determined that the NSA activities are necessary to the defense of the United States from a subsequent terrorist attack in the armed conflict with al Qaeda, FISA would impermissibly interfere with the President’s most solemn constitutional obligation – to defend the United States against foreign attack." here

So, lessee, Bush has claimed that they get court approval, then defended the fact that they don't. Does that mean that Bush lied? (I would be all aghast if that were true.) And if FISA wasn't repealed by the Patriot Act (which it wasn't), then it means he has broken the law, which his own "Justice" Department admits (and defends).

The issue of whether or not he broke the FISA law is mute. He broke it, and his own people admit it. (And shills like you deny it and/or defend it.) The only issue is, Does the president have the authority to override the law of the land? The answer is absolutely no! This country is not a monarchy or a dictatorship.

We made it through the Cold War without this stuff. Why do we need it now? I thought we are the great USA who isn't going to change the way we live. But if he "needs" to wiretap, then follow the law or go to the Republican-controlled Congress and change it. The Patriot Act ammended FISA, and the Bush administration wrote it themselves---then ignored it! They would have given him anything in the wake of 9-11. Instead, Bush and company willingly and admittedly violated the law.

I know that's a lot to digest when you've self-lobotomized (how'd that feel, jamming the scissors up your nose?), but please try. It's fairly straightforward.

Perhaps now you'd care to back up your claims that the courts have supported Bush? Or are you just full of shit, as usual?

Okay, keep the name-calling coming. Or maybe for once, you could construct a logical argument. In this case, you have two choices: 1) Refute the administrations own admission that it ignored FISA or 2) Support the idea that Bush is bigger than the Constitution.

As for me, I'll stand by the founding pops, the Constitution, the separation of powers, checks and balances, free speech---the whole package---and any media organization that reports violations of what made America great.

[Rick]

Let's see... should we take the word of someone exhibiting moonbat tendencies ad nauseum or should we take the word of FISA judges themselves?

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA). The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order. "If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

Hmm... rabid Bush-hater foaming at the mouth about illegality or FISA judges who'd know better? I'll go with the judges...

Next moonbat claim should be appearing shortly...

... but please Zoss... wipe the foam from the mouth before posting again... I'm eatin' here...

[Zossima]

Well, actually, I quoted your president and his gov't, not anyone with "moonbat tendencies". But once again, facts don't seem to do well on Planet Rick.

Read what you just posted:

[T]he five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

They didn't say that the NSA program was legal. They haven't even been briefed on it! All they said was that FISA does not prohibit the president from spying on "suspected international agents". They didn't say he could spy on unsuspected Americans making phone calls, which is precisely what has been done.

This is simple logic. Very basic. But absent your ability to digest it, I'll pause to receive more of your 2nd-grade name-calling.

[Zossima]

And let's hear more from that "loon" and "moonbat", Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez:

"Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Services Intelligence Act provides---requires a court order before engaging in the kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and that the President announced on Saturday..." ---December 19, 2005

So, trying to argue that what they've done is legal is inane, because they've admitted it. As I stated earlier, you have only one other choice, which is to argue that Bush is bigger than the Constitution. Please, oh please, take a stab at that.

[Rick]

Zossima, you've now crossed into blatant dishonesty... the full Gonzalez quote below:

Now, in terms of legal authorities, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides -- requires a court order before engaging in this kind of surveillance that I've just discussed and the President announced on Saturday, unless there is somehow -- there is -- unless otherwise authorized by statute or by Congress. That's what the law requires. Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

You've become a joke Zossima... a caricature... you want to continue to come over here and embarrass yourself, by all means, I'll get out of your way and allow it... but for your own sake and integrity, why not just stop.

[Zossima]

There is nothing dishonest about my quote. Gonzalez admitted they have violated FISA. The idea that Congress authorized spying is pure and utter horseshit on its face. For what does an authorization to use force against al Qaeda and Afghanistan have to do with spying on US citizens?

This president has claimed unprecedented power to act in ways that are beyond the law. Shills like you have your head so far up Bush's ass that you have betrayed America. If you could actually think for yourself, you'd be a credit to the blogosphere. But you just suck. You've endangered the very foundations that made this nation great.

[Zossima]

Our position is, is that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to engage in this kind of signals intelligence.

Of course, what Gonzalez contends is patently and obviously false on its face. Congress did not grant this permission. In fact, in the days after 9-11, Congress explicitly passed the Patriot Act, at the president's urging, which clearly defined what they could do in terms of spying. Period.

But since you live in la-la land, the bizarro world of Planet Rick, where logic was done away with that self-administered scissors bludgeon to your brain, a world where Congressional intent is derived from thin air, let's look at the administration's own position, as argued before the Supreme Court:

"In the absence of an affirmative showing of an intention to repeal [a law], the only permissible justification for a repeal by implication is when the earlier and later statutes are irreconcilable."--Theodore Olson, Solicitor General, Justice Department, Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, courtesy of Glenn Greenwald

So, applying this idea to the NSA spying scandal, by the administration's own logic, the clear intention of the Patriot Act must stand since there is no clear or clearly contradictory message in its authorization to the president to act against terrorists that nullifies it.

So, once again, you have two choices: 1) Argue that what they've done is legal. A little advice: That's not going so well for you. 2) Argue that he can do whatever the hell he wants.