STRANGELAND.NET

[Author's note: this article is partially inspired by a recent column in The Weekly Standard, by Bill Kristol]

Of late we’ve all heard the hair-pulling, wild-gesticulating, mouth-foaming media furor over the NSA wiretapping programs that have created a good deal of armchair speculation and impeachment wishes for the fervently Leftist.

Apparently, they don’t put much credit in the actions of the last Democratic administration –more from the world of news you won’t hear.

In 1994, the Clinton administration argued that the president has “inherent authority” to order physical searches — including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens — for foreign intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside body. Even after the administration ultimately agreed with Congress’s decision to place the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, President Clinton still maintained that he had sufficient authority to order such searches on his own.

“The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes, and that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the Attorney General.”

“It is important to understand that the rules and methodology for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his foreign intelligence responsibilities.”

Are these the words of Alberto Gonzales, circa December 2005? Nope; this would be Bill Clinton’s Justice Department, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testifing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994.

Now, there will be those that contend that Gorelick’s testimony didn’t concern physical searches, as FISA did not cover them at the time. However, it clearly shows that this is far from the first administration that expects broad executive power to conduct searches and to obtain information without warrants. I’m not too terribly upset by sincerely Libertarian people who feel its an intrusion on personal property, no matter the partisan point of origin, but I do cry foul for those on the Left who remain mum about the actions of their own elected politicians, but whom decry similar acts by those on the Right.

For my part, I do take solace (and give the Administration credit) for being direct regarding this issue. They’ve made their positions plain, allowing for public criticism and possible legal action should any party be sufficiently aggreived. Take ‘em to court, its the American way.

What has the program wrought?

On Monday, December 19, General Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency and now deputy director of national intelligence undertook a briefing for journalists. The question and answer session included this plain language exchange:

Reporter: Have you identified armed enemy combatants, through this program, in the United States?

General Hayden: This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States.

Reporter: General Hayden, I know you’re not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it’s been successful. But would it have been as successful-can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court?

Gen. Hayden: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available.

I’m not horribly pleased with powerful government, but I’m sufficiently pleased with the tangible results that have come of this program. Powerful government is a bane to free peoples, a necessary evil in the best of times– and this constitutes a necessary evil.

Publius Uncategorized

So this morning, while going through various websites, I came across the Best Notable Quotes of 2005 website (http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof/2005/). Looking through it and reading through the quotes, many of which are from the Left side of the Fence, I’m left with an overwhelming feeling of the difference between both sides of the “fence” right now.

On the Left, I keep reading quote after quote that reeks of seething hatred. You have a group that is so fueled on their emotions that their commentary comes straight from the heart with no rational filter at all. Because they “feel” that these things are correct, then obviously they must be. Far too many of the quotations show a mentality that doesn’t bother to run pure emotion through any of logical vetting process to ensure that they don’t come out as the ramblings of a raving imbecile. Many of these are from people that I’d like to think would be concerned with public image enough to at least take a bit of time before spewing out commentary of this nature, but again and again I see that they don’t. They’ve become so obsessed with their feeling that the Right (however you wish to frame it) is wrong and evil that they don’t take a minute to find a way to express things in a rational way so as to actually sway people. By and large, the ravings of a madman have never swayed people to action.

On the Right, you have a situation where they are sitting there in high-handed smugness and arrogance. They have sold themselves a bill of goods that everything they do and every way they do it is correct and should encounter no obstruction in any manner. While I agree that their actions are correct in some ways, there are others that they simply have me sitting there in a moment of ‘Whiske Tango Foxtrot, over?’ More and more, I believe that it’s a bad thing that the Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency at the same time and that “Jumpin’” Jim Jeffords actually did a good thing when he changed parties to keep the Republicans from having a Senate Majority in 2000. Having a strong grip on two branches of the Federal Government has served to fuel the hubris of many people within the Republican Party and make them believe that they can do no wrong.

Looking back at things to this point and seeing all that has happened over the last year, I have to wonder if this partisan divide will ever go away. No matter how much the Right wants to claim that “come to the Middle” for the Left means coming to the Left, many of the Right take the exact same viewpoint from their “lofty” perches and what “coming to the Middle” means for them. The media continues to fuel that divide because it makes more sensational news that fuels ratings. I really wish there was a way for a “purple” middle ground to be found and for things to actually move forward, but I’m starting to believe that’s less and less likely.

I think I’m going to take the next to try and think of ways that this could be possible to achieve, no matter how futile that might be.

stranger Uncategorized

2004:

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. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. (link)

2005:

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it say the N.S.A. eavesdrops without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands since the program began, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials. (link)

But FISAs is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to detect.

And having suggested this idea, I then, obviously, went to the question, is it legal to do so? I swore to uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely.

As I mentioned in my remarks, the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress. (link)

Discuss.

jude Uncategorized