I didn't much care for this, but the Examiner had been fairly well balanced, I thought, up until I read this.
Last week, The New York Times reported that, following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to spy on people within the United States, including American citizens, as part of ongoing efforts to prevents acts of terrorism. This eavesdropping was conducted without warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which typically approves such requests. The disclosure has sparked a bitter debate over civil liberties and the reach of executive authority.
Who's right? Let's weigh the president's words at his Monday press conference and see where the chips fall.
"We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al-Qaida here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives. To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks."
Constitutionally sound? Although the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids "unreasonable searches" and lays out specific guidelines for obtaining warrants, Bush counters that Article II not only designates him as commander in chief but also grants him the authority to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Verdict: Even
"Do I have the legal authority to do this? And the answer is, absolutely."
Bush claims that he has not violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which makes it illegal to conduct electronic surveillance without approval from the special and independent court established under FISA. Poppycock. FISA establishes a court to approve such requests and, for 30 years, that court system has properly acted as a check on executive power and has monitored the government's electronic surveillance within the United States. Bush plainly circumnavigated that court. Any possible rationale for that? Leaks, maybe? Same reason DiFi wasn't briefed?
Verdict: Wrong
"The legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well as the authorization of force by the United States Congress."
Did Bush have good reasons sidestepping the FISA court? Bush claims that Congress gave him the authority to do so through the Authorization to Use Military Force, which sailed through Congress a week after the Sept. 11 attacks. Double poppycock. Since when did an authorization of military force constitute the trampling of a decades-old law that safeguards innocent Americans from government snooping? How many were snooped, again? I guess that doesn't matter - 'steep and slippery slope', and all that.
Verdict: Wrong
"To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks."
Bush also justifies his sidestepping of the FISA court by arguing that doing so is, well, quicker. But the FISA court already is largely a quick rubber-stamp for government requests. From 1979 to 2002, FISA issued 15,264 warrants and did not reject a single application. Emergency warrants can be obtained within hours and even minutes. And the court's decisions can be applied retroactively.
Verdict: Even So why is this "Even"?
"The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
Does anyone really believe that al-Qaida operatives - either here at home or living abroad - don't already assume that the U.S. government is spying on them? Maybe you didn't read the story about bin Laden switching off his sat phone after reading about eavesdropping? Remember? He disappeared after that. If there WERE two AQ dopes who didn't know about the surveillance, they do NOW!
Verdict: Wrong
"I also pledged to the American people to do everything within my power to prevent this from happening again."
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney both maintain that their secret domestic surveillance may have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks. Wrong. The NSA already had the power and ability to check e-mails or listen to telephone conversations before Sept. 11. It simply had to receive a warrant from the FISA court to do so.
Verdict: Wrong
Other opinions?
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/22/2005 14:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Few things are more amusing than a journalist preaching the gospel of MYOB.
#2
For the rad left, since history started in 2001, that makes them 4 years old and therefore not adults for contracts, voting, etc. to include consideration of their views.
Until the day that members of the DC Examiner editorial board are turned into court justices, they'll have to excuse me for taking their opinions lightly.
#4
I have two thoughts about this: First off I doubt that this is illegal the way it was conducted. The President got the OK fro the AG and briefed Congress, so I am pretty sure he followed that part of the law. Hard to accuse someone of being secretive when they are briefing the opposition. Second if it turns out to be illegal on some grounds Congress should take IMMEDIATE steps to make it legal to conduct spying of this nature in case of a national emergency. I would add that if he hadnât done this after 9/11 he should have been removed for incompetence. P.S FUCK PELOSI, BOXER, REID, and I thank God that they are not the party in power or President Gore/Kerry would be signing a peace (surrender) treaty with Bin Laden by now.
#5
The story about bin Laden "turning off his sat phone" after reading about it in the papers (btw, the Washington Times) has been pretty widely discredited as an urban myth. The same information had been reported several times before the Times printed it, and he didn't stop using the phone at that time- it was a couple of years later after the near-miss cruise missile strike on the training camp (the "hitting a couple of donkeys in the ass" strike) that got his attention.
And FWIW, calling a briefing of 8 out of 535 members of Congress, forbidding them to discuss with staff or other members, and ignoring any objections "briefing Congress" is a bit of a stretch.
The letter from DoJ the NRO printed makes a decent case that this was authorized by a combination of the AUMF and inherent Article II powers, at least for the short term. But they would have been smarter to get some legislation to fix whatever made it impossible to run this through FISA. I doubt they would have had much trouble getting it added to the original Patriot Act.
#6
And FWIW, calling a briefing of 8 out of 535 members of Congress, forbidding them to discuss with staff or other members, and ignoring any objections "briefing Congress" is a bit of a stretch.
The alternative would have been to tell ALL of Congress, virtually letting the cat out of the bag almost from the get-go.
#7
In reference to Comment #5, as long as those 8 members are the heads of the oversight committees, then Congress has been notified - as defined by law.
A convert to the Sufi brand of Islam explains that basically they are quiet because they are scared s...less.
Four years after September 11, 2001, numerous non-Muslim Americans repeatedly ask, âWhy do American Muslims stay silent in the face of extremism and terrorism? Why do they not act to cleanse their religion of the reputation it has acquired?â....What happens when ordinary Muslims rebel against radical domination in America? They are ostracized, thrown out of mosques, and subjected to extraordinary public insults and threats. I myself was harassed in a Long Island mosque in 2003,
the other answer is that a lot of Moslems actually are pro terror which the author can't bring himself to admit
1. Muslims in the US are not an impoverished lot. They could easily support mosques from their own pockets without need for Saudi money. Sure, they may not get gilded palaces, but then they would be sure who's in control.
2. We're repeatedly told that Islam has no central authority, such as a Pope. So there's no religious reason for accepting guidance from the Saudis.
3. If the extremists truly were in a minority, then the majority could either force them out, expose them, or simply refer to point 1 and start their own mosques. Instead the supposedly two populations co-exist quite readily. This is akin to a Christian identity group taking over a Methodist church with no one saying a word.
4. We've repeatedly seen instances in which imams known among Muslims for their support for radical causes were welcomed by the congregation. Only when the kafir became aware of the imam's history was any objection raised. This doesn't indicate a majority threatened into silence, but a majority silent from assent. The same has happened with hate literature distributed through mosques.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/22/2005 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The problems are...
PIMF.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/22/2005 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
5. We've been told that one reason this hasn't happened is the reluctance to declare some Muslims to not really be Muslims. But this reluctance doesn't appear in the Middle East -- Sufi vs. Shia, etc. -- and doesn't appear to occur to the Wahabbis. It appears to be a one-way reluctance, with the mainstream being unwilling to denounce the radicals.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/22/2005 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I started to ask the question, "what percentage of Muslims are truly moderate" shortly after 9/11. I think now, that isn't even the right question. It is more of changing an entire culture and there are very few that are up to that task (and when they appear they tend to die quickly).
#5
[From the linked article] A terrible blow has been inflicted on the religion of Islam in America by the refusal of the religious âestablishmentâ -- including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and other entities -- to abandon and denounce the radical legacy present in their formation and displayed in their long service.
From what is indicated by the article, CAIR's own protestations vis denouncing radicalism are so much window dressing. The Justice Department and the FBI need to conduct a joint investigation of this. CAIR must be held to its word and even the slightest whiff of "al-Taqiyya"* must be greeted with immediate expulsion and deportation of those who support and administer the CAIR organization.
I do not understand why our nation continues to allow entry for any religious figures arriving from Saudi Arabia. There needs to be a standing prohibition of any Wahabbist imams and those who seek to promote its doctrine. It is now more than clear how Wahabbism is the direct precursor of jihadist radicalism. The same needs to be applied to proponents of Salafist doctrine as well.
Regardless of America's historical record of religious tolerance, there can be no leeway shown to sects that seek the outright destruction of our nation. Their clergy and adherents must be expelled at once so they can perish along with the countries of their origin as we eradicate this global threat.
* Al-Taqiyya is a form of religiously sanctioned lying, even under oath.
#6
A convert to the Sufi brand of Islam explains that basically they are quiet because they are scared s...less.
Hello? You're in America folks! We have police that will protect citizenry, a functioning justice system, and a Second Amendment. What more do you need?
Someone harassing you at the local mosque? Go to another one or start up one yourself. Being harassed by certain individuals? Call the cops, file a report, and get a restraining order. If that's not enough and the harassers begin to violate property or threaten bodily violence, then take advantage of a constitutional right and pick up something from Messrs. Smith and Wesson.
There are alternatives to simply being scared into silence.
#7
i think if Mr. Schwartz (the author) was to respond to bombarama and RC he would point out that Muslim culture values the clan and family and thus it makes 'going against the establishment' harder because your offspring would jeopardize their marriage potential; he would also point out that some break away mosques have actually been started.
However, I think boma and RC's points are actually more robust than Mr. Schwartz's because the clan structure could be reestablished if the moderate moslim community were even close to as numerous as the 'pro terror' or 'I'm neutral on terror' community. Also the number of breakaway moderate mosques is pretty slim from what I hear.
In fact, from what I hear, the secular and moderate Moslems are amazed that the US allows the Wahhabis to run mosques, schools and community centers.
#8
"Why American Muslims stay silent?" Basically they are pussies and can't stand up to radicals. Fact is my Islamic buddies is that you don't need to be in a Mosque to pray or believe in Allah. A prayer rug and an arrow towards mecca will set you right 3-5 times a day (mullah not included). How many of you would attend a church that called for the desrtruction of the Jews or Infidels? Before you start I am talking about today not 300 years ago.
Posted GMT 12-21-2005 16:59:3
As Christians worldwide prepare to celebrate the birth of the man they regard as humanity's savior, those in Muslim nations must wonder whether the West's Christian leaders have abandoned them.
The Church of England commemorated the fourth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon by endorsing an official apology to Muslim leaders for the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.
The church's report, "Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post-9/11," advocated "truth and reconciliation" meetings with Muslim leaders that would give Christian counterparts the opportunity to perform "a public act of institutional repentance" for the West's "long litany of errors" in dealing with Iraq, including the 2003 war.
Moreover, the report's addendum concerning Iran's nuclear program suggested universal disarmament as the ultimate solution: "If certain countries retain their nuclear weapons on the basis of the uncertainty and potentially violent volatility of international relations, on what basis are the same weapons denied to other states?"
Not to be outdone, 95 bishops from the United Methodist Church -- President George W. Bush's denomination -- publicly regretted their "complicity" in the "unjust and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq" in a statement they issued in November. Forget the statement, just go ahead and HANG yourselves.
In discounting Saddam Hussein's support for international terrorism, the president's moral responsibility to protect American citizens -- and the Iraqi people's own suffering under a sadistic tyrant -- the Methodist bishops mimic the Left's tired platitudes about war and peace.
"True security lies not in weapons of war," the statement said, "but in enabling the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized to flourish as beloved daughters and sons of God." That really has not seemed to work over the past 5000 years or so lads. We think "WAR" is here to stay.
Specifically, the Methodist bishops state that ensuring peace means "personal, institutional and governmental priorities that protect the poor and most vulnerable; modeling an end to prejudice toward people of other faiths and cultures; confronting differences and conflicts with grace, humility, dialogue, and respectâŠ" Sounds like a democratic campaign speach.
Apparently, tyranny, non-Western imperialism and malignant ideology do not exist in the Methodist bishops' universe.
Neither do Islam's extreme tendencies exist in the mind of Cardinal William Keeler, the Catholic archbishop of Baltimore. Keeler, who served as an expert at the Second Vatican Council, specializes in interfaith relations. Well he's in the Peoples Republic of Maryland, what can really be expected?
When asked in October by the liberal National Catholic Reporter about Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad's public demand for Israel's annihilation, Keeler offered this response:
"I thought, 'This is another politician trying to get an easy solution to a very complicated problem.' I also thought, 'This guy obviously doesn't know what Islam teaches about the relationship to the Jewish people.' The Koran esteems Moses as a lawgiver, and there are many passages that draw upon Hebrew scriptureâŠ"
It is the height of arrogant irony for a Catholic prelate to declare that he knows more about Islam than the president of a self-proclaimed Islamic republic. Well from what we've heard from President Ahmadinejad, Bishop Keeler may very well know more.
Yet none of the aforementioned responses compares to the groveling appeasement demonstrated by members of the Presbyterian Church USA during an October visit to Lebanon made possible by the terrorist group Hezbollah.
Nabil Qawuq, Hezbollah's commander in Southern Lebanon, complained to the Presbyterian contingent that President Bush sought to intervene in Lebanon for Israel's benefit against Syria. Robert Worley, who taught for 35 years at a prominent American seminary and served as the group's spokesman, gave this response recorded by the Lebanese newspaper Al-Mustaqbal:
"We do not wish to defend the U.S. administration. We all elected the Democratic Party against the Republican Party. Rest assured that we will return to the U.S. in order to continue our activity for peace, and we want to hear about the charity activities and the cultural and social activities organized by Hezbollah in south (Lebanon)..... more happy talk please.
"The Americans hear in the Western media that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and they do not hear any other opinion. They know nothing about the party's concern for the people of the south. We have suffered much pressure on the part of Jewish organizations in the U.S. because (of our help in) divesting corporations working with Israel."
During a 2004 visit to Lebanon, Presbyterian elder Ronald Stone praised the terrorist group more effusively on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television:
"We treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of goodwill towards the American people. Also, we praise your initiative for dialogue and mutual understanding. We cherish these statements that bring us closer to you. As an elder of our church, I'd like to say that according to my recent experience, relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders." Nicely said Heinrich, if you can break away, we've got der Fuhrer on line one.
While Christian leaders from the West danced with denial, other Christians feared for their own safety. So what else is new?
In Iraq, gangs of anonymous Muslim terrorists threaten to abduct or kill people whose families refuse to pay amounts ranging from $100,000 to $150,000 for Mafia-style protection. Families must beg for cash, sell their homes and belongings, leave the country or face death.
"It's a really catastrophic problem right now," Father Mekhail Nageeb, a Dominican priest, told Catholic News Service in November.
In one neighborhood in Mosul, Nageeb said, "There are more than 20 or 30 homes without people living in them," because their Christian homeowners fled.
Muslim religious leaders support the extortion. Father Sabah Patto, a Chaldean Catholic, told Catholic News Service that some Muslim figures "are encouraging the Christians to leave their country and to leave their properties and everything, and nobody is buying from (the Christians)."
Nobody is buying, Patto continued, because Muslim leaders are saying that the abandoned properties "will become free for people." Not to worry, it's just the standard white flight experienced everywhere. Gay urban revitalization will soon catch on.
Nine days after the Church of England produced its report on terrorism, the London Times reported on Sept. 28 the apparent murder of the lay leaders of Iraq's largest Anglican church. They were presumed dead after being attacked while returning from a conference in Jordan.
In Pakistan, Muslim mobs burned churches and a convent in November in Sangla Hill, 50 miles east of Lahore. Inciting the mob were rumors that a Christian who had won a lot of money gambling with Muslims set fire to a box containing torn pages of the Koran.
"Soon the alleged deed was broadcast by mullahs from mosques," the London Telegraph reported Nov. 14.
"I heard the mullahs had been telling people over loudspeakers, 'We are guardians of the Koran and it is our foremost duty to teach a lesson to those kafirs (unbelievers)," Farther Samson Dilawar, whose church was among those burned, told the Telegraph.
In Egypt, thousands of Muslims attacked seven Coptic Orthodox churches in Alexandria on Oct. 21. Rioters broke windows at St. George's Coptic Orthodox Church before police repelled them.
The attacks resulted from demonstrations over a play that portrays a young Christian converting to Islam to improve his financial and marital prospects. He then joins a band of extremists, becomes disillusioned, wants to return to Christianity and gets shot while trying to escape the extremists.
"The play had gone unnoticed when it was first performed at St. George's two years ago," the Associated Press reported. "Though it has not been performed recently, it caught Muslims' attention when, according to security officials, Islamic extremists may have been distributing DVD's of it to raise tensions ahead of parliamentary electionsâŠ"
Those elections dramatically enhanced the power of the anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to turn Egypt into an Islamic state. The Brotherhood gained 88 seats in the Egyptian Parliament --almost six times its previous number -- to become the biggest rival to President Hosni Mubarak's New Democratic Party.
In Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population, Christians claim that Muslim mobs forced more than 30 churches to close last year, the Voice of America reported in November. Many congregations have had to worship outdoors, where Muslims harass them.
Indonesian Muslims, led by such radical groups as the Defense of Islam and the Alliance Against Apostasy, exploit a law requiring religious groups to get permission from local residents and obtain a government license before building a house of worship. These groups -- often with the support of local officials -- "accuse Christians of breaking the law by praying in unlicensed churches, and claiming that local Muslims object to the churches," the VOA reported.
Muslim extremists are not satisfied with stopping worship. In May, a bomb killed 22 and injured 70 in one town's largest Christian market. In October, three Christian girls were attacked and beheaded while walking to church. Days later, two other Christian girls were fired upon while walking to a Girl Scout meeting.
Inciting the violence are two more terrorist groups, Jemaah Islamiyah and Laksar Jihad, "a newly created militiaâŠthat was supported by hard-line elements of the security forces," the Associated Press reported.
In Saudi Arabia, which forbids non-Muslims from worshipping publicly, a court sentenced a teacher to 40 months imprisonment and 750 lashes in November for, among other things, "discussing the Gospel," reported the Saudi newspaper Al-Madina.
That same month, a leading Iranian ayatollah called non-Muslims "sinful animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption." The ayatollah, Ahmad Jannati, is a top aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni and a mentor to President Ahmadinejad.
Perhaps the most tragic example of intimidation can be found in Bethlehem itself.
When the Palestinian Authority took control in 1995, it expanded the city's boundaries to ensure a Muslim majority. Incorporated into the enlarged boundaries were 30,000 Muslims from adjacent refugee camps. As a result, 20 percent of Bethlehem's population remained Christian in 2003 -- as opposed to 60 percent in 1990.
That Christian minority faces constant Muslim hostility, as Jeanine Hirschhorn wrote in 2003:
"Off the record, Bethlehem's Christian spokesmen speak of harassment and terror tactics, mainly from the gangs of thugs who have looted and plundered Christians and their property under the protection of Palestinian security personnel."
Christian homes and real estate have been arbitrarily expropriated, including a school in Beit Jala that the PA turned into a terrorist training center. Christian women have been intimidated, abducted and raped, with many "becoming terrorists to save family honor," Hirschhorn wrote. Muzzie emminent domain? They must be watching CNN.
"Those brave enough to speak out publicly," Hirschhorn continued, "risk PA accusations of 'collaborating with Israel,' subject to arrest, extensive interrogation, imprisonment and execution."
The Christians' position has become so tenuous that even Pope John Paul II told them, "Do not be afraid to preserve your Christian heritage and Christian presence in Bethlehem" when he visited the city in 2002.
Nevertheless, Christians are fleeing Bethlehem in large numbers. If the trend continues, "the only Christian presence in Bethlehem may be foreign tourists," Hirschhorn wrote. "Bethlehem's revered Christian shrines may one day become tourist curiosities, like the Nabetian city of Petra or the Roman amphitheater at Caesarea." More white flight.
In his Dec. 10 editorial in the London Telegraph, in which he discusses the Archbishop of Canterbury's trip to Pakistan in the wake of intensified persecution, Charles Moore accurately describes the mindset of Western Christian leaders:
"The agenda ⊠is to try to placate. Sorry about the Crusades, sorry about George Bush, sorry, sorry, sorry, they say, in the hope that Muslims will start to say sorry, too. But where is the evidence that this pre-emptive self-abasement is working? The grim fact is that the development of Christian/Muslim official dialogue has coincided with much greater Muslim persecution of other faiths than 30 years ago." Far too many sorry's thank you.
To Moore, such efforts "remind me of peace delegations to the Soviet Union in the 1930s," he said. "They create a structure of unreality and leave millions of the victims of persecution where they were before the delegations arrived -- frightened and alone."
By Joseph D'Hippolito
FrontPageMagazine.com
Joseph D'Hippolito is a columnist for Frontpagemag.com, whose main focuses are religion and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
#1
Christians grovelling at the Muslims feet? Pfft, in my book. Being Christian myself, I find that outside these (far left) Christian groups, many Christians fully support the President and this war. All this article is lacking was your standard quotes of "Turn the other cheek" and "Do not judge, lest yourself be judged." Brother, this gives me heartburn. But actually endorsing Hezbollah on TV? Give me a freakin' break! I've often wondered (and this article gives insight as it describes how hard the Muslims crack down on the Christians) how quickly these Muslim countries would crumble if truth was allowed in and/or scenes of other countries were allowed in. Much like Eastern Europe, their stranglehold appears strong, but could quite possibly be broken easily by VoA, pro-freedom radio broadcasts, etc.
Posted by: BA ||
12/22/2005 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nabil Qawuq, Hezbollah's commander in Southern Lebanon, complained to the Presbyterian contingent that President Bush sought to intervene in Lebanon for Israel's benefit against Syria.
Uh, no! I don't think we've "intervened" yet at all. And it all goes back to the assassination of that pro-Lebanese group's leader (Hariri, was that his name...can't remember right now).
Posted by: BA ||
12/22/2005 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
