AQ on the run, or a ruse?

[KRC]

I'd don't care who is in power; I'm against more power to the executive--I prefer not to live in a police state.

 

The problem has NOT been intelligence agencies "lack the tools" to fight AQ; the problem has been the ineptness of the bureaucratic intelligence structure.

And what did Bush do? He created the largest bureaucratic structure of all--Homeland Security.

 

In five separate cases before 911, FBI agents investigating AQ had their hands tied from above (DC). The Patriot Act can't prevent that.

574222[/snapback]

 

Well, you are not going to get an argument from me regarding bureaucracy. The Dems have been increasing it for a long time now and the Republicans have now joined suit. Hell, that was my major campaign topic in 2004. The Dems kept pressuring Bush to create DHS and he relented. Bad move, IMO.

 

As far as Intel agencies not lacking tools, I strongly disagree. Back in the 90s, intel agencies were no longer allowed to "associate" with people of questionable nature. Well, who the hell do you think has the most usable information? The friggin' Girl Scouts? No. The bad people. I agree that the bureaucracy also plays a role, but it is not the sole reason.

[SilverNRed]

Truce Request = "We're losing and we need time to regroup so we can kill more infidels"

 

"In response to the substance of the polls in the U.S., which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.

 

"We are a nation that God banned from lying and stabbing others in the back. Hence, both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.

They aren't allowed to lie or "stab you in the back" but stuff like honor killings and mass murder is AOK. Chopping off someone's head and sending the video to al Jazeera? Go for it!

 

"There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and warlords in America -- those who supported Bush's electoral campaign. And from this, we can understand Bush and his gang's insistence on continuing the war," the voice said.

Is this a Bin Laden quote or something someone said at the Golden Globes?

[Mickey]

Nah, let's just say it...a Clinton Administration official, and a Clinton administration official.  Not that they're two-faced or anything. 

 

Gorelick, btw, said that in testimony to the House Committee on Intelligence (now there's an oxymoron) concerning the Clinton's administration warrantless wiretaps.  She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases".

574050[/snapback]

FISA was amended by the Patriot Act to provide emergency wiretap authority, that procedure wasn't available when Gorelick testified about Okalahoma City. She was right about the need and the issue was thought to have been addressed by the Patriot Act amendments to FISA. Thus, Bush has had authority under FISA to conduct the warrantless taps the Clintion administration wanted. Bush however appears to have proceeded outside the very, very broad confines of FISA. For whatever reason, they did not just simply use the FISA procedure which allows them to conduct emergency warrantless taps and instead proceeded in such a way that may have been illegal.

 

Nobody is arguing that the President should not be able to conduct emergency warrantless taps. That is why FISA allows just that. I am all for that, so are the majority of democrats. That, however, is not what they did that has caused such a ruckus.

[Mickey]

OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce?

 

Is the world running out of virgins?

573926[/snapback]

I think trying to understand what anything he says might mean is a pretty iffy propositon. I hope the experts can figure it out, I know I can't. Is this stuff meant for us or is the primary purpose to influence fellow Arabs, the pool from which AQ must recruit all its resources from men to money? I have no idea. I am sure it is important to try glean whatever helpful information there is from these things and I wish those whos job it is to do just that the best of luck.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

FISA was amended by the Patriot Act to provide emergency wiretap authority, that procedure wasn't available when Gorelick testified about Okalahoma City.  She was right about the need and the issue was thought to have been addressed by the Patriot Act amendments to FISA.  Thus, Bush has had authority under FISA to conduct the warrantless taps the Clintion administration wanted.  Bush however appears to have proceeded outside the very, very broad confines of FISA.  For whatever reason, they did not just simply use the FISA procedure which allows them to conduct emergency warrantless taps and instead proceeded in such a way that may have been illegal.

 

Nobody is arguing that the President should not be able to conduct emergency warrantless taps.  That is why FISA allows just that.  I am all for that, so are the majority of democrats.  That, however, is not what they did that has caused such a ruckus.

574421[/snapback]

 

Actually...

 

1) Gorelick's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee predates Oklahoma City by a year, and

2) Show me where Gorelick's comments are related to the PATRIOT Act amendments to FISA? You're specifically talking about the "roving wiretaps", which is the only real significant difference between pre- and post-PATRIOT Act FISA.

[GG]

FISA was amended by the Patriot Act to provide emergency wiretap authority, that procedure wasn't available when Gorelick testified about Okalahoma City.  She was right about the need and the issue was thought to have been addressed by the Patriot Act amendments to FISA.  Thus, Bush has had authority under FISA to conduct the warrantless taps the Clintion administration wanted.  Bush however appears to have proceeded outside the very, very broad confines of FISA.  For whatever reason, they did not just simply use the FISA procedure which allows them to conduct emergency warrantless taps and instead proceeded in such a way that may have been illegal.

 

Nobody is arguing that the President should not be able to conduct emergency warrantless taps.  That is why FISA allows just that.  I am all for that, so are the majority of democrats.  That, however, is not what they did that has caused such a ruckus.

574421[/snapback]

 

Not a constitutional scholar, but from what I'm reading written by constitutional scholars, is that Bush was acting on executive authority conferred to him by the Constitution, which is outside the scope of FISA (which in itself is very limited for presisely the reason as not to limit Presidential authority)

 

From my conservative rag:

 

For nearly 200 years it was understood by all three branches that intelligence collection -- especially in wartime -- was an exclusive presidential prerogative vested in the president by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Marshall and many others recognized that the grant of "executive power" to the president included control over intelligence gathering. It was not by chance that there was no provision for congressional oversight of intelligence matters in the National Security Act of 1947.

 

....

 

Keep in mind that while the Carter administration asked Congress to enact the FISA statute in 1978, Attorney General Griffin Bell emphasized that the law "does not take away the power of the president under the Constitution." And in 1994, when the Clinton administration invited Congress to expand FISA to cover physical as well as electronic searches, the associate attorney general testified: "Our seeking legislation in no way should suggest that we do not believe we have inherent authority" under the Constitution. "We do," she concluded.

[RuntheDamnBall]

OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce?

 

Is the world running out of virgins?

573926[/snapback]

Heaven is sick of taking virgins and now wants to hire candidates with "experience."

[Terry Tate]

OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce?

 

Is the world running out of virgins?

573926[/snapback]

If AQ is tired of the fight, they can cry 'uncle' any time (what grown-ups call unconditionally surrendering). Until they do, continue killing them.

[dave mcbride]

OBL making his annual state of terrorism address to offer a truce?

 

Is the world running out of virgins?

573926[/snapback]

my pessimistic 2 cents:

 

i really think that since the u.s. failed to get zawahiri, to cool down an explosive situation in pakistan they've trotted out the excuse that they've nailed some biggies. i doubt that anyone they killed is that central to the operations of a-q. to paraphrase degaulle, the graves are littered with indispensable men, and replacing a few 25 year old zealots with civil engineering degrees (if they had even that) strikes me as a pretty easy task given the large and talented pool of applicants. as for killing zawahiri's son in law, whoopie. how many of those does he have anyway?

 

as you can probably tell, i believe very little of what the administration says about these things anymore. i do believe they killed some members, but hardly anyone central to a-q. i'm glad that they're gone of course, but i've concluded that as long as the driving force behind a-q remains -- bin laden and to a far lesser extent zawahiri -- killing a small handful of functionaries is pretty meaningless strategically. tactically, i guess it's a plus, but a couple of months from now people will barely remember it, including the leadership of al-qaeda, who are undoubtedly sifting through new resumes if in fact these guys were higher ups within the organization.

[Mickey]

Actually...

 

1) Gorelick's testimony to the House Intelligence Committee predates Oklahoma City by a year, and

2) Show me where Gorelick's comments are related to the PATRIOT Act amendments to FISA?  You're specifically talking about the "roving wiretaps", which is the only real significant difference between pre- and post-PATRIOT Act FISA.

574513[/snapback]

I was relying on the information contained in your post which I thought said she testified to a committee after Oklahoma City about the need for emergency taps:

 

"She also testified after the Oklahoma City bombing before the Judiciary Committee that the president needed ""emergency wiretap authority" in terrorism cases".

 

I thought that the provision of FISA which permitted warrantless emergency taps for three days was a Patriot Act Amendment but I could be wrong, there have been a number of amendments. I'll check and get back to you as to when that emergency procedure under FISA became available. Not to muddy the waters but there is also that provision that lets them tap without a warrant for up to a year with extensions for the low, low price of simply notifying the secret court and a few committee heads.

[Mickey]

Not a constitutional scholar, but from what I'm reading written by constitutional scholars, is that Bush was acting on executive authority conferred to him by the Constitution, which is outside the scope of FISA (which in itself is very limited for presisely the reason as not to limit Presidential authority)

 

From my conservative rag:

574548[/snapback]

That is part of what they are arguing. It appears to me that their first line of defense on this is that Congress implicitly allowed this in their resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, if I'm not mistaken. I haven't had time to research this as much as I normally would. I'm thinking that they need that idea to stick so that the President's war time powers kick in despite the lack of a declaration of war.

 

If what they are apparently arguing as far as the constitution is concerned is correct, then FISA itself is unconstitutional. Clearly, it has never been found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS but I can't tell you that they ever had a case challenging its constitutionality and if that is the case, then its plausible that it could be found to be unconstitutional.

 

Without getting into it in detail, I find the notion that FISA is unconstitutional to be pretty iffy. Clearly, the constitution protects against warrantless searches. At least that part is a no brainer. At the same time the President does have certain powers under the Constitution.

 

This would have been a fascinating discussion to have during Alito's confirmation hearings. Did any democrats take time out from grandstanding to ask these kinds of questions? Did the republicans on the committee take time out from slapping him on the back long enough to raise these issues? Did anyone ask and Alito dodge these kinds of questions? I didn't watch them so I dunno.

[KRC]

This would have been a fascinating discussion to have during Alito's confirmation hearings.  Did any democrats take time out from grandstanding to ask these kinds of questions? Did the republicans on the committee take time out from slapping him on the back long enough to raise these issues?  Did anyone ask and Alito dodge these kinds of questions?  I didn't watch them so I dunno.

575101[/snapback]

 

How much detail can Alito get into if it is a potential case for SCOTUS? It seems pretty clear that some sort of legal battle is going to happen over this stuff, which will probably reach SCOTUS. Therefore, he cannot go into too much detail on a case he may preside over, correct?

[Mickey]

How much detail can Alito get into if it is a potential case for SCOTUS? It seems pretty clear that some sort of legal battle is going to happen over this stuff, which will probably reach SCOTUS. Therefore, he cannot go into too much detail on a case he may preside over, correct?

575103[/snapback]

There is no actual statute that really permits those evasions, it is just a strategy used by both sides during confirmation hearings. If the Senate wanted, I think they could find the witness in contempt of the Senate by refusing to answer those questions but since the reasoning makes sense, they aren't going to do that.

That really is a different issue though worthy of a separate discussion.

 

I'm sure he wouldn't answer a question as to how he would rule on Congress v. Bush as to illegal wiretaps. Other than that though, there are plenty of relevant discussions that can be had. Citing and discussing the precedents involved would not reveal how he might rule on a possible future case on this NSA warrantless tapping issue. Just going over what the court decided in Smith v. Smith or Jones v. Jones doesn't tell you how he would rule.

 

In any event, since the Senate would never force him to answer a question he has dodged based on the notion that it would be improper due to pending cases he might hear, etc., it really would be up to Alito himself to draw the line on what he would and would not answer. However, if he is never even asked the question, how are we to know? Again, I didn't watch all the hearings so I don't know to what extent, if any, he was asked any questions as to the separation of powers, seeming conflicts between one constitutional provision and another, that sort of thing.

[Mickey]

For those interested, here is the section of FISA permitting warrantless surveillance in an emergency for 72 hours. Maybe I missed it but I think the ability to do this applies even to "US Persons" which is a trigger which usually requires more court involvement elsewhere in the statute. I do no know if this was part of FISA as originally drafted or if it was added in subsequent amendments as FISA has undergone periodic changes over the years.

 

Edit: This section was amended in 2001 to increase the period during which a warrantless emergency tap could be executed before being required to get a FISA court order from 24 hours to 72 hours.

 

(f) Emergency orders

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.

[Chilly]

Since we're having another FISA debate, anyone read the editorial in yesterday's Times?

[Mickey]

Since we're having another FISA debate, anyone read the editorial in yesterday's Times?

575246[/snapback]

Doesn't it cost 50 bucks now to read the on-line op-eds?

[KRC]

There is no actual statute that really permits those evasions, it is just a strategy used by both sides during confirmation hearings.  If the Senate wanted, I think they could find the witness in contempt of the Senate by refusing to answer those questions but since the reasoning makes sense, they aren't going to do that.

That really is a different issue though worthy of a separate discussion.

 

I'm sure he wouldn't answer a question as to how he would rule on Congress v. Bush as to illegal wiretaps.  Other than that though, there are plenty of relevant discussions that can be had.  Citing and discussing the precedents involved would not reveal how he might rule on a possible future case on this NSA warrantless tapping issue.  Just going over what the court decided in Smith v. Smith or Jones v. Jones doesn't tell you how he would rule. 

 

In any event, since the Senate would never force him to answer a question he has dodged based on the notion that it would be improper due to pending cases he might hear, etc., it really would be up to Alito himself to draw the line on what he would and would not answer.  However, if he is never even asked the question, how are we to know?  Again, I didn't watch all the hearings so I don't know to what extent, if any, he was asked any questions as to the separation of powers, seeming conflicts between one constitutional provision and another, that sort of thing.

575208[/snapback]

 

 

I didn't waste my time with the hearings either, since it is more about the Senators than it is about the nominee.

[Chilly]

Doesn't it cost 50 bucks now to read the on-line op-eds?

575248[/snapback]

 

Yeah, thats why I didn't post the link.

 

I pay 6 bucks a month for daily delivery.

 

<3 student rates.

[Mickey]

I didn't waste my time with the hearings either, since it is more about the Senators than it is about the nominee.

575257[/snapback]

I have to admit that I did see the clip a few times of Specter and Kennedy going at it...and found it entertaining. A guilty pleasure, kind of like watching rollerball.

[Mickey]

Yeah, thats why I didn't post the link.

 

I pay 6 bucks a month for daily delivery.

 

<3 student rates.

575288[/snapback]

I think that was a bad decision on their part and I bet that they might start losing columnists who aren't happy having lost the oppotunity for their work to be viewed by 55 million hits per month

 

Who wrote the column you were referencing and can you give us the highlights?