|
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Posted by:
Duane Patterson
at
11:30 PM
Anybody out there have any idea whether any foreign radical Islamists contacted any of their allies today to discuss another terror attack on U.S. soil today? Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, as of last night, we legally cannot eavesdrop on these types of communications any longer without a prior court order.
Regardless of whether or not the country still believes we're in a war against a virulent strain of Islamic jihadists, it should be and is up to the Commander-In-Chief to decide how best to pretect and defend the homeland. Last Thursday, Ms. Pelosi, using her power as Speaker of the House of Representatives, let her opinion supercede that of the 534 other members of the United States Legislative Branch. She refused to bring up the permanent fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by a bipartisan majority in the Senate, and one which would have won bipartisan approval in the House. Now the House is on vacation for a week, as is one of the most effective tools of surveillance our country's intelligence community uses. Why would she purposefully blind America to potential terror attacks that could otherwise be thwarted? She says the President took his eye of the real war on terror by going into Iraq, something which is demonstrably silly on many levels.
How can she have taken her eyes off the war on terror by tying the hands of our intelligence operatives? Partisan politics. Part of the patch on the FISA bill includes immunity from lawsuits against telecommunication companies that cooperate with the federal government on foreign surveillance. Nancy Pelosi's acts as though her loyalites lie more with protecting the interests of the trial lawyer lobby than they do with the successful prosecution of the war on terror.
So if she wields the power as Speaker to scuttle a bill that weakens the country's defenses, as of Midnight last night, she and her Democratic Party must be held accountable for the consequences of that action. When the jihadists try to attack us again, as they have shown every indication that this is their fervent desire, it must be the Democrats that have to answer for why, in a time of war, they intentionally made our intelligence agencies' job harder.
Day one, Ms. Pelosi. How many free days are you willing to give the enemy a chance to plot, plan and organize against us before you allow all of your other colleagues in Congress the chance to do their job, and therefore, giving our intelligence community the tools to do their job?
Tick. Tick. Tick.
What these Liberals don't understand they are the most vunerable. If I were a terrorist San Franscisco would be my target. There is no one to stop them unless they are afraid of feather boas.
God help us all |
|
"it should be and is up to the Commander-In-Chief to decide how best to pretect and defend the homeland."
What kind of a conservative says this? The executive is not a dictator.
If the rest of your article is as you say then Bush should have signed an extension as he did two weeks ago.
I have yet to have anyone explain why the phone companies should have immunity from me -- a United State citizen. |
|
Part of a letter from Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.
First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA's collection occurs under this authority.
Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not "expire" on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not "go dark."
Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.
Cont
|
|
I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.
It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.
We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.
Google it to read a very good letter to GWB |
|
Has Reyes figured out if Al Qaida is a Sunni or Shia group yet?
|
|
|
Because they will not cooperate in the future if they are "thrown to the trial lawyers". |
|
|
While you Liberals, Lawyers and United States Citizens try to figure out whether we still have the legal tools necessary to monitor terrorist and protect our country, keep in mind that our government does not control the communications equipment. They are controlled by the Privately owned Communication Companies. Our Government relies on the cooperation of these companies for every bit of Data they receive. These companies currently have hundreds of Trial Lawyers filing billions of dollars in lawsuits against them for past cooperation with our government. These are the SAME Trial Lawyers which have spent millions of dollars lobbying the Democrats in congress and donated millions of dollars to Democratic election campaigns (Including Barack and Hillary). Unless the Communication Companies are given Immunity from prosecution, they will not cooperate in the future. The purpose of the bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support, that Pelosi would not bring to a vote because she knew it would pass the House with bipartisan support, gave these companies immunity and clarified the rules to be followed to allow us to protect our country. |
|
|
must figure that if nothing happens during her little vacation, she can shrug it off. If something does slip thru that we couldn't catch due to her little game playing, she can blame the President while she mouths sympathy for victims. But I suspect what she is really hoping for is that they will continue to monitor in spite of her posturing and will pick up some serious information that must be made public. then she will have an excuse of sorts to try to impeach the President. |
|
|
I agree that the President is not a dictator. The President oversees these departments that facilitates this activity; since he is over the Executive Branch. I think that is the point of him/her being the best to handle that situation. |
|
The executive requires oversight, inlcuding a judicial check, even if it is a civil judicial check on private companies providing services to him.
The phone companies are being "thrown to the trial lawyers" if they don't get immunity?
Based on an experience I had with the phone company once, they did not seem to be underlawyered.
I don't trust the phone companies anymore than I trust the trial lawyers. |
|
"it should be and is up to the Commander-In-Chief to decide how best to pretect and defend the homeland."
"The President oversees these departments that facilitates this activity; since he is over the Executive Branch. I think that is the point of him/her being the best to handle that situation. "
It seemed to me that these statements, particularly the first one, imply that the executive has sole decision-making authority. If there is agreement that is not the case then fine. |
|
|
Duane "Generalissimo" Patterson is the producer of the nationally syndicated "Hugh Hewitt Show". In a sense Duane is "the man behind the curtain" -- and this is his blog.
The Latest on TownHall.com
|