In its opinion, the Court of Review said the FISA Court had, in effect, attempted to unilaterally impose the old 1995 rules. "In doing so, the FISA Court erred," the ruling read. "It did not provide any constitutional basis for its action — we think there is none — and misconstrued the main statutory provision on which it relied." The FISA Court, according to the ruling, "refus[ed] to consider the legal significance of the Patriot Act's crucial amendments" and "may well have exceeded the constitutional bounds" governing the courts by asserting "authority to govern the internal organization and investigative procedures of the Department of Justice."This is the FISA court that the left wants to hand over authority for war time surveillance to. Beyond that:
And then the Court of Review did one more thing, something that has repercussions in today's surveillance controversy. Not only could the FISA Court not tell the president how do to his work, the Court of Review said, but the president also had the "inherent authority" under the Constitution to conduct needed surveillance without obtaining any warrant — from the FISA Court or anyone else. Referring to an earlier case, known as Truong, which dealt with surveillance before FISA was passed, the Court of Review wrote: "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."I don’t believe that in the CYA climate that we live in any politician is going to do anything without the approval of a host of lawyers. Yet the left believes that any lie repeated often enough will be believed. Now First Amendment killer Feingold is trying to censure the President over the “illegal wire taps”:
When the President of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable.BTW how did he vote on the Clinton impeachment? No one is attempting to make the case that Clinton didn’t break the law. Anyway the second article by James S. Robbins discusses the brilliant effort by Al Qaeda to stage a Tet like attack on the American and British embassies in the Green Zone. He notes:
Imagine news coverage of al Qaeda fighters in the American embassy. The story line would be irresistible — Tet Offensive, the Sequel. The press is already fixated on comparing the Iraq war to Vietnam, despite the numerous and significant differences. An attack like this, a surprise urban guerilla assault on a key symbol of American power, would immediately be cast as a replay of the January 31, 1968, Viet Cong attack on the U.S. embassy in Saigon.Tet was a military failure as was the attack on the American Embassy, one small battle of the offensive. Nevertheless it was the beginning of the end of American support for South Vietnam. Al Qaeda well knows this as Robbins points out:
Prussian military theorist Karl von Clausewitz famously posited a “trinity” essential for the successful prosecution of war — synchronization between three necessary elements; the fighting forces, the political leadership, and the national will. The terrorists realize they cannot defeat our military, nor sway our (current) leaders, so they seek to strike at our only vulnerability, our national commitment to continue to prosecute the struggle.Just as North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap credits people like John Kerry with his victory over America, so does Al Qaeda recognize the value of people like, well, John Kerry in their effort to win in Iraq and in the WOT in general.
What is exactly at work here? Is the left so anti-American, anti-military, or anti-Bush that they will undercut the WOT at every turn? Is it just a path back into power? They were supposed to outline their positions on nation policy back in November and still haven’t done so. Is their only position that Bush is always wrong, with no alternatives of their own? Shall we trust them with our security, our lives and the lives of our loved ones? I know I’m preaching to the choir here but why is this so difficult for others to see? My only conclusion is that the “repeat a lie” theory works, especially if you have a biased MSM as your propaganda tool.