Shocking discovery: President determined to defend U.S.

TownHall.com ^ | Jan. 9, 2005 | Paul Greenberg

[jazzlite]

..."Ours will be a broad campaign, fought on many fronts. It's a campaign that will be waged by day and by night, in the light and in the shadow, in battles that you will see and battles you won't see. It's a campaign waged by soldiers and sailors, marines and airmen; and also by FBI agents and law-enforcement officials and diplomats and intelligence officers. . . . Our campaign will be difficult, and it will take time. But I can promise you this: It will be waged with determination, and it will be waged until we win. We will do whatever it takes to protect our country." - George W. Bush, Oct. 17, 2001...

My belief is that there is nothing new under the Sun in the rotten parts of human nature. The leftists are always hanging out, doing nothing, until they think they can grab the positive rewards of those who had the courage and the fortitude and the perseverance to do great things. We have not had another attack since 9-11 and that is due specifically to the brave and logical leadership of George W. Bush, our President. They know that..Now, they are trying every sleazy thing they can think of to grab power now that everything is under some kind of effective control. If they can do that, guess what else they will do? They will grab the credit for everything President Bush and his Policies have given to America for all the years of his Presidency. Every week I wonder, do these people not know we are all mortal and do they not know what a dangerous world we live in? The bottom line is very simple..George W. Bush is their competition and he is wildly successful..History will prove it. Today, we will witness another travesty against our Government and its checks and balances as the Democrats attack Judge Alito and his nomination to the Supreme Court. It would seem that their cause for hatred always is any person who shrinks from the massacre of babies in America. Regardless of what charges they spin out today against this man, who is as suitable as an person ever could be for the Supreme Court, the real reason they hate has to do with abortion. We live in a very dangerous world, both literally and figuratively..

[alnick]

In this new kind of warfare, an ever-surprised, ever-vulnerable America, was supposed to be easy pickings for these new kamikazes. This country was going to be reduced to cowering behind defenses full of holes.

Which is exactly what would have happened had Al Gore succeeded in cheating his way into the White House in 2000 (shudder).

[jazzlite]

Yes, and why would anyone not want knowledge of the communications of terrorists. One cannot help but think that only those assisting our enemies might object to this age old method of keeping us safe.

[alnick]

It's like a newspaper having a breaking story revealing that your mailman actually WALKS right up to your private property--your mail box--and has the audacity to OPEN IT! in plain sight of others, and....put DOCUMENTS into it! Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?!?!?!?!?!

That is a great analogy.

[alnick]

Instead I see attacks on the patriotism of anyone who questions the executive's claims of limitless power to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

Well, then you're seeing things because no one claimed the President has limitless power to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

He does, thank God, have pretty broad powers, however, to spy on Al Qaeda.

[been_lurking]

... to search Americans without obtaining a warrant.

Is it your assumption that wiretapping an incoming phone call from a non-citizen is "searching Americans"?

That will be a interesting and challenging legal argument for you to make. Please give it a shot and educate us all.

[ballplayer]

Its about time someone has quoted the actual words spoken by the President shortly after 9-11 instead of the propoganda put out revisionists .There should be more wholesale release of the presidents speeches from 2001

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

An immediate and thorough housecleaning should have been undertaken at the CIA after 9/11/01. I'm talking wholesale firings of the legions of incompetents.

All I remember is President George W. Bush going to visit CIA headquarters after the mass murder attacks and giving them a nice pep talk.

I was furious.

A pat on the back for a massive intelligence failure of the most expensive spy agency on earth?

This is the same agency that completely missed forecasting the break-up of the Soviet Union.

I picture hundreds of people sitting around in their office cubicles playing Solitaire on their taxpayer-financed computers.

As I predicted, the failure of the United States government to control entry into our country has made America vulnerable to the worst kind of murderous trash crossing our borders.

The government has been forced to ramp up its surveillance (Big Brother) and spy on all of us native citizens because that government REFUSES to keep the barbaric trash out of our country.

I have the vivid memory of airport security agents attempting to confiscate the Medal of Honor belonging to a very elderly Joe Foss, a World War II, Pacific Theater fighter ace. They deemed his possession of the small medal a "threat" while allowing Middle Eastern men to board airliners unchallenged, lest our security efforts be seen as politically incorrect "profiling."

The term "government intelligence" is a laughable contradiction.

[RedEyeJack]

It appears that a terrorist is not a criminal but an enemy soldier operating outside the law of war as well as the criminal codes. He may be operating inside or outside the U.S. Is he protected by the Bill of Rights? If so, then the war on terror is a law enforcement issue and we are full circle back to Sept 10, 2001. If not, then he is subject to surveillance and reconnaissance to determine his capabilities and intentions and to provide targetable intelligence to engage him without a court order. Since he may strike with surprise against unprotected civilians as a method of engagement there is an inherent sense of urgency every time new information is developed to determine what his intentions are.

The problem is that there are Americans inside the U.S. making contact electronically with these individuals. Some may be innocent. Some may be traitors (yes there may be Americans selling out their fellows for profit - drug smugglers and dealers do it all the time, but we accept that as a law enforcement problem). Whoever the individuals are they become suspect. It is a judgment call as to when and how to apply FISA to them and the lawyers will argue about this forever.

There is a risk/reward dilemma here. The risk of delaying surveillance is that a terrorist will be able to use the window of opportunity created by a delay to execute his operation. The reward is that we are assured that no one's 4th Amendment rights are violated. On the other hand, acting as we are now, the risk is that our executive department acting through its agents in the FBI and CIA will act not just on terrorist but also against political opponents. The reward is that actionable intelligence, if properly handled, will be available to possibly preempt terrorist without any administrative delay.

Isn't it ironic that the Barrert Report, which apparently makes the case that the previous administration was doing just that (acting illegally against its political opponents)with the IRS, is being suppressed by the very same people who are denouncing the methods used on the war on terror as being being extralegal?

[Condor51]

****I have yet to see a justification for ignoring the FISC [btw it's FISA] and obtaining warrants (even after the fact as the law permits) for searches conducted on Americans.****

1. There are no "searches" being conducted, nor are any "phones being tapped" (quote the Dems) - period.
   
2. Nobody knows if your so-called 'searches' are being conducted on "Americans".
   
3. The only people saying "Americans" are the RATS & the MSM.
   
4. The FISA law pertains to criminal justice matters (like say tapping the phone of an Israeli spy), not military intelligence gathering while we are at war.
   
5. No law can usurp the Article II powers of the POTUS as CIC. Congress might as well pass a law that says the POTUS must wear brown on Wednesdays - it would have the same meaning, nothing.
   
6. Lastly the 4th Amendment protections contains one salient word "unreasonable". As such, if one if plotting against the USA to kill "Americans" - any 'search' is then NOT unreasonable.

[Soul Seeker]

As well, there were many Republicans that stabbed Reagan in the back. Many that sought to distance from him. Now they can't stop invoking his name in campaigns. Some things never change.

It may take longer for G.W.B. to receive his due, mainly because he's younger and theoretically has many more years to live. I don't see him being recognized for the good he did until he passes unfortunately. It will happen eventually. Explaining the Democrats desperation as they saw their inability to prevent Reagan's legacy in end, they are rapidly approaching the day they can't prevent G.W.B.'s.

[freema]

Time for a

BARRETT BUMP

(I also found it ironic that this report was filed by the "Arkansas Democrat")

[EQAndyBuzz]

"People should vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended..."

You are kidding, right?

[Edgerunner]

And their names shall NOT be in the book of LIFE...

[GingisK]

"Shocking discovery: President determined to defend U.S."

That is why why employ effective tactics, such as open borders.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

it's all a joke with the borders wide open.

[DJ MacWoW]

The President is not empowered to violate the 4th amendment.

Please show a link or proof where this has been done.

I don't want an America where a President Hillary Clinton can read any American's mail or tap their phones without following the established legal process of obtaining a warrant.

It's already been done by them.

[p23185]

I think you got that backwards. People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended.

Are you kidding - you would rather have had John Effing Kerry - part of the "Cut and Run" party of RATS? I don't understand?

[gondramB]

Me:""People should vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended..."

You are kidding, right?"

EQAndy:"You are kidding, right?"

Nope, not kidding... Major typo - should have been

""People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended..."

Sorry about that.

[gondramB]

defenderSD: "I think you got that backwards. People should NOT vote for Republican presidents if they don't want the nation defended.

p23185: "Are you kidding - you would rather have had John Effing Kerry - part of the "Cut and Run" party of RATS? I don't understand?"

Just for the record, DefenederSD did not say anything about suporrting John Kerry. He was pointing out, politely, a typo in my post. Sorry for the confusion but any blame is mine, not defender's.