Fear Destroys what Bin Laden Could Not

[Traveler]

Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not
By Robert Steinback
The Miami Herald

Monday 26 December 2005

One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution - and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it - I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat - and expect America to be pleased by this - I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas - and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security - I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy - and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy - I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.

What is there to say now?

All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying "Happy Holidays" could be a disguised attack on Christianity.

I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke - speaking metaphorically now - mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.

Never would I have expected this nation - which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty - would cower behind anyone just for promising to "protect us."

President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president - or is that king? - has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.

Is that America's highest goal - preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, "What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?"

Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the "war on terror" - a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection - even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.

Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?

Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.

Ultimately, our best defense against attack - any attack, of any sort - is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?







http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/13487511.htm

[enjolras]

Spot on

[Spider]

all these years, been hearing ,we need our Guns,to protect ourselfs ,now we are
in this kind of war ,these big bad gun owners want to throw away thier freedom to be protected ........

[Rascal]

Said it before, if this is true he needs to be impeached.

I don't care if other Presidents have done it, it's time we told our corrupt politicians that we will not let our country be destroyed due to their ineptitude.

I am really losing confidence in our political representatives. They no longer care what is best for the average joe but are only concerned about appeasing special interests groups with their only concern being how do I get re-elected and keep these special interest groups on my side.

Forbid any contributions by corporations, special interest groups, etc and only allow private contributions that must be reported in their entirety. Forbid non-campaigning entities to help with anyone's campaign.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I'm not upset that he spied on Americans that may be terrorists but I'm (and so should every other American) real worried that he did it with the notion he doesn't have to answer to anyone (bypassing the courts to do it, essentially saying "the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper").

[Traveler]

Said it before, if this is true he needs to be impeached.

I don't care if other Presidents have done it, it's time we told our corrupt politicians that we will not let our country be destroyed due to their ineptitude.

I am really losing confidence in our political representatives. They no longer care what is best for the average joe but are only concerned about appeasing special interests groups with their only concern being how do I get re-elected and keep these special interest groups on my side.

Forbid any contributions by corporations, special interest groups, etc and only allow private contributions that must be reported in their entirety. Forbid non-campaigning entities to help with anyone's campaign.

Completely agree!

[Traveler]

Thought I'd re-post this and get others' thoughts. No pissing matches! Just frank discussion on what should happen if this turns out to be true. Will possiible impeachment actions be taken?

Pay close attention to the paragragh where he states the number of request that were modified. I find that quite ntersting, if true.


Secret court modified wiretap requests
Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel

By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on, and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization." "The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these applications by the Bush administration."

Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.

To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.

Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida suspects inside the United States.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least 18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches from five presidential administrations since 1979.

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's history.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized NSA surveillance of overseas communications by U.S.-based terror suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.

The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some judges on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a classified briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District Judge Malcolm Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush administration agreed to brief the judges after U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest Bush's spying program.

Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies.

NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all international telegrams to and from the United States for decades during the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the program ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked 75,000 Americans whose activities had drawn government interest between 1952 and 1974, including participation in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War.

"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like we're going back to the bad old days again."

[bendog]

I feel so much better now that I know gonzalez is gonna track down the leak, as bushii says he still doesn't know who leaked plame ... though novak says bushii knows.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051230/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/domestic_spying_probe;_ylt=An3A45IFH5WX3nIj.E9Mjwi s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[TheDave]

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority" submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and 2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.

The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's history.

Even supporters of this administration have to admit this group seems to work extra hard at being incompetent...

the mistakes made prior to 9/11

still have not found Bin Laden

Not finishing the job in Afghanistan before going to Iraq

flawed intelligence for war

Tax cuts while involved in a war

failure to put enough troops on the ground

no plan for post war Iraq

Plame-Gate

The man-whore in the press-core

The horse judge running FEMA

etc.

now they can't even fill out the proper paper work for this court??? ... 2 out of 13,102 vs. 179 out of 5,645. I'm in on the joke that govt can bring new meaning to the word incompetent, but this group seems to take it to a whole new level...

[W*GS]

I'm in on the joke that govt can bring new meaning to the word incompetent, but this group seems to take it to a whole new level...

I'd put the current doofuses (doofii?) at about par on the incompetence scale. But my expectations are incredibly low - basically, a government weenie (from the President on down to your local dog catcher) can only screw up, so those that screw up least still screw up.

[bendog]

dave, I suspect it isn't all messing up the paperwork. No doubt that some of it, but you gotta figure that they're tapping people for whom there's no probable cause. Probable cause usually being a reasonable person would conclude there's a crime being contemplated/occurring and there's a substantial liklihood the suspect is connected. Now IF ALL the admin is doing is tapping people they KNOW are communicating with al queda .... what Judge in his/her right mind wouldn't sign off on a warrant? The admin is tapping the phones for some reason .... religion? having relatitives overseas? maybe they want to tap Michael Moore or the Mother of the dead soldier who keeps stalking bushii?

[TheDave]

dave, I suspect it isn't all messing up the paperwork. No doubt that some of it, but you gotta figure that they're tapping people for whom there's no probable cause. Probable cause usually being a reasonable person would conclude there's a crime being contemplated/occurring and there's a substantial liklihood the suspect is connected. Now IF ALL the admin is doing is tapping people they KNOW are communicating with al queda .... what Judge in his/her right mind wouldn't sign off on a warrant? The admin is tapping the phones for some reason .... religion? having relatitives overseas? maybe they want to tap Michael Moore or the Mother of the dead soldier who keeps stalking bushii?

I completely agree with you. My "Messing up the paperwork" statement was a bad choice of words. My point is there are rules in place everyone has been able to follow for almost 30 years... Suddenly our falure rate is 198 X's what it used to be...wow... what a mess this group is.

[W*GS]

Like I said earlier, is it really a greater protection of our rights to have a secret rule on these requests? How do we know what standards were applied? Who's on this court? How does it work?

[bendog]

I completely agree with you. My "Messing up the paperwork" statement was a bad choice of words. My point is there are rules in place everyone has been able to follow for almost 30 years... Suddenly our falure rate is 198 X's what it used to be...wow... what a mess this group is.

Yeah, but I wouldn't evne mind if they changed the rules. If it's really necessary to tap people based upon something like ethnic profiling, fine. Congress isn't gonna refuse something that's really necessary. The supreme court will uphold restrictions on fundamental rights if the govt has a really important reason and there's no real alternative. They could make a law making it really painful for some fbi type who'd use info for any reason not terrorist related. They did something like this for gun buy background checks. But, no, the admin goes behind everyone's back. It just reeks of arrogance and misuse of power.

[Rascal]

Like I said earlier, is it really a greater protection of our rights to have a secret rule on these requests? How do we know what standards were applied? Who's on this court? How does it work?

I think those are questions that should be answered as well.

These people are suppose to represent us while protecting and honoring the constitution. I have seen little if any of that from both sides of the isle.

[Spider]

problem is this , most of agree we should be doing all that we can to nail the terrorist , stop another attack on our homeland , after all this is why we have the patriot act , I have saidbefore I have no problems spying on international calls comming into the U.S. I wouldnt have a problem with the same person that was called here to be monitored on 24/7 , but what I do have a problem with is the breaking of the law , we are a nation that prided ourselfs on standing on our laws , we sent men and women to their death to defend these laws ....... My Uncles died in WW2 , my dad faught in nam , they didnt give their lives so some idiot can have elective wars ,and strip our freedom .........

[Spider]

note ************** my dad ,didnt die in nam ,but he did get a case of clap , but thats for another thread ;D

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm not upset that he spied on Americans that may be terrorists but I'm (and so should every other American) real worried that he did it with the notion he doesn't have to answer to anyone (bypassing the courts to do it, essentially saying "the constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper").

Bingo.

That's the real issue.

Without judicial oversight, how do we know pResident Katrina isn't spying on his political adversaries like Tricky Dick?

[enjolras]

I think those are questions that should be answered as well.

These people are suppose to represent us while protecting and honoring the constitution. I have seen little if any of that from both sides of the isle.

My biggest problem (of many) that I have with this administration is the complete lack of transparency. I don't want to turn this into a Clinton v. Bush argument, but Clintons greatest presedential legacy (in my mind) was the way in which he drastically opened up government to the people. He led a charge of declassifying more material than any president before or since. Bush, in stark contrast, has operated the most secretive government in recent memory. This government produces more classified documents than any before it (IIRC) and that is very bad for our democracy.

Democracy requires the oversight of the people, and it seems that Bush goes to great lengths to prevent any oversight from happening. That, in and of itself, is very disturbing to me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

My biggest problem (of many) that I have with this administration is the complete lack of transparency. I don't want to turn this into a Clinton v. Bush argument, but Clintons greatest presedential legacy (in my mind) was the way in which he drastically opened up government to the people. He led a charge of declassifying more material than any president before or since. Bush, in stark contrast, has operated the most secretive government in recent memory. This government produces more classified documents than any before it (IIRC) and that is very bad for our democracy.

Democracy requires the oversight of the people, and it seems that Bush goes to great lengths to prevent any oversight from happening. That, in and of itself, is very disturbing to me.

:thumbsup:

Another one of those rare occasions when I agree with you about something.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush Impeachment Process Will Begin Early January, 2006

Conservative Republicans Will Join Democrats To Remove The Dangerous, Out-Of-Control President-King Before He Does More Harm.

By Rev. Bill McGinnis

Here are two scenarios for the impeachment of our dangerous, out-of-control President-King, George W. Bush.

The first and most likely scenario is that Conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives will finally decide that George W. Bush has gone too far. They will then join with Congressional Democrats to impeach him on the grounds of his persistent abuse of power in violation of the Constitution. Vice President Cheney will also be impeached on the same grounds. Conservative Republicans in the Senate will then join with Democrats to convict Bush and Cheney, and they both will be removed from office.

Meanwhile, House Republicans will have selected their most qualified member to be Speaker of the House, and he/she will become the next President of the United States, according to the Constitutional order of succession. In the Congressional elections of 2006, Republicans who supported the impeachments will not be punished, and Republicans will retain control of at least one body of Congress.

The second scenario is that the Conservative Republicans in the House will fail to join with House Democrats, and the impeachment process will be temporarily postponed.

Meanwhile, more and more evidence of the Bush/Cheney abuses of power will emerge, and the Public will become enraged with them and with all those Republicans who continued to support them, despite their now-obvious violations of the Constitution. Extensive, systematic secret torture of prisoners will be confirmed. And election fraud will be recognized in the
2004 elections, as it becomes known how the electronic voting machines were rigged to guarantee Republican victories in Ohio and Florida, thus assuring Bush's re-election.

Then will come the November 2006 elections, and the Democrats will regain control of both the House and the Senate, swept into office by Public outrage over the Republican failure to deal with the Bush/Cheney offenses, the torture issue, and the election fraud issue. And in early 2007, after the new Democratic Congress is seated, Bush and Cheney will be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. And the new Democratic Speaker Of The House will become President.

Either way, both Bush and Cheney will be removed from office, and the Speaker Of The House will become President. The process has already begun, and it will quickly gather momentum in early 2006. The truth cannot be suppressed forever, and it will come tumbling out very soon. You read it here first.

Blessings to you. May God help us all.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_rev__bil_051223_bush_i mpeachment_pro.htm

[W*GS]

Yeah, right, LABF.

Your fantasies and reality are two quite different things.

And no, that I don't believe Bush will be impeached means that I support him, or that I think impeaching him would be a horrible thing, or anything like that.

I just think the scenario you posted is so improbable as to be impossible.