QUICK LINKS
Will Too Much Freedom Give Us Death?
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled yesterday that President Bush’s warrentless surveillance program is unconstitutional because it involved illegal searches.
She said, “There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution.”
However, Judge Taylor, in siding with the ACLU, missed the point. She’s dead wrong.
It’s not about genetics or monarchs. It’s not even about a power grab. It’s about survival.
Contrary to what the so-called elitists are saying, the President has never claimed any blanket privilege to intercept phone calls or emails without warrant. The NSA has only applied the program to international calls, and only those intercepted while tracking known or suspected Al-Qaeda operatives.
This ruling, in essence, extends First Amendment privileges to foreign terrorists abroad, so long as they are talking to someone in the US.
This not only gives unprecedented rights to reporters (for whom the suit was originally filed) but it gives unbelievable avenues of communication opportunities for terrorists.
Its inconceivable to me that an unelected, life-time appointed judge is calling a term-limited President a monarch.
I personally believe the security of we, the American people, is far more important than the rights of journalists to freely interview terrorists.
Too much freedom given to our enemies will indeed kill us.
Is the ACLU crowd blinded by their own ambition and agenda or are they ignorant to the realities of our world?
I, and a few others, were privileged to have lunch yesterday in Bellevue, Washington with Senator Rick Santorum, R-PA. A few minutes of conversation were given to politics – more than an hour was given to discussing “the war.” The war for our survival.
I know how busy each one of us are. Time is both important and valuable. However, may I urge you to read Senator Santorum’s speech given to the National Press Club on July 20th of this year? It will give clarity to this present war and its importance in regard to our survival.
Click here to read Senator Santorum’s speech.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to receive these blogs in your email inbox.
18 Comments:
I agree with Judge Diggs. No one is saying that we shouldn't have this spying program. It just needs to be done in accordance with FISA law. We all want conversations with Al Queida monitored. FISA allows this to be done just as the administration is claiming they are doing it. Complying with FISA would achieve the same result but would be within the law. I don't understand why they can't do this program within the law. They would not be impeded in any way.
FISA was written in 1978. That is the problem. It doesn't address today's challenges.
As Santorum said in his speech that is linked to the blog email:
"Before 9/11 we were fighting with 20th Century tools. Our national security surveillance activities were governed by a law that had been enacted in 1978 – before anyone knew what email was. It did not permit the speed and flexibility needed to identify, and quickly survey, previously unknown threats"
I guess I've just never heard of anything that FISA would prevent them from doing. They can do everything they say they are doing now and just as fast, they basically just have to notify the court after the fact to get the warrant. If you have specifics on what FISA won't let them do, I seriously would like to know. Otherwise, there just needs to be some oversight, no matter who the administration is.
A response to Mr. Randall's flawed arguments is posted on my blog Blackwhite.
Anybody??? Gary??? What specifically does FISA prevent them from doing? Gary, how does allowing the administration to do what they claim they are doing but simply requiring an after the fact warrant request to a secret court 'give unbelelievable avenues of communication opportunities to the terrorists'? Please explain how this would happen as I've never heard any specifics on this from anyone. All I hear are claims from Rove, Frist, etc. that the democrats don't want to spy on terrorists. NOT TRUE! We want to know if the terrorists are calling America. But after the experienced with Nixon (hence the FISA law in the first place), we just want some supervision. Or a clear explanation of how this law would prevent spying on our enemies. Anyone???
FISA was written before cell phones, emails, internet etc. were prevalent. That accelerates terrorist movement while FISA provides a slower more cumbersone process that doesn't address the above terrorist capabilities.
What is probably needed is new legislation.
Terrorists and the chase to keep our country safe is going at 100 mph. FISA moves at 20 mph and doesn't address the 80 mph difference.
Agreed that getting warrants after the fact is probably more cumbersome, but that is the trade off for oversight. You haven't explained how it is slower because it's not. They can do what they need to do when they need to do it. There is just some paperwork afterward. If terrorism is the priority, hire some more people to help with the paperwork. Again, someone please answer:
1) How does it prevent spying?
2) What activities does it prevent?
3) How does it 'give unbelievable avenues of communication to the terrorists'?
4) How does it slow anything down?
No talking points, please. Specific answers would help us all understand.
Andrew, may I respectfully say, I don't believe a meat cutting socialist with typos in his blog, is probably the most informed of individuals.
However, at least you care.
PS. Andrew--I wouldn't point out the obvious if you hadn't come onto this web site and critized a very successful and educated and honorable man. So you opened the door and I walked through it.
10:31 AM those are good and responsible questions. But I will leave them to someone else to answer.
Listening to the mainstream media left me concerned so I turned to a bunch of different sources until I was satisfied. I had read in a few places the answers to your questions but no longer can recall them because I read a great deal about a great many topics and my intent was to understand--not debate. I wish I could recall--but can only tell you that what I read left a different impression than what I had heard on the news or read in the Seattle PI. I probably found an indepth article in the Seattle Times and some other source.
If you follow only the evening news, or read internet headlines, or rely only on biased bloggers, you will get very shallow idea of what is going on. Most people don't have the time needed to keep fully informed because it takes work and more than reading one local newspaper or the CBS news.
I have heard Clinton say the same thing about his administration but I didn't follow politics so closely then and can't confirm it.
May I also point out that part of spying is secretive--for a reason--so you may not have all the specific answers you want.
Folks, I'm seriously looking for information. The FISA issue seems to be very partisan and I frankly don't get it. We all want our government to know what our enemies are up to. Somebody please explain why this can't be done in accordance with the law.
Again:
1) How does FISA prevent spying?
2) What activities does FISA prevent?
3) How does FISA 'give unbelievable avenues of communication to the terrorists'?
4) How does FISA slow anything down when they can basically do anything they want and ask for the warrant afterward?
Gary, do you read this blog and would you care to answer?
To my friend asking the good questions about FISA......
Here is a website with a wealth of credible information on FISA: /www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/
Following are some relevant extractions from a speech made by Attorney General Gonzales on January 24,2006. I could paraphrase it for you--but if it were me I would rather get it straight from the original source.
One thing I forgot to grab is a statement about the continued classified nature of the program, which limits some of the data available.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power.
This program, described by the President, is focused on international communications where experienced intelligence experts have reason to believe that at least one party to the communication is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a terrorist organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
This program is reviewed and reauthorized by the President approximately every 45 days. The leadership of Congress, including the leaders of the Intelligence Committees of both Houses of Congress, have been briefed about this program more than a dozen times since 2001.
These press accounts are in almost every case, in one way or another, misinformed, confusing, or wrong. And unfortunately, they have caused concern over the potential breadth of what the President has actually authorized.
Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.
Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.
A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.
We all agree that there should be appropriate checks and balances on our branches of government. The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the War on Terror, and one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats. But as the President has explained, the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires the maximum in speed and agility, since even a very short delay may make the difference between success and failure in preventing the next attack. And we cannot afford to fail.
If FISA doesn't meet the current security needs, why didn't Bush ask the GOP-controlled congress to amend it? Why, in fact, did he turn down just such an offer when the patriot act was being written? The simple fact is that Bush HAS claimed the perogative to spy on anyone at anytime with no oversight whatsoever. The irony of the leader of a group claiming to advocate 'freedom' embracing such totalitarian tactics would be luaghable if it weren't so sad.
Could you please elaborate on what you meant in saying that Bush turned down an offer when the patriot act was being written?
No other president was required to get warrants for electronic surveillance during a time of war.
Congress acknowledged we are at war after 9/11.
No, we are not at war. Congress authorised the use of military force, at no point was a war declared. If you want more info on the refused offer to alter FISA, I suggest you do some reading on the subject. Sydney Blumenthal's articles in the New Yorker are a good place to start.
FISA was not the law of the land during any of our previous war's declared and undeclared. Last I checked even a declared war does not permit the President to unilaterally ignore laws, much less an undeclared one.
For all you defenders of Bush's lawlessness, ask yourself one simple question, would you feel the same way if the President were named Clinton? If the answer is no, then you are clearly letting your partisanship override any logical thinking.
I didn't follow politics as closely when Clinton was in office. But yes I think I would feel the same way.
This is a new world--and there are events happening that have never happened before. There is a lot of grey area. This administration is trying to do what is right under circumstances no other president has found themself in.
While you call it lawlessness, many others don't.
People are coming to their senses. They are recognizing that Mr. Randall and his followers are not Christians. They hateful people pretending to be Christians, but Jesus Christ would not condone their actions. May God love you all!
Post a Comment
<< Home