“Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril.” – Sun Tzu, “The Art of War”
Before going on their August vacation, Congress passed desperately important legislation regulating the way in which the National Security Agency monitors electronic communications between known terrorists. That capability had been severely constrained ever since last January, when, in the interest of clearing partisan smoke from an important national security issue, President Bush set aside his claim to constitutional privilege under Article II and agreed to abide by the limitations imposed by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. His willingness to do so was contingent upon a committment from Congress to update a FISA Act that had been rendered dangerously obsolete by modern technological advances.
NSA is prohibited by law from performing domestic intelligence gathering. Most of the legitimate concern about the Terrorist Surveillance Program lay in the “one end” provision that NSA had been using. In essence, this meant that, so long as a communication system had one end in a foreign country – international communications, by one definition- they could be monitored without judicial oversight in the form of a search warrant or FISA court authorization even if the other end might have terminated in (domestic) America.
Depending on how your parse the words “domestic” and “international” (just try catching a flight from Los Angeles to Bonn at the LAX domestic terminal) this could have resulted in a violation of constitutional privacy protections. One hypothetical example of such a result might have been if an unwitting citizen – a journalist, say – communicated in good faith with an overseas source. If that source had terrorist connections – even if the journalist was unware of them – his privacy could have been impermissably impinged upon. Taking the upside/downside risks into consideration you might consider this threat pretty small beer, but nevermind: A lawsuit challenging the TSP, sponsored by the ACLU in their own name, as well as certain other academics and journalists, initially received the favorable endorsement of the notoriously illucid Judge Anna Diggs Taylor before it was tossed out on appeal because the plaintiffs could not prove “standing” to sue.
Electronic communications – like electricity generally – follows the path of least resistance. The net result being that even communications between two known terrorists that had both ends overseas – From the Pakistani frontier region of Waziristan to Diyala province in Iraq for example- might at some point have been routed through the relatively more efficient US infrastructure. Since January, the NSA has been proscribed from monitoring these communications, even as al Qaeda issued new threats of substantial terrorist attack. For the last six months we have been vulnerable, walking in the darkness in the presence of our enemies.
So, hat’s off to Congress for passing the legislation, right? Well, no – not if, like many bloggers on the left apparently seem to think, the enemy isn’t terrorists plotting to blow up airliners and embassies, etc. but rather the democratically elected madmen atop our own national government:
Progressive and liberal groups and left-leaning blogs are furious, tossing around fighting words like “spineless,” “craven” and “weak.”
So much for the hopes of Democratic leaders that they could avoid a withering political attack by clearing the way for Congress to approve an expansion of the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program before the August recess.
“Democratic leaders in Congress didn’t put up much of a fight and they didn’t stand up and say ‘no’ to Bush,” said an e-mail message that political operatives for the group MoveOn sent Tuesday to the organization’s members, urging them to sign an online petition calling on Congress to reverse the new law.
Because the most important thing is to “say ‘no’ to Bush”, even if, you know: He’s right.
This is madness.
Congressional leaders, meanwhile, have discovered that, when you make friends with angry people? You shouldn’t be surprised when you get a little on you. In yet another classic example of “portraits in courage,” their answer has been to shift the blame:
Last Thursday evening, during the frantic endgame of a White House push to broaden its eavesdropping authorities, Democratic leaders from the House and the Senate gathered in the Capitol office of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, for a conference call with Mike McConnell, the nation’s top intelligence official.
Mr. McConnell was acting as the Bush administration’s chief negotiator for the measure, and the Democrats were furious to learn that he had rejected their latest proposal. They questioned whether Mr. McConnell had succumbed to pressure from the White House and Republican lawmakers. He denied those accusations, but admitted that intense pressure from Congressional leaders of both parties had taken a toll.
“I’ve spent 40 years of my life in this business, and I’ve been shot at during war,” Mr. McConnell responded, according to people who participated in the conference call. “I’ve never felt so much pressure in my life.”
So, knowing the enemy: Remember, you’re either with ‘em or against ‘em. So, welcome to the ranks of the bad guys, Admiral. Stand by for heavy rolls.
And as for the rest of us, we’ve come to a strange and heretofore unknown pass when the best thing for a politician to do in order to satisfy his most politically vocal allies is to distance himself from good legislation.
As far as “…and the Democrats were furious to learn that he had rejected their latest proposal…” Is this going to turn into a He Said – They All Said?
The Democrats’ proposal (correct me if I’m wrong) would have made surveillance decisions subject to later court review. They can bring that up in six months when this law expires.
It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world. Stop now please. I’d like to get off.
jpr ~ I believe you’re right. And yes, they can bring it up in 6 months when this law expires. Until then it would be nice if they would shut the traps and let it work. When it comes to this kind of legislation, the Dems couldn’t find their way out of a paper sack with GPS and a flashlight. God help us if this country elects a Democratic President next year.
At last, a subject on which I can regale you with my war stories!
Wait, sorry, no, I can’t. SF-98 and all that.
All I can say is, anyone who thinks the NSA would in any way play fast and loose with their collections in violation of US law is completely ignorant of their reality. I think the NSA has more lawyers than analysts.
I once watched as a USPER in a fifth-world Hellhole was taken captive by a band of fifth-century thugs who didn’t know who they’d caught in their round-up. We had the means to track USPER and start vectoring forces to him immediately, but I was told to stand down by No Such Agency–no USPER was going to be monitored, period. Lunacy, but completely in compliance with US law, as vetted on the spot by their lawyers.
The good news is, a thug higher up the food chain, sixth-century perhaps, realized they had a USPER in their hostage pool, and immediately ripped fifth-century thug a new one. The one thing this group didn’t want was loving US attention, and a few hours later we had our USPER back.
Speaking of enemies, Buzz Patterson bitchslaps Soltz with his own technique, on MSNBC.
Well hell, try this:
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=4128
That kind of stuff drives me crazy!
What makes people yell over top of one another that way? Is it he with the loudest voice wins?
My kingdom for a decent moderator. So we could actually hear what each was trying to say. Those two needed to be timed out, our kids have better manners and half the time I think they’re hellions!
Cap’n,
It seems the ACLU is upset due to the secret nature of the information used to draft the legislation. Of course, such classified information would include sources, methods, etc. that the ACLU would like to make available to our enemies.
Were I serving on the FISC my response would be a hearty TANGO SIERRA.
Buzz Patterson retired soon after his time in the White House. Most folks who are given that shot don’t do that. I’ve always wondered what the real story was……………..
Do you know something Skip? Maybe he was disheartened by the experience. Those were days different than these, remember?
I would just quibble over a minor point — it’s not clear to me at all that there was a privacy infringement in picking up calls made by Americans to terrorists, if it was the terrorist being targeted, and not the American.
After all, if the CIA plants a bug in the office of General Mohammad of Momahamdi Intelligence, we wouldn’t be infringing on the privacy of an American traitor who visited General Mohamad to give him state secrets, even though we had no *warrant* against the American, would we? I fail to see how tapping the good general’s phone would be any different.
Casca,
Actually in many ways-they were the same. Same train wreck in terms of procurement, same buzzwords, same political rancor.
However, its a real honor to be chosen to be the White House aide from any service. The flag ranks of the USAF and the Navy have more than a couple of folks with WH service in their dossiers……..
I’d trust the NSA guys more than I’d trust those in any other three-letter agency. They rock. And maybe flap, and like shiny things that spin, too!
Those are my people, of the kind most likely to take their oath to uphold the Constitution seriously.
Now, there may be some normals in administrative positions there, so obviously what I wrote above doesn’t necessarily apply, but I think they are generally an earnest, honest bunch at Ft. Meade.
.
lol, yeah Skip, that’s what Ollie always says. Of course he had his hand on the tiller, not cuffed to a briefcase. I recall those days as being much different than these.
Buzz Patterson retired soon after his time in the White House. Most folks who are given that shot don’t do that. I’ve always wondered what the real story was…
And I wonder if he’s stopped beating his wife yet.
It’s just become clear to me….
The Left’s position on terror is to let us all be bombed to Hell. Wouldn’t that make it a “suicidal ideation?”
Perhaps some Prozac in their Evian…..
d
Web Reconnaissance for 08/10/2007…
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
In their warped world-view, based entirely on gaining the WH in ‘08 and holding the majority in Congress, the Dems “leadership” simply doesn’t care because in their playbook, they win either way. If we’re attacked before 2008 it’s Bush’s fault, and if we’re not attacked it’s because they have kept Bush from taking action…
Pretty simple strategy actually. And very doable when they can basically conjure up the facts their PAO arm, the MSM, reports and the sheep consume.
b2
That’s right B2. Unfettered by truth or reality, all courses of action are open to them. Simply put, it’s impossible to argue facts with one who is prepared to lie. I don’t think she’ll pull it off though. She’s just not that good.
Casca,
And just like Ollie North, Patterson has been able to parlay his White House service into a successful media career. Since I disagree with vehemntly with much of Patterson’s politics, and I think his books are tripe (read two of them)-it continues to be a source of amazement.