Terror Tactics Dividing Dems
If Democrats were serious about preventing terrorist attacks, there wouldn’t be a basis for an article like this.The fact that there’s a basis for this article should be a warning sign to voters.
A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush’s most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.
The Democrats’ failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party’s leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies, on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.
The Nutroots are going to be exceptionally upset with Democrats when the FISA law that President Bush signed comes up for renewal. Despite Ms. Pelosi’s charge to John Conyers and Silvestre Reyes to rewrite the FISA reform bill, it won’t be a big enough change to satisfy the Nutroots because they’re totally opposed to warrantless intercepts regardless of what intel is gleaned from them.
At the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress yesterday, panelists discussing the balance between security and freedom lashed out at Democratic leaders for not standing up to the White House. “These are matters of principle,” said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the center. “You don’t temporize.”
Mr. Agrast is wrong. It isn’t a matter of principle. It’s a matter of survival. If we don’t have the capability to intercept known al-Qa’ida terrorists’ communications without a warrant, we will get hit. It isn’t a question of if; it’s a matter of when and how big of an attack it’ll be. You can’t sell it that you’re serious about protecting us from future terrorist attacks at the same time that you’re preventing the NSA from intercepting al-Qa’ida’s communications.
The question now becomes whether they are enough adults in the Democratic Party to tell the Nutroots to take a hike on this issue. Frankly, I don’t see it happening because they contribute too much money to their campaigns and too many workers for their GOTV operations.
Reid and Pelosi promised last week that they would at least confront the president next month over his wiretapping program, with Pelosi taking an uncompromising stand in a private conference call with House Democrats. When lawmakers return in September, Democrats will also push legislation to restore habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects and may resume an effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism. And advocates of a strong push on the terrorism issues are increasingly skeptical that they can prevail.
It’s safe to say that Democrats have to tread lightly on this issue. They can’t push too hard lest they lose alot of seats in the moderate to conservative districts. On the other hand, not pushing means that the Nutroots takes their money and energy and goes home. Simply put, they’re to the east of the rock and west of the hard place on this issue.
That’s what happens when a political party lets its fringe dictate the direction of the party.
Technorati Tags: Intel, FISA, NSA, al-Qaeda, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Homeland Security, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
August 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Homeland Security, Moonbats, Intel, Terrorism, President Bush, Pelosi, Harry Reid, Democrats, Special Interests, Election 2008 | [...]
August 31st, 2007 at 7:59 am
A lot of this might have been moot if we’d have formally declared war on international
terrorism.
We are allowing the Bill of Rights to apply to an enemy. This is insane.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:39 am
It is staggering how often, and how thoroughly the Right has misrepresented, or misunderstood the problems with the Bush Administration repeatedly breaking the law when it comes to FISA. It’s not that difficult to understand.
FISA says EXPLICITLY that anyone conducting wiretaps on suspected terrorists has up to 72 hours to RETROACTIVELY show evidence as to why these parties were being tapped. There is NO time constraint. Yes, a FISA judge found that calls being routed through the US qualify as domestic calls, and yes this is a loophole, but NO ONE, not even the “nutroots” had a problem with Congress closing that loophole. If that is all they had done, there would be no complaints.
However, congress went much further than that. Essentially leaving it up to the President to decide who is a terrorist, whether it’s Mohammed Atta or the National Organization of Women. And of course, leaving his and his administration’s decision on who to wiretap accountable to no one.
Before I get the same tired responses, answer me these questions.
-If we are truly tapping the phone of someone who is a terrorist suspect, what harm could it possibly cause to have those who are listening show some sort of proof, even retroactively (if they can show that time is still critical, up the retroactivity to a week if they have to), to make sure this power isn’t being abused?
-How in God’s name was the disclosure of the NSA wiretapping dangerous to the country, if the President himself was talking about it openly (and lying about it of course), when he told national audiences that wiretapping was being done, but with warrants, well before any of the rest of this came out?
-Do you want Hillary Clinton to have the power to listen to anyone she wants, at any time?
-Do you guys think the 4th amendment should read “no unreasonable search and seizure, unless we are attacked by terrorists, and then, really it shouldn’t be a big deal as long as you have nothing to hide”?
August 31st, 2007 at 5:05 pm
FISA can’t usurp a president’s inherent constitutional authorities. The case law on this issue is exceptionally clear. Every appellate court that’s dealt with warrantless surveillance issues has ruled that the president has the constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches because it’s deemed a reasonable search.
Andy McCarthy has argued that FISA is unconstitutional. Based on the list of precedents and the Constitution, I’d say he’s right.
August 31st, 2007 at 7:49 pm
The idea of justifying to a court the collecting of evidence on a known enemy is totally irrelevant.
The Constitution empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the “rule of law” first and foremost is the Constitution.
When the Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president’s constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law.
How would I like it if Hillary acted this way? I would expect it of her. Question is, how would the left and the ACLU react if she used the full force of Presidential authority under the War Powers Act??
Understand this point — it’s crucial: The President of the United States, not just George Bush, The President, I want to belabor this point because I dont think half of us anymore realize what the Office of the President really means. The President has a right to ignore the FISA statute if it conflicts with the higher duties that are assigned to him by the Constitution. The President has an obligation to safeguard the American people against foreign attack — including strikes ordered by al Qaeda supervisors overseas, who give direction to terrorists embedded here, as they did in the run-up to 9/11. You can argue that he has overstepped his authority, but you can’t say he’s without a basis for doing so.
It’s a game, and it has always has been. As long as it hampers Bush, who cares?
FISA needs a cremation. Its a bad idea that keeps proving itself to be a worst of ideas. We shouldn’t need another 9/11 before we open our eyes to the undeniable.
If it’s anyone one branch of government that is acting like a dictator, it is the Congress. And the fools who sit there and bite their bait, almost beg for the country to be harmed.