Arianna Huffington:A Woman After My Own Heart
After reading Arianna Huffington’s diatribe on her Huffington Post ‘blog’, all I can say is that I hope her wishes come true. Here’s a glimpse of her diatribe:
Illegal warrantless wiretapping, and the administration’s unrelenting mendacity about it, is not only wrong on principle but a perfect wedge issue for Democrats, a chance to split off conservatives and independents disgusted with the White House’s contemptuous disregard for the rule of law and for the truth. But only if Democrats correctly frame the issue. This isn’t about being against eavesdropping or, as Karl Rove would like you to believe, not having the will to ferret out al-Qaeda members and “affiliates.” It’s about the President of the United States (and his minions) aggressively and willfully breaking the law, and lying about it. Repeatedly.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE KEEP TRUMPETING THAT MESSAGE. Get them a megaphone. Have a telethon on the issue. By all means, let America see who you really are.
It’s funny to hearing her complaining about something that doesn’t exist. And then telling readers that Bush is the liar.
First off, what the NSA is doing isn’t wiretapping. PERIOD. What’s happening is data mining, where a computer searches for predetermined words or phrases in hopes of ‘hearing’ something that prevents a terrorist attack. People aren’t listening in; computers are. Compare that with a wiretap, where a person is listening to a specific person in hopes of hearing the targeted person say something incriminating.
In other words, wiretapping is usually associated with criminal activities. The NSA intercept program is targeted towards fighting the war on terror. The differences couldn’t be more stark.
Secondly, Huffington’s Bush-hatred causes her to automatically assume that a program that she knows nothing about is illegal. BASED ON WHAT, MS. HUFFINGTON? Based on your hatred for all things Bush?
Based on these verifiable facts, I pray that Democrats ‘hang tough’ on this issue from now through Thanksgiving of 2008. If they’re stupid enough to do that, they’ll get their heads handed to them in the midterms and the presidential election of 2008.
Arguing that Bush has “inherent constitutional authority” to order warantless wiretaps or that Congress’s post-9/11 “use of force” resolution gave the president a blank check when it came to domestic spying is simply contradicted by the facts. Even Arlen Specter has called the White House’s defense of the spy program “very strained and unrealistic.”
If Ms. Huffington were to read the AUMF, something that I doubt she did, SJ Res 23 says:
“To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force’.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
In short, the resolution, written by Democrats, cites the fact that the President doesn’t need Congressional authority to “deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States”. The last time I looked, learning about AQ’s plans for further terrorist attacks would fall into detering and preventing “acts of international terrorism against the United States.”
It’s amazing to me that learned senators could look at the AUMF, and specifically, that sentence and not see that as an acknowledgement of the President’s inherent authority. That’s about as explicit as it gets.
The American public doesn’t like being lied to. And these guys are world-class liars. They make Jim Frey look like a piker when it comes to selling us a bill of goods. After all, this is the same bunch that lied so often and so effectively about the link between Saddam and 9/11 that in Feb. 2005, 8 months after the 9/11 Commission had reported otherwise, 46% of Americans still believed this outright fabrication.
Arianna should read some of Stephen Hayes’ articles for the Weekly Standard on this subject. I hate breaking it to her but Iraq did train terrorists, including hijacking jets at a training camp called Salman Pak. Arianna also likely hasn’t learned that documents, and witnesses, are surfacing proving Saddam’s flying his WMD’s to Syria just before the war.
There’s an old cliche that “A little knowledge is dangerous”, which I agree with. Thus far, I haven’t seen proof that Arianna is the least bit dangerous.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
February 7th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Here, here. Get that Democratic party a mike and some big speakers so they can tell America how wrong listening on jihadists is. It’s a great ‘wedge issue’?; more like a wedgie!
February 7th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I forgot to mention that I went by HuffnPuff today and, surprisingly, the majority of posts support free speech re:the cartoons. Maybe the left is finally beginning to have some selfdoubt about their alliance with jihadists.
February 7th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
The NSA isn’t wiretapping? Let’s see:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FJNCH80.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db
and further, from Foxnews.com:
–http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181499,00.html
So, are you saying that all of the media reports (from Fox News to The Weekly Standard) are wrong? And what about President Bush’s own statements (and since I don’t have the exact source I won’t attempt to quote) that If you’re calling al Queda, we want to know about it?
Perhaps Huffington doesn’t know the full extent of the wiretapping program; it is, after all, still a secret. Nevertheless, this whole affair smacks of illegality. Let me explain. One of the many outcomes of Watergate is that the Congress passed the FISA Act of 1978. The Act has been revised numerous times, even, I believe, 5 times since 2001. The FISA court has approved over 19,000 requests to eavesdrop, and denied only 5 applications in the nearly 30 years in its existence. The FISA Act is very clear on what is allowed — and what is not. Eavesdropping on citizens, and even people inside the US who are not citizens, is not allowed. As with the usual method of twisting and parsing the meaning of words, the President suggests that since half of the conversation is international, the FISA laws do not apply. Is the glass half-full, or half-empty? President Bush says it doesn’t matter, just dump that water out and he’ll decide for us. FISA says that is not up to the President, and for good reason. Read the Act. It’s really quite clear.
Finally, I really doubt that there is a single US citizen who would deny the President the tools to protect us. And the President has the tools. FISA grants the legal method of conducting this type of surveilance. It even allows for a 72-hour window in which permission to spy can be retroactively obtained. Why he chooses to throw them away is beyond comprehension. Why risk having the evidence ruled inadmissable? Why enfringe on ordinary, every-day citizen’s rights? Why not respect the Constitution, respect your fellow citizens, a simply comply with the law?
February 7th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Notice that the Fox article used the term EAVESDROP, not WIRETAP. The distinction is worth noting. People tape the conversations on wiretapped phones. That requires a human being monitoring the wiretap.
The types of intercepts that the NSA is doing are done by computers. The software is programmed to only monitor communications where either the caller or the one receiving the call are located in a foreign country.
Further, the software is setup to detect keywords like al Qaida or terrorist, etc.
Finally, it’s obvious that you aren’t a lawyer because ConLaw professors will tell you unequivocally that legislation doesn’t trump the President’s inherent powers granted by the Constitution. Therefore, FISA can’t restrict the President’s constitutional authority to detect and deter further attacks against the United States any more than the President can declare war by himself. That power rests solely with Congress.
Finally, the Founding Fathers saw fit to agree with you when you said “I really doubt that there is a single US citizen who would deny the President the tools to protect us.” They thought it wise to give him all the tools he needed by vesting in him the powers to protect us from ALL ENEMIES. Courts have verified that by saying that capturing enemy communications weren’t a violation of the Fourth Amendment because they were REASONABLE searches and siezures.
Therefore, since the Constitution gives the President the power to protect us from our enemies and there aren’t any other constitutional barriers that might override the President’s power to protect us, legislation such as FISA CAN’T LIMIT this eavesdropping program.
February 8th, 2006 at 10:22 am
Typical. Let’s parse the meaning of words so that we can say “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” and, while technically accurate, still be misleading. I use this example specifically becuase I think everyone reading this blog understands the difference between saying “sexual relations” and “sex”; likewise, “eavesdrop” and “wiretap”. Does it make any difference? Calls are being listened to, whether by human or machine. Your privacy is being violated (setting aside the conservative argument that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution) in contrast of the Fourth Amendment. What about probable cause? Are you saying that by simply placing a telephone call to someone outside of the US that I have done something to give the government probable cause to listen in to my conversations? Or worse yet, if in my conversations with friends and relatives overseas I mention something like “I’m afraid bin Laden and al Queda are going to strike again” that I have said something so incriminating that listening to my conversations is warranted? That’s called Big Brother.
The thrust of your arguments seems to be that We were hit on 9/11, and the President has the authority to do whatever it takes to prevent it happening again. And as I said and with which you agreed, nobody is going to say that the President doesn’t or shouldn’t have the power to protect us. But with power comes responsibility. The point is that FISA was established in order to maintain a legal, fair method of conducting this kind of surveilance. The Founding Fathers (whom, I am shocked to find that they agree with me — I thought they were all dead — and had I known, I would have attempted to obtain their agreement on a wide variety of issues) saw fit to create a system of checks and balances in order to prevent one branch of government seizing too much power. The Bush administration wants to disregard the very structure of our Constitution and grab as much power as possible, then cloak it in secrecy. They want to be accountable to no one. This is what is so troubling. And, it makes you ask, what else are they up to? Where do they draw the line?
The American people deserve an honest, open government. There is a right way to do things, and wrong way. What are we in Iraq fighting for again? Why are we spending the lives of our soldiers and billions of dollars attempting to bring to a foreign nation what we are throwing away at home: democracy?
Finally, you’re right: I’m not a lawyer. But I’m not stupid, either. Are you saying that the President has absolutely unchecked powers — just so long as he can point to 9/11 and say he’s doing (fill in the blank) to protect us? If your premise is correct, I — and an increasing number of Americans — wish that the Congress had the spine to stand up for what’s right, and reel in this President and his increasingly corrupt administration. Otherwise, God help us when the Democrats take back the White House.
February 8th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Are you saying that the President has absolutely unchecked powers  just so long as he can point to 9/11 and say he’s doing (fill in the blank) to protect us?
Just to clarify my position: No, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that the courts can be used to determine whether the action taken can be construed as fighting the war. But yes, once the courts have said that an activity is part of the President’s fighting a war, then he’s in charge of fighting the war.
What this means is simply this: The President is responsible for fighting wars. Congress can’t take away or limit the President’s ability to fight that war. Similarly, the President can’t appropriate funds for fighting that war. That’s the nature of delineation of powers.
I’m also saying that the 8 members of Congress that have been briefed on the NSA surveillance constitute a check and balance system.
June 11th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
2006 Camaro Concept/
If you’re looking for info on a 2006 Concept Camaro, we’re your answer