The National Review has an article that points out the nonsense Democrats have been saying in defense of their blocking of the terrorist wiretapping legislation, a bipartisan national security bill. By: Andrew McCarthy Senators Jay Rockefeller and Patrick Leahy joined Representatives Silvestre Reyes and John Conyers in penning a fatuous op-ed in the Washington Post Monday. The four are chairs of the intelligence and judiciary committees of, respectively, the Senate and House. They claim that the White House is engaged in fear-mongering when it decries the failure of House Democrats to enact a reform measure that would have preserved essential intelligence-collection authority — a bill that passed in the Democrat-controlled Senate by an overwhelming two-to-one margin and would similarly sail through the House if Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow it to come to the floor. … But not all new players. If new groups emerge, the previously issued PAA directives will not permit surveillance of them and their operatives. … Well, it may be perfectly fine with them, but it will not be perfectly fine with most Americans. The FISA court may not authorize surveillance unless the government shows probable cause — a courtroom proof standard — that its target is a foreign agent. Indeed, the government must not only prove probable cause; it must also demonstrate that high-level executive branch officials have been consulted and have assented to the need for eavesdropping, and that there are not less intrusive alternatives for obtaining the desired information (we would not, after all, want to tread unnecessarily on the privacy rights of, say, an Egyptian jihadist in Baghdad). Not to worry, the top Democrat lawmakers tell us. The FISA court “has approved nearly 23,000 warrant applications and rejected only five” since its creation in 1978. If that isn’t sleight of hand, I don’t know what is. To read the entire article click here.
The op-ed marks a dramatic shift for Rockefeller. The West Virginia Democrat championed the Senate bill, which was voted out of his committee by a 13-2 landslide. As recently as February 14, he was quite candid in acknowledging that the consequence of allowing the Protect America Act (PAA) to lapse, as it did a little over a week ago when House Democrats refused to act, would be “degraded” intelligence-collection capacity.
Now, however, with his fellow Democrats getting hammered as unserious about protecting American lives, it’s evidently time to close ranks. Rockefeller has suddenly joined the “Everything Is Beautiful” chorus that claims the sun’s setting on the PAA is really no big deal since any security gaps can still be filled by FISA — the ill-conceived, obsolete Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
And new groups are emerging all the time — highly capable new groups. Recent intelligence estimates indicate that just in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region, nearly a quarter million men have received some measure of paramilitary training in jihadist camps. Does anyone really think we have a handle on more than a bare fraction of these potential threats?
First, as noted above, the FISA court only gets applications when we already have “probable cause.” Until 2007, however, when the selfsame FISA court suddenly rewrote 30 years of law and practice, probable-cause was never our standard for collecting intelligence overseas. That’s because having “probable cause” means you already know someone is a danger. What we try to do overseas — or, at least, what we used to try to do overseas before the FISA court assumed the law-writing and intelligence-management jobs of the other branches — is figure out who may be a danger. Especially when our current intelligence gap involves previously unknown terrorist groups, it is absurd to hamstring surveillance coverage with a probable-cause burden — if we had probable cause, the threat wouldn’t be unknown.
Second, it should come as no surprise that there is a very high rate of approved FISA applications. Intelligence-gathering is an executive function, not a judicial function. Under the Constitution, the executive branch only needs reasonable suspicion to conduct national security surveillance inside the U.S., and does not need any justification for conducting such surveillance outside the United States. Thus, there should never be a time when the FISA court denies an application if the executive branch appears to have probable cause.
Third, while the FISA court routinely authorizes applications for surveillance, it has — particularly since 2002 — taken to “modifying” many executive branch requests. The applications and orders are classified, so we do not know what limitations on surveillance these modifications may entail.
Fourth, it is worth mentioning 2002 because that was the year the FISA Court of Review — in its only ever known ruling — had to step in and reverse the FISA court. Why? Because that tribunal attempted by judicial fiat to rebuild the infamous “wall” which prevented intelligence agents from communicating with criminal investigators and prosecutors pursuing terrorism cases. That wall was the culprit in the last lost opportunities the FBI had to uncover the 9/11 plot.
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2008.
The Washington Post carries Robert Novak’s column making the case that Nancy Pelosi and some House Democrats put trial lawyer’s campaign contributions before the safety of our country. House Democrats have so far refused to allow a vote on the critical terrorist wiretapping legislation that passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Why Torts Trumped Terrorism
By Robert D. Novak
February 18, 2008
A closed-door caucus of House Democrats last Wednesday took a risky political course. By 4 to 1, they instructed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to call President Bush’s bluff on extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to continue eavesdropping on suspected foreign terrorists. Rather than passing the bill with a minority of the House’s Democratic majority, Pelosi obeyed her caucus and left town for a week-long recess without renewing the government’s eroding intelligence capability.
Pelosi could have exercised leadership prerogatives and called up the FISA bill to pass with unanimous Republican support. Instead, she refused to bring to the floor a bill approved overwhelmingly by the Senate. House Democratic opposition included left-wing members typified by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but they were only a small faction of those opposed. The true reason for blocking the bill was Senate-passed retroactive immunity to protect from lawsuits private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation’s torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.
…
Big money is involved. Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiffs’ lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.
The bill passed the Senate 68 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting aye. They included intelligence committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller and three senators who defeated Republican incumbents in the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress: Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Jim Webb of Virginia and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.
That opened the door for Pelosi to pass the bill with minority Democratic support. A Jan. 28 letter to the speaker signed by 21 House Blue Dogs (moderate Democrats) urged passage of Rockefeller’s bill containing immunity. Democrats supporting it could exceed 40 in a House vote, easily enough for passage.
Instead, the Democratic leadership Wednesday brought up another bill simply extending FISA authority, this time for 21 days. Republicans refused to go along because it did not provide phone companies with the necessary immunity. It still could have passed with support from Democrats alone, and the leadership surely thought that would happen when it was brought to the floor Wednesday. But it failed, 229 to 191, with 34 Democrats voting no despite pleas for support from their leaders. The opponents included three congressmen who signed the letter to Pelosi advocating immunity from lawsuits, but most were Kucinich Democrats who intuitively oppose any anti-terrorist proposal.
…
Nothing will be done until the House formally returns Feb. 25, and the adjournment resolution was constructed so that Bush cannot summon Congress back into session. Last Friday morning, debating two backbench Republicans on a nearly deserted House floor, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said there was no danger in letting the FISA legislation lapse temporarily. Democrats hope that will be the reaction of voters, as Republicans attack what happened last week.
To read the entire column click here.
Human Events has a piece that describes the necessity for the terrorist wiretapping law. Allowing this critical national security law to expire has placed America in a dangerous situation. This situation was created by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s failure to act on bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate 68-29.
Pelosi’s Reckless Gamble on FISA
By: Jed Babbin
With great fanfare, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced her agenda for her first 100 hours last January. One of the seven things she promised to do was to enact all the remaining recommendations of the 9-11 Commission. One year later, with few of those items accomplished, Pelosi is gambling recklessly that terrorists will miss the opportunities given them by the House’s failure to pass essential fixes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
When the 9-11 Commission’s report came out in July 2004, its most scathing criticism of the intelligence community was for failing to “connect the dots:” to cooperate in gathering, analyzing and using the information we have on terrorists’ intentions and capabilities. The “connect the dots” mantra was the basis for legislative reorganizations of the intelligence community, including the creation of the new Director of National Intelligence to coordinate all the agencies and the role of the new Department of Homeland Security in analyzing intelligence on terrorist threats.
But before you “connect the dots” you have to gather them. The National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program, created in secret by presidential order, was enormously successful in intercepting cell phone calls, e-mails and other electronic communications between terrorists and their sympathizers. It resulted in the gathering of huge amounts of data and the interdiction of a number of terrorist attacks. It has also helped battlefield operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because the separation of national intelligence gathering assets and armed forces operations has – wisely — been almost completely eliminated.
…
Nancy Pelosi and the most of the House Democrats are erasing the dots, not helping intelligence analysts to connect them. Last week Pelosi blocked a vote by which the House would have passed the bipartisan Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reforms legislation essential to fixing the problem created by the FISA court and keeping the National Security Agency’s terrorist surveillance program going. Pelosi did that despite a letter she received from most of the “Blue Dog” Democrats telling her they’d vote for the Senate bill. Added to Republican numbers, the Blue Dogs’ votes would have enabled Pelosi to pass the bill on a simple majority vote.
Instead, she killed the effort, the House recessed and the August patchwork FISA legislation expired on Saturday.
…
The House’s failure comes at a critical time. Imad Mugniyeh, one of the world’s most-wanted terrorists, was killed in Syria last week. His terrorist network, Iranian-backed Hizballah, has threatened revenge against the US and Israel, but NSA is left nearly blind to new intelligence targets. Pakistan – after the Bhutto assassination — is holding an election this week that al-Queda and the Taliban want to disrupt. And they may, without NSA interference.
To read the entire story click here.
An editorial from The Wall Street Journal outlines the danger our country faces by not reauthorizing the terrorist wiretapping law and discusses the political games Speaker Nancy Pelosi played in blocking this critical national security legislation. For the next 9/11 Commission, we nominate the first witness: Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He’s the man now telling everyone … there’s nothing to worry about, after his fellow Democrats last week scuttled a bipartisan compromise on warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda. … Nearly every other professional says that Friday night’s expiration of the wiretap law will do significant security harm. [D]irector of National Intelligence Michael McConnell on Fox News Sunday: “If something new comes along, we have to have a directive for a new private sector company — now that’s in question. So [the expiration of the law] introduces a level of uncertainty that is going to be very difficult for us.” … We asked one phone company executive what he’d do, after Friday’s expiration, in response to a government request for cooperation. His answer was blunt: “I’m not doing it. If I don’t have compulsion, I can’t get out of court [and those lawsuits] … I’m not going to do something voluntarily.” Having talked to telecom executives, we can tell you this view is well-nigh universal. Mr. Reyes claims that existing wiretap orders can stay in place for a year. But that doesn’t account for new targets … A telecom CEO who cooperates without a court order is all but guaranteed to get not merely a wiretap lawsuit, but also a shareholder suit … Our guess is that Mr. Reyes knows all of this, but is trying to provide cover for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who decided last week to block the bipartisan bill that had already passed the Senate 68-29. The bill also has majority backing in the House, with 21 Democrats having publicly pledged support and another 20 or so privately on board. Ms. Pelosi tried to dodge the issue by passing another short-term extension of wiretap authority, but opposition was so strong that the GOP defeated her on the House floor. What we have here is a remarkable display of the anti-antiterror minority at work. Democrats could vote directly to restrict wiretapping by the executive branch, but they lack the votes. So instead they’re trying to do it through the backdoor by unleashing the trial bar to punish the telephone companies. To read the entire editorial click here.
Yesterday, House Democrats put our nation at risk by allowing a vital terrorist tracking program to expire. The Protect America Act allows the United States to collect information from foreign terrorists.
This week the Senate passed a bipartisan bill to modernize this effort while House Democrats allowed partisan bickering to place our nation at risk. The House Democrats have set no date upon which they will take up this vital legislation despite a plea from House Republicans to stay during the weekend to pass this national security measure.
The following video was released by the RNC. It highlights Congressional Democrats’ failure to permanently update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Congressional Democrats are set to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. This would equate to a $2 trillion dollar tax increase. It is important to recognize who these policies affect. Working class families (10% bracket returning to 15%). Earned Income Tax Credit. Tuition credits. Marriage penalty. Death tax.
“Bush Budget Sets Stage For Battle on Tax Cuts”
“…[L]awmakers will have to confront at least one element of the package: the president’s plan to make his big tax cuts permanent.
“…[I]t will be tempting for Congress to allow the tax cuts to expire as scheduled in 2010. But by doing so, lawmakers would be, in effect, approving a $2 trillion tax increase at a time when polls suggest a weakening economy is making tax cuts more appealing to some voters.”
(The Wall Street Journal, 2/5/08)
Rep. John Spratt (D-SC), House Budget Committee Chairman, on making pro-growth tax relief permanent: “It will be something that the next Congress will have to deal with.” (USA Today, 2/5/08)
CQ: “Even as they drew battle lines over President Bush’s $3.1 trillion budget proposal Monday, Democrats were considering ways to avoid a major spending fight altogether. Some are already saying that if Bush takes the same tough budget stance in the coming months as he did last year, they can wait him out until a new president is elected.” (CQ Today, 2/5/08)
Kentucky’s Mike Duncan continues to do an excellent job as Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
WASHINGTON – Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan announced today that the RNC’s report to the Federal Election Commission showed nearly $9 million raised in December 2007, once again out-fundraising the Democrat National Committee.
…
Currently the RNC has over $17 million in cash on hand with no debt, while the DNC has nearly $3 million cash on hand with over $2 million in debt. With the nearly $9 million raised during the last filing period, the RNC raised more than $83 million in 2007 thanks to the support of more than 800,000 donors.
“We are confident that our message of lower taxes and limited government, strong national security, and individual responsibility will continue to resonate with voters nationwide,” Duncan continued. “These resources will be critical in ensuring that the Republican Party maintains control of the White House and elects strong Republican candidates to Congress this fall.”
To read the entire press release click here.
The Democrat Majority in Congress, which has reached historic lows in job approval, has seen its liberal agenda rejected by the American people. The Los Angeles Times outlines the scaled back Democrat agenda for 2008.
Congressional Democrats scale back ambitions
…[C]ongressional Democrats are eyeing their second year in the majority with much- diminished expectations.
Gone are the grandiose promises of legislation to bring the troops home from Iraq, which dominated the Democratic agenda last year and nearly ground business on Capitol Hill to a halt.
…
We have the presidential election. We have a number of very important House and Senate races,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said last week. “Our time is really squeezed.”
You can read the entire Los Angeles Times article by click here.
