In support of extraordinary measures

Updates below.

Arlen Specter will chair Senate hearings this week on the NSA super snoop program. To get us in the mood the WaPo provided a front page spread today chock full of nuts and bolts. Based on contacts with those ever-present anonymous sources, the story seems to suggest that only a few Americans have been flagged for suspicion of talkin' with al Qaeda.

The inference was pretty clear that NSA is using a dragnet rather than a targeted approach, since out of the thousands of calls flagged, only a handful have been cherry picked for further FISA-based scrutiny. The story seems to leave the impression the program might be overdone at best and a failure at worse.

Need we remind how many legal visitors it took to bring down two of the world's tallest buildings? An even smaller squad could easily dispense powder or gas somewhere. Catching just one might be a success in the eyes of those spared an attack.

There's just something unsettling about an article like this. Assuming it wasn't a clever misdirection, it seemed to merrily hop along through the secret details as if discussing social security reform. In past wars Americans have seemingly understood the need for a degree of stealth regards our tactics, but stories like this point out the present disconnect. It's pretty simple to understand-- approximately a third of the country thinks the real enemy resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

What a perfect time for smash mouth reality, and I don't mean football. The big story today was the jail break of over 20 AQ terrorists from a Yemeni prison, including the mastermind of the U.S.S. Cole attack. I'm also wondering if any of these Iraqi sympathizers, convicted of hijacking several airliners prior to 9/11, were also included in the break.

Instances like these make President Dummy's decision to take extradinary measures after 9/11 look pretty darn smart. Had these people been housed at Gitmo or one of the CIA secret prisons, they'd still be locked up. True, their U.S. taxpayer funded lawyers would be preparing legal briefs asking for their release, but at least we'd know their whereabouts. And 'whereabouts' is what the NSA program is all about.

The article does shine some light on why nobody wanted to talk about Able Danger--the NSA program appears to be AD on steroids. But don't forget, as it was trampling their rights AD identified Atta and a couple of others before the fact.

UPDATE 2/6/06

More details have emerged from the AQ jailbreak in Yemen. Interpol seems fairly sure there was some outside help in the effort. And howza bout this:

Yemeni security sources said the militants were among a group of 23 inmates who escaped through a 140 meters (460 feet) long tunnel that appears to have been dug from a nearby mosque.
The entrance of the tunnel was in the less frequented women's section of the mosque and the inmates probably fled on Thursday night, the sources added.

Wonder if we’ll see protests in the Muslim street over digging a tunnel from inside a Mosque?

Surely this kind of example highlights the disfunctionality of the state of Islam much better than any cartoon or opinion piece.

HEARINGS 2/6

Alberto Gonzales was in the frying pan today, trying to respond to hostilities from both sides of the aisle. I think is important to keep pounding on the following point:

Gonzales repeatedly defended the current program as lawful, reasonable and essential to national security. He said the president's authority was strongest in a time of war,

Too many people have simply placed 9/11 well out of the memory and are reacting to the NSA program as if enacted in peacetime. So now that we've established there was a threat when enacted, I tend to agree with the lawyers over at Powerline that the term "reasonable" in the 4th Amendment is what allows these 'searches', coupled with the inherent power of a Commander-in-Chief dealing with an exigent situation. The same applies to airport security.

But what about Bush's Buffalo comments, where he said "we always get a warrant". Liar? Hopefully! Although it actually appears he was referring to domestic communications, let's say he lied. Do we really want a president that babbles our counter terror measures on national TV? Now that would be dumb. The point is to confuse the enemy, who continue to show their hind quarters every chance they get.

ht LGF

MEDIA BIAS? 2/6

Bias sometimes manifests itself in what's not said. I think this occurred in mild form today. My challenge is with how the initial altercation over whether to place Mr. Gonzales under oath was covered (or not). We'll begin proving the case using the "frying pan" link above:

Democrats repeatedly questioned the truthfulness of Gonzales and Bush, citing statements they'd made about wiretapping before the program became public. In one dustup, Democrats sought - and failed - to have Gonzales sworn in

That makes it sound like he fibbering out lie after lie and the valiant democrats tried to stop proceedings and have him sworn in. The New York Times wasn't as ridiculous, but was hardly much better:

When Mr. Feingold pushed to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in, Mr. Specter called for a vote. The committee voted, 10 to 8, along party lines not to have Mr. Gonzales sworn in. Mr. Feingold was clearly angry when his turn came to question Mr. Gonzales. "You wanted this committee and the American people to think that this kind of program wasn't going on," he said. "But it was."

What's left out? Mr. Gonzales' feelings on this matter. So, what did he say?

GONZALES: Good morning, Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy and members of the committee. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you.

And let me just add for the record, when Chairman Specter asked me whether I would be willing to go under oath, I did say I would have no objections.

GONZALES: I also said that my answers would be the same, whether or not I was under oath or not.

Hardly sounds like a man trying to shield himself from perjury. The left might argue this was a pre-arranged stunt, but even if true a reporter wouldn't know (otherwise they'd have reported it). By omitting his opening statement the stories sink to become one-sided. The prosecution rests.

ATTN ALL BLOGGERS..

This is great.