A defeat for defeating threats

The ACLU must have been popping some corks Thursday. Their friendly federal judge up in Deetroit-City struck down the administration's terrorist surveillance program as unconstitutional. One of their spokesmen, probably already drunk on champagne, said,

"another nail in the coffin" of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategies. "The judge very clearly points out that this, at its core, is about presidential powers," he said.

Here's how da Judge put it

There are no hereditary Kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution

Aside from the fact that kind of verbiage sounds like liberal code-talk for saying "Bushitler" it further illustrates that, despite all we've witnessed to date, many still believe the main threat comes from within.

Along with a WaPo story, the newspaper that originated the leak chimed in with a rather well-balanced story, in stark comparison to several wire services who chose to hack off quotes from national security law experts used by the big boys, one of whom had commented on the ruling thusly:

"Regardless of what your position is on the merits of the issue, there's no question that it's a poorly reasoned decision," said Bobby Chesney, a national security law specialist at Wake Forest University who takes a moderate stance on the legal debate over the NSA program.

Al-Reuters even quoted a member of CAIR who called it a great victory for Muslim-Americans, yet failed to mention the above professors.

Of course, the usual dem suspects crooned in with their usual nonsense, hardly worth wasting much time on other than to say the same hypocritical goofs now applauding the judge's strict contructionist interpretation have argued in the past that it should be interpreted as a 'living document' when it comes to gun control.

As for me I've never been overly crazy about this program, mainly because it sets precedent that could come back to bite us with future democrat presidents. However, at the same time I believe there were practical reasons for implementing it, rooted in some of the threats present that are better left unsaid.

So unless you're a complete conspiracist nutbag or a liberal it's fairly evident we remain vulnerable. Contrary to popular belief defeating threats is still the primary job of a president, not having sex on the Presidential Seal. When threats emerge there must be latitude given based on the nature of the threat and confined as much as possible within the boundaries of constitution based on Justice Department legal opinion under a tight circle of Congressional oversight. In a world of Muslim terrorists not afraid to die and perhaps armed with WMDs, the constitution cannot be allowed to become a suicide pact.

Tying a president's hands or forcing him to let national security cats out of the bag or giving terrorists their own bill of rights will not allow him to do the job. Not every threat is suitable for public debate on Hardball. The electorate maintains a method for removing a president whom they feel might be abusing his office, and it's called impeachment. There will be a de facto vote on that come November.

AND... 8/18/06

Writer M.K. Bhadrakumar, an Indian, is warning us that everything might not be as it seems in this whole war on terror thing. His piece, titled "Be skeptical ... be very skeptical", suggests the Bush/Blair cabal are simply using international terrorism to keep their voters in such a state of fear that removing them would be unthinkably dangerous.

This is a viable premise on its face, since we know such a concept would be tempting to many politicians. But the facts don't back it up.

If our Anglo-American cabal were simply using terrorism events for their own benefit that would seem to require a belief in the 9/11 conspiracy, which itself is absurd. Secondly, if recent news items such as Bojinka-two plot or the crazy peacenik on the plane are just examples of spoon-fed pablum to keep the masses in fear, that would seem to require a belief that the events themselves were being created by the politicians, not simply a reaction thereto. That's also irrational.

Of course it's likely some politicization is being accomplished as these events unfold--politicians will be politicians--but that doesn't mean the dangers do not exist. But to think the chain of terror events spanning three presidents were merely CIA or MI6 black ops is a tad unhinged. It's healthy to be skeptical, I am, but why stop there? Both the sensationalistic 24/7 cable media along with established writers or journalists who would think nothing of using doctored photos or pure spin from terrorists should be heartily scrutinized.

BUSH REACTS 8/18/06

And he wasn't happy.

His stubborn contentiousness would seem to suggest two main possibilities. One, that he is indeed Bushitler and started the program to circumvent the constitution and set us on a course to the fourth Reich. Or two, something became known to the president that required immediate action and the FISA courts weren't sufficient, whether it be speed or maintaining security. It's really a nasty set of what-ifs, all else being considered.

But to lighten the mood all you need do is study the democrat response:

Democrats questioned whether the program has been effective, saying the administration has shown no evidence that terrorist plots have been disrupted by its use.

Maybe Reid can list off all the attacks the program hasn't stopped. "Tough and smart". That's the new democrat buzz phrase for the fall. Keep hope alive, guys.

MORE 8/19/06

According to a law expert quoted in the NY Times Judge Taylor's decision is now almost universally rejected. They also quote a former Justice Department official (who believes the program is illegal) as saying the judge's decision was, "made for headlines".

Perhaps the ACLU and friends should have arranged this so a former Reagan-appointed judge would have ruled on it. That would have stopped the current impression that this verdict was nothing more than political revenge from a pack of liberal kangeroos.