Bryan Cunningham who served in senior positions in the CIA and as a federal prosecutor under President Clinton, and as deputy legal adviser to the National Security Council under President George W. Bush has written this fantastic piece on National Review Online.
He says of the recent decision by Carter appointee federal court judge Diggs-Taylor which ordered the “president to halt in wartime a foreign-intelligence-collection program that has undoubtedly saved lives probably sympathizes with the journalists, and others, who are suing to stop the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in which NSA intercepts foreign-U.S. terrorist communications.” :
We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb to those would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.
He argues that the ruling conatains “process fouls.”
Worse, the judge clearly failed to do enough homework to understand the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act itself, much less the Fourth Amendment. She gets basic provisions of the statute itself wrong, e.g., apparently believing that a provision explicitly dealing with foreign agent/non-U.S. persons communications constitutes an â??exceptionâ? to FISAâ??s warrant requirements. She also seems to make the elementary and fatal mistake made by many commentators, that the government can, under FISA, listen in on conversations for 72 hours without meeting FISAâ??s substantive and procedural tests. This is simply false. NSA cannot lawfully, under FISA, listen to a single syllable of a covered communication until it can prove to the Attorney General (usually in writing) that it can jump through each and every one of FISAâ??s procedural and substantive hoops. These basic errors could have been corrected had the court bothered to gather any evidence or hold substantive hearings.
Cunningham also demonstrates other egregious errors in the judge’s decision including ignoring contrary authority, appeals Court Cherry picking, selective reading “redux”, and trivializing the 1st and 4th Amendments.
This ruling is a perfect illustration of judicial activism- substituting personal preferences for a strict interpretation of the law. And it shows why elections matter (she was a Carter appointee) and why liberals despise Bush so much (among other reasons of course, but judicial reform was a top priority of the Bush admin- replacing judicial activists with strict constructionists and originalists in the mold of Scalia and Thomas).
Cunningham concludes:
Whatever Judge Taylorâ??s motives, it is critical to understand the impact of her decision, were it allowed to stand. Among many damaging results, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, publicly credited not 72 hours ago with helping to prevent the â??9/11 Part 2â? British airline bombings, will be shut down and our enemies will know it. Worse, neither politically accountable branch of government (even working together) would be able to modify FISA in a way that did not require prior judicial warrants based on probable cause and particularity as to the person targeted. In other words, there would be no lawful way, short of amending the Constitution, to ever collect catastrophic-terrorist-attack warning information unless we knew in advance it was coming, and the identities of the precise individuals who were going to communicate it.
As Judge Taylorâ??s new favorite justice, Robert Jackson himself, warned, the courts should not â??convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.â? I will put my daughters to bed tonight confident that the Court of Appeals and our Supreme Court will not allow Judge Taylorâ??s giant step in that direction to stand.
Yet another perfect illustration of why liberals cannot be trusted with national security. they appoint judges like Diggs-Taylor.
Some have claimed that Hezollah and Israel are both guilty for killing “innocent civilians” and “comitting war crimes.” No, that is inaacuarte. As I explained to one of our readers:
Israel did not commit one war crime as some claim it did in Qana. As I stated previously it is clear that Hezbollah, by contrast, along with Iran and Syria have. In Qana, Israel fired toward a building to stop Hezbollah from shooting rockets into its cities. The aircrafts did not intentionally target civilians, but Hezbollah rockets were intentionally targeted at civilians- a clear war crime under Geneva Convention Protocol 1, under the International Crimminal court Statute, and customary international law. It was Hezbollah, not Israel, who is directly responsible for the innocent Lebanese who died because Hezbollah intentionally embedded themselves among civilian populations using civilians, in essence, as human shields- a clear war crime. Furthermrore, Israel warned civilians to leave Qana and Israeli’s official investigation concluded that they attacked based on info that there were no civillians inside. The law of war recognizes that mistakes are inevitable and does not crimminalize soldiers who seek in good faith seek to avoid them- which Israel did. I challenge anybody to cite one country who warns civilains prior to using military force? Has Hezbollah? No, in fact they intentionally target innocent men, women, and children.
Israel has every right to defend herself against Hezbollah when the leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah said “our motto is Death to Israel.” and has called for its total annhilation. Israel’s defense of its own coutry from terrorist attacks of 10,000 katayushas being fried indiscriminately among cilvilian populations and seeking to enforce UN security Res 1559 to disarm Hezbollah was perfectly within Israel’s right of self-defense.
Proportional, appropriate, and legal under international law. International law favors Israel.
Now, let’s list all of the War Crimes committed by Hezbollah and Iran.
Violation #1. Hezbollah’s and Iran’s persistent calls for the destruction of Israel violates the international genocidal treaty’s “prohibition of direct and public incitement to commit genocide.”
Violation #2. Iran who directly finances Hezbollah, is developing a nuclear arsenal to obliterate Israel, violates the Nuclear nonproliferation Treaty.
Violation #3. Iranian and Syrain support for Hezbollah vilates UN security res 1373 which requires staes to “refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities and persons involved in terrorist acts.”
Violation #4. Hezbollah began the armed conflict with rocket attacks on Israeli small towns and the abduction of Israili soldiers which is an unprovoked act of war violating an internatinally recognized border.
Those are war crimes committed by Hezbollah and their allies/sponsors (Iran and Syria). Israel, by contrast, committed NO War Crimes.
For the record.
Excellent editorial in the WSJ today on Airport screening.
Many have said that using race and ethnicity in airport screening is somehow “discriminatory” and “racist.” These same “civil libertarians” claim that we must screen randomly so that we don’t offend any particular ethnic group even though every airline terrorist attack for the past 30 years have all been committed by Muslim males between 17-40 years old.
Nobody is suggesting using ethnicity or religion as the only — or even the primary — factors in profiling possible terrorists. But it also makes no sense to take zero account of the fact that every suicide attack against U.S. aviation to date has been perpetrated by men of Muslim origin. While al Qaeda is no doubt seeking recruits who don’t obviously display such characteristics, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the likeliest candidates.
Transportation Security Administration chief Kip Hawley has said “behavior will give you away regardless of what you look like.” as purported justification for opposing using race and ethnicity in ariport passenger screening.
The law on this is settled, and in the other direction. On multiple occasions the federal courts have upheld programs that treat groups differently when a “compelling” public interest can be identified: affirmative action, minority set-asides, composition of Congressional districts, and the all-male draft have all met that legal test. Yet the same people who would allocate jobs, federal contracts and college admissions by race or ethnicity object to using them merely as one factor in deciding whom to inconvenience for a few minutes at an airline checkpoint. Surely aviation security is a far more compelling public interest than the allocation of federal set-asides.
The irrepressible debbie schlussel reveals who is behind the most recent ACLU law suit and why they are lying.
As we have discussed with Janet Levy of Jihadwatch and other subject matter experts, domestic Islamic terrorism poses a significant threat to our country. The sooner we realize the nature of the domestic Jidhadists the better.
You’ve heard a lot about the ACLU lawsuit since its filing yesterday.
But you haven’t heard much about its less famous plaintiffs, plaintiffs with whom I’m all too familiar and about whom I’ve written a great deal. The details on these individuals makes the National Security Agency’s monitoring of phone calls not just warranted, but a necessity.
I’m referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday’s Complaint, attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Nazih Hassan–all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind of people whom the federal government SHOULD be watching, but probably isn’t. One of these men admitted to funding Hezbollah, one was accused of tampering with a witness, and a third signed a document contradicting statements he made in the lawsuit. Not to mention, one of these men engaged in exactly the same “spying” (on me) that he now opposes when done by the NSA.
Read entire post here.
Pundit Review’s good friend Bill Lalor proprieor of Citizen Journal Blog has this fantastic peice published in the American Thinker on the Bolton Confirmation Hearing.
He explains clearly how Karl Rove could not have hoped for a better gift than the anticipated opposition to Bolton’s nomination. It’s stuff like this that gives me hope that in spite of a dispirited conservative base that the Republicans will hold on to their Congressional majorities. Liberals just don’t get the average Americans who they claim to represent.
Senator Christopher Dodd, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, took the lead and promised a â??bruising fightâ? in the event President Bush has the temerity to re-nominate Bolton. â??The problems still persist,â? Dodd explained, vaguely. Senator Doddâ??s comments were significant on two levels. First, in terms of crass political calculus, it seems clear that as we head into Novemberâ??s elections, Boltonâ??s re-nomination is perceived by Democrats as an opportunity to castigate the President (whatever might be â??good for the countryâ? places a distant second). Once again, Demsâ?? myopic zeal to destroy President Bush blinds them to an inconvenient truth: most Americans appreciate Boltonâ??s principled, unambiguous approach to diplomacy. In the end, Republicans stand to gain from each time Senator Doddâ??s internationalist sentiment is repeated. More significant, though, is a point that may have been unintentional.
Read entire article here.
No surprises here. At this point it should be patently clear to any rational person that Accross the Borad Tax Cuts on personal and business income, dividends, and capital gains INCREASE tax revenues to the treasury-the exact opposite that liberals who predicted expanding deficits “as far as the eye can see” and the “wrost economy since Herbert Hoover.” Revenues increased to the treasury every time taxes have been cut accross the board in the 20s (Harding/Coolige), 60s(JFK),80s(Reagan), 1997(GOP Cap Gains Cuts signed nto law by Clinton), and the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.
The Congressional Budget Office has lowered its estimated of the size of the US federal deficit for the fiscal year 2006 largely as a result of higher-than-expected tax revenues.
The CBO, a non-partisan arm of the US Congress, now projects a deficit of $260 billion for fiscal year 2006, about $111 billion less than it estimated in March for the Presidentâ??s budget. At 2.0% of gross domestic product, the 2006 deficit would be smaller than the deficits recorded in the past three years â?? 3.5% in 2003, 3.6% in 2004, and 2.6% in 2005.
So far this fiscal year, the federal government has run a deficit of about $239 billion, CBO estimates, $64 billion less than in the first 10 months of last year.
The Treasury recorded a surplus of $20 billion in June. That sum is about $1 billion more than CBO had estimated on the basis of the Daily Treasury Statements, largely because spending in June was slightly lower than expected.
Tax Revenues Continue To Shrink the US Federal Deficit. Now is the time for Congress and the President to come together and make the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts that have been overwhelmingly successful permanent to ensure long term sustained economic growth.
I agree with Senator Frist’s assessment:
â??The CBO deficit estimate just released highlights the efforts that have been taken to significantly reduce this yearâ??s deficit. Strong revenue growth and spending restraint played a vital role in the reduction of the deficit to $260 billion,” he said in a statement.
“This new estimate, which is nearly $80 billion below the agencyâ??s estimate last winter, highlights the combined benefits of a strong, resilient economy working in tandem with Republican policies to restrain both taxes and spending,” he added.
Great News!
.
On the 2004 campaign trail, that’s all we heard from John “his hair was perfect” Edwards. The Bush Tax Cuts have created “two Americas” (one rich and one poor) Kerry and Edwards told us. While we know that contention was pure demagoguery intended to divide America across race and class, Edwards may have been on to something.
New data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis confirm that the average federal civilian worker earns $106,579 a year in total compensation, or twice the $53,289 in wages and benefits for the typical private worker. This federal pay premium costs taxpayers big bucks because Uncle Sam’s annual payroll is now $200 billion a year. No wonder that, with a per capita income of $46,782 a year, Washington, D.C. is the fourth richest among the nation’s 360 metropolitan areas.
And this pay disparity keeps widening. The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards tracks government compensation, and he finds that in 1950 the average federal bureaucrat received $1.19 for every dollar that a private employee earned. By 1990 that ratio had risen to $1.51 and is now $2. In 2005 federal wages rose 5.8% compared to 3.3% in the private sector.
And not only are there “two Americas” (one for private citizens and one for career bureacrats like the Clintons) but the government workers not only make more but they have better job security. No wonder the NEA opposes any market based reforms in education.
It’s true that many federal employees are in white collar occupations that often command high pay, but studies find that public sector workers enjoy a 20-30% pay bonus above comparably skilled private workers. And this differential does not account for one of the biggest benefits of a government job: civil service rules giving virtual lifetime job security. Airline mechanics, auto workers and software designers must all worry about business-cycle downturns or changes in technology or outsourcing, but Uncle Sam’s 1.8 million civilian employees live in a recession-proof bubble.
Remember, one thing about liberals is that they always accuse their opponents (conservative Republicans) of being what they themselves are. I think the term for this is “projection.” Karl Marx would be proud.