What Are the Iranians Up To?
January 9th, 2008 at 09:11am Mark Noonan
In all the hullabaloo over the primaries, this story might have got missed by some:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The U.S. military has video and audio recordings of Iranian boats that threatened to blow up U.S. Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and plans to release them, the top Navy commander in the Mideast said Tuesday. President Bush described the confrontation as a “provocative act.”
Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff disputed Iranian claims that the incident early Sunday was a routine encounter, saying Iran’s “provocative” actions were “deadly serious” to the U.S. military.
“It was a dangerous situation,” Bush told reporters at the White House. “They should not have done it, pure and simple. I don’t know what their thinking was, but I’m telling you what my thinking was. I think it was a provocative act.”
The confrontation was an unusual flare-up of U.S.-Iranian tensions in the Persian Gulf as Bush begins his first visit to the Mideast. In the tour, Bush is to visit Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab allies, in part to coordinate in confronting Iran.
Many Arab countries fear the Iranian-American rivalry could erupt into a military confrontation that would put them in the crossfire and hurt vital Gulf oil traffic.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said that its high-speed boats never threatened the U.S. vessels during the encounter, insisting it only asked them to identify themselves, then let them continue into the Gulf. A Guards commander defended his force’s right to identify ships in the sensitive waterway.
Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. 5th Fleet, which patrols the Gulf and is based in nearby Bahrain, said the American vessels had already been identified by Iranian authorities earlier in the day before the confrontation occurred.
With the Cole incident at the back of all naval minds, such an event is highly disturbing. What seems like a mere harassing exercise could swiftly lead to one or more of these motorboats making a suicide run towards a US ship. One thing to keep in mind - US naval warships are designed to fight other naval warships, not motorboats. Our ships have limited capability of thwarting a close-in attack from a small, fast moving target. Some people have expressed dismay over the lack of violent reaction on the part of the Navy during the incident, but my bet is that our ships are ready for a missile attack, an aerial attack, a submarine attack…for all manner of attack, but for some reason no one has considered what to do when a motor boat comes at you in open, though restricted (the Straight is narrow, and has a lot of navigation hazards), waters.
Prudence would seem to dictate that we adopt a policy of firing on any identified Iranian surface craft which approaches within a set distance of a US ship - in other words, we figure out how far out we need a small, fast target to be in order to ensure its destruction, and then don’t let any such craft to come closer than that. On the other hand, the Iranian government might not be unified in its determination to challenge the United States - could be that part of the Iranian leadership realises that full scale war with the US is national suicide, and so they work to keep the aggressive elements of the Iranian government in check…but a shooting incident which the hard-core anti-Americans could exploit? That might tip the balance and convince even semi-moderate Iranians that they must fight. So, we have to tread with care here - and I’m glad that this is precisely what President Bush is doing. War there might be with Iran, but it should only start at a time and place of our choosing.
The larger picture must be kept in mind - and central to that larger picture is the huge strides of success being made in Iraq at the moment. Iraq is the central front in the War on Terrorism, and we must allow nothing to divert us from completing that mission - any threat to that mission must be dealt with severely, but before we go tangling with the Iranians, lets be sure we have all our forces ready for all contingencies. Don’t let the Iranians provoke us into a hasty strike.
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
147 Comments
1. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 9:30 am
The Iranians are already accusing us of fabricating the video.
Here’s my favorite Retired Army Spook, Ralph Peters’ take on the incident. I don’t disagree with him.
but my bet is that our ships are ready for a missile attack, an aerial attack, a submarine attack…for all manner of attack, but for some reason no one has considered what to do when a motor boat comes at you in open, though restricted (the Straight is narrow, and has a lot of navigation hazards), waters.
Although not specifically designed for such an application, I’m betting this would work just fine.
2. js | January 9th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Our Navy has been outfitted to deal with these kinds of attacks Mark. They have these huge gattling guns that will shred these littel speed boats to splinters in a matter of seconds. Normally, they are used for anti-ship missles, and controlled by radar and computers. Im not sure if these same systems are used or if they have to manually fire on slower moving speedboats (much slower than missles).
I really think they should have sunk a few of them though, it would have impressed our viability on the mullahs in Iran. As it is, they are probably runnin about like cocks bragging how they stood down the Evil Americans…..
3. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 10:40 am
js,
Check my 3rd link above.
Oh, and I don’t know for a fact, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Mark served on an R2D2 equipped ship back in the 80’s.
4. js | January 9th, 2008 at 11:09 am
In 80 they first got the Phalanx. Thats the one that can deal with this. Been in service for 2 decades now.
I dont think the NIE will influence Active Military units so much as it did the public. Face it, the Intel business is beholden to the DNC for some reason. They just wont let go and do thier jobs right. Smells like the Chinese to me.
5. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am
A .50 cal would be good enough. No use wasting the expensive bullets.
They are testing our strength and resolve. A reasonable test to apply, given stuff I’ve seen our liberal friends post over the years.
6. Bigfoot | January 9th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mark served on an R2D2 equipped ship back in the 80’s.
Mark’s ship had one of these?
Sorry, my inner Star Wars geek couldn’t resist. I think that this might be what Spook is talking about.
7. js | January 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
more like probing our defensive response and perimeter
we should have opened up on them when they came with/in 500 meters (or 1k) and certainly immediately upon the transmission of hostile intent
8. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 11:52 am
A .50 cal would be good enough. No use wasting the expensive bullets.
True, but the Phalanx would make pretty blue confetti out of those little speedboats; a .50 cal could only put holes in them. I mean, I’m just sayin’……..
9. Chris Saccomanno | January 9th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I know a lot of conservative sites are saying we should have sunk the ships, but if we had sunk the ships, this would have been the only topic discussed while Bush is over in Israel. The Iranians would have effectively derailed any productive discussions, which is what they would like to do, I’m sure.
I watched the video and I’m sure there were dozens of guns pointed on the boats if they had gotten a little closer or moved directly at the Navy ships. The restraint of force is warranted in this new war. We need to get the Israeli-Palestinian non-sense solved to make any real gains in the GWOT.
It’s a complex war and let’s keep our eye on the talks over Israel. The world needs this to work out in a real way (not a facade way like Clinton pushed on everyone).
10. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Chris - well said.
11. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
It’s a complex war and let’s keep our eye on the talks over Israel.
Yes, by all means, let’s keep having “talks over Israel.” I’m mean, sooner or later we’re bound to get it right — RIGHT? The jihadis respond so well to talks; it’s just a matter of saying the right words — RIGHT?
On a scale of 1-10, the odds of solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem without large numbers of either Israelis or Palestinians assuming room temperature, is about a minus 1.
I watched the video and I’m sure there were dozens of guns pointed on the boats if they had gotten a little closer or moved directly at the Navy ships
Assuming a speed of around 45 knots, the Iranian boats were around 7 seconds from making impact with an American vessel. Laden with enough, or the right kind of explosives, they wouldn’t even have to make impact to do some serious damage. When, during that 7 second window, do you take the decision to pull the trigger? More importantly, how many American sailors lives is it worth if you’re a couple seconds too slow? We lost 17 sailors on the Cole. Try telling their families how important those Israeli-Palestinian talks are again. Sorry, there’s a time for talking and a time for doing. And there’s no question in my mind which this was. Ralph Peters nailed it.
12. OhioOrrin | January 9th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
comon folks, think oil…the ultimate Iranian weapon.
a few shots at tankers in the strait and bingo…
…lloyds cancels the insurance!
and to quote the Brad Pitt movie “Snatch” - “now we’re fu#^ed”
they’re making a statement.
13. js | January 9th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Any time a potentially hostile vehicle comes within 1000 meters of a Navy Ship, its needs to be neutralized.
Im surprised the Commanders of these 3 ships are still in command actually.
14. Chris Saccomanno | January 9th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Spook,
If we don’t get the Palestinians and Israelis working constructively together (long shot, I know), then you can tell the families of thousands of more people in the future that we don’t have a clue how to prevent even more attacks.
The Iraq war is all about pulling the legs off the Islamo-fascist spider. The Iraq leg is gone, the Al Queda leg has been weakened. The Iranian leg is still moving the spider, the Palestinian-Israeli leg is still very strong along with the popular support for terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Europe, etc.
It’s a long war with awful choices we must make. Which choice do you want in this? Sink the Iranian boats and derail all peace talks for the remainder of the Bush Administration or risk your warships which were in position to quickly sink these boats?
Another thing, by not opening fire, we didn’t reveal our ship defenses and didn’t give the Iranians a lot to go on by testing full defenses. If we blast a boat, the other 4 go home and report where the gun fire came from. This is cat and mouse and will be for years.
15. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
If we don’t get the Palestinians and Israelis working constructively together (long shot, I know)
Long shot? LONG SHOT? That’s the understatement of the year. I’ve been witnessing attempts at this “long shot” my entire adult life, and I’m 63. There will never, let me repeat, NEVER be a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians unless there is an unequivocal military victory by one over the other; PERIOD.
Another thing, by not opening fire, we didn’t reveal our ship defenses and didn’t give the Iranians a lot to go on by testing full defenses.
Take it from someone who spent over 2 decades in signals intelligence, they were electronically monitoring our every move, interior communications, fire-control radar, etc., either with their own techs or, as Peters says, with “rent-a-Russians”. My link to the Peters oped still says “awaiting moderation”, so I don’t know if my first post at 9:30 AM is visible to other commenters or not. Same with my link to the Fox News article and the Phalanx site. Apparently, as Ricorun has noted on numerous occasions, multiple embedded links seem to throw comments into moderation Purgatory.
16. Mark Noonan | January 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
JS and Spook,
Yep, the USS Conolly had “R2D2″ - two of them…from what I can recall of where they were mounted, I don’t know if they could depress low enough to hit a speed boat at less than 1,000 yards…but the Phalanx wasn’t what I worked on…anyone with expertise out there who can enlighten us?
We didn have M-60 machine guns which could be mounted, but they were kept locked up and only used when in a dangerous port area (Oman, Portsmouth, etc…). From what I can recall, we didn’t have much Johnny-on-the-spot ability to deal with a motor boat…though the newer ships might have ways of dealing with that.
17. Magnum Serpentine | January 9th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I have no clue as to whats really going on out there, I do not trust the military at all. Anything can be faked just look at the Gulf of Tonkin.
If Johnson can fake an attack, anyone can.
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary proof.
18. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
RS, links have the same affect here. One is OK, but 3 or 4 and you’re on the list.
Look - the Iranians didn’t come within striking distance. Just a little closer, and hell yes send them to Paradise. Otherwise, WE would have fired the first shot.
As to testing our defenses, thats just silly. A three ship force like this could have swept them and a number of aircraft from the area. And oh, by the way launched cruise missiles at Iran’s refinery at the same time. Iran knows this. They played this game for real in the ’80’s and lost half their Navy. Really a story not enough Americans know anything about.
19. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Magnum, thanks for that. I knew that there were at least some liberal posters here that would say that.
Would you be willing to write the letters to the families of dead sailors? You think it’s a video game or something? Ever seen the skin (or worse yet, felt it) come off a friend when you try to move him.
You don’t trust the military. F’ing great. F’ you.
Goes to what I was saying about testing our resolve. With Magnum in control, we would have pissed our pants and run away. Elections matter.
20. Magnum Serpentine | January 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Khan,
1. I am not the President
2. What is wrong with providing more proof of the incident. and it is true some of the film of the Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually unused film from an attack two days earlier. its easy to fake anything in this day and age.
3. no sailors have died as far as I know.
21. Rich | January 9th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
How much proof do you want Serpentine? We have video and audio, and the Iranians admit that there was an incident at this location, but they are downplaying the incident. What type of proof do you require to actually believe our military? Did you have to witness it yourself? I wish you would apply this same type of speculation to your numerous neo-con and republican conspiracies you so often regurgitate here.
22. Magnum Serpentine | January 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Rich
Something that is not fakable. And testimonies from Sailors (Not officers) that are free to speak their mind.
I generally agree that an incident occurred in the gulf of tonkin er I mean Persian gulf. I just wonder if it was as bad as the Johnson Administration, er i mean the bush Administration says it was.
23. js | January 9th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Im really getting a laugh at you guys who think this was a Bush/Cheney conspiracy to lie to Americans.
Do you have one bit of info that leads to that conclusion, or is it just a problem in the liberal stream?
24. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
OK Magnum. More proof than hundreds of witnesses, video, and audio tape as well as compter records and recordings of the radio traffic made elsewhere.
Thanks magnum. GFY
25. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
>>Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary proof. - Magnum<<
I couldn’t agree more Magnum. So please provide the proof of Bush domestically spying on American phone calls. Please provide the proof that Bush lied us into war. Please provide the proof that Global Warming is real.
I have a lot more issues that I will need proof on, but we’ll start with those. Anxiously awaiting your reply.
26. Michael | January 9th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Rosie O’Donnell says it was fake, a put-up job so it must be true. Having been a sailor on ships in the Tonkin Gulf during the Viet Nam war, I know what its like to live under the threat of attacks like this and it ain’t no game. Our orders were simple, defend yourselves as best you can.
27. Persian Gulf War&hellip | January 9th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
[...] What Are the Iranians Up To? [...]
28. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
neocon,
Well, here’s President Bush lying to us in April 2004 about court orders in relation to wiretaps:
29. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Here he is in weekly radio address of December 17, 2005 admitting that he was not seeking the warrants from the FISC as required by FISA after the New York Times story revealed his 2002 executive order authorizing violations of FISA and claiming that he was told by his lawyers that he has the authority to order violations of the law:
30. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
As they say, “From the horse’s mouth”.
31. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Diana,
You don’t seem to grasp the difference between signals intelligence (something I spent a career in) and wire taps. Your last 2 posts just make you look like an extremely foolish and ignorant partisan.
32. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Retired Spook,
I don’t doubt your credentials. I do understand the distinction between sigint and physical taps. In the President’s spontaneous falsehood of 2004 he did use the word “wiretap”. However, the context of his December 2005 radio address, with its extended rationalization of the activities that he ordered, was the New York Times story published that month revealing the domestic surveillance in violation of FISA. Most importantly, the FISA statute defines the electronic surveillance which it limits as being, among other things (emphasis added):
So, saying it involves signals rather than physical taps isn’t relevant.
33. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Also, as you know, a large proportion of telephone traffic within the United States travels at least part of the way via the radio or microwave bands of the electromagnetic spectrum obviating the need for physical wiretaps.
34. Retired Spook | January 9th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Diana,
A guy who has done an incredible amount of research on the issue is A. J. Strata. Check out the archives on his blog under FISA/NSA.
BTW, you seem to have an ax to grind on this issue. Have you, or do you know someone who has been a target of such intercepts. It would help me understand where you’re coming from if you could show some kind of standing WRT to this issue.
35. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Diana,
Thank you for your copy and pastes and for another rehash of a four year old argument.
That wasn’t the question though. I asked Magnum to provide specific proof of Bush admin domestic spying. Remember:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
36. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Retired Spook,
My standing is that of being an American citizen who, oddly enough, believes that the President, of all people, should act in accordance with the Constitution that the Presidential oath directs him or her to “preserve, protect and defend”. Part of the Constitution is that the President “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Now, it isn’t hard to imagine the situation of President Bush in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of 09/11/01 perhaps finding that even the retroactive warrants allowed for under FISA were insufficient. In that case, one might argue a case for going ahead with ordering activities contrary to FISA while simultaneously asking the Republican-led Congress to amend the statute.
However, he did not do that. President Bush ordered the violations, gratuitously lied to every American about what the government was doing while reminding any potential terrorists that we were trying to intercept their communications and only asked for amendment of FISA after the law-breaking was brought to light. Not only did he wait for years before asking for changes, but now he’s demanding the unprecedented addition of retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies (other than Qwest, which demanded the required warrants) that cooperated in breaking the law.
That’s called acting in bad faith. That may be fine and dandy for those who venerate this President, but President’s are transitory. The Constitution is not.
37. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
neocon,
Well, if the President’s own words won’t work for you then I think you’ve erected an impenetrable wall to keep any proof that will meet your self-improved standards out.
38. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Yes, I realize that I inadvertently used an apostrophe when writing the plural of President. It should have been Presidents.
39. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Diana,
Once again, I never questioned the legalities, nor any utterances from Bush. I asked to see the proof of any such domestic spying abuse.
Names and address’s of victims.
Do I need to dumb that down for you?
40. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Diana,
The egregious violation of the law and the intentional misleading of the public on behalf of the President, as you assert, is an impeachable offense. I beg of you to call your representative and demand action. It’s hard to believe Pelosi and Reid haven’t done anything about it, but you can make it happen and, damn it, you owe to this country to bring forth charges.
I will anxiously await your next move.
Godspeed.
41. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Retired Spook,
Quite frankly, the more I’ve thought about your question here, the more bizarre it seems to me and, I’m sad to say, the more illustrative it seems to me of many surveillance-apologists. Firstly, the programs are secret, ergo, the targets don’t know who they are and the government isn’t going to say. We don’t even know very much at all about what the President has referred to as the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and we know nothing at all about other programs. Has the HT LINGUAL program been resurrected? Who knows?
However, it seems that you, someone who knows how intelligence works, find it strange that anyone should object to government surveillance if they’re not doing anything wrong or, as Mark put it recently, aren’t being set up for a false charge. That outlook would certainly have met with the full approval of the Ministry of State Security of the old GDR. However, the United States is not the GDR.
neocon,
The TSP is secret. The government doesn’t send a postcard or an email to notify the people whose communications they are monitoring. It’s part of the whole secrecy part of the program. So, that’s why you aren’t getting a list of “[n]ames and address’s (sic) of victims”. I know that aspect is a bit arcane, so to echo your question, “Do I need to dumb that down for you?”
42. js | January 9th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin:
Under Section 4 of USSID 18, communications which are known to be to or from U.S. persons can’t be intentionally intercepted without: (a) the approval of the FISA court…; OR (b) the approval of the Attorney General of the United States with respect to “communications to or from U.S. PERSONS outside the United States…international communications” and other categories of communications including for the purpose of collecting “significant foreign intelligence information.”
USSID 18 goes on to allow NSA to gather intelligence about a U.S. person outside the United States even without Attorney General sanction in emergencies “when securing the approval of the Attorney General is not practical because…the time required to obtain such approval would result in the loss of significant foreign intelligence and would cause substantial harm to national security.”
43. js | January 9th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
A careful examination of relevant legislation and precedent shows that the law clearly allows the NSA’s use of unwarranted wiretaps on international communications between persons in the United States and suspected terrorists abroad. To begin, the program operates comfortably within the bounds of the Constitution and does not, as some mistakenly believe, violate the Fourth Amendment. Warrants are required for domestic search and seizure, but in decision such as Katz v. United States and United States v. United States District Court, the Supreme Court specifically allowed an exception to the warrant requirement for domestic surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes.
http://hprsite.squarespace.com/bushs-wiretapping-pro-032006/
44. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
js,
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is a statute passed by the Congress of the United States and is part of the United States Code. USSID is an acronym for United States Signals Intelligence Directive. It is a document created within the Executive Branch. As such, it does not and cannot supersede Federal law, to wit, FISA.
45. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Diana,
That hasn’t stopped the media and the Democrats from learning of, and divulging the CIA secret prisons, the financial tracking, the alledged “war plans” for Iran, and of course the wire surveillance, all in an attempt to denigrate the GWOT and discredit the Administration. Surely they would bring to light any actual and specific violations of the NSA surveillance, considering the Democrats treat secrets as politcal play.
So you’re claim that the TSP is double top secret, just doesn’t hold water, ok?
46. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
js,
Gosh, you quoted someone writing in the Harvard Political Review saying the President’s actions are hunky-dory. Well, that certainly settles that because they’re just like the Supreme Court and stuff.
47. js | January 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Gee,
I really dont thing you have a clue here Diana.
FISA and the Supreme Court have ruled that what Bush did was legal, within his constitutional authority.
Your chewin on old leather there gurl….way out of date. You gettin this all from MoVOn.orG?
48. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
neocon,
If you think that constitutes an actual argument then, by all means, pat yourself on the back and enjoy another cup of coffee or whatever. As I’ve said, just trust blindly. Don’t question authority. They only intend to do these things to protect you from the scary world. They’re from the government and they’re here to help you.
49. js | January 9th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Maybe you are right Diana. (NOT)
Maybe Harvard Law School doesnt know what they are talking about. Maybe the Supreme Court is clueless.
Its nice to see where your head is, like a simpleton, you believe whatever your liberal lovers tell ya, eh? Are ya blond too?
50. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
js,
Gee. Neither the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the United States Supreme Court have reviewed the TSP so, sadly, no, it isn’t “old leather”.
51. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
js,
It’s the Harvard Political Review you quoted from not the Harvard Law Review which still isn’t a court of competent jurisdiction.
52. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
js,
Any particular reason for the gratuitous insults other than to demonstrate your inability to muster real facts instead of opinion or do you just revel in being low-class?
53. liberalT | January 9th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
it really amazes me neocon that its not that the CIA has secret prisons around the world where they hold people indefinitely and in secret which upsets you. But rather that someone had the “audacity” to expose it. So you think its a good idea to have secret prisons around the world where they can get away with doing things that would be illegal in the US. That is what you want the US to stand for?
54. js | January 9th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
About Us
The Harvard Political Review is America’s preeminent undergraduate journal of politics and public policy. Since its inception, the HPR has presented balanced, insightful analysis of domestic and international issues. Published quarterly by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics, HPR writers analyze the current and future political climate
http://hprsite.squarespace.com/about-us/
They think they are part of Harvard. Get that, even Diana knows more about Harvard than Harvard guys do.
55. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Liberals constantly need to be reminded of the point. Their emotional knee jerk responses completely dilute the argument.
The point is, again, had their been any ACTUAL violation of domestic spying, they would have been revealed. You two are two of the most paranoid, emotional conspiracy minded morons I’ve ever encounterd seemingly thinking that Bush, the dumbest person in the world by their accounts, is capable of pulling off egregious violations of the law behind everyones back.
Amazing.
Furthermore, every program mentioned has congressional oversight and has been drug through the courts ad nauseum. And rehashed ad nauseum by lefty autobots.
Keep being afraid on your march towards justice. You’ll get there.
56. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“USSID, enacted in July of 1993, creates the following, as described by The American Spectator’s Jed Babbin:”
The USSID is irrelevant when talking about whether the NSA violated congressional statutes. The USSID is a document laying out internal NSA guidelines. It is not in ANY way a law or congressional statute.
“Your chewin on old leather there gurl….way out of date. You gettin this all from MoVOn.orG?”
Moveon.org? How about the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file689_26477.pdf
“A careful examination of relevant legislation and precedent shows that the law clearly allows the NSA’s use of unwarranted wiretaps on international communications between persons in the United States and suspected terrorists abroad.”
Maybe you should “carefully examine” Judge Taylors ruling then.
This isn’t debatable. The program has been ruled illegal by a District Court judge. It has an appeal pending, but as of now the program is illegal. And nothing you say changes that fact.
57. js | January 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Do you always assume that things like the USSID are in violation of the constitution Diana, or is that another one of your liberal stunts too?
Dont you think the Senate and Congressional Intelligence committies would have objected to that? Long ago? Since like, they approved USSID way back in the 80s right? So its not an executive order, so that was a lie. Its a directive for the NSA. National Security? Oh. War powers act too…hmmm….for some reason, I dont think an explanation is needed for me pointing out your diminished capacity.
Your just gossiping, arent ya!!
58. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
If the people are attacking us a military acting in an military manner - you don’t need a warrant. That applies even if they are talking to a US citizen.
Here is how slippery slopes and the law work:
If a Russian tank division has landed in Alaska and is driving on Anchorage, you don’t need a warrant to listen in on their conversations with American traitorous agents in the city. AND, you don’t have to arrest anyone or get a warrant for anything. You can kill the people (should actually) at either end of the call. or, the call may be used to help you kill them. Or, you can use information you get anyway you want - except one. You can’t use it in court.
Thats how it works. If you consider them combatants, rules of war apply. If you consider them criminals (and plan to arrest, detain, charge them), then rules of jurisprudence apply.
So, what are Al Queda operatives overseas and here? Are the combatants, or are they criminals? They can be both by the way. Complicated.
But as to the Supreme Court:
1. They decided that Dred Scott, a black man in a free state was the property of a man from a slave state and must be returned.
2. They decided that detainment camps for Japanese-American citizens were acceptable during World War Two.
3. They decided that tomatoes are fruit.
4. They decided that West Virginia could be allowed to the Union despite the fact that the Constitution requires that a parent state give it’s permission for a daughter state to break away and form a new state. After the war, a vote was taken with Union soldiers manning every polling station. Station.
So, um remember they’re just people.
I think it’s interesting that some posters here doubt the military when they didn’t even shoot. You doubt that part also? I mean, I think we should demand proof that they didn’t shoot at the Iranian boats. Pips.
59. neocon | January 9th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Diana,
Just curious. Are you saying that js is being low class by citing a report in the HPR? And that the HPR does not report real facts?
60. js | January 9th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
A November 2002 decision of the FISA Court of Review stated that “the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information… We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
http://hprsite.squarespace.com/bushs-wiretapping-pro-032006/
FISA, misrepresented by liberals far and wide, allows the Attorney General to bypass the FISA court. This obviously makes sense, since it would be virtually impossible for the government to go before the FISA court every time a terrorist made a telephone call in which someone in the United States was a participant.
ya, right
wake your face up
you been sleeping
61. Magnum Serpentine | January 9th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Neocon,
I don’t have to
the proof is already out there in various News magazines and from such networks as Fox, MSNBC and CNN. Look in various daily papers about bush’s illegal wire-tapping along with Congressional testimonies. its all out there.
62. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“Their emotional knee jerk responses completely dilute the argument.”
Oh, the irony!!! Neocon, at least you make me laugh.
“The point is, again, had their been any ACTUAL violation of domestic spying, they would have been revealed.”
So people being unable to prove that which they can’t prove means that it doesn’t happen? You want people to prove something, that is inherently secret?
Well, maybe this will help.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/03/72811?currentPage=all
“Federal officials were investigating the Ashland, Oregon, branch of the group for alleged links to terrorism, and had already frozen the charity’s U.S. assets. Belew was one of several lawyers trying to keep Al-Haramain off a U.S. Treasury Department watch list — an effort that sent much paperwork flying back and forth between the attorneys and the Treasury Department’s Washington D.C. headquarters across the street from the White House.”
American intelligence agencies, spying on American lawyers. Not that it will matter much to you. You may now continue with your authoritarian lovefest.
“Furthermore, every program mentioned has congressional oversight and has been drug through the courts ad nauseum.”
And found to be illegal! But thanks for playing!
http://www.aclu.org/images/nsaspying/asset_upload_file689_26477.pdf
You can’t even admit that the program has already been ruled illegal?
You really do live in a fact free bubble.
63. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Magnum says - ” I don’t have to. the proof is already out there in various News magazines and from such networks as Fox, MSNBC and CNN. Look in various daily papers about bush’s illegal wire-tapping along with Congressional testimonies. its all out there.”
And yet, he can’t provide one single instance. Not one.
Hey Magnum, GFY. I believe OUR sailors and not the Iranians. And I think that Al Queda is a military organization and killing them is OK no matter whose passport they have in their pocket. So, I don’t think listening to them, so I can find them and kill them matters much.
But these are just my feelings.
64. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Oh, and faceplant. There are aliens landing in fields in Europe and making patterns. Prove it false.
65. js | January 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
The president’s inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purposes of foreign intelligence-gathering remains even after FISA’s enactment because constutitional authority trumps statutory restrictions. (The only way to abridge a power granted to a branch of government by the Constitution is through a constitutional amendment.)
Really, its pretty simple. The President cannot remove the powers of the Congress, and the Congress cannot remove the powers of the President. Not dispute, that Constitutional Authority.
66. Mark Noonan | January 9th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
A thread about Iran becomes a thread about the NSA’s signals intelligence program? I’d say knock it off, but you guys seem to be having too much fun with it…
67. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Kahn,
Your the one whimsically tossing aside District Court rulings as if they don’t exist. Who do you think comes off looking like they live in fantasyland again?
I’ve always tried to give the people on this site the benefit of the doubt. Believing (falsely as I see now) that you were capable of rational discussion. But it’s pretty obvious that the majority of those on here, are not capable of rational discussion. When you ignore even the most obvious of facts, because they don’t jibe with what your dear leader tells you to believe then there is no way to have rational discourse. You are by nature irrational, and illogical.
Have fun in your cult.
68. js | January 9th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Ya, but face, look at the links you put down;
A court filing by the aclu, not a court decision, but just the complaint
An article on Wired Magazine alleging illegal wiretaps.
and for some reason, you assert district courts have more weight than the Supreme Courts, which have given the NSA its final victory against the illegal wiretapping activity under the Bush Administration
just what do you call rational and logical in the group, that people say something might be wrong in Kansas? wake that face up dude.
its all trumped in Constitutional Authority either way…..
69. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“The president’s inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purposes of foreign intelligence-gathering remains even after FISA’s enactment because constutitional authority trumps statutory restrictions.”
Courts have consistently ruled that while the President has the inherent authority to conduct foreign intelligence survaillience, congress has the right to regulate that activity. Indeed even the very constitution that the President claims vests in him unlimited authority to spy on people without warrants, Article I also grants Congress the power to ” make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.
If the Exectuve Branch really believed the argument that you are puting forth, they would have argued that FISA itself was unconstitutional. Something they have never stated.
“‘Over and again this Court has emphasized that the mandate of the
(Fourth) Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’
(citation omitted) and that searches conducted outside the judicial
process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few
specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Katz, 389
U.S. at 357.”
In fact in Hamdan v Rumsfeld (where the Executive Branch made almost an identical “inherent authority” arguement) the US Supreme Court ruled that,
“…the President’s powers in such a case are at their “lowest ebb” and must give way to Congressional law. In other words, Kennedy expressly found (and the Court itself implicitly held) that even with regard to matters as central to national security as the detention and trial of Al Qaeda members, the President does not have the power to ignore or violate Congressional law. While one could argue that Congress’ authority in this case is greater than it would be in the eavesdropping context (because Article I expressly vests Congress with the power to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”), the Supreme Court has rather loudly signaled its unwillingness to defer to the Executive in all matters regarding terrorism and national security and/or to accept the claim that Congress has no role to play in limiting and regulating the President’s conduct.”
But by all means, keep pretending these ruling didn’t really happen. I mean, ignorance really is bliss!
70. David.B.Schmidt | January 9th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Diana,
If you would like to see a real violation of U.S. citizens rights—try searching on the following words; FBI Carnivore Clinton. The only reason I didn’t say President [Clinton] is because both the President & currently Senator Clinton used this to spy on Americans talking to opponents [oops, I mean drug dealers]. Well documented cases involving the U.S. government listening to U.S. citizens within the U.S. boundary unlike the current program which is reviewed by both sides of the aisle
“Secret Prisons” are supposed to be secret for a reason. Do other citizens of the world deserve the same rights as American Citizens when they don’t get them from they home countries—hell no. Don’t Geneva Convention my ass when they decapitate and hang people from bridges as a standard practice. In answer to your next “talking point”—There is no way we (Americans) can ever get as low as our enemies –we’ve outgrown the 7th century.
BTW, I am surprised that no one said we did this for the oil as of yet. If we really did this “for the oil” we could have just commandeered the terminals with U.S. Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz and a small landing force (in Iran). Now that would have a real “Gulf of Tonkin” incident.
From a personal (from serving in the Gulf) point of view—I would have warmed up the Vulcans and invited them boys playing “Drop the box and threaten big gray boats” to the final dance.
-David
71. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
“A court filing by the aclu, not a court decision, but just the complaint”
Uh, no. The link is to the ACLU site, but it take you to a PDF of the ruling by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor. Do a ten second google search, and you could find any other number of sources for the ruling.
“and for some reason, you assert district courts have more weight than the Supreme Courts, which have given the NSA its final victory against the illegal wiretapping activity under the Bush Administration”
So the supreme court has ruled on the NSA program? That’s news to me, considering at this moment the appeal to judge taylors ruling hasn’t even been heard by the appeals court yet.
The issue of the NSA program has NEVER been adjudicated by the supreme court.
“its all trumped in Constitutional Authority either way…..”
Authority, according to Youngstown, Hamdan v Rumsfeld, and Judge Anna Diggs Taylor the President does not possess.
The Presidents inherent power is NOT unlimited power. Congress has the right regulate that authority. A ruling that has been upheld by the supreme court as recently as Hamdan.
72. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
“A November 2002 decision of the FISA Court of Review stated that “the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information… We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.””
Of course your quoting this is completely misleading. The court was citing a case that occured BEFORE FISA was enacted. Here’s the full quote, with some cliff’s notes added to help you understand.
” We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance based on the President’s constitutional responsibility to conduct the foreign affairs of the United States. Although Truong suggested the line it drew was a constitutional minimum that would apply to a FISA surveillance, it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute carefully. The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue(before it), held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.(because the laws pre-FISA were ambiguous) It was incumbent upon the court(in Truong), therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. (In the Truong case)We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, (in the Truong case)FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us (now, in 2002, post FISA, post PATRIOT Act) is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.”
73. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
neocon,
I was referring to this particular “argument” employed by js:
js,
Do you have some affiliation with Harvard University? It is a prestigious place, to be sure, but if you check the Constitution you’ll find that neither the university or any of its publications qualifies as a court of competent jurisdiction in deciding if the TSP complies with the Constitution.
As to the quote you offered, if you’d looked at the actual opinion, rather than someone’s view of the opinion, you would find out that:
1) The case, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001 was concerned with the question of using information gathered for prosecution in a criminal case and was not a review of the legality of the TSP.
2) The Court ruled that FISA was Constitutional in saying in its conclusion:
The issue came before the Court of Review when the FISC denied an application for a warrant under FISA. It did not rule on whether the President may supersede FISA with some possible inherent power.
74. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
District court judges command no troops.
75. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Faceplant. No warrants were issued for any of the evidence used at war crimes trials at Nurenburg. Maybe you can use your enormous liberal brain and explain that to us.
But whatever, are you with Magnum on this? Think our Navy is lying?
76. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
David,
William Jefferson Clinton stopped being the President of the United States on January 20, 2001 which is just a few days shy of being 7 years ago. If you say that President Clinton abused his Constitutional authority then that’s just more reason why no one should obsequiously and reverently bow before any President’s claim of authority beyond those clearly laid out in the Constitution.
77. sam | January 9th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Iran can just do the same thing they did to the USS Cole. One little speedboat with explosives can destroy not only oil tankers, but it can destroy Navy Ships…….I can’t wait for war, finally put the US back in it’s place…….get them out of the Middle East forever and get them to stop supporting dictators who don’t give their people any freedoms…
78. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The war crimes trials in Nuremburg concerned themselves with acts committed outside the United States. FISA concerns itself with acts committed within the United States.
79. Christian Wright | January 9th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Just who is provoking whom where?
Imagine, for a moment, that Iran had sent its navy to patrol in the Gulf of Mexico, in international waters just off of the coasts of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and that its leader flew out to one of those ships and threatened to take out America’s oil infrastructure.
How do you think the US government would react? How do you think the American people would react?
80. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
sam,
“stop supporting dictators who don’t give their people any freedoms…”????
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!
“put the US back in it’s place……”????
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!
Last time Iran tried this we sunk half their navy. And we didn’t have nearly as much in the area then as we do now.
You are really a stupidf M.F. you know that? Funny, but stupid. Now back to your goats, you crazy S.O.B..
Faceplant??? You with Sammy on this? How about you Magum? Diane?
81. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Christian, you mean in International waters? Ships in International waters navigating in a defined channel? You think we’d speed around them taunting them and putting boxes (read up on their efforts to mine the Straights of Hormuz during the ’80s) in the water?
You think that’s what we’d do? Taunt, provoke? Then hide behind a lie when confronted about it? Cower and say they made it all up? Thats what you think?
You’re as stupid as Sammy is. But not as funny. You think your leaders are as stupid as you are?
82. Mark Noonan | January 9th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
CW,
Well, given that Iran’s government is entirely illegitimate, it doesn’t have the right to order naval ships to to the Gulf of Mexico - our government, on the other hand, as a legitimate government has the authority to order ships to the Persian Gulf. As soon as Iran becomes a genuine democracy, then Iran can order ships to the Gulf of Mexico…of course, they won’t, because only a dictatorial regime in Iran would want to cause trouble with the United States.
The key, CW, is to understand that we’re the good guys; the Iranian mullahs? They’re the bad guys.
83. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Kahn,
No, I accept the Navy’s recordings at face value and I agree with the actions they took.
84. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
“District court judges command no troops.”
I was unaware anyone ever claimed they did.
As far as Nuremburg. Those trials, and investigations concerned non US citizens, and crimes they committed outside of the United States. I hardly see how that is relevant in the slightest.
85. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Ohhhhh, yah. But criminal proceedings run by US judges and prosecutors put people to death. So, Guantanamo is OK then? Cool. Thanks for agrreing with us on that.
Did the Secret Service need warrants to intercept the communications of US citizens during the Civil War? I mean, would a division or corps have to wait for a warrant before cracking open a letter from Lee to Jackson? In that case - two US citizens, acting as combatants, would we need a warrant?
86. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“Well, given that Iran’s government is entirely illegitimate, it doesn’t have the right to order naval ships to to the Gulf of Mexico - our government, on the other hand, as a legitimate government has the authority to order ships to the Persian Gulf.”
I’d LOOOOVE to see the legal standing for that one. Not that I agree with what the Iranians did. It was HIGHLY provocative, and American ships have every right to defend themselves. But it’s ridiculous to claim that Iran doesn’t have the right to command it’s own navy.
“The key, CW, is to understand that we’re the good guys; the Iranian mullahs? They’re the bad guys.”
Uh, no. The key is understanding that everything isn’t as black and white as you want it to be Mark.
87. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
You were saying that they had ordered the president how to act in relation to the Defense Department ( who runs the NSA) dealing with intercepted communications. I assumed you understood what you were saying. Guess I was wrong. You’re more of a parrot than an actual think - is that it?
You with Sammy and Magnum on the Iran thing? You know, the actual subject?
88. Kahn | January 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
face - OK, so they provoked and we showed restraint and rhetoric aside they acted badly and we were good.
At least your not out in left (no pun intended) field like Magnum or sammy.
89. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
No, they isn’t what I said. I said that congress has a role in regulating the President’s powers. It’s called checks and balances. This idea that since the President has authority over the armed forces that he can simply do whatever he pleases with them was NEVER what the founders had in mind.
It’s in the constitution, and it’s been upheld in many supreme court rulings, most recently Hamdan v Rumsfeld. You know, one of those rulings that you guys just pretend doesn’t exist.
90. Faceplant | January 9th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
“Ohhhhh, yah. But criminal proceedings run by US judges and prosecutors put people to death. So, Guantanamo is OK then? Cool. Thanks for agrreing with us on that.”
I don’t think most people have a problem with Guantanamo itself. They have a problem with
A) Prisoner treatement
and
B) Lack of any real legal recourse for detainees
I mean, at least the people in Nuremburg got a real trial. At least they had a REAL process for challanging their detentions. Detainees at Guanatanamo are held incommunicado, with no right to challenge their detentions, no right to a lawyer, and no reason to think they will ever get out. That is NOTHING like the Nuremburg trials.
91. Diana Powe | January 9th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Kahn,
Do you just randomly connect historical events together or do you honestly not know the differences? World War II was a worldwide war involving nation-states who had declared war on each other. It bears zero resemblance to the current situation vis-a-vis Guantanamo. Also, even if FISA hadn’t been enacted 113 years after the end of the Civil War it still wouldn’t have anything to do with your example.
92. Mark Noonan | January 9th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Sam,
I’d like to point out that while it is a source of national pride that in 2007 Iran launched its first domestically produced destroyer, that is just one ship - and even if you get those British and American antiques out of drydock, you’ll only have four destroyers.
The United States Navy has 54 destroyers.
Of course, you do have your submarines…all five of them, two of those midget subs.
The United States Navy has 54 submarines.
This doesn’t take into consideration cruisers, carriers, frigates and other assorted ships…the naval war between the US and Iran will be very short lived.
93. Mark Noonan | January 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Faceplant,
I quote:
Remember, as an American, I hold those truths to be self-evident; not needing any proof - they are as true as “the sky is blue” is true.
Given these core American beliefs, I can only state that given the lack of consent of the governed in Iran, that Iran’s government cannot legitimately exercise the powers of government - among such powers are the powers to command a Navy. To disagree with me on this point is to be fundamentally un-American.
94. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Faceplant said - “It’s in the constitution, and it’s been upheld in many supreme court rulings, most recently Hamdan v Rumsfeld. You know, one of those rulings that you guys just pretend doesn’t exist.” Again with the reference. Which part of the Constitution and what cases?
Diana, No - I’m just trying to put your “arguments” in context. Are you saying that the the United States would have neede a warrant to open the mail from General Lee CSA (US citizen, according to us) and General Jackson CSA (US citizen according to us) in modern times?
Would the Marine Corpds need a warrant to intercept phone calls between a Cuban division in South Florida and Traitorous Americans in Jacksonville? The way I read your argument, yes.
And - what rights to non-uniformed, war criminal, nationless terrorist have outside the US at Guantanamo? What bad treatment? You don’t have any particulars, just a bad feeling and a distrust of our military.
We are treating them better than we treated the Nazi’s. And what the Nazi’s did was so bad, it wasn’t even covered by specific statute. We actually executed them for actions not defined as crimes in the nation(s) where they committed them. The trials used evidence attained without warrants. And many of the witnesses were dead. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad they swung. But it appears that you don’t understand that the law applies in the most extreme and crazy circumstances.
Tell the President he needs a warrant to intercept communications between enemy combatants abroad and the agents here and you’ve done just that. Those rules apply in EVERY situation. Cuban soldiers talking to spies in Florida. Russian soldiers talking to spies and saboteurs in Anchorage. And Al Queda “terrorists” in Pakistan talking to hopeful mass-murder/suicide bombers in Milwaukee’s. They are all the same.
And well, I don’t believe that the Congress and Courts have the right to tell the Army they’d need a warrant to listen in on communications between a Russian tank division in Alaska and spies in Anchorage. Do you?
Does anyone here understand debating or ever done it? I am taking you premise and applying it to hypothetical scenarios or scenarios drawn from history to see how that premise would apply to those circumstances. It’s a test of the logic of your argument.
95. bagni | January 10th, 2008 at 12:37 am
markalicious:
haven’t talked in a while but
just an fyi
the aliens have landed in jerusalem for a bit
and listening first hand to the resident earthlings here is interesting
gives one an interesting perspective on the middle east
very enlightening
hope you’re well
96. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 12:43 am
hey bagni! How’s it going? Night nurse away from the PC again?
Stop hiding your pills under you tounge and actually take them. And lose the aluminum foil hat, the voices get in through you butt, not your ears. Try wearing aluminum foil underwear instead.
Oh well, have fun in the asylum.
97. js | January 10th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Its pretty simple Kahn.
“The president’s inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for the purposes of foreign intelligence-gathering remains even after FISA’s enactment because constutitional authority trumps statutory restrictions. (The only way to abridge a power granted to a branch of government by the Constitution is through a constitutional amendment.) ”
People dont understand a really simple thing here. FISA is a statute made by Congress in an attempt to regulate the powers of the Executive Office. Congress really doesnt have the power to over rule or diminish the Constitutional Authority of the Executive Office without an Amendment to the Constitution. Hence, Constitutional Power trumphs Statutory regulation every time.
98. js | January 10th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Here ya go Face.
From the same place.
In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
So, basic collection of information on foreign intelligence would include thier communications with anyone inside the US. Its a given, and cant be changed without an Amendment to the Constitution.
99. Retired Spook | January 10th, 2008 at 8:59 am
js and Kahn,
The Lefties, throughout the debate last night, kept missing the basic fact that surveillance for criminal purposes and surveillance for intelligence purposes are not the same thing, and are governed by different rules. Had all of the assertions made by faceplant and Diana been true, articles of impeachment against Bush and Cheney would have been drawn up a long time ago.
The simple fact that members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (from both parties) were regularly and routinely briefed on the details of the TSP is evidence to me that the intentions of the program were honorable and aimed at protecting the American people, a task, I might add, that is first and foremost among the President’s responsibilities.
100. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
js, so logic, the Constitution, and case law all debunk Diana and faceplant. Both gone strangely silent.
Meanwhile Magnum trusts the Revolutionary Guard more than the US Navy and Sammy in Canada tore himself away from his love affair with his goats long enough to tell us he hopes they kick our asses.
101. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Kahn,
The logic you think you’re trying to “test” is irrelevant. What’s under discussion is existing federal law (50 U.S.C. §§1801-1811, 1821-29, 1841-46, and 1861-62) and its application to today, not some hypotheticals based on events in different periods of history. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act makes it a felony to commit various acts which the President of the United States has admitted that he ordered. He asserts he has Constitutional authority to violate FISA. That assertion has not been tested in a court of competent jurisdiction, however, the fact that FISA is Constitutional (js’ claims notwithstanding) was affirmed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in the case of In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001. Questions about mail during the Civil War have nothing to do with FISA.
js,
As I just reiterated (after putting it in bolded text in an earlier comment), the Court of Review held in 2002 that FISA is Constitutional. That means that the Court held that Congress may, in fact, limit the Executive Branch in its activities regarding electronic surveillance. The Court acknowledged (but made no judgment on) the President’s inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to gather foreign intelligence information, but plainly affirmed that the limits on that authority as enacted by Congress in FISA meet the standards of the Constitution. So, once again, the President has violated the law, claims he has inherent authority to do so, but that claim has not been adjudicated except in Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling that said that he did not have such authority.
102. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Retired Spook,
I have never entertained the idea that you would be so naive as to believe something like this:
Need I remind you that a White House lap dog Congress was controlled by Republicans until November 2006. You expected them to try to remove a President of their own party? Please.
Having narrowly gained control, Democrats now have a situation where House Resolution 799 (with 24 co-sponsors), which moves to impeach the Vice-President, is sitting in committee with Congressman Robert Wexler leading a successful effort to garner public support for hearings. However, the Democratic leadership has expressed little interest. My guess is that they believe the problem will go away in about a year’s time without having to chance the possibility that impeachment proceedings would actually bolster public support for the President in the way that President Clinton’s approval ratings improved dramatically after Republicans failed in their attempt to remove him from office. So, the absence of articles of impeachment for President Bush have no bearing on the matter.
103. Retired Spook | January 10th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Diana,
Did you check out A.J. Strata’s archives on FISA-NSA? It would go a long way towards educating you on what you think you know that is wrong, or at the very least, misguided.
BTW, can anyone read my first comment from 9:30 AM yesterday containing 3 embedded links? On my screen it still says “awaiting moderation”, but I can read the post. I’m just curious.
104. Retired Spook | January 10th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Diana, I wasn’t aware that a Congressman needed to be in the majority party in order to draw up articles of impeachment. My guess is that another reason (in addition to the one you note) that the Dem leadership is reluctant to support impeachment proceedings (or even a censure resolution) is that subsequent debate and/or hearings might reveal the identities of some Democrat intelligence leakers. That would be a lot more damaging than a bump in Bush’s poll numbers.
105. js | January 10th, 2008 at 10:06 am
js,
As I just reiterated (after putting it in bolded text in an earlier comment), the Court of Review held in 2002 that FISA is Constitutional
————-
It also stated, in 2002, that the FISA “could not encroach on the Presidential power”, meaning, in no indirect sense of the intent, that FISA is effectively Statutory Authority granted (solely) to Congress, and does not suprecede/over-ride or remove the Constitutional power vested in the President.
Simple. Do you normally have such a hard time understanding simple issues like that?
106. js | January 10th, 2008 at 10:08 am
98. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 9:00 am
js, so logic, the Constitution, and case law all debunk Diana and faceplant. Both gone strangely silent
Whadda ya mean, they are liberals and dont have the sense to quit, even after they get thier butts handed to them in a basket.
107. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 10:10 am
As to the retread assertion that “members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (from both parties) were regularly and routinely briefed on the details of the TSP”, that means nothing as well. The committee members were eight in number, could not keep notes of what they were told and could not consult with anyone outside the briefings about any questions raised by the briefings. They only knew what the Executive Branch chose to tell them. This led Rep. Heather Wilson, a Republican and then-chair of the House Technical and Tactical Intelligence Subcommittee of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to say this, among other things, about a letter she wrote in February 2006 to then-Attorney General Gonzales (emphasis added):
I don’t doubt that the basic intentions of conducting the surveillance are honorable. However, the President has acted in bad faith in failing to comply with FISA, gratuitously lying to the American public in stating the he was complying with the law and now, having been exposed, is only moving years after the onset of the program to ask for changes to the statute that he now claims were the reason he had to violate the law. President George W. Bush has twice laid his right hand on the Bible he believes to be the Word of God and taken an oath ending with the phrase “so help me God” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. That Constitution tells him that he has an absolute duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. The Constitution does not say that he has a duty to “protect the American people”. So, tell me, how has President Bush fulfilled his Bible oath to “take care” that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “be faithfully executed”?
A Republican-controlled Congress could have impeached and tried President Bush. I didn’t say they could not. What I marveled at was the farcical notion that such a Congress would have taken such a step.
I went to the site that you pointed to which is an advocacy site supporting the President’s position. I’m much more interested in source documents for informing myself. If your comments are showing to be “awaiting moderation” on your screen then we can’t see them.
108. js | January 10th, 2008 at 10:16 am
task, I might add, that is first and foremost among the President’s responsibilities (retired spook)
I dont think they get this far RS, somehow they get lost in the myriad between constitution and statute and liberal gossip and rumors.
Real facts;
1. If a law were broken, the AG would be obligated to pursue prosecution.
2. If the AG didnt, members of Congress would demand that it be done.
3. There are no impeachment bills against Bush/Cheney that can be passed on the Senate floor because there is not sufficient evidence that either ever violated the law to justify it. The hatred in Congress and the Senate by Democratic leaders is irrefutable, and they would absolutely move forward if they had a legal option to do so, which they have not done, because they can not do it.
and
4. The beating drums bring gossip and rumors to our ears of a war the liberals think they can win, even after they lost it.
Even met someone whose been soundly defeated but jist cant figger its so?
109. js | January 10th, 2008 at 10:21 am
However, the President has acted in bad faith in failing to comply with FISA….DP
Really?
So why havent charges been drawn up?
Why are you spouting off on this, yet no court, nor Congressman, nor prosecuting attorney, are bringing action against Bush or Cheney for impeachment?
Wake up. Bush didnt violate the FISA, just like Washington didnt violate the 4th Amendment by opening mail captured from Brittish Generals in time of war. Do you refute the Executive Authority vested by the Constitution? Based on what, Statute? Doesnt work that way.
110. js | January 10th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Need I remind you that a White House lap dog Congress was controlled by Republicans until November 2006. You expected them to try to remove a President of their own party? Please……DP
Hogwash. Democrats have controlled Congress and the Senate for 14 months, and STILL no impeachment charges were filed.
Is that your best shot?
111. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 10:27 am
js,
I’m glad that you’re so happy over your imagined triumphs, however, you might curb your enthusiasm long enough to take a civics or government class.
Tell me. Which of the three coequal branches of the Federal government carries out foreign intelligence surveillance. Is it the Judicial Branch? No. Is it the Legislative? No. Ding-ding-ding! It’s the Executive Branch headed by the President! So, in ruling that FISA, which was enacted by the Legislative Branch, is Constitutional, the Judicial Branch (courtesy of Marbury v. Madison) stated that Congress can set rules over the activities of the Executive Branch in conducting foreign intelligence surveillance.
As to the Attorney General’s “obligation”, as you put it, to have prosecuted someone for violating FISA, have Republicans already dumped Alberto Gonzales down the Memory Hole that quickly? This is the man who depended on every aspect of his career on George W. Bush and who is one of the lawyers working for George W. Bush who told him that violating FISA was within his inherent authority. Also, there is a House Resolution in committee right now to impeach the Vice-President (as previously stated in this thread). However, politics is a big part of this process. I know that may shock you, but it’s true.
112. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 10:41 am
(Ed. Note: Deleted - off topic; we note with great care that Diana will never address an issue she can’t reasonably argue against but will, instead, insert an issue she prefers to argue about. This won’t be allowed any more. Thanks for playing).
113. SteaM | January 10th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Mark,
Earlier you mentioned that Iran’s not a legitimate Democracy and such.
No thanks to us meddling in their affairs 50 years ago when they were a democracy and we screwed it up by overthrowing their government.
http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/25/50_years_after_the_cias_first
114. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Diana, no - you are wrong. I’m proving that your interpretation of the law is incorrect. The current terror war is the only place so far to apply it. And it has NOT been interpreted the way youthink it has. Thats because the cases I give are the way you need to think about it. Think, huh, there it is - I identified the problem.
115. Tractatus | January 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
To disagree with me on this point is to be fundamentally un-American.,/i>
Now there’s some good defensiveness. “Sure, I’m engaging in wishful thinking and am unable to separate things I want to be true from things that are true–if I believe it, then it, then it simply must be true–and if you disagree, then you are un-American.” You may not know much, Mark, but you clearly know how sad your argument is here if you’re resorting to such pathetic, desperate measures to head off being challenged on a typically boneheaded statement you made.
116. Retired Spook | January 10th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Back to the original topic of this thread; one of the links in my original comment which has been in moderation purgatory for 27 hours was an oped by my favorite retired Army Spook Ralph Peters.
117. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
RS - he makes a good case. I wonder what the exact wording was in the commanders Rules-of-engagement? They may not have had very much flexibility.
118. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Isn’t this just so special…
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0803/index.htm?loc=interstitialskip
119. sleepygene | January 10th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Mark-
You, Neocon, Kahn and Spook can’t out debate the master debater Diana, she wipes the floor with you guys with ease, so you edit her. Nice. How is the FEC complaint against Senator Clinton coming along? Nowhere I assume. Are you running for Harry Reid’s seat this year? We all need to know this information.
120. js | January 10th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
109. Diana Powe (had enough of your double talk too)
Sorry DP, with all the BS you posted, you missed the part that said “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
Now, assuming that you can read, its pretty simple to show us exactly where “constitutional authority” is vested that over-rides this statement by the court.
Why havent you posted it? Why havent you mentioned it? Why do you keep going to the “SAME” place, even though later in the COURTS statement that your rely on turns the table and stresses with no uncertainty that FISA COULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE PRESIDENTS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.
How many ways can it be spelled out, or are you just copying trash talk to confuse the lay people?
121. js | January 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
116. Diana Powe
Thats just stupidity.
122. js | January 10th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Under Article II of the Constitution, including in his capacity as Commander in Chief, the President has the responsibility to protect the Nation from further attacks, and the Constitution gives him all necessary authority to fulfill that duty. See, e.g., Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1863) (stressing that if the Nation is invaded, “the President is not only authorized but bound to resist by force …. without waiting for any special legislative authority”); Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19, 27 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Silberman, J. concurring) (”[T]he Prize Cases … stand for the proposition that the President has independent authority to repel aggressive acts by third parties even without specific congressional authorization, and courts may not review the level of force selected.”); id. at 40 (Tatel, J., concurring). The Congress recognized this constitutional authority in the preamble to the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (”AUMF”) of September 18, 2001, 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (”[T]he President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States.”), and in the War Powers Resolution, see 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c) (”The constitutional powers of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities[] … [extend to] a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”).
This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 20(2) (”[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information …. We take for granted that the President does have that authority …. “). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely domestic threats, but it expressly distinguished foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary “if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable.” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347,363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).
The President’s constitutional authority to direct the NSA to conduct the activities he described is supplemented by statutory authority under the AUMF. The AUMF authorizes the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, … in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” § 2(a). The AUMF clearly contemplates action within the United States, see also id. pmbl. (the attacks of September 11 “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”). The AUMF cannot be read as limited to authorizing the use of force against Afghanistan, as some have argued. Indeed, those who directly “committed” the attacks of September 11 resided in the United States for months before those attacks. The reality of the September 11 plot demonstrates that the authorization of force covers activities both on foreign soil and in America
http://cryptome.org/doj-nsa-spy.htm
123. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
js,
It just doesn’t get any better, does it?
You’re quoting a letter written by a lawyer employed by the President of the United States. He works in the Executive Branch and, given his propensity for making false statements to Congress relative to the firings of the U.S. attorneys, not an especially ethical one. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review stated that FISA is Constitutional. Therefore, you can quote all the Administration bluster that you want, but the statute sets up rules that the Executive Branch must follow unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction, like the U. S. Supreme Court, rules otherwise. However, it would seem that the reason for all the Executive Branch bluster is that they apparently fear a full-blown examination of their actions. If their position were so solidly-grounded one would suppose they’d welcome such a review in order to shut up their critics. Sadly, no.
124. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Interesting. The voice heard on the original Navy tape did sound rather odd, whatever the source.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40747
125. js | January 10th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
121. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
js,
You’re quoting a letter written by a lawyer
////\\//\\///\\\\\\
What do you think Judges are? AG?
I see your attacking the messenger, and not the message, so why waste more time?
You are an empty bag.
126. FmrMarine | January 10th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Its a hoot to see the marxist libbers running around with their hair on fire calling for Busch’s impeachment.
If ONLY he would have gotten a b!@w job from a 21yo INTERN………..THAT would have done it,
the rats would have “enraged” against such dastardly act. LOL
HOWEVER
as for the iranian boats buzzing our ships and threatening,them by dumping items in the water causing our ships to take evasive action….
is A true military provocation.
They tried us and we blinked.
They should have been sunk.
This is what happens when we have a congress who is ANTI military, anti POTUS, and WEAK knee’d.
127. Diana Powe | January 10th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
How about the anti-military President, FmrMarine. The one who had Building 18 of Walter Reed Army Hospital happen six years into his watch. The one who didn’t ensure that up-armored M998 HMMWVs got to Iraq in a timely manner. The one who didn’t ensure the latest-generation body armor got to the soldiers in Iraq in a timely manner. The one who just tried to “pocket veto” the fiscal 2008 National Defense Authorization Act which will delay bonus payments to some military personnel. How about him or is just saying you “support the troops” enough?
128. FmrMarine | January 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Welllllll diana
When in Viet Nam;
a war orchestrated by a democrat,
WE…….
1. had NO armored hum vees to ride in.
2 had NO armored copters to fly in.
3. had NO body armor to fight in.
4. VA hospitals were a disgrace then.
5. NO bonus payments.
6. NO support from you marxist traitors.
7. NO boots to wear, had to strip them from dead Marines to re issue.
8. NO good weapons…only the NEW - M-16 which failed miserably at first….Hill 881
Tell me all about the wonderful democrats who were in charge then.
129. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
881S or N? Good friend of mine was there. I think he was a Staff then. Dave Brooks. He actually watched his senior drill instructor (who was then a sergeant) get it.
Do you live anywhere near Quantico? You’ve got to see the museum. The Khe Sahn exhibit is pretty good.
130. FmrMarine | January 10th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
It was 881 N
No,I live in Fla.
Went to school in Quantico..beautiful base.
I was stationed at Dong Ha but Spent some time in Khe Sanh dec-67-Jan 68. We were there to reinforce the base. Not a fun place to be.
I would love to see themuseum, maybe someday ill take a trip to see the wall and check out the museum.
However Washington i hear is the pits. Kind of an inner city ghetto only blocks from the capital and WH.
check out this website
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/4867/
131. sam | January 10th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Mark,
How is Iran’s government Illegitimate?? Last I checked, the revolution in 1979 was started by the people. They got rid of a dictator Shah and replaced it with a system that was NOT a dictatorship like the Shah.
Second of all, by this logic, then the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, UAE are all illegitimate. After all, those arent elected leaders, those are not chosen by the people and there is rampant discrimination against women and minorities in those countries. But god forbid you say anything against those countries because their leaders are your surrogates and you can’t say anything against them.
Second of all, The iranian Navy would NEVER engage the US navy head on. No need to, we can just use our suicide speedboats to wreak havoc on your ships. Those little speedboats just have enough to cause havoc. your ships aren’t designed for combat against speedboats, they are designed to fight against other navies. You see, the way to beat a superpower is not by engaging it head on, its just by using asymmetric methods. Blow up a couple of ships using speedboats, a couple of suicide attacks against US troops in Iraq. Give some weapons to the taliban in Afghanistan, blow up some buildings in Kuwait, UAE, and next thing you know….POOF!!! your dominance and navy become useless. Businesses will run from the middle east hub of Kuwait and UAE, and the war in Afghanistan will be totally lost….
you americans think that people will stand toe to toe with your military and lose..instead, they will hit and run, and win.
132. js | January 10th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Whats so funny is that, when they attack like they did on 9-11, everyone and thier brother whats to send in the troops.
Six/Seven years later, while we still have the same basic threat looming on the horizon, the rats jump ship and play tree hugger.
They gotta be a fools fool to think our ships should just sit there and even take a chance.
But if we got hit and sailors died because of it, they would cry about how stupid our commander is for not sinking the attackers.
Oh, ya, thats right….they are crying about how stupid the commander is already…well…you get the idea, right?
133. js | January 10th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
. They got rid of a dictator Shah and replaced it with a system that was NOT a dictatorship like the Shah.
///\\\///\\\///\\\
you mean telling people they cant listen to music isnt being a dictatorship?
go tell….
and all along I though being a slave in Iran meant you were just another regualar citizen wishing the Shah were still there….lol
funny too how similar those mullahs and the ayatollah work, one man, forced religion, forced dress code, forced elections, etc,etc…just like a dictatorship…but you say its not eh?
134. Kahn | January 10th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
sammy, whats the matter? Goat not feeling well? It’s got you feeling crazy again, I see.
You will engage them, and die. How is a little speedboat harder to engage than a missile or a torpedo? Whatever, last time Iran tried they lost half their navy. And they DID try the speedboat crap. Hell, Iran couldn’t even beat Iraq.
By the way, NEWS FLASH - there’s 40 VIRGINIANS (NOT virgins) in Paradise waiting to kick your sorry asses. George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jefferson, all there wearing brass knuckles.
Dance around now, and then back to the goats.
135. Mark Noonan | January 10th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Sam,
Of course those governments aren’t legitimate…but we’ve also got no particular beef with them, and they aren’t causing us a lot of trouble. As for the rest - I’m certain that the army of the mullahs will fight like cowards; eastern-trained armies always have, and always will. And they’ll be beaten by a western-trained army…
136. Faceplant | January 11th, 2008 at 1:11 am
“As for the rest - I’m certain that the army of the mullahs will fight like cowards; eastern-trained armies always have, and always will. And they’ll be beaten by a western-trained army…”
So THAT’S how the Mujahadeen drove the Soviets out of Afghanistan!
137. Faceplant | January 11th, 2008 at 1:13 am
“Interesting. The voice heard on the original Navy tape did sound rather odd, whatever the source.”
Exactly. That sounds literally NOTHING like a Persian. But don’t worry, the wingnuts will all fall in line like good little cult members.
This administration NEVER lies about ANYTHING, remember?
138. Mark Noonan | January 11th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Face,
I bring to your attention the fact that the Muj drove out a Russian army - ie, an eastern army.
139. Faceplant | January 11th, 2008 at 1:43 am
“Would the Marine Corpds need a warrant to intercept phone calls between a Cuban division in South Florida and Traitorous Americans in Jacksonville? The way I read your argument, yes.”
Yes, they would. Actually more likely they wouldn’t be allowed to do this at all, as US Law expressly forbids the military to conduct any operations against it’s own citizens, absent a declaration of martial law. The military, doesn’t get to just do what it damn well pleases.
“And - what rights to non-uniformed, war criminal, nationless terrorist have outside the US at Guantanamo?”
Well, at least common article three of the Geneva conventions according to the US Supreme Court. To deny suspected terrorists the right to a regularly constituted court, would be an admission that you don’t actually beleive in the judicial system that has sustained this government for years.
“What bad treatment? You don’t have any particulars, just a bad feeling and a distrust of our military.”
“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4700504″
“A detailed log, obtained by Time magazine and verified by the Pentagon, describes harsh treatment of a Guantanamo prisoner who was interrogated for 50 days. The man, who the U.S. government says helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks, was forced to urinate on himself and wear pictures of naked women around his neck.”
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002105377_gitmo01.html
“The human-rights group decried tactics used on some detainees — including severe temperatures, loud music and other sounds, the sharing of medical information with interrogators and forced nudity — that it said violate international rules against torture adopted by the United States and other countries.”
http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/080207Torture.htm
“The investigation centers around Marine Lt Col Colby Vokey, who represents a detainee at the US naval base in eastern Cuba. Vokey filed a “hotline” co