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.
Blogs For Victory 
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?
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”.
js,
It’s the Harvard Political Review you quoted from not the Harvard Law Review which still isn’t a court of competent jurisdiction.
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?
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?
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.
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.
“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.
Click to access 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.
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!!
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.
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?
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
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.
“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!
Click to access 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.
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.
Oh, and faceplant. There are aliens landing in fields in Europe and making patterns. Prove it false.
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.
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…
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.
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…..
“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!
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
“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.
“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.”