Posted on 02/18/2006 7:23:51 AM PST by Souldrift
Everyone agrees this is a trying time, and everyone--contrary to George Bush--agrees there actually are people out there trying to harm Americans. Everyone I know, even my most liberal of friends, agrees that there are people attacking us but disagrees about the solution. But in case you missed it, George Bush thinks he's still trying to convince people that Americans are targets:
I understand there’s some in America who say, ‘Well, this can’t be true there are still people willing to attack.’ All I would ask them to do is listen to the words of Osama bin Laden and take him seriously.Because we've been targeted for attack since 9/11/01 and prior, as in the U.S.S. Cole incident, our country is fighting terrorism in the Middle East. Our government calls it a "war on terror." As I've blogged previously, we should be more careful with our phrasing, as the "war on terror" should actually be the "War on terrorism." Either way, however, the use of the militant term "war" is interesting, as there really is no identifiable country or army fighting us. The emphasis on the term "war" allows us to involve our military and operate under rules of engagement.
One of the rules that gains increased importance during wartime is protection of information classified for reasons of "national security." This phrase is an example of one that can be used as weapons, to isolate those of dissenting viewpoints. It is one thing to conceal operational details of programs which tell the enemy exactly what technologies are being used, and how they work, in our efforts against them. It is another to conceal only vague information which does not provide the enemy anything they do not know already, but which might prompt questions from the media or from the population at large. It is this second category which is most damaging.
Currently there are two battles for secrecy being fought (if not more) in the media. First, we have the release of information regarding the NSA spy program. As I blogged yesterday, Senator DeWine stated matter-of-factly "we don’t want to have any kind of debate about whether it’s constitutional or not constitutional." The administration argues that *Details* about the program may aid our enemies, and to fully debate this would require divulging some of the details. This is valid, which is why the debate was to take place among a limited number of Senators (the Intelligence Committee) which would report back its findings, to hopefully satisfy the rest of Congress and the people.
Earlier, contrary to yesterday's assertion that "of course we're willing to work with the Congress," the White House was arguing that even talking about this program aids the enemy. Honestly, it's asinine to believe that terrorists who can plan and coordinate four planes crashing into multiple targets within an hour in different cities the same morning are NOT aware we can WIRETAP. But here's Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States, trying to support this ridiculous argument:
Sorry, not good enough. If we were stating (illustration, people!) "we're using the AT&T VR-59 -2000 to tap into every CO in the American phone system, so that we intercept every phone call when it departs and enters the last-mile, and further......." we'd be giving way too much information. But WE'RE NOT! The American people also know we wiretap, but they assume that due to FISA and the events of Watergate, that wiretapping is conducted with some oversight. Because it is not, the information was leaked to the media by a concerned citizen, who can be considered a whistleblower. The White House is becoming alarmed at the frequency of leaks and is combating them. Some have called this the "most secretive administration in modern history" based on the amount of information it classifies, and this is another example.And so, when the director of the CIA says this should really damage our intel capabilities, I would defer to that statement. I think, based on my experience, it is true -- you would assume that the enemy is presuming that we are engaged in some kind of surveillance.
But if they're not reminded about it all the time in the newspapers and in stories, they sometimes forget....And you're amazed at some of the communications that exist. And so when you keep sticking it in their face that we're involved in some kind of surveillance, even if it's unclear in these stories, it can't help but make a difference, I think.
Another recent leak where the White House is framing a nearly opposite reaction is the leak of Valerie Plame's identity. In this case, the powers that be in the executive branch were frustrated by her husband's claims against the administration, and they sought to reveal her identity in a plot to discredit him. Recently it has been alleged by the indicted "Scooter" Libby that his superiors authorized him to leak information, and by others that Cheney was ultimately behind the effort.
In this case, though, where the identity of an undercover CIA operative was revealed, it is clear that intelligence-gathering is immediately compromised, as that operative's missions are over and those of her associates (those known to our enemies) are also jeopardized. In fact, their lives may be jeopardized. Yet instead of thoroughly denouncing this behavior, Cheney now argues that he has the authority to declassify information but yet will not confirm whether or not he has done so, only that he has participated in such discussions. This is clearing the brush for defense of Libby -- Libby claims his superiors authorized it, and if the "Superior" in question (his boss, Cheney) has the authority to do so, no harm no foul.
Meanwhile, even though Cheney is arguing he has this power, Libby's defense team is requesting further information on what information the White House has declassified, and the orders given to him to disseminate it. These requests are for a great amount of "classified" information, and the prosecution now argues that Libby is requesting this information--knowing the requests will be denied--only because he thinks it will cause the case to be thrown out. Therefore he's trying to take advantage of the administration's desire to suppress the notion that it used dubious and disproven claims in its case for war against Iraq, and the scandalous means it was willing to employ to make its case, because that information would likely diminish public support for the administration--and therefore infringe upon "national security."
Clearly we have current examples of the administraiton using the defense of classifying information for "national security" selectively to achieve its own ends. The American people cannot stand for this.
IATZ
I looked at your blog--thanks for the convenient link--and you should be notified that you have false advertising on your site.
You see, I know people who are "slightly-left-of-center."
People who are "slightly-left-of-center" are good friends of mine.
And you sir, are not "slightly-left-of-center."
For example, people who are slightly "slightly-left-of-center" do not believe that dissent is being squashed just because one idiot or another says it is. They prefer to deal in evidence, and there isn't any evidence that this government is squashing dissent, systematically or otherwise. The only people who believe that it is are the sort of people who gather for a protest in broad daylight with tape over their mouths and pretend that they aren't allowed to be there, while the police horribly oppress them by standing around and drinking coffee.
People who are "slightly-left-of-center" aren't abyssmally stupid enough to think that an enemy that requires certain beard lengths (and bans dancing and TV, mandates the burkha, makes women go out of the house only when walking with a male relative, doesn't allow free thought, speech or freedom of religion, keeps little girls from learning to read, etc.) doesn't hate our freedoms. These people jail, maim or kill anyone who practices liberties that are even available in most dictatorships, yet you can't imagine they hate us for practicing those freedoms and more. That's like saying the Nazis didn't have a problem with Jews.
People who are "slightly-left-of-center" aren't abyssmally stupid enough to think that anyone barbecued stockbrokers to death on 9/11 because of a few foreign policy objections. People who are "slightly-left-of-center" are generally smart enough to realize that even if that were true, it would simply be even more reason we should not stop until every terrorist is in a cell or a cemetary, because anyone who says "your foreign policy is bad, so I'm going to murder thousands of your civilians" needs killing just as badly as someone who says "I hate your freedom, so I'm going to murder thousands of your civilians."
So, in closing, you are not anywhere near "slightly-left-of-center." You are a DU-style moonbat, with paranoiac tendencies and New Age beliefs that amount to a combination of a superiority complex and a habit of staring at your bellybutton.
Oh, and how's that "supporting Google" thing working out for you? They're all about freedom aren't they? As long as you're not Chinese, that is.
And another troll becomes charcoal.
Yep. Only 500 kilotons but still more than enough to wipe out the troll.
ROTFLMAO!
I'm glad you enjoyed the comment.
If it is obvious that everyone knows of the capacity to wiretap, then it should also be obvious that we're speaking of something far beyond wiretap, the knowledge of which will jeopardize national security.
Rotflol! (Joan always gave me a headache...and a severe guilt hangover...)
Wonder if they can imagine a photon trojan?
Uh, did you read about Free Republic before you joined?
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web.
It's also best not to support your position with blogs (especially your own) and admittedly biased journalism. I don't suppose the folks at DU would be too impressed with what Rush had to say.
So many people are so ignorant of what is legal and not legal I get tired of hearing and reading about it. Let the attorneys and the courts sort it out - all I know is that the CIC has the CONSTITUIONAL right to protect the American people during a time of war, and I am quite sure the Congress authorized AND funded this War On Terror. Constitution trumps whatever the Congress passes as law. So why do so many people think they are the intelligent ones who know the law and the President with all the legal resources he can muster up is the "dumb one"? I just don't get it, except that it is yet another Impeachment TALKING POINT, and the LLL will not give up until he is run out of office (on Jan 21, 2009).
Raw Story? You have got to be kidding me. You publicly admit to reading that garbage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.