ABC News is leading their newspage with the headline “Harriet Miers Knew of Destruction of Interrogation Tapes.”  Wow, OMG!  The left will scream “the White House knew about it and did nothing?”  Ahem:

Three officials told ABC News Miers urged the CIA not to destroy the tapes.

But they did anyways. 

As for myself, I could care less.  KSM and his buddy deserved nothing less then waterboarding, and I think that technique let them off the hook too easy to be frank.

But the left and the right is starting to pile on and they do make some valid points.  Like the timing of this news:

The news just happens to be perfectly timed as the Supreme Court hears a Gitmo case and, as the WaPo,
notes, on the same day “House and Senate negotiators reached an
agreement on legislation that would prohibit the use of waterboarding
and other harsh interrogation tactics by the CIA and bring intelligence
agencies in line with rules followed by the U.S. military.”

Oh no, the MSM would never hold on to this kinda news just to influence legislation would they? 

Hoekstra and Reyes are coming out swinging:

The CIA did not tell Congress about the destruction in 2005 of
videotapes recording aggressive CIA interrogations of two Al Qaeda suspects
until this year, the top two members of the House Intelligence Committee said in
an angry letter Friday to CIA Director Michael V. Hayden.

Anticipating an upcoming New York Times article revealing the destruction,
Hayden said in a memo to employees on Thursday that congressional oversight
committees had been notified about the existence of the tapes and plans to get
rid of them.

“Based upon available records and our best recollection, this simply is not
true,” said a joint letter from House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre
Reyes (D-Texas) and the committee’s ranking member and former chairman, Rep.
Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

Oh come on.  They told Congress about the tapes existence and their plans to destroy them. No stink was raised, no investigations, no hoopla.  Jane Harmon has already gone on record stating she was told about them.

Rep. Jane Harman of California, then the senior Democrat
on the House Intelligence Committee, was one of only four members of
Congress in 2003 informed of the tapes’ existence and the CIA’s
intention to ultimately destroy them.

“I told the CIA that destroying videotapes of interrogations was a
bad idea and urged them in writing not to do it,” Harman said. While
key lawmakers were briefed on the CIA’s intention to destroy the tapes,
they were not notified two years later when the spy agency actually
carried out the plan. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay
Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said the committee only learned of the tapes’
destruction in November 2006.

So you have the White House counsel and the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee telling the CIA it wasn’t a good idea to destroy the tapes.  But they did anyway and now you have the Democrats yelling and screaming with selective outrage, as Marty Lederman describes:

Jay Rockefeller is constantly learning of
legally dubious (at best) CIA intelligence activities, and then saying
nothing about them publicly until they are leaked to the press, at
which point he expresses outrage and incredulity — but reveals nothing.

…Jane Harman also knew of the intention to destroy
the tapes, and she at least “urged” the CIA in writing not to do it.
(Where were her colleagues?) But when she found out the CIA had
destroyed the tapes, where was Harman’s press conference? Where were
the congressional hearings?

But now its outrageous.

Just like the Plame episode prior to the election the timing of this whole thing stinks.

But beside all that my question is why would they videotape the damn things anyways? 
Waterboard them, I don’t care.  Those scum deserved much worse.  But to
videotape it?

UPDATE

You just have to listen to John Gibson today….he was on fire: (18 minutes long)

UPDATE II

Check out Kevin Drum crying for al-Qaeda:

So here’s what the tapes would have shown: not just that we had
brutally tortured an al-Qaeda operative, but that we had brutally
tortured an al-Qaeda operative who was (a) unimportant and low-ranking,
(b) mentally unstable, (c) had no useful information, and (d)
eventually spewed out an endless series of worthless, fantastical
“confessions” under duress.

Idiots.

The left is having a little fit over the news that the CIA destroyed tapes of interrogations (per their S.O.P) with the more moronic of them alleging that it was because they tortured the terrorists.  First the story:

“WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

The C.I.A. said today that the decision to destroy the tapes had been made “within the C.I.A. itself,” and they were destroyed to protect the safety of undercover officers and because they no longer had intelligence value. The agency was headed at the time by Porter J. Goss. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Goss declined this afternoon to comment on the destruction of the tapes.

The official spokesman said it was done because they held no intelligence value, and if the tapes were to get out (which is more then likely seeing as how the CIA leaks like a sieve) it could jeopardize the agents lives.  You would think the left could understand that since they were aghast at the danger the Plame leak put her under.  But big shocker….they ain’t so worried about the CIA agents now:

These tapes were destroyed to protect the people who didn’t protect any sense of decency in interrogations.

There is no internal reason, except saving your own ass from prosecution. And keeping the tapes out of court. The decision on the lowest techniques was made at the highest levels. And now we will witness lowdown denials as to who high up ordered the tapes destroyed. “What matters here is that it was done in line with the law,” he said. He is Michael Hayden. And he talks not just about the destruction of the tapes. But about the techniques used too. We do not torture is all you need to know. But this all tortures credibility in a week where it has previously been flayed and fileted.

There is no internal reason. But there may be an infernal reason. Because if there were tapes of waterboarding, all the waterboarding in the world shouldn’t keep torturers from burning in hell. We do not torture is all you need to know.

Poor fella, I think he broke a blood vessel pounding the keys during that post.

Of course after the official spokesman the NYT’s quotes anonymous sources as saying they were destroyed because of “possible legal jeopardy.”  Which is hogwash.  Waterboarding is not illegal, and the CIA viewed the tapes prior to destruction and saw nothing illegal.  Not that the left will believe them.  They take the IC’s word as
gospel when it jives with their worldview, ie the NIE, but when it
delves into areas they don’t agree with, well then the IC is full of
it.  Funny how that works huh?

Another compelling reason for the destruction of the tapes was the fact that after the leak of the “panties on the Iraqi’s head” photo’s caused such an uproar in the Muslim community the CIA was worried that pictures of interrogations, which I am sure is not pretty…and shouldn’t be, would be leaked and create further turmoil in the Muslim world:

A former intelligence official who was briefed on the issue said the
videotaping was ordered as a way of assuring “quality control” at
remote sites following reports of unauthorized interrogation
techniques. He said the tapes, along with still photographs of
interrogations, were destroyed after photographs of abuse of prisoners
at Abu Ghraib became public in May 2004 and C.I.A. officers became
concerned about a possible leak of the videos and photos.

He said the worries about the impact a leak of the tapes might have in the Muslim world were real.

It has been widely reported that Mr. Zubaydah was subjected to
several tough physical tactics, including waterboarding, which involves
near-suffocation. But C.I.A. officers judged that the release of photos
or videos would nonetheless provoke a strong reaction.

And you know damn well another rogue agent ala Valerie Plame would leak the thing if they could get their hands on it.

Lastly, the left is upset that the tapes were supposedly asked for and they were lied to:

The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of
the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission,
which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and any
other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency
prisoners.

C.I.A. lawyers told federal prosecutors in 2003 and 2005, who
relayed the information to a federal court in the Moussaoui case, that
the C.I.A. did not possess recordings of interrogations sought by the
judge in the case. It was unclear whether the judge had explicitly
sought the videotape depicting the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah.

It was unclear?  Meaning the judge didn’t ask for the specific tapes and that being the case why would a intelligence agency offer up information and intelligence it didn’t have to?  There are big security concerns when it comes to national intelligence and if anyone is that foolhardy to believe the CIA would just open up the cupboard and say “have at it!” they are quite naive.

But don’t hold you breath that the left will buy any of this, and neither should anyone care if they do.  They will see conspiracies and evil conglomerates around every corner so they should be ignored.

Hugh Hewitt had a great interview today with Douglas Feith, who headed up the group that took the CIA to task for spinning intelligence to fit their view of the world.

Here a few of the questions and answers to wet your appetite:

HH: Do you believe, as opposed to your staff, that the CIA was filtering its own intelligence, Mr. Feith?

DF: Yes, I think that there were people, there were people in the CIA who had a theory that the Baathist secularists would not cooperate with the religious extremists in al Qaeda. And because they had that theory, when they looked at information that was, that showed, or that suggested that there was cooperation, they were inclined not to believe that information. And so what they were doing is they were preparing reports about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship in the year 2002, that were either excluding altogether, or downplaying older intelligence reports that suggested that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda.

[...]HH: Now there has been for some time speculation that there is a war against the war inside of the CIA. Is that fair?

DF: Well, we know now quite clearly from people who were in the CIA at the time, and who have since left, and have written books and articles, and given interviews, that there were a substantial number of people, including some analysts at very high levels, who were fundamentally at odds with the President’s policy. And that’s…I mean, that’s okay in principle, as long as they are doing professional work. The problem is that some of these people, I think very unprofessionally, were leaking stories, making allegations, one of the standard techniques is using former intelligence officials as a vehicle for leaking stories about what’s going on within the administration, and a lot of those stories that came out were very harmful, very false, and have had a lasting effect in hurting the President.

And the whole 30 minute interview here:

But then again how dare we question those who gather and filter our intelligence.  They did such a bang up job with it during the Clinton administration right?

Is anyone really surprised that the New York Times would write a whole article about a once secret letter (nothing is ever secret when it comes to the NYT’s) to President Bush from Peter Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and not once mention the REAL story in the letter? (h/t JustOneMinute)

Sure, the author goes on and on about the fact that Hoekstra was upset over not being briefed about a intelligence program:

In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

But fails to mention this part in the letter about Steve Kappes, who was at the time of the letter being brought back into the CIA as Deputy Director under nominee Hayden:

“I understand that Mr. Kappes is a capable, well-qualified, and well-liked former Directorate of Operations (DO) case officer. I am heartened by the professional qualities he would bring to the job, but concerned by what could be the political problems that he could bring back to the agency. There has been much public and private speculation about the politicization of the Agency. I am convinced that this politicization was underway well before Porter Goss became the Director. In fact, I have long been convinced that a strong and well-positioned group within the Agency intentionally undermined the Administration and its policies. This argument is supported by the Ambassador Wilson/Valerie Plame events, as well as by the string of unauthorized disclosures from an organization that prides itself with being able to keep secrets. I have come to the belief that, despite his service to the DO, Mr. Kappes may have been a part of this group. I must take note when my Democratic colleagues - those who so vehemently denounced and now publicly attacked the strong choice of Porter Goss as Director - now publicly support Mr. Kappes’s return.” (.PDF of letter here)

Wh-wha-what! The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee believes the Deputy Director of the CIA was involved in the leaks of our classified national security secrets!

And the New York Times mentions that not once.

How about the fact that Hoekstra is convinced the Plame story is part of these schemes to undermine the Bush administration?

Any mention? Nope.

But Tom Meguire did find the Washington Post writing a story where they added “domestic” to the letter written by Hoekstra. Problem is that no where in his letter does he mention that the program he is complaining about is domestic:

In a sharply worded letter, the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee has told President Bush that the administration is angering lawmakers, and possibly violating the law, by giving Congress too little information about domestic surveillance programs.

Isn’t that special? My how they jump to conclusions based on what they HOPE they will find don’t they?

The Washington Post does allude to the fact that the Hoekstra letter contained his disappointment over the Kappes appointment, but fails to mention WHY he was disappointed over Kappes. Another shocker huh?

Stephen Spruiell has some extensive analysis over the briefing part of the letter:

We should, I suppose, consider ourselves lucky that the NYT didn’t find out which programs Hoekstra was referring to and splash their details all over the front page. But I keep wondering: Are these the alleged “special access programs” that disgruntled ex-NSA employee Russ Tice told the Senate Armed Services Committee about last May; at around the same time that Hoekstra sent his letter? On May 12th, Congress Daily reported (via Nexis):

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. Russell Tice, who worked on what are known as "special access programs," has wanted to meet in a closed session with members of Congress and their staff since President Bush announced in December that he had secretly authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens without a court order. In an interview late Thursday, Tice said the Senate Armed Services Committee finally asked him to meet next week in a secure facility on Capitol Hill.

Is it just a coincidence that Hoekstra wrote his letter to President Bush so soon after Tice started talking about these programs? And what are we to make of Tice himself, who was fired from the NSA after he repeatedly accused a co-worker of being a Chinese spy and was ordered to undergo a psychiatric evaluation that found him to be paranoid?

Whatever the case may be, it’s of concern that one of the administration’s closest allies on intelligence-gathering is suddenly starting to rebel. Is this just about the firing of Porter Goss and the hiring of Stephen Kappes? Or is this in some way related to weird whistleblower Russ Tice? And if so, is there anything to the claim that the administration has improperly withheld information from the intelligence committees, given that the NSA directed Tice to the armed services committees instead?

My point is that perhaps the intel committee was not briefed because the NSA believed in good faith that it was a matter for the armed services committees. If the programs are the ones that Russ Tice testified about (and Hoekstra made several statements on FNS about “the whistleblower process” leading me to believe that they are), then we know that the NSA believed them to be a matter for the armed services committees. Hoekstra obviously disagreed, and perhaps his arguments were persuasive.

Interesting argument. If the NSA believed that the program did not need to be briefed to the House Intelligence Committee since it fell under the DoD umbrella, what’s the problem? Hoekstra obviously disagreed and when he stomped his feet enough Bush caved and briefed them.

Me thinks Spruiell is on to something here regarding Tice. The nutcase testifies about some secret programs to the Armes Services Committee and then all of a sudden Hoekstra writes the letter. He wanted to be in the loop obviously.

But the big story here is the fact that he acknowledges the CIA coup, and even pointedly referrers to the Plame affair as an example.

The New York Times and the Washington Post doesn’t see it that way I suppose. Hell, they don’t even mention it in passing.

Other’s Blogging:

• Right Voices
• Say Anything
• Sweetness & Light
• Macsmind
• Dinocrat
• Hot Air
• Captain’s Quarters
• Old War Dogs

I really don't think Dana Priest and James Risen were looking for this result:

The Supreme Court refused on Monday to consider the cases of journalists who protected confidential sources for stories about former nuclear weapons scientist Wen Ho Lee, a final note in a legal fight that pitted press freedoms against privacy rights.

The court's action, taken without comment, was announced three days after the decision of news organizations to pay Lee $750,000 as part of the $1.6 million settlement of his privacy lawsuit against the government.

The settlement erased civil contempt of court citations against reporters for refusing to disclose who leaked them information about an espionage investigation of Lee, who was fired from his job at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Lee sued the government for violating his rights under the Privacy Act, and said he needed the reporters' testimony to tell him who in the government attempted to smear him as a spy for China. He was never charged with espionage.

Justices could have dismissed the appeal as moot, or no longer an issue, based on the out-of-court settlement. Instead, they rejected the appeal, which had been filed on behalf of the reporters during the legal wrangling with Lee.

Betsy Miller, one of Lee's lawyers, called the court decision a surprise that "is an important, final vindication for Dr. Lee, as it resolves without any doubt that the court did not feel the reporters' appeals merited further review."

This sends a clear signal that reporters who receive classified information and then proceed to print it for the world to see can and will face justice.

And here we go again, another biased poll:

May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week?s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA?s surveillance program ?goes too far in invading people?s privacy,? while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

You can see the actual numbers here.

1007 Adults. 27% Republican, 36% Democrat, 32% Independent.

Out of those they had 897 Registered Adults:

29% Republican, 36% Democrat, 32% Independent

Sigh.

To quote myself from the last biased poll:

How in the hell can anyone really honestly believe this crapola? The 2004 Presidential election had the Republican with 50.7% of the vote next to 48.3% for the Democrat. Independents had .04%!

How about the last midterm election in 2002?

49.6% for the Republican while 46.9% for the Democrats. Independents? .02%

Hello? MSM? Do you think anyone buys this crap other then the KOS kiddies and DummiesU alumni?

Another example of the press trying to make news rather then report news.

UPDATE

Riehl World View was just polled and the results were quite revealing:

First, they asked for the youngest male in the home at the time. Maybe that was for this specific poll, but it bothered me that they wanted the youngest view. In any event, it just so happened to be me at the time.

I was asked if I felt the President was doing too much, enough, or not enough as regards combating terrorism. They also asked if I was aware of the NSA story and how closley I had been following same.

Honestly, I found myself trying to think as the questions quickly came and went. I had to match thoughtful opinions to pre-determined terms. For example, on privacy issues and the NSA story, was I very concerned, somewhat concerned, concerned, not much concerned, not concerned at all, etc. I felt as though there were blanks, or context to be filled in around any particular view I held, obviously, I couldn’t do that.

A question over the NSA program troubled me as it dealt with the government having all of my phone call information in their hands. If I hadn’t been following the story, I might have assumed they meant the content of my calls, as opposed to simply the numbers existing within a database too large to even imagine. WOuldn’t most people assume a phone record is an actual call?

And Blue Crab Boulevard has his take on the way he was polled:

Assuming his description is accurate (and I am willing to bet it is) the form of the questions provide a “push”. Look - I was a psych major once upon a time and had to take design of experiments. That’s a push poll. There is a vaguely threatening air about the questions - be intellectually honest. (I know this is a different poll than the Newsweek, but I think it is relevant).

While a dummy commented at his blog that “maybe” the reason there is such a disparity between Dem’s and Republicans is because everyone is leaving the Republican party…..sigh. It’s a wonder some people can even put on a pair of pants, don’t think they have more then two brain cells left.

Anyone who doesn’t see the obvious bias in these polls is either a delusional leftist (which leftist isn’t delusional tho) or lying to themselves.

The same kind of numbers are being generated in the polls today:

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats “even if it intrudes on privacy.”

As the polls indicated after the last NSA leak to the press. But the left continues on with this facade of indignation all in the name of power. They want the power of Congress back and they will stop at nothing until they achieve it. Last year the State Department listed just a few of the terrorist attacks that were averted by the NSA program, and other Law Enforcement agencies:

1. The West Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot to attack targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.

2. The East Coast Airliner Plot: In mid-2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack targets on the East Coast of the United States using hijacked commercial airplanes.

3. The Jose Padilla Plot: In May 2002 the U.S. disrupted a plot that involved blowing up apartment buildings in the United States. One of the plotters, Jose Padilla, also discussed the possibility of using a “dirty bomb” in the U.S.

4. The 2004 U.K. Urban Targets Plot: In mid-2004 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot that involved urban targets in the United Kingdom. These plots involved using explosives against a variety of sites.

5. The 2003 Karachi Plot: In the Spring of 2003 the U.S. and a partner disrupted a plot to attack Westerners at several targets in Karachi, Pakistan.

6. The Heathrow Airport Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and several partners disrupted a plot to attack Heathrow Airport [outside London] using hijacked commercial airliners. The planning for this attack was undertaken by a major 9/11 operational figure.

7. The 2004 U.K. Plot: In the Spring of 2004 the U.S. and partners, using a combination of law enforcement and intelligence resources, disrupted a plot to conduct large-scale bombings in the U.K.

8. The 2002 Arabian Gulf Shipping Plot: In late 2002 and 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot by al-Qa’ida operatives to attack ships in the Arabian Gulf.

9. The 2002 Straits of Hormuz Plot: In 2002 the U.S. and partners disrupted a plot to attack ships transiting the Straits of Hormuz.

10. The 2003 Tourist Site Plot: In 2003 the U.S. and a partner nation disrupted a plot to attack a tourist site outside the United States.

Remember that Ohio truck driver that was caught working with Al-Qaeda? Do you recall how he was caught?

An Ohio trucker has admitted to helping plan al Qaeda attacks in the United States after meeting terror chief Osama bin Laden at an Afghanistan terror training camp.

Iyman Faris, 34, checked out the chances of destroying a New York bridge and tried to buy equipment for proposed al Qaeda attacks while appearing to be a law-abiding trucker, according to documents unsealed Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.

Faris pleaded guilty May 1 to providing material support to al Qaeda and to conspiring to do so, according to the documents. The charges together carry as much as 20 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines.

[...]In communications to al Qaeda, Faris was told to refer to gas cutters, which would be used to burn through the bridge cables, as “gas stations” and tools for the derailing as “mechanics shops.”

Faris researched the bridge on the Internet and asked a friend about how to obtain the gas cutters. He also traveled to New York to check out the bridge and evaluate the chances of a successful attack.

In coded messages, sent to his al Qaeda handlers via an unnamed third party in the United States, Faris said he was still trying to obtain “gas stations” and “mechanics shops” — or he was still working on the project.

After scouting the bridge and deciding its security and structure meant the plot was unlikely to succeed, he passed along a message to al Qaeda in early 2003 that said “the weather is too hot.”

Yes, by listening to the man make calls FROM the United States to Al-Qaeda. The American people know this stuff works.

Take another example, Jeffrey Battle:

Homegrown terrorist Jeffrey Leon Battle considered America the ?land of the kaffirs,? or unbelievers, and the American people ?pigs.?

He once lamented to an acquaintance?who happened to be a government informant?that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks did not sufficiently damage the U.S. economy.

?This is the land of the enemy,? he said of his own country in a May 8, 2002, conversation secretly recorded by the government. He explained to a friend how his ?burning desire? to become an Islamic martyr had inspired his aborted quest to join forces with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, where he could kill American troops.

Battle, now 35, is serving an 18-year prison sentence for conspiring to wage war against the United States, a crime to which he confessed and pleaded guilty.

So according to all these polls the American people understand that the wiretaps and the data mining works. What do get from the Democrats in Congress?

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: Only through the press, we begin to learn the truth. The secret collection of phone call records tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida? If that’s the case, we’ve really failed in any kind of a war on terror.

Can anyone really be this ignorant? This should tell you what will happen if they take the House, nevermind the danger to our country. Nevermind that data mining telephone numbers is not a 4th Amendment issue. Nevermind that listening in on Al-Qaeda calling the US is a power granted to the President under the Constitution.

Nevermind that all this protects our country against a enemy that wishes us destroyed.

Instead we get hyperbole from Leahy and others. Other’s like our MSM:

At least now we know that the Bush administration’s name for spying on Americans without first seeking court approval — the “terrorist surveillance program” — isn’t an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak after all. It’s just a bald-faced lie.

Imagine if Bush was not approving the operations to listen in on Al-Qaeda, to data mine phone numbers, and an attack happened. Who would be the first on every single channel screaming that Bush didn’t do enough to protect us? The Democrats. James Lileks put it much more eloquently then I did on Hugh Hewitt yesterday:

HH: Speaking of hardwired for nonsense, listen to this:

Patrick Leahy: Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda? If that’s the case, we’ve really failed in any kind of a war on terror.

JL: Yeah.

HH: He goes on to say of course not…

JL: I know. I heard it. Exactly, because we all know that on 9/12, what President Bush said, I want you to collect as much useless information as you can and devote all of our resources to just looking at it. And then, putting out the little naughty bits that may be scintillating later, because that’s what we’re really all about. This is nonsense again, because what they’re telling you, essentially, is that the Democratic platform is not to do any data mining, any sort of pattern matching. They want us to connect the dots, but they do not want us to collect the dots. The dots should apparently just walk up and volunteer, here I am. I’m a dot. And that’s the extent of the War On Terror.

I made the point at the beginning of this post to shed some light on what would happen if the Dem’s got control of the House. This is just a little taste of what would happen:

71 House Democrats signed up to sponsor a move that would make it illegal for the NSA to continue to monitor terrorist phone calls.

The liberal web site Raw Story reported Thursday:

“The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

“Both suits demand the program be stopped.”

Predictably, Michigan Democrat John Conyers led the charge:

“As our brief makes clear, this Congress dealt with this issue authoritatively almost 30 years ago - warrantless spying on American soil is flatly prohibited,” he railed.

But this time they would be in the majority. Just imagine the consequences. Neil Cavuto is imagining it:

(…) I don’t like the government secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans’ phone calls. But I don’t like ordinary Americans dying either. Just like I don’t like being frisked before I get on a plane. But I guess it’s better than risking a bad guy getting on that plane.

(…) Such are the times in which we live, where we have to live with inconveniences that can border on the hysteric.

(…) I don’t know. I do know that we haven’t been attacked on our soil in nearly four and a half years. I suspect because we’re watching more, listening more and yes, tapping more.

(…) Trust me, all this fuss over freedoms would fade in a mushroom-cloud moment if there were another attack on our soil. The problem is that the longer we go from the last attack on our soil, the more we seem convinced there won’t be another attack on our soil.

(…) I am not for creating a police state. I am for creating a safer state. A place where those who whine and moan can have a day to whine and moan and to read about it in the next day’s headlines. Better to read them there than in the next day’s obituaries.

The fact that going on 5 years we have not had one terrorist attack on our soil means nothing to the Democrats. Do they think this is all a coincidence? It’s because Bush promised to protect us anyway he had to, and he has kept his promise.

UPDATE

Just found this wonderful blog, The Other Side, which explains in detail why we need this data mining program.

I don?t know much about a lot of stuff, but I know a great deal about databases and how to use them?and I especially know a great deal about how to manage usage of terrabytes of data.

[...]The reason they?ve been collecting this data since 9/11 was because someone at NSA was being really, really smart: if terrorists are communicating by phone, it?s possible to establish linkages between numbers, and install pattern-recognition software to collect those linkages. And the reason that this was a smart thing to do is a simple one: the phone company doesn?t store this data beyond (maybe) a few years?the amount is just too massive to hold forever?and lest we forget, we?re coming up on the 5th anniversary of 9/11 already.

Note that none of this requires any names, nor the content of the calls?that would be the privacy of the thing, and that?s where it seems that the NSA, if they?re telling the truth, has been quite circumspect.

But what this data gives the smart analyst is that when you establish that (357) 243-3006 belonged to Abdul El-Bomba, who received a call from his brother Aziz, a known member of Hezbollah in Syria, you now have the ability to focus only on all the calls Abdul made and received, to see who was calling him and whom he was calling. That would be a couple hundred calls, out of the (literally) tens of billions of records you?ve collected.

Here?s the Big Clue for the Clueless: if you don?t collect all the data, you can?t narrow the search at all. And it?s only once you?ve established that Abdul is a Bad Guy that you ascertain his number, and the numbers of his correspondents, and their names. Most of the calls will be innocent: the dry cleaners, the gas company, the liquor store, whatever.

But out of the couple hundred calls, you may find five that are to Mohamed Semmteks, and to Tariq Pilota, who are also terrorists, and whose calls you can now start investigating.

So from tens of billions to a couple hundred to five. And in these cases, it?s NOW when you, as the investigator, can get a warrant for a wiretap so you can start listening to actual content, which, out of all the data mentioned so far, is the only part protected by the First Amendment.

That?s how to do it?and more importantly, that?s the only way to do it when you?re starting from scratch.

A wonderful, concise explanation of how this program works and why we need it.

UPDATE II

The Brits have learned what happens when you don’t listen in on the bad guys:

The suicide bombers who killed 52 passengers on London’s transit system had a string of contacts with someone in Pakistan just before striking, Britain’s top law enforcement official said Thursday.

However, authorities admitted they didn’t know what was discussed in those contacts and stuck with their contention that the blasts were a home-grown plot and that the degree of involvement by al-Qaida, if any, was unknown.

Thursday’s report by the Intelligence and Security Committee concluded that intelligence agents had been alerted to two of the suicide bombers before the attacks but limited resources prevented them from uncovering the plot.

UPDATE III

Recall that the only telephone carrier that would not comply with our Governments request to hand over their telephone number records was QWEST.

The attorney for former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio said in a statement Friday that Nacchio refused to turn over the private telephone records of Qwest customers to the National Security Agency after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks because the program didn’t have legal backing.

He stands by his principals doesn’t he? Ahem….

Nacchio faces 42 counts of insider trading in connection with selling $100 million of Qwest stock in the first five months of 2001. He also faces a slew of investor lawsuits and has been sued for civil fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

What a stand up guy.

Other’s Blogging:

• Decision ‘08
• In The Bullpen
• Hyscience
• American Future
• Left Wing = Hate
• Blogs For Bush
• Macsmind
• Atlas Shrugs
• Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
• Iowa Voice
• Michelle Malkin
• Macsmind
• Blue Crab Boulevard
• A Blog For All
• GOP Bloggers
• Group Intel
• Eric’s Boredom Revealed
• Jeff Gannon
• Right Wing Nut House
• Sister Toldjah
• Stop The ACLU
• The Strata-Sphere
• All Things Beautiful

Read the rest of this entry »

Surprise surprise. Another leak from someone inside Government, cough CIA cough, just as Gen. Hayden is set to go up for confirmation hearings to lead the CIA.

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans ? most of whom aren?t suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations.

Since I have some experience in Law Enforcement I’ll give my take on this operation. 3rd party records do NOT fall under the 4th Amendment….period. These are records the phone companies regular give to credit card companies and the like.

Another point I would like to make is that a Prosecutor in any court can get these records with a simple subpoena. Not a search warrant. No Judge has to approve of this kind of things.

This is all another example of our CIA out of control. They have decided THEY will decide who leads them, not the elected members of our Government. It’s not a coincidence that this NSA program is leaked just as soon as Gen. Hayden, current head of the NSA, is about go through the confirmation process to lead the CIA.

Completely out of control. And the left wants our intelligence agencies deciding who is best to lead them?

AJStrata makes some astute points:

The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.

Why else monitor the calls? In fact, the reason to note contacts as innocent or suspicious is to whittle down who targets of surveillance are talking to who may be accomplices. These records are actually a record that these people are INNOCENT of any relationship with a possible crime.

If you think about it the most intrusive act our Government can be a part of is sending a informant into a criminal organization, like say the Mob. That person is listening in to everything these guys say and do…American citizens being spied on without a warrant! Do we hear any outcry about this? No. As it should be.

But when it comes to this story we will get a WHOLE lot of hysteria for the next few days, then once people read more into the story they will calm down.

Of course we will have the usual suspects screaming and crying on the nightly news, which Im sure the MSM will make a point of displaying nightly. But in the end this will come to nothing once again. Just another coup attempt by our CIA against our President.

Finally I would like to point out something Drudge is saying, where was all this hysteria when Clinton started Echelon?

Barr, a former CIA analyst, is part of a growing contingent in the United States, Europe and Australia alarmed by the existence of Echelon, a computer system that monitors millions of e-mail, fax, telex and phone messages sent over satellite-based communications systems as well as terrestrial-based data communications. The system was established under what is known as the “UKUSA Agreement” after World War II and includes the security agencies of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Although Echelon was originally set up as an international spy network, lawmakers are concerned that it could be used to eavesdrop on American citizens.

The left didn’t go all crazy about Echelon during Clintons term. They are going crazy about a similiar program under Bush though. I wonder why.

UPDATE

I apologize for the light updates…work work work. Bush responded to the article earlier today:

After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al-Qaida or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying.

Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al- Qaida to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing.

First, our international activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates. Al-Qaida is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.

We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaida and their known affiliates. So far we’ve been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil.

As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country.

Thank you.

And here we see the big picture in this whole episode:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who has spoken favorably of Hayden?s nomination, said the latest revelation ?is also going to present a growing impediment to the confirmation of Gen. Hayden.?

Added Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: ?It is long overdue for this Congress to end the days of roll over and rubber stamp and finally assert its power of advise and consent before Gen. Hayden becomes (CIA) Director Hayden.?

And the MSM is complicit in this effort to undermine Hayden and Bush over a completely legal program. What any court can get with a subpoena, the NSA can get also….WITHOUT a warrant.

UPDATE II

Macsmind, a former intelligence officer, has some big news:

By the way….a bit of bad news though for the sources of the USA Today article, per a tip, your identities are known to those who care.

Opps!

UPDATE II: On above. I have an source email which details where the leak on the story originated. This particular leak is directly tied into the the denial of security clearances covered in this story, which broke last night.

Simple: Retaliation.

More to come.

[...]UPDATE IV: Folks, this was a set up and the MSM is taking the bait. It’s what you have to do to catch leakers.

This would not surprise me in the least. It’s actually a great time to do it, put Hayden up for the CIA knowing the CIA would HATE this, then selectively leak something to suspected leakers….ta da!

He then points us to a outstanding response to this whole thing from Rich Noyes:

Given that another government agency ? the IRS ? maintains information on American citizens? employment, banking, investments, mortgages, charitable contributions and even any declared medical expenses, this hardly seems like a major assault on personal liberty.? Ooh! Shocking new report! The IRS has a database with your personal information in it! That story is just waiting to be discovered.

UPDATE III

Just found this great comment at Wizbang:

The phone lines and air waves are not your private property, so the fourth amendment doesn’t protect the fact that you use them or who you use them with. It’s the same as if the police parked on the street and watched your coming and going. The police can even follow you on public streets and into any public location to see where you go, what you do, and who you meet, all without a warrant. The fourth amendment not only doesn’t protect individuals from such observation, but requires it in most cases to prove probable cause before a warrant can be issued.

Couldn’t have said it any better.

Other’s Blogging:

• Michelle Malkin
• Sister Toldjah
• Rightwinged
• The Sandbox
• Confederate Yankee
• Macsmind
• Sensible Mom
• Wizbang

Read the rest of this entry »