Vindication of the effectiveness of Warfare over Lawfare, and a triumph for the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The ambivelent news is that The UK recently managed to convict a group of three terrorists for attempted terrorism:

Airline terror trial: The bomb plot to kill 10,000 people
Three British Muslims have been convicted of planning a series of co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks on transatlantic airliners, which could have killed up to 10,000 people.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Telegraph.co.uk

The al-Qaeda cell plotted to cause mass murder by detonating home-made liquid explosives on board at least seven passenger flights bound for the US and Canada. The plot had the potential to be three times as deadly as the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

The convictions followed Britain’s largest counter-terrorism operation and two criminal trials which, in total, cost an estimated £60million.

All three men convicted on Monday had been found guilty at an earlier trial last year of conspiracy to murder, but prosecutors said it was vital to secure a conviction on another charge of conspiring to blow up the aircraft in order to prove that the threat to air traffic was genuine.

How, you ask, is this ambivalent news? It took two trials. Read the rest of this entry »

Coming on the heels of Cheney’s FOX News Sunday interview, in which the former Vice President leveled criticism toward the current President that he is increasing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, is an interview by Jake Tapper with the president’s National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.). Jones claims that under the Obama Administration, we have been more successful in putting terrorists out of business and in improving international relations:

“This type of radical fundamentalism or terrorism is a threat not only to the United States but to the global community,” Jones said. “The world is coming together on this matter now that President Obama has taken the leadership on it and is approaching it in a slightly different way – actually a radically different way – to discuss things with other rulers to enhance the working relationships with law enforcement agencies – both national and international.”

Jones said that “we are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large and the world is moving toward doing something about it.”

The former Marine General didn’t provide any specific numbers to back up his claim, but he said “there is an increasing trend and I think we seen that in different parts of the world over the last few months for sure.” He added that he was not “making a tally sheet saying we are killing more people, capturing more people than they did — that is not the issue.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Democratic candidate hopeful, Barack Obama, on the campaign trail in January of ‘08:

Obama: No warrantless wiretaps if you elect me

by Anne Broache

HANOVER, N.H.–Barack Obama may be leading the Democratic presidential pack in every major poll here, but that didn’t dissuade the Illinois senator from a final early-morning rally with the Facebook generation.

Clearly not content to leave their votes to the whims of online politicking, the Illinois senator stepped onto a stage fashioned in a Dartmouth College gymnasium, pulled an index card from his inside jacket pocket, and launched into a familiar set of talking points centered on what has become a familiar theme for his campaign: change and hope.

“My job this morning is to be so persuasive…that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack,” he told a crowd of about 300 Ivy Leaguers–and, by the looks of it, a handful of locals who managed to gain access to what was supposed to be a students-only event.

For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and “wiretaps without warrants,” he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans’ phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It’s hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters’ Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: “No.”

Some liberal Obama supporters were getting a clue on Iraq and wiretaps during the campaign season; but still, they came out to bat for The One, putting their eggs in the basketcase of “hope” and “change”.

So after campaigning strongly against the Bush playbook, after being sworn in, after receiving security briefs, now that he’s responsible for the consequences of making decisions, what does President Obama do? Adopt from the Bush playbook:

Read the rest of this entry »

Would this lib have a problem with someone saying the Gitmo prisoners should be summarily executed? I’m pretty sure she would. But this liberal talk show host has no problem saying that Rush should be shot for saying he wanted Obama’s Socialist policies to fail.

Here is Stephanie Miller on Larry King Live:

LARRY KING, HOST: Nancy, what do you make of hoping for failure. Supposing it worked, and there were maybe some socialistic inclines, but more people went to work and more people had health care? Why would that be bad?

NANCY PFOTENHAUER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, I think the point is that Rush — and I agree with him wholeheartedly on this — believes these policies are antithetical to the American dream, and absolutely the wrong direction for the economy. I would be delighted to challenge the other two panelists on this one. What he has put together in the so-called stimulus package is an embarrassment. You had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid writing the bill. You’ve put in 46 billion for 15 programs that OMB already declared ineffective. You have 300 million dollars going for golf carts, for heavens sake. Then turns around and, in a downturn economy, and advocates a tax increase. At the same time, he is making protectionist noises. This is a nasty economic cocktail, and it is going to hurt the American people. And I think that’s what Rush Limbaugh has been trying to underscore. And he is exactly right. Read the rest of this entry »

Well, it’s been a busy time for me but I could not let this thankathon go by without providing my own post to thank a great President. One I am so thankful was in office after Sept. 11th 2001.

One of the best qualities in the man that I will sorely miss is that he never backed down on something he felt was right due to public opinion. He knew we had to finish the Iraqi mess once and for all after 9/11. There was no way we could allow Saddam to thumb his nose at the world, supporting terror, and obtaining WMD, in a post-9/11 world. He knew 13 years of conjoling, begging and pleading was enough. But even then he gave Saddam a chance to stop it. He didn’t just give him a chance to stop the war from happening he went to the UN for help in getting him to comply with a strong resolution. A resolution that any sane leader would have recognized was his last chance:

…in 2002 President Bush bucked the advice of his more hawkish advisers and agreed to take Tony Blair’s advice and seek another U.N. Resolution — was it the 16th or 17th? — against Saddam Hussein. Resolution 1441 passed 15-0. True, the Administration failed to obtain a second resolution, not least because the French reneged on private assurances that it would agree to a second resolution if America obtained the first.

He has done everything in his power to insure that we would not be attacked again. Again, making unpopular decisions, but he never backed down in the face of public opinion because he knew it was the right thing to do. We do not find many politicians like that. It’s a rare quality and the one I will miss sorely. Read the rest of this entry »

That’s my answer to Wired’s question:

Should NSA Whistleblower Be Prosecuted?
By Kim Zetter
December 15, 2008 | 9:43:42 PM

Opinions are divided on whether Thomas Tamm, the original source for The New York Times 2005 story on the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping, should be prosecuted for revealing classified information. Tamm is a former justice department prosecutor.

Seems like a rather clear situation to this former holder of a high level security clearance. The laws on the matter are explained on a regular basis to all who carry such clearances, as are the penalties for compromising such information.

I say charge him with every pertinent and lesser included charge and try him in the FIS court before a jury of his peers: persons currently carrying clearances of the level he held.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds

CLASSIC! OMG, he hasn’t even taken office yet, and Pres-elect Obama is already demonstrating that his campaign was just sizzle-not steak. It was about taking power, not CHANGE. Remember all that complaining about secret CIA prisons, warrentless wiretapping, enhanced interrogations, and so forth? Yeah, well, turns out Barack Obama (now that he’s gotten the votes) doesn’t care about those things. In fact, he’s turning a blind eye to them, and turning a deaf ear to the leftist civil liberty groups that complain.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.

Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques — which some consider torture — by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies.

Former National Counterterrorism Center chief John Brennan, leader of Obama’s intelligence-transition team. Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.

link

EXIT QUESTION: If you voted for Barack Obama in the hopes of a more transparent intelligence gathering administration, do you realize that you’ve just been pwnd?

How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war — to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.

This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
-President Bush in an address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, United States Capitol, Washington D.C., September 20, 2001.

While al Qaeda blusters and purports to be planning new attacks, they’ve been getting their asses kicked in, all across the globe. This is especially true in Iraq, where the Iraqi government will begin paying salaries to 51,000 members of the Sons of Iraq, and where al Qaeda lost the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.

Critics of President Bush’s Iraq War venture love to claim that “he took his eye off the ball; we should be in Afghanistan and Pakistan- that’s where al Qaeda is.”; “We let bin Laden get away.” And of course, they also love to point out, “al Qaeda was never in Iraq….until we invaded.”

al Qaeda has had operations in 50 countries, and we’ve killed and captured operatives in 102 different countries since 9/11. Although we have a large, visible, military footprint in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’ve been engaging al Qaeda all across the globe.

Leaked to today’s NYTimes, which leaks it to the American public, is the following:
Read the rest of this entry »

Gotta love this flip-flop:

Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold will not filibuster a compromise version of an electronic surveillance program although he thinks it will infringe on U.S. citizens’ civil liberties.

Feingold said he and other Senate opponents won’t try to stop the vote, but they “won’t allow it to pass quickly.”

Instead, Feingold, D-Wis., told an audience at the New America Foundation that he plans to highlight the bill’s flaws in floor speeches. There may be several procedural votes before final passage, he added. Feingold said he and Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., met with Senate leader Harry Reid last week to discuss their objections.

That was a day ago. Now today: Read the rest of this entry »

The entire article by Lance Fairchok at American Thinker is spot-on excellent, and exactly what I was looking for as an answer to this, which surprisingly seemed to get little media traction. However, I’d like to cite the following passage as a lead-in for a different, if not unrelated topic:
Read the rest of this entry »

Will Obama be absent for this vote when it comes before the Senate next week?

A bipartisan deal that clears the way for a sweeping overhaul of domestic wiretapping laws will let telecommunications companies escape lawsuits over the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program, congressional leaders announced Thursday.

The measure could be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives as early as Friday.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, said the bill is “not perfect” but “strikes a sound balance” between intelligence-gathering and court oversight.

It’s not perfect, thats for sure. But it does allow telecom companies to continue assisting the government in keeping tabs on terrorists who communicate with those inside our borders. The WSJ put it this way. This will: Read the rest of this entry »

When the WaPo reported that a McCain spokesman had said he supported immunity for the telecoms regarding the wiretapping of foreign communications BUT only if they testified in Congress, Andy McCarthy was a bit taken aback.

Is he saying that in a time of national crisis, the president should not be permitted to ask the telecoms for assistance that is arguably beyond what is prescribed in a statute?

Is he saying that, contrary to the indication of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, Sen. McCain does not believe the president has authority under Article II of the Constitution to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States unless a federal judge gives permission? Read the rest of this entry »

Well, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to get the message Siobhan Gorman at The Wall Street Journal is trying to convey (although, do a google search for Gorman and you come up with dozens of stories from him on intelligence gathering, it appears to be a pet peeve of his, how dare our intelligence agencies collect intelligence!). In a nutshell, telecom companies should not be given immunity because they already give up too much info:

Five years ago, Congress killed an experimental Pentagon antiterrorism program meant to vacuum up electronic data about people in the U.S. to search for suspicious patterns. Opponents called it too broad an intrusion on Americans’ privacy, even after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But the data-sifting effort didn’t disappear. The National Security Agency, once confined to foreign surveillance, has been building essentially the same system. Read the rest of this entry »

Take a guess which finger I’m giving them?

This is why politicians on both sides of the aisle should piss you off:

Hoyer said in his weekly press conference that he hoped to wrap up work on an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; “towards the end of this week or the beginning of next week.” Read the rest of this entry »