This makes no sense at all -- if this organization is a terrorist conspirator in an ongoing trial, the Justice Department should be keeping far away from them, not sponsoring their annual convention.

The Justice Department is co-sponsoring a convention held by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — an unindicted co-conspirator in an ongoing federal terrorist funding case — a move that is raising concerns among the Justice's rank and file.

Justice lawyers have objected to the affiliation with ISNA, fearing it will undermine the case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development in Dallas.

"There is outrage among lawyers that the Department of Justice is funding a group named as a co-conspirator in a terrorist financing case," said a Justice lawyer who spoke to The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity.

According to an e-mail from Susana Lorenzo-Giguere, acting deputy chief of the Voting Rights Division, the sponsorship will involve sending government lawyers to man a booth for the Labor Day weekend event in Illinois.

"This is an important outreach opportunity, and a chance to reach a community that is at once very much discriminated against, and very wary of the national government and its willingness to protect them," Mrs. Lorenzo-Giguere said in an e-mail obtained by The Washington Times.

"It would be a great step forward to break through those barriers. And Chicago is lovely this time of year," Mrs. Lorenzo-Giguere said.

We should be locking some of these folks up, not registering them to vote. We should be monitoring their activities, not supporting them.

What next -- government catering of the next reunion of the Gambino family?

Posted by: Greg at 10:18 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

I call them depraved followers of Satan who make Michael Vick and OJ look like Jesus.

I guess I missed George Washington burning little children.

UPDATE: Tammy Bruce has info on where to donate to help Yousif.

Here's the Children's Burn Center site if you would like to make a donation. Under "Honor/Memorial Gift Information" there's a drop down menu for Youssif's fund.

Posted by: Greg at 03:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Although I suppose can understand that trying to track down possible terrorists might be resented by members of the Religion of Blow-The-Infidels-To-Pieces.

Now the FBI's release of photographs of two men of unknown origin, who the agency says were observed acting suspiciously aboard as many as six different Washington ferry routes in recent weeks, is creating new worries in the community.

Muslim- and Arab-American leaders are upset that the FBI didn't consult them — as it has done in other instances — before releasing the photos on the Internet and to news organizations. They worry that the action may fracture the relationship the agency and the community have carefully built.

The FBI has stressed that the release of the photos is a rare move, taken only after it had exhausted other efforts to identify the men. The agency also has said the men's actions could be innocuous, but it needs to question them.

The photos were snapped by a ferry captain last month after crew members alerted him to suspicious activity. The men seemed inordinately interested in the operation of the vessel, took photographs of the interiors of the boats and went into areas tourists and commuters don't normally go, the FBI has said. The agency has received many tips but has not yet found the men.

Dozens of Muslims and Arabs have complained to community leaders about the photographs. The fallout has led to a meeting planned today between Muslim- and Arab-American community leaders and law-enforcement officials.

"We need to get some type of apology from them and figure out how to get back to where we were," said Rita Zawaideh, head of the Arab-American Community Coalition.

Anyone who objects to the release of the photos is more than welcome to get back where they or their ancestors belongs, as far as I'm concerned.

After all, I'm still pretty resentful about this.

And this.

This, too.

And even this.

So I suggest that you folks get over your resentment as long as we find ourselves at war with jihadi swine acting in the name of Islam. I urge you to think carefully -- are you with us, or are you with the terrorists? I know what your whining response to the release of the photos indicates to me.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 453 words, total size 5 kb.

Remember -- at the time 9/11 happened, George Bush had been President of the United States for less than 8 months -- George Tenet had been CIA director for over 4 years, having been appointed by Bill Clinton.

The former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, George J. Tenet, recognized the danger posed by Al Qaeda well before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but failed to adequately prepare the C.I.A. to meet the threat, according to an internal agency report that was released in summary form today.

Mr. Tenet was sometimes too occupied with tactics instead of strategy, and he was lax in promoting an information-sharing environment within the C.I.A., the inspector generalÂ’s office of the agency says in a report released today.

An inspector general’s team that reviewed the agency’s performance found that C.I.A. officers “from the top down” worked hard against Al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, before the Sept. 11 attacks.

“They did not always work effectively and cooperatively, however,” the team concluded, in what amounted in part to sharp criticism of Mr. Tenet’s management skills and style.

The smoking in in this report regarding how far back the failure goes?

The head of the C.I.A. was once in charge of all federal intelligence agencies. That was the case during Mr. Tenet’s tenure, and the report noted that he said as far back as 1998 that “we are at war” with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

However, the document went on, Mr. Tenet and his top aides failed to create “a documented, comprehensive plan to guide the counterterrorism effort at the intelligence community level.” One meeting “soon devolved into one of tactical and operation, rather than strategic, discussions,” the report said.

It concluded that Mr. Tenet “did not use all of his authorities” in leading a strategic effort against Osama bin Laden, and that “the management approach” within the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center “had the effect of actively reinforcing the separation of responsibilities” among key units.

When did Tenet finally get a strategic planning system together to deal with counter-terrorism? Less than two months before 9/11, at the specific orders of George W. Bush and Condolezza Rice. Prior to that, Tenet had taken no significant steps in that direction.

So it seems pretty clear where the failure occurred -- not under President Bush, but under President Clinton. Given the failure of leadership and vision that dated back at least three years before Bush became president, there can be only one conclusion.

There is an interesting debate on the blogosphere right now about how much we should be pointing fingers at the Clinton Administration for these clear failures to protect the US. Captain Ed says that it is "not healthy" to do so, but Lifelike Pundits points out that this report demonstrates the Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright lied to the American people when they claim that they left a detailed plan for the Bush Administration. I tend to agree with the latter's approach, since the front-runner status of Senator Hillary Clinton to be the Democrat presidential candidate means we could be facing the return of the same Clintonoids who failed to protect America and then lied about it following 9/11.

Over at the Sundries Shack, we get this very important quote from the report.

The CIA’s analysis of al-Qaida before Sept. 2001 was lacking. No comprehensive report focusing on bin Laden was written after 1993, and no comprehensive report laying out the threats of 2001 was assembled. “A number of important issues were covered insufficiently or not at all,” the report found.

Can we really afford to return to the failed policies that left us unprotected from terrorism even as it mouthed platitudes about seriousness of purpose in combating it?

UPDATE -- 8/23/2007: More today from Captain Ed.

I've written before that pursuing partisan blame for 9/11 is a waste of time. It gets in the way of determining where failures occurred and developing the proper approaches to avoid them in the future. The truth is that the issues that created these failures stretched back for years, probably decades in terms of interpretation of intelligence law.

However, it gets difficult to remember that when former presidents essentially lie about their roles on national television. Given Clinton's unique history, this prevarication and self-aggrandizement comes as no surprise, but it is still pretty disappointing. It leaves the historical record muddied, right up to the point when independent investigations reveal the truth. Worse, his shouted fabrications contribute to the partisan atmosphere.

One has to sympathize with CIA officials who had read the classified report in 2005, but were unable to respond to his exaggeration in 2006. He once gave the same kind of finger-waggling tirade to the nation, which turned out as false as his Wallace interview. It's a sad reflection on a man who somehow cannot bring himself to tell the truth, even when his nation needs it.

And again, I disagree to the extent that Clinton's wife is now seeking to the presidency. To the degree that Clinton's failures and lies led to 9/11, we must make the record clear -- because Hillary Clinton is running, in part, on Bill Clinton's record and with him as a top adviser.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, Nuke's News & Views, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 948 words, total size 8 kb.

In what may be the height of political correctness run amok, the BBC has ordered that terrorists in an upcoming episode of a popular drama be changed to animal rights activists instead of Muslims.

The BBC has dropped plans to show a fictional terror attack in an episode of Casualty to avoid offending Muslims.

The first show of the hospital drama's new series was to have featured a storyline about an explosion caused by Islamic extremists.

I suppose such a change might be warranted if, for example, there were no Muslims engaged in terrorism and the religion actually espoused peace. however, given the propensity of a certain strain of Islam to lead its followers to self-detonation and self-immolation in the name of the faith, I don't see where this change makes any sense.

In the last two years, there have been multiple terrorist attacks by jihadis, and others have been thwarted by good intelligence and good luck. Why not portray the reality that exists? Why sugar-coat it in order to avoid giving offense?

Unless, of course, the terrorists have achieved one of their goals -- the domination of Western institutions so that they defer to Islamic sensibilities.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Committees of Correspondence, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, DragonLady's World, Nuke's News & Views, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Pursuing Holiness, Public Domain Clip Art, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Faultline USA, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, Gone Hollywood, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't know how else you can characterize these firefighters.

Two firefighters were killed yesterday battling a blaze in the Deutsche Bank skyscraper, a vacant relic of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack that was in the process of being dismantled.

The firefighters were among hundreds who poured into ground zero all afternoon to fight the high-rise fire, which was finally brought under control after seven hours. At least five others were hospitalized, but were expected to recover.

The building, at 130 Liberty Street, had stood as a ghost since parts of the twin towers crashed into it, leaving it severely damaged and filled with toxic debris, including asbestos, dioxin, lead and chromium. For residents nearby, the acrid smoke brought back memories of the grim dust clouds that lingered after the attacks.

The demolition work created difficulties for firefighters trying to reach and put out the blaze, which started on the 17th floor, allowing the fire to mushroom out of control, fire officials said. The building did not have a working standpipe, which runs through high-rise buildings to provide a source of water for firefighters.

Let's see who the liberals blame -- Osama bin Laden or Bush and Giuliani.

Posted by: Greg at 05:06 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

The New York Times has a piece today by Adam Liptak that makes for interesting reading. it outlines how conspiracy charges may be the way to put away terrorists and would-be terrorists early -- and for a very long time.

But the real innovation in Mr. PadillaÂ’s case, some legal experts said yesterday, was more subtle than those dueling talking points suggested. The Justice DepartmentÂ’s strategy in the trial itself, using a seldom-tested conspiracy law and relatively thin evidence, cemented a new prosecutorial model in terrorism cases.

The central charge against Mr. Padilla was that he conspired to murder, maim and kidnap people in a foreign country. The charge is a serious one, and it can carry a life sentence. But prosecutors needed to prove very little by way of concrete conduct to obtain a conviction under the law.

“There is no need to show any particular violent crime,” said Robert M. Chesney, a law professor at Wake Forest University and the author of a recent law review article on conspiracy charges in terrorism prosecutions. “You don’t have to specify the particular means used to carry out the crime.”

I still believe these cases don't belong in the criminal justice system -- but if that is where we are ultimately forced to deal with terrorists, this looks good to me.

Posted by: Greg at 01:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, the good news is that Jose Padilla is going away for a long time for his treasonous actions against the United States.

Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, was convicted Thursday of helping Islamic extremists and plotting overseas attacks in a case that came to symbolize the Bush administration's zeal to clamp down on terrorism.

But it was hardly a complete victory for the government. When Padilla was arrested in the months following the 2001 terrorist attacks, authorities touted him as a key al-Qaida operative who planned to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a U.S. city. That allegation never made it to court.

Instead, after a three-month trial and only a day and a half of deliberations, the 36-year-old Padilla and his foreign-born co-defendants were convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people and two counts of providing material support to terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that the dirty bomb allegations are such that they could never be raised in open court -- too much in the way of intelligence assets would be compromised in that setting. In addition, it would set the precedent that making war on the US is a criminal, not a military, matter -- undermining the Supreme Court precedent in the Quirin case, in which one of the individuals convicted by a military tribunal was an American citizen taken in America.

The major media, of course, is conflicted. They are glad to see Padilla convicted -- but want to use that conviction as a cudgel to attack our President and not our enemies.

The Washington Post is at least a bit measured.

JOSE PADILLA finally had his day in court.

After nearly five years in federal custody, Mr. Padilla and two co-defendants were convicted yesterday on three terrorism-related counts. The months of trial in South Florida were remarkable for being relatively unremarkable: Prosecutors presented evidence that Mr. Padilla, a U.S. citizen, was a member of al-Qaeda intent on using violence to advance that group's extremist goals. Defense lawyers tried to debunk those claims and offered an alternative interpretation of the evidence. A jury bought the government's case and delivered its verdict in less than 48 hours, leaving Mr. Padilla to face roughly 15 years to life behind bars, unless he prevails in an appeal.

What was extraordinary, and reprehensible, was how long Mr. Padilla had to wait for the kind of due process most Americans take for granted.

While the New York Times made it clear that George Bush and not the terrorists are who America needs to be fighting.

It is hard to disagree with the juryÂ’s guilty verdict against Jose Padilla, the accused, but never formally charged, dirty bomber. But it would be a mistake to see it as a vindication for the Bush administrationÂ’s serial abuse of the American legal system in the name of fighting terrorism.

On the way to this verdict, the government repeatedly trampled on the Constitution, and its prosecution of Mr. Padilla was so cynical and inept that the crime he was convicted of — conspiracy to commit terrorism overseas — bears no relation to the ambitious plot to wreak mass destruction inside the United States, which the Justice Department first loudly proclaimed. Even with the guilty verdict, this conviction remains a shining example of how not to prosecute terrorism cases.

Our legal system is singularly unfit to deal with terrorism cases -- just as it would have been unfit to try Hitler or Ho Chi Minh. We deploy troops, not cops, to deal with those who use (or seek to use) military force against the United States. If captured, they are to be treated as prisoners of war (if they meet the definitions of the Geneva Convention) or unlawful combatants (if they don't). In either case, it is the military that handles the problem, not the legal system. That so many folks have forgotten this basic principle is disheartening -- and shows that they really don't get the fact that we are at war.

Or maybe they think we should send NYPD to arrest bin Laden, rather than US troops to kill him.

More At Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Stop the ACLU, Pirate's Cove

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Shadowscope, Nuke's News & Views, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Pursuing Holiness, Stop the ACLU, Faultline USA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 787 words, total size 7 kb.

The Bush Administration is about to designate Iranian President Mahmoud the Mad's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. Its about time.

Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.

"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."

The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The Clintonoids at the Center for American Progress are complaining that this move might make Iran less cooperative with international efforts to rein-in its bad behavior.

The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."

Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.

"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."

In other words, expect the Left to advocate capitulating to this terrorist group as well as al-Qaeda.

Posted by: Greg at 02:23 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.

Because, like it or not, it is the central front of the Crusade Against Jihadism.

Christopher Hitchens goes to great length to explain why al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia is important, and why defeating/discrediting these enemies of all mankind is so important. Crushing arguments that AQM is unimportant, Hitchens concludes:

If I am right about this, an enormous prize is within our reach. We can not only deny the clones of Bin Ladenism a military victory in Iraq, we can also discredit them in the process and in the eyes (and with the help) of a Muslim people who have seen them up close. We can do this, moreover, in a keystone state of the Arab world that guards a chokepoint—the Gulf—in the global economy. As with the case of Afghanistan—where several provinces are currently on a knife-edge between an elected government that at least tries for schools and vaccinations, and the forces of uttermost darkness that seek to negate such things—the struggle will take all our nerve and all our intelligence. But who can argue that it is not the same battle in both cases, and who dares to say that it is not worth fighting?

Indeed -- only those without the vision to understand that the forces of jihad are one common enemy.

Posted by: Greg at 01:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 219 words, total size 1 kb.

Those who want to argue that the media have nothing to fear from hate crimes laws and government imposed definitions of fairness need only to look at what is happening in the UK with an undercover documentary on extremism in British mosques.

The police have investigated and are seeking charges -- against the documentary producers.

Police are reporting Channel 4 to the media regulator Ofcom over the way an undercover programme was edited.

But charges will not be brought against preachers featured in Dispatches, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism.

West Midlands Police carried out its own inquiry into three speakers in the Undercover Mosque broadcast, and then into the programme-makers themselves.

The Crown Prosecution Service said the show "completely distorted" what the trio said, a claim Channel 4 rejects.

Kevin Sutcliffe, commissioning editor for Dispatches, said West Midlands police had produced no evidence to support their claims.

"We find it extraordinary that they have gone public on these concerns without discussing them with us first," he said.

"We believe the comments made in the film speak for themselves - several speakers were clearly shown making abhorrent and extreme comments."

He said the one-hour documentary, which was made over a nine-month period and broadcast in January, allowed comment to be seen in a fuller context.

"All the speakers featured in the film were offered a right to reply and none denied making these comments, nor have any of them complained to Ofcom to our knowledge."

Just remember, when government gets to decide what speech is hateful and what is acceptable, they will always bend over to give the benefit of the doubt to those who are seen as "diverse". on the other hand, anything perceived as an attack on those who fall into the protected classes will be fair game for persecution and prosecution.

Posted by: Greg at 05:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

These words are no less true today as we find ourselves at war with jihadi swine than they were when we stood against the forces of Communism.

There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender. Ronald Reagan

We must remember these words, and make them ingrained in the American psyche.

Can we pass the word to these guys?

H/T Jawa, Lao

Posted by: Greg at 04:51 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

Fighting the war on terrorism has been regularly made harder by the Fifth Column in the Fourth Estate giving aid and comfort to the enemy -- and undermining the Bush Administration through scare tactics and falsehood.

Today's editorial is no exception.

It was appalling to watch over the last few days as Congress — now led by Democrats — caved in to yet another unnecessary and dangerous expansion of President Bush’s powers, this time to spy on Americans in violation of basic constitutional rights. Many of the 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 in the House who voted for the bill said that they had acted in the name of national security, but the only security at play was their job security.

There was plenty of bad behavior. Republicans marched in mindless lockstep with the president. There was double-dealing by the White House. The director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, crossed the line from being a steward of this nationÂ’s security to acting as a White House political operative.

But mostly, the spectacle left us wondering what the Democrats — especially their feckless Senate leaders — plan to do with their majority in Congress if they are too scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution and restrain an out-of-control president.

I'd love to respond to this editorial, but I'm fortunate not to need to, given this fine piece by Congressman Pete Hoekstra, who I one day hope to see serving in the Oval Office. It responds to today's editorial and yesterday's article on the FISA Fix.

Article

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “…impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists.”

o Facts: FISA is an extremely complex statute that is difficult enough to understand and apply even when it is not being deliberately distorted. Unfortunately, instead of reading the law, the New York Times chose to make up new assertions wholly unsupported by the facts. This did a disservice to our intelligence professionals who are attempting to keep America – especially prominent targets such as New York – safe.

o The new law plainly and expressly provides that surveillance must be “directed at” (targeted to) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. Under well-established FISA practice and precedent, this only permits surveillance of foreign targets on foreign soil, not Americans on American soil. The Intelligence Community must develop procedures to ensure this is the case, and those procedures must be reviewed by the FISA Court.

o Any surveillance targeting Americans in the United States would still require an individual warrant from the FISA court, and any incidental collection of the communications of U.S. persons would still be subject to extensive minimization procedures. The bill expressly requires such minimization procedures to be imposed on any surveillance conducted under the new law, and those procedures must also be reviewed by the FISA court,

o Congresswoman Wilson expressly clarified in the Congressional Record that so-called “reverse-targeting” of the communications of Americans is intended to be illegal under this bill. Director McConnell also repeatedly has stated his intent in congressional briefings to seek an individualized order of the FISA Court to target any communication of an American.

o Judges of the FISA Court itself have also clearly expressed frustration with the fact that so much of their docket is consumed by applications that focus on foreign targets and involve minimal privacy interest of Americans.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “…new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act … that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.”

o Facts: The Attorney General has publicly disclosed that the activities previously conducted under the Terrorist Surveillance Program described by the President were moved completely under FISA. The new law applies only to surveillance targeted at foreign persons, and a FISA order would continue to be necessary for surveillance targeted at Americans. The current FISA structure can handle these applications with speed and agility.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “[A] still-classified ruling earlier this year … which said the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls going through American switches.”

o Facts: It’s not necessary to address or discuss any alleged court opinion to demonstrate that this assertion is false. The FISA modernization legislation passed by the House in the 109th Congress – well before the alleged opinion – attempted to address and close the FISA loophole for foreign terrorists.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “

he court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted.”

o Facts: This is a false and selective characterization of the plain provisions of the law. Third parties who are asked to assist the intelligence community under the law may challenge the legality of any directive by filing a petition with the FISA Court.

Editorial

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “

oo scared of Republican campaign ads to use it to protect the Constitution.”

o Facts: Even without addressing the obvious fact that radical jihadists in foreign countries are not entitled to privacy rights under the Constitution relating to foreign intelligence collection, courts that have addressed the issue to date have made clear they believe that the type of surveillance contemplated by the bill is fully consistent with the Constitution, including the Fourth Amendment.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “They gave the Director of National Intelligence and the attorney general authority to intercept – without warrant, court supervision or accountability – any telephone call or e-mail message that moves in, out of or through the United States as long as there is a ‘reasonable belief’ that one party is not in the United States.”

o Facts: This assertion is false under the express terms of the statute. The law clearly requires that the surveillance be “directed at” (meaning targeted to) persons outside the United States, and that procedures be in place and reviewed by the FISA Court to ensure that surveillance concerns persons outside the United States. In addition, the law requires minimization procedures reviewed by the FISA Court to be in place to deal with incidental collection of communications of Americans.

• Misstatement and Exaggeration: “It would allow the government to intercept, without a warrant, every communication into or out of any country, including the United States.”

o Facts: If this were the case, the FISA Court would be virtually shut down. We still expect the Court to be conducting a significant and appropriate volume of work to protect the privacy interests of Americans, as it has and as it should.

An excellent, point by point rebuttal of the sedition regularly put forth by the New York Times.

And while I'm at it, let me direct your attention to this fine piece in the National Review. It cogently argues why FISA needs to be abolished or ignored, so that the President can exercise his authority under the Constitution.

For nearly two years since the New York Times blew the NSA’s warrantless-surveillance program, the Left has transfigured itself into a whirling dervish of indignation over President Bush’s imperious trampling of “the rule of law.” Why? Because he failed to comply with the letter of FISA, which purports in certain instances to require the chief executive — the only elected official in the United States responsible for protecting our nation from foreign threats — to seek permission from a federal judge before monitoring international enemy communications into or out of the United States.

But the president, at least, had an excuse. Actually, not a mere excuse but a trump card. We call it the American Constitution. It empowers the chief executive to conduct warrantless surveillance of foreign threats. Even the FISA Court of Review, the highest, most specialized judicial tribunal ever to consider FISA, has acknowledged this. So did the Clinton administration when FISA was amended in 1994. In the United States, the “rule of law” first and foremost is the Constitution.

The president’s constitutional authority is inviolable — it cannot be reduced by mere legislation. When Congress passes a statute, like FISA, that purports to reduce the president’s constitutional authority, it is Congress, not the president, that is trampling the rule of law. A president who ignores such a statute is not a law-breaker; he is a defender of the highest law. He is executing the responsibility vested in his office by the Framers who, as Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist No. 73, worried deeply about “the propensity of the legislative department to intrude upon the rights, and to absorb the powers, of the other departments.”

Indeed, Andrew McCarthy gets it right when he argues that FISA needs to be buried in order to restore Constitutional equilibrium and a proper balancing of power -- because the judicial branches has no proper role, and the legislative branch none beyond appropriations, in this exclusively executive function.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1534 words, total size 10 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Dead terrorists sure do make me happy.

Coalition troops killed the al Qaeda terrorist who masterminded the February 2006 attack on Samarra's al-Askariya mosque and set off continuing violence and reprisal killings between Sunnis and Shiites, the U.S. military said Sunday.

Haitham Sabah al-Badri, the al Qaeda emir of greater Samarra, was killed by an airstrike Thursday east of Samarra, said Rear Adm. Mark Fox during a news conference.

"Eliminating al-Badri is another step in breaking the cycle of violence instigated by the attack on the holy shrine in Samarra," Fox said. "We will continue to hunt down the brutal terrorists who are intent on creating a Taliban-like state in Iraq."

Coalition forces Thursday raided four buildings outside Samarra that were associated with al-Badri, according to a U.S. military news release. During the raid, at least four armed men were seen leaving the buildings and setting up tactical fighting positions in an effort to ambush coalition forces, the release said.

The coalition forces called in close air support, killing al-Badri and the three others, the release said.

One of those killed was identified as a foreigner; al-Badri was identified by his close associates and relatives, the military said.

A successful Surge and dead terrorist leaders -- I'm sure that the Democrats in Washington are wailing and gnashing their teeth.

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

"Jihadis roasting on an open fire..."

A man critically burned after allegedly crashing an explosive-laden Jeep into Glasgow Airport died of his injuries Thursday, Strathclyde Police said.

Kafeel Ahmed, 27, had been in the hospital for a month with burns from the alleged attack on June 30, which followed a day after two failed car bombings in London. The other man in the car, Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah, has been charged with conspiring to set off explosions.

"We can confirm that the man seriously injured during the course of the incident at Glasgow Airport on Saturday June 30 has died in Glasgow Royal Infirmary," said a spokesman for Strathclyde Police, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with force policy.

Here's hoping that upon reaching Hell he discovered that his 72 virgins are horny gay males who are all "ready for action".

Posted by: Greg at 02:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

Why this jihadi pig is angry.

Nuradin Abdi smiled and laughed with his attorney before admitting in a federal court yesterday that he had worked with terrorists to help plot against the United States.

Abdi, who wanted to blow up a mall in the Columbus area, is expected to serve 10 years in prison and be deported to his native Somalia.

His conviction, though, could be a sign that there are others still to be named as members of the same terrorist cell.

Details brought to light yesterday show that the terror cell was bigger than a trio of local men possibly involved in it -- Abdi, convicted terrorist Iyman Faris and Worthington native Christopher Paul -- previously reported.

Great! We got three who won't be killing Americans -- though I regret that they are not being disposed of with a single bullet to the back of the head (shot through a piece of bacon, of course).

But you have to love the comments from this Islamist dog's lawyer.

"It's better to minimize his losses," defense attorney Mahir Sherif said. A fair trial here would not be possible because Americans "have no or limited understanding" of why Muslims are angry, Sherif said.

Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass why this would-be killer is angry -- personally I think it is because of a particularly small... -- well be that as it may, I find it irrelevant. I don't care about his political gripes, his intolerant religious faith, or the fact that his mama didn't put mint on his pillow before bed each night. He was conspiring to kill Americans because of that anger, and there is no legitimate justification under American law (which is not sharia, for which I praise Jesus), so it does not matter why he or any other Muslim is angry.

And his lawyer sounds like a terrorist sympathizer, too.

After the plea, Sherif said the case should prompt people to ask: Why do Muslims hate Americans?

"I'm angry. If 1 million Americans were being slaughtered, that would be a different issue," Sherif said, of Iraqis killed in the war.

Yeah, I bet you would be out dancing in the streets, just like many Muslims around the world did on 9/11.

H/T Purple Wombats

Posted by: Greg at 08:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 390 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, I guess the notion of Islam as a religion of peace can pretty well be laid to rest with this quote from the head of CAIR.

Schanzer also argued that while "radical Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution."

The problem, however, is that "radical Islam has the podium," he added.

"There are extremists in all religions," countered Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). "But the way you don't go about dealing with that is making sweeping generalizations about such large groups of people."

Hooper told Cybercast News Service that Schanzer's definition of "moderate" -- like that used by other conservatives -- is skewed.

"They label those few who are outside the mainstream 'moderates' and then ask why the mainstream doesn't listen to moderates," he said.

Yeah -- those "outside the mainstream" folks we call moderate urge an end to terrorism, equality for women, and respect for human rights. Hooper reveals a great deal about mainstream Islam with his statement.

No wonder Hooper's group has so fervently operated as a fifth column during the Crusade against Jihadism.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Thoughts, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, Nuke's news and views, Planck's Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Wyvern Dreams, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Public Eye, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 4 kb.