I'm so glad that the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee have regrouped after their implosion during the Alito hearings. They've regained their second wind and are back to bloviating at full power.
At Monday's hearing on the NSA's surveillance authority, while Attorney General Alberto Gonzales gave measured responses and remained in complete control, the Dems and some wobbly Republicans lapsed into absurdity once again.
I think they are trying to be coherent and speak intelligently, but they just can't manage to do it.
In his opening statement, Gonzales debunked 95% of what the Chicken Little Dems and their mouthpieces in the lib media have been saying since mid-December.
The date is easy to remember. The New York Times splashed the "domestic spying" story just after the stunningly successful December 15 Iraqi elections. The libs needed something to rip that tremendous, historic achievement out of the minds of the American people. Chicken Little Dems replaced the progress toward democracy in Iraq with hysterics about Bush, "King George," spying on Americans. Yes, the Times is a real class act.
Hearing Transcript
After a ruckus over whether or not Gonzales should be put under oath, Gonzales began:
Good morning, Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy and members of the committee. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak with you.
And let me just add for the record, when Chairman Specter asked me whether I would be willing to go under oath, I did say I would have no objections.
I also said that my answers would be the same, whether or not I was under oath or not.
The radical Left blogosphere is foaming at the mouth over Gonzales evading being under oath. As you can see, it's a non-story.
After discussing the severity of the threat that al Qaeda poses to Americans, Gonzales explained the NSA's "top secret" program -- the one that the Times uncovered, showing utter disregard for national security, ignoring pleas from the White House to not aid our enemies undermining that important tool for protecting the homeland.
GONZALES: I am here to explain the department's assessment that the president's terrorist surveillance program is consistent with our laws and the Constitution.
I'm not here to discuss the operational details of that program or any other classified activity.
The president has described the terrorist surveillance program in response to certain leaks, and my discussion in this open forum must be limited to those facts the president has publicly confirmed: nothing more.
Many operational details of our intelligence activities remain classified and unknown to our enemy. And it is vital that they remain so.
The president is duty-bound to do everything he can to protect the American people. He took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
In the wake of 9/11, he told the American people that to carry out this solemn responsibility, he would use every lawful means at his disposal to prevent another attack.
One of those means is the terrorist surveillance program.
It's an early warning system designed for the 21st century. It is the modern equivalent to a scout team, sent ahead to do reconnaissance, or a series of radar outposts designed to detect enemy movements. And as with all wartime operations, speed, agility and secrecy are essential to its success.
While the president approved this program to respond to the new threats against us, he also imposed several important safeguards to protect the privacy and the civil liberties of all Americans.
First, only international communications are authorized for interception under this program. That is communications between a foreign country and this country.
Second, the program is triggered only when a career professional at the NSA has reasonable grounds to believe that one of the parties to a communication is a member or agent of Al Qaida or an affiliated terrorist organization. As the president has said, if you're talking with Al Qaida, we want to know what you're saying.
Third, to protect the privacy of Americans still further, the NSA employs safeguards to minimize the unnecessary collection and dissemination of information about U.S. persons.
Fourth, this program is administered by career professionals at NSA, expert intelligence analysts and their senior supervisors with access to the best available information. They make the decisions to initiate surveillance. The operation of the program is reviewed by NSA lawyers, and rigorous oversight is provided by the NSA inspector general.
I have been personally assured that no other foreign intelligence program in the history of NSA has received a more thorough review.
Fifth, the program expires by its own terms approximately every 45 days. The program may be reauthorized, but only on the recommendation of intelligence professionals, and there must be a determination that Al Qaida continues to pose a continuing threat to America based on the latest intelligence.
Finally, the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees has known about this program for years.
The bipartisan leadership of both the House and Senate has also been informed.
During the course of these briefings, no members of Congress asked that the program be discontinued.
Mr. Chairman, the terrorist surveillance program is lawful in all respects. As we have thoroughly explained in our written analysis, the president is acting with authority provided both by the Constitution and by statute.
Now, why is this so difficult for Chicken Little Dems, libs, and assorted paranoids to understand?
It's not a "domestic spying" program.
ONLY INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS ARE AUTHORIZED FOR INTERCEPTION, MEANING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND THE UNITED STATES.
Furthermore, if you're not suspected of communicating with al Qaeda, no one is going to listen in on your phone calls.
GET IT?
Patrick Leahy was in a tizzy over "peaceful Quakers," "babies and nuns" being abused by the government.
Why would a "peaceful Quaker" be talking to a member of al Qaeda? It's ridiculous. If the Quaker thing is just a cover, then that individual runs the risk of a wiretap. Good.
Babies really have nothing to worry about. I doubt any government official listening to their babbling would be able to decipher what they're trying to say.
As far as nuns go, it's the same as the Quakers. If a nun is chatting with a terrorist, I think the government should pay attention.
The point is the government won't "spy" on you unless you're associating with terrorists.
I don't support unwarranted searches; but in wartime, the delay of obtaining a warrant could result in thousands of deaths.
If you're not interacting with terrorists, you should not be concerned about your privacy being violated by the government.
If you need something to worry about, be aware that the odds are far greater that your privacy, your civil liberties, will be abused by a private corporation or an Internet hacker.
This NSA program is not meant to harass you. It's meant to protect you from individuals plotting to do harm to you, your family, and your neighbors.
Here's a hypothetical question to put this spying thing in perspective:
If prior to September 11, 2001, the government had wanted to wiretap the phone of Mohamed Atta and yours, would you mind if they did?
Would you have been willing to let a government official listen in on one of your conversations if it meant that the 9/11 attacks could have been thwarted?
Would you have made that sacrifice?
What's worse?
Three thousand innocents slaughtered.
Thousands and thousands of lives altered forever because of their murdered loved ones.
Or-
A government official learned that you changed your dinner plans.
No comments:
Post a Comment