Nabbing Terrorists and Opening the Ports
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 at 02:02PM 
Three Ohio men trained by al-Qaida with links to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were indicted today on terrorism charges of planning attacks overseas to try to kill U.S. and coalition soldiers in Iraq and other countries, as well as for planning to assassinate Pres. Bush. The three men all lived in Toledo within the last year. The recruitment of the men took place overseas and not in the U.S. All three also were charged with conspiring to give materials and support for carrying out the killing of U.S. nationals.
The 3 men are: Mohammad Zaki Amawi, a citizen of Jordan and the U.S. Marwan Othman El-Hindi, a U.S. citizen born in Jordan; Wassim I. Mazloum, who came to the U.S. from Lebanon in 2000.
US officials said the detection of these treasonists are credited to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the President’s Surveillance program. This coupled with the successful thwarting of terrorist attacks in 2002 planned on Los Angeles, CA and other American cities buttresses not only the success of, but the need for such surveillance programs.
Enter, US Port dilemma.
Perhaps unknown to many is that a private British company, the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) manages major ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. They describe their services this way:
P&O Ports is one of the world’s pre-eminent container terminal operators and stevedores, with 29 container terminals and logistics operations in over 100 ports, P&O Ports has a presence in 19 countries across the world. Its main service is containerised cargo handling based on long term concessions to operate terminals in ports which offer strong growth opportunities. Other services include: general cargo, bulk cargo, roll on-roll off facilities and cruise passenger terminal management. The company also provides specialist maritime services to industry and government as P&O Maritime Services.
P&O Ports is committed to achieving profit growth by increasing scale organically through local trade growth and market share gain at existing locations, by expanding current capacity, by developing and acquiring new terminals and by improving the efficiency of its container terminal operations through sharing best practice.
Now a United Arab Emirates (UAE) -owned company called Dubai Ports World is buying the London company, which will put Dubai Ports World in charge of the U.S. ports.
The United Arab Emirates is a constitutional federation of seven emirates; Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaimah and Fujairah. The federation was formally established on 2 December 1971.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) occupies an area of 83,000 sq km along the south-eastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula. Qatar lies to the west, Saudi Arabia to the south and west, and Oman to the north and east. The capital and the largest city of the federation, Abu Dhabi, is located in the emirate of the same name.
The United Arab Emirates, one of the world’s fastest growing tourist destinations, has all the right ingredients for an unforgettable holiday, sun, sand, sea, sports, unbeatable shopping, top-class hotels and restaurants, an intriguing traditional culture, and a safe and welcoming environment.
The U.S. Committee on Foreign Investments has approved a pending contract with the state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates to manage U.S. sea ports. The White House is backing the contract.
President Bush today offered this explanation is defense of the contract: (full transcript)
"I want to address…..this issue of a company out of the UAE purchasing the right to manage some ports in the United States from a British company. First of all, this is a private transaction. But it — according to law, the government is required to make sure this transaction does not, in any way, jeopardize the security of the country. And so people responsible in our government have reviewed this transaction.
The transaction should go forward, in my judgment. If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward. The company has been cooperative with the United States government. The company will not manage port security. The security of our ports will be — continue to be managed by the Coast Guard and Customs. The company is from a country that has been cooperative in the war on terror, been an ally in the war on terror. The company operates ports in different countries around the world, ports from which cargo has been sent to the United States on a regular basis.
I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it’s okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can’t manage the port."
President Bush is vowing to veto any legislation that opposes the port contract.
The UAE has been accused of "ties" to two 9/11 terrorists, but the connotation is not valid. The US, after all, is where the 9/11 terrorists learned to fly, lived in hotels, used American banks and used the US as an interface to pull off their plots. Does this mean that the US has ties to eleven 9/11 terrorists? Claims of "by association" can easily be dismissed. However, what is troubling is that the UAE was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and was one of only 3 nations that had recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government.
There are two main trains of thought in this regard. One is the most obvious, that contracting port security to an Arab emirate has the potential to make US ports vulnerable to terrorism. The other, that the UAE is a trustworthy ally in the war against terror and has not given reason for doubt. What’s fully confusing is that the usual politically sure fire way of determining which side of an issue to take has been obliterated: Democrats suddenly care about national security in a convincing way, and without directly criticising the President (this from a party who blamed Pres. Bush for Hurricane Katrina). Republicans are joining with Democrats against the White House’s support of the contract, and most significantly the President seems willing to take a risk regarding national security.
In light of the Ann Coulter "raghead" comment, with sentiment insisting her sweeping generalization of Muslims is wrong and condemnable, and considering that rioting Muslims in protest of the Mohammed cartoons are being called not mainstream Islam but fanatics only, it’s ironic that US politicians and citizens are jumping on the bandwagon to condemn ALL ARABS as potential terrorists. How, then, can US/Japanese deternment in America during WWII be condemned? Is it not the same principle of punishing a whole race (or religion) based on the actions of a few? Is it wise to alienate our Arab allies which are not easy to come by?
Perhaps the biggest obstacle in these unfolding events is in dealing with a perceived threat; perception based on experience, experience based on relentless evil wrapped in the guise of religion. Perhaps the lesson we need to learn is that Political Correctness is a trap that weilds both hypocrisy and confusion, and that it facilitates the endeavors of those hiding under the benefits of democracy while seeking to destroy it.
Expose the Left Michelle Malkin Righting America Sister Toldjah Aubrey J Conservababes Conservative Princess Flopping Aces Iowa Voice
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/392408
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (33)
I’d have to add that I think the Base of our Party will make the President back down on this issue though... At least long enough for a debate to take place on all the political and public fronts. After that... We’ll just have to see what happens.
(In these times, I think having such a debate would be a healthy thing to do for the country overall.)
AubreyJ.........
1) Pres. Bush is NOT a Pres. Clinton. He doesn't lie. He's honest. I cannot believe he would take a chance with national security. To the casual observer, it certainly appears to be problematic. This is actually a far more complicated issue than I was able to lay out above and I think Americans would be even more up in arms if they knew, for example, some of the other questionable practices that the US engages is that appear probematic but are probably harmless. Something about "strange bedfellows"....
2) Pres. Bush isn't perfect: he let down the country with Harriet Miers and has been weak on border patrol, which is also a security issue. Although, I'm not sure how much of that is at the state level and how much at the nationa.
3) It is WISE to make friends with whatever Arab nations we can. In fact, it is VITAL to world peace. Kuwait is a progressive Arab country that has a minimum of extremism. They have a reputation for being fair and equal to women (and then some) and still have a strong Muslim population. And they are our willing allies.... if the UAE could become THAT.....
3) It's possible Jimmy Carter is right. The guy cannot be wrong 100% of the time!
4) Trust.... if we trust Pres. Bush to lead us to war (I'm talking specifically to conservatives, liberals can put your hands down), we should probably trust him on this. It's highly likely that there are elements that cannot be disclosed to the public about this transaction that have assured both the President and the Foreign Investments Committee that this is a good deal. Remember, the Pres and the US didn't look for this contract... the British company dealt this; the US just approved it.
5) I had posted in my original all the comments from people supporting the contract, but deleted it because it was simply too long. Donald Rumsfeld and military leaders (we're talking higher ups at the Pentegon who would NEVER support a contract that could complicate all the troops have done in Afghanistan and Iraq). They all speak highy of the UAE as a strong ally who will not betray our trust, who has a strong military that works with us, not against us. Roberto Gonzales is another propoent of the contract. I'll get some quotes and add them.
6) The "the UAE had ties with 2 9/11 terrorists" is a bogus but compelling argument. There were 11 9/11 terrorists IN THE UNITED STATES who had their food, lodging, internet, flying lessons and so on WITHIN the US, but the US certainy did not support them. Have you seen the photos of the 9/11 terrorists at ATMs at Bank of America and Wachovia? I hardly think that means US banks support terrorism. We just had a bust of 3 terrorists in Ohio... but the US doesn't support them or willingly fascilitate them. I don't believe the UAE supported these terrorists, either; the terrorists just took up oxygen in their country.
7) Dems seem to be not personally attacking the President, which means they are arguing on the merit of the issue, which is refreshing. However; I have heard erroneous arguments from them, like about the UAE supporting 9/11 terrorists and other such easy talking points, which makes me more suspicious.
8) At the end of the day, I think the Repubican cry to take more time and fully investigate this issue is probably the wisest. There are certain things which cannot be disclosed for national security purposes, I'm sure. But is this another Harriet Miers? If so, we need to keep in mind that Pres. Bush didn't concoct this contract; he simply doesn't have enough evidence not to support it and enough to support it.
But I disagree with the NSA secret wire tapping. Even if we need this program, and the current law are insufficient, we should have created new laws. If FISA didn't have enough judges, then we hire more judges. Wiretapping calls in the US without a warrant, as required by the 4th Amendment, is repugnant. I can see how right after September 11th, there may have been a need for immediate action, but with the years that have passed there are just no excuses for not getting the proper protocol in place.
I for one am going to continue to support President Bush in his endeavor to stop terrorists in their tracks no matter what it takes.
As I blogged over at Iowa Voice, we need to really think this out. The ports were foreign run before DPW bought the British company running the ports. Is is prejudice against Arabs that has people, especially Democrats in an uproar?
This country is never governed well when Congress starts passing laws in hysteria or in hissie fits.
http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46637
"This transaction has been vetted at the highest levels," former Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge told Fox News on Tuesday.
"I don't think anyone would suggest that any one of those [vetters], individually or collectively, would do anything to compromise security at our ports."
Ridge called the U.A.E. ports deal a "perception problem that is vastly different from the reality."
The U.A.E. will not "own" the ports, Ridge emphasized. Security for those state-owned ports will continue to be handled by the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and even the union laborers who work the docks. He also said security concerns exist regardless of who operates the ports.
Ridge noted that Dubai was one of the first Middle Eastern ports that allowed the U.S. to place security agents at the port, complied with electronic manifest requirements, and agreed to the installation of X-ray equipment
Joe Lieberman
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/22/112507.shtml?s=ic
"Dubai and the United Arab Emirates are allies of ours in the war on terrorism," the Connecticut Democrat said, in little noticed comments three days ago on ABC's "This Week."
"So I don't think we want to just because it's a Dubai company, even owned by the government, we want to exclude them from doing business here," he added.
Lieberman reminded: "The more you look at it, the fact is that a lot of terminals in America are already owned not ports, terminals owned by foreign companies."
"The truth is I worry more about the failure to invest enough in port security in America through the Homeland Security Department to detect dangerous items, WMD, coming in here than I worry right now about this, this sale," he told "This Week."
White House counselor Dan Bartlett
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/22/105534.shtml?s=lh
White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Wednesday the UAE company, Dubai Ports, "is a reputable firm that went through a congressionally approved vetting process." He said the U.S. has "the necessary safeguards to make sure that the security of our country is in place" and that rejecting the deal would send "a dangerous signal to people overseas that America plays favorites."
Treasury Sec. John Snow
http://today.reuters.com/investing/FinanceArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-02-22T173815Z_01_WBT004841_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PORTS-SNOW.xml
DANBURY, Connecticut (Reuters) - Rejecting an Arab company's takeover of operations at key U.S. ports would have sent a bad signal about investment in the United States from "certain parts of the world," Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Wednesday.
"Our failing here, if there was a failing, was in explaining this process," Snow told reporters as he visited a plant that makes fuel cells, saying the Bush administration would be "reaching out" to lawmakers worried about the deal.
"Let me say that, having vetted the process, and having concluded that it would not present national security risks, the implication of failing to approve this would be to tell the world that investments in the United States from certain parts of the world aren't welcome," he added.
FACTBOX-Recent Arab investments in the U.S. and Canada
http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20060221:MTFH75216_2006-02-21_21-15-39_B724816:1
Feb 21 (Reuters) - The proposed takeover of six U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates, has sparked a political backlash in the United States.
Critics cite the alleged role that the UAE's banking system played in financing the Sept. 11 attackers, as well as the fact that two of the hijackers were UAE citizens.
But Arab investment in the United States is hardly new. Ever since the spike in energy prices in the early 1970s, dollars from oil-producing Arab nations have poured into the United States, at times prompting xenophobic reaction in some quarters as concern grew that vital interests were being auctioned off to foreigners.
Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is one of the largest single foreign investors in the United States. His major holdings include interests in U.S. tech heavyweight Apple Computer Inc. (AAPL.N: Quote, Profile, Research) and media giant Time Warner Inc. <TWX.N.>. He owns almost 5 percent of Citigroup (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the largest U.S. bank, and more than 5 percent of the U.S.-based media conglomerate News Corp (NWSa.N: Quote, Profile, Research).
But Al Waleed is hardly alone. As energy prices have spiked again over the past year or so, that inflow of Arab dollars into the U.S. and Canada has picked up. Some recent deals in the United States include:
* February 2006 - Shareholders of UK-based P&O (PO.L: Quote, Profile, Research), which operates six key ports in the United States, approve the sale of their company to state-owned Dubai Ports World for $6.8 billion. The Bush administration approves the sale after a classified review.
* January 2006 - Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal and Colony Capital agree to pay $3.9 billion for Canada's Fairmont Hotels & Resorts Inc. (FHR.TO: Quote, Profile, Research), trumping an offer by billionaire investor Carl Icahn.
* January 2006 - United Arab Emirates-based media investment company Istithmar acquires 109 million shares, or 2.39 percent of Time Warner Inc. for $2 billion.
* November 2005 - Istithmar says it has bought New York property 230 Park Avenue for $705 million.
* August 2005 - Dubai's Dubal, owner and operator of the largest aluminum smelter in the Western world, says it will take a 25 percent stake in Canada's Global Alumina Corp.
* January 2005 - The government of Dubai buys a $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler AG (DCXGn.DE: Quote, Profile, Research), becoming the auto maker's third-largest shareholder. The purchase was made through the government's Dubai Holding company.
* December 2004 - State-owned Dubai Ports pays $1.15 billion for the global port assets of U.S.-based CSX Corp. (CSX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), outbidding the world's two biggest container port operators.
Any American's knee-jerk reaction is NO what the hell are we doing this for? [had the same reaction myself]
But, I'm in a holding pattern on this issue right now. I need more info to make a decision. But my gut feeling is president Bush is doing what's right.
I had a similar reaction to some of the allegations the Democrats hurled at Alito at the confirmation hearings, but after hearing his reasoning to his decisions I concluded I'd have make the same ones, so I betting I'll be on the Bush bandwagon [go figure!]
We are not talking about ownership of the ports. We are talking about who owns the contracted rights to operate the loading and unloading operations at the ports. No US company has owned these rights in a long time.
Dubai Ports World would be come the 5th biggest company of its type in the world. The four largest companies in the world avoid the US like a plague because of its longshoremen's unions and the trouble they are to deal with honestly.
I hear Chuckie Schumer is calling for Halliburton to take over the ports. Halliburton isn't even in the top 5 companies in this work. Any way, isn't Halliburton the bogeyman of the left? (Except when Michael Moore invests in the stock for personal profit.)
Meg,interesting and good comments. I think you and PCD were talking about the same thing, if I understand you correctly, that "the Mob has long been tied to longshoreman unions' leadership." Sounds like you're agreeing on that point.
Of course, unions have their own odd role to play in all this.
Halliburton? Lady Byrd Johnson owns the largest chunk of stock in Halliburton, for you "Halliburton junkies" out there. Dick Cheney has no ties whatsoever with them anymore. What is Schumer's interest in Halliburton whatsoever, anyway?
AMY -
So call me "knee-jerk" boy. I reacted very negatively to this initial story...got sucked right into the mass-hysteria. Not that I give the Bush Administration a free pass on this - as much as I like him, he was (again) completely blindsighted by this situation.
If nothing else, I hope this wakes the President up to our desparate border and port security situation. I have never understood his policy regarding the borders - and we should have addressed the security of these ports (operational control to whichever company notwithstanding) about 4 years ago!
Good post - as always!!!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230230
"Gen. Paul Vallely: Strategic Concerns Drove Dubai Deal"
Geo-strategic military concerns likely played a significant role in the Bush administration's decision to approve a controversial deal for a United Arab Emirates-based company to take over six major U.S. ports, Gen. Paul Vallely [Ret.] said Thursday.
Asked if the UAE is of particular strategic importance because of its proximity to Iran and the Straits of Hormuz, Gen. Vallely told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes":
"It certainly is, because of the facilities that we have used there, not only the airbase, but the port facilities. And they've been very important for our fleets over there, as well as our aircraft."
The one-time top military man said there was "no doubt" that the UAE's strategic value would have been factored into any decision to approve a deal for Dubai Ports World to run U.S. ports.
The UAE sits directly across from Iran on the west shore of the key waterway, through which 25 percent of the world's oil supply passes. Last month Iran threatened to shut down the straits if the U.N. imposes sanctions as a result of its nuclear program.
The UAE's al Dhafra airbase hosts Air Force U-2 spy planes and Global Hawk unmanned surveillance aircraft, along with KC-10 aerial refueling planes.
According to GlobalSecurity.org, the 763rd Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron conducts in-flight refueling missions out of al Dhafra covering Southwest Asia in support of Operation Southern Watch, a coalition force tasked to monitor United Nations Security Council resolutions restricting air and ground operations in Southern Iraq.
Al-Dhafra is said to have played a key role in both the Iraq and Afghanistan air wars.
UAE Company Offers to Delay Port Deal
I'm still unclear about concerns over the "wiretapping" program. FISA is a pre-9/11 law and the 72 hour wait is simply too long. 3 days? The President, via authorization for war by Congress, grants him the power to stop the enemy by "any means necessary". In fact, all past presidents have done exactly the same thing, from Clinton to Carter to JFK, etc. This is not unlawful search and seizure.
I saw an EXCELLENT interivew on Fox last night with Attorney Gen. Alberto Gonzales. He explained the surviellance program in depth, including it's constitutionality, and he's very impressive. If you go to http://www.foxnews.com/ and copy and past this
javascript:videoPlayer('022306/022306_hc_gonzales','Alberto%20Gonzales','Hannity_Colmes','Hannity & Colmes','Hannity%20%26%20Colmes','157');
into the URL address line once you're there, it'll open up the interview in the Fox interface.
1. How about the fact that this U.A.E. port deal was ILLEGAL?
>>>"In ordinary cases of foreign direct investment the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) first conducts a 30-day “review” of the transaction. After the review, the committee makes a judgment as to whether a 45-day “investigation” is necessary to address national security concerns.
The law, however, was amended in 1993. That amendment makes the 45-day investigation mandatory in cases like the Dubai World Ports transfer. From the CFIUS website:
"Amendments. Section 837(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, called the "Byrd Amendment," amended Section 721 of the Defense Production Act (the "Exon-Florio provision"). It requires an investigation in cases where:
o the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government; and
o the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S."
Legislative Cite. Section 721 of Pub. L. 100-418, 102 Stat. 1107, made permanent law by section 8 of Pub. L. 102-99, 105 Stat. 487 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) and amended by section 837 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Pub. L. 102-484, 106 Stat. 2315, 2463.
The Dubai World Ports purchase triggers the automatic investigation. First, the company is “controlled” by a foreign government. Second, it’s undeniable that port operations “could affect the national security of the United States.”
Yet, the investigation never happened. Bush administration officials “could not say why a 45-day investigation did not occur.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/22/legally-required-investigation
2. Homeland Security was AGAINST THIS DEAL INITIALLY!
>>>Stewart Baker, a senior Homeland Security official, said he was the sole representative on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States who objected to the ports deal. Baker said he later changed his vote after DP World agreed to the security conditions. Other officials confirmed Baker's account.
"We were not prepared to sign off on the deal without the successful negotiation of the assurances," Baker told the AP.
Officials from the White House, CIA and Departments of State, Treasury, Justices and others looked for guidance from Homeland Security because it is responsible for seaports.
"We had the most obvious stake in the process," Baker said.
Baker acknowledged that a government audit of security practices at the U.S. ports in the takeover has not been completed as part of the deal."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.homeland26feb26,0,170464.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
3. George W. Bush once again, didn't even know what was going on.
>>>"Faced with an unprecedented Republican revolt over national security, the White House disclosed yesterday that President Bush was unaware of a Middle Eastern company's planned takeover of operations at six U.S. seaports until recent days and promised to brief members of Congress more fully on the pending deal."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022201609.html
This is the President you're telling me that you "trust?" He was CLUELESS!
How about Rumsfeld, the DEFENSE Secretary?
>>>"In detailing the evaluation process the Bush administration purportedly undertook before agreeing to permit a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to manage port terminals in six major U.S. cities, several media outlets reported that the administration approved of the deal only after a thorough review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). But none of the reports noted the glaring inconsistency in the administration's account: that Donald Rumsfeld, a key member of CFIUS, acknowledged in a February 21 press conference that he possessed "minimal information" about the deal because he had "just heard about this over the weekend."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602220009
Or how about the Treasury Secretary John Snow?
>>>"Treasury Secretary John Snow, who heads the panel that approved the sale, said he didn't know about the issue until the furor erupted this week."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-22-bush-ports_x.htm
My question to you pro-port folks is this...
Why are you so TERRIFIED of questioning the actions of this Administration? We've seen their track record on this war on terror in Tora Bora. We've seen their track record on the DISASTER that is Iraq. We've seen their track record on the FIASCO of the Hurricane Katrina response.
NOW, we have OTHER REPUBLICANS...Prominent ones...Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Peter King, Dennis Hassert, J.D. Hayworth, et. al come out AGAINST or at least QUESTION this port deal, and some of you can't bring yourselves to do it.
What is all this blind loyalty about? Bush is NOT the Messiah. He's a C-student politician and failed businessman who couldn't get elected to Scout Leader if his last name was "Smith".
Don't you think that there are some issues in this post 9/11 world that are worth following the rules and asking questions about?
--Cobra
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/2/26/dont-jump-on-the-anti-dubai-port-deal-bandwagon.html
As I hear it, Gonzales argument is basically that during a time of war the President can override absolutely any law or constitutional right. Even though the President hasn't decided to start kicking down doors here in the US looking for terrorists, by Gonzales’s reasoning they could. And I think that reasoning is unacceptable. While Courts have said Presidents do have some authority to use their “Commander and Chief” power to spy, no court, to my knowledge, has ever considered it in the context of such a broadly defined war, where even our own citizens are targets. Before O'Conner retired she wrote a famous opinion that says "War does not give the government a blank check.", but Gonzales argument seems to be just the opposite. He is arguing that the government has a blank check to do whatever they want. The precedent that this sets is unacceptable to me.
They are arguing that, after war is declared, the commander power is not limited in ANY way.
That's too scary. If this argument is accepted, who knows what future Presidents will do with it?
I'm mad that any US President would spy on us without a warrant. If Clinton and Carter spied on us using this power, then that was very wrong too.
I appreciate your concerns. The Attorney General in no way said law can/should be circumvented. In the authorization for war, which does not apply to every President, only ones who are President in a time of war, there are executive provisions for such things as intercepting enemy communications. This is exactly what the Attorney Gen. said:
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > HANNITY & COLMES
Exclusive Interview With Alberto Gonzales
Friday, February 24, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185948,00.html
GONZALES: First of all, let me just say that talk about impeachment, in this particular case, is ridiculous. This is about a commander-in-chief using authorities that have long been used by other commanders-in-chief in a time of war to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy.
GONZALES: Ever since we've had electronic communications, and particularly during a time of war, presidents have authorized the electronic surveillance of the enemy.
People assume that once Congress passes FISA that's the end of the discussion, but you also have to see what Congress has done subsequent to the passage of FISA, and we say that if you look at the authorization to use force, that is a subsequent action by the Congress authorizing this kind of surveillance.
And also, of course, you have to look to see whether or not the statute is constitutional as applied.
HANNITY: Is it?
GONZALES: Well, I think there were some serious questions as to whether or not this statue — if the intent is to limit the ability of the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, during a time of war to engage in electronic surveillance of the enemy, I think there are some serious questions here.
I mean, that is a core commander-in-chief power, and it is something that has been long-recognized by tradition, long-recognized in the courts. The last court to look at this issue has indicated that — this is the FISA Court of Review — has indicated that to the extent that the FISA would limit that power, that that encroachment could not stand.
HANNITY: You know what is interesting? The war of words, sometimes you'll hear people that have opposed the president's use of this, what I would argue, too, is a constitutional power, they'll say it's a domestic spying program, and the administration will say it's a terrorist surveillance program.
GONZALES: It is not a domestic spying program, because every communication — the program the president has authorized is the surveillance of communications where one end is outside the United States. That is an international communication. That is not a domestic communication.
HANNITY: In other words, it has to — that was one of the main conditions that you pointed out, that it had to be somebody believed to be related to a terror organization, i.e. Al Qaeda, they had to be calling from outside the United States was one of the main criteria.
GONZALES: One of the parties had to be outside the United States, and there had to be reasonable grounds to believe by a career professional out at NSA that a party to the communication is a member of agent of al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization.
HANNITY: All right. Last question about this: You know, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Democrats are arguing it had a provision in there that you could go to this secret court and that you could get permission and you could even do it, what, 72 hours retroactively.
GONZALES: Right.
HANNITY: Why do you say that that is not necessary in this particular case, especially in light of the authorization of Congress immediately after the 9/11 attack?
GONZALES: First of all, before the attorney general authorizes emergency authorizations, but before I can grant that verbal authorization, I have to be satisfied that every requirement under FISA can be satisfied.
And in certain circumstances, that can be very time-consuming. We sometimes don't have days. We sometimes don't have weeks. We sometimes don't have months to go up on surveillance of a communication involving Al Qaeda. Sometimes we only have hours.
And FISA has been a very important tool in the war on terror, but it is not an effective tool under certain kinds of circumstances.
"HANNITY: You said that, after September 11th, when Congress gave the president authority — you basically said they were only confirming the constitutional authority that the president already had, which was to use all necessary and appropriate force."
The key words here are "all necessary and appropriate force." That means that the President isn't limited just to wire-tapping. I'm sure the administration would disagree but I think violating the 4th Amendment is almost never "appropriate" (and certainly not appropriate when there was a FISA court). And frankly, I haven't seen anything in the Ohio case that made the warrantless surveillance look "necessary". There is no evidence that the administration couldn't have gotten a warrant if they wanted one, even from a non-fisa court.
P.S.
Just in case you were going to argue that the FISA court was having a "bottle neck" problem, we have had 5 long years to fix that. So I don't really see that as an excuse.
The actual conclusion of what your concern is that you're willing to risk conspiracy with terrorists. The spying is actually done on the terrorists... it isn't domestic spying.
Arg.
The difference is that Bush didn't veto a bill in public. He "vetoed" it without anyone knowing. You know Congress can override a veto right? And you know that even the president can't veto something in the Bill of Rights. If the president could veto any law in the manner you are suggesting, then could Clinton have vetoed the perjury laws?
In order to do a drug bust or wiretap a drug dealer, the government must get a warrant.
I'm willing to give terrorists as much as the Constitution guarantees for any criminal. I'm not willing to go beyond that and do them any special favors. But if we can't remain true to who we are during this "War on Terror" then we are going to lose something much more valuable than the capture of terrorists. I don't want us to become the kind of country that spies on its citizens. That's way to 1984 for me.