The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, September 06, 2007
How Lawyers are Endangering the Rest of Us
So I'm reading Jack Goldsmith's new book, The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration,
and so far it's quite good. Excerpt:
It is unimaginable that Francis Biddle or Robert Jackson would have written Franklin Roosevelt a memorandum about how to avoid prosecution for his wartime decisions designed to maintain flexibility against a new and deadly foe. . . . Many people think the Bush administration has been indifferent to wartime legal constraints. But the opposite is true: the administration has been strangled by law, and since September 11, 2001 this war has been lawyered to death.
Read the rest. Maybe Napoleon was on to something...
Labels: Homeland Security, Judicial, National Security
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
This is PROGRESS Protecting our Borders?
If a nation cannot protect its own borders, it cannot defend itself. I keep hearing that we are moving to protect the borders, but from what I can see the only thing that is changing are the faces making those claims. (h/t Allah for the video).
Interestingly, even Mexico protects its borders more effectively that we do.
There is a reason why the lame attempt to ram through the watered down amnesty bill caused an uprising of the electorate such as has not been seen in years. The reason is this: the American people are sick and tired of this crap. The sooner that our so called "leaders" recognize this, the better.
Labels: Border Protection, Illegal Immigration, National Security
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Pelosi's Quandry
Speaker Pelosi is in a very untenable position. She now bears entirely the weight of improving the national security of the United States. She will try to spin it differently, but every moment she waits, trying to find a political way out of the predicament she finds herself in, she is vulnerable to being held responsible if something really bad happens here. If the McConnell-Bond bill were to pass the House, it would be signed immediately by the President, and become law that second. There is no implementation delay. As soon as the ink is dry, Admiral Mike McConnell can start changing procedures he deems vital for the protection of the country at once.
So what are Pelosi’s options? She could bring up the bill as is, with no amendments, and call for a vote. Considering the number of Democrats in the Senate who helped it pass, it's almost certain to pass the House. But if Pelosi plays games with this, or if one comma is changed in the House version, the bill would have to go to a conference committee, which can’t now happen anytime soon because the Senate has recessed. They’ve done their job. Pelosi has to pass the bill as is. We hope she sees this and does what’s better for the country than satisfying her ACLU base.
Here’s her conundrum, however. If Pelosi does push this bill through, which she almost certainly has to, she will send her members home after the vote for their August recess to face a base that will be just as angry, just as ramped up as the Republican base by and large was during the recent immigration debate. Will she have the courage to stand up to her kook fringe and do what’s right? Will she be able to regain control of the reins of the House of Representatives after she so badly mismanaged it this week? Or is she so beholden to powerful lobbies within the Democratic base that she will turn her back on the national security of the country to placate the left wing fringe? We’ll stay tuned and report.
Labels: Congress, Defeatocrats, Democrat Sabotage, National Security, NSA Surveillance
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Why the President should reverse course on the Law of the Sea Treaty
As Carrie Donovan points out, the Treaty allows for the regulation of intelligence and submarine activities even when they are conducted in territorial waters. Additionally, the Treaty's mandatory dispute resolution provisions under the auspices of the United Nations naturally raise sovereignty questions and the fact that the United Nations is hardly a model international institution does little to raise one's confidence in placing jurisdiction on maritime issues in the hands of the U.N.
Over three years ago, Doug Bandow highlighted additional problems with the Treaty, including the fact that the United States would be putting up approximately 25% of the funds for the International Seabed Authority, which would regulate mining and mineral extraction, while at the same time receiving an inordinately small share of voting rights. This, as Bandow notes, is a typical problem with U.N.-sponsored institutions; they rely heavily on American funding while denying the United States the commensurate amount of power to influence the activities of those institutions. In addition, while the Treaty has some attractive provisions regarding freedom of navigation, there is no impediment whatsoever to America's power to navigate the high seas now or in the immediate future given the overwhelming state of American naval superiority. So in the end, the Treaty's guarantees of freedom of navigation do little—if anything—to advance American interests.
I hate to sound so reductionist, but we are almost to the place where if John Negroponte (or anyone else at the State Department..) favors a proposal, it should automatically be tossed in the trash. I think we need to urge the President and the US Senate (which ratifies treaties) to adhere to their oath and look out for the best interests of America first--and that means not ratifying the Law of the Sea Treaty. Let's send this one to a deep, watery grave.
Labels: Maritime Law, National Security, NGOs
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
THIS is why we have to CLOSE the Border
The FBI is investigating an alleged human smuggling operation based in Chaparral, N.M., that agents say is bringing "Iraqis and other Middle Eastern" individuals across the Rio Grande from Mexico.An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year.
[...]
The FBI report, issued last week, says the smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative." Each individual would be charged a fee of $20,000 to $25,000, according to the report.The people to be smuggled would "gather at a house on the Mexican side of the border" and then cross the Rio Grande into the U.S., the report says.
"Unidentified individuals would then transport them to train stations in El Paso, Texas or Belen, New Mexico," according to the FBI document.
At least 4 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were in the United States illegally. So what part of "this is an issue of vital National Security" does our Government not understand?
Labels: Border Protection, Illegal Immigration, Islamic Fascism, National Security
Sunday, June 03, 2007
A Reasoning Idea from Reason
the employer-as-border-patrol-agent makes even less sense; it presumes that terrorists come here to work.The fear is that once the government gets a liking to their unaccountable nature of deputizing every employer that would hire immigrants, legal or not, what's to keep the government from requiring these same checks on native or naturalized citizens? Unaccountable power is the ultimate elixir of all elected officials. We may all be clamoring for something that will shut our mouths forever.
If it's security we want, then we might ought to point our elected officials down another cow trail.
Labels: Illegal Immigration, National Security
Thursday, May 17, 2007
What They are NOT telling you about that Comey Testimony
Any questions?The implication is that the White House was trying to lean on Justice to do something illegal. But listen to what Mr. Comey actually said as Mr. Specter questioned him. Was he pressured by Mr. Card, Senator Specter asked? No. "I don't know that he tried to pressure me, other than to engage me on the merits and make clear his strong disagreements with my conclusion."
Did they threaten him, or suggest he could be fired? "No sir, I didn't feel threatened, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be read [as threatening]." And what about Mr. Bush, did he twist arms in the Oval? Through FBI director Robert Mueller, Mr. Comey explained, "The President said the Justice Department should do what the Department thinks is right."
So where's the smoking gun here? When the program was reauthorized by the President alone, Mr. Comey and others planned to resign in protest. So, Mr. Specter asked, does that mean the program went forward illegally? Again, negative: "The Justice Department's certification . . . was not [required] as far as I know." That's because, as even Mr. Comey conceded, many judges and scholars believe a President has the Constitutional authority to approve such wiretaps, especially in wartime.
In other words, per Mr. Comey's testimony, nothing illegal was done, he was never threatened by White House officials, and the President told him to do what he felt was right. The Gonzales-Card hospital intrusion was unusual, and politically unwise, but their motive at the time was to gain approval for a program the President thought vital to national security and was about to expire.
Labels: Democrat Sabotage, National Security, NSA Surveillance, Unbridled Partisanship
Sunday, May 13, 2007
What Fortress??
Read it all. We're in trouble folks. And someone with a lot of influence on media and power had better wake the hell up--and fast.Tough, you say. So what? Washington still has no dog in these fights. It's time to hunker down in Fortress America. Which brings me to the fourth lesson: What fortress? The three Duka brothers were (if you'll forgive the expression) illegal immigrants. They're not meant to be here. Yet they graduated from a New Jersey high school and they operated two roofing companies and a pizzeria. Think of how often you have to produce your driver's license or Social Security number. But, five years after 9/11, this is still one of the easiest countries in the world in which to establish a functioning but fraudulent identity.
Consider, for example, the post-9/11 ritual of airline security. You have to produce government-issued picture ID to the TSA official. Does that make you feel safer? On that Tuesday morning in September, four of the killers got on board by using picture ID they'd acquired through the "undocumented worker" network in Falls Church, Va. Half the jurisdictions in the United States issue picture ID to people who shouldn't even be in the country, and they issue it as a matter of policy. The Fort Dix boys were pulled over for 19 traffic violations, but because they were in "sanctuary cities," any cop who suspected they were illegals was unable to report them to immigration authorities. Again, as a matter of policy.
On one hand, America creates a vast federal security bureaucracy to prevent another 9/11. On the other hand, American politicians and bureaucrats create a parallel system of education and welfare and health care entitlements, main- taining and expanding a vast network of fraudulent identity that cor- rupts the integrity of almost all state databases. And though it played a part in the killing of 3,000 Americans, leaders of both parties insist nothing can be done to stop it. All we can do is give the Duka brothers "a fast track to citizenship."
The Iranians already are operating in South America's Tri-Border area. Is it the nothing-can-be-done crowd's assumption that the fellows who run armies of the "undocumented" from Mexico into America are just kindhearted human smugglers who'd have nothing to do with jihad even if the price was right? If you don't have borders, you won't have a nation -- and you may find "the jobs Americans won't do" covers a multitude of sins.
Labels: Border Protection, Islamic Fascism, National Security
Monday, May 07, 2007
Democrats' "Top National Security Priority"
Cartoon by Paul Nowak (click to enlarge)
(p.s. - I wasn't kidding; feel better now? Is it 2008 yet?)
Labels: Cartoons, Democrat Sabotage, Global Warming Hysteria, National Security
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Bush will Veto Collective Bargaining for TSA
Still, the vote looks to be--as have most other votes taken by this Congress--purely for show; the President has already promised to veto it, and he reportedly has enough Senators to prevent an override.
Labels: Congress, Democrat, National Security, Unions
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
BREAKING: U.Missouri - Rolla Closed due to Anthrax/Bomb Scare: Perp was "International Student"
The man’s identity and nationality were not released, although school spokesman Lance Feyh said he was an international student.Gee, I wonder what this "international student's" name, nationality, and religion might be? Hmmm? I am very interested in knowing the answer to this question and also in knowing the over/under for how long it will take the elitisit leftists in the media to actually TELL us.
Labels: Media Bias, National Security, Terrorism, Thought Police
Monday, February 26, 2007
Did Sandia Labs Cover-up Nuclear Security breach?
Labels: Intelligence, National Security, Nuclear
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Baker to dismayed Dems re: the Surge: "Give It a Chance"
This is why it was very gratifying to hear today Baker tell off those Senators who are wanting to send mixed signals by confirming the Generals while attempting to generate "no confidence" votes or talk about "benchmarks" (be sure and page down for the wonderful graphics and video...). Baker's words: 'Give It a Chance'.
Labels: Democrat Sabotage, Iraq, Military, National Security, War strategy, White Flag Republicans
Friday, January 26, 2007
Internet Security Company Cracks Jihadist Encryption Program
Labels: Intelligence, Islamic Fascism, Military Technology, National Security, Terrorism
Thursday, January 25, 2007
MI5 Warns of Bioterror Threat
Labels: Appeasement, Bioterror, Democrat, Europe, Islamic Fascism, National Security, UK
So...you Really think you are SAFE?
Nah--we don't need to protect our borders...
Labels: Islamic Fascism, National Security, Nuclear, Russia, Terrorism
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Another possible Iraq Outcome
(Be sure and read the comments too).
Labels: Iraq, Middle East, Military, National Security
N. Korea "Assisting" Iran with Underground Nuke Test
It is difficult to imagine Israel sitting by and letting this happen--even with a weakened Prime Minister Isreal has more cajones when it comes to protecting itself than do all of the Democrats in Congress combined (note that I now count Lieberman as an "Independent").
I do not think people have any idea how serious this is about to get. It may be that Americans are soon going to realize what a fatal mistake they made by electing appeasement-happy Dems to office.
Labels: Asia, Iran, Islamic Fascism, Middle East, National Security, North Korea, Nuclear, Terrorism
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Ahmadinejad: "Israel and US will soon Die"
Labels: Appeasement, Democrat, Iran, Islamic Fascism, Israel, Middle East, National Security, Nuclear, Terrorism
Overhauling Global Military Strategy
But it is what is unsaid that is germane tonight: you cannot possibly "close the gap" in the Middle East if you leave a power vaccum in Iraq for Al Qaeda and Iran to fill.
Labels: Iraq, National Security, War strategy
