Saturday, June 24, 2006
Fuzzy Logic From the New York (Seditious) Times
You can almost follow the logic of the editorial titled Following the Money, and the Rules in today's NYT if you keep in mind the recent style manual addition that there can be no unadulterated praise of this administration no matter what it accomplishes. But then you hit this paragraph:
That sounds like good news. What's worrisome is a familiar refrain. Despite a compliant Congress, which was eager to give the administration all the investigative tools it requested, the White House has chosen to operate outside any real scrutiny, and not to seek explicit authorization for what has clearly become a permanent program.
Has anyone told the NYT editorial board that the Government of the United State was set up with three co-equal branches of government? The Executive branch, doing what is clearly in its job description--like, oh, fighting a war--doesn't have to get authorization of the clearly legal tactics it chooses to employ. After Congress declares war (as it clearly did here) the only control it maintains is through funding bills. The Courts are not involved at all (or at least shouldn't be).
"the White House has chosen to operate outside any real scrutiny"? Yeah, when the administration was doing secret things (until the NYT exposed the effective and legal program, apparently just for fun) to discover the identity and location of the enemy, there is no need for any scrutiny, real or imagined, and a very real danger that if there was scrutiny (and the resulting exposure), the program would become less effective through countermeasures from al Qaeda once al Qaeda became aware of our methods and sources.
To paraphrase Dr. Evil--You just don't get it, do you, Bill Keller?
More misplaced anxiety from the NYT:
When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on.
Might infringe? Might? Are you kidding me? You decided to blow this operation because of fear of what might happen? What's important is that the legal, effective investigation be kept secret from the enemies who are being investigated. That's what's really important.
Orwellian at the finish:
Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts. (Emphasis added).
Oh, so the NYT says that the two formerly classified programs it has revealed to our enemy are necessary--No one wants them to stop--but by revealing them, the NYT has terminated the effectiveness of both programs, the NYT has stopped them for all but the stupidest of terrorist. And then it's back to the need for oversight--as misplaced an idea, fundamentally, constitutionally unsound, as the idea that it wanted the programs to continue but needed to give the enemy a heads up on what we were doing.
These guys are dangerous, fatuous maroons. As Hugh Hewitt says, I don't like the Democrats because they are going to get me killed.
That sounds like good news. What's worrisome is a familiar refrain. Despite a compliant Congress, which was eager to give the administration all the investigative tools it requested, the White House has chosen to operate outside any real scrutiny, and not to seek explicit authorization for what has clearly become a permanent program.
Has anyone told the NYT editorial board that the Government of the United State was set up with three co-equal branches of government? The Executive branch, doing what is clearly in its job description--like, oh, fighting a war--doesn't have to get authorization of the clearly legal tactics it chooses to employ. After Congress declares war (as it clearly did here) the only control it maintains is through funding bills. The Courts are not involved at all (or at least shouldn't be).
"the White House has chosen to operate outside any real scrutiny"? Yeah, when the administration was doing secret things (until the NYT exposed the effective and legal program, apparently just for fun) to discover the identity and location of the enemy, there is no need for any scrutiny, real or imagined, and a very real danger that if there was scrutiny (and the resulting exposure), the program would become less effective through countermeasures from al Qaeda once al Qaeda became aware of our methods and sources.
To paraphrase Dr. Evil--You just don't get it, do you, Bill Keller?
More misplaced anxiety from the NYT:
When government agencies are involved in continuing investigations that might infringe on Americans' privacy, it is important that some outside entity is keeping track of what is going on.
Might infringe? Might? Are you kidding me? You decided to blow this operation because of fear of what might happen? What's important is that the legal, effective investigation be kept secret from the enemies who are being investigated. That's what's really important.
Orwellian at the finish:
Investigators will probably need to monitor the flow of money to and from suspected terrorists and listen in on their phone conversations for decades to come. No one wants that to stop, but if America is going to continue to be America, these efforts need to be done under a clear and coherent set of rules, with the oversight of Congress and the courts. (Emphasis added).
Oh, so the NYT says that the two formerly classified programs it has revealed to our enemy are necessary--No one wants them to stop--but by revealing them, the NYT has terminated the effectiveness of both programs, the NYT has stopped them for all but the stupidest of terrorist. And then it's back to the need for oversight--as misplaced an idea, fundamentally, constitutionally unsound, as the idea that it wanted the programs to continue but needed to give the enemy a heads up on what we were doing.
These guys are dangerous, fatuous maroons. As Hugh Hewitt says, I don't like the Democrats because they are going to get me killed.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:47 AM 
