Pajamas Media

59 Comments

Bill … I have two great uncles and a great aunt who live in west-central Missouri; from a little after the time you and I were born until the mid-1990’s, they shared the land with a Minuteman missile wing.

As we were growing up and became young men, I sometimes thought of what it would be like to see a set of contrails streaking up from that ground … knowing full well that they would be replaced by trails of ionized air streaking DOWN a few minutes later …

At the same time, extensive diplomatic dialogue was being executed to try and reduce the number of weapons like these being pointed at the land masses of the USA and USSR, but nothing seemed to change significantly in that regard …

… that is, until we had a much-maligned-by-the-erudite-elites “cowboy” in the Oval Office, that stopped deferring to the diplomats and told the Soviets, in so many words, that THEY. WOULD. NOT. PREVAIL.

Once that message was sent … over the top of those who believed that dialogue alone would be sufficient (remember how that cowboy had to RE-INSERT the phrase “Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!” multiple times in his famous Berlin speech, over the objections of his speechwriters?) … the missiles were removed from that Missouri soil, as part of the most extensive arms-reduction program in modern times.

Those were REAL reductions … significant reductions … not just promises, or cuts in the rate of growth.

For years, I have often challenged those like “Mary” to name one totalitarian-expansionist regime in history that stopped its tyranny ON ITS OWN, in the absence of CREDIBLE confrontation from within or without, or the exhaustion of its resources. I have yet to get an example.

My concurring opinion to yours: there is extensive historical EVIDENCE that shows that the real peace song of our age is not the pacifists’ “Kumbiyah” …

… but “Yippie-Ky-Ay-A”, instead.

Was there a reply?

I am a firm believer in maintaining watch of what our government does. The super powers that We, The People gave to our government to prosecute this war caused me some concern. Some might have considered me paranoid, but I didn’t see it that way; rather, I felt it was my patriotic duty to pay attention, and to be watchful for the slightest overreach with the Patriot Act.

Since I was not alone in my concerns, I was successful when I reached out to bloggers, left and right, to work together on a group blog to be the akin to the Minutemen of the Patriot Act.

This wasn’t 2009 when the vast majority of what we call “bloggers” or “blogs” are commercial enterprises with funding, staffs, and advertising and marketing budgets. It was a time when bloggers were a small group of people who were finding audiences for our respective views. These were a suspicious, angry pack of wolves, ready to pounce on the slight infraction.

We started a website titled “The Liberty Dogs” and for just slightly over a year this group of 25+ bloggers looked out for any evidence that the Bush Administration was using the Patriot Act to deny Americans their civil rights, rather than the temporary suspension of some of our rights that are necessary to prosecute a war.

This temporary surrender of our rights has precedent. That didn’t stop people from shouting about the idea of the Patriot Act, claiming that it was unusual, as “Mary” continues to do to this day.

After a year of running the site, the site became boring. That is not to say that the bloggers who contributed to it were responsible for it being that way. It was because there was no there there. The Bush Administration used the powers of the Patriot Act exactly as intended, no abuse in any quarter, and there was no reason to continue to run a blog to monitor it.

It’s not the Act. It’s the Commander-in-Chief. Under Bush, we had no reason to be concerned because we had no evidence, in 8 years, that anyone went beyond the scope and intent. He earned my respect for that.

We shall see if Obama can make the same claim in a year, let alone four.

holy cow, man. Here’s hoping I’m never on the receiving end of that kind of logic. Great analysis and reply. Please let us know if your opponent gets off the mat and replies.

Mrs. DuToit, I’d venture to say that Obama can’t even say that now. I’ll wager that his crowd is already monitoring those of us they came to hate over the past eight years.

Start up the ‘dogs again if you will, there’s a need for watchers now, more than ever.

Mr. Whittle, I don’t know a good “clearinghouse” to keep on top of all the honor killings, clitorectomies done in Western society (much less sub saharan Africa) and other atrocities against women, but it’d be grand to send such info to “Mary” on a daily basis.

Regardless, I hope the clue-by-four brings the desired effect on her. For all of our sakes.

Interesting times, eh?

Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Ooh…that should leave a mark!

It would be interesting to also see the brainless carping that finally pushed your “Engage” button, Bill.

Bill,

Great short post. This strikes the nail square.

Q: Once the people who keep the country safe “Go John Galt” who is going to watch the store?
A: Not the guys you would trust not to loot the place.

The looters are running the country….. into the ground it seems.

RD

What people like “Mary” fail to realize, understand, or even comprehend, is that our enemies respect and fear only our military strength. Anything else they view as a weakness to be exploited.
It’s like in the movie “Independence Day” when the President tried to “reason” with the alien, and find some common ground for peace. When he asked the alien “What do you want?”, the alien replied “YOU DEAD”.
If we don’t have a civil war first in the US over the policies our Marxist “President” is implementing, I think we’ll see a “Crusade” the likes the world has never seen. The Radical Islamofascists want the world to return to the 10th century, and will stop at nothing to get their way.

Mr. Whittle,
I was not aware that the CIA was seeing a flood of senior officers leaving.
This will lead to a CATACLYSM for all of us – whatever our political stripes – if it isn’t stopped.
Might I suggest that you write up an article or create a video which publicizes this catastrophe?
Word needs to get out – Urgently.
By the way: thanks for everything, you are awesome (just in case you hadn’t heard it before )

Wasting your breath. “Mary” embraces the idea that talk always trumps violence so she can wear her Badge of Moral Righteousness. To compensate for whatever ethical shortcomings she has.

BTW, I still can’t find your “Tribes” on the net. Lil help? That was a masterpiece.

Ooops. My bad. You’ve reposted it just below this thread. LOL. Thanks!

Ever heard of Brandon Mayfield? That’s just the lowest apple on the “I have not heard of a single case of a US citizen’s rights being infringed by the Patriot Act” tree.

That’s all I have to say about that.

I wasn’t aware of the flood of resignations, either. Indeed, it is a catastrophe. Have there been similar resignations in other intelligence agencies? It seems to me that there might be, since our Commissar seems intent on handcuffing all of them.

Yippee-Kay-Yay, MF!

I’d say this is checkmate. But unfortunately, liberals, progressives, and left-wingnuts are unable to see beyond the confines of their little boxes, though most don’t even have airholes through which they could try to peek, even if they wanted to do so.

This blindness poses as serious a threat as that of America’s enemies and it will surely lead to tragedies we cannot yet imagine, for the war within it creates is far more dangerous than an attack from outside, if only because it will allow such a thing to occur.

Thank you for posting this.

The “bailout” of good CIA officers is a very bad sign. The rats deserting the sinking ship is a harbinger of things to come…
(And no, I’m not thinking of the CIA officers as rats in terms of vermin, but in terms of “everybody off the ship!!”.)

Mary voted for The One, what can I say – her judgment is *already* suspect. Sunshine, lollipops, rainbows and unicorns mindset.

Gonna be messy, no doubt about it. Are we willing to give our lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defending the United States of America?

IGOR

Excessive dealings with tyrants are not good for the security of free states–Deomosthenes

Aggression unchallenged is aggression unleashed–Phaedrus

It is vital that we lay the groundwork today for what is sure to come. I want Holder, Obama and Biden in the dock facing charges of criminal negligence when the attack comes. Notice I did not say IF. It is only a matter of time and the next attack will be the ultimate shame of our nation. That our politics have descended into juvenile idiocy where Bush screwed up the Iraq war and Obama has gutted our defenses.

We are on the verge of a world war and our country is not ready for it. Our defenses are weak, our leadership is less than weak; our enemies smell that weakness and prepare to attack. Remember that if Iran get’s the bomb, al Qaeda, long sponsored and supported by Iran, ALSO GETS THE BOMB.

Bottom line: Democrats are not to be trusted with National Security. If an attack comes, Democrats deserve to reap the whirlwind they have sown.

Jeff, Mayfield was only held for two weeks.

As bad as that was, it was TEMPORARY, and redress was made. We’ve seen far worse in our criminal justice system … care to dismantle that, on those grounds?

OTOH, the death of an innocent, at the hands of a terrorist that, if the PATRIOT Act did not exist, would be able to stay one (or more) steps ahead of the authorities, is a PERMANENT infringement on their right to live.

So tell me, are you for government-managed health care? The potential for civil-liberties infringements in that make the PATRIOT Act look downright libertarian by comparison … yet we have many of the critics of that Act among the most vocal supporters of Obamacare.

That is because their opposition to the PATRIOT Act is based less upon their concerns for civil liberties, and more upon their desire to deny a conservative President ANY credit for positive change … that, and their own greed … for they see any increase in conservative credibility to be a threat to their ability to practice their own pet vices without even a challenge from public opinion.

Been that way since November 2000.

Laughing out loud. Obama can’t even close Gitmo, he’s preserved rendition as a tool of anti-terrorism, he has yet to pursue anyone from CIA for illegal activities under the Bush administration, hell he voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act – and I’m supposed to believe that he’s “at war with the CIA”? This wouldn’t be the first example of Whittle being hugely dishonest, but it still deserves to be pointed out as such.

“This case officer confirmed what I have known from other intelligence operatives: namely, that “several” (to me that would be more than three and less than twenty, which would be “scores”) attacks EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING 9/11 have been stopped by these people specifically because of the intelligence-gathering tools provided by the Patriot Act.”

You swear to God you know a guy in CIA who swears to God that the Patriot Act is the only thing standing between this country and total annihilation, but you can’t confirm it. How convenient.

If it was just a CIA case, I might believe it. On the other hand, I read an article by you in the National Review saying “I have a European friend, she agrees with me on the need to fight Islamo-fascism, BUT IF I TOLD YOU HER NAME SHE’D BE FIRED!!!!” – never mind that European journalists have been writing about the terrorist threat for decades without being fired for it – in which it was rather obvious that you’d pulled the story completely out of your ass. Why would I believe you on this?

Bill, another wonderful essay, but you should have learned by now that for most (not all) on the left, what matters is the “narrative”. This leaves the left impervious to contradictory facts and logic, no matter how accurate and relevant they may be. It’s why socialism continues to survive in leftist bastions like university humanities departments, despite reams of objective evidence going back a century or more that socialism does.not.work. It’s why a belief in negotiation with thugs persists in these same quarters regardless of proof that a mathematician would find compelling that thugs only respond to force or the credible threat thereof. But for much of the left, continuing to deny reality is easier than admitting one’s belief system is a ramshackle house of lies built on sand. I’m hoping that your colleague “Mary” is an exception.

Bill—Hooah!!!!! Well said.

I love the first analogy. As an Immunologist, I’ve used it in reverse to explain parts of the immune response. Being surrounded by “Marys” I appreciate your response. Were that I were as eloquent. Nice work.

WHERE IS MARY’S REPLY????

Oh, please, publish it. I’m dying to read how in the world she responded to that.

Excellent writing. And what terrifies me is that the picture you pain is not hypothetical. It’s now our reality.

Thank you!

Bill, this post made for wonderful entertainment watching one of my moonbat friends try to dismiss it on Facebook. I think I almost enjoy that as much as one of your long essays, just for the mind-bending arguments I get to laugh at.

Puzzled, you say, “If it was just a CIA case, I might believe it.” Now we all know that’s a lie; you already outed yourself as someone who reflexively disbelieves anything Bill says without giving it any consideration at all. Your reply is just more ad hominem crap like all you leftists love to spew.

“Now we all know that’s a lie; you already outed yourself as someone who reflexively disbelieves anything Bill says without giving it any consideration at all.”

Funny. A person on the Internet that you don’t know, quoting another person you don’t know and will never meet, tells you that Obama has declared war on the CIA and that its members are leaving in droves – and because it fits into the general “Obama isn’t fit to lead this country” notion that you and most other posters have, you just believe it. (Reflexively, one might say). ?????

My disbelief of Bill isn’t necessarily reflexive – I’m more than willing to believe that Obama has a cult of iconography thing going (have to be blind not to). Or that the man has a Narcissus complex (more than most politicians) which something like the Olympics can cheaply put down. Or that some people like to bury their heads in the sand while others like to find and fight the problem (though as with most things, it’s more complex than just “You’re pink” “You’re grey”).

On the other hand Bill’s written several articles that were worthy of being taken with numerous grains of salt. This is one of them. The National Review article about his imaginary friend was another. The article about “American exceptionalism,” which conveniently omitted the next few paragraphs in which Obama lavished praise and pride on the U.S. of A so that Bill could engage in his reflexive whining about un-patriotic liberalism, was another.

Yes, when I see something that contradicts my observations, I comment. I’ve probably sent considerably more “ad hominem crap,” as you call it, to the World Socialist Web Site than I ever will on PJTV, but PJTV has its little gems also, and I don’t see why they should be excluded from commentary.

Eric Holder appointed a Special Prosocuter. What more evidence do you need? Are you going to wait for Langly to be burned to the Ground “Puzzled”? Even Obama’s handpicked CIA Head Begged Obama to call off the dogs.

Sorry Puzzled, but your disbelief of Bill is reflexive because you tacitly admitted it, and continue to do so in this second post. Anyone not blinded by your distaste (as you clearly are) can see that. As to your claim that you’ve sent more “ad hominem crap” to the World Socialist Web Site, why should we believe you? By your standards of evidence you’re just as guilty if not more so than Bill is. Sorry, but you don’t pass even a casual “sniff” test.

“Eric Holder appointed a Special Prosocuter.”

The guy’s name is John Durham, and his first contact with this situation was when he was appointed by Mukasey to investigate the destruction of CIA videotapes, back in August of 2008. Given the number of allegations about the CIA in the last decade (including those that over 100 prisoners have died in U.S. custody http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150601,00.html), an investigation seems warranted unless you believe that the CIA should be completely and in all other ways free of investigations. But this guy is by all accounts honest and apolitical (hell, a registered Republican if I recall) – I’m going to see what he does with his investigation.

“Are you going to wait for Langly to be burned to the Ground “Puzzled”?”

No, I’m going to wait until there’s some evidence that that might actually happen. As it stands, Guantanamo remains open, with attempts to close it pretty much dead in the water; and the Patriot Act is still active. So the intelligence community is still alive, as are most of the Bush reforms.

“Sorry Puzzled, but your disbelief of Bill is reflexive because you tacitly admitted it, and continue to do so in this second post.”

I “admitted,” not tacitly, that I had in the past found Bill to be a source of dishonest information. Mostly meaning selective (like the American exceptionalism article, which took a passage from an Obama speech and accused him of having his judgment colored by anti-Americans when the entire rest of the speech rather very heavily implied otherwise) and not backed up by the facts (such as the claims that a European journalist caught talking to a National Review member would be fired). Yes, that does tend to create a sense of distaste for the news source in question.

“By your standards of evidence you’re just as guilty if not more so than Bill is. Sorry, but you don’t pass even a casual “sniff” test.”

In other words, you accept unconfirmed and unsubstantiated news over the Internet from a person you agree with, but you won’t accept it from a person you don’t agree with. They’re not my standards of evidence, they’re yours. If Bill can claim to know a guy who knows stuff with absolutely nothing to support it, why wouldn’t I?

I know and trust Bill to be truthful. I don’t know you and doubt your veracity. You come here and start off by attacking the messenger, not by actually trying to see if the information he provides is backed up or not. Those are not the hallmarks of someone looking for the truth, they are the tactics of an ideologue. Do anything you want, just don’t expect to be believed by anyone but your fellow lefties.

“I know and trust Bill to be truthful. I don’t know you and doubt your veracity. You come here and start off by attacking the messenger, not by actually trying to see if the information he provides is backed up or not. Those are not the hallmarks of someone looking for the truth, they are the tactics of an ideologue. Do anything you want, just don’t expect to be believed by anyone but your fellow lefties.”

And you come here with little to say other than blindly praising the messenger, without actually trying to see whether the information he provides is backed up or not (i.e. the rest of Obama’s exceptionalism speech, whether the CIA has in fact been gutted, and whether or not journalists in Europe can be fired for talking to Republicans or for agreeing on the need to fight islamo-fascism). Those are not the hallmarks of someone looking for truth, they are the tactics of an ideologue. Do anything you want, just don’t expect to be believed by anyone but your fellow righties.

So you’re reduced to parroting me, eh? Thinking for yourself is just too difficult?

Coming from the guy whose only argument is “Bill Whittle says it, I believe it,” I’ll take that as a compliment of the highest order.

Thank you for the article, Bill.

I wonder if the CIA resignees are of the Plame crowd or of the patriots.

If it’s the corrupt ones, I could see them wanting to leave. But surely, if they’re being investigated, resigning would not shield them.

If it’s the patriots resigning out of exasperation,
I wish they’d stay and fight.
I know they can, with all their years of experience
and being naturally bright.

What’s more, is that a jihadist attack on CONUS gives Zero and his ilk the excuse to curtail civil liberties that they need to stay in office.

People like ‘puzzled’ are ignorant about what their messiah has said. or has been attributed to him, in places, like Dreams
of Our Fathers, Durham was imposed on the
justice Department by congressional pressure. Few can afford a million dollar
defense like Scooter Libby and are more likely to relent. There were no prosecutions of serving CIA officials in the Church/Turner
era, but the FBI was with Felt and Miller,
(yes the same who aided Woodward and Bernstein)The lesson was learned not be proactive, for the consequences were so grave. The Clinton administration followed
suit withe the appeasing of the Torricelli
inquisition which netted some scalps and cut
back on recruiting of assets like the ones who could have led us to Mohammed Atta.

I guess the lawyers believe that suing the CIA is the new growth industry in Lawyertown/D.C.

I look forward to when the profession cleans house of these paranoid opportunists.

We’ve seen this kind of tragedy/farce coming from Leftist leadership before, Puzzled. There is precedent for what Bill is talking about, corroborating his statements.

Besides, significant damage has already been done, whether or not the operators are actually leaving. This Administration has sent the message by just the threat of prosecutions: don’t take “risks”; the pre-911 operating philosophy is now the expectation.

Clay Whitehead, Director of White House Telecommunications Policy during the Nixon Administration, once said this about how effective the threat of losing one’s FCC license is for promoting self-censorship (HT Instapundit). The thought also applies to the current situation within the CIA re: the threat of prosecutions for doing one’s job in a manner considered politically incorrect by the Powers That Be:

The main value of the sword of Damocles is that it hangs, not that it drops.

You miss the point, Puzzled. It’s not “Bill Whittle says it, I believe it,” it’s “Puzzled claims it, I don’t believe it.”

“Besides, significant damage has already been done, whether or not the operators are actually leaving. This Administration has sent the message by just the threat of prosecutions: don’t take “risks”; the pre-911 operating philosophy is now the expectation.”

Thank you – that does make a lot of sense.

I see where you’re coming from, but I’m not convinced that it works that way. Take the Haditha prosecution, which turned out to be based on false premises; I’m sure it was demoralizing to be falsely accused in any circumstance, and I’m sure it angered a lot of other soldiers, but it didn’t deter the military from shooting terrorists, did it? As long as the prosecution of this is honestly handled, the CIA will probably come out the same way – whether or not it is remains to be seen, but as mentioned earlier the prosecutor in question is by all accounts a professional man with no political agenda, which again gives me more hope than you seem to have.

The Obama administration is a lot of feel good talk when it comes to prosecution, and it came into office with a sense that the intelligence community needed to be remade in a Mr. Clean image. Once actually in power, however, they’ve been forced to deal with the “how” and realized that there was no good alternative to, say, keeping the Gitmo prisoners locked up in that prison, and reauthorizing the Patriot Act, despite the fact that both of these things are viewed by the left-wing base as barely removed from eating babies alive. It’s because of those precedents that I still think the administration will end up coming to a similar conclusion on interrogations – namely, that the CIA can’t operate on PG-13 morality 24/7.

None of us can do anything about it, so all I can say is – we’ll see. If I’m wrong, you can expect the issue to bounce back in 2012 much stronger than it was in 2008 (hell maybe even 2010). Depending on who the GOP runs and how they handle it, it might just be enough for him to lose (foreign policy’s won elections before, especially in 2004).

“You miss the point, Puzzled. It’s not “Bill Whittle says it, I believe it,” it’s “Puzzled claims it, I don’t believe it.”"

Doug, I’ve seen your posts here – it’s not “Puzzled claims it, I don’t believe it,” it’s “Someone disagrees with Bill, I don’t believe it.”

Puzzled, your example of the Haditha persecution of military personnel for actions during a firefight is wrong. When people are shooting at you and your life is in imminent danger, you will fight back, because the primitive part of your brain is in control. When you are a CIA agent interrogating a terrorist who has not yet committed his act, and you know the US AG is launching a criminal investigation of CIA activities despite the fact they were OK’d by the highest levels of the government, you are going to pull back on your interrogation techniques to what is acceptable to a jury, rather than take the chance of going to Club Fed for the next decade or so. This is not “24″ and there are no Jack Bauer’s out there.

Also, I have seen no evidence that the Obama administration has any grip on reality, based on (1) their economic positions during a recession that will disrupt 1/6 of the economy (health care changes, even if for the good in the long run, will adversely affect the system and economy in the short term) and add thousands of dollars in increased energy cost to every household in this country while making moving jobs overseas even more attractive (Cap & Trade) and (2) a foreign policy that gives into the Russians on missile defense without getting anything in return (which sacrifices Poland and Georgia’s security) and making the Middle East less stable by encouraging the fanatical delusional leader of a country who supports a known terrorist organization to develop nuclear weapons while allowing the UN security council to demand Israel dismantle their program (which has never been proven to even exist). I fully expect a military conflict to erupt in the Middle East before the mid-term elections.

But Bill’s basic premise is correct, even if he can’t cite sources, that being you can’t negotiate with people who have no position in common with you. And you can’t get fanatics to give up intelligence by treating them like citizens of a civilized country who are under the suspicion of having committed a crime.

“…philosophers like Michael Moore ”

That is probably the first and last time the words “philosopher” and “Michael Moore” will ever appear in the same sentence.

“… criticism of Allah, his Prophet (PBOH) …”

I always thought that “PBOH” (also “PBUH”) was the phonetic equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

Jeff [12] and Brandon Mayfield: I have to agree. Much as I respect Mrs du Toit, I would also add the few thousand people who have been erroneously added to the TSA’s “do not fly” list, and the many thousands more who have gone through the degredation of airline searches; have had milk bottles and nail clippers confiscated – that list would fill another website.

In those last instances, I will agree that they weren’t the goals of the PATRIOT Act, but rather the small-minded, power-mad people who were hired to be on the front line. But the “root cause” is the Act.

For CIA resignations, search for ‘cia resignations’. Lots of hits. Material for a whole article there.

Bill,

There are people in the world who absolutely refuse to look at facts other than as a distasteful exercise to be performed as little as humanly possible. Mary is one of these; these people who refuse to face facts because they have not personally experienced the issue and believe that “feelings” are what matters. Then there are ones, like you, who can take the facts and extrapolate them to a logical conclusion.

For those who live in feelings; nothing else will satisfy them. For those who live in fact; nothing else will do. There seems to be no middle ground, which is to me what your article so adroitly pointed out.

I choose the facts, and the facts are is that this farce of a government has to be turned around, and rights as delineated in the Constitution put firmly back into place before our desire to appease the leftists of the world turn into our having to fight (as in armed conflict) to save our country. To me, on the course this country is currently headed, a fight is just a matter of time away.

Finally, I quite agree with the comment concerning the use of Michael Moore and philosopher in the same paragraph. How many aspirin did you have to take to actually write that?

Keep up the great work, you will always have my support.

“With one exception, I have not heard of a single case of a US citizen’s rights being infringed by the Patriot Act.”

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d think a lawyer would know that. What stunningly bad logic. Of course if *anyone’s* rights were ever infringed, you would know, since you know all the right people. We’ll just take your word on that.

Even more amazing is how the sycophants gush over your unassailable logic. “Wow! What did Mary say, please tell us”. Please, indeed. If “Mary” had any sense, she wouldn’t waste her time.

Let me try and clear a few things up. There is no way to source the statements made. That is the norm when dealing with stoies involving Intelligence. I have worked with spooks and other in Intelligence gathering. How, when and so forth are none of your business. The primary operating procedure is to do nothing that will compromise sources or methods. The other primary goal is to never let the other side what you know or do not know. With that in mind, it is impossible to source any story but Bill did have a recently retired CIA guy on his show on PJTV. He was very uncomfotable talking except in generalities, which to me kinda prooves he is from the Intelligence game because he acted like all the spooks I worked with.

Anyone who brags about thier time there probably was not there to begin with. The entire point of the article was to try and explain how public policy for purely political reasons damages Intelligence Gathering. How do I know the appointment of a special prosocuter was political, it is easy. If the purpose was to reign in off the reservation operatives this whole thing could have been done behind closed doors without compromising sources and methods. There are systems already in place to get this done.

It is the political motivations that are at fault. When an elected official puts political advantage over National Security it is dangerous for us all.

Thanks for your time. You can get back to all your needless arguments.

Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. Give Mary our best.

@42. richb313: – It is the political motivations that are at fault. When an elected official puts political advantage over National Security it is dangerous for us all.

Totalitarianism is, literally, the politicization of everything.

With the politicization of the intelligence community, we are one step closer that extreme far-left ideology.

“Only three of the 763 “sneak-and-peek” requests in fiscal year 2008 involved terrorism cases, according to a July 2009 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Sixty-five percent were drug cases.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/watch-doj-official-blows_n_296209.html

[...] Bill Whittle: The CIA is the immune system of the country. It operates invisibly to kill invading threats. This case officer confirmed what I have known from other intelligence operatives: namely, that “several” (to me that would be more than three and less than twenty, which would be “scores”) attacks EQUAL TO OR EXCEEDING 9/11 have been stopped by these people specifically because of the intelligence-gathering tools provided by the Patriot Act. But those men and women and their lifetime of experience are now leaving the agency in droves, specifically because this Leftist President — like most leftists — sees his own people as the enemy of peace and not the 7th Century savages that would have peace-loving people like Mary living in a Burka and unable to leave the house without male escort. … Obama is giving the American immune system AIDS. [...]

Whenever I think of the Patriot Act, I am reminded of “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Looking backwards to determine if the Rights of Citizens have been infringed by the Patriot Act is missing the larger point. At the moment the Patriot Act was signed, the United States of the Founding Fathers was destroyed. Arguing about if our Liberty has already has been taken from us, is less important than that any successor United States Government is now empowered to take it from us. God have mercy on our souls, for as long as there is a Patriot Act, it is only through God’s mercy that we WON’T have some future President that will be a Tyrant in all but name.

Hhhmm…. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Seems like absence of evidence is simply NOT evidence. All the people ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth about how the Patriot Act has “crushed our rights” or, more amusingly, “ruined out nation” provide absolutely zero evidence to back this up. Which is amusing, because the ones who consider themselves most ‘logical’ in their attempts to do so make the obvious fallacy of expecting the defenders of it to prove a negative.

Sorry guys, you have to give examples and not just ramblings.

In any event, we’ve seen what the lack of an effective Intelligence immune system results in.

“…Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You’d think a lawyer would know that. What stunningly bad logic. Of course if *anyone’s* rights were ever infringed, you would know, since you know all the right people. We’ll just take your word on that…”

So, seeing how popular GWB was with the scribbling and chattering classes, we could count on them to hide any rights violations under the Patriot Act, right? Excuse me for asking, Hans, but what planet are you from? You clearly don’t spend much time in this part of the galaxy. On the contrary, if those violations you infer had in fact occurred, the press, CAIR, the ACLU, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the UN would have trumpeting it in six-inch headlines from every newspaper, as the lead story in TV news shows, as the theme for a series of box-office flops, and in endless Congressional investigations, especially post-2006 elections. But as usual, the left has nothing but theoretical, “what if?” cases to present. But I will grant you this: I’m a lot more worried now, that we have a president who seems to have a Nixonian enemies list, than I was under W’s administration, where, despite the vilest forms of personal invective and attack against it, freedom of speech was never abridged or restricted.

“PBOH”? Is that a variation of PBUH? It had better be some sort of humorous, funny twisting of PBUH, or you might need to get fitted for a burka yourself. Mohammed gets no special treatment in writing, any more so than any other religious figure. Just looking for an explanation.

Ouch! Love your essays. Just found out you were a lawyer. You dropped two rungs on my hero ladder.

@Tyris: “All the people ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth about how the Patriot Act has “crushed our rights” or, more amusingly, “ruined out nation” provide absolutely zero evidence to back this up.”

Funny, I don’t remember saying “crushed our rights” or “ruined our nation,” however regarding rights being infringed by the PATRIOT Act, evidence has in fact already been provided right here. But people like you are apparently so blind, or dismiss it so quickly out of hand, that you say “zero evidence”. And you accuse me of rambling, ranting, raving, and foaming.

@waltj: “Excuse me for asking, Hans, but what planet are you from?”

Apparently the planet of beings with eyesight, which is not in the galaxy of deniers. Not theoretical, not what-if. See above.

Regarding the freedom to speak, I’ll remind you that anyone who even questioned the actions of W’s administration after 9/11 was in fact subject to “the vilest forms of personal invective and attack”, to borrow your words, as being anti-American, non-patriotic, and supporting the enemy. The attackers apparently had no idea of the principles this country was founded on.

My point to Bill is simply that just because he has not heard of something, except once which he dismisses, is not (even close to) proof that it does not exist. I could make the claim that I have never seen anyone killed by a gun, therefore guns are not deadly. This is simply foolish logic.

Puzzled:
I trust Bill Whittle more than you. Why? because I agree with him? No. I do agree with him, but thats not why I trust him. I trust him because he is Bill whittle. That is to say a real person. A person whose name and Beliefs and Image are well known to me. No I have never met him face to face, but then I have never O face to face either. He does not hide his intentions or agenda behind a name like “puzzled”. He is a real life flesh and Blood person. If you’ve been reading his blog for more than a year as I have, I feel as if I DO know him. I’ve also seen numerous socky mcsock puppets with all kind of bizzaro names that come on here and try and mess with the big dogs.. you usually all leave the same way with your logic/ego in tatters.
as for the “dissmisal” of the patriots acts violation of american civil rights you site ONE case, and we admitted that they go that wrong. But AGAIN, no system is perfect and for the most part the Patriot act has NOT affected any durress on the American public. As for the hassle of flying on an Airplane, yes it is a bit of a pain, but far less than a repeat of 9/11 does.
I dont need the patriot act to stop Hundreds or even doznes, of 9/11’s I just need it to stop 1. if it does that then its worth it.
I can say this. Bill Whittle doesn’t lie, not because he’s better than you and me, because he dosn’t have to. My challenge to you is simple. PROVE HIM WRONG. undeniably unequivacly wrong about what he has said. Not cast doubt on, no make ad hominem or strwman arguments, But wrong. I’m waiting.
christopher keith

Any concern about the innocent being tortured?

We do know for a fact that there have been innocent people locked up at Gitmo.

Rob … we have locked up innocent people in our criminal-justice system too … should we tear it down as well? (Keep in mind this is the same system many wish to put the Gitmo detainees in.)

And being locked up is not the same as torture. It does, however, beat a summary execution on the battlefield.

And not having transparency (i.e. putting everything in public, including information about the information sources and methods utilized to interdict terrorists) is not the same as having inadequate checks and balances. It is, instead, prudence that does away with the folly of 20th-century conventional wisdom that gave us an emasculated CIA and the Gorelick Wall.

And many of those “innocent” people we have released from Gitmo have RETURNED to active terrorism afterwards.