A member of ALTADENA GROUP
CSIA Foundation

Analyst's note:  Maybe it is just me, and I have absolutely no personal knowledge of this event described below other than what I've read in public information, but if I understand; we had and still have, the United States under direct attack on our home soil as evidenced by 9/11 and beyond.  The President of the United States (as Commander in Chief of the armed forces) authorized the surveillance of the attacking enemy thus permitting the National Security Agency to bypass the FISA courts and intercept electronic communications in this case and that communications were believed connected to the enemy then known as al-Qaeda. 
 
If George Washington, the original spy master, had been required to fiddle with FISA and their judges, would we have won the Revolutionary War?  This whole report "smells" to me.  But the stench goes beyond this report itself.
 
On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by global Islamist jihadists. Make no mistake about it: what happened on that day was an act of war against us.  There were attacks equally as clear prior, but we again refused to make the connection with Islam. 
 

In fact, America has yet to rise to the occasion and defend itself except in the most feeble of available actions as our Congress has not yet made a "declaration of war" as it is required to do by our Constitution.  We have for years instead been at "War with Terrorism."  "War on Terrorism" is a not an enemy, it is instead something that an enemy may choose to use against us. 

I have to say that I think President Bush got it wrong with the "War on Terrorism" statement and by not insisting on proper Congressional action.  Then our Congress left Bush hanging out to dry with their "hands off" resolution of go forth and do something, anything you think appropriate.  That way they could continue the venda against Bush whom they believed stole the election.  "We the People" let them all get by with it and encouraged both sides, not seeming to realize that we would suffer as a result.  Shame on all of us. 

Here are both sides of the story -- as far as it goes:

A related article by "RUSH LIMBAUGH / Wall Street Journal 13 Aug 2002:

"[....] And on Sept. 14, 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution which states, in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

[....] More to the point, by joint resolution of Congress, the president has been affirmatively authorized to sort out these facts and events. [....]"

Comments to Rush Limbaugh's article by ROB MORSE / SF Chronicle 16 Aug 2002

"[...] Barbara Lee, the Democratic congresswoman from Oakland, was the only member of Congress to vote against that resolution, and for that she was called a traitor and received death threats from all over the country.  "It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation's long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit," wrote Lee in The Chronicle on Sept. 23. "In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress has failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration. [....]"

As a friend said to me, it is like a couple having sex without ever being married.  Neither man nor woman (yes, I'm suggesting marriage is between one man and one woman) had the necessary commitment.  When things went wrong they and all their friends blamed one another publicly rather than identify and fix the basic problem.

In a Capitalism Magazine article, dated 13 September 2001, written by Adam Mossoff we find the following:

"America knows, however, the countries who officially sponsor such terrorist organizations. The names of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Sudan easily roll off the lips of any American official asked to identify the countries who have provided terrorists with training facilities, asylum and financial support. America knows of the terrorist organizations that have murdered innocent people for decades, such as Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, and a multitude of Palestinian groups, to name but a few. (The sight on September 11 of the celebrating Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank should have sickened every American; they were celebrating the mass murder of innocent American citizens.) A declaration of war [....] should simply contain a list of every country and organization that has committed or aided terrorist acts against the U.S.--or stated an intention of committing such acts in the future.

It has been America's inaction against these countries and organizations for the past 40 years or more that has permitted terrorism to fester and grow like a cancer. And just as cancer kills healthy bodies, terrorists yesterday killed thousands of innocent Americans and forever marred a beacon of civilization and progress--the New York City skyline. It is time to cut out and obliterate the cancer [....] --and its supporting ideology of Islamic Jihad--before it spreads and ultimately consumes more innocent and healthy lives."

An unequivocal declaration of war by Congress should have been adopted on September 12--but Congress and our federal government (including our Department of Defense, and Department of Homeland Security) still fails to even recognize and define the enemy and then adopt a declaration of war as its first order of business.  After much observation one must ask the question is the reason one of Constitutional illiteracy or subterfuge, or both?  But that is another discussion.

Instead, as FISA is currently written, the FISA judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States, who has absolutely no Constitutional authority to make such appointments.  This whole mess always circles around to Congress not doing its job and so it is with this FISA situation.

My biggest problem with FISA, as originally passed, is that, in it, Congress presumes to do something that it has no power to do: to vest the appointment of FISA Court Judges in the Chief Justice of the United States.  Since the relevant clause of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to presume to empower the Chief Justice of the United States to appoint anybody (See Constitutional text below.), the "judges" of the FISA Court, having been "appointed" to their offices by the Chief Justice of the United States, have not been lawfully appointed to the office at all and are not, in fact, acting as lawful judges of the United States, any more than Hillary Clinton, being debarred from the office by the Constitution of the United States, is authorized to served as Secretary of State.
 
Hence, these "judges'" warrants have no more lawful force than a note from my mother. Hence, if you conduct a search or seizure under the figleaf of one of these "warrants," you have committed housebreaking and ought to be prosecuted.  Now, speaking of the President of the United States as authorized by our U.S. Constitution:


... [H]e shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.  Article II, Section 2, Clause 2
 
You will note by the above that one of the three options of Congress does NOT include the Chief Justice of the United States.  Enough already of my rant.  Finally, here is the article just found at FoxNews that set me off.  And I was going to bed early tonight.  So much for those plans.  No wonder I sometimes have trouble answering the question, "What are you thinking."  How would you explain such ....?
 
 
"A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. government to pay more than $2.5 million in attorney fees and damages after he concluded investigators wiretapped the phones of a suspected terrorist organization without a warrant.
[....] The judge refused to award any punitive damages, saying the investigators didn't act in bad faith in following the guidelines of the controversial program exposed by the New York Times in 2005."

The record shows that the government had reason to believe that Al-Haramain supported acts of terrorism and that critical intelligence could be obtained by monitoring Al-Haramain," [....]

Pete Seda was convicted in October of tax fraud and conspiracy for helping another official of Al-Haramain smuggle the $150,000 out of the U.S. to Saudi Arabia in 2000. [....]"

"Generally, government investigators are required to obtain search warrants signed by judges to eavesdrop on domestic phone calls, e-mail traffic and other electronic communications. But Bush authorized the surveillance program shortly after 9/11, allowing the National Security Agency to bypass the courts and intercept electronic communications believed connected to al-Qaeda.

  • 12th imam
  • 8 signs
  • 9/11
  • Absentee
  • absolutely
  • Achilles Heel
  • al-Awlaki
  • Al-Qaeda
  • Alinsky
  • Ammo
  • Amnesty
  • Awlaki
  • AWOL
  • Baby
  • Bailout
  • Bankrupt
  • Battle
  • Benghazi
  • bin Talal
  • Bio
  • Birth certificate
  • Black Panther
  • Budget
  • Bulb
  • CAIR
  • Caliph
  • Caliphate
  • Cartel
  • Census
  • China
  • Chinese
  • Christian
  • Cloward
  • Club-K
  • COIN
  • Condell
  • Constitution
  • Contractor
  • Conyers
  • Cordoba
  • Correctness
  • Corsi
  • Debt
  • Deficit
  • Deradicalization
  • Detention
  • Dhimmi
  • DHS Homeland
  • Dialog: East Coast - West Coast
  • Domestic
  • Earth
  • Economic
  • Economy
  • Egypt
  • Electoral College
  • Electromagnetic Pulse
  • eligibility
  • Executive Orders
  • Farrakhan
  • Fast and Furious
  • FBI
  • Federal Reserve
  • Food
  • Fraud
  • Gas
  • Gaubatz
  • Global
  • Global economy
  • Governor
  • Grover Norquist
  • Guardians
  • Gulen
  • Gun control
  • Hagmann
  • Hawala
  • Healthcare
  • Hezbollah
  • Hillsdale College
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir
  • HLF
  • Holy Land Foundation
  • Homegrown
  • homosexual
  • Immigration
  • Implant
  • Information Warfare
  • Iran
  • Iranian Revolutionary Guards
  • IslamBerg
  • Islamist
  • Jekyll
  • Jew
  • jihad
  • Libya
  • like to know
  • Mafia
  • Manipulating Perceptions
  • Marriage
  • Marxist
  • Mexico
  • Military
  • Missile
  • Moderate Muslim
  • Money laundering
  • Muslim Brotherhood
  • must read
  • Myrick
  • Nazi
  • net neutrality
  • Nuclear
  • Oath Keepers
  • oil
  • Open Society
  • Operation Fast and Furious
  • Panther
  • Patriot
  • PFLP
  • Phares
  • pitchfork
  • Policy
  • political correctness
  • Politicians
  • Power
  • Progressive
  • Rare earth minerals
  • Responsibility to Protect
  • Reza Kahlili
  • ROE
  • Root
  • Roy Beck
  • Rules of Engagement
  • Russia
  • Salafists
  • SCADA
  • Schools
  • Scout
  • Semper Fidelis
  • sharia
  • Shoebat
  • Sibel
  • social justice
  • Social Security Number
  • Socialist
  • Soros
  • Spending
  • Spies
  • Strategic
  • Stuxnet
  • Submarine
  • Sunni
  • Super-sized
  • survival
  • SWAT
  • Taliban
  • Taqiyya
  • Tawfik
  • Tax
  • Team B II
  • Treason
  • troubling
  • Truth
  • TSA
  • Unemployment
  • Uplift
  • USMC
  • Vallely
  • Vieira
  • Vote
  • Voter fraud
  • War
  • Weather Underground
  • WMD
  • Zero