WASHINGTON, Dec. 16, 2007 — Senators called today for an investigation into reports the Bush administration ignored a flurry of phone calls from overseas to the suspected plotters of the Las Vegas Strip bombings last New Year's Eve.
"Given all the powers that Congress granted President Bush in 2001 to fight the war on terror and to prevent attacks on American soil, this failure to detect the worst attack since 9-11 is unconscionable," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., called for hearings on the new information, reported by The New York Times from sources close to the FBI's probe into the Dec. 31, 2006, attack that killed 945 people at seven hotels in the worst terrorist incident since Sept. 11, 2001.
"We now know from phone logs there was an unusual volume of communication between foreign numbers linked to al-Qaida and several people in the Las Vegas area," Rockefeller said. "We want to find out why the government didn't see this attack coming."
Those who attack the Bush administration for eavesdropping on terror suspects in the U.S. may score a legal point or two. But the White House has at least as much ammunition in the inherent powers granted by the Constitution, court precedent and the 2001 law giving the president broad authority to wage the war on terror.
For example, critics who cite the Supreme Court's key 1972 ruling on domestic surveillance, which went against President Nixon, ignore a key caveat — the court's statement it was not deciding "the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country."
The Nixon administration pursued home-grown radicals; al-Qaida and other global terror groups qualify as "foreign powers." (Investors Business Daily Editorial Page Posted 12/19/2005)
11 comments:
I don't understand Rhino...In the first paragraph, you mention how the Bush administration (and I guess the intelligence community under Bush) overlooked surveillance and in the second you are making a case for why they have a right to specific kinds of surveillance...But why did they overlook the intelligence that they had in their hands...I'm not arguing just asking.
the first part is a "what if" in case you didn't know, we didn't actually have a terrorist attack in las vegas. and the date is one year in the future. Umm i know you've been sick lately, but maybe the cold medicine you're on is a little bit strong. the point is, that i would rather bend the rules a little and monitor communications of U.S. citizens than have another attack.
Scary ground we find ourselves on. Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure that qualifies as "freedom" What's next? monitoring our thoughts? Even though we need security, we can not allow ourselves to become an Orwellian society.
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose
yes warlike, i agree it is scary. i'm not sure that i like the domestic spying, however i know that we don't know the whole story. I will reserve my complete judgement until i know more, for now i'm glad we're erring on the side of caution.
This is retarded. There are brave men and women in the military killing and dying for us, sacrificing their personal freedoms for our ultimate freedom as Americans...and all we can cry about is that our phones might be tapped. Last time I heard they were targeting known affiliates of terrorists, not Joe Bob down the street butying a nickel bag. You cant have it both ways and say Bush didnt do enough to prevent 9/11, but now hes doing too much. The days of conventional warfare are over (until WW3 wit da Chinese)and the rules have changed courtesy of the camel banging thugs. We all make sacrifices everyday for lesser reasons than defending this country against those that would harm us, why not make a few concessions to prevents the deaths of our brothers and sisters.
i didn't realize it was a what if...I thought a future attack had been narrowly averted, like the mokey and the engineer...I mean I wouldn't be surprised if Jay Rocka-fella (his rap name) wasn't calling for investigations into things that might happen...I don't have any problem with spying on foreigners and non citizens but what if you have a friend who is an Egyptian, a coptic Christian. He talks to his cousin who is Muslim...This Muslim guy is friends w/a guy whose Uncle is involved with Al Queda loosely because he attends a Mosque in Cairo known to the CIA as a home to certain underworl types. Does this give the government a right to tap my phone? I don't think it does but the Patriot Act would allow this right?
We're going to war with the Chinese? Is that a "what if" too? If we go to war with them, who will buy all their wares? And will they still be eating our McDonald's?
War with The Chinese?
Inconceivable!
"Never get involved in a land war in Asia"
fly, to answer your question, yes. we should be able to spy on you, tap your phones, and investigate your family until we know for sure that your connection is just coincidence. better to be sure, than to have a situation like able danger where we knew bad people were doing bad things but didn't do enough to prevent the bad things from happening.
I suppose you are right, but i don't like it...Our founding fathers couldn't have conceived of the world today but i doubt they would have approved. It seems to me that the gray area is too gray. Plus if you have been investigated and pseudo exonerated without your knowledge, what is done with your information or any information that was gathered about you. I hate to think that new laws need to be introduced (more laws, urgg) but you should be given this info in this instance and any information gathered should not be able to be used against you. For instance Donkey mentioned someone selling drugs...Is the fruit of the tree poisoned because they weren't looking for this when they found it out...This is the gray area I am talking about...what right do they have to information that doesn't pertain to national security and how much of it are they allowed to use. It is important that we protect our rights from a large government...We went to war with England to get these rights and I don't think they should be so easily given back. This isn't something Americans get to vote on...but I think we should.
Post a Comment