THE BLABBERMOUTHS BACKPEDAL

By Michelle Malkin

NY Times ombudsman Byron Calame's belated defense of the Times' exposé of the monitoring of the SWIFT banking program contains a fascinating passage:

There was a significant question as to how secret the [monitoring of the SWIFT banking program] was after five years."Hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," [executive editor Bill] Keller said he was told by an official who talked to him on condition of anonymity.

Thousands of people may have known about the program before the Times blabbed about it? If a Times editor says so, it must be true!

Keller's claim goes a good bit further than the claim by Richard Clarke and Roger Cressey that terrorists already assumed their financial transactions were being monitored.

Calame neglects to note, of course, that Keller's claim contradicts both the tone and facts presented in the Times' initial coverage by reporters Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. Lichtblau and Rosen, you will recall, stated unequivocally that "the [monitoring of the Swift] banking program is a closely held secret..."

Yesterday's observations by See-Dubya in response to the Clarke-Cressey op-ed are even more apt today in light of Keller's comment. An excerpt:

The New York Times can’t have its cake and eat it, too. Will Keller, Times, and Lichtblau continue to insist that the program was both effective and secret, and the story was a major Pulitzer-worthy scoop? Or will they continue backpedaling?

If they want to try to weasel out of this, let’s see it right there on the corrections page: "Importance and Secrecy of SWIFT Monitoring Program Greatly Exaggerated". We might not believe them, but if they want to back away from the story, they should go all out.

Patterico has noticed a shift in tone at the LA Times as well.

Weasels.

***

Allah breaks down Fox poll results.

DEMOCRATS AND NEWS MEDIA CELEBRATE TERRISTS' VICTORY

Thursday may have been a dark day for those charged with fighting terrorism both here and abroad, but for many Democrats and the news media it was a day of celebration when five black-robed lawyers sitting on the US Supreme Court decided to handcuff the Commander-in-Chief in his obligation to protect the American people.

Just as the Warren Court hampered law enforcement in the 1960s that resulted in enormous increases in crime, so too is the current Supreme Court hampering asymmetrical warfare.

The decidedly liberal Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals to try suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp are illegal. The damage went even further when the court ruled that the Geneva Conventions applied to those terrorists who are captured by the US military.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about the Geneva Conventions knows that terrorists are not mentioned in any of its provisions. Actually, the Conventions stipulate several requirements before a person or persons are entitled to lay claim to the Geneva protections. For instance, the combatants must be wearing a uniform or insignia that is visible and recognizable from a distance; and the combatants’ weapons must be openly displayed. There are other provisions as well, but it’s not my purpose to dissect the Court’s decision, but to observe the reaction of those clearly ready to pop open bottles of champagne.

The ruling was reached by a 5-3 vote after the so-called moderate, Kennedy, joined the court’s more left-wing members in siding against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, recused himself because as an appeals court judge he had previously backed the government in this same case.

The court’s decision means that detainees will have to be granted the increased rights of prisoners-of-war, something the Bush administration has always opposed since the 9-11 terrorist attacks. He had good reasons. To put these terrorists on trial in civilian courts or open sessions of military commissions opens he door for classified information to be disseminated to the world including the terrorists. As it is, the US news media has been doing an excellent job of providing America’s enemies with abundant information. Now we’ll also have shysters leaking top secrets.

Leftist lawyers, who hoodwinked their way into the federal court system, will be deciding what information will be allowed in open court and what will be done in private sessions. However, slip-and-fall lawyers representing the terrorists will have access to military and/or intelligence agency secrets.

Both the Bush Administration and its critics acknowledged that while the ruling was a huge blow to a central part of America’s anti-terror strategy, it did not require the immediate closure of the Guantanamo prison. The Democrats seemed a bit disappointed when they heard that part.

The Supreme Court ruling brought smiles to the face of the detainees’ relatives and the left-wing groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and so-called human rights organizations.

While the Democrat lawmakers made the rounds of the news shows gloating over their empty victory. President Bush reminded them that: “The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won’t cause killers to be put out on the streets,” he said.

The President also vowed that the Guantanamo detainees would not be freed. His response infuriated the terrorists’ allies — lawyers, Democrats and news media — who want prisoners treated like normal criminal defendants. I used to laugh that the way things are going in this war, soldiers will be running around the battlefields giving terrorists and their associates Miranda warnings. Perhaps we can have the courts appoint defense lawyers to travel into war zones to make sure terrorists’ rights are protected. Sure, some lawyers will be killed, but isn’t protecting the rights of terrorists important?

Many hailed Thursday’s ruling as a major victory. But if it was a defeat for Bush and for Americans, then it must be a victory for left-wing politicians and reporters from the treasonous New York Times, since the court’s decision aids terrorists.

For instance, Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer who represents 36 inmates, said, “I think it’s a fantastic victory for us. It’s a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush.”

Amnesty International said, “The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland.”

Senator Edward Kennedy said the verdict was a “stunning repudiation” for Mr. Bush. “The Supreme Court has reminded the president and [defense] secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law even when our country is at war.” I believe Kennedy did just that to a young woman the night he drove her into the water, and waited hours before calling the authorities.

The Supreme Court case was the result of an appeal by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden’s driver and bodyguard. He faced a single count of conspiring against American citizens. And the Democrats are celebrating his victory?

Taken together with the previous Supreme Court ruling that Guantanamo inmates must have access to attorneys, Thursday’s decision makes fighting a war on terrorism much more difficult for the Bush Administration and for those in command positions.

Probably one of the happiest Democrats is Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy who got booted off the Senate Intelligence Committee for leaking classified information. As the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he’s still too close to intelligence and military secrets in my opinion.

Sen. Leahy boasted, “The Justices have given our system a constitutional tonic that is sorely needed if we are to counter terrorism effectively, efficiently and with American values.” Of course, as usual, Democrats never explain how handcuffing the military and law enforcement make our counter terrorism strategy and execution more effective and efficient.
And with their comrades in the news media they never will have to explain.

Then, the Socialist gem from Vermont, Rep. Bernie Sanders, joined Leahy in praising the court’s ruling and in criticizing the Bush Administration’s policy regarding the detainees.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is an important victory in the effort to reign in the abuses of power we have experienced under the Bush administration,” Sanders said in a statement released by his office. This man gets elected? What abuse did he experience. All of a sudden it’s “we” who are saved? How are we saved by giving more rights to terrorist thugs?

Leahy called the decision “a triumph for our constitutional system of checks and balances. I commend the justices for acting as a much needed check on this administration’s unilateral policies that have clearly stretched the bounds of the president’s constitutional authority.”

I’ve got a great idea, those clowns in Vermont elected a Marxist and a treasonous leaker, so how about we send the detainees to Vermont and keep them there?

RELATED:
Liberal Judges Fire another Bullet
into U.S. Anti-Terrorist Efforts

—

Read more by this author on our site here. (Scroll down)

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com. He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.

ANOTHER ASSININE LA TIMES PREMISE

Bush a War Criminal?

That’s the question that Rosa Brooks asks in this morning’s LA Times. Here’s the basis for her ‘case’:

The provisions of the Geneva Convention were intended to protect noncombatants, including prisoners, in times of armed conflict. But as the administration has repeatedly noted, most of these protections apply only to conflicts between states.

That’s true as far as it goes; unfortunately, it doesn’t go far enough. While it’s true that part of the Geneva Convention meant to protect citizens as much as is possible in war, it didn’t stop there. Ms. Brooks either intentionally or incompetently stopped there. That blockquote above is part of Article 3 of the Convention. Let’s see what Article 4 has to say:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

This section essentially says that people only qualify for Geneva Convention protections if they’re wearing a uniform that has “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” They don’t have to be part of a nation’s military but they have to be visibly identifiable as being combatants in a conflict.

Clearly, Hamdan wasn’t wearing a “a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.” In fact, I’d bet the ranch that nobody being held at Gitmo was wearing anything that’d fit these requirements. Furthermore, Fred Barnes said that he’d talked with someone from the Reagan administration yesterday afternoon about terrorists being covered. This Reagan administration official said that the subject came up in the eighties and that it was summarily rejected.

The implication of this is monumental: the four liberal idiots, joined by Justice Kennedy, ratified unilaterally a new ‘treaty’ that gives terrorists rights that the Geneva Convention says that they aren’t entitled to having. In that light, it’s impossible to figure out how the Bush administration could be war criminals when SCOTUS wrote new law yesterday.

In closing, it’s clear that Ms. Brooks either needs (a) to be more thorough in researching the Geneva Convention so she knows what she’s talking about or (b) to stop selectively choosing which Geneva Convention rules she’ll apply to terrorists. In short, she’d be wise to tell the whole truth, not just the convenient truth.

SCHUMER POUNDS GOP OVER IMMIGRATION

Joining the leader of his party, Howard Dean, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is accusing the Republicans of using immigration as a central campaign issue. He says it's like Willie Horton in 1988 and gay marriage in 2004.

The tactic is clear. Democrats are on the losing side of the immigration issue. What to do? It simple! If you're on the losing side of an issue you simply demonize the winning side .... for being on the winning side!

What some (not all) Republicans are opposing is illegal immigration. Does not Chuck Schumer oppose illegal immigration? Evidently not. He's also in for a surprise if the thinks Democrats are going to ride this particular idea to victory this fall. Poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans have grown tired of the illegal alien invasion and want something done.

Running against illegal immigration is a solid issue...and Republicans are already winning with it. I can't see Democrats being swept into power on the backs of illegal aliens ... unless, of course, those illegal aliens vote! But at least Schumer is being honest. He wants more illegal aliens...and thus potential Democratic voters...to come to the United States. If he's lucky, maybe he can even buy them off with one of his taxpayer-funded government programs.

SO MUCH FOR TRIALS

In reviewing the opinions of the Supreme Court in their Hamdan decision today, it seems pretty clear what action the Bush administration will take in the future with the detainees of the war on terror. More to the point, we know what action they will not take, at least if we rely on Justice Stevens' opinion. On page 80, in section VII of his opinion, Stevens writes:

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the Government’s charge against Hamdan are true. We have assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that charge—viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose beliefs, if acted upon, would causegreat harm and even death to innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do not today address, the Government’s power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdanand subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in thisjurisdiction.

Shorter Stevens: Don't attempt to hold trials at all for GWOT detainees, and you will have no problems with us. That affirms the treatment of these detainees as POWs in some sense, but in that effort, it makes clear that these detainees have no rights to any court. Stevens only says that if the government wants to try them, then the government must use civil courts, a strange ruling nonetheless when one reviews the relevant articles of the Geneva Convention.

I'm satisfied with that agreement. Lock all of them up until Islamofascists surrender or die. When the Islamist terror networks give up their war on the United States, then we will release them. Until then, they can remain in Guantanamo Bay or wherever we set up detention facilities for them.

GOP PUTTING HEAT ON NY TIMES

The Hill magazine’s Patrick O’Connor and Jonathan Allen are reporting that the House GOP is putting the heat on the NY Times for their reporting of the SWIFT counterterrorist program. Here’s how they’re doing it:

House Republican leaders are expected to introduce a resolution today condemning The New York Times for publishing a story last week that exposed government monitoring of banking records. The resolution is expected to condemn the leak and publication of classified documents, said one Republican aide with knowledge of the impending legislation.

This is an easy decision on the GOP’s part. Not only do they condemn the NY Times’ revealing an effective counterterrorism program but they put the Democrats in the position of either voting against the NY Times’ reporting or of saying that the leaking, and reporting, of this and similar types of programs is ok with them. That’s hardly the position they want to be in.

Expect Democrats to whine about the GOP ‘playing politics with national security and First Amendment issues.’ That’s a surefire sign that they’re caught betwixt and between on a thorny issue for them. Don’t be fooled by their caterwauling. It’s just their attempt to distract from expressing their opinion on the issue of leaking vital national security programs.