Defending the Defense of America

America has now been safe for well over four years since 9/11. This is quite an achievement considering how vulnerable most people felt back then. But the Bush Administration's success has also made 9/11 seem increasingly like a distant memory and the threat of terrorism on our shores much less imminent.

This has provided us the luxury to debate how far we could or should go to defend ourselves. And it has provided liberals in Washington and their allies in the media the opportunity to attack the very policies that have helped keep us safe for so long. In addition to the constant defeatism and distortions regarding the liberation of Iraq, critical policies concerning intelligence gathering are also under siege by the Left.

Recently, the New York Times reported that, since 9/11, President Bush ordered the surveillance of people in the United States who were in contact with terrorists outside the country without first obtaining court approval. Of course, the spin from the liberal, anti-Bush New York Times was that this was something new implemented by Bush and could be illegal. It did not take long for the New York Times' allies in the sheepish Democratic Party to join in with possible calls for Bush's impeachment.

Now, it would seem that to most reasonable Americans, the idea that our intelligence officials are monitoring communications by people in our country with terrorists outside of our country - with or without a warrant - is downright comforting. But to liberals in Congress and the media, this is horrifying.

As for the legality of Bush's actions, there seems to be hardly a question. As Michael Barone, Senior writer for U.S. News and World Report, in a December 26th column entitled 'All the news that's fit to ignore' states: "...this practice is far from new and is entirely legal." Barone goes on to discuss how the President's authority to order warrantless surveillance in cases involving foreign intelligence was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1972, and in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980 by federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits. He also adds that:

"In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, 'The Truong Court, as did all other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information...We take for granted that the president does have the authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

As for this being something new started by President Bush - it is not. In fact, President Bill Clinton was quite familiar with the concept of warrantless surveillance while in office. A December 18th NewsMax.com article entitled 'Clinton NSA Eavesdropped on U.S. Calls', reported the following:

"During the 1990's under President Bill Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens...under a super secret program code-named Echelon...the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990's - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

But it seems the liberals in Congress and in the media are only worried about this surveillance issue now, when Bush is President. When Clinton was in office this issue, now hoped for by some to be an impeachable offense, was never even raised.

Now the Bush Administration will have to explain a policy that is totally legal and that has been used by a number of prior administrations to the American public and to our enemies. I wonder if any Democrat in Congress or anyone in the liberal media can explain how this is good for our national security. And I wonder how long Americans will stand for this reckless partisanship.

The other big issue for liberals is that of aggressive interrogations. On this issue, the Democrats and their allies in the liberal media have stopped at nothing to convince the world that we torture people. We have seen the New York Times run some fifty front-page stories on prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. We have heard Democratic Senator Dick Durbin compare our soldiers to vicious killers like the Nazis. And the list goes on.

And to an extent, these endless attacks have been effective. Led by Republican Senator John McCain, the Senate recently voted overwhelmingly for an amendment banning "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of any prisoner by any agent of the U.S.

But even on this issue, it seems most reasonable Americans would agree that if we had a terrorist in custody who had critical information, and getting that information quickly could save thousands of lives, we should use any means necessary to protect this country.

In a fascinating piece in the December 5th Weekly Standard entitled 'The Truth about Torture', syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer states:

"Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging (a terrorist) by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?

Now, on most issues regarding torture, I confess tentativeness and uncertainty. But on this issue there can be no uncertainty: Not only is it permissible to hang this miscreant by his thumbs. It is a moral duty."

And yet we are now voluntarily giving up the option to use extreme measures in the most extreme circumstances. In a war on terror, facing a sinister enemy who follows no rules, this is ludicrous.

Even the Patriot Act, although it is critical legislation that has helped to keep us safe, is under siege by Democrats and the Left-wing media.

The Bush Administration has enough to do to defend our country from terrorists without having to constantly defend itself against partisan critics. When we are attacked again, the last thing we need to do when we ask ourselves "How did this happen?" is to realize that we did not do enough to protect ourselves.

To realize that our noble debates, although they looked good on paper, contributed to the slaughter of thousands of innocent Americans, now that would be truly indefensible.