This marks my last post for 2005.

In some ways, 2005 was an unforgettable year what with Iraq, Katrina, the Supreme Court, and in many ways, a wasted start to the President’s second term. The blame for the last can not be solely laid at the President’s feet as Republicans in the House but especially in the Senate were found wanting in both the brains and intestinal fortitude department.

Thankfully, the Democrats were even worse. Led by brainless twits who exhibited the political sense of a bunch of marmosets, the Democrats refused to take advantage of the many political openings offered to them by spineless Republicans. Instead of policy options, the Democrats couldn’t resist a steady diet of Bush-bashing which succeeded in driving the President’s poll numbers down but little else. And since Bush isn’t running for anything in 2006 – or ever again for that matter – one can only conclude that their strategy had more to do with satisfying the ravenous appetites of their far left captors for spouting conspiracy theories and undermining the American efforts in Iraq than trying to gain political advantage that Republican’s missteps offered them.

Since 2006 will be a political year, I’m glad that I’ll never lack for something to write about. What should be interesting to watch from my perspective is the impact that blogs will have on primaries in both parties. I plan to write on some local (Illinois) races and try to place the issues framed into some kind of national context. That way, I hope not to bore my non-Illinois readers any more than usual while trying my hand at local politicking. It should prove to be an interesting experiment.

On a personal note, 2006 has great potential for me personally as I am starting to write a book and plan on trying to get published in a wider variety of on-line publications. Maybe some one will even, like, you know, pay me money to write stuff. In that vein, drop me an email or send me a check, whichever is easier.

To all of you, please have a happy and safe New Year. Come back and visit often in 2006.

The Department of Justice will investigate leaks to reporters that led to the series of articles by the New York Times and others on the top secret NSA program to intercept communications from al Qaeda to their operatives and sympathizers here in the US:

Justice prosecutors will examine whether classified information was unlawfully disclosed to the New York Times, which reported two weeks ago that the National Security Agency had been conducting electronic surveillance on U.S. citizens and residents without court-approved warrants.

The probe is the latest in a series of controversial investigations into leaks of classified information during the Bush administration, including the disclosure of a CIA agent’s identity that has resulted in criminal charges against former vice presidential adviser I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

A “series” of investigations? Two investigations hardly constitutes a “series” of anything but it was the only way for Post reporter Dan Eggan to get the Plame investigation and Scooter Libby’s indictment mentioned in the same sentence. The proprieties of partisanship must be observed at all times at the Post, dontchya know.

The wheels of justice may also start to grind away for Post reporters who broke the story about no-longer secret CIA prisons overseas:

The Justice Department has also opened a probe into whether classified information was illegally disclosed to The Washington Post, which reported on a network of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

The disclosure of the domestic spying program by the NSA, which is normally confined to overseas operations, has setoff a firestorm of criticism from civil liberties advocates and prompted plans for hearings on Capitol Hill. The secret program has also angered some judges on a special court that is supposed to oversee clandestine surveillance within the United States, including one who submitted his resignation.

Will the career prosecutors and investigators at the Department of Justice dig into this investigation and carry it out with the sustained vigor and intensity it deserves? Or will they simply go through the motions and tiptoe around the press as they normally do, fearing the anger of the editorial boards of the New York Times and Washington Post?

In order for this investigation to succeed, they will need the wholehearted cooperation of the National Security Agency. And given the leaking proclivities shown by Department of Justice bureaucrats during the Plame investigation, they may feel some trepidation in giving too many details of the intercept program (or who may have had access to the information in the first place) to prosecutors to assist them in their investigation.

I am frankly not very hopeful that much will come of this investigation. The DOJ has never been very aggressive in the area of national security leaks to the press, seeing it as a First Amendment issue rather than a national security one. And unless some kind of link can be found in some of the leaks, I doubt whether a Special Prosecutor could be appointed.

I’ve always wondered why rival reporters don’t try and find out who the other fellow’s source is, especially when an investigation is being carried out. The clique of national security reporters in Washington is actually pretty close, sharing information and sources on several stories.. It makes me wonder if some of them don’t actually know who the other guy’s source is for a story, in which case it would be an incredible scoop to report on it.

I guess that just wouldn’t be the polite thing to do. But doesn’t that ring a little hollow when the security of the country is being compromised?

Just wondering…

The year 2005 will go down as one of the most innovative and remarkable years in the history of science. Of course, you could probably make the same boast about any year in the last quarter century or so. Our knowledge and understanding in a multitude of scientific disciplines is increasing so fast that it takes one’s breath away to think where we were in 1980 and where we are now. In fields as diverse as cosmology, medicine, the mind, and human origins, this year has seen some startling breakthroughs that have added substantially to the richness of our understanding of humanity and our place in the universe.

I have taken what I consider the top ten science stories from a variety of sources. Some topics are more general rather than specific to reflect a multitude of advancements.

Feel free to add or subtract from this list in the comments.

10. NASA ANNOUNCES NEXT GENERATION MANNED SPACE VEHICLE

The question uppermost in everyone’s mind is can NASA get it right? Will they be able to bring the next generation manned crew exploration vehicle (CEV) home on time and within very tight budgetary limits? The new Administrator Michael Griffin is making all the right noises about the new CEV even going so far as to say he will deliver on the project two years early. But given NASA’s history, many are skeptical.

9. GLOBAL WARMING DEBATE CONTINUES

Plenty of fodder for both advocates and detractors of global warming this year as several atmospheric models of how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere proved to be massively wrong while ice core evidence from Greenland shows a spike in CO2 levels not seen in 600,000 years. The beat goes on in 2006.

8. CONTINUING TO UNLOCK THE SECRETS OF GENES

From discovering clues to the origins of homo sapiens to unlocking the secrets of life itself, the pace of discovery in the study of genes continues to amaze and awe laypeople like me.

7. “SUPER EARTH” DISCOVERED

In a development that will become more commonplace once various earth-based systems come on-line and the Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST) is launched, a rocky planet 7.5 times the size of the earth was discovered just 15 light years away. With 150 planets and counting, the coming decade will see an explosion of planet discoveries that could very well answer the question “Are we alone?”

6. MARS PROBES REVOLUTIONIZE OUR VIEW OF THE RED PLANET

Both European and US Martian probes continue to surprise and amaze scientists, finding what appears to be methane (which could be a sign of subsurface life) as well as the almost certainty of water. The little Rovers Opportunity and Spirit approach the end their second year still working magnificently and beaming back pictures and data that continues to amaze. Not bad for a couple of rovers that were only supposed to last three months.

5. NUKE REACTOR OKAYED THAT COULD PRODUCE FUSION ENERGY

The Europeans and Japanese have decided to go ahead and build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in France. The concept behind this project has such enormous implications for our future that the decision to finally build it must be considered a top story for any year. If everything goes well, within 3-5 years, we should have the world’s first fusion reactor – a breakthrough that will eventually lead to truly clean nuclear energy.

4. HOORAY FOR HUYGENS!

In a triumph of both technological wizardry and international cooperation, NASA’s Cassini spacecraft sent the European probe Huygens drifting gently toward the surface of Saturns enigmatic moon Titan. The spectacular pictures sent back from the only moon in the solar system known to have an atmosphere will have scientists scratching their heads for years to come.

3. THE YEAR OF THE HURRICANE

It was the busiest hurricane season on record which caused a speculation fest among global warming advocates that atmospheric warming was to blame. Thankfully, the grown ups stepped in and pointed out the cyclical nature of Atlantic hurricanes, much to the displeasure of people who thought they could accuse George Bush of another crime against humanity.

2. STS-114

The Space Shuttle returned to flight following the Columbia disaster. Despite years of work to make Shuttle launches safer, NASA engineers had to go back to the drawing board as insulation on the external fuel tank continues to fall off in dangerous chunks.

1. BULLSEYE!

The top science story of 2005 has to be the Deep Impact Mission to Comet Tempel 1. The probe traveled 250 million miles in order to deliberately crash into the comet so that scientists could get a glimpse of what’s inside. The mission succeeded beyond all expectations and was a masterpiece of precision and “gee whiz” gadgetry. Truly. Awesome.

I know that I was a little heavy on space stories here but frankly, that’s where my interest lies. I would genuinely be interested in some competing stories anyone may have. Feel free to use the comment section to supply recommendations and links.

UPDATE

This post has been published for less than an hour at this point and I’ve already received two emails asking about the ID vs. Evolution story.

At the risk of angering some of my most loyal and supportive readers, I will say that the reason the story was not included was because I don’t believe it to be a science story but rather a political one. The “debate” over the efficacy of ID is largely one sided and besides, there have been no significant breakthroughs in research on Intelligent Design that would be worthy of including in a post about the top science stories for 2005 .

The votes are in from last week’s Watcher’s Council and the winner in the Council category is that mad, mad, mad blogging Doctor, Dr. Sanity for her post “THE IDIOT”S GUIDE TO VICTIMHOOD - Getting It and Keeping It.” Finishing second was Gates of Vienna for “Gender Warfare Without the Glass Ceilings.”

Would someone please tell me why I keep shooting myself in the foot by voting for people who finish ahead of me all the time? Seriously, the Doc and Dymphna deserve to win most of the time. Reading both of those razor sharp ladies on a regular basis has been one of the real treats of being on the Council.

Finishing first in the non-Council category was The Volokh Conspiracy for their eminently readable “Legal Analysis of the NSA Domestic Surveillance Program.”

If you’d like to participate in the Watcher’s Council, go here and follow instructions.

The holidays are a horrible time for bloggers. Capitol Hill is deserted as Congress goes into Christmas hibernation, our wallets blessedly safe for a few weeks. Moonbats and idiotarians alike are busy mending political fences back home while trying to squeeze that extra few hundred thousands bucks out of the special interests that will insure their political survival next November . The nation itself settles down for something of a long winter’s nap, looking forward to a week filled with family, parties, college football, and the inevitable overdose of nachos.

Even the MSM seems to be on its best behavior although this gaffe by the LA Times will be eagerly snarfed up by ravenous blog beasts across the political spectrum for its sheer goofiness. For some reason though, my blog was hungry for something else today and the story of a major metropolitan newspaper using in a front page story a quote from a press release put out as an April Fool’s joke just wasn’t going to sate the appetite my own personal demon of a website. After all, it can get pretty tiresome poking fun at an enterprise as clueless as the LA Times. I mean, how many times can you tell the same joke before it goes irretrievably stale?

So it’s after 6:00 AM and I haven’t started to write anything when to what my wondering eyes should appear but this gem from MSNBC’s Craig Crawford:

I have been watching dozens of back episodes of Fox Broadcasting’s “24” over the holidays, and so far I haven’t seen rogue U.S. anti-terrorism agent Jack Bauer stop once for a court warrant—not even when he sawed off the head of an informant he was interrogating. Come to think of it, I haven’t heard the Constitution mentioned a single time as Bauer, played by Kiefer Sutherland, repeatedly breaks the rules to thwart terrorist plots.

This is how the President wants us to see the real world. Indeed, George Bush is the Jack Bauer of presidential power. There are no rules in Bush’s world when it comes to the War on Terror—only wimps like the whining bureaucrats on “24” balk at torture, spying, propaganda, whatever it takes.

I guess I am one of those constitutional wimps. Even the reality cop shows get me riled, as we watch the police routinely trample the individual rights of hapless suspects. Maybe we do live in a Jack Bauer world where constitutional liberties take a back seat to stopping killers. But I’d rather live in Patrick Henry’s world: Give me liberty or give me death.

I want to publicly thank Mr. Crawford for rescuing me from blog ennui. This kind of fresh, jaw-dropping idiocy is what makes writing for this site so much fun. And the fact that he used my favorite thug Jack Bauer as a sophomoric metaphor to describe the Bush presidency is so perfect, so right, that if Craig was here now I’d give him a great big wet kiss full on the mouth.

Well…maybe I’m not that grateful.

Taking the last part to begin, the first thing one notices about this piece is that Crawford is laughably ignorant of history. To reference “constitutional rights” and “Patrick Henry” in the same breath is, to put it mildly, loony. Henry, like most of the more radical patriots who were in the forefront of the movement for independence, became unreconstructed opponents of the Constitution during the ratification debate. They saw it as something of a counter-revolution, an overreaction to the weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation. Not only that, the establishment of a strong chief executive as well as mandating a Supreme Court who could overrule Congress was an anathema to patriots like Henry.

This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints toward monarchy, and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your president may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed to what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue for ever unchangeably this government, altho horridly defective.

The irony of Crawford’s intellectual conceits regarding “liberty” is unfortunately lost on someone whose knowledge of history apparently comes from watching episodes of Rocky and Bullwinkle where Mr. Peabody and Sherman go back in time in their Wayback Machine to learn about the past.

But the meat of Mr. Crawford’s “critique” of the Bush presidency is his comparison of the world as seen by the President with the world in which Jack Bauer of “24” fame lives.

Would that it were true. In fact, we should be extremely fortunate if Jack Bauer was a real person working for a real agency like CTU (Counter terrorism Unit). But what is really interesting would be to ask Mr. Crawford if, during any of the scenarios in the history of the TV series that would, God forbid, come to life – nukes, assassination, power plant meltdowns, and bio-terror – he thinks the rest of us would prefer not to fully, completely, and to the letter respect the Constitutional rights of foreign terrorists and their American collaborators and sympathizers or die a horrible death and have the country destroyed.

This would be a no brainer – except for Mr. Crawford who evidently was stuck in the washroom when God was handing out that vital organ. Any of the terrorist scenarios that have played out on 24 would in real life necessitated the very actions that Jack Bauer and other law enforcement representatives took to prevent them. For, in real life, if the terrorists had been successful, the subsequent investigation that revealed a government and a President that followed Constitutional niceties while tens of thousands of Americans died, would have resulted in the immediate and justifiable impeachment of the President. And I daresay that the relatives and loved ones of the dead would not be quoting Patrick Henry in praise of the President’s Constitutional forbearance.

The reason liberals like Crawford are likely to get a great many of us killed if they are able to hoodwink the American people into giving them power again is their willingness to allow the terrorists to win rather than do what is necessary to protect us. This is perfectly summed up in Mr. Crawford’s little blurb. By quoting Patrick Henry, he is embracing the idea that he would rather die than bend the Constitution to the exigencies of the times. That way lies madness – and death.

Using the example of poor Abraham Lincoln in this debate is getting tiresome but one wonders if Lincoln had not placed government’s extraordinarily heavy hand on the rebellious border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri as well as other restless parts of the country whether he would have been victorious or not. Mr. Crawford is fortunate indeed not to have lived during those times. His writings may have landed him in jail.

As for Jack Bauer, Crawford misses the point. Jack is enormously conflicted by what he has to do to save the country. His methods have cost him the life of his wife. They have ruined his personal relationships as women recoil in horror after watching Jack in action. He has gone so far in so many critical situations that it seems as if at times he seeks the release that only death can bring.

In this letter I had published in The American Spectator, I pointed out the similarities between Jack and two other mythic American heroes; Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett. Both Boone and Crockett were single minded in their determination to succeed and would do whatever it took to come out on top. But Jack has another dimension to his personality:

The myth of the hunter/hero gave way to the lone hero motif popularized by Hollywood. This hero, usually played by a small town sheriff (Gary Cooper in High Noon) or the gunfighter with a heart of gold (Alan Ladd in Shane), used violence to defeat greater violence. This concept was turned on its head in the 1960s and 1970s as the great ” anti-heroes” of Clint Eastwood blurred the distinction between good and evil. Dirty Harry got the job done (as did the Man with No-Name) but at what cost?

Enter Jack Bauer who’s not quite the Clint anti-hero but not the pure, small town Gary Cooperish protagonist either. He is, in fact, the perfect hero in a post-9/11 world. Torn as America is between getting the job done at all costs while upholding American ideals, Jack simply can’t help himself. He necessarily sees the world in stark relief, a black and white universe populated by some really nasty thugs who don’t even blink at the idea of murdering hundreds of thousands of people. We recoil at some of Jack’s tactics. But we recognize that Jack is the guy doing what needs to be done to keep us safe.

In one respect, Crawford is correct in his comparison of Jack with Bush; they are able to clearly distinguish between good and evil, between who is right in this war and who is wrong. Crawford and his ilk can’t. This makes Crawford not only someone to be laughed at but someone to be feared as well. For if we ever have a government headed by a President who sees gray where there is clearly black and white, the chances of enjoying both liberty and security in the United States will disappear as surely as Jack Bauer will end up stretching the Constitution to its breaking point this season in order to protect us from disaster.

In what has to be considered a breakthrough moment for the MSM, my hometown Chicago Tribune actually brokedown and practiced the craft of journalism. They examined 9 of the reasons that President Bush used prior to the war to justify and, lo and behold, reached a rational, sane, conclusion:

After reassessing the administration’s nine arguments for war, we do not see the conspiracy to mislead that many critics allege. Example: The accusation that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs overlooks years of global intelligence warnings that, by February 2003, had convinced even French President Jacques Chirac of “the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq.” We also know that, as early as 1997, U.S. intel agencies began repeatedly warning the Clinton White House that Iraq, with fissile material from a foreign source, could have a crude nuclear bomb within a year.

Seventeen days before the war, this page reluctantly urged the president to launch it. We said that every earnest tool of diplomacy with Iraq had failed to improve the world’s security, stop the butchery—or rationalize years of UN inaction. We contended that Saddam Hussein, not George W. Bush, had demanded this conflict.

Many people of patriotism and integrity disagreed with us and still do. But the totality of what we know now—what this matrix chronicles—affirms for us our verdict of March 2, 2003. We hope these editorials help Tribune readers assess theirs.

Imagine that! A major metropolitan newspaper put a little time and effort into an investigation of things that bloggers have been writing about for more than 2 years and reached exactly the same conclusion!

Not only that, but their criticisms of the Administration’s case for war are not based on Democratic party talking points but rather intelligent assessments of what information the Administration had available as opposed to what they were publicly saying. The Trib can’t quite make the psychic leap and say that the US couldn’t afford to be right about Saddam’s WMD, but their criticism comes off as reasonable and well thought out.

And they may be the only major metro paper that actually admits that WMD was not the only reason we went to war:

The administration didn’t advance its arguments with equal emphasis. Neither, though, did its case rely solely on Iraq’s alleged illicit weapons. The other most prominent assertion in administration speeches and presentations was as accurate as the weapons argument was flawed: that Saddam Hussein had rejected 12 years of United Nations demands that he account for his stores of deadly weapons—and also stop exterminating innocents. Evaluating all nine arguments lets each of us decide which ones we now find persuasive or empty, and whether President Bush tried to mislead us.

In measuring risks to this country, the administration relied on the same intelligence agencies, in the U.S. and overseas, that failed to anticipate Sept. 11, 2001. We now know that the White House explained some but not enough of the ambiguities embedded in those agencies’ conclusions. By not stressing what wasn’t known as much as what was, the White House wound up exaggerating allegations that proved dead wrong.

This is an excellent article to save and refer back to in the future when we hear for the 5,000th time from some lefty loon that “Bush lied. People died.”

Fallout continues from the New York Times hit piece on the NSA intercept program as now the defense lawyers for terrorist suspects want to know if their clients were caught up in the government’s digital dragnet:

Defense lawyers in some of the country’s biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out.

The expected legal challenges, in cases from Florida, Ohio, Oregon and Virginia, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency’s domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration’s most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.

To say that this was a predictable outgrowth of the New York Times leaking the top secret NSA intercept program is an understatement. In fact, since the Times sat on the story for a year and thus had ample time to examine all the potential consequences of publishing the information, one can only come to the conclusion that the paper’s editors wanted to throw a great big monkey wrench into the Administration’s efforts to not only monitor terrorists but prosecute them as well.

As David Ignatius points out in this Washington Post Op-Ed, the spin given to the NSA program was designed to put it in the worst possible light while omitting pertinent facts that would have given much needed perspective to the story:

We know only the barest outlines of what the NSA has been doing. The most reliable accounts have appeared in the New York Times, the newspaper that broke the story. Although the headline has been “warrantless wiretapping,” the Times accounts suggest the program actually was something closer to a data-mining system that collected and analyzed vast amounts of digitized data in an effort to find patterns that might identify potential terrorists.

As I pointed out here, the use of the inflammatory term “wiretapping” is a misnomer. The act of wiretapping is illegal without a warrant and involves actually listening in to the conversations of the person being targeted. The intercept program instead probably scooped up massive amounts of data using computer algorithms to identify key words and voices and then may have cross referenced any “hits” with information in private data bases like credit card companies and airlines. How this amounts to “wiretapping” in any but the most partisan mind is a mystery.

Ignatius also outlines the problems for the Fourth Amendment purist critique of the program:

The legal problems, as Arkin suggests, involve the dots—what digital information can the government legitimately collect and save for later analysis, and under what legal safeguards? As it trolls the ocean of data, how can the government satisfy legal requirements for warrants that specify at the outset what may only be clear at the end of the search—namely, specific links to terrorist groups? These and other questions will vex lawyers and politicians in the coming debate, but they aren’t a reason for jettisoning these techniques.

The Times story answers these questions by showing how terrorist defense lawyers will exploit the leak of the classified program:

At the same time, defense lawyers in terrorism cases around the country say they are preparing letters and legal briefs to challenge the N.S.A. program on behalf of their clients, many of them American citizens, and to find out more about how it might have been used. They acknowledge legal hurdles, including the fact that many defendants waived some rights to appeal as part of their plea deals.

Government officials, in defending the value of the security agency’s surveillance program, have said in interviews that it played a critical part in at least two cases that led to the convictions of Qaeda associates, Iyman Faris of Ohio, who admitted taking part in a failed plot to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge, and Mohammed Junaid Babar of Queens, who was implicated in a failed plot to bomb British targets.

David B. Smith, a lawyer for Mr. Faris, said he planned to file a motion in part to determine whether information about the surveillance program should have been turned over. Lawyers said they were also considering a civil case against the president, saying that Mr. Faris was the target of an illegal wiretap ordered by Mr. Bush. A lawyer for Mr. Babar declined to comment.

By seeking this kind of information, the lawyers for suspected terrorists will see to it that as many details as possible about the program come to light. Many of them have already proven that they will flood the courts with motions, some of them frivolous such as the motion filed on behalf of a Guantanamo inmate alleging that the prison library didn’t carry a certain book. If allowed to do so, the lawyers could tie these cases up for years.

This brings us back to the questions surrounding the intercepts themselves and the reasons for not seeking warrants in the first place. As I pointed out yesterday, the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was giving the Administration a hard time regarding many of the requests for warrants. In fact, after going some 22 years with never turning down or even modifying a warrant request, starting in 2002, the FISC court flatly turned down 4 or 5 warrants outright and modified 179 others. The reason may have to do with the mechanics of how the government goes about getting a warrant from FISC.

An amendment to the law authorizing the FISC contained in the Patriot Act stipulated that at least 3 judges on the panel would have to live within 20 miles of Washington. This may reflect problems in the past with expediting the process of getting a warrant. And the FISA act mandates that the government present its case to one judge only – they cannot take “two bites of the apple” by simply walking it down the hall and presenting it to another judge.

Why are these two facts relevant. The judge most likely to be “on call” and therefore the one most likely to preside over the bulk of the warrant hearings was none other than the judge who recently resigned from the FISC court, James Robertson.

And herein may lie the reason why the Bush Administration decided that FISA needed to be bypassed in order to safeguard the country.

Robertson, a holdover on the FISC from the Clinton era, has a resume that reveals not only strong liberal (and Democratic Party) credentials but also a purists approach to the Bill of Rights.

In fact, Judge Robertson was in the forefront of the civil rights movement in the 1970’s, certainly a noble calling for which he should be commended. He served as Chief Counsel of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He was also President of the Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project in the 1980’s. For political connections, he was employed by Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering which is one of the top Democratic party law firms in Washington.

An impeccable pedigree for someone serving on one of the most liberal District Courts in the Country – the US District Court – District of Columbia. But is this someone with the judicial temperament to serve on a court that by its very nature skirts a very fine line between civil liberties and the needs of government to protect us from attack?

I am sure Judge Robertson is an honorable man. But could a myopic view of terrorism and the terrorist threat have hindered the Administration in its efforts to prevent terrorist attacks? An attitude that terrorists are criminals may have in fact permeated most of the FISC court in which case, the judges may have been looking for justification for warrants based on probable cause regarding criminality rather than preventing terrorist attacks.

This may be where the real divide exists between those who see the searches as a gross violation of the Constitution and those who believe it was necessary to safeguard America. It may very well be that the FISC court was not able to make the intellectual and psychic transition from a court charged with oversight of government actions regarding criminals to one whose mission was to allow the government significant leeway in its efforts to prevent another attack. And if this were the case, the Administration’s actions in bypassing the FISC court make sense.

Whether it was truly necessary remains to be seen. But having a civil libertarian like Robertson sitting on a court where speed was of the essence and lines were blurred between terrorists and criminals could not have been conducive to getting the most out of the NSA intercept program.

Please forgive my rambling, nearly incoherent examination of the issues surrounding recent revelations regarding the Administration’s efforts to combat al Qaeda in America by using the NSA to intercept and analyze calls from American citizens. My problem should be shared by all since we know so very little of the technical aspects of the NSA intercept program.

Of course, that doesn’t stop the left from wringing its hands and screaming “impeachment” and “dictatorship” at the top of its lungs. They can safely be ignored in any serious treatment of the issues involved because, let’s face it, they are not serious people. They are a joke to all but the most self deluded, self righteous, and self destructive. Not only are they not serious about this issue, but as they have made abundantly clear for more than 3 years, they are massively unserious about the War on Terror. They do not believe we are at war nor do they believe al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are the existential threat that they have proven to be over the years. Every move made to counter the threat has been criticized with such screeching obscurantism that listening to them has become something of an exercise in migraine management. They have become a splitting headache that nothing can relieve.

There are indeed thoughtful critics of this program – people with the best of intentions who question the entire domestic surveillance apparatus in its totality and wonder if indeed, the President of the United States has gone too far in trying to protect us. They base their arguments on the law and on precedent – two things for which yours truly has not the knowledge nor the training to comment on intelligently. However, like you I have my own thoughts about human nature and the relationship of citizens to their government. And this leads to a question the answer to which may ultimately decide which way I come down on this issue.

Did the President bypass the FISA court because it made his job easier or was it necessary in order to get the maximum benefit from the intercept program?

The consequences inherent in that question should be obvious. Either it was or wasn’t necessary for the President to order the warrantless searches. If it wasn’t necessary, there may in fact be grounds for impeachment – or at least a serious examination of the issue. If it was necessary, the argument should be over. For in his role as Commander in Chief, no one can seriously argue that the President is precluded from doing what is necessary to protect the country. If I’ve gotten anything from the Constitutional arguments raging across the internet, it is that one salient point. Every wartime President has used the powers and prerogatives available to him. And herein lies one of the great strengths of the Office; it is both the strongest and weakest Constitutional office in government.

The President is not only Chief Executive who “executes” laws passed by Congress, he is also Head of State as well as Commander in Chief. The arguments that took place at the Constitutional Convention over the powers of the President were long and bitter. Jeffersonian democrats believed that a Chief Executive was unnecessary, that Congress was perfectly capable of executing the laws they promulgated. Federalists were having none of that argument having just endured several years of rudderless government under the Articles of Confederation which had no separate office of Chief Executive and substituted instead a Committee of Congress to exercise executive powers.

The fascinating denouement to this debate was the unspoken realization by all that the person who would be exercising any expanded powers of the Chief Executive was sitting in that broiling hot room with them. George Washington had come to Philadelphia that muggy summer reluctantly because he knew that the biggest improvement that could be made to the Articles of Confederation was the creation of a single, powerful office of Chief Executive. And Washington knew darn well who the delegates would want to fill that office. This colored the debate over executive powers dramatically as every time a proposal was made to expand the powers of the Presidency, delegates would glance over at Washington as if to reassure themselves that the old general would shoulder the burden of office reluctantly and therefore, would not usurp the authority of Congress or the people. Washington’s self conscious reticence about exercising power was legendary especially after he became one of the few conquering generals in history to lay down his sword and return home without becoming a dictator.

Reassured by the fact that Washington would be the first President, the Convention adopted language that made the Presidency the most flexible of Constitutional offices and unlike any other, relied on the character and decency of the office’s inhabitant to practice self restraint in light of the enormous power granted by them.

Washington did not disappoint. He was extraordinarily careful, realizing more than most that any action he took would be seen as precedent for others to follow. Hence, he wrestled mightily with the exercise of his first veto which occurred on an apportionment bill. The reason he vetoed it was because he thought it unconstitutional – a judgment he believed was the only basis to veto any law Congress passed. His decision to step down from the office after two terms was also taken to make the point that the United States was a country governed by laws not be men.

The point is that both the Constitutional Convention and Washington himself were gravely concerned about the exercise of executive power, seeing a strong executive as a threat to individual liberty and to congressional prerogatives. And over the years, the Supreme Court became the chief brake on the expansion of those powers as successive courts have sought to define the most ill defined office spelled out in the Constitution. They have tried to place limits – with varying degrees of success – on what a President can legally do, even during a time of war.

They have tried to make the President’s job more difficult. Generally speaking, this is a good thing. By placing obstacles in the President’s path to unfettered power, a rough balance is maintained between the various branches of government. In the case involving NSA intercepts, the obstacle the President must navigate is the FISA court, a 1978 invention of Congress that was created to safeguard American citizens’ Constitutional rights from the emerging technical wizardry becoming available to government that allowed unprecedented intrusiveness by government agents into private communications.

But the world tends to move much faster than Congress and the Court’s ability to keep up with it. If anything has become clear regarding our efforts to keep track of al Qaeda for the last 15 years, it is that they have a disturbing ability to circumvent or defeat our efforts to glean information from them through national technical means. In short, their ability to stay hidden has put pressure on our system of checks and balances because the law has not kept up either with the technical abilities of government to snoop or our enemy’s ability to avoid detection.

And here’s where both thoughtful critics and defenders of this intercept program part company. The basic argument against the President’s authorizing this intelligence operation for warrantless searches is that it was unnecessary, that either the law could have been changed or the warrants could have been effected retroactively. The White House has said that the law couldn’t be changed without taking a chance that the entire program would have been compromised (a pretty good bet given how many blabbermouths there are on both sides of the aisle). And as far as retroactive warrants the White House seems to be all over the lot, first saying there was no time to get the warrants and then saying that the President had the authority anyway.

The truth is we just don’t know whether the technical details of the program will reveal that the White House did not have time to retroactively get warrants for searches or whether they just decided to bypass the FISA court because it was easier in the long run and didn’t want to take the chance that the court would deny them the opportunity to listen in on communications they felt were vital to national security.

Did the White House have cause to believe the FISA court would give them trouble? This article in the San Francisco Chronicle reveals some of the problems the Administration had with the court in the past:

Government records show that the Bush administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court’s approval.

A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the 26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than the four previous presidential administrations combined.

The court’s repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court nearly four years ago to begin secret National Security Agency spying on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside the United States, according to James Bamford, an authority on the security agency that intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes and Internet communications.

What is fascinating about this article is that it reveals what may be the single most important reason for the warrantless searches; that the FISA court was more interested in the rights of people who were in direct contact with terrorists and suspected terrorists than in the safety and security of the American people:

...[T]he Bush administration had difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people within the United States who were communicating with targeted al Qaeda suspects inside the United States.

“The court wouldn’t find enough ‘probable cause’ to give the Bush administration wiretap warrants on everybody that talks to or e-mails the terror suspect that they were trying to target,” Bamford said.

The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least 18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches from five presidential administrations since 1979.

The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102 applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court’s operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court’s activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that “no orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the requested authority” submitted by the government.

But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of those court-ordered “substantive modifications” took place in 2003 and 2004, the most recent years for which public records are available.

Again, without knowing the technical details of the program it is difficult to make a value judgment on the legality of it, but it would appear that the Administration’s concerns about obtaining warrants from the FISA court were indeed well founded. In fact, one could say that given the information contained in those Justice Department reports, it appears that the FISA court was either operating in a vacuum or was unaware that the United States of America was at war. Either way, the obstacles placed in the way of the Administration’s ability to spy on al Qaeda – a stateless group who uses a complex network of operatives, sympathizers, financiers, and fanatical soldiers – puts the NSA intercept program in an entirely different light. Given that the most seemingly innocuous contact could lead to preventing a massive attack on the US, it is beyond comprehension that any contact no matter how innocent appearing it may be should not have been grounds for immediate action by the government, including a warrantless search.

Where you come down on this issue then will depend on whether you believe we are in a war for survival or in a battle with stateless criminals who don’t pose a real threat to our destruction. It seems clear that the FISA judges believe the latter.

In short, it appears that the reason for the warrantless searches was not because it made the President’s job any easier. The reason could very well have been the inexplicable foot dragging by FISA which necessitated the President’s employment of broad powers exercised in his role as Commander in Chief. Dangerous? Yes. Illegal? A qualified no. I and most others would hope that this program would not be necessary. By the same token, we could all wish this war were not necessary either. But given that our enemies will not vouchsafe us the second, it may be that we must reluctantly embrace the first.

In a way, one of the basic criticisms by the left of the President’s actions is absolutely true; he couldn’t trust the FISA court. Was this one more example of Washington partisanship run amok? We’ll probably never know. But given the exigencies of war and the options open to the President when he made his decision to authorize the warrantless searches, it will be difficult to prove that the President’s actions were not justified.

Chicago Bears linebacker Lance Briggs (55) jumps before tipping up a pass thrown by Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre (4).

I am half convinced that the very first thing that Brett Favre does when he gets up in the morning on the day of a game is throw a football to his wife…even if she’s still asleep.

The man lives to pass. And given his enormous talent and fighting spirit, this season must be a terrible, wrenching disappointment to him. Because even though he threw more than 100 passes in the two games against his arch rivals the Chicago Bears this year, none of those tosses ended up denting the end zone. To make matters worse, 6 of those passes were completed not to one of his wide receivers or running backs or his tight ends (whose compliment changed more often than members of the teen band Menudo) but rather fell into the eager hands of Bears defenders. In fact, Favre threw more touchdown passes to Bears players (2) than to his own teammates.

That said, Favre proved last night that the magic was still there. He moved the Pack up and down the field at will against a sloppy, under performing Bear’s defense. The problem, as it has been all year, is that Mr. Favre just doesn’t have enough arrows in his quiver to offset the fact that Green Bay lacks good players at the various skill positions. Injuries have much to do with that but one cannot escape the conclusion that even with Ahman Green (stellar running back), Javon Walker (outstanding WR), and excellent Tight End Bubba Franks – all on injured reserve – the Packers may have ended up being more competitive but would still have had a hard time winning games.

But Favre doesn’t seem to let any of this phase him in the slightest. He dropped back 51 times last night and completed 30 passes for 315 yards. His makeshift offensive line did an outstanding job in protecting him against the Bear’s vaunted front four. And later, when the Bear’s tried to slow Favre down by sending extra backers in several imaginative blitz packages, Favre’s experience allowed him to sniff out trouble before trouble found him, dumping the ball off effectively to his backs who gained huge chunks of yardage after the catch.

Between the 20’s. the Pack was nearly unstoppable. But, as with all teams having nightmare seasons like the Packers, things have a nasty habit of going south at the most inopportune times.

Two missed field goals here. A dropped pass there. A blown coverage, a penalty, a missed block – for teams with good records, it always seems as if these things can be overcome. But the Packers found these setbacks too much to surmount. And every time misfortune befell them, the Bear’s took advantage.

This is the way of things in all team sports. Call it luck, or karma, or destiny, but the difference between winning and losing is always balanced on a razor’s edge – and the Pack (like the Bears in years past) always seems to cut its own throat at the worst possible moments.

A good example was the final, frantic 55 seconds of the game. Following a long, 56 yard completion to Donald Driver (who almost ran away from the Bears backers for a score), the Green Bay offensive line that had done such a superlative job the entire game in keeping the Bear’s front four at bay inexplicably broke down and allowed Favre to be sacked on two successive plays. With no timeouts remaining, the clock ticked inexorably down until Favre was forced into a desperation heave on 4th and 27 that Bears safety Chris Harris picked off to end the game. In years gone by, you would have to believe that Favre would indeed have taken the Packers all the way down the field for the tying score. But not this year.

For the Bear’s part, they played well enough to win but were hardly impressive on either side of the ball. Rex “The Wonder Dog” Grossman proved that he is indeed an NFL quarterback with outstanding potential but suffered several drops by the usually reliable Mushin Mohammed. And at times, the rust from 15 months of virtual inactivity showed up markedly. But he was sacked only once and generally made good decisions. His stats – 11-23 for 166 yards – were deceiving. His play was a qualitative leap as opposed to former starter Kyle Orton.

Thomas Jones also played well gaining 105 yards on 25 carries. But the offense lacked consistency which will be absolutely vital if the Bears hope to win any playoff games at all. The time of possession in the first half when Wonder Dog was throwing the ball all over the lot was extremely troubling. Green Bay had the ball for an astonishing 21 minutes to the Bear’s 9. The fact that the Bears were leading 14-7 at the half is beside the point. No defense in the NFL would have been effective in the 4th quarter if those proportions had held up. Thankfully, my beloveds turned those numbers around in the second half when the club turned the ball over to the duo of Jones and Peterson, ending up with 26 minutes of possession to Green Bay’s 34. Still, it is worrisome nonetheless.

The play of the Special Teams was an embarrassment. Uninspired coverage on kickoffs led to Antonio Chapman’s 85 yard punt return TD - the first kick return of any kind against a Bears all year. I would not like to be a Special Teams player this week at practice. I’m sure coach Coiner will be having those guy’s tongues hanging out from some killer drills he’ll put them through. Expect much better play next week.

With the victory against Green Bay, the Bears clinched the North Division title as well as a first round bye in the playoffs. As much as they would probably like to hold out Rex Grossman and some key offensive players, I can’t see them doing such a thing. Grossman needs game time reps and his receivers have to work with him under game conditions in order for there to be an improvement. Expect an emphasis next week on the passing game as Coach Smith will probably want to give his young quarterback as much seasoning as he can before the playoffs start.

All in all, a satisfying win against a hated rival. And a sigh of relief at escaping Green Bay without the Gunslinger drawing down and taking out the Bears.

I don’t link half as often enough to my fellow Illinoisan and satirist extraordinaire Iowahawk but this piece is too good not too:

The New York Times reported today that Polar authorities are engaged in a secret program to conduct warrantless monitoring of private communications and activities among U.S. minors. Anonymous sources within the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency said the program, codename “Operation Coal Lump,” dates as far back as 1879, and recieved approval at the highest echelon of Polar administration, including President Santa Claus himself.

The disclosure of the program sparked an immediate furor among civil libertarian organizations and brats right groups. ACLU spokesman Dan Knaggs said “that chill in the air isn’t December—it’s Big Brother Kriss Kringle unconstitutionally watching, and following, and evaluating your every move.”

Josh Cleland, 9, a spokesboy for the Council For Misbehaving Americans, decried the program as “a looming threat to the economic rights of millions of young Americans, many of whom may be guilty of nothing more than a wedgie or Indian burn of self defense.”

Cleland added that “Stop hitting yourself, retard. Stop hitting yourself, retard.”

Too funny…