PUTIN'S UKRAINIAN GAS GAMBIT INTENSIFIES

BBC:

Russia has accused Ukraine of stealing $25m of gas exports destined for Europe after it cut off supplies to the country on Sunday. Some European states say supplies from a pipeline running through Ukraine have fallen by up to 40%. Ukraine denied taking the gas, but said it would indeed siphon off a share if temperatures fell below freezing. GAS CUT IMPACT:

* Ukraine - loses 100% of Russian imports
* Hungary - Russian imports down 40%
* Poland - supply down 14% on Sunday.
Seeking to increase supplies from alternative pipe
* Austria, Slovakia, Romania - supplies down by a third
* Germany - no problems yet, but later cuts to big firms "not ruled out"
* France - heavy user of Russian gas, but no problems likely yet

ENI reports that ITALY'S gas imports from Russia are down 25%, to only 6% of their total. Nevertheless they are calling an emergency meeting on the situation.

IHT/NYT:

Russia's abrupt disruption in natural gas supplies intended for Ukraine cascaded through the European pipeline system Monday, with Hungary, Austria and Slovakia reporting a drop in pressure at a time of peak winter demand, deepening the sense that a dispute between Russia and Ukraine over prices was spiraling into a wider energy crisis.

An executive at Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, accused Ukraine of diverting natural gas exports intended for Western Europe to satisfy the needs of the former Soviet republic of 48 million people, with an economy heavily dependent on cheap natural gas. Ukraine's energy minister immediately denied the accusation.

CHECKOUT A COMPLETE ROUND-UP ON THIS CRISIS in thorough post I wrote earlier HERE.

IS BLAIR GETING READY TO RETIRE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER?

BBC:

Tony Blair has spoken out about the stress of being prime minister in a "day in the life" documentary. Put together by the prime minister's aides and aired on his website, the video claims to provide the public with "a rare glimpse" into Mr Blair's life.

In it he says nothing prepared him for the stress and hard work of the job or being under such constant scrutiny. He adds that he works such long hours that he is probably breaking "some directive or other". Speaking about the demands of his job Mr Blair says that "being leader of the opposition does not prepare you quite adequately for the difficulty of doing the prime minister's job".

"It's completely a different order of stress, challenge, pressure," he says.

BBC political correspondent Jo Coburn says these comments are a "pointed message" to Mr Blair's new rival, David Cameron, who has been the focus of media attention since his election as Conservative leader.

SPECUALTION ALERT: Maybe the BBC is wrong; maybe this isn't a swipe at the young Tory leader, David Cameron. Maybe it's a way for Blair to prepare the public to accept that his impending resignation is for health reasons. And maybe that announcement is coming pretty soon. Stay tuned...

RUSSIA'S UKRAINIAN GAS GAMBIT: COINCIDENCE OR CLEVER SMOKESCREEN

BBC: Gas row sends shiver through EU -

Russia's decision to cut gas imports to Ukraine is causing dismay across Europe, where supplies in a number of countries have been disrupted. The US has also expressed concern, saying the move raised "serious questions about the use of energy to exert political pressure".

BBC: Iran rejects Russia nuclear plan -

Iran says its nuclear programme is for purely peaceful purposes Iran has dismissed a proposal that it conduct uranium enrichment in Russia as a way out of an impasse in talks over its controversial nuclear programme. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani said it was not logical for any country to entrust its energy security to another state.

This seems WAY TOO too too too TOO coincidental for me. Russian COULD have postponed this decision, or "stair-stepped" the price increase (to GRADUALLY get Ukraine up to market price), or they could have given Ukraine the same price as Belarus.

INSTEAD, Putin - and Schroeder - decided to cut off Ukraine and create HUGE HEADLINES just after they offered their CLIENT STATE IRAN a supposed nuclesar enrichemtn deal to end the EU3-Iran nuclear stalemete. This WAY too convenient for Iran. And SEEMINGLY let's Russia off the hook; Putin can say, "Heck, we tried!"

Like hell they did. I am VERY skeptcial of Putin - and his bought-and-paid-for crony Schroeder. FACT: Putin is selling anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and Iran. FACT: Putin is helping Iran build their nuclear plants. And Putin also wants revenge for the Orange Revolution. This gas shut-off allows Putin to simultaneously screw Ukraine and give his Iranian client's an "out." It's a win-win for Putin.

This skeptical explanation BEST answers the most basic question when one ponders various - scenarios and various motives: "CUI BONO?" - which is Latin for "WHO BENEFITS?" - which is another way of saying "FOLLOW THE MONEY" - though in some cases the benefit ISN'T money. Sometimes it's POWER. And I think that Putin's methodical two-year state-takeover of the Russian energy industry - (a HUGE step back for the Russian economy and people - one which led a senior Putin aide to resign last week) - and his selling missiles to our enemies is nothing less than the first salvo in a ruthless Russian global power grab. (Earlier post HERE.)

NOTE/UPDATE: Remember: Iran needs to BUY TIME in order to finish up and make negotiations moot. Putin is OBVIOUSLY helping them buy time.

UPDATE 1/2/06: More HERE at BRUSSELS JOURNAL - who also remind us that the Soviets once deliberately starved MILLIONS of Ukrainians to death: "The result of the man-made famine of 1932-33 was the death of 7 million people. The famine was instigated by the Russians to break the spirit of the Ukrainians and force them into collectivisation and submission to Moscow."

And More HERE at the NYTIMES; (ASIDE: WALTER DURANTY was the NYTIMES reporter in the Soviet Union during 1932-33, and he deliberately covered up the Soviet genocide). NYT:

On the same day it throttled back its gas to Ukraine, Russia assumed the chairmanship of the Group of 8, the club for the world's large developed economies, promising to push the theme of "energy security." ... The State Department, expressing hope that the conflict would be resolved, said in a statement: "Such an abrupt step creates insecurity in the energy sector in the region and raises serious questions about the use of energy to exert political pressure. As we have told both Russia and Ukraine, we support a move toward market pricing for energy, but believe that such a change should be introduced over time rather than suddenly and unilaterally."

Mr. Putin has said that Russia's foreign policy will hinge on energy exports.

The Soviet - ER UM I MEAN Russian - manuever seems diabolically duplicitous to me. MAYBE THEY SHOULD BE SUSPENDED FROM G8 MEMBERSHIP?! OR KICKED OUT!? And before you accuse me of being a HOTHEAD, let me remind you that McCain and Lieberman called for just this on February 20, 2005; CNN:

Top lawmakers called on President Bush to pressure Russian President Vladimir Putin on several key fronts during a summit this week, with one senior Republican warning on Sunday that Putin "is on the verge of isolating himself." Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, cited Putin's turns away from democracy in his country, his support for the original winner of the discredited Ukrainian election and his announcement last week that he did not believe Iran presents a nuclear threat. ...

McCain joined with Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat, in introducing legislation this past week calling on Bush to seek suspension of Russia's membership in the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized democracies. The two released a statement saying the step should be taken "until the Russian government ends its assault on democracy and political freedom."

IMHO, things are WORSE now! Just last week - because of unrelated matter, which Putin was handling with the same ruthless tactics - DANIEL DREZNER asked:

- why is Russia still a member of the G-8?

It makes no sense from a liberal institutionalist perspective -- Russia has become less and less democratic over the past decade, and shows no sign under Vladimir Putin of trending in a constructive direction anytime soon.

It makes no sense from a realist pespective as well -- Russia is an economic lightweight with interests that diverge from the advanced industrialized nations in a number of areas. Russia so obviously does not belong in that grouping that it has never been allowed to participate in the most relevant G-7 grouping, that of the finance ministers.

Kicking Russia out of the G-8 would not necessarily accomplish a great deal -- it's not like Putin is suddenly going to smack himself on the forehead and say, "Gosh, you're right! I am monopolizing power within my country!" However, such a move would highlight the extent to which Russia has drifted away from the liberal democratic values it's government has lauded for fifteen years. It would not compromise any important component of U.S. foreign economic policy. And it might even revitalize a grouping that has been somewhat moribund during the Bush years.

More on kicking Putin's Russia out of the G8 HERE.

A DRIZZLE IN A TEA-CUP: RE-EXAMINING THE ORIGINAL NYTIMES NSA EXPOSE

EXCERPTS FROM THE 12/15/05 NYTIMES ARTCLE (IN ORIGINAL SEQUENCE) -

"Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible "dirty numbers" linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications." ...

Nearly a dozen current and former officials, who were granted anonymity because of the classified nature of the program, discussed it with reporters for The New York Times because of their concerns about the operation's legality and oversight. ... Defenders of the program say it has been a critical tool in helping disrupt terrorist plots and prevent attacks inside the United States.

Administration officials are confident that existing safeguards are sufficient to protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the officials say. In some cases, they said, the Justice Department eventually seeks warrants if it wants to expand the eavesdropping to include communications confined within the United States.The officials said the administration had briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret Washington court that deals with national security issues. ...

While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time. The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the [TOTAL] number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials. ...

Mr. Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the United States ­ including American citizens, permanent legal residents, tourists and other foreigners ­ is based on classified legal opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A. operation....

In addition to eavesdropping on those numbers and reading e-mail messages to and from the Qaeda figures, the N.S.A. began monitoring others linked to them, creating an expanding chain. While most of the numbers and addresses were overseas, hundreds were in the United States, the officials said. ...

Until the new program began, the N.S.A. typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions in Washington, New York and other cities, and obtained court orders to do so. ...

Since 2002, the agency has been conducting some warrantless eavesdropping on people in the United States who are linked, even if indirectly, to suspected terrorists through the chain of phone numbers and e-mail addresses, according to several officials who know of the operation. Under the special program, the agency monitors their international communications, the officials said. The agency, for example, can target phone calls from someone in New York to someone in Afghanistan.

Warrants are still required for eavesdropping on entirely domestic-to-domestic communications, those officials say, meaning that calls from that New Yorker to someone in California could not be monitored without first going to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court. ...

After the Sept. 11 attacks, though, the United States intelligence community was criticized for being too risk-averse. The National Security Agency was even cited by the independent 9/11 Commission for adhering to self-imposed rules that were stricter than those set by federal law. ...

Justice Department lawyers disclosed their thinking on the issue of warrantless wiretaps in national security cases in a little-noticed brief in an unrelated court case. In that 2002 brief, the government said that "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

Administration officials were also encouraged by a November 2002 appeals court decision in an unrelated matter. The decision by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, which sided with the administration in dismantling a bureaucratic "wall" limiting cooperation between prosecutors and intelligence officers, noted "the president's inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance." [HYPERLINK AND EMPHASIS ADDED - RELIAPUNDIT]

But the same court suggested that national security interests should not be grounds "to jettison the Fourth Amendment requirements" protecting the rights of Americans against undue searches. The dividing line, the court acknowledged, "is a very difficult one to administer."

ACCORDING TO THE NYTIMES (and their sources): This program was limited to intercepting the INTERNATIONAL electronic communications of between 500 and maybe 2,000 people in the USA (OVER THREE YEARS, and regardless of their citizenship), and up to 7000 known agents of al Qaeda and their affiliates (WHO WERE OVERSEAS).

This seems like EXTREMELY targeted and focused surveillance to me, and not anything like a "wholesale domestic spying scandal" - which is how the anti-Bush factions are portraying it. I think that people who are portraying this as a major scandal - one which reveals actions which are illegal, unconstitutional and impeachable - are making a mountain out of a molehill. WORSE: for partisan political reasons, they are making a mountain (which damages our national secrity) out of a beneficial mole-hill.

IMHO, this POTUS ordered program does not even rise to a legal or constitutional problem even if SOME of the info garnered from it ends up allowing SOME of the suspects to be charged in a court of law. After all, this is how the FISA COURT OF REVIEW decided the issue (in 2002) and - even more importantly - this is one of the MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES we wanted to make and did make after 9/11: we WANTED to "break down the wall" between international intelligence and domestic law enforcement, ESPECIALLY if it could prevent an attack.

The FBI and NSA and DDNI have said that this HIGHLY TARGETED AND FOCUSED program and others have prevented attacks. Therefore it seems ENTIRELY good, if not essential AND appropriate to me. And entirely legal and constitutional, at least according to an opinion, cited in that NYTIMES expose, written by the FISA Court of Review (which cited the SCOTUS and other federal district courts in their opinion), and which specifically held that the POTUS DOES have the right and authority to gather surveillance without a court order in order to garner foreign intelligence.

IN CONCLUSION: This isn't even a tempest in a teapot; this is a drizzle in a tea-cup.

POWERLINE: "Der Spiegel Reports Possible Strike On Iran"

I had this story FIVE (5) days ago - and with more links. Which should be a reminder to all you faithful TAB readers that I REALLY DO cover the under-reported news and views better than most! EVEN THE BRILLIANT POWERLINE FOLKS! BUT YOU KNOW THAT! That's why you come here. Thanks for reading me! NOW TELL YOUR FRIENDS!

QUESTION: WOULD YOU ALLOW YOUR PHONE CALLS AND EMAIL AND MAIL TO BE INTERCEPTED BY THE NSA?

I asked a really and truly "hard Left" Leftie friend of mine - (a major benefactor of the ACLU, THE NATION, "Businessmen for Sensible Priorities" and other Left-wing organizations, and a man who is most proud of having been on Nixon's enemies list. An honor which garnered him NEITHER an IRS audit, let alone an FBI phone call! IOW: being an enemy of Nixon netted him not a single negative occurrence, certainly not anything near what would have happened to an enemy of Stalin's or Castro's, or Arafat's, or Mugabe's - or any number of other LEFTIST tyrants! - BUT I DIGRESS!!) - ANYHOW.... I asked him the following questions:

Question #1: Would you allow your phones, email and and mail to be iontercepted by the NSA if it MIGHT save 3000 lives?

He answered: "YES."

Question #2: Would you allow the NSA to intercept ONLY your international communications (phone, email, and mail) if it MIGHT save 3000 lives? That would be a lot less communciations, wouldn't it!?

He answered, "Yes, of course - that would be fewer calls, and I wouldn't mind - if it could save lives."

Question #3: Would you allow all the communications you have with al Qaeda and their affiliates to be intercepted?

He answered, "OF COURSE! BUT I HAVE NO SUCH COMMUNICATIONS! MOST AMERICANS DON'T!"

And THAT'S the main point, albeit a POLITICAL point and NOT a legal/constitutional one: the NSA intercepts prograsm effected an extremely small number of US persons - IF ANY. According to the NYTIMES, perhaps as many as two thousand persons had their communications intercepted at one time or another since the program was instituted in 2001 - FOUR YEARS AGO. That's about 30 per month. In a country with nearly 300 MILLION people. That's TEN MILLION TIMES as many people overall as the number of people whose calls were intercepted. YET THIS DOESN'T STOP THE LEFT - AND THE MSM THEY DOMINATE - FROM CALLING THIS A "DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL."

FURTHERMORE: If the NSA intercepts program which the POTUS authorized was solely intended, designed and executed to ONLY intercept communications between suspected al Qaeda (or affiliated) agents, (and for the primary purpose of national security and not criminal prosecution) then virtually EVERY American would agree that it is a fitting and proper program while we are at war with al Qaeda (and their affiliates).

THEREFORE: The sole controversy is really whether such a program REQUIRES a FISA court-order, or whether FISA, the 2001 AUMF, and the constitution permit (and even expect) the POTUS to directly authorize these kinds of intercepts (ones whose PROGRAMMATIC EFFORT IS DIRECTED AT A FOREIGN ENEMY) during wartime. After all, the POTUS is not merely or solely the chief law enforcement officer of the US government; he is also the CinC.

BOTTOM-LINE: The SCOTUS, the FISA Review Court, the Fisa Court, and several federal courts are on record as acknowledging that the POTUS has this right when it comes to gathering intelligence about foreign powers - and other presidents have used it in similar ways - though not in identical ways.

Therefore, this NSA intercepts program, is a GRAND SLAM: politically, legally, constitutionally and militarily, it was the right thing to do. I'D GO FURTHER. I'D SAY, (after Coulter) THAT IF BUSH DIDN'T AUTHORIZE SUCH A PROGRAM AFTER 9/11, THAT THIS NEGLIGENCE would be grounds for impeachment. After all, the primary responsibility of the POTUS is to protect and defend the USA.

BTW: since many of the cellphone and email communications are between one KNOWN suspected al Qaeda agent and an unkown cellphone number or email address - either of which can be accessed by any number of people, US persons or not - and can be accessed in any number of locations (in the USA or not), then it is VERY difficult for anyone (the POTUS, the USA AG, the CIA, or the NSA) to KNOW who the unkown communicator is and whether the UNKNOWN communicator is a US person or not. YOU'D HAVE TO LISTEN IN TO FIND OUT, WOULDN'T YOU?! (Ditto any data mining program designed to intercept emails which contain known code-words.)

Bottom-line: some people will do whatever it takes to win the war; other people won't - and perhaps don;t even think we need to be at war.

The Dem/Left seems to think that we'd be in a better position if: we weren't rough on any detainees; we closed GITMO; we immediately exited from Iraq; we stopped the decades old practice of rendition; we closed all secret prisons; and stopped giving Israel "unquestioned support" and be "more even-handed" in approach to the Arab-Israeli crisis. IOW: fight a "kinder and gentler" war on terror! HAH!

SURE: If Bush did what the Dem/Left wants then he'd be more seen as more "bi-partisan" and he'd be more "loved" by the euroweenies of Old Europe. But we'd be less effective in the war against our enemies, and be less feared by our enemies, too. I'd gladly sacrifice the love of Lefties here and in Europe for the upper hand in the GWOT.

I am grateful Bush has done just that. Waging war effectively is not a popularity contest. It never has been. Nixon - who ended the draft and the Vietnam War and opened up China and invented detente and signed the FIRST nuclear arms treaty with the USSR, and and saved the Soviet Dissidents --- and all in JUST 5 YEARS! - was HATED AND REVILED by the Left here and in Europe. Nixon was right, and the Left was wrong. (I KNOW: I was a a Lefty then!)

In the 1980's, Reagan deployed Pershing missiles to Europe and was greeted in Europe - who we were DEFENDING FROM THE USSR! - with the largest most angry demonstrations OF ALL TIME! Reagan was right, though, and the Left was wrong. (I KNOW; I WAS THERE IN NY'S CENTRAL PARK ALONG WITH MORE THAN A MILLION OTHER LEFTIES!

Bush's aggressive war against jihadoterrorism and islamofascism is being greeted with the same response by the SAME Lefties. They are as wrong now as they were then.

Thank God this time I am on the RIGHT SIDE THIS TIME! (Actually, I became a hawk in 1989, after the Wall fell. I was honest: I admitted that Reagan was right - about the USSR and tax cuts!)

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!

KEY SYRIAN ISLAMOFASCIST JUMPS-SHIP AND POINTS FINGER

BBC: A senior Syrian official has said President Bashar al-Assad threatened former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri only months before his death. Syria's former Vice-President, Abdul Halim Khaddam, said "Hariri received many threats". ... The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Beirut says ... Khaddam may be positioning himself as an alternative to the Syrian president.

ABC: Khaddam became a Syrian vice president in 1984 and resigned in June. He was the nominal leader in Syria for a short period after Assad's father, Hafez Assad, died in June 2000. In the interview, Khaddam was bitterly critical of the current Assad government, saying the ruling Baath Party and other popular organizations had been reduced to vindicating "decisions made by the president." ... He quoted the Syrian president as telling Hariri, months before he was killed: "You want to bring a (new) president in Lebanon. … I will not allow that. I will crush whoever attempts to overturn our decision."

FT: Abdel-Halim Khaddam, Syria's former vice-president, said yesterday he had "full confidence" in the United Nations investigation into the assassination. The UN-team, recently led by the German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis, has implicated senior Lebanese and Syrian officials. Speaking in Paris Mr Khaddam announced a break with his country's leadership. He blamed President Bashar al-Assad for a deterioration in Syria's international position and said if Syria had killed Mr Hariri, it could not have happened without Mr Assad's knowledge.

KHADDAM MADE THESE STATEMENTS IN AN INTEVIEW SHOWN ON AL ARABIYA TV! So, it seems obvious to me this man is positioning himself to be the next president of Syria (after Assad is squeezed out/overthrown/arrested for murder. It sounds like he'd cooperate with the UN and the USA and serve as president of Syria - on an interim basis, that is: Until the "Rose Revolution" and a democratic election!

UPDATE (via PRAIRIE PUNDIT) - "Reuters": Syrian lawmakers demanded on Saturday that former Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam be tried for treason and corruption after he publicly broke with President Bashar al-Assad. Speaking from Paris, where he moved after resigning as vice-president in June, Khaddam launched an unprecedented attack on Assad, saying he had threatened Rafik al-Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister who was assassinated in February. He also accused the government of making political blunders in Lebanon and of failing to deliver economic and political reforms at home, leaving millions of Syrians to go hungry.

Khaddam must be a real threat or the Assad regime would just ignore him. STAY TUNED...

JIHADOTERRORIST BOMBER MURDERS CHRISTIANS IN INDONESIA

BBC:

Six people have been killed and more than 40 hurt by a bomb blast in a market in Indonesia's Central Sulawesi province, police say. Witnesses in the town of Palu reported seeing bodies lying on the ground after hearing a deafening blast. The province's Christians have been repeatedly targeted in recent attacks blamed on Muslim militants. ... The explosion took place in the busy early morning hours at a stall selling pork meat in a Christian part of the town. Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation but the population in many parts of Central Sulawesi province is split equally between Muslims and Christians. ...

Security was tightened in the province recently amid fears of fresh violence between the two communities. Three Christian schoolgirls were beheaded by masked assailants in Poso district in October. Twenty people were killed in May this year when two bombs exploded in the largely Christian town of Tentena. Almost 1,000 people died when inter-religious clashes flared in Central Sulawesi province in 2000 and 2001.

Fighting between Muslims and Christians in Central Sulawesi from 1998-2001 killed 2,000 people, mainly around the town of Poso.

Why are islamothugs murdering Christians in Indonesia? I BLAME: King George W. BusHitlerburton; the Iraq War (not the Afghan War, that was a good war!); Israel/Jews/Sharon/Wolfowitz/Perle/Libby/the Likud/the neocons; Rove; Tom DeLay, and the NSA. And global warming and the tax cuts for the rich. Heh.

PUTIN USING STATE-OWNED ENERGY AS FOREIGN POLICY WEAPON TO THREATEN OR REWARD NEIGHBORS

BBC: Russian energy giant Gazprom has renewed a threat to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine - but says it will not hit deliveries to western Europe. Moscow and Kiev are holding talks over Gazprom's decision to quadruple prices. ... State-owned Gazprom wants to quadruple the gas price to between $220 and $230 per 1,000 cubic metres, insisting that Ukraine must pay market rates. ... Ukraine says it cannot afford to pay the extra cost immediately and accuses Moscow of trying to score political points with the price rise.

UK GUARDIAN-BLOG: Moscow makes the not unreasonable point that the move is purely economic and that its neighbour no longer has a right to cheap energy supplies for steelmaking and other industries that compete with Russia's own. But recent deals with other former Soviet countries such as Belarus have kept prices low, raising suspicions that the price increase is not just about economics. ... Mr Putin is already under fire for his increasing intolerance of dissent at home. His economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, one of the few remaining liberals in the inner circle, resigned this week saying that Russia was no longer free or democratic.

FT: Russia has provided its former Soviet neighbours with heavily subsidised gas since the USSR collapsed in 1991 – partly to keep them within its sphere of influence. But now it wants to move to market prices, for what it says are economic reasons. Gazprom, Russia’s massive state-controlled gas company, has already agreed increased prices with several former Soviet states.

Ukraine says it is being asked to pay far more than any of those, suggesting the motive is political: to punish it for the Orange Revolution a year ago that brought the pro-western Viktor Yushchenko to power.

Ukraine is being asked to pay $230 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas – up from $50 this year. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all now European Union members, are paying only $110, as is Georgia, which also had a pro-democracy revolution two years ago. Belarus, loyal to Russia, pays little over $46.

WASHPOST: The chief of Russia's natural gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom, reiterated that it will halt supplies to Ukraine on Sunday morning unless a new contract is signed with its Ukrainian counterpart. ... Meanwhile, analysts said a Russian bid Thursday to buy up natural gas from another major supplier to Ukraine, Turkmenistan, would leave the Central Asian nation with little gas to sell to Ukraine.It is OBVIOUS that Putin is NOT merely trying to get Ukraine up to market price. This should make it clear that PUTIN is no better than OPEC was in the 1970's and NOT a trustworthy ally - or a safe energy resource for Europe.

AND REMEMBER THIS: socialist, vile anti-American and former Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schroeder is now chairman of Russia's German-Russia pipeline company which is MAJORITY OWNED BY GAZPROM. This makes him a co-conspirator in this matter with his fellow socialist Putin. THESE ARE TWO VERY BAD MEN.

AND LET THIS BE ANOTHER REMINDER OF WHY STATE-OWNED BUSINESSES ARE ALWAYS A FUNDAMENTAL THREAT TO LIBERTY EVERYWHERE.

BTW: WHAT DOES "GST" STAND FOR?

Traitorous WASHPOST reporter Dana Priest wrote another page 1 story in today's paper about the NSA intercept program. In it she revealed its secret title: GST.

What do you think it stands for? Cliff May of THE FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY and NRO wrote that he thought it was GLOBAL STRATEGIC TARGETING, perhaps. PLEASE PUT YOUR GUESS(ES) IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. NO HOLDS BARRED.

I'll pick the best suggestions and then run a poll to determine the most popular one tomorrow.

EVEN MORE PROOF, ONCE AGAIN, THAT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE SUCKS

BETSY'S PAGE:

Authorities in Grampian in Scotland are reporting their progress in reducing wait times for medical tests.

The latest statistics show waits for ultrasound have fallen from 18 weeks to 11, MRI from 42 to 19, barium studies from 18 to six and CT scans from seven to four.

PROGRESS?! FOUR WEEKS TO GET A CT SCAN!? YIPES! (BTW: If you think you have an infectious STD in the UK you have to wait 3 WEEKS for a test! DOUBLE YIPES!!)

SURE: We can and should try to improve the "medical insurance crisis" in the USA, but no American would want to trade our system for this kind of system (and systems JUST like it EVERYWHERE healthcare is nationalized/socialized).

"HILLARYCARE" - (whether done in one fell swoop, or done gradually as the Dems would now attempt) - would lead to the same BAD CARE.

THE NSA LEAKERS: CATCH'EM, TRY'EM, CONVICT'EM AND EXECUTE'EM

YAHOO/AP:

The Justice Department has opened an investigation into the leak of classified information about President Bush's secret domestic spying program, Justice officials said Friday. The officials, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, said the inquiry will focus on disclosures to The New York Times about warrantless surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

I hope they catch the bastards and that the charges include TREASON.

NORTH KOREAN NEGOTIATIONS MIGHT DERAIL: THE FOOD-AID WEDGE IS GONE

BBC:

The US says it will not continue to provide food aid to North Korea unless Pyongyang allows international relief workers to monitor its distribution. The US needs to be sure the aid is reaching those who need it most, state department spokesman Adam Ereli said. Mr Ereli accused North Korea's leaders of ignoring the needs of their people and letting them starve.

The UN World Food Programme says it is halting food aid to North Korea after Pyongyang said it was no longer needed.

North Korea has relied on foreign aid to feed millions of people since acknowledging a famine in the mid-1990s. But it now says better harvests at home and aid supplies from China and South Korea have rendered the aid distributed by the UN redundant. Instead, Pyongyang has said, it wants more foreign help with long-term development projects.

If the NOKO harvest has improved - and they don't need our food aid, or that of the UN - then we have lost an important negotiating tool. OTOH: maybe this will strengthen China's hand, and maybe they will be more effective as twisting Kim Jong Il's arm?!?

Nothing in China's behavior over the last four years gives me ANY encouragement on this front.

MAYBE IT'S TIME THEY USED MY STRATEGY: build a nuclear power plant in Seoul and just give North Korea FREE ELECTRICITY if they close their nuclear power plants. (I first blogged this idea HERE, on 10/10/05)

YOU CAN'T BEAT TOMORROW WITH THE WRONG LESSONS LEARNED FROM YESTERDAY

Paul Mirengoff of POWERLINE in rare form:

The electoral tide turned against the Democrats during the Vietnam era, and hasn't turned back. One can argue that the Vietnam/Watergate syndrome -- fear of the exercise of American power based on profound distrust of our military, our government, and our motives -- is the main cause of the decline of the Democrats.

... It's not surprising that the failure of many liberals to have learned anything truly new since 1974 constitutes a huge political disadvantage. But I'm fascinated by the ways in which this failure continues to confound them.

RTWT. (And then read the post he wrote before that!)

And a Commenter at Polipundit (hat tip ACE), commenting on WHY the Democrats are now sinking in the polls and the GOP rising again, sarcastically lists a few of the many fascinating ways the Democrats - (who are either addicted to a vestigial ideology or trapped in some weird 1970's "time loop")- have dug themselves deeper into the past - heck, they've dug clear past anachronism and are heading toward oblivion! KATHY WROTE:

What could have made those polls turnout that way??? I wonder if we should ask Howard the Coward We Will Never Win This War Dean, or maybe Nancy My Nosy is Rosy Pelosi if we could get her away from that trough of corruption she can only see in the mirror. Or Dick Turban Screamin and Cryin Durbin - how’s that Nazi gulag analogy workin for ya?

And also tonight, DR SANITY contributed a great observation along these lines saying about these loony RAVINGS from Durbin and Dean and Murtha:

... don't waste your time looking for any sense in the contradictory demands and rhetoric of the political postmodernists--better known as the Leftwing Democrats.

... They have a plan to win by giving up. ... And, when it comes to domestic energy policy--they demand that the oil and energy industry produce results; but demonize everything these industries do; and then make it impossible (or at least illegal) for them to be successful! [Like keep a tiny section of ANWR - which was set aside for oil exploration by Jimmy Carter when he created ANWR - closed from oil development!]

And she's got a few brilliant cartoons which illustrate the bizarre, inflammatory and and contradictory discourse of the Loony Left who are currently running/ruinning the Democrat Party. CHECK IT OUT!

The Democrats were virtually extinct in 1991; Perot was the real contender for Bush Senior's job until a Bible-toting, church-going DLC centrist southern governor from Arkansas won the nomination BY PROMISING TO CHANGE THE PARTY, AND TO CHANGE WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT.

I think the party - whether they know it or not - is right back there once again - in 1991; on the verge of extinction. To stay relevant and viable as a national party, they need to jettison Dean, Pelosi, Reid and Murtha from leadership and let the Lieberman/Warner/Richardson/Hoyer types take charge. PREDICTION: I think this will happen in the summer of next year.

UPDATE: More analysis of Left-wing insanity HERE (hat tip LGF)- specifically Left-wing lunacy based on COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. EXCERPT:

"Cognitive Dissonance" is the obvious* answer to Mirengoff's fascination over the "Forever Young" attributes of the 60's Dem generation. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what one already believes, and incoming information. If the new information doesn't match up with existing beliefs, then something has to give way. Until it does, mental discomfort manifests. ...

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological discomfort, and the human reaction to eliminate the discomfort, experienced by 60's Dems who find themselves as part of the Establishment. A discomfort develops between their core political beliefs - which are largely based upon their coming of age during Vietnam, Watergate and the Civil Rights movement - and the facts and circumstances of the political world existing almost 40 years - 2 generations!- after Vietnam, Watergate and MLK.

Again: Modern facts don't match up with their 40-year old worldview. Alas, their brains are bombarded by daily doses of facts** that conflict with their core paradigms:

RTWT!

BBC ON MILBLOGGERS

A DECENT INTRO FROM THE MSM FOR THE UNINITITATED. Coming as it does on the heals of Kathleen Parker's semi-tirade against bloggers, this indicates that blogs have only become a more important part of the newsmedia this year - and that the MSM knows it, and fears it. Justifiably: On any given issue the blogsphere is a "VIRTUAL LEGION" of EXPERT fact-checkers - in aggregate more expert on that given issue (or any given issue) and more able to be more honest and incisive in their expert analysis and/or commentary and more immediate than ANY journalism major in any part of the MSM.

SCOTUS AND FISA COURT OF REVIEW: WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES ARE OKAY

FISA Court of Review (In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001; Argued 9/9, 2002; Decided 11/18, 2002):

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information.26 It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. [...]

The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable. [...]

Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close.

Here's more:

Supreme Court’s Special Needs Cases

The distinction between ordinary criminal prosecutions and extraordinary situations underlies the Supreme Court’s approval of entirely warrantless and even suspicionless searches that are designed to serve the government’s “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995) (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted)) (random drug-testing of student athletes).32 Apprehending drunk drivers and securing the border constitute such unique interests beyond ordinary, general law enforcement. Id. at 654 (citing Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), and United States v. Martinez- Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)).

A recent case, City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), is relied on by both the government and amici. In that case, the Court held that a highway check point designed to catch drug dealers did not fit within its special needs exception because the government’s “primary purpose” was merely “to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Id. at 41-42. The Court rejected the government’s argument that the “severe and intractable nature of the drug problem” was sufficient justification for such a dragnet seizure lacking any individualized suspicion. Id. at 42. Amici particularly rely on the Court’s statement that “the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose.” Id.

But by “purpose” the Court makes clear it was referring not to a subjective intent, which is not relevant in ordinary Fourth Amendment probable cause analysis, but rather to a programmatic purpose. The Court distinguished the prior check point cases Martinez-Fuerte (involving checkpoints less than 100 miles from the Mexican border) and Sitz (checkpoints to detect intoxicated motorists) on the ground that the former involved the government’s “longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border,” id. at 38 (quoting United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985)), and the latter was “aimed at reducing the immediate hazard posed by the presence of drunk drivers on the highways.” Id. at 39. The Court emphasized that it was decidedly not drawing a distinction between suspicionless seizures with a “non-law-enforcement primary purpose” and those designed for law enforcement. Id. at 44 n.1. Rather, the Court distinguished general crime control programs and those that have another particular purpose, such as protection of citizens against special hazards or protection of our borders. The Court specifically acknowledged that an appropriately tailored road block could be used “to thwart an imminent terrorist attack.” Id. at 44. The nature of the “emergency,” which is simply another word for threat, takes the matter out of the realm of ordinary crime control.33

Conclusion

FISA’s general programmatic purpose, to protect the nation against terrorists and espionage threats directed by foreign powers, has from its outset been distinguishable from “ordinary crime control.” After the events of September 11, 2001, though, it is hard to imagine greater emergencies facing Americans than those experienced on that date.

We acknowledge, however, that the constitutional question presented by this case–whether Congress’s disapproval of the primary purpose test is consistent with the Fourth Amendment–has no definitive jurisprudential answer. The Supreme Court’s special needs cases involve random stops (seizures) not electronic searches. In one sense, they can be thought of as a greater encroachment into personal privacy because they are not based on any particular suspicion. On the other hand, wiretapping is a good deal more intrusive than an automobile stop accompanied by questioning.

Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even without taking into account the President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it authorizes are reasonable.

Relevant Footnotes:

29 An FBI agent recently testified that efforts to conduct a criminal investigation of two of the alleged hijackers were blocked by senior FBI officials–understandably concerned about prior FISA court criticism–who interpreted that court’s decisions as precluding a criminal investigator’s role. One agent, frustrated at encountering the “wall,” wrote to headquarters: “[S]omeday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ Let’s hope the National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, [Usama Bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection.’” The agent was told in response that headquarters was frustrated with the issue, but that those were the rules, and the National Security Law Unit does not make them up. The Malaysia Hijacking and September 11th: Joint Hearing Before the Senate and House Select Intelligence Committees (Sept. 20, 2002) (written statement of New York special agent of the FBI).

30 The Court in a footnote though, cited authority for the view that warrantless surveillance may be constitutional where foreign powers are involved. Keith, 407 U.S. at 322 n.20.

31 To be sure, punishment of a U.S. person’s espionage for a foreign power does have a deterrent effect on others similarly situated.

32 The Court has also allowed searches for certain administrative purposes to be undertaken without particularized suspicion of misconduct. See, e.g., New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-04 (1987) (warrantless administrative inspection of premises of closely regulated business); Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 534-39 (1967) (administrative inspection to ensure compliance with city housing code).

CLEARLY, THIS DECISION BY THE FISA COURT OF REVIEW PROVES THAT THE SCOTUS HAS APPROVED WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF US CITIZENS; "(Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995) (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 873 (1987) (internal quotation marks omitted))."

CLEARLY, THE FISA COURT OF REVIEW HAS DECIDED THAT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF US PERSONS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS IS OKAY.

THE 2001 AUMF CLEARLY DEFINES THE SPECIAL NEED - AND THE TARGETS: AL QAEDA AND ITS AFFILIATES.

SINCE THE "PROGRAMMATIC PURPOSES" OF THE NSA INTERCEPTS PROGRAM AUTHORIZED BY THE POTUS WAS NOT CRIMINAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, BUT NATIONAL DEFENSE (TO INTERCEPT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AL QAEDA, OR ITS AFFILIATES, AND THEIR AGENTS INSIDE THE USA), THE PROGRAM IS BOTH LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL.

END OF STORY.

ROADMAP "QUARTET" WARNS PALESTINIAN ARABS THAT JIHADOTERRORISTS CAN'T BE IN GOVERNMENT

AP/Haaretz:

The four international supporters of the Middle East peace process said Wednesday that the next Palestinian Cabinet should not include members of Hamas or other militant groups committed to violence.

The statement by the so-called quartet did not name Hamas, but said a future Palestinian Cabinet "should include no member who has not committed to the principles of Israel's right to exist in peace and security and an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism." The quartet, which has drafted a Middle East peace plan known as the road map, includes the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia.

I AM PLEASANTLY SURPRISED BY THIS STATEMENT - ESPECIALLY TAKEN WITH THE NEWS BELOW ABOUT LEBANON'S CONDEMNATION OF THE HIZB'ALLAH ATTACKS ON ISRAEL.

The ball is in the Palestinian Arabs' court. Will Abbas make like his mentor Arafat and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or will he rise to the occassion and challenge Hamas and the other jihadoterrorist groups to disarm? He has done nothing to date which makes me optimistic. But maybe this statement from the Quartet will encourage him?

LEBANON'S PM CONDEMNS ROCKET ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL

AP/Ynet:

Lebanon's prime minister condemned on Wednesday a rocket barrage fired a day earlier into northern Israel, while a U.N. envoy urged the Lebanese government to assert its control over the tense border region to prevent future attacks on the Jewish state. The comments by Prime Minister Fuad Saniora were a rare strong criticism of such rocket fire from Lebanese territory into Israel.

MORE FROM AP:

Israel accused a militant pro-Syrian Palestinian group of firing the rockets and retaliated with airstrikes early Wednesday against the group's base outside Beirut, Israel's deepest strike into Lebanon in 18 months. Two guerrillas were wounded. Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, head of the Israeli army's northern command, warned Israel would retaliate if there were any more rocket fire from Lebanon.

"The main message that we passed, and we are trying to give, is that the Lebanese government must take responsibility for what happens in its territory," Adam told The Associated Press. "If Kiryat Shmona residents don't sleep quietly, then the residents of Beirut won't sleep quietly."

I WONDER: Are these new and welcome official Lebanese condemnations of the attacks by Hizb'Allah against Israel SINCERE, or are they phony - like the ones repeatedly issued by Arafat and Abbas? Time will tell. A SHORT TIME. Stay tuned...

MORE PROOF THAT APPEASEMENT IS ALWAYS AN INEFFECTIVE POLICY

Last week, Germany released a jihadoterrorist who had been convicted of murdering a US citizen - and member of the US armed forces - during an airliner hijacking, kidnapping and tense 17 day stand-off in 1985. (More HERE.)

SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? DO THE GERMANS GET ANY GOODWILL FROM THE JIHADOTERRORISTS FOR THIS ACT OF APPEASEMENT? No. Of course not. THEY GET MORE TERROR:

BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- A former German deputy foreign minister and his family are missing in Yemen, German officials said Wednesday, and there are reports that they were kidnapped.

WHY DO YOU ALWAYS GET MORE TERROR BY APPEASING TERRORISTS? Because you let the terrorist know IT WORKS ON YOU! IOW: The Germans are getting what all appeasers get.

I hope this guy and his family are rescued, AND I HOPE THE GERMANS - AND ALL OTHER APPEASERS - LEARN A LESSON: we are fighting a ruthless enemy who must be utterly defeated.

UPTON SINCLAIR'S DEFENSE OF SACCO AND VANZETTI: "FAKE BUT ACCURATE"

LATimes (hat tip Jonah at NRO, and GANDALIN):

The last paragraph [of the newly discovered letter written by socialist and novelist Upton Sinclair] got the Newport Beach attorney's attention.

"This letter is for yourself alone," it read. "Stick it away in your safe, and some time in the far distant future the world may know the real truth about the matter. I am here trying to make plain my own part in the story."

The story was "Boston," Sinclair's 1920s novelized condemnation of the trial and execution of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, Italian immigrants accused of killing two men in the robbery of a Massachusetts shoe factory. Prosecutors characterized the anarchists as ruthless killers who had used the money to bankroll antigovernment bombings and deserved to die. Sinclair thought the pair were innocent and being railroaded because of their political views.

Upton Beall Sinclair was a giant of the nation's Progressive Era, a crusading writer and socialist who championed the downtrodden and persecuted. President Theodore Roosevelt, who pushed through the nation's first food-purity laws in response to "The Jungle," coined the name for Sinclair's craft: muckraker. Sinclair wasn't alone in believing Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent when he began researching the book that fictionalized their case. On Aug. 23, 1927, the day they were executed, 25,000 protested in Boston.

But the fearless Sinclair was left a conflicted man by what Sacco and Vanzetti's lawyer — and later others in the anarchist movement — told him. Soon Sinclair would learn something that filled him with doubt. During his research for "Boston," Sinclair met with Fred Moore, the men's attorney, in a Denver motel room. Moore "sent me into a panic," Sinclair wrote in the typed letter that Hegness found at the auction a decade ago.

"Alone in a hotel room with Fred, I begged him to tell me the full truth," Sinclair wrote. " … He then told me that the men were guilty, and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them."

"I faced the most difficult ethical problem of my life at that point," he wrote to his attorney. "I had come to Boston with the announcement that I was going to write the truth about the case."

Other letters tucked away in the Indiana archive illuminate why one of America's most strident truth tellers kept his reservations to himself.

"My wife is absolutely certain that if I tell what I believe, I will be called a traitor to the movement and may not live to finish the book," Sinclair wrote Robert Minor, a confidant at the Socialist Daily Worker in New York, in 1927.

"Of course," he added, "the next big case may be a frame-up, and my telling the truth about the Sacco-Vanzetti case will make things harder for the victims."

[Reliapundit: DESPITE THE TRUTH - AND SINCLAIR'S LIES]... The men have been viewed as martyrs by the American left ever since. ... On the 50th anniversary of their execution, Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis all but pardoned the pair, urging that "any disgrace should be forever removed from their names."

This sounds exactly like Dan Rather on the fake Bush TANG documents, and Teddy Jo Kennedy on The Little Red Book Hoax; KENNEDY SPOKEMAN:

Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ''public reports" in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy's broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.

The Left - or the er um, so-called "progressives" if you prefer, THEN AND NOW - blithely say: "So what if my charges are FALSE and the facts are not on my side; my larger point speaks to a higher truth and a greater good." YEAH RIGHT! THE LEFT: their amoral tactics never change. That's why they're scum.

BOTTOM-LINE: BUSH AUTHORIZATION OF NSA INTERCEPTS IS LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

(1) JOHN SCHMIDT (John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States):

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. [...]

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. [...] But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." [...]

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks.

The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action. But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

(2) THE FISA COURT ITSELF HAS PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHAT BUSH DID: November 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in Sealed Case No. 02-001:

"The Truong court [United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 4th Cir. 1980], as did all the 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 that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."

(3) AL QAEDA AND ITS AFFILIATES HAVE BEEN DEEMED AN ENEMY FOREIGN POWER WHICH WE ARE AT WAR WITH, BOTH BY CONGRESS (IN THE AUMF) AND BY THE FEDERAL COURTS:

(3a) Cass Sunstein, liberal law professor at University of Chicago Law School:

The discussion of wiretapping by the President, without court approval, raises a number of important and interesting legal issues. According to CNN, Attorney General Gonzales recently said, "There were many people, many lawyers within the administration who advised the president that he had an inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in" this kind of "signal intelligence of our enemy." The Attorney General added, "We also believe that the authorization to use force, which was passed by the Congress in the days following the attacks of September 11, constituted additional authorization for the president to engage in this kind of signal intelligence."

I want to suggest here that this last statement is more plausible than it might seem at first glance. If the statement is indeed correct, some legal questions certainly remain, but at least we will have made progress.

The authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) says, "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 by such nations, organizations or persons." This authorization clearly supported the war in Afghanistan.

It also clearly justifies the use of force against Al Qaeda.

In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court added that the AUMF authorizes the detention of enemy combatants -- notwithstanding 18 USC 4001(a), which requires an Act of Congress to support executive detention. In the Court's view, the AUMF stands as the relevant Act of Congress, authorizing detention.

It is therefore reasonable to say that the AUMF, by authorizing the use of "all necessary and appropriate force," also authorizes surveillance of those associated with Al Qaeda or any other organizations that "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" of September 11. The reason is that surveillance, including wiretapping, is reasonably believed to be an incident of the use of force. It standardly occurs during war.

If the President's wiretapping has been limited to those reasonably believed to be associated with Al Qaeda and its affiliates -- as indeed he has said -- then the Attorney General's argument is entirely plausible. (The AUMF would not permit wiretapping of those without any connection to nations, organizations, and persons associated with the September 11 attacks.)

(3b) According to this US Federal District Court decision (in a 1997 case, which was never appealed or ruled on by the SCOTUS, and is essentially operative today). Here's a direct quote from the court's decision:

"AL QAEDA IS PROPERLY A FOREIGN POWER AS DEFINED BY US CODE 1801 (a)-(b)". [See page 6, paragraph 4 - (or section C#1).]"

(4) Both Carter and Clinton exercised the same authority against US CITIZENS:

(4a) Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12949 in early 1995 authorizing “the Attorney General … to approve applications … to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information.”

(4b) In 1979, Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 12139 which gave the Attorney General authorization “to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

Clinton authorized the PHYSICAL search and seizure of the property of a US CITIZEN (who was an agent of a foreign power). This was certainly MORE invasive than NSA intercepts which Bush ordered.

(5) SCOTUS held - in the 1972 KEITH decision (or see another link HERE) - that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, but the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president’s authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad. (This point reiterates a point from Schmidt, above - offered again here - as #5 - with direct hyperlinks to the decision. HINT: SEE section IV of the decision.)

CONCLUSION: US PERSONS, AND EVEN USA CITIZENS, WHO ARE FOREIGN AGENTS OF A FOREIGN POWER WE ARE AT WAR WITH CAN BE LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY SEARCHED AND SURVEILLED WITHOUT A COURT ORDER IF THE SEARCH AND SURVEILLANCE IS ORDERED BY THE POTUS.

I repeat: This is a simple, SLAM DUNK case (I have cited: the SCOTUS; the FISA Court; the federal district court; a Clinton USA associate AG; a liberal law school professor from a major law school; and two Democrat presidents). The executive order Bush signed authorizing the NSA intercepts - even if they involved US persons - was legal and constitutional because it was intended to gather intelligence about the enemy, a foreign power and its agents, during war-time. All presidents have that authority.

AS I PREDICTED: BECAUSE OF NYTIMES LEAK, LAWYERS FOR TERRORISTS SUE FEDERAL GOV'T

NYTIMES:

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. The question of whether the N.S.A. program was used in criminal prosecutions and whether it improperly influenced them raises "fascinating and difficult questions," said Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who has studied terrorism prosecutions.

I predicted this on December 19th - three days after the original TRAITOROUS article appeared. This leak is part of a CONCERTED effort by the enemy and their comrades on the Left to diminish our effectiveness to combat the jihadoterrorists.

[WHY ARE THE JIHADOTERRORIST AND THE LEFT ALLIED? The jihadoterrorists and the post-modern Left BOTH want to see the USA "humbled." They want this in order to "humble" the entire West. They blame all the world's problems on the West (and on Judeo-Christian values), and see the USA as the protector of the West - as the "Great Satan" - which has wrought world-wide poverty and inequity through imperialism, colonialism, capitalism and globalism. And they also blame the USA for global warming.]

I also argued in my December 19th post, that the leakers should be arrested, charged, tried and shot for treason. I believe this now more than ever.

More HERE and HERE and HERE.