And Iraqi fingers are now purple-dyed.
Posted on 12/19/2005 11:30:02 PM PST by West Coast Conservative
A U.S. president has just received word that American counterterrorist operatives have captured a senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Among his possessions are a couple of cell phones -- phones that contain several American phone numbers. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, what's a president to do?
If the president were taking the advice offered by some politicians and pundits in recent days, he would order the attorney general to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The attorney general would ask that panel of federal judges for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to begin eavesdropping on those telephone numbers, to determine whether any individual associated with those numbers was involved in terrorist activities.
But the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant. FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is "probable cause to believe" that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. Yet where is the evidence to support such a finding? Who knows why the person seized in Pakistan was calling these people? Even terrorists make innocent calls and have relationships with folks who are not themselves terrorists.
The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person" -- a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"But the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant. FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is "probable cause to believe" that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist."
I don't know if the numbers are right but the MSNBC tonight said that of 4000+ requests 4 were denied and 96 ammended.
John sKerry would have still been waiting for someone to tell him what to do!
John Kerry would still be tightening his neck bolts while waiting for his wife to tell him what to do.
And Iraqi fingers are now purple-dyed.
John Kerry would be in favor of spying before he was against it.
Both Clinton anc Carter used this same Presidential power.
That may be true, but the crucial missing statistic is how long it took to put together the petition to the court, assembling all the supporting data, and signatures up and down the line. This has proven in the past to take literally months, and has diren people to utter frustration. Consider the case of Zacharias Moussawi.
As Bush has tried to emphasize, there is a distinction between monitoring the calls of someone over a long term, and detecting activity that may or may not occur once ot twice in a very short time frame.
Imagine that a high level al-Qaida has been captured and us cell phone numbers recovered from him.
Just how long do you imaine those phone numbers will continue to be hot? Do really you imagine that they will still be in use weeks later, after a FISA warrant has been obtained?
It also does not state how many situations existed where no warrant was made and no action taken when investigators determined there to be insufficient grounds to obtain warrants. Why file a futile application? And were steps interrupted because the investigators might have been too conservative re grounds for warrants?
It also does not state how many situations existed where no warrant was made and no action taken when investigators determined there to be insufficient grounds to obtain warrants. Why file a futile application? And were steps interrupted because the investigators might have been too conservative re grounds for warrants?
John Kerry would have done nothing whatsoever. To him, terrorists are just a nuisance.
Oh, this is good!
The left's mantra that FISA acts quickly is a complete lie. Even the 9/11 Commission mentioned, after taking testimony from FBI agents, that the FISA regulations are slow and cumbersome and getting approval can take weeks.
This article explains fully how the president can legally wiretap US citizens without a warrant. It cites the law, something the left is loathe to actually do.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20621
"John sKerry would have still been waiting for someone to tell him what to do!"
And NARAL would tell him. "We wouldn't be in this war if there were more abortions and homosexual marriages."
BTTT
"Imagine that a high level al-Qaida has been captured and us cell phone numbers recovered from him.
Just how long do you imagine those phone numbers will continue to be hot? Do really you imagine that they will still be in use weeks later, after a FISA warrant has been obtained?"
There is reason that spying on U.S. citizens within the U.S. has been banned - and that it was became banned during the cold war when we had a terrible adversary capable of enslaving whole countries and possessing thousands of weapons of mass destruction. The reason is that previous governments abused this power and the people wanted it taken away.
That's where legitimate government power comes from. If the government wants that power returned they should make their case to the people instead of just doing it anyway.
Remember, first we survive, then we play.
With all due respect, your point is misdirected.
First, the complained activity was conducted outside the US on conversations with a foreign component. That is they were conversations and e-mails where either the originator or the receiver of the message was not in US territory. No US citizen or anyone else for that matter has any right inherent or constitutionally guaranteed to secret seditions conmmunications across national borders.
Second, second, a national conversation about the nature and legality of these intercepts would have assured theri non-existence by the time the national debate had concluded. For that matter, if intercepting conversations is a violation of inherent rights, how do you think a mass of individuals could legitimately interfere with that inherent right? You are just kicking the can down the road, not elevating it in principle. The fact is that sometimes things aren't too nice, and difficult decisions have to me made. I thank God we have a President who is not afraid to step up to his responsibilities.
Remember, first we survive, then we play.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.