Posted on 01/04/2006 4:05:09 PM PST by bigsky
It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.
The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.
That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.
Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.
Sign up to receive Ann Coulter's weekly column by email:
Not to worry, you guys managed to get the usual blatter about you supposedly admire her "brilliant legal mind" (i.e. being able to write ad hominid attacks berating liberals for their ad hominid attacks), while making the same lame joke about how the "forum rules" require someone post a photo of her for everyone to drool over.
It gets really old. Yeah, you guys really love her "mind"
You're funny HillBilly. What's a "blatter"?
Someone please tell Ann and all the rest that it is not the democratic party, no, it the democRAT party. Rush always does the same thing and so does Sean.
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.
The history of applications modified has an interesting pattern that hasn't been explained, but I suspect is related to the "In re: Sealed Case" ruling by the FISA review court, and not to 9/11/2001 as the article leads the reader.
FISA Court reports pursuant to 50 USC 1807
Year Applied Granted Denied Modified
1997 749 748 1* 0
1998 796 796 0 0
1999 886 880 0 0
2000 1,005 1,012 0 2
2001 932 934 0 2
2002 1,228 1,228 0 2
2003 1,727 1,724 4 79
2004 1,758 1,754 0 94
* 1997: In one case, although satisfied as to the probable cause to believe the target to be an agent of a foreign power, the court declined to approve the application as plead for other reasons, and gave the government leave to amend the application. The government has filed a motion to withdraw that case as it has become moot.
The reports give little hint relating to the nature of the modifications, but obviously (based on the number of rejections), whatever modifications the Court demanded were taken by the investigator/requester.
As for why to avoid going to the FISA court for warrants, I can think of a few reasons. The investigators may find that the modification requests are unreasonable; the time delay to obtain a warrant, especially a "negotiated/modified" one, does not admit timely investigation; the manpower of the investigatory arm is insufficient to pursue both, correct paperwork and investigations; the number of targets is increased radically beyond the 1,700 or so reflected in the reports, and the investigator does not want to tip off the terrorists (or the public) by showing a radical increase in the numbers reported to Congress.
FISA Court reports pursuant to 50 USC 1807
Year Applied Granted Denied Modified
1979 199 207 0 0
1980 319 322 0 1*
1981 431 433 0 0
1982 473 475 0 0
1983 549 549 0 0
1984 635 635 0 0
1985 587 587 0 0
1986 573 573 0 0
1987 512 512 0 0
1988 534 534 0 0
1989 546 546 0 0
1990 595 595 0 0
1991 593 593 0 0
1992 484 484 0 0
1993 509 509 0 0
1994 576 576 0 0
1995 697 697 0 0
1996 839 839 0 0
1997 749 748 1* 0
1998 796 796 0 0
1999 886 880 0 0
2000 1,005 1,012 0 1
2001 932 934 0 2
2002 1,228 1,228 0 2
2003 1,727 1,724 4* 79
2004 1,758 1,754 0 94
* 1980: No orders were entered which modified or denied the requested authority, except one case in which the Court modified an order and authorized an activity for which court authority had not been requested.http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1980rept.html
* 1997: In one case, although satisfied as to the probable cause to believe the target to be an agent of a foreign power, the court declined to approve the application as plead for other reasons, and gave the government leave to amend the application. The government has filed a motion to withdraw that case as it has become moot.
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/1997rept.html
* 2003: Of the four applications thatteh Court denied, two merit additional discussion:
(1) In one case, the Court issued supplemental orders with respect to its denial, and the Government filed with the Court a motion for reconsideration of its rulings. The Court subsequently vacated its earlier orders and granted in part and denied in part the Government's motion for reconsideration. The Government has not yet appealed that ruling. In 2004, the Court approved a revised application regarding this target that incorporated modifications consistent with the Court's prior order with respect to the motion for reconsideration.(2) In another case, the Court initially denied the application without prejudice. The Government presented amended orders to the Court later the same day, which the Court approved. Because the court eventually approved this application, it is in the 1724 total referenced above.
bttt
Thats extremely annoying to me also, rambo. There really isn't much that is "democratic" about that party. They just do what Teddy, Howie and Slick Willie tell them to.
bttt
Surely it isn't news that "democratic" and "Democratic" are altogether different concepts.
bttt
Ann, You don't have a problem with W lack of protection along our borders? Eat two double cheese burgers daily and get back to me in a year or so.
how about her eating two In & Out burgers, or yummy Carls Jr. burgers!! eh
We, here in Texas, do not have In & Out, or Carls Jr., and I wish we did. We have Whataburger which is great!
I wish Ann or some other high profile conservative writer would do a detailed story about what it really takes to get a FISA warrant. A guy who is now retired, used to do it and was on Rush's show last week and it blew my mind when he explained how difficult and time consuming the entire process is. Seventy-two hours, my @ss! That's just more false democrat talking points when it comes to the reality.
Republicans are 'realists'. Democrats live in the alternate reality of a realist. To them everything that happens or they can cause to happen is a stepping stone to power, no matter where that stone is or what the possible consequences are. They never see the danger. Carter played the game, Clinton played the game. It is a game that can only end in disaster for the USA and it's citizens. I almost think that the Democrats are hoping for another 9/11, so long as none of their loved ones are hurt. What a political coo that would be or so they think.
The statutory language gives a pretty good clue. I heard the piece that the caller to Limbaugh gave, and took with a bit of a jaundiced eye. First, times and perspectives change - while the wheels of justice tend to turn slow and fine, they may have become more relaxed and swift in light of the stakes of terrorism. Second, the interpretation of the law was changed radically by the FISA review Court in 2002. Third, investigators tend to perceive any type of requirement for justification to be an unnecessary burden - it's perfectly natural for them to have that point of view.
But, at the same time, we just don't know if the 72 hour "get a warrant" requirement fits the kind of surveillance that is being undertaken. I do agree in principle, the more onerous the paperwork, the less of the activity.
And, since we don't know, the DEM talking point is, as you point out, false. President Bush has noted that the FISA structure is fine for longer term surveillance. That tidbit gives a little insight into a possible "short duration" element of some of the surveillance. That is, some surveillance may not even last as long as 72 hours.
From listening to the caller, it was my impression that he knew that the "process" for getting a warrant is still riddled with red tape. I'd like to know how much of that red tape has been removed in order to get the actual request moved through the bureaucracy. The guy's main complaint was that he was expected to "make the entire case" BEFORE a request could be moved through the process. He was frustrated that linking suspicions based on intelligence wasn't good enough.
From the article: After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before.
This is what bothers me and perfectly explains why Bush decided to sidestep a process that has obviously become politicized by a secret court.
Understood. The 4th amendment is a substantial barrier to unfettered investigation. He doesn't have to make the case, but he does have to convince a judge of soemthing that resembles probable cause.
He was frustrated that linking suspicions based on intelligence wasn't good enough.
Also understood. But I think it's NECESSARY to have the specific fact pattern that the "linking suspicions based on intelligence" phrase actually represents, before one can engage in reasoned arguments about whether or not his objection is reasonable.
My jaundiced eye is pretty evenly cast - I think the DEMs are lying, and I also think the administration is (probably reasonably, but I don't know) hiding the scope of surveillance.
From the article: After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before.
The reports indicate a small number of denials - unless one is to take a modification as a denial.
This is what bothers me and perfectly explains why Bush decided to sidestep a process that has obviously become politicized by a secret court.
I noted above (previous post, days ago) that red tape and manpower necessary to feed it is a possible justification for sidestepping.
Your assertion that the FISA Court has politicized the process is a common allegation. I don't share it because there is no evidence to support it. The Court may be mired in bureacracy, or it may be looking out to uphold the Constitution as it pertains to the 4th amendment, as the court sees it. I noticed in one case that the FISA Court expanded the scope of surveillance beyond what the investigator requested, which makes me think they aren't as one-sided as the investigators would hold.
One more thought, based on my reading of source materials. THe "red tape" you talk of may be outside of the FISA Court. It may be that the administration hamstrung itself, as Clinton's did with the Gorelick Wall. To the investigator, red tape is red tape - and nobody blames their own guys for putting it in place.
And I too would like to know how much of that red tape is in place, where it is (that is, which department erected it), and the reasoning behind it.
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.