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:
*Bingo* The guy Rush spoke with indicated that the "red tape process" had to be completed BEFORE the warrant request could even get before the FISA court. Makes me think that it must be very complicated to reform the bureaucracy, but you're right, Bush screwed up by not implementing reforms.
Rather than change what was wrong with the process after 9/11, they got frustrated with the existing bureaucracy, red tape & time it took to go through those channels. It should have been changed immediately after 9/11, but Bush doesn't lend his ear to enough people in the know who are dealing with endless bureaucratic frustrations everyday which delay important action.
as Clinton's did with the Gorelick Wall
I disagree with you here. There is no way the Clinton/Gorelick Wall can be compared to this situation. The Clinton administration didn't hamstring themselves. They implemented the wall to deliberately control the flow of information. It was an obstacle that was MEANT to serve no other purpose. Corruption ran rampant through that administration and the wall was a way to help keep the lid on.
I didn't mean to make much of a comparison, other than to use the Gorelick Wall as a concrete example of red tape being "self-erected" somewhere within the investigatory machinery itself.
Good post, yours - and I agree that the motives of Clinton were almost purely self-serving, and I believe that President Bush's motives are mostly nation-serving.
Thanks and I like the points you also made in your post #79. Too bad Bush won't listen to us, ha!
What do you think the numbers will show for the year 2005?
Perhaps they will be significantly increased.
My intuition is that the numbers will be about the same as 2003 & 2004. Less than 2000 requests, less than 8 rejections (some of which later turn into grants, BTW), and less than 100 modifications.
The report has come out in April in past years.
"We know they don't have the intellectual toughness to make hard decisions that will cost lives in order to save even more lives."
Post WWII when dems ran military actions---
+ Vietnam
+ Carter's little rescue fiasco, after he spoiled US/Iranian balance of relations
+ Bill Clinton's search for al Qaeda terrorists, directed from the Oral office cloakroom
Ann hits it right on target: lack intellectual toughness
Me too. May she rest in peace.
5.56mm
OH..
bttt
Pardon my midstream intrusion, but my understanding is the President doesn't need to go through FISA, because he has the power directly through the War Powers Act to wiretap without ANY court approval. Is that incorrect?
That is the administration's argument in a nutshell. Note though that it doesn't refer to the "War Powers Act," as that act tends to limit presidential autonomy.
As for the current warrantless surveillance, the administration concedes that it does not meet the criteria set out in 50 USC 1802 (the warrantless electronic surveillance provision of FISA). The administration argues that the surveillance is authorized by the inherent power of the President, in combination with the Congressional Authorization to use Military Force (AUMF).
Assistant Attorney General's Letters to Senate Intelligence Committee
The link above is to an official summary of the administration's argument.
bttt
If congress passes any legislation that attempts to limit presidential powers, isn't that unconstitutional? One branch can only "impede" another where the constitution expressly permits--no?
The argument that the President is raising is that the authority for warrantless electronic surveillance comes from a combination of inherent powers of the executive (to protect the country against invaders) and the Congressional grant of power to use military force against the terrorist organization(s) who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11.
At the same time, the President is arguing that the FISA statute can be construed in such a way that the authorized action is not afoul of FISA - that Congress when it passed FISA meant to and did "carve out" circumstances such as "inherent power plus AUMF."
With regard to a conclusion of "unconstitutional," that term is really loaded and means different things depending on context. Permit me to use an example of a President encroaching on the legislature (and on the people) by raising Lincoln's suspension of access to courts (suspension of habeas corpus) during the Civil War.
No question he did it, suspended habeas corpus. And no question that as the executive (he has the guns) there is no superior force to cause him to relent "quickly." A "not quickly" relent would be to lose the next election or to be impeached, but that's a digression. After the fact, the Supreme Court reviewed the cases, and concluded that the Presidents suspension of habeas was in one case (Merryman) unconstitutional because it was unilateral, and in another case (Milligan) was unconstitutional because the denial exceeded the suspension criteria in the Congressional grant.
And that gets me to your "where the constitution expressly permits." The Constitution isn't detailed - it's "expressions" are mostly of principle, and generally lack detail. Past circumstances disputed, negotiated and recorded in court cases, the Congressional Record, and Presidential writings provide the details. And it will be perpetually argued (as long as the republic exists) that a particular action is unconstitutional, or constitutional.
In the case of the NSA issue, not only are Congress and the president butting heads, a right of the people embodied in the 4th Amendment is also in the constitutional/unconstitutional balance. And one should ask "who decides whether the search is 'reasonable'?" The Constitution in general says that NO branch can decide an issue unilaterally. In the case of executive action, Congress giving authority and the Courts concurring in the judgment. The very presence of these checks and balances is what gives the people some control over their government.
bttt
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.