Why we don't trust you with national security

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-Qaida Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory – like convicted al-Qaida 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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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.

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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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.

The left has conveniently forgotten all about Eschelon and Carnivore where they spied on millions of Americans, searching for "key words" in our email, posts, instant messages, and phone calls. All of which took place under Clinton and in fact, Carnivore was co-sponsored by Feistein. NSA spying was used extensively UNDER CLINTON.

Bush used it to monitor people who were communicating with KNOWN TERRORISTS overseas .. and suddenly the left wants it stopped? You have John Dean, the leader of the DNC telling Americans we are going to lose a war (that we are winning). You have the leader of the Dem. minority Reid, boasting that the left has killed the Patriot Act.

We see the left systematically trying to weaken this nation's ability to fight terrorists and stoping another 9/11. Dems are trying to make losing some civil rights .. comparable .. to having thousands of americans slaughtered by terrorists. Beleive me, when the US is viciously attacked with another 9/11 or worse, Americans will blame the Dems for trying undermine our ability to protect ourselves

So long as Dems continue to promote the theory that Americans deserved what they got on 9/11 .. they will never convince anyone ..that they are the party that can be trusted when it comes to the security of Americans.

Brilliant by I have ONE but. No one is losing any civil rights. You do NOT have a right to act as an agent of a terrorist group plotting mass murder of fellow citizens. Once someone chose to act as as agent of such a group they switched to being an ENEMY, not a MEMBER, or our civic society.

It is a subtle point which is why the Hysteric Left has so much trouble grasping it. This is one of those murky gray areas that the pat assertions and comfortable assumptions about "Constitutional Rights" does NOT address. At what point do you quit being a member of our society and become and ENEMY of it? That is one of the things in a post 9-11 world we are going to have to figure out as a society. We have competing views, I do NOT think the political Lefts view is one that will win much favor with the voters.

I'm sure we can all agree that our government officials in their entirety should follow the existing laws, and not violate the fourth amendment rights of Americans. If the amendment is flawed, there is no reason the threshold needed to repeal the amendment wouldn't be met through the proper methods our forefathers laid out for us.

Mr. Tice is stating unconstitutional acts have been committed by our government officials.

The Justice Department is stating there were presidential powers granted by Congress in 2001 that supercedes this:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Whistleblower Protection Act protects this guy in order for him to testify. Without good laws like that, illegal acts like this might go by without notice. I can't see how he would take this risk, without having good hard evidence showing how Americans' Constitutional rights were violated, combined with the fact that nothing, at no time, has given government officials the right to violate our fourth amendment rights. There is even a secret court that was created in order to get important warrants, very quickly, which several presidents have used in the past, and chose not to bypass, due to their lack of not being denied warrants, time and time again, because of their greater integrity.

This is going to be a long war. The American people are very, very, very well aware of the will of these terrorists to harm us. But are Americans scared enough to repeal the fourth amendment ? If so, they can simply change the amendment. There have been many, many bad crimes over the years, but none of them have been bad enough to scare us in to give up our fourth amendment rights. Our forefathers said those were inherent rights, meaning they cannot be taken away, like privileges can. It's not our property if the government can invade it without following the fourth amendment, and it being our property is what makes us Kings, the way our forefathers wanted us to be. Everything comes back to property. When we start giving up our property rights, like this, and the recent eminent domain cases, then we take a step towards being ruled by a King, where he owns our property, and can do with it however he pleases. Why must history repeat itself, when we have been gifted with the education required in order for us to share in the responsibility of defending our liberty ?

If we're really scared enough to give up these rights, because terrorism is worse than all other crimes, then I suggest we check ourselves. Isn't child molesting bad ? Rape ? Murdering ? If so, then aren't THOSE crimes bad enough to scare us in to giving up our fourth amendment rights ? Why shouldn't the President be allowed to spy on anyone talking to any child molester, rapist, or murderer, without getting a warrant then too ? It doesn't make sense why he would do that, when he could simply make a call, and say "Hey this is a guy talking to a bad guy", and if the court agreed, they would simply say "Ok, here's the warrant". That's the way it's been. We catch criminals like that all the time. If that system is truly flawed, then maybe it is time to change the system, through the proper methods. But if we agree that we should no longer follow the Constitution at all, then we can say the methods in the Constitution are wrong, because we've achieved the fear threshold our forefathers never predicted. Or they did predict it, which is why they laid out these methods.

What do you think ? Follow existing law, or break the laws that have grown stagnant soley in your and your close friends' opinions ?

>"At what point do you quit being a member of our society and become and ENEMY of it? "

I'd say that moment comes when you swear submission to this mission!

Sura 9:5 of the “Koran,” “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush.”

Kinda automatically makes them an enemy of all mankind! This "IS" their commandment! They have no choice in the matter! They are sworn to murder!

Time to put allah on the assheap of history!

ABC CBS NBC CNN its all the SAME, Propaganda.
Might as well call them all AmeriJazerra.
Show them how much Gravitas Hugh Bris has. Vote with your remote! Shut down the Alphabet channels.

He's Got A Plan
Zippo Hero

Kill A Commie For Mommie
Seven Dead Monkeys Page O Tunes

... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation....

In reading this, I see that there are cases of reasonable search and seizure. I also see that when Warrants are issued there are certain criteria to be met before issuance. I think you erroneously believe that every search and/or seizure must be accompianied by a warrant, but since I am not a lawyer I might be wrong. Perhaps someone can help me out.

When property is sized by emminent domain is a Civil Warrant issued to sieze that property and what does Probable Cause have to do with that? If terrorists (foreign and domestic) are monitored with no intention of arresting them is being made, but rather to Promote the General Welfare, then what does the issuance of warrants have to do with that? Can someone with legal expertise help me out?

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.