'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI: 10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ

New York Post ^ | October 15, 2007 | CHARLES HURT, Bureau Chief

[Doctor Raoul]

'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI

10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ
By CHARLES HURT, Bureau Chief

October 15, 2007

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.

This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."

[bert]

I guess every combat unit needs an AK 47 man to provide plausible deniability to account for the dead lawyer who somehow got shot during the heat of Battle.

It turns out that Bill Clinton was and still is an American enemy. He forced lawyers on the military

[Lancey Howard]

"A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers. For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission."

Ten hours? I wonder how many times these scumbag lawyers sent out for sandwiches and six-packs while they were "cobbling together legal grounds" to try to rescue this brave soldier? This is one of the most sickening stories of the entire war.

[CodeToad]

So, military personnel can no longer count on being rescued if the perps happen to be possibly civilians? So much for “I’ve got your back.”

[El Gato]

Smells like BS — under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis. I think someone’s confused here.

If they are in Iraq or other Turd World location, or anywhere but the US... well maybe. To tap their email, which might go through US providers or servers, that might be a horse of a different color, to the lawyers at least.

[Ramius]

Do you even have a passing familiarity with FISA? The fact that the NSA would even look at FISA in this case makes no sense whatsoever. FISA has never applied to individuals located outside of the US. That means the story is bogus -- either it's completely made up, or a substantial misreporting of what actually happened.

I believe you're assuming facts not in evidence. There's no reason to assume that all of the phones in question were Iraqi phones. I don't have any inside information, but it is entirely guessable that the phone(s) they were trying to tap were the personal cell phones of the soldiers. They had been kidnapped and quite possibly their phones were taken by the kidnappers-- who were using them. They might even have used them to call the United States, calling through his phonebook to harass and terrify family members? Who knows. I can see the lawyers mucking up the process of trying to get those taps in place on the phones of US citizens.

Just a thought.

[Realism]

What doesn't add up is why? Nobody including the Dim’s care if non-citizens get eavesdropped upon. Whats buried in this law we aren’t seeing?

[Eagles6]

Oh, I do put the blame where it lies. I just wish some nameless, faceless whoever would have grown a pair and did the right thing at the time even if it meant his career.

[cake_crumb]

"It strains credulity that in a war, we are consulting lawyers and adhering to statutes designed for civilians when soldiers go missing."

Yes. That has and continues to be the problem. Which, thanks to the Democrats, will continue being the problem, even after Obama gives control of the WWW to the UN.

[cake_crumb]

Look, the Democrats are using a communications act signed in 1927 as their basis. OK? During WWII, thank God, our Navy developed an intelligence unit which immediately recognized the problem with not intercepting wireless communications from enemy agents to their home countries. Admittedly, and despite the Warren Commission hype, that Naval Intelligence unit did not exist until it was invented several days following Pearl Harbor. It was developed in response to Pearl Harbor, in defiance of the law.

The thing is that congress was eventually bullied by the ruling powers to overrule the State Department, the source of that 1927 communications privacy act, on several occasions. If not for that, our hands would have been tied and we'd have been unable to win.

President Bush actually has precedent for the expansion of the original Naval Intelligence policies that - in defiance of the law, allowed us to win WWII, within a labyrinth of laws which were eventually enacted to protect Naval Intelligence....all of which happened a couple of years after Navy adopted it's cryptology policy. Little history lesson for you, oversimplified, from an historian who supports a president who also happens to be an historian.

It's not like the media is going to tell you this stuff these days.

[toddlintown]

Storm the Capital.

[Doctor Raoul]

Wrong. The whole world is a series of tubes.

You're a tube. A large flaming anal one.

[Doctor Raoul]

Don’t recall that.

[AndyJackson]

searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

This is not a problem with the law. This whoe argument is by, about and for DOJ attorneys. Once again, this is on this administration. I wish it were not so, but this is so typical of the second raters Bush has put in as agency heads and the third and fourth raters that they have promoted through the bureaucracy.

[Alter Kaker]

You're a tube. A large flaming anal one.

Charming. You clearly haven't read FISA, but rather than reading it and perhaps questioning the hitherto unassailable journalistic integrity of a New York City subway tabloid, you hurl childish insults. Anybody who has ever had any experience with FISA knows this story is nonsensical, and I'd suggest you grow up about it.

[trisham]

Thanks for shaming all of Free Republic.

[happygrl]

I can’t post what I think about the Democrats and Hate America “peace groups” that rail about “illegal surveillence” with about being banned for life.

Being banned from FR would be the least of my worries if I posted what I thought of the Democrats who put these obstacles in place.

I'd have men in suits at my door.

CWII.

[happygrl]

Until a majority of our Politicians accept the fact that we are involved in WW3, these things will continue to happen.

A lot of them do know we're in WW3, but they're rooting for the other side.

[Sandy]

Please someone tell me I not reading this right?

You're not reading it right. What you're missing is an understanding of the term "electronic surveillance", which has a specific definition spelled out in section 1801. Foreign-foreign communications don't fit the definition and therefore are not subject to FISA at all (meaning no FISA warrant is required).

BTW, once the new FISA law takes effect, certain foreign-foreign communications *will* be subject to FISA, i.e. those in which the target is a U.S. person.

[Sandy]

Smells like BS — under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis.

You're right. The part where the author says, "The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied," isn't the least bit true.

[kburi]

The current elected democrat leadership is cupable in the murder of these soldiers.

John Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, and Reid and other elected democrat leaders are same fellow travelers in directly assisting the enemy in causing casualties.

This Vietnam veteran says Shame on them, and shame on us who are silent!