'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."

[Doctor Raoul]

So, all the terrorists need to do is route every communication through a US source and thereby get a longer lead time before a tap is placed.

Excatly. And there is evidence that they are picking their cell and internet service providers accordingly.

[Doctor Raoul]

I dont buy this. I think the Post is making it up.

Nope. The NY Post is one of the few that "get it".

Because the Dems and the radical left have cowed people, we're puuting more and more UNNECESSARY restrictions on our intelligence agencies and warfighters.

[Raycpa]

This is worse than the article explains. Trying to tap Osama bin Laden's line requires an advance permission of the court. At least this delay was only 10 hours.

Here is part of the law that is applied so that court can be avoided:

1802 (a) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at (Note; That is the part that causes the initial delay)—

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of

communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

(Note lets see what "foreign powers means"

1802 As used in this subchapter: (a) “Foreign power” means— (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; (2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; (3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments; (4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor; (5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or (6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

Well isn't that special. Obama would likely be under defined as number 4 above and that means this wiretap exclusion does not apply to him. This seems to mean that Bush needs to go to court to wiretap Osama.

Does the second part of the law provide differently?

lets see.

or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Nope, Obama is exempt from copying his hard drive without a warrant.

Law source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html

Please someone tell me I not reading this right?

[detective]

You miss the point. The reason they had to spend 10 hours consulting lawyers and the Attorney General was because of the rules regarding surveillance that the Democrats insist on.

[Doctor Raoul]

Since it was non-US citizens, in a foreign country, common sense says that a warrant is unnecessary, even if it goes through a US switch.

You're not protecting American citizens and there's so much of the part outside the US that you should not expect privacy.

But I could see the ACLU, Democrat and anti-American "peace protesters" making the arguement that if the screams of an American Soldier being tortured to death could be heard in the background, they would demand that the monitoring be immediately stopped and a warrant obtained so that Bush couldn't violate that Soldier's constitutional rights.

[FocusNexus]

So, do you think that the NSA involved the lawyers, just to pass the time, to delay searching for the kidnapped soldier?

What doesn’t make sense, is the LAW, passed by the Dem Congress that those seeking wiretapping had to follow.

“Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

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. “

[mware]

I recall when the debate was going on in the House, it was driving me crazy.

The Democrats were insisting that the bill as they wanted it, would not stop any wiretapped between two people in foreign countries.

The Republicans who actually read the bill, knew that there was a catch-22, that would require intelligence agencies to get permission if the conversation went through the US. Even if the two were NOT in the US.

[Doctor Raoul]

It was Congressional Dems that forced that intepretation of what is and isn’t legal. For years, even under Clinton, it used to be legal.

[tiredoflaundry]

Unintended consequences.............

‘effin Dem bass turds...... blood on their hands

[Raycpa]

FISA simply does not apply to two individuals communicating with one another outside of US territory.

That isn't true according to the law. According to the law, the following entities can be wiretapped without a warrant (provided the AG determines no American's are not involved which is the delay the article refers to but after reading the law it appears to be add'l issues)

(a)

“Foreign power” means—

(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;

(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;

(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;

And according to section 1802, the following must require an advance court ruling

(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or

(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html

[Doctor Raoul]

That still doesn't make any sense. Why would the communications zip through US hubs?

The whole world is one one pair of wires, almost.

There's really no physical reason the hubs can't or shouldn't be in the US.

[FocusNexus]

“I’d RATHER we put the blame where ir really belongs: the “cival libertarians” that are Trotsky’s...I mean the Democrats useful idiots.”

They too are culpable, I agree.

[detective]

“I think someone’s confused here.”

Someone is definitely confused and it’s you. Read the rest of the posts and you may understand what is going on.

[mware]

Hey Doc, don't know if you have watch BBC today, but they are going to have Christopher HItchens on tonight.

He volunteered to be water boarded. They are going to show it on BBC News (News Night Comcast 114 BBC))tonight I believe at 6PM (EST)

[detective]

I dont buy this. I think the Post is making it up.
Whatever for would you need a warrant in Iraq.
Smells. Prolly BS.

It is not BS. You need to read the article and the other posts. It is explained well enough that even someone like you should be able to understand it.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[mware]

Hey Doc, is this the same attack where two other troopers were killed and their bodies mutilated?

I believe on one of the original post after this happen, a family members of one of the men posted here on FR.

[Alter Kaker]

That isn't true according to the law. According to the law, the following entities can be wiretapped without a warrant (provided the AG determines no American's are not involved which is the delay the article refers to but after reading the law it appears to be add'l issues)

That's only true within the United States. Outside the United States (and Iraq is certainly not in the US) NSA powers are much broader. If the Iraqis in question were within the US, I can see the NSA having had to work to get a FISA warrant. But that's not the situation here.

[swarthyguy]

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

[Alter Kaker]

So, do you think that the NSA involved the lawyers, just to pass the time, to delay searching for the kidnapped soldier?

No, I think the New York Post, not exactly the pinnacle of journalistic talent, may not be reporting the story correctly.