Wire Law Hampers Search For Kidnapped GI's

[red states rule]

Well folks, this is what happenes when we try to fight a PC war.

And this was in Iraq!!!!!!!!!


'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.

In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."

Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.

Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

U.S. officials had no way of knowing if Jimenez and his fellow soldiers were still alive during the nearly 10-hour delay.

The body of one was found a few weeks later in the Euphrates River and the terror group Islamic State of Iraq - an al Qaeda offshoot - later claimed in a video that Jimenez and the third soldier had been executed and buried.

"This is terrible. If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran. "Oh my God. I just keep asking myself, where is my son? What could have happened to him?"

Duran said she was especially frustrated, "because I thought they were doing everything possible to find him."

"You know that this is how this country is - everything is by the law. They just did not want to break the law, and I understand that. They should change the law, because God only knows what type of information they could have found during that time period."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152007/news/nationalnews/wire_law_failed__lost_gi.htm

[JohnDoe]

I truely do NOT understand this....rsr? I mean, President Bush and the NSA have put wire taps on American citizens, without warrent, in our very own country? Thousands of them, without any warrent used or needed according to President Bush.

Why, in heaven's name, could they not do this with ACTUAL TERRORISTS that kidnapped our men?

What is going on here?

jd

[red states rule]

I truely do NOT understand this....rsr? I mean, President Bush and the NSA have put wire taps on American citizens, without warrent, in our very own country? Thousands of them, without any warrent used or needed according to President Bush.

Why, in heaven's name, could they not do this with ACTUAL TERRORISTS that kidnapped our men?

What is going on here?

jd

They did not put wire taps on American citizens, and this is a result of the liberals demanding we protect the "rights" of terrorists

Your Dems in Congress are showing what happens when they demand we fight a PC war

[Immanuel]

This is hogwash.

I am certain our soldiers on the ground were not sitting on their thumbs waiting for approval to wiretap phones. They were out there running a massive manhunt for Jimenez and the others. I do not believe that instant wiretapping privileges would have changed the outcome of this event.

Mrs. Duran is being used as a tool by the administration.

The loss of Spc Jimenez and the others is tragic. I wish it had never happened. I wish to God we were not putting our fine young men and women in harm's way as we are. The President has chosen this war and we must wage it, but that does not mean that we should toss out our laws or our morality.

Specialist Jimenez gave his life for his country. May God smile upon his soul and may his sacrifice help bring a speedy end to this war.

Sorry, but I do not believe that we should give the goverment carte blanche to wire tap phones, enter homes, arrest anyone suspected terrorists or not without some kind of oversight.

Hillary Clinton is the last person in the world that I would want to have those abilities and it seems there is a good possibility that if we don't reign in this Presidental Administration's powers hers may be the next to wield them.

Immie

[red states rule]

This is hogwash.

I am certain our soldiers on the ground were not sitting on their thumbs waiting for approval to wiretap phones. They were out there running a massive manhunt for Jimenez and the others. I do not believe that instant wiretapping privileges would have changed the outcome of this event.

Mrs. Duran is being used as a tool by the administration.

The loss of Spc Jimenez and the others is tragic. I wish it had never happened. I wish to God we were not putting our fine young men and women in harm's way as we are. The President has chosen this war and we must wage it, but that does not mean that we should toss out our laws or our morality.

Specialist Jimenez gave his life for his country. May God smile upon his soul and may his sacrifice help bring a speedy end to this war.

Sorry, but I do not believe that we should give the goverment carte blanche to wire tap phones, enter homes, arrest anyone suspected terrorists or not without some kind of oversight.

Hillary Clinton is the last person in the world that I would want to have those abilities and it seems there is a good possibility that if we don't reign in this Presidental Administration's powers hers may be the next to wield them.

Immie


If you have something to counter the time line in the article please post it.

[Immanuel]

If you have something to counter the time line in the article please post it.

You know as well as I do that our soldiers were not sitting there picking their butts while lawyers were hashing out whether or not it was okay to tap phones. It may very well have taken 10 hours to get the okay, in fact, I am surprised it only took 10 hours, but there is no way in Hell you can convince me that during that time the U.S. Military was not conducting an all out search for those soldier.

I also highly doubt that they would have been able to analyze the chatter quickly enough to have made a bit of difference. Regardless of what the administration says about it. They can tell me that if they had approval to tap those phones they would have saved Specialist Jimenez' life. Sure they could have... where's Osama bin Ladin?

Immie

[red states rule]

You know as well as I do that our soldiers were not sitting there picking their butts while lawyers were hashing out whether or not it was okay to tap phones. It may very well have taken 10 hours to get the okay, in fact, I am surprised it only took 10 hours, but there is no way in Hell you can convince me that during that time the U.S. Military was not conducting an all out search for those soldier.

I also highly doubt that they would have been able to analyze the chatter quickly enough to have made a bit of difference. Regardless of what the administration says about it. They can tell me that if they had approval to tap those phones they would have saved Specialist Jimenez' life. Sure they could have... where's Osama bin Ladin?

Immie


Given how Democrats and the liberal media are constantly waiting to jump on anything they do wrong - they may very well have waited for the OK

Murtha would have held a press conference to announce how the troops broke the law and how they violated the rights of the terrorists

[Immanuel]

Given how Democrats and the liberal media are constantly waiting to jump on anything they do wrong - they may very well have waited for the OK



You are speculating with this post.

However, if that were the case, then the man in charge on the ground in Iraq should be court-martialed. I don't believe for a moment that he sat there waiting for approval to begin the manhunt.

The manhunt on the ground would have begun immediately. The wire-tapping would not have been done from Iraq anyway. All that work would have been done from the States while the men on the ground would have been searching every corner of the country for the missing soldiers.

Immie

[red states rule]

You are speculating with this post.

However, if that were the case, then the man in charge on the ground in Iraq should be court-martialed. I don't believe for a moment that he sat there waiting for approval to begin the manhunt.

The manhunt on the ground would have begun immediately. The wire-tapping would not have been done from Iraq anyway. All that work would have been done from the States while the men on the ground would have been searching every corner of the country for the missing soldiers.

Immie

Read the link

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.

This is why they had to wait. This is why trying to fight a PC war is insane

[Immanuel]

Read the link

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.

This is why they had to wait. This is why trying to fight a PC war is insane

I read the link.

I understand why they had to wait to tap phones. It does not mean they could not operate a full scale manhunt on the ground in the meantime.

Are you trying to convince me that the police can't look for a missing child here in America because they can't tap phones?

Immie

[red states rule]

I read the link.

I understand why they had to wait to tap phones. It does not mean they could not operate a full scale manhunt on the ground in the meantime.

Are you trying to convince me that the police can't look for a missing child here in America because they can't tap phones?

Immie

As I said if you have anything to disprove the soldiers actions - post it. I can see where they would have to cool their heels

Have to keep the ACLU happy you know

[retiredman]

FISA allows for links to be placed on lines and warrants to be obtained after the fact. Isn't that right, Immie?

[Immanuel]

FISA allows for links to be placed on lines and warrants to be obtained after the fact. Isn't that right, Immie?

That is what you libs always tried to tell me. ;)

But, yes, I believe that I read that somewhere.

That doesn't mean I like the idea of opening the door for Hillary Clinton to tap my phones because she declares any and all Pro-lifers enemies of the state. We need to keep the reigns on our runaway government before they reign our freedoms in.

Immie

[Immanuel]

As I said if you have anything to disprove the soldiers actions - post it. I can see where they would have to cool their heels

Have to keep the ACLU happy you know

Right, can you just see General Patton sitting there telling his men that they could not search for their friends because the ACLU might have a hissy fit?

In about three weeks the real story will break out and once again we will be hearing how the administration manufactured more lies and half truths to support their claim that they are protecting us.

Immie

[red states rule]

Right, can you just see General Patton sitting there telling his men that they could not search for their friends because the ACLU might have a hissy fit?

In about three weeks the real story will break out and once again we will be hearing how the administration manufactured more lies and half truths to support their claim that they are protecting us.

Immie


Gen Patton did not have to deal with the Democrat party undermining the war, the liberal media publishing classified information (the wire tap story started with their leaking that info) and the NY times running a smear ad on Ike

[bullypulpit]

Well folks, this is what happenes when we try to fight a PC war.

And this was in Iraq!!!!!!!!!


'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.

In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."

Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.

Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

U.S. officials had no way of knowing if Jimenez and his fellow soldiers were still alive during the nearly 10-hour delay.

The body of one was found a few weeks later in the Euphrates River and the terror group Islamic State of Iraq - an al Qaeda offshoot - later claimed in a video that Jimenez and the third soldier had been executed and buried.

"This is terrible. If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran. "Oh my God. I just keep asking myself, where is my son? What could have happened to him?"

Duran said she was especially frustrated, "because I thought they were doing everything possible to find him."

"You know that this is how this country is - everything is by the law. They just did not want to break the law, and I understand that. They should change the law, because God only knows what type of information they could have found during that time period."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152007/news/nationalnews/wire_law_failed__lost_gi.htm

Under the current "Protect America Act" a warrant can be secured retroactively up to thirty days after surveillance begins and can last for up to a year. Even under FISA a warrant could be retroactively obtained 72 hours after surveillance begins.

Given those facts, the story is either bogus or somebody screwed up the process. My money is on the former.

Now, how is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting and defending the United States?

[red states rule]

Under the current "Protect America Act" a warrant can be secured retroactively up to thirty days after surveillance begins and can last for up to a year. Even under FISA a warrant could be retroactively obtained 72 hours after surveillance begins.

Given those facts, the story is either bogus or somebody screwed up the process. My money is on the former.

Now, how is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting and defending the United States?

The "rights" of the terrorists are being protected at the expense of our troops.

The left and ACLU should be very pleased with this

[red states rule]

Case of Kidnapped Soldiers Used to Debate Terror Warrant Law
Monday, October 15, 2007

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on the Democratic version of a bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that opponents say will make it harder to track possible suspects such as those involved in the kidnapping of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

The latest bill would require more warrants to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. Intelligence officials, for example, would have to get a warrant in advance if they want to eavesdrop on a suspected terrorist overseas who they think may be calling someone in the United States.

Democratic supporters say the limits on wiretapping without a warrant is aimed at protecting Americans from unnecessary surveillance.

"If you're going after Al Qaeda, you have the ability to go after Al Qaeda. But it says if an American becomes a U.S. target, then you have to have a warrant, and we believe that's what FISA originally contemplated. That's what FISA ought to now contemplate," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who added that the court allows retroactive warrants within 45 days.

But Republican critics say the new bill would require intelligence agencies to get warrants on every suspected terrorist — just in case they call the U.S. They argue that's never before been required and is an overcautious burden.

"We were in a position earlier this year where we were having to pull analysts off of their jobs to write these FISA court warrants," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "There are a number of Democrats who want to sit down and work this out with us, and I think Steny may be one of them.

"But he and others in the Democrat Party are being yanked by the left, by the ACLU and others. And at the end of the day, the goal has to be what do we need to do to protect the American people."

Opponents of the bill say an example of the shortfall in the Democratic version can be seen in the kidnapping of U.S. soldiers Spc. Alex Jimenez, Pfc. Byron Fouty and Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr. on May 12. In the days just after the kidnapping, military and intelligence officials were frantically searching for the troops.

On May 15, three days after the kidnapping, officials thought they might have identified the kidnappers and realized that to follow up on their lead they would need a warrant because the information was traveling over U.S. telecommunications infrastructure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301856,00.html

[bullypulpit]

The "rights" of the terrorists are being protected at the expense of our troops.

The left and ACLU should be very pleased with this

How is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting and defending the United States?

[theHawk]

I read the link.

I understand why they had to wait to tap phones. It does not mean they could not operate a full scale manhunt on the ground in the meantime.

Are you trying to convince me that the police can't look for a missing child here in America because they can't tap phones?

Immie

Soldiers running around in the streets is not the best way to look for kidnapped victims. I'd take intelligence over random searches any day. The whole point is that for 10 hours they could not do the wire tap to get the intelligence needed to save these soldiers. You can have 10,000 soldiers conducting random searches and they won't find shit, but one wiretap on terrorists talking to each other could reveal their fate.


This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Since when do non-US citizens have the right to not be wire-tapped when using a privately owned phone company's lines that run through the US?

[JohnDoe]

Soldiers running around in the streets is not the best way to look for kidnapped victims. I'd take intelligence over random searches any day. The whole point is that for 10 hours they could not do the wire tap to get the intelligence needed to save these soldiers. You can have 10,000 soldiers conducting random searches and they won't find shit, but one wiretap on terrorists talking to each other could reveal their fate.


This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Since when do non-US citizens have the right to not be wire-tapped when using a privately owned phone company's lines that run through the US?Regardless the Hawk, FISA allows wiretaps in emergency, without permission or a warrent, IF the president ok's it....and they can go and get the warrent 72 hours after the fact and now, they can get the warrent 30 days AFTER the act of tapping them?

What stopped the military in Iraq from doing this when the FISA llaw of wiretapping permits it?

Please explain why the military could not do this? Was it the President or the attorney general that they could not reach to get permission?



jd

[Immanuel]

Soldiers running around in the streets is not the best way to look for kidnapped victims. I'd take intelligence over random searches any day. The whole point is that for 10 hours they could not do the wire tap to get the intelligence needed to save these soldiers. You can have 10,000 soldiers conducting random searches and they won't find shit, but one wiretap on terrorists talking to each other could reveal their fate.


This has nothing to do with the Constitution. Since when do non-US citizens have the right to not be wire-tapped when using a privately owned phone company's lines that run through the US?

Terrorist (if they are non-U.S. Citizens) have no rights under our laws.

However, I am deeply concerned in where this will lead. Today, we talk about Al Qaeda kidnappers. Tomorrow we may be talking about any number of Americans who happen to piss off someone in an administration.

The second link provided by RSR is a starting point in what I am speaking about. Hypothetically let's say a terrorist is suspected of contacting an American citizen; therefore, the government taps the American's phone line in an attempt to catch that terrorist and instead of catching the terrorists, overhears this citizen discussing a purchase of stock with a friend (that technically would be considered insider trading because the friend happens to work for Walmart and over-heard that a major deal with Matel was about to be signed) and then wait to nab his butt once he makes the purchase. Is what the citizen did illegal? Yes. Deliberate? Most likely not. Now he's a felon because someone told him to buy Walmart. Just ask Martha.

There is nothing at all that says that the government cannot tap phones. Rather, they have to do so with oversight by the courts and honestly, I don't have a problem with that. Could the government have begun tapping lines immediately and gone after the warrant later? According to FISA the answer to that question is Absolutely Yes.

So the fact that they did not is a screw up of the government not the law.

Just because Uncle George doesn't want to play by the rules doesn't mean I want the rules thrown out for his convenience!

Immie

[red states rule]

Terrorist (if they are non-U.S. Citizens) have no rights under our laws.

However, I am deeply concerned in where this will lead. Today, we talk about Al Qaeda kidnappers. Tomorrow we may be talking about any number of Americans who happen to piss off someone in an administration.

The second link provided by RSR is a starting point in what I am speaking about. Hypothetically let's say a terrorist is suspected of contacting an American citizen; therefore, the government taps the American's phone line in an attempt to catch that terrorist and instead of catching the terrorists, overhears this citizen discussing a purchase of stock with a friend (that technically would be considered insider trading because the friend happens to work for Walmart and over-heard that a major deal with Matel was about to be signed) and then wait to nab his butt once he makes the purchase. Is what the citizen did illegal? Yes. Deliberate? Most likely not. Now he's a felon because someone told him to buy Walmart. Just ask Martha.

There is nothing at all that says that the government cannot tap phones. Rather, they have to do so with oversight by the courts and honestly, I don't have a problem with that. Could the government have begun tapping lines immediately and gone after the warrant later? According to FISA the answer to that question is Absolutely Yes.

So the fact that they did not is a screw up of the government not the law.

Just because Uncle George doesn't want to play by the rules doesn't mean I want the rules thrown out for his convenience!

Immie

JD - if terrorists have no rights then why is your party in a snit over Club Gitmo?

Another thing to remember JD there is only one rule in war

We win and they lose

[red states rule]

FISA allows for links to be placed on lines and warrants to be obtained after the fact. Isn't that right, Immie?

You can;t just walk in and get the OK

It took nearly 10 hours for the lawyers to show "probable cause" before they could get the OK

Have to make sure the rights of terrorists are not violated

[Immanuel]

JD - if terrorists have no rights then why is your party in a snit over Club Gitmo?

Another thing to remember JD there is only one rule in war

We win and they lose

Are you insinuating that I am JD? If so you are wrong... way wrong. Also, I have no party. I left the Republican Party when I began to feel that they had sold out our core values as Americans.

I am, however, upset about Guantanamo for much the same reason as I mentioned in my earlier posts. We, as a nation of moral individuals, must protect the rights of the innocent and the accused. Once they are proven guilty then fine, they have no rights, but until then they are innocent until proven guilty. I don't even care if they are American citizens or not. Until they are proven guilty they have basic human rights.

If we win by giving up our morality, we lose.

Immie

[retiredman]

again...nothing in FISA prevents law enforcement from immediately acting on intell and installing a wiretap...

FISA allows the administration to take 72hours AFTER the wiretap is installed to appear before the FISA court and explain why they should be given a warrant to do what they have already been doing for 72hours. NOTHING in the LAW caused this ten hour delay. Blame it on the inept Bush administration. Liberals had nothing to do with it

[red states rule]

again...nothing in FISA prevents law enforcement from immediately acting on intell and installing a wiretap...

FISA allows the administration to take 72hours AFTER the wiretap is installed to appear before the FISA court and explain why they should be given a warrant to do what they have already been doing for 72hours. NOTHING in the LAW caused this ten hour delay. Blame it on the inept Bush administration. Liberals had nothing to do with it

Not so

As the following schedule for May 15 shows, the investigators were delayed from tracking the suspects:

— At 10 a.m., U.S. officials came upon the lead that suggested they may have located the suspected kidnappers and needed to access "certain communications."

— At 10:52 a.m., the National Security Agency notified the Justice Department that under the existing FISA law at the time, a warrant was needed to eavesdrop because the communications passed through the U.S. infrastructure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301856,00.html

[retiredman]

because Dubya's inept National Security Council does not know the law, that is certainly not the fault of liberals. FISA is clear: domestic wiretaps are may be placed without delay and without warrant and the administration has 72 hours after the fact to get the FISA court to issue the warrant.

[Immanuel]

In the effort to get approval for emergency surveillance, Justice Department officials had to track down then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was in Texas, and relay the facts that had been established. The memo from Democratic staff notes that this became necessary because the three officials with the Justice Department authority to grant permission to conduct emergency surveillance were unavailable.

A fourth — the assistant attorney general in charge of the national security division — had been granted authority by Congress to authorize surveillance, they say, but because the Justice Department hadn't changed its internal regulations, the assistant attorney general was prevented from granting the approval.

— At 7:18 p.m., Gonzales approved the emergency surveillance based on their certainty that the court would grant the warrant retroactively within the week

— At 7:38 p.m. — nine hours and 38 minutes after the officials got a lead in the search, the intercepts of the suspected kidnappers began.

"Because of the Bush administration's bungling, minutes turned into hours. And during those hours, the intelligence community waited for information on the three missing soldiers ... Now, the Republicans want to lay this at the feet of Congress?" reads the memo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301856,00.html

It doesn't appear to me that the Law was the cause of the delay. It seems more like it is too much government and too few brains.

Immie

[red states rule]

because Dubya's inept National Security Council does not know the law, that is certainly not the fault of liberals. FISA is clear: domestic wiretaps are may be placed without delay and without warrant and the administration has 72 hours after the fact to get the FISA court to issue the warrant.

They knew the law - that is why it took so long. Libs now have us jumping through hoops to protect the rights of terrorists

BTW, this was NOT domestic - it was in Iraq

[red states rule]

In the effort to get approval for emergency surveillance, Justice Department officials had to track down then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was in Texas, and relay the facts that had been established. The memo from Democratic staff notes that this became necessary because the three officials with the Justice Department authority to grant permission to conduct emergency surveillance were unavailable.

A fourth — the assistant attorney general in charge of the national security division — had been granted authority by Congress to authorize surveillance, they say, but because the Justice Department hadn't changed its internal regulations, the assistant attorney general was prevented from granting the approval.

— At 7:18 p.m., Gonzales approved the emergency surveillance based on their certainty that the court would grant the warrant retroactively within the week

— At 7:38 p.m. — nine hours and 38 minutes after the officials got a lead in the search, the intercepts of the suspected kidnappers began.

"Because of the Bush administration's bungling, minutes turned into hours. And during those hours, the intelligence community waited for information on the three missing soldiers ... Now, the Republicans want to lay this at the feet of Congress?" reads the memo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301856,00.html

It doesn't appear to me that the Law was the cause of the delay. It seems more like it is too much government and too few brains.

Immie

The law did cause the delay

Dems are trying vcover their asses in this

But here's where the argument differs. According to FISA bill opponents, at 12:53 p.m., lawyers and intelligence officials began working to confirm probable cause to identify the kidnappers as foreign insurgents and therefore a legitimate target. However, the Democratic staff reports that the NSA general counsel at that time said the FISA requirements had been met for collecting "communications inside the U.S."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301856,00.html

[jimnyc]

again...nothing in FISA prevents law enforcement from immediately acting on intell and installing a wiretap...

FISA allows the administration to take 72hours AFTER the wiretap is installed to appear before the FISA court and explain why they should be given a warrant to do what they have already been doing for 72hours. NOTHING in the LAW caused this ten hour delay. Blame it on the inept Bush administration. Liberals had nothing to do with it

Do you think the administration would be acting in the same manner and taking these lame steps if it weren't for the constant yapping about rights for the terrorists by the liberals?

[red states rule]

Do you think the administration would be acting in the same manner and taking these lame steps if it weren't for the constant yapping about rights for the terrorists by the liberals?

The NY Times would have had a headline

"Bush Ignores Wire Tap Laws Once Again"

[retiredman]

the law is the law. the law says wiretap immediately and get the warrant later. If the NSC is inept, and doesn't understand how FISA works, shame on them.... don't go blaming liberals for the ineptitude of the bushies

[red states rule]

the law is the law. the law says wiretap immediately and get the warrant later. If the NSC is inept, and doesn't understand how FISA works, shame on them.... don't go blaming liberals for the ineptitude of the bushies

You just don't get it - or you are ignoring the facts again

Probably the latter

They did follow the law - thanks to the left and their desire to protect terrorist rights

[retiredman]

and if they claimed that the law required them to wait ten minutes, let alone ten hours, then they do not understand the law.

[jimnyc]

Then the liberals should stop crying and whining about the law at every turn.

[red states rule]

and if they claimed that the law required them to wait ten minutes, let alone ten hours, then they do not understand the law.

I did not know your resume also included being a lawyer trained in FISA and Federal wiretap requirements

[retiredman]

I have read the relevant sections of FISA. It really is that simple. Put a wiretap on if you have operational intelligence that leads you to believe it will be successful....take 72 hours to get it approved. The law has been around since '78...over the years, thousands of wiretaps have been placed without warrants and those warrants have been obtained after the fact.

[glockmail]

I did not know your resume also included being a lawyer trained in FISA and Federal wiretap requirements That man is amazing. :pee:

[bullypulpit]

You can;t just walk in and get the OK

It took nearly 10 hours for the lawyers to show "probable cause" before they could get the OK

Have to make sure the rights of terrorists are not violated

The warrants can be retroactive. That means they can start the surveillance and get the warrant later. What part of that don't you understand?

[bullypulpit]

Then the liberals should stop crying and whining about the law at every turn.

The Constitution is the law of the land, it is the foundation of all of our freedoms. Absent the Constitution, we have no freedom...America is no more. How is supporting and defending the Constitution incompatible with supporting and defending America?

[bullypulpit]

I did not know your resume also included being a lawyer trained in FISA and Federal wiretap requirements

You just need to actually READ the relevant laws. Or is that simply beyond your obviously limited intellectual capacity?

[red states rule]

The Constitution is the law of the land, it is the foundation of all of our freedoms. Absent the Constitution, we have no freedom...America is no more. How is supporting and defending the Constitution incompatible with supporting and defending America?

If only libs would understand the US Constitution is for US citizens and not for foreign terrorists

[red states rule]

You just need to actually READ the relevant laws. Or is that simply beyond your obviously limited intellectual capacity?

Usually the liberal version the truth is really the opposite of what they say it is

This is another example of how liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

[bullypulpit]

If only libs would understand the US Constitution is for US citizens and not for foreign terrorists

Habeas corpus applied to all persons...Past tense since the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Under the Constitution, US treaty obligations ARE the law of the land...And those include the UN Conventions Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, etc.

[bullypulpit]

Usually the liberal version the truth is really the opposite of what they say it is

This is another example of how liberals are giving aid and comfort to the enemy

So, reading the relevant laws is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"? That's probably one of the most ridiculous non sequiturs you've ever vomited forth on the board.

[theHawk]

Habeas corpus applied to all persons...Past tense since the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Under the Constitution, US treaty obligations ARE the law of the land...And those include the UN Conventions Against Torture, the Geneva Conventions, etc.

Habeas corpus applys to all citizens of the U.S.

And Habeas Corpus can be suspended as per the Constitution, not the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Your flat out lies are exposed again:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.

And thanks for ignoring my first post. I guess you have absolutely nothing to counter it.

[theHawk]

What stopped the military in Iraq from doing this when the FISA llaw of wiretapping permits it?

Please explain why the military could not do this? Was it the President or the attorney general that they could not reach to get permission?


Evidently fear of being sued by the ACLU for violating the "rights" of the terrorists.

[theHawk]

I am, however, upset about Guantanamo for much the same reason as I mentioned in my earlier posts. We, as a nation of moral individuals, must protect the rights of the innocent and the accused. Once they are proven guilty then fine, they have no rights, but until then they are innocent until proven guilty. I don't even care if they are American citizens or not. Until they are proven guilty they have basic human rights.


The problem with applying all these rights to terrorists picked up fighting against U.S. soldiers is that it would be hard to present a case to a court. You have to understand that these people are picked up by our military overseas, and there are a lot of them. These people are usually caught in the act, but trying to prove their guilt months or even years later could be very difficult. Are you going to require that the military turn into police, in that every time they pick someone up they need to gather evidence for a future court case? Are the soldiers going to be asked to testify in a court what they saw in a battlefield? What happens if the soldier that caught a terrorist later is killed in action? Guess the terrorist walks free....even though he may have been caught red-handed. I know it sounds all fine and dandy to say you want these people 'innocent until proven guilty', but when you're dealing with soldiers in a war, it will not mesh well with a court of law. Whats next? Do you people want our military to read terrorists the Miranda Rights?


War is the presumption of guilt.
We're at war.
If our own citizens don't trust our own military in this war, then we are already lost.

[SpidermanTUba]

Alex Jimenez's wife is a criminal, so who cares what she thinks?

[Immanuel]

The problem with applying all these rights to terrorists picked up fighting against U.S. soldiers is that it would be hard to present a case to a court. You have to understand that these people are picked up by our military overseas, and there are a lot of them. These people are usually caught in the act, but trying to prove their guilt months or even years later could be very difficult. Are you going to require that the military turn into police, in that every time they pick someone up they need to gather evidence for a future court case? Are the soldiers going to be asked to testify in a court what they saw in a battlefield? What happens if the soldier that caught a terrorist later is killed in action? Guess the terrorist walks free....even though he may have been caught red-handed. I know it sounds all fine and dandy to say you want these people 'innocent until proven guilty', but when you're dealing with soldiers in a war, it will not mesh well with a court of law. Whats next? Do you people want our military to read terrorists the Miranda Rights?


War is the presumption of guilt.
We're at war.
If our own citizens don't trust our own military in this war, then we are already lost.


Tell that to the innocent men who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time or the man that pissed off his neighbor in Iraq and that neighbor went to the U.S. Military and "claimed" his neighbor planted an IED.

It is not the military that I do not trust, it is the civilians who run the military.

I understand it would be difficult, but simply put, if I were in the shoes of any one of those innocent men in Guantanamo I would want to have a chance to prove my innocence. Those men will die there because of Bush's war. There is almost zero chance of them ever attaining freedom again.

Put yourself in their shoes Hawk.

Immie

[SpidermanTUba]

This article is complete BS, BTW. They could have legally performed the search before getting the warrant.

FISA law allows for emergency wiretaps to begin immediately and to be applied for AFTER the fact. The fact that the Justice Department did not use this ability is a reflection of their own incompetence, not a deficiency in the law.

[trobinett]

This article is complete BS, BTW. They could have legally performed the search before getting the warrant.

FISA law allows for emergency wiretaps to begin immediately and to be applied for AFTER the fact. The fact that the Justice Department did not use this ability is a reflection of their own incompetence, not a deficiency in the law.

Actually, Spiderman got it right this time.

Incompetence, and government seem to go hand and hand these days.

[bullypulpit]

Actually, Spiderman got it right this time.

Incompetence, and government seem to go hand and hand these days.

Well, yeah...Look at who's President.