Thursday
10Aug2006
Invasion of Jihadists' Privacy Foils Mid-Air Terrorist Plot
Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 08:11AM Twenty-one British Muslims were arrested this morning in London when their plan to bomb out of the sky flights from the United Kingdom bound for the United States was thwarted. "This was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale," said Paul Stephenson, Department Commissioner of Scotland Yard. It isn't immediately known if there is a direct Al-Qaeda connection or if this plan was to be executed on the upcoming 5th anniversary of 9/11.
One of the most significant questions should be, "How were the terrorist plans exposed?" The answer: DOMESTIC SPYING. US and UK intelligence have been working on the investigation for months. The same surveillance criticized by Democrats in the United States is the same surveillance that today saved thousands of lives. British Intelligence reports that eavesdropping on phone conversations, spying on private e-mails, following suspects in cars and good old fashioned spying is what cracked the case. An invasion of personal privacy? Perhaps, but what good is personal privacy if one is too dead to enjoy it?Here are some terrorist plots foiled by "illegal spying" in recent years:
- July 2006 - Eight suspects (including an al-Qaeda loyalist) were arrested in a terrorist plot to inflict death and destruction by attacking the Holland Tunnel and subways in New York City used by tens of thousands of commuters.
- June 2006- A plan to attack the Canadian Parliament, take hostages and behead Prime Minister Harper was stopped. Techniques ranged from monitoring electronic communications, from cell phones and landlines to emails and computers, to physically following persons of interest as they move about and talk to others.
- June 2006- Seven men in Florida arrested in an alleged plot against the Sears Tower were part of a group of "homegrown terrorists" who sought to work with al-Qaeda but ended up conspiring with an informant.
- Feb. 2006- Three Ohio men trained by al-Qaeda with links to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi were indicted today on terrorism charges of planning attacks overseas to try to kill U.S. and coalition soldiers in Iraq and other countries, as well as for planning to assassinate Pres. Bush. (One of these terrorists tried to sue President Bush for illegally invading his constitutional right to privacy less than month after his arrest)
- Nov. 2005- Seventeen al-Qaeda thugs in Australia were arrested, their plan thwarted.
That was the short list.
Does Michael Moore still believe there is no terrorist threat? Why do Democrats still oppose the Patriot Act and spying on Terrorists? Did the New York Times miss an opportunity to give the terrorist thugs a heads up? Is there any reason anyone should listen to a liberal on matters of homeland security? Not if history is any teacher.
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Michelle Malkin Sister Toldjah Captain's Quaters Counterterrorism Blog Stop the ACLU Assorted Babble Morning Coffee Hot Air Ms. Underestimated Flopping Aces Riehl World View Outside the Beltway The Right Nation HooahWife
RELATED POSTS:
Technorati Tags: United Kingdom, Terrorism, Al-Qaeda, War On Terror, Homeland Security
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/625231
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/625231
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (71)
I still must hasten to point out that the US, at least, is only "spying" on terrorist suspects with verified links to terrorist groups and activities (ie, Osama bin-Laden has your phone number). To the best of my knowledge, their limit surveillance is not, has not and never will be directed against regular joe Americans as (1) we're too numerous and (2) we hate and are not connected to terrorism.
The MSM has a big black eye because of the Photochopped pictures and now international terrorism has been dealt a major defeat in a long line of major defeats. Frankly, love or hate President Bush but you can't deny his effectiveness in haulting terrorist threats against America and Americans. And it seems like the Brits are on the same page.
You also confuse legal domestic spying under a search warrant with illegal spying done without court approval. No one objects to our government's efforts to detect terrorists, we just want them to do it within the confines of the law.
Actually, you can deny Bush's effectiveness in halting terrorist threats. Not only did the Bush administration ignore Al Qaeda in 2001 and focus on their "axis of evil", but the invasion of Iraq created the perfect breading and training ground for hundreds of new jihadists.
Actually we can blame 911 on Clinton because he didn't do anything but play with himself when we were struck 5 times when he was playing president pleasure himself.
Actually president Bush did do more for prevention than you think camanintx. It's just your liberal bent mindset that prevents you from seeing the obvious.
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/08/10/its-nothing-more-than-a-planned-scare-tactic/
Ladies and gents, the news of the terrorist plots that were foiled this morning were as a result of a coordinated effort on the part of President Bush, VP Cheney, “Bush’s Brain” Karl Rove, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair - not to warn and advise people who were travelling to and from the UK, but instead to send a message to Lamont voters in CT and other anti-war nuts elsewhere in the country that voting for an anti-war candidate will have consequences!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/1e319890-9a89-4721-b9ae-bc30718b5153
Code Red for Lieberman Loss? Nutroots Alert Raised to 'Severe'
Posted by: Mary Katharine Ham at 7:56 AM
Most of the liberal blogs are pretty quiet about the British terror plot so far this morning. Their prerogative. They're in Nedrenaline mode anyway.
But AmericaBlog takes the chance to do some early-morning shark-jumping. His theory?
The Republican administration responded to the thwarting of an "imminent" and "massive" terror attack on trans-Atlantic flights with a Code Red security alert because a Democrat incumbent lost in a Connecticut Senate primary.
And isn't it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror.
And just at that moment we get our FIRST ever red alert. Beam me up, Scotty.
Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it. Read the article. They say the plot had an "Al Qaeda footprint." Ooh, are you scared yet? What that really means is that they found NO evidence whatsoever that the plot had anything to do at all with Al Qaeda, but the plot simply made them think "gosh, this is something Al Qaeda would do." That's what a footprint means. Nice, but no cigar.
Were these guys totally innocent? Probably not. But there's no reason to believe they were any more Osama's right-hand than Jose Padilla, the famed dirty-bomber who I think is now only being charged with jay-walking or something...
And the Republicans needed to divert attention, to stop this meme in its tracks, and lo' and behold we have our first terror alert that I can recall since the last election, and it's our first ever Red Alert! What a coincidence!
Karl Rove, you sly dog, you.
Oh, Lordy. This is why another meme was starting yesterday-- the one that says the Netroots liberals are driving the Democratic Party over the anti-war edge, to a place where they can no longer be trusted on national security issues (and, frankly, they were iffy before).
International terrorist plot, guys. You got a victory yesterday, but it's really not all about you.
And they wonder why we say they can't be trusted on security?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-laarman/al-qaedas-predictable-re_b_26938.html
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/lieberman-loses-code-red-code-red-code.html
Kathryn Jean Lopez rounds up some DU reax. Here’s one:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODg1MTRjZDE2ZWE0NTM5ZDYzZWQ4MjQ1Zjc4ZTVhN2Y=
“Exactly—why now? Why is this major disruption being discussed NOW. What else is going on? This sounds lke another Bush diversion tactic…Get the media to discuss terror, because there is something else that they don’t want us discussing. Bait & Switch technique.”
We also learn today that it’s Bush’s fault that the terrorist plots were even designed to begin with:
Britain’s Reward for Being Bush’s Ally
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/10/8417/24869
In the meantime, the sane words of John Derbyshire guide us back to reality:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Mzc3YzRiYjk1MGI4MDVlNWI2NTVmNmFhZjhhZDZhNzc=
I can’t resist pointing out (since Andy McCarthy is apparently too much of a gent to do so) that this latest plot illustrated an important point about terrorism: If you want to breed terrorists and give them the opportunity to mature their plans, there is no environment better than a free, open, “diversity”-whipped Western nation.
Rubble doesn’t make trouble. Neither do complaisant amoral dictators, so long as you keep their Swiss bank accounts well stuffed. The trouble comes from neat English suburbs with herbaceous borders and privet hedges, with bobbies on the beat and milkmen making daily deliveries.
Nor do poverty, oppression, and madrassas make terrorists. Comfortable lower-middle-class surroundings, authorities terrified of being called “racist,” and the British educational system, will accomplish the job perfectly well.
Another voice of reason, Jeff Goldstein, aptly quotes Terminator character Kyle Reese, who said:
http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/20787/
http://imdb.com/name/nm0000299/
Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Too bad the left is too busy wrongly painting someone else http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
as “the terminator” to notice who the real http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
ones are.
Also blogging about the foiled attacks: Pajamas Media, Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt’s, James Joyner at Outside the Beltway (who has a nice link roundup), John Hawkins, bRight and Early, Flopping Aces, Lorie Byrd at Wizbang (see also Kim Priestap’s post at Wizbang), Ed Driscoll, Villainous Company, All Things Beautiful, RightWinged.com, QandO
Let us see what the Left will say now.
Yes, the would-be assasins were caught thanks to "spying" measures, according to the news.
More detail is better, that is why everyone comes to Amy's site to read the news because she puts it all out there for every one to read.
Leticia don't kid yourself we already know what kind of obfuscation the left will use.
As for chat rooms, you might recall that Google went through quite a to-do when the government asked them to give over their records concerning porn sites…. Google refused. Now, under the President’s programs, when it comes to monitoring domestic phone patterns, foreign phone calls into the US and even chat room activity, the government doesn’t need a warrant to follow the lead. Good old fashioned detective work? Coupled WITH these new surveillance programs. I’d recommend you read the RELATED POSTS section just under my original post. Each entry/link has the full story and how specific elements of the programs were used.
Surely you don’t think that before 9/11, let’s say, or before the Patriot Act or the NSA programs, that this potential attack would have been stopped. If that were so, 9/11 would not have happened.
You said, “You also confuse legal domestic spying under a search warrant with illegal spying done without court approval. No one objects to our government's efforts to detect terrorists, we just want them to do it within the confines of the law.”
I’m not the one confused, friend. Read this titled “FISA judges say Bush within law”:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 29, 2006
President Bush broke no laws with the creation of the controversial surveillance program.
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
Actually Phil, I disagree with you on a couple of points: 1. While it is true that Clinton did not do anything about terrorism, it is not true that he played with himself. He had Monica and other interns do that for him. 2. While it is true that Clinton allowed Bin Laden to roam free 4 times, it was actually Carter who we could blame the current state of affairs of the Middle East on.
First, we don't "bread" terrorists, we do that to chicken. Second, I'd like to see some proof that we are in fact creating new terrorists, and how this is anything but spin and speculation on your part. Also, you seem to assert an fact that we sent thousands of troops into Afghanistan in search of Al Quada after 9/11 and then pulled out completely at the start of the Iraq war. This is blatant misrepresenation and flat out false. We have been killing Al Quada by the bushel ever since, and you might want to tell the troops in Afghanistan that they are ignoring Al Quada at Bush's command. You should get some interesting feedback. The fact is, we are more successful there than we are in Iraq because lets face it: In Iraq, there are no Canadians to send down those troublesome foxholes for us like there is in Afghanistan.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1230422,00.html
1) Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said this is a "very early stage" of a meticulous investigation that will "take us wherever the evidence leads".
"During the investigation an unprecedented level of surveillance has been undertaken and that surveillance has had as its objective to gather intelligence and evidence in support of the investigation," he said.
2) Britain has similiar tough anti-terrorism laws that have been controversial, just like Bush's NSA surviellence program:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/uk-f22.shtml
The Labour government's global anti-terrorism law came into effect Monday February 19. The sweeping measures it contains represent a significant undermining of civil liberties in Britain, and also have worldwide implications.
The new Terrorism Act replaces the 1973 Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA), which gave the police special powers to stop, search, arrest and detain terrorist suspects. Directed primarily against the Republican movement in Ireland, the PTA was responsible for a series of notorious judicial frame-ups, including the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six—wrongly imprisoned for terrorist bombings in Britain.
**********************
Go read the NYTimes.com blog: 9 out of 10 say it is a British and American government (Bush/Blair) conspiracy Plot to keep the war going in Iraq and the war on terrorism going. Does the New York Times know that mommy and daddy’s kids are playing with their computers again?
Comment by frumpet — August 10, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
**********************
**********************
What else would you expect 9 out of 10 NYTimes readers to say? They’re obviously anti-American, anti-war, anti-Christian conspiracy-mongers who have to blog at the NYTimes because their arguments cannot be taken seriously anywhere else.
Comment by Amy Proctor — August 10, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
**********************
**********************
Another terrorist plot thwarted?!?!? I almost forgot…it is an election year isn’t it. These are becoming so predictable you can practically set your watch to them. Question: What ever happened to all the terrorists that were caught with all the previous election year thwarted plots? High profile situations with massive media coverage and yet…..no terrorists?!?!? *POOF* into thin air! Thank the Lord Jesus that most people on the planet ain’t this freakin stoopid!!!
Comment by Syntax — August 10, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
**********************
**********************
Syntax, Wow, George W. Bush is GOOD! Even the terrorists cooperate with him! I suppose he just asked them to pull off the terror plot… what is there reward? It certainly isn’t 72 virgins; they’re all still alive.
Comment by Amy Proctor — August 10, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
**********************
Oh Amy your so great at this, It's like you don't even have to work at it to put these goofy liberals in their place. LOL I love it.
Of course your correct on those 2 Tim but I was just using the shortened abridged version of the facts as to not confuse the liberals any more than they already are. LOL
"Trent,
Actually, you can deny Bush's effectiveness in halting terrorist threats. Not only did the Bush administration ignore Al Qaeda in 2001 and focus on their "axis of evil", but the invasion of Iraq created the perfect breading and training ground for hundreds of new jihadists."
Really? So Clinton being in office 8 years and letting Osama go at least 3 times means that Bush's 8 months in office brought about..... all the previous terror attacks on the US (USS Cole, World Trade Center I, Beruit....) affords Bush the blame? Give me a break! That doesn't exactly add up, does it?
THE WORLD was a perfect breeding ground for terrorism BEFORE Iraq. Iraq did not create it. If anything, we've complicated it for the terrorists.
Does anyone really believe that Bush caused more Jihadists? What then is Clinton's excuse? Or Jimmy Carter's in the '70's for that matter?
I am enormously grateful that this plot was thwarted. It is a chilling reminder of the kind of enemy we face today.
I would like to point out however, in the case of the breakup of the cells in Europe, the British say they had reports from Muslims who saw their activity that triggered the surveillance. They also had an informant inside the group. All of which means they had more than enough probable cause to get the surveillance authorized, and everything done was perfectly legal and would have been in the US as well. Also, according to Fox News, the NSA actually did get warrants for the surveillance of this particular group.
The real problem with opposition to the "spying" isn't whether it's legal or not, but that it occurs at all. If the subject doesn't know he is being spied upon, whether via a warrant or not, that is a problem for liberals.
The President's NSA program is an updated FISA program with more executive authority. This WAS indeed used, as was the British controversial program. The program has been updated in part because of the severity of the threat and the liberalness of some judges who refuse to grant a warrant. So the President's program was used, whether those elements in particular were used. I understand they were.
More on this later... we're having roast duck with an orange/mango sauce....mmmmm..
I don’t think that’s true. I think any serious opposition to the domestic spying program is about opposing warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens where there is no probable cause. But none of that matters in this particular case since a warrant was actually issued.
The fact is that Pres. Bush's stepped up targeting of terrorists, including the development and implementation of the Homeland Security office, is why there have been so many successful busts and prevention of more attacks since 9/11.
There are programs within the program...meaning, the surveillance of phone calls, monitoring e-mails or what have you, are all new programs developed under the NSA. These programs don't need a warrant to survey.
The way the US surveys enemies has changed since 9/11. This is why it is a successful program (in part). The success of the program and thwarted attacks is bigger than just warrants. You may remember earlier in the year that it was said millions of phone users were being "eavesdropped" upon. There were not millions of warrants issued....
The fact is also that this is a secret program (or was until the NY Times blew the cover), so the government will not broadcast every time it is used as it is unfolding, as case still is. To do anything else could jeopardize the subjects being arrested/surveyed. The examples I listed above were only made known after the fact, not during the public disclosure.
Interesting note: In January, the New York Times reported that more than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials some of whom knew of the domestic spying program said the torrent of tips [from NSA wiretapping] led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.
Wrapping up, to say "warrants were used" may be true, but is beside the point for several reasons. The program itself is what nabbed these thugs, and warrants are not needed for every pursuit. Warrants were most certainly used in this bust, although how many isn't public, nor our concern. The connotation of "warrants were used" is that before the Terrorist Surveillance Program, these terrorist plots would have been stopped. This is about 99% surely NOT the case.
That is pure fiction, but don't let the facts get in the way of your faith towards George Bush and his massively successful presidency.
Amy, since it appears most of the surveillance of the terrorist plotters was conducted by British law enforcement it’s unclear how much the U.S. domestic spying program was involved. However, regardless of the role it played, even Bill O’Reilly admitted that warrants were obtained. If anything this shows that the NSA program doesn’t need to bypass the FISA court.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207930,00.html
Your statement that…“The same surveillance criticized by Democrats in the United States is the same surveillance that today saved thousands of lives” simply isn’t true. Being able to eavesdrop only with warrants did not prevent British law enforcement from stopping these terrorist attacks.
Silke, I didn't mean to imply that the primary thwarter was the US. I believe primarily the UK deserves the credit. However, the US worked in concert with the UK and shared intel to get this job done. Pres. Bush said this (from White House site) on Wed:
"I want to thank the government of Tony Blair and officials in the United Kingdom for their good work in busting this plot. I thank the officials in Washington, D.C. and around our country who gather intelligence and who work to protect the American people. The cooperation on this venture was excellent -- cooperation between U.K. and U.S. authorities and officials was solid. And the cooperation amongst agencies within our government was excellent."
From my link in the original article:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/world/060810a.aspx
"U.S. and U.K. intelligence have been working on the investigation for months."
From your Fox link:
********************
O'REILLY: OK. Last question for you. The fact that the NSA was able to intercept some of these phone calls that were made in the United States to Al Qaeda in Britain by using the very controversial — although I understand warrants were obtained for this by the FISA court. In your opinion, does that mean that the Bush administration is justified now in its original policy? Is this a big win politically for you guys?
CHERTOFF: Well, Bill, of course I'm not going to confirm particular techniques were used, but I do think this.
O'REILLY: You won't deny, though.
CHERTOFF: Obviously I'm not going to discuss classified techniques.
****************************
Silke, why wouldn't Chernoff discuss a legal technique? O'Reilly wasn't asking for methodology, but confirmation that warrants were used. It's no news to terrorists that we use warrants. So.... in my opinion it stands to reason that not obtaining a warrant would be more problematic to discuss.
This aside, my previous description of how the Bush expansion of the NSA has helped fight terrorist plots is right on.
Finally you said:
***********Your statement that…“The same surveillance criticized by Democrats in the United States is the same surveillance that today saved thousands of lives” simply isn't true. Being able to eavesdrop only with warrants did not prevent British law enforcement from stopping these terrorist attacks.
***********
1) How does the Democratic opposition to the Patriot Act and the new NSA program save lives? It's clear that the provision in the PA and NSA program do. 2) It wasn't solely a UK venture. The US aided, remember, the planes were headed for the US and there are 13 Egyptian men in the US who disappeared..... a bunch of Arab men who bought hundreds of cell phones from Wal-Mart.......this may have been part of the same plot. I'm not saying either of those cases is directly connected to the Pres.' NSA program, but it is possible they were involved in the overall scheme that was thwarted. That being said, the point is that the US had to participate in the overall success of this nabbing, and Pakistan played quite a role, too.
Let's stick to the US program, M'Kay? It's what you seem to be defending at all costs.
But the thing is, is that the US program had nothing to do with what the British did. It's that simple.
What many of you rightwing extremists are trying to do, is use this to beat-up Bush critics by suggesting that Bush critics are against all surveillance ... which isn't true ... it's a lie ... it's the ongoing fearmongering among the politically desperate. Bush critics are against the illegal use of surveillance. But I know you Amy. I know you think Bush's circumvention of FISA is legal. And yes, I know, you think that that if a Republican politician says it is legal, then it must be so.
"You're kind of proving Ann Coulter's point in GODLESS. Liberalism is a religion, which is why when people of faith or Conservatives support the President (God forbid) you ascribe cult-like principles to our support."
Well, you and Ann are a part of a cult. You really have no idea how you come across to the reality-based community. And using Ann Coulter in an argument is quite pathetic. Do you also agree with Ann that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore are homosexuals? Where do you draw the line with that money-grubbing media whore?
"How does the Democratic opposition to the Patriot Act and the new NSA program save lives?"
This is an EXTEMELY ridiculous question to ask. You support a president and a party that has a foreign policy that has killed tens of thousands of people BASED ON A LIE, and you try to come across as a concerned citizen for human safety. All too often I hear people like you talking about how we are in Iraq to protect American freedoms, yet you support legislation and executive behaviors that trample on the freedoms you say your hubbie is trying to protect.
Are you folks so submissive to Bush's authority and hatred of the left that you and your kind have checked out of reality?
"It wasn't solely a UK venture. The US aided, remember, the planes were headed for the US and there are 13 Egyptian men in the US who disappeared..... a bunch of Arab men who bought hundreds of cell phones from Wal-Mart.......this may have been part of the same plot."
You are GUESSING! You don't have the facts straight, but you won't let that stop you from defending Bush's illegal usage of wiretapping.
"I'm not saying either of those cases is directly connected to the Pres.' NSA program, but it is possible they were involved in the overall scheme that was thwarted."
You are still guessing.
"That being said, the point is that the US had to participate in the overall success of this nabbing, and Pakistan played quite a role, too."
You don't need facts. You just have faith in your guess ... your hope that you have something ... anything to defend your failing party and president.
OK, here’s another source which discusses the fact that warrants were obtained…
“In the days before the alleged airliner bombing plot was exposed, more than 200 FBI agents followed up leads inside the United States looking for potential connections to British and Pakistani suspects. The investigation was so large, officials said, that it brought a significant surge in warrants for searches and surveillance from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret panel that oversees most clandestine surveillance.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081102053_2.html
Your strawman argument that the surveillance used to take down the terrorist plot in England is the same surveillance criticized by Democrats fails because…
1. Democrats have no objection to how other countries conduct surveillance within their own borders.
2. It appears the surveillance inside the U.S. was approved by the FISA court, just as the law requires.
We all seem to forget that Clinton used the NSA to spy on everyone, especially the Republican Party. Oh my what a tangled web ... hmm, that assertion is just as valid as the one Liberals make regarding the NSA program.
I read more than listen to spin, from either side. It's simple that the NSA program of which we speak is legal, and does not actually provide a name, address, or voice print of any conversation(s). It only fills a database with simple stats: beg_timestamp, phone_from, phone_to, end_timestamp, ttl_time, no_pair_hits, etc ... no voice recordings. Once there is a link made, then the warrant is requested to begin truly recording/listening to the conversations.
Do a little digging ...
Oh, and if you are worried, stop talking to terrorists. Every other phone conversation is soooo inane that the NSA can care less about you. Wise up, this ain't that bad - if you only KNEW what is being done by the Mossad (and rightly so).
Oh yeah, Daniel Medley wrote "Being called Godless by Ann Coulter or by anyone else is not a bad thing. You should try it some time."
Oooh, burn! I *have*. It didn't work so well.
That's rich. A left wing lib accusing someone else of fearmongering. We're not desperate by the way. Your stupid party keeps kicking out the only people with any honor or integrity, leaving you with Dean's and Kennedy's. A block of cheese could beat the liberal agenda in politics.
"ou really have no idea how you come across to the reality-based community."
Since the overwhelming majority of Americans see no problem with the U.S. survellience plan, she probably appears quite normal. Meanwhile, left wing loonies cry and whine about civil liberties that haven't been violated.
"You support a president and a party that has a foreign policy that has killed tens of thousands of people BASED ON A LIE"
Which lie is that? The "lie" of WMDs, which any number of us could point you toward stone cold evidence that there were WMDs? Oh, that's right, you'll attempt to explain away your disdain for reality.
"and you try to come across as a concerned citizen for human safety. All too often I hear people like you talking about how we are in Iraq to protect American freedoms, yet you support legislation and executive behaviors that trample on the freedoms you say your hubbie is trying to protec"
And if you had your way there would still be men, women, and children being gassed and tortured to death, while the U.N. ran amuck with oil for food scandals and gang rape in third world countries. So please, don't embarrass yourself with arguments like this.
"You are GUESSING! You don't have the facts straight, but you won't let that stop you from defending Bush's illegal usage of wiretapping."
Actually, you are doing the guessing, unless you can prove that Bush's usage of wiretapping is illegal, something NO ONE else has been able to do. If you have evidence, give it to Congress.
I laugh hysterically that the left still try to use the so called "illegal wiretapping" as a platform for their agenda. The talking points haven't changed, and they still have no proof. Guys like Dan just stick their fingers in their ears while screaming "Bush lied!" all the while accusing US of fearmongering. How do people with this intelligence level even remember to breath? Perhaps Dan can come back with facts instead of baseless speculation and cheap shot insults that only embarass him further. At least give me the chance to humiliate you before you open your mouth and do it for me.
Also, FISA documentation was created in the first place to stop illegal wiretapping, if you want proof go read FISA documents. I already have.
Other than the chemical munitions warheads we recoverd of course, so you're half right.
"Also, FISA documentation was created in the first place to stop illegal wiretapping, if you want proof go read FISA documents. I already have."
Good for you. I'm still waiting for proof that Bush broke the law, and his wiretaps are illegal. Even the libs in Congress clearly state they don't know if Bush broke the law, and want to investigate. You must be privy to information they don't have. Please share.
Well, it's about all you folks have left to prop up a failed presidency.
"We're not desperate by the way."
Tim, trust me. You folks are desperate. Republicans got into power by running on conservative principles, and are despertately trying to cling on to power by fearmongering of our security and bigotry towards gay Americans. It's quite sickening and anti-American. You should see yourselves.
"Your stupid party keeps kicking out the only people with any honor or integrity, leaving you with Dean's and Kennedy's."
My party likes to kick out politicians who cuddle up with the party that lacks honor and integrity. You really shouldn't bring up H and I. It's something that you will have a tough time defending.
"A block of cheese could beat the liberal agenda in politics."
The Democrats do have a pretty boring agenda. It's an agenda that empowers people. You boys should try it sometime instead of fearmongering.
"Since the overwhelming majority of Americans see no problem with the U.S. survellience plan, she probably appears quite normal."
Do you really think that a majority of Americans are in favor of government officials violating the laws they were sworn to uphold?
"Meanwhile, left wing loonies cry and whine about civil liberties that haven't been violated."
Is it too much to ask that our Congress do it's duty to oversee the Executive Branch instead of ignoring the concern? You folks were very eager to investigate stained dresses not too long ago.
"Which lie is that? The "lie" of WMDs, which any number of us could point you toward stone cold evidence that there were WMDs? Oh, that's right, you'll attempt to explain away your disdain for reality."
Surely there was stone cold evidence showing that the WMD concern was BS. Surely you would like Pat Roberts of Kansas to start that promised investigation real soon. Wouldn't you feel more comfortable with Bush knowing that he didn't manipulate the evidence leading up to his glorious Iraq adventure?
"And if you had your way there would still be men, women, and children being gassed and tortured to death, while the U.N. ran amuck with oil for food scandals and gang rape in third world countries. So please, don't embarrass yourself with arguments like this."
I suppose that if this were his sole argument for going to war with Iraq the debate never would have happened. Worse things happened in Kosovo and yet you rightwing humanitarians weren't to excited about that successful endeavor. No, you wingnuts were scared out of your collective hides. You are convinced that Saddam was connected with 9-11 and other terrorists groups, and that Saddam was an immediate threat to the civilized world. It is THOSE TWO REASONS that were used to get most Americans support. And as we now know, IT WAS A BIG LIE.
And you fell for it. You should show some honor and integrity.
"Actually, you are doing the guessing, unless you can prove that Bush's usage of wiretapping is illegal, something NO ONE else has been able to do. If you have evidence, give it to Congress."
Timmy, you responded inappropriatly to my comment. My "guessing" statement was said to Amy when she connected wire-tapping to the recent British incident. Try to keep up.
"I laugh hysterically that the left still try to use the so called "illegal wiretapping" as a platform for their agenda. The talking points haven't changed, and they still have no proof."
It's kind of hard to prove ... other than Bush's own admission. Let's have investigations and see what shakes out. You shouldn't be laughing. Sacrificing liberty for an appearance of safety isn't a laughing matter.
"Guys like Dan just stick their fingers in their ears while screaming "Bush lied!" all the while accusing US of fearmongering. How do people with this intelligence level even remember to breath? Perhaps Dan can come back with facts instead of baseless speculation and cheap shot insults that only embarass him further. At least give me the chance to humiliate you before you open your mouth and do it for me."
Timmy, please. This is surely a classic case of projection. You folks really have no idea how you come across. Do ya?
Oooh, burn! I *have*. It didn't work so well."
Really, Trent. I don't think you tried hard enough. Godlessness has enable me to live a life of free of dogma and fear. I am no longer a sinner. I no longer have a sense of superiority over other people's beliefs.
It is truly a liberarting lifestyle that enables me to live in reality.
Daniel, wire-tapping was involved (in both the U.S. and U.K.) in thwarting the plot. The issue was whether it was “warrantless wire-tapping” in the U.S. – which according to open sources it was not.
That's a loaded statement. To some extent or another, we all have dogma. The source of it varies however. Rest assured, you're as dogmatic as any Christian you profess to disdain.
>"I am no longer a sinner. I no longer have a sense of superiority over other people's beliefs."
Oh, I'm not superior. I'm not better than anybody else... I am, however, in better hands.
>"It is truly a liberarting lifestyle that enables me to live in reality."
Are you sure? Is that an absolute? You're getting awfully dogmatic about that.
Silke, I don't dispute that U.S. wire-tapping was involved. I'm even going to give out government the benefit of the doubt that our government handled it legally. What I object the most about this whole topic, is how these rightwingers are trying to imply that wiretapping is the method U.S. and U.K. authorities used to learn about the terrorists plot. There is simply no truth to that.
Not only that, but these rightwingers are desperately trying to imply that Bush critics are against all wiretapping. I think you and I see eye-to-eye on that.
Nice job of splitting hairs on the dogma issue. But the dogma of the Godless is determined by the individual, and that those individuals tend to mind their own business. Godless individuals could care less if you choose to assimilate with the dogma of the masses, but we object when the masses choose to force their "superior" dogma over the will of the Godless who mind their own business.
The dogma of the masses is based on authoritarianism and is abhorent to the Godless who choose to live free. You should be envious of the Godless dogma.
You are ignoring the obvious with your parliamentary contortions about "warrants". Amy is exactly right, the salient point here IS the existence of the administration's aggressive counter-terrorism policy and prosecution. Warrants are nice if there is time.
The vapid, unrealistic and hypocritical political posturing about the legality of terrorist surveillance is a house of cards that falls apart in the face of an actual terrorists attack. The same people out there wailing "Bush lied!" are the exact same people who will say "why didn't Bush do more to prevent this?!!" (exhibit A: Hurricane Katrina)
Amy's entry nailed the bottom line that is lost on you ideolalogues: The only 'privacy' compromised here was that of the terrorists.
For those of you not actively engaged in the GWOT (as I am) and privy to classified briefings, (here's a 'duh' moment) NOT EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE ENEMY IS IN THE PUBLIC, TOO.
Johnny, FISA permits the government to ask for a warrant after the fact. Would it be so hard for Bush and the NSA to petition the FISA court at the same time it begins conducting surveillance? It seems that you want Bush and the NSA to conduct it's activities without any sort of accountability. Am I reading you correctly?
"The same people out there wailing "Bush lied!" are the exact same people who will say "why didn't Bush do more to prevent this?!!" (exhibit A: Hurricane Katrina)"
That's a very untrue statement to make. Those of us who are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush sent your ass into a war zone based on a lie do not believe that Bush or anyone else could have prevented Katrina.
Those of us who believe Bush lied about Iraq are disgusted that Bush and the federal government sat on their collective asses and did absolutely NOTHING. Floridians got superior hurricane relief from the feds leading up to the 2004 general election.
"Amy's entry nailed the bottom line that is lost on you ideolalogues: The only 'privacy' compromised here was that of the terrorists."
I can't speak for the other "idealogues" ... including you and Amy, but I am throughly miffed that you and your ilk don't show the slightest concern for the freedoms you claim to be fighting for. If Bush admitted that he circumvented FISA, then you should be concerned about the integrity of our Constitution.
"For those of you not actively engaged in the GWOT (as I am) and privy to classified briefings, (here's a 'duh' moment) NOT EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THE ENEMY IS IN THE PUBLIC, TOO."
Forgive me for not bowing down to you and your elite and heroic status, but holding security information from the public is not my concern. Expecting our government to uphold the laws of our country is the concern.
The laws of our country are pretty meaningless if the country itself is destroyed. Or do want us to "play nice" with global Islamofascists with Nuclear reach?
I lived 30 years through the cold war. Not a day went by without me wondering if that was the day we were all going to die. That threat was real and could happen on a moments notice. Even now, there are various countries that could easily ruin our day with a couple of well-placed explosions.
I am not afraid of terrorists. They have been around forever, and will be with around long after future generations are dead. I can't live my life living in fear of those twits.
I am afraid of how our government bypasses well-established laws to give the APPEARANCE of safety. Does our nation of laws mean anything anymore to you folks ... other than when you are voting for laws that restrict the freedom of fellow Americans.
Please explain how how Islamic extremists are facists.