It will be interesting to see what kind of spin the far leftists will put on this issue like the Ned Lamonts and the Cindy Sheehans to name a few.

AmyP,

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.

Do you have any evidence that domestic spying lead to the break in this case or is it just wishful thinking on your part? Even your other examples are suspect. The eight suspects in the Holland Tunnel plot were outside the country so couldn't have been foiled by domestic spying. The seven Florida suspects were discovered in online chat rooms. All of these sound like the results of good old fashioned detective work.

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.

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.

camanintx

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.

camanintx

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

Amy we are definitely on the same wave length. I just posted about this on my blog, however as always you go into a lot more detail.

Let us see what the Left will say now.

The Liberals can and will still use the old "they're violent because we (make that George Bush) provoked them" line, even though violence against western culture has been consistant from Muslims since the 12th century.

found proof of my previous comment not 2 min. after writing it, these liberals are as predictable as any petulant two year old. (sigh)

Camanintx,

Yes, the would-be assasins were caught thanks to "spying" measures, according to the news.

Leticia

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.

Camanintx, with all due respect, you clearly haven’t followed any of these stories. You said the suspects of the Holland Tunnel fiasco were all outside the US. That is precisely the point. The President’s surveillance program monitors phone calls from OUTSIDE the USA to US residents within the USA.

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."

You tell him Amy !!!!!

Camamintx: Do you have any proof that Bush is detecting terrorism OUTSIDE the law? Because as I keep telling liberals who make that claim, you ought to share it with the proper authorities who apparently do not have the same evidence as you.

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.

"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."

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.

On today's story, 2 things:

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.

Some of the comments under this thread on California Conservative are UNREAL. Apparenlty the left is so NUTS that it thinks this terror plot is a Bush/Blair election year conspiracy! Here it is:

**********************
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
**********************

Amy

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.

Tim

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

Caman said

"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?

Phil, you're great yourself. Thanks!

Good old Amy - sticking to her guns! I love to see it!!!

Amy, Clinton let Bin Laden go 4 times, not 3. And no one created more Islamoheads than Carter. But he started Habitat for Humanity, so that makes all of his crookeds straight I guess in his view.

Amy,

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.

Silke, I understand Pakistan played an instrumental role in the foiling, but I'm not sure that, with other factors you mentioned, discount what I said above. In fact, the surveillance programs are totally legal (I was being sarcastic to call it illegal) yet controversial. The same discourse surrounding individual rights that Americans have is the same they have in Britain, with opponents claiming they are illegal endeavors. They are not.

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..

>”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.”

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.

It was all done with warrants, Amy.

Silke and SUSA, how do you know that warrants were used? Surely they were, but in every instance? Do you know how big and broad this operation was, as well as how time sensitive? The President has changed the face of the NSA by not only broadening its scope.

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.

"The program itself is what nabbed these thugs, and warrants are not needed for every pursuit."

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.

>“The program itself is what nabbed these thugs, and warrants are not needed for every pursuit.”

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.

Daniel, I'm not sure which part is pure fiction, but I was referring to the UK and US program. The UK has a similar program that is just as controversial. 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. That's your problem, not ours.

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.