Posted on 02/05/2006 7:22:07 AM PST by Chickenhawk Warmonger
Intelligence officers who eavesdropped on thousands of Americans in overseas calls under authority from President Bush have dismissed nearly all of them as potential suspects after hearing nothing pertinent to a terrorist threat, according to accounts from current and former government officials and private-sector sources with knowledge of the technologies in use.
Bush has recently described the warrantless operation as "terrorist surveillance" and summed it up by declaring that "if you're talking to a member of al Qaeda, we want to know why." But officials conversant with the program said a far more common question for eavesdroppers is whether, not why, a terrorist plotter is on either end of the call. The answer, they said, is usually no.
Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause.
The Bush administration refuses to say -- in public or in closed session of Congress -- how many Americans in the past four years have had their conversations recorded or their e-mails read by intelligence analysts without court authority. Two knowledgeable sources placed that number in the thousands; one of them, more specific, said about 5,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"Fewer than 10 U.S. citizens or residents a year, according to an authoritative account, have aroused enough suspicion during warrantless eavesdropping to justify interception of their domestic calls, as well. That step still requires a warrant from a federal judge, for which the government must supply evidence of probable cause."
It only takes one.
And 9 of them were discussing why their publisher would not publish novels about muslim terror.
"Surveillance Net Yields Few Suspects"
You know the Post was hoping to have a headline that read "Surveillance Net Yields No Suspects". I think monitoring 1000's and 1000's of calls to yield any clues, like hijacking a plane or blowing up a bridge, would be a huge success. Unlike many on the left, I am against terrorist rights. And even if Akmed is just calling Osama to wish him a Happy Birthday, I have no problem with the surveillance.
You said it all in a nutshell.
It does not matter how many electronic intercepts do not find a terrorist plan, we only need to find "a" terrorist plan and all the prior looking makes it worth it.
The left doesn't get it. The media thinks articles like this hurt the Administration...little do they know it only helps.
No surprise. Most of these intercepts have dried up and gone to other methods since the NYT felt it necessary to alert AQ. That's treason in my book.
Frankjr I wholeheartedly agree. I don't care if the surveillance yields NO suspects as long as we are doing everything we can to keep the USA safe from these murderers!
I noticed that the WAPOoop has a "special report" on Watergate online. Does anyone know if this is new or somethng they have had online for a while? If it's new, I find it very interesting that Morons.org is releasing the new ad tomorrow with Nixon morphing into Bush while calling for a special investigator like Watergate.
This is ridiculous! If we knew exactly who to listen to and when we wouldn't need surveillance! Duh! DUH!! Lefties are so incredibly dense!!
Perhaps the government should turn it's attention to the Washington Post. Probably find a lot of them there, judging from this article.
Let's see, 19 hijackers killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. The capture of only one of those 19 potentially could have saved those 3,000. Using this experience as a guideline, you could make the case that for every potential jihadist arrested/detained/questioned/inconvenienced, we're actually saving 3,000 Americans.
Using the Post's figures of "10 a year", that's 30,000 potential lives saved.
What would the Post say is, for example, government action against breast cancer saved 30,000? Or rescued 30,000 from addiction? Would the Post bitch and moan then? Or would it merely find yet another excuse along the lines of "why only 30,000?".
The problem is not the extent to which this government will go to protect us, even at the expense of stepping on someone's toes; it's the lack of common sense, intilligence, or even consistency,amongst the members of the press.
Vis-a-vis fighting terrorism, but I don't know how many of you watched the History Channel this weekend, and saw the show about the 9/11 Commission. The INS, FBI and CIA knew (with certainlty) where two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were (while they were still overseas) and still permitted them to enter the United States because of bureaucratic snafu.
That's how close the FBI was to snaring these guys before the fact.
Perhaps had the FBI, NSA, CIA etc been allowed to listen for, and to, their (the terrorist's) personal communications after they slipped into the country, we would have had a second bite at the apple. Had the FBI not failed to obtain a search warrant for Zacharias Moussaoui's computer, there might have been a third.
There, it is corrected for them.
Depends on the definition of "knowledgeable sources"
I find it fascinating in a very pathetic way that it took three reporters to write this ONE article. What's up with that? Are they too stooopid to finish a sentence by themselves or what?!!
and just as many unnamed sources
Of course, as a side effect, the government may find out who is ordering tobacco products from out-of-state to avoid state taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.