Posted on 01/04/2006 4:05:09 PM PST by bigsky
It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train stations.
The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be watching that person.
The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell phone number.
That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA Today.
Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush administration like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four previous presidential administrations combined."
In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.
Sign up to receive Ann Coulter's weekly column by email:
Because the Democrats believe all conflicts can be solved with talk or limited surgical military involvment. We know they don't have the intellectual toughness to make hard decisions that will cost lives in order to save even more lives. That's why.
Why don't we trust Democrat's with National Security?
Because they are democrat's
enuf said.
"ANN COULTER -- Why We Don't Trust Democrats With National Security"
I sure don't trust them with the patriot act.... for tht matter I won't automatically trust the next Republican President.
Later
"If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains, they'd be Republicans.) "
Haha!
I'm here for the photos.
Why are we worried about terrorist attacks anyway. The primary targets are New York City and LA. Both predominantly Liberal.
Let them reap what they sow.
Seriously, we can't and must not allow a successful attack on any US city.
Democrats believe that, during a war, Democrats have a right to maintain conversations with enemy headquarters, without those conversations being monitored by anyone.
Unfair?
How many arab terrorists with US citizenship do you suppose vote Republican?
Ah, but there's the rub. And to make matters worse, they have no morals.
::Yawn:: Ann "Chief Justice Roberts is a Souter clone" Coulter is the most overrated conservative "leader" on FR. I miss Barbara Olsen.
It seems Democrats have no problem with the violation or lack of rights involving Government agencies that can really ruin your life like the IRS. I don't hear cries to make government agencies operate under the same laws and limits that are imposed on businesses and citizens. What I have to wonder is why al aqaeda connected individuals would be calling US representatives and senators in the Democratic party on a regular basis. Answering that question would be a real story.
I'm here for the articles, and the photos.
In my book, this woman is not only pleasant to look at, she is a nightmare to those on the left. The title of her book, "How to Talk to a Liberal, if You Must," pretty well sums it up.
Thanks for posting.
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.