Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why We Listen (NSA & FISA)
NY Times ^ | January 30, 2006 | PHILIP BOBBITT

Posted on 02/04/2006 8:06:50 PM PST by neverdem

IN the debate over whether the National Security Agency's eavesdropping violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we must not lose sight of the fact that the world we entered on 9/11 will require rewriting that statute and other laws. The tiresome pas de deux between rigid civil libertarians in denial of reality and an overaggressive executive branch seemingly heedless of the law, while comforting to partisans of both groups, is not in the national interest.

--snip--

The N.S.A. is our most important intelligence agency. Typically, about 60 percent of the president's daily brief comes from its intercepts.

--snip--

Consider that on Sept. 10, 2001, the N.S.A. intercepted two messages: "The match begins tomorrow" and "Tomorrow is zero hour." These were not picked up through surveillance of suspected individuals but from random monitoring of pay phones in areas of Afghanistan where Al Qaeda was active. Not surprisingly, these messages were not translated or disseminated until Sept. 12th.

Nor was the fact that we knew the identities of two of the terrorists sufficient to thwart the attack the next day. But had we at the time cross-referenced credit card accounts, frequent-flyer programs and a cellphone number shared by those two men, data mining might easily have picked up on the 17 other men linked to them and flying on the same day at the same time on four flights. Such intelligence collection would not have been based on probable...

--snip--

Furthermore, not only are there presumably conspirators within the United States, but conversations between two foreign persons could be routed, via the Internet, through American switches to give the appearance of a domestic-to-international connection. It is difficult to imagine getting warrants now in such situations, because the standard of probable cause to conclude that the target is a terrorist cannot be met.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: espionage; patriotleak; privacy; terrorism

1 posted on 02/04/2006 8:06:51 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

N Y Times?
Perhaps they are telling the libs to stop barking up the wrong tree.


2 posted on 02/04/2006 8:10:59 PM PST by cjmae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cjmae
The NYT started this whole thing. Now they have and investigation on their hands. The American people are not swallowing their stupidity. So, now they are trying to wiggle out of their original premise.
3 posted on 02/04/2006 8:13:51 PM PST by Chgogal (CNN, the network that enabled Saddam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I still have not heard anyone even faintly suggest that one reason this program was carried out in as much secrecy as possible is that the White House knows full well that we have traitor's on the security council that will leak classified information - the name Rock-er-feller comes to mind, for one.
4 posted on 02/04/2006 8:28:25 PM PST by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal

I'm sure you are right.
So I guess this will probably fade away.


5 posted on 02/04/2006 8:29:21 PM PST by cjmae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

This from the NYT? I don't think so. They are probably reprinting a post from FreeRepublic.


6 posted on 02/04/2006 8:31:05 PM PST by Bushbacker1 (Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bump


7 posted on 02/04/2006 8:31:55 PM PST by God luvs America (When the silent majority speaks the earth trembles!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: maine-iac7
still have not heard anyone even faintly suggest that one reason this program was carried out in as much secrecy as possible is that the White House knows full well that we have traitor's on the security council that will leak classified information - the name Rock-er-feller comes to mind, for one

One thing that bugs me about the GOP is they let these guys get away with this stuff.
I hope the camels back is broken.
Nothing against camels of course.
8 posted on 02/04/2006 8:32:28 PM PST by cjmae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Chgogal; cjmae

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/contributors/index.html?offset=0&&

OpEd Contributors are guest columnists. Victor Davis Hanson and many others from the right have written in the NY Times' OpEd pages.


9 posted on 02/04/2006 8:36:26 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Even if the government wanted to spy on every American, there are WAY too many phone calls, emails, etc. for the NSA to possibly monitor them all.
And even if the government obtains evidence against Americans using illegal methods, under US law that evidence is inadmissable in a court of law. Any evidence gathered subsequently is likewise inadmissable ("fruit of the poisoned tree.")
So, from a legal standpoint, these alleged "illegal" wiretaps and comm intercepts can only be used to prevent terror attacks- not to put anyone in jail.
You sure won't hear this from the MSM!

Interestingly enough, under British law if evidence is obtained illegally it is still admissable. The jury is advised of how the evidence was obtained, but is allowed to judge the evidence on it's merits. I wonder how many IRA or UDF terrorists were jailed under this provision?


10 posted on 02/04/2006 8:45:22 PM PST by Ostlandr ( Hey! Where'd my tagline go?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Hello .. terrorists have rights under the Constitution, ya know

At least that's what the Editors of the NYT keep telling us
11 posted on 02/04/2006 8:50:46 PM PST by Mo1 (Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The N.S.A. is our most important intelligence agency. Typically, about 60 percent of the president's daily brief comes from its intercepts."

Statement obviously planted by a CIA flack to draw suspicion away from some concurrent conjuring;-)

12 posted on 02/04/2006 8:57:58 PM PST by LibTeeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson