Skip to comments.'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI: 10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ
Posted on 07/11/2008 8:31:58 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul
'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI
10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ
By CHARLES HURT, Bureau Chief
October 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.
This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.
"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I can’t post what I think about the Democrats and Hate America “peace groups” that rail about “illegal surveillence” with about being banned for life.
My thoughts exactly.
Democrats have blood on their hands.
the ACLU- civil liberties for anyone BUT Americans...
I really don’t want to sink to the left’s ‘derangement’ level but it’s becoming very difficult.
We don’t have to question their ‘loyality’ to the United States of America. We know where they stand.
Democrats like to see Americans die in Iraq. They hate this country and they hate the military. And they hope that high US casualties will provide the basis for propaganda by the MSM that will help to cause the US to be defeated and the Democrats to win politically.
President Bush needs to tell Congress to go straight to hell on this. The Courts are already on his side. He needs to act like the Commander-in-Chief that he is.
And this is just one incident — how many others are there, where we lose American lives or are unable to prevent attacks, because the Democrats worry more about the rights of terrorists, than about saving the lives of our soldiers and other innocent lives.
This is what happens when Democrats are the majority in Congress — and just wait to see what happens if Obama becomes president.
Think of this in November.
Thank you, House and Senate Democrats, ACLU and fellow travelers.
As far as the dems are concerned, Americans have the right to die. Terrorists have all the other rights.
Mz. Pelosi needs to have a personal meeting with Maria Duran and try to explain to her the vast importance of protecting the trial lawyers' ability to sue, bribe and subborn perjury in an effort to extract billions from telecom companies who were merely helping our government try and fight the threat of terror with wiretaps.
They have for as long as I can recall.
The president bailed out on our guys long ago...
If it were ACLU lawyers hanging from the bridge, you know damn well that the scumbag DUmocrats would be singing a different tune.
Until a majority of our Politicians accept the fact that we are involved in WW3, these things will continue to happen.
The terrorist KNOW they asre in WW3. They started it. They want it. They can not destroy civilization unless they war against all civilization.
We are not involed with people in criminal acts, a Police Action, a Peacekeeping mission or another nonsense PC term for WAR. We are in WAR
Picture perfect post.
LAWYERS on the battlefield! This is so outrageous, no parent should consider allowing his child to serve until it's changed.
"...lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first."The lawyers discussed the situation for nearly 10 hours with the Attorney General (who is part of the Executive Branch).
"Finally, approval was granted [by the Attorney General, who is part of the Executive Branch] and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began. " [edit added]The situation had nothing to do with the Democrats. It was fully the ineptitude of the NSA/Attorney General to render a decision without first having 10 hour of listening to attorneys.
If 9-11 didn’t teach you that time is of the essence...then you’re an idiot.
Posted by Diogenesis in #19 (thank you, Dio):
"WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours
seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected
of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year..
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground
to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance -
cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as
U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause"
necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.
"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post."
Add some more hurt to this story.
Link to Jimenez’s wife deportation.
Yes, it is the fault of the Democrats along with the extreme libertarians who have no concept of what we are facing. Without the law, there would be no call to the NSA.
How long before this guys disclosure of classified information becomes the issue rather than the responsibility of congress?
The door to DU is on your left, punk.
Smells like BS — under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis. I think someone’s confused here.
I also know which party is UnAmerican, protects our enemies, aid and abets are enemies in war time FOR DECADES, sides with tyrants and commies, FOR DECADES.
Which party battles in Congress for laws protecting the enemy, which party protects criminal rights, which party prevents enemy interrogations, which party has the media to call the President a war criminal, liar, murderer, and a trasher of the Constitution if he doesn't follow the advise of attorneys, which party is supported by the Bar Association, which party is supported by trial attorneys, which party is supported by JAG, which party is supported by the ACLU....and on and on.
But you know all that I'm sure.
Don't fret, your guys will soon have all branches...just a few more months and your messiah will take office, and all will be well again!
FISA only applies to US territory. Since the terrorists were in Iraq, FISA did not apply to them and the NSA delay makes no sense.
Somebody obviously did foul up here, but I've seen no indication it was Congress.
Ya they dont want surveillence but they want illegals to run free in the country.
Pray for our troops people, they surely need it against the Democrats and their evil.
I learned in school many years ago that the legislative branch makes the laws. Has that changed?
The situation had nothing to do with the Democrats...
You are so wrong I can't believe you posted that.
"The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied. "
This story needs more face time in the press but wont get it. Just like they wont cover anything that matters. Right now I am wondering how many of them own oil stocks.
all of us need to contact President Bush and tell him what we think.
Thanks for the ping!
**** them Rats
(I know the source -I’m too lazy to get actual law but this is good enough to start)
Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Since 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties and civil liabilities.
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance “for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”
“Smells like BS under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis. I think someones confused here.”
My understanding is that they can get a warrant after the fact if they need to act immediately. If somebody thought they needed a warrant then they didn’t understand the law. FISA has always allowed for this.
True these agencies are part of the executive branch, but are suggesting that they have no autonomy?
The article didn't say they called the president, and odds are he never knew about the incident until well after.
It isn't Bush that these lawyers worried about sending some other lawyers after them, it's the prospect of financial ruin trying to pay other lawyers to defend themselves in front of some senate turd throwing committee.
Getting the OK from Bush isn't going to help - how long has congress been trying to compel Cheney to testify about Bush firing a handful of attorney generals?
If you can't do your job without worrying about getting indicted for it, you're not going to be very effective.
Congress killed that soldier, just as sure as if they pulled the trigger themselves. It's turned into a repulsive circus of witch hunts, freak shows, and spitting contests, nothing more.
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied. "
That is the procedure for for “after the fact”, this is why it is so dangerous and why some Freepers are dead wrong about this. And Yes, if Hillary or Obama became president I would think the same way. Heck, I would even be ok if McCann was president.
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.