Jan 13 2006
NY Times Leak Is Damaging Our Defenses
UPDATE:
Don’t miss Michelle Malkin’s extraordinary round up on this story, and rightfully points out that even sales clerks can play a key role in our defense by being vigilant. Excellent point
UPDATE II:
Mac Ranger has more on these ‘slugs’ trying to kill us. As I pointed out to Mac, he was being too kind. Slugs don’t deserve firing squads.
UPDATE III:
Some on the left feel there is little proof the one incident in Midland is terror cell related. Well, we shall see. But the story we linked to references multiple similar incidents across the nation – not just one! And the question of whether there is a link to a known cell, or we are now discovering a previously unknown cell, dispatches the ‘logic’ that not being tide to a known cell makes all this OK. Finally, the Dept of Justice is not going to continue an investigation into a false lead. So their continued focus on this is more telling than all the liberal ostriching – IMHO.
So while the left tries to rationalize this away (for the obvious reason that, if true, the story would continue to destroy the left’s credibility on national defense, and therefore destroy all their political power) we will watch and see how things unfold. Right now all the reporting shows this is serious, and possibly dangerous.
END UPDATE
The NY Times leak is damaging our defense against another terrorist attack here in the US. Our reader MerryJ1 alerted us to this article describing how the terrorists have adapted to the news of monitoring their calls
Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in the purchase of large quantities of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan, ABC News has learned.
The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card — have many legitimate uses, and are popular with people who have bad credit or for use as emergency phones tucked away in glove compartments or tackle boxes. But since they can be difficult or impossible to track, law enforcement officials say the phones are widely used by criminal gangs and terrorists.
“There’s very little audit trail assigned to this phone. One can walk in, purchase it in cash, you don’t have to put down a credit card, buy any amount of minutes to it, and you don’t, frankly, know who bought this,” said Jack Cloonan, a former FBI official who is now an ABC News consultant.
…
The FBI is closely monitoring the potentially dangerous development, which came to light following recent large-quantity purchases in California and Texas, officials confirmed.In one New Year’s Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notified police, who called in the FBI, law enforcement sources said.
In an earlier incident, at a Wal-mart store in Midland, Texas, on December 18, six individuals attempted to buy about 60 of the phones until store clerks became suspicious and notified the police. A Wal-mart spokesperson confirmed the incident.
I bet that contacts to certain ‘targets’ overseas are now flowing through some of these purchased phones. We heard VA Sen Allen say that when the NY Times treason happened that there were adjustments in communications (though for the life of me I cannot find my post on his comments). Now we know of one possible adjustment – right here in the US.
And if someone wants to think this is not about terrorism
The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: “Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached).” At least one of the suspects was identified as being from Iraq and another from Pakistan, officials said.
Hmmm. And there is one lame excuse I am not buying
Law enforcement sources say it is possible some large purchases that have been identified as being sent to the Middle East could have been sent for resale in a sellers’ market for handsets, or simply given to friends and relatives. Officials are also investigating these possibilities.
Well, this is not legal exporting – but US cellular protocols (formats) are different than those in Europe, and I suspect in the ME. And since when can you buy ‘minutes’ here and use them overseas? You can’t.
The Midland, Texas, arrest report police also identified the individuals as linked to a terror cell:
“Evasive responses provided by the subjects, coupled with actions observed by officers at the onset of the contact prompted the notification of local FBI officials to assist in the investigation,” the report said. “Upon the arrival of special agents, and as a result of subsequent interviews, it was discovered that members of the group were linked to suspected terrorist cells stationed within the Metroplex.
There you go Risen. If you ever needed evidence you are a Benedict Arnold this is it. And if we do get attacked because of these adjustments by terrorists – you and the NY Times will have the blood of innocents on your hands.
Hi AJ,
Just an FYI, one of the first things the United States did when they got into Iraq was install CDMA all over the country. This opened up a huge market for Quallcomm.
SBD
Link between disposable phone sale surge and NSA leak? (UPDATED)
ABCNews is reporting that federal agents are investigating a surge in the purchasing of disposable cell phones by individuals from the Middle East and Pakistan:
The phones — which do not require purchasers to sign a contract or have a credit card …
Good point SBD. The non-elected left was in an uproar over this at the time. Wireless imperialism is what they called it.
Of course, the government may have wanted CDMA for information gathering purposes.
HI AJ
I don’t know Sen. Allen’s quote, but I know that Joe Klien in Time Mag quoted intell sources saying terrorist has changed their communication.
Tracphones? I’ll have 60 please
Mr. Risen, meet the barbarians. Barbarians, Mr. Risen gave you the tip on the tracphones…give him a kiss…go ahead……
Tracfones as Terrorist Tools?
On the ball employees in Walmart and Target on at least two separate occasions have called police.
In one New Year’s Eve transaction at a Target store in Hemet, Calif., 150 disposable tracfones were purchased. Suspicious store employees notifie…
[…] It’s becoming more and more clear that the leaks from the New York times extend into the area of treason, morally if not legally. These leakers must be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The mainstream media who aids and abets them deserves our contempt. The days when reporters were heroes are long gone. For a great summary of the latest evidence, read the whole article at Michelle Malkin’s place including great links like: AJ Strata connects the incidents to the publication of the NYT/NSA leak stories. His message for James Risen: “If you ever needed evidence you are a Benedict Arnold this is it. And if we do get attacked because of these adjustments by terrorists – you and the NY Times will have the blood of innocents on your hands.” […]
WE ARE ALL HOMELAND SECURITY AGENTS
HT Michelle Malkin
This story has been building steam in the Blogos for the last day or so. Michelle Malkin just linked to it.
Rocketsbrain has been advocating just this action for the last two years. Oh well you know what the…
[…] Our good friend AJ had a post earlier about how terrorists may already be adapting to the leak of the NSA eavesdropping program; it’s an almost impossible case to prove, but the timing is certainly suspect. What really caught my eye, though was AJ’s referral to a possible terrorism-related incident in Midland: The Midland, Texas, police report dated December 18 and obtained by ABC News states: “Information obtained by MPD [Midland Police Department] dispatch personnel indicated that approximately six individuals of Middle-Eastern origin were attempting to purchase an unusually large quantity of tracfones (disposable cell phones with prepaid minutes attached). […]
Are the jihadis stocking up on TracFones?
… Nothing I’ve read on this, by the MSM or by bloggers, seems to reflect any real familiarity with TracFones. … I’m not at all certain that stocking up on TracFones will do the jihadis as much good as a lot of people are afraid it will, …
Are Terrorists Switching to Disposable Cell Phones – Do We Have the NY Times to Thank?
A commenter at The Strata-Sphere linked to this ABC News report, Surge in Sale of Disposable Cell Phones May Have Terror Link. Be sure to read the entire ABC News article:Federal agents have launched an investigation into a surge in
Terrorists Buying Untraceable Cell Phones In USA.
This one hits close to home. Michelle Malkin has this story about terrorists buying large quantities of throw away cell phones. One of the towns mentioned Hemet California is about 15 minutes from my house. Here is an excerpt:
AJ Strata connects thi…
look, i hate to burst your bubble but it looks like the midland terrorist cell doesn’t exist. maybe it’s time for another update to this post?
besides, your point never made much sense in the first place. the secret that NYT story disclosed was not that the u.s. had the capability of secretly tapping telephone lines (believe it or not, that was pretty much common knowledge–featured in numerous action movie plots. hell, the white house’s own web site discussed wiretaps of terrorist cells at least a dozen times before 12/15/05).
what the NYT revealed was that the president authorized wiretaps without the required secret warrant. whether there is a secret warrant or not is completely unknown to the target of the wiretap. the NYT story didn’t reveal anything useful to terrorists, certainly nothing that has anything to do with a bunch of brown people buying cell phones. the only relevance the warrant or no warrant question has is the question of whether the president of the u.s. committed a felony.
so before you get all hot and heavy about something like this, i respectfully suggest that you: (1) check to see if the facts bear out what you’re claiming is true, and (2) make some coherent argument to back up your accusation against the times or whoever you are on the warpath against.
flying low
via crooks and liars, i dropped by this post at the right-wing blog strata-sphere…
upyernoz, I hate to burst your bubble, but your post makes the entire point of the actual facts regarding the whole NSA/FISA story. You are absolutely right that it is not about eavesdropping, it’s about information. The more information, the greater value the investigator has in proving a case against the terrorist. Here a quote from the story.
One step that the agency took immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks, Ms. Pelosi wrote in her letter, was to begin forwarding information from foreign intelligence intercepts to the F.B.I. for investigation without first receiving a specific request from the bureau for “identifying information.â€
To sieze “phone records” from a suspect that resides in the US, but communicates with a terrorist overseas, the FBI would need to go through FISA. These criminals were just informed by the Pelosi letter, in this example, that their phone records were possibly open to the FBI from the NSA which was monitoring their overseas calls and sending that info to the FBI without being asked. The story neglects to point out that once the NSA had this information and sent it to the FBI, that is when the FISA process would start.
Either way, since the criminal’s only act that might get them caught was being traced to a call to an overseas terrorist by their cell phone number, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it would be harder to trace with a Trac Phone.
SBD
In case the above was too much for some people to “get it”, I will try to simplify it as much as possible.
1) NSA intercepts overseas call between a known terrorist and a cell phone in the United States.
2) NSA notifies the FBI that the following cell phone number originating the the United States has been in communication with a known terrorist.
3) FBI learns that the cell phone number belongs to someone in New York.
4) FBI submits request for a FISA warrant to monitor all calls to the cell phone and obtain the “phone records” from previous calls.
5) FISA approves the Warrant and FBI starts the wiretapping and uses the “phone records” to identify others that belong to this terror cell.
The NYT and others, including the leaders of the LEFT, have a problem with the very first step in the above example. They say that the NSA has no legal authority to send the intercepts to the FBI because it invades the privacy of the person who is talking to an enemy of the United States and is basically the same as “guilt by association”. Where their line of thinking fails, falls in the fact that the suspect will not have anything to worry about if there is no crime in progress and they will never even know they were looked at to begin with. What the traitors IE. NYT and Pelosi have done is to help the Terrorist make the job of the FBI, which is to protect all of us, harder to accomplish because the phone number they receive from the NSA will not be as easy to trace back to an individual as quickly as with a regular cell.
SBD
Shocker! Terrorists use prepaid cell phones
Someone find me a good conservative blog where people are actually sensible and have more than half a clue what they’re talking about when it comes to security, especially national security, and don’t go off on hysterical rants every other…
To sieze “phone records†from a suspect that resides in the US, but communicates with a terrorist overseas, the FBI would need to go through FISA.
can you give me a citation from FISA that says that? i’ve read the statute and, as i recall FISA only talks about the procedures for secretly wiretapping someone. it’s not about “seizing phone records”, it’s about listening in and (presumably) recording them. FISA makes it pretty clear that only one agency is involved but it doesn’t name what agency that is. as it turns out, the NSA is the one that does the tap in most cases (though other agencies could also get a FISA warrant all by themselves)
These criminals were just informed by the Pelosi letter, in this example, that their phone records were possibly open to the FBI from the NSA which was monitoring their overseas calls and sending that info to the FBI without being asked.
first, i disagree with your description of the procedures it has to go through–please give me a citation from FISA (i’ll make it easy for you, the statute is here)
second, the terrorist already knew that their telephones could be tapped. i knew that, the white house said it on their web page, the president mentioned it in his speeches, there are more movies than i can count that are about secret wiretaps, etc. the NYTimes article did not reveal that secret to anyone because it simply wasn’t secret. all the article revealed is that some of the taps were not backed up by a warrant, because FISA warrants are classified, that told terrorists nothing particularly useful. either way they knew their phone could be tapped, what difference would it make to them whether the FISA court had secretly rubber stamped the tap or not? the terrorists would have no way of knowing either way
nor would it tell anything useful to the terrorists if they somehow learned that the info from their telephone conversations would be share be shared between agencies. sharing information between agencies is another thing that the president himself spoke about publicly before 12/15/05 (remember all that talk about reorganizating intelligence agencies post-9/11, and putting all 16 of them under a single intelligence czar to better coordinate exchange of information?). that the NSA sometimes passes info on to the FBI was no secret either.
even if we put aside the fact that these type of info exchanges are not addressed by FISA at all, nor was that what was discussed in the infamous NYTimes article, it wouldn’t matter if they had. in order for the NYTimes or pelosi (or whoever) to be accused of endangering national security for telling terrorists some secret, the thing you accuse them of revealing has to be actually secret, i.e. not something that was public knowledge before.
The story neglects to point out that once the NSA had this information and sent it to the FBI, that is when the FISA process would start.
now you’re just making stuff up. FISA simply doesn’t say that. the act only requires submission by a federal officer it doesn’t specify that the officer has to be from any particular agency, or has to coordinate with any other agency.
The NYT and others, including the leaders of the LEFT, have a problem with the very first step in the above example. They say that the NSA has no legal authority to send the intercepts to the FBI because it invades the privacy of the person who is talking to an enemy of the United States and is basically the same as “guilt by associationâ€.
no, as a certified member of the left, i can tell you that’s not our problem with this at all. the problem is that bush authorized wiretaps that violated the law. i can break it down for you really easily:
1. 18 U.S.C. 2511(f) states that “the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.”
2. president bush authorized wiretaps without getting a FISA warrant.
3. by doing so, president bush committed a felony
it’s really as simple as that. before you start summarizing what liberals think, maybe you should try to get right what some of us actually think (or you could just ask me)
so, one more time: the argument that the NYTimes article somehow helped the terrorists simply makes no sense. the terrorist knew the u.s. had the ability to tap phones. can anyone explain to me exactly how the article endangered national security in any way? i’m open to any argument you can come up with. all i ask is that it make sense
upyernoz,
FISA is the path for obtaining search and surveillance warrants on agents of foreign powers for intelligence purposes (none law enforcement) that is meant to replicate the normal warrant process for criminal investigations. As in the more common, criminal case, law enforcement needs permission to access records as well as separate permission for eavesdropping.
The fact you don’t understand this simple element of FISA compared to normal 4th amendment processes demonstrates why no one here should really be worried about your views.
To debate a subject, one firsts need to understand it, at least to a basic level. You seem to be making it up as you go along.
As to whether you believe the terrorists adjusted their behavior or not, that’s irrelevant. You don’t know, you are not involved in that line of business (obviously). There have been people who could know who have said there has been adjustments. Those comments, while not proof, carry more weight than some liberal rationalizing against reality.
Finally, the proof the system was able to trap people, because they were not aware of what we were doing, is in the fact we did catch people. Many of the defendents kept wondering how they were caught. Well now they know.
You are free to post here, but I must say your not doing yourself any favors.
BTW, everyone please keep it civil. The problems all blogs have is when they become known broadly, and others of differing views begin to post, people start insulting each other. I call it forum fever. We don’t need any comment wars here. Remember, many times a post itself is sufficient evidence a poster has missed a point.
Have a great Sunday folks.
FISA is the path for obtaining search and surveillance warrants on agents of foreign powers for intelligence purposes (none law enforcement) that is meant to replicate the normal warrant process for criminal investigations. As in the more common, criminal case, law enforcement needs permission to access records as well as separate permission for eavesdropping.
The fact you don’t understand this simple element of FISA compared to normal 4th amendment processes demonstrates why no one here should really be worried about your views
why do you think i don’t understand that? i never denied that the justice department would need a separate warrant to justify information introduced at a criminal trial. but i wasn’t talking about that, i was addressing SBD’s claim that FISA gave the procedures for exchanging information between different agencies. it simply doesn’t. FISA does impose limits on the uses of the info obtained by a FISA warrant in a criminal trial. but that’s not what SBD was talking about, so i didn’t address that element of the statute.
so it would be nice if you questioned me further before dismissing me as not knowing what i’m talking about. i am hardly an expert in this area (though i am a lawyer), and i am open to being enlightened by anyone who really can explain how this endangers national security. there’s no need to simply dismiss me like that.
To debate a subject, one firsts need to understand it, at least to a basic level. You seem to be making it up as you go along.
what specifically am i making up? i have cited the statute for you. have i read it wrong? how did i misinterpret it? what specific provisions are you talking about?
s to whether you believe the terrorists adjusted their behavior or not, that’s irrelevant. You don’t know, you are not involved in that line of business (obviously). There have been people who could know who have said there has been adjustments. Those comments, while not proof, carry more weight than some liberal rationalizing against reality.
i.e. you don’t know how the NYTimes article endangered national security.
how about this, let’s call it a thought experiment. can you make up a hypothetical situation–any situation–where the terrorists could have learned something useful from the NYTimes article? i only ask that the “something useful” be something that was secret before 12/15/05.
the problem here is not that key facts are classified. this is simply a logic problem. i can’t see any logical way that knowledge of the presence of absence of a secret FISA warrant helps or hinders terrorists in any way. but maybe it’s just that i haven’t been smart enough to come up with an example. i am, as always, open to any you can come up with.
Finally, the proof the system was able to trap people, because they were not aware of what we were doing, is in the fact we did catch people. Many of the defendents kept wondering how they were caught. Well now they know.
really? there are really people who were caught by a wiretap and wondered how the u.s. did that? can you give me a link to back that up? doesn’t it bother you that the white house’s june 2005 fact sheet says “Roving Wiretaps Are Essential In Investigating International Terrorists”? or how about the fact that the weekend before the NYTimes article president bush said in his weekly radio address: “Under the act, law enforcement officers need a federal judge’s permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist’s phone or search his property.”
so how does the NYTimes’ mention of wiretap of foreign telephone calls endanger national security while the president’s decision to broadcast this capability over the radio does not?
maybe it’s just that i’m not smart enough to figure this out myself, but humor me. explain what i’m missing. why is the president talking about wiretapping terrorists calls okay, but if the NYTimes talks about it, it is treason?
You are free to post here…
thanks!
…but I must say your not doing yourself any favors.
that’s okay too. just let me know where specifically i am going wrong.
BTW, everyone please keep it civil.
i agree wholeheartedly with that. i really do appreciate these discussions. if anything i have written comes across as rude, i really didn’t intend it that way.
thanks