“look, i hate to burst your bubble but it looks like the midland terrorist cell doesn’t exist”

it doesn’t change the rest of my point. i still don’t see how i contradicted that sentence later. but i’m all for accuracy. i’m sorry for any confusion the beginning of my last comment may have caused

i don’t get it. how am i changing my position? my first sentence in my original post (other than when i was quoting SBD was a question, not a statement:

“can you give me a citation from FISA that says that?”

the next 3 sentences were statements about how i interpret the statute:

“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.”

how did i change my position later? FISA is about wiretaps, not seizing phone records. i don’t think i ever said otherwise. please explain where i contradicted myself. i’m just not seeing it

And in trying explain you never meant what you wrote, you make another big blunder. The FISA court DID overstep its authority and try to tell the FBI what information it could retain in May 2002. That attempt to control the use of information included numerous claims by the FISA Court that it was the essence of the Gorelick Wall, controlling the flow of information between law enforcement and intelligence efforts.

okay, now i think you’re not understanding my comments. where did i say that the FISA court did not ever overstep its authority? where did i discuss the gorelick wall? personally, i don’t think that’s what this controversy is all about. indeed, i’ve been consistently saying that this whole thing is not about the sharing of information between agencies. bush’s authorization of the NSA to conduct wireless wiretaps is a separate matter.

I did warn you not to post too much because it would expose you lack of knowledge. Why not read up on the subject here

sigh. look, if it makes you feel any better i freely admit i don’t know everything about this. call me ignorant, uninformed, stupid, whatever you want. i really don’t mind. i would like to have a constructive conversation about this. is that a problem?

put another way: if i am wrong, i want you to explain to me where i went wrong. i am perfectly willing to change my mind if you or anyone else can show me that i’m off track. i only ask that you extend the same courtesy to me and my points.

with each comment i have tried to address everything you say point-by-point. in response, you claimed that i contradicted myself (without explaining what that contradiction was) and then brought up what i believe to be a different issue (the gorelick wall, etc). if we’re talking about what critics of the bush administration are all excited about, then, as a bona fide critic, i’m right. it is a different issue. i’m simply not excited in this case over the gorelick wall. i am excited over the fact that the president violated FISA in authorizing the NSA to engage in warrantless wiretaps. you haven’t responded to my points at all. nor did you respond to my request for a single hypothetical situation where the NYTimes article endangered national security.

sorry for all the “yous” in that paragraph. i don’t want to come across as accusatory or nasty. i really do want friendly conversation over this issue. as i said, i am perfectly willing to change my position if you can demonstrate that i am wrong about something. consider this an opportunity to educate and convert someone from the other side.

but a conversation means mutual respect. and that means considering my points and answering my questions. rather than calling me “misinformed,” inform me.

i hope you’re having a great sunday. thanks again for your patience.

Look – I don’t mind people changing their position, but admit you are changing your position. The very first sentence in your original comment was wrong and I pointed out it was wrong. And now you admit it was wrong, while trying to claim you never mean what you wrote.

And in trying explain you never meant what you wrote, you make another big blunder. The FISA court DID overstep its authority and try to tell the FBI what information it could retain in May 2002. That attempt to control the use of information included numerous claims by the FISA Court that it was the essence of the Gorelick Wall, controlling the flow of information between law enforcement and intelligence efforts.

I did warn you not to post too much because it would expose you lack of knowledge. Why not read up on the subject here

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/1103

You know, I think the only person you are fooling is yourself here.

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

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.

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 association”.

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

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…

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

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.”

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

via crooks and liars, i dropped by this post at the right-wing blog strata-sphere…

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.

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…

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