Aug 17 2006
Remember the UK Bomb Plot foiled last week? Remember how phone calls and money transfers from Pakistan to the UK helped expose the plot details and the fact we were days away from its implementation. Recall how all the lefties from Lamont on have claimed America cannot be allowed to monitor terrorist communications with their associates here in the US and monitor their financial transfers to detect and stop the next 9-11. Well hold on folks, but another unelected judge has decided Terrorists need protection because we may listen in on their calls to the Holiday Inn reservation line and that risk is more dire than 3,000 + people dying in an attack (more hear at WaPo). Or worse, journalists may have their conversations with terrorists monitored:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs.
Now that is truly serious. The first judge to decide to disarm America issued his decision only a few days ago. These judges have ruled the US must take down its anti-terrorism defenses only one week after the UK Airline Plot was stopped.. OK Al Qaeda – it is now open season on Americans. Go to it. We are disarming. Journalists need to talk to you and so Americans must face death to make that happen.
Update: Lamont supporters at Kosland are all ecstatic that we have been ordered to surrender to Al Qaeda – read it all here in their own words.
Update: In case anyone is not clear on what this means, here are the germaine parts of my comment to someone truly ignorant of the facts of the NSA-FISA issue: The NSA was going through FISA since 9-11. Prior to 9-11 no intelligence information could be used to gain a surveillance warrant through FISA. In fact, the NSA would not pass any leads to the FBI-FISA regarding potential terrorists they uncovered in the US because of this restriction. The change after 9-11 was allow the FBI to get the leads and investigate. The NSA still monitors just the terrorists and anyone talking to them until a FISA warrant is passed which provides for complete surveillance of all communications on the person in the US. All that this means is there now will be NO LEADS coming out of the NSA to the FBI regarding possible terrorists in the US. That is what it means to go back to the pre 9-11 idiocy. Get here and the terrorists have more protections against detection than any other place in the world.
Update: The scary thing in the decision is the plaintiffs admit they are conversing with terrorists:
For example, scholars and journalists such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.12 In addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations,13 and must discuss confidential information over the phone and email with their international clients.
So while the idea their rights have been abused is purely speculative and unproven, their contact with known terrorists is not speculation. In fact, the arguement is the connection to the plaintiffs and to the NSA program is Al Qaeda:
The TSP admittedly targets communications originated or terminated outside the United States where a party to such communication is in the estimation of Defendants, a member of al Qaeda, a member of a group affiliated with al Qaeda, or an agent of al Qaeda or its affiliates. The injury to the Plaintiffs stems directly from the TSP and their injuries can unequivocally be traced to the TSP.
It seems the judge is concerned there may be a ‘chilling effect’ with regards to communications with terrorists overseas. Most of us would back such an effect. This is a joke of an opinion. The plaintiff’s complaints boil down to the cost of travelling to discuss things face to face, thus avoiding detection by the NSA. And there are numerous examples of contacts with overseas individuals and countries and organizations being restricted in some manner. The First Amendment allows these people to whine about the restrictions – not remove them. And finally the AUMF argument is ridiculous:
The AUMF does not say anything about killing people on the battlefield, dropping bombs on soveriegn soil, rounding up prisoners and enemy combatants on the battelfield to be held without respresentation idefinitely. The AUMF does not say anything about spying or snooping or any of the things we do when we us military action. So that arguement is a joke. The dems will love this for the pyhrric victory and the cons will love it because the dems will be seen as soft on terrorism. They are all running around saying we are not safer – but there answer is to make us MUCH LESS safer still! That’ll win in November.