Sep 07 2006
Bush Confirms NSA Pre and Post 9-11
As many who read this blog know, I have said that prior to 9-11 the NSA could not pass leads to the FBI regarding terrorists here in the US, leads garnered from monitoring terrorists overseas. I have said over and over again the NY Times totally misreported the situation between the NSA and FISA and that instead of bypassing FISA after 9-11, the NSA leads were now being passed to the FBI, which then took those leads that ended up being possible terrorists to the FISA Court for warrants. Today, in a speech in Georgia, President Bush confirmed these assertions:
According to the 9/11 Commission, two of the first suicide hijackers to join the plot were men named Hazmi and Mihdhar. KSM’s plan was to send these two men to infiltrate the United States and train as pilots so they could fly the hijacked planes into buildings.
…
There, they began carrying out the plot from inside our nation. They made phone calls to planners of the attack overseas. And they awaited the arrival of the other killers.
…
Remember, I told you the two had made phone calls outside the country.
At my direction, the National Security Agency created the terrorist surveillance program.
Before 9/11, our intelligence professionals found it difficult to monitor international communications, such as those between the Al Qaida operatives secretly in the United States and planners of the 9/11 attacks.
The terrorist surveillance program helps protect Americans by allowing us to track terrorist communications, so we can learn about threats, like the 9/11 plot, before it is too late.
…
When the FISA was passed in 1978, there was no widely accessible Internet and almost all calls were made on fixed land lines.
BUSH: Since then, the nature of communications has changed quite dramatically. The terrorists who want to harm America can now buy disposable cell phones and open anonymous e-mail addresses.
Our laws need to change to take these changes into account.
If Al Qaida commander or associate is calling to the United States, we need to know why they’re calling. And Congress needs to pass legislation supporting this program.
The fact the media and many others have never corrected the original NY Times reporting means the American people have been debating a non-existent situation. The FISA Court cannot command the military or place itself into the chain of command. The NSA has no standing to ask for warrants any more than a tank commander can. People who say NSA must get FISA warrants to monitor our enemies do not understand where these organizatons exist in the Federal Government are still trying to respond to the NY Times’ totally flawed reporting.
One thing is for sure, we know what the result is if we do not llisten in on the terrorists and pass the leads to the FBI-FISA. 9-11 is now the prime example of what will happen. To date I theorized that the calls were being made and intercepted and the tradition of NSA not passing leads to the FBI had put a blindfold on activities here while we could see more clearly overseas. This is truly an important aspect of all this. Clearly the country cannot go back to the pre 9-11 days.
Now I’m totally confused, AJ. this article, which I know you’ve referenced because I bookmarked it from one of your posts, makes it pretty clear that the judges on the FISA Court were reluctant to grant warrants to the FBI based on NSA intercepts.
Now you (and the President) are saying:
I have said over and over again the NY Times totally misreported the situation between the NSA and FISA and that instead of bypassing FISA after 9-11, the NSA leads were now being passed to the FBI, which then took those leads that ended up being possible terrorists to the FISA Court for warrants.
So were the WAPO article as well as your numerous past assertions regarding the “tainted” nature of NSA intercepts in error. Either the FISA Court granted warrants based on probably cause established by NSA intercepts or they didn’t. Which is it?
BTW, I still love ya.
Spook, there are no inconsistencies, both are correct. The FIS Court judges did not know some of the evidence in front of them was NSA leads. The process was for the head judge to review the NSA leads (and make sure the FBI did some investigation itself) and then they allowed the NSA information into the process. Only the chief judges knew about this for security reasons. Apparently the one who quit got wind of the arrangement and was therefore in the story and who called it ‘tainting’.
So the process was happening and quite a bit it seems. But there are those who subscribe whole heartedly to the Gorelick Wall, and many of them were on the FIS Court!
AJStrata
Thanks for the clarification, AJ. I figured there had to be a logical explanation.
No problem my friend.
Wisdom exibited over a long timeframe should always be respected.
That is why most people come here, and conversly ignore me!
Maybe there is some justice to that, perhaps I need counsuling to adress my issues! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
While I don’t know that it’s particularly profitable for me to make any comments with regards to AJ’s remark on this thread, some readers may be interested in knowing that I’ve just posted a long-ish post in a series of posts on a different thread relating to the NSA Question. http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/2450.
(I’m pretty sure that I’ve said what I wanted to say there (aside from any replying), and don’t know that it makes much sense to “complete” my posting in exactly the promised (or suggested) organizational posting format as I had originally envisonaged. Who can say…)
Regards