May 30 2007

Democrat Is OK With Protecting Terrorist Communications Into America

Published by at 8:01 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

OK, I thought I hd heard every idiotic thing in the world out of the Democrats. But when I think they can’t get anymore dangerous or stupid, their Bush Derangement Syndrome grabs hold of them and they align themselves with our enemies. I kid you not, but the new chairman of the House Intel committee (who had not business being the chairman based on his total lack of experience) is OK with protecting the right of terrorists to communicate into the US without any restrictions:

In his May 21 op-ed, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, tried to make the case for the administration’s new proposal for rewriting FISA. But his complaints about the current system were inaccurate.

He stated that our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners abroad. That is not correct. Foreign-to-foreign communications, as a rule, do not require a court order.

Note Reyes (D) doesn’t include known terrorist calling into the US. He just lumps people by their location – not their history or record. The NSA program is targetted to only those people who contact or are contacted by a terrorist overseas (or here) who are already under surveillance. The NSA program does not allow for the random surveillance of just anyone. When they monitor a suspected terrorist, and that terrorist contacts someone in the US, then that communication is saved (before 9-11 it was destroyed strangely enough) and then investigated. If the lead turns out to be worrisome then it is taken to the FISA Court for a surveillance warrant. What Reyes clearly implies is this ‘foriegn-to-America’ communication needs a warrant – though even in the US all contacts involving a valid target of surveillance are monitored and recorded.

Reyes relies on the fact the egg can proceed the chicken in his lame attempt to grasp the situation (or explain his BDS derangemnent – who knows):

One of McConnell’s principal concerns relates to the time required to obtain a court order under FISA, but what he failed to mention is that the attorney general (or the deputy attorney general or an assistant attorney general) can grant oral approval for surveillance if that Justice Department official believes “an emergency situation exists” and that the facts will support a FISA court order.

Reyes is an ignoramous on this matter. First off, no FISA warrant can be let based ONLY on the NSA intercepts. The FIS Court has never allowed that. Maybe Reyes should check reality before making things up. What is happening is the NSA intercept is being provided to the FBI and the FBI is investigating. In 45 day chunks the DoJ and President authorize the emergency investigations to determine the seriousness of the threat. Only if the FBI or local law enforcement can demonstrate INDEPENDENT evidence, beyond the NSA intercept, can a full FISA warrant be issued. So it is not enough to have an NSA intercept with Bin Laden himsef saying “allah be merciful, begin your attack” to someone in DC.

Reyes and the Dems are playing a dangerous game here – with OUR lives. I refuse to let KNOWN terrorists call into this country without those callls being monitored and checked out. We lost 3,000 people on 9-11 because we did not pass the NSA leads onto the FBI – and yes, there apparently were leads intercepted by the NSA regarding 9-11 (Gen Hayden alluded to these in many public comments). And those leads were thrown away because the FIS Court would not allow them in warrant applications. So people died horrible deaths. That is what Reyes is trying to bring back. Even a known terrorist is ‘foreign’, and that is all Reyes is concerned about.

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “Democrat Is OK With Protecting Terrorist Communications Into America”

  1. lurker9876 says:

    9/10 mentality.

  2. BarbaraS says:

    The left will say anything and do anything to thwart Bush even to the point of letting the country go down the tube. If Bush had said we couldn’t monitor the phone calls, the left would demand that we do so. They would say, rightly, that Bush was endangering the country. Well, the shoe is on the other foot and they can’t grasp it or else they hope we can’t.

  3. Soothsayer says:

    AJ conveniently forgets or omits one of the key considerations of FISA – that the government may institute a wiretap for up to 72 hours BEFORE getting a warrant. Information gathered during those 72 hours may be used to obtain the warrant AND only 5-6 of some 5,000+ applications for warrants have ever been turned down.

    The government has demonstrated no – let me repeat NO – substantive reason why Title 50 USC CH. 36 should be abrogated. The security of America is adequately preservd under the lawful regimen established by FISA.

    If AJ wants to give away HIS constitutional rights so the Bush nanny government will protect him from the boogey-men that’s OK with me – but I intend to protect my rights at the point of my constitutionally protected gun – and the government has no right to wiretap me without a warrant. Period.

  4. AJStrata says:


    I did not forget. I am just no so naive to believe you can investigate a lead in 72 hours. This ain’t TV Sooth.

  5. Retired Spook says:

    Powerline did an extensive piece about the 72-hour provision back in January of ’06. It’s not nearly as simple as it sounds.

  6. The Macker says:

    Lest you forget, we are at war and the bogeyman is real.

  7. Soothsayer says:

    Stop being such cowards.

    You folks get all wound up about a one-time event that killed less than 3,000 Americans.

    We kill 3,000 of ourselves on the road every month. What do Republicans do about it? Raise the speed limit to 70 from 55 and resist additional safety requirements.

    We kill 3,000 of ourselves with firearms every month. What do Republicans do about it? Let the assault weapons ban expire and pass concealed carry laws so idiots can carry guns.

    We kill 6,000 – 12,000 of ourselves every month in hospitals due to medical malpractice (AMA figures). What do Republicans do about it?? Pass “tort reform” laws to cap damages payments to the victim’s families.

    A one-time event in which a handful of Saudis hijack a plane happens so what do Republicans do?? Invade a country that had nothing to do with the attack and get 3,500 more Americans killed, and meanwhile, back at the ranch, throw the Constitution out the window while violating Federal laws that make warrantless wiretaps a felony, and justify it by claiming that the laws don’t apply to the Moron from Crawford.

    There is no bogeyman for grownups who refuse to be intimidated. You are far more at risk to be killed in traffic by your neighbor, by a friend or relative with a handgun, or by a surgeon with a scalpel than you ever are or will be at risk from a pathetic bunch of “terrorists”.

  8. Terrye says:


    That was one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. We kill 3,000 of ourselves on the road every month. Well hell, soothie, everybody dies someday so why should murder even be a crime?

  9. Soothsayer says:


    The call of the neocon:

    I am so scared of Osama I will give up my constitutional rights if only Daddy will protect me.