ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Saturday, December 17, 2005


At least, any Americans that happens to communicate regularly with terrorists abroad... (Don't go to MTV to get that perspective, though.)

Like this guy.

NSA's "special collection program" nabbed terrorist plotter Iyman Faris

Faris admitted to traveling to New York City in late 2002 to examine the bridge, and said he concluded that the plot to destroy the bridge by severing cables was unlikely to succeed because of the bridge’s security and structure. In early 2003, he sent a message that “the weather is too hot” - a coded message indicating that the bridge plot was unlikely to succeed.

So, you know... slippery slope and all that....

(Frankly, if an Al Qaeda terrorist were to pick up the phone and give me a ring, I WOULD WANT THE NSA TO BE LISTENING TO EVERY @#$ING WORD OF MY CONVERSATION WITH THEM!!!!)

Do Shumer, Leahy, and Kennedy, and the editorial board of the NYTimes think that Faris's civil liberties have been violated? Should all charges against him be dropped on this technicality?

And it's interesting to note that Congress and the special court is notified of each such intercept (after the fact)... The only part that busts my libertarian sensibilities (I've been known to have a few) is the possibility that the government would do an intercept and not notify Congress. But, then again... if they're going to break the law and the executive order by not notifying Congress after the fact, it's unlikely that they'd follow the law on getting a warrant beforehand. If they really are breaking the law, why go to Congress?

As pointed out by an intelligence researcher on Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume Jim Angle, these steps were only taken when seeking approval and a warrant in advance would compromise the ability to intercept the information. But the Times seems to think that we should let Osama chat with someone here in the US for a few hours before we start to listen in:
The standard of proof required to obtain a warrant from the foreign intelligence court is generally considered lower than that required for a criminal warrant - intelligence officials only have to show probable cause that someone may be "an agent of a foreign power," which includes international terrorist groups - and the secret court has turned down only a small number of requests over the years. In 2004, according to the Justice Department, 1,754 warrants were approved. The foreign intelligence court can grant emergency approval for wiretaps within hours, officials say.

Because, you know... Osama's and Al Qaeda get real chatty when they're planning a terrorist strike.

The USA PATRIOT Act should be extended... there may be provisions that should be modified. But roving wiretaps (a tool commonly employed against the Gambino crime family) certainly should be employed against terrorist suspects. (Roving Wiretaps = you get court authority to tap communications of an individual, not a specific device of an individual. Thus, regardless of whether the individuals uses 4 cell phones, a blackberry, a satellite phone, a land-line telephone, or two cans with a string, you can listen in.) This is a common sense measure and has little impact on civil liberties.

By the way, isn't it just amazing that while we're seeing victorious milestones in the War On Terror abroad, we're losing our nerve here at home?

Looks like the next step for the Moonbats (aka the Democratic Party leaders such as John "Flip-Flopper" Kerry) is to call for impeachment...

See Michelle Malkin, Jeff Goldstein, and Captain's Quarters(here and here), and Newsbusters for more.

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler