Tim Sumner

FISA, Terrorist Surveillance Program, War on Terror

New York Times “fine” with FISA law that delayed search for missing U.S. troops

by  • 

The New York Times is “fine” with the fact that after United States soldiers were kidnapped in Iraq, the existing FISA law delayed the monitoring of enemy communications while thousands of troops frantically searched for them.

The story about those kidnapped soldiers is here, this morning, in an editorial in the Washington Times:

Before leaving town, Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy and Sens. Chris Dodd and Russ Feingold, left a lump of coal (and a stink bomb) in the stockings of the American people when it comes to prevention against terrorist attack. After they failed on Monday failed to block Republican efforts to retroactively bar lawsuits against telephone companies that helped the government monitor suspected jihadist communications after September 11, Mr. Reid pulled from the floor legislation to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the primary law governing the monitoring of electronic communications. Unless Congress acts, on Feb. 1 U.S. intelligence agencies will lose the ability to monitor at least some overseas terrorist telecommunications without first obtaining court approval.
…
No case on the public record better illustrates the heightened dangers Americans will face than the case of three soldiers from the Army’s 10th Mountain Division who were ambushed May 12 south of Baghdad, apparently by al Qaeda. One soldier was found dead on May 23, while the other two remain missing. As coalition forces searched for the missing soldiers on May 13 and May 14, intelligence officials learned about insurgent communications they believed to be related to the ambush. On May 14, a special court overseeing FISA issued an order permitting some suspected terrorist communications to be monitored. The following day, lawyers and intelligence officials spent more than nine hours discussing the need for a FISA order to monitor these communications before Attorney General Alberto Gonzales authorized monitoring. Critics attribute the delays in the search to bureaucratic “bungling” — an intellectually dishonest argument, because it overlooks the fact that the FISA court had issued several rulings earlier this year that called into question the government’s authority to act without prior court approval.

Yet the New York Times is “fine” with letting the law expire that temporarily fixed this foolishness:

The issue before the Senate is fairly simple. Last summer, President Bush asked Congress to close a gap in the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created by advancements in technology…

That law expires in February, which means Congress has to pass new legislation giving the intelligence agencies a little more leeway in the wireless Internet age…
…
…If the law expires, fine. It won’t harm national security, and it will give Congress time to reflect…

And, if the law expires and while Congress reflects, what happens if the enemy again kidnaps our troops? Will it again give them added time to get away and to torture and murder America’s troops? Will that be “fine” with Senators Leahy, Dodd, and Feingold?

border security, Political wind, Terrorist Surveillance Program

Dems weaken border fence, delay enemy surveillance bill

by  • 

ABC News reports that:

After an eight-hour mock filibuster by presidential candidate Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pulled a controversial bill that would have given phone companies immunity from lawsuits brought by people who believed their civil rights were abrogated when, after 9/11, the companies gave the government access to their data without requiring a warrant.

Dodd and the other Democratic senators running for president opposed the immunity provision in the bill, which also extends authorization for the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping program.

The delay could leave Reid and the Democrats open to attacks that the Democrats are keeping the government from spying on terrorists.

Democrats in the House opposed the immunity provision, but it had gained bipartisan support in the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The information the companies provided to the government since the terror attacks is the subject of several ongoing lawsuits.

Reid agreed with Dodd on the issue of immunity but brought the bill to the Senate floor to move it along in the legislative process. The Protect America Act temporarily modified the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to allow the NSA to conduct its warrantless domestic wiretapping program.

Reid said pulling the bill would allow senators to give it a more thorough examination later on. He has called on the White House to provide its classified legal reasoning for the program.

In other words, they delayed a bill that would help America spy on the enemy and plan to delay it some more later.

And the Washington Times reports:

Congress last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.

The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes, surrenders to President Bush’s budget demands, meeting his spending limit with a $515 billion bill to fund most of the federal government and setting up votes to pay for the Iraq war. But Democrats reached his goal in part by slashing his defense and foreign-aid priorities to pay for added domestic spending.

The concessions promise to end a months-long budget standoff before Congress adjourns for the year and takes a Christmas break scheduled to start by Friday. In a rare two-step maneuver, the House first voted 253-154 to approve the bill to fund most of the civilian Cabinet agencies, and then voted 206-201 to add about $30 billion for Afghanistan war-spending to the measure.

But the measures did not pass before House Republicans blasted the changes to the border fence.

“The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats’ unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican. “Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it’s consistent with the pattern of behavior we’ve seen all year from this majority.”

The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for “two layers of reinforced fencing” and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.

Before you discount the need for a double fence, consider this report today by the New York Times:

Border Patrol agents are firing tear gas and powerful pepper-spray weapons across the border into Mexico to repel what the agency says are an increasing number of attacks by assailants hurling stones, bottles and bricks.

The counteroffensive has drawn complaints that innocent families are being caught in the cross-fire.

Esther Arias Medina, 41, fled her shanty in Tijuana with her 3-week-old grandson last week in the midst of an attack. The boy had begun coughing, Ms. Arias said, after smoke seeped through the walls of the three-room home, which she shares with six others.

“We don’t deserve this,” she said. “The people who live here don’t throw rocks. Those are people who come from the outside. But we’re paying the price.”

Witnesses in Ms. Arias’s neighborhood described eight attacks since August that involved tear gas or pepper spray, some that forced residents to evacuate.

The Border Patrol said its agents had been attacked nearly 1,000 times during a one-year period. The agency’s top official in San Diego, Mike Fisher, said agents were taking action because the Mexican authorities had been slow to respond. When an attack occurs, Mr. Fisher said, the agents often wait hours for Mexican officers, who, he said, usually never arrive.