December 23, 2005

FISA Action Was Disastrous in the Case of 9-11—Do Libs Want More of That? Does the NY Times?

FISA Court Discouraged Moussaoui Warrant:

Led by the New York Times, a chorus of administration critics have been insisting all week that there was no reason for President Bush to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court when he sought to wiretap terrorists operating inside the U.S. - since the FISA Court almost always approves such requests.

But that's not what the Times reported three years ago, after FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley came forward with the allegation that the Bureau might have been able to stop the 9/11 attacks if only investigators had been allowed access to the laptop computer of suspected 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui.

Moussaoui was arrested in Minneapolis on Aug. 16, 2001 - nearly four weeks before the 9/11 attacks - after an instructor at a local flight school he attended called the F.B.I. to report that he suspected the Moroccan-born terrorist was up to no good.

In a May 2002 report the Times noted: "Two days later, F.B.I. agents in Minnesota asked Washington to obtain a special warrant to search his laptop computer."

But FISA had disciplined the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of terrorist surveillance operations -- harming his career -- and making the FBI cautious about applying to FISA!

"Recent interviews of intelligence officials by The New York Times suggest that the Bureau had a reason for growing cautious about applying to a secret national security court for special search warrants that might have supplied critical information."

"The F.B.I.," officials told the Times, "had become wary after a well-regarded supervisor was disciplined because the [FISA] court complained that he had submitted improper information on applications."

The secret court went so far as to discipline Michael Resnick, the F.B.I. supervisor in charge of coordinating terrorist surveillance operations, saying they would no longer accept warrant applications from him.Intelligence officials told the Times that the FISA Court's decision to reprimand Resnick, who had been a rising star in the FBI, "resulted in making the Bureau far less aggressive in seeking information on terrorists."

..."Other officials," the paper said, complained that the FISA Court's actions against Resnick "prompted Bureau officials to adopt a play-it-safe approach that meant submitting fewer applications and declining to submit any that could be questioned."

...In a January 2002 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller, [Sen. Charles] Grassley noted that had a search been permitted, "Agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the [9/11] hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian Al Qaeda boss who had met with at least two other [9/11] hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials." 

This 2002 NY Times story shows that FISA is not only incapable of acting in such cases so as to save American lives -- its inability to do so led directly to the 9-11 attack itself.

And yet the NY Times -- and some Liberals -- want the U.S. to be forced to rely on FISA for permission to spy on terrorists communicating to or from the U.S. This would be very likely to lead to further killings of Americans by terrorists. 

Would Liberals Argue that the U.S. Should Not Spy on Terrorists who Want to Kill Americans?

Several commenters have posted, making the point that (in the words of commenter Chuck Hagel):

No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. 

This is certainly true. But there is great doubt, to say the least, that GWB broke the law. From John Schmidt, who was associate attorney general of the United States, under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997:

President had legal authority to OK taps

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

My question for these commenters is this: would you be willing to argue in favor of having laws that would prevent the United States from spying on the conversations of terrorists who are trying to kill Americans?

YOU GOTTA LOVE SCRAPPLEFACE: "Qaeda Relocates to U.S. for Spy-Free Calling. "