PDA

View Full Version : Hey, can anybody answer this question?



Bluesman
19 Feb 08,, 23:14
Anybody out there have any idea whether any foreign radical Islamists contacted any of their allies today to discuss another terror attack on U.S. soil?

And the answer to the thread title is: NO, nobody can tell whether foreign radical Islamist contacted any of their allies today to discuss another terror attack on US soil.

And we won't be able to determine the answer to that question tomorrow, either.

Or the day after.

Or the day after THAT.

Or EVER, until the FISA reform is adopted by the House and Senate, the leadership of which won't even permit the matter to come up for a vote.

We WILL be attacked again, and when we ARE, I want all of you to remember why our enemies were not prevented from it.

gunnut
20 Feb 08,, 05:11
The libs will just blame it on Bush if we get attacked again. :biggrin:

FullTank
20 Feb 08,, 05:47
Is there any ban on evangelical muslim groups in the US?

Is there any way the security agencies could bug the mosques and hear what is being said there? What if what is being said inside the mosques is anti-american? could the govt take any action against the mullah/people involved if so?Does US law allow this?

gunnut
20 Feb 08,, 09:32
Is there any ban on evangelical muslim groups in the US?

Is there any way the security agencies could bug the mosques and hear what is being said there? What if what is being said inside the mosques is anti-american? could the govt take any action against the mullah/people involved if so?Does US law allow this?

I believe back in WW1 or WW2 the government could haul your ass to jail if you were deemed "unamerican." Of course that was when a democrat was in the White House. He could get away with anything. Like jailing American citizens just because they looked yellow?

lwarmonger
21 Feb 08,, 11:16
Is there any way the security agencies could bug the mosques and hear what is being said there? What if what is being said inside the mosques is anti-american? could the govt take any action against the mullah/people involved if so?Does US law allow this?

Saying things anti-American isn't illegal. If it was probably one fifth of people my age would be in jail.

However encouraging bad things (such as death) to happen to Americans has been known to be illegal.

Bluesman
23 Feb 08,, 16:06
From PowerLine:


Earlier today, Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey delivered a letter to Silvestre Reyes, the chairman--unfortunately--of the House Intelligence Committee. Their letter responded to a letter by Reyes on February 14 that disputed the urgency of reforming and modernizing FISA. The McConnell/Mukasey letter is devastating to those who, like Reyes, try to claim that no harm is being done by the Democrats' stonewalling of FISA reform. The letter is lengthy and detailed. Here are a few excerpts:


In our letter to Senator Reid on February 5, 2008, we explained that: "the expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information." That is exactly what has happened since the Protect America Act expired six days ago without enactment of the bipartisan Senate bill. We have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act. Because of this uncertainty, some partners have reduced cooperation. In particular, they have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.

We have provided Congress with examples in which difficulties with collections under the Executive Order resulted in the Intelligence Community missing crucial information. For instance, one of the September 11th hijackers communicated with a known overseas terrorist facility while he was living in the United States. Because that collection was conducted under Executive Order 12333, the Intelligence Community could not identify the domestic end of the communication prior to September 11, 2001, when it could have stopped that attack. The failure to collect such communications was one of the central criticisms of the Congressional Joint Inquiry that looked into intelligence failures associated with the attacks of September 11. The bipartisan bill passed by the Senate would address such flaws in our capabilities that existed before the enactment of the Protect America Act and that are now resurfacing.

As we have explained in letters, briefings and hearings, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence agents located overseas. Most importantly, FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of "probable cause" before such surveillance can begin. This standard makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated. But it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution. Put simply, imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever.
There's much more.

It should be noted that the McConnell/Mukasey letter also blows away the claims that liberals made a couple of years ago that FISA in its original form was perfectly adequate, and didn't require supplementation by executive order.

McConnell and Mukasey probably won't convince the woefully underqualified and doggedly partisan Reyes, but perhaps the facts they disclose will help to build public pressure on the Democrats to stop sacrificing our security against terrorist attack to the interests of their patrons in the plaintiffs' bar.

Bluesman
02 Mar 08,, 08:14
Well? Anybody out there able to determine who's calling their murderous, fanatic brethren in the 'States to plan more mayhem? Don't look at ME; I'm obeying the law as laid down by the stupidest, most feckless Congress in our history (including that incredibly bad crew in the '70s).

You're on your own, American People. I tried for 20 years to do the best I could to defend you (failed utterly in 2001, but I DID TRY, despite the idiotic rules put in place that prevented me from doing a proper job!), and I'm still trying now, too. But I've been ordered to back off. So, good luck to you all. Maybe we'll get through this okay.

Or maybe that's just my 'audacity of hope'.:(

rj1
03 Mar 08,, 14:50
There's nothing stopping them from going to a judge as the rules stand now.

Bluesman
03 Mar 08,, 17:29
Except that phone calls don't last long enough.

Bluesman
17 Mar 08,, 03:20
Heh. Great toon; wish there was something funny about it.

ChrisF202
17 Mar 08,, 17:30
Is there any ban on evangelical muslim groups in the US?

Is there any way the security agencies could bug the mosques and hear what is being said there? What if what is being said inside the mosques is anti-american? could the govt take any action against the mullah/people involved if so?Does US law allow this?
No but what we can do is deport them if they are immigrants with permanent resident or naturalized citizen if the US were to officially declare war on the particular country that they are from. This is the only remaining clause of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 that did not expire.

We could also charge them with sedition under the Smith Act of 1940 but we wont because our justice system has become too wimpy and putzes around in constant fear of offending people. So yes Warmonger, it actually is illegal.

Bluesman
10 Jun 08,, 07:15
Anybody care to tell us all whether any foreign radical Islamists contacted any of their allies today to discuss another terror attack on U.S. soil?

I don't think so, because that sort of activity is still illegal.

DANG; sure would be handy to know that.

Deltacamelately
19 Jul 08,, 11:20
Bluesman,
What would you think of a similar queastion, albeit in the Indian context? :)
One wonders how many phone calls are made in my country by the radical islamists?