Text 17544, 108 rader
Skriven 2006-01-24 22:42:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
Ärende: Ann
===========
Ann Coulter

01/04/2006

WHY WE DON'T TRUST YOU WITH NATIONAL SECURITY

It seems the Bush administration -- being a group of sane, informed 
adults -- has been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.

During the CIA raids in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu 
Zubaydah and his associates, the government seized computers, cell 
phones and personal phone books. Soon after the raids, the National 
Security Agency began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone 
numbers found in al-Qaida Rolodexes.

That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call 
from U. S. territory -- like convicted al-Qaida associate Iyman Faris 
who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down the 
Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be spying on 
people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

By intercepting phone calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA 
arrested not only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists, 
including al-Qaida members plotting to bomb British pubs and train 
stations.

The most innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the 
Treason Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who came 
under suspicion because of what one official described as dubious ties 
to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives the Times wants to 
put in front of the words "ties to Osama bin Laden," we're still left 
with those words -- "ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be 
watching that person.

The Democratic Party has decided to express indignation at the idea that 
an American citizen who happens to be a member of al-Qaida is not 
allowed to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run 
on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican 
president takes even the District of Columbia.

On this one, I'm pretty sure Americans are going with the president.

If the Democrats had any brains, they'd distance themselves from the 
cranks demanding Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' 
phone calls to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any 
brains, they'd be Republicans.)

To the contrary! It is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading 
the charge to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell 
phone number.

That's all you need to know about the Democrats to remember that they 
can't be trusted with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)

Thanks to the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified 
government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going to be 
appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic senators 
as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for the Bush 
administration to eavesdrop on their completely private calls to al-
Zarqawi.

Democrats and other traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the 
NSA program in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to 
the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and 
gotten warrants for the interceptions.

The Treason Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests 
all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant statistic: In 
2004, "1,754 warrants were approved." No one thought to ask how many 
requests were rejected.

Over and over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an 
application for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author 
James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber stamp as you 
can possibly get within the federal judiciary." He "wondered why Bush 
sought the warrantless searches, since the FISA court rarely rejects 
search requests," said USA Today.

Put aside the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant 
from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality anyway. 
After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get a warrant from 
FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it later turned out that the 
FISA court had been denying warrant requests from the Bush dministration 
like never before. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA 
court "modified more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than 
from the four previous presidential administrations combined."

In the 20 years preceding the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not 
modify -- much less reject -- one single warrant request. But starting 
in 2001, the judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-
ordered surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003 and
2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications" to warrant 
requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant requests outright.

What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the 
answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also, 
perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval Office 
reception for the suspected al-Qaida operatives. After another terrorist 
attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter could explain to the victims' 
families that, after all, the killer's ties to al-Qaida were merely 
"dubious" and the FISA court had a very good reason for denying the 
warrant request.

Every once in a while the nation needs little reminder of why the Democr


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)