"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On 23 Dec 2005 15:49:22 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:


but I'd
dare say that if we had another major Al Qaida attack and it was found
that the government was purposely Not monitoring communication of
overseas calls with Al Qaida suspects, there would be another round of
calls for impeachment.

That's what I don't *get*. There is a secret court that has been
set up for many years, their only purpose in life is to provide
WARRANTS for these taps inside of 72 hours whenever the administration
wants them. Yet they were not using that court to obtain warrants,
when they could have.

They tried to get a FISA warrant to search a stumbling bumbling
students laptop, a fellow named Moussaoui.

They were unable to do so in a complicated wrangle.

They were unable to do so because the FBI field agents and even FBI
management apparently never read the Constitution (who needs a Constitution
when you have a neocon administration, anyway?), and did not know that
"probable cause" was the fundamental principle of searching and seizing
evidence. Duh....

Here's the key comment about it from the report issued by the Senate
Judiciary Committee:

=======================

First, key FBI personnel responsible for protecting our country against
terrorism did not understand the law. The SSA at FBI Headquarters
responsible for assembling the facts in support of the Moussaoui FISA
application testified before the Committee in a closed hearing that he did
not know that "probable cause" was the applicable legal standard for
obtaining a FISA warrant. In addition, he did not have a clear understanding
of what the probable cause standard meant. The SSA was not a lawyer, and he
was relying on FBI lawyers for their expertise on what constituted probable
cause. In addition to not understanding the probable cause standard, the SSA
's supervisor (the Unit Chief) responsible for reviewing FISA applications
did not have a proper understanding of the legal definition of the "agent of
a foreign power" requirement. Specifically, he was under the incorrect
impression that the statute required a link to an already identified or
"recognized" terrorist organization, an interpretation that the FBI and the
supervisor himself admitted was incorrect. Thus, key FBI officials did not
have a proper understanding of either the relevant burden of proof (probable
cause) or the substantive element of proof (agent of a foreign power).

==============================

So now, Monday-morning quarterbacking, we're able to say just how far along
the path toward a police state we should have gone in order to prevent this
particular attack. One wonders to what degree we should implement a police
state in order to prevent the next attack. Maybe monitoring *everyone's*
phone calls will do it. Or maybe they'll use semaphore next time. We can
monitor all flag-waving. Or, if everything else fails, we can just make
someone responsible for knowing what the FBI is supposed to do. Maybe the
Justice Department will wake up and realize it's them.

How much liberty are you willing to give up for a little "maybe" security,
Gunner?

--
Ed Huntress