September 11, 2007

McConnell v. New York Times

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told the Senate that the NSA caught the terror cell poised to strike at Ramstein Air Base in Germany because of the NSA’s expanded powers. The New York Times reports that the detection predates the new FISA legislation, and therefore McConnell was mistaken, but the Times forgets the purpose of the legislation in that analysis.

At Heading Right, I supply the missing context that eludes Eric Schmitt in his reporting. It shows the new FISA legislation as a requirement for effective counterterrorism activity, and in fact proves that Congress absolutely needed to reinstate the NSA's authority to capture the kind of communication in real time that led to the discovery of the terrorist targeting Ramstein's air base -- and our men and women in the armed forces.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/12865

Comments (17)

Posted by docjim505 | September 11, 2007 8:31 AM

Cap'n Ed: The New York Times reports that the detection predates the new FISA legislation, and therefore McConnell was mistaken...

No-no-no! McConnell wasn't "mistaken": he lied. After all, he wears the uniform, hence works for George Bush, and hence is a liar.

Right, lefty trolls?

Posted by Silvio Canto, Jr. | September 11, 2007 8:58 AM

Great work Ed!

Once again, the angry left does not understand that life is our first right.

I want to live. I want my wife and sons to live. Therefore, I want our government to listen to the people who want to kill me and you.

Posted by Old Mike | September 11, 2007 9:16 AM

So this intercept came when the NSA thought what they were doing was legal but were wrong. Now it's legal,at least for a few more months, and everyone in the world knows about it. Since the info came from interception that turned out to be illegal, will the Germans have to let the terrorists go? Does anyone who doesn't have a parakeet or canary buy the Times? If so why?

Posted by gregdn | September 11, 2007 9:27 AM

If the terrorists were in Germany and were talking to their 'handlers' in Pakistan FISA shouldn't come into play. If they were talking to someone in this country though, it would.

Posted by LarryD | September 11, 2007 9:54 AM

gregdn, part of the reason we needed the FISA laws updated is because international calls get routed through this country, and at least one judge held that a warrant was needed despite the fact that neither end of the call was in the US.

Posted by Jim | September 11, 2007 11:01 AM

As an ex-NSAer, all I can do is shake my head and really worry about our country. We play politics while the dangers are very real. Thank God that there are people still out there the will do what we need done and those people don't wear suits and sit in D.C.


Posted by pk | September 11, 2007 2:38 PM

revenge on the msm is sitting back watching the various financial indicators, stock price, bond ratings, circulation, slowly sliding into the terlet at 5-10% per year.

C

Posted by unclesmrgol | September 11, 2007 6:20 PM

No, old mike,

It happened while the NSA thought it was legal, but a court ruled otherwise. In the absence of the law, the case would have slowly churned its way through the court system, and Ramstein would have a new bloody crater.

Thankfully, Congress acted quickly (in Congresstime terms) to allow the foreign evesdropping needed by our intelligence agencies.

Posted by Charles | September 11, 2007 7:00 PM

So he says the intelligence was gathered due to the gutting of FISA, and all you people believe him, of course, although:

1. You have no way, even indirectly through congressional oversight, to verify that he's not exaggerating.

2. Even if this is true, you have no way to know that there was no way other than trampling on the civil liberties of Americans and ignoring established law.

But you're happy, although you are now less free than you were before, because "you want to live."

We're all gonna die. Idiots like you who think that can be prevented by giving up your freedom -- and my freedom -- are, plain and simple, too stupid to live anyway.

Posted by punslinger | September 11, 2007 9:14 PM

Charles,

You may be overstating your case a tad.

"trampling on the civil liberties of Americans and ignoring established law."

We can both agree the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The founders understood that during time of war, the President has powers and the resposibility to prosecute the war. All Presidents have used these powers during war.

Roosevelt intercepted communications to and from abroad. Good thing that he did, the Battle of Midway having relied on these communications.

Wilson intercepted communications to and from abroad.

Lincoln intercepted communications to and from abroad and he also intercepted communications domestically. Being a civil war and all that, taking place within the USA.

George Washington intercepted communications to and from abroad and he also intercepted communications domestically.

That is how he caught Bennedict Arnold.

Thus, we have a President setting a precedent. (obligatory pun) Over 241 years, this precedent can be strongly argued, (IANAL) that it is law.

So, if by your standard, Bush is an evil destroyer of freedom, then Roosevelt, Wilson, Lincoln, and Washington were also evil destroyers of freedom. To claim otherwise would seem illogical, irrational, and symptomatic of BDS. But I repeat myself.

You are too late by some 241 years. We are lost, lost, lost. We are all going to die because President Bush fulfilled his duty as Commander in Chief, just like every other war time president.

By your standard then, all Americans who ever lived were too stupid to live.

Besides, the Constitution protects citizens against "UNREASONABLE" searches. I read a list a year or so ago that compiled at least 45 instances where authorities under existing law and precedent, do not need a warrant to search premises or person. Think of "hot pursuit."

I would argue that it is reasonable to intercept communications from foreign enemies.

My guess is that you are perfectly happy to give up second amendment rights to bear arms, under the theory that the founders of the Constitution really believed that they had to guarantee the right of a military unit to bear arms. A lot of people are perfectly happy to give up this right for a little temporary security.

I would say that my "civil liberties" have actually been increased in this regard.

Now would be a good time to apologize for the "stupid" comment.

Do you come to your conclusions using any logic, or is it all emotion?

Posted by punslinger | September 11, 2007 10:06 PM

By the way, Charles, Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt did their evil trashing of the Constitution without FISA.

How did we ever survive?

Posted by Bill Clinton | September 11, 2007 10:27 PM

Hey Punslinger, you really nailed that one. Foreign Intelligence is crucial to our security, that's why NSA is in the DOD -- love them acronyms don't ya?

You forgot my program though..

Ex-Snoop Confirms Echelon Network

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/02/24/60minutes/main164651.shtml

(CBS) Everywhere in the world, every day, people's phone calls, emails and faxes are monitored by Echelon, a secret government surveillance network. No, it's not fiction straight out of George Orwell's 1984. It's reality, says former spy Mike Frost in an interview broadcast on 60 Minutes on Sunday, Feb. 27.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And that darn Charles, he was biting my ankles about my invasion of each american's privacy and my trashing of the Constitution every step of the way. Sure he was. He was so annoying I almost couldn't concentrate on Monica.

Posted by Charles | September 12, 2007 8:53 AM

Washington faced the imperial power of Britain.

Lincoln faced an internal enemy of nearly the same size as his forces.

FDR faced a world war against two nations whose armies totaled about 5 million, with ultra-modern equipment (arguably better than we had), including air, land, and sea units.

al qaeda has perhaps several thousand "affiliates". 850 in Iraq, according to those who should know. They have AK-47s and RPGs for weaponry, plus whatever they can cobble together. While they can commit the occasional act of terrorism, they aren't going to be able to occupy or defeat any country. Andorra could fight them off without much trouble, even if AQ could somehow get all their people there.

They are not the existential threat you imply, and granting unsupervised power to the strongest government in the world to combat this ragtag band is not wise.

Kind of destroys what you thought was a strong argument, doesn't it?

It is a fact that countries have fallen to internally-created tyrannies far more often than to external ones in the last century. You might rub whatever brain cells you have together and cogitate about that next time you feel happy that you've given more power to the government.

Folks, reading this blog has been amusing. I especially like some of the commenters' typically hilarious comments, although I'm sure they don't think they're being funny.

I've found the Captain's posts recently less and less worthwhile, and the comments more and more dogmatic. This is not interesting, and I'll just save the time and spend it more productively.

Farewell.

Posted by punslinger | September 12, 2007 5:00 PM

Another cut and run leftie.

You changed your argument. Goal post moving?

It was your blanket statement, not mine, that called everyone idiots.

Now for you it is okay to trash the Constitution if the war is an existential threat enough for you.

It would seem to me that the government has for 240 years exercised its power to monitor threats or potential threats to our country. If true, then I guess that you never had the right that you claim you lost.

I thought your side was saying we are creating more terrorists than we have destroyed. I believe we have killed more than several thousand, 850 of which are in Iraq. You admit to AQ in Iraq? This is a major deviation from the playbook, is it not?

The numbers seem awfully small. I wonder where they came from. Now, we will never know.

I thought the argument was pretty spiffy in regards to your original statement.


Posted by ck | September 12, 2007 7:38 PM

Captain:
I expect a correction will be posted...

Please see: PDF

Statement by the Director of National Intelligence
Mr. Mike McConnell
During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on
September 10, 2007, I discussed the critical importance to our national security of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the recent amendments to FISA made by the Protect
America Act. The Protect America Act was urgently needed by our intelligence professionals to
close critical gaps in our capabilities and permit them to more readily follow terrorist threats,
such as the plot uncovered in Germany. However, information contributing to the recent arrests
was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act.

Posted by ck | September 12, 2007 7:52 PM

Captain:
I did just read your post at Heading Right - If it's all true, then you make a good point...
I'm having a hard time finding the "The court ruled earlier this year that any communications passing through an American switch required a warrant for eavesdropping regardless of the points of origin and destination." citation --- Do you know where I could find info on that...


And also, if they believe it to be terrorist related, they (I'm pretty sure) have the ability to get a post dated warrant... And would they not have been able to do this if they had to get a warrant?

Posted by TyCaptains | September 13, 2007 12:34 PM

Where does it state that with the OLD FISA law that one has to get a warrant BEFORE tapping can begin?

It's LONG been understood that tapping can occur and remain legal if a warrant is granted up to 72 hours AFTER said tapping began. And this is with the OLD FISA law.

In other words, I don't see how the Captain's argument has any merit. The old FISA law allowed for "real time" tapping and still attempted to protect our civil liberties. The new FISA law shreds any oversight we had. C'lest la vie freedom!

So in conclusion, the NYT was right, McConnell was wrong, and so is the Captain's take on the whole affair.

Post a comment