Once Burned, Twice Warned

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/23/104633.shtml
from JoeUser Forums

Much has been written lately about Bush not going through the FISA courts to obtain some wiretaps, and whether it was legal or not.  Indeed, until all the facts are in, no one can say with any certainty whether it was or was not legal.  However, this article will not re-open that issue.  Instead it will focus on a court that perhaps got too big for its britches.

Apparently, 4 weeks before 9-11-01, Zacarias Moussaoui was detained and questioned by the FBI based upon a tip from this flight school.  The FBI, being good law abiding citizens they are, went to the FISA to obtain a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop.  The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

Now some may say that it is unfortunate, but we must protect our civil liberties.  And then some of those same people have also yelled about connecting the dots, a very hypocritical stance and one that only can be supported if they feign ignorance of the facts.

But one must realize that Moussaoui is not an American Citizen, and indeed as has now been learned, was technically a spy.  And spies are not and must not be afforded the protection of our constitution, since their sworn mission is to subvert it!  Yet this court that is supposed to help expedite these issues, not only denied law enforcement access to the evidence, they slapped the agent in charge!

And as the article indicates, it meant that many other tips, that should have been brought to the court probably were not for fear of getting slapped again!  So when the brouhaha came out about Bush wiretapping transatlantic calls, we had one judge "resign in protest".  Or did he?  Perhaps he resigned in shame, and just used an excuse to cover his own incompetence?  And after you have been burned by a judge before, and are now trying to prevent the very thing that might have been prevented with a simple court order, why would anyone trust a bunch of pontificating self serving blow hards again?  If they tried another 9-11, and succeeded, would Bush then turn to the American people and say "We Tried, but the court...."? 

Do you think the very same people who are howling now would buy that excuse?  No, they would want his head on a platter, and rightly so.  For he would have failed.  But he has not failed, yet.

And remember one more thing.  While one end of the conversation originated in the US, the other end was not in the US.  And the Security agencies of the US must be given sufficient power to find and capture spies!  We may not be in a cold war any longer, but we are in a hot one, and the enemies are even more evil than before.  For they do not confront armed militias.  NO, they cower behind the skirts of women and bibs of babies! 

So get up on your soap box, and rend your clothing at how bad and evil Bush is!  But the reason you can do that, is that you are alive, and what he did may have saved your life along with thousands of other Americans.  Saved a life so you could then trash him again.

3,123 views 23 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Watching foreign nationals as potential enemies of the state, is not illegal.  it is imperative.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Watching foreign nationals as potential enemies of the state, is not illegal. it is imperative.


Amen!

I just want to add that if the government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, it might as well go ahead and have the surveillance that 9-11 showed us we need. It makes me sick that all of the people whining about protecting civil rights in these matters are the same ones that are screaming "why didn't the govt do A,B, and C?!" when attacks happen.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.

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."

If they didn't get the warrant, how do they know what they would have found??
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
The FBI, being good law abiding citizens they are, went to the FISA to obtain a search warrant for Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

You said they rejected the request, but that is not true. It doesn't even say that in the article you link to, least of all the actual records of the court.

According to this; Link No warrant applications were denied in 2001.

The fact is that if they really thought they needed this info they could have gotten it and filed the warrant later. Although the FISA court may have "discouraged" the warrant they did not deny the warrant as you claim. Thus, they could have prevented 9/11 anyways. This is assuming that the information they believe was on his laptop was actually there.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
So get up on your soap box, and rend your clothing at how bad and evil Bush is! But the reason you can do that, is that you are alive, and what he did may have saved your life along with thousands of other Americans. Saved a life so you could then trash him again.


Please the only thing Bush can save is his place in line at the college Kegger!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think you'll like my latest take on the NSA wiretap issue, Dr. To tell you the truth, I'm surprised noone's come up with this argument yet:

Link
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

"why didn't the govt do A,B, and C?!" when attacks happen.

Or connect a, b and c!  You have to know the connection, before you connect the dots.  And if they are prevented from doing so, not much the feds can do about it.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

If they didn't get the warrant, how do they know what they would have found??

Because after 9-11, they did get the warrant!  Kind of like the FISA court closing the barn door after the cows are gone.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

You said they rejected the request, but that is not true. It doesn't even say that in the article you link to, least of all the actual records of the court.

Better re-read the article:

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.

"if" and "had been allowed" indicates they were not allowed.

And IF I remember correctly, you are one of the ones calling for the impeachment of Bush for something we do not even know was done yet.  And now you are telling the FBI to break the law?  I love the spin!

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Please the only thing Bush can save is his place in line at the college Kegger!

Nah!  He gave it up remember?  He does not save those places anymore.

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think you'll like my latest take on the NSA wiretap issue, Dr. To tell you the truth, I'm surprised noone's come up with this argument yet:

I'll read it and let you know.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Better re-read the article:


There was no warrant denied by FISA in the entire year. I have shown you proof of such, do you have proof that they did in fact deny a warrant in this case?

And IF I remember correctly, you are one of the ones calling for the impeachment of Bush for something we do not even know was done yet. And now you are telling the FBI to break the law? I love the spin!


You are wrong again. I have never called for impeachment on this or any other issue.

I'm not telling them to break the law. If you knew nearly as much as you act like you know, you would be aware that the FBI could have acted then obtained the warrant within 72 hours.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Coleen Rowley, a former FBI agent (the agent Newsmax referred to) who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 wrote this letter in to the Washington Post a few days ago;

[N]o evidence of Moussaoui’s suspicious flight training and ties with terrorism was presented to the Justice Department. The department was never contacted and so did not decide anything; therefore, no decision was ever made regarding the given evidence and its subsequent application to FISA standards.

That means the FISA procedures were not the reason the FBI failed to inspect Moussaoui’s computer files. Rather, the FBI’s failure to share and analyze intelligence sufficiently is what enabled Moussaoui to escape further investigation.

Nice try shifting the blame onto FISA.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

There was no warrant denied by FISA in the entire year. I have shown you proof of such, do you have proof that they did in fact deny a warrant in this case?

It was denied until after 9-11, in direct contradiction to the intent of the court.  Why dont you read instead of just being ignorant?

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

I'm not telling them to break the law. If you knew nearly as much as you act like you know, you would be aware that the FBI could have acted then obtained the warrant within 72 hours.

Uh, no.  The AG can.  The FBI cannot.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

[N]o evidence of Moussaoui’s suspicious flight training and ties with terrorism was presented to the Justice Department.

Nice try shifting the blame onto FISA.

Hey clueless!  That is because they  could not get any evidence!  And I shifted nothing to FISA.  Show me where I shifted anything to anyone?  I stated the case, which you have not read, while you were providing a non-sequitar proof, and failing to understand the case or your own ignorance.  Now if you want to get back on topic, fine.  Dont bullshit me on my blog.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was denied until after 9-11, in direct contradiction to the intent of the court. Why dont you read instead of just being ignorant?


It wasn't denied at all...before or after 9/11. There were no warrants denied in 2002 either. YOU are the one who needs to read. Or do you contend that you know more about this case than the FBI agent who testified before the senate judiciary committee, who as I previously posted said;

[N]o evidence of Moussaoui’s suspicious flight training and ties with terrorism was presented to the Justice Department. The department was never contacted and so did not decide anything; therefore, no decision was ever made regarding the given evidence and its subsequent application to FISA standards.

That means the FISA procedures were not the reason the FBI failed to inspect Moussaoui’s computer files. Rather, the FBI’s failure to share and analyze intelligence sufficiently is what enabled Moussaoui to escape further investigation.

You just can never admit to being wrong can you? Even when presented with clear facts that negate your rantings. You always shout at people to show you proof, but when they do you ignore it.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
And I shifted nothing to FISA. Show me where I shifted anything to anyone?


You clearly said that FISA rejected the warrant request and this in turn "...many other tips, that should have been brought to the court probably were not for fear of getting slapped again!" You're blaming the court for the government not getting information and tips they need. That's crap. Even if this story were true and the court denied the warrant, that shouldn't give them the idea that they wouldn't be able to get any warrants. FISA has only rejected less than one half of one percent of all the warrant requests it received.

Now if you want to get back on topic, fine. Dont bullshit me on my blog.


Get back on what topic? Everything I've posted on here is relevant to your half baked half truth article.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!

This is an outright falsehood.

The request for this warrant never even reached the FISA court. The Justice Dept decided that there was not enough evidence to even present the case to the court.

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files.
Link

The disciplining of the FBI agent had nothing to do with this specific case.

So why is it that you are blaming this on the FISA court? And why would you speculate that the Judge may have resigned in shame when his court was never even asked by DOJ for a warrant?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
You're not even going to try to defend your misinformation Doc?
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: davad70

Again, opinion  with no facts.  I linked to articles documenting the problem.  You offer your opinion as fact.  You jump up and down on the justice department.  And I challenge you to show me where I was talking about the Justice department (I clearly stated FBI).  I gave you facts, and you gave me spin and disinformation.  Not even close.

Now for the last time, let me tell you something about JU and its notification.  It does not always work.  So I was not ignoring you, I was not notified you had responded to this article. So get off your high and mighty stool, and start debating what is written, now what you want me to write.  You are wrong plain and simple.

And you lied.  You told me over a month ago you were going to ignore my blog.  Yet like a gadfly you persist in trying to tell me how to write and what to write.  So I can only conclude that you are a liar.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It isn't "my opinion" that the FISA Court never rejected a warrant in theis case, it is fact. The FBI presented the case to DOJ and they decided not to seek a warrant from FISA. So how exactly can you say that the court rejected the request when one was never made? That's clearly a lie. You imply that perhaps the judge resigned in shame. Shame for what? If there was a problem in this case, it lies with DOJ and not with the court, as you state. You also impy that Resnick was repremanded by the court regarding this case...another lie. He was repremanded for falsifying information on a warrant request for a previous case. You should do a little bit of research on this issue instead of basing your complete argument on your spin of one article from newsmax. Read the statements from Colleen Rowley, who was actually involved with the case.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
And you lied. You told me over a month ago you were going to ignore my blog. Yet like a gadfly you persist in trying to tell me how to write and what to write. So I can only conclude that you are a liar.


I don't tell you how to write, and as far as what to write all I have asked is that you write things that are truthful.

As far as me lying...if that's the best you can do, try again. I did not lie. I sincerely meant to ignore your blog. I just have this issue with people like you spreading information that is not true. I know that I shouldn't be so hung up on truth and honesty, but alas...I am.

Things like this...

The court not only rejected the request, they even reprimanded Michael Resnick, the FBI officer in charge!