Brothers Emerge as Key Suspects in U.K. Terror Plot [title changed]

[jfuh]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

And that's all fine and good, but there are some logistical questions. For one, I believe FISA is a 9 member court (maybe 11, but I believe 9). And there are terrorists and suspected terrorists all over the world. And they call into the United States a lot. Thus there are thousands upon thousands of these phone calls, which would raise the question whether it is reasonable to believe that a 9 member court could look at and weigh all of these warrant requests, and give them enough time to make the right decision?

This question is intensified by this, apparantly most of the time when the phone tapping occurs, it is uncertain where exactly it is going, and thus it is unknown whether or not it is going to a foreign number, in which case a warrant would be unneccisary, or to a domestic number, in which case a warrant would be neccisary. Since going into the tapping it is unknown whether or not it will even fall under the FISA court's jurisdiction, it is impossible in many of these cases. Thus there is the 48 hours. For this to work the FISA court would be required to review all of these warrant requests in a ridiculously small amount of time, which would only make the issue I raised before, as I said, more intense.

I believe that checks on presidential authority are essential, and I believe that it says grave things about the Bush administration that, instead of adressing these problems before a closed session of congress, he just didn't mention it, and got all ****in indignant when he was called out on it. But that being said, saying you're entirely opposed to warrantless wiretapping means that you, at least to a certain degree, want to cut our intelligence agencies's balls off, since warrants, as we understand them, would mean either a 9 man court would have to work at an inhuman pace, or not give the warrants an improper amount of time and consideration (which makes the entire process of getting warrants pointless), or the intelligence agencies simply could not tap as many phones as are neccisary. Thus the fundamental idea behind warrants, for issues like this, has to change for us to succeed, and thus if we are to succeed, just about all of our wiretapping is going to have to be "warrantless".

Thoughts?

Firstly, there is a grace period as you mentioned for this 9 man court to approve while the action is already taken.
Secondly for there to actually be allowed of a warrent there would've already been established a particular trend or "leads" that would've led investigators to take on the case. As was the case with the recent British bust. The court would obviously not be approving a warrent for all the specific individual wiretaps but of all those invovled with an ongoing investigation. So the "requirement to approve all these warrents" is not a very valid argument at all.

I do not buy the whole "there isn't enough time" argument. How many local police forces have used that excuse in criminal cases each time to which in all these cases the judge had thrown out the evidence collected warrentlessly. FISA and the federal telecommunications act established quite clearly of what guidlines are to be followed. THis is not to protect us from them, but to protect us from ourselves, restraining the power that is unchecked (which I don't think anyone disagrees with).

Academics have agreed that random wiretaps of phrases to link a and b have prooved to be of little use, if not all together useless, in contrast to traditional intelligence work such as that done coordinately with Pakistan and GB.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

Yes it's called the 2MTW 9to major theaters of war) strategy which has been the strategy behind the design of our military since the collapse of the Soviet Union. They don't have to shift any resources from Afghanistan because we already have more than enough military strength to effectively fight two major wars at one time.

That's not all together true. During the cold war our military was indeed geared towards two theaters of war, however after the fall of the soviet union the military has shifted into the single theater war scenearios with the ability to hold off on a second theater. Also none of which scenarios have been extended to the amount of time that this current war in Iraq has dragged on for; which would also explain the little emphasis on Afganistan, even though OBL is in Afganistan.
Btw, I'm still rather confused how even with the 2MTW scenario explains of why KNOWING for a fact that OBL is in Afganistan that we would open up another war in a country that we only suspect, questionable suspect at that, has ties with AQ.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

theres also no need in harrasing me. I followed the rules. end of story.

:fyi: another one of the rules is insubordination, so if you have beef, take it into the pms not here.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

:fyi: another one of the rules is insubordination, so if you have beef, take it into the pms not here.

stop whining.

there has been no insubordination. I did not violate a rule. end of story.

the site changed the name of the link AFTER I have posted it here.

the only time I have ever violated the rule you are whining about is the very first time I posted in this forum. since then, I have abided by the rules consistently.

you are simply trolling at this point and trying to start trouble.

how adult of you!!!

 

[ProudAmerican]

back on topic.

why are we debating the legal rights of members of al queda again?

 

[jfuh]

back on topic.

why are we debating the legal rights of members of al queda again?

Who's talking about AQ rights?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Who's talking about AQ rights?

if you are talking about the government listening in on phone calls, you are. because those are the only calls they are listening too.

those are the calls the brits listened to in order to stop the recent planned attacks.

why is anyone concerned with the government listening in on phone calls made by terrorists into this country?

 

[jfuh]

if you are talking about the government listening in on phone calls, you are. because those are the only calls they are listening too.

those are the calls the brits listened to in order to stop the recent planned attacks.

why is anyone concerned with the government listening in on phone calls made by terrorists into this country?

If they're warrented and law abiding, no problem. If not then yes there is a problem. I don't understand your connection of breaking the law with supporting AQ rights.
FISA and the telecommunications act are very clear on what must be done and what needn't be done.
Mind you that both these laws were enacted when soviet counter intel, espionage, infiltration and so on were a very big and very real problem.
The british accomplished legal wiretappings and made great strides, why can't we? Are we no better then the brits?

 

[ProudAmerican]

If they're warrented and law abiding, no problem.

again I ask, why are we debating the legal rights of al queda terrorists.

 

[jfuh]

again I ask, why are we debating the legal rights of al queda terrorists.

If you continue to go around in circular reasoning. There's no point in going on. come back when you're ready to debate intelligibly.

 

[ProudAmerican]

If you continue to go around in circular reasoning. There's no point in going on. come back when you're ready to debate intelligibly.

hard point to defend isnt it?

you are contending that our government must follow laws and afford rights to al queda terrorists making phone calls into America.

its ludicrous, and indefensible.

thats why you wont debate it.

 

[jfuh]

hard point to defend isnt it?

you are contending that our government must follow laws and afford rights to al queda terrorists making phone calls into America.

its ludicrous, and indefensible.

thats why you wont debate it.

Come back when you're not using circular reasoning. Right now you're just trolling.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

That's not all together true. During the cold war our military was indeed geared towards two theaters of war, however after the fall of the soviet union the military has shifted into the single theater war scenearios with the ability to hold off on a second theater. Also none of which scenarios have been extended to the amount of time that this current war in Iraq has dragged on for; which would also explain the little emphasis on Afganistan, even though OBL is in Afganistan.
Btw, I'm still rather confused how even with the 2MTW scenario explains of why KNOWING for a fact that OBL is in Afganistan that we would open up another war in a country that we only suspect, questionable suspect at that, has ties with AQ.

That's simply incorrect the (2MTW) originated under the Clinton administration prior to that are military strategy was centered around containment, MAD, and confronting a soul super power.

Secondly, he made the argument that we shifted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq which is simply not the case due to the implementation of the 2MTW.

Thirdly, Al-Qaeda did have numerous ties with Iraq and Saddam was training 1000's of Islamic terrorists at Salman Pak these are not questionable they are verified and undisputable.

And before you make the argument that the terrorists trained at Salmon Pak weren't Al-Qaeda you have to get the idea that Al-Qaeda is a highly structured organization it is not it is a highly fluid organization; furthermore, the war against Islamic-Fascism is not only against al-Qaeda there are many different shades of the enemy we are now fighting some of them have direct links with Al-Qaeda others are independent but their goals are still the same.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

That's simply incorrect the (2MTW) originated under the Clinton administration prior to that are military strategy was centered around containment, MAD, and confronting a soul super power.

Secondly, he made the argument that we shifted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq which is simply not the case due to the implementation of the 2MTW.

I'd like to see your sources that support this notion.

Thirdly, Al-Qaeda did have numerous ties with Iraq and Saddam was training 1000's of Islamic terrorists at Salman Pak these are not questionable they are verified and undisputable.

Hang on here, but OBL is in Afganistan, and OBL is the head of AQ.
Now I don't see any source supporting your notion that Salman Pak was training AQ. What I have found with even the least bit connection thus far is this

[Did you hear that some of those training at the camp were working for] Osama bin Laden?
Nobody came and told us, "This is Al Qaeda people," but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained. They didn't tell us they were part of Al Qaeda; there's no such thing. ... In this camp, we know that those are Saudis, or Arabs are getting trained. Nobody will talk about Al Qaeda or any other organization.

Also there's also this note:

Editor's Note, November 2005: More than two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, there has been no verification of Khodada's account of the activities at Salman Pak. In fact, U.S. officials have now concluded that Salman Pak was most likely used to train Iraqi counter-terrorism units in anti-hijacking techniques. It should also be noted that he and other defectors interviewed for this report were brought to FRONTLINE's attention by the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a dissident organization that was working to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Since the original broadcast, Khodada has not publicly addressed questions that have been raised about his account of activities at Salman Pak.

And before you make the argument that the terrorists trained at Salmon Pak weren't Al-Qaeda you have to get the idea that Al-Qaeda is a highly structured organization it is not it is a highly fluid organization; furthermore, the war against Islamic-Fascism is not only against al-Qaeda there are many different shades of the enemy we are now fighting some of them have direct links with Al-Qaeda others are independent but their goals are still the same.

So Salmon pak is AQ? How do you know this and there seems to be no credible source that verfies this? Perhaps you can enlighten us all and provide your recent source for this?

Let's say for the sake of argument that SP was indeed an AQ training ground. How does that justify diverting attention away from capturing OBL and the rest of the heads of AQ in Afganistan?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Intercepted call from Pakistan promtep British terror arrests...

I'd like to see your sources that support this notion.

Sure thing:

Major Theater War

Supporting the National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement required that the United States maintain robust and versatile military forces that can accomplish a wide variety of missions, as delineated in the Bottom-Up Review: US forces must be able to offset the military power of regional states with interests opposed to those of the United States and its allies. To do this, the United States must be able to credibly deter and, if required, decisively defeat aggression, in concert with regional allies, by projecting and sustaining US power in two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts (MRCs). The Clinton Administration's Quadrennial Defense Review's (QDR) redefined this requirement as the ability to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater wars (MTWs).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mtw.htm

Hang on here, but OBL is in Afganistan, and OBL is the head of AQ.
Now I don't see any source supporting your notion that Salman Pak was training AQ. What I have found with even the least bit connection thus far is this

Also there's also this note:


So Salmon pak is AQ? How do you know this and there seems to be no credible source that verfies this? Perhaps you can enlighten us all and provide your recent source for this?

Learn to read, I already explained this to you in the previous post:

And before you make the argument that the terrorists trained at Salmon Pak weren't Al-Qaeda you have to get the idea that Al-Qaeda is a highly structured organization it is not it is a highly fluid organization; furthermore, the war against Islamic-Fascism is not only against al-Qaeda there are many different shades of the enemy we are now fighting some of them have direct links with Al-Qaeda others are independent but their goals are still the same.

Let's say for the sake of argument that SP was indeed an AQ training ground. How does that justify diverting attention away from capturing OBL and the rest of the heads of AQ in Afganistan?

lmfao you just don't get it no attention was diverted we have more than enough military strength under to fight two simultaneous wars under the 2MTV.

Get it? Got it? Good.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Come back when you're not using circular reasoning. Right now you're just trolling.

no, I am trying to understand why the government should be required to afford al queda members the same rights they must afford U.S. citizens.

its clear you cant explain it to me.

 

[tecoyah]

again I ask, why are we debating the legal rights of al queda terrorists.

You are Not....Rather you are debating the possible abuse of power, designed to protect Amercan Citizens from harm. It would seem the Brits use this power legally, and the United States feels compelled to bypass the legal part.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You are Not....Rather you are debating the possible abuse of power, designed to protect Amercan Citizens from harm. It would seem the Brits use this power legally, and the United States feels compelled to bypass the legal part.

You're big on civil rights so let me ask you what do you feel is the most important civil liberty?

 

[ProudAmerican]

You are Not....Rather you are debating the possible abuse of power, designed to protect Amercan Citizens from harm. It would seem the Brits use this power legally, and the United States feels compelled to bypass the legal part.

all fine and good if we were talking about AMerican citizens. we are not. at least I am not.

I am talking about al queda members placing calls into the U.S.

why are we concerned with the government violating their rights? why do al queda members fall under the same legal status as U.S. citizens?

 

[tecoyah]

all fine and good if we were talking about AMerican citizens. we are not. at least I am not.

I am talking about al queda members placing calls into the U.S.

why are we concerned with the government violating their rights? why do al queda members fall under the same legal status as U.S. citizens?

They don't, nor should they. My issue with the way things are done is one of trust. I simply cannot trust in this administration to be competent in its use of this power, thus I feel the use of Warrents a reasonable means of placing a check on what may become uncontrolled, and abusive monitoring. I also fail to see how they would be in any way hampered in this monitoring by following the Law in this endevour. Data mining is one thing, and I fully support this use of technology, D@rk Web is an excellent tool, and serves a great purpose.
The courts allow an ample window before requiring investigation, yet the Powers that be decide this is not enough. What is in place to prevent abuse of the American Citizenry, if not someone to Monitor the Monitors. All I ask is some means of responsibility in this, not an end to a valuable program.

"
You're big on civil rights so let me ask you what do you feel is the most important civil liberty?"

Freedom from Oppression.

 

[Diogenes]

...Uh....just a quick point. The NSA issue has less to do with allowing wiretaps, the turmoil has more to do with bypassing Laws, and courts to do so. The Brits have a bit more leeway where monitoring is involved, and thats obviously a good thing....but they do so LEGALLY as far as we know....you would need to show otherwise to be taken seriously.

No wiretaps are involved, only eavesdropping on radio frequencies. No court approval is required for the government to monitor overseas conversations. The questionable objection raised by the left is whether or not the NSA should hang up when a terrorist places a call to a number in the US, and I have no problem at all with the feds listening to those conversations.

Also again, how do leftists wish to "handcuff" the gov exactly? The Brits seemed to have no problem with going the legal route and acquiring credible good intel.

The Brits do show better sense, in that their searches require only "reasonable suspicion" rather than the "probable cause" required in the US. The leftist interpretation of "probable cause" is the real problem for us.

You are Not....Rather you are debating the possible abuse of power, designed to protect Amercan Citizens from harm. It would seem the Brits use this power legally, and the United States feels compelled to bypass the legal part.

And just where do you think the most immediate threat to American citizens comes from: the government, or the Islamic fanatics?

 

[jfuh]

The Brits do show better sense, in that their searches require only "reasonable suspicion" rather than the "probable cause" required in the US. The leftist interpretation of "probable cause" is the real problem for us.

Indeed there is a variation of the laws. However, that doesn't change the fact that the actions were completed legally.
What's more to point out is that the tools were through traditionaly detective work rather then "tens of millions of wiretaps".

 

[ProudAmerican]

They don't, nor should they.

excellent. then you and I have nothing to debate. we both agree that the government should not have to afford al queda operatives making phone calls into the U.S. the same rights they afford American citizens.


so when the U.S. government monitors phone calls made by them, we are agreed that is ok, even if it is without a warrant, because they are not U.S. citizens and do not have the same rights as such.

 

[jfuh]

excellent. then you and I have nothing to debate. we both agree that the government should not have to afford al queda operatives making phone calls into the U.S. the same rights they afford American citizens.


so when the U.S. government monitors phone calls made by them, we are agreed that is ok, even if it is without a warrant, because they are not U.S. citizens and do not have the same rights as such.

Only the wiretaps are not of al - Qaeda alone, but all of us, everyone.
Source 1
Source 2

Mind you that the NSA is barred from domestic surveillence without court approval. So yes indeed,this is quite illegal.

 

[tecoyah]

And just where do you think the most immediate threat to American citizens comes from: the government, or the Islamic fanatics?

Contrary to your misinterpretation (Sarcasm?), I am not prone to Conspiracy Theory. I am however a realist, with opinion gained from experience and Data. Obviously Jihad carries far more immediate risk of death than a corrupt and incompetent Government entity, but I am capable of considering both threats as seperate entities.Think of it as a skill.