How the Patriot Act would have prevented 9-11.

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?

 

[hipsterdufus]

O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?

The filibuster threat is lead by my man Russ Feingold but is bipartisan. No one in the Senate wants the Patriot Act to expire, they want three months to deal with the clauses that are sunsetted in the bill. The Senate would extend ALL of the current version of the Patriot Act during those three months. Many changes have been made in committe and not debated by the full Senate.

I think the recent revelations about NSA spying on US citizens and the Rendition of innocent people to torture camps has shown us how important it is to get this right.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

The filibuster threat is lead by my man Russ Feingold but is bipartisan. No one in the Senate wants the Patriot Act to expire, they want three months to deal with the clauses that are sunsetted in the bill. The Senate would extend ALL of the current version of the Patriot Act during those three months. Many changes have been made in committe and not debated by the full Senate.

I think the recent revelations about NSA spying on US citizens and the Rendition of innocent people to torture camps has shown us how important it is to get this right.

Neither does 70% of the American populace, however, the fact remains that the fillibuster still looms and the most important provision of the Patriot Act expires in two weeks with no end to the fillibuster in site, is there a three month extension bill in the works? If there is this is the first time I'm hearing of it.

And every Democrat voted for the fillibuster except for two and every Rep voted to end it except for four so don't give me this Bi-Partisan crap because it's a pretty damn partisan issue, no offense.

As for the NSA situation this was a timed deal by the New York Times to stop the Patriot Act from getting renewed they sat on the information for more than a year.

Furthermore; the NYT's article was factually inaccurate the NSA was only tapping phones calls from outside the country that had recieved calls from inside the U.S which is totally within the letter of the law; furthermore, the only way this would be unconstitutional is if information gleamed without a warrant was to be used in the prosecution of a crime, remember the roaming wire tap legislation that Clinton pushed so hard for? Well that gives permission to listen in on a conversation to recieve a warrant, this is merely an extension of the type of stuff the F.B.I. was using the RICO act for against the mob. Plus the president has had congressional and judicial oversight on this stuff.

 

[JustMyPOV]

Neither does 70% of the American populace, however, the fact remains that the fillibuster still looms and the most important provision of the Patriot Act expires in two weeks with no end to the fillibuster in site, is there a three month extension bill in the works? If there is this is the first time I'm hearing of it.

I'm very certain it would be horribly difficult to change the words "FOUR YEARS" into "THREE MONTHS", but you're absolutely right. Reason: The President has very publicly refused to sign such legislation and Bill Frist has also said that a temporary extention is unacceptable.

And every Democrat voted for the fillibuster except for two and every Rep voted to end it except for four so don't give me this Bi-Partisan crap because it's a pretty damn partisan issue, no offense.

Yes, it's a damned shame that most of the GOP Senators don't want to allow full Senate debate on such a vital piece of legislation.

As for the NSA situation this was a timed deal by the New York Times to stop the Patriot Act from getting renewed they sat on the information for more than a year.

Furthermore; the NYT's article was factually inaccurate the NSA was only tapping phones calls from outside the country that had recieved calls from inside the U.S which is totally within the letter of the law; furthermore, the only way this would be unconstitutional is if information gleamed without a warrant was to be used in the prosecution of a crime, remember the roaming wire tap legislation that Clinton pushed so hard for? Well that gives permission to listen in on a conversation to recieve a warrant, this is merely an extension of the type of stuff the F.B.I. was using the RICO act for against the mob. Plus the president has had congressional and judicial oversight on this stuff.

Actually, it would seem that he completely circumvented the FISA court and ordered the NSA to intercept international communications.

"Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities.""

Source I

"Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's decision, saying the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that required the special court warrants did not foresee the kind of quick action needed to stop terrorists.

That law, however, does permit the attorney general to act in an emergency as long as the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is notified within 72 hours after the surveillance has been ordered."

Source II

The whole point of this being wrong is that there was NO judicial oversight at all, despite the fact that FISA still allows for rapid action to be presented to the court within a very reasonable time frame. That's why everyone, including members of the GOP are up in arms about this. I can't even believe there are people defending this clearly illegal action. It sickens me.

 

[ashurbanipal]

O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?

No, I see something seriously wrong with it. It turns out that the FBI didn't get to look at Moussaoui's computer, not because of any law, but because FBIHQ, and possibly the same agent who quashed other potentially fruitful investigations being carried out entirely by the FBI, put a stop to the search warrant. No intelligence agency had the information on Moussaoui's computer, the FBI would have been entirely justified (and completely within the law) to request the DoJ to request a warrant. But they (FBIHQ) did not do so due to FBI-internal reasons. It had nothing whatever to do with intelligence sharing rules.

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Ms. Rowley was one of the brick agents handling the Moussaoui case, IIRC.

Incidentally, the Radical Fundamentalist Unit of the FBI, headed at the time by an agent named Dave Frasca, also put a stop to the Phoenix investigation of 2 of the hijackers as they were getting flight lessons, against compelling evidence that they were up to no good.. He may also have sat on evidence coming out of an FBI informant who was living with 2 of the hijackers, despite that informant letting him know that they were planning a major attack. After the attacks, Agent Frasca was promoted. To my knowledge, he still works for the FBI.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I'm very certain it would be horribly difficult to change the words "FOUR YEARS" into "THREE MONTHS", but you're absolutely right. Reason: The President has very publicly refused to sign such legislation and Bill Frist has also said that a temporary extention is unacceptable.



Yes, it's a damned shame that most of the GOP Senators don't want to allow full Senate debate on such a vital piece of legislation.



Actually, it would seem that he completely circumvented the FISA court and ordered the NSA to intercept international communications.

"Asked why the president authorized skipping the FISA court, Rice said the war on terrorism was a "different type of war" that gives the commander in chief "additional authorities.""

Source I

"Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's decision, saying the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that required the special court warrants did not foresee the kind of quick action needed to stop terrorists.

That law, however, does permit the attorney general to act in an emergency as long as the special Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is notified within 72 hours after the surveillance has been ordered."

Source II

The whole point of this being wrong is that there was NO judicial oversight at all, despite the fact that FISA still allows for rapid action to be presented to the court within a very reasonable time frame. That's why everyone, including members of the GOP are up in arms about this. I can't even believe there are people defending this clearly illegal action. It sickens me.

Ever hear of roaving wire taps, unless these wire taps are to be used in a criminal prosecution they are totally within the letter of the law it doesn't even have to do with the patriot act these provisions were in place long before it in the RICO act to fight against organized crime.

 

[culturalrider]

O.K. here's the deal the military intelligence gathering operation able danger had information as to the 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta's identity taken from the 20th hijacker's, Zacarias Moussaoui, personnel computer which was recovered after capture early in the year 2000, however, due to the the Clinton-Gorelick wall, which prevented the F.B.I. from receiving information from intelligence gathering operations, this information was not received by the F.B.I.. The Patriot Act has a provision in it that did away with the Gorelick wall but guess what that provision is set to expire in two weeks due to the Democratic filibuster of the Patriot Act renewal bill.

Am I the only one who sees something seriously wrong with this scenario?

What about the Bill of Rights protecting us from our government?

 

[culturalrider]

Ever hear of roaving wire taps, unless these wire taps are to be used in a criminal prosecution they are totally within the letter of the law it doesn't even have to do with the patriot act these provisions were in place long before it in the RICO act to fight against organized crime.

Shouldn't the constitution be reinterpreted when new technologies are developed that weren't envisioned by our founding fathers?