It seems the Bush
administration -- being a group of sane, informed adults -- has
been secretly tapping Arab terrorists without warrants.
During the CIA raids
in Afghanistan in early 2002 that captured Abu Zubaydah and his
associates, the government seized computers, cell phones and personal
phone books. Soon after the raids, the National Security Agency
began trying to listen to calls placed to the phone numbers found
in al Qaeda Rolodexes.
That was true even
if you were "an American citizen" making the call from
U.S. territory -- like convicted al Qaeda associate Iyman Faris
who, after being arrested, confessed to plotting to bring down
the Brooklyn Bridge. If you think the government should not be
spying on people like Faris, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to
sell you.
By intercepting phone
calls to people on Zubaydah's speed-dial, the NSA arrested not
only "American citizen" Faris, but other Arab terrorists,
including al Qaeda members plotting to bomb British pubs and train
stations.
The most
innocent-sounding target of the NSA's spying cited by the Treason
Times was "an Iranian-American doctor in the South who
came under suspicion because of what one official described as
dubious ties to Osama bin Laden." Whatever softening adjectives
the Times wants to put in front of the words "ties
to Osama bin Laden," we're still left with those words --
"ties to Osama bin Laden." The government better be
watching that person.
The Democratic Party
has decided to express indignation at the idea that an American
citizen who happens to be a member of al Qaeda is not allowed
to have a private conversation with Osama bin Laden. If they run
on that in 2008, it could be the first time in history a Republican
president takes even the District of Columbia.
On this one, I'm pretty
sure Americans are going with the president.
If the Democrats had
any brains, they'd distance themselves from the cranks demanding
Bush's impeachment for listening in on terrorists' phone calls
to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (Then again, if they had any brains,
they'd be Republicans.)
To the contrary! It
is Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer who are leading the charge
to have Bush impeached for spying on people with Osama's cell
phone number.
That's all you need
to know about the Democrats to remember that they can't be trusted
with national security. (That and Jimmy Carter.)
Thanks to
the Treason Times' exposure of this highly classified
government program, admitted terrorists like Iyman Faris are going
to be appealing their convictions. Perhaps they can call Democratic
senators as expert witnesses to testify that it was illegal for
the Bush administration to eavesdrop on their completely private
calls to al-Zarqawi.
Democrats and other
traitors have tried to couch their opposition to the NSA program
in civil libertarian terms, claiming Bush could have gone to the
court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and
gotten warrants for the interceptions.
The Treason
Times reported FISA virtually rubber-stamps warrant requests
all the time. As proof, the Times added this irrelevant
statistic: In 2004, "1,754 warrants were approved."
No one thought to ask how many requests were rejected.
Over and
over we heard how the FISA court never turns down an application
for a warrant. USA Today quoted liberal darling and author
James Bamford saying: "The FISA court is as big a rubber
stamp as you can possibly get within the federal judiciary."
He "wondered why Bush sought the warrantless searches, since
the FISA court rarely rejects search requests," said USA
Today.
Put aside
the question of why it's so vitally important to get a warrant
from a rubber-stamp court if it's nothing but an empty formality
anyway. After all the ballyhoo about how it was duck soup to get
a warrant from FISA, I thought it was pretty big news when it
later turned out that the FISA court had been denying warrant
requests from the Bush administration like never before. According
to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the FISA court "modified
more wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the
four previous presidential administrations combined."
In the 20 years preceding
the attack of 9/11, the FISA court did not modify -- much less
reject -- one single warrant request. But starting in 2001, the
judges "modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for court-ordered
surveillance by the Bush administration." In the years 2003
and 2004, the court issued 173 "substantive modifications"
to warrant requests and rejected or "deferred" six warrant
requests outright.
What would
a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the
answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack. Also,
perhaps as a gesture of inclusion and tolerance, hold an Oval
Office reception for the suspected al Qaeda operatives. After
another terrorist attack, I'm sure a New York Times reporter
could explain to the victims' families that, after all, the killer's
ties to al Qaeda were merely "dubious" and the FISA
court had a very good reason for denying the warrant request.
Every once in a while
the nation needs little reminder of why the Democrats can't be
trusted with national security. This is today's lesson.
Copyright
2005 Ann Coulter
Distributed
by Universal Press Syndicate
