home

New Terror Threat: A FISA Related Coincidence?

As Congress haggles over a new FISA bill and President Bush has threatened a veto, here comes a new terror alert.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security sent a bulletin Friday to state and local law enforcement authorities advising them to watch for potential retaliatory strikes by Hezbollah, one day after the Lebanese militia group vowed to avenge the death of a top commander by attacking Israeli and Jewish targets around the world.

Even though the bulletin says it's unlikely Hezbollah would attack in the U.S., the FBI told the 18,000 state and law enforcement agency recipients of its bulletin:

...it was intensifying its domestic intelligence-gathering efforts to identify any potential Hezbollah threats in the United States in the aftermath of Tuesday's car-bomb assassination of Imad Mughniyah in Syria.

The targets of the new activities:[More...]

The senior FBI counter- terrorism official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the bureau's efforts against Hezbollah, said the bureau was focusing its intelligence-gathering efforts on the Detroit-Dearborn area of Michigan, New York, California and several other U.S. locations with large populations of Lebanese and Muslims.

According to one former FBI agent,

"My understanding has always been that Hezbollah would never strike in the United States unless they believed that we participated in an operation against them," said Bob Pertuso, a former FBI special agent assigned to the Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force from 2000 to 2004 who specialized in Hezbollah investigations. "So if they believed we assisted in the operation against Mughniyah, I would say they would strike in the United States."

Will this be a call to round up Lebanese in the U.S? Or is it just Bush trying to convince Americans his warrantless surveillance program is necessary?

< Independents May Play Key Role in Rhode Island | Obama as the Next McGovern? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Suprise, suprise, suprise... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by wasabi on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    Tis getting to be the season for terror alerts.  All the way to November...

    No coincidence at all - (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by scribe on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    go take a look at the official White House "fact" sheet, highlighting a bunch of "Myth v. Fact" whoppers (ok, outright lies) that the WH is telling to try to get what it wants.  Here's a good post on the topic, too.

    Here's my favorite, from the official White House press release:

    3. MYTH: If any new surveillance needs to begin, the FISA court can approve a request within minutes.  In the case of an emergency, surveillance can begin immediately and FISA approval can be obtained later.

    My comment:  This so-called "myth" actually (1) lies about empirical evidence and (2) tracks the language of the existing FISA statute.  
    The empirical evidence:  one of the judges on the FISA court approved a warrant request from (IIRC) the FBI while he was stuck in traffic around the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11.  IIRC, he got a call on his cell, heard the application orally, granted it, and told them to follow up with the paperwork.  From his car.
    As to the language of the statute:  The existing (since 1978) statute explicitly provides a three-day period (72 hours) within which the government can intercept and monitor and during which the paperwork can be prepared to get the necessary warrant retroactively.

    FACT: Reverting to the outdated FISA statute risks our national security.  FISA's outdated provisions created dangerous intelligence gaps, which is why Congress passed the Protect America Act in the first place.
     

    My comment:  Another outright lie.  Congress passed the so-called PAA last August after Bush and his co-conspirators buffaloed the Congress into believing the Capitol was the target of terrorists who wanted to blow it up while they were to be off on their August vacations.  A non-existent plot, BTW.  

    FACT: FISA applications are lengthy, detailed documents that typically require many hours of preparation.  Once the application is submitted to the FISA Court, there is no guarantee that it will be approved.

    My comment:  Another outright lie.  In all the history of the FISA court, something less than 10 of thousands of applications were denied.  And, IIRC, the ones denied were denied, because the FBI CI agent making the application ... lied in his affidavit (and was barred by the Court from making another one to the Court).  
    Anyway:  there are no guarantees in life, George.  Even for someone so insulated from being responsible as you.

    FACT: Reinserting the FISA Court into our efforts to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists overseas makes no sense.

    My comment:  Damn courts, always getting in the way of Bushie being a dictator, demanding "Facts" other than Bushie being the decider, not being reliable rubber-stamps.
    And, if you were monitoring only "furriners overseas", why were your machines in places like Room 641A copying the whole of internet traffic.  Every last bit?

    About 2003, there was an election coming up in Germany and it looked like it would be very close.  The then-sitting justice minister, a member of Chancellor Schroeder's governing SPD party, was reported to have told a meeting of local party functionaries (i.e., she was talking to their base) that "Bush is using Hitler-methods" to build support for the Iraq War he wanted.  There was a huge outcry in diplo circles over the alleged comment, which ultimately led to the minister being sacked, but not before the comment (the making of which was never admitted to formally) helped keep Schroeder and the SPD in charge of the government for a couple years more.

    Growing up in America of the late 60s and early 70s, I had the advantage of schoolteachers who'd lived as (young) adults in the thirties and forties - veterans of WWII or the Home Front and, perhaps more importantly, of the buildup to the war and the revelations that came afterward.  

    They remembered Hitler's repeated lies - about his ambitions, objectives, methods and policies - having heard them in their press pre-war.  

    They remembered what the war and aftermath revealed as the truth.  

    They were actually pretty assiduous about making clear the lesson of The Big Lie.  

    One of the lessons I picked up was that of The Big Lie.  

    For those who never got the lesson, or were daydreaming when it was taught - get it now:  Politicians (and others) tell The Big Lie when they want to do something they know they never could get away with, were they to tell the truth.  Tell a big enough whopper with enough conviction, force and repetition, and you might just get away with creating a new reality - where your lie is accepted as truth.

    Here it is, reprinted above in this comment.  The President of the United States, telling The Big Lie (again), this time to insulate himself and his co-conspirators against their criminal and civil liability for having broken the law.

    The former German Justice Minister was right.  She was right then, right repeatedly since then, and right now.  And that press release proves it.

    Enough already.

    Reality bites... (none / 0) (#8)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:38:48 PM EST
    "Growing up in America of the late 60s and early 70s, I had the advantage of schoolteachers who'd lived as (young) adults in the thirties and forties - veterans of WWII or the Home Front and, perhaps more importantly, of the buildup to the war and the revelations that came afterward.  

    They remembered Hitler's repeated lies - about his ambitions, objectives, methods and policies - having heard them in their press pre-war.  

    They remembered what the war and aftermath revealed as the truth.  

    They were actually pretty assiduous about making clear the lesson of The Big Lie.  

    One of the lessons I picked up was that of The Big Lie."

    Want to know the real truth? Can you bear to read it?

    Guess who pushed for WWII? Guess how we have this situation today?

    Can't just do the ABB routine, it didn't just start 8 years or even 18 years ago. It started 60 years ago, with a push to help the UK (with concealed arms shipments, clearly against congress and the public's wishes), and our eventual push into WWII after December 7th.

    WWII also brought us the OSS, the precursor to the CIA.

    The Big Lie, is that folks like to see what they want to see, not what history proves. The minute we become imperialist/empire builders, is the minute we begin a long chain to hell, with many more dying because of it.

    Getting involved in other countries "furriner" affairs, causes it.

    Parent

    You are and obvious hater of Israel (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM EST
    and I would guess non of your best friends are Jews.

    Parent
    Bush is soooooo 2003 (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST
    Is anyone here actually trembling on account of The Terrorists except for the right wingers?

    Learn from the past: whenever this sort of thing was done, it was phony fearmongering. The way you can tell there is an actual threat is that you'll know about it before Bush does, unless the Democrats have really stood up to him (fat chance), in which case he may send The Terrorists a personal invitation, with live coverage on television of him licking the envelope and putting a stamp on it.

    BTW, speaking of Bush and envelopes, what's happening in the anthrax killer investigation?

    Why is that the Left (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    confuses concern for, and taking steps to prevent a problem as "trembling?"

    I assume that you never go to your dentist, have a physical, use your seat belts, smoke excessively, drive recklessly and do dozens of other things that the avoidance of would be prudent and reasonable.

    Your bravery excites me. May I believe that you are going to volunteer for the military in order to demonstrate it in actual combat situations?

    Parent

    Why, are we babysitting Israel? (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:50:01 PM EST
    Seriously, we wouldn't be having these bulletins and this Muslim/Arab backlash if it wasn't for the unprecedented relationship with Israel. If we back a State that keeps another group in sub-human conditions, they have a right to fight back for their very lives. Just like we did in 1776 against King George and his burden of taxes to fund European wars.

    We're not an empire. We have no rights to tell another country their business if they don't affect our own. Israel and Palestine don't have anything this country needs for our well being, zip, nothing. Apart from the Holy Land, that region has nothing, n-o-t-h-i-n-g to our national interest. And even the Holy Land is religious business, not the State's.

    Please no Israel bashing here (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    this is about the U.S. and terror threats. This blog avoids middle-east policy arguments. And Israel bashing. Sorry, but please take these discussions to blogs that write about it.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#4)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 05:38:44 PM EST
    topics like this will always bring up the root of the problem. Can't begin to get a solution unless the root cause is investigated and delt with.

    I understand the backlash can be extreme -- but walking on eggshells whenever a Middle East related topic comes up, isn't a solution either.

    Maybe more meat and potato issues, involving the 50 states, instead? 100000001 related anti-war sites, but a handful related to domestic issues.

    All politics is local, after all.

    Parent

    Drop it - this is not about Israel (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:01:16 PM EST
    but is about a criminal conspiracy in charge of the United States government.  

    Parent
    Lying the US into a war is not new (none / 0) (#9)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    either.  As a Vietnam veteran I remember the Ton-kin gulf.

    Ummmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by jarober on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:14:38 PM EST
    1. It's been widely reported that Hezbollah has announced a more open conflict on Israel in particular, and the West in general

    2. Why do you think we need warrants to surveil foreign nationals?


    Prior to 9/11 how many of you would have (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:52:45 PM EST
    expected the radical Moslems to attack us?

    I would estimate .0000000000000000001%

    How many would have criticized Bush/FBI et al if these warnings had not gone out?

    100%.

    There must be a flaw in your method of estimating (none / 0) (#14)
    by cymro on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:42:50 PM EST
    because there are fewer that 10 billion people in the world, in total. So a single person is less than .000000001%. Your estimate corresponds to one ten billionth of one person.

    But maybe you were just exaggerating, for the sake of effect?

    Parent

    cymro (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:15:10 PM EST
    Your ability to grasp a concept and the intent of the writer staggers my mind.

    Parent
    threat (none / 0) (#18)
    by elim on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    Let's see-they have killed thousands and continue to plot to kill as many as they can.  thankfully, we have been able to stop them.  Yet, from the left, I hear that I am not even supposed to be concerned that they are out there continuing to plot.  Instead, I am supposed to be quaking in fear over global warming, something I have a hard time getting my tiny brain around given how much snow and below zero days we have had here in the Midwest.  

    It is odd-one has killed thousands while another is a theory.  yet, it is the latter that I should concern myself with, not the former.