http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi WHY WE DON'T TRUST YOU WITH NATIONAL SECURITY January 4, 2006 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-Qaida Rolodexes. That was true even if you were "an American citizen" making the call from U.S. territory — like convicted al-Qaida 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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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-Qaida 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.
So is all this namecalling suppose to rile people up or something? This Coulter article is just a more juvenile and less developed version of arguments already made on this board by people who don't have to resort to namecalling to get people to pay attention to them (well, most of them don't...).
Sorry I dont read drivel by the same woman who caled New Yorkers pansies for not acting a certain way after 9/11.
Giddyup: I can't tell if you posted this as a joke or not. I seriously can't believe someone would post an article by Ann freaking Coulter with a straight face.
Yes, it's darn telling how she doesn't look at how many warrants were normally requested through FIMA before the Bush administration and if there was any reason that they might have been modified. Anything Ann Coulter has written has been distorted, vitriolic, and caluclatingly manipulative. It's some of the most dangerous sophistry imaginable and kool aid for the fascists she's serving it too...
How the hell did she get in and graduate from harvard law school. Her "legal" analysis is on par with what a fourth grader would say. Generally when I hear the arguments defending these wiretaps, they at least make some sort of constitutional justification or at least reference the constitution, court decisions, or something Congress did. This is just straight up name-calling and bad jokes that elementary school children might find funny.
Now, before somebody goes ahead with the natural "all you do is bash the source, blah blah content blah blah", unsurprisingly, this has no content. Coulter is about being outrageous and generating publicity to feed her ego/make money/blah blah blah. Of course she says ridiculous stupid things. It's her job. Against my better judgment, I began to read this thing. I stopped after the first sentence. This deliberate misstatement evidences such a deliberate, fundamental misunderstanding of the situation she purports to address, which any "sane, informed adults" should be able to see, that further reading/digestion/analysis is really a waste of time, even in the time wasteland that is hanging out on the internet all day.
Once again Coulter makes broad suppositions with little to no factual support. It is ashame that anyone reads her or gives her the time of day. I have seen more informed musings from TJ, or texxx. She mentions the spying on Arab terrorists. Of course what people are upset about is the spying on American citizens. I have yet to see one conviction of any terrorist from this surveilance program. She claims the spying was done on terrorists, but nobody has proved these folks to be terrorists. She makes assumption without any basis or facts to back them up. She claims Dems would do nothing, but looking at history that isn't the case. Clinton asked for expanded wiretap capabilities to be legislated by congress and proposed such legislation. It was the GOP that was against that. So again Coulter makes a claim that just isn't supported by facts. She also tries to claim that Dems don't want the U.S. to wiretap terrorists phone calls. I have yet to see any evidence of that. All I see is the Dems want to continue to uphold the constitution. They seem to be 100% in favor of wiretapping terrorists phone calls. She then goes on to argue against the rule of law. She also doesn't mention why the requests were modified. If a court modified the request then it looks like checks and balances are in place. That is a good thing. She provided absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that the courts acted wrongly or that we suffered in any way from those court modifications.
Come on... no one really pays attention to this chump, do they?? (insert roll-eyes here) Keep D&D Civil.
Do you really think that is what I meant.... or do you just every opportunity to put a knock against me? You are rapidly becoming SamFisher Jr.
Pretty darn telling indeed... What this tells me is that the courts realized that Bush was abusing the system and requesting questionable warrants at a hitherto unseen rate of the preceding 20 years. Legally rebuffed by the courts, Bush ordered his illegal circumvention of the law. Pretty darn telling indeed.
I wonder how undone Ann Coulter et al would have become if Clinton did the same thing. In the end, all Ann Coulter is partisan dribble.
Sometimes I wish that I could stop you from talking when I hear the silly things that you say I think somebody ought to put out the big light because I can't stand to see you this way
