She didn't. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/content.cgi?name=bio Apparently she also: I guess Coulter only believes in rights for people on the right side of tan...
First of all I disputed what few facts she used. The problem with the whole article is that she doesn't use any meaningful facts. She mentions how many cases were altered. She doesn't show that it had any sort of negative result by altering them. She doesn't show any facts that say they shouldn't have been altered. She leaves out and ignores facts such as Clinton asking for expanded powers with regards to wiretapping in an effort to fight terrorism, and that it was the Republicans who were against it. She claimed that the wiretaps were against Arab terrorists, but provides zero facts to back that up. The only wiretaps that people are upset about are those done on American citizens. With more than 500 wiretaps a day, I have a hard time believing there are that many American citizens who known arab terrorists. Giddy, you can't present an article which is all huff & puff, with little to no facts in it, and the be puzzeled when people don't trump the facts that were never in her article.
I admit that Ann is a provocoteur (SP?), but what happened around these wiretapping issues pre-9/11 versus post-9/11 is not really significant. Is it to you? Like it or not, 9/11 changed many things; I won't say EVERYTHING. This sounds pretty factual to me: "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." I think we have to take into account that Ann is a columnist and only has so many words to work with. Perhaps she could provide the detail you seem to want. I'm sorry but just disputing "the facts" does not constitute proof of any sort-- any more than just asserting them.
Giddyup certainly there is another political writer out there that shares this viewpoint sans the idiocy ~ maybe next time, try a pre-post google or something...
I don't know if the word exists, but she would be a provocateuse, unless she has a dong (she does have the typical ladyboy build....) Espionage against foreign nationals abroad is a different matter from illegal spying on US citizens in the US. Of course it should, which was why FISA exists, which is why the conviction against Faris was legal- it was (presumably) obtained under FISA auspices. Otherwise, he would be a free man today if they tried to prosecute him in a US court with illegally obtained evidence. You're right, because "the facts" are irrelevant and not analogous to the situation she purports to address.
That might be a defense if this was a published article. It isn't. This is kool aid she's handing out on her own blog. She hasn't provided any more explanation because it would expose her argument as flawed. I'm sorry but just dismissing other posts which have exposed the flaws in the article does not consitute a respone of any sort-- any more than just typing random letters.
These are the kind of posts I dismissed: 1. "Sorry I dont read drivel by the same woman who caled New Yorkers pansies for not acting a certain way after 9/11." 2. "http://i****edanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/ Brillliant political commentary." 3. "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." 4. "So this is the objective media T_J and Bigtexx always talk about" 5. "Against my better judgment, I began to read this thing. I stopped after the first sentence." 6. "Come on... no one really pays attention to this chump, do they?? (insert roll-eyes here)" 7. "I guess Coulter only believes in rights for people on the right side of tan..."
With that kind of evidence there is every reason to believe the FISA court would grant permission to wiretap. Nobody doesn't want people like that be wiretapped. There is nobody that I have heard argue against that. But the govt. needs court permission to do so. Ann Coulter has provided no evidence or facts a court ever denied permission in any cases such as this. I agree disputing the facts doesn't prove anything. But is there to prove when Ann offers no reason to. I can't argue on what Ann secretly knows and doesn't put in her column. I can only debate what she actually writes. What she writes is has very litte facts at all, and no facts that indicate the actions of the FISA court have in any way hampered our efforts to go after terrorists. 9/11 did change things. It didn't change our constitution, and the moment it does, then we have lost to the terrorists. Given the latest rationale for Iraq we should be proud and willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to get rid of Saddam and bring a democratic society to Iraq. If we should be proud and willing to give up lives for Iraqis who don't even want us there, shouldn't we be more willing and proud to give up lives for maintaining our own constitution which guarantees us our freedoms? Because some Americans die at the hands of terrorists, should we willingly give up our freedoms? What does that say to the families of those that lost their lives? "Your loved one died in a free country that tried to live by the constitution. Now that they did that we are going to abandon those principles." Doesn't that just say to them that what their family members died believing in wasn't really worth it after-all? I don't care what happened, if you are willing to give life to defend something, the constitution seems like a noble thing to defend and uphold.
<b>FranchiseBlade With that kind of evidence there is every reason to believe the FISA court would grant permission to wiretap. Nobody doesn't want people like that be wiretapped. There is nobody that I have heard argue against that. But the govt. needs court permission to do so. Ann Coulter has provided no evidence or facts a court ever denied permission in any cases such as this.</b> Aren't these "secret" courts in effect? Where can you find evidence? Does anybody know the political bent of these courts? Could these be liberal, wacko judges that the President is standing up to? Someday we may applaud... at least I may! <b>I agree disputing the facts doesn't prove anything. But is there to prove when Ann offers no reason to. I can't argue on what Ann secretly knows and doesn't put in her column. I can only debate what she actually writes. What she writes is has very litte facts at all, and no facts that indicate the actions of the FISA court have in any way hampered our efforts to go after terrorists.</b> How does the old saying go: hard to prove a negative or a non-event. <b>9/11 did change things. It didn't change our constitution, and the moment it does, then we have lost to the terrorists. </b> Any new amendments? Interpretations change all the time. <b>Given the latest rationale for Iraq we should be proud and willing to sacrifice thousands of lives to get rid of Saddam and bring a democratic society to Iraq. If we should be proud and willing to give up lives for Iraqis who don't even want us there, shouldn't we be more willing and proud to give up lives for maintaining our own constitution which guarantees us our freedoms? Because some Americans die at the hands of terrorists, should we willingly give up our freedoms? What does that say to the families of those that lost their lives? "Your loved one died in a free country that tried to live by the constitution. Now that they did that we are going to abandon those principles." Doesn't that just say to them that what their family members died believing in wasn't really worth it after-all? I don't care what happened, if you are willing to give life to defend something, the constitution seems like a noble thing to defend and uphold.</b I don't feel at all compromised. Seems like you are arguing on paper here.
No, you don't know anything about them. Neither does she. That is one reason why her/your opinions on them are utterly worthless unless as vehicles to agitate, which I see you're up to right now.
This is knitpicking, but she actually went to Michigan Law School. Here's her wikipedia bio, interesting info about her writing style, work on the Paula Jones case et al: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
Explain this then: 6. Is there really a secret FISA court? Yes. FISA established a special court, composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered terms and are from different circuits. See 50 U.S.C.A. § 1803. Individual judges of the FISC review the Attorney General's applications for authorization of electronic surveillance aimed at obtaining foreign intelligence information. The proceedings are nonadversarial and are based solely on the DOJ's presentations through its Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. The records and files of the cases are sealed and may not be revealed even to persons whose prosecutions are based on evidence obtained under FISA warrants, except to a limited degree set by district judges' rulings on motions to suppress. 50 U.S.C. §1803(c). There is no provision for the return of each executed warrant to the FISC, much less with an inventory of items taken, nor for certification that the surveillance was conducted according to the warrant and its "minimization" requirements. The FISC meets two days monthly, and two of the judges are routinely available in the Washington, D.C. area on other days. Statement of Mary C. Lawton, Counsel for Intelligence Policy, Before the House Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice, June 8, 1983, at 8. http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_militias/fisa_faq.html
explain what? That you bothered to look this up after you offered pointless speculation? That you are able to use an internet search engine where Coulter is not? Explain what?
I guess i was confused by your typical broad swiping. I asserted the courts were secret; you broadly told me I knew nothing about it. Maybe you should be more specific in your criticism than taking your usual broad swipes. It would help.
You clearly don't know anything about it. You googled that up after the fact. And you still don't know anything about it. But you can use a search engine. Congrats.
