WoT news, analyzed
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/20…
Der Spiegel has interesting information about the terror bust in Germany; as usual, however, you have to read between the lines:
Three suspected Islamist militants who were planning to attack U.S. installations in Germany had orders to act by Sept. 15….According to surveillance details published in Der Spiegel magazine, the men had been given a two-week deadline for their planned strikes in a late August call from northern Pakistan that was monitored by German police.
So al Qaeda’s top leaders were anxious to precipitate an attack on Americans by September 15. Why? That’s the date on which General Petraeus will deliver his report to Congress. Al Qaeda, as always, was playing to the Democrats in Congress, the press, and the American people. Undoubtedly, similar orders have gone out to al Qaeda’s agents in Iraq and around the world.
Note, too, how German authorities found out about the planned attack. They eavesdropped on a phone call from Pakistan to Germany. This is the exact equivalent of the NSA program that is ritually, but inaccurately, described in the press as “domestic spying.” Most Democrats denounce the program as unconstitutional.
Further, it was the NSA program that brought the German terrorists to light:
The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.
If the Democrats get their way, the NSA will not be able to use this tactic unless it has enough knowledge, enough days in advance, to get an order from a FISA judge. You can be sure, however, that the liberals will never mention this incident when they denounce the program as an invasion of constitutional rights.
September 9th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Obviously I need some coffee, otherwise this would be clear, but..
That entire post above is indented because the entirety of the post is a quote, right? None of that is actually you speaking your own words?
September 9th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Wait – Coffee isn’t needed, just a click on the link.
*phew* yes, it’s all a quote.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I have some serious issues with the analysis
1) “Note, too, how German authorities found out about the planned attack. They eavesdropped on a phone call from Pakistan to Germany. This is the exact equivalent of the NSA program that is ritually, but inaccurately, described in the press as “domestic spying.” Most Democrats denounce the program as unconstitutional.”
Actually it was the police eavesdropping on the phone call, not an intelligence agency (unless that was mistranslated). And there’s no indication that the German’s didn’t have a warrant to intercept the calls, which is the major issues in the NSA program. It’s completely inaccurate to call it the “exact equivalent of the NSA program”, the only relation this investigation had to the NSA program that isn’t shared by any normal investigation involving surveillance is that it involved terrorists instead of drug dealers.
2. “Further, it was the NSA program that brought the German terrorists to light:
The arrests were the culmination of an investigation that began a year ago, when U.S. officials alerted German authorities to e-mails intercepted from Pakistan.”
Really? The article didn’t mention the NSA once. It’s entirely possible that whatever US officials intercepted those emails did it via a warrant, in fact given the US governments tendency to publicize terrorist arrests to justify their programs the mere fact that the NSA program hasn’t laid claim to this intelligence suggests that it was not involved (though I haven’t really been following the coverage). Even if the NSA was involved and didn’t obtain warrants it’s entirely possible they would have gone through the process of a warrant if it was necessary.
3. “If the Democrats get their way, the NSA will not be able to use this tactic unless it has enough knowledge, enough days in advance, to get an order from a FISA judge. You can be sure, however, that the liberals will never mention this incident when they denounce the program as an invasion of constitutional rights.”
Actually they can do the spying then go to the FISA court afterwards. The author may mean that this incident falls in the gap between “enough suspicion to start spying without warrant” and “not enough suspicion to start spying, then get the warrant afterwards” but that’s a non-trivial assumption (though I admittedly don’t know the size of that gap).
Essentially the analysis can be summed up as “X can stop Y, Y was prevented, therefore X was responsible for preventing it”, a logical fallacy for sure.