Wire Law Hampers Search For Kidnapped GI's

red states rule

Senior Member
May 30, 2006
16,011
573
48
Well folks, this is what happenes when we try to fight a PC war.

And this was in Iraq!!!!!!!!!


'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI
10-HOUR DELAY AS FEDS SOUGHT TAP TO TRACK JIMENEZ CAPTORS IN IRAQ
By CHARLES HURT, Bureau Chief


October 15, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping Queens soldier Alex Jimenez in Iraq earlier this year, The Post has learned.

This week, Congress plans to vote on a bill that leaves in place the legal hurdles in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - problems that were highlighted during the May search for a group of kidnapped U.S. soldiers.

In the early hours of May 12, seven U.S. soldiers - including Spc. Jimenez - were on lookout near a patrol base in the al Qaeda-controlled area of Iraq called the "Triangle of Death."

Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.

Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.

Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

Finally, approval was granted and, at 7:38 that night, surveillance began.

"The intelligence community was forced to abandon our soldiers because of the law," a senior congressional staffer with access to the classified case told The Post.

"How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers?" he asked. "It should be zero."

The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied.

U.S. officials had no way of knowing if Jimenez and his fellow soldiers were still alive during the nearly 10-hour delay.

The body of one was found a few weeks later in the Euphrates River and the terror group Islamic State of Iraq - an al Qaeda offshoot - later claimed in a video that Jimenez and the third soldier had been executed and buried.

"This is terrible. If they would have acted sooner, maybe they would have found something out and been able to find my son," said Jimenez's mother, Maria Duran. "Oh my God. I just keep asking myself, where is my son? What could have happened to him?"

Duran said she was especially frustrated, "because I thought they were doing everything possible to find him."

"You know that this is how this country is - everything is by the law. They just did not want to break the law, and I understand that. They should change the law, because God only knows what type of information they could have found during that time period."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10152007/news/nationalnews/wire_law_failed__lost_gi.htm
 
It is odd...I have read FISA. There is no ten hour restriction placed on putting wiretaps in place. wiretaps can be placed immediately, and the administration has 72 hours after the fact to get the FISA court to grant a warrant. This is fake news.
 
It is odd...I have read FISA. There is no ten hour restriction placed on putting wiretaps in place. wiretaps can be placed immediately, and the administration has 72 hours after the fact to get the FISA court to grant a warrant. This is fake news.

WHAT???? FAKE NEWS??? How can that be? Did they get it from "fake soldiers"? or "fake reporters"? Maybe they got it from "fake sources"!

NAw, no media would EVER do such a thing!
 
What part of NO did you not understand ?

Oh your response? It wasn't clear. If you can make your point I can discuss it.

I asked - So, should the law be ignored every time it gets in the way?

You responded -
No...this law as written should be in the shitcan, where the brains of those that support it are....

No, the law should never be ignored? See where the difficulty arises? Your sentence seems to be internally contradictory.
 
It is odd...I have read FISA. There is no ten hour restriction placed on putting wiretaps in place. wiretaps can be placed immediately, and the administration has 72 hours after the fact to get the FISA court to grant a warrant. This is fake news.

It may be fake news....sure...
you might have read it...but did you underestand it

The Act empowers the Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence ("DNI") to authorize, for up to one year, the acquisition of communications concerning "persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States" if the Attorney General and DNI determine that each of five criteria has been met:

1. there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
2. the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance (meaning it does not involve solely domestic communications);
3. the acquisition involves obtaining the communications data from or with the assistance of a communications service provider who has access to communications;
4. a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and
5. minimization procedures outlined in the FISA will be used.

This determination by the Attorney General and DNI must be certified in writing, under oath, and supported by appropriate affidavit(s). If immediate action by the government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification, the Attorney General or DNI can direct the acquisition orally, with a certification to follow within 72 hours.
-------------
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first.

For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.

And can anyone blame them for being super cautious? One little slip-up and the asshole Dims will have them in front of Senate Committee, under oath, spinning a kangaroo style conspiracy and ruin as many careers as possible.... and fuck the troops....after all, the Dims say they shouldn't be there anyway...

So, YOU say...wiretaps can be placed immediately? WRONG....The AG or the DNI MUST make the determination, and risk the bullshit if they are over zealous to any degree....thus enter the lawyers...another layer of crap to wade through.....
So its dead troops so you can be sure the government doesn't hear you ordering a freekin' pizza from your local eatery...
 
I have to admit to confusion. If laws are to be disobeyed then why have them? We could just sort of make it up as we go along couldn't we?

Dishonest as usual. The law WAS NOT IGNORED. And no one has said it should be. What HAS been said is THIS particular law should be gotten rid of.

Or perhaps you can direct me to a quote where someone on this board suggested we just ignore it at our convenience?
 
So, YOU say...wiretaps can be placed immediately? WRONG....The AG or the DNI MUST make the determination, and risk the bullshit if they are over zealous to any degree....thus enter the lawyers...another layer of crap to wade through.....
So its dead troops so you can be sure the government doesn't hear you ordering a freekin' pizza from your local eatery...
the law:

(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;
he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance


the LAW did not preclude the AG from immediately acting, his lack of stones did.
 
Dishonest as usual. The law WAS NOT IGNORED. And no one has said it should be. What HAS been said is THIS particular law should be gotten rid of.

Or perhaps you can direct me to a quote where someone on this board suggested we just ignore it at our convenience?

Whoa. Go back and you'll see I wasn't making the point that the law was ignored.

I'm heartened that there is support for the law as it's writ, if it's not working then definitely it has to be amended.
 
WHAT???? FAKE NEWS??? How can that be? Did they get it from "fake soldiers"? or "fake reporters"? Maybe they got it from "fake sources"!

NAw, no media would EVER do such a thing!

Washington Times? Owned by ersatz Korean "Holyman"?

I am going to wait a bit until the reactionary, don't-wait-for-the-whole-story crowd loads this up a bit more and then post what I find.

Washington Times, indeed? Oh, and I see where someone also cites the the New York Post.

Who passed along the old chestnut about the piece of paper on the back window warning from "A real Florida Cop"?

I AM
 
Attention: thread starter - GED states rule

The fate of the two other missing servicemen – Alex R. Jimenez, a 25-year-old specialist from Lawrence, Massachusetts, and Byron R. Fouty, of Waterford, Michigan, a 19-year-old private who had been in Iraq only a few weeks, - is still unknown.(1)

It's against this backdrop that we now learn that Jimenez's wife, Yaderlin, whom he married in 2004, is facing deportation.

Yaderlin Hiraldo, is a native of the Dominican Republican who first met her husband during his childhood visits to the island, but according to her attorney, Matthew Kolken, the 22 year old had entered the U.S. illegally prior to marrying him. It was when he requested a green card and legal residence status for her, that authorities were first alerted to her situation.

Despite Spec. Jimenez's status as a US citizen and active duty serviceman, the fact the Yaderlin had entered illegally meant that she would now have to return home and wait ten years before reapplying.

Do you think that the coincidence that that he was "harboring an illegal immigrant"had anything to do with Hillary holding up the COMINT for 10 hours. What about his status? Or, his parents? Surely you could find something to hang on him. After all they probably spoke poor or "foreign" accented English and I have noted that you don't like that. If you are going to play "ain't it awful?, your whole premise and reason for an indictment of guilty parties has to have some continuity across all sources of information.

Hello!?

I AM
 
Attention: thread starter - GED states rule



Do you think that the coincidence that that he was "harboring an illegal immigrant"had anything to do with Hillary holding up the COMINT for 10 hours. What about his status? Or, his parents? Surely you could find something to hang on him. After all they probably spoke poor or "foreign" accented English and I have noted that you don't like that. If you are going to play "ain't it awful?, your whole premise and reason for an indictment of guilty parties has to have some continuity across all sources of information.

Hello!?

I AM


Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what the soldier's wife's citizenship status has to do with his and another soldier's kidnapping?
 

Forum List

Back
Top