Feb 19 2008

Surrendercrat Pretzel Logic For Suicide

Published by at 10:11 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

What is it about Democrats and their lunatic spin? They make up such bizarre propaganda that you wonder if they are really bad liars or just really dumb. Take the latest ‘logic’ that we don’t need to keep our eyes on our enemies overseas today because the Dems want to placate their trial lawyer money machine because telecom companies responded to legal requests from the US government to support surveillance (which they were doing ANYWAY prior to 9-11). In order to hold their ridiculous position US companies should not be given legal protections for acts supposedly after 9-11, the dems are blinding our defenses against terrorist attacks today. And here is their ‘rationale’:

For the next 9/11 Commission, we nominate the first witness: Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He’s the man now telling everyone to chill out, take it easy, there’s nothing to worry about, after his fellow Democrats last week scuttled a bipartisan compromise on warrantless wiretapping of al Qaeda.

“It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago,” Mr. Reyes wrote in a letter to President Bush. By “actions” he means the cooperation with U.S. intelligence by private telecom companies after 9/11, for which the companies now face more than 40 lawsuits.

Insulting intelligence? Everyone knows the blinders went on our surveillance THIS WEEKEND. We are now partially blind to current threats which, thanks to the public debate, know they can adjust now and the newly slowed down surveillance process, requiring a judge to pick enemy targets via court proceedings, will likely lose their trails. One has to wonder why Reyes would make the perfectly backwards case against his position like this? Is he really that dumb? Why are we blinding ourselves regarding pending threats over unsubstantiated claims from 6 years ago Mr Reyes? Why are you so beholding to trial lawyers and their campaign donations you would risk this country and American lives on a political stunt like this?

The linked article nominates Reyes and his partisan-blind House allies as witnesses in the next 9-11 commission. In my book we can skip that step and make them ‘the accused’ in trials for treason against the people of the United States of America. And here is why.

I have been writing about the NSA ever since the NY Times bungled the story and got it all ass-backwards (which is probably why they are liberal like Reyes and Pelosi). Nothing on the NSA-side of the equation changed post 9-11 except one small change. NSA always swept up communications between their surveillance targets (overseas enemies) and people here in the US. It has ALWAYS happened because you don’t know what two ends are on a communication until you track down both ends. And since the overseas target is the focus on a specified phone number, circuit, IP address, what have you, the challenge is always to track down the other end of the communication. Now only a liberal techno-fool would not get the point that to determine where the other end is you have to track it down!

What the NSA did prior to 9-11, when it realized the other end of these communications where in the US, they would purge the details of who, what and where in the US and keep the essence. Why do we know this? Because General Hayden and the US Government have told us many times we had many of the 9-11 highjackers picked up on surveillance when they were here making their final plans. They were talking to handlers and financiers in Yemen and elsewhere.

So the NSA picks up both ends of these communications no matter what. The only difference is how to handle them post 9-11. And in the post 9-11 world the difference was the NSA passed the lead with full details on who, what and where to the FBI to investigate. The NSA did nothing new and certainly the telecoms whose equipment the NSA must have connections into did not do anything different post 9-11. Again, only the technically challenged liberals who believe warp powered space travel and transporters are real would not known that this is fact of the technology.

So all these claims that the NSA or companies did something new after 9-11 is a lie – and the dems know it (or it has been explained to them and they can’t grasp it, but ignorance is no excuse for treason). The BIG change post 9-11 was on what evidence the FISA Court would allow for probable cause for surveillance warrants. Prior to 9-11 NO NSA leads were allowed to be presented to the court, and no information that was the result of an NSA lead. That is why the details of who, what and where in the US for these communications was destroyed. That had to be ferreted out independently by the FBI. The NSA knew where it had happened, but the could not tell the FBI. How dumb is that? What group in the government new the name, location and phone number (or address, etc) and the ones who had to get evidence for presentation to FISA could not be told these details.

The “tainting” of FISA, as the NY Times original screw up noted by the liberal judge who leaked the details to the press, was the fact NSA leads could be part of the evidence used to get surveillance warrants. That’s it folks! The FIS Court had to accept as part of the information presented NSA data, and FBI data gleaned from the NSA lead was also now valid. The FBI cannot go to FISA with the NSA lead only. That is still illegal. But now the poor FISA Court has to face the reality of NSA intercepts and deal with it, not hide from it.

Now you can see that the only change was in the FIS Court. And it was not that the NSA was bypassing FISA as the NY Times erroneously claimed. It was the fact the NSA was now feeding intel to the FIS Court via the FBI that caused the uproar. Now the only time a company is doing something different post 9-11 is when it is following a FIS Court Surveillance warrant that was granted by the FIS Court using NSA leads as part of the evidence. That is THE only time a US telecom is doing something different post 9-11.

So these buffoons in the House are upset because the flavor of evidence used to gain a FIS Court warrant has changed a bit, and that is their reason to want to sue US companies (who are still responding to a FIS Court directive) and blind our defenses right now? I can see the political suicide coming their way – but do the Dems have to take some of us with them by exposing us to terrorist attack on their way out? It’s like those jerks who blow away their wife or girlfriend before offing themselves. You wonder why the couldn’t just skip the murder part and go directly to the suicide. Same here – why not just lose politically, why take American lives with you?

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Surrendercrat Pretzel Logic For Suicide”

  1. crosspatch says:

    The Democrats are absolutely insane. And I think I mean that most literally.

  2. kathie says:

    The Dems have only one motive……MAKE THE PRESIDENT LOOK BAD. There is nothing that the President has done to protect this Nation that the Dems haven’t turned around to make him look bad. To take a mans trustworthiness and turn him into a pariah is easy with the help of the media, ACLU, and trial lawyers.

  3. Mark_for_Senate says:

    Well, that’s just what liberals do. Cause and inflict as much pain, suffering and misery as possible all for ‘the common good’ no doubt. History tells this srory plainly, but liberals and Dems are and always will be ‘stuck on stupid’ until they expire. Too bad for the USA

  4. WWS says:

    If the dems could find a way to pay Osama to carry out an attack and blame it on Bush, they would. They hate this country, they hate this culture, and they hate the American people. They have finally and irrevocably crossed the line from opposition to treason, and they couldn’t care less.

  5. kathie says:

    Just think of it, they call KSM the “so called mastermine of the 911 attacks”, so called until we try him in our civil court system and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt his guilt. How can a reasonable person fathom their thinking?

  6. lurker9876 says:

    The best way is to make sure that the responsibility falls on the Demcrats’ laps.

    And perhaps it’s best to let the attacks take place at the same time.

    What a shame.

    Sylvestre’s letter is appalling.

  7. Terrye says:

    I think the Democrats might lose on this. There was a bipartisan solution in the Senate, and Pelosi let it expire because she could not win a vote. If anything goes wrong now, the Democrats are the ones who will get the blame.

  8. wiley says:

    Reyes is an idiot, pure & simple. And he’s got lots of company, unfortunately, including the press.

  9. gcotharn says:

    I understand that NSA now apprises FBI of individuals to investigate, whereas before NSA did not apprise FBI. My question: when FBI goes to FISC for a warrant, does FBI use evidence gathered by both FBI and NSA? Or, in the warrant request, does FBI only use evidence which FBI has gathered completely independently of NSA?

  10. AJStrata says:


    The FBI comes with evidence it has independently developed. It can include the NSA provided evidence (this is new since 9-11) but it cannot rely solely on the NSA data.

    In the early days of the program the only judge who knew which cases contained NSA data was the chief judge of the FIS Court. Not sure if this is the case, but he (then she) would assess the information and then let it go before the other judges.

    It has been my suggestion that the judge who quit and ran to the NY Times with Senator Rockefeller learned that he was viewing NSA data and decided he was not going to go along with the deal established between the administration and the court.

    It was working fine until the NY Times blew the cover and mis-reported the entire story (which is why I know it was a political spin job and not a whistle blower – too far off in the details, too tilted to make a head line).

    Cheers, AJStrata

  11. gcotharn says:

    Thank you very much for this explanation.