Oct 02 2006

Dems Need To Stand Up And Protect America

Published by at 11:09 am under All General Discussions,FISA-NSA

We need to understand the seriousness of the recent liberal, judicial attack on our national security. An out-of-control judge has demanded the NSA respond to the ACLU (of all organizations) or stop monitoring terrorists. The only way for the NSA not to monitor a communication with someone here in the US is to not monitor the terrorists at all. We cannot control whom these terrorists communicate to, and if they want to talk to their foot soldiers in the US then we can only avoid listening in if we just don’t listen. This judge is demanding we surrender and leave ourselves open to attack. The silence of the Democrats on this court order speaks volumes. This should a subject that Democrats must be called upon to make a statement on. Are they for disarming our defenses and letting the terrorists run free?

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “Dems Need To Stand Up And Protect America”

  1. Retired Spook says:

    AJ, like you, I was always of the belief that the NSA, as a military organization, has no legal standing to request DOJ warrants. And then, in the article you link to, I read this:

    (The agency seeks warrants when both parties are inside the United States.)

    Is this a mistake on the part of the editorial writer/s at the Washington Times, or do they know something I don’t? Just curious.

  2. AJStrata says:


    Misreporting in my opinion. The NSA responds to surveillance requests from the FBI and their FISA warrants. Again, the NSA lead goes to the FBI-DoJ which must submit the warrant application to the FISA Court. What this is trying to say is, if under warrant they detect someone else of interest in the US connected to warranted individual, then the second warrant (inside the US) must be through FISA as usual (via the FBI and DoJ – as usual).

    Sloppy reporting is destroyin our ability to debate this issue

  3. For Enforcement says:

    Retired Spook, I think if you look into it, the Agency would have to go through the DOJ to get any warrant. The DOJ would be the one requesting it, and I think even then the NSA info could only be supporting info. But I should let AJ answer.

  4. For Enforcement says:

    Whoa, he already did, yeah I see that’s what he said. I had heard a discussion on one of the news shows and a DOJ member had said that was how it is done. I’m glad I understood that correctly.

  5. Retired Spook says:

    AJ & Enforcement, I was assigned to the NSA on several occasions back in the 70’s and 80’s, but I never got into the legal aspect of what we did. To be honest, I never even thought about there being a legal aspect. I suspect you’re right about how warrants are obtained, and I totally agree with AJ’s comment about sloppy reporting.

  6. AJStrata says:


    Well, I need to remind you I am operating from deducing what is happening from the information I can find and work on military programs. Having a few lawyers in the family doesn’t hurt either! I appreciate anyone with real, first hand expereince telling me they believe I am on the right path here. I get challenges from lawyers from many other sites that my perpsective is not accurate – even though they have less experience in these matters than I do. I am, in the end, just an engineer with a keen interests in these matters.

    Cheers, AJStrata

  7. The Macker says:

    ” I am, in the end, just an engineer with a keen interests in these matters.”- An engineer with analytical skills that reporters in the MSM have never developed.