The FISA Reversal: Bush Sees Clinton in His Mirror

The Bush administration’s domestic anti-terror policy is morphing rapidly into a mirror image of the Clinton administration’s and as in all mirrors, left is right and right is now left.

One of the principal criticisms leveled against the Clinton administration’s handling of terrorist incidents including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole was that terrorism could not be suppressed or countered exclusively through law enforcement investigations. Clinton’s critics, justifiably, have condemned him for not doing more to take the fight to the terrorists abroad. Clinton’s approach to terrorism, primarily consisting of arresting and prosecuting terrorists through our porous judicial system, appeared to be the antithesis of President Bush’s after 9/11.

Post 9/11, Bush adopted the pre-emptive strike doctrine and invaded Afghanistan, declared terrorists as “enemy combatants” who could be held captive indefinitely in a state of war, and implemented military tribunals to process terrorists captured in combat with US troops. Detainees were questioned and yielded valuable information on Al Qaeda leadership and cell structure. The NSA domestic surveillance program was effectively utilized to glean information from intercepted communications between terrorists abroad and their supporters/operatives in America. The Clinton and Bush strategies could not have been more diametrically opposed.

Today, however, the Bush administration’s domestic strategy for conducting the Global War on Terror (GWOT) has lost its unique bravado and in its place the soft Clinton approach has reemerged. Yesterday Attorney General Gonzalez announced that monitoring of international communications involving suspected terrorists in the United States will require authorization and oversight from a court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). After years of insisting that the President’s program was legal and that immediate discovery and disruption of terrorist plots within the US could not be accomplished through traditional court orders, the Bush administration has now reversed course under pressure from the newly empowered Democrats in Congress. What are the practical implications of this reversal?

The Bush administration now insists, with hypocritical confidence, that the secret FISA court will operate with much more flexibility and speed than a traditional court, and thus will not hamper the efforts of America’s intelligence agencies once a suspect has been identified. While Attorney General Gonzalez’s announcement touts FISA court speed and usefulness, the obvious question is why, if FISA courts do not hamper the rapid response needed for counterterrorist investigations, the administration has avoided them like the proverbial plague since 9/11? Administration officials have staunchly defended the NSA domestic surveillance program by arguing that under post 9/11 laws an early warning detection system was critical to national security and thus could be authorized by the President independent of a FISA court. Consider this explanation for the need to circumvent FISA courts in a letter sent by the Department of Justice to the House and Senate Intelligence committees in December 2005:

FISA could not have provided the speed and agility required for the early warning detection system. . . . There is undeniably an important and legitimate privacy interest at stake. That must be balanced, however, against the government's compelling interest in the security of the nation.

Does the President feel the “early warning notification” provided by the NSA domestic surveillance program is no longer needed? Is the government’s interest in national security less compelling now than it was in December 2005? The reversal by the Bush administration signals an abandonment of the aggressive domestic counterterrorist stance once championed confidently by the President. While Justice Department officials submit applications for surveillance (a subpoena equivalent) to the FISA court, American intelligence agencies will be missing communications between terrorists living among us and their international planners/financiers. The letter from the Justice Department further stated that “FISA has proven to be a very important tool, especially in longer-term investigations.” A FISA court may operate with a less glacial pace than a federal district court, but that should be of little comfort to those who understand that real-time communications interception is critical to identifying and thwarting imminent threats.

Like its predecessor, the Bush administration has placed America’s domestic safety in the hands of judges. In the case of FISA courts, the judges routinely rotate, resulting in decisions made by judges with no continuity or grasp of the full context of the application for surveillance presented before them. Rotating judges unfamiliar with established precedent will delay authorizing time-sensitive surveillance while researching previous applications, resulting in precisely the ponderous, inefficient review process the Bush administration has been intentionally and justifiably avoiding since 9/11.

Because we have been unsuccessful in infiltrating Al Qaeda and other advanced terrorist groups, communications intercepts are often the only advance warning available to our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. “Fighting the terrorists there so we won’t have to fight them here” may be a catchy slogan, but the reality is we ARE fighting them here and the administration’s reversal on domestic surveillance will open wider the window of opportunity for terrorists preparing for attacks in America. If we are serious about winning a Global War on Terror, further binding the hands, or in this case covering the ears, of our intelligence/law enforcement agencies is a dangerous step toward a counterterrorist strategy reminiscent of Clinton.

Technorati Tags: Alberto Gonzalez Attorney General Domestic Surveillance Program FISA Court FISA Bush Administration NSA Law Enforcement terrorism national security Bill Clinton Global War On Terror

Why You Should Care About CAIR's Role As Islamic Advisor to Government

Imagine that you are the leader of a counter-terrorist or SWAT team that has received credible corroborated intelligence pinpointing the residence of a suspected Islamic terrorist in your city. You obtain an arrest warrant for the terrorist and a search warrant for the residence, and you meticulously plan a tactical raid designed to surprise and quickly subdue the suspect, thus minimizing risk to other occupants of the residence. As you are about to enter the briefing room to address your team prior to the raid, a high-ranking supervisor pulls you aside and asks, “Have your team members received the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Muslim cultural sensitivity training, and are you incorporating CAIR’s demands into your tactical plan?”

You realize you haven’t included any CAIR demands because they will get your team injured or killed since they fly in the face of established law enforcement tactics. You recently attended a Muslim sensitivity training session for the law enforcement/intelligence community sponsored by CAIR and the US Department of Justice, and pressure is increasing to formulate different operational plans for Muslim suspects than those in place for suspects of other faiths. You confidently assure the top brass supervisor you are in complete compliance with CAIR, and in the pre-raid briefing you tell your team the following:

1. Rapid entry violates the dignity of a Muslim home, so despite the suspect’s history of violence and weapons possession, you must stand on the porch knocking and hoping someone will open the door for you. Sure, rapid entry maintains the element of surprise and is far safer for the raid team, but those are unimportant when a Muslim house in involved.

2. Protective shoes or tactical boots should be removed prior to entry into the home. Don’t step on the prayer rug either. If you must breach the door, do so with dignity, and instead of the dynamic entry tactics we’ve drilled into you for your safety, stop in the doorway (also known as the fatal funnel) and remove those shoes/boots. Enter the home and make the arrest in your socks. Please don’t step on sharp objects, broken glass, syringes, or any of the other hazards you wear boots for in the first place.

3. Don’t look at women in the home and give them the opportunity to dress and cover their heads. Yes I know it is a fatal mistake to take your eyes off of anyone in the home until they and the residence have been secured and swept for weapons, but we don’t want to embarrass them, so avert your eyes and pray they don’t kill you while your back is turned.

4. To preserve dignity, don’t enter any occupied bedrooms or bathrooms, even if that is where the suspect is located. Stay in another room and call for the terrorist, relying on his/her willingness to come into the living room and submit to an arrest. If the terrorist is sleeping, don’t enter the room to wake him/her, just wait until he/she awakens.

5. K9 teams must not enter the home because this would be a desecration. Yes, I am aware that K9 teams are invaluable in detecting materials used to construct IEDs and other munitions, some of which may be present in an IED the suspect may have placed in the home specifically to kill an entire team such as ours, but you will have to find these materials without K9 assistance. Sorry.

6. Don’t use cameras or camcorders to document the raid due to the risk of filming individuals in varying states of dress. Of course I am familiar with the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words,” but in a Muslim home we should not photograph the evidence or anything else.

7. Prayers must not be disturbed. If the suspect is praying when the raid occurs, he/she must be allowed to finish praying. Of course the terrorist may have concealed a weapon under the prayer rug or on his/her person, but you will stand there awkwardly and halt your standard procedures to secure the residence and assure officer/agent safety until the terrorist stops praying and gets off the prayer rug.

8. If you are not Muslim, don’t touch any holy books, Korans or religious
artifacts without asking the suspect’s permission. Of course, the terrorist will not give that permission, so we have to hope nothing dangerous or of value as evidence is hidden in those books or artifacts.

9. If the suspect flees to the local mosque, the same rules above apply, only we will be outnumbered 100 to 1, so be ready to retreat in your socks and don’t trip over those shoes you took off when you entered!

If the above scenario seems exaggerated or ludicrous to you, then you should empathize with intelligence/law enforcement personnel who are receiving increasing pressure to implement such Islamic “cultural sensitivity” in daily operational planning. All of the above rules were actually recommended by CAIR at a “Muslim cultural sensitivity” training I attended in 2004. Americans should be questioning why any government departments rely on CAIR for “cultural sensitivity” training, particularly given CAIR’s long suspected and well documented associations with known terrorists and terrorist networks. At least three major departments tasked with fighting and investigating terrorism utilize CAIR as their primary advisor on Islamic issues, and think nothing of taking CAIR leaders on tours of security operations at American airports. What does CAIR contribute to investigative efforts in return for this preferential treatment? CAIR opposes the Patriot Act, and joined the lawsuit against the NSA’s domestic anti-terrorist surveillance program. It is easy to understand that group’s objections to those anti-terror measures, since they both assure that the relationships between CAIR and terrorist organizations can be more closely monitored. Surely there is a better organization available to represent the views of America's Muslims than the highly controversial CAIR.

The CAIR-DOJ training session I attended in 2004 was fascinating; not for any cultural understanding obtained, but for the pure suspense of wondering whether the intelligence/law enforcement personnel would rush the stage and throttle the CAIR representative. As each of the above listed CAIR demands were presented to the audience, the tension in the auditorium became increasingly palpable. From an operational and agent/officer safety perspective, none of the CAIR demands were acceptable. Yet, the attendees were told that complying with those demands was the only way Muslims would cooperate with investigations in their communities. One local police officer in attendance, who visibly could not stand another minute of the “cultural sensitivity” training rather heatedly asked the CAIR representative the following question: “You’ve given us a list of demands that will get us killed, but what are YOU doing to get the Muslim communities to turn in the terrorists living among them? Is this a religion of peace or not?” The CAIR representative had no response and stood glaring at the officer for what seemed like an eternity with obvious disdain for law enforcement on her face. The tension was broken only when the DOJ host stepped in and called for an early lunch.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, has now joined the ranks in Washington who are wondering why CAIR seems to be the preferred Muslim group advising the Federal government and many state and local governments throughout the nation. To her credit, Senator Boxer, who was reportedly preparing to bestow an accomplishment award on a CAIR official, received complaints from law enforcement and intelligence personnel and listened to their criticisms of CAIR. She asked staff to research CAIR and after this scrutiny came to the conclusion that the Federal government had embraced CAIR with good intentions, namely to provide more Islamic cultural awareness within government, but that this was a mistake because of CAIR’s numerous associations with terrorists. Senator Boxer then rescinded the award to be presented to the CAIR official.

The “cultural sensitivity” training offered by CAIR and DOJ raises the important issue of the much-adored by the left “separation of church and state.” I have never seen any offered cultural awareness training for dealing with Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist, or Hindu suspects or how to behave when I enter homes where those are the declared religions. Why is Islam singled out for special treatment and consideration as a “culture” rather than a religion? If the government wants to make its intelligence/law enforcement personnel more aware of one religion’s beliefs, then it should offer a full spectrum of religious awareness and sensitivity courses including all religions, not just the one that complains loudest when investigated, justifiably, for terrorist activity. Requiring law enforcement to adopt separate rules and tactics to “maintain the dignity” of only one religion is a more blatant violation of the alleged separation of church and state than prayer in school. At least prayer in school can be non-denominational and voluntary. Workplace cultural sensitivity training is neither. It benefits only one religion and is mandatory.

If government agencies continue to rely on CAIR for understanding Islam in America, we will see a continued effort to render the intelligence and law enforcement communities impotent to investigate terrorism effectively in the very communities where terrorists are embedded. The United Kingdom is experiencing this same challenge at an even faster pace. Thus despite the London Subway bombings in July 2005 and several foiled plots involving home-grown terrorists, our British colleagues are facing pressure to abide by similar demands as those set forth by CAIR.

Infiltrating, identifying, locating, and investigating/eliminating terrorists are critical and dangerous duties. We should keep our shoes and boots on and our guard up when facing a determined and underestimated enemy, rather than caring so much about CAIR’s self-interested counsel.

Technorati Tags: Council on American-Islamic Relations Department of Justice Barbara Boxer Patriot Act London Subway Bombings cultural sensitivity NSA terrorism Religion of Peace Islamic Extremist CAIR