On May 12, 2006, three U.S. soldiers were abducted by al-Qaeda in Iraq. PFC Byron Fouty and PFC Joseph Anzack Jr. were later found murdered. SPC Alex Jimenez was never found.

The New York Post is reporting that U.S. intelligence officials got mired for nearly 10 hours seeking approval to use wiretaps against al Qaeda terrorists suspected of kidnapping SPC Jimenez:

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.

Now Congress is voting this week on the Democratic version of a bill to renew the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that will make it harder to track possible suspects such as those involved in the kidnapping of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Fox News reports:

The latest bill would require more warrants to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

Intelligence officials, for example, would have to get a warrant in advance if they want to eavesdrop on a suspected terrorist overseas who they think may be calling someone in the United States.

Democrats have fought Pres. Bush on the warrantless wiretap issue for several years now, covering warped political motivations under the guise of Constitutionality. Exactly which Americans are Democrats trying to safeguard here and what Constitutional right is more fundamental that the right to life?

Cross-posted @: Bottom Line Up Front

1. Amy, there are so many holes in your story, it is laughable. First, if there were lawyers “discussing probable cause” for 10 hours, who hired the lawyers (and, are these the same lawyers that Mittens wants to consult before making any decisions)? What were they wasting their time hammering out “probable cause” WHEN THE LAW SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT WIRETAP WARRANTS CAN BE APPLIED FOR UP TO 72 HOURS AFTER THE SURVEILLANCE TAKES PLACE? What were they even discussing this for, in the first place, if the soldiers were abducted in Iraq, and the surveillance was going to be conducted in Iraq? (Hint: FISA doesn’t cover surveillance in Iraq, only the US.)

   If this story is to be believed, then the military intelligence officials should be court-martialed. They, not FISA, are to blame for the loss of these brave soldiers. There was no legal barrier to wiretapping in this instance, only your imagined attempt at derailing sensible, legal revision of the seriously flawed PATRIOT act.

   But The New York Post? Please. Not even worth lining the bottom of your cat’s litter pan, let alone a legitimate news source. Besides, don’t all rightwingnuts hate the mainstream media… oh yeah, only when they disagree with your extreme positions.

   Stop obfuscating the facts. The Bush cabal has run amok, spies on Americans at will (warranted or not), has neglected the troops to the point of breaking the Army, and has no credibility left. And that’s just for starters.

   This story smacks of another coverup by the Bush cabal. What a surprise.

   Comment by Rocky — October 16, 2007 @ 11:00 am

2. With all due respect, FISA does apply to Iraq.

   “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.”

   Military bases abroad as well. Some little thing about Americans being on U.S. military bases.

   You have to have PROBABLE CAUSE to get the warrant first, then surviellence can begin.

   Military officials were following the law. It is the FISA law that Democrats love so much which needs to be changed, yet they are introducing legislation that will make it harder to track terrorists. We all know how libs feel about defending the enemy at the expense of the American.

   If anything, Bush used his executive power to sidestep the 1970’s FISA law for this very reason. Dems pushed and lied about what the program actually is so Bush cried uncle. We need not look any further than the Democrats on this one. I think the story is pretty clear.

   Comment by Amy Proctor — October 16, 2007 @ 11:12 am

3. How would FISA apply to Iraq?

   Last time I checked, Iraq was not subject to U.S. law.

   Those lawyers who thought American law applies to Iraq should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty.

   Comment by Michael Ejercito — October 17, 2007 @ 8:17 am