US: Soldiers Case Shows Law Needs Fixing

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., right, accompanied by House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, gestures as he speaks to reporters outside the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2007, following a breakfast meeting with President Bush. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) (Evan Vucci - AP)

WASHINGTON -- When three soldiers were abducted in Iraq in mid-May, U.S. government lawyers began drafting emergency warrants to try to monitor communications that could lead to the suspected captors.

The Bush administration and its allies, The Associated Press has learned, have argued that the legal work ate up precious hours because of an odd twist to a U.S. surveillance law. One of the soldiers was later found dead in the Euphrates River, and an al-Qaida offshoot has said the others are dead as well.

It isn't known whether faster warrants might have helped rescue the soldiers. One official, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of intelligence collection, said the situation is comparable to issuing an Amber Alert hours after a child is reported missing. Delays may hinder the search because the best information often comes early in an investigation.

Normally, warrants wouldn't be needed to eavesdrop on foreigners in Iraq or elsewhere. However, the Bush administration believes the government must obtain legal approval to listen in on foreign suspects when their conversations cross into the extensive U.S. communications network.

The administration wants to amend the law to allow such monitoring without delay. Many Democrats agree that adjustments are needed, but skeptics say the soldiers' story is being misused.

The political debate about the highly classified surveillance hinges on crucial civil liberties questions: Who should be able to sign off on this eavesdropping _ the attorney general or a federal judge appointed to a secretive court? And at what point are approvals needed?

Democratic lawmakers are treading carefully as they contemplate new surveillance powers for the Bush White House, given their conviction that it has abused its authority and violated long-held protections for civil liberties.

Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., an intelligence committee member, wouldn't confirm the account concerning the soldiers. But she did say that classified examples exist _ documents that make a compelling case for changing the law. "We are putting ourselves through all kinds of contortions, when we are sitting on the infrastructure," she said.

Other officials dispute suggestions that the surveillance law would have hampered the search for the soldiers.

"In a situation like that, everyone wishes you would have had the information instantaneously," said Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., also an intelligence committee member. "In that situation, I think you would find that they would have had the information at a very early time, but for the process that was set up."

Tierney thinks the problem is with the bureaucracy, not the law. He said the surveillance act makes clear that a warrant is not required to eavesdrop on foreign targets who are overseas, even if their communications cross into a U.S. network. But he and other Democrats are open to clarifying the confusion.

Still another official said the government could have obtained the necessary communications in a way that did not require a FISA warrant, and that procedure was used. The official declined to elaborate.