WASHINGTON-Federal officials last week said foreigners who last month tried to buy a sizeable quantity of prepaid cell phones in Texas do not have terrorist ties. But the incident, which prompted a flurry of news stories, underscores how quickly a story can take on a life of its own in the post-9/11 world. The issue is especially notable at a time when the White House’s now-disclosed secret eavesdropping program has mushroomed into a national controversy.
Indeed, there was speculation that the prepaid phones were purchased by terrorists in response to the recent disclosure that the National Security Agency over the last four years has been eavesdropping on citizens without first obtaining court orders.
The situation began when major news outlets began reporting about a possible terrorist connection between Middle Easterners who attempted to purchase more than a dozen prepaid phones Dec. 18 at a Wal-Mart in Midland, Texas. Shortely thereafter there was another reported purchase of 150 prepaid cell phones at a Target in California.
The details of the prepaid cell-phone purchase in California remain sketchy. Target did respond to a request for comment.
What is known about the Texas case is that confusion reigned.
When contacted, the FBI’s national headquarters seemed to be in the dark. An FBI spokesman said the agency was aware of the attempted purchase of prepaid cell phones in Texas, but indicated the FBI was not investigating the matter. The FBI spokesman pointed to the Department of Homeland Security, which houses the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The FBI spokesman was half right. ICE was involved, but so was the FBI-at least agents from the FBI’s El Paso office.
ICE was brought in because it initially appeared there might be immigration law violations, according to U.S. officials. They said it was later determined the individuals were here legally, but were not carrying immigration documents as required. The only arrest was made by Midland police after they discovered one of the individuals was carrying a small amount of marijuana.
“I have no evidence of terrorist involvement,” said Dean Boyd, an ICE spokesman.
While the four individuals in Texas did not apparently buy the prepaid phones at the Wal-Mart, Bill Vanderland, an FBI supervisor in Midland, said authorities found nearly 75 prepaid phones in their truck outside the store. But still no evidence of a terrorist link.
Vanderland said the possible terrorist connection-made prominent in stories by major news organizations-was the result of confusion. “I think the Midland Police Department misinterpreted what we were doing.”
Wal-Mart did not respond to a request for comment.
But Wal-Mart, Midland police and federal law enforcement cannot be faulted for being suspicious when people want to buy large quantities of prepaid cell phones. U.S. authorities rely on the 1994 Communications for Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to investigate suspected criminal activity in the U.S., while the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 governs eavesdropping of suspected terrorists and spies. With increased information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, however, the lines dividing the two wiretap statutes may be getting blurred.
Short-term use of cell phones-especially prepaid phones-is favored by people who want to evade detection. Wiretaps-even those authorized in the Patriot Act to rove with suspected terrorists and spies-are difficult to carry out when prepaid phones and calling cards are used.
But the flip side is true, as well. Congressional lawmakers, privacy advocates and civil libertarians fear that in the government’s zeal to fight for freedom, it may be shortchanging freedoms of those it purports to protect.
Meantime, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence authorities are asking mobile-phone carriers for cooperation like no time before.
Critics of the Bush administration’s secret eavesdropping point to the president’s previous statements in airing their concerns and suspicions.
“By the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way,” said Bush in 2004. “When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.”
But Bush, in the same 2004 speech, made a case for why roving wiretaps are now available for more than drug trafficking probes.
Congress plans to hold hearings on the president’s warrant-less eavesdropping program next month.
