Slashdot Mirror
UK Terror Bust Caught With Wiretapping
1cebird writes "In an AP story entitled Brothers Emerge As Focus of Plot Probe, British sources reveal that the UK -> US plane-bombing plot was uncovered by a UK wiretap. So it looks like they are getting results with their wiretapping program. Will this make governments and citizens more comfortable with the idea?"
I've already predicted that terrorists would get found using wiretapping. Meaning, that's what would be put in the PR, no matter what ACTUALLY happened.
In the UK at least, nobody's even been charged with anything yet. What effect this has on anyone's opinion on wiretapping will probably be to some degree affected by whether it turns out that there ever was a plot. We don't really have anything to go on yet except extremely vague allegations.
So what will happen when the terrorists all begin using strong SSL chat sessions and avoid unencrypted communications entirely?
... and so far one legitimate, serious attack has been prevented. The same attack could likely have been prevented by forcing everyone to check all luggage and allow no carry-ons.
As for governments "warming up" to wiretapping... is it even the case anywhere in the world that the government is reluctant to infringe on the rights of its populace? People don't care anymore, they're fearful and spineless, and are more than willing to give up their rights these days.
rooooar
On the Charlie Rose show last night, an ABC newscaster said that the U.S. and British governments spy on each other's citizens, doing things that would be illegal in their home countries, and share that information with each other.
It should be mentioned that the U.S. and British governments have been killing Arabs and interfering with Arab governments for more than 40 years, and that's what started the terrorism. See this very brief summary: History surrounding the U.S. wars with Iraq: Four short stories. They did this to increase oil and other profits, the same as now.
--
Will U.S. government violence end 3,000 years of violence in the Middle East? Or, increase it?
Wireless Tapping is so much easier, no need to worry about the cord wrapping around and causing you to fall on your face.
I still can't find my pnone...
Details here:s urveillance-not-illegal.html
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-
They were turned in by a suspicious fellow Muslim, that's when the wiretapping started. Wiretapping did NOT discover this plot.
It is nice to know that wiretaps have been useful in doing this, but the question has never been whether wiretaps should be used to counter terrorism. The issue is whether or not illegal wiretaps should be used!
Register the editry.
In fact, the first reports -- before the higher ups in the real PR department got into full spin -- was that the reason these people were tracked was because after the London bombings a relative contacted the police with suspicions. You will note how that in itelf would TRIVIALLY allow the police the right to do taps under the OLD laws. No massive tapping of everyone, no carte blanche needed. Just the good old normal "We have resonable suspicion, please allow us to tap these people, Judge".
This is just "Lock The Laws In" spinning. 100% full throttle let us build a Big Brother Government so pervasive that there is no doubt that terrorism is in fact working excellently-spinning.
And it'll work. The phantom enemy, the "intelligent network", will win. Wasn't it odd that the first press conference I saw had a talking head explaning how this was ''very similar to an Al-Qaeda plot'', trying directly to instill that link to the ''network of evil'' as it were.
Sickening. Truly.
I like how this slashdot summary makes it look like wiretaps have never existed before this 8/10 plot.
The fact is wiretapping to capture terror suspects and other evildoers has been going on for as long as phone lines have been around.
I commend the authorities for using every tool at their disposal to capture those dastardly plotters who want to murder innocent people. This seems all legit to me.
- Indiscriminate "blanket" wiretapping
- Wiretapping without warrants or judicial safeguards.
Neither of these things were necessary at any level of the U.K. investigation there; they knew who to tap ahead of time, and they were in a position to go ahead and follow correct procedures for wiretapping such as obtaining warrants. The current U.K. case in fact weakens the case for these new, neoconservative policies, since the suspects here were caught through good old fashioned police work, not through crazy new vague police powers where the police tap whoever they want whenever they feel like it.The only people I don't want wiretapping me are:
RIAA
MPAA
The Software Companies
Anyone that makes waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much money on content
The Government should be watching to see what could be going on in the world of terrorism.
To review it is ok to wiretap to prevent killing of many people, but not to enforce everyday laws like copyright, shoplifting (I don't do that shit), and anything that does not prevent another 9/11.
This will probably be modded incorectly (troll/flamebait)
sudo mod me up
The question is, "Is unregulated wire tapping of citizens with out oversight more effective than regulated wire tapping with oversight and a 24 hour grace period?"
I don't think anyone will argue that wiretapping is bad. But many will argue that wiretapping with out oversight will quickly lead to an abuse of power.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
We have real problems that could be solved with the money wasted on this terror bullshit.
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/
Despite increased surveillance, violent crime is soaring yet our goverments idea of punishment is handing out an ASBO. Most ineffectual government 'evar', only appear to be in power to lay the framework for a totalitarian regime.
I found a link to a video of the show: Charlie Rose - Brian Ross / Syria's role in the Mid-East / YouTube co-founders.
During the show Brian Ross of ABC said both governments break the laws of the other, and share the information.
They've been doing that for years, showing zero respect for the law and for the lawmakers. One of the things they have been doing is killing Arabs to increase oil profits.
I don't think any reasonable person would object to a panel of judges being presented with serious evidence by a police/security investigation team and issuing a warrant that says it's reasonable to investigate further on that basis. That bar of "reasonable" should be set very high though and it's pretty obvious that the British police and judicial system is deeply corrupt and willing to forge evidence (see all the long history of that with the trials of the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four etc)
In reality, there isn't much you can do against terrorists even with an over-arching, nanny-state that oversees all aspects of life. The terrorists just get more and more cautious and the atrocities committed by the state in attempting to suppress them creates yet more polarised extermists. The only way to deal with it is to address the root causes: e.g. get out of their countries and stop killing their families and co-religionists. Pretty easy.
We've had wiretapping for a long time, and most people are comfortable with it. Here in the US, you can get a warrant from a judge for wiretapping a US citizen, and we have a special court called FISA specifically for issuing warrants for international type wiretaps. It's routine and it happens *all the time*.
;) or whoever the next president is with such a massive, ongoing surveillance database?
However, as I understand, wiretapping is *not* what tipped off British officials to the group who were going to carry out this plot. It was a friend/relative of one of the plotters who tipped of the police. Then, I'm guessing, the police went and got a warrant to tap this guy's phone, and worked thier way through the group, getting more warrants and taps, until they understood the group structure and their goals.
However, what I am extremely uncomfortable with is the unaccountable and warrantless comprehensive wiretapping of all phone calls in the US. If it is not illegal in the specific wording of the law, it certainly goes against the spirit of the right to privacy and the presumption of innocence. This is very scary. Totalitarian governments love keeping records and tabs on everyone so they can harrass and dissapear them whenever some person starts speaking up.
I'm not saying that Bush is a facist, but think about it -- would you trust Hillary Clinton
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I've never seen a terrorist. To me, terrorists exist on television. What I have experienced are authority figures abusing power. Until terrorists stop hanging out with Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny and end up near me, I don't care how dangerous they are.
I'm more scared of the cops, even though I'm not a criminal.
But thank you for the canned soundbite about how the west is responsible for the crappy condition of the avg arabs life. Somehow a less biased person might look at the middle east and think that their problems stem from lousy corrupt governments that have a willingness to kill their own citizens, the subsitution of religous precepts for sane government policy and a willingness to blame everyone else in the world for their own problems.
Hope your hairshirt fits well.
..just get a warrant, keep it in the public record, and hold the government accountable when they screw up, so that they choose their wiretaps carefully. Heck, if you want to err on the side of caution and wiretap first, get the warrant second, I'm fine with that too. Just don't hide what you're doing from the citizens of your country, don't pretend like you're smarter than anybody else.
It's possible to be safe from both terror AND idiot totalitarian governments.
And gp too
We're using our new police state powers for good, honest! I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing had been staged.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Its too soon for that. We are not into the post attack panic yet.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
But was this wiretap legal, or was it done with shadowy methods with no regard for proper process? If it's the former, then good for them. If the latter, only then do we need to re-think anything.
Clearly, if any group were to use perfect tradecraft and communications, it would be much more difficult - if not impossible - to catch.
But perfection doesn't come easily. Look at how many CIA, KGB, MI6, DGSE and other intelligence agencies' officers have been caught because of screw-ups. These are people trained for long period of time - often years - to accomplish their jobs, yet even among their ranks screw-ups occur.
Terrorists, such as those caught in the UK, don't have such training. While they use many sophisticated (and many simple) means to avoid detection, they often lack the discipline to use them all the time and, in the case of Al Qaeda, often operate in such large groups as to make security hap hazard at best.
Consider Thursday's group and Al Qaeda's MO. A group that size had probably been in the planning and recruitment phase for several months if not several years. A group of that size needed large amounts (by terrorist standards) of outside funding, training, and support. They needed to move lots of information, stay in contact with each other, all while maintaining an outward appearance of normalcy (which they also apparently failed at, as a human intelligence source played a major part in busting the plot as well). A group of 24 - some say as big as 50 - quickly becomes unwieldy, and establishing perfect discipline amongst its often panicked members can be quite difficult.
Al Qaeda's biggest strength, and its biggest weakness, is the size of its attacks. The 9/11 attack was astounding, winning the group recognition worldwide, but it required a very large group to plan and execute. If the planned airline bombings had taken place, the result would have been perhaps equally astounding, but Al Qaeda's eyes are much bigger than its stomach - if it had targeted only one, perhaps two airliners and kept the groups small, tight, and using foreigners instead of UK citizens, it probably could have pulled it off. Look at the "shoe bomber" - he was stopped only by passengers, and his plot was unknown to counter-terrorist officials beforehand. If he'd had the smarts to try and pull it off in the airplane's bathroom, one would assume he'd have been much more successful.
Even if the group keeps 95% of its communications perfectly secure, that 5% slip can be enough to get them. Using that pre-paid cell too many times, forgetting to encrypt a chat just once, slipping up and paying with a credit card, not properly casing a facility, failing to use proper cut-outs to wire cash, etc. Insecure communications are far more efficient and, when one is panicked or when one becomes too confident, are often opted for, which is the key to getting people. By keeping the pressure up and making these groups feel nervous, most are bound to screw up in one way or another, helping them get caught.
While perfectly secure means of communication may well exist, the human element is what will always screw it up. Think about it this way - how easy is it to commit a "perfect murder", one that that leaves you with practically no chance of getting caught? If properly planned, not too hard, right? Yet most murderers are eventually caught. Why? They get lazy. They screw up. All too often it is the stupidity, poor planning, lack of discipline, panic, or overconfidence that gets them caught. Terrorists - who generally operate in sizable groups - often fall to the same problems.
That all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping." ...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
Where is the proof of all this BS? It could just as easily be yet another reichstagg fire type false flag operation. All we have to go on is a few governments words on this stuff, governments that are all obviously pushing totalitarianism. Buttis crap gets repeated verbating by the wire services as "true facts". Proof, let's see it. And how many government agents are inside these alleged cells, maybe directing them, egging them on?
Sorry, this terrorism crap to get more big brother action in place is looking more and more to be mostly government run ops, to mass condition the people. Until they start really *proving* this stuff, in open courts with non anonymous sources run by neutral third parties in the international arena, at best this is just spin doctor crap, like karl rove style dirty tricks action. I don't care how many arabic sounding names they use anymore, they got so many weird inconsistences with all their utterances that there's no way anymore to seperate fact from fiction when their lips are moving. I simply do not trust these governments anymore to tell the truth on anything. They keep coming up with these wild assed conspiracy theories, then all we get is more onerous laws out of it, and a ton of big transnational companies make a lot ore profits. I mean..c'mon now! It's long past rat smelling levels. They have varied internal agendas, economic and political, to push, so labelling everything "terrorist" is a dandy way for them to do anything they want to do. Just follow the headlines, every single stinking time there's bad news for these overlords starts to sneak into the headlines WHAM they trot out some more really dubious crap to divert attention. This is beyond obvious now.
The bad deal? Constant mucking about in the mid east and screwing them people over for the last century WILL result in the "clash of the civilizations" eventually. How much crap are those people suposed to eat from the uk and usa and the completely looney phony "gods will" zionists? Talk about your self fulfilling armageddon prophecies...
Get the fundy loons out of all these various governments, and hammer back the international "war is great for profits!" crowd and MAYBE all the normal people could live in peace.
...and it's been going on for decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON/
I find it odd that all was quite on the western front, and all of the sudden the domestic wire tapping issue & AT&T blows up in their faces...and right in the middle of it they bust a bunch of Jamaican pot heads in Florida for being terrorist. And then all of the sudden, they start busting a few more "cells," and they always tag on, "and they were caught by monitoring the Internet or by wire tapping." ...as if it is some sort of subtle advertising campaign. I mean, really, in any other type of incident, they probably wouldn't even release how they were caught for months, if at all (yeah, why not tip off the terrorist to quit using the phones or the Net). But it is almost as if we are watching some infomericals from some PR firm, not to scare the "terrorist," but to condition us and make us pro-monitoring.
Transporter_ii
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
The question is, "Is unregulated wire tapping of citizens with out oversight more effective than regulated wire tapping with oversight and a 24 hour grace period?"
This bust came from an informant not wire tapping. Someone who knew the suspects did the right thing and turned them in before they could kill innocent people. Wire tapping provided details, but it was not the out of control tap everyone without rule of law tapping big brother types advocate. Sooner or later the wiretap freaks will score a hit, but this is not it.
I don't know about a grace period. Once you have a warrent there is no further need for delay. Part of the linked article was US speculation on why they waited so long to nab the bad guys and how much risk that caused.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Yeah, I might trust them IF they have warrants.
Anyway, I don't necessarily believe them when they say they cracked the case using wiretapping. They may well be preserving operational security by saying they got the plotters by a different method than they really used. Or perhaps they're just lying like they have so many times before.
In short, there is no new information based on this bust.
If instead they said they caught them by sneak-and-peek, would that mean that you would no longer want protection against unreasonable search and seizure?
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
All I have been hearing on the news is that they were caught because they were discussing the plot in a mosk and someone their reported them. They might have used wiretapping after that but they probly got(or could of gotten) a warrent.
There is as much wiretapping going on today as was going on 8 years ago. What ppl should be afraid of , is that govs. such as the US (and I believe the UK) have allowed wiretapp info to be shared with standard gov. organizations. For example, after 9/11, the US gov pushed the USA PATRIOT act. What it really allows is for the sharing of the information that the NSA/CIA has traditionally gathered with the DOJ and the whitehouse. Agents from the NSA and CIA are for the first time sharing more and more info with the press. They object highly to this. There have been some indications that superiors have ordered the gathering of unique data; in particular, the gathering of information between democrats.
*sigh* Fine, I have karma to burn, and I am feeling in a bad mood today.
Right. And you are full of it. Religion is all about gathering a group of people around a central figure. The easiest way to do this is to create "enemies of the faith". And the easiest way to create enemies is to focus on their (alleged) sexual behaviour. Read this book and that book for more information on this. The bottom line is this: group dynamics and religious propaganda will always drag people toward violence , especially if religion -- or some form of religious belief -- is there to de-humanize the so-called "enemies". By the time individuals realize this, it's a full-scale religious war and it's to late to change course.
When you have created nice enemies, violence will always be a consequence. Does not matter which religion you are following, including Buddhism. Jainism or Zoroastrianism may be exceptions, but this is mainly due to the fact they have both been extremely small minorities for centuries now, even millenias in the case of Zoroastrianism.
This is so dumb it's not even funny. First of all, I can probably quote more scriptures from the Bible (that great big piece of religious shit) than you. Second, when will you realize that human beings focus on the violence, and not on peace?
For every "Love thy neighbour" there is a "Kill all your enemies, and do not spare women and children". We could go tit-for-tat like this for centuries, and people have been doing exactly this all over the Internet. Interpretation of absurd commands and nit-picking regulations is what most religions are all about. And interpretation always responds first of all to bloodthirst. And we are bloodthirsty animals, all of us.
There was a time when good Christians launched Crusades against Moslems -- whose civilization was, at the time, the most brilliant on Earth. Now Moslems are using terrorism against "Christians". History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of people like you who blame one religion for all the problems. Religion, in general, is the problem (and especially retarded religious people).
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
The government would have a terribly difficult time indeed if everyone that used a telephone made it a point of sticking it to 'em by always using key phrases such as plotting and bombing of citizens... in every conversation.
an abuse of power
The Left's apparent definition of 'abuse of power' appears to be anything that does not conform with the Left. Since reality itself fails to conform (an obviously subjective observation,) any governance whatsoever is effectively an 'abuse of power.' Thus, most of us no longer ascribe an significance to the 'abuse of power' characterization. It's just so much more yada yada that slips past the eyes and ears with no effect. It doesn't shock or evoke thought; just another prattling screecher in the distance, easily and usefully dismissed.
Go on now, tell me how this indifference to your claims has parallels with some former fascist regime. Yada yada.
Hemos, you got trolled so hard I bet your ass hurts. The article never mentions any Britsh wiretap of any kind.
This country once won real wars on two fronts, against the Japanese and Adolph Hitler simultaneously. We had help from our allies of course. We had allies. We have now mobilized the entire might of the US armed forces, given the president war powers, abridged the rights of our citizens, and birsmirched our international reputatation for decades to fight what? Box cutters and bottles of hair spray. It's a disgrace.
There is no vast international Al Qaeda conspiracy; there are a handful zealots. The zealots are not new, they have always been there. They will always be there. Osama admits the paucity of their resources, laughing that even the smallest gesture on their part causes us to waste billions of dollars sending our entire nation's might to chase shadows.
Our military efforts do not make us safer, they only inflame the passions of more zealots. If a foreign nation bombed an your American city in order to retaliate against some atrocity committed by a small band of Canadian whack jobs passing through, and in the process your family was killed by the collateral damage, I'd wager good odds you'd become a zealot yourself.
Our surveillance efforts do not make us safer. There are so many ways a motivated individual could do harm. That fact alone puts the lie to vast Al Qaeda conspiricy theories floated by our deranged administration. If the apparatus were as vast as Dick Cheney constantly implies, we'd be feeling the pain. There are real criminals to be caught. The residents of Indianapolis, for example, are currently being terrorized by a real killing spree. Our nation's resources are not infinite. While our best agencies chase bogeymen, real killers run free.
Instead of sending armies after ants, we should be asking ourselves just how it so happens that someone with a box cutter can bring down a skyscraper. Jumbo jets can become weapons. If you don't like that, then for fuck's sake change the system, instead of trying to pretend that you can hunt down every whacko on the planet with cruise missles, artillery, and battleship guns. Why has it taken this goddamn long for someone to realize that carry on baggage is a hazard? So is any kind of baggage, for that matter. Don't let giant cargo ships laden with natural gas steam through Boston harbor. Don't let unit trains pulling hundreds of tons of volatile chemicals into urban areas. Don't build buildings that can be wiped out with a few small well placed charges.
My little girl wasn't afraid of monsters in the closet until my wife brilliantly decided to ask her one day "are you afraid there is a monster in the closet?" That night she had nightmares. Brilliant. The only thing remarkable about 9/11 was that it hadn't happened before. Planes have been hijacked before. Planes have been blown up before. I don't mean to diminish the tragedy, but it is imperative that we stop exaggerating the nature of the threat it implies. The threat is the same as it always was, and always will be. The only thing that has changed is the political rhetoric of our administration. Dick Cheney says "boo", and terrorizes the nation.
It is abolute lunacy to believe that we can eliminate inherent technological risks through at a global social level. No military might, social engineering, propoganda, war power, surveillance, police state, or any other effort to rid the world of crazyness will succeed. There will always be a crazy asshole somewhere. And unless we rid the world of gasoline, people will always be able to use it to start fires.
I do have one idea for how we could reduce the number of crazy people in the world though. Stop killing, injuring, and terrorizing innocent children. If anything ever happens to my children, I will not fear death and my rage will never diminish. Anyone with children knows what I'm talking about.
There are risks in the world. It seems, however, that we are driven in social stampedes like lemmings, rather than the intelligent reasoning we forever congratulate our species for. And so the world has gone mad. Will we ever snap out of it?
Actually, the atrocities committed by the state in attempting to suppress its enemies are quite effective, at least for a time, as the history of communist countries clearly shows. One simple example is that in communist Moscow or Leningrad you wouldn't want to raid the bus without valid ticket, as the other passengers would surely report you to the controller.
First, the us gov. dropped the case on PGP back in the early 90s. They dropped it when the NSA stepped into the case and told the FTC to drop it. After pulling their lawyers into a backroom, the lawyers came back and dropped the case. Read into it what you will
Second, you seem to assume that the gov. can only look at bit at a time.
Finally, if they encrypt everything, that means the feds can simply find out which traffic to examine quickly. IOW, it is now flagged as to where to look. If you are looking for a needle in a haystack, do you prefer to have the haystack to double the haystack every month, or is it better to be able to limit where you need to search?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
most murderers are caught because most murders are unplanned and most victims are family members of the murderer. those who do plan their murders and who kill strangers - hitmen, serial killers - usually remain free for many years, if they are ever caught.
Granted, us being in their countries doesnt make them very happy, but it is not the root cause of te terrorist attacks. The real issue here is that it is part of there culture, their religion, that it is OK to do these things. They are rewarded by death. They are rewarded by blindly following their religion - which all the popular religions do - but it is a major part of their culture to do these things. It is not a part of the American, Canadian, or English cultures to be religious. It is an option, and there are many sub-cultures that support/are focused on religion, but it is not the main focus of the government, or the governments people.
Someone else already said this as well - but im going to say it again becasue they are right.
The governments are corrupted, very corrupted, and they cannot establish one that is not. Whether or not the US is the best country to fix that is irellevant - it needed to be done.
Not only that, but you can also see here the relevancy of seperation of church and state. It works, people; and almost all arab countries do not have this. And if they do, they do not follow it.
I know im going to regret saying this, but the problem of terrorism is not entirely the US/UK's fault. It is the government and important religious people twisting the words of their religion and offering rewards to those who commit atrocities.
Im ready for the negative modders, but people, keep an open mind. You all say you are open minded - but are you really?
-Red
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
> The same attack could likely have been prevented by forcing everyone to check all luggage and allow no carry-ons.
No, it couldn't. Because if the security restrictions had been different, the plot devised around them would have been different: duh.
The only way we successfully stop terrorist attacks is by knowing about them before they happen. Sometimes this means targeted wiretaps. Sometimes it means infiltration or informers. I'm not defending wiretaps ethically, legally or technically, I'm just saying. The metal detectors, they do nothing.
Terrorism is a bit different. The ideological motivation makes it harder to suppress based on fear. Even if the terrorists are afraid they still take action. As regards the simple criminality of cheating on bus fares, maybe it's effective, same as NYC's "broken windows" policies, but even under total communism there were still criminals.
us being in their countries doesnt make them very happy, but it is not the root cause of te terrorist attacks Oh come on! All the attacks in Europe have been EXPLICITLY because of it. The 9-11 attacks were EXPLICITLY because of the USA backing up the Saudi state and Israel. So, unless you think they bother to take terrorist action and at the same time lie about why they're doing it you should accept that the stated motivation is indeed the motivation. Otherwise you get into completely speculative psychologising about how if only Osama had got more nipple when he was a kid then he wouldn't be acting out. The "clash of civilisations" stuff is equally unconvincing. We wouldn't be clashign with them if we weren't in their countries or they in ours. As soon as the Islamic hordes start rolling their tanks across the oceans then I'll buy the threat, otherwise it's clear that they're reacting to the presence of our armies and proxy armies. (PS why the lame appeal to the mods? let whatever happens happen!)
I am not willing to trade my constitutional rights and other civil liberties in exchange for security.
Huh? I have no idea what your babbling about. I am more liberal than my family, and more conservative than my friends. My veiws vary from topic to topic but I almost invariably side with Personal and States rights.
In any case, by "abuse of power" I mean using the powers granted by Bush's term in office for political gain. As in, wire tapping competing political party members, journalist, social acquintances, etc. Sure, we can be told "that will never happen", but when the only people reviewing the system are the people who use the system, we have no way of knowing for sure.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Well, the UK has a population of 60 million, so you're going a tad OTT.
I'm sorry but I don't see a functional difference between violating the rights of 60 million to catch one guilty person vs the rights of 500 million.
The premise of the constitutions of western worlds is supposed to be innocent until provent guilty. This means the government should not be authorized to systematically invade the privacy of the populus at large with no probable cause in the hope of catching them stepping out of the line of their many many obscure laws.
You know there are some really obscure laws on the US books which can still be used to imprison people and deprive them of their voting rights by making them felons.
Even if theyre not felony violations you can still make their life a living hell by datamining them for violations of stupid laws.
How long is it until someone who said something wrong about the current ruling party flicks boogers into the wind or puts an ice cream cone in their pocket in alabama
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The real issue here is that it is part of there culture, their religion, that it is OK to do these things. They are rewarded by death.
You are talking about the United States, right? Because the real irony here is that you have completely bought into the double standard (a small group does evil in another country thus the entire culture is to blame) that, in spite of your call for an open mind, allows the murder of war to take place in our name.
I do wish you were right about the separation of church and state in the United States. We would not be having the problems we have today.
I would put this pretty much at the same level as if you see a gang beating a grandmother that the way to avoid antagonizing the gang is to walk quickly on by.
Yes, Israelis might be offended in being compared to a grandmother.
It is far, far too late to say "get out of their countries" Every government in the Middle East is there because of US or European influences. None of them are free and democratic. All of the governments live in fear of the people in the country and other Muslims nearby.
This is a situation you think the world can live with?
I will admit that the overall handling of the situation in Iraq was incompetent. There was a lot of bad intelligence, but the West has never been able to get much real intelligence out of that part of the world. But leaving Iraq now is just an invitation to Iran annexing it. Does that sound like a good idea?
"The original information about the plan came from the Muslim community in Britain, according to a British intelligence official."
"The tip was from a person who had been concerned about the activities of an acquaintance after the July 7, 2005, terror attacks in London, the official said."
Thank you. I am also tired of idiots spouting simplistic nonsense.
:)
And also tired of complex conspiracy theories.
The reason for all this is: 1 out of 3 people are just stupid.
That's it. That's all there is to it.
It's simple, but it's true.
Huh? What would your "1% case" look like? Remember, they can already wiretap for 72 hours before getting the warrant, they can and do get warrants 24/7 (including going to the judges's houses in the middle of the night), and the warrants are essentially never turned down. Furthermore, there are multiple judges, and they have a choice of which one they use, so even the 0.00000001% case where one of the judges in in cahoots with the terrorists seems to me to be covered--they just go to one of the other judges.
Please describe even one case where they'd have to break the law.
--MarkusQ
P.S. For that matter, can you even come up with a plausible reason why they'd want to? The only two I've heard that hold any water at all are that they're trying to eliminate the other two branches of government, and don't want to admit the courts have any authority, or they're following in Nixon's footsteps and spying on political opponents (presumably to get blackmail material). I'd love to hear an alternative that covers the facts.
Subtle?
The US forced the UK's hands, making them arrest the suspects weeks or months before the Brits had intended. It will make the case harder to prove (they hadn't purchased any airline tickets, some of them hadn't even gotten their passports yet, they hadn't prepared any explosives and the UK--standing up to the US--in insisting on due process) but it fit right in with the Bush administration's plans to swiftboat Ned Lamont and use the arrests for fund raising, so they went ahead anyway.
--MarkusQ
History repeats itself, nothing new under the sun, yadda yadda yadda. I am sick of people like you who blame one religion for all the problems. Religion, in general, is the problem (and especially retarded religious people).
You're jumping to a conclusion that "religion"(*) is the origin of the world's problems when everything you say in your post suggests that people are, in fact, the true source. You say that people are, in general, a "bloodthirsty lot," but then want to make the claim that religion is the source of religious violence. Is soccer to blame for soccer hooliganism? Is the institution of marriage the real cause of domestic violence? Furthermore, you outline the social dynamics that enable religious genocide, but then never bother to mention that such polarizing tactics are quite prevalent throughout history in non-religious contexts. Modern examples of this include ethnic genocide within Rwanda, Pol Pot's killing fields in Cambodia, and atrocities under Stalin during the Bolshevik Revolution. In fact, some anthropological evidence indicates that it was probably humans who are to blame for the rapid and striking disappearance of the Neanderthals. In all likelihood, it seems that our violent and tribalistic tendencies have been with us since our beginning as a species.
That being said, the GP was right: There is a problem with Islam. Now before you begin your atheistic, all-religions-are-equal claptrap again, allow me to expand upon that statement. The problem with Islam isn't the doctrine or religion, per se. Indeed, Islam, as you pointed out, was the source of great intellectual and social advancement at one point in history. The current problem with Islam is its dominant interpretation and institutions.
What's wrong with the dominate interpretation(s) of Islam? The main problems are rather simple. First of all, there is no voice of moderation within the mainstream Islamic society today. Secondly, for muslims, cosmopolitan ("I am a citizen of the world.") viewpoints are highly discouraged. These worldviews are replaced by an unquestionable religious identity whose value supersedes even the very lives of non-muslims. With the extremism created by lack of moderation within Islamic society combined with the tribalism of the "You are a muslim, first and foremost"-doctrine, conflict with non-muslims is inevitable and the cause of violence all over the world. I suggest you read this book, which documents these problems if you want a more in depth analysis. And just in case you were wondering that book was written by a muslim who happens to also be a lesbian.
-Grym
(*)Whatever that means. Any religion? All Religions? Even the contradictory ones? What about unstructured religions like Taoism?
I am by no means saying that everything is perfect. I'm moreso saying what i think a good reason would be to be there. In retrospect, thats what i was thinking about, but i didnt really realize it at the time : )
-Red
Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
Easy way to stop terrorism, just let them blow shit up and say "so what, kill 1000 more if you like, who cares?"
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
--AlexC
Just because I dont agree with climate change doesnt make me a troll
And terrorists have been active in Puerto Rico, too. Far more active and for longer than in the examples you cite. And, as much as I would like to carpet bomb and invade PR, it's just not a priority. Go figure.
In fact, Osama bin Laden and others complain about events that have occurred in the last few decades. That's what made the U.S. a target. You can see officials from middle eastern countries mentioning this over and over again on Charlie Rose shows. Google video now carries Charlie Rose.
I'm NOT saying violence is justified. I'm against violence. But, the U.S. government did, in fact, interfere with the politics of Saudi Arabia, as Osama bin Laden claims. Remember 15 of the 18 attackers of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 were from Saudi Arabia.
Notice that, when Saudis attacked, the U.S. government invaded Iraq. Investigate why.
Before the U.S. government interfered with Arab and Muslim politics, Arabs and Muslims generally had a very positive view of the United States.
Buddhists are not an extremely small minority, far from it, but Buddhists cultures adapt to local needs just like Christianity, e.g. Zen Buddhism in Japan was adapted to allow for Bushido, thus making it an option for the samurai (I am oversimplifying, perhaps) while in Thailand Buddhism and the military coexist by, for instance, allowing the execution of criminals by machine-gunning them through a sheet so the gunner is not directly aiming at another human being.
And yes, I am agreeing with you. The UK was actually _right_ when it barred Roman Catholics from participation in politics. I would prefer my politicians purely secular, able to distinguish fact from fiction, and uanble to tell themselves the lie that, if they start wars and kill people, these people will be really OK because they will have their reward in Heaven. Neocons are all traceable back to the Bishop of Beziers ("Kill them all, God will know his own"). (I would also like my politicians to have lots of much loved children and grandchildren so they have a real incentive to fix the world's problems.)
Pining for the fjords
Excerpted from the ACLU page:
MYTH: This is merely a "terrorist surveillance program."REALITY: When there is evidence a person may be a terrorist, both the criminal code and intelligence laws already authorize eavesdropping. This illegal program, however, allows electronic monitoring without any showing to a court that the person being spied upon in this country is a suspected terrorist.
MYTH: The program is legal.
REALITY: The program violates the Fourth Amendment and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and will chill free speech.
MYTH: The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows this.
REALITY: The resolution about using force in Afghanistan doesn't mention wiretaps and doesn't apply domestically, but FISA does--it requires a court order.
MYTH: The president has authority as commander in chief of the military to spy on Americans without any court oversight.
REALITY: The Supreme Court recently found the administration's claim of unlimited commander in chief powers during war to be an unacceptable effort to "condense power into a single branch of government," contrary to the Constitution's checks and balances.
MYTH: The president has the power to say what the law is.
REALITY: The courts have this power under our system of government, and no person is above the law, not even the president, or the rule of law means nothing.
MYTH: These warrantless wiretaps could never happen to you.
REALITY: Without court oversight, there is no way to ensure innocent people's everyday communications are not monitored or catalogued by the NSA or other agencies.
MYTH: This illegal program could have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
REALITY: This is utter manipulation. Before 9/11, the federal government had gathered intelligence, without illegal NSA spying, about the looming attacks and at least two of the terrorists who perpetrated them, but failed to act.
MYTH: This illegal program has saved thousands of lives.
REALITY: Because the program is secret the administration can assert anything it wants and then claim the need for secrecy excuses its failure to document these claims, let alone reveal all the times the program distracted intelligence agents with dead ends that wasted resources and trampled individual rights.
MYTH: FISA takes too long.
REALITY: FISA allows wiretaps to begin immediately in emergencies, with three days afterward to go to court. Even without an emergency, FISA orders can be approved very quickly and FISA judges are available at all hours.
MYTH: Only liberals disagree with the president about the program.
REALITY: The serious concerns that have been raised transcend party labels and reflect genuine and widespread worries about the lack of checks on the president's claim of unlimited power to illegally spy on Americans without any independent oversight.
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
Just because the authorities say they uncovered the plot by a wiretap, doesn't mean it's true.
The most likely way they got the info was by infiltrating the groups likely to organize plots. It sounds too much like James Bond, but it is in fact one of the ways the Brits countered the threat of IRA terrorism in the 1980s and 1990s. When you get information from agents, you always deny the existence of the agents to protect them, and say you got the information from somewhere else. The job agents do is dangerous enough - telling the enemy that they definitely have a spy in their midst makes it even more dangerous.
Having got the names/locations of some plot members through agents, the Brits probably used precisely targeted wiretaps to get confirmation and evidence they could use in a trial.
Well, then, either it will be illegal to use any encryption at all (and you'll be locked up forver under suspicion of being a terrorist if you do), or you will be forced to supply your private keys on demand to the authorities (UK RIP act from 2 or 3 years ago).
Stick Men
You're far too sensible, you'd never make it as a politician ;(
no taxation without representation!
The reason for all this is: 1 out of 3 people are just stupid.
2 out of 3. O:)
Grammar Nazi
Unocal wants to put a pipeline through Afghanistan from the oil fields inland. That's why the U.S. military is in Afghanistan.
Unocal now has its contract. The idea is that the U.S. taxpayer pays for oil company security, thus raising the profits. The real cost of one gallon of gas is maybe $6.00. Three dollars directly paid, and three dollars indirectly paid through taxes.
First: IANAL..
Although the US can pretty much browbeat any country with economic pressure as well as the 'war on terror' to accept whatever the US wants (SWIFT is a good example), it does not automatically apply that what goes in the US also goes in the UK, or elsewhere.
The laws may be similar, but oversight can sometimes differ quite substantially. In the UK this tap would have probably been done under the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA, I think it's 1998) which sets the rules for such an activity.
The problem with RIPA is part 3 which is now coming into force, where any entity can be asked to decrypt confidential information under the threat of being in contempt of court when this cannot be done (because, for instance, the crypto keys were lost but there's no decent documented destruction process with audit trail). So there goes legal principle no1: in this case you'd be guilty until you could prove your innocence.
It gets better: the warrant can compel you not to disclose this access to the 'victim'. Although this makes sense from a crime fighting perspective, it's quite scary to realise that there is no audit/log requirement imposed on the authorities to show what they do with the information acquired, no rules about storage and protection of such evidence etc. You could end up with a junior police officer having access to banking secrets worth billions, without any real controls on what happens. Roll on creative deception and social engineering for real competitive advantage..
1 out of 3 people are just stupid.
Optimist.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
First off, let me say that that is an excellent description; I believe I now understand what you are getting at. There are a few assumptions in your description that are a little extreme:
However, these are all well within the Cheney-in-a-tutu bounds I set, so other than noting them here I will ignore them.
Assuming all of the above (and other, similar but not enumerated points implied by the "etc.") are adequately accounted for, the core of your argument is either that 1) the FISA court could not grant their request or 2) it would not, and that, in spite of this, it should. Taking these points in that order:
The assumption that the FISA court could not grant such a request
I think you are on shaky ground here. First off, all constitutional limits have recognized exceptions in the case of "clear and present danger." Free speech does not mean you can falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, nor do the property rights of the theater owner prevent fireman from entering a burning theater without a warrant. But more importantly, you use hindsight to say that some number of the warrants would be illegal, but you will only know which ones after the terrorists are caught. The whole point of a warrant is to look for something; it does not automatically become "illegal" if what they are looking for isn't found. And you haven't backed up your earlier claim that there is some sort of magic upper limit on the number of warrants that could be issued.
If your logic worked, a crook could rent a dozen apartments (or maybe it would take twenty, or a hundred), rob a bank, and hide the money in one of them. The police would be powerless to search any of them because they couldn't establish probable cause for them individually even though they had certainty about them collectively. I would not, however, advise robbing a bank to test this theory.
If their evidence was good enough to convince the judge to issue the warrants, there's no question in my mind (failing incompetence on the part of the judge) that the warrants could not legally be issued by the court. Which brings us to the second point.
The assumption that the FISA court would not grant such a request
Here, you start off by assuming that the evidence they have is rock solid--they know all of the things that you have posited, but then you turn around and assume that the evidence is unconvincing to the judge. I say you can't have it both ways. Either the information is strong enough and you should be able to convince the judge, or it isn't and the real problem is with the botched investigation. In any case, this still isn't an argument why they shouldn't ask for a warrant, just a description of the case in which they might not get it--specifically, when they don't have
Why are you not in politics? That was by far one of the clearest, most logical, and best thought out essays that I have ever read.
Bravo.
The real litigious bastards...
Probable cause
Granted. I could quibble, but I'd be chasing crumbs.
Quality of lead
Thanks.
Getting warrants vs. seeking warrants
Sorry, I wasn't clear. They "they" I was referring to was the present Bush administration, not the hypothetical people in the scenario under discussion. Clearly, the people in your example sought warrants, as they are required by law to do. And, you've convinced me that there is at least one conceivable case in which such investigators might not get warrants that the legitimately need to prevent an attack.
But that isn't what the Bush administration has done. They problem isn't that they were refused warrants, but that they never even sought them in the first place.
Going back and re-reading this thread from the begining, as you suggested, I realize that I have, through out this discussion, been assuming that what you were saying was that there were certain cases where they would need to refrain from seeking warrants in order to catch the terrorists, when in fact you are saying that it would be more effective for them to proceed with an investigation even after warrants were denied, and thus people who care about our freedoms and the rule of law would be ill advised to focus on the effectiveness of illegal wiretaps and should instead concentrate on the illegality of illegal wiretaps.
So, after all this thinking, can you concede that it'd be possible that at least one attack would manage to get through that only an illegal wiretap could stop?
Yes, and I would say let it. If we have to destroy our freedoms "in order to save them", we will have suffered a far worse loss. Or, to quote More (via the pen of Bolt):
I know this may strike some people as harsh, but, when you consider our stands on pretty much any issue which could potentially cause the life of people individually and our stand on other matters (such as defensive war) which could cause the death of people en mass, it can be seen to be totally consistant with who we are as a people, and what we stand for when we aren't being manipulated by fearmongers. "Give me liberty or give me death" is not an un-American sentiment, no matter how much the present administration would like to paint it as such.
--MarkusQ