Slashdot Mirror
Eavesdropping Didn't Help Uncover Terrorist Plot
crymeph0 writes "Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asserted that the 'Protect America Act,' which frees the intelligence community from pesky things like judicial oversight while they eavesdrop on international conversations, was used to good effect in exposing the recently foiled terrorist plot to bomb US military facilities in Germany. Not so, according to other, anonymous, intelligence community officials. McConnell was forced to admit his errors in a phone call to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Turns out the military got wise to the bad guys months before the law was passed, simply due to alert military guards noticing odd behavior by some passers-by, a.k.a. good old fashioned police work."
Is the hint that policemen (or worse, soldiers) should be on each street corner?
Would you rather have silent eavesdroppers or armed soldiers watching your every move?
If you honestly believe that McConnell didn't know he was full of shit when he made that statement, I have several bridges to sell you.
I'm bored ....I need to talk to spark my life up.
call me!!!
(740) 354-2095
(740) 352-0322 (Private Celly)
Mention my myspace page, and I just might show you my (.) (.)!!!!
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=108370887
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
I said "yeah, suuure" the first time I read his statement that eavesdropping foiled a terrorist plot. Did any news outlets actually regurgitate his message without checking out the facts? Are those same news outlets now conveying the truth?
"Would you rather have silent eavesdroppers or armed soldiers watching your every move?"
No, I want neither. I want the government to be able to protect me without stepping all over my rights as a person. It's too easy for Government officials, police, etc to sidestep the controls we have NOW.
America did learn a lot from WWI/WWII, they already make the Gestapo and the SS look like bloody amateurs.
And of course, this PROVES that we shouldn't eavesdrop on foreign calls. It didn't work one time, and suddenly it's this grand failure. I wish leftists would apply that standard to everything they support, instead of everything they're against.
The big headlines were that surveillance helped beat the terrorists. This will not make headlines.
Mission accomplished: Americans are more likely to believe that the Bill of Rights is helping the terrorists win.
This seems like as good a time as any to remind ourselves about EFF's http://stopthespying.org/ web site. McConnell did not just lie to the press. He had to call Senator Lieberman to "clarify" his testimony because he lied to Congress. It hardly needs to be restated to this audience that we can tell when these guys are lying because their lips are moving, but it is worth remembering that there's something that we can and should be doing right now, which is backing up the EFF efforts.
This government (and not just this administration) has gotten very good at gaming the news cycle to mislead the citizenry into supporting some pretty vile stuff. The frustrating thing is that none of the things we have been led to do (warrantless wiretapping, waterboarding and Guantanamo) have been the least bit effective at actually solving crimes, preventing terrorist attacks or bringing the a guilty to justice. Every expert knows this, anybody who reads the experts knows this and a large segment of the population, the majority of the GOP presidential candidates, as well as Congressmen of both parties and 10% of the Slashdot community, won't believe the truth. The most effective solutions to the problem were already in place before 9-11. The failures were HUMAN failures, we already knew all the parts, we didn't connect the dots. Keeping a man in sensory deprivation for a month will break a man - it won't connect the dots. Filtering the internet traffic for keywords makes more dots, but it doesn't connect any. Over the last 6 years we haven't made ourselves any safer - only more depraved.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
...we will have to fight them at home" is a lie too?
Or does Germany not count because it's not US soil?
-- Boycott Shell
One guy who works for the intelligence agency stated something that was false (either being an idiot by too quick to want to state something or possible boldly lying about it)and 4 people from the intelligence agency corrected him. So by that standard the "Bush Administration" is more truthful on the order of 4 to 1.
I'm just waiting for folks at MoveOn.org to take out a full size political add in a major American newspaper, subsidized mostly by said newspaper, claiming that Bush himself told this guy to claim it was the "Protect America Act".
When will there be politicians worth voting for?
all of us.
meanwhile, back at the debacle we lovingly call man'kind', yOUR fearful corepirate nazi, southern baptist 'leaders' continue to develop more&more cruel & unusual ways to create additional debt & disruption for most of US, while our fellow humans across the water continue to explode by yOUR $hand$.
infactdead corepirate nazis still WAY off track
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01, @09:35AM (#20433195)
it's only a matter of time/space/circumstance.
previous post:
mynuts won 'off t(r)opic'???
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, @10:22AM (#20411119)
eye gas you could call this 'weather'?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8004881114646406827 [google.com]
be careful, the whack(off)job in the next compartment may be a high RANKing corepirate nazi official.
previous post:
whoreabull corepirate nazi felons planning trips
(Score: mynuts won, robbIE's 'secret' censorship score)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, @12:13PM (#20072457)
in orbit perhaps? we wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of the naykid furor at this power point.
better days ahead?
as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD felons are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.
from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US
we the peepoles?
how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.
all they (the nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?
for many of US, the only way out is up.
don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.
'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.
some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.
it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....
as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.
concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.
'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
I am glad the plot was stopped. However why is it assumed that when I use someone else's network that my conversation is secure? If I hand someone a sheet of paper with stuff written on it what guarantee do I have that the person transporting it for me will not sneak a peek at what is written on the sheet of paper. Why is the phone company any different it is their network. Does it make it right that the phone network hands over control to the government not exactly. However if you are put in that position of telling the government no, and then 3000 people dieing because of your choice could you handle that? I know they should have to ask permission before listening to people's phone calls but I doubt we have the man power to listen to everyone. Also who passed this law because I thought the Democrats control congress.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Given the reasoning here it is now safe to say that enough data has come out about the whole thing to be finally worth kdawson's time to put it up on the front page.
I like a lot of the science/tech stuff kdawson puts up but the finger in the politics/yro side is far too slanted for my taste. And I don't mean looking with a critical eye or even looking through colored-glasses. It's downright looking through a kaleidoscope.
Suggestion: we can filter editors in our preferences: can we gain functionality to filter out on a criteria of (editor & category) instead of just a blanket editor?
Where'd you get the bridges?
"which frees the intelligence community from pesky things like judicial oversight while they eavesdrop on international conversations,"
The core of the Patriot act is not intelligence gathering but sharing. This was prompted because different agencies had information about 9/11 which, had they been able to share that information, they would have been far more likely to prevent the attack. There were situations where one person down the corridor from another couldn't share their notes.
Lacking hard evidence to go by, let's give privacy advocates the benefit of the doubt and say that in principle Patriot overreaches. The fact remains that the core of it is reform of our intelligence operations that was prompted by a very real attack and any reforms need to preserve the codification of that hard won lesson.
The real question isn't whether he was forced to admit it, the real question is whether Fixed News has reported this If they didn't report it then it's simply the left-wing media trying to undermine our security by supporting the terrorists.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"McConnell was forced to admit his errors in a phone call to Sen. Joe Lieberman."
Thus say anonymous intelligence community sources who were eavesdropping on the phone conversation. It has been confirmed that eavesdropping doesn't work.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Slashdot was better than liberal rags like Newsweek.
kdawson FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD - straight from the DNC.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
Exactly. This is a case of open mouth, insert foot. McConnell was lying deliberately because TPTB want this law badly, and they'd like it to permanent, thank-you-very-much. McConnell lied in his statement towards that end, without knowing that public statements had already been made, according to TFA, by American and German intelligence working the case. Once he was told, "uhhh, sir, but they already said they used old-fashioned police work!" he had to back-pedal.
They'll say anything to try to garner the support of Congress and the American people to have unwarranted spying going on this country. Pay attention people, this is your Constitional rights that they are messing with here. Write your Congresscritter. Write the newspapers. E-mail Robin Meade. Do whatever it takes to let them know that you don't want your Constitutionally-protected rights taken away from you.
My blog
...to odd behavior, anywhere, anytime. There is no reason to suspect me of anything.
Dammit, this is the slippery slope to fascism!
Next thing you know I'll be asked to show my papers when I behave oddly.
Police state, here we come. No one can safely act odd again.
In Soviet Russia the Odd ask for your papers!
Oh...and this is all Bush's fault.
that isn't just a lying whore?
Rather than watch everyone and keep adding names to the "people we don't think are terrorists today", they'd look for specific activities. "Follow the money."
In your scenario, what happens when the bad guy isn't doing anything bad during the time that he is being monitored?
We have over 300 million people here. The number of false positives in your plan would mean that we couldn't track any of the bad guys. We'd have spent all the money on following innocent people.
Now I want to know why, though the NY Times knew McConnell was lying, it didn't report that in that important original story.
And what will Lieberman, the Republican pretending to be a Democrat, do to a lying spook like McConnell? There's got to be a punishment for being a bad liar, even if we expect spooks like McConnell to lie. We expect them to do it competently. This clown is just another Bush chump who can't even lie straight.
--
make install -not war
You mean the government lied to the American people to garner support for its policy!? NO WAY!!!! OMG LRN2CANADA!
" a.k.a. good old fashioned police work."
When I read that I heard in the voice of Chief Wiggum: "That's some good work, Lou!"
Sig it.
I doubt this will get much media coverage. Not just because of the government ties with media, but unfortunately "Security staff doing their job" doesn't get viewers as much as "New law catches terrorists does". People would rather believe a lie that makes them feel a tiny bit safer than the truth that all the security in the world will not end terrorism.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
In Germany, Schäuble and his accompanying professional paranoiacs saw this as the clear reason that implementing the total surveillance system he has in mind for the net is the key to foiling terrorist plots.
One reporter dared to be so indiscreet to ask the question whether the fact that that attack was avoided isn't proof that the current ways of dealing with the threat are adequate.
And there was silence. Next question please?
It's funny that this avoided terrorist attack proves both, that the (questionable) systems implemented are good for us, and that the (questionable) systems they want to implement are critical because current systems are just not enough. Now, which one is it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I hope you realize that by selling bridges, you authorize buyers to destroy them (they can destroy their property, right)?
Therefore, offering bridges that you do not own is supporting terrorism.
Which is why Benjamin Frankin's statement about those who value security over freedom end will end up having neither is so prescient.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying the USA PATRIOT act isn't all bad, that there are some babies in it that shouldn't be thrown out with the collective bathwater?
If that's the case, then I agree with you in principle. Information sharing in this case is most likely a good thing, provided that the information was gathered ethically and legally in the first place. Sadly, while the current gang of idiots is running things, that cannot be assured, and therefore IMHO the whole thing should be scrapped in favor of a new act that explicitly defines what kinds of information can be shared and how said information should be acquired.
What needs to be remembered here is that with every erosion of our civil rights, those who would seek to destroy our way of life through acts of terror realize a victory without ever 'firing a shot', so to speak. Privacy, while perhaps not explicitly laid out in the Constitution (and that's debatable under some interpretations of the Fourth Amendment) should be protected in the name of Americans who have fought, bled, and died to ensure our rights (not to mention the civilians caught in the crossfire, both domestically and abroad).
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
You want liberty and democracy, you have to find a moderate.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
His mouth is moving...
No, really. This is why there is ZERO point listening to what these people say about anything. When they talk, I just think:
Get out of here! Go on! I don't believe it. You don't say! Really?! Get out of here! Go on. I don't believe it. You don't say? Get out of here! I told you that bitch crazy!!!
Well, you know what? Looking at the other candidates, I think Ron Paul is better than anyone else one the list, including Fred Thompson, Hillary, Obama, and Giuliani. Hillary is a power-hungry sociopath, Obama is too wet-behind-the-ears to win, Fred is a Washington insider who's been in and out of the intelligence community for decades, and Giuliani is a hard right-winger.
Paul at least never voted for the war and Iraq, has been vocal about pulling troops out of Iraq, has never voted for a Congressional pay raise, and has never voted to extend the power of the executive branch. He's the closest thing to a libertarian (small 'l') that I've seen running. No, I won't vote for the Libertarian candidate, because, well, the Libertarian Party and I have parted ways on wayyyyy too many issues.
My blog
What lie??
According to the dictionary "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it." This is not the progessive definition where a lie is saying something and then later it proves to be wrong.
Actually reading the full report, requires multiple source since the MSNBC does not contain it, shows he said it, he was then corrected, he then informed Congress and the press(since the comment was made in a public forum) that he had made a mistake and what the correct response should of been. All in a timly manner without any method of tring to hide it.
Judicial oversight of spying is not a "constitutional right." To the degree that the spying is for military intelligence rather than criminal prosecution, the ABSENCE of judicial oversight is a "constitutional right."
Does his signature really invalidate what he said?
Any better suggestions for people to vote for?
Oh, come on. You're telling me that you believe that the Director of National Intelligence, who has been on record has vehemently defending the unwarranted wire taps, didn't know how a long-term intelligence operation conducted in Germany with the help of the German government went down?
I live in Florida. I've got acres and acres of swamp land down South of me that I'd like to sell you.
My blog
This particular issue isn't about the Patriot Act, it's the "Protect America" act. And it's not about intelligence sharing between agencies. Actually the U.S. military shared intelligence pretty well with German authorities, not even a domestic agency, in this case. This issue is about the government overreaching its constitutional limits in eavesdropping on private conversations.
I actually do agree with you that our agencies need to share more intelligence more efficiently. After all, if the CIA sees J.Q. Terrorist get on a plane in London headed for the U.S., shouldn't they inform the FBI of the potential threat he now poses inside their jurisdiction?
It should be illegal to say that freedom of speech should be limited.
I'd like to agree with you but you're going to vote for that massive bigot Ron Paul which basically puts you in the same boat as the rest of this administration and their lackeys.
"New law catches terrorists does"
In his old age, Yoda's grammar worse and worse has gotten.
From the prior thread: "I don't believe a single damned thing these guys say anymore."
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=294029&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=20554673
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
WARNING: Trick question.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
My blog
Don't write to your congresscritter Put down that pen! Close that word processing program! Forget all that happy crap you learned in civics class about sharing your views with your "representative." You don't have a representative any more. You merely have someone who thinks he or she is your "leader," unfettered by either your opinions or the Constitution.
Marx was wrong: religion isn't the opiate of the masses, in modern America, the drug that keeps us numb, dumb and well-behaved is a belief that we can still make a difference by politely voicing our views to our would-be rulers and owners.
Other quotes from the book, here.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
it is the fact that ALL of the info is legally required to be shared with the DOJ and the president. And yes, they do turn over ALL of it. Don't u remember when the PATRIOT act was passed? About 2 months after that a major drug group from South America was broken up. How exactly do you think that it occured? Likewise, about 6 months after it passed a number of dems were being watched. Exactly how do you think that Jefferson was known to be tracked and caught?.But how many pubs were tracked even though they had an obvious network of illegal behavior that bordered on being an illegal gang. Every last one of those bastards were caught because of other means. No, the PATRIOT act is about as evil as they come. It needs to be stopped. The president and all the presidents men need to go to prison; preferably, Levinworth.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Congress has to vote to stop a pay raise. If no vote is taken, the pay raise is AUTOMATIC
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
letsblamebush
screamingbushrage
theimpotentrageoftheleft(makesmelaugh)
howsthatimpeachmentcomingalonghahaha
cantblameroveanymore
slashkos
What?
Mr Dean worked for Nixon and was part of the watergate consperacy. He is a tried and true conservative. Yet, he believes that most of today's "republicans" have more in common with Nazi's than they do with republican ideals. Considering that even Nazi's could balance the budget, I would say that they have more in common with the Soviets. Even the gulag, the deficits, the invasions because of resources, the lies, the spying, etc. is much more soviet than Nazis.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
what do you mean "some"? I would guess most, if not all.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I have no doubt that there are still American voters who unquestioningly believe everything the Bush administration tells them.
:-(
Push the button, it's time for the cockroaches to have a go.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Your troll is weak, but I feel like trolling too.
Blar.
I didn't know that. Thank you for making things clearer.
My blog
And with statements to the effect of being "One Bomb away from those pesky courts" It wouldnt shock me in the least if in the next 2 years they got their way through a "missed opportunity."
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
"New law catches terrorists does"
In his old age, Yoda's grammar worse and worse has gotten.
What's wrong with that sentence? A new law was passed that enabled police to capture female deer intent on destroying America...
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
That was written 10 years ago. You sure it's still not time for the revolution yet? *raised eyebrow*
My blog
the point is, if he didnt know how the operation went, how could he comment on its details?
..inconvenient at the trial
he either:
1. lied about knowing the operation specifics
2. lied knowing the operation specifics
3. thought he knew the specifics but misinterpreted the report (which in his job may be the worst)
4. didnt lie, but the wiretaps are illegal in germany and would be
I prefer to deal with an adversary I can see
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Do you have a source for this little gem in your sig? You always want to provide a source for such things, especially when they sound that ludicrous.
After all, studies show that 87% of Americans uncritically accept fabricated statistics.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
According to the dictionary "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it."
Yes, and since the actual information regarding the case is clear that unwarranted surveillance had nothing to do with it, this means that either:
1) he was aware of the actual circumstances of the case, yet still claimed surveillance was the key or
2) he was (inexplicably for a man in his position) completely ignorant of the circumstances of the case, and just plain made up the fact that surveillance was involved.
If you make something up on the spot that supports your political agenda, do you usually suspect that what you made up is false? Yes, of course you do. And so does he. So he was lying.
The only thing he was merely wrong as opposed to lying about was whether the truth had already been made public. It had been made public, and that, and only that, is why he retracted his statement. He either knew what he said was wrong, or he knew it was not based in fact. Either way, that's a fucking lie.
I swear, the way people try to weasel out of being caught lying is as sad and reprehensible as the lies themselves.
The enemies of Democracy are
You want liberty and democracy, you have to find a moderate.
define "moderate", please. by some countries' government philosophies, the US government is so far right, that a radical left candidate would be "moderate".
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Supposedly he was "overwhelmed with information and merely mixed up his facts". Fine.
So, by implication, what was the other attack that really was foiled by the new law -- the one that he confused with the recent one in Germany? Or are there no valid examples at all?
When 900 years you reach, speak as well you will not.
I'm actually pretty sure he voted against the law making those pay raises automatic too.
This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
Looks like your troll is weaker - no "+1 Insightful" mod yet.
What?
Do you believe that President Bush knew about in advance or had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks?
Do you think there wasn't any wiretapping surveillance involved in apprehending the attempted terrorists in Germany? You don't tap someone's phone unless you have a reason to listen.
Eavesdropping didn't catch them because since the terrorists know their calls are monitored, they have to find other channels for communication.
Please hold me. I feel so warm inside.
Maybe if he eavesdropped on himself, he would have known the truth earlier.
I hope a lot of is made of this. It seems to me that every time a bust is made, they give credit to whichever government policy is most controversial at the time. Then later it turns out the new law had nothing to do with it, and very often the accused are not guilty anyways. It would be nice to have a list of examples in one place, I wonder if anybody is collecting them?
No, no. You misunderstood. The new law caught female deer suicide bombers.
Let's begin with asserting that the year is 2007 and that it is widely known that phones are tapped.
Let's then use a 12-year-old terrorist as an example:
- Even a 12-year-old would be paranoid enough to STFU about stuff like this on the phone.
- Even a 12-year-old would be paranoid enough to STFU about stuff like this on e-mail. If he has watched more than ONE movie that touches this subject, and talked to ANYONE else about this, he will also know that using encryption doesn't help(acres, NSA) and draws attention.
So, what can one get out of evesdropping like this?- Industrial secrets, corporate people hasn't become as paranoid as the should, yet.
- Possibilities to map the opposition.
- A means to convince the people that one actually is doing something to lessen the terrorist threat and that there is a way to combat terrorism except to change a completely fucked up foreign policy? And that one isn't from Venus?
*sigh*Baboons are cute.
Locals, FBI, CIA ... field personnel (the pack-Mules & worker-Bees) provided content of interest well prior of 911 attack+disaster, but management (the source of all/most government employee urban-legends) failed to be functionally capable leaders and proved themselves to be ineffective managers.
... many) and far less government pack-Mules & worker-Bees to keep US safe and informed.
The front line folks doing the job are not politicians or career managers, and they don't get promoted for doing a great job.
I remember on fed-manager saying "We can't promote her, we need someone that can do the job.", Lucky for US she got a promotion and another job with a different government organization. Fed-management is only about 33% capable, but the Mules&Bees (M&B) are far more professional and patriotic getting the job done.
Less Career-Managers (CM), PowerPoint-Scientist/Engineers (PP-SE) [acronyms, sound right] and far more pack-Mules & worker-Bees will always improve government performance. However, the solution for the past decades has bees more CM PP-SE and contractors (Halliburton, Blackwater
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
That's because Yoda is German, and we're getting the Babelfish translation of what he says.
Since the information exchange between the U.S. and Germany took place before the "Protect America Act" was even passed, I'd have to say that if Mr. McConnel knew anything about the case (like when it happened) then he must have known that said Act had nothing to do with catching the terrorists, and was therefore lying. And if he didn't know anything about the case, then he was just making shit up but acting like he actually knew which is still lying.
I'm not really concerned with the other details, other than that they prove that we can catch terrorists without this crazy Orwellian Act.
The enemies of Democracy are
...but:
The issue at hand, which is commonly misunderstood, is that:
- Monitoring for foreign communications does not require, should not require, and will never require, a warrant, which brings us to:
- Monitoring of foreign communications where both ends are outside of the United States, but where the passage of the traffic through equipment within the United States is incidental should not require a warrant;
- Monitoring of communications where the target of said monitoring is (reasonably* believed to be) outside of the United States should not require a warrant, regardless of where the other end of the communication is (even if within the United States);
- Monitoring of US citizens as targets within the United States requires a warrant, and always has.
These capabilities should absolutely exist under the next administration as well. The United States has always had the ability to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant, and that should always be so. Whether one end of the conversation is within the United States, or neither end is but the traffic incidentally travels through equipment physically within the United States, is - and should be - irrelevant.
That is not to say that the so-called Protect America Act of 2007, the six-month temporary legislation which allows this, is perfect, or isn't overly broad. But the capability to continue collecting foreign intelligence without being encumbered by FISA is crucial. Then you might ask, "Well, where are the checks and balances, then?!" Indeed, where are the checks and balances for any foreign signals intelligence collection? Should all foreign SIGINT now go through a court and warrant process, just to "make sure" it's "really" foreign SIGINT? If you believe so, you're woefully misguided.
For a very brief and overly simple overview of the issues this addresses, see this Newsweek article.
* "Reasonable" has a standard here - it's not just someone making an arbitrary assertion. Since in today's electronic world it is virtually impossible to guarantee beyond a shadow of any doubt that a particular target may be outside of the United States, it must be reasonable to believe that they are. I know people like to think that the attorney general can just "declare" someone as being outside of the US, and commence monitoring. No. They must, by all appearances, actually appear and be believed to be outside of the United States by any reasonable assessment. And again, let me guess: "But where are the checks and balances?" To repeat, where are any such "checks" any any other foreign intelligence gathering? The difference here is that sometimes, traffic may be increasingly traveling through the United States. Instead of choosing to be hamstrung in foreign SIGINT collection just because major communication trunks happen to pass through the US, I'd choose the option of using that to our advantage. It's flat out foolish not to.
Disclaimer: much of this is culled from a previous post of mine in a previous article, but this is precisely on-point. Foreign SIGINT should not require a warrant if the target of the monitoring is already outside the United States, and especially if both endpoints of the communication are outside of the United States, regardless of the path the traffic takes. I guess I can keep going in circles with the inevitable, "Yes, but how do we really know that the situation is as you described it without the oversight of a court?" How do we know that for ANY intelligence gathering? Should all intelligence gathering of all types now go through a warrant process? Ridiculous. And on top of all of this, if you just think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?
Try to at least imagine the opposing viewpoint to your own.
Unlike the douchebags who told us this honorless 'war' would take 6 months tops, and cost much less than $200 Billion.
Blar.
Are you actually claiming 9/11 happened because different agencies weren't allowed to talk to each other, and not because the Bush administration ignored them?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It is nice to see, that politicians are the same all over the world. Here in Germany every press conference about that foiled plan is somehow connected with that stupid idea of an "official trojan" while nobody can explain why and how it would have helped.
Does the CIO and/or CEO of the company that you work for know exactly what tables you're using to create a report that they're looking at when reporting to shareholders? Probably not. If they do want the information, do you think they're going to directly ask you or ask someone that's on the next lower level in the chain of command? Unless it's a pet project, executive types rarely know the intimate details of what's happening in the trenches.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Unless it's a pet project, executive types rarely know the intimate details of what's happening in the trenches.
And thus they don't comment on those details. I agree that it is possible that he had no idea what actually went on in the investigation. Yet if that's the case and he didn't know, then he must surely know he didn't know, therefore when he made the statement he was pretending that he knew and making up a story that supported his political agenda, and therefore he was lying.
The enemies of Democracy are
No. And I'd bet that far, far more than 39% of Democrats agree with me on this one, despite the GGP's sig. One gets exposed to a great deal of the "9/11 truth" crowd living in a Vermont college town. Yet they're a fringe minority even in this wackiest of East Coast states, which is a natural consequence of positing "evidence" that varies from unsubstantiated allegation to unabashed falsehood.
It's sad, to me, that we have a president so morally bankrupt that some people will believe any conspiracy ascribed to his administration.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
"Imagine" the opposing viewpoint to my own? I've been watching it ravage my liberties, and my neighbors', for at least 6 long years. Don't try to pretend that you're starting out this conflict of rights vs liberty in you long attempts to frame the debate the way you'd like everyone to see it.
There are two issues here, not just the one you'd like to compartmentalize into.
One is indeed whether the government can wiretap people. There is a very clear law, that has been regularly updated to keep pace with both technology and threats, the FISA. It is already an exception to the Constitutional requirement for any wiretap to be allowed by a warrant after evaluation by a judge under Congress' laws, to ensure the Executive doesn't just wiretap whoever it wants. Any wiretap without a warrant is by definition not reasonable. The FISA makes an exception to the usual requirement that the evidence on which the warrant is based be subject to argument, making the court hearing it and the proceedings secret.Then it makes another exception, a really extraordinary one, that allows warrants to be obtained even after the wiretap, for 72 hours. In other words, legalizing warrantless wiretaps to accommodate emergencies, after which the wiretappers can get a warrant on evidence they already had, or, if they really took a gamble without evidence but on a "hunch" that proved correct, with the contents of the 72 hours of the tap. The Executive even gets to assign the secret members of the FISA court, and its chief judge.
That court issued something like 18,000 authorizations, and rejected something like 20, in the year before Bush started ignoring it. But there weren't really 18,000 emergency terrorist threats, or anywhere near the number of wiretaps the FISA court has issued in its 30 years of operation. It's easy to convince that court. Too easy already, given that its procedures are unconstitutional, but there are emergencies and we tend to err on the side of caution when "national security" is invoked. At least the FISA is a way to track the circumventions of the Constitution - and therefore, the abuse of our rights by our government we create to protect them. So we can try for overall oversight down the road, even if "a few eggs are broken to make the omlet" along the way.
Of course, there's a bigger issue: these rights are inalienable, not given by the Constitution or any other feature of being American (or just living here). So violating those rights abroad, for US citizens or foreigners, also violates the rights that are America's basic ideology. But we make the exception to protect ourselves more easily, quickly and cheaply, rationalized on the grounds that we create our government here to protect our rights; foreigners can create their own governments to protect their rights if they want. But of course the accumulated rights abuses abroad have made it that much easier for our enemies to recruit allies and attack us. The tradeoff is probably a losing one, when our greatest threats are terrorists, and we're alienating even our allies.
The undeniable issue here is that Bush has ignored even the easy FISA court. So there's no oversight. Instead, there's lawbreaking by the Executive, as has been found even after due process in binding Federal court with proper jurisdiction. Violating the Constitution, and then breaking the FISA. Even the 4th Amendment that's being broken is itself an extra statement of what's already implicit in the Constitution, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's how important our right to privacy is. And how likely is an abusive ruler to violate it.
The other issue is that Bush cannot be trusted with this power. The FBI, for example, lied to Congress when reporting that there were no reported examples of their abusing the Patriot Acts, but there were indeed hundreds. The guy running these wiretaps, Alberto Gonzales, led a career of lying to Congress, hounded out j
--
make install -not war
Jerry: So George, how do I beat this lie detector?
George: I'm sorry, Jerry I can't help you.
Jerry: Come on, you've got the gift. You're the only one that can help me.
George: Jerry, I can't. It's like saying to Pavorotti, "Teach me to sing like you."
Jerry: All right, well I've got to go take this test. I can't believe I'm doing this.
George: Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it.
...and don't automatically dismiss anything that disagrees with my own personal opinion or points of view as "lies".
But it's humorous that you seem to.
One is indeed whether the government can wiretap people.
Replace "people" with "American citizens, permanent residents, and/or persons with a legal status within the United States", because they're two very, very different things, and you seem to conflate the two.
There is a very clear law, that has been regularly updated to keep pace with both technology and threats, the FISA. It is already an exception to the Constitutional requirement for any wiretap to be allowed by a warrant after evaluation by a judge under Congress' laws, to ensure the Executive doesn't just wiretap whoever it wants. Any wiretap without a warrant is by definition not reasonable. The FISA makes an exception to the usual requirement that the evidence on which the warrant is based be subject to argument, making the court hearing it and the proceedings secret.Then it makes another exception, a really extraordinary one, that allows warrants to be obtained even after the wiretap, for 72 hours. In other words, legalizing warrantless wiretaps to accommodate emergencies, after which the wiretappers can get a warrant on evidence they already had, or, if they really took a gamble without evidence but on a "hunch" that proved correct, with the contents of the 72 hours of the tap. The Executive even gets to assign the secret members of the FISA court, and its chief judge.
The main purpose of FISA is to govern the collection of foreign intelligence within the United States, and explicitly restrict and control application of surveillance of US citizens within the United States.
Foreign intelligence collection where the target, and sometimes indeed both endpoints of a communication, are outside of the United States should not require a warrant.
Of course, there's a bigger issue: these rights are inalienable, not given by the Constitution or any other feature of being American (or just living here). So violating those rights abroad, for US citizens or foreigners, also violates the rights that are America's basic ideology. But we make the exception to protect ourselves more easily, quickly and cheaply, rationalized on the grounds that we create our government here to protect our rights; foreigners can create their own governments to protect their rights if they want. But of course the accumulated rights abuses abroad have made it that much easier for our enemies to recruit allies and attack us. The tradeoff is probably a losing one, when our greatest threats are terrorists, and we're alienating even our allies.
That's a philosophical and ideological issue. If you believe we need court oversight and a warrant process for foreign intelligence collection, that's fine. It just runs counter to the very purposes and functions of intelligence, and would put the United States at a distinct disadvantage with respect to how other nations, including adversaries, collect intelligence. Our Constitution and the beliefs within it applies, by definition, to our own citizens and by extension to other persons with a valid legal status within the United States. To argue that it should apply to everyone on earth flies in the face of the current state of affairs of the world and the very notion of nation-states.
The undeniable issue here is that Bush has ignored even the easy FISA court. So there's no oversight. Instead, there's lawbreaking by the Executive, as has been found even after due process in binding Federal court with proper jurisdiction. Violating the Constitution, and then breaking the FISA. Even the 4th Amendment that's being broken is itself an extra statement of what's already implicit in the Constitution, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's how important our right to privacy is. And how likely is an abusive ruler to violate it.
Foreign signals intelligence collection should, fundamentally, never require a warra
Unless the powers are SPECIFICALLY OUTLINED in the Constitution, they are NOT allowed to the federal government. THAT is how it works. The Constitution is not a limitation and numeration of our rights. We do not get our rights by fiat of the government. They get their rights from our willingness to be governed. OUR rights are inalienable and come from the fact that we are human and alive.
It was a survey from Rasmussen Reports back in May. You can find the full results from places like this as well as many other place on the internet.
"I told you so:"
Maybe, but when that's your standard response to every post that involves any kind of person that is even remotely associated with a Republican, you can't really claim much foresight. I suppose one day those guys screaming that "ARMAGEDDON IS COMING!!!!" will eventually be right too.
Broken clock and all that.
Then of course there's the fact that you're an intolerable, raving nutjob, with a long history of verbally assaulting anyone who doesn't kowtow to you. I have a strong suspicion you'll do the same to me, for no reason than because I was man enough to respond to your ranting by calling it what it is.
I guess the point is, you may have been right, but no one cares. And that's not going to change no matter how much you verbally abuse us.
Medved needs a rudimentary Math Class Yes, thirty five percent said yes. The twenty six percent that said they weren't sure certainly can't be lumped in with the thirty five percent unless you don't understand math and statistics at all. That supposition is totally bogus. With the thirty five percent, isn't that about the same percentage that feels that Bush can do absolutely no wrong? Works both way folks.
If FireFox thinks it is spelled correctly, it is good enough for me. I don't need to spell, that is what the technical writer is for.
Blar.
Correct me if I am wrong, but FISA- wiretapping started in the 70s. And the Bush version as far back as several years and the original Patriot Act.
where in the poll question is 'participation' mentioned, or did you just make that part up? or are you so stupid that you think that having some foreknowledge of something is the same as doing it yourself?
I'm curious. Why do you think that the Director of National Intelligence has so vehemently defended the unwarranted wire taps? It's not like he can take over the world. For that matter, it's likely that as soon as another Prez comes into office, he'll be out. Why do you think that so many in Washington believe that unwarranted wire taps are a good thing, as opposed to having to get a warrant for each and every one?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
FTA:
That's why I buy AMD.
Because they've watched too much 24 and the like. First, I think a lot of these politicians honestly think some guy gets in a situation where he's, like, 5 minutes from averting disaster, and HAS to have the power to behave unconstitutionally
Second, power. OK why does anyone want power? If you're rich already, why would ANYONE want to have more power and run things? I don't know, human nature I guess. The Director of Nat'l Intelligence etc. are human, so they seek more power.
Third, people just forget the spies will be people too. That is, it just won't occur to them that without ANY oversight, they will just use these warrantless spying powers to spy on ex-wives, political opponents, and so on.
Fourthly, the whole nature of a police state.. I think even the people who claim they want this program don't want a police state.. but, the whole nature of a police state is the thought and possibility that maybe you're being watched at all times, maybe you aren't. The people who want this program are enabling a police state whether they think they are or not.
So that's why my Pharmascist has a big sign saying "According to the PATRIOT ACT. You cannot buy Psuedophederine. Thank you, come again."
Now I know, they were only doing it because they were concerned about sharing intelligence.
...before making such incredibly asinine statements. I suggest reading up on (but not limited to) the following:
1: The first ten amendments of the US Constitution,
2: The past, oh, TWO HUNDRED YEARS or so of judicial precedent, and
3: The definition of "common carrier"
And perhaps you'll then realize why your statements are not merely stupid, but ignorant to an amazing degree. Perhaps. I don't hold out a lot of hope, but maybe you'll surprise us.
But did anyone stop to ask themselves, "Why did we create those anti-sharing rules in the first place?" No. As far as the American public is concerned, those rules just magically wrote and adopted themselves.
Without those laws, it was easy for the FBI to get information on Americans living abroad (information that should have required a warrant). They'd just nudge the CIA and say, "Buddy, do me a solid." The CIA, for its part, could get information from the FBI that it wasn't allowed to collect. Such abuses were far from theoretical.
Certainly, there is information that the FBI and CIA were allowed to exchange, and I suspect that those sharing programs weren't run nearly as effectively as they could have been. They could have improved the flow of intel between the agencies without touching the wall.
I don't think 9/11 happened because the FBI wasn't able to trade certain kinds of data with the CIA. I think it happened because the Bush administration didn't take terrorism seriously. Bin Laden was Clinton's white whale, an obsession the new administration found silly, until it was too late.
Had Bush treated the "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." memo as vigorously as Clinton treated the reports surrounding the foiled Millennium Bombing, I don't think 9/11 would have happened.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
1. Poor punctuation - Periods where question marks should be, and nothing where commas should be, resulting in run-on sentences. Run-on sentences and absent question marks both encourage you to keep reading without stopping to think, which is important when a conservative is trying to get their point across.
2. Poor spelling - Spelling errors are a fact of life, nobody's perfect. But strategic use of syntax errors can distract you from logical problems in the post.
3. An Ultimatum - A choice between the idea the conservative doesn't like and something unthinkable, or socially unacceptable. Would you like (premise A) or would you like people to die/the communists/terrorists to win!?!?!?
3. Blame-shifting - Shift the blame for a problem to a liberal group, again a distraction tactic. People will be caught up in the ensuing correctional argument instead of criticizing the original post. No factual basis is needed, but an easy way to confuse the reader is to shift the blame to the past actions of a liberal group. This also increases the amount of research needed to make an informed rebuttal and therefore reduces the chance of such a reply being made.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Thanks for proving, with your citation, that your signature is pure slander. Participated? What utter horseshit.
I know a lot of conservatives think that their values aren't represented in government, but it sure seems to me like we've got one filled with paranoid fascist enablers who can't even be troubled to read, so what's the complaint?
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
When will there be politicians worth voting for?
When you will know who Ron Paul is and what he stands for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Domestic_surveillance That was not offtopic: That link goes to the politics of domestic surveillance in a thread about domestic surveillance in reply to a post about its politics.You can't take the sky from me...
9/11 happened because of some crazy, pissed-off Muslims. What are you, some kind of retard?
Dark Reflection
And he had this to say about his testimony:
The man's either a jacakass loose cannon, or he's deliberately lying. Neither option paints him in a good light. And odds are, he's merely lying.
The fact that this got a troll rating is just a testament to the sheer number accounts on Slashdot that are controlled by crazy fucking radical Bush supporting wingnuts.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The survey asked if Bush knew about the attacks in advanced, from what we know the information about the planned attacks were only known by a core group of people. So for Bush to know about it he had to of "shared in something" with the doers and that is the definition of participate.
No, not at all. See, if it supports your agenda, and your agenda is right, it's probably right too. It's more self-deception than outright lying, because even lying requires you to be honest with yourself.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
So the US intelligence is run by crazy, pissed-off Muslims. Thanks for the confirmation.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
It was a survey from Rasmussen Reports
So I looked at your reference. Even if I believed the survey, what this actually said was:
What a fucking ludicrous "in other words".Those that believe Bush "knew in advance" don't think he "participated", they just think he was an idiot and ignored the warnings or didn't act fast enough.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
No, he's referring to female terrorist deer.
No, the self-deception is in telling yourself that it's okay to make up facts that support your agenda because your agenda is right. Only the truly deranged delude themselves into thinking that they aren't making things up. I do not believe for a second that the Director of National Intelligence is that kind of deranged person. He may have believed he was doing the right thing by pushing his agenda, but he was lying to do it and was definitely aware of it.
The enemies of Democracy are
"It would be nice to have a list of examples in one place, I wonder if anybody is collecting them?"
I hear the Library of Congress has a complete set...
I think we need to make some cool James Bonds Shit. Get us a Mr.Q or something. With spies and agents like that terrorist would not be an issue. I know this because I am in top secret agent training right now. I am currently playing 007 agent under fire and learning alot. Give me a couple of years and I will be the best agent ever. 008 thats me
you think one person can stop terrorism?