backtop


Print 84 comment(s) - last by layerd.. on Jan 23 at 7:37 AM


President Bush accompanies McConnell during the ceremonial swearing-in to his position as the Director of National Intelligence.  (Source: The White House)
Seeks relief for a hamstrung intelligence community

National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell – the nation’s top spy – wants a new policy in place that gives the government expansive surveillance powers over web searches, internet activity, and e-mail.

Speaking in an interview and profile with The New Yorker’s Larry Wright, McConnell called the current rules on intelligence gathering “crazy” and outdated, and accused them of failing to properly take into account technological changes such as the Internet and e-mail. The article, titled “The Spymaster, ” appeared in the January 21 print edition of The New Yorker, and chronicles the history and motivations behind the “apolitical” man appointed in 2007 to unify the nation’s myriad  intelligence agencies.

FISA – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – is the biggest obstacle, argues McConnell, with its outdated rules creating absurd situations that needlessly hamstring intelligence efforts. Worse, U.S. lawmakers are continually dragging their feet, and he thinks that the policy of tweaking 30-year-old laws is insufficient. “If we don’t update FISA, the nation is significantly at risk,” said McConnell. He noted that the NSA’s monitoring capabilities dropped by 70 percent when federal judges entered a secret ruling that required warrants for intercepting traffic that “incidentally flowed” into domestic computer systems.

McConnell used the specific case of three captured U.S. soldiers, whose lives were endangered because intelligence analysts ran into the aforementioned limitations; analysts’ wiretapping efforts required a warrant because their communications “might pass electronically through U.S. circuits.”

McConnell thinks that recent efforts, like the stopgap Protect America Act of 2007, are merely lukewarm. Instead, McConnell thinks that the nation needs a new intelligence policy, one that takes present and future technology into account and lets intelligence agencies do their job. The costs will be high, however, as he fully believes that Americans are going to have to accept living under increased surveillance and curtail their expectations of privacy; “We have a saying in this business: ‘Privacy and security are a zero-sum game,’” said McConnell.

Fully aware of the intense resistance that his ideas will face, McConnell is undaunted. The current privacy/security debate is a “walk in the park” compared to his new plan, and he fully expects lawmakers to “screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

Facing accusations of directly monitoring the actions of American citizens without a warrant, McConnell called them “totally untrue!” Wright noted that critics found a loophole that allowed intelligence agents to “reverse-target” Americans that “happened to be making international calls but had nothing to do with terrorism,” to which McConnell claimed would never happen: “That’s a violation of the constitution … we can’t do that, wouldn’t do that.” When innocent people are caught in the government’s dragnet – a point which he conceded as possible – agents are ordered to “destroy” the gathered intel.

Paradoxically, McConnell appears to carry a strong belief against spying on American citizens, despite his plans that would inadvertently force the contrary. The solution, he said, requires the restoration of government trustworthiness – and that in the current climate Congress has all the reason to be “wary of the intelligence community’s intentions.” (The NSA currently stands accused of ordering communications carriers to secretly tap into the U.S. internet backbone and make copies of all traffic for analysis.)

In addition to broadened surveillance powers, McConnell is pushing hard to tighten the government’s computer networks, which he said are dangerously vulnerable to attack. One of his biggest initiatives involves reducing the surface area available for attack: of the gateways separating government networks from the public internet, McConnell wants the current count – around 2,000 different access points – reduced to 50. He pointed out that the intelligence community’s culture is perpetually stuck in the past, and Wright noted that government agencies lag far behind the commercial sector in terms of technological prowess – a regression from the days of World War II, where many attribute the Allies’ victory to the embrace of a technological spirit that intelligence community now seems to reject.

When asked about whether the intelligence community’s infrastructure allowed for the kind of capability seen in movies like The Bourne Ultimatum – where CIA agents tracked the protagonist’s activities with instantaneous access to satellite feeds, surveillance cameras, passport controls, and other high-tech wizardry – McConnell called the “disappointingly low-tech” reality “horse pucky” compared to Hollywood’s imagination.

McConnell considers himself nonpartisan, claiming that he’s “not a Republican or a Democrat;” rather, his worry is “good government.” He admires President Lincoln, “who lead under intense political pressure,” particularly when he suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War to prevent Washington D.C. from becoming surrounded by enemy territory. “There are a lot of parallels,” said McConnell, “the current administration stands accused of spying on Americans. And I’m right in the middle of that.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

FUD!
By frobizzle on 1/17/2008 12:24:15 PM , Rating: 5
Every 3rd word out of the mouths of the neo-cons is terrorist. Anyone else sick of this FUD?




RE: FUD!
By BBeltrami on 1/17/2008 12:39:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, how dare the National Intelligence Director use bad words like "terrorism". I'm seething with moral outrage!

Why can't he just talk about friendly, happy, non-FUD laden topics? Like gardening? Or quilting?


RE: FUD!
By retrospooty on 1/17/2008 1:14:35 PM , Rating: 5
There is a difference between fighting terrorism, and using the fear of terrorism to encroach on or rights like the current administration does.... When the USA started torturing people, we became the bad guys.


RE: FUD!
By FITCamaro on 1/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: FUD!
By Christopher1 on 1/17/2008 4:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
Are you joking? Torture does NOT stop the death's of 10's, 100's or 1,000's of innocent people.... instead, it ENRAGES the family members of the people who we torture and people around the world, and makes them turn to terrorism because we then appear EVIL, which we actually ARE if we torture!

Secondly, it has been PROVEN that when you torture someone, YOU DO NOT GET THE TRUTH! That has been proven by HUNDREDS of studies over the past 100 years done by the federal governments all over the world.... torturing someone does not mean that you will get useful information, instead it makes that person hate you EVEN MORE and makes it LESS likely that you will get credible and useful information out of them.
Now, when the ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE THEMSELVES say that is the case, you can freaking well believe it!

Thirdly, even if it was my parents being held captive, I would not want the person who might know where they are tortured because he is more likely to lie to me as a 'fuck you' as they say!
I would want them to try to make a rapport with the person, gain their trust, and convince them that it is in their best interest to tell the police what they want to know.
That is KNOWN to work, they do it all the time in cases where they have someone who they think has kidnapped a woman or child, and 90% of the time or more it does work and the person tells the police what they want to know, EVEN IF THEY HAVE KILLED THE PERSON IN QUESTION!


RE: FUD!
By Eugenics on 1/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: FUD!
By NT78stonewobble on 1/18/2008 2:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
Neither is torture proven to be a reliable way of getting information.

Regarding your oppinions on the subject? Well there had to be some things that made some people better than others :)


RE: FUD!
By camped69 on 1/18/2008 9:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Waterboarding IS torture. America has and will continue using torture. So much for the higher standard America used to hold. It was this "higher" standard that set us apart from the world. Now our government is no better than thugs. The government is out of control and looking to take away even more of rights. The "thought crime" bill and the "decimation of the 2nd amendment" is at hand. It is up to "We the People" to take our country back. The founding fathers have warned of this time and time again, it called "Tyranny". The thing is, they have wrapped it up in terms of "for your safety". This is complete rubbish. No one should every give up their freedoms for safety. Because then you end up with neither. This is not what America was founded on!

The chances of being killed in America by a terrorist attack less than the odds of being struck by lightning twice. I refuse to live in fear of some extremists. Look at our border situation, WIDE OPEN! The government expects to be taken seriously that it is "doing all it can do" yet the border of a nation at war is WIDE OPEN! Rubbish! What we have seen and will continue to see is the anti terrorist/military industrial complex apparatus of our country turned against "We the People". The government has the majority of it installed and are incrementally stripping more and more rights so it is only a matter of time before the martial law state goes into effect. It will be sparked by a false flag OP. If they take our guns we are slaves. They know this and working to dismantle our country. Look around you, they've already given or sold the majority of it . The sad thing is, most males of this country don't have a clue but they can tell you the score of the football games this coming monday. WAKE UP and get off the grid!


RE: FUD!
By Yames on 1/18/2008 4:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Who gave you the idea that America ever had "high" standards.
Look at how we fought the American revolution.
We did not think twice to kill 100,000s of innocent and not so innocent lives to stop WWII with two single bombs. What is sad is that we don't have those standards today, and we have lost every war we've tried to fight in a politically correct manner.
Listen: War is not pretty and lots of nasty things go on. It has always been such. The only thing that has changed is the mentality that if we just leave everyone alone and love everyone that things we just be fine. WAKE UP!!


RE: FUD!
By Christopher1 on 1/18/2008 11:20:46 PM , Rating: 1
We don't need to wake up, because that is actually the case, that if we would LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE, excepting when they attacked us first or were supporting actively someone who attacked us...... we would not have had to fight near as many of the wars as we have fought in this world today.

Oh, and here's a history lesson for you: We were in peace talks with Hitler's Germany before the Pearl Harbor attacks, and would have made a peace agreement with him with Japan hadn't been so GALLINGLY stupid as to attack us..... let me make that much clearer: we would have been on the side of MASS MURDERERS!

People keep on saying that we cannot leave everyone alone and love everyone..... that things will not be fine if we do that..... well, I say that it is DAMN WELL TIME TO TRY IT AND SEE IF IT WORKS!
So far, we have NEVER given that a fair chance because of the war hawks in this country and the defense industry who are TERRIFIED that if that actually does work..... they will be out of jobs.


RE: FUD!
By camped69 on 1/18/2008 11:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
I served in the 1st Iraq war and that war as with the latest Iraqi campaign has proven that our military dominates the field of battle but ours like all militaries are never going to be good at policing actions. A policing occupation is doomed to fail.

Your preaching to the choir here about what war is. I can say that we are no safer today than we were after the attack on this country. If you think that there aren't terror cells in this country already you are deluded. But my main point is that Freedom "is" a high standard. Higher than virtually any other country. Problem is corporations have seized our government and we are on the precipice of total fascism. We already have a self proclaimed dictator in Bush. And NO, I don't buy into the war on terror. It was sold to Americans on lies. The patriot acts I and II are despicable documents forced on the people of this country by scumbags, the 2nd amendment bills in congress right now, the thought crime bill, the list goes on and on and on. The government is clearly infringing on our rights that are are in the constitution. This is unacceptable! I have taken an oath to defend the constitution and protect this country from enemies both foreign and domestic and that is EXACTLY what I intend to do.

For you to imply that America needs to perpetuate the global empire to be safe is ludicrous. Our troops are worn thin and our country is facing economic collapse and you suggest that using nukes becaus "war is not pretty" get a grip. A retraction of troop levels is exactly what will fortify this country and save money. With our military might and technologically advanced weaponry this country will be a fortress. The middle class peoples of this country are the only thing holding back the NAU. I am far from the peace, love and hippiness paradigm but I can definitely see where more of that could help. But I repeat, I will never give up freedoms the founding fathers drafted in the constitution and bill of rights to "more" safe. Pahleeez.


RE: FUD!
By retrospooty on 1/17/2008 6:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
Your whole post is filled with neocon supporting idiocy.

ANY entity that tortures are wrong regardless of the circumstances. I am sure if you were alive during the inquistition, you would have been whole heartedly behind Torquemada, because in the end Christiantiy would save their soules.

Everytime I have a discussion with you on politics it really makes me wish we would have just let the south succeed frok the union. Then we wouldnt be countrymates, and all you red states can wage all the war you want, without us... then again, without the north, and its industry and money, the south would be worthless and unable to wage war. It wcould only wage ignorance like you do today.


RE: FUD!
By retrospooty on 1/18/2008 10:01:05 AM , Rating: 2
"Stop acting like we're the only government who tortures prisoners for information"

Umm... until Bush we were...

And who is to say we have the right terrorist. that is exactly what due process is all about. What if we picked up the wrong "towel head" as I am sure you call them. What if we were torturing nice normal family man who knows niothing of terrorist actions? Is is still justified?

Whats next, get rid of "innocent until proven guilty", then will you claim, that only the criminals are losing, and only criminals are in jail? What if some are innocent? Your fear of terrorism is disgusting. Be a man and an adult and dont lose the constitution. Its there for a reason and worded perfectly well to STOP things like this from happening even if a narrow minded neocon president convinces his cowardly flock of neocons (you) that its OK.


RE: FUD!
By layerd on 1/23/2008 7:37:12 AM , Rating: 2
Warning US citizens, your government has done lot of bad thinks behind you in the past. Actually I was thinking on Latin America and the support of your country on dictatorial and corrupted governments to say one or the support of yours “intelligence” agencies to promote repressive governments – from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_America... - “On September 20, 1996, the Pentagon released seven training manuals prepared by the U.S. military and used between 1987 and 1991 in Latin America and in intelligence training courses at the U.S. School of the Americas (SOA). The manuals were based in part on lesson plans used by the school as far back as 1982 and, in turn, based in part on older material from Project X.[2] According to Lisa Haugaard of School of the Americas Watch, these manuals taught repressive techniques and promoted the violation of human rights throughout Latin America and around the globe”.
When one nation has huge war and economical powers as US have her citizens must be cautions about how that power is used by theirs politicians and militarists.


RE: FUD!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: FUD!
By Christopher1 on 1/17/2008 4:49:46 PM , Rating: 1
You truly frighten me, Master Kenobi. You really do, and I hope you know that the TRUE Master Kenobi from the Star Wars series came out in many of the books AGAINST torture, because he had seen it done and knew that it did not work.

Even the people in our intelligence community today, who have seen torture done in other countries, say that IT DOES NOT WORK!
They have NEVER seen a case, and I will repeat that, NEVER SEEN A CASE where torturing someone has lead to an attack being prevented.
What had lead to attacks being prevented? Treating the person in question like a human being with many motives (and you could compare most terrorists today to our own Founding Fathers, who would be called terrorists if they were doing what they did 200 years ago today!) that is not evil at all, just misguided by other people who are also not evil, but misguided by other people.


RE: FUD!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/17/2008 7:11:12 PM , Rating: 1
Tell that to Saudi Arabia, those guys know how to get results.

Torture works, always has, always will. When faced with death, people's natural instinct to resort to any means to survive kicks in and they snap like a twig in a hurricane.


RE: FUD!
By gescom on 1/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: FUD!
By NT78stonewobble on 1/18/2008 2:51:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ah yes let's learn from the country where women have no right to vote and the rape victim gets punished.

"Torture works, always has, always will. When faced with death, people's natural instinct to resort to any means to survive kicks in and they snap like a twig in a hurricane."

Yeah it's this tendency that will make people tell everything and anything they think their interrogators wanna hear.

Wan't one of these "incidents" with false information actually used as evidence for invading iraq?


RE: FUD!
By Christopher1 on 1/18/2008 11:25:59 PM , Rating: 1
You hit it right on the head with that alluding to the false information coming from a captured terrorist who was tortured in Afghanistan..... nearly EVERYTHING he told us about Osama's connections with Iraq was a lie.

I also have to say that the quote from the poster before you, where he says that people who are tortured "Snap like a twig!" apparently has never been tortured.

I have, by a group of boys who was trying to get me to make love with them when I didn't wish to when I was 12. They tried EVERYTHING to make me do what they wanted to do, including breaking one of my fingers..... I just would not do what they wanted me to do, and I am WEAK when it comes to physical pain....... Hell, I can't even stand the pain of a little needle prick but I am DARN strong-willed when it comes down to it in not doing something that I don't wish to do.


RE: FUD!
By JustTom on 1/18/2008 1:10:53 AM , Rating: 1
Um, it has been ridely reported that waterboarding developed information that foiled several plots.

Here is one member of the intelligence community who believes waterboarding saved lives.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes...

The little factoid on Kenobi's views on torture and its efficacy is nice and all but hardly meaningful. Since he is an one dimensional fictional character with fabalous powers.


RE: FUD!
By camped69 on 1/18/2008 11:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, the communist news network is unbiased. It's called propaganda which by the sounds of it you believe. Do your country a favor and research false flag ops. If you like to read there are thousands of declassified government documents. Many of which go into detail about AlCIAda and who exactly is behind the supposed arch enemy of our country. The fact of the matter is that torture has always set the United States apart from other countries. Not to mention is a war crime.


RE: FUD!
By wonderhat7 on 1/17/2008 7:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
or iPhones


RE: FUD!
By retrospooty on 1/17/2008 1:06:37 PM , Rating: 2
" Every 3rd word out of the mouths of the neo-cons is terrorist. Anyone else sick of this FUD?"

Me... I am disgusted that we have to share the same country. I feel they make us week and appear ignorant. Especially when electing a less than averagely intellegent neocon to run things. The effect? Iraq, and ridicule from the international community.


RE: FUD!
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/17/2008 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the International Community can stick it. I'm quite tired of them trying to dictate to the U.S. If they want to, they should become a super power so we are on an equal playing field.


RE: FUD!
By JakLee on 1/17/2008 2:28:29 PM , Rating: 1
I couldn't agree more Master Kenobi! Look too often we "worry" about what the rest of the world has to say. In the last 20 years we have become entirely too worried about what the world "thinks" of us & try too hard to appease them weather or not we are doing the right thing. Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. Somtimes it's easier to simply not argue with the majority even if we don't agree. Sometimes the USA gets bad press because things we do are not popular - but are RIGHT. We have moral responsibility to do the "right" thing as the "leader" of the free world. I am not saying we have a right to trample on what others believe are right, because we do need to respect others beliefs even if they are different than ours. But that does not excuse us from leading by example. And just because someone doesn't agree with us does not give them the right do something "wrong" just because they disagree with us (take nazi germany as an example there, they believed they were in the right; history unequivically states they were not) and believe they are in the right. It can be a fine line to walk I know. And choices are sometimes made with good intentions and bad results. We have to be willing to appoligize & make ammends when we do make mistakes (we are not perfect by any measure) but that does not mean we should refrain from acting because we "might" be wrong either. That is tantamount to passivly assisting. Sometimes we need to tell the world to shove it & do what needs to be done.


RE: FUD!
By Christopher1 on 1/17/2008 4:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that when people like you think we are 'doing the right thing'..... we are usually NOT doing the right thing at all.

Too many times in the history of this country we have intervened in other countries sovereign affairs and taken down democratically elected governments because they had the GALL to stand up to the United States of America and tell us that they were not going to give us a better deal than anyone else.

Iraq, Iran, Korea, Vietnam.... the list goes on and on of countries that we should just have butted our noses out of, let the people learn from their own mistakes, and let the people of those countries take care of business themselves.

Unfortunately, people like you do not learn from their mistakes..... instead, they are too hard headed (and I have been called that myself, but do NOT compare to people like you who seem to think that it is your right to torture and kill people if you do not agree with their political positions, the way they live their lives, or their sexual orientations) to learn from their mistakes and keep from making those same mistakes again.

You are like Dumbledore in the Harry Potter books: He created Tom Riddle, Lord Voldemort, by his own mistakes.... and he made some of the SAME mistakes with Harry Potter, and was very *bleep*ing lucky that Harry Potter didn't turn into the next Voldemort or join with Voldemort and take his place as his 'right-hand'.
Read some of the stories on FanFiction.net that have "Evil Harry" in them to see how Dumbledore's actions could have and really, should have, come back to bite him in the ass.

Today, most terrorists in this world have been created by our OWN ACTIONS. Not by Islam, not by Christianity, not by ANY religion (though believing in any religion makes it easier to turn a person to terrorism by making them think that their imaginary 'god' wants them to kill someone else)..... they have been created by America killing the family members and loved ones of those people who turn to terrorism or making their lives PIECES OF CRAP, so they get disgusted with this world and the idea of martyring themselves and securing themselves a place in a paradise that actually doesn't exist, because this time on this earth is all we get, appeals to them!


RE: FUD!
By JustTom on 1/17/2008 7:05:50 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, you are using a children's book of fiction to bolster a serious political hypothesis, I find that beyond silly.


RE: FUD!
By NT78stonewobble on 1/18/2008 2:54:27 AM , Rating: 2
Heh ...

I have it the same way with the bible. All about good / evil.

Sucks n silly n for kids.


RE: FUD!
By Bioniccrackmonk on 1/18/2008 9:14:50 AM , Rating: 2
Are you serious? These statements coming from a guy who thinks sex with kids is ok. You truly have some messed up issues you need to get a hold of. Lets look at your list of countries you put in there:

quote:
Iraq, Iran, Korea, Vietnam


What happened in Vietnam when we pulled our troops out? I know, the northern communist dictator took over the south and killed all the former democratic leaders there. If we hadn't helped out South Korea, they would either still be shooting at each other or North kore3a would have won by now, and you can't possibly say the lives of N. Koreans are better then their neighbors. Iraq, hmm, what has Sudam Hussein been doing with all those that oppose him... hmmm, I know, genocide.

I believe in freedom of speach, but if i ever saw you on the street I would gladly go to jail for pounding you into the ground.


RE: FUD!
By retrospooty on 1/18/2008 9:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
"Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. Somtimes it's easier to simply not argue with the majority even if we don't agree"

And sometimes (alot of the times lately, since the year 2000) we are NOT right, we are wrong, and our govt. and media convinces us we are right, even when the entire world sees how wrong we are we thumb our noses at them and act like we know better then everyone else on the planet becaus3e we have more bombs.

That is exactly the kind of arrogance and ignorance that I was referring to in my first post above. Think about for fart sakes just THINK !!!!!


RE: FUD!
By JakLee on 1/18/2008 7:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Think you say? I do think & I THINK you missed my point. We can be wrong sometimes when we think we are right. It happens & we should freely admit when we are wrong. It's called accepting responsibility. It's part of being a responsible adult.

I understand the way to hell is paved with good intentions. But we should still strive to tackle every problem with good intentions. For example....
If I was walking home from the grocery store & passed the park that is near my home & saw 3 little boys punching and kicking another boy who was crying & huddled on the ground I would stop the boys who were attacking the 4th boy.

Now most if not all people would likely agree that what I did was something good. The 3 boys may have had reasons for what they were doing that I may never know, but I will stand by my decision to put a stop to that violence. I would even go so far as to say I have a responsiblity to stop that act.

The USA acts out for a variety of reasons, seldom if ever for purely selfless reasons. But you know humans are complex by themselves and their reasons for acting. Governments are full of people so are infinately more complex in the reasons they do anything. I stand by statment: "Sometimes doing the right thing is unpopular. Somtimes it's easier to simply not argue with the majority even if we don't agree"


I hope he's being honest
By clovell on 1/17/2008 11:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
I have to agree with him a bit that the restrictions on intercepting traffic which might incidentally flow into domestic systems is a little too much.

I know the tin-foil guys will jump on this and me before too long, but it sounds like this guy has his head screwed on straight. I just really hope he's being honest about what he values and what he plans to do.




RE: I hope he's being honest
By Grast on 1/17/2008 12:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is not about whether the restrictions are to unreasonable. The problem is exactly what you are stating here. You are ready to allow this government official the ability to monitor every American's activity on the Internet because you think he is straight shooting and honorable guy.

I agree with your summation of the character and goal of this guy. However, he will not always be in that spot.

We have to remember that any power given to the government is extremely, ney I say, impossible to remove once given. Based on this primise, I say these restrictions probably do not go far enough. I will sacrafice a little security to know that 50 years from now my RIGHT to privacy from government is still in place.

Later..


RE: I hope he's being honest
By clovell on 1/17/2008 12:09:26 PM , Rating: 2
> You are ready to allow this government official the ability to monitor every American's activity on the Internet because you think he is straight shooting and honorable guy.

I'm implicitly drawing a distinction between traffic that may incidentally pass through domestic systems and traffic that originates in the US or terminates in the US - so, that's not really what I'm saying. I'm certainly not for the government being able to monitor Americans' internet activity, and unless I'm grossly misunderstanding the article, I don't think that's his plan.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By clovell on 1/17/2008 12:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
Just a clarification -

I'm certainly not for the government being able to monitor Americans' internet activity [without probable cause, due process, etc.],

:)


RE: I hope he's being honest
By mdogs444 on 1/17/2008 12:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I will sacrafice a little security to know that 50 years from now my RIGHT to privacy from government is still in place.

I appreciate the honesty, and staying away from the whole "this is unconstitutional" mockery that many of the far left choose to recite.

I think alot of people share your view on sacrificing secutiry for privacy. For me personally, I would rather have a little more security and a little less privacy. In this case, its not like they are going to care & monitor everyone one of my emails to my dad. And even if they did, its not like it makes a difference to me.

I guess we all have our own views on this type of topic - and finding the middle ground is something I hope they accomplish.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By Shoal07 on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: I hope he's being honest
By pauldovi on 1/17/2008 1:12:52 PM , Rating: 5
The Constitution defines the rights of the federal government. If it isn't stated in the Constitution, they do not retain the right.

10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

However, to refresh your memory I will quote the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

That right there essentially gives you the right to privacy and states the government can butt out.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2008 1:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
against unreasonable searches and seizures


Your definition of "unreasonable" is different than mine. To me, monitoring information sources that are a possible threat is perfectly reasonable. And good common sense. Any smart person doesn't wait until a burglar is in their home. They shoot the bastard as they attempt to break in.

Our government shouldn't have to wait until something is a threat to do anything about it. I believe the man when he says they're not going to monitor everyone's phones and what not. They don't have the manpower or the resources to do it.

Internet traffic should be filtered through. Well designed algorithms can filter out possibles. Those possibles can be looked at by someone. If it was nothing, you throw it out and keep looking. If its something, you investigate. Me jokingly saying "Sometimes I just want to blow something up" likely doesn't register as a possible.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By dever on 1/17/2008 2:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
I would state that any surveylance of a citizen without probable cause is "unreasonable." That means wholesale surveylance of communication is absolutely "unreasonable."

Let's take your analogy of a burgalar. If you carry this to it's logical conclusion, you wouldn't mind the government setting up video and audio surveylance around your home in an attempt to prevent burgalary.

Among the many reasons surveylance is harmful, is that citizens must retain these rights so that if citizens want to speak privately about the wrongs of government, thier is no potential for censorship.

The constitution and bill of rights are documents that protect the citizens from the government. Government is a necessary evil, and so, we must be diligent in keeping it's power in check.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By Christopher1 on 1/17/2008 6:19:05 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, the big government that we have today is NOT a necessary evil. Really, most of the 'evils' we have in the world today are just evils from someone else's point of view: having sex outside of marriage, having sex with someone underage, playing a violent video game, writing violent stories, etc.

Government needs to butt out of a few areas that they are too entrenched in today.... and really, government protect no one from being killed, raped or otherwise injured.

They are only there to pass laws that compensate someone for the 'harm' that was done to them after the fact and to punish the person who someone else thinks 'harmed' them.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By JustTom on 1/17/2008 7:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Government needs to butt out of a few areas that they are too entrenched in today.... and really, government protect no one from being killed, raped or otherwise injured.


So it is your contention that instead of a functioning government we had anarchy there would be less rape, murder or injured?


RE: I hope he's being honest
By mal1 on 1/17/2008 2:47:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Your definition of "unreasonable" is different than mine. To me, monitoring information sources that are a possible threat is perfectly reasonable.


The "information sources" you're referring to are the American people. Monitoring all US residents because of a possible threat is completely unreasonable, and an assumption of guilt. Not everyone is as willing to hand over their constitutional rights as you are.

quote:
Any smart person doesn't wait until a burglar is in their home. They shoot the bastard as they attempt to break in.


Wrong. A smart person would wait until the person is completely in their home and committing a felony, otherwise you can potentially be charged with manslaughter or murder in many states.

Your posts are a disturbing reminder of what seems to be an ever-increasing willingness of the American people to hand over their rights for a false sense of security.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By Machinegear on 1/17/2008 3:18:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are legally correct, but since the Feds are above the law I have a few requests. I would like a law that requires every email sent to be spell checked first. I would also like a law that tones down the excessive sugary frosting found on cheap grocery store cakes (*wince*). Lastly, we are in dire need for lawmakers to recognize the obesity epidemic. There are far too few good looking babes today. Get to work.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By Marlin1975 on 1/17/2008 1:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By Christopher1 on 1/17/2008 5:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that giving up privacy does NOT lead to increased safety. Haven't you heard that statement by Benjamin Franklin that "He who gives up privacy for security, deserves neither!"

Benjamin Franklin realized that infringing on the privacy of normal everyday American would NOT make the world safer in the least, instead it would make it LESS safe by allowing corrupt people in power to use than power to harass people who have viewpoints that they disagree with or make it EASIER for government to be overthrown from within.

We do not need to give up any privacy in this world today, what we need to do is teach everyone from birth that religion is false (get rid of religion, it is the number one thing that allows people to be fooled into martyring themselves with the idea that some imaginary 'god' created us and wants us to kill certain people), that there is NO reason to kill another person save if they are trying to kill you at that very moment and it is your absolute last choice between you and dying at that other person's hands, and start arresting and imprisoning ANYONE who calls for violence against another person for ANY reason, even if that person who they are calling for violence against has killed someone close to them.

If we would realize that most of the terrorists in the world today were created by us getting involved in countries where we should not have intervened (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, etc.) then we might stave off any more terrorists from being created by not killing the loved ones and family members of the people who are turning to terrorism today.

It would also help us prevent terrorism by helping the countries around the world get their standards of living up to at least the level that we have right now in America for the middle-class.
That is the main thing that is driving people to terrorism today: the hopelessness of not being able to improve their lives through ANY actions because they are being taxed to extinction or some 'king' or business is taking all their money from them or having them work for that company for an unreasonable amount of pay.
In those cases, I damn well would want to martyr myself and get to 'heaven' too if I was foolish enough to believe in 'god' and not be an Atheist.


RE: I hope he's being honest
By JustTom on 1/17/2008 6:26:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Haven't you heard that statement by Benjamin Franklin that "He who gives up privacy for security, deserves neither!"


It is debatable whether Frankling ever actually wrote any such thing. And more commonly the quote is given as:

quote:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
quote:


Unreal
By NaughtyGeek on 1/17/2008 1:15:33 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
he fully believes that Americans are going to have to accept living under increased surveillance and curtail their expectations of privacy


Someone needs to shoot this traitor before he does some real damage. I'm not afraid of the boogeyman he's selling and have zero interest in giving up my right to expectation of privacy to insulate myself from a possible attack by the boogeyman. I can't believe people swallow this garbage. WTF are you so damn afraid of?




RE: Unreal
By clovell on 1/17/2008 1:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
These aren't boogeymen. Thousands of people did not die from boogeymen. If you have to diminish the threat of terrorism to the country to the point of 'boogeymen', your argument stands on shaky ground.


RE: Unreal
By BansheeX on 1/17/2008 2:20:29 PM , Rating: 3
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm

See terrorism on that list? Get your head out of your arse. While 9/11 was horrible, it is statistically a very low risk thing to be killed by a terrorist. Two other things to point out: our CIA and FBI had all the information gathering they needed to stop 9/11 and didn't. They knew arabs were training to fly planes and not land them. Duh. It was the incompetent, bloated, inefficiency of the bureaucracy that failed to stop it at a federal level, the disrespect of the second amendment that failed to stop it at a private level, and it was the interventionist foreign policy that made them want to come over here and do it in the first place. You simply buy into the corporate owned media frenzy that tells you that your government is out for your best interests, to fear foreigners and blame immigrants for the economy instead of managed trade agreements and the Fed, and to stay dependent on all the socialist programs FDR started under the pretense of taking care of you. Wake up and start taking self-responsibility.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tpUXGOqO1r0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QKjhNa6PGLk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=emvMqjtcO7o


RE: Unreal
By clovell on 1/17/2008 4:30:36 PM , Rating: 1
> Two other things to point out: our CIA and FBI had all the information gathering they needed to stop 9/11 and didn't. They knew arabs were training to fly planes and not land them. Duh. It was the incompetent, bloated, inefficiency of the bureaucracy that failed to stop it at a federal level, the disrespect of the second amendment that failed to stop it at a private level, and it was the interventionist foreign policy that made them want to come over here and do it in the first place.

None of which has anything to do with anything I said.

> You simply buy into the corporate owned media frenzy that tells you that your government is out for your best interests, to fear foreigners and blame immigrants for the economy instead of managed trade agreements and the Fed, and to stay dependent on all the socialist programs FDR started under the pretense of taking care of you. Wake up and start taking self-responsibility.

Nope I didn't say any of that, either - I don't see how it's that simple to think I did.

You're obviously pretty passionate about this, but you've resorted to grasping at strawmen. Maybe I struck a nerve, but I'll repeat what I said.

Five thousand people died in a terrorist attack on the United States of America on September 11, 2001. Boogeymen did not attack them; terrorists - fanatical followers of Osama Bin Laden did. Dismissing these people who are willing to kill themselves if they only can take Americans with them - and have clearly demonstrated their ability to do so as boogeymen is asanine.

Not only that, it's an insult to the people who died in the event. You can rail on Bush, you can rail on US foreign policy, you can rail on Iraq, but it is entirely ignorant to dismiss those responsible for the 9/11 attacks as boogeymen.

Now, instead of taking my words out of context, insulting me, and pretending you know diddly shit about me - why don't you get off your soap box and speak to the point I just made.


RE: Unreal
By NaughtyGeek on 1/17/2008 5:44:22 PM , Rating: 2
My friend, if the threat was as severe as we are being led to believe, why has there been NO priority placed on securing our borders? I'm not concerned with illegal aliens coming here to work and try to make a better life for themselves, but the unregulated traffic that occurs at our borders daily is THE LARGEST security problem this nation faces and we continue to do ZERO about it. Hasn't the thought of a couple hundred "terrorists" filtering across the border armed with God knows what ever occurred to you? That's pretty significant evidence in my book that the threat is not that great and surely doesn't necessitate removal of my Constitutional rights. If we had spent the last 6 years beefing up our border defenses and they were discussing these measures, I'd be much more inclined to lend it more credence than I currently do. One terrorist act does not make the case for throwing the Constitution in the crapper as this administration has done and this man proposes to expand upon.


RE: Unreal
By clovell on 1/18/2008 10:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
You raise a lot of very good points, but I wasn't assessing the threat of terrorism. I was pointing out the facts of the 9/11 attacks.


RE: Unreal
By Christopher1 on 1/17/2008 5:53:21 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, he wasn't insulting you and he was pretty much on target with his comments towards you.... he is also right that terrorism is being used as a 'boogeyman' when it is not a high risk in the United States or in our big allies.

The only time that it IS a concern is when you are going to foreign countries outside of North America and Europe, where the idiot factions there still have not realized that it is NOT okay to kill people for their 'cause' and that it actually HURTS their cause if they do things like that.

Even then, it is a VERY SLIM chance that you are going to be harmed, with all the Americans and other people who are going to those countries who are 'foreigners'.


RE: Unreal
By clovell on 1/18/2008 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
> Get your head out of your arse.
>You simply buy into the corporate owned media frenzy that tells you that your government is out for your best interests, to fear foreigners and blame immigrants for the economy instead of managed trade agreements and the Fed, and to stay dependent on all the socialist programs FDR started under the pretense of taking care of you.
>Wake up and start taking self-responsibility.


I have a pretty high threshold of self-respect, and if I gave a damn, I'd found those insulting - it's pretty obvious what the intention was. The comments aren't on target, because I never said any of the crap he seems to think I did.

I don't rely on socialist programs, I don't expect anyone to take care of me, I went to college and grad school on my own dime while raising a family so that I could earn an honest living and support my family. I don't want illegal aliens flowing freely over our borders and using our tax dollars, but I'm also not oblivious to the hurt that NAFTA and other globalist trade agreements have put on local economies or the work these people do here. I'm not scared to death of the terrorists. Nor am I scared to death of the government. However, I don't implicitly trust the government; I implicitly trust my 12 gauge.

As for odds, I don't have any numbers handy, so you win that one.


Note:
By helios220 on 1/17/2008 11:53:47 AM , Rating: 5
Caution, posting an inflammatory comment in response to this article may result in a permanent entry in your Subversive / Dissident Activities section of your NSA dossier.

Wrapping you genitals in tin-foil may reduce this risk.




RE: Note:
By TITAN1080 on 1/17/08, Rating: -1
RE: Note:
By daftrok on 1/17/2008 12:11:31 PM , Rating: 3
That's what Bourne thought...


RE: Note:
By FITCamaro on 1/17/2008 12:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well as long as you admit you're a troll....

:) j/k

Glad you serve. And thank you.


RE: Note:
By Polynikes on 1/17/2008 12:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the government's already got our phone numbers, email address, home address, relatives' addresses, fingerprints... (I'm a former Marine.)


RE: Note:
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/17/2008 1:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
I hold a clearance, so I'm on file.

To be honest though, giving the NSA this ability won't mean a whole lot. Just look up "Trailblazer", one of the latest NSA folleys. God that project was a laugh.


RE: Note:
By helios220 on 1/17/2008 2:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
Working in the Defense industry does require a certain sacrifice of personal privacy, but that comes with the territory I suppose. Thanks to the US Office Of Personnel Management and the good old e-QIP my life story is pretty much already on Government file.

It personally doesn’t bother me that much, although submitting to a lifestyle Polygraph was somewhat 'intrusive', but at least it was for good reason and I understood the purpose. Personally I feel that if you aren't doing anything that you really shouldn't be doing there is a whole lot to worry about, but I understand peoples concerns for their privacy and the risks associated with data access or the system sprialing out of control in some other fashion.


this doesnt add up...
By l3ored on 1/17/2008 2:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
Evidence shows that the US knew about the 9/11 attacks and allowed them to happen to justify a war in the Middle East. They at least knew it was likely to occur because NATO had been training for such an event. The day it happened, standard procedure for a hijacked airplane was not carried out. In any other case, military jets would approach the plane, and in ALL PRIOR CASES, force it to land, or in an extreme case, shoot it down. President Bush lied when he said intercepting hijacked planes required his approval, a decision he said he did not have time to make.

The same thing happened with Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt himself heard the Japanese radio signals before the attack and knew it was coming. By allowing it to happen, Americans who were opposed to war in Europe would become sympathetic to the effort.

The point? The biggest threats to our homeland are well known by the top of our chain of command. I'm not convinced theres anything close to that nature in our emails.

What are the objectives of US policy? Does war and increased "security" make the world a better place? Does it mean a competitive advantage for American international businesses? I don't feel secure knowing that "big brother" is taking care of the "bad guys". I want to live in a world where people cooperate with one another, or at least tolerate others. Its time to start leading by example, and not superior force.

And if you reply saying that the terrorists really are out to get you, I accuse YOU of wearing the tin foil hat.




RE: this doesnt add up...
By Rhaido on 1/17/2008 3:58:17 PM , Rating: 2
"I want to live in a world where people cooperate with one another, or at least tolerate others."

I would like to see it myself. Too bad this has never 100% worldwide occurred in the history of our species. How about you starting a social movement for this? Your first goal should be the right to live for harbis like me. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_worl...


RE: this doesnt add up...
By l3ored on 1/17/2008 4:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that extreemists do exist, but someone is giving them money, training, and weapons. Essentially, people are easily manipulated. Rather than attacking them and exposing them to violence, which can only serve to justify their beliefs, I think we should put our efforts into isolating them and drawing them towards a positive, alternative lifestyle. Maybe gain some favor by assisting troubled people in need. What we're currently trying to do is take the land and enforce rules over its people, when we should be capturing the people's hearts and minds to help them truly self govern and sustain themselves. This war is ineffective in reaching peace. Homeland survailence is counerproductive to human happiness, and as we follow this trend further we will lose more privlages. If people continue to swear that we are going in the right direction, I will agree only that the system is reaching entropy.


RE: this doesnt add up...
By BMFPitt on 1/17/2008 4:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody knows Elvis was in on 9/11 with the aliens...


RE: this doesnt add up...
By JustTom on 1/17/2008 7:50:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In any other case, military jets would approach the plane, and in ALL PRIOR CASES, force it to land, or in an extreme case, shoot it down.


Do you have a single instance where an American warplane shot down a hijacked airliner?


RE: this doesnt add up...
By l3ored on 1/18/2008 12:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
nope, thats the point, they've always successfully intercepted them and forced them to land.


RE: this doesnt add up...
By JustTom on 1/18/2008 1:01:28 AM , Rating: 1
Then do you have a source stating it was the policy to shoot down airliners?

And as far as interception and forcing planes to land how many example do you need to prove the falseness of the statement?This is just from 1972, not a single interception and forced landing:

January 7, 1972 A man and a woman hijack a 727 from San Francisco to Cuba.
March 7 Two men force their way aboard a Chalk's Flying Service Grumman 73 (G/A) in Miami, Florida, wounding the pilot, a mechanic, and a bystander. They hijack the plane to Cuba.
March 19 A man and a woman successfully hijack a Cessna 206 from Key West to Cuba.
May 4-6 Michael Hansen hijacks a Boeing 737 flight from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles; he wants to go to Hanoi or Cuba; he goes to Cuba.
October 29 Four men force their way aboard an aircraft. They kill a ticket agent, wound a ramp serviceman, and hijack a plane to Cuba.
November 10 Three men successfully hijack a Southern Airways DC-9 from Birmingham to multiple locations in the United States and one Canadian city and finally to Cuba with $2 million (actual cash, Presidential "grant" totalled $10 million) and 10 parachutes. Co-pilot Halroyd is wounded; they threaten to crash the plane into one of the Oak Ridge nuclear installations; at McCoy Air Force Base, Orlando, the FBI shoots out the tires; they force pilot William Haas to take off; the plane finally lands on a (partially) foam-covered runway in Havana; two are sentenced in Cuba to 20 years, one to 15 years, then returned to the United States to face further charges. This incident leads to a brief treaty between the U.S. and Cuba to extradite hijackers, not renewed.

After the spate of hijackings in the late 60's early 70's hijacking of American domestic airliners all but disappeared. I find it difficult in the extreme that in the absence of hijackings anyone below the President would have been given the authority to order the destruction of airliners.

There was not a single


Risk
By heulenwolf on 1/17/2008 1:52:23 PM , Rating: 4
Its all a big risk equation. If we allow the gov't too much power, we risk loss of privacy. If we restrict the gov't's power too much such that they are unable to defend us, we risk loss of life. Anybody who thinks such a statement is FUD has a very short memory. They are right to think that its a zero-sum situation. There is no clear-cut right answer, there is only a balance.

Our opportunity as citizens is to choose to put people in power who are familiar with both sets of risks and whose sense of that balance mirrors our own so that they can make good decisions.




RE: Risk
By clovell on 1/17/2008 2:21:50 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. One extreme is scared to death of the terrorists. The other is scared to death of the government. We need somebody who can not be afraid to get the job done and strike a balance.


RE: Risk
By mal1 on 1/17/2008 2:53:50 PM , Rating: 3
Ron Paul.


By chick0n on 1/17/2008 12:01:22 PM , Rating: 2
rofl ? Where are those people ?




By ZJammon on 1/17/2008 12:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well if they live in China they're censored by an Internet police task force of more than 30,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_i...


These things always get out of control
By sh3rules on 1/17/2008 1:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
In the end, this measures against (insert favorite buzzword: communism, terrorism) have been used for other ends, e.g. spying on political dissidents, which might then be labeled subversives. You get to the point when disagreeing with the government is no longer your right. Cue in the yes-men and conformists who will justify Big Brother…




By sh3rules on 1/17/2008 1:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
*I would like an Edit button*


Defamation
By Aikouka on 1/17/2008 11:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think calling that old codger a "top spy" is a bit of a slap in the face to Mr. Bourne up there.




A tough job
By Adonlude on 1/17/2008 1:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
It must be difficult keeping this country safe from its enemies and from itself at the same time. It is easy to sum up the type of intelligence system we need:

We require a powerful spy network that does not infringe on the privacy of law abiding citizens, operates under a system of checks and balances and, most importantly, stays far away from any slipery slopes.

Come on govt, just do that!




Consistent application
By Suomynona on 1/17/2008 1:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He noted that the NSA’s monitoring capabilities dropped by 70 percent when federal judges entered a secret ruling that required warrants for intercepting traffic that “incidentally flowed” into domestic computer systems.

I think it's reasonable to complain about this, but at least the courts are being consistent. It seems like law enforcement wants the ability to make something a federal crime if that traffic "incidentally" flows through servers in another state, but then they complain when something is considered domestic when it "incidentally" flows through the US. You can't have it both ways. Jurisdiction is either determined by the source and destination, or the path. You can't just pick whichever one is convenient for a particular case.




By umeng2002 on 1/17/2008 2:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be OK with more surveillance. I believe they're only talking about spying on people outside of the foreign nationals anyways.

As long as they don't start using this to aid law enforcement agencies that have criminal cases on going against US citizens, I fail to see how this would be abused.

No one is forcing you to use the internet or phones anyways.

Until some kind of cyberspace bill of rights is passed, there will always be some grey area as to what is an appropriate balance between privacy and security.

I'm still trying to figure out how governments had any authority over privately owned telecommunications networks.




A Word to the Wise…
By andyjary on 1/18/2008 6:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
“America, a free land full of opportunity for those that work hard a want to reap the rewards”

That might have been the case once, but unfortunately this is not the case anymore. Since WWII, America was a shining light, a beacon of what all oppressed countries around the world wanted. In Europe, we loved the Nuevo way of doing things and the approach to the free market, the movies and all that was better in a free market economy.

So, what happened?

Well, I’m going to tell you a few things that most of you won’t even realise is the real reason why you guys are getting battered around the world for your beliefs and ideals (and I only hope you actually take heed and think about what I’m about to say):

The latest round of aggression in the Middle East, notwithstanding Sadam Hussein in Dessert Storm, was brought about by 9/11. I was in Florida the day that happened and felt dreadful at this terrible act of terrorism and wondered why ‘they’ had attacked the center of world trade, the capitol of the world and for me, and a nation that wasn’t harming anyone at that time.

For the following two years, and particularly because of the way I was pounded by the media 24/7 directly after the event, I became angry and wanted revenge for this atrocity. When President Bush and Tony Blair stood up and said they were going to find the people behind this disgusting event, I was willing to sign up and help them! Yes, that’s right; hunt these scum balls down and hit them with the nearest heavy weapon I could lay my hands on.

Two years on I started to feel more sober. They always say you shouldn’t ask the victim for the best course of action. So, like most of us here in Europe, I started to garner all the material I could regarding what happened that day (9/11) and guess what? We all came to the same conclusion: it was an inside job! Seems that most of the people that were supposedly flying the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center and other sites are still alive and working in Arab countries (Source BBC) and some of the video taken as the towers fell clearly shows controlled demolition with timed explosions from the sides of the buildings. Since nearly everybody in Europe and possibly the rest of the world has seen this and all the other unanswered questions surrounding this crime, my question is: has anybody in the US seen it?

As quoted before: "This was the next Pearl Harbour"

So, where does this leave us?

I still love the American people and all of the great things we have always enjoyed. However, I now have a very, very deep mistrust of the administration (Whitehouse – or whatever you call it) and the underlying way your country is run. I also would say that the UK is no better for going-along with Bush. Shame on you Tony – but then again, Bush didn’t close down all those US bases in the UK as he did in Europe when, for example, the French didn’t back the so-called war on terror. I guess it helped our economy and aided the death of a few more innocent Arabs? Either way, the whole thing sucks so badly I can’t express my distain enough.

As an after thought: my Sunni Friend, Jamal agrees with me; Sadam murdered tens of thousands of people so it’s best he’s gone. As for the Silver Snake of Zion, well, that’s going to be the ruler of the world starting with Hollywood and most of US politics. So beware the rest of you!




By roadrun777 on 1/19/2008 4:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone consider the possibility that they don't destroy the data they gather on "innocent" people. I would submit to you, that it is very likely that the data isn't destroyed. The data is used to write books, movies, and material, to make money off of you, without your consent or reimbursement.
That's the worst kind of surveillance. You know they are watching. You know they are making money from you. Yet you can do nothing about it and you can never be compensated unless some form of control or oversight is used on the data.
I am actually one of these surveillance targets, but by now they have listened to me singing enough times to realize I am not an alien from another galaxy, or... am I?




But of course
By mindless1 on 1/18/2008 1:35:30 AM , Rating: 1
Of course you sick bastards, you wouldn't be big brother if you did't feel you had increasing power to act as such.

IMO, it's about time the US got back to it's roots, to recognize why it became a country in the first place isntead of aspiring to be even worse than the early immigants fled from.

Sure, it's a different time, different circumstances. This does not change the rights the patriots fought and died for, as well as later generations.

It is a bit amazing that in a mere handfull of years, so many of our basic rights have been eroded. Truely these are the dark ages of the modern world.

Terrorists? Bullshit. I'd rather take that one chance in 60 million. Please do not pretend to know what is best for ME.




"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki