NSA Collecting Phone Records of Millions of Americans Daily

[red states rule]

The scandals just keep coming. Remember how the left and liberal media blew a gasket over the Bush administration tapping phone lines of suspected terrorists only?





Well here’s another scandal ready for the Obama administration. It was revealed today that the National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon. This top secret order was issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order), requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.


The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.


The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.


Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.
Here is just another example of the government overreaching into the lives of millions of Americans without our permission. The Guardian reports (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order):

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.


The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.


The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI's request for its customers' records, or the court order itself.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2013/06/05/just-in-nsa-collecting-phone-records-of-millions-of-americans-daily-n1614074

[Kathianne]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/how-outraged-should-you-be-about-the-nsa-grabbing-your-phone-logs-20130606


How Outraged Should You Be About the NSA Grabbing Your Phone Logs? And six other questions arising from the latest White House scandal.Washington is reeling after a court order was uncovered last night showing Verizon has secretly been handing over reams of customer phone records to the National Security Agency on a daily basis. The records don’t contain the content of phone calls—so, just to be clear, this isn’t wiretapping—but they do contain information such as phone numbers, the location and duration of calls, and subscriber and handset ID numbers, all of which fall under the category of “telephony metadata.”

...

The court order alone probably doesn’t merit the ACLU’s charge (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/nsa-phone-record-collection_n_3393805.html) that it was “beyond Orwellian”—though it’s no small irony that “1984” was published 64 years ago (http://writersalmanac.publicradio.org/) today.

...

But this is the latest in a string (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/what-s-the-case-for-the-justice-department-seizing-the-ap-s-records-20130514) of scandals (http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-a-media-shield-law-isn-t-enough-to-save-journalists-20130529) dealing specifically with the Obama administration and its use of phone records in potentially unethical ways. Previous incidents had the government targeting journalists as a way to get to whistleblowers, but as we indicated last month (http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/what-the-ap-subpoena-scandal-means-for-your-electronic-privacy-20130515), nothing in those cases ruled out the broader surveillance of the American public. And now, via The Guardian’s original report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order), we seem to have found it.


The White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to punish previous administration leakers. For Obama, there’s even more at stake than there was with the AP scandal or the Rosen case. Those were about deterrence and retribution for bygone events. The Guardian’s revelation interferes with an ongoing government mission. The White House this morning defended the general practice (http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/defense/report-govt-scooping-up-verizon-phone-records/nYDGr/) of mass surveillance—but wouldn’t confirm specifics (https://twitter.com/chucktodd/statuses/342596019302825984)—saying it is “a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats.” As my colleague Garance Franke-Ruta pointed out last night:


...

[red states rule]

Remember how the libs were outraged during the Bush years?

I wonder how the NY Times will spin this?

I bet Chris Matthews does not metnion this for another few days if not a week

[Kathianne]

and it's not just Verizon.

Of all the scandals currently swirling amongst DC, it seems to me that Benghazi was perhaps the most damaging, as it was a failure of the Federal Government's most important duty, to protect and defend US ground. By any definition that compound was US ground.

However, when it appears that a branch of the government is moving towards upending the way and purpose of our system of government, then perhaps foreign threats are no longer the #1 concern of the people, the more immediate threat is the government in power.

The IRS scandal got the peoples attention, boy did it! Why? Easy. It could be them and they recognized it. Maybe not today, but down the road. Few see differences in politicians of any stripe when it comes to craving and wielding power. Whose ox is being gored today, could hold the sword tomorrow.

Now comes the news of collecting and storing ALL communications, supposedly for defensive reasons. Shopping patterns? (really, they are going to look for what? Manure? Pressure cookers? Shoes? Underwear?)

This only broke a few hours ago, again the topic though is one people understand, especially low information types:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/nsa-spying-verizon-analysis/65963/


Phone Sex, Banks & Google for Emails: The NSA Spying Is Bigger Than Verizon

Elspeth Reeve 10:51 AM ET

The National Security Agency's warrant for metadata on every single Verizon call (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/nsa-collecting-phone-records-bulk/65950/) for three months is jaw-dropping in its scope. Except, well, the NSA's surveillance of our communications is most likely much, much bigger than that. Technology has made it possible for the American government to spy on citizens to an extent East Germany could only dream of. Basically everything we say that can be traced digitally is being collected by the NSA, and people almost know it (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/06/twitters-jaded-reaction-nsas-phone-records-collection-program/65951/). We're supposed to trust that our government will be much better behaved, but they're not, and the White House almost admits it (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/obama-administration-verizon-phone-records/65954/). That doesn't mean they're admitting everything. Not nearly.

"On its face, the document suggests that the U.S. government regularly collects and stores all domestic telephone records," The Week's Marc Ambinder (http://theweek.com/article/index/245228/the-fbi-collects-all-telephone-records) writes of Glenn Greenwald's scoop (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order) last night. "My own understanding is that the NSA routinely collects millions of domestic-to-domestic phone records. It does not do anything with them unless there is a need to search through them for lawful purposes." Previous reporting from many outlets suggests that's true. In 2006, USA Today's Leslie Cauley (http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm) reported the NSA was secretly collecting call records with data from AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth. A source told Cauley, "It's the largest database ever assembled in the world" and that the NSA wanted "to create a database of every call ever made" within U.S. territory. Likewise, in 2011, The New Yorker's Jane Mayer (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer) spoke to former NSA crypto-mathematician Bill Binney, who "believes that the agency now stores copies of all e-mails transmitted in America, in case the government wants to retrieve the details later." He thinks the NSA wants all emails to be searchable, the same way we search with Google. "The agency reportedly has the capacity to intercept and download, every six hours, electronic communications equivalent to the contents of the Library of Congress," Mayer said. As Mark Rumold, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told The Atlantic Wire (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/nsa-collecting-phone-records-bulk/65950/) last night, "This is confirmation of what we've long feared, that the NSA has been tracking the calling patterns of the entire country."

And the NSA isn't just collecting the things we say. It's also tracking what we buy and where we go. In 2008, The Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120511973377523845.html) reported that the NSA's domestic data collection "have evolved to reach more broadly into data about people's communications, travel and finances in the U.S. than the domestic surveillance programs brought to light since the 2001 terrorist attacks." That means emails records, bank transfers, phone records, travel records.

As Ambinder explains, there's a difference between collecting the call data, analyzing the data, and eavesdropping on the calls. The government's talking points (http://theweek.com/article/index/245243/us-responds-to-nsa-disclosures) defend the program by noting the NSA might know the length and location of your phone calls, but at least they weren't listening in. "On its face, the order reprinted in the article does not allow the Government to listen in on anyone's telephone calls," the talking points say. The "senior government official" (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/obama-administration-verizon-phone-records/65954/) does not directly confirm the court order is real, but says that "Information of the sort described in the Guardian article has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States, as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States."


That sounds so noble. And the NSA would never abuse its awesome surveillance power, right? Wrong. In 2008, NSA workers told ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5987804&page=1#.UbCL_vaDSlg) that they routinely eavesdropped on phone sex between troops serving overseas and their loved ones in America. They listened in on both satellite phone calls and calls from the phone banks in Iraq's Green Zone where soldiers call home. Former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk described how a coworker would say, "Hey, check this out… there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out." Faulk explained they would gossip about the best calls during breaks. "It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy.'"

[red states rule]

In our phone conversation about one hour ago Kat I mentioned how my baby was coming home from the hospital

Deep in an underground bunker somewhere an NSA agent may have determined that was code for something improper or perhaps illegal

With the bumper stickers on my car I am sure I would be classified as national security threat :laugh2:

[revelarts]

and it's not just Verizon.

Of all the scandals currently swirling amongst DC, it seems to me that Benghazi was perhaps the most damaging, as it was a failure of the Federal Government's most important duty, to protect and defend US ground. By any definition that compound was US ground.

However, when it appears that a branch of the government is moving towards upending the way and purpose of our system of government, then perhaps foreign threats are no longer the #1 concern of the people, the more immediate threat is the government in power.

The IRS scandal got the peoples attention, boy did it! Why? Easy. It could be them and they recognized it. Maybe not today, but down the road. Few see differences in politicians of any stripe when it comes to craving and wielding power. Whose ox is being gored today, could hold the sword tomorrow.

Now comes the news of collecting and storing ALL communications, supposedly for defensive reasons. Shopping patterns? (really, they are going to look for what? Manure? Pressure cookers? Shoes? Underwear?)

This only broke a few hours ago, again the topic though is one people understand, especially low information types:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/nsa-spying-verizon-analysis/65963/

welcome to safe Amerika.
remember in Boston they knocked on every door, some say a warrantless home search is OK -to get the terrorist- but we also read that the law says that if they find something criminal in your home they CAN arrest you for it. Same as when police come to your house and ask you to quiet your party. If you let them in, anything they see they can use to take the home owner to jail. So it's best not to invite them in.


but in general
I've mentioned this NSA thing many times. we've been warned by NSA officials and Phone company Employess over the past 12 years or so. It's just been getting worse.
It's Completely unconstitutional but over the years by various, after the fact, congressional regs and statute the it has the color of law.
Notice where the power lies, all in the executive branch. both Bush and Obama have pushed the envelope.

Every phone call and e'mail stored so they can retrieve it at will.
the article mention they only look lawfully but then point out that they for fun sometimes listens to phone sex.

How does this even begin to comply with a person's right to be secure in their persons, papers etc.. Warrantless phone taps, warrantless e-mail spying,
It's like they're making copies of all of your mail and keeping it so they can go through it at will.
Maybe that will be next.

but it'll ONLY EVAH be used only to get terrorist, i'm sure.

[aboutime]

It is finally coming FULL CIRCLE. 5100

[aboutime]

In our phone conversation about one hour ago Kat I mentioned how my baby was coming home from the hospital

Deep in an underground bunker somewhere an NSA agent may have determined that was code for something improper or perhaps illegal

With the bumper stickers on my car I am sure I would be classified as national security threat :laugh2:


red states rule. NO SURPRISE to anyone. I have already been identified, by the Obama administration. As a Home Grown Terrorist, and Racist because of my Military History over 30 years.

People would really be surprised. If they really PAID ATTENTION to what is, and has been taking place around them....for more than FIFTY years.
This is only the beginning of the exposure taking place.

[revelarts]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/)
biggest NSA spy facility under construction in Utah. Didn't start construction under Obama, won't disappear when he's gone

Quote:

...Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration—an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy...
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/05/picture_3.jpg

[aboutime]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...nsadatacenter/ (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/)
biggest NSA spy facility under construction in Utah. Didn't start construction under Obama, won't disappear when he's gone

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/05/picture_3.jpg


rev. You should remember what Rumsfeld always said. If you think this news is new, or Earth shattering because YOU think so.

As Rummy said. "You don't know, what you don't know...you don't know!"

For instance. Using GOOGLE. Just type Cheyenne Mountain, Military. You ain't seen, OR heard anything new.

NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING takes place between the Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans that this government DOES NOT KNOW, CONTROL, or have SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.

[revelarts]

Eschalon's been around for quite some time as well...

As far a Cheyenne Mountain is Concerned I'm aware of that more for it's U.S. airspace observation.
I understand that it tracks baseball size object above a certian high in the air. and that nothing in U.S. airspace get by it.

It's another thing that makes me wonder about some of the U.S. military airforce "mistakes" on 9/11, but that's conspiracy theory never mind.

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fFnCe0gTh1Y?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

FBI
Tim Clemente: 'No Digital Communication Is Secure'
Even a former FBI agent doesn't seem comfortable with the level of surveillance his former employer exercises over Americans.

In an interview with CNN on Wednesday, former FBI counterterrorism agent Tim Clemente said that the FBI could listen to phone calls between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his wife. "Welcome to America," he said. "All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not."

The next day, Clemente returned to CNN, saying that "there's a way to look at digital communications in the past" and that "no digital communication is secure." Clemente specified that this type of surveillance can't be used in a criminal investigation but is used in "major terrorism investigations or counterintelligence investigations."

In an email to the Huffington Post, Christopher M. Allen from FBI Office of Public Affairs said that while he would not comment on Clemente's remarks, he did provide us with a link to congressional testimony from the bureau's former general counsel from 2011. "I can verify that the information from the testimony remains accurate," Allen said.

The testimony refers to the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994. According to FBI counsel Valerie Caproni, the law "requires 'telecommunications carriers' to develop and deploy intercept solutions in their networks to ensure that the government is able to intercept electronic communications when lawfully authorized."

While the law covers phone networks, "CALEA does not cover popular Internet-based communications modalities such as webmail, social networking sites, or peer-to-peer services," Caproni wrote. But at a March luncheon, another FBI lawyer, Andrew Weissman, said that updating the law to let authorities monitor web activities in real time is a "top priority" of the bureau in 2013.
Former FBI Counterterrorism Agent Tim Clemente: 'No Digital Communication Is Secure' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/tim-clemente-fbi_n_3229478.html)

__________________

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TuET0kpHoyM?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

"...All the congressional members info are accessible to the FBI too.."
J Eagars people keeping up the old ways?

[revelarts]

Quotes from interview above..


...they can easily weed out people who are not under investigations but they do not...
...they could easily collect BUT encrypt files on people's info under suspicions until they have probably cause and then get a warrant but they don't...
...they are building a social network databases on everyone...
...they can target anyone they want...
... for those that think they've got nothing to hide, they've done nothing wrong, the problem is you don't get to define whats wrong is...
...it's gotten worse since Obama....

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hfS2Op9l3nk?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>
"The NSA Is Lying": U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails Says NSA Whistleblower - YouTube[/url]

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quotes from interview above..


...they can easily weed out people who are not under investigations but they do not...
...they could easily collect BUT encrypt files on people's info under suspicions until they have probably cause and then get a warrant but they don't...
...they are building a social network databases on everyone...
...they can target anyone they want...
... for those that think they've got nothing to hide, they've done nothing wrong, the problem is you don't get to define whats wrong is...
...it's gotten worse since Obama....

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hfS2Op9l3nk?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
"The NSA Is Lying": U.S. Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails Says NSA Whistleblower - YouTube[/url]
Doesn't matter who is president this is cause for revolts. No probable cause needed just spy on every damn body and have zero privacy.. Just more proof of where this government is already at--so doesn't take much to see exactly where it intends to go, and soonnnnnnnnnnnn! No internment camps my asss....... -Tyr

[Robert A Whit]

Doesn't matter who is president this is cause for revolts. No probable cause needed just spy on every damn body and have zero privacy.. Just more proof of where this government is already at--so doesn't take much to see exactly where it intends to go, and soonnnnnnnnnnnn! No internment camps my asss....... -Tyr

When Bush authorized it, he also issued special orders to NSA to the effect that only if terrorists were on the call could they record those calls.

We want the enemy repelled, don't we?

Obama has not stated that I know of the same thing that Bush stated.

Back then, during Bush, it was explained that the calls get screened by language recognition software and only if it poses some threat do those calls get recorded as evidence.

[Drummond]

I see that this thread kicked off with a link to the Guardian newspaper ?

The Guardian, as I've discovered, has been looking at this issue for at least a month ... have just picked out this link, where they speculate that ALL calls are recorded ..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston


The real capabilities and behavior of the US surveillance state are almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things of significance done by the US government, it operates behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance activities are.

Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN's Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way.

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could ....

That the Obama administration would be keen to see to it that this could, and would, happen, is no surprise. The debate of making it legal to monitor UK citizens from their phone calls, emails and Internet usage recently reignited, with the current Government wanting to institute legal changes to make it the norm. Still ... the notion originated, here, from THE LEFT .. with our Labour Party wanting to get GCHQ busy on the task (Government Communications, Cheltenham, used to be used to spy on Soviet communications).

To the Left, the individual has no worth. They will never care about individual liberties .. not ultimately. Which makes it a bit of a surprise that the Guardian, a Leftie paper, is concentrating on this issue, now .. I suspect that some intended America-bashing may be the point of it.

[fj1200]

To the Left, the individual has no worth. They will never care about individual liberties .. not ultimately. Which makes it a bit of a surprise that the Guardian, a Leftie paper, is concentrating on this issue, now .. I suspect that some intended America-bashing may be the point of it.

If only one life is saved, amirite?

[revelarts]

When Bush authorized it, he also issued special orders to NSA to the effect that only if terrorists were on the call could they record those calls.

RW, that's just not true, the info on the previous page,
(and many pages in my previous threads prove this), the patriot act open the door for this overt blanket action and a few NSA employees retired in protest to the activity -while -Bush was Prez- because they knew it was a breach of the 4th amendment.


We want the enemy repelled, don't we?
we want to stop cancer as well maybe we should make smoking illegal,
we want child and spouse abuse to stop, solution cameras in every room in every home....



Obama has not stated that I know of the same thing that Bush stated.
Obama the campigner was agaisnt it, Obama the Sentor voted for retroavitive immunity for the telecoms when the issue came to the News that the telecoms were giveing the gov't warehouses of data on request without warrants. Obama the president is worse than Bush on the issue.
"when the President does it that means it's Not illegal."

[revelarts]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/wp-content/gallery/20-04/ff_nsadatacenter2_f.jpg
Behold '"bumblehive"

1 Visitor control center
A $9.7 million facility for ensuring that only cleared personnel gain access.

2 Administration
Designated space for technical support and administrative personnel.

3 Data halls
Four 25,000-square-foot facilities house rows and rows of servers.

4 Backup generators and fuel tanks
Can power the center for at least three days.

5 Water storage and pumping
Able to pump 1.7 million gallons of liquid per day.

6 Chiller plant
About 60,000 tons of cooling equipment to keep servers from overheating.

7 Power substation
An electrical substation to meet the center’s estimated 65-megawatt demand.

8 Security
Video surveillance, intrusion detection, and other protection will cost more than $10 million.
The NSA Is Building the Country's Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say) | Threat Level | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/)

the new facility in Utah.
Their biggest facility , one of ??



From the Go'vt web site:
"The steady rise in available computer power and the development of novel computer platforms will enable us to easily turn the huge volume of incoming data into an asset to be exploited, for the good of the nation. "
NSA Utah Data Center - Serving Our Nation's Intelligence Community (http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/)
http://nsa.gov1.info/utah-data-center/aerial-utah-data-center.jpg

[revelarts]

Doesn't matter who is president this is cause for revolts. No probable cause needed just spy on every damn body and have zero privacy.. Just more proof of where this government is already at--so doesn't take much to see exactly where it intends to go, and soonnnnnnnnnnnn! No internment camps my asss....... -Tyr

Will they need camps if everything we do is monitored anyway? won't the whole county be a camp and just a a few rascals get special prison treatment, or reeducation is what the bad old commies used to call it. Don't the Chinese still call it that?


Sitting in a restaurant not far from NSA headquarters, the place where he spent nearly 40 years of his life, Binney, The former NSA official, held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) state.”

The eavesdropping on Americans doesn’t stop at the telecom switches. To capture satellite communications in and out of the US, the agency also monitors AT&T’s powerful earth stations, satellite receivers in locations that include Roaring Creek and Salt Creek. Tucked away on a back road in rural Catawissa, Pennsylvania, Roaring Creek’s three 105-foot dishes handle much of the country’s communications to and from Europe and the Middle East. And on an isolated stretch of land in remote Arbuckle, California, three similar dishes at the company’s Salt Creek station service the Pacific Rim and Asia.
The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism) state.”
Binney left the NSA in late 2001, shortly after the agency launched its warrantless-wiretapping program. “They violated the Constitution setting it up,” he says bluntly. “But they didn’t care. They were going to do it anyway, and they were going to crucify anyone who stood in the way. When they started violating the Constitution, I couldn’t stay.” Binney says Stellar Wind was far larger than has been publicly disclosed and included not just eavesdropping on domestic phone calls but the inspection of domestic email. At the outset the program recorded 320 million calls a day, he says, which represented about 73 to 80 percent of the total volume of the agency’s worldwide intercepts. The haul only grew from there. According to Binney—who has maintained close contact with agency employees until a few years ago—the taps in the secret rooms dotting the country are actually powered by highly sophisticated software programs that conduct “deep packet inspection,” examining Internet traffic as it passes through the 10-gigabit-per-second cables at the speed of light.
The software, created by a company called Narus that’s now part of Boeing, is controlled remotely from NSA headquarters at Fort Meade in Maryland and searches US sources for target addresses, locations, countries, and phone numbers, as well as watch-listed names, keywords, and phrases in email. Any communication that arouses suspicion, especially those to or from the million or so people on agency watch lists, are automatically copied or recorded and then transmitted to the NSA.
The scope of surveillance expands from there, Binney says. Once a name is entered into the Narus database, all phone calls and other communications to and from that person are automatically routed to the NSA’s recorders. “Anybody you want, route to a recorder,” Binney says. “If your number’s in there? Routed and gets recorded.” He adds, “The Narus device allows you to take it all.” And when Bluffdale is completed, whatever is collected will be routed there for storage and analysis.
According to Binney, one of the deepest secrets of the Stellar Wind program—again, never confirmed until now—was that the NSA gained warrantless access to AT&T’s vast trove of domestic and international billing records, detailed information about who called whom in the US and around the world. As of 2007, AT&T had more than 2.8 trillion records housed in a database at its Florham Park, New Jersey, complex.
Verizon was also part of the program, Binney says, and that greatly expanded the volume of calls subject to the agency’s domestic eavesdropping. “That multiplies the call rate by at least a factor of five,” he says. “So you’re over a billion and a half calls a day.” (Spokespeople for Verizon and AT&T said their companies would not comment on matters of national security.)
After he left the NSA, Binney suggested a system for monitoring people’s communications according to how closely they are connected to an initial target. The further away from the target—say you’re just an acquaintance of a friend of the target—the less the surveillance. But the agency rejected the idea, and, given the massive new storage facility in Utah, Binney suspects that it now simply collects everything. “The whole idea was, how do you manage 20 terabytes of intercept a minute?” he says. “The way we proposed was to distinguish between things you want and things you don’t want.” Instead, he adds, “they’re storing everything they gather.” And the agency is gathering as much as it can.
Once the communications are intercepted and stored, the data-mining begins. “You can watch everybody all the time with data- mining,” Binney says. Everything a person does becomes charted on a graph, “financial transactions or travel or anything,” he says. Thus, as data like bookstore receipts, bank statements, and commuter toll records flow in, the NSA is able to paint a more and more detailed picture of someone’s life.
The NSA also has the ability to eavesdrop on phone calls directly and in real time. According to Adrienne J. Kinne, who worked both before and after 9/11 as a voice interceptor at the NSA facility in Georgia, in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks “basically all rules were thrown out the window, and they would use any excuse to justify a waiver to spy on Americans.” Even journalists calling home from overseas were included. “A lot of time you could tell they were calling their families,” she says, “incredibly intimate, personal conversations.” Kinne found the act of eavesdropping on innocent fellow citizens personally distressing. “It’s almost like going through and finding somebody’s diary,” she says....

more
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/

[revelarts]

Can you hear me now? Yes we can!
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M8BTs9x-1cA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Kathianne]

Rev has a large collection of items he's posted over the years. We all know where he stands, indeed in many ways he has been prescient.

However, most folks aren't like him or even myself, (he and I are very different in our starting points at least.)

So, here's some interesting things that happened since I first posted about the Verizon story that I've found since coming home around 11 pm Thursday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data


NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal

• Top secret PRISM program claims direct access to servers of firms including Google, Facebook and Apple
• Companies deny any knowledge of program in operation since 2007




Glenn Greenwald (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald) and Ewen MacAskill (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ewenmacaskill)

The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian), <time itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2013-06-06T18:05EDT" pubdate="">Thursday 6 June 2013 18.05 EDT</time>






The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/apple) and other US internet (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet) giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian.


The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says.

The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers.


Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program.


In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data."


Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a program. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said.


An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of PRISM.


The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012.

...


http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-numbers/


Also Revealed by Verizon Leak: How the NSA and FBI Lie With Numbers



By Kevin Poulsen (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/author/kevin_poulsen/)
06.06.13
4:53 PM

Here’s a seemingly comforting statistic: In all of 2012, the Obama administration went to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court only 200 times to ask for Americans’ “business records” under the USA Patriot Act.


Every year, the Justice Department gives Congress a tally (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/05/spy-court-stats/) of the classified wiretap orders sought and issued in terrorist and spy cases – it was 1,789 last year. At the same time, it reports the number of demands for “business records” in such cases, issued under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act. And while the number of such orders has generally grown over the years, it has always managed to stay relatively low. In 2011, it was 205. There were 96 orders in 2010, and only 21 in 2009.


Thanks to the Guardian’s scoop (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order), we now know definitively just how misleading these numbers are. You see, while the feds are required to disclose the number of orders they apply for and receive (almost always the same number, by the way), they aren’t required to say how many people are targeted in each order. So a single order issued to Verizon Business Solutions in April covered metadata for every phone call made by every customer. That’s from one order out of what will probably be about 200 reported in next year’s numbers.


The public numbers are the one bit of accountability around the surveillance court, and the Justice Department used them to misdirect the public away from a massive domestic NSA spying operation that, as several Senators approvingly noted today (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/06/06/transcript-dianne-feinstein-saxby-chambliss-explain-defend-nsa-phone-records-program/), has been running for seven years.

...




The following is a bit of rehash of above, but notice the increased number of companies. This morning when the Verizon story was playing, I knew that couldn't possibly be the only one. Just like Google is certainly not the only search.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z1


Documents: U.S. mining data from 9 leading Internet firms; companies deny knowledgeBy Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras, <!-- For AP News Registry --> Barton Gellman and Laura Poitras <abbr class="updated" title="2013-06-07T01:09:00-0400">Jun 07, 2013 01:09 AM EDT</abbr>
The Washington Post
<!-- /For AP News Registry --> Published: June 6The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

The program, code-named PRISM, has not been made public until now. It may be the first of its kind. The NSA prides itself on stealing secrets and breaking codes, and it is accustomed to corporate partnerships that help it divert data traffic or sidestep barriers. But there has never been a Google or Facebook before, and it is unlikely that there are richer troves of valuable intelligence than the ones in Silicon Valley.

Equally unusual is the way the NSA extracts what it wants, according to the document: “Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, Apple.”

...





The article is 4 pages long, worth reading for those that are beyond low information.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=644597#post644597)
When Bush authorized it, he also issued special orders to NSA to the effect that only if terrorists were on the call could they record those calls.



RW, that's just not true, the info on the previous page,
(and many pages in my previous threads prove this), the patriot act open the door for this overt blanket action and a few NSA employees retired in protest to the activity -while -Bush was Prez- because they knew it was a breach of the 4th amendment.


RW says: Actually it is true. Do you recall the special orders Bush issued to protect we the people?




http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=644597#post644597)
We want the enemy repelled, don't we?



we want to stop cancer as well maybe we should make smoking illegal,
we want child and spouse abuse to stop, solution cameras in every room in every home....


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=644597#post644597)
Obama has not stated that I know of the same thing that Bush stated.






RW, that's just not true, the info on the previous page,
(and many pages in my previous threads prove this), the patriot act open the door for this overt blanket action and a few NSA employees retired in protest to the activity -while -Bush was Prez- because they knew it was a breach of the 4th amendment.

we want to stop cancer as well maybe we should make smoking illegal,
we want child and spouse abuse to stop, solution cameras in every room in every home....


Obama the campigner was agaisnt it, Obama the Sentor voted for retroavitive immunity for the telecoms when the issue came to the News that the telecoms were giveing the gov't warehouses of data on request without warrants. Obama the president is worse than Bush on the issue.
"when the President does it that means it's Not illegal."


RW says: No, Bush issued unique orders. I doubt Obama did the same thing.

[Kathianne]

Huh? Bobby, how long did it take you to screw up the quote functions to make so much incomprehensible? Shame on you!

BTW, Bobby is Robert. (Just so he doesn't get confused.)

[revelarts]

Rev has a large collection of items he's posted over the years. We all know where he stands, indeed in many ways he has been prescient.

However, most folks aren't like him or even myself, (he and I are very different in our starting points at least.)

So, here's some interesting things that happened since I first posted about the Verizon story that I've found since coming home around 11 pm Thursday:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-numbers/

The following is a bit of rehash of above, but notice the increased number of companies. This morning when the Verizon story was playing, I knew that couldn't possibly be the only one. Just like Google is certainly not the only search.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html?hpid=z1

The article is 4 pages long, worth reading for those that are beyond low information.

excellent information, Frankly it's quite amazing to me that all of this is surfacing/resurfacing after coming out over the years in dribs and drabs.
Thank God

The ball has been put in reach of the people if we can, in a by partisan way, force congress to rein in the executive. And it has to be said, the telecoms businesses have to be made personally accountable to the law as well. Stripped of the immunity from prosecution for passing any info to the executive, state local law enforcement, the courts and to ANY 3rd parties. The businesses can't be dictating the policies to the customers about what they do with peoples personal information. that income flow has got to stop. Our personal info on our habits, purchases and data exchanges is not their's to give by virtue of us using their services. FEDEX can't tell people what your shipping or THAT you shipped something without a warrant.

We've been told that it's impossible to make the data secure or private. the NSA whistle blowers, and other freedom based data experts say that's a lie. And it not as difficult as it's made out to be.

Unfortunately the congress is our only legal wedge here. And they are weak. Our biggest asest is they are still afraid of the public to a degree.

Now after my above rational, I hope, mainstream comments.

I may be painting somewhat outside the accepted lines a bit at this point to say that there is in fact info that SOME congress people have been blackmailed by some portion of the FBI with information obtained via illegal surveillance. Blackmailed and some targeted for career or project neutralization when they step out of line. Again this information comes via whistle blowers in the FBI and from congressmen speaking in confidences to some reporters. The J. Edgar Hoover techniques are not completely dead. The FBI does a lot of good work but there's a dark side as well, same with the CIA. This needs to be taken into consideration when examining and dealing with this issue as well.

There are good cops and bad cops, the bad cops need to fired and some jailed.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c10987420130607120100.jpg

[revelarts]

It's sickening watching the talking heads on CCN try to justify all this Crap.

"...well it's bad but better than the TSA..."
"...well it may be much but we just need to make sure there's proper oversight..."

what a pipeline of BS & CYA lines for the gov't is spewing from that channel. Pravda would be Ashamed to make the same claims, at least they would say it with a tongue in check voice. But the CNN mouthpieces look desperate to paper over the issue grasping for any thin legal or security straw to hang on too.

East Germany Never ever came close to or dreamed of having this much information on it's subjects but we are suppose to think that this is for our safety, what a galactic load BS

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

RW, that's just not true, the info on the previous page,
(and many pages in my previous threads prove this), the patriot act open the door for this overt blanket action and a few NSA employees retired in protest to the activity -while -Bush was Prez- because they knew it was a breach of the 4th amendment.

we want to stop cancer as well maybe we should make smoking illegal,
we want child and spouse abuse to stop, solution cameras in every room in every home....


Obama the campigner was agaisnt it, Obama the Sentor voted for retroavitive immunity for the telecoms when the issue came to the News that the telecoms were giveing the gov't warehouses of data on request without warrants. Obama the president is worse than Bush on the issue.
"when the President does it that means it's Not illegal." Got to go with you Rev on this. Obama has taken every possible avenue to increase the power of the Presidency and also has used and abused that power to the fullest extent that he can. Then he has engineered illegal activities but always protects himself by having several heads available for sacrifice should the need arise. Plus the old standby ,Bush did it , Bush's fault or it started with Bush.-Tyr

[Drummond]

If only one life is saved, amirite?

What's 'amirite' ? A new form of alloy ?

.... But you miss the point. Going to the extreme that's clearly now happening is, at absolute best, a form of damage limitation (even ignoring the 'civil liberties' issue for just a moment), the equivalent of dealing with symptoms, and not a cure.

How did the problem of terrorism become so widespread, so needing to be guarded against ?

For my money, it's because the worst thing possible has happened: there's been a scaling-back on the effort needed to fight the War on Terror. This, for reasons which are surely obvious, is increasingly giving terrorist groups greater latitude to organise attacks and to deploy accordingly.

What if a terrorist group sends coded messages, along the lines, say, of the French Resistance of WWII ... inocuous messages having no real significance except for those they were intended for ? No amount of Big Brother monitoring can usefully guard against that.

No, it would've been far better to have never given any terrorists any sort of respite. But, it's happening, and a 'bunker mentality' is emerging. One where civil liberties are more dead than anyone realises.

That's the Left for you !!!

[jimnyc]

What is in the courts currently, as far as fighting the constitutionality of the surveillance portion of the Patriot Act? Absolutely, they WAY overstepped when collecting these records of every law abiding citizen. But as to the act being unconstitutional, the surveillance part, right from the beginning - can someone link me to various court cases, or perhaps the supremes, on this from the past 12 years? Why are congress members extending the act? Only ONE senator voted against the act. The vote in the senate was 98-1.

[Kathianne]

What is in the courts currently, as far as fighting the constitutionality of the surveillance portion of the Patriot Act? Absolutely, they WAY overstepped when collecting these records of every law abiding citizen. But as to the act being unconstitutional, the surveillance part, right from the beginning - can someone link me to various court cases, or perhaps the supremes, on this from the past 12 years? Why are congress members extending the act? Only ONE senator voted against the act. The vote in the senate was 98-1.

Neither party wants a reduction in federal power, to me that's the message behind a 98-1 vote. The question is, will the people make their complaints known? Do they mind what's happening?

[jimnyc]

Neither party wants a reduction in federal power, to me that's the message behind a 98-1 vote. The question is, will the people make their complaints known? Do they mind what's happening?

The people sure have complained about various portion of the act, pretty much since day 1. I'm just wondering why it really hasn't seen a court yet. Who would need to do so? Can the ACLU do so? Or would it need to be one of the wormy politicians? I honestly don't know the answer! I just wondered for a long time now, why if it's such a hated piece of legislation, that it really hasn't seen the courts.

[jimnyc]

Here's a better indicator of how all of Congress voted on the Act, both in 2001, and extending in 2006:

Senate and House Vote Roll Call on U.S. Patriot Act 2001 & 2006

These are the 98 U.S. senators for voted in favor of the US Patriot Act of 2001 (Senator Landrieu (D-LA) did not vote) Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act on October 24, of 2001.

These are the 89 U.S. senators who voted in favor of the March 2, 2006 Patriot Act Reauthorizing Act

The House voting

2001 - 357 in favor and 66 against
2006 - 280 in favor and 138 against

Rest and individual votes here - http://educate-yourself.org/cn/patriotact20012006senatevote.shtml

[jimnyc]

I'm reading a few articles, as I was unaware that the ACLU did in fact file suit against the act, and a portion was declared unconstitutional. But I'm having trouble finding more about surveillance of phones and such, and what authority they have outside of terrorist related activities and such.

[jimnyc]

Yikes, it appears even the ACLU caved and has no further issues (till this week anyway). After the initial case, they had another continue till 2006, when changes were made. The ACLU was happy with the changes and dropped their lawsuit.

[fj1200]

What's 'amirite' ? A new form of alloy ?

.... But you miss the point. Going to the extreme that's clearly now happening is, at absolute best, a form of damage limitation (even ignoring the 'civil liberties' issue for just a moment), the equivalent of dealing with symptoms, and not a cure.

How did the problem of terrorism become so widespread, so needing to be guarded against ?

For my money, it's because the worst thing possible has happened: there's been a scaling-back on the effort needed to fight the War on Terror. This, for reasons which are surely obvious, is increasingly giving terrorist groups greater latitude to organise attacks and to deploy accordingly.

What if a terrorist group sends coded messages, along the lines, say, of the French Resistance of WWII ... inocuous messages having no real significance except for those they were intended for ? No amount of Big Brother monitoring can usefully guard against that.

No, it would've been far better to have never given any terrorists any sort of respite. But, it's happening, and a 'bunker mentality' is emerging. One where civil liberties are more dead than anyone realises.

That's the Left for you !!!

So, if I try to pick my through the mixed messages here... your upset that civil liberties are dead but then you're happy that intelligence is being proactive?

Also, I'm not quite sure what this scaling back is that you're talking about; We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, drone strikes have increased under BO, and the NSA is stockpiling every bit of data about electronic communication that it can grab... Where is the scaling back?

And pardon me for thinking your civil liberties concerns ring a bit hollow, amirite (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite)? :poke:

[fj1200]

I'm reading a few articles, as I was unaware that the ACLU did in fact file suit against the act, and a portion was declared unconstitutional. But I'm having trouble finding more about surveillance of phones and such, and what authority they have outside of terrorist related activities and such.

Did you find this one?
Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security | NBC ... (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20999950/ns/us_news-security/t/judge-rules-part-patriot-act-unconstitutional/)
There are also various references of it being unconstitutional here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

But I wonder if much of the problem with a challenge is that you need to be harmed in order to bring suit. You can't just sue if you don't like a law, you need standing.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2013/06/07/gary_varvel_new_gary_varvel_for_06072013.gif

[jimnyc]

Did you find this one?
Part of Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional - US news - Security | NBC ... (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20999950/ns/us_news-security/t/judge-rules-part-patriot-act-unconstitutional/)


There are also various references of it being unconstitutional here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

But I wonder if much of the problem with a challenge is that you need to be harmed in order to bring suit. You can't just sue if you don't like a law, you need standing.

Yeah, I was reading that one. Seems like only little portions being declared a no go. I'm wondering why the ACLU didn't go after the entire surveillance portion if it were all unconstitutional. Not disagreeing with you here - but as far as only filing suit if one is harmed - can't a politician or similar fight to SCOTUS if necessary, on anything they can find, like they did with ACA?

I did read about the unconstitutional portions on Wiki, but they seemed to be prior to the 2006 changes. It just seems odd that a piece of legislation that leads to what we are seeing now with these phone records - is not able to be formally challenged unless someone is harmed by it first?

[revelarts]

The people sure have complained about various portion of the act, pretty much since day 1. I'm just wondering why it really hasn't seen a court yet. Who would need to do so? Can the ACLU do so? Or would it need to be one of the wormy politicians? I honestly don't know the answer! I just wondered for a long time now, why if it's such a hated piece of legislation, that it really hasn't seen the courts.

If i remember correctly part of the problem taking the law to court was standing.

And the people who claimed harm had a hard time getting the Gov't to admit any evidence. "top secret" "national security" "means and methods".

in more than one case they took the judge behind close doors and had the case dismissed on grounds like that. other times they never made it that far.
this was on various portions of the partiot act and a few other issues like National Demand Letters, i mean security letters.
the act has been successfully clipped in other places.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/16/judge-rules-secret-fbi-letters-unconstitutional/
2011

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge has struck down a set of laws allowing the FBI to issue so-called national security letters to banks, phone companies and other businesses demanding customer information.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the laws violate the First Amendment and the separation of powers principles and ordered the government to stop issuing the secretive letters or enforcing their gag orders, The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578362710014676902.html)h ttp://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png reported.
The FBI almost always bars recipients of the letters from disclosing to anyone — including customers — that they have even received the demands, Illston said in the ruling released Friday.
The government has failed to show that the letters and the blanket non-disclosure policy "serve the compelling need of national security," and the gag order creates "too large a danger that speech is being unnecessarily restricted," the San Francisco-based Illston wrote.
A Department of Justice spokesman told the Journal the department was "reviewing the order."

FBI counter-terrorism agents began issuing the letters, which don't require a judge's approval, after Congress passed the USA Patriot Act in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The case arises from a lawsuit that lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed in 2011 on behalf of an unnamed telecommunications company that received an FBI demand for customer information.
"We are very pleased that the court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute," EFF lawyer Matt Zimmerman said. "The government's gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/16/judge-rules-secret-fbi-letters-unconstitutional/#ixzz2VYurVoIF



2007

Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions

<tbody>


</tbody>
By Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 7, 2007

A federal judge struck down controversial portions of the USA Patriot Act in a ruling that declared them unconstitutional yesterday, ordering the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York said the FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand such data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers, because the FBI can impose indefinite gag orders on the companies and the courts have little opportunity to review the letters.
The secrecy provisions are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values," Marrero wrote. His strongly worded 103-page opinion amounted to a rebuke of both the administration and Congress, which had revised the act in 2005 to take into account an earlier ruling by the judge on the same topic.
Although a government appeal is likely, the decision could eliminate or sharply curtail the FBI's issuance of tens of thousands of national security letters (NSLs) each year to telephone companies, Internet providers and other communications firms. The FBI says it typically orders that such letters be kept confidential to make sure that suspects do not learn they are being investigated, as well as to protect "sources and methods" used in terrorism and counterintelligence probes.....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html



the case Katz v. United States 1967
sets the standard for our expectation of privacy on the phone or electronic devices.

And without a reasonable cause and a warrant the gov't has ZERO right to tap our phones,
much less tap and record them 24/7/365 for life.
why is this even a question Jim?

[revelarts]

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/07/nsa-whistleblower-responds-obama-metadata-phone-call-more-revealing-listening

NSA whistleblowers J. Kirk Wiebe and Bill Binney have been sounding the alarm about government intrusion into Americans' privacy for years. They joined Megyn Kelly (http://foxnewsinsider.com/people/megyn-kelly) today to give us some revealing insights into how the agency works after President Obama defended the need (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/07/obama-nsa-nobody-listening-your-phone-calls) to monitor Americans' phone calls.


Obama said today that nobody at NSA is listening to your phone calls, saying they are gathering "metadata" like the numbers involved in a call, how long it was, and where it was made from. But Wiebe said there is a common misconception going around about this aspect of the program.
"Aggregated metadata can be more revealing than content. It's very important to realize that when an entity collects information about you that includes locations, bank transactions, credit card transactions, travel plans, EZPass on and off tollways; all of that that can be time-lined. To track you day to day to the point where people can get insight into your intentions and what you're going to do next. It is difficult to get that from content unless you exploit every piece, and even then a lot of content is worthless," he explained.
Watch the full interview above!


Read more: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/07/nsa-whistleblower-responds-obama-metadata-phone-call-more-revealing-listening#ixzz2VZES7Skx

[gabosaurus]

I remember when this exact "scandal" happened during the Dubya administration. ConReps said it was necessary for national security and "anyone who isn't a terrorist has nothing to worry about."
It suppose it is different when a Dem president does it. :rolleyes:

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jimnyc http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=644758#post644758)
The people sure have complained about various portion of the act, pretty much since day 1. I'm just wondering why it really hasn't seen a court yet. Who would need to do so? Can the ACLU do so? Or would it need to be one of the wormy politicians? I honestly don't know the answer! I just wondered for a long time now, why if it's such a hated piece of legislation, that it really hasn't seen the courts.


On AOL, I spent a great deal of time in researching this and defending Bush. I listened today to Obama and he is doing the same thing. He claims he questioned it a lot but found it legal and so does it just as Bush did.

It is one thing to just listen to all of our conversations. But they do not do that.

Those understanding the way computers work know about binary code. Using super powerful computers with a program, the calls are screened for select terms.

And when Bush was president, he ordered NSA to prove each call they actually recorded had a terrorist on one end or both ends of the call. It had to also go to or originate from terrorists areas. You can imagine the program works with several terrorists languages. I don't speak Arabic so my calls are safe plus I don't speak to terrorists.

The idea is to trap terrorists, not worry if you swap recipes with your aunt.

Using binary, it can be created to pick up on certain words or even particular ways of speaking in order to actually hear any recording.

Obama explained it much the way Bush did when he spoke at San Jose, CA this morning.

I recall WWII and if one told the public that the Nazis could be eavesdropped on, clapping would ensue.

Folks, courts have looked at this Revelearts material was on the FBI not NSA. And when they busted the FBI they slapped them down.

[jimnyc]

I remember when this exact "scandal" happened during the Dubya administration.

Please post a link to where the NSA collected phone records of innocent civilians during the Bush years.

[gabosaurus]

On AOL, I spent a great deal of time in researching this and defending Bush. I listened today to Obama and he is doing the same thing. He claims he questioned it a lot but found it legal and so does it just as Bush did.


Basically you are defending Bush doing the same thing that you are criticizing Obama for.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=644826#post644826)
On AOL, I spent a great deal of time in researching this and defending Bush. I listened today to Obama and he is doing the same thing. He claims he questioned it a lot but found it legal and so does it just as Bush did.



Basically you are defending Bush doing the same thing that you are criticizing Obama for.

Actually i defended Congress for protecting us from terrorists. I told you Obama is an empty suit and had Bush not come up with this idea, you know Obama never would have.

I did not remotely criticize Obama. Maybe a few lessons in English vocabulary will help you?

[revelarts]

On AOL, I spent a great deal of time in researching this and defending Bush. I listened today to Obama and he is doing the same thing. He claims he questioned it a lot but found it legal and so does it just as Bush did.

It is one thing to just listen to all of our conversations. But they do not do that.

Those understanding the way computers work know about binary code. Using super powerful computers with a program, the calls are screened for select terms.

And when Bush was president, he ordered NSA to prove each call they actually recorded had a terrorist on one end or both ends of the call. It had to also go to or originate from terrorists areas. You can imagine the program works with several terrorists languages. I don't speak Arabic so my calls are safe plus I don't speak to terrorists.

The idea is to trap terrorists, not worry if you swap recipes with your aunt.

Using binary, it can be created to pick up on certain words or even particular ways of speaking in order to actually hear any recording.

Obama explained it much the way Bush did when he spoke at San Jose, CA this morning.

I recall WWII and if one told the public that the Nazis could be eavesdropped on, clapping would ensue.

Folks, courts have looked at this Revelearts material was on the FBI not NSA. And when they busted the FBI they slapped them down.

Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq. that wasn't true either. i don't have time to go over all the lies Obama has told.
the people i've sighted are from the NSA and the FBi. they worked there, one resigned form there in protest. Some other NSA employees in the articles said they listened in real time to peoples conversations, Soldiers who obviously were not suspects.

the presidents are lying RW, or unaware. i don't know which is worse.
In any case they are not factually correct.

there is
Data storage -phone, internet, purchases, movement etc..
Data mining -connecting the dots for the surface info , putting together a picture of you day to day activity
and real time eaves dropping being done -
ALL without court orders.
that makes it unconstitutional on its face.

Who in God's name gave the Gov't the right to store all of our communications "just in case"
that's high level BS.

please watch the FOX news link i last posted, 2 Former NSA guys 30years 40 years , Make the point that NONE of it is Necessary to "catch the bad guys"
and None of it is constitutional.

[jimnyc]

And without a reasonable cause and a warrant the gov't has ZERO right to tap our phones,
much less tap and record them 24/7/365 for life.
why is this even a question Jim?



Look at what I posted, I didn't say it was a question. I think the original intent to be able to monitor for terrorist activity was just fine. Obviously in 12 years there has been much more going on than what the original intent was, or what was told to us. I don't think there should be any blanket recording. Monitoring - is a lot different than recording and storing. And it went from terrorists - to apparently millions of innocent people.

As to the lawsuits and the Act itself. I'm first stunned that a bill that is this unpopular has received so much support in Congress. And if it's the people that are so mad, how these idiots still remain in congress. And I think any portion of such a bill should be able to be challenged in a court of law.

I heard Obama state earlier that every last bit of these details being released, are things that every single congress person has been briefed on. If that's the case, they are bigger idiots than I thought.

I have no problem giving MUCH leeway for authorities to search for terrorists, at places of entry and electronically, blanket coverage is not something I can stand behind.

[jimnyc]

I remember when this exact "scandal" happened during the Dubya administration. ConReps said it was necessary for national security and "anyone who isn't a terrorist has nothing to worry about."
It suppose it is different when a Dem president does it. :rolleyes:


Please post a link to where the NSA collected phone records of innocent civilians during the Bush years.

*bump*

The only scandal from the Bush years I am aware of is perhaps the Patriot Act itself being introduced - with 98-1 support. I don't see much scandal in that. Anyway, I will wait for you to fill us in on what major scandal we missed during the Bush years where they collected and stored so much data on civilians.

And since you won't go back to other threads you regurgitated in - what scandals were there from the Bush years about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS commandeering and illegally going after the press?

Seems to me that it's YOU who doesn't want to condemn anything that the idiot democrats do, but you not only did it to Bush for 8 years, you're STILL stuck on it years after he's been gone.

[Robert A Whit]

Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq. that wan't rue either. i don't have time to go over all the lies Obama has told.
the people i've sited are from the NSA and the FBi. they woked there one resigned form there in protest. some in the artilces that worked at the NSA said they listened in real time to peoples conversations, Soldiers who obviously were not suspects.

the presidents are lying RW. or unaware. i don't know which is worse.
In any case they are not factually correct.

there is
Data storage -phone, internet, purchases, movement etc..
Data mining -connecting the dots for the surface info , putting together a picture of you day to day activity
and real time eaves dropping being done -
ALL without court orders.
that makes it unconstitutional on its face.

Who in God's name gave the Gov't the right to store all of our communications "just in case"
that's high level BS.

please watch the FOX news link i last posted, 2 Former NSA guys 30years 40 years , Make the point that NONE of it is Necessary to "catch the bad guys"
and None of it is constitutional.

The nonsense about WMD is not relevant and a poor argument my friend.

What Bush said had been said by Clinton and the bulk of Democrats prior to the invasion. It was even defended by an Iraqi General that said Saddam moved the stuff to Syria just before the invasion. When WMD is transportable, all one needs do is transport it. Saddam wanted us to come up empty. Saddam was a dictator and could put that stuff in any friendly country. General Sada wrote a book on this topic.

There will always be some person in government resigning over this or that. That does not mean the person has full grasp of all facts.

It is impossible to actually hear all phone conversations. It would be like going to a sports game where 100,000 people are and trying to hear all conversations.

Computers being the marvel they are can sift for words and phrases. Preferably in the langues of terrorists. The bulk of Americans do not speak those languages. Why listen to me talking to you on the phone when they can simply use phone numbers from other countries as a starting point.

I hate government snooping but let's not lose our peckers over this when the targets are not Americans, but honest to god Terrorists.

i support Obama carrying out the Buah plan. I believe he does it the same way Bush did. No system is perfect and if those NSA workers snooped on aunt Betty calling her sister, they did wrong and i am happy the quit the job.

You know, I once worked for the telephone company and had access to all calls.(in that exchange of course) I could listen to but one phone call at a time. And had I disclosed any contents, I was then subject to a fine of Ten Thousand dollars and time in prison. I heard some saucy things said on the phone. That fine by the way was well over two years of my then annual income.

Today, your own phone company has workers who can still listen to you talking on your home phone and why aren't you up in arms about that?

More on Sada .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

After he retired Sada was living a quiet life in Iraq, but when after 2003 Invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq) by the United States armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces), Sada sided with the US government in their invasion of Iraq and aided in the fight against Saddam Hussein. During the invasion of Iraq, Sada served as spokesman for the interim leader Iyad Allawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyad_Allawi), and he was appointed as National Security Advisor.
In August 2004 Sada announced that he would be signing a bill to introduce the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty) in Iraq. The bill introduces the death penalty for anyone who is "threatening national security". (on al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/69F4969F-E69D-4472-B854-357E97B6FAF6.htm))
On January 24, 2006, he announced the publication of a book he had written entitled Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam%27s_Secrets&action=edit&redlink=1), with the tagline "An insider exposes plans to destroy Israel, hide WMD's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) and control the Arab world."[1] (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6291124.html#review3) Sada, the former Air Vice-Marshal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Vice-Marshal) under Hussein, appeared the following day on Fox News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News)' Hannity & Colmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannity_%26_Colmes), where he discussed his book and reported that other pilots told him that Hussein had ordered them to fly portions of the WMD stockpiles to Damascus in Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria)just prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq). After the release of his book, Sada was interviewed by Fox News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News), and he stated:
"Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera)".

[revelarts]

*bump*

The only scandal from the Bush years I am aware of is perhaps the Patriot Act itself being introduced - with 98-1 support. I don't see much scandal in that. Anyway, I will wait for you to fill us in on what major scandal we missed during the Bush years where they collected and stored so much data on civilians.

And since you won't go back to other threads you regurgitated in - what scandals were there from the Bush years about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS commandeering and illegally going after the press?

Seems to me that it's YOU who doesn't want to condemn anything that the idiot democrats do, but you not only did it to Bush for 8 years, you're STILL stuck on it years after he's been gone.

Notice that the patriot act was past by that great margin .
1) it was pasted in a rush to "do something"
2) it was pasted on emotion
3) many congress people admitted they did not even read it the 1st time around.

after a law is signed and the executive had the new power it made excuses why it could not LIVE without it.
and many on the right claimed that to gut the act ,would mean death in the streets. Daily terror, cats and dogs living together.
who ever is against the patriot acts is with the bin laden:smileyflag: . the terrorist will kill us all if they don't have this POWER.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e_DqV1xdf-Y?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


the odd thing about the law is that it had been written years earlier, and was waiting for an op to pounce. before 9/11 it had no chance of pasting.

[revelarts]

The nonsense about WMD is not relevant and a poor argument my friend.

What Bush said had been said by Clinton and the bulk of Democrats prior to the invasion. It was even defended by an Iraqi General that said Saddam moved the stuff to Syria just before the invasion. When WMD is transportable, all one needs do is transport it. Saddam wanted us to come up empty. Saddam was a dictator and could put that stuff in any friendly country. General Sada wrote a book on this topic.

There will always be some person in government resigning over this or that. That does not mean the person has full grasp of all facts.

It is impossible to actually hear all phone conversations. It would be like going to a sports game where 100,000 people are and trying to hear all conversations.

Computers being the marvel they are can sift for words and phrases. Preferably in the langues of terrorists. The bulk of Americans do not speak those languages. Why listen to me talking to you on the phone when they can simply use phone numbers from other countries as a starting point.

I hate government snooping but let's not lose our peckers over this when the targets are not Americans, but honest to god Terrorists.

i support Obama carrying out the Buah plan. I believe he does it the same way Bush did. No system is perfect and if those NSA workers snooped on aunt Betty calling her sister, they did wrong and i am happy the quit the job.

You know, I once worked for the telephone company and had access to all calls.(in that exchange of course) I could listen to but one phone call at a time. And had I disclosed any contents, I was then subject to a fine of Ten Thousand dollars and time in prison. I heard some saucy things said on the phone. That fine by the way was well over two years of my then annual income.

Today, your own phone company has workers who can still listen to you talking on your home phone and why aren't you up in arms about that?

More on Sada .....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Sada

After he retired Sada was living a quiet life in Iraq, but when after 2003 Invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq) by the United States armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces), Sada sided with the US government in their invasion of Iraq and aided in the fight against Saddam Hussein. During the invasion of Iraq, Sada served as spokesman for the interim leader Iyad Allawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyad_Allawi), and he was appointed as National Security Advisor.
In August 2004 Sada announced that he would be signing a bill to introduce the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty) in Iraq. The bill introduces the death penalty for anyone who is "threatening national security". (on al-Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/69F4969F-E69D-4472-B854-357E97B6FAF6.htm))
On January 24, 2006, he announced the publication of a book he had written entitled Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saddam%27s_Secrets&action=edit&redlink=1), with the tagline "An insider exposes plans to destroy Israel, hide WMD's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) and control the Arab world."[1] (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6291124.html#review3) Sada, the former Air Vice-Marshal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Vice-Marshal) under Hussein, appeared the following day on Fox News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News)' Hannity & Colmes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannity_%26_Colmes), where he discussed his book and reported that other pilots told him that Hussein had ordered them to fly portions of the WMD stockpiles to Damascus in Syria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria)just prior to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq). After the release of his book, Sada was interviewed by Fox News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News), and he stated:
"Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera)".


Downing Street memo Jan 31
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa
take a look.

[Drummond]

So, if I try to pick my through the mixed messages here... your upset that civil liberties are dead but then you're happy that intelligence is being proactive?

Also, I'm not quite sure what this scaling back is that you're talking about; We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, drone strikes have increased under BO, and the NSA is stockpiling every bit of data about electronic communication that it can grab... Where is the scaling back?

And pardon me for thinking your civil liberties concerns ring a bit hollow, amirite (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=amirite)? :poke:

You do what you must to fight terrorism. Intelligence activities are necessary.

But I ask: how much MORE necessary are they, how much more extreme are the measures now, because a certain slackness has crept in ? You say you're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. BUT, as you, I, and the whole world knows, withdrawals of troops, forces generally, is ongoing. The 'locals' are currently being trained, in the hope that they'll be ready to do their jobs properly, prior to a complete withdrawal !!!!

Not only is that competence NOT guaranteed - but just 'hoped for' - but Obama's intentions were publicly announced YEARS ago .. and TO THE ENEMY !! Thanks to that piece of incredible tactical sabotage, the enemy has all the latitude it could've ever wanted to prepare itself for a resurgence, once the troops are finally gone !!

Is it any wonder that increased vigilance methods are now called for ??

But then, central control of everyTHING and everyONE is the Leftie way. No doubt Obama planned it this way from the beginning. What our Labour Party planned for, years ago, your Dems have heeded and gone full pelt towards making a reality.

Big Brother, eat your heart out. IngSoc, America-style ...

You must feel proud, FJ.

[aboutime]

Notice that the patriot act was past by that great margin .
1) it was pasted in a rush to "do something"
2) it was pasted on emotion
3) many congress people admitted they did not even read it the 1st time around.

after a law is signed and the executive had the new power it made excuses why it could not LIVE without it.
and many on the right claimed that to gut the act ,would mean death in the streets. Daily terror, cats and dogs living together.
who ever is against the patriot acts is with the bin laden:smileyflag: . the terrorist will kill us all if they don't have this POWER.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/e_DqV1xdf-Y?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>


the odd thing about the law is that it had been written years earlier, and was waiting for an op to pounce. before 9/11 it had no chance of pasting.


Kathianne. Would you like to practice your NON-SPELLING, NON-GRAMMAR Cop on the rev?
Unless you happen to use the word pasted for PASSED as well.

[revelarts]

I've admitted many times I'm a terrible speller and I add and jumble words from time to time, plus misplace punctuation as well. I'd be full time project for K.

[aboutime]

I've admitted many times I'm a terrible speller and I add and jumble words from time to time, plus misplace punctuation as well. I'd be full time project for K.


Just wondered why she BROUGHT that to everyone's attention in my behalf recently. Yet, says nothing in your behalf.

[fj1200]

You do what you must to fight terrorism. Intelligence activities are necessary.

But I ask: how much MORE necessary are they, how much more extreme are the measures now, because a certain slackness has crept in ? You say you're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. BUT, as you, I, and the whole world knows, withdrawals of troops, forces generally, is ongoing. The 'locals' are currently being trained, in the hope that they'll be ready to do their jobs properly, prior to a complete withdrawal !!!!

Not only is that competence NOT guaranteed - but just 'hoped for' - but Obama's intentions were publicly announced YEARS ago .. and TO THE ENEMY !! Thanks to that piece of incredible tactical sabotage, the enemy has all the latitude it could've ever wanted to prepare itself for a resurgence, once the troops are finally gone !!

Is it any wonder that increased vigilance methods are now called for ??

But then, central control of everyTHING and everyONE is the Leftie way. No doubt Obama planned it this way from the beginning. What our Labour Party planned for, years ago, your Dems have heeded and gone full pelt towards making a reality.

Big Brother, eat your heart out. IngSoc, America-style ...

You must feel proud, FJ.

What exactly am I supposed to feel "proud" about??? or are you on about that whole "leftie" bit again? So am I to get this right that we should just screw our civil liberties even if we just save one life? I just want to get that right so I can get a sense of just how far you're willing to go. I'm sure this is just another example of your desire to increase the power of the State over the individual to advance your wishes. It's pretty sad when "conservatives" feed right into the desires of the left; congratulations.

I'm still not sure about this "slackness" because as I said before drone strikes have been on the increase and domestic surveillance is rapidly ramping up. Of course we're pulling out of Afg and Iraq; we're you under some sort of impression that we would be there one day and then all of a sudden gone the next? I'm not quite sure how long you're demanding that we stay there to save just one life.

[BillyBob]

Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq. that wasn't true either.

Iraq had used WMDs in the past and 550 tons of yellowcake uranium was recovered from Iraq. So yeah, it was true.

[revelarts]

Iraq had used WMDs in the past and 550 tons of yellowcake uranium was recovered from Iraq. So yeah, it was true.

was, past tense
read the downing street memo comment on that.

[BillyBob]

was, past tense
read the downing street memo comment on that.


Yes, it WAS recovered AFTER SADAM WAS DEPOSED.

[gabosaurus]

*bump*

The only scandal from the Bush years I am aware of is perhaps the Patriot Act itself being introduced - with 98-1 support. I don't see much scandal in that. Anyway, I will wait for you to fill us in on what major scandal we missed during the Bush years where they collected and stored so much data on civilians.

And since you won't go back to other threads you regurgitated in - what scandals were there from the Bush years about Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS commandeering and illegally going after the press?

Seems to me that it's YOU who doesn't want to condemn anything that the idiot democrats do, but you not only did it to Bush for 8 years, you're STILL stuck on it years after he's been gone.

The Iraq War and Patriot Act all came about after Dubya lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD. Of course, he was never held accountable for lying to Congress.
Bush had 8 years of scandals. Not to mention 8 years of idiocy.
Please tell me how many tall buildings or defense facilities the U.S. lost under Obama. Please tell me how many illegal wars Obama has started.
Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all idiots. The people who supported them were idiots.
Study the current financial crisis. It has roots in the Dubya administration. Due to lack of oversight of Wall Street and the banking industry.

[Nukeman]

The Iraq War and Patriot Act all came about after Dubya lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD. Of course, he was never held accountable for lying to Congress.
Bush had 8 years of scandals. Not to mention 8 years of idiocy.
Please tell me how many tall buildings or defense facilities the U.S. lost under Obama. Please tell me how many illegal wars Obama has started.
Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all idiots. The people who supported them were idiots.
Study the current financial crisis. It has roots in the Dubya administration. Due to lack of oversight of Wall Street and the banking industry.
You are forgetting that if W lied so did Clinton, Kerry and a slew of other Dems in office at the time.
This was due to Intel that supposedly didn't pan out. Personally I think he had them but had plenty of time to move them. Where exactly did Syria gets its current nerve gas its using???

[gabosaurus]

You are forgetting that if W lied so did Clinton, Kerry and a slew of other Dems in office at the time.
This was due to Intel that supposedly didn't pan out. Personally I think he had them but had plenty of time to move them. Where exactly did Syria gets its current nerve gas its using???

They got a lot of nerve gas and munitions from Iran. Which bought it from the Thatcher administration.
It's probably been 50 years or so since we've had a President who wasn't a self-minded idiot. It's not just Dems. It's all of them.

[revelarts]

You are forgetting that if W lied so did Clinton, Kerry and a slew of other Dems in office at the time.
This was due to Intel that supposedly didn't pan out. Personally I think he had them but had plenty of time to move them. Where exactly did Syria gets its current nerve gas its using???

maybe he moved it? Maybe he didn't have it anymore BUT so why didn't we attack Syria if the WMDs were really the issue?

The Inspectors never found the WMDs before or after, Powell's Cheif of Staff said THEY were LIED TOO, by CIA and Rumsfeld.

who has to say it for it to be believed.
Downing memo Quotes bush as saying he was going in ANYWAY and trying to come up with another reason.

what is the issue here. The Bush Admin lied even to it's own people. Some dems were either in on or Dupes like Powell.

Do dems lie to Yes but this is at the point of Denial for people to still defend the Bush admin on this anymore.

[BillyBob]

The Iraq War and Patriot Act all came about after Dubya lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD.

Congress had the same intel Bush had. And if you ever bother to read the Iraqi War Resolution, you know, the one where Congress approved the Iraq War, you'll discover that there were multiple reasons we attacked Saddam Hussein that had nothing to do with WMDs.


Let me know if you need a link. :)

[gabosaurus]

Congress had the same intel Bush had. And if you ever bother to read the Iraqi War Resolution, you know, the one where Congress approved the Iraq War, you'll discover that there were multiple reasons we attacked Saddam Hussein that had nothing to do with WMDs.


The U.S. attacked Iraq because Dubya was angry with Saddam for threatening his daddy during the Gulf War. Dubya had the Iraq War planned before he was elected. He needed a reason to be able to pull it off.
There is a precedent. Roosevelt used pretty much the same ploy in 1941.

[BillyBob]

The U.S. attacked Iraq because Dubya was angry with Saddam for threatening his daddy during the Gulf War. Dubya had the Iraq War planned before he was elected. He needed a reason to be able to pull it off.
There is a precedent. Roosevelt used pretty much the same ploy in 1941.

Yes, I'm very familiar with the demo-fascist talking points. But have you ever read the Iraqi War Resolution?

[fj1200]

Study the current financial crisis. It has roots in the Dubya administration. Due to lack of oversight of Wall Street and the banking industry.

Do tell. I thought it had roots in the Dem takeover of Congress in '07. :dunno:

[Kathianne]

Do tell.

Why do I get the feeling you are about to disabuse some of the mistaken idea that you're 'liberal'? LOL! Somehow I do believe that Gabby will not respond. It would be interesting to see what you might like to discuss regarding Congress and reforms put forward, I do wonder if the tools would bother reading something that disproves their group mindset?

[fj1200]

Why do I get the feeling you are about to disabuse some of the mistaken idea that you're 'liberal'? LOL! Somehow I do believe that Gabby will not respond. It would be interesting to see what you might like to discuss regarding Congress and reforms put forward, I do wonder if the tools would bother reading something that disproves their group mindset?

Who me? Couldn't be... ;)

Nevertheless she never responds but I like to throw it out there anyway. As for the others... :)

[red states rule]

Basically you are defending Bush doing the same thing that you are criticizing Obama for.

Eh, during the Bush years data on ONLY calls coming form or going to known terrorist countries was collected. NO calss were liestened to

Obama has data on ALL calls made. BIg difference Gabby - not that it matters to you

You may now resume your having your constant never ending Obamagasism

[red states rule]

The U.S. attacked Iraq because Dubya was angry with Saddam for threatening his daddy during the Gulf War. Dubya had the Iraq War planned before he was elected. He needed a reason to be able to pull it off.
There is a precedent. Roosevelt used pretty much the same ploy in 1941.

and next up in Gabby's review of US history:

1) The US did not win the War of Independence over the British. No, the Brits simply got bored and went home

2) The US did not defeat Hitler. Russia allowed us to take the credit

3) Reagan did not defeat commuism - Gabby is living proff of that

4) The Pilgrims were a buncn of Bible thumping, gun crazy, tax cheatinmg thungs who had a temper tanturm over paying their fair share in taxes - got lost - and stumbled across this country by pure chance

[red states rule]

Looks like Obama has lost Piers Morgan - at least for one show





<IFRAME height=421 marginHeight=0 src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=5V8XH82T5TS6LZ9Y&content_type=content_item&layout=&playlist_cid=&widget_type_cid=svp&read_more=1" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowTransparency marginWidth=0 scrolling=no></IFRAME>

[jimnyc]

The Iraq War and Patriot Act all came about after Dubya lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD. Of course, he was never held accountable for lying to Congress.
Bush had 8 years of scandals. Not to mention 8 years of idiocy.
Please tell me how many tall buildings or defense facilities the U.S. lost under Obama. Please tell me how many illegal wars Obama has started.
Dubya, Cheney and Rumsfeld were all idiots. The people who supported them were idiots.
Study the current financial crisis. It has roots in the Dubya administration. Due to lack of oversight of Wall Street and the banking industry.

You could have just stated - NO, I don't have anything to backup my claims that Bush had the same scandal of recording calls of millions of Americans. The rest of your obfuscation does nothing to answer your original claims, that the EXACT same scandal happened under Bush.

If you wrote the above originally, so be it, but instead you just AGAIN made something up.

[jimnyc]

Iraq had used WMDs in the past and 550 tons of yellowcake uranium was recovered from Iraq. So yeah, it was true.


was, past tense
read the downing street memo comment on that.

Not to rehash old, old arguments - but lets not forget the TONS and TONS of chemical weapons that were accounted for in 1998 - seen by inspector and tagged - and to this day have never been accounted for, and prior to the war, Saddam refused to account for them. I repeat - TONS.

You do realize that 1/2% of some of these would be enough to kill, how many? Ricin alone they said yesterday, the amount on the top of a pinhead would be enough to kill someone. The weapons tagged, which was various chemicals, were not weaponized yet, which means their shelf life would be MUCH, MUCH longer.

Disappearing after literally being seen and accounted for, and then not found post-invasion - does NOT mean anyone was wrong.

People pictured live missiles as this so called stockpile, ready to be shot at the enemy. Scarier than that, is tons and tons of shelved chemical weapons, ready to be weaponized and placed into a warhead.

The things unaccounted for cannot simply be ignored as if they never existed. And in this case we can PROVE they existed. Lack of detonation or the inability to find them does nothing.

[jimnyc]

The Iraq War and Patriot Act all came about after Dubya lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD. Of course, he was never held accountable for lying to Congress.

Because even though you've been corrected hundreds of times, you still cannot prove these lies, and neither could congress, hence no accountability. Shitty intel isn't lying, it's shitty intel. Your unusual hatred for someone prevents you from seeing the facts, and has you just making things up. Whatever though, it's the same puked up arguments from you over and over, generally followed by no links and no facts.

[red states rule]

You could have just stated - NO, I don't have anything to backup my claims that Bush had the same scandal of recording calls of millions of Americans. The rest of your obfuscation does nothing to answer your original claims, that the EXACT same scandal happened under Bush.

If you wrote the above originally, so be it, but instead you just AGAIN made something up.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-utQS1xYq5-A/UWKmu4GnZ6I/AAAAAAAADN0/dmB_sbd7f2U/s640/liberal-talking-points-liberals-socialists-ignorant-crap-thr-political-poster-1291614281.jpg

[jimnyc]

You are forgetting that if W lied so did Clinton, Kerry and a slew of other Dems in office at the time.
This was due to Intel that supposedly didn't pan out. Personally I think he had them but had plenty of time to move them. Where exactly did Syria gets its current nerve gas its using???

The wording from the Dems from the pre-Bush era were MORE condemning than anything anyone from the Bush admin ever stated. The Bush admin just had more balls and went in and followed up on the apparently useless UN resolutions and congressional approval.

[jimnyc]

The Iraq War and Patriot Act all came about after Dubya lied to Congress about Iraq having WMD. Of course, he was never held accountable for lying to Congress.

Tell me what lies are in this speech, if you can:


Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[jimnyc]

Yes, I'm very familiar with the demo-fascist talking points. But have you ever read the Iraqi War Resolution?

She'll repeat the same shit over and over and over. She's more interested in claiming he did it "for Daddy" than actually discussing the facts in the resolutions and such. The facts hurt her brain I think. :dunno:

[red states rule]

The wording from the Dems from the pre-Bush era were MORE condemning than anything anyone from the Bush admin ever stated. The Bush admin just had more balls and went in and followed up on the apparently useless UN resolutions and congressional approval.

You mean like this?





Reid Issues Ultimatum: More Time Or No Wiretaps

At a State of the Union preview speech today at the National Press Club, Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a dramatic ultimatum to President Bush: either sign an extension of the Protect America Act (which sets conditions for the administration's warrantless surveillance) or "there will be no wiretapping."

"It's up to the president," Reid announced during a question and answer session. "Does he want the law? It's up to him." Reid said Bush needs to sign the extension to give more time for the Senate to reach a compromise on a new bill. Senate Republicans this week obstructed every effort for amendments to be made to the pending FISA legislation.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/reid-issues-ultimatum-mor_n_83292.html

[jimnyc]

Notice that the patriot act was past by that great margin .
1) it was pasted in a rush to "do something"
2) it was pasted on emotion
3) many congress people admitted they did not even read it the 1st time around.

And the 2nd time around? When they then had 5 years to read it? Only NINE people changed their minds, from 98-1 and made a HUGE change to 89-10. AND it's also been extended twice under the Obama administration. So we can claim it was rushed, based on emotion and all that other crap - but then what is the excuse for the following 12 years? Are you saying they still haven't read it in 12 years? Or that they didn't read it in the 5 years after the initial intro?

[red states rule]

Will Dems want the same over Obama's wiretaps?

Probably not




Democratic House leaders called Sunday for an independent panel to investigate the legality of a program President Bush authorized that allows warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens, according to a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
"We believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation," the letter says.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi; Minority Whip Steny Hoyer; Rep. John Conyers, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee; and Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking member on the House Committee on Government Reform, signed the letter.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defended Bush's actions, telling "Fox News Sunday" the president had authorized the National Security Agency "to collect information on a limited number of people with connections to al Qaeda."

On Saturday, Bush acknowledged he authorized the NSA to intercept international communications of people in the United States "with known links" to terror groups, and criticized the media for divulging the program.


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/

[revelarts]

Not to rehash old, old arguments - but lets not forget the TONS and TONS of chemical weapons that were accounted for in 1998 - seen by inspector and tagged - and to this day have never been accounted for, and prior to the war, Saddam refused to account for them. I repeat - TONS.

You do realize that 1/2% of some of these would be enough to kill, how many? Ricin alone they said yesterday, the amount on the top of a pinhead would be enough to kill someone. The weapons tagged, which was various chemicals, were not weaponized yet, which means their shelf life would be MUCH, MUCH longer.

Disappearing after literally being seen and accounted for, and then not found post-invasion - does NOT mean anyone was wrong.

People pictured live missiles as this so called stockpile, ready to be shot at the enemy. Scarier than that, is tons and tons of shelved chemical weapons, ready to be weaponized and placed into a warhead.

The things unaccounted for cannot simply be ignored as if they never existed. And in this case we can PROVE they existed. Lack of detonation or the inability to find them does nothing.

no one seems worried today. the threat was hyped Jim. Assad has had his own chem bio weapons for awhile no one is so concerned, Kim J Ill has Nukes , other countries have horrible weapons.

Saddam had inspectors up the Butt for years, crushing starvation causing sanctions for years, flyovers for years, He was not a threat.
"But he didn't do everything we said either" yeah boohoo, does the U.S. do everything we agree to overseas?

But still no honest comments on the downing St. Memo or Col Wilkerson's Flat statement that he and Colon Powell were knowingly Lied to before Powell gave his speech. He was knowingly given fasle Intel by the CIA and Cheney and Rumsfeld boys.

the evidence is there. beating on Gabby or the Dems support does not make that go away.
the fact that some of YOU believe that Unknown weapons were a real and very serious threat doesn't make a difference.
Bush Cheneny and Rumsfeld Knew it was not. And not enough to convince the U.N. that an AGGRESSIVE invasion of a country that had not attacked anyone in years, Had no way to attack us, Would be wiped out if it attacked Israel, was somehow justified.
Aggressive war is an international WAR CRIME. We set that standard in WWII. War because a country has weapons and MIGHT attack one day is BS on it's face. The fact that they knew they could not prove they were there and knew they probably never could makes it horrifically worse.

Beating on Gabby harping on STILL Unknown weapons will not change the fact that the Bush Admin did tell lies to push a war they wanted.
whatever truth they told to go along with those lies don't really make up for crap. the lies and over hyped fear mongering over a 3rd world foe are what push the idea that war was BARELY Ligit over the top.

[red states rule]

Yea Rev, terrormis is not a threat and is overblown

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/399/cache/september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-ground-zero-world-trade-center-pentagon-flight-93-second-airplane-wtc_39997_600x450.jpg








http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/02/10/article-1249885-083AACA8000005DC-954_964x711.jpg




http://911review.org/_webimages/kiat.net-dc4.JPG

[jimnyc]

no one seems worried today. the threat was hyped Jim. Assad has had his own chem bio weapons for awhile no one is so concerned, Kim J Ill has Nukes , other countries have horrible weapons.

Saddam had inspectors up the Butt for years, crushing starvation causing sanctions for years, flyovers for years, He was not a threat.
"But he didn't do everything we said either" yeah boohoo, does the U.S. do everything we agree to overseas?

But still no honest comments on the downing St. Memo or Col Wilkerson's Flat statement that he and Colon Powell were knowingly Lied to before Powell gave his speech. He was knowingly given fasle Intel by the CIA and Cheney and Rumsfeld boys.

the evidence is there. beating on Gabby or the Dems support does not make that go away.
the fact that some of YOU believe that Unknown weapons were a real and very serious threat doesn't make a difference.
Bush Cheneny and Rumsfeld Knew it was not. And not enough to convince the U.N. that an AGGRESSIVE invasion of a country that had not attacked anyone in years, Had no way to attack us, Would be wiped out if it attacked Israel, was somehow justified.
Aggressive war is an international WAR CRIME. We set that standard in WWII. War because a country has weapons and MIGHT attack one day is BS on it's face. The fact that they knew they could not prove they were there and knew they probably never could makes it horrifically worse.

Beating on Gabby harping on STILL Unknown weapons will not change the fact that the Bush Admin did tell lies to push a war they wanted.
whatever truth they told to go along with those lies don't really make up for crap. the lies and over hyped fear mongering over a 3rd world foe are what push the idea that war was BARELY Ligit over the top.

They were not unknown, the weapons I speak of were accounted for an tagged by inspectors. When coming back later, these tons of chemical weapons were moved and never accounted for. You're bringing up other things in an attempt to not discuss this one. It's NOT just me or others - the professional inspectors accounted for these weapons. Then they were gone. The memos and other things have NOTHING to do with this and certainly don't account for the missing chemicals. Considering Saddam had used chemical weapons before, I think it was natural and logical to want chemicals removed and destroyed. Bringing up other countries doesn't change this either, just muddies the water and again leaves the issue of the tons of chemicals unanswered. ALL of these other issues have been discussed over the years - but for whatever reason - no one wants to look at these chemical weapons and acknowledge that they WERE there, PROVEN, and then disappeared. The inspectors DEMANDED to know there whereabouts and NEVER were told and accounted for.

YOU may think a British memo accounts for these, but it doesn't. Other countries having weapons has nothing to do with these. We can discuss other issues if you like, but what do you say we actually discuss the issue I brought up first? Do you not care what happened to TONS of these chemical weapons?

Now, commence with the obfuscation and other stories and ignore what the inspectors found.

[revelarts]

17 guys with box cutters and maybe 20 or 30 more from caves in Afghanistan. Did it right?
Well they were trained by U.S. flight schools which we knew of.
Some got visas to the U.S. by some CIA program that U.S. embassy officials protested but were fired because of it.
Iran warned us
Israel warned us
France warned us
FBI translators knew and had talked to/had listened to more than one source about it.
The gov't did know that planes into a bldgs were a threat. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/al-qaeda-flying-planes-into-the-world-trade-center-and-pentagon-was-foreseeable.html)
Mohamed Atta was on a terror list and his picture as well as other on a wall at the DIA, in the Able Danger intel program.
The FBI had a laptop full of info from one of the terrorist
etcetcetc..

All of that BEFORE illegally tapping the phones, collecting the emails, tracking the internet use, etc of 300 million innocent U.S. Citizens. Or feeling up Granmas, children & veterans, OR spending an extra BILLION + dollars on the Dept of Fatherland Security.


As terrible as 9/11 was we need to act smart not burn down the house and the neighbors to kill the rats.

[jimnyc]

Oh brother, here we go with the 9/11 conspiracy crap again. Hell, I think GWB may have remote controlled missiles into the Pentagon himself! :rolleyes:

I'm out of this one, I'm done entertaining 9/11 conspiracy garbage. I respect those that want to believe that stuff, have fun discussing, but I'm not going over the same regurgitated bullshit for 12 years that has never provided a shred of actual "proof". And Rev, address this post all you like, I'm simply not being sucked into this stupid shit again.

[revelarts]

They were not unknown, the weapons I speak of were accounted for an tagged by inspectors. When coming back later, these tons of chemical weapons were moved and never accounted for. You're bringing up other things in an attempt to not discuss this one. It's NOT just me or others - the professional inspectors accounted for these weapons. Then they were gone. The memos and other things have NOTHING to do with this and certainly don't account for the missing chemicals. Considering Saddam had used chemical weapons before, I think it was natural and logical to want chemicals removed and destroyed. Bringing up other countries doesn't change this either, just muddies the water and again leaves the issue of the tons of chemicals unanswered. ALL of these other issues have been discussed over the years - but for whatever reason - no one wants to look at these chemical weapons and acknowledge that they WERE there, PROVEN, and then disappeared. The inspectors DEMANDED to know there whereabouts and NEVER were told and accounted for.

YOU may think a British memo accounts for these, but it doesn't. Other countries having weapons has nothing to do with these. We can discuss other issues if you like, but what do you say we actually discuss the issue I brought up first? Do you not care what happened to TONS of these chemical weapons?

Now, commence with the obfuscation and other stories and ignore what the inspectors found.

Jim Blix was satisfied those unaccounted for items were not a threat. you are not, FINE. But I've addressed the weapons many times you've yet to explain the downing memo or the lies told to Powell.

I brought up the subject of Bush lying. (sorry about it now) ut I think i've pointed to more than enough evidence for that point. Bush Cheney Rummy lied. Clinton was Impeached over lying to congress over Office sex. The intern produced a Jacket and her testimony. cased closed. That Clinton is a lying scum of the earth.

I've shown the downing st memo and the testimony of a the chief of staff of the Secretary of Defense.(and many others in the Military and intell services in other threads)
Yet somehow Bush/Cheney/Rummy are still innocent and righteous because they didn't lie ALL the time?

get real folks. it's time to be honest here.

[revelarts]

Oh brother, here we go with the 9/11 conspiracy crap again. Hell, I think GWB may have remote controlled missiles into the Pentagon himself! :rolleyes:

I'm out of this one, I'm done entertaining 9/11 conspiracy garbage. I respect those that want to believe that stuff, have fun discussing, but I'm not going over the same regurgitated bullshit for 12 years that has never provided a shred of actual "proof". And Rev, address this post all you like, I'm simply not being sucked into this stupid shit again.

everything i posted above was in reports on aBC NBC FOX and some even included in the official 9/11 report.

don't lie and make up BS about what i'm saying here jim!

[jimnyc]

Jim Blix was satisfied those unaccounted for items were not a threat.

First off - link to where he stated as much about those specific chemicals?

Secondly - how would ANYONE, even the most professional of professionals - know whether unaccounted for weapons are a threat or not? It's literally impossible to say that. He may have an opinion on the matter, but unless he KNOWS where they are/were, he couldn't say if they were a threat or not.

It's like losing a gun in your house which has children. You can't find it after searching for about a year. But one would conclude that gun is no longer a threat to the children? Sorry, until found, it remains a threat.

[red states rule]

17 guys with box cutters and maybe 20 or 30 more from caves in Afghanistan. Did it right?
Well they were trained by U.S. flight schools which we knew of.
Some got visas to the U.S. by some CIA program that U.S. embassy officials protested but were fired because of it.
Iran warned us
Israel warned us
France warned us
FBI translators knew and had talked to/had listened to more than one source about it.
The gov't did know that planes into a bldgs were a threat. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/al-qaeda-flying-planes-into-the-world-trade-center-and-pentagon-was-foreseeable.html)
Mohamed Atta was on a terror list and his picture as well as other on a wall at the DIA, in the Able Danger intel program.
The FBI had a laptop full of info from one of the terrorist
etcetcetc..

All of that BEFORE illegally tapping the phones, collecting the emails, tracking the internet use, etc of 300 million innocent U.S. Citizens. Or feeling up Granmas, children & veterans, OR spending an extra BILLION + dollars on the Dept of Fatherland Security.


As terrible as 9/11 was we need to act smart not burn down the house and the neighbors to kill the rats.

So like the old coot Ron Paul are you saying we brought 9/11 on ourself and those people who were either burned alive or jumped to their deaths deserved what they got?

[jimnyc]

everything i posted above was in reports on aBC NBC FOX and some even included in the official 9/11 report.

don't lie and make up BS about what i'm saying here jim!

Now "I" am lying too? LOL Enjoy your conspiracies, Rev. Not biting on this crap.

[jimnyc]

So like the old coot Ron Paul are you saying we brought 9/11 on ourself and those people who were either burned alive or jumped to their deaths deserved what they got?

If RP said it, and Jesse Ventura, it's a fact! LOL That was rich listening to the old racist. He was a liar himself denying his racist past.

[red states rule]

Now "I" am lying too? LOL Enjoy your conspiracies, Rev. Not biting on this crap.

Can anyone pick out Rev in this picture?

http://www.moonbattery.com/antiwar_rally_102707_01.jpg

[revelarts]

oh brother, here we go with the 9/11 conspiracy crap again. Hell, i think gwb may have remote controlled missiles into the pentagon himself! :rolleyes:

I'm out of this one, i'm done entertaining 9/11 conspiracy garbage. I respect those that want to believe that stuff, have fun discussing, but i'm not going over the same regurgitated bullshit for 12 years that has never provided a shred of actual "proof". And rev, address this post all you like, i'm simply not being sucked into this stupid shit again.

none of what i sid was conspiracy jim! Zero!

You are lying when you call it that!!
Do you understand that?!!!

[jimnyc]

none of what i sid was conspiracy jim! Zero!

You are lying when you call it that!!
Do you understand that?!!!

And it's not stated to be factual, you state it as an opening into a "conspiracy", that somehow 9/11 was orchestrated and that and Iraq were all part of some grand design. I've been down this road before, and your initial facts ALWAYS lead to conspiracies and blame after blame as to how the government was either complicit or directly involved in 9/11.

BIG FUCKING LETTERS DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING. WE'VE ALL READ YOUR CONSPIRACY RANTS OVER THE YEARS AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED. NO MATTER WHAT RON PAUL SAYS, OR JESSE VENTURA OR ALEX JONES. ENJOY!

[revelarts]

So like the old coot Ron Paul are you saying we brought 9/11 on ourself and those people who were either burned alive or jumped to their deaths deserved what they got?

Can you read?
If you can you'll know that not close what i said.

Sorry i'm getting pissy today but I haven't made up Bs about your points. I've just honestly answered them. i don't appreciate being told we wanted 9/11 or that the people deserved it die. Don't project that BS on me red you know me better than that.

[revelarts]

And it's not stated to be factual, you state it as an opening into a "conspiracy", that somehow 9/11 was orchestrated and that and Iraq were all part of some grand design. I've been down this road before, and your initial facts ALWAYS lead to conspiracies and blame after blame as to how the government was either complicit or directly involved in 9/11.





So here we have a pattern of you assume something is coming LATER without evidence.
Just like in Iraq.
They MIGHT attack, so attack Before hand.

address what i say and Not what YOU THINK I Might say one day maybe.
As you've said so many times "don't put words in my mouth".

My Point is, EVEN on you OWN Ideas of 9/11 the Acts of Fatherland Security etc are Unnecessary.
I don't have to go to Other Ideas to make my Point.
My point stands on the Typical understanding. THAT is the POINT I was making and the ONLY point I was GOING to make.
and none of you can refute it.
so you've resorted to ad hominem attacks, off subject points and running away.

[jimnyc]

Enjoy, Rev, I respectfully bow out. I should have done so when I first stated I would. When the debate moves to the rep system, no point in me continuing. Rep me again if you like, I don't care about my numbers, it's the use of it in replacement of a debate that irks me. Peace out.

[red states rule]

Can you read?
If you can you'll know that not close what i said.

Sorry i'm getting pissy today but I haven't made up Bs about your points. I've just honestly answered them. i don't appreciate being told we wanted 9/11 or that the people deserved it die. Don't project that BS on me red you know me better than that.


Rev, that is exactle what Paul bellowed in a Republican debate and he got loudly booed for it

Rudy jumped on it and even gave him a chance to take it back

He did not

And that is why the old bastard did not win a sigle primary and his slim chance of being President was dashed when he showed how f'in stupid he really is when it come to terrorism

[revelarts]

Rev, that is exactle what Paul bellowed in a Republican debate and he got loudly booed for it
Rudy jumped on it and even gave him a chance to take it back
He did not
And that is why the old bastard did not win a sigle primary and his slim chance of being President was dashed when he showed how f'in stupid he really is when it come to terrorism


17 guys with box cutters and maybe 20 or 30 more from caves in Afghanistan. Did it right?
Well they were trained by U.S. flight schools which we knew of.
Some got visas to the U.S. by some CIA program that U.S. embassy officials protested but were fired because of it.
Iran warned us
Israel warned us
France warned us
FBI translators knew and had talked to/had listened to more than one source about it.
The gov't did know that planes into a bldgs were a threat. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/al-qaeda-flying-planes-into-the-world-trade-center-and-pentagon-was-foreseeable.html)
Mohamed Atta was on a terror list and his picture as well as other on a wall at the DIA, in the Able Danger intel program.
The FBI had a laptop full of info from one of the terrorist
etcetcetc..

All of that BEFORE illegally tapping the phones, collecting the emails, tracking the internet use, etc of 300 million innocent U.S. Citizens. Or feeling up Granmas, children & veterans, OR spending an extra BILLION + dollars on the Dept of Fatherland Security.


As terrible as 9/11 was we need to act smart not burn down the house and the neighbors to kill the rats.

So like the old coot Ron Paul are you saying we brought 9/11 on ourself and those people who were either burned alive or jumped to their deaths deserved what they got?

Red did i mention Ron Paul above? No
did i mention anyone "deserved it"? H3LL NO

so why are you bringing it up?

What I pointed out was that the U.S. Gov't had MORE than enough knowledge in hand to prevent 9/11.
that the Intell was available BEFORE the Patriot Act, Torture and billions of dollars of Draconian unconstitutional measures.


If you guys want to talk about Ron Paul and other stuff start a new thread I'll meet you there.
please address my comments on this subject here, if you can.

[fj1200]

Oh brother, here we go with the 9/11 conspiracy crap again.

Jim, I think rev's point was that we had access to all of that information before 9/11 happened and lacked the foresight to put it together even without NSA expansion. Their "weapon" back then was our own ignorance.

[gabosaurus]

What does 9-11 have to do with the NSA collecting phone records? Duh... :slap:

[jimnyc]

What does 9-11 have to do with the NSA collecting phone records? Duh... :slap:

Are you going to supply a link showing that this same scandal happened when Bush was president too?

[revelarts]

17 guys with box cutters and maybe 20 or 30 more from caves in Afghanistan. Did it right?
Well they were trained by U.S. flight schools which we knew of.
Some got visas to the U.S. by some CIA program that U.S. embassy officials protested but were fired because of it.
Iran warned us
Israel warned us
France warned us
FBI translators knew and had talked to/had listened to more than one source about it.
The gov't did know that planes into a bldgs were a threat. (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/al-qaeda-flying-planes-into-the-world-trade-center-and-pentagon-was-foreseeable.html)
Mohamed Atta was on a terror list and his picture as well as other on a wall at the DIA, in the Able Danger intel program.
The FBI had a laptop full of info from one of the terrorist
etcetcetc..

All of that BEFORE illegally tapping the phones, collecting the emails, tracking the internet use, etc of 300 million innocent U.S. Citizens. Or feeling up Granmas, children & veterans, OR spending an extra BILLION + dollars on the Dept of Fatherland Security.


As terrible as 9/11 was we need to act smart not burn down the house and the neighbors to kill the rats.


Oh brother, here we go with the 9/11 conspiracy crap again. Hell, I think GWB may have remote controlled missiles into the Pentagon himself! :rolleyes:...

I'm out of this one, I'm done entertaining 9/11 conspiracy garbage. I respect those that want to believe that stuff, have fun discussing, but I'm not going over the same regurgitated bullshit for 12 years that has never provided a shred of actual "proof". And Rev, address this post all you like, I'm simply not being sucked into this stupid shit again....

If RP said it, and Jesse Ventura, it's a fact! LOL That was rich listening to the old racist. He was a liar himself denying his racist past.


did i mention Ron Paul above? No
did i mention Jesse Ventura above? No.
did i mention 9/11 conspiracy above? No.
so why are you bringing it up?
My Point is, That ONLY using the facts you accept of 9/11. the Acts of Fatherland Security etc are STILL Unnecessary.
I have no need to go to other Ideas to make my case. Had NO PLANS to go there at all. None. I don't have too, why should i?
My points here stand on the the mundane understanding of the 9/11 events alone.

What I pointed out was that the U.S. Gov't had MORE than enough knowledge in hand to prevent 9/11. If it had acted on it properly.
That the Intell was available BEFORE the Patriot Act, Torture and billions of dollars of Draconian unconstitutional measures.
Again,
If you guys want to talk about Ron Paul and other stuff start a new thread I'll meet you there.
please address my comments on this subject here, if you can.

[red states rule]

Sorry Rev the war is continuing





Fifty Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11: The Homegrown Threat and the Long War on Terrorism1. Richard Reid—December 2001. A British citizen and self-professed follower of Osama bin Laden who trained in Afghanistan, Richard Reid hid explosives inside his shoes before boarding a flight from Paris to Miami on which he attempted to light the fuse with a match. Reid was caught in the act and apprehended aboard the plane by passengers and flight attendants. FBI officials took Reid into custody after the plane made an emergency landing at Boston’s Logan International Airport.[8] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn8)
In 2003, Reid was found guilty on charges of terrorism, and a U.S. federal court sentenced him to life in prison.[9] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn9) He is currently incarcerated at a federal maximum-security prison in Colorado.
Saajid Badat, a supporter to Reid, has been sentenced to 13 years in jail for planning to blow up a passenger plane. The 26-year-old, a religious teacher from Gloucester, England, was sentenced after he admitted conspiring with fellow Briton Reid. Badat pled guilty in February 2005 to the plot to blow up the transatlantic flight on its way to the U.S. in 2001.[10] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn10)
2. Jose Padilla—May 2002. U.S. officials arrested Jose Padilla in May 2002 at Chicago’s O’Hare airport as he returned to the United States from Pakistan, where he met with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and received al-Qaeda training and instructions.[11] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn11) Upon his arrest, he was initially charged as an enemy combatant, and for planning to use a dirty bomb (an explosive laced with radioactive material) in an attack in the U.S.[12] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn12)
Along with Padilla, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi were convicted in August 2007 of terrorism conspiracy and material support. It was found that the men supported cells that sent recruits, money, and supplies to Islamic extremists worldwide, including al-Qaeda members. Hassoun was the recruiter and Jayyousi served as a financier and propagandist in the cell. Before his conviction, Padilla had brought a case against the federal government claiming that he had been denied the right of habeas corpus (the right of an individual to petition his unlawful imprisonment). In a five-to-four decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the case against him had been filed improperly.[13] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn13) In 2005, the government indicted Padilla for conspiring against the U.S. with Islamic terrorist groups.
In August 2007, Padilla was found guilty by a civilian jury after a three-month trial. He was later sentenced by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to 17 years and four months in prison.[14] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn14) In September 2011, an appellate court ruling deemed Padilla’s original sentence to be too lenient.[15] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn15) Padilla is being held at the same penitentiary as Richard Reid and is awaiting resentencing.
3. Lackawanna Six—September 2002. When the FBI arrested Sahim Alwan, Yahya Goba, Yasein Taher, Faysal Galab, Shafal Mosed, and Mukhtar al-Bakri in Upstate New York, the press dubbed them the “Lackawanna Six,” the “Buffalo Six,” and the “Buffalo Cell.” Five of the six had been born and raised in Lackawanna, New York.[16] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn16) All six are American citizens of Yemeni descent, and stated that they were going to Pakistan to attend a religious camp, but attended an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan instead. The six men pled guilty in 2003 to providing support to al-Qaeda. Goba and al-Bakri were sentenced to 10 years in prison, Taher and Mosed to eight years, Alwan to nine and a half years, and Galab to seven years.[17] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn17) Goba’s sentence was later reduced to nine years after he, Alwan, and Taher testified at a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal in the case against Osama bin Laden’s chief propagandist, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul.[18] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn18)
Recent reports indicate that Jaber Elbaneh, one of the FBI’s most wanted and often considered to be a seventh member of the Lackawanna cell, has been captured in Yemen. It remains to be seen whether he will be tried in the U.S., since the U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Yemen.[19] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn19)
4. Uzair and Saifullah Paracha—March 2003. Uzair Paracha, a Pakistani citizen with permanent residency status in the U.S., was arrested in March 2003 and charged with five counts of providing material and financial support to al-Qaeda. Uzair attempted to help another Pakistani, Majid Khan, an al-Qaeda operative, gain access to the United States via immigration fraud. Khan is said to have been in contact with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and planned to bomb underground storage tanks at Maryland gas stations.[20] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn20) Uzair was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Saifullah Paracha, Uzair’s father, a 64-year-old citizen of Pakistan and resident alien of the U.S., is currently being held at Guantánamo Bay awaiting trial. Paracha was arrested in Bangkok, Thailand, in July 8, 2003, through the efforts of the FBI and information provided by his son. He is believed to have had close ties to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, and Mohammed’snephew Ammar al-Baluchi. Saifullah is said to have used his international business connections to help al-Qaeda procure chemical and biological explosives and assist in their shipment to the U.S., along with the shipment of ready-made explosives.[21] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn21)
5. Iyman Faris—May 2003. Iyman Faris is a naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Kashmir, who was living in Columbus, Ohio. He was arrested for conspiring to use blowtorches to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge, a plot devised after meetings with al-Qaeda leadership, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.[22] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn22) The New York City Police Department learned of the plot and increased police surveillance around the bridge. Faced with the additional security, Faris and his superiors called off the attack.[23] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn23)
Faris pled guilty to conspiracy and providing material support to al-Qaeda and was later sentenced in federal district court to 20 years in prison, the maximum allowed under his plea agreement.[24] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn24)
6. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali—June 2003. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is an American citizen of Jordanian descent who was arrested in Saudi Arabia on charges that he conspired to kill President George W. Bush, hijackairplanes, and provide support to al-Qaeda. He was arrested while attending Medina University, where he had joined an al-Qaeda cell. His plans, according to authorities, were to kill President Bush and then establish an al-Qaeda cell in the United States, with himself as the head.[25] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn25) He was convicted by an American court on November 22, 2005, and sentenced to life in prison on July 27, 2009, overturning a 2006 sentence of 30 years that was ruled to be too lenient.[26] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn26)
7. Virginia Jihad Network—June 2003. Eleven men were arrested in Alexandria, Virginia, for weapons counts and for violating the Neutrality Acts, which prohibit U.S. citizens and residents from attacking countries with which the United States is at peace. Four of the 11 men pled guilty. Upon further investigation, the remaining seven were indicted on additional charges of conspiring to support terrorist organizations. They were found to have connections with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, a terrorist organization that targets the Indian government. The authorities stated that the Virginia men had used paintball games to train and prepare for battle. The group had also acquired surveillance and night vision equipment and wireless video cameras.[27] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn27) Two more men were later indicted in the plot: Ali al-Timimi, the group’s spiritual leader, and Ali Asad Chandia.
Ali al-Timimi was found guilty of soliciting individuals to assault the United States and was sentenced to life in prison. Ali Asad Chandia received 15 years for supporting Lashkar-e-Tayyiba.[28] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn28) Randall Todd Royer, Ibrahim al-Hamdi, Yong Ki Kwon, Khwaja Mahmood Hasan, Muhammed Aatique, and Donald T. Surratt pled guilty and were sentenced to prison terms ranging from threeyears and 10 months to 20 years. Masoud Khan, Seifullah Chapman, and Hammad Abdur-Raheem were found guilty and later sentenced to prison terms ranging from 52 months to life.[29] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn29) Both Caliph Basha Ibn Abdur-Raheem and Sabri Benkhala were acquitted at trial.[30] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn30)
8. Nuradin M. Abdi—November 2003. Nuradin M. Abdi, a Somali citizen living in Columbus, Ohio, was arrested and charged in a plot to bomb a local shopping mall. Abdi was an associate of convicted terrorists Christopher Paul and Iyman Faris and admitted to conspiring with the two to provide material support to terrorists. Following his arrest, Abdi admitted to traveling overseas to seek admittance to terrorist training camps, as well as meeting with a Somali warlord associated with Islamists.
Abdi has since pled guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, one of the four counts for which he was indicted. He was subsequently sentenced to 10 years in jail per the terms of a plea agreement.[31] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn31)
9. Dhiren Barot—August 2004. Seven members of a terrorist cell led by Dhiren Barot were arrested for plotting to attack the New York Stock Exchange and other financial institutions in New York, Washington, D.C., and Newark, New Jersey. They were later accused of planning attacks in England. The plots included a “memorable black day of terror” that would have included detonating a dirty bomb. A July 2004 police raid on Barot’s house in Pakistan yielded a number of incriminating files on a laptop computer, including instructions for building car bombs.[32] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn32)
Barot pled guilty and was convicted in the United Kingdom for conspiracy to commit mass murder and sentenced to 40 years.[33] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn33) However, in May 2007, his sentence was reduced to 30 years.[34] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn34) His seven co-conspirators were sentenced to terms ranging from 15 to 26 years on related charges of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to cause explosion.[35] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn35)
10. James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj—August 2004. James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj, both reportedly self-radicalized, were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station near Madison Square Garden in New York City before the Republican National Convention.[36] (http://www.debatepolicy.com/#_ftn36) An undercover detective from the New York City Police Department’s Intelligence Division infiltrated the group, providing information to authorities, and later testified against Elshafay and Sira


http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/fifty-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-the-homegrown-threat-and-the-long-war-on-terrorism

[revelarts]

I never said terrorism went away, I'm saying we don't need to be a 1984 style police state to fight it RED.
that's the point. Why is that so hard to understand?
We had the info on the terrorist BEFORE all the post 9/11 laws came into effect. we dont need them now.
We've Overreacted. we need to modify our response to the threat not GO APE CRAP Crazy and give up all of our rights and attack any country that looks at us the wrong way.

[red states rule]

I never said terrorism went away, I'm saying we don't need to be a 1984 style police state to fight it RED.
that's the point. Why is that so hard to understand?
We had the info on the terrorist BEFORE all the post 9/11 laws came into effect. we dont need them now.
We've Overreacted. we need to modify our response to the threat not GO APE CRAP Crazy and give up all of our rights and attack any country that looks at us the wrong way.

Yes Rev I know like Ron Paul you feel America deserved 9/11 and going to war was an overreaction to the slaughter of 3,000 who went to work that day

Like many of the passengers on the Titantic, you think there is nothing to worry about. Many thought the ship was not cinking

Until the sea water reched their lower lip

The best way to modify our response is to kill the bastards before they kill us. That is one thing Obama has right when it comes to his kill list and drone strikes

[revelarts]

Yes Rev I know like Ron Paul you feel America deserved 9/11 and going to war was an overreaction to the slaughter of 3,000 who went to work that day
Like many of the passengers on the Titantic, you think there is nothing to worry about. Many thought the ship was not cinking
Until the sea water reched their lower lip
The best way to modify our response is to kill the bastards before they kill us. That is one thing Obama has right when it comes to his kill list and drone strikes
you think there is nothing to worry about from the executive having unlimited power.
Maybe you'll be on the kill list soon Red. You won't realize it until the Shrapnel hits you and your families lower lips.

[red states rule]

you think there is nothing to worry about from the executive having unlimited power.
Maybe you'll be on the kill list soon Red. You won't realize it until the Shrapnel hits you and your families lower lips.

Rev I have no doubt given the bumber stickers on my car, the posts I have made here, the letters that have been published in the local paper, and the comments I have made to my liber co-workers regarding Obama (and this economic recovery we are in) I have been reported to the WH as an enemy of the state

Am I worried - no

Do I think you are in need of some serious adult supervision at times - yes

If I am on the kill list I have taken the liberty to write my on eulogy

and I have placed you, Gabby, DMP, and Marcu on the list. Each of you will have 5 min for rebuttle

[revelarts]

Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance | Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion)

Quote:

<tbody>
Justice Department Fights Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding Unconstitutional Surveillance

Government lawyers are trying to keep buried a classified court finding that a domestic spying program went too far.

—By David Corn | Fri Jun. 7, 2013 12:22 PM PDT


In the midst of revelations that the government has conducted extensive top-secret surveillance operations to collect domestic phone records and internet communications, the Justice Department was due to file a court motion Friday in its effort to keep secret an 86-page court opinion that determined that the government had violated the spirit of federal surveillance laws and engaged in unconstitutional spying.

</tbody>

Quote:
"When the government hides court opinions describing unconstitutional government action, America’s national security is harmed," argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

[red states rule]

http://sadhillnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DOJ-mobile-unit-obama-bicycle-arizona-border-sad-hill-news.jpg

[red states rule]

y

<IFRAME title="MRC TV video player" height=281 src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/121519" frameBorder=0 width=500 allowfullscreen=""></IFRAME>

[BillyBob]

What does 9-11 have to do with the NSA collecting phone records? Duh... :slap:


It doesn't matter. Either it's ok with you or it isn't.

[red states rule]

http://erickbrockway.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/20120223-101627.jpg

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/12_13291220130610035112.jpg