Obama: NSA Surveillance Was Necessary To Make Sure Boston Bombings Weren't Part Of Bigger Plot

[Ichingcarpenter]

Huffington Post has an article about how President Obama is meeting with many of the biggest Congressional critics of the NSA surveillance programs to discuss their concerns. However, on Wednesday he also met with larger groups in the House and Senate, where he continued to stand behind the programs.


At the very bottom of the article is this stunning tidbit:


Obama reiterated his call for a "balance" between privacy and national security, but also invoked the Boston Marathon bombings as an example of where data collected by the NSA helped "identify whether there was a great plot."



Right. So, after there was a bombing which no intelligence agency spotted beforehand, he's now claiming that the NSA got to jump into action to find out that there wouldn't be any more bombings because there was no bigger plot.


We're not even in the silly debunked realm of "preventing terrorist events" anymore. Now we're at "Great work everyone! We found out that there's no larger plot to worry about -- sorry about the explosions and related mess."


Using the discovery of a lack of further threats after a bombing happened undetected to justify spying on all Americans? That's crazy.

When that's the best you can do to defend this program, something is clearly wrong.


The program didn't prevent the bombing. It may have allowed law enforcement to be more confident that there wasn't a larger plot behind it slightly faster than regular police work did, but that's not exactly a reason to violate everyone's privacy, now is it?


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/18005724032/president-obama-claims-boston-bombings-reinforce-need-nsa-surveillance.shtml

[leftstreet]

1. 17+ Intel agencies and they missed the Boston bombers

But thank Godz the NSA is keeping us safe!

[Rex]

54. It is a stupid as when they pretend the NYSE

being at a record high, helps McDonald's employees somehow. The state of denial is at an all time high imo.

[Incitatus]

146. Shit. I guess we need a few more Intelligence agencies.

[allin99]

2. And exactly what tools did they use to check on that? b/c if it's information from...

telecommunications or other electronic data, they can do that with a regular warrant going back 1 year. And there's probably a more standard warrant for easedropping on people the men had had contact with, is a rubber stamp court really necessary for that? It does not take secret courts to get those type of warrants so i'd be interested to know exactly what they needed in order to make sure it wasn't part of a larger plot.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. "a bombing which no intelligence agency spotted beforehand" - except the FSB

which warned us that the older brother was up to no good, and which our many spy and police agencies, with their vast capacity to ignore obvious shit right in front of them, did just that.

Old school police work could have prevented the Marathon Bombing, mass domestic surveillance did not.

[avaistheone1]

5. Strongly, yes very strongly agree

Our spy agencies missed and were slack on how they communicated to each other and how they followed up on too many of the warnings and signals regarding the Boston bombers. These agencies to not follow existing law, protocols or even engage common sense.

[chimpymustgo]

29. How do we manage to "miss" so much - with this dragnet surveillence?

[avaistheone1]

57. Because these agencies do not communicate well together so information was not shared between them.

The Dept of Homeland Security was established so these agencies could seamlessly share information. Napolitano failed in this effort. I think she was strongly urged to step down from her post as DHS chief following the Boston Bombing.) These agencies are awed too much by technology and the vendors selling these wares, and neglected common sense intelligence methods. Furthermore, the agencies did not implement the lessons from previous bombings for example the Centennial Olympic Park bombing. Security should not have allowed backpacks or trash containers in the area, and they should have performed continuous sweeps of the area for bombs.

You might want to look at this chart regarding what different agencies knew and how information did/did not flow between agencies.

[Demeter]

69. Because the Surveillance is to keep Mr and Mrs America and their bratty kids in line

NOT to protect the public from enemies.

[avaistheone1]

108. That too.

K&r:

donkey:

[cascadiance]

7. They say they've prevented many terrorist plots!... That they ENTRAPPED the suspects!

Like the one here in Portland, which happened at the Christmas Tree Lighting ceremony on Thanksgiving weekend, that I had to work that weekend in that that city block, though on a different day on that four day weekend than the one they caught him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And of course in the case of Portland, their "trapping" this guy from bombing Portland, didn't stop the white Christian terrorist from responding to that event when he bombed a near by mosque in Corvallis who claimed that "Christians Can Jihad Too".

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/mosque_arson_suspect_to_cops_christians_can_jihad.php

Did the NSA stop that plot? NO! I think the intelligence agencies only have something like one guy watching for white Christian terrorism in this country, and I guess spend the budget they save on only staffing one guy here on building up the spying offices and contracting to spy on all of us instead.

[joeybee12]

83. Like the agent in MN who noticed those Saudi flight school students

WHO ONLY WANTED TO LEARN HOW TO FLY A PLANE, NOT LAND...she saw what was coming, but they ignored her...thanks.

[sabrina 1]

94. Exactly. They had all the tools they are so confident in to stop that bombing and they failed.

And how do we know there is no further plot? Oh yes, just trust us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. That is a regular talking point among the elites and fans

Of the police state.

[randome]

101. It's also a 'regular talking point' of all LE agencies when they do their jobs legitimately.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[leveymg]

6. So the CIA and FBI fail (again), and the NSA gets praised? See a pattern here?

It's 9/11 all over again, and again, and again. The Intelligence Community is entirely useless at preventing actual terrorist attacks when it is one hand (the CIA) that interferes with the other (the FBI) accessing the information held by the third-party (NSA). That's what happened on 9/11, with the sting of terrorist attacks connected to al-Awlaki, and it happened again with the Tsarnaevs.

If they had simply been watching the terrorists known to have been brought into the US by the CIA, they wouldn't be able to claim any need to be spying on all the rest of us.

It's really quite simple when you walk it back to its source.

[Hydra]

8. ...

Seriously?? The President actually cited a ball drop as a reason to continue an illegal program??

Now I've heard it all. Even the more politically dense people I talked to at the time couldn't refute my point that the LEOs were floundering and didn't have lock on who did it and where they were...so why were we worshipping the security apparatus?

[Ichingcarpenter]

10. I found it an insult to my intelligence

and undignified for the president to say it.

[AzDar]

62. That's exactly what I came to post...

Well done.

[randome]

9. The NSA does not monitor domestic communications so they can't be at fault for Boston.

But perhaps the NSA could search their records for any contacts between the Boston Bombers and foreign individuals and they turned up nothing. That would be good information to have regardless of who missed the BBs earlier.

[leveymg]

11. That's the funniest (and phoniest) comment on this thread.

[Hydra]

13. Give it time- he's just the first in >:)

[leveymg]

16. I think the others went out for an office lunch at Chi Chi's.

They needed a group pick-me-up, so the boss paid the tab for a change.

[Skittles]

151. I can't figure out if it is simple naivete or mass ignorance

[Hydra]

12. Wrong and Wrong

As usual. You keep insisting metadata isn't spying, so why weren't they watching the older brother "legally"? They were tipped off by other gov'ts that he was trouble...and nothing. Just like 9/11.

They don't care if some of us get blown up. They do care if some of us show the rest of us what they are doing.

[randome]

15. They need a warrant to look at the metadata.

There was no reason to suspect anyone since the FSB did not follow through on its suspicions.

[leveymg]

19. So, you would blame the Boston bombing on the FSB?

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2013, 05:59 PM - Edit history (4)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, U.S. intelligence is completely without fault in the matter. Just like 9/11.

Wow.

Talk about deepest denial.

Once again, we see the same recurring pattern. Persons with known links to foreign terrorist organizations (which have ties to the CIA) enter the US, despite being on terrorist watch lists, and somehow the FBI never really seems to have much interest in them until that person carries out an act of terrorism. So it was for Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was designated a terrorist at about the same time he is alleged to have been involved in a triple murder, but at the time whatever was known to the CIA was never turned over to Boston Police or the FBI: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/27/17945669-boston-bombing-suspects-mother-was-in-us-terror-database?lite

The mother of Boston Marathon bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was placed in a U.S. terror database in the fall of 2011 (by the CIA), a counterterrorism official confirmed to NBC News. (Tamerlan returned to US (July 17, 2012) without being stopped or questioned after his seven months of travels to Russia, Chechnya and Dagestan)(It is alleged that Tamerlan was involved in the slayings of three Jewish men, Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman, and Raphael Teken, killed in a triple homicide in Waltham, Massachusetts, on September 11, 2011, the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks . . . the FBI were actively investigating the possibility, and in May that forensic evidence connected the two brothers to the scene of the killings, and their cell phone records placed them in the area - Wikipedia)
< . . .>
A review of government records found that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was entered into three classified counterterrorism databases, according to public statements by government officials and NBC News sources. He was entered into a Guardian file maintained by the FBI, as well as Homeland Security’s TECS database and a master TIDE list maintained by the National Counterterrorism Center.

The entries for Tamerlan Tsarnaev used some different spellings and dates of birth, a U.S. official brief on the probe said.

An email alert was sent to a Homeland Security officer in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force office in Boston when Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Russia in January 2012, sources have told NBC News, but that spurred no further investigation.

The suspected bombers’ mother has said in interviews that the FBI was watching her son.

Odd that someone who was designated as a terrorist had such freedom of movement, until you realize that several of the 9/11 hijackers were also well-known to the CIA, yet were allowed to enter the US by the same agency which withheld a warning cable that was drafted by the FBI liaison upon the arrival of the Flt. 77 hijackers. For its own part in the Tsarnaev case, the CIA again seemed to be more cognizant of the threat posed by Tamerlan but apparently did nothing to follow up with the FBI after he hastily returned to the US in July, 2012 immediately after his closest contact within an Islamicist group in Chechnya was killed. The Washington Post reported: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-pushed-to-add-boston-bomber-to-terror-watch-list/2013/04/24/cf02b43c-ad10-11e2-a8b9-2a63d75b5459_story.html?clsrd

The CIA request led the National Counterterrorism Center to add Tsarnaev’s name to a database known as the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, or TIDE, that is used to feed information to other lists, including the FBI’s main terrorist screening database.

The CIA’s request came months after the FBI had closed a preliminary inquiry into Tsarnaev after getting a similar warning from Russian state security, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

The disclosure of the CIA’s involvement suggests that the U.S. government may have had more reason than it has previously acknowledged to scrutinize Tsarnaev in the months leading up to the bombing in Boston. It also raises questions why U.S. authorities didn’t flag his return to the United States and investigate him further after a seven-month trip he took to Russia last year.

The CIA declined to comment on its role in the case. A U.S. intelligence official said the agency had “nominated [Tsarnaev] for inclusion in the watchlisting system” and had shared all of the information it had been given by Russia, including “two possible dates of birth, his name and a possible variant.”

[randome]

47. CIA, FSB, FBI, whoever, somebody fucked up.

Now what would you do post fuck-up? Nothing?

[leveymg]

61. Same fuck-up as WTC '93, 9/11. Yes, I would do something differently, and I specified exactly

what I would change. I wouldn't monitor everybody in the US while the CIA lets "our" terrorists run around loose after murdering people.

[randome]

127. The NSA, so far as we know, is not 'monitoring everybody'.

[Hydra]

23. *lmao*

You aren't even consistent thread to thread. You told me that metadata required no warrant, so the Verizon warrant was legal. Since it's legal for them to hold metadata, and the brother should have been on the watch list(and eligible for probable cause), are you now saying it's not legal for them to collect our metadata wholesale?

"Just looking for a little consistency here..."

[ConservativeDemocrat]

38. Gathering metadata requires a *subpoena* (of Verizon)

Analyzing it requires either a warrant or a 51% belief that there is at least one non-U.S. citizen involved in the communication.

I truly fail to understand why people who think arguments against the U.S. having intelligence programs are such a slam dunk, feel the need to exaggerate, misstate, or in many cases outright lie about the nature of those programs.

Isn't the NSA having the capacity to track down Osama bin Laden terrible enough, in their eyes?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ p.s. to forestall the classic arguments, it is well known that the NSA did track the cell phones of people the CIA identified as couriers for OBL. So please do something else. Maybe a bunch of childish ROTFL emotes or something.

[randome]

45. It is not illegal for the NSA to retain business records.

But Verizon, like most telecoms, probably doesn't want to simply hand everything over without some assurance that there is a legal justification behind it.

Hence the warrant to Verizon and probably all the other telecoms.

[Hydra]

53. So...if this is all legal and we know they did it regardless

How did they miss all of this when they were warned and had all of these tools they demanded?

Why is Obama stuck with "We kept it from being worse...we promise!!"

[randome]

128. I don't know. Do you?

All Obama said was that the NSA performed a service post fuck-up.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[disidoro01]

14. Holy

Shit!
You never stop do you? You have to be a plant.
You and your speculation.
Russia warned us of this on multiple occasions. Have you looked at this case or do you just make this up? Do you know anything of the Bomber back story or is it irrelevant. Someone attacked your previous Stasi and you must jump to their defense?

[randome]

17. So you're saying they DON'T need a warrant to look at domestic suspects?

[disidoro01]

20. Where?

Seriously, where did I say that?
Cut and paste and then perhaps you can answer the questions I asked.
We have a person who travels to Dagestan, the russians tip us off more than once. Our security apparatus in unison sticks their heads up their asses and the bombing occurs.
FBI could have gotten a warrant, not only did they not do that, they did not flag him at all.
What good is this apparatus you are so enthralled with? It appears you want this in place but not necessarily to prevent terrorism. Is it to have a control mechanism over our citizenry?
Why even have this if it doesn't work?

[randome]

22. Right. I want so badly to control you.

Somebody fucked up along the line, that's clear. After the fuck-up, what do you think LE should do?

Maybe find out if anyone else was involved? And if that means finding out about foreign contacts of the BBs, would that be a good step to take?

If not, how would you suggest handling the situatio post-bombing?

[disidoro01]

24. Nah

That isn't a fuck up. We have a security apparatus that collects virtually all communications and this slips through? We were warned, this individual went to a know terrorist hotspot, came back and was allowed to do what he and his brother did.
It shows that the system doesn't work. Doubling down doesn't change that.
It is disgusting that Obama is using it show show that the NSA works.
Do you want to explain how the NSA worked in regards to the Boston Bombing?

[randome]

41. I already did.

The NSA cannot spy on Americans. It's that simple. But since they had copies of metadata phone records, it makes sense that post-bombing, they would conduct a search to see other contacts of the BBs.

It's not that nefarious if you look at the situation calmly.

Again, what would you have done post bombing? Just thrown up your hands and do nothing? Or see if the BBs had other contacts?

This doesn't excuse the fuck-up that allowed the BB to happen in the first place.

[disidoro01]

59. No

You are ignoring the fact that the data to disrupt the bombing was there and our security apparatus did not utilize it. They did not take the russian alerts seriously and yet you think this apparatus is useful.
Because of the governments failure in this, catastrophic failure, you throw out a platitude and quickly move on.

NSA does spy on Americans, it is that simple. You are being unthruthful. They are not supposed to but the most recent xkeyscore leak point directly to that ability and there have been leaks going back years that show this has occurred. In fact, without a warrant.

post bombing? We wouldn't be discussing it because I would not have sat on the alerts from Russia. It is really that simply. It appears that our government is picking and choosing how this data is used.

You defend the apparatus and it's scope and then when failures are pointed out, you say it isn't their fault, how could they have known.

Can you tell me, as one who fully supports the NSA, why they would not look at this metadata before the bombings? Why only after. It has been made very apparent that the clues were there.

Obama calling this a success is like getting nailed for a safety in football and calling that a success. You did technically get in the endzone and you did score, just the wrong endzone and you scored for the other team.

[randome]

99. I'm not defending or ignoring anything.

Last edited Thu Aug 1, 2013, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

This OP is about what Obama said. Somebody fucked up. Maybe many somebodies. It is a success if NSA data 'proved' -as much as they could- that the BBs did not have accomplices.

Don't you think that's something people would want to know?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

110. Look at the underwear bombing guy

Once again, these agencies were warned about him. Nobody did anything. Then all of the sudden that became justification for the Rapiscan machines.

[lastlib]

33. and the Tooth Fairy really does come to your house, right?

The NSA does not monitor domestic communications

...

. . . . . . . . . .

Dude where did you get the stuff in that bong? I want a truckload of it!

[AtheistCrusader]

34. Hard for them to miss, since Russia tried to INFORM US that these guys were suspicious.

What does Russia have to do, fly over Alaska, and hold up a note to the canopy, so a US interceptor can read it?

[matthews]

40. Tell them to fly over Sarah's house. She knows what to do when you spot a

Russians rearing their heads.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008 (Watch video clip)

[randome]

129. I guess that might be better considering what they did: nothing.

They fucked up. It seems pretty clear to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

77. The "before" and "after" aspect of how meta data can be used really throws some people

for a loop.

"Before" or outside of any specific event, meta data is used in the aggregate to look for patterns and then perhaps drill down to something or some one specific. And then, if you want more data on that specific individual, you need specific warrants.

"After" some event, like the Boston Bombing, you start with the specific individuals for whom you have warrants, and then use the meta data to expand the scope, potentially locate conspirators, etc. And then if other specific individuals become relevant, you again have to get specific warrants for them.

[Aerows]

111. Underwear bomber

We were warned about him. No one did anything about the warning. Lo and behold, it became justification for the Rapiscan machines.

Our security surveillance can't seem to keep foreign terrorists from coming into the country even when they are warned. This seems to be a pattern.

Oh wait. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/09/underwear-bomber-working-for-cia

He actually worked FOR the CIA. And you wonder why people don't trust a damn thing these agencies say? It's because they lie all of the time. If they say "we don't do surveillance of the American people", that pretty much means to me "we surveillance of the American people."

[randome]

137. No trust is required. Nothing prevents LE from abusing their authority. Not a thing.

All we can do is make it more difficult to do so. Carl Bernstein said the protections the NSA has in place look good to him. From what little I know, I think he's right.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Octafish]

18. Craft International was in the Loop

Odd. That's the company founded by America's favorite sniper who's now dead.

Can't say for certain, as it's classified above citizen-need-to-know, but perhaps they're the ones blacked out of the FBI memo that talked about taking out OWS leaders with...snipers.

[chimpymustgo]

37. Octafish, I had not seen that photo before!!!

I read that Boston law officials were doing or planning a training exercise.

Can you share any info or thoughts here? Or PM me.

[Octafish]

75. It is a strange thing, these private contractors operating on U.S. soil.

Background with names for tossing into NSA-GOOGLE:

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1718

[Dr Hobbitstein]

66. Seriously?

A Punisher hat (Punisher is a comic, been around a LONG time, still quite popular), a tag on a backpack handle, and the slack from the adjustable straps is military equipment? You're really grasping at straws here.

[Octafish]

73. What straws? I didn't take the picture or design the logo.

These members of corporate America were on hand that day in Boston. And their backpacks.

Something else I find serious: There aren't many companies specializing in sniper training. And the FBI blacked out the name of the company from their OWS episode.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023119333

As for the founder of said company, he's dead, the victim of a shooting range homicide a couple of months before the Boston Marathon bombing. You probably knew that, though.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

89. What fucking company?

The guy is wearing a Punisher hat. It's a fucking logo from a goddamned comic book. It is NOT some sort of military/CIA/MIB logo. The stuff pointed out on the backpack is NOTHING more than a tag on the handle, and the ends of the straps. Once again, NOT military equipment. A. Normal. Fucking. Backpack. I have one that looks just like it. Bought it at Target. $15.

As for the last part of your wargle blargle, WHAT FUCKING COMPANY? I don't have any clue what you're talking about.

[Octafish]

91. LOL! Didn't know your comprehension skills were my problem.

Now that I know, I'll try to spell every fucking thing out for you in the future:

Background with names for tossing into NSA-GOOGLE:

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1718

[Octafish]

104. BTW*: Here's the Craft International logo.

You might want to direct your questions at them for borrowing heavily from Punisher's logo.

* By. The. Way.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

142. You're Hopeless...

The guy's hat is JUST the skull logo. In white. On a black hat. Which is the Punisher color scheme and logo. Here's a link.


THAT is the logo ON THE HAT! You may not know this, but Punisher is QUITE popular amongst young adult males. You will see that hat MANY places, worn by MANY people.

[Octafish]

144. I may be hopeless, but that's just a Punisher logo blown up big.

Here's a good article for people interested in learning about private military contractors at the Boston Marathon bombing.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

145. Woo Woo

C/T Hack.

[Octafish]

147. Show where I'm wrong. Otherwise don't libel me.

By the way: I looked in your journal to see your contributions to DU and I found there aren't any. So, who's the hack?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

149. I did, but the burdon of proof lays upon YOU...

I showed you where you were wrong starting from the first picture. You since followed that up with unrelated photos showing different clothing, and different hats. Once again, the burdon lays on you. You gave me a picture of young adult comic book fans with regular old backpacks. Keep stocking up on that tinfoil. It'll keep your brainwaves clear.

[Octafish]

154. You didn't prove anything, apart from your ignorance.

Whether it's a natural state of affairs or your default position, it makes no difference for the record.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

155. Keep fucking that chicken. NT

[Octafish]

156. Your word choice reveals more than your breeding.

Got a thing for animals, have you?

[GlashFordan]

21. Then why didn't your precious NSA

Pick up the attack plans BEFORE the attack??? Huh slick ?

[pnwmom]

98. They didn't because they don't intercept and listen to communications

without a warrant -- despite what Greenwald wants us to believe -- and they didn't have enough of a basis for a warrant before the attack.

[Aerows]

114. You know

If *I* worked for the NSA and an intelligence agency from another country WARNED me that there was a potential terrorist operating, I think I'd take a stab at getting a warrant.

How about the underwear bomber? It was claimed we were warned about him, too, but he turned out to actually be working FOR the CIA. That became the justification for the Rapiscan machines that somebody made a mint off of. I don't know about you, but when someone benefits big time over something that could have been prevented, I start to wonder.

What handy dandy new security stuff is going to be necessary now? Are they going to deploy widescale scanners to prevent another Boston bombing? I'm sorry but there is a freaking pattern of things that "happen" and then rolling out some new expensive tech to prevent it from happening again.

[pnwmom]

115. They did take a stab at it. But they didn't find evidence of terrorism. n/t

[Aerows]

117. Oh they found plenty of it

after the bomb went off. Which isn't all that helpful for the dead people. And of course then there was plenty of evidence that he was listed as a terrorist but still was allowed to fly around the world where there were known terrorists cells while being investigated for a triple homicide.

You don't find that suspicious? That doesn't make you go, Hmm. And what about my other example with the underwear bomber? That worked out GREAT for the manufacturer of the Rapiscan devices. And now after all of that money was spent, they are abandoning their use.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/01/18/tsa-abandons-rapiscans-nude-body-scanners/

That worked out great for someone, and wasted a buttload of money. For a situation that could have been prevented in the first place had they acted on known intel that the guy was going to try to bomb something.

[pnwmom]

119. The underwear bomb plotter who was an informant for the CIA came years AFTER

we started using the airport scanners, so he couldn't have been used as the pretext for the machines.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/09/underwear-bomber-working-for-cia

Tuesday 8 May 2012

A would-be "underwear bomber" involved in a plot to attack a US-based jet was in fact working as an undercover informer with Saudi intelligence and the CIA, it has emerged.

The revelation is the latest twist in an increasingly bizarre story about the disruption of an apparent attempt by al-Qaida to strike at a high-profile American target using a sophisticated device hidden in the clothing of an attacker.

The plot, which the White House said on Monday had involved the seizing of an underwear bomb by authorities in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 days, had caused alarm throughout the US.

SNIP

Citing US and Yemeni officials, Associated Press reported that the unnamed informant was working under cover for the Saudis and the CIA when he was given the bomb, which was of a new non-metallic type aimed at getting past airport security.

The informant then turned the device over to his handlers and has left Yemen, the officials told the news agency. The LA Times, which first broke the news that the plot had been a "sting operation", said that the bomb plan had also provided the intelligence leads that allowed the strike on Quso.

SNIP

[Aerows]

120. He attempted the bombing in 2009.

We were warned about him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/23/fear_pays_chertoff_n_787711.html


"After the arrest of the underwear bomber last Christmas, Chertoff hit the airwaves and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post advocating the full-body scanning systems without disclosing that Rapiscan Systems was a client of his firm. The aborted terror plot prompted the Transportation Security Agency to order 300 machines from Rapiscan. "

[pnwmom]

124. There were two different underwear bombing plots, the first one in 2009.

The second underwear bombing plot was in 2012.

The plot with the CIA informant was the one in 2012, AFTER the scanning machines had already been in use since 2011.


From the article linked at the OP:

"how major an escalation in threat is posed by the bomb remains unclear. Security sources have told news agencies that it was a step up in levels of sophistication from the original underwear bomb that was used in a failed attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009."

http://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-government-glossed-over-cancer-concerns-as-it-rolled-out-airport-x-ray

Nov 1, 2011

Today, the United States has begun marching millions of airline passengers through the X-ray body scanners, parting ways with countries in Europe and elsewhere that have concluded that such widespread use of even low-level radiation poses an unacceptable health risk.

[treestar]

122. Perfection or nothing?

They didn't find anything.

[The Corrector]

25. Could the plot have been foiled using traditional methods of surveillance?

That is, could the NSA have easily gotten a court order for each suspect without all Americans' data being stored in a database? Obama doesn't say.

[leveymg]

43. Tamerlan was already on the terrorist watch list. See my post above.

[AngryAmish]

26. oh horseshit

Get the names of the bombers, get a warrant (I'm sure one judge could be roused) and send the warrant to the phone companies. That is called police work.

Getting the metadata on everybody is called warrantless search and seizure.

[MotherPetrie]

27. UGH. He demeans himself with this weasely talk.

[ConcernedCanuk]

28. Anyone that wants to bomb/attack, can and will.

.
.
.

There is one way that may be successful in stopping/slowing down further attacks:

STOP MESSING AROUND IN OTHER PEOPLE'S COUNTRIES!

and stop profiling religions and ethnic backgrounds.

As long as the USA keeps it's nose in other people's business,

It will only keep on getting worse . . .

Keep using the "big stick" ? ? ?

expect payback.

USA has no idea how many relatives and friends of the tens of thousands they slaughtered in Iraq live in the USA.

Same with many other countries - these are not "terrorists" - these are pissed off friends and relatives.

Some cultures believe they must avenge these wrongful deaths - especially family.

They just don't get "collateral damage" . . .

It ain't over yet . . . .

(sigh)

CC

[Eddie Haskell]

30. When a nuke goes off in NYC, we can be secure in the knowledge ...

that it wasn't part of a bigger plot?

[truebrit71]

31. I can't find the "balance" part he keeps talking about in the 4th amendment...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Seems pretty fucking straight forward to me...

[lastlib]

35. ^ ^ ^ THIS! ^ ^ ^

He11, it doesn't even mention "national security" or anything resembling it!

[Puzzledtraveller]

46. ^^and that^^

[ConservativeDemocrat]

50. It's in the "their" part of the "their effects"

Once you give something to someone else it's no longer yours. It belongs to who you gave it to.

This is called the "third-party doctrine" and has been around for a very long time. It's how many an organized crime boss has been taken down.

It's also in the other parts of the Constitution dealing with war and the Constitutional rights of foreigners (hint: they have none, except those that the Congress chooses to extend to them). So please don't go quoting the 4th Amendment concerning even our allies.

And please don't set yourself up as an expert in Constitutional law. We have an actual Supreme Court and two hundred years of case law which I'd suggest you actually read up on first.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[truebrit71]

56. Oh dear...

The "their" part refers to the person to whom the papers and effects etc. belong to i.e. the individual that owns/possesses them. Nothing has been given to anyone. They are MY papers, MY effects.

Nice try.

Also, your reference to foreigners and allies, is that because you think I am a foreigner commenting on something intrinsically American and it offends you? I have lived in the United States for well over half my life, and have read up on an awful lot of constitutional law cases, certainly enough to know that the actions of the NSA, and this particular "Constitutional Scholar" in the WH are wildly beyond any possible interpretation of the document as whole, and the referenced amendment in particular.

TB71 - Proud member of the Go Take a Flying Fuck at the Moon You Smug Bastard Based Community...

[Rex]

71. Nice try?

I would say it was a pathetic attempt, but you are nicer then me!

[ConservativeDemocrat]

72. You don't own Verizon, Google, or Facebook...

Nor do you own their servers. So when you say "These are MY papers, MY effects." you are, flat out, wrong.

In fact, you almost assuredly clicked on a "Terms of Service" Agreement (contract) that SPELLED OUT TO YOU that this wasn't your data, and that it would be used in all sorts of ways that you wouldn't have volunteered to offer otherwise. Google, for instance, doesn't just keep track of your gmail metadata. It serves you advertisements based on the content of what you wrote, something the U.S. government needs a subpoena to access (at least for U.S. citizens).

As far as your statements that you are one of the world's leading U.S. Constitutional scholars in your own mind... well, I really don't think that there is ever going to be an effective argument that would convince you otherwise, other than to simply note that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. And President Obama, who taught the subject as a Professor in Chicago.

The "smugness" attack you've thrown against me is also thrown by creationists against scientists, more or less for the same basic reason. To which I can only reply that facts are not changed by magical thinking. It's fair to say that you dislike our current system and you think it should be changed, but when anyone starts screaming "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" in contradiction to established case law, they are the ones being smug - substituting their personal opinion for reality.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[truebrit71]

74. You really don't get it, do you..?

The US Constitutional scholar to whom I was referring is the President of the USA, you know, the former US Constitutional scholar from Harvard....I would NEVER claim I am the world's leading ANYTHING....

FYI, I love the current system, I just wish those that have sworn an oath to uphold it actually did as they affirmed...

[ConservativeDemocrat]

103. I am well aware that President Obama is a Constitutional scholar

...although he actually taught in Chicago. He went to school in Harvard.

And I find it sadly pathetic that you imagine you know more than he, and the Supreme Court, about the Constitution. You clearly do think yourself as the world's foremost authority, able to pass judgement on them, so I'll leave you with that delusion intact. Little more that I can do.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[truebrit71]

133. Cor blimey..you STILL don't get it...

I didn't say he was a constitutional professor at Harvard, nor did I say I knew more than he about the constitution...but you are obviously an expert at reading words that aren't there...so much for "reality based"...

I think there are plenty of people that know more about the constitution than most of the current members of the SCOTUS.

[Skittles]

152. reality-based = outer space

and I mean WAY, WAY out there

[treestar]

125. Good grief, you are really lacking in knowledge

The constitutional scholar knows how much more complex it is than that.

They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not your simplistic views of it (and you don't even take account of the words in it that leave room for debate).

Stop now and inform yourself some more.

[truebrit71]

135. Their oath, and the document, are relatively simple to understand...

..especially the various amendments...do you
rself a favor and read them sometime...

[treestar]

139. Good grief. You have to read a lot more than just that.

I have read them, and have read a lot more about them. It is not that simple. There are "reasonable" searches and the amendment allows for them. The courts ultimately decide what is reasonable and what is not. A "constitutional scholar" is someone who knows a lot about that.

[truebrit71]

141. ....and a regular person, with just a regular brain should know that..

..the 4th amendment does not permit, in any way shape or form the mass collection of PERSONAL data without probable cause...

[treestar]

123. the word "unreasonable"

is the subject of reams of paper of written judicial opinions on the subject for the past 213 years or so.

[truebrit71]

136. That's what lawyers are paid to do...

...but im glad to see you here defending the mass-grab of private, personal information without a properly executed warrant in clear violation of the fourth amendment...

[treestar]

140. How it it determined when a warrant is needed?

That's what you have no idea about.

I don't have to defend anything - I am simply pointing out that it is much more complex than you are saying and know about. You don't have the tools to analyze the facts. You've determined that it is unconstitutional, but society will allow the courts to decide. Each person does not get to play dictator.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Why can't they just get a regular warrant?

why is this so hard? Slap a 'secret' tag on the request, 30 day delay before it goes into public records like any other warrant. HOLY SHIT that was hard.

Why. Why is this so hard for them.

They didn't fucking catch these guys despite tons of leads in the first place.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

42. That's what they ARE !

The FISA courts are simply regular courts which are specialized for handling these kinds of secret subpoenas. Just like tax courts are regular courts specialized for handling tax related issues. The judges are regular judges, that have gone through the normal confirmation process, and in addition to that, selected for this specific duty by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That's it.

Everything else is just whaargarble from the standard whaagarblers.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[pnwmom]

96. There is nothing irregular about the warrant that they got. Any judge would

have approved a search of their phone and internet records, based on the evidence.

[matthews]

36. Today's excuse is late. It's already after 2:00 p.m. CST nt

[1-Old-Man]

39. This is just a horseshit explanation from an Administration that has gone power hungry.

and I don't give a flying fuck what Party they are in, this is just wrong.

[Puzzledtraveller]

44. absolutely

[rusty fender]

48. Who will buy my wonderful bullshit?

Not me, Mr. President.

[jtuck004]

49. Well, I am glad they are there. You never know what some family with 5 lbs of

quinoa and a pressure cooker might be up to. Think of the mess that could cause if used improperly.

I mean, they might get radicalized, get a copy of of "Ball's Canning Guide" (which bears eery similarities to the Anarchist's Cookbook, no?) and move on to more dangerous things, like tomatoes. And then where would we be?

**Note: I would tag this, but we don't have a RIDICULE thingy.

[RC]

76. "Ball's Canning Guide"

That right there sounds ominous enough to put someone on a list. Oh, the heat they can apply to utilizing the ideas contained within...

[jtuck004]

87. It's even worse that we thought. All those Methodist Churches and State University

extensions that teach cooking and CANNING?

Friggin' SLEEPER CELLS...




We are Doomed!!


I really need a ridicule smiley...

[markpkessinger]

51. The NSA/TSA/FBI/CIA: Keeping us safe by preventing the LAST terrorist attack!

Anybody feel safer yet?

[Aerows]

118. I'm thrilled to know

that the next known terrorist running around will be identified after killing and maiming God only knows how many people, while the FISA court is busy issuing blanket warrants for American's telephone calls.

[Rex]

52. Okay that is just silly.

Makes him look asinine. Does he ever talk to people at the DOJ? Is he that out of touch with the FBI? What a dumb statement to make.

[bunnies]

55. This might just be the dumbest thing he's ever said.

wow.

[cantbeserious]

58. Appeal To Fear, Fear And More Fear

eom

[frylock]

60. fuck this shit..

this guy thinks we're all idiots. unfuckingbelievable.

[Purveyor]

64. Sadly, I'm starting to realize who the real idiot is here and it isn't you or me. Going to be

hard to hold the Senate next year with the current level of bewilderment I'm seeing within the party ranks unless something changes.

Michigan Senate seat is up for grabs and it is going to be brutal to keep it in DEM hands.

[snappyturtle]

67. Of all that has been said here, I think you've summed it up nicely!

What gets me is that I bet there are some really messed up
people out there planning bad stuff who meet only with each
other in person, don't use the net or phones and are going to
do their nefarious stuff regardless of 'security'. Meanwhile,
we're no safer and a hell of a lot less free.

[Skittles]

153. I believe for the most part, he is right

all conservatives and a sizeable number of so-called "progressives" simply DO.NOT.GET.IT.

[Autumn]

63. A rather amazing statement.

The brother was already supposed to be under watch. What happened there? I think I'm going out for a walk in the pasture, the horse shit is certainly better out there.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. A CYA statement complete with bogeymen.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.L. Mencken

[KittyWampus]

68. So someone has proof the NSA didn't get a warrant in tracking the brothers' communications?

One would think such a warrant would have been relatively easy to get, considering all the evidence.

Edit- or is the objection that the NSA isn't needed to do this tracking?

After the initial fail, there was no reason to investigate and try to figure out if there were other co-conspirators?

It would seem to me, that after the Boston bombing is a prime example of when law enforcement on state and federal level needs to start tracking communications of people.

[leveymg]

78. Tamarlan was on 3 terrorist lists, but managed to leave the country shortly after the murder of

his "best friend" and two other known acquaintances. Yet the FBI, we are told, didn't bother to talk to him before or after his seven month jaunt through Dagestan and Chechnya, which he left in great haste after his local Jihadi contact was killed by Russian security forces. Tamarlan had no problems coming back into the US (NOTE: he is an LPR, not a US Citizen), we are told, and still nobody showed any particular interest in him, we are told. Later, after the bombings, we find out his and his brothers cell phones were in the immediate area of the murders, and that a witness (another Chechen) has admitted to the FBI he helped with the triple murder. The witness was then shot dead by the FBI during the interrogation. How perfectly odd. See #19, above.

How perfectly odd.

[KittyWampus]

80. I asked a pretty simple question-after the fail that was Boston- isn't that when it's appropriate

for federal and state to track the communications of the two men involved?

Is that unreasonable?

[leveymg]

82. The point I'm making is that the counterterror system fails often with CIA double-agents, and

that FISA warrants don't get sought for them. Which might explain why the system fails so often and spectacularly with that particular category of individuals.

The system is, however, geared up and does a splendid job of profiling the rest of the American population, and has been for over a decade at a cost in the many tens of billions of dollars.

[KittyWampus]

84. Well, we both will agree then on the spectacular waste of money involved. And too much information

can be as bad as too little.

[leveymg]

88. Counterterrorism and detective work don't make many contractors rich, NSA surveillance systems do

As resources are finite, the focus on NSA universal surveillance and profiling have been to the detriment of other things, obviously.

Obviously, some of that money that was wasted on Groundbreaker and PRISM might have a better cost/benefit ratio for the American people if it went to purposes other than Booz Allen. Just saying.

[Waiting For Everyman]

70. Obvious phoney bullshit is obvious.

Huge mistake to even mention the Boston Bombing. Because the Boston Bombing is the proof positivie that all our surveillance state horror show, is worthless.

Obama, by this, just told us that he is complicit in it. He is telling us that he is not on our side, in case anybody still wasn't sure.

Who does he think he is talking to, 4 year olds?

[cheapdate]

79. If, as a parent, someone detonated a bomb at your child's bus stop

who would condemn that parent for using every tool at their disposal, legal or otherwise, to find out everything they could possibly find out about the perpetrators; who were they? do they have accomplices? are they planning to try it again?

Analogies suck, the government isn't our big daddy, and the NSA surveillance programs and the laws that enable them are a dangerous and serious threat to democracy and civil liberty.

But the government has a fundamental obligation to try to protect the American people from credible danger. If there had been a successful follow on attack, or a series of follow on attacks, in the days immediately after the Boston Marathon Bombing and it was reveled in the inevitable shit-storm of investigations and recriminations that the government had done anything less than everything remotely possible to prevent the (hypothetical) follow on attacks, large numbers of the American people would be calling for heads to roll.

I'm happy to argue for the suspension and repeal of the NSA surveillance programs, the termination of most, if not all, private NSA contracts, and a repeal of the irresponsible and dangerous laws that enable these programs to exist.

But I can't ignore or deny that the government has a fundamental obligation to try to stop terrorist attacks, even while I disagree strongly over the means.

[Octafish]

81. As a parent, I'd like to know BEFORE the bomb went off...or the planes are hijacked...

The problem is that the people in government privy to NSA intel haven't been using it to warn We the People until AFTER the event. Take 9-11:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002832182

[cheapdate]

134. The lack of even a modest amount of transparency is a serious problem. n/t

[disidoro01]

85. Do you

Agree that they failed to stop this when they had serious and legitimate information?
Your analogy sucks, because you try and tug at emotions. They could have stopped the bombing yet we ignore that and say water under the bridge.
They have failed too many times to stop attacks yet you want to continue to throw money at them and eliminate rights in hope that one day they get it right? Not for me, thank you.

[cthulu2016]

86. That's simple. Of course I could condemn someone in that instance

"who would condemn that parent for using every tool at their disposal, legal or otherwise, to find out everything they could possibly find out about the perpetrators"

Okay, so say this parent kidnaps and tortures people at random around the neighborhood to see what they know. (every tool at their disposal, legal or otherwise)

Would I condemn that? Yes. So would you.

You wanted to throw out some simpleton-bait emotional nonsense to make a case you couldn't make rationally, and it didn't work.

We do not have a "mother/bus stop" exception to the law. You and I can't break the law just because someone set off a bomb at a bus-stop.

[cheapdate]

138. Pretty weak, cthulu2016.

Analogies are usually a poor choice -- a point I openly recognized in my post. By focusing exclusively on my opening analogy and ignoring the other 80 percent of my argument, you've perfectly demonstrated one of the main hazards of using analogy -- which is that rather than seriously considering what is the relevant argument that the analogy seeks to make, some people will invariably get lost in chasing down every myriad irrelevant conditional possibility that the analogy might conceivably imply.

I'll address what is arguably your most (important? eloquent?) point -- which is the charge that my argument was nothing but an emotional appeal and therefore weak or invalid -- or "simpleton-bait emotional nonsense", as you put it. Let's pretend as if the analogy represented the whole of my argument and wasn't merely an opening frame for what followed.

Yes, it was an appeal to emotion. If you don't understand that people are generally far more influenced by emotion than by intellect, then you'll forever be left on the sidelines wondering what happened. The Boston Marathon Bombing left three people dead, scores more mangled and missing limbs, and hundreds more variously injured. This happened on a beautiful, Spring afternoon in downtown Boston in front of thousands of spectators, families, competitors, etc.

Your suggestion that emotion is misplaced and an improper response in considering this tragedy almost defies belief.

[ucrdem]

90. Shameless post based on dishonest "article" based on a completely unobjectionable

remark reported second-hand in Huffpo:

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats and serves on the Intelligence Committee, said Obama reiterated his call for a "balance" between privacy and national security, but also invoked the Boston Marathon bombings as an example of where data collected by the NSA helped "identify whether there was a great plot."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/31/obama-nsa-meeting_n_3684378.html?1375303074

First, it's not clear from Huffpo whether BHO or King "invoked" the Marathon, but assuming it was Obama as reported afterward by King as reported afterward by Sabrina Siddiqui, the remark bears no relation to the nasty construction put on it by the techdirt.com goon quoted in the OP:

Right. So, after there was a bombing which no intelligence agency spotted beforehand, he's now claiming that the NSA got to jump into action to find out that there wouldn't be any more bombings because there was no bigger plot.

. . . Now we're at "Great work everyone! We found out that there's no larger plot to worry about -- sorry about the explosions and related mess." Using the discovery of a lack of further threats after a bombing happened undetected to justify spying on all Americans? That's crazy.



"That's crazy," all right -- crazy that a disgruntled teabagger would stoop so low and crazier that such baloney gets uncritically repeated here.

[pnwmom]

95. Yes, a stunningly stupid post. They needed to rule out additional plotters

who could have been plotting future bombings.

Amazing this is so hard for some to understand.

[ucrdem]

105. Very true. In fact, DUer stevenleser made the connection two months ago right here

way back on June 9:

There is another point that I think we should note. The FISA warrant in question discussed in Greenwald’s article allows the NSA to collect phone records for three months, from April 25th until July 19th. I’m surprised no one has made the obvious correlation to how close the start date is to the Boston Marathon bombings which occurred in April 15th just ten days before. I’m making an educated guess here so you all can determine how much you think this makes sense to you, but it seems likely to me that in the wake of the Boston bombing, someone in the justice department asked the NSA to gather this information with the intent of finding patterns of telephone chatter between as yet undiscovered terrorist cells here in the US who might be discussing the bombing. The timing seems too close to be coincidence.

If true, it needs to be pointed out that Greenwald’s article certainly disrupted that effort.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510

I've been thinking about that last sentence more and more lately. The relenentless effort to keep this sorry tattle alive for two months makes me wonder if the Neocons aren't worried that Holder and Obama will stumble onto one of their nasty little secrets.

[pnwmom]

109. Well, that's an interesting thought.

Or maybe they'd stumble on more info about Saudi connections to 9/11 that the Bush administration worked hard to suppress.

[ucrdem]

112. Yes. Obama has a habit of fixing things the neocons would prefer to leave broken. nt

[Egnever]

150. Wow that is very interesting.

Thanks for posting that.

It does make one think.

[sabrina 1]

92. Stunning to see this coming from a Democrat. Scare tactics I expect to see only from

Bush supporters.

So what is the great WOT which we are apparently losing considering how long it has dragged out and how much of a failure all this killing has been, about if we are to cave to terrorists and live in enough fear we are willing to give up rights?

What a failure if this is where we are this whole 'war' has been.

And it's a very big mistake to bring up the tragedy in Boston. How on earth can he count that as a success. The Terrorists SUCCEEDED, despite the fact that one of the was on the radar for years.

How sad to this kind of 'logic' coming from someone we thought would be slapping it down. Same old fear politics we've seen since 2001.

[pnwmom]

93. The writer doesn't understand that they are trying to prevent "terrorist events"

by making sure the Boston bombing wasn't part of a larger plot. In other words, if there were additional plotters of the Boston bombing, it would be logical to expect further bombings in the future.

Was he that stupid or just being purposefully dense?

[Marr]

113. Oh, to have the deep Understanding® of the apologist.

Only you Understand® politics. Only you Understand® surveillance. You Understand® so much.

[KittyWampus]

126. this doesn't require deep understanding. A freaking first grader could grasp this.

[aikoaiko]

130. And the jury results are in....

...and it was a close one.



At Thu Aug 1, 2013, 07:50 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Oh, to have the deep Understanding® of the apologist.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3388870

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Why do we put up with posts that are nothing but insults?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Aug 1, 2013, 07:54 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Insulting,indeed.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I don't have an answer to the alerter's question so I'm voting to leave this post.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cheapdate]

132. Agree. I made a similar point earlier.

I'm happy to argue that the NSA surveillance programs and the irresponsible laws that enable them are dangerous and a serious threat to our democracy. I'd like to see them suspended and repealed. I'd like to see most, if not all, private contracts with the NSA terminated.

I'm happy to make that argument, even while recognizing that the government has a fundamental obligation to try to stop terrorist attacks.

[LittleBlue]

97. God his lies are pathetic

Reeks of desperation, imo

[pnwmom]

100. Could you be more specific?

Who is lying and what is the lie?

[LittleBlue]

106. It's a pathetic, manufactured, laughable excuse

for surveillance.

My skepticism matches that of the OP. In fact it isn't skepticism, as the president is no more believable than a defensive child caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[pnwmom]

107. The writer of the article in the OP doesn't understand

that the purpose of making sure there aren't additional plotters is that if there were, there would likely be additional attacks. So the point of ruling out additional plotters is to prevent further attacks.

I disagree that this is a laughable excuse.

[winter is coming]

102. I can't believe he went there.

[Generic Other]

116. So the NSA collected all my emails and phone logs in advance

because they might need to use them to make sure I wasn't a bomber they never did catch before he acted? Uh-huh...why don't they just admit it. The only thing you can be sure of is that they are going to spy. Anytime, anyplace, anyone. And so far, they haven't managed to prevent much of anything.

The Department of douchebags wasting my tax money.

[treestar]

121. So you're saying if they didn't catch it before it happened, there was no need to

find out afterward if it was part of a bigger plot?

[Arctic Dave]

131. Didn't the general public find out who did this after they released the picture

of the guy? And they only knew who to look for because of the eyewitness.

How is this a "victory" for mass surveillance?

[Hula Popper]

143. Disappointing

Bull sh!t artist.........

[AppleBottom]

148. That is an amazingly terrible excuse

To justify amazingly terrible policies.

[kentuck]

157. Obviously, we don't need the FBI anymore?

We could cut that Department from government and put the savings into a jobs program for our people.