We Told You So: Government Spying Has Been Targeting Innocent Citizens, not Terrorists

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
Press Releases › We Told You So: Government Spying Has Been Targeting Innocent Citizens, not Terrorists
October 10, 2008 11:04 am EST

The Bush administration told us that the government had to engage in warrantless surveillance to stop terrorists from attacking America. Administration officials attacked and belittled critics of its expansive, warrantless surveillance for "crying wolf" and thereby endangering Americans. Congress went along with the administration's violation of both the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by passing new legislation that gave the administration authority to wiretap American citizens in our own country with no individualized warrant, or any evidence of wrong-doing.

Many of us warned about the potential for abuse, especially the threat to the privacy of all Americans posed by widespread and secret government surveillance. Neither the administration nor the Congress, including Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, listened. Now, however, a book about the National Security Agency by James Bamford -- The Shadow Factory -- reveals that the government has been routinely eavesdropping on innocent Americans.

The then-head of the NSA and now Director of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, has denied to Congress that Americans' private conversations were being tapped. But two former military intercept operators have now come forward independently to reveal that they in fact listened in on the personal phone calls of Americans.

For instance, Adrienne Kinne, a U.S. Army reservist, reports that, "[T]hese were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones." Many of them were serving in the military, or working for aid organizations or the press. They were not planning attacks on the U.S. Rather, explains Kinne, the subjects discussed were "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

Navy linguist David Murfee Faulk says much the same of the results of his work between 2003 and 2007. He listened to Americans "calling home to the United States, talking to their spouses, sometimes their girlfriends, sometimes one phone call following another." Moreover, Faulk admitted that he and the other operators would share especially interesting phone calls, like "some colonel making pillow talk."

The point is not that no useful information was ever recovered. But when operators wasted their time eavesdropping on the conversations of innocent Americans -- and invading their privacy -- they were not monitoring genuine terrorist suspects. Adrienne Kinne admits: "It's almost like they're making the haystack bigger and it's harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful." In short, violating our liberties makes us both less free and less safe.

The government can and should have the authority to gather information on those who are involved in harming our nation. But that power must be carefully circumscribed and its use must be closely monitored; and those who abuse that power must be held accountable. This is the basis and strength of our constitutional system, designed to protect both our security and our liberty.

For nearly eight years, the Bush administration has enshrined disrespect for the law as official government policy. The Congress, under both Republican and Democratic control, has failed to uphold either the law or the Constitution. Since both Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain have endorsed expanded warrantless surveillance, neither one would restore our constitutional liberties as president.

Only Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party are even willing to talk about these issues, let alone to bring real change to Washington. We must never forget that it is a free society that we are defending. We must keep it free as we defend it.

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.
Originally published at the Huffington Post ...
 
OP
Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
From CNN
Report: U.S. spied on Americans' intimate conversations abroad

* Story Highlights
* Ex-Army Reserves Arab linguist said the U.S. government listened to private calls
* Another linguist said NSA eavesdropped on 'pillow talk' conversations
* U.S. surveillance program allows calls related only to terrorism to be monitored
* Linguists said that when they complained, they were told to keep listening
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/10/09/spying.on.americans/index.html

Schneier on Security

A blog covering security and security technology.

March 26, 2008
NSA's Domestic Spying

This article from The Wall Street Journal outlines how the NSA is increasingly engaging in domestic surveillance, data collection, and data mining. The result is essentially the same as Total Information Awareness.

According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records. The NSA receives this so-called "transactional" data from other agencies or private companies, and its sophisticated software programs analyze the various transactions for suspicious patterns. Then they spit out leads to be explored by counterterrorism programs across the U.S. government, such as the NSA's own Terrorist Surveillance Program, formed to intercept phone calls and emails between the U.S. and overseas without a judge's approval when a link to al Qaeda is suspected.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/nsas_domestic_s.html

Nice to know. I'd look into 4098bit encryption but if I don't turn in my keys I get a vacation at ClubFed. Remember folks, in order to save the Constitution, we had to shred it and then burn it, cuzz if we didn't, "the terrorists (who hate all those freedoms and rights we used to have) would win.".
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
If we truely believe in our principles and way of life, how then can we sacrifice the rights that millions have died to defend in the name of national security?

This makes me really sad.

NSA operatives are distracted, and more interested in spreading gossip about what some colonel and his wife do in the bedroom than they are in capturing or preventing a terrorist act.

If we truely believe in our way of life, we can not for a moment entertain the thought of whoring out our ideals in the interest of security.

We should waste no time on even entertaining the thought of any legislation that is contrary to the principles set forth in the Constitution and/or the Bill fo Rights.

Period.
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
you know, to find the bad guys,t hey pretty much have to listen to EVERY call........

i dont think this mens what you think it does
 
OP
Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
I think this was the point.

The point is not that no useful information was ever recovered. But when operators wasted their time eavesdropping on the conversations of innocent Americans -- and invading their privacy -- they were not monitoring genuine terrorist suspects. Adrienne Kinne admits: "It's almost like they're making the haystack bigger and it's harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful." In short, violating our liberties makes us both less free and less safe.

The government can and should have the authority to gather information on those who are involved in harming our nation. But that power must be carefully circumscribed and its use must be closely monitored; and those who abuse that power must be held accountable. This is the basis and strength of our constitutional system, designed to protect both our security and our liberty.

While they are busy listening to my last wild phone sex session, Osama's putting in an order for a double sausage pizza that they are missing.
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
you know, to find the bad guys,t hey pretty much have to listen to EVERY call........

THAT is the dangerous kind of thinking and belief that will absolutely destroy the idea of what most of us describe as "America." It is a travesty of a notion that every person can be searched without suspicion or reason. It is a travesty of this democratic republic.

Have you forgotten? This country harbors defectors from the former Soviet Union and other nations because of EXACTLY THIS KIND OF TACTIC. And now ... we use it ourselves.

It's time you ask yourself what we have become ... and if it's *really* what you value about America. It's time you let go of your rampant fear of terrorism to the extent you'd be willing to turn anyone in for anything ... because by subscribing to this activity, that is exactly what you're doing.

THIS is not America.
 

Twin Fist

Grandmaster
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,185
Reaction score
210
Location
Nacogdoches, Tx
you really just dont know what you are talking about

THINK about the process
calls comming FROM certain countries into this one fit the profile of what they need to monitor.

HOW do they determine if a call is innocent?

THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT

and not for 30 seconds, for a bit longer than that.

why? cuz thanks to the leftist POS press, the bad guys know what we are doing to try and catch them.

if they knew who the terrorists were in the fist place, they wouldnt have to monitor the calls would they? There is no way the can tell WITHOUT listening to it that it is innocent.

they HAVE to listen to EVERY call if they are to find the one that is dangerous.

I am soooooo sorry that the islamic terrorists have forced us to do this, but they have, Deal with it.

we can either fight the fight, or kiss off 3000 or so lives every few years so come panic striken idealist somewhere doesnt get thier knickers ina knot about some damned fool "ideal" like what they THINK they are entitled to.

life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which one comes first again?

LIFE


thats right dear, LIFE COMES FIRST, and anything they have to do to protect your ungratefull self, they will do. becasue they value your life as much as you claim to value your so called rights.

You think this wasnt happening before 2000? if you do, i got a bridge to sell ya. This has been going on for YEARS. The only reason you know about it now is because some scum sucking reporter leaked it to try and hurt Bush.

But NEWSFLSH, this crap started under carter, that i know of, and prob before that.

here is another one dear, if you dont like THIS america, i invite you to haul buns. YOUR opinion of what is or inst america is no more valid than mine.

And if you think this is too much, COME UP WITH A BETTER WAY. Or just admitt you are willing to let us get hit AGAIN.

and BTW you are damned right I fear terrorism. I cried when we got hit the last time, and i will cry when we get hit the next time, even if it is people like micheal moore that get taken out.

Only a FOOL doesnt fear terrorism in this day and age. I know these animals and what they want.

Here's a clue, it's YOUR HEAD on a stick. Along with Bob's, mine and everyone else's that isnt a Muslim. You aint got to believe me, but you better believe this, they are trying to hit us again, and the next time it may well be a nuke. And it will be the fault of people LIKE YOU when it happens.

and before someone posts it, I dont care what ben Franklin said, he didnt live in a world with nukes. or weaponized smallpox.
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
He's right.

In order to see if terrorists/enemy combatants/ and so on are placing calls from "whereverthehellistan" to their operational cells you sorta have to listen to calls coming out of "whereverthehellistan" to the US/UK/wherever. If you think a lot of terrorist communications are slipping by now, try bottlenecking the process by requiring warrants on individuals (hell we dont know who these "individuals" are). Do you think we required individual warrants to tap Nazi/Japanese assets in the US during WWII?

President Wilson, in World War I, authorized the military to intercept each and every cable, telephone and telegraph communication going into or out of the United States.

During World War II, President Roosevelt instructed the government to use listening devices to learn the plans of spies in the United States. He also gave the military the authority to review, without warrant, all telecommunications, quote, "passing between the United States and any foreign country."

And if you think this is all post 9/11, look up Echelon.
 

5-0 Kenpo

Master of Arts
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,540
Reaction score
60
you really just dont know what you are talking about

THINK about the process
calls comming FROM certain countries into this one fit the profile of what they need to monitor.

HOW do they determine if a call is innocent?

THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT

and not for 30 seconds, for a bit longer than that.

why? cuz thanks to the leftist POS press, the bad guys know what we are doing to try and catch them.

if they knew who the terrorists were in the fist place, they wouldnt have to monitor the calls would they? There is no way the can tell WITHOUT listening to it that it is innocent.

they HAVE to listen to EVERY call if they are to find the one that is dangerous.

I am soooooo sorry that the islamic terrorists have forced us to do this, but they have, Deal with it.

we can either fight the fight, or kiss off 3000 or so lives every few years so come panic striken idealist somewhere doesnt get thier knickers ina knot about some damned fool "ideal" like what they THINK they are entitled to.

life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which one comes first again?

LIFE


thats right dear, LIFE COMES FIRST, and anything they have to do to protect your ungratefull self, they will do. becasue they value your life as much as you claim to value your so called rights.

You think this wasnt happening before 2000? if you do, i got a bridge to sell ya. This has been going on for YEARS. The only reason you know about it now is because some scum sucking reporter leaked it to try and hurt Bush.

But NEWSFLSH, this crap started under carter, that i know of, and prob before that.

here is another one dear, if you dont like THIS america, i invite you to haul buns. YOUR opinion of what is or inst america is no more valid than mine.

And if you think this is too much, COME UP WITH A BETTER WAY. Or just admitt you are willing to let us get hit AGAIN.

and BTW you are damned right I fear terrorism. I cried when we got hit the last time, and i will cry when we get hit the next time, even if it is people like micheal moore that get taken out.

Only a FOOL doesnt fear terrorism in this day and age. I know these animals and what they want.

Here's a clue, it's YOUR HEAD on a stick. Along with Bob's, mine and everyone else's that isnt a Muslim. You aint got to believe me, but you better believe this, they are trying to hit us again, and the next time it may well be a nuke. And it will be the fault of people LIKE YOU when it happens.

and before someone posts it, I dont care what ben Franklin said, he didnt live in a world with nukes. or weaponized smallpox.

Just curious: What rights would you not give up in the name of security?

It seems that you would allow the government free reign to play with our freedoms if you thought there was even an inkling of benefit to our supposed safety.

Your whole train of thought makes me wonder: what is the point of our freedom, including the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, if we are only going to give them up? They are there for a reason. If we just give them up, for whatever reason, then we cease to be the United States of America.

Remember the word of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
 

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Where was all this anger when the Clinton Administration fielded OMNIVORE and CARNIVORE?
Here is why you don't need to worry about your calls or emails being listened to/read unless you are up to no good: It is simple really, the word is VOLUME. The sheer volume of phone calls and emails that happen on a daily basis is staggering. US Population about 300 Million, say ¾ make or receive a phone call in one day, that is 225 MILLION calls, lets further assume 2 minutes per call, that is 550 MILLION minutes of phone calls. How is anyone going to listen/screen all that in one day, forgetting the fact that most people make/receive more than one call and it is for more than 2 min total. The sheer number makes anything except a finely targeted program flatly impossible to pull off.
 

Cryozombie

Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
9,998
Reaction score
206
Here's a clue, it's YOUR HEAD on a stick. Along with Bob's, mine and everyone else's that isnt a Muslim. You aint got to believe me, but you better believe this, they are trying to hit us again, and the next time it may well be a nuke. And it will be the fault of people LIKE YOU when it happens.

and before someone posts it, I dont care what ben Franklin said, he didnt live in a world with nukes. or weaponized smallpox.

I know, damn it. When they nuke someplace, I'm the one everyone is gonna blame.

*rolls eyes*
 

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,325
Reaction score
493
Location
Staffordshire, England
Just curious: What rights would you not give up in the name of security?

That is a very important question and one that deserves deep consideration from anyone wishing to partake in any meaningful debate about the behaviour of government in a supposedly free society.

It is likewise important not to allow our very real and genuine emotional response to such events as the attacks on the World Trade Centre or the London Underground to blind us to some pretty important facts about the effectiveness of terrorism as a political tool and the impossibility of flawlessly defending against it.

Given that Tez has more knowledge about intelligence operations than anyone else here (that I know about), I'll leave it to her, if she sees the need, to fill in the technical blanks. From my knowledge of modern history, terrorism that is not a precursor to larger military or diplomatic/political actions, has a very low rate of success in terms of achieving the aims of those backing it.

Likewise, the chances of being a 'victim' of a terrorist act are miniscule and to allow fear of such to dominate your waking life is akin to constantly worrying whether you'll suddenly develop a fatal peanut allergy. If it happens, it happens - I rode the Underground a matter of days before and after the attacks in London and I'll confess to a certain amount of trepidation ... but I still did it. To have not done so would have been a gross over-emphasis of the threat.

That over-reaction is what you want to avoid seeing in your government.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
It's important to me to maintain a distinction between this country and others. Put another way, the Fourth through Sixth Amendments matter to me.

Are we fighting to continue as a political entity because we're here, or because we're special?
 
OP
Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
Where was all this anger when the Clinton Administration fielded OMNIVORE and CARNIVORE?
Here is why you don't need to worry about your calls or emails being listened to/read unless you are up to no good: It is simple really, the word is VOLUME. The sheer volume of phone calls and emails that happen on a daily basis is staggering. US Population about 300 Million, say ¾ make or receive a phone call in one day, that is 225 MILLION calls, lets further assume 2 minutes per call, that is 550 MILLION minutes of phone calls. How is anyone going to listen/screen all that in one day, forgetting the fact that most people make/receive more than one call and it is for more than 2 min total. The sheer number makes anything except a finely targeted program flatly impossible to pull off.

I refuse to use either Norton or McAfee because both companies rolled over to the FBI on scanning for Carnivore. The FBI has since moved on to even better ways to check your hard drive from afar. There was a huge stink about it all back then.


It's important to me to maintain a distinction between this country and others. Put another way, the Fourth through Sixth Amendments matter to me.

Are we fighting to continue as a political entity because we're here, or because we're special?

The Constitution matters to me. Not just certain parts. The Whole Constitution. You can't pick and choose which parts you're going to defend and which you're going to ignore without destroying what the whole means.
 

shesulsa

Columbia Martial Arts Academy
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
May 27, 2004
Messages
27,182
Reaction score
486
Location
Not BC, Not DC
you really just dont know what you are talking about

THINK about the process
calls comming FROM certain countries into this one fit the profile of what they need to monitor.

HOW do they determine if a call is innocent?

THEY HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT

and not for 30 seconds, for a bit longer than that.

why? cuz thanks to the leftist POS press, the bad guys know what we are doing to try and catch them.

if they knew who the terrorists were in the fist place, they wouldnt have to monitor the calls would they? There is no way the can tell WITHOUT listening to it that it is innocent.

they HAVE to listen to EVERY call if they are to find the one that is dangerous.

I am soooooo sorry that the islamic terrorists have forced us to do this, but they have, Deal with it.

we can either fight the fight, or kiss off 3000 or so lives every few years so come panic striken idealist somewhere doesnt get thier knickers ina knot about some damned fool "ideal" like what they THINK they are entitled to.

life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which one comes first again?

LIFE


thats right dear, LIFE COMES FIRST, and anything they have to do to protect your ungratefull self, they will do. becasue they value your life as much as you claim to value your so called rights.

You think this wasnt happening before 2000? if you do, i got a bridge to sell ya. This has been going on for YEARS. The only reason you know about it now is because some scum sucking reporter leaked it to try and hurt Bush.

But NEWSFLSH, this crap started under carter, that i know of, and prob before that.

here is another one dear, if you dont like THIS america, i invite you to haul buns. YOUR opinion of what is or inst america is no more valid than mine.

And if you think this is too much, COME UP WITH A BETTER WAY. Or just admitt you are willing to let us get hit AGAIN.

and BTW you are damned right I fear terrorism. I cried when we got hit the last time, and i will cry when we get hit the next time, even if it is people like micheal moore that get taken out.

Only a FOOL doesnt fear terrorism in this day and age. I know these animals and what they want.

Here's a clue, it's YOUR HEAD on a stick. Along with Bob's, mine and everyone else's that isnt a Muslim. You aint got to believe me, but you better believe this, they are trying to hit us again, and the next time it may well be a nuke. And it will be the fault of people LIKE YOU when it happens.

and before someone posts it, I dont care what ben Franklin said, he didnt live in a world with nukes. or weaponized smallpox.
Well.

Since I am capable of making my point without attempting to insult or demean you in return ....

There are some people who felt their lives were worth giving up in the name of the freedoms and civil liberties we have. These are things terrorists don't want us to have. It's not just about the nation of Islam, it's about more than that.

I would argue that all the people who died on 9-11 died in vain as long as we allow OBL to roam free and as long as we continue to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of fear.

Loving your country does not mean blindly following along and allowing fear mongers to rape the constitution in the name of fighting terror. Loving your country means protecting what she IS. There's a word for people who will point fingers at everyone else in the name of saving their own lives. THOSE are the people we need to leave the US. Loving this country means loving the idea that America is - the idea that has created the world's love affair with the United States; the ideals so VERY many people have ... oh yes ... given up their lives for.

The mentality of the post I quoted above is the GREATEST threat to America, above and beyond terrorism, for it destroys what America *is* and what America *does.*

This started a long time ago, we agree on that and your assumption that I blame only Bush is baseless upon my statements but based on the general line some people appear to have swallowed hook, line and sinker.
 
OP
Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
"life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Which one comes first again?"

It's not a which comes first thing.
I have the right to life.
I have the right to liberty.
I have the right to pursue happiness.

It's pretty straight forward there. It doesn't say "unless".

I do not want the government listening to my phone calls, reading my emails, snooping through my garbage. I have a right to privacy. I have a right to expect that. Unless they have cause to suspect me they have no business digging around in my stuff. This is not "Probable Cause", this is a fishing expedition, that only serves to put good people in the government gun site should they say something considered "wrong". Of course, they decide who is wrong. Saying "Someone aughta shoot some Bush" gets you noticed. It's not the same as saying "Im going to shoot some Bush". It might have nothing to do with the guy currently in the center seat. It might be a hunter, it might be a photographer, it might be a porno producer. None of which are terrorists.

Spying on us without probable cause is illegal, a violation of Constitutional rights, and needs to be stopped.

Supporting such erosions of the Constitution is nothing more than veiled support for the same terrorist scum who hit us on 9/11 and their goals of destroying that which we are.
 

Ninjamom

2nd Black Belt
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
882
Reaction score
84
Location
Solomons, MD, USA
The article regarding Government spying discuses phone calls, emails, etc. between one party overseas and another within the US. Most of the discussion here, however, has focussed on emails, phone calls, etc. within the US.

May I please break this discussion down a little bit? I suspect that we are getting more than a little hysterical about an issue that may or may not really exist. IMHO, there are too many issues these days truly worth getting hysterical about, that I don't want to waste my time with those issues below the 'hysteria threshhold'.

For the sake of argument, please consider the following four separate cases. I am guessing that most people in this discussion would actually agree on the majority of the answers:

1. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. between two parties, both of whom are outside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If one, or both, were from a 'country of interest'? Used certain 'key phrases? Were identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

2. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. between two parties, one of whom is outside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If the originator (or the recipient) was from a 'country of interest'? Used certain 'key phrases? Was identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

3. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. without a warrant between two parties, both of whom are inside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If one, or both, were here illegally? Used certain 'key phrases? Were identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

4. Would it be acceptable (morally, ethically, legally) for the US Government to intercept and review phone calls, emails, etc. with a warrant between two parties, both of whom are inside of the US? Under what conditions? (i.e., If one, or both, were here illegally? Used certain 'key phrases? Were identified as on a terror 'watch list'?)

I suspect this is a far more nuanced debate than what the original article inferred, and I suspect most of us agree on more than we disagree.
 
OP
Bob Hubbard

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
If the people on the watch lists were actual risk subjects and not just people that lazy PD's put there, sure. Of course that would also require that we were allowed to know if we were on such lists prior to trying to book a plane ticket.

Without a warrant, no. With one, sure, go ahead. Due process and all that.
:)
 

Archangel M

Senior Master
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
4,555
Reaction score
154
You have to define your target though. If the target is some unknown AlQueda operative in Pakistan, how do you get a warrant? And theres differences between general SIGINT sweeps looking for the bad guys and focused taps to be used in operations against the bad guys. And a bigger difference still in whats admissible in court.

PS-"Lazy PD's" cant just put anybody they wish on terror screening lists. Thats run by the feds.

Calls from one American to another=Warrant

Calls outside of the Country, regardless of whos making them and one of the countries is a valid "enemy"=No Warrant

Calls into and out of the US to known terror supporters=No Warrant

Which is what I believe the current situation is. It has historic precident (hell its "lite" compared to historic precident) and its necessary.
 

Latest Discussions

Top