Amid ongoing debate about the propriety of U.S. government programs tracking private citizens' phone and internet use, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Thursday that the government might have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks had similar surveillance programs been in place in 2001.
And he gave this example:
"Before 9/11 there was an individual by the name of Khalid Almihdhar who came to be one of the principal hijackers. He was being tracked by the intelligence agencies... They lost track of him," Mueller said. "At the same time, the intelligence agencies had identified an al Qaeda safe house in Yemen. They understood that that al Qaeda safe house had a telephone number but they could not know who was calling into that particular -- that particular safe house."
He is an expert - and there is not much reason to doubt him. The FBI is in the business of getting those results and preferably avoid terrorism and its likes.
The FBI is not in the business of legislation and it is not their task to draw a line for themselves.
It makes sense that with enough surveillance 9/11 could have been avoided.
If you abolish all freedom you will also abolish all crime.
This line must be drawn for them (not by them) and people naturally want to have a say in that.
Many have fought and died in the name of freedom - and they are correctly regarded as heros.
Freedom has a price and can not be taken for granted, but if you give it up so easily - are you really honoring those heros of the past?
Is a common surveillance of every citizen a price you want to pay for absolute security?
Nobody can answer this for you - but many want the possibility to have a say in that since it is their mail account and Dropbox that is monitored.
Should fear be the guidance of your legislation? That is the goal of terrorism. Or do you want a home of the brave...