FBI: Surveillance program could have prevented 9/11

[viking60]

FBI-director Robert Mueller claims that 9/11 could have been avoided with a program like PRISM:

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...

[dedanna1029]

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

Also, there are those of us who wonder if "terrorism" has become an excuse, rather than the norm that they treat it as. Our founding fathers, almost all of them, founded this country on the idea of liberty. We have none any more, with the passage of idiot things that can and do stomp all over the rights of the people, such as the Patriot Act. The least they could do, is do it legally, according to warrant, etc.

There is no way anything could have prevented 9/11, other than the U.S. keeping their asses out of other countries' business. This country has killed, mamed, and joined in on genocide of other peoples way too much. More have been killed by the government, military, and even just the people here than by anyone in the world.

[R_Head]

No a chance... The Gov created 911

[viking60]

There is a slight US majority accepting this:


But since there is no information there cannot be a clear understanding of what they actually are accepting. It gives the broad picture though.

Is it possible to rule out that the NSA can and has influenced these polls? Given the latest information that they can listen in on your phone calls without a court order - and their sophisticated infrastructure?

Technically they obviously can - so it is probably a question of you trusting them not to do so.

More here

In general it is clear that they are not very open about the surveillance - and they might also not be open about the threats.
So even if the surveillance has gone past peoples imagination - maybe that is the case for the threat too...

[rolf]

There is a slight US majority accepting this:


But since there is no information there cannot be a clear understanding of what they actually are accepting. It gives the broad picture though.

Is it possible to rule out that the NSA can and has influenced these polls? Given the latest information that they can listen in on your phone calls without a court order - and their sophisticated infrastructure?

(FBI Director) Mueller claimed that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek 'a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual.'

Nadler's statement is causing some, such as CNET, to claim an admission of illegal wiretapping by the NSA.

Mother Jones suggests that 'information from that telephone' could mean one of many things, and that Nadler may have been 'confusing the ability of an analyst to get subscriber information for a phone number with the ability to listen to the call itself.'

NSA Director Keith Alexander said this week that his agency's analysts abide by the law.

In brief, one congressman, whose job it is to make informed votes about these laws, makes what is described in your source as, possibly, a confused, inflammatory statement that is made into a headline by your source, "NSA can 'listen to U.S. phone calls' without a warrant, according to congressman" and that becomes "latest information", evidence that NSA is influencing polls with threats?

Technically they obviously can - so it is probably a question of you trusting them not to do so.

More here

After asking 1,004 American adults for their opinions on NSA surveillance programs

a sizable majority is opposed to the vast NSA surveillance net....pollsters found that 56 percent of Americans have no objection. ( )

only 27 percent of poll responders said they were following the NSA surveillance news "very closely."

So, according to this all-too-typical example of sloppy journalism, the opinions of maybe 250 people who claim to be closely following current events makes for a headline about what the reality is.

In general it is clear that they are not very open about the surveillance - and they might also not be open about the threats.
So even if the surveillance has gone past peoples imagination - maybe that is the case for the threat too...

You have, also, drawn inferences that the silence of Social Democrats signifies their support of NSA practices or PRISM or such. I've got another possible interpretation. Possibly some, at least I, do not take every retwit of a reblog of a reblog... ad infinitem of questionable statements as definitive proof or cause to form beliefs. Some might be looking for credible information but overwhelmed by the ubiquitous, reactionary, lazy blogosphere that shapes the "news".

[R_Head]

Do not trust polls, they are rigged.

[viking60]

You have, also, drawn inferences that the silence of Social Democrats signifies their support of NSA practices or PRISM or such. I've got another possible interpretation. Possibly some, at least I, do not take every retwit of a reblog of a reblog... ad infinitem of questionable statements as definitive proof or cause to form beliefs. Some might be looking for credible information but overwhelmed by the ubiquitous, reactionary, lazy blogosphere that shapes the "news".

So does this mean that you have not formed an opinion ? If you are waiting for "credible information" - you will probably not get it due to national security.

Why do you think the whistleblower did not provide credible information?

What would constitute credible information in this case - a press statement from the NSA?
Renown publications like der Spiegel are referring to this surveillance as a scandal and so is the Guardian; are they lazy blogosphere?

The global Internet has become indispensible for a competitive economy, the sharing of information and the strengthening of human rights in authoritarian countries. But our trust in these technologies threatens to be lost in the face of comprehensive surveillance activities.

(Did the German minister of Justice form a belief based on lazy blogosphere? - I do agree 100 % with that "belief" as presented in der Spiegel).

The suspicion of excessive surveillance of communication is so alarming that it cannot be ignored. For that reason, openness and clarification by the US administration itself should be paramount at this point. All facts must be put on the table.

I admit that it was not good to mention the roaring silence from the Social Democrats in Norway and Germany (I have that too from the press here) because that makes people crawl into their party trenches.

This is simply a matter of a surveillance that violates the human rights (Bush started it and Obama refined it). And where to draw the line.

And yes! I do believe that the NSA have listened in on American phone calls - don't you?
If not directly then some foreign agency could have done it, and then they could swap information later ("you take mine and I take yours"). That way it would be all legal on the US side (Foreigners are OK you see....). It is a possibility - and sadly not as far fetched as I thought only two weeks ago.

[dedanna1029]

Anyone who doubts they could, and would, get a "special court order from FISA" on the fly too, is out of their minds. The only thing "special" (in particular when talking about FISA) about it, is that they do what the hell they want when they want with it. But then, why not? They have with everything else anyway.

Like FISA's so great at preserving our privacy, and not listening in on anything.

I can't believe anyone trusts those bastards with even 5 seconds of their time, much less use them to be on "the good side of things".

And if you don't believe the NSA's been listening for some years now (ain't technology GREAT?), and has violated our privacy rights over and over and over again ILLEGALLY, then you're hopelessly blind to reality, because you've got your shit stuck so far up the party line ass it'll never come out to see it.

[rolf]

Do not trust polls, they are rigged.

Yes, well polls are written in ways to produce desired results. Additionally, a critical thinker would probably take issue with a poll of only 1000

Why do you think the whistleblower did not provide credible information?

My post was about sloppy journalism, for which even "renowned publications" are periodically criticized. I provided one recent example, which I experienced here and which I asked about in your other thread, citing, only, TorrentFreak That site made allegations, without evidence, and expect their good name to override what a critical thinker might find lacking. There is one citation of a Reddit post, where the alleged victim clams up when asked for a copy of the email. It's still there, nothing's changed. I said it then, I said it just now and it is just ignored.

To break it down, I wasn't talking about Snowden, per se, I was pointing out the lack of principles, other than being the first to print/blog with sensational headlines, that is characteristic of the current electronic media, as well as the print media that parrots it. Since you ask, what I've seen of Snowden makes me wonder if he is anything more than another self-absorbed attention whore.

As for parties, I see right-wingers and left-wingers both spreading inflammatory lies in furtherance of political agendas. I hate them equally.

What would constitute credible information in this case - a press statement from the NSA?

You know what? I'm tired of being called stupid for not automatically embracing your political statements. I'm tired of this stupid cunt banshee dropping from a tree and screaming how everyone who doesn't kiss her ass and sing the praises of her offensive, wet-brain crap is blind or crazy or stupid or what f*cking ever. Why don't you just point to where I should suck your cocks in order to be able to describe a different point of view without being ridiculed and attacked. Then go f*ck yourselves.

Anyone who doubts they could, and would, get a "special court order from FISA" on the fly too, is out of their minds. The only thing "special" (in particular when talking about FISA) about it, is that they do what the hell they want when they want with it. But then, why not? They have with everything else anyway.

Like FISA's so great at preserving our privacy, and not listening in on anything.

I can't believe anyone trusts those bastards with even 5 seconds of their time, much less use them to be on "the good side of things".

And if you don't believe the NSA's been listening for some years now (ain't technology GREAT?), and has violated our privacy rights over and over and over again ILLEGALLY, then you're hopelessly blind to reality, because you've got your shit stuck so far up the party line ass it'll never come out to see it.

[viking60]

OK only bad tempered and slightly off topic then. The quality of journalism is important also in this case - but the natural angle would be how "patriotic" the press is required to be and how this total media control affects them.

That kind of makes the minor media that slip under that radar interesting and foreign media far more trustworthy in this matter.

And I have not called you anything - I have asked you questions that naturally come up based on your sudden urge to analyze text rather than commenting on the issue.
So if you are getting tired then it is by your imagination - not by me calling you anything.

The quality of the sources I refer to may vary: I apologize if they are not up to your standards.

Regarding Snowdens whistleblowing I think he is very credible and has risked a lot. So we disagree there. In the name of freedom that is OK though.
Dick Cheney is in your corner and pretty much agrees with you - so you are not alone.

[dedanna1029]

OK only bad tempered and slightly off topic then. The quality of journalism is important also in this case - but the natural angle would be how "patriotic" the press is required to be and how this total media control affects them.

That kind of makes the minor media that slip under that radar interesting and foreign media far more trustworthy in this matter.

And I have not called you anything - I have asked you questions that naturally come up based on your sudden urge to analyze text rather than commenting on the issue.
So if you are getting tired then it is by your imagination - not by me calling you anything.

The quality of the sources I refer to may vary: I apologize if they are not up to your standards.

Regarding Snowdens whistleblowing I think he is very credible and has risked a lot. So we disagree there. In the name of freedom that is OK though.
Dick Cheney is in your corner and pretty much agrees with you - so you are not alone.

And I haven't called you anything, either. I never said your name, and said IF, also used ANYONE, and look at the names you called me. I never called you anything like that, even when I myself think I could have, and should have. Just because you think you could and should, doesn't mean you should. Apologize NOW. I didn't even so much as quote your ass.

So, I guess you're offended because you consider yourself in that category that I described? Because if not, then you wouldn't be offended by something not even using your name, since you're so great at picking at and analyzing everything like viking says, instead of listening to the main point.

Level of journalism is also controlled by our wonderful government, so... I guess everyone can blame them on what's being released by the media as well. They control everything, doncha no. Just one more side effect of our big government. If it were a competent one, I'd welcome it. As it is, it's not.

[This post will be deleted due to personal concerns.]

[dedanna1029]

How f*cking selfish of you to think that every word that, in particular, I write, is geared in any way for or at you when your name isn't even mentioned (which I'd use, believe me). How dare you?

Sorry, viking, I guess we're going to have to start censoring here at the forum, lest we offend ANYONE that can't handle basic truths being told.

[This post will be deleted due to personal concerns.]