FBI: Surveillance program could have prevented 9/11

[viking60]

Ok stop - this is definitely
The issue is: The surveillance program and the need for security and what level of surveillance that is required and wanted to achieve that.

The FBI stated that 9/11 could have been avoided and as I understand it the NSA will provide a success list of Terror and crimes that they actually have avoided.
So they will be marketing the need and justification for almost unlimited surveillance of the internet. That part is not acceptable to many and to high a price to pay for security.
The freedom is a valued quality in most free countries too - so it is a question of where to draw the line and how to control the controllers - To ensure that they stay within their borders.

To me it is totally unacceptable that the internet is controlled by either US industries nor US agencies. Even though I do understand the need to be alert regarding the real terrorist threat (and I pretty much agree with the US definition of who they are).

Obama seems to have changed his position since he was in opposition so he is not doing what he said he would do.
He used to think that freedom could be defended without reducing freedom. But when you are the one controlling all that tempting info it is hard to let it go.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And then the presidents change and the next one may target other groups and as long as he is the good guy he cannot see anything wrong with it either.

That is how this thing will grow. ....And none of us will ever trust any politician again - especially not those in government.
Meanwhile the NSA can do pretty much what they want - they are good at playing this game. The next president will be told a story of terrorists that scares him so much that he will not dare to touch this.

The price is not marketed as much ..... and it is freedom.

[dedanna1029]

I've come to realize that:

• There is not a politician anyone can trust, in particular when it comes to freedom.
• The level of control of communications should be limited only to "terrorist" suspects (and she says that sarcastically; the government has become the new Al Qaeda)
• Go with the flow. We have not had another incident like 9/11 in 12 years almost. Granted, there may have been a few much smaller incidences, but that does not justify treating everyone like a terrorist, in particular one's own citizens.
• If there is a real terrorist threat, of course tighten the reins, but if not, then relax. Paranoia goes way too far, in particular where the FBI's concerned
• Don't like them? Vote them all out (but then no one's going to do that. They're too blind to the fact that "good guys" aren't really "good guys" any more)
• It's not really necessary to listen in without a warrant or some kind of court order that any judge or agency would have to jump through many a hoop to get. Where calls are coming from/going to is enough, until/if they develop a real pattern of suspected TERRORISM.
• Amend the constitution to include these things. Amend the Patriot Act as well, and any others that have anything remotely to do with this
• STOP BLAMING THE WHISTLEBLOWERS, AND PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS, THERE IS A WHISTLEBLOWER ACT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT WHISTLEBLOWERS, NOT GET THEM KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I'm not going to stop using those buzz words, btw. I'm not. They deserve to be made fun of for this.

Edit: After a bit of thinking, I'm going to say this right out, too. There appear to be quite a few people who agree with this invasion of our freedom of speech, our privacy rights, for that matter our civil and human rights and liberties. See, the thing is, is that as viking said, all of them are agreeing with Dick Cheney, who should have gone out in total, complete disgrace years ago, hung by his balls, and thrown out for the people to devour as they would.