Congressional report slams NSA leaker Edward Snowden

[Publicus]

21 minutes ago, PTC said:

 

Here is a link to the decision. It is on the Guardian website. The Guardian has a strong interest in this issue.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/nsa-bulk-data-collection-surveillance-document

 

The purpose of this 'report' is clearly to lay the groundwork for any future legal or political wrangling over Snowden. With the Court of Appeals ruling the the actions of the NSA were illegal, this then justifies Snowden's status as a whistleblower. However if it is established that most of the material related to non illegal activities, then it makes the case for Snowden's prosecution.

 

Bipartisan or not, the committee represents the intelligence community. It will have long been captured by that community with repeated exultations about national security and how privileged the members are to access 'inside' information and all the blandishments that go with political lobbying. This will not be an objective report and its intention is clear. With clear political brio, the report descends into petty muckraking with its allegations about Snowden's employment record.

 

Oliver Stone has a knack for shaking things up. Good on him. I will watch the movie. I think Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of those talents who come along very rarely. I will probably not draw conclusions from the movie, however it would appear that certain interests in Washington have a lot to fear and a lot to hide. 

 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Have the agencies that were established to protect citizens gone too far and are now preying on them? If this is the case, what can stop this? Perhaps only public outrage and full transparency. The attack dogs are certainly active - Snowden, Assange, Greenwald, Manning.

 

Politically speaking,  do not see Clinton as a force for 'good' in this context. As a demonstrated security 'hawk', she is clearly aligned with the 'establishment' and she has been personally embarrassed by the actions of whistleblowers and 'leakers' through Wikileaks. There are too many people with too strong an interest in the furtherance of the military security industrial complex as it has now become. If nothing else, the little guys like Snowden, Manning and Assange, not matter how flawed their characters, do seem like Davids in the face of the behemoth Goliath of the US multi-trillion dollar security complex. There is something quite heroic to me about this.

 

Bipartisan or not, the committee represents the intelligence community. It will have long been captured by that community

 

Afraid you're arguing as the cynic here. Fact and reality of the discourse and the responsibility of the House Intelligence Committee (and of the Senate one separately) are that it is a government and in the USA elected officials assume and execute the responsibility. Dismissing them as being vested in their systems and society -- country -- leads to nowhere. To nihilism perhaps, which is a political version of Nirvana.

 

 

Oliver Stone has a knack for shaking things up. Good on him. I will watch the movie. I think Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of those talents who come along very rarely.

 

Quite the coincidence you'd mention Oliver Stone cause reading your post caused me to glance over at my copy of The Untold History of the United States by Stone (as a coauthor). It's a book I'd bought at the Hong Kong Airport on one of my trips to the CCP China (when Chinese friends saw it in my apartment they remarked they don't have books like that available on the mainland!). It will be a fine movie no doubt and I look forward to seeing it myself.

 

The attack dogs are certainly active - Snowden, Assange, Greenwald, Manning.

 

The rationale of each of these who are themselves dogs is that they focus against the United States because they say it is easier to change than are governments and societies such as the CCP Dictatorship in Beijing or the murderous mob in Moscow...not to mention the grim ayatollahs in Iran among other bad guyz. This is cheap, bogus nonsense from blatant and shameless enemies of the United States. Nobody I know falls for their line of swill.

 

 

Politically speaking,  do not see Clinton as a force for 'good' in this context.

 

If you're going to mention Clinton then you must needs necessarily mention Trump, because that is the choice, and I go with Clinton all the way without hesitation or reservation. Maybe that makes me establishment but I think that by definition says I am sane. None over on that side mention the booming arms industry thriving in Russia and more recently due to the South China Sea and its overall massive military buildup in CCP China.

 

 

The post is a nice try actually. But it goes bust nonetheless and in a short order.

[PTC]

8 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Bipartisan or not, the committee represents the intelligence community. It will have long been captured by that community

 

Afraid you're arguing as the cynic here. Fact and reality of the discourse and the responsibility of the House Intelligence Committee (and of the Senate one separately) are that it is a government and in the USA elected officials assume and execute the responsibility. Dismissing them as being vested in their systems and society -- country -- leads to nowhere. To nihilism perhaps, which is a political version of Nirvana.

 

 

Oliver Stone has a knack for shaking things up. Good on him. I will watch the movie. I think Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of those talents who come along very rarely.

 

Quite the coincidence you'd mention Oliver Stone cause reading your post caused me to glance over at my copy of The Untold History of the United States by Stone (as a coauthor). It's a book I'd bought at the Hong Kong Airport on one of my trips to the CCP China (when Chinese friends saw it in my apartment they remarked they don't have books like that available on the mainland!). It will be a fine movie no doubt and I look forward to seeing it myself.

 

The attack dogs are certainly active - Snowden, Assange, Greenwald, Manning.

 

The rationale of each of these who are themselves dogs is that they focus against the United States because they say it is easier to change than are governments and societies such as the CCP Dictatorship in Beijing or the murderous mob in Moscow...not to mention the grim ayatollahs in Iran among other bad guyz. This is cheap, bogus nonsense from blatant and shameless enemies of the United States. Nobody I know falls for their line of swill.

 

 

Politically speaking,  do not see Clinton as a force for 'good' in this context.

 

If you're going to mention Clinton then you must needs necessarily mention Trump, because that is the choice, and I go with Clinton all the way without hesitation or reservation. Maybe that makes me establishment but I think that by definition says I am sane. None over on that side mention the booming arms industry thriving in Russia and more recently due to the South China Sea and its overall massive military buildup in CCP China.

 

 

The post is a nice try actually. But it goes bust nonetheless and in a short order.

 

How can one not be a cynic once you have had any dealings with Government. I think the meat of my argument lies in your notion of a bipartisan committee and their intentions with this report.

 

While I consider this a bit more closely, I will just remind readers of two things that might justify my cynicism.

 

Congress Had No Time to Read the USA PATRIOT Act https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/

 

I learned this from Michael Moore's Fahreheit 9/11. An the second being:

 

Michele Bachmann Not Worthy Of Intelligence Committee Role, 178,000 Say In Petition To John Boehner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/michele-bachmann-petition_n_2472682.html

 

If I had known about that petition, I would most definitely have signed it. This is just one former member whose motives can certainly be questioned.

 

I did not mention Trump because he is not worthy of any mention in any discussion like this. He is a weakling who will cater to any interest group that can intimidate him and the military security industrial complex would eat him alive. Hillary may have had the strength to stand up to them but her hawkishness probably blinds her to some of the more egregious invasions of civil liberties at the hands of these Custodians.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, tonbridgebrit said:

They're trying to say that Snowden is a liar, and that he was some junior member of staff.  That's totally ridiculous and absurd.

Snowden was very senior, and was probably at the centre of the whole system. That's why he was in a position to see and know such a massive amount of stuff. Snowden just wanted America and the world to know what's really going on.

By the way, people have known for ages that GCHQ, in Britain, has been spying on people for ages. Snowden's revelations confirmed it, and revealed the scale of it.

 

 

Snowden wasn't 30 years old when he skulked in the night off of Hawaii and out of the United States with his precious goods.

 

The guy was a senior nothing except a young sack of testosterone who was going to make his mark in the world, no matter what or the cost to others, the country especially.

 

Edward Snowden is a classic case of apples and oranges. However, had Snowden presented only the NSA apples he'd be a hero to many of us who today want to see him put away for several decades. Trouble is Snowden the boy spy passed out oranges while he was in Hong Kong in the People's Republic of China and upon his arrival in Moscow assisted by Wikileaks and where he provided Putin with the juice Vlad welcomed with a great cheer. Putin issued papers to Snowden to save his arse from the US Government and people.

 

Biting into the apple is good but passing out the oranges abroad is by definition criminal. Having had his USA passport cancelled, Snowden's been hiding out besides like a cornered rat. The guy even lied about having a GED.

[craigt3365]

8 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

They're trying to say that Snowden is a liar, and that he was some junior member of staff.  That's totally ridiculous and absurd.

Snowden was very senior, and was probably at the centre of the whole system. That's why he was in a position to see and know such a massive amount of stuff. Snowden just wanted America and the world to know what's really going on.

By the way, people have known for ages that GCHQ, in Britain, has been spying on people for ages. Snowden's revelations confirmed it, and revealed the scale of it.

 

Snowden was a liar.  And was not a senior staff member.  He was a programmer.  A very good one.  Senior staff don't program, they manage.  Love this article on him:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/04/the-lies-edward-snowden-tells/360893/

 

Quote

 

The Lies Edward Snowden Tells

The former NSA contractor claims he challenged Vladimir Putin on government surveillance. That couldn't be further from the truth.

 

 

[Srikcir]

19 hours ago, Srikcir said:

A spirit is not a law.

My previous post:

• The court did not address ACLU's argument that metadata collection violated the fourth amendment rights. It held only that the unrestricted gathering of American phone data was beyond the scope of what the US Congress had in mind when it passed section 215 of the Patriot Act after September 11, 2001.

 

Much is being said abouth the Court of Appeals ruling that is inaccurate.

Judge for yourself, ie., find the word illegal in the ruling.

NSA Court Appeal.pdf

[Srikcir]

14 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Snowden was very senior,

Who was Snowden?

"Some of the material Snowden downloaded in April 2012 while a Dell employee related to NSA collection from fiber-optic cables, including transoceanic cables, of large quantities of internet traffic and other communications, the sources said.

Snowden has said he left Dell for a job at Booz Allen Hamilton in Hawaii around March of this year, specifically to gain access to additional top-secret documents that could be leaked to the media."

http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-security-snowden-dell-idUSL2N0GF11220130815

Snowden was a government subcontractor. As such his government contractor employers were responsible for his security clearances.

[Srikcir]

11 minutes ago, sgtsabai said:

Just a bit about the movie which I have not seen.

Movies are great entertainment.

[Publicus]

19 hours ago, PTC said:

 

How can one not be a cynic once you have had any dealings with Government. I think the meat of my argument lies in your notion of a bipartisan committee and their intentions with this report.

 

While I consider this a bit more closely, I will just remind readers of two things that might justify my cynicism.

 

Congress Had No Time to Read the USA PATRIOT Act https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/

 

I learned this from Michael Moore's Fahreheit 9/11. An the second being:

 

Michele Bachmann Not Worthy Of Intelligence Committee Role, 178,000 Say In Petition To John Boehner http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/14/michele-bachmann-petition_n_2472682.html

 

If I had known about that petition, I would most definitely have signed it. This is just one former member whose motives can certainly be questioned.

 

I did not mention Trump because he is not worthy of any mention in any discussion like this. He is a weakling who will cater to any interest group that can intimidate him and the military security industrial complex would eat him alive. Hillary may have had the strength to stand up to them but her hawkishness probably blinds her to some of the more egregious invasions of civil liberties at the hands of these Custodians.

 

How can one not be a cynic once you have had any dealings with Government.

 

This poster has had a professional career of dealing with government, from the outside as a journalist and from the inside as a professional staff member of the U.S. House in Washington, but he is not a complete cynic.

 

One needs always to have cynicism at the ready in dealing with government, and on a super high alert when dealing with elected officials whose number one job is to get reelected. However, complete cynicism is a one-way road to nihilism which is evidenced by the posts.

[PTC]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

How can one not be a cynic once you have had any dealings with Government.

 

This poster has had a professional career of dealing with government, from the outside as a journalist and from the inside as a professional staff member of the U.S. House in Washington, but he is not a complete cynic.

 

One needs always to have cynicism at the ready in dealing with government, and on a super high alert when dealing with elected officials whose number one job is to get reelected. However, complete cynicism is a one-way road to nihilism which is evidenced by the posts.

 

One can be cynical about motive but that does not address the structural issues that lead to weak oversight of intelligence operations.

 

The article  "Congressional Intelligence Oversight: The Electoral Disconnection" by  Amy Zegart & Julie Quinn published in the journal "Intelligence and National Security" Vol 25, 2010 Issue 6 pp 744 - 766 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fint20/current observes that the congressional oversight model works well in terms of dealing with domestic policy issues but does not work so well for intelligence issues.

 

"Our data – comparing committee hearing activities, legislative productivity, and interest groups across different policy domains between 1985 and 2005 – reveal that oversight varies dramatically by policy issue, and that intelligence almost always ranks at the bottom."

 

The article suggests that strong and plentiful interest groups that operate across most of the domestic policy areas but are lacking in the international intelligence space could be a reason for this.

 

It would appear that the over-classification of information also has the consequence of preventing interest groups from knowing what is going on and stunting their development and activism. I think the most useful path to understand why the intelligence and security community have appeared to capture their Custodians lies in the joint issues of the Principal-Agent problem and Information Asymmetry.

 

One does not need to be cynical to recognize certain patterns of behavior and perverse outcomes.

[PTC]

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Study of the Central Intelligence Aency's Detention and Interrogation Program was declassified in December 2104. It has 20 conclusions, including:

 

#9; The CIA impeded oversight by the CIA's Office of Inspector General. 

#10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the effectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. 

Here is the PDF https://fas.org/irp/congress/2014_rpt/ssci-rdi.pdf

 

The maintenance of information asymmetry allowed the CIA to do this.

[PTC]

Congressional oversight of the NSA is a joke. I should know, I'm in Congress https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/25/nsa-no-congress-oversight

 

"Many of us worry that Congressional Intelligence Committees are more loyal to the "intelligence community" that they are tasked with policing, than to the Constitution. And the House Intelligence Committee isn't doing anything to assuage our concerns."

 

Cynicism or Realism.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, PTC said:

 

One can be cynical about motive but that does not address the structural issues that lead to weak oversight of intelligence operations.

 

The article  "Congressional Intelligence Oversight: The Electoral Disconnection" by  Amy Zegart & Julie Quinn published in the journal "Intelligence and National Security" Vol 25, 2010 Issue 6 pp 744 - 766 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/fint20/current observes that the congressional oversight model works well in terms of dealing with domestic policy issues but does not work so well for intelligence issues.

 

"Our data – comparing committee hearing activities, legislative productivity, and interest groups across different policy domains between 1985 and 2005 – reveal that oversight varies dramatically by policy issue, and that intelligence almost always ranks at the bottom."

 

The article suggests that strong and plentiful interest groups that operate across most of the domestic policy areas but are lacking in the international intelligence space could be a reason for this.

 

It would appear that the over-classification of information also has the consequence of preventing interest groups from knowing what is going on and stunting their development and activism. I think the most useful path to understand why the intelligence and security community have appeared to capture their Custodians lies in the joint issues of the Principal-Agent problem and Information Asymmetry.

 

One does not need to be cynical to recognize certain patterns of behavior and perverse outcomes.

 

 

the meat of my argument lies in your notion of a bipartisan committee and their intentions with this report.

 

The House Intelligence Committee staff wrote the report on Snowden and it was read and approved by the members of the Committee. The now issued Report had been two years in the making. I don't see a problem here.

 

(Your link to the Guardian was written by a Member of the U.S. House who just lost the Florida Democratic party primary for the Senate to another Member of the U.S. House.)

 

For numerous and long extant reasons it is difficult to get members of the House and also the Senate to become members of the respective Select Committee on Intelligence of each body. Most often the wildmen do it such as the guy who wrote the piece you linked. There's so little publicity to it. The national intelligence civil society constituencies are relatively few or unknown to the general public, and they have highly specialised expertise.

 

NSA and all the rest of 'em are packed full of super patriot right wingers so while I thank 'em for keeping us safe, I also know they're the guyz who set out (unsuccessfully) to put Hillary Clinton out of the contest for Potus. I don't trust 'em either. 

 

From the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress...

 

Congressional Oversight of Intelligence: Current Structure and Alternatives 

 

Reinforcing secrecy’s constraints is the institutionalized system determining eligibility for access to classified national security information, which for the most part is governed by executive orders and directives that determine what information is to be classified and at what levels. These limitations can restrict the availability of information among Members of Congress, even though they (as with other constitutional officers) are not required to hold security clearances to be eligible for access.102 Yet other constraints exist because of formal agreements as well as informal arrangements between legislators on the one hand and executive officials on the other to control access among Members and staff.

 

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL32525.pdf

 

 

For sheer volume of Congress vis-a-vis the intelligence agencies, laws, amendments, projects, issues, challenges, solutions, alternatives, improvements etc you might want to just check out the listing of titles here: 

 

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/index.html

 

I reiterate that I have no problem with this report on Snowden by the House Select Committee on Intelligence.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Publicus
Technical errors.

[sgtsabai]

Damn, rain again in BKK washing away posts. Yes movies are great entertainment, but Snowden attempts to inform the uninformed, of which we seem to have an abundance here. Snowden and all whistleblowers are true American heros and those that condem them are the real traitors. Please read the Constitution. We have a right to NOT be spied upon.

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/16/new-film-tells-the-story-of-edward-snowden-here-are-the-surveillance-programs-he-helped-expose/

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/sep/10/oliver-stone-snowden-us-government-lies-all-the-time

 

 

 

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17244

[peergin]

On 9/16/2016 at 3:13 PM, humqdpf said:

 

One should be a little bit careful with believing everything that is said about Snowden and the release of information for the following reasons:

- Snowden cannot be charged with espionage as he only published classified information. He never aided a foreign power by providing them in a clandestine way information that would be prejudicial to the national security of the USA. There is no record or credible allegation of him passing any information to the authorities of China or any other foreign power.

- there is a huge amount of classified information in the USA that should not be classified in a transparent democracy

- so much is classified that even Presidents of the USA (and other members of branches of government) have leaked classified information to journalists and no one charges them

- disclosing or publishing classified information is NOT NECESSARILY against the law in the USA. (Congress has continuously refused to make disclosure of classified information a crime). Yes, there are laws against disclosing information that would impact on national security but it would be awful hard to get a jury to agree exactly on what would pass that test in this case

- Yes, there have been prosecutions (including many successful ones) against individuals who have provided classified information to foreign powers against the national security of the USA. But how many have been prosecuted for publishing or handing over classified information to be published (and it indeed was published)? Well, there is no record of such a prosecution (let alone a conviction!), certainly not in recent decades.

 

How old are you? Seven, eight??

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, sgtsabai said:

We have a right to NOT be spied upon.

Just not a constitutional right.

Certainly not a right under the Patriot Act.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

Just not a constitutional right.

Certainly not a right under the Patriot Act.

Sadly, there's a good reason for gathering intelligence.  Terrorists seem to be popping up everywhere.  I'd rather have my government listening to my incredibly boring conversations, with the potential to doing the same with a terrorist.  And stopping an attack.  As opposed to the alternative.  No easy choices here.  We live in difficult times.

 

Remember when the Patriot Act was signed into law.  Just after the worst attack on American soil in history.  It was a difficult time.  The NSA no longer does mass phone data collection.  It's selective now.  A requirement in today's society. Sadly.

[Srikcir]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

I'd rather have my government listening to my incredibly boring conversations

Just a clarification. NSA metadata collection was just that - collection. NSA then ran algorithms for key words, phrases, names, places, etc. that may merit further scrutiny of specific calls such as listening to captured calls after Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Court permission. NSA didn't listen to live calls contained within the US nor listen to all calls captured in its database.

 

[craigt3365]

13 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Just a clarification. NSA metadata collection was just that - collection. NSA then ran algorithms for key words, phrases, names, places, etc. that may merit further scrutiny of specific calls such as listening to captured calls after Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Court permission. NSA didn't listen to live calls contained within the US nor listen to all calls captured in its database.

 

I believe that's what they are doing here also....Thailand.  At least to some degree.

[BuaBS]

18 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Movies are great entertainment.

Movies like "enemy of the state" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_28 and many more , and series like "24"  , were a good preview of the future . Sure fiction then , reality now ... or even far worse.

I known Snowdon ruined watching 24 for me. I side with the "baddies" , but they always lose .

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Sadly, there's a good reason for gathering intelligence.  Terrorists seem to be popping up everywhere.  I'd rather have my government listening to my incredibly boring conversations, with the potential to doing the same with a terrorist.  And stopping an attack.  As opposed to the alternative.  No easy choices here.  We live in difficult times.

 

Remember when the Patriot Act was signed into law.  Just after the worst attack on American soil in history.  It was a difficult time.  The NSA no longer does mass phone data collection.  It's selective now.  A requirement in today's society. Sadly.

 

A few minutes spent on Google would find numerous reports such as this one:

 

U.S. Mass Surveillance Has No Record of Thwarting Large Terror Attacks, Regardless of Snowden Leaks

 

We have been lied to and you have fallen for that lie.

[craigt3365]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

A few minutes spent on Google would find numerous reports such as this one:

 

U.S. Mass Surveillance Has No Record of Thwarting Large Terror Attacks, Regardless of Snowden Leaks

 

We have been lied to and you have fallen for that lie.

Not the best source of credible info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Criticism

Quote

In February 2015, having resigned after nearly 14 months, Ken Silverstein contributed an article on Politico about his time at First Look and The Intercept. "I went to First Look to do fearless journalism," Silverstein wrote, "but I found I couldn't navigate any journalism, fearless or not, through the layers of what I saw as inept management, oversight and editing."^[27]

 

Great click bait though!

[RuamRudy]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Not the best source of credible info.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept#Criticism

 

Great click bait though!

 

One of numerous articles - however, with regards to the Intercept,  the accusations of inept management, oversight and editing are charges of operational failure, not wilful deceit. 

 

However, if that is still not enough for you, simply goolgling "how many terrorist plots has the nsa stopped" reveals reports from the following, all agreeing with the Intercept:

 

Vice

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Foreign Policy in Focus

New America

Propublica

Digg

[craigt3365]

19 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

One of numerous articles - however, with regards to the Intercept,  the accusations of inept management, oversight and editing are charges of operational failure, not wilful deceit. 

 

However, if that is still not enough for you, simply goolgling "how many terrorist plots has the nsa stopped" reveals reports from the following, all agreeing with the Intercept:

 

Vice

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Foreign Policy in Focus

New America

Propublica

Digg

Wow...those are some...well...interesting websites.  So when a terrorist strike is thwarted, like they've done many times in the US and Europe, surveillance didn't help?

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wow...those are some...well...interesting websites.  So when a terrorist strike is thwarted, like they've done many times in the US and Europe, surveillance didn't help?

 

Well there is plenty of evidence to suggest that no major terrorist attack has been prevented by mass surveillance, and absolutely nothing to back up claims that it has been fundamental in preventing attacks.

 

The narrative being spun by various western governments is not about preventing terrorism but, amongst many things, preventing the fomentation of internal dissent.  The danger of giving up your privacy, and the fact that you are willing to do so so easily is terrifying.

[craigt3365]

26 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Well there is plenty of evidence to suggest that no major terrorist attack has been prevented by mass surveillance, and absolutely nothing to back up claims that it has been fundamental in preventing attacks.

 

The narrative being spun by various western governments is not about preventing terrorism but, amongst many things, preventing the fomentation of internal dissent.  The danger of giving up your privacy, and the fact that you are willing to do so so easily is terrifying.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

Quote

Yet, the fact remains that there have been at least 60 Islamist-inspired terrorist plots against the homeland since 9/11, illustrating the continued threat of terrorism against the United States. Fifty-three of these plots were thwarted long before the public was ever in danger, due in large part to the concerted efforts of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence.

No conspiracy theories here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/24/theresa-may-london-attacks-40-terror-plots-foiled

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/04/30/europe/germany-terror-arrests/

 

Surveillance works.

Edited September 19, 2016 by craigt3365

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/07/60-terrorist-plots-since-911-continued-lessons-in-domestic-counterterrorism

No conspiracy theories here.

 

Assuming that The Intercept is capable of objectivity and factual reporting (and you have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are not), there is not attempt to hide the partisan nature of The Heritage Foundation. 

 

But even so, this article provides nothing to back up your assertion that NSA snooping has made the US safer - none of these 60 planned attacks were discovered due to mass surveillance.

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Assuming that The Intercept is capable of objectivity and factual reporting (and you have not provided any evidence to suggest that they are not), there is not attempt to hide the partisan nature of The Heritage Foundation. 

 

But even so, this article provides nothing to back up your assertion that NSA snooping has made the US safer - none of these 60 planned attacks were discovered due to mass surveillance.

The intelligence services will hardly tell the public how it thwarted a terrorist attack.  No way.  Your article only says there's no public proof.  That's probably true.  But doesn't mean attacks weren't stopped due to surveillance. 

 

I quit reading that article after this comment:

Quote

But the reason there haven’t been any large-scale terror attacks by ISIS in the U.S. is not because they were averted by the intelligence community, but because — with the possible exception of one that was foiled by local police — none were actually planned.

Clearly not true.  Many of these attacks are very well planned out.  But still thwarted due to good intelligence work.

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

The intelligence services will hardly tell the public how it thwarted a terrorist attack.  No way.  Your article only says there's no public proof.  That's probably true.  But doesn't mean attacks weren't stopped due to surveillance. 

 

I quit reading that article after this comment:

Clearly not true.  Many of these attacks are very well planned out.  But still thwarted due to good intelligence work.

 

The article you quoted from the Heritage Foundation gave lots of examples of how good intelligence foiled plots - but none of them were the result of mass surveillance. If they can talk about how they infiltrated groups with moles, how can they not mention that they picked up a lead from reading someone's email? It makes no sense to suggest that they will talk about lots of methods of busting plots except the one thing we all know is being done routinely. 

 

I am not suggesting that we do not face a massive threat from global terrorism, but the proof is there to see - traditional means of detective work are what has been effective in preventing attacks. Mass surveillance has not and will not prevent future terrorist attacks, even if it was the objective of the campaign.

[craigt3365]

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The article you quoted from the Heritage Foundation gave lots of examples of how good intelligence foiled plots - but none of them were the result of mass surveillance. If they can talk about how they infiltrated groups with moles, how can they not mention that they picked up a lead from reading someone's email? It makes no sense to suggest that they will talk about lots of methods of busting plots except the one thing we all know is being done routinely. 

 

I am not suggesting that we do not face a massive threat from global terrorism, but the proof is there to see - traditional means of detective work are what has been effective in preventing attacks. Mass surveillance has not and will not prevent future terrorist attacks, even if it was the objective of the campaign.

We'll never know if they were thwarted from mass surveillance or not.  Very few know the truth about this.

[johnnywishbone]

Snowden should have never left Hong Kong alive.
A total lack of control.
Weak.
I should be used to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk