Washington Post: Maybe NSA Programs Thwarted Zazi, Maybe Not

[Revmitchell]

When The Washington Post carried Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) claim that NSA surveillance programs had successfully thwarted a terror attack by Najibullah Zazi, the paper also highlighted the counter claim that Zazi's plans were actually thwarted by good police work.

According to Feinstein, while living in Colorado Zazi made up his mind to "blow up a New York subway." She said NSA surveillance "programs" helped foil the plans before they could be carried out.

However, as my colleague John Sexton has pointed out, public information on the Zazi case shows that he actually caught investigators' attention because of an email flagged via good police work--not good NSA programs. According to these records, "the path to [Zazi's] capture began in April 2009" when British police found emails between various accounts and an Al Qaeda affiliate on computer they had seized.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...st-Maybe-NSA-Programs-Thwarted-Zazi-Maybe-Not

 

[Revmitchell]

CNN: Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is "unconvinced" data collection has stopped terror plots and wants an open debate about privacy.

Video

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...mber-Says-No-proof-call-tracking-stops-terror

 

[Crabtownboy]

CNN: Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) is "unconvinced" data collection has stopped terror plots and wants an open debate about privacy.

There is no privacy in our digital world. It is a nice illusion, but simply no longer exists.

 

[Revmitchell]

There is no privacy in our digital world. It is a nice illusion, but simply no longer exists.

Off topic. You are welcome to start another thread so we can discuss it.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Off topic. You are welcome to start another thread so we can discuss it.

In a discussion on privacy the idea of whether there is any privacy that still exists should be discussed. I do not know what committees the senator is on and thus I do not know what he knows ... actually none of us knows much and certainly not as much as any senator and nor nearly as much as folks on the intelligence committees. I am sure that there have been terrorists plots foiled that cannot be spoken of for fear of compromising resources and/or putting people overseas in great danger.

If Udall is really worried about privacy then he will have to address the data mining by corporations, think tanks and Internet servers as well.

 

[Revmitchell]

In a discussion on privacy the idea of whether there is any privacy that still exists should be discussed. I do not know what committees the senator is on and thus I do not know what he knows ... actually none of us knows much and certainly not as much as any senator and nor nearly as much as folks on the intelligence committees. I am sure that there have been terrorists plots foiled that cannot be spoken of for fear of compromising resources and/or putting people overseas in great danger.

Interesting, so when there was only Senators supporting your savior's position then it should be considered. But now that it has become clear they were wrong then "Hey, we do not really know!"

Typical far left extreme liberal.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Interesting, so when there was only Senators supporting your savior's position then it should be considered. But now that it has become clear they were wrong then "Hey, we do not really know!"

Typical far left extreme liberal.

I think the issue should be discussed fully, but not just from the aspect of governmental data mining, but all others who data mine also. If we are concerned about our privacy being compromised then the entire issue should be discussed.

Will this happen? I doubt it will ... it will only if politicians think it will benefit them. But big corporations own politicians and thus our privacy will not be protected from them ... IMHO.

Actually you seem to be taking a more liberal position on this one than I. You seem only concerned about the government invading your privacy as you have said nothing about others gathering data about your and your family.

 

[poncho]

The dems would love to turn this into another privacy vs security debate. As long as it's between privacy and security the well trained and frightened population will pick security everytime.

The real dabate is whether or not we can trust a government that has taken advantage of every threat real or imagined and every crisis imaginable to expand it's own power and scope at the expense of our freedom and liberties.

 

[Revmitchell]

But big corporations own politicians and thus our privacy will not be protected from them ... IMHO.

It is hard to take anyone with this position seriously.

Actually you seem to be taking a more liberal position on this one than I. You seem only concerned about the government invading your privacy as you have said nothing about others gathering data about your and your family.

And here we have, on grand display, a prime example of why liberals do not get it.

First you continue to struggle to make legitimate comparisons.

Second, private companies and the government are not equally dangerous. In fact they are not in the ball park. Companies cannot force you to do anything.

Once you learn the differences between government and "corporations" then you will have a better understanding about politics. Right now you are wandering in the wilderness.

 

[poncho]

It is hard to take anyone with this position seriously.



And here we have, on grand display, a prime example of why liberals do not get it.

First you continue to struggle to make legitimate comparisons.

Second, private companies and the government are not equally dangerous. In fact they are not in the ball park. Companies cannot force you to do anything.

Once you learn the differences between government and "corporations" then you will have a better understanding about politics. Right now you are wandering in the wilderness.

Wait a second now Rev Crabby made a good point. The supreme court just ruled not that long ago that corporations could buy politicians. For certain sure the corporations have at the very least infiltrated government. Wall Street owns Obama. One look at his administration should make that pretty clear.

Al Capone bought politicians so it's not like they've never been for sale.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Second, private companies and the government are not equally dangerous. In fact they are not in the ball park. Companies cannot force you to do anything.

The dangers are different but very real. And, as corporations own our politicians, they thus dictate our policies. They surely are not interested in your best interest, but in profits.

Once you learn the differences between government and "corporations" then you will have a better understanding about politics. Right now you are wandering in the wilderness.

Corporations have been ruled as individuals.
Corporations can give unlimited donations to politicians, thus the individual has been taken out of the equation.
Corporations look out for self, not you and me.

If you believe corporations are not a danger then look at:

What they have done to the land and environment in West Virginia.

Love canal.

The Gulf Coast

The mercury poisoning of the people at Minamata

The killings by mercenaries hired by US companies in various foreign lands. Just one example is the activities of Sam Zemurray the founder of Cuyamel Fruit Company. He is not alone.

The mercenaries for hire companies that are flourishing and have no loyality except to those who pay them ... but only for as long as they are paid. For instance Monsanto hired mercenaries from Blackwater.

Additionally, if you believe corporations are benign do some reading on the Robber Baron era in the USA.

Also read about the Coal Field Wars in West Virginia.

Read about what oil companies have done in Nigeria.

Yes, corporations do much to improve our lives. But they are not benign.

Rev. you have to take off your liberal rose colored glasses and find out about the real world.

 

[Revmitchell]

The dangers are different but very real. And, as corporations own our politicians, they thus dictate our policies. They surely are not interested in your best interest, but in profits.



Corporations have been ruled as individuals.
Corporations can give unlimited donations to politicians, thus the individual has been taken out of the equation.
Corporations look out for self, not you and me.

If you believe corporations are not a danger then look at:

What they have done to the land and environment in West Virginia.

Love canal.

The Gulf Coast

The mercury poisoning of the people at Minamata

The killings by mercenaries hired by US companies in various foreign lands. Just one example is the activities of Sam Zemurray the founder of Cuyamel Fruit Company. He is not alone.

The mercenaries for hire companies that are flourishing and have no loyality except to those who pay them ... but only for as long as they are paid. For instance Monsanto hired mercenaries from Blackwater.

Additionally, if you believe corporations are benign do some reading on the Robber Baron era in the USA.

Also read about the Coal Field Wars in West Virginia.

Read about what oil companies have done in Nigeria.

Yes, corporations do much to improve our lives. But they are not benign.

Rev. you have to take off your liberal rose colored glasses and find out about the real world.

You have been indoctrinated. Especially in light of the fact that you cannot see the danger in what the government does. There is a serious deficit there.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You have been indoctrinated. Especially in light of the fact that you cannot see the danger in what the government does. There is a serious deficit there.

I am a student of history. You seem to know now history or have not learned anything from it.

You did not address the issues of what corporations have done. Are you blind to the dangers of unbridled capitalism?

Government and industry both can be helpful or dangerous. Neither should be given a free hand.

But, keeping a record of who I call ... and I am sure they have as I called my sister, my doctor, the person living in my house a number of time from Prague. Those were noted. I could care less.

Why are you protecting terrorists communications?

I am against secret courts.

I am against the government being able to arrest and detain a person indefinitely without out charges and without letting his/her family know.

What do you worry about the government knowing who you call. Your telephone company knows. Does it matter? No.

Make communications as difficult for terrorists as possible. Do you agree?

 

[Revmitchell]

I am a student of history. You seem to know now history or have not learned anything from it.

You did not address the issues of what corporations have done. Are you blind to the dangers of unbridled capitalism?

Government and industry both can be helpful or dangerous. Neither should be given a free hand.

But, keeping a record of who I call ... and I am sure they have as I called my sister, my doctor, the person living in my house a number of time from Prague. Those were noted. I could care less.

Why are you protecting terrorists communications?

I am against secret courts.

I am against the government being able to arrest and detain a person indefinitely without out charges and without letting his/her family know.

What do you worry about the government knowing who you call. Your telephone company knows. Does it matter? No.

Make communications as difficult for terrorists as possible. Do you agree?

You seem to be completely ignorant of the differences between government and business. Or better yet you know and want that kind of power over you and others. What liberals are looking for is a king. You want to someone control your lives. We will not let you have one. Ever.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You seem to be completely ignorant of the differences between government and business. Or better yet you know and want that kind of power over you and others. What liberals are looking for is a king. You want to someone control your lives. We will not let you have one. Ever.

I know well the differences between corporations and governments and I know the dangers are different. However just because the danger from a corporation is different from that of the government does not mean the danger is not real.

Now, please address my question, "Why do you want to protect the ability of terrorists to communicate easily without worry their communication may be intercepted and used to bring them down?

 

[Revmitchell]

I know well the differences between corporations and governments and I know the dangers are different. However just because the danger from a corporation is different from that of the government does not mean the danger is not real.

Now, please address my question, "Why do you want to protect the ability of terrorists to communicate easily without worry their communication may be intercepted and used to bring them down?

Again you need to go take a rest and get your emotions under control. It is obvious you have lost control of your anger once again.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Again you need to go take a rest and get your emotions under control. It is obvious you have lost control of your anger once again.

Why do you want to protect the ease in which terrorists can and will communicate?