Washington Post: Maybe NSA Programs Thwarted Zazi, Maybe Not

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.