US Domestic Spying

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wab I was going by what the man himself said in his statement to the judge. Basically, Allah told him to fight the power, so he planned to do what his god told him to do, laws or no.

You dont have a lot of experience with the cops and district attorneys, do you?

Fortunately or unfortunately...I do...they want a conviction, and ideally a headline. These guys wanted a "kill" and they got one.

Do you really feel like a quick google and reading the public statements as printed gives you enough information to make an informed opinion on a subject?

I know the guy. I know the people who went to bat for him. He said what he said because he was at the end of his rope, he had no other choice, and the advice given to him was that it was the best possible outcome for him at that point.

He didnt do anything. He wasnt going to do anything. He thought about doing "something" but he wasnt sure what, and then he decided not to.

So acting really, really muslim and thinking about maybe doing something but not doing it is worth completely destroying a US citizens life.

[OldAgePensioner]

I really don't know the answer to this so I'm just asking.

Is planning to murder someone a crime?

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldAgePensioner Is planning to murder someone a crime?

As far as I know, it's not a crime if you plan it alone, but it becomes a crime once you plan it with your pals.

Did you have anybody specific in mind?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I guess you have to define what "plan" means.

If "plan" means "Man, that guy stinks...you oughta do something about him...maybe kill him!".... "yeah, he's a pain...probably would be good if someone killed him!". Probably not.

If plan means "I'm gonna kill that guy, will you sell me a gun to shoot him with?"... "yeah, here's your 9mm dude"..."ok, after work tomorrow, i'm gonna pop him in the parking lot". And there you are in the parking lot with the gun when the police pull up. Probably not legal.

[razztazz]

Quote:

Texas Proud : Yes. If the Supreme Court ruled that warrentless monitoring of calls was constitutional, then I would live with it. Would I like it? No. BUT, it would be the law of the land.

That wasn't the question. The question was "Would it be OK with you"? The courts ruling on this or that makes it "legal" but history has shown not always right. So, just because they rule a certain thing is legal, certain behavior can be but that doens't mean it would be OK extorted

Your answer indicated no, it would not be OK with you.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I'd be happy if the judicial branch at least got a good whiff of whatever the executive branch was doing, in these matters.

But then again, they probably cant keep a secret, we're "at war", and any other lame excuses for undermining our civil rights in exchange for absolutely no benefit all probably apply.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny I'd be happy if the judicial branch at least got a good whiff of whatever the executive branch was doing, in these matters. But then again, they probably cant keep a secret, we're "at war", and any other lame excuses for undermining our civil rights in exchange for absolutely no benefit all probably apply.

Oh there is a benefit all right. Just not for you and me.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster I saw my very own Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. One of the stops on the Hawaiian cruise I took a few years ago was the Arizona/Mighty Mo memorial. We rented a car and drove over to the grounds parked the car and headed for the entrance. Well we got to the entrance and the line was way out to the parking lot. So then three buses of Japanese tourists pull up and they all push in to the front of the line. Like we didn't have anything better to do than stand in a two hour line. I then started having thoughts that the fire-bombing of Tokyo just might have been appropriate. I never made it onto the Arizona, just couldn't take that long line standing out in the sun.

I know, it's like New Yorkers never visiting the Statue of Liberty.

A few years back we took our Girl Scout troop to the Memorial. Out of the five sets of parents, spouse and I were the only ones who'd been there before... and we were the only ones who hadn't grown up on the island. But the only reason we'd been there ourselves was for retirements & re-enlistments.

Oddly enough the submarine museum-- right next door to the ARIZONA-- is never crowded. Go figure.

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny If plan means "I'm gonna kill that guy, will you sell me a gun to shoot him with?"... "yeah, here's your 9mm dude"..."ok, after work tomorrow, i'm gonna pop him in the parking lot".* And there you are in the parking lot with the gun when the police pull up. Probably not legal.

You say the above plan is probably not legal even though...

"He didnt do anything.* He wasnt going to do anything.* He thought about doing "something" but he wasnt sure what, and then he decided not to."

So thinking about maybe doing something but not doing it is worth completely destroying a US citizens life?

Just because a guy has a gun in a parking lot doesn't make him a criminal, does it?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Guy in a parking lot who has specifically stated he is buying a gun to kill someone, and shows up at the place he said he intends to kill the person with said gun is probably guilty of at least a little something...

If you're going to tie the two together. My friend didnt buy a gun. He didnt seriously talk about killing anyone. He wasnt even specific in any discussions as to what he wanted to do if and when he got to afghanistan. He didnt buy a weapon. He didnt buy a ticket. Prior to his sentencing he never said he intended to do anyone harm.

So if its a-ok to say you're going to buy a gun to kill someone and then show up at the described place where you say you intended to commit the murder, and its not ok to not even say you're going to kill someone, not buy a gun and get grabbed in the parking lot at work...then I dont know what to say...

Now if this guy was caught in afghanistan, with a smoking gun, and he'd just shot a soldier? I'd go for the death penalty. If he was caught "in the area" of afghanistan with a gun. I'd be up for some serious charges and a long jail sentence. If he actually bought an airline ticket to go there, had arranged to buy weapons or had a weapon in hand, had a computer full of inflamatory anti US emails and all during his trial stated that he intended to do america harm...no issue.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Oh yeah...and you're a noodge!

[bpp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords Quote: I think Japan should have a more mature military stance. Uhm, that gets some pretty interesting reactions from the Chinese (both PRC & Taiwan) and Korea (South for sure, although presumably North would put aside their reactionary ways long enough to agree too). Maybe even here in Hawaii.

Yeah, I know. Are the folks in Hawaii happier knowing that Japan is depending on their sons and daughters to die in defense of Japan, though?

Quote:

Oddly enough the submarine museum-- right next door to the ARIZONA-- is never crowded. Go figure.

Never made it to the Arizona memorial myself, but have been through the submarine Bowfin next door -- precisely because it was the less crowded option.

Bpp

[BigMoneyJim]

I read through parts of the 9/11 Commission Report (freely available online), and it seemed clear to me that the information needed to prevent 9/11 was in our hands, but due to security reasons the information couldn't be shared between departments due to bureaucratic security policies. I presume the the Department of FatherlandHomeland Security now shares information more freely between the various intelligence organizations.

I'm not saying I blame the intelligence agencies for 9/11, but now they see how the pieces weren't allowed to come together they can correct the situation. What I am saying is that intelligence *gathering* was already good enough to prevent 9/11. Intelligence consolidation and analysis was the issue.

As far as CFB's buddy, how many known terrorists settled here with families and children?

My grandmother died on 9/18/01 (completely coincidental), and so I flew just 7 days after 9/11. There was an arabic-looking family (man, woman, 3 or so kids) with tons of baggage. I knew before we boarded they were sure to get some grief over the excess baggage. I admit I kind of had my eye on them, too (and everyone else on the freakin' plane, but the fact that it was a family relaxed me a lot); I suspect there were a few comments that led to what happened next. They took the man and his baggage off the plane, and as I understand it pulled his checked baggage out and re-searched it, too. He was obviously frustrated, and I felt sorry for him and his family even then. He was allowed back on the plane, though, and after the search delay we were on our way. If you're going to racially profile, you should also take into consideration that terrorists aren't bringing their wife and kids along for the ride.

I don't do anything illegal, either, but I don't want the government tracking everything I do! As mentioned before, the Kevin Bacon effect combined with datamining and general terrorist paranoia is a recipe for major civil rights violations and not for catching more terrorists.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMoneyJim ....you should also take into consideration that terrorists aren't bringing their wife and kids along for the ride.

BMJ, I don't usually get embroiled in these discussions but I think you are using the same logic as the US did when we didn't consider the possibility of a suicide attack on major cities using hijacked civillian aircraft from within the US. What's to say some jihadist convinced that he's going to get not only himself but his wife and children into heaven wouldn't commit an act of terror and take his family with him?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMoneyJim I presume the the Department of FatherlandHomeland Security now shares information more freely between the various intelligence organizations.

You would be making a gravely incorrect presumption. According to everyone I've seen interviewed, Homeland security has done somewhere between little and nothing to break down the walls of communication. In fact, I've heard some pretty connected people say that its worse now.

I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to point out anything at all that homeland security has done that has effectively "made us safer" or reduced the chances of a terrorist attack.

Color coded threat levels (heard of those lately), duct tape and plastic sheeting, the TSA which appears to be less effective than the former private airport screenings, and lots more collecting of private information for data mining purposes, when several government agencies HAD all the info they needed to stop 9/11 and didnt act on it.

When you dont communicate and dont act, the solution is to flood the agencies with more data?

I think not.

Consider also, if you will, that in the "international eavesdropping" that nobody really seems concerned about, that the resources to translate the information that is recorded are so weak that it takes weeks and months to get it done. So I guess "We plan to bomb the white house tomorrow!" isnt going to be of much help. You see, our intelligence people are loaded with soviet, chinese and korean experts with a smattering of middle eastern guys thrown in. That are all part of the good old boy network, and arent going anywhere anytime soon.

And REW is right. These guys dont mind taking the whole family with them.

As far as the data mining...? Say in my "data mining" case, one of the guys that the insurance company has been reporting was a "member of my household" for part or all of the last ten years committed a serious crime? One of them runs a company that i'm quite sure everyone here has heard of. One of them has a husband thats spent time in Korea building bridges. Three of the four people in question have all slept with the same woman, and the fourth is her sister. How much imagination do you need to take that pile of stuff and see it plastered on the evening news as a headline? "Corporate scam includes Korean ties and a sex scandal that will rock the nation!". Then all you need to do is call us all material witnesses, lock us up until our money runs out, and get one of us to take a plea bargain to rat out the rest.

Wouldnt that make you feel safer?

:

[BigMoneyJim]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo! BMJ, I don't usually get embroiled in these discussions but I think you are using the same logic as the US did when we didn't consider the possibility of a suicide attack on major cities using hijacked civillian aircraft from within the US. What's to say some jihadist convinced that he's going to get not only himself but his wife and children into heaven wouldn't commit an act of terror and take his family with him?

What's to say a U.S. citizen ex-military type won't get ticked off and park a rented truck full of explosives in front of a federal building? Do you really want everyone watched all the time?

Also, not considering the possibility of a suicide attack by a hijacked airliner, if they truly didn't consider it, was also an oversight because it's been tried several times already. Some notable attempts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Byck - Planned to crash into the White House to kill Nixon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969 - Terrorist group hijacked a plane and intended to fly it into the Eiffel Tower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 - A pilot about to be fired planned to take out company HQ

Police don't prevent crime by thinking up new ways it can happen and then trying to prevent them. They act based on history of crime. This new domestic spying is an attack on our liberties, not the way to a safer country.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz That wasn't the question. The question was "Would it be OK with you"? The courts ruling on this or that makes it "legal" but history has shown not always right.* So, just because they rule a certain thing is legal, certain behavior can be* but that doens't mean it would be OK extorted Your answer indicated no, it would not be OK with you.

I think I was clear.... but let me restate... there is NO way that I think warrentless search is right, even if the courts say it is....

HOWEVER, I am a law abiding guy and would not be bitching if it was found to be legal.... still not like it, but would not bitch.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMoneyJim What's to say a U.S. citizen ex-military type won't get ticked off and park a rented truck full of explosives in front of a federal building? Do you really want everyone watched all the time? Also, not considering the possibility of a suicide attack by a hijacked airliner, if they truly didn't consider it, was also an oversight because it's been tried several times already. Some notable attempts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Byck - Planned to crash into the White House to kill Nixon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969 - Terrorist group hijacked a plane and intended to fly it into the Eiffel Tower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx_Flight_705 - A pilot about to be fired planned to take out company HQ Police don't prevent crime by thinking up new ways it can happen and then trying to prevent them. They act based on history of crime. This new domestic spying is an attack on our liberties, not the way to a safer country.

Once again I remind myself why I don't participate in these discussions...

The ONLY point I was trying to make was that in the example you gave the fact that the "suspect" had his family along was not something I would consider reason to dismiss him as a potential threat.

Hey, did you hear the one about...

[wabmester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigMoneyJim As far as CFB's buddy, how many known terrorists settled here with families and children?

Guess you didn't hear about the London bombings last year. * From what I read, they were middle-class dudes living in England. * One of them was a new father.

These guys are fighting for an idea, and it's apparently an idea that even some well-off college-educated types can sympathize with.

[BigMoneyJim]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to point out anything at all that homeland security has done that has effectively "made us safer" or reduced the chances of a terrorist attack.

Here at Indianapolis Airport they put up a new fence after 9/11. Where the old one was about 6 feet tall with barbed wire, the new one is 8 feet tall with razor wire. I call it the "terrrorist proof fence". They also closed an observation parking area near the runway. Nevermind there are corn fields and forests just a hundred yards or so further away that couldn't possibly be used for hiding in while firing a rocket or whatever.

Seriously, I agree that pretty much all visible changes have been PR moves only and not actually helping prevent terror. I'm just hoping against hope that they're doing actual effective things behind the scenes. Perhaps I am overly optimistic.

Quote:

Color coded threat levels (heard of those lately), duct tape and plastic sheeting, the TSA which appears to be less effective than the former private airport screenings, and lots more collecting of private information for data mining purposes, when several government agencies HAD all the info they needed to stop 9/11 and didnt act on it.

I agree that TSA screenings are a sad joke. As a frequent traveler not particularly caring about screening procedures it is screamingly obvious how the "random" special screenings work. No I'm not going to tell you.

Quote:

And REW is right. These guys dont mind taking the whole family with them.

I'm not saying that's out of the question, but I'm saying as far as I know there is no precedent for it, and as we're both saying there is enough information out there that isn't being properly acted upon.


I fully agree that data mining is a horrible idea that stomps all over civil liberties and will result in innocent people being harrassed, detained and publically embarrassed far more than it will help catch terrorists.