NSA Surveillance program thwarted plans to bomb stock exchange

[shabby 1,960]

Question I have with no sarcasm attached (I know, I know...)? Do those who support this now that may not have during the Bush years also support a fence along the southern border? I mean, if this is so important that our national security is at stake wouldn't it also be important to close off our borders for the same reason? Just a thought.

if a fence actually worked. We have these things called shovels and ladders seriously though, i'm all for securing the border. During the Bush years, we were dealing with wiretaps without warrants. A little different in my book.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Yeah and they lied about that at the time too.

I'm sure they're all Boy Scouts about honesty now though.

[alexava 6,974]

Question I have with no sarcasm attached (I know, I know...)? Do those who support this now that may not have during the Bush years also support a fence along the southern border? I mean, if this is so important that our national security is at stake wouldn't it also be important to close off our borders for the same reason? Just a thought.

i do support securing the borders for the same reason among others. I support homeland security now and during the bush years. I just dont think a war in Iraq that cost 10$billion a week killed 4k of ours and 10s of thousands of mostly innocent iraqis helped security at all.

[alexava 6,974]

If using readily available info to stop a mass killing is a violation of the 4rth. Then to hell with the 4rth. Some folks apparently think too much of themselves and their liberties. If you feel your info is private and none of the governments business, most likely the government agrees with you.

[AURaptor 1,137]

If using readily available info to stop a mass killing is a violation of the 4rth. Then to hell with the 4rth. Some folks apparently think too much of themselves and their liberties. If you feel your info is private and none of the governments business, most likely the government agrees with you.

Only that didn't stop the Tsarnaev brothers, did it ? Or Major Malfunction at Ft Hood. Or the Times Square ( attempted ) bombing....

Anyone else notice how the # of foiled attacks have steadily risen, since this story came out ? That tells me one of 2 things...

Radical Islam is far more dangerous than we're being told. That right there is a major crisis of its own, that our govt would cover up a threat , simply out of a sense of political correctness.

OR - They really have nothing of any substance to offer us as proof that this " is for our own good " , and are just b.s. ing the public, to get everyone to back off.

So, which is it ?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

If using readily available info to stop a mass killing is a violation of the 4rth. Then to hell with the 4rth. Some folks apparently think too much of themselves and their liberties. If you feel your info is private and none of the governments business, most likely the government agrees with you.

There is a lawful process for repealing or altering amendments. That's how it's supposed to be done in this country. If that's not satisfactory to you, there are other countries that haven't nearly the personal freedoms that might make you happier. What we aren't going to do is just ignore the amendments that don't suit you.

[jj3jordan 2,125]

What they said was programs LIKE this one and OTHER intelligence helped us foil plots. They never said this program did it because it didn't. Unusual honesty and mediocre attempt at spin. Kind of like diet pills. The small print says a combination of diet and exercise plus our pill will help you lose weight.

[alexava 6,974]

If using readily available info to stop a mass killing is a violation of the 4rth. Then to hell Withe the 4rth. Some folks apparently think too much of themselves and their liberties. If you feel your info is private and none of the governments business, most likely the government agrees with you.

There is a lawful process for repealing or altering amendments. That's how it's supposed to be done in this country. If that's not satisfactory to you, there are other countries that haven't nearly the personal freedoms that might make you happier. What we aren't going to do is just ignore the amendments that don't suit you.

im happy right here. This may be the safest place too. They might amend a 240 year old law now that the cat is out of the bag. We didn't need to know about this at all. The terrorists are as aware of the 4th amendment as you are. Now its gonna get a little harder to intercept this activity. There may have been other thwarted attacks, but we didnt need to know about.

[alexava 6,974]

Its not that the amendment dont suit me, it has been outdated. Has the 4rth ever been amended? What does suit me is a government and security agencies using every available means of technology to protect its population from real threats. Even in the face of an unhappy part of that population over a supposed loss of liberty. Im happy here. Others might need to find a country that liberates and protects them more efficiently.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100802908

I imagine we are going to receive a slew of reports similar to this in the coming days. I'm sureThose against this administration will write it off to this president manufacturing and manipulating information and those that support Obama will utilize it as evidence that it served a valid purpose. What I really look forward to though, is the response from Libertarians that love to post things like if "Those who giveup their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security". How will the effectiveness of this program impact the libertarian view. How will Rand and Cruz respond to this? I suspect with silence.

Funny how these articles come out but no one mentions the elephant in the room: the fact that the Boston Marathon bombing was not prevented by all this surveillance.

Or is it only kosher to discuss the ones that we did foil?

Wow. Has your hatred for Obama really diminished your reasoning abilities this much?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't hate Obama.

[shabby 1,960]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100802908

I imagine we are going to receive a slew of reports similar to this in the coming days. I'm sureThose against this administration will write it off to this president manufacturing and manipulating information and those that support Obama will utilize it as evidence that it served a valid purpose. What I really look forward to though, is the response from Libertarians that love to post things like if "Those who giveup their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security". How will the effectiveness of this program impact the libertarian view. How will Rand and Cruz respond to this? I suspect with silence.

Funny how these articles come out but no one mentions the elephant in the room: the fact that the Boston Marathon bombing was not prevented by all this surveillance.

Or is it only kosher to discuss the ones that we did foil?

Wow. Has your hatred for Obama really diminished your reasoning abilities this much?

What he further fails to mention is that a form of surveillance directly led to the capture of the Boston Bombers. We live in a new era. as to there being a process to amend the constitution, there is also a process to law making. Congress makes a law and if it is felt to violate the constitution, legal challenge can be brought. Parts of the Patriot act were validated by the courts and other parts remained unchallenged primarily because we know how the court will rule. This is the law of the land. As of today, it is constitutional. It also, seems to serve a valid purpose. Doesn't mean all must embrace it, but I believe this line of argument that this form surveillance does not provide security is full of holes.

[homersapien 11,812]

There is no reason to change the 4th amendment. There is nothing that has been proposed that violates it. That's why no one has pointed out where and how the 4th is being violated by the NSA metadata program.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100802908

I imagine we are going to receive a slew of reports similar to this in the coming days. I'm sureThose against this administration will write it off to this president manufacturing and manipulating information and those that support Obama will utilize it as evidence that it served a valid purpose. What I really look forward to though, is the response from Libertarians that love to post things like if "Those who giveup their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security". How will the effectiveness of this program impact the libertarian view. How will Rand and Cruz respond to this? I suspect with silence.

Funny how these articles come out but no one mentions the elephant in the room: the fact that the Boston Marathon bombing was not prevented by all this surveillance.

Or is it only kosher to discuss the ones that we did foil?

Wow. Has your hatred for Obama really diminished your reasoning abilities this much?

What he further fails to mention is that a form of surveillance directly led to the capture of the Boston Bombers. We live in a new era. as to there being a process to amend the constitution, there is also a process to law making. Congress makes a law and if it is felt to violate the constitution, legal challenge can be brought. Parts of the Patriot act were validated by the courts and other parts remained unchallenged primarily because we know how the court will rule. This is the law of the land. As of today, it is constitutional. It also, seems to serve a valid purpose. Doesn't mean all must embrace it, but I believe this line of argument that this form surveillance does not provide security is full of holes.

A form that conforms to the norms of constitutional search and seizure. Probable cause. A known search area. Reasonable suspicion and preliminary ID of suspects. It's not just a vacuuming up of everyone's personal data and keeping it indefinitely, then fishing around indiscriminately.

[MDM4AU 337]

I don't hate Obama.

Yes, you do. If you don't completely trust him or if you have anything unflattering to say about him, by default, you hate him. It's in the rule book. First page, I believe.

You're also a racist...

[telling tiger 156]

People with a HELLUVA lot more legal and constitutional law experience than some of the critics here, think there is a challenge worth making on the grounds of.......... wait for it...............constitutional violation. I'll trust actual defenders of the individual rights as opposed to a few opinionated folks on a forum, until proven differently. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2013/06/11/ACLU-Sues-Obama-Administration-Over-NSA-Tracking.aspx#page1

[TexasTiger 13,559]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

[telling tiger 156]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nsa-claim-thwarted-nyse-plot-contradicted-court-documents/story?id=19436557#.UcHufTDn-1s

[TitanTiger 20,708]

That hissing sound is the air going out of multiple people's balloons right now.

[shabby 1,960]

That hissing sound is the air going out of multiple people's balloons right now.

Not really, no. Looks like PRISM played a larger part than the metadata collection but according to testimony both played a part. Albeit, neither were the sole source of information.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/nsa-surveillance-93075.html?hp=t1_3

[AUGradinTX 0]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

[shabby 1,960]

I don't think it matters what it has prevented. We are suppose to be protected from this sort of surveillance by the Bill of Right. Don't like it, work to have it changed. Don't lie to us for nearly a decade about it. In the UK, they actually discussed this in parliament and ended up voting it down after a good debate. Isn't that democracy? What happened to us, the champions of democracy? We get no say. We just got lies and deceit and secrecy. That's a worrisome thought. Especially when the Constitution protects us from this sort of government abuse of power. The problem is, the government is now disregarding the document put in place to protect us.

Another tidbit for you. All this information they are collecting about you and me... They are sharing it with foreign governments! England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

http://www.guardian....sm-surveillance

http://www.science20...old_news-114311

What information are you referring to?

It is mainly information gathered from internet sites such as Facebook and Google.

Is the government collecting information about "me and you" from Facebook and Google without a warrant to do so?

Is this a serious question?

Let's review what we know. The goverment is gathering data on citizens through Facebook and Google and Verizon. I just so happen to use all three. Have I been served a warrant for the collection of this information about me? Nope. Is it required that I am served? Yes. The exception is if the warrant is to search a residence and nobody is home. In this case, a copy of the warrant is to be left at the scene.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A warrant has to be specific. What location is to be searched. What persons are to be searched. What is the reason for the search. Even if a warrant is issued to search your house, the officers there are not allowed to search your person unless it is stated in the warrant (or unless you are placed under arrest; have given consent).

Let's go back to the information ("...papers, and effects,...") about me that is being collected from the firms named above. What probable cause do they have to collect this information? Maybe they have probable cause to collect this data on SOME people, but that's not what is happening. They are collecting this information about EVERYONE. Are we ALL suspects? Have warrants been issued to search us all?

Moving on... The last problem is that the "court" we are told has given the authority to do this is "a secret!" But wait! If a warrant has been issued to search me, I have a right to see it.

So, the answer to your question is simply, yes.

The data from Facebook / Google is foreign citizens not American citizens. The Verizon data is anonymous (nameless) data. Big difference from the picture you painted.

[telling tiger 156]

Prism has the potential to include, IP addy, from/to lines, content and ability to trace all other email communications, quite a different picture from what you painted, as well. Your defense is noted, repeatedly, thanks. You are defending something you do not have all the facts on or of. You do know it is a secret court don't you? One with zero oversight and in 2012, they denied not ONE single request for approval to do what law enforcement wanted to do. If that sounds rational to you, your rational is due for a check up.

[TexasTiger 13,559]

I don't hate Obama.

Something is clouding your thinking.

I'd be saying the exact same things if Romney or McCain had won.

Your assertion here that I'm referencing has some very weak reasoning.