It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks," she said. She added that specific cities with skyscrapers were mentioned."
I’m not question the credibility of this person but lets assume what she says is true. Would you then have supported that after these reports the NSA should have been conducting the kind of electronic surveillances its doing today or should we have waited a bit more?
Originally posted by LoganCale
Can someone tell me what is unacceptable about that system?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by LoganCale
Can someone tell me what is unacceptable about that system?
If you have specific people who you want to monitor then FISA is great but if you have unknowns in the US who are ‘sleeper cells’ and who have not done anything to give you probable cause how are you going to find them? The only way is to have the NSA conduct the same type of surveillance that its doing now.
One more thing, if we had the same type of surveillance and laws in place before 9/11 that we do now do you think we could have stopped it?
Originally posted by LoganCale
So then you acknowledge that they are conducting mass surveillance on everyone? Or do you mean the program connecting links between phone numbers?
Originally posted by LoganCale
I think we could have stopped it as it was. Based on all the intelligence that was known about it before it happened and based on other information regarding the hijackers and their links to various groups before the attack, I believe aspects of the government knew about the plot before it happened and allowed it to take place.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
I mean the database of phone numbers and other information. And by the way, its not illegal, under the Patriot Act its allowed without going to FISA.
18 U.S.C. § 3121 details the exceptions related to the general prohibition on pen register and trap and trace devices. Along with gathering information for dialup communications, it allows for gathering routing and other addressing information. It is specifically limited to this information: the Act does not allow such surveillance to capture the actual information that is contained in the communication being monitored.
See I don't believe the government specially knew about and allowed it take place. The whole attitude, laws, and measures that were in place pre 9/11 were inadequate to stop such an attack, hence why we needed a change. I don't by this argument that the old way works because obviously it failed on 9/11.
The law already makes a distinction between content-what we say on a phone call or in an e-mail-and ''routing and addressing information"-the phone numbers and e-mail addresses of people we communicate with. Content normally gets lots of constitutional protection. Routing information, on the other hand, does not-you don't see detectives on ''Law & Order" waiting around for a judge before they pull a perp's phone records. That's because in a 1979 case, Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that type of information merits no Fourth Amendment protection.
If the government wants to review massive amounts of routing information-for example by tapping a fiber-optic cable that carries a billion messages a day-such trawling would be perfectly constitutional. As currently written, however, FISA isn't exactly set up to allow for such broad collection of information. The statute, enacted long before the days of e-mail, anticipates that the government will identify a particular target when it applies for a warrant from the FISA court, and certify that the wiretap is relevant to an intelligence investigation. If Congress eliminated the certification requirement, Heymann says, ''I don't think anyone would lose any privacy."
Link
The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrant less installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.
Smith v. Maryland
Originally posted by LoganCale
At any rate, whether USAPATRIOT allows it or not, it's still wrong and should be disallowed in the manner it's being used.
Originally posted by LoganCale
By the testimony of Sibel Edmunds and now, many others, it did not fail. They had the information that these people were terrorists and had a plan to attack buildings in the U.S. with airliners.
One possible explanation is that the heart of Edmonds's story remains unconfirmed. Edmonds did work as a translator for the FBI for six months after the Sept. 11 attacks, but she was fired from her post for unspecified reasons. The documents that she says will corroborate her story have not yet surfaced and may not exist.
The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.
A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
Link
Originally posted by WestPoint23
"There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks," she said. She added that specific cities with skyscrapers were mentioned."
I’m not question the credibility of this person but lets assume what she says is true. Would you then have supported that after these reports the NSA should have been conducting the kind of electronic surveillances its doing today or should we have waited a bit more?
Originally posted by Jamuhn
The NSA should never conduct these types of warrantless wiretapping period. Isn't this "war on terror" supposed to protect the freedoms of America?
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Well, why in the hell is it being used as an excuse to take away those same freedoms? It seems to me that this "war on terror" is suffering from an identity crisis.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
What freedoms are they taking away?
First lets be specific about what you mean, the NSA should collect information such as phone numbers and other data for analyses, they should also intercept phone calls from suspect individuals within the US and oversees.