Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

This is getting sicker by the minute.

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens, the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents.

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

WHAT ABOUT YOU GO SCREW YOURSELF YOU TREASONOUS PUKE?

Back in the day, your ugly head would have a rope around it hanging from a tree branch.

You sick witch, you are lucky we are fighting your tyranny the legal way...for now. But one of these days, your actions will just piss off the wrong person and the whole armed resistance will begin. You better pray it doesn't happen or you'll end up like the french royalty after the french revolution.

We know you hate internet because it exposes the crimes you committed at Waco and the cover-up you participated in.

[edit on 19-6-2010 by Vitchilo]

reply to post by Vitchilo

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make...

Pfft it's only civil liberties. You don't need those pesky things when you got TERRORIST!!! running around!

sigh.

I think that it's possible that Napolitano was promoted away from the Arizona government so that our new governor could push a new agenda.

We have seen radical change in Arizona since Napolitano's promotion.

Brewer previously served as Secretary of State of Arizona, from January 2003 until then-Governor Janet Napolitano resigned after being selected as Secretary of Homeland Security in January 2009. Brewer became Governor of Arizona as part of the line of succession, as determined by the Arizona constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...-about-1

An order of succession is a formula or algorithm that determines who inherits an office upon the death, resignation, or removal of its current occupant.

en.wikipedia.org...

When Brewer replaced then-Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-Ariz.) in January 2009, filling the shoes of the now-Homeland Security secretary, she turned Arizona red again.

Not that the state didn’t boast any Republican officials - after all, Sen. John McCain (R) hails from Arizona - but with a Democratic governor, the Republican-controlled legislature struggled to find common ground.

With Brewer, a conservative, in Arizona’s top post, many of the bills Napolitano vetoed, including ones dealing with anti-abortion issues, gun rights and school choice, may find new life.

www.whorunsgov.com...

[edit on 19-6-2010 by In nothing we trust]

reply to post by In nothing we trust


I believe the type of action brought up by the OP is above the Red Vs. Blue debate.

Just another shill in over her head like BO, Biden, Geitner, and Rahmbo to include many in his adminstration.

She can't even speak up for the people she represented as governor before joining BO's gang of renown. Transparency of the hypocritical. These folks know no shame.

Some of this gang should be headed for the slammer. Operative word is Wanta.

reply to post by xEphon

.......You don't need those pesky things.......

I agree 100%! They can have every last one of my civil liberties; I do not need them.
...Because I have inalienable Rights. Never forget: Civil Liberties are granted by permission, and can easily be taken away. Inalienable Rights, on the other hand, have to be given away.

Maybe if more people got this message, we really could stop the "terrorists"....

seems like we have heard this lil tune before
back around 2001-2002 when Bush signed
the Patriot Act. Wasn't that good enough
to solve this problem???? NO!!!! Now you want
more of my blood.

A note for Janet and Obama's administration.
You CANNOT stop all crimes before they
happen. So quit trying. You are NOT
God !!!! There will be collateral damage
no matter what path you take. I suggest
you learn how to deal with the aftermath
rather than the pre-emption.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

WHAT ABOUT YOU GO SCREW YOURSELF YOU TREASONOUS PUKE?

I pretty much say the same thing 9 out of 10 times i see some senator or rep. speaking on a video clip these days. And really, both parties, are so messed up and out of touch, it's a circus show. Really, all you can do is

We need the internet to monitor the Govt terrorists we have in office.

Originally posted by wylekat
We need the internet to monitor the Govt terrorists we have in office.

absolutely TRUE !!!!
star for you
couldn't have said it better
myself

Couple of thoughts...

Is is just me or have I seen an increase in this type of story over say the past month or so? Between the need to control the net for whatever reason, and the growing threat of "home grown" terrorist's I think that something might possibly happen...

Say a "homegrown terrorist cell" uses the internet to conduct some sort of attack. The government doesn't cry out for regulations, but like after 9/11, and after school shootings the PEOPLE cry out "limit the internet, for OUR safety".

Like I've always said about guns, they government will never take them from us. But something so devasting will happen, or a series of events will unfold and before its over the people will say "here take my guns so we can be safe."

I know many people here would balk at that idea, but I don't think the mainstream masses would.

But instead of trying to stop a crime before it happens, why not fix the policies and practices that make these people want to act out in the manner they do?

I use this as an example, but I think its fitting. When I was a young child, 6 years old, I was placed in a "group home" because I was a "problem child". Which in turn, atleast in my opinion kinda paved the way for my troubled teenage years. But instead of saying this kid has a problem, he's done something bad lets lock him up, if anyone would have taken the time to find out why I acted the way I did, instead of punishing me for my behaviors I would have had a very different life.

The same applies here, if you fight the root of the problem that causes the behavior you won't have to combat the behaviors. Atleast thats my opinion.

They can have my Internets when they pry my keyboard from my cold dead hands.

Hey Janet or whatever flunkies she has monitoring these boards.
GO %#@& YOURSELVES!

You want to keep screwing with us (legal law abiding citizens of the U.S.A.) while you leave our borders wide open for any and all to come into OUR COUNTRY unchecked. Yeah! You wanna fight domestic terrorism ?
Do you really think we're that stupid??

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

reply to post by Vitchilo


All this kind of rubbish will do is reduce our security. All it will do is create a massive amount of noise that the government will need to sort through instead of getting down to business with legitimate police work.

I'm guessing that the folks who are intent on committing acts of terrorism are smart enough to use code and very common language to communicate.

All this does is have the feds checking up for some dude who is looking to research home improvement supplies or some student doing research for a paper when the bad boys are chatting on some board used by poodle owners or some other deal that will never get picked up.

Hell, there is a high probability that these folks will actually increase the amount of traffic in order to generate noise to busy the feds.

All around foolish, feel good, "we need to do something" foolishness

reply to post by Vitchilo



Excellent post and comments. I don't think there is enough rope in the world to hang all those involved in this BS.

The "government" and it's "agencies" IS/ARE the only terrorist(s), and that is a SIMPLE FACT.

I sincerely hope that, sooner rather than later, everyone comes to realize that simple truth.

cutting people off from the internet could have the same mass effect as any kind of cyber terrorism if not worse, considering how dependent people are on it.

And i bet the first sites to be "monitored" will be the sights that have anything even remotely anti-government. This administration is getting out of hand.

Can't someone just get behind 13 to 15 proxies and be generally untraceable?

What terrorists? I've only seen false flag attacks during the past few years.

Has the internet become part of the global infrastructure: Yes.
Is it the responsibility of the state to control it's open access: ???
Will the trust be safely and honorably administered by the political-corporate cabal now in control: Of course not.

We need to make some decisions people, before they do it for us, using the same demon they summon every time they can exercise direct control on the venue of unrestrained communications: Fear.

Now they will single out the stories and craft the telling to serve their goal.

Perhaps some will see it their way. I know I don't.