Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism

Originally posted by Vitchilo
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?

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]

OK, perhaps her idea deserves a rant. But puposeless defamation dilutes your point and makes you look like an ignorant wingnut. Napolitano had nothing to do with Waco. Waco happened in 1993. In that year she was in private law practice in Phoenix with Lewis and Roca LLP. Late that year she became United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. That's Arizona. Start walking west from the Davidian compound and after about 1,100 miles, you will be where she was.
I'll be kind and assume that you were 'oh so confused' about the difference between Napolitano and Janet Reno. If so, fess up and apologize.

reply to post by ionsoul


The biggest lie ever sold in American politics is that ELECTIONS change things or send a message that will be received by one who cares. When people start Vetoing Laws and holding government officials accountable to the Law and when we start throwing them out of offices before Election time then we'll have a say in our present and our future. Until then we are just dictated to, like free range slaves.

So all the homegrown US terrorists that I have seen have one thing in common, muslim beliefs and support. I don't see the KKK trying to recruit homegrown terrorists, or the skinhead NAZI types. Nope it's always the same group of people and the same beliefs. Maybe they should outlaw those types of "followers" as they seem to be the trouble makers. Just as I wouldn't expect to move to Iran and pretend to be an American with American values rights and freedoms, people of strong muslim beliefs and jihad support should not be allowed to be on American soil. Perhaps we should be targeting them and their supporters instead of pissing away our rights and freedoms and values that Americans believe in. Sorry to offend anyone but this is our country and if you don't like the way we do things heres the door, go plot your attacks in your home country and give it your best shot you weak child killing, women abusing, neanderthals. OK I'm done ranting, this in no way is pointed towards people of the muslim beliefs that offers peace without violence. So yes there is no need for monitoring internet or anything else for that matter, if someone is hell bent on destruction they certainly are not gonna discuss it on the internet or phone they are gonna act and do, what we have seen thus far is scapegoats people pretending to be terrorists watch the real terrorists over in the middle east they actually blow stuff up and kill lots of people, these bombs over here that do not blow up are just people posing as terrorists- probably government plants.

This is the bit I liked...

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists.

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

But the fact that they are ethnically Middle Eastern means nothing. OH, NO!! We can't profile a specific ethnicity, even if EVERY FEKKING TERRORIST FITS THE PROFILE.

You watch... Napolitano is going to huff and puff and launch an Affirmative Action search for NON-ARAB terrorists ONLY... No Arabs or ragheads or towelheads or camel jockeys will be included in this search. Only affluent white Western men and old white Western women will be searched, because, like, the whites are the real terrorists, right, we just need the proof.

All these Arab/Muslim terrorists are just red herrings, right.

Come ON, Janet, pull your head out of your voluminous ass and focus on the fekking Arabs and Muslims, it'll make you look like a real visionary to future historians (sheesh).

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 6/20/2010 by Doc Velocity]

Someone ought to hit Janet in the face, with a flathead shovel.

Oh, Janet.. tsk.

I agree with Ben Franklin when he said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Bush started it with the so called "Patriot Act", gotta love how they play with words.

Obama, being no different, is taking it to the next level. With this fool Napolitano, and that other peice of work Cass Sunstein, our country will survive in spite of, not because of these people.

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment!

reply to post by mishigas

What would it take to create an underground internet, as a means of getting around government monitoring?

Is it even possible?

Yes

and

Originally posted by brill
One could argue that a 2 tier Internet is well underway with the advent of Internet 2 but that is primarily directed by academia and not for commercial purposes. BBS style systems are still utilizing PSTN so that's a bust. I guess one could always resort to amateur/ham radio but that would be left for purists.

Not really just purists. An alternative internet.

Probably not a lot of good here in the wilds of the West of Ireland, but a winner in urban areas.

[edit on 20/6/2010 by PuterMan]

Doesn't matter because what it boils down to is that there are only 3 ways to connect:

1.) Phone Lines
2.) Cable/Fiber lines
3.) Satellite

They're all owned by a company, which is probably owned by a larger company, which is probably owned by a larger one...up until you get to the heads of who controls things in this world, so yes, if the NWO or any political regime has the right people in their pocket or are in THEIR pocket, shutting down access for 99% of people across the world is possible, and much easier if you're only targeting a specific country.

i believe it's the first time i see a consensus here on ATS

when the flotilla incident occurred there was so much fuss all over the internet, personal blogs , forums , news or video comments , everywhere no matter the country
Things were clearly getting out of hand

Imagine what will happen , how will people react in case of a declaration of war on Iran? the internet will be on fire but for them the problem is that most opinions will convert in a direction ...to disagree with this

If there would have been internet since the fourties, maybe the history we know today would have been different...
But it wasn't , like it won't be in case of new war now ...and your grandchildren will be educated from the news presented by fox or cnn

They haven't see a terrorist, until they take my internet away! Then they better watch out, cause I will be their worse nightmare!

Originally posted by PuterMan
Not really just purists. An alternative internet.

Probably not a lot of good here in the wilds of the West of Ireland, but a winner in urban areas.

Governments don't like this.

They don't want ppl to communicate for free. ISP's also don't like this for obvious reasons.

They don't want ppl to be be able to communicate anonymously.

They want to be able to monitor your information.

I can see them making this illegal somehow or suggesting terrorists and rapists/pedos use the system to commit crimes. Especially in countries like the UK.

reply to post by ThaLoccster


This could be a related story. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

What scares me is how they keep adding more and more "homeland security" and surveillance to catch "terrorists" when really what it's doing is just making it easier for the government to monitor the average joe for no reason.

Honestly the government can say that they're going to break into random houses as long as they say it will prevent terrorism than the sheeple will smile and nod.

reply to post by TheFinalTruth14


FinalTruth,

I believe you're right, this does transcend Red/Blue politics and combined with yesterday's (or was it today's) Supreme Court decision, Obama's war on whitleblowers (more justice department whistle blower prosecutions than any president in history) and the "net freedom"/Orwell Act, we're getting perilously close to Federal action to shut down any form of questioning of the imperial presidency.

If I can make a mea culpa here, I voted for Obama and I allowed myself to think he might be different, but I've seen nothing but a consistent march toward increased federal power over people's lives without commensurate benefits, and a handing over of federal authority to corporations and the MIC that is frightening in its totality. In 57 years that I've lived on this earth, I saw a lot of things come down, from the space race, to the assassination of the Kennedy's and King, to the burning and occupation of campuses and the streets during Vietnam to the counter-revolution of the Regan-Bush era and the idea that democrats should talk and act more like republicans "to win" under Clinton, the end of the cold war and reconstruction of MIC power to fit the war on terror to the growth of the Imperial Presidency throughout all of the above. I have never seen a time like now in terms of an imminent and final/total threat to democracy.

We can argue (and I'm not even sure we'd have to) political orientation all day, but that's what democracy is. We are in danger of losing the last vestiges of it everywhere we look.

I went through a period in the eighties, when Reagan was elected, that I thought going the survivalist route might be the way to go then. I didn't. I stayed in touch with society and in the system, albeit marginally and fought to preserve our rights and for social justice through the electoral system. I abandoned the two parties then and Obama was the first democrat I voted for since . . . George McGovern? But I also made peace with conservatives during that period because I thought the democrats were duplicitous sell-out wimps.

My main concerns now are watching the advancement of the MIC under Obama and the erosion of our rights with little action matching pretty rhetoric. Now that erosion is a full scale landslide. These may not be the last days. I thought those were near in the seventies and was wrong. But I would call this a critical time and a time to lay aside political differences to protect basic rights. So right on to you.

Napolitano doesn't need to monitor the Internet to find terrorists. All she has to do is go to the next Cabinet meeting and look around. Those criminals are the biggest terrorists this country has.

Terrorist: Definition- a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

I would say that Obama and his gang of crooks fit that definition to the T. In fact, what Napolitano proposes is an act of terror, threatening to take your right of free speech and expression away. Politicians are the true terrorists.



[edit on 21-6-2010 by ProfEmeritus]

Originally posted by boondock-saint
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.

What makes you think for one minute that this is about stopping crime? It's about stopping truth, plain and simple.

Originally posted by make the blind see
Gah. Can't you just imagine all of the illegitimate claims they would make? Shutting down sites and arresting people...This is just ridiculous. Good to know our own government doesn't push for rights like we do.

IMO you hit upon the very purpose of this proposal. I guarantee you that ATS will be among the ones deemed to be a source for "terrorist recruitment" or "inciting terrorist acts", or some other nonsense. There's too much truth here for them to ignore.

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by make the blind see
Gah. Can't you just imagine all of the illegitimate claims they would make? Shutting down sites and arresting people...This is just ridiculous. Good to know our own government doesn't push for rights like we do.

IMO you hit upon the very purpose of this proposal. I guarantee you that ATS will be among the ones deemed to be a source for "terrorist recruitment" or "inciting terrorist acts", or some other nonsense. There's too much truth here for them to ignore.

To take this a step further you can bet that we'd all be on or all ready on their "list".