They're Watching You

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I'd hate to be their position though. People want them to take action, but there is just no way they have the resources to catch the really dangerous ones that would make the program worthwhile.

That is Rush Limbaugh hype. Do you learn facts from 11 September - and not from George Jr propaganda? Who fired this nation's number one anti-terrorism investigator who was even on the trail of some 11 September attackers (had their names)? A fact posted so many times that, well, you name him.

Let's see. Without all those security resources, two CIA agents specifically warned (George Jr's 6 August PDB entitled “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.”) of an attack we now call 911. At least four FBI investigation teams were tracking down those attackers. How can this be if resources were insufficient? Why did administration officials stop each investigation? Why did administration officials yell at two FBI agents in Chicago, "You will not start a criminal investigation!" Maybe so that you might promote Rush Limbaugh propaganda? How many times must I post facts?

America has always had more than sufficient resources. But to mask administration incompetence, spin instead blames CIA, FBI, and other intelligence organizations for failure. Failure? They could not get political extremists in George Jr's administration to even believe Al Qaeda existed. Did Rush Limbaugh forget to mention that reality when Rush was high on drugs?

Fact: there was no shortage of resources to stop terrorism. Instead, those resources (such as Richard Clark's Counterterrorism Security Group) were demoted, disempowered, and ignored.

So what does an incompetent MBA do? He hires more subordinates; creates more layers of bureaucracy. Are we any safer because George Jr added layers of bureaucracy called Fatherland Security and Intelligence Czar? Of course not. Katrina is just another example of what more bureaucracy did. Potter Goss was still wasting his productive days personally briefing a president who does not read his PDBs.

Where does top management incompetence get corrected by more layers of bureaucracy and dictatorship powers? We have an intelligence failure. We have a president who does not even read his memos.

Having been warned 6 weeks earlier in a PDB, then Andy Card whispers into his ear, "A second plane has just struck the World Trade Center. America is under attack." What does a real leader do? Ask any questions? No. Issue any orders? No. Authorized fighter aircraft to protect America? No - not once. Get up and discover what is happening? No. Instead he just sits there for 15 minutes reading a children's book; waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Why will a big security agency solve this presidential intelligence failure?

America has always had sufficient resources to protect Americans. Clinton stopped an LAX bombing, attacks on Americans in Egypt, the bombing of Aman Radisson, and maybe attacks on NY Times Square and Toronto. All these attacks to occur simultaneously - 1 Jan 2000 - were stopped because a president had intelligence. All these attacks stopped because America has always had sufficient resources to avert terrorism. These are well published facts. Knowing these facts, then where did America not have sufficient security? Without using Rush Limbaugh propaganda, where is this security failure?

The United States has always had more than enough resources to stop terrorism - once hype and myth from Rush Limbaugh propaganda is eliminated. Think like an engineer. When did America not have sufficient security? When the president does not even read and then lies - blames CIA, FBI and others who actually did their job. Why do some Americans think the CIA failed. Too many Americans still listen to Rush Limbaugh propaganda. The CIA, et al properly warned and tried to stop impending attacks. One was even fired for doing his job. In each case, a mental midget administration help create 11 September.

We never needed more security. We have an intelligence failure - in the brain of our president.

[WabUfvot5]

Is it bad I really think all this monitoring is being done just so GWB can amass the biggest porn collection on earth?

[Ibby]

Y'know, I wouldn't be suprised...

[Griff]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'd suspect it would be the same as the Soviet Union or Cuba with everyone snitching on their neighbors to the building or block capo.

I'm afraid that we already have that kind of stuff in certain areas. A friend of mine dug up a temporary access road he had through a field (gravel over plastic) so he could plant. He made the mistake of dumping the gravel and plastic next to his driveway, in preparation to adding it to the driveway surface. Unfortunately, it was where local do gooders could see it. Next thing you know the DEC is on his case... We will just have a new bunch of snitches assuming the worst about their neighbors to add to the ones we already have.

[wolf]

I believe that the Brits are under more constant video surveillance than the average American.

[Pie]

Does that mean we need to bring ours up to match their level of paranoia?

[Happy Monkey]

We have to make up the surveillance gap!

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

I believe that the Brits are under more constant video surveillance than the average American.

At least the Brits are honest enough to tell everyone what they are doing. And they are only monitoring public spaces. They are only doing what is even constitutional in the US. The British don't even have such constitutional rights.

How would it be done under George Jr? If you told the press that a camera was watching people on the corner of Main and Springfield, then Federal agents might arrest you for divulging government secrets. An exaggeration? Well then why, after being expose for bugging Americans without judicial review, then why does this president instead blame leakers – American patriots - rather than corrupt administration officials?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by tw

At least the Brits are honest enough to tell everyone what they are doing.

The British have a fairly impressive data mining organization. I can't find the article on it, now, but some years ago they used cross referenced, private billing information to find the location of where a kidnapped individual was being held and rescued them. Shortly after the person had been kidnapped, the government started running analysis on electricity, water, and phone usage -- all gained without warrants. Only two previously dormant structures had "come alive" with electricity and water usage around the time of the crime. Of course, one of the abandoned houses was being used by the criminals.

Interesting stuff.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

The British have a fairly impressive data mining organization. I can't find the article on it, now, but some years ago they used cross referenced, private billing information to find the location of where a kidnapped individual was being held and rescued them.

Americans do same to locate criminals, but with judicial review. So why does that suggest surveillance cams are equivalent to wiretapping in violation of the US Constitution? Why does that British procedure (that all know about and that is legal) somehow become equivalent to illegal and secretive bugging by George Jr’s administration of innocent Americans? Somehow because Rush Limbaugh hype has promoted fear, then suddenly violations of the Constitution are acceptable?

The British don't have a Bill of Rights. Are you saying we should scrap the American Bill of Rights because British demonstrate the Bill is unnecessary?

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by tw

Are you saying we should scrap the American Bill of Rights because British demonstrate the Bill is unnecessary?

I was saying the British have an interesting data mining organization that uses their skills to track down criminal activity, but I guess you're free to read whatever slant you want into it and spin it with the politics you desire.

[wolf]

Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

Remember, I am the person that won't buy EZPass.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by wolf

Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

Yep.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

I was saying the British have an interesting data mining organization that uses their skills to track down criminal activity, but I guess you're free to read whatever slant you want into it and spin it with the politics you desire.

There is no slant. There are these questions as to why you would praise what also exists in America? Put your post into perspective? It leaves at least three ways to interpret. Which one were you trying to suggest? Which interpretation makes your post consistent with what is the context of this thread?

No spin. Just total confusion; why citing in Britain what also exists in America?

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Being legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

Remember, I am the person that won't buy EZPass.

Are you saying it is legal but not right for government to track your car?