Dick Cheney's Crystal Ball Says That NSA Surveillance Could Have Stopped 9/11
from the but-not-the-boston-bombing dept
We already commented on FBI director Robert Mueller arguing that the NSA's mass surveillance techniques would have prevented 9/11, and now it appears that Dick Cheney is agreeing with this fictional scenario in which his crystal ball says what might have happened:"As everybody who's been associated with the program's said, if we had had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego — two hijackers — had been able to use that program, that capability, against that target, we might well have been able to prevent 9/11," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday."That's speculation based on nothing, frankly. As has been widely covered, there were a number of reasons why the government failed to stop 9/11, just as there were plenty of reasons it failed to stop the Boston bombings back in April. The idea that this program would have stopped one (while it clearly missed the other) isn't particularly convincing.
Of course, none of that gets to the bigger question of whether or not it's worth it. In theory, we could stop all sorts of crimes by putting military personnel and equipment in the streets, with the power to invade any home and do a full search. But we don't allow that. Because that's a violation of our privacy. And, yes, the loss of life from a terrorist attack is tragic and horrifying -- but many more people are killed in car accidents, and we don't freak out about that and take away everyone's cars. Giving up our basic principles of freedom on the off chance it might possibly stop a terrorist attack (while still missing other terrorist attacks) doesn't really seem like living up to the basic ideals of this country.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 9/11, dick cheney, fud, nsa, nsa surveillance, terrorism
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There is no way that we can say either way whether or not 9/11 could have been stopped had this surveillance been in place. Although, I suspect that it would not have been stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That tells you all you need to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this the same crystal ball?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this the same crystal ball?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to bring out the cows. Mikey's got milk fever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F85cuRuQjLE
Get those clicks, Mikey! Clicks! Clicks! Clicks! Yeah, that's what an ivy league education is for. It's for impressing silverscarat and his brethren!! Good for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Pot, meet kettle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is he referring to his...?
Nah...he can't be that crazy...right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is eating at you isn't it?
The thought that people would pick pirates instead of your side is destroying your soul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And that NSA surveillance machine sure was useful in finding the perpetrators after the incident.
Oh wait, no it wasn't. They were identified via crowd-sourcing and were busted only after shutting down the entire city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So not only did a city-wide police crack down not catch these guys, but the NSA surveillance net didn't stop this (which was in place for 6 years) nor did it help in finding them before they were caught on their own.
But I feel safer already! Keep taking away my freedoms, government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's your specialty, Mikey!!! Still waiting for you explain exactly how the telephone metadata collection violates the Fourth Amendment. I mean, you weren't just speculating based on nothing, right? LOL! Of course you were. And, of course, you will never ever admit it. Why? Because you are not an honest person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You either don't read much or don't read well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
So we have two problems here. They do not have the right to know exactly who you talk with and when you talk to that person be it some hooker or your grandma (this would require in the distant past that the police followed and spied you). And it's not particularly describing because the data was collected in bulks.
Satisfied? Go away now, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Would the government have access to it if it weren't for the spying program? It's a rhetorical question, Trolley...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fuck off lunatic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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. "
My phone calls, internet searches, surfing habits, metadata, etc. are my "effects" and as such, in order for the government to have access to them they need a warrant. Pretty simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would argue, however, that just because 3 people know something doesn't mean that the government also has a right to know that thing without a warrant. Say I call a friend. I know I made that call, the friend I called knows I made that call, and the phone company knows I made that call. But if you, as a private citizen and customer, ask for my phone records, the phone company is going to deny you that information even if you offer to pay them more than my business with them is worth. Why? Because that information is PRIVATE. Perhaps it is not private to the degree of a medical record, but I think it works on a similar principle. Just because someone else holds a record should not mean that the government has a right to it. And even if somehow I have no interest whatsoever in that record, the PHONE COMPANY has an interest in it. If nothing else, these are the phone company's papers and effects, and probable cause is STILL needed to get them.
And on top of the Fourth Amendment arguments, there can also be a case made that we SHOULD not do this even if it's constitutionally permissible. According to the Supreme Court, it's legal for cities to take houses via eminent domain and sell the land for commercial development. That does not mean that cities SHOULD do this, and I would vote out any local official who proposed it. And congress CAN, according to the Supreme Court, retroactively extend copyright for 20 years, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Similarly, even if this is legal under the Fourth Amendment, that does not automatically mean that we should be doing it.
But when it comes to whether we should do this, that brings up First Amendment issues. The government is ordering that records be provided and also puts on a gag order, preventing discussion of whether this is something that we should be doing.
And why is there this gag order? So people don't know they are doing this. And why does that matter? Because people assume that this information will be private. The secrecy is only valuable if people assume that the government is NOT tracking them.
Which brings us full circle. People DO expect that these records are private. And since they have some expectation of privacy in these records, the Fourth Amendment SHOULD apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well don't forget you're 8 times more likely to die from a police officer than from a terrorist. Have we started spying on police officers too? If we haven't, maybe we start?
http://www.theweeklyconstitutional.com/news/headlines/773-cop-more-likely-to-kill-you-th an-terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack
Better install cameras and alarms in all bedrooms so that action can be taken when people are suffocating. This would save more lives that the surveillance used to stop terrorism. Its for your safety after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
from you are not going to be killed by terrorism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
There were PLENTY of clues intercepted, it's just Cheney LYING that the information wasn't available, can only claim didn't put it all together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
I'm not as quick as to swallow everything that's thrown at me but at least the Boston event has some pretty damning visual evidence that SOMETHING smells fishy.
The sad part is that the cynic in me refuses to dismiss those theories entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
When they actually DO fake terrorism, nothing happens, it's just some chump being caught in a sting operation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/CIA_Memo.JPG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's NOT "speculation based on nothing," it's LIES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dick Cheney is filth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dick Cheney is filth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dick Cheney is filth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dick Cheney is filth
We can arrest them and call them schnookums. "You are my schnookums and you belong in this box with these other people and they can be your friends and they are my schnookums too."
Good times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prevention
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hindsight doesn't matter
Policy can only be determined by looking at the benefits of a policy (reduced terrorist attacks) and the risks/downsides (increased surveillance). Hindsight is useful _only_ for quantifying the benefits and risks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There was a crystal ball, you stupid fuck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snowden's reply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Passengers who hadn't been told all their lives to give criminals whatever they want could also have stopped 9/11.
Following up on all the intelligence about a terror attack pre-9/11 could also have stopped 9/11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Am I missing something??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can not help but notice that it did not prevent the Boston Marathon bombing. If it can't stop a really bombing especially when Russia notifies you ahead of time about the individuals being a problem, then there is no way in hell this floats as a valid reason.
Of course this is coming from Cheney, who claims Snowden is needed to be prosecuted for spilling state secrets, the same Cheney who put the gears in motion to help put all the spying apparatus in place and the same Cheney wanted by The Hague for war crimes. Cheney cancelled his book signing in Canada over fears of being arrested in Canada over these same war crimes. Now that's a real moral character you can depend on... not.
The whole thing here is the whistle blower program doesn't work. The recommended going up the chain of command results in it getting buried and the individual threatened. Going to some one like the IG doesn't help as again the one wanting to reveal the problems is treated as the problem. The final only choice each whistle blower is left with is going to the MSM. Of course as with Snowden, the first thing they do is contact the government over it to see what's allowed to be in print.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Conspiracy theories are brilliant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's one or the other folks. We drive over this cliff or jump. I'd say that you can always find a new ride, it just might be a little rougher because I'm pretty sure that I can't fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Condoms would have prevent 9/11 ! ! !
Makes as much sense as what the government is trying to say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, if you don't really know then you don't really know do you?
"Trust Us. You're Safer."
Uhh... no thanks - I think I'd rather do drugs and fight 'til the death, but thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
911 a conspiracy theory
TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a
cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of
the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4
commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single
fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine , and live with pink-haired
strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t
handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come
exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the
mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s
coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours , the Administration knew within
the day , and the evidence literally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists
demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed , underfunded , set up to fail , a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was
based on testimony extracted through torture , the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of
WTC7 , Able Danger , Ptech , Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings
that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the
Pentagon , the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because
they testified in secret , off the record , not under oath and behind closed doors . It didn’t bother to look at who funded the
attacks because that question is of “ little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all
of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions ) and pinned blame on all the
people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination”
because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD
and the NRO.
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because
destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.
NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they
made their model of that collapse would “ jeopardize public safety“.
The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s
OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide .
This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a
paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him , him, him, and her . (and her
and her and him).
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in
Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence
dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video
with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team
raid which wasn’t recorded on video , in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield , and in which these
crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about
those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a
couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and
mobile production facilities and the rescue of Jessica Lynch .
If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled
by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your
grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA , SEC, MSM, White House , NIST,
and the 9/11 Commission . Because Ignorance is Strength.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 911 a conspiracy theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 911 a conspiracy theory
And they say government can't do things the way the private sector can!
I'm guessing that a conversation that was flagged for follow-up -- but didn't lead to anything -- would constitute a 'potential terrorist plot'? After all, if it led to something more significant, it wouldn't have been 'potential', now would it?
So, now that I understand that, I guess I can ask how this massive surveillance program would have prevented Dick Cheney from ordering the interceptors to stand down on 9/11?
And now that that question's been answered ("It's because we didn't have a massive domestic surveillance program in place, you dummy! Pay attention!"), I guess I can hit the snooze button and go back to sleep?
Okay. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm guessing terrorists will find a way around NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm guessing terrorists will find a way around NSA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would be a tragedy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does he say whether it would have stopped him from outing Valerie Plame too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I can buy, though, is the idea that Valerie Plame herself -- who was, after all, working independently to answer that vital question of where the WMDs were in Iraq, or if they existed at all -- might have been the real problem for Cheney, and the real target. A CIA agent loses a lot of her effectiveness once everybody in the world knows she's a CIA agent. All Cheney had to do was figure out a quasi-legal way to get the information to the media.
And there you are, another whistleblower dealt with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second: Did the terrorists use the Internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]