Muslims are dangerous. All of the 9-11 hijackers were Muslims.
When someone draws a funny picture of Mohammed, Muslims go nuts like little children. Any group of people so utterly brainwashed as Muslims are, need to be watched closely.
Now reply back with some hokum about one billion Muslims or some other crap about how Christians are just as violent....a hundred years ago.
Greenwald told us that the climax of his 'fireworks' would be a list of everyday ordinary Americans who have been spied on.
Where is the list? There is no list.
Instead we got filtered MSM media reports that a bunch of Muslims were observed to make sure they aren't contacting terrorist operatives in the Middle East and elsewhere.
IN OTHER WORDS: THE NSA IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING!
Well, in fact, yes. This country was founded upon the principle that we must protect the dumb masses from themselves, hence we have a representative constitutional republic.
If we listened to the supposed 'will of the people' then much of LA would be like Santa Monica, with even the simplest building, taking literally decades to negotiate, simply because some unemployed stooge is yelling the loudest.
I think that's just a regular helicopter. Those that don't live in LA will never know the joy of driving down a random road and seeing a helicopter search light spring out of nowhere, followed by an assload of police cars.
...which the Los Angeles police have pissed off. They have to be prepared for the next Chris Dorner they send over the edge with some racist joke or missed promotion.
Personally, I feel safer having the drones do the searching.
"Stopping a 'threat' that was never a danger before a government agent stepped in and led them through the entire process every step of the way hardly counts as 'stopping terrorists' I'd say, as they're 'stopping' a problem they created"
The is that YOU HAVE NO POINT! Anyone who could be pushed into this type of terrorist activity is guilty. If the FBI didn't do it, then some Terrorist would.
You seem angry that the FBI is getting to them first.
Re: it all depends on who you are and who you know
hmmm... you're first sentence isn't a threat, but I get your point.
This is strange though: "Turner, 48, a former snitch for the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service, claimed his government handlers at the time had urged him to make provocative statements and advocate for violent resistence to smoke out domestic terrorists."
He actually testified that he had government "handlers" urging him to do this?
Re: James Clapper actually made these kind of threats
What are you babbling about?
Two court system? You mean between rich and poor? What does that have to do with this?
Rich people would just have their middle men pay an investigator to find you and ruin you, and if you are particularly annoying, make sure you have an accident.
"As we've often stated here, supposed threats should very definitely be investigated. "
Why? Because you want to sound reasonable? You are just playing into every hysterical bitch who has ever been 'concerned' and called the police.
Your next sentences:
"...But these investigations not only need to take into account whether the person has the means to carry them out, but also the surrounding context. It's simply not enough to declare something a threat because someone felt threatened"
Doen't change anything.
You're just proving you don't even understand what is going on. There can never be an 'investigation' without a presumption of guilt. There is no need for these 'investigations' to begin with.
Nobody should have to justify to anyone else threatening a stupid hysterical woman online or verbally. That's free speech.
Now, that ends when you start stalking and harassing the same person, across multiple sites and/or the real world. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE between "threatening" a dumb ass in passing and stalking.
You need to stop PANDERING to the lowest common denominator in society.
Yes, I know that, but nice try attempting to correct me. In either event, the FBI and NSA have an easier relationship than they have with the CIA. (see below)
----
There is a big difference between "blowing off some steam online" and
"Laying out the plan, providing the materials needed..."
How exactly would someone push you into purchasing the materials necessary to make a bomb, or to even accept such materials?
You seem to just stick stuff together randomly, like 1 legitimate thing with a bunch of crazy things, and then expect me to accept it all as one package. It's an okay tactic for an amateur, but not very credible.
---
from the FBI Web Site:
A second obstacle to strong cooperation and information sharing is that we have two separate legal regimes for collecting information about threats. First is the criminal justice regime, which looks to bring individuals to justice. Second is the national security regime, which seeks to identify and to thwart both domestic and external threats. These two regimes have separate statutory frameworks.
Since the attacks of September 11, we have been able, for the most part, to reconcile—and indeed, leverage—these two regimes with respect to counterterrorism. And by leverage, I mean using the strength of the criminal justice process to generate intelligence as a result of obtaining the cooperation of defendants.
The conflicts between these two regimes—which largely have been resolved in the counterterrorism arena—must also be addressed in the cyber arena.
Resolving these conflicts depends upon identifying particular factual scenarios and then applying a specific legal analysis that seeks to make full use of our capabilities under one—or, indeed, both—of these regimes.
I have no idea since I don't work for either, but I would surmise a great relationship would be that if the NSA identifies a potential lunatic it let's the FBI know.
Then the FBI must set about investigating and if possible build some sort of LEGAL case so that the nutcase can be jailed.
Well, for one, they stopped all those people who were in the early stages or had the potential to be terrorists.
To do this, you have to get assets in a position to identify potential nuts that are susceptible to being radicalized, and then 'radicalizing' them so that they can be legally prosecuted.
That takes a lot of work, effort, and analysis, and it's hard to then "prove" you stopped anything, because of all the internet crybabies pouting about "entrapment"
However, by stopping these nuts before they have had a chance to not only carry out any acts, but also corrupting those around them, they have stopped potential terrorist acts.
It's a much smarter, and more effective strategy, then trying to catch people in the later stages of planning something.
As for lone nuts, you will never be able to catch them. There are 500 million people in this country, every so often, some of them will go nuts, nothing anyone can do about that.
On the post: FBI Directly Spying On Prominent Muslim-American Politicians, Lawyers And Civil Rights Activists
Re:
That is the definition of dangerous. The NSA and FBI are COMPLETELY justified in watching these people.
On the post: FBI Directly Spying On Prominent Muslim-American Politicians, Lawyers And Civil Rights Activists
Re: Re: Wow! This comment is dumber than usual...
is dangerous.
You can twist and turn and cry, but until that is not the case, all Muslims should be suspected and carefully observed.
On the post: FBI Directly Spying On Prominent Muslim-American Politicians, Lawyers And Civil Rights Activists
Wow! This comment is dumber than usual...
When someone draws a funny picture of Mohammed, Muslims go nuts like little children. Any group of people so utterly brainwashed as Muslims are, need to be watched closely.
Now reply back with some hokum about one billion Muslims or some other crap about how Christians are just as violent....a hundred years ago.
On the post: FBI Directly Spying On Prominent Muslim-American Politicians, Lawyers And Civil Rights Activists
GREENWALD LIED...as usual.
Where is the list? There is no list.
Instead we got filtered MSM media reports that a bunch of Muslims were observed to make sure they aren't contacting terrorist operatives in the Middle East and elsewhere.
IN OTHER WORDS: THE NSA IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING!
NEXT!
On the post: NSA Working With Denmark, Germany To Access 'Three Terabits Of Data Per Second' From Overseas Cables
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where is your Argument?
As if God handed down these laws, and then had his lawyers look them over.
On the post: City Of Seattle Finds New Police Drones Might Be Too Invasive; Los Angeles Police Say, 'Hey, We'll Take Them!'
Re: Come again?
If we listened to the supposed 'will of the people' then much of LA would be like Santa Monica, with even the simplest building, taking literally decades to negotiate, simply because some unemployed stooge is yelling the loudest.
On the post: City Of Seattle Finds New Police Drones Might Be Too Invasive; Los Angeles Police Say, 'Hey, We'll Take Them!'
Re:
On the post: City Of Seattle Finds New Police Drones Might Be Too Invasive; Los Angeles Police Say, 'Hey, We'll Take Them!'
There are lots of other blacks...
Personally, I feel safer having the drones do the searching.
http://laist.com/2013/02/07/police_shoot_motorists_mistaken_for_dorner.php
On the post: Group Of Major PR Firms Pledge To Play Nice On Wikipedia
Should be titled...
On the post: NSA Working With Denmark, Germany To Access 'Three Terabits Of Data Per Second' From Overseas Cables
Re: Re: Where is your Argument?
Right after God handed down the first laws, people were hard at work circumventing them with loopholes.
Christians routinely mask their own evil by hiding in corporations and telling us it's just business.
So why the big surprise that if you leave open hole, then people are going pee in them? Close the hole.
On the post: NSA Working With Denmark, Germany To Access 'Three Terabits Of Data Per Second' From Overseas Cables
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uselessness
The is that YOU HAVE NO POINT! Anyone who could be pushed into this type of terrorist activity is guilty. If the FBI didn't do it, then some Terrorist would.
You seem angry that the FBI is getting to them first.
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
Re: lazy policing?
Too bad Techdirt has a comment system from 1986....
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
lazy policing?
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
Re: it all depends on who you are and who you know
This is strange though:
"Turner, 48, a former snitch for the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service, claimed his government handlers at the time had urged him to make provocative statements and advocate for violent resistence to smoke out domestic terrorists."
He actually testified that he had government "handlers" urging him to do this?
I kind of want to know more about that.
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
Re: James Clapper actually made these kind of threats
Two court system? You mean between rich and poor? What does that have to do with this?
Rich people would just have their middle men pay an investigator to find you and ruin you, and if you are particularly annoying, make sure you have an accident.
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
More idiocy from TechDirt Loons.
Why? Because you want to sound reasonable? You are just playing into every hysterical bitch who has ever been 'concerned' and called the police.
Your next sentences:
"...But these investigations not only need to take into account whether the person has the means to carry them out, but also the surrounding context. It's simply not enough to declare something a threat because someone felt threatened"
Doen't change anything.
You're just proving you don't even understand what is going on. There can never be an 'investigation' without a presumption of guilt. There is no need for these 'investigations' to begin with.
Nobody should have to justify to anyone else threatening a stupid hysterical woman online or verbally. That's free speech.
Now, that ends when you start stalking and harassing the same person, across multiple sites and/or the real world. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE between "threatening" a dumb ass in passing and stalking.
You need to stop PANDERING to the lowest common denominator in society.
On the post: Why The FBI's New Interview Recording Policy Probably Won't Change Anything
Google Glass!
Law enforcement will provide a great market.
On the post: NSA Working With Denmark, Germany To Access 'Three Terabits Of Data Per Second' From Overseas Cables
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Uselessness
----
There is a big difference between "blowing off some steam online" and
"Laying out the plan, providing the materials needed..."
How exactly would someone push you into purchasing the materials necessary to make a bomb, or to even accept such materials?
You seem to just stick stuff together randomly, like 1 legitimate thing with a bunch of crazy things, and then expect me to accept it all as one package. It's an okay tactic for an amateur, but not very credible.
---
from the FBI Web Site:
A second obstacle to strong cooperation and information sharing is that we have two separate legal regimes for collecting information about threats. First is the criminal justice regime, which looks to bring individuals to justice. Second is the national security regime, which seeks to identify and to thwart both domestic and external threats. These two regimes have separate statutory frameworks.
Since the attacks of September 11, we have been able, for the most part, to reconcile—and indeed, leverage—these two regimes with respect to counterterrorism. And by leverage, I mean using the strength of the criminal justice process to generate intelligence as a result of obtaining the cooperation of defendants.
The conflicts between these two regimes—which largely have been resolved in the counterterrorism arena—must also be addressed in the cyber arena.
Resolving these conflicts depends upon identifying particular factual scenarios and then applying a specific legal analysis that seeks to make full use of our capabilities under one—or, indeed, both—of these regimes.
source: http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/working-together-to-defeat-cyber-threats
----
I have no idea since I don't work for either, but I would surmise a great relationship would be that if the NSA identifies a potential lunatic it let's the FBI know.
Then the FBI must set about investigating and if possible build some sort of LEGAL case so that the nutcase can be jailed.
On the post: NSA Working With Denmark, Germany To Access 'Three Terabits Of Data Per Second' From Overseas Cables
Re: Re: Re: Uselessness
To do this, you have to get assets in a position to identify potential nuts that are susceptible to being radicalized, and then 'radicalizing' them so that they can be legally prosecuted.
That takes a lot of work, effort, and analysis, and it's hard to then "prove" you stopped anything, because of all the internet crybabies pouting about "entrapment"
However, by stopping these nuts before they have had a chance to not only carry out any acts, but also corrupting those around them, they have stopped potential terrorist acts.
It's a much smarter, and more effective strategy, then trying to catch people in the later stages of planning something.
As for lone nuts, you will never be able to catch them. There are 500 million people in this country, every so often, some of them will go nuts, nothing anyone can do about that.
On the post: NSA Working With Denmark, Germany To Access 'Three Terabits Of Data Per Second' From Overseas Cables
Re: Uselessness
Also, you refer to one or two examples, but what's the total data set? You have no idea how many terrorist acts the NSA/FBI have thwarted.
They could have stopped hundreds if not thousands of terrorist acts, and only missed these few cases which you are now using.
Next >>