Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

FoxNews: : As post-9/11 program grew, info on Americans, not terrorists was collected; price tag huge

SnyderShrugged

By SnyderShrugged
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
Posted

Gosh, who wouldve guessed that this could happen? :mad:

As post-9/11 program grew, info on Americans, not terrorists was collected; price tag huge

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/03/as-post-11-program-grew-info-on-americans-not-terrorists-was-collected-price/#ixzz28EW9FSxq

WASHINGTON – A multibillion-dollar information-sharing program created in the aftermath of 9/11 has improperly collected information about innocent Americans and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism, a Senate report concludes. It portrays an effort that ballooned far beyond anyone's ability to control.

snip...

Because of a convoluted grants process set up by Congress, Homeland Security officials don't know how much they have spent in their decade-long effort to set up so-called fusion centers in every state. Government estimates range from less than $300 million to $1.4 billion in federal money, plus much more invested by state and local governments. Federal funding is pegged at about 20 percent to 30 percent.

Despite that, Congress is unlikely to pull the plug. That's because, whether or not it stops terrorists, the program means politically important money for state and local governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted

Siding with SS on this one. One of my disappointments with the Dems and Obama was not reversing this course we've been on. I think we've made a mistake sacrificing our privacy for the illusion of being more secure.

The Repubs may have started this, but the Dems kept it going and in some cases made it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsburySkinsFan

AsburySkinsFan

Posted
Posted
Siding with SS on this one. One of my disappointments with the Dems and Obama was not reversing this course we've been on. I think we've made a mistake sacrificing our privacy for the illusion of being more secure.

The Repubs may have started this, but the Dems kept it going and in some cases made it worse.

Agreed, but who changes it? People who raise the issue nationally are on the fringe and laughed at while the pols continue on.

Maybe I really have given up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted
It warms my heart to not be alone in my opinion on this!! And with much respected ES tailgaters too!

When our Government betrays us in such a way, the lines between Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, are blurred. We are all harmed by an over bloated system that steps on our rights.

Liberty is something people from all sides of the political spectrum cherish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderShrugged

SnyderShrugged

Posted
  • Author
Posted
What do you expect? I think Obama is not a principled leader but a politician.

sadly, its exactly what I expected (and expect from both Romney and/or Obama next run too)

---------- Post added October-3rd-2012 at 09:47 AM ----------

When our Government betrays us in such a way, the lines between Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, are blurred. We are all harmed by an over bloated system that steps on our rights.

Liberty is something people from all sides of the political spectrum cherish.

Amen brother!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
alexey

alexey

Posted
Posted
sadly, its exactly what I expected (and expect from both Romney and/or Obama next run too)

I expected a bit more principled leadership from Obama. Perhaps starting off with a free falling economy got him into the damage control mode where he stayed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimboDaMan

JimboDaMan

Posted
Posted

Gotta agree with Fox Noise on this one. I'll note with an amused smirk the lack of such outrage on their part during the years Bush was "the decider". And I'll also note that any warnings that this was inevitable were met with shrill cries of treason from the right. But yeah, this is a big disappointment that Obama has not made significant changes to this nonsense.

I just agreed with Fox News. I feel so dirty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thebluefood

thebluefood

Posted
Posted

And as if this wasn't awesome enough, the second circuit has given their (temporary) stamp of approval on the 2012 edition of NDAA.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/10/court-extends-stop-on-order-blocking-indefinite-detention-137259.html

This is an excerpt from the court's decision

First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'

Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SkinsHokieFan

SkinsHokieFan

Posted
Posted

An old kook on the right has been opposed to, and been railing against stuff like this for at least 5 years now

And why would this President reverse course? He has proven to be more secretive then Dick Cheney (see how many whistleblowers are getting prosecuted) and a warmonger who loves the power he inherited from Bush

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AsiaticSkinsFan

AsiaticSkinsFan

Posted
Posted

yea, a lot of people were saying this in the mid 2000s when we started to see results of the Patriot Act. Instead of standing up to this attack on American Constitutional rights, the response was always "well if you arent doing anything bad, then you have nothing to worry about."

Yeah, just be happy that someone has your SSN now. Lets hope they arent "doing anything bad" with it.

and yea, when Obama agreed to extend the Patriot Act and other anti-constitutional provisions, he lost a lot of respect from me. Its why Ive grown to dislike politics in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

Although, I also have to say, that I could well approve of such a program.

If there are appropriate limitations on it.

I've long said that my idea of "appropriate limitations" is something along the lines of:

Some agencies, like CIA and NSA, are designated as "National Security Agencies"

Other agencies, like FBI, Treasury, DEA, are "Law Enforcement Agencies".

The later are required to operate under the rules which have evolved over the years. Search warrants, trials, Miranda, presumption of privacy, probable cause. All of that stuff.

The former are allowed to do whatever they want, subject only to technology and their budgets. Anything goes, no warrants required. But, they are not allowed to act on their information, except under very limited circumstances. The language I've proposed is something along the lines of "Probable evidence of an imminent attack, against the American Public, of a military or paramilitary scale."

Under Larry's System, the NSA has the legal authority to collect every piece of email, every phone call, anywhere in the world. No justification needed other that "it might be useful" And they have the right to archive it, to analyze, extrapolate, sift through, fold, spindle, and mutilate that data. Anything they want. (If Congress wants, Congress may chose to limit their budget, and their budget may force them to prioritize their efforts. "We don't have the budget to analyze every piece of email, so we'll try to pick out the important ones".)

They have the authority to intercept every email. And if their analysis says "hey, we got two guys here who are exchanging encrypted email", then they have the right to dig deeper. To crack the encryption. To look more closely at these people's other information. Still, no warrant of any kind needed.

If they discover that this is one of Saddam's nuke scientists, offering to tell Iran where Saddam hid the nukes? Then the CIA has the authority to go send Mr. Clark, to make both of them disappear.

If it's two guys swapping kiddie porn? Heck, if it's a kidnapper who's offering to sell the child he just snatched to a pedophile? They cannot do a thing. Not even an anonymous "hey, you might want to pay attention to this guy" phone call to the local sheriff.

----------

I could live with a system like that. One where "Big Brother is watching, but unless you're planning on killing hundreds of people, within the next week, he can't do anything but watch."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prosperity

Prosperity

Posted
Posted

I could live with a system like that. One where "Big Brother is watching, but unless you're planning on killing hundreds of people, within the next week, he can't do anything but watch."

This is basically what's going on now right?

In general, the government can violate the 4th amendment as much it wants. The only consequence they have to deal with is not being able to use evidence gathered because of the violation in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...