On tracking terrorists and other unwanted individuals

Earl, your problem stems from the fact you are focused on the word "Targeted" rather than the word "Abused". The patriot act wasn't "targeted" at anyone, it was used against everyone. Everyone had their civil rights abused by virtue of the fact the government collected all of their personal communication without probable cause.

I'm thinking you need to consult with your friends on the left before posting again, because most of them seem to get the fact that this is illegal and it is abuse, unlike John Boner and Diane Feinstein. Hell, perhaps you should consult with Senator Obama of 2005:

Of course that was before Obama's DNI directly lied to congress when congressional oversight was brought to bear.

Last time I checked, government discrimination against an individual or group based on race, gender or political beliefs was a crime. Of that particular crime, we already have confessions originating from high ranking individuals within the IRS who are now lawyered up and pleading the 5th. People plead the 5th to avoid self incrimination. People don't avoid self incrimination unless they feel a crime has been committed.

Fascinating! I'm trying to think of something having analogous credibility to the testimony coming from the Dems, but I'm having a hard time digging it up. Perhaps this guy?

In the real world, where people have to provide documents to back their claims, here is what is happening:

And then, of course, there is this:

Like I said before Earl. Closing your eyes doesn't make it go away, and just because you refuse to look at it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Most people watch Baghdad Bob for comedic value. You may be the first person I've seen turn to him for "real" news.

 

Three faces of earlpearl.

 

with that i wouldn't have any problem. But that is not they way it happens.

 

That is exactly why the NSA collects all this phone metadata. It isn't to listen in on people. It is simple data like numbers, times, etc. If the NSA needs to investigate further after they have decided someone in the US is a suspected link to Muhammad the terrorist they must get the search warrants.

I cannot speak for what other secrets the NSA has for us. Maybe they are listening to our phone conversations? Maybe when we say key words in conversations on our cell phones we get flagged by a computer program and a CIA agent starts to listen to us and gather data. That would all be speculation and there is no proof of that activity. I would be upset about that kind of intrusion. But the NSA scandal we are talking about right now is simply a large amount of metadata being collected from our phone companies.

There has to be a balance of security and privacy. Now I think we can all agree that software listening to our phone conversations is too much security and not enough privacy. My opinion is that the government having access to metadata from our phone companies is about as far as it can go before privacy is compromised in the name of security. Others that want complete privacy compromise security.

 

@Target: I'm not sure if you looked at the list of companies covered by Prism, but Google and Microsoft are on the list, implying search and email. That is not meta-data. That is content. None of this stuff is anonymous either. Not the Verizon records, not the Facebook posts, not the Gmail, Hotmail, Yahoo mail, Google searches, or any of the rest. Meta data only has value when associated with an identity (See the link in the OP).

Even if it were just "meta data" about phone records, it would mean that government officials have the record of every mistress called by every member of the opposing party. They have every phone call made to or from someone they can charge with a crime, making people "Guilty by investigation" which is how politics works in this company. All the Sarah Palin investigations never produced a single actionable item, but in the dim witted left wing voters minds, the investigation itself was all the evidence they needed to know she was guilty of some crime or other.

The existence of the data itself is a big enough problem. Open access to it by the government is purely unacceptable.

 

I am with you 100% that the practice is a problem and if I had a choice I would rather my government not have my phone records. But the people on the left and right just now joining the party are a little late. The whole situation is similar to a frog in a pot. The water is cold at first. The frog doesn't mind it. Nothing seems out of place. Gradually the water gets warmer. No big deal. Only when the water is burning hot and boiling does the frog notice that he is in trouble. By that time it is too late. The Patriot Act led the way for this type of government intrusion. They say it is for the greater good. I am sure back in 2004 they may not have intended for a project like Prism, but what do you expect from a government? They will bend the rules, make new rules, and get away with as much as they possibly can. When you set in motion agencies like Homeland security and the TSA the intentions are always good. But large government is prove to abuse and will naturally expand and expand unless someone is on top of the situation. Unfortunately, as we have seen in many examples, Obama is not fit to oversee his own agencies.

 

@target: Its never too late, in my opinion. We've had big government before, perhaps not this big, but big. Our government is setup to change power peacefully every two years, four years, and six years. I'm a big believer in that, and when that fails to have effect, you can count on a not so peaceful change of power in our government. No, that's not a threat, or some call to revolt. Its just a statement of fact by observing history. Either way, change is inevitable.

 

Couple of points;

Japan was the only country that attacked America on American soil. I'm not surprised they were treated differently than the Germans.

Everybody knew the Patriot act was intrusive at inception. I remember thinking former PM Howard would be doing same thing here. I'm not sure I have heard anything I didn't already suspect or indeed know based from what we heard was going to happen when the Patriot act was signed.

 

LOL? 2004? This kind of programs was going on in 1970s. Back then all the public phones were listening to at short intervals (about 30 seconds) and if any suspicious words were heard then the phone would go on constant monitoring. This was done with special switches delivered by Ericsson. The only thing that has happened is the fact that the development of technology and decrease in price (in 1980 a 20 MB hard disk for VAX would cost $15,000) has made it possible to monitor and record the location of all persons with a mobile phone and tape all their conversation. Many of the large companies that people divulge their private life are in fact financed by the CIA for this purpose, Google is a good example of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel

Do you know what Main Core is?

 

How akward to find myself agreeing with GWorld. CIA financed tech is only one head of the hydra. Most of the household recognized names in the government contracting business have large divisions with offices across the country, dedicated to hacking domestic networks. That includes the server networks of corporate names we now know, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc.. It includes hacking carrier networks at the hardware level of less recognized names like Level 3. It includes hacking the cellular networks of our nations major cell carriers. It includes hacking the high powered mobile computers with a minimum of five radios, most of us carry with us everywhere we go(Smartphones). Programs like Stuxnet don't just appear out of the ether.

Like I said, you show up to DefCon, and a large portion of the people there work for government contracting companies. If blackhat activities didn't have a large paycheck associated with them, such conferences and quantities of people engaged in the activity woudn't exist.

Snowden was probably just a low level librarian, tasked with organizing and keeping the data gathered by a myriad of other classified operations.

 

You didn´t answer the question about the Main Core. That is a list of over 8,000,000 Americans already classified as an enemy. Do you think if the government felt itself threatened, they will have time to imprison so many people? Do you know what will be the logistical nightmare of trying to do with these people as they did with Japanese Americans? The sobering thought is that Americans have already accepted that is possible to execute an American citizen without trial or conviction because the government believes that a person is a threat.
The death squads are operating in South America for a long time with Americans support, how long before it becomes as common in the USA?

 

Americans have accepted that it is ok to execute Americans that have joined Al Qaida and are actively plotting attacks or engaging in supporting a group that is plotting attacks. All 4 cases of American drone strikes were legal and justified. One a person reaches a certain threat level then game over. There is a huge step from killing enemy combatants that happen to be American, and killing American citizens on American soil for non-military criminal actions.

 

This kind of post proves that automatic weapons for you are just a penis extender to compensate for the shortcomings and not a necessary tool for defending the constitution.

 

I had never heard of MainCore prior to you mentioning it. On briefly glancing at the Wiki, a shared profile database across federal agencies seems like a very logical thing for the government to have. The existence of 8 million names in that database, and/or the classification of those names as "enemies of the state" on the other hand, would require a credible news outlet to report the story, or at least someone I trust who would know to inform me of the truth of it. 8 million is a litle over 2% of the population, so I suppose they could get to that number simply by centralizing records of anyone who has ever come in contact with law enforcement (Federal, State, County, or City). That still wouldn't mean those people are classified as "enemies of the state".

We live in an age where no piece of data needs to be thrown away. Ever. It creates huge problems for privacy, for expunging someones record when they have been falsely charged, for having things expire from your record at all, really. In California, the police cars and some of the cameras over the traffic lights are runing license plate recognition cameras that recognize and record 1800 plates a minute. Its a powerful tool to alert an officer of a wanted criminal driving two lanes over on the opposite side of the road. Its also a great way to track and record people's wearabouts every time they leave their house. Its a great tool to harass ex-cons, or people with a prior DUI or speeding ticket.

Its hard to have a good feeling about it, but if Law Enforcement doesn't do it, private enterprise will, and simply sell the service to law enforcement. It isn't illegal. Yet.

 

You might have looked at wiki briefly but you certainly didn´t understand it because it is nothing like you claimed in your post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Core

What do you call people who are considered threats to national security if you are the government?

The kind of database that you talk about like criminals, car owners,.... will include everyone in USA and not 8,000,000 people.

 

Nice quote and bolding. The problem is, you left out a very important chunk of the wiki. It came right before where you started cutting and pasting.

I'm thinking about writing a book, a guide really, to help people to sift through pure B.S., half truths, and propaganda, apply a little common sense and critical thinking, and come out with something resembling knowledge. Here are a few points I would add to such a book.

1) Statements in Wikipedia are not absolute fact, especially when listed under such a disclaimer. Expert/peer review tends to help keep wikipedia factual but even then, during an election season, reviewers have edit wars changing the truth according to wikipedia on a moment by moment basis for politically charged "facts".

2) Unsubstantiated claims, like the ones in your wiki are also not necessarily untrue, just because they lack proper sources, credible articles written for credible magizines, etc.

3) When a wiki claims the sources for a listing may be suspect, it helps to go read the sources.

In that spirit, lets have a look at the source[1] for the entire section you bolded in the wiki "summary", which is a partisan article from Salon.com, targeted at President Bush in 2008 (an election year).


The article's description of what is contained in Main Core is worded as follows:

"Main Core in its current incarnation apparently contains a vast amount of personal data on Americans, including NSA intercepts of bank and credit card transactions and the results of surveillance efforts by the FBI, the CIA and other agencies"​

​

The quote from the Wiki, on the other hand, phrases it this way:

Main Core contains personal and financial data of millions of U.S. citizens believed to be threats to national security. The data, which comes from theNSA, FBI, CIA, and other sources,[1] is collected and stored without warrants or court orders.​

Basically, the Wiki summary marries four unrelated, unverified, data points from the article, into a single statement.

1. Main Core contains personal and financial data of Americans (quantity not specified in the article)
2. Main Core contains citizens believed to be threats to national security
3. Main Core has data pertaining to (8)millions of Americans
4. Main Core contains data obtained without a search warrant

Each of those items may be completely factual on it's own, but put together, the way the way they are in the wiki quote, they likely become a complete lie, or at least completely unsubstantiated. There is nothing, in any of the linked sources, that substantiates the claim that everyone listed in Main Core is thought to be a threat to national security, and that everyone in Main Core has associated banking information listed along side their name, and that that banking data was obtained without a warrant. The article itself attributes Main Core's creation to Reagan, decades before the warrantless wiretapping, so according to it's own source, the wiki quote is blatantly false.

All the analysis thus far, mind you, assumes the articles are quoting factual sources and are not just ginning up agitprop four months before Obama's election, to reinforce in American's minds what an evil constitution burning Nazi George W. Bush was (oh the irony).

Setting aside the fact all the sources for the Wiki are dated May-July 2008, lets have a look at the source for the 8 million number in the Radar Online article(which they themselves have removed from their website). Down in the bowels of the article, we find this one sentence: "One knowledgeable source claims that 8 million Americans are now listed in Main Core as potentially suspect" . Gee, I wonder who that "knowledgeable source" might have been. Ezra Klien? Chris Hayes? Maybe they interviewed one of their children or Kim Kardashian, it is Radar Online after all.

If you read Snowden's info dump, it isn't 8 million, its hundreds of millions, and it isn't criminals or even suspects, it is everyone. That is what makes the revelation sensational. Targeting, even at a broad level, of some subset of Americans, would be more acceptable to many Americans.

 

If you look a little bit more you will see that what Smowden has mentioned, is actually feeding machine for the Main Core. You might be also interested to look at the history of inslaw (grand father of present Prism program) and Rex-84 which was used by Oliver North under Reagon time. The contracts for building detention centers from Homeland security also add an interesting aspect. It seems they are worried that one day hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants just run over the USA border and they need places to arrest and keep all these "illegal immigrants".
You mentioned the unsubstantiated claims which are the nature of this game, unless the government all of a sudden decides to reveal all its secrets. May be you should read about Danny Casolaro (freelance journalist) death to understand why it is very difficult to get hard evidence.

 

At this point I have no idea what your argument is. It is a fact that there are circumstances where people are not eligible for due process. I have outlined many examples. If you still can't comprehend that, I really don't know how you can be apart of the discussion.

He was also actively plotting to use bombs to take down airliners on US soil.

End of discussion. Unless you can provide some sort of proof that Awlaki was not an active member of al-qaeda, and that he was not plotting attacks against america, and that he was not an imminent threat, you really have nothing else to say.

 

In this case the government can claim that you are part of al-Qaeda and because you are in the USA, you are even more of imminent threat and you should be killed.

What happened to your constitutional rights? Can you show me in what part of US constitution it says that some people are not eligible for due process of law? I forgot, you probably never even read the US constitution and just repeat the second amendment part about owning guns that you have heard on some gun show.
If fifth and sixth amendment is irrelevant today then why shouldn´t we say the same thing about the second amendment? How are you going to use your gun to defend against tyranny when you have already declared the US constitution irrelevant?
You might try to read US constitution and learn something. It is an important and interesting document, so I fully recommend you to read it.

US constituation

 

Round two. I guess you still didn't comprehend what I previously posted. If I am in the US then it would be feasible to try and capture me, therefore no drone strike needed, and I would enjoy the due process of law. If it wasn't feasible to capture me, like if I was barricaded in a house with guns, then it turns into a different situation. It would be no different than a swat team raiding a drug house and shooting people who are armed. As a criminal if you are a threat you give up your rights in the name of security.

You really demonstrate how hypocritical you are. Almost every post you make mocks those who support upholding the second amendment, yet why I try to explain that there is some flexibility in 5/6th amendments suddenly it's not ok? I don't need to read the constitution, you need to look at reality. You don't have true freedom of speech. You can't legally tell Mr. Obama that you are going to murder him. That would be an instance where your 1st amendment rights take a back seat. It is the same for a foreign terrorist who is part of a military organization that is actively plotting attacks. Their 5/6th amendment rights take a back seat to security. As for the 2nd amendment, it is already taken a back seat. Felons cannot purchase or bear arms. You can't bear arms in post offices or courthouses. There are limitations put on the amendment that restrict freedom. So if you are going to sit here and convince me that people that meet the criteria I outlined in my previous post deserve their full 5/6th amendment rights because the constitution says they should, you need to wake up and see the reality of the freedoms the government says we can have.