Reviews:
 ·Windstream
| You know- I just don't get it... No opinions wanted, only facts.
But pre-911 intelligence shows that a low-level FBI agent in Arizona noticed that foreign (middle-eastern looking?)men were looking to learn how to fly passenger jets- but didn't care how to land them? She passed it up the line and nothing was ever done about it. Subsequent to that...
Hypothetical...
If the current top-down program of scratching and sniffing were in place would it not have collaborated that? What if it could have prevented it- but the telecom (or whatever)didn't have immunity so they didn't report it.
Forgivable?
Prosecutable?
What if the only people in those airplanes and in those twin towers were the employees and families of that telecom.
Callous?
Patriotic?
One thing I really want to know... if this were 904, and you had seven days to do it, and you could do anything to find out who, what, when, where and how- what would you do to prevent it? What would be your highest priority?
Lives?
Laws?
Monday morning quarterbacking from your armchair is painfully easy. But Monday morning quarterbacking from your easy chair comes with no personal responsibility or risk of loss.
Idealistic?
Apathetic?
--
You're an American. You get a free pass, but nobody rides for free. |
Mce SaintPremium
join:2007-10-03
Saint Louis, MO Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| An entire post of hypotheticals and what ifs isn't fact, it's simply opinion and conjecture.
Noting here too - the IRONY - that intelligence you cite was acquired by a low-level FBI agent WITHOUT wiretapping . . . and your total failure to explain how a "top down" wiretapping program would have connected dots that were collected OUTSIDE the wiretapping program.
Here's the bottom line: the mechanisms exist for the Government to get the data/intelligence/conversations they want . . . it's simply a matter of many hoops they have to jump through before they can listen in. Is it 0 hoops - because the Bush Administration just gets to do whatever it wants without any check/balances? Or is is 1 or 2 minor hoops - such as going to the FISA Court? Or is it 3 or 4 more difficult hoops - such as full blown 4th amendment warrant?
The PRIOR objection was that the FISA court moved too slow -because there was a backlog of FISA warrant applications. So the Bush Administration simply didn't go there with this program.
Recent testimony is that the FISA court has NO BACKLOG . . . so that objection about going to it is wiped out. Note too - they PUT a wiretap in place and THEN go to the FISA court for approval.
We have a FISA court to deal with exactly this type of stuff. Why do many of you insist on doing an end run around it? |
