General Discussion

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)

72. Tamerlane was not a US citizen...

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 03:22 PM

Jun 2013

...and furthermore he did have phone calls (as well as travel) to and from a foreign trouble spot. Add that to the fact that the Russian government warned us about him, and it does bring up the question, why were his calls not being monitored? Or if they were, then why did they yield nothing before the fact?

Now it must be understood, there is no technology anywhere that can prevent all bad acts, and there never will be. So let's take that as a given. Also, it must be understood, we will never know about the plots that were prevented, precisely because they were prevented (and also because the surveillance program is, or was, secret).

But even so. When it comes to the Boston Marathon bombing, there were plenty of red flags about this guy Tamerlane, our own government was given a heads-up, and yet nothing happened. It's enough to make you wonder: if this surveillance program works so well, then did someone stand down? Conversely, if this program doesn't work all that well, then why are we doing it again?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Clapper & Feinstein finally admit that ALL phone records going back 7 years are being collected [View all] TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 OP

"The reason the authorities didn't stop Boston is because anti-terror is not the priority." BINGO. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #1

The reason they didn't stop Boston is evidence they do NOT spy on Americans. randome Jun 2013 #3

I can buy that. secondwind Jun 2013 #4

So you think it stops short of SCOTUS TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 #7

And you know this how? Because it SOUNDS right to you? randome Jun 2013 #10

The reason is caseymoz Jun 2013 #8

They don't need a reason, FISA judges rubber-stamp the warrants. HooptieWagon Jun 2013 #77

And that evidence is proof zeemike Jun 2013 #9

You have no evidence that they are collecting data on you or anyone else. randome Jun 2013 #11

They admit they are collecting the data zeemike Jun 2013 #12

They admit to storing the data, I believe. randome Jun 2013 #16

That last paragraph is the most disengenous bit of balderdash I have read lately. Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #21

So if I take all the information out of your computer zeemike Jun 2013 #31

Copying data from one computer to another is easily discovered so it's not the same... randome Jun 2013 #33

A warrant from a secret court zeemike Jun 2013 #43

I'm not 'falling' for it. It is not an admirable system, I admit. randome Jun 2013 #46

Clapper, who is a Booz Allen man says they have gathered it all up. So keep barfing up Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #17

See post #16. randome Jun 2013 #20

What does 'can't' mean? Is it like the Easter Bunny 'can't' be a day early or what? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #22

The law says they can't. randome Jun 2013 #25

How bout the FISA court already ruling the NSA violated the law? think Jun 2013 #29

The FISA court IS the law, in this instance. randome Jun 2013 #30

You aren't concerned that the NSA violated the law? Seriously? think Jun 2013 #32

Over-reach or mis-steps will occur in ANY government agency. randome Jun 2013 #34

Overreach = SPYING on AMERICANS think Jun 2013 #41

Let me get this straight. Marr Jun 2013 #81

The law also said that they couldn't indiscriminately take our information. But they did it, didn't Th1onein Jun 2013 #78

The same could be said of you, premium Jun 2013 #52

It's 'democratic' in the sense that all 3 branches of the government are involved. randome Jun 2013 #59

Let me re-phrase that, premium Jun 2013 #65

Your statement presumes wrongly caseymoz Jun 2013 #89

But you see .. GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #13

Really? I thought they both were. randome Jun 2013 #14

Nope, premium Jun 2013 #60

Thanks for the info. randome Jun 2013 #63

Sure, one phone has to be outside the US. That's the whole point. bornskeptic Jun 2013 #71

No it is not, at best it shows they are miserable at their jobs, at worst that they are Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #15

I have no reasonable evidence to say they are spying. randome Jun 2013 #18

But you do understand that this is not about your ability to sleep at night? Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #23

You're right. Wanting to 'fix' an agency doesn't require total trust or mis-trust. randome Jun 2013 #38

The reason is the same as 9/11: the Tsarnaevs were part of a CIA program. They aren't investigated leveymg Jun 2013 #27

Yes, the NSA does spy on Americans, nearly all of us from what we can tell so far. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #28

Exactly. They can go back now and check phone numbers used by the bombers pnwmom Jun 2013 #36

Tamerlane was not a US citizen... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #72

ROFLMAO! Th1onein Jun 2013 #76

Brahahahahahahahahahahah... :::catches breath::: RC Jun 2013 #87

Money is the priority. These multi-Billion dollar 'security' Contractors NEED work to do in order to sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #49

And meanwhile, they pre-emptively target peaceful protesters--because THEY are the threat to TPTB. snot Jun 2013 #74

The Federal Oligarch Protection Agency Will Insure Main Street Is Prosecuted Despite The Constitution cantbeserious Jun 2013 #2

k&r (nt) enough Jun 2013 #5

God, I thought I was ugly... ReRe Jun 2013 #6

That was Lawrence Olivier with the drill. leveymg Jun 2013 #37

Ya think? Ha! ReRe Jun 2013 #44

John "Mano Blanco" Negroponte, then Mike "NSA Booz Allen" McConnell. leveymg Jun 2013 #58

Thanks... got lost a minute... n/t ReRe Jun 2013 #73

I am not so sure this is paranoid SouthernLiberal Jun 2013 #19

You Are Correct! sikofit3 Jun 2013 #70

So Boston was LIHOP? Ugh, this entire website has become the 911 Dungeon geek tragedy Jun 2013 #24

No - it was just collatoral damage that's considered acceptable to some in gov't. leveymg Jun 2013 #35

This operates from the myth that every terrorist attack is preventable. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #39

Terrorist attacks have happened over and over again since '93. They are largely preventable. leveymg Jun 2013 #53

They are largely but not entirely preventable. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #55

Agreed. That's why the charges should have been 3000 counts manslaughter, reckless disregard, leveymg Jun 2013 #61

Huh? Whose charges should have been manslaughter instead of murder? nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #62

From program managers right up to the top of the chain of command. leveymg Jun 2013 #64

To his credit, Obama shut down the program that used Awlaki to repeatedly attract AQ terrorists leveymg Jun 2013 #68

So our government knows who the terrorists are and does nothing Progressive dog Jun 2013 #85

You need to start reading up on this subject. Here are some places to start. leveymg Jun 2013 #90

Read some stuff, still curious as to Progressive dog Jun 2013 #113

I'm not saying US casualties are the goal, just that they are foreseeable. Second, if the same high leveymg Jun 2013 #114

Any human endeavor will have errors, Progressive dog Jun 2013 #115

If the same error gets repeated over and over with an expectation of change, it is an insane policy. leveymg Jun 2013 #118

It doesn't, there is no straight path in any investigation Progressive dog Jun 2013 #119

The policy of running Counterterror programs around double-agents didn't change leveymg Jun 2013 #120

Of course not, some of the policy stayed the same Progressive dog Jun 2013 #121

I have no problem with infiltrating hostile groups, but I have a big problem with allowing these leveymg Jun 2013 #122

Why do you say it fails Progressive dog Jun 2013 #123

Finally admit? Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #26

Yeah. Clapper was caught in a lie. morningfog Jun 2013 #40

How so? Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #45

He told Congress in March that the National Security Agency does not intentionally morningfog Jun 2013 #47

You don't know what he means by "collect" Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #51

LOL! BUllshit. It is a lie, and I don't doubt there is more. morningfog Jun 2013 #56

Clapper himself said this Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #91

You are citing the liar trying to defend his lie after he was caught? Hahahaha. morningfog Jun 2013 #94

Liar is your opinion Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #95

Even he conceded he was untruthful. He clearly lied. I look forward to more lies morningfog Jun 2013 #96

I believe he will clarify himself better Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #98

He's already made two contradictory statements. Clarity is no longer availible. morningfog Jun 2013 #100

That's right. Stifle any chance of Clapper clarifying himself Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #101

I don't care much for liars. He's already busted, bub. morningfog Jun 2013 #102

Like I said. That's your opinion Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #103

He only changed the meaning of collection after getting caught in the lie. morningfog Jun 2013 #109

Yep Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #110

If it is a "smear job" it is being led by clapper himself. morningfog Jun 2013 #112

Oh, brother. Marr Jun 2013 #83

Clapper himself said this Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #92

Wow-- you're telling me the liar had an explanation for why his lie wasn't a lie? Marr Jun 2013 #97

Liar is your opinion Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #99

He very obviously lied. Marr Jun 2013 #108

Wow. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #86

Clapper himself said this Life Long Dem Jun 2013 #93

No they haven't. Your links don't prove that. Clapper has acknowledged pnwmom Jun 2013 #42

Clapper acknowledges it now, after being caught in a lie. morningfog Jun 2013 #48

No he doesn't, and it wasn't a lie. pnwmom Jun 2013 #50

I am sure you gave the bush lies the same parsing and deference. morningfog Jun 2013 #57

Absolutely a violation of the fundamental trust marions ghost Jun 2013 #54

+1000. premium Jun 2013 #67

There is no defense for the un-American Patriot Act marions ghost Jun 2013 #69

If they CAN do it, they WILL do it. Not rocket science, that. closeupready Jun 2013 #66

Knowledge is power, & a balance of power requires a balance of knowledge; & snot Jun 2013 #75

"They say that they won't look at the records without a good reason." CrispyQ Jun 2013 #79

What is the next fall-back position? Coyotl Jun 2013 #80

Yes, but I am constantly being reminded that this story is from 2006... Earth_First Jun 2013 #82

pen register peasant one Jun 2013 #84

Huge K&R woo me with science Jun 2013 #88

I think the OP has it right and wrong at the same time Vinnie From Indy Jun 2013 #104

They will use their blackmail powers "judiciously" TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 #107

They're recording "the contents of every phone call made"? arcane1 Jun 2013 #105

They can get the contents of ALL phone calls AFTER the event TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 #106

Yes. By going to a judge, showing probable cause, and getting a warrant pnwmom Jun 2013 #111

You are assuming an awful lot of trust for something that has absolutely zero oversight TakeALeftTurn Jun 2013 #116

I trust Obama more than Snowden or Greenwald. n/t pnwmom Jun 2013 #117

Too much huffing and puffing Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2013 #124