Clapper & Feinstein finally admit that ALL phone records going back 7 years are being collected

[leveymg]

120. The policy of running Counterterror programs around double-agents didn't change

The policies have changed. - No, the same basic approach of setting up "controlled" networks of terrorists was used right through the al-Awlaki cases (9/11, The Shoe Bomber, Times Square Bomber, Ft. Hood Shooter, Underwear Bomber, Boston Bombers). Almost all are "blowback" from the same program that also involved Anwar al-Awlaki.
The Patriot act was a change of policy. Is that what you meant? - No. The Patriot Act did a lot of things, but it didn't prevent the CIA, in particular, from running terrorists in and out of the country.
They added scrutiny to airline passengers. Is that what you meant? - No. They put the XMas Underwear Bomber on the plane in Amsterdam, and the bomb actually detonated over Detroit (fortunately, unlike WTC '93, only enough to fry his butt) - the fact that witnesses saw a well-dressed American take him into a back room at Amsterdam Airport and get him ticketed, even though he was on the terrorist list, reportedly infuriated Obama, and UnderSecretary of State Patrick Kennedy all but admitted what had happened in his testimony before the Senate Intel Comm. in January 2009.

Here is the relevant section of Kennedy's statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 20, 2010. It explains why the State Dept. did not revoke his visa, even though he was on several terrorist watch lists: http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_5433.html

We recognize the gravity of the threat we face and are working intensely with our colleagues from other agencies to ensure that when the U.S. Government obtains information that a person may pose a threat to our security, that person does not hold a visa.

We will use (visa) revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time, expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the individual under investigation and our revocation action would have disclosed the U.S. Government’s interest in the individual and ended our colleagues’ ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists’ plans and co-conspirators.

They consolidated the command structure by creating Homeland Security. Is that what you meant? No. The CIA is still not revealing the details of it's foreign terrorist operatives programs to the FBI, witness the lack of coordination in the Boston case. Same problem, and essentially the same CIA program against the Russians, going back to the one that led to the '93 WTC bombing.

Does the same sort of event mean that increased security at transportation hubs should prevent terrorist attacks at sporting events? Can't address that rhetorical question.
Does it mean that increased security to prevent truck bombs in garages should prevent airplane hijackings? Ditto
Does it mean that the policy should spend whatever is necessary and scrutinize anyone anywhere to prevent all possible terrorist attacks? No. Just scrutinize the f-cking CIA. Better yet, don't let the Agency run terrorists and there won't be so much blowback to deal with.