Today?s faster communications allow enemy to exploit loopholes.

[Universe Prince]

  The reason to beleive it ,is that with lots of warning that uch things might be afoot , a gang of Al Queda operatives ran loose all over the US in the years of 99 ,00 and 01 , attending schools , phoning home and receveing financeing but escapeing notice untill they caused damage in 01. The methods in use earlyer were inadequite ,the methods in use now are better , the evidence beng the dearth of simular attacks .

Isn't there a Simpsons episode where the Simpsons are out camping and Homer says something about the Bear Patrol keeping the bears away, Lisa explains there is no such thing as the Bear Patrol, and Homer asks Lisa how does she explain the absence of the bears? I'm sure some of the details of that retelling are wrong.

Anyway, I have seen zero evidence that warrantless wiretapping abilities would have stopped the attack on September 11, 2001. Suggesting that it would have is pure hindsight speculation. And no, the terrorist hijackers, as I recall, did not go unnoticed. They were brought to the attention of people in the intelligence community, who proceeded to do nothing whatever with the information they had on hand. The methods used earlier, as best I can piece together, were quite adequate. The failure was with the humans, not the policy. Suggesting that a policy of giving the government more power will make up for human failure is like suggesting you've created a foolproof system. Not gonna happen.

  After a while of being safe we will become complacent again , and the Attacs will have success again , then the threat to freedom will be the new measures in response?

Maybe it's just late, but I am having trouble understanding that question. If it is a question.

[Plane]

  The reason to beleive it ,is that with lots of warning that uch things might be afoot , a gang of Al Queda operatives ran loose all over the US in the years of 99 ,00 and 01 , attending schools , phoning home and receveing financeing but escapeing notice untill they caused damage in 01. The methods in use earlyer were inadequite ,the methods in use now are better , the evidence beng the dearth of simular attacks .

Isn't there a Simpsons episode where the Simpsons are out camping and Homer says something about the Bear Patrol keeping the bears away, Lisa explains there is no such thing as the Bear Patrol, and Homer asks Lisa how does she explain the absence of the bears? I'm sure some of the details of that retelling are wrong.

Anyway, I have seen zero evidence that warrantless wiretapping abilities would have stopped the attack on September 11, 2001. Suggesting that it would have is pure hindsight speculation. And no, the terrorist hijackers, as I recall, did not go unnoticed. They were brought to the attention of people in the intelligence community, who proceeded to do nothing whatever with the information they had on hand. The methods used earlier, as best I can piece together, were quite adequate. The failure was with the humans, not the policy. Suggesting that a policy of giving the government more power will make up for human failure is like suggesting you've created a foolproof system. Not gonna happen.

  After a while of being safe we will become complacent again , and the Attacs will have success again , then the threat to freedom will be the new measures in response?

Maybe it's just late, but I am having trouble understanding that question. If it is a question.

There are bears and there are Rangers who attempt to track and manage problem bears , every year there are a few more bear attacks than the previous , but it is still a rather low risk something like terrorism , the actual number of problem terrorists is small enough that one is unlikely to be affected directly by a terrorist or a problem bear either.

So we should just ignore them?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I repeat THIS IS NOT A REAL WAR. If it were, they would have been at least TRYING to catch Osama. After nearly seven years they have not managed to ascertain where he or his other top subordinates are.

Cheneybush wants a government that can do any damned thing it wants to, in secrecy, forever. The mere persistence in office of the lying Juniorbush flunky Gonzalez makes this quite evident.

It will take a long time to get the rights that this crew of Fascists has stolen from us. Now we not only have the Military Industrial Complex to deal with, there is also a Homeland Security Industrial Complex.

[Richpo64]

>>I repeat THIS IS NOT A REAL WAR.<<

we know, we know, it's a conspiracy.

Just sit over there in the corner while the adults keep you safe and able to spout your nonsense.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Might I remind you that you are the one featuring yourself as Nancy Reagan dressed to visit the Ayatollah, richie-poo

[Universe Prince]

So we should just ignore them?

No, that is not even remotely close to what I said, or have ever said. You've seen some of my other comments about what might be done to the terrorists, so you should know better.

[sirs]

Not "anything" Prince, just less than they could.  A subtle but important difference.

I'm not the one who suggested we were denying "our intelligence professionals the ability to collect the dots that we have asked them to connect." And "less than they could" is part of the point of having laws that require things like warrants in the first place.

So, clearly it's not claiming that ALL intel can't be gathered, just not as many necessary to connect the dots that this administration is so frequently accused as having not done prior to 911.  And as has been referenced before, many of these phone calls happen in an instant, with absolutely no time to procure a warrant.  But as I've said before, I wouldn't have a problem with legislating that a warrant be obtained after such an event, so that there is a clear event window as to the what, why, when involved

[The_Professor]

I repeat THIS IS NOT A REAL WAR. If it were, they would have been at least TRYING to catch Osama. After nearly seven years they have not managed to ascertain where he or his other top subordinates are.

Cheneybush wants a government that can do any damned thing it wants to, in secrecy, forever. The mere persistence in office of the lying Juniorbush flunky Gonzalez makes this quite evident.

It will take a long time to get the rights that this crew of Fascists has stolen from us. Now we not only have the Military Industrial Complex to deal with, there is also a Homeland Security Industrial Complex.

The rest of this post, as is typical of social science teaching types, is mumb-jumbo, but I must agree with XO about not catching Bin Laden. After all, one of the major reasons for the Afghani incursion was to get HIM. And we didn't and still have. So, the greatest military fighting machine in the world cannot catch one hideout and his merry band of cutthorats? Pahhhh. Bah humbug!

No excuses in the world (he's in a remote area, the locals support and hide him, the wind is in the wrong direction, moss doesn't grow on THAT side of the tree, I used a condom, really I did!, blah blah blah) are acceptable., WE SHOULD HAVE GOT HIM BY NOW! I honestly feel we have shorthchanged the victims of 9-11 by not getting him.

[Universe Prince]

So, clearly it's not claiming that ALL intel can't be gathered

Did I say the article claimed that? The article claimed we "are denying our intelligence professionals the ability to collect the dots that we have asked them to connect." We are not and requiring warrants does not and would not.

And as has been referenced before, many of these phone calls happen in an instant, with absolutely no time to procure a warrant.

Which also happens in this country. Yet law enforcement seems able to handle getting warrants. So what's yer point?

[sirs]

So, clearly it's not claiming that ALL intel can't be gathered

Did I say the article claimed that?

You claimed "I know the popular notion is that without more power U.S. intelligence is unable to do anything to track or find or investigate terrorists, ......" Now, this could be one of those now famous "all or nothing" arguements, and perhaps you were just being a tad hyperbolic with your quote.  In which case, I think we've already addressed that since this was never about preventing any ability to gather evidence by way of this current administration policy, just less than what they could have. 

And as has been referenced before, many of these phone calls happen in an instant, with absolutely no time to procure a warrant.

Which also happens in this country. Yet law enforcement seems able to handle getting warrants. So what's yer point?

My point is I'd support the notion of getting warrants after the fact, but not mandating they be in place prior to a phone call coming into this country from a suspected foreign terrorist, since by that time the call has long since ceased

[Plane]

So we should just ignore them?

No, that is not even remotely close to what I said, or have ever said. You've seen some of my other comments about what might be done to the terrorists, so you should know better.

I remember , you want to return to the methods that were proven inadequate by the 9-11 attack , as if they were not proven inadequate by The USS Cole attack , the African embassys attack , the Kobar towers attack , etc ,etc....

Why would useing police only be better than just ignoreing them? We already know that while we restrict ourselves so, they simply grow.

[Universe Prince]

You claimed "I know the popular notion is that without more power U.S. intelligence is unable to do anything to track or find or investigate terrorists, ......" Now, this could be one of those now famous "all or nothing" arguements, and perhaps you were just being a tad hyperbolic with your quote.

I was not quoting anyone in that sentence. I was making a statement. And if you'll scroll up a bit, you'll see Plane making my case for me.

In which case, I think we've already addressed that since this was never about preventing any ability to gather evidence by way of this current administration policy, just less than what they could have.

So you keep saying. Yet the article still basically says that requiring warrants is "denying our intelligence professionals the ability to collect the dots that we have asked them to connect." If you're suggesting that the intelligence agencies can in fact collect information needed to track terrorists, then why the frak are you arguing with me? I'm the one saying the article is wrong.

My point is I'd support the notion of getting warrants after the fact, but not mandating they be in place prior to a phone call coming into this country from a suspected foreign terrorist, since by that time the call has long since ceased

So violate people's privacy now, get permission later. Um, again, law enforcement seems able to handle getting warrants for electronic communication between folks who live in this country, so why is getting warrants for communication outside the country so difficult?

[Universe Prince]

I remember , you want to return to the methods that were proven inadequate by the 9-11 attack , as if they were not proven inadequate by The USS Cole attack , the African embassys attack , the Kobar towers attack , etc ,etc....

Oh for the love of pizza... Do you not recall that you, yes you Plane, objected to part of my plan for hunting down the terrorists? I believe the part you didn't like was the part about killing the families of the terrorists. So tell me, were we doing that before the attack on September 11, 2001? Were we?

I think you're not remembering so much as imagining. It's like I'm talking to people with perpetual short term memory loss. No matter what I say or how many gorram times I say it, somehow I always get told that I believe and/or support something that I do not believe and/or do not support. Does anyone frakking pay attention?

Okay, since you have a memory like the steel trap, here, this link takes you to the post with my basic proposal for hunting down the terrorists. A plan you liked, even the part of about going after the famlies until JS convinced you to change your mind. You said, and I quote, "On reconsideration I withdraw support for targeting family members , but otherwise I still like the idea." You said that in the post at the other end of this link.

Please, try to keep up.

[Plane]

I remember , you want to return to the methods that were proven inadequate by the 9-11 attack , as if they were not proven inadequate by The USS Cole attack , the African embassys attack , the Kobar towers attack , etc ,etc....

Oh for the love of pizza... Do you not recall that you, yes you Plane, objected to part of my plan for hunting down the terrorists? I believe the part you didn't like was the part about killing the families of the terrorists. So tell me, were we doing that before the attack on September 11, 2001? Were we?

I think you're not remembering so much as imagining. It's like I'm talking to people with perpetual short term memory loss. No matter what I say or how many gorram times I say it, somehow I always get told that I believe and/or support something that I do not believe and/or do not support. Does anyone frakking pay attention?

Okay, since you have a memory like the steel trap, here, this link takes you to the post with my basic proposal for hunting down the terrorists. A plan you liked, even the part of about going after the famlies until JS convinced you to change your mind. You said, and I quote, "On reconsideration I withdraw support for targeting family members , but otherwise I still like the idea." You said that in the post at the other end of this link.

Please, try to keep up.

Hitting that link caused a real mess on my compuer , it opened fifty windows , so I will have to simply remember it as imperfectly as I do.

If I recall you were advocateing a sot of rounding up that I liked because it could not have been done without full scale invasion.

[Universe Prince]

If I recall you were advocateing a sot of rounding up that I liked because it could not have been done without full scale invasion.

Um, no. I'd restate it, but why bother? Five posts from now, you'd be back to erroneously insisting I want to go back to doing nothing, or some variation thereof.