In 2005 Portland's liberal leaders refused to allow its police to coordinate with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force as a protest against Bush.
(http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/imagecache/large_scaled/blog_images/03d952b9fee36713dd0e6a706700a44d.jpg)
The JTTF apparently did just fine without them.
I wonder if they will issue a Thank You letter?
Quote from: Gaspar on November 29, 2010, 10:36:05 AM
In 2005 Portland's liberal leaders refused to allow its police to coordinate with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force as a protest against Bush.
The JTTF apparently did just fine without them.
I wonder if they will issue a Thank You letter?
So are you saying they set this kid up as retaliation?
He was 9 years old at 9/11...
They built the "bomb" put the detonator in his hand and told him to push the button.
Theater.
Quote from: patric on November 29, 2010, 10:45:50 AM
So are you saying they set this kid up as retaliation?
He was 9 years old at 9/11...
They built the "bomb" put the detonator in his hand and told him to push the button.
Theater.
Consider the source. That's been a fairly popular theme around here these days...
Quote from: Gaspar on November 29, 2010, 10:36:05 AM
In 2005 Portland's liberal leaders refused to allow its police to coordinate with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force as a protest against Bush.
(http://washingtonexaminer.com/files/imagecache/large_scaled/blog_images/03d952b9fee36713dd0e6a706700a44d.jpg)
The JTTF apparently did just fine without them.
I wonder if they will issue a Thank You letter?
He looks like something out of RuPaul's Drag Race
He looks suspiciously Jersey Shore-y to me.
Quote from: patric on November 29, 2010, 10:45:50 AM
So are you saying they set this kid up as retaliation?
He was 9 years old at 9/11...
They built the "bomb" put the detonator in his hand and told him to push the button.
Theater.
No. They are now reconsidering their position as it relates to coordinating with the FBI.
I am thankful that we now have an organization capable of preventing incidents like this.
Portland was leary of involvement with the federal anti-terrorism units unless there were safeguards in place against profiling based on ethnicity or religion. The feds wouldn't offer such safeguards, so the city declined involvement. As we now know, the federal government was conducting wide-spread illegal wiretapping without any judicial oversight. So, while the city of Portland may have provided the authoritarian right with a convenient whipping boy, the reality is that they were truly adhering to the very foundation of the principles of our democracy.
But that also brings up an interesting question. How did the anti-terrorism task force come to discover this young man? Apparently he was exchanging emails with a known terrorist organization, so the assumption is that the feds were reading his mail or they have a source inside that org. Whether they did so legally remains to be seen, but it also bring up a simple rebuttal to the assertion that Portland was somehow culpable in this. As far as I'm aware, no American city has the ability to penetrate a foreign terrorist organization, and if they want to do a wiretap, it has to be conducted under the appropriate laws.
Now they have figured out how to stop incidents like this, will they be able to stop instigating incidents like this?
As we knew THEN, they were conducting wide-spread illegal wiretapping - as admitted to and bragged about by the Bush who was President at the time.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2010, 12:34:58 PM
Now they have figured out how to stop incidents like this, will they be able to stop instigating incidents like this?
As we knew THEN, they were conducting wide-spread illegal wiretapping - as admitted to and bragged about by the Bush who was President at the time.
. . .and you think they discovered Mohamed's intentions how?
Good question. It will be interesting to see.
I suspect it was by monitoring something, somewhere - probably internet and phone. Those would seem to be the more common methods today.
Quote from: Ed W on November 29, 2010, 12:32:29 PM
But that also brings up an interesting question. How did the anti-terrorism task force come to discover this young man? Apparently he was exchanging emails with a known terrorist organization, so the assumption is that the feds were reading his mail or they have a source inside that org. Whether they did so legally remains to be seen, but it also bring up a simple rebuttal to the assertion that Portland was somehow culpable in this. As far as I'm aware, no American city has the ability to penetrate a foreign terrorist organization, and if they want to do a wiretap, it has to be conducted under the appropriate laws.
Communications in and out of this country is monitored, not by guys sitting in a room with headphones on, but by a computer system that identifies combinations of words, phrases and letters. Transmitted images are also scanned for patterns that represent embedded messages, text or diagrams. If a message or conversation is flagged it is intercepted, monitored, or recorded
rumor has it (wink wink).
I had the honor last year of watching a member of TU's Cyber Security program show me how he could hack one of our business computers (as a service). We discussed secure methods of data encryption and got off subject discussing the NSA. He said that in the IS community this is simply understood.
Quote from: Ed W on November 29, 2010, 12:32:29 PM
Portland was leary of involvement with the federal anti-terrorism units unless there were safeguards in place against profiling based on ethnicity or religion. The feds wouldn't offer such safeguards, so the city declined involvement. As we now know, the federal government was conducting wide-spread illegal wiretapping without any judicial oversight. So, while the city of Portland may have provided the authoritarian right with a convenient whipping boy, the reality is that they were truly adhering to the very foundation of the principles of our democracy.
But that also brings up an interesting question. How did the anti-terrorism task force come to discover this young man? Apparently he was exchanging emails with a known terrorist organization, so the assumption is that the feds were reading his mail or they have a source inside that org. Whether they did so legally remains to be seen, but it also bring up a simple rebuttal to the assertion that Portland was somehow culpable in this. As far as I'm aware, no American city has the ability to penetrate a foreign terrorist organization, and if they want to do a wiretap, it has to be conducted under the appropriate laws.
If we use ill-gotten inteligence to stop a guy from detonating a bomb in the middle of Times Square on NYE, the Super Bowl, the next Presidential innauguration, or anywhere there are thousands who could be hurt are we really going to care if that intel was gathered by legal or illegal means?
That pretty much is the question of what we want to be, isn't it?
The logical extension of that is to become the world of "1984". Feel like it's getting closer?
Oh, wait, just let me throw out one of the favorite old cliche's; "rule of law". Anyone remember that??
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2010, 01:01:47 PM
If we use ill-gotten inteligence to stop a guy from detonating a bomb in the middle of Times Square on NYE, the Super Bowl, the next Presidential innauguration, or anywhere there are thousands who could be hurt are we really going to care if that intel was gathered by legal or illegal means?
I like to think so, because I think that being the people who care about that is central to our conception of what being American is. That kind of thing goes directly to who we are and who we've always said we were.
But I actually think that no, many of us wouldn't care. That many of us actually do think that the ends justifies the means and that our laws only exist to protect certain people.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2010, 01:01:47 PM
If we use ill-gotten inteligence to stop a guy from detonating a bomb in the middle of Times Square on NYE, the Super Bowl, the next Presidential innauguration, or anywhere there are thousands who could be hurt are we really going to care if that intel was gathered by legal or illegal means?
If we're going to prosecute him, we care. Otherwise, we're compelled to let him go, bring lesser charges, or simply imprison him without a trial. Didn't we just see the result of trying to use illegally obtained evidence in another terrorism trial? They had to drop 280 charges because the evidence was obtained illegally.
So is the answer then that we'd far rather see 3000 Americans killed rather than risk violating the civil rights of one individual who is consorting with known terrorist rings by using unwarranted taps or intercepting emails?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2010, 03:10:39 PM
So is the answer then that we'd far rather see 3000 Americans killed rather than risk violating the civil rights of one individual who is consorting with known terrorist rings by using unwarranted taps or intercepting emails?
Aaaaaand we're back to the ticking time bomb. The correct answer is: it's not an either/or. It's both. We can prosecute the war on terror with the tools we've been given, while not violating civil rights.
Do you think our laws are inadequate for dealing with terrorism? Does the current threat not fit into threats we've faced and developed law for in the past?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on November 29, 2010, 01:13:45 PM
Oh, wait, just let me throw out one of the favorite old cliche's; "rule of law". Anyone remember that??
I used to until I went through a security check at the airport. Nothing like being free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the whole notion of random strangers feeling me up without any reasonable suspicion.
Quote from: we vs us on November 29, 2010, 03:33:26 PM
Do you think our laws are inadequate for dealing with terrorism?
I think they are inadequate when we wind up harrassing blue-haired old women because we are more concerned about the appearance of profiling or violating civil rights of people who are plotting to take away the civil rights of thousands of others.
Much as it appears I've got to settle for a good grope or shot of radiation if I care to fly, we all need to get used to the idea that national security carries a high price when it comes to privacy and personal liberty.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 29, 2010, 04:12:06 PM
I think they are inadequate when we wind up harrassing blue-haired old women because we are more concerned about the appearance of profiling or violating civil rights of people who are plotting to take away the civil rights of thousands of others.
Much as it appears I've got to settle for a good grope or shot of radiation if I care to fly, we all need to get used to the idea that national security carries a high price when it comes to privacy and personal liberty.
The harassment of the mythical blue-haired lady doesn't keep us from prosecuting people like the Somali Situation. The argument is always that one prevents the other, that the blue haired lady problem -- aside from being despicable -- also endangers us, but that's just not true. We can and do do both pretty often.
In many ways, the blue haired lady conundrum makes sure that we're all stakeholders in the state that we're creating; if we must tolerate these sort of personal abuses (and the litany of "regular people cavalierly treated like smile by the TSA" stories, which seem to abound) then at least we're intimately involved in how the security state is growing. Or we're complicit. Or at least we knew and chose not to act as it grew.
More Bush bashing (but deserved, because all of this happened on his watch): he set the precedent of government (and his party) thinking of the GWOT as somehow extranormal, as outside the realm of our experience or our ability to prosecute. He viewed 9/11 as spectacular and unique, rather than a spectacular version of familiar crimes. All of his security responses flowed from that conviction -- that we had never done this before and had to blaze a new trail.
This was a flawed response because we have a long history of dealing effectively with international terrorism, and treating 9/11 as a truly unique event encouraged us to ignore the time-tested solutions and go for the gusto in as many quasilegal ways as possible.
The whole idea that our constitution "can't handle" certain parts of the GWOT, or that we have to sacrifice some of our lesser freedoms to guarantee the rest of them is an idea pushed by the Bush Administration throughout the 2000s. But it's a false choice, and has primed us to believe that our laws and their outcomes will fail. Look at how Guido saw the 200-odd counts tossed out against the dude from Guantanamo. A failure of our system to guarantee a predetermined verdict. When in fact the system almost certainly acted in the way it was always supposed to . . . force a hefty burden of proof upon the state, and in essence tell the state that its evidence didn't amount to a hill of beans.
Quote from: guido911 on November 29, 2010, 03:52:51 PM
I used to until I went through a security check at the airport. Nothing like being free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the whole notion of random strangers feeling me up without any reasonable suspicion.
Was it free....If so I'm there....!!!!
Quote from: Breadburner on November 29, 2010, 05:36:23 PM
Was it free....If so I'm there....!!!!
I think you have to have an airline ticket. So, not free.
Conan,
It ain't that tough to get a warrant. The Patriot Act took care of that - all that is needed is a whim.
Guido,
I can't believe we actually agree on something - unreasonable search and grope. So the general population is now being imposed upon in similar fashion to the "suspicious ones".
See what we have lost? What is horribly sad is so many that don't.