This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Big Brother Spying Didn’t Stop Connecticut School Shooter … Or 9/11
Beyond any doubt, Big Brother has come to America.
Americans are the most spied on people in world history.
Everyone in the country is spied on … and even top generals, Congress men and CIA directors can be targeted.
The separation between spy agencies and military operations has disappeared … to the point where the same unaccountable government agency which spies on all Americans also decides who gets assassinated by drones.
And anyone who questions government actions or policies may be labeled a potential terrorist.
And yet – even with Big Brother sticking his nose in every aspect of our lives – that total surveillance didn’t stop the Connecticut school shooter. Or the Batman shooter, the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, widespread spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this)
And U.S. and allied intelligence heard the 9/11 hijackers plans from their own mouths:
- An FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House. As the New York Times notes:
Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
- According to Le Monde, the intelligence services of America’s close ally France and of other governments had infiltrated the highest levels of Al-Qaeda’s camps, and actually listened to the hijackers’ debates about which airlines’ planes should be hijacked, and allied intelligence services also intercepted phone conversations between Al-Qaeda members regarding the attacks
- According to journalist Christopher Ketcham, America’s close ally Israel tracked the hijackers’ every move prior to the attacks, and sent agents to film the attack on the World Trade Centers
- The National Security Agency and the FBI were each independently listening in on the phone calls between the supposed mastermind of the attacks and the lead hijacker. Indeed, the FBI built its own antenna in Madagascar specifically to listen in on the mastermind’s phone calls
- According to various sources, on the day before 9/11, the mastermind told the lead hijacker “tomorrow is zero hour” and gave final approval for the attacks. The NSA intercepted the message that day and the FBI was likely also monitoring the mastermind’s phone calls
- Shortly before 9/11, the NSA also intercepted multiple phone calls to the United States from Bin Laden’s chief of operations
- The CIA and the NSA had been intercepting phone calls by the hijackers for years (see also this)
- According to the Sunday Herald, two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her “In two days, you’re going to hear big news and you’re not going to hear from me for a while.” U.S. officials later told CNN that “in recent years they’ve been able to monitor some of bin Laden’s telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded.” Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
- And according to CBS News, at 9:53 a.m on 9/11, just 15 minutes after the hijacked plane had hit the Pentagon, “the National Security Agency, which monitors communications worldwide, intercepted a phone call from one of Osama bin Laden’s operatives in Afghanistan to a phone number in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia”, and secretary of Defense Rumsfeld learned about the intercepted phone call in real-time (if the NSA monitored and transcribed phone calls in real-time on 9/11, that implies that it did so in the months leading up to 9/11 as well)
But even with all of that spying, the government didn't stop the hijackers ... even though 9/11 was entirely foreseeable.
Why did we lose our rights if the government isn’t even keeping us safe?
»
- advertisements -
The Constitution does not codify laws. It provides a framework of government and defines powers apportioned to the branches thereof. Your reasoning is flawed and perhaps you should read the Constitution to discern what that document enfranchises. Laws passed are often challenged from the perspective of what the Constitution permits, not what is codified. We can assume you aren't an attorney.
Nice faceplant, MbP. I did not make any reference to laws being codified in the Constitution (although they are). This discussion is about "rights", which if you can read (questionable) are codified primarily in the Constitution. Believe it or not, there is a right to free speech in the Constitution, as well as the right to not be subject to illegal searches and seizures, the right to assembly for redress of grievances, etc. But nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to privacy or, the corollary, a right to not be observed. Please let me know when you find it.
I'll concede I'm not a lawyer; I would suggest you concede that you are incoherent.
Go read the 9th and 10th Amendments. You probably will be able to deduce the right to privacy. I do notice that your comments are well-seasoned with ad hominem attacks. This betrays your motives. If you find this comment to be incoherent, then I can't help you.
bla. bla. bla.
You sound just like a sheep. Coincidence? Anything substantive to say?
Thats sheople. 1 I did not make reference to the DoI or the C. But as you have, 2 the chains of the constitution were designed to bind the government so that it doesn't become the criminal enterprise that it is today - not the people. That which is not explicit in the C is reserved wholly to the people and if they choose, to the states. 3 inalienable = god given. BF was a very smart man, anticipating grammar trolls endlessly nitpicking verbage instead of intent.
Too true.
It may run close to illegal search, which is well defined. It might also run into legal restrictions against unlawful detention, even though the person is free to move, because someone attempting to avoid the unlawful search aspect would need to "voluntarily" incarcerate themselves or otherwise restrict their own constitutionally protected rights to move or assemble.
People instinctively sense that spying without a court order (which is what we are looking at here) is wrong. That it violates the Bill of Rights in spirit if not in fact. The notion that "privacy" is not specifically addressed either way in the constituion suggests that it falls under natural law, which needs no defense. For example the constitution does not address a woman's natural right to select her own mate according to her own criteria, and bear his children according to her nature.
Not everything is law. We give up being natural creatures on earth when we believe otherwise.
Green for your dissent yourself mk
George W , I've enjoyed ur posts down the years but siding with morons who want to arm teachers and ban antidepressants tells me you know nothing of either and don't meet REAL people enough
Liberty does not need assault rifles
I've shot at national level and an enemy fears a sniper rifle more than rapid fire by a douch.
Here's an article on the AR15 that educates more than you just now
http://qz.com/37541
As it says as tech advances will you have a death ray on sale at Walmart ?
BD6, I just don't get where you're coming from on this one. Forget GW for this - just your comment. I suspect there's much more there.
"morons who want to arm teachers and ban antidepressants tells me you know nothing of either" - That can't be as shallow as it reads.
"Liberty does not need assault rifles" - Did you really buy into that BS label "assault rifle"? What makes, for example, a Ruger 10/22 any less an "assault rifle" than any AR15? Or a Mini-14 vs. an AR15? The 2nd amendment does make any references to make, model, or stereotyped perception. Liberty needs any and every-fucking-thing you can throw at those who wish to deprive you of it.
"I've shot at national level and an enemy fears a sniper rifle more than rapid fire by a douch." I am not sure what one (shooting at national level) has to do with the other (an enemy fearing a sniper rifle) but I have no reason to doubt the former and the fact that many a good combat sniper has had an enemy bounty on his head lends credence to the latter part that statement.
FYI, I don't use the AR15 platform because they are a pain in the ass and I have better things to do than to pamper a firearm. I also don't own an AK47 or any foreign made long guns. Save for a Glock, all my handguns are of domestic manufacture. I do own a scoped heavy barrel .308 bolt-action. It is one of my favorites. I am also partial to wheel guns. Maybe I'm just old school.
Uncle R
you are just old fashioned. The Stoner mechanism is a great platform. I suspect it is the most popular in the world. I too own a variety of .308 but the AR15 was chosen but the US for a reason, unfortunately the same reason a lot of killers use. It works, it is light weight and out to 100 yards it is hard to beat. Past 100 yards..I'll go with the .308.
I have kids and cannot contemplate how any human could gun down a 6 year old...I just can't.
I will not apologize for my gun rights because of that horrible event.
I fear for the stability of the USA if these politicians push the gun issue at a time when many Americans are turning to guns FOR PROTECTION from a society fucked up by the very politicians who would limit their ability to own guns....good efficient guns.
Dude I'd love to reply properly but the kids r screaming and the wife is glaring
I think it's great that you buy patriotic machine guns but I'll get a chance to catch up with you after the next carnage by a nerdy looking wanker with a weopon sold to him or his folks by a MIC that Eisenhower told u about
I applaud your commendable impromptu non-answer that, well, works.
What dissent?
Ach ya had only a red minus when I read ur post so I evened it up thinking a barrage of reds was on its way
It feels like getting reds on gun control threads is to dissent against freedom
I don't have a problem with guns just assault rifles to any twat that wants one
BigDuke6
I take it you are a BIG GUY
so can I as a twat be allowed to have an asault rifle...or do you personaly have to meet me and decide if I am too much of a twat to own one?
You remind me of that other big guy Bill O'reilly. Bill says he is 6' 4" tall and a few years ago he was berating some guy who was at a Doors concert who didn't 'man up' to some dope smoker next to him. Bill may be comfortable calling someone half his size to just behave but the rest of us use diplomacy or just leave. So you BIG GUYS have a lot of responsibility. You have to decide which twats get rifles and punch out those with who you disagree. tough job being a BIG GUY.
ohyeah...I actually do shoot at a national level. I'll not ID myself here but gun rights for all free men is critical...not just thise who in your opinion are NOT TWATS.
Yes I'm big and a hard cunt
But we'll never meet so you shouldn't b bothered
This thread will b clearing of assholes so I'll tell you a story
As I rarely do here these days
I grew up poor in Scotland , tho not as poor I watched my school mates eat food off bird tables from hunger, others sitting outside pubs waiting for their dad to come out drunk at closing time
Dunblane happened when I was at my shooting peak , going to Bisley every year , I was numb that a scot could b such a fuck as to attack kids and I was pissed at the gun controls that came after
But then I saw the freak was a nerd that lived with mommy, sound familiar?
And the world didn't end
Americans have got used to superior firepower and are soft as shite because of it
All the gun jockeys talking about platforms scare no one and are a cash cow for the MIC
Eat off some bird tables and get back to me
I don't have a problem with internet forums just comments from any twat with a keyboard.
Humans, especially males , need to have channels for their energy and frustration.
Porn, whores, beating the wife etc
Being a keyboard jockey such as urself is one such release and is gov approved. Easy to monitor and a permanent record
OK - thx. I always get my barrage of reds on GW's posts. It's ok, tho. Doesn't keep me up at night.
"Just a point of fact: spying/watching people is not, in and of itself, an infringement of rights."
Perhaps, but it also doesn't strike me as abiding by the spirit of what used to be the American Way.
This is not how a civil society of freeborn men should choose to live.
I don't disagree nor did I suggest that spying is a good thing. Seems some folks have read words into my comment that aren't there. I was just pointing out the reality, with no judgment attached, that spying is not a prohibited activity.
Sure, if you take a very narrow view of the 4th Amendment.
why
because it, being false flags, was always about taking your freedoms away, not about keeping you safe.
Of course, safety was never the objective here. Enslaved, helpless, cowardly dependence is much more desirable the free and brave. It is also much cheaper to endure the occasional massacre of young children then to deal effectively with the mentally ill. We are talking bottom line here. Firmer control of the populace is also always desireable and easilier to accomplished when they have had a good fright.
Big Brother is only intent on keeping Big Brother safe...not us.
O. M. G.
..but what about bigfoot or maybe the lochness monster..?...ghosts..? come on commie george, you can do better...quack quack quack.
Textbook Number 1, Number 2 and Number 3, sir!
george...you are textbook definition of a propagandist. you try and point out defects but offer no solution. you are just writing articles in the hope of causing unrest. you dont contribute anything. you disparage america while using a persons name that supposedly is the greatest american...how more cornball commie propaganda bs can you get...?
your attempts are so shallow they are pathetic. come on at least try and write a good article. i just think you are a hack at what you are trying to achieve...
haha nana, why be such a psyops scunt? Why don't you have any solutions instead of just whining about it?
Geo. is a puzzle builder. You're just an idiot.
you are textbook definition of a propagandist.
If you actually believe that then you don't know shit about propaganda. Get an education and come back when you understand the topic.
Sheeple are those who fall for the propagandists' selective and slanted information. I didn't realize that a cougar could bleat...
Solutions:
See ... that was easy!
George Washington and the other Founding Fathers would have approved.
And - guess what, brain surgeon - “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” -Thomas Jefferson
If we go back to following the Constitution, how are the Criminal Elite going to pick our pockets? This proposal is obviously DOA, GW ... report to Gitmo for your re-education.
Hate to break your egg, GW, but getting into wars is actually one of those things that's in the Constitution. Perhaps you knew that and just forgot.
I completely agree with you that a return to the ideals (and actual written words) of the Constitution is the solution. The core of the Constitution is the protection of individual sovereignty. The problem is not that the Government has spun out of control - that is the outcome. The problem is that the people enabled the government to spin out of control by ceding their individual authority. We could argue about whether that was coerced or not, but "government of, by and for the people" is a call to the citizens to not relinquish their sovereignty.
My point is that you will not "fix" the government; it is by nature a consolidator of power; the "fix" has to be at the individual level.
The "fix" at the individual level can be easily accomplished by government keeping to it's role, instead of expanding on it.
The USA is a constitutional republic where the Constution limits the power of the State. That doesn't mean there's anything beyond the Law, just that issues of importance to it's functioning as State are defined in Law.
I.o.w. yes, there's a government out of control (not just in the US of A), but it's mosly beyond the field of vision of the ordinairy citizen, and so their inabillity to grasp the situation is not a silent nod towards the State to do whatever they can get away with.
This applies to any State but to the European Union especially, since it's in a sort of void inbetween different forms of rule of State right now, and allows the United States of America to decide for it's citizens, though access into it's citizen's bankaccounts, medical dossiers, communication.
Clearly... that this is happening outside citizen's control or influence is not the fault of them, though I do agree, citizens should take matters back into their hands.
It's the recognition of Freedom as unalienable right, on which the State and it's Laws are grafted, but which cannot be diminished.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIw26h4xGDY
Hate to break your egg, m_k, but your point was completely misplaced. We are all in agreement regarding the Constitutional solution and individual rights and responsiility, so why all the hate toward GW?
We aren't in agreement. GW believes its up to us (which means people other than him) to do 'something'. The something is to not give away your cede your liberties in the first place. Don't pretend to be on the same page of something that you don't comprehend.
GW is a propagandist in my mind. Highly selective and incomplete in his references. I've pointed it out before. It's overcooked at this point, which is why such a small faction of ZHers visit his posts. I just visit once in a while to bring some question into the mix.
" you try and point out defects but offer no solution"
Pretty much like every other human on the planet.
UR. Disagree. Some folks know to listen when they have a view but no solution; others simply wax. I find GW informative, but highly slanted and incomplete in his work, and he's persistently unclear in what he is actually trying to achieve other than the proverbial liberal sentiment of "building awareness."
As one of GW's most persistent critics here, I must point out that the evolution of his work over the past six months has been commendable...and that the incomplete and unclear aspect of his take which you correctly discern is almost undoubtedly due to a recognition of where lies the boundary for continued free access to his audience: to step over than unspoken line in Merkica now is to find yourself sanctioned by the state as a target of retribution...something nobody willingly seeks...
it's true that George will still be punching with nothing in his glove until he starts to accent his references to 9-11 and other false flags with terms like "art students" "New Jersey movers" and other clues, but I'll grant him the right to make the choosing of when and how to stop shadow-boxing with the truth his own call...after all, when you are writing samizdat from within the Euro-merikan gulag, it of the essence to sniff the wind and know where the hunters are!
George Washington quote:
"There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an independent power:
ghordius, where did you find "quotes" you claim were made by GW..never have seen these before.
here the context in which he said that
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch7s5.html
very interesting, particularly this part "...I am aware, however, that those who differ from me in political sentiment, may perhaps remark, I am stepping out of the proper line of my duty, and they may possibly ascribe to arrogance or ostentation, what I know is alone the result of the purest intention, but the rectitude of my own heart, which disdains such unworthy motives, the part I have hitherto acted in life, the determination I have formed, of not taking any share in public business hereafter, the ardent desire I feel, and shall continue to manifest, of quietly enjoying in private life, after all the toils of War, the benefits of a wise and liberal Government, will, I flatter myself, sooner or later convince my Countrymen, that I could have no sinister views in delivering with so little reserve, the opinions contained in this Address."
may I? You usually don't find much quotes from Washington because he refused to partecipate to any party
other Great Americans can be identified as Whigs, Republicans or Democrats, and so quoted for party politics
but Washington was - hear! hear! - a centrist, or in your political parlance bi-partisan
Fox News would hate him if he were still alive and commenting
ghordius, I think you need to do better than to quote a book as having" that quote",,how about when and where this was said, I am not attacking your post, just your reply is not what was asked.
see the new comment with a link to some "new knowledge" "contained in the internet" that should hopefully satisfy your kind request
I'm still used to knowledge from books, which should just show you how decrepit I am (I memorized that quote in the year 1984 - from a vintage book printed in 1932 I just see - so I kind of expected to see it again in this brand new e-book) ;-)
ghordius, thanks, have not read that in many years..this was his responce to what he saw as a threat to the revolution by states leaving the union at that time, a very real concern to the founders. as Europe was seen ready to take advantage of any weakness in the new Union. A military view which was to be expected from this military man.
Words of the Founding Fathers
Selected Quotations of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, with Sources
Compiled and Edited by Steve Coffman 2012
see here http://www.foundersvbush.com/about-one-world-studios.html about the author of the collection, he had some beef against Bush II
Print ISBN: 978-0-7864-5862-2
Ebook ISBN: 978-0-7864-8500-0
http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-5862-2
+1 agree - except to one thing: why is this now an "Euro-merikan gulag"?
depending from the nation, we have here all in all a lot of restrictions on how our governments can gather data on people. part of it is because we have institutionalized a lot of official data so that decreases the "need", yes, but all in all we are much, much less spied on than Americans.
of course I'm leaving out that little thing about how much spying is done by foreigners
--------------
by the way, above the thing about GW using the name of the greatest American George Washington
we are talking here about a British subject who joined the British Army, was an aide to the British General Brannock and wanted to be commissioned as a British officer
later, he became a critic of his government, then a rebel against it and later fought against the same British Army
so what is hannah's beef exactly? or just lack of critical thought?