Eavesdropping Didn't Help Uncover Terrorist Plot

crymeph0 writes "Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asserted that the 'Protect America Act,' which frees the intelligence community from pesky things like judicial oversight while they eavesdrop on international conversations, was used to good effect in exposing the recently foiled terrorist plot to bomb US military facilities in Germany. Not so, according to other, anonymous, intelligence community officials. McConnell was forced to admit his errors in a phone call to Sen. Joe Lieberman. Turns out the military got wise to the bad guys months before the law was passed, simply due to alert military guards noticing odd behavior by some passers-by, a.k.a. good old fashioned police work."

Remember to do something about this

[OSPolicy]

This seems like as good a time as any to remind ourselves about EFF's http://stopthespying.org/ [stopthespying.org] web site. McConnell did not just lie to the press. He had to call Senator Lieberman to "clarify" his testimony because he lied to Congress. It hardly needs to be restated to this audience that we can tell when these guys are lying because their lips are moving, but it is worth remembering that there's something that we can and should be doing right now, which is backing up the EFF efforts.

Re:So "If we don't fight them in Iraq...

[arthurpaliden]

Had you not invaded Iraq,and it is plan now that the rest of the world was right and there was no reason to, you would not be fighting terorists there now.

You know how I know a politician is lying?

[killmenow]

His mouth is moving...

No, really. This is why there is ZERO point listening to what these people say about anything. When they talk, I just think:

Get out of here! Go on! I don't believe it. You don't say! Really?! Get out of here! Go on. I don't believe it. You don't say? Get out of here! I told you that bitch crazy!!!

Which piece of lefist nonsense said

[Travoltus]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

WARNING: Trick question.

Re:Ok

[Scrameustache]

why is it assumed that when I use someone else's network that my conversation is secure? If I hand someone a sheet of paper with stuff written on it what guarantee do I have that the person transporting it for me will not sneak a peek at what is written on the sheet of paper.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! It's a federal crime to open someone else's mail, you gorram sheep!

When your government says "bend over", stop asking "how deep?"! Seriously, you're arguing AGAINST your own rights! What the hell is wrong with you?

Re:Forced to admit his error? You mean his lie...

[Chris Burke]

According to the dictionary "A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it."

Yes, and since the actual information regarding the case is clear that unwarranted surveillance had nothing to do with it, this means that either:

1) he was aware of the actual circumstances of the case, yet still claimed surveillance was the key or

2) he was (inexplicably for a man in his position) completely ignorant of the circumstances of the case, and just plain made up the fact that surveillance was involved.

If you make something up on the spot that supports your political agenda, do you usually suspect that what you made up is false? Yes, of course you do. And so does he. So he was lying.

The only thing he was merely wrong as opposed to lying about was whether the truth had already been made public. It had been made public, and that, and only that, is why he retracted his statement. He either knew what he said was wrong, or he knew it was not based in fact. Either way, that's a fucking lie.

I swear, the way people try to weasel out of being caught lying is as sad and reprehensible as the lies themselves.

Re:So what are you trying to say?

[richieb]

This is bit of 20/20 hindsight. The particulars of the attack were not known (I know there was speculation). But the CIA knew that known suspects were in the US for over 1 year prior 9/11.