Well, that first paragraph disqualifies the article almost immediately. Considering the most important words in that sentence, "vast majority" have no citation

Well, that first paragraph disqualifies the article almost immediately. Considering the most important words in that sentence, "vast majority" have no citation, it sets the tone for the rest of the article. The second paragraph insinuates that monitoring activists is an immoral act on the part of the FBI, which is completely untrue. The third paragraph calls the leaking of information to the press a constitutional right, which is absolutely not true. Is it immoral of the government to keep any secrets at all? If it's not, then is it immoral of the government to take steps to prevent their secrets from being released? If that's not, then isn't "monitoring" for potential leaks at their source just another example of the government attempting to prevent leaks? Paragraphs 4 and 5 are spot on. So is paragraph 6, except for the last sentence. "Protecting innocents from harm", and the link is to a generic body scanner article? If the argument is that the government has at one point in recent history caused emotional or physical harm to someone who didn't "deserve it", then I guess it's right, but it's both as right and as useful to say the government didn't cure my kid of cancer or fix my broken bicycle. It's completely irrelevant to the argument the paragraph is trying to make, specifically that even if the government did collect data about a potential attack, they're incapable of saving those people. Paragraph 7 is also correct. Paragraph 8 is downright offensive, but that's probably the point. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that the FBI had credible and actionable information about the Tsarnaev brother's intent, and to attempt to try to talk about pre-9/11 government agency behavior with regard to today's situation is about as useful as talking about how Roosevelt may have known about Pearl Harbor. Historically interesting, absolutely irrelevant to now. You had an agenda, clearly, before you wrote this. You shoehorned in irrelevant facts and articles to attempt to make a point that doesn't need to be made. Now you're calling people idiots because you think this is a black and white issue. Frankly, I think it's you who's the idiot.