8 ms·

NSA Disruption of Stock Exchange Bomb Plot Disputed

137 points by shill 13y ago

jessaustin 13y ago
Fowler declined to comment any further, including whether he would seek to reopen the case, given the government admitting that secret, and constitutionally suspect, methods were used to gain access to his phone records. Well that's troubling.
- NickNameNick 13y ago
  It could be an interesting point. Does any investigation which used data from the NSA, especially early in the investigation to obtain warrants and more data suffer from a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' problem, where much of the evidence used later could be declared inadmissible on appeal? Has 'trying to be helpful' on the part of the NSA and/or FBI poisoned thousands of convictions?
  - pilsetnieks 13y ago
    Considering the article, 50 planned attacks would not result in thousands of convictions, and it isn't known how many of them were in the US (Other countries could have different standards for evidence or may have, in good faith, believed that it was all acquired legally.) Even so, the point was not that some people were convicted of planning attacks but that the attacks were prevented. Meanwhile, it's the method of prevention that should be disputed, not the fact of it.
epoxyhockey 13y ago
spy techniques publicly disclosed two weeks ago had halted some 50 terror attacks in 20 countries Sean Joyce, modern day Iraqi Information Minister. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
b6 13y ago
It's also irrelevant. We're here to talk about their crime spree, not any supposed good works done during.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  It's definitely NOT irrelevant. At some point (say, alien terrorist invasion that'd kill everyone on Earth), most people will decide it's a worthwhile tradeoff. If it only stopped one small bomb against a concrete statue, people would decide the other way. There is certainly a crossover point. The crossover is probably not even close to being reached, but discussion about it is certainly relevant. Many people believe they'd be under major attacks without these secret program. Dismissing their claims doesn't further the discussion.
  - b6 13y ago
    I take your point. But if there's a credible threat, they should say what it is and allow the public to decide whether the law should be amended. In all probability, there is no credible threat. That's why they choose to do this stuff without consent, and why they've been blocking the courts from ruling on it for years. And this is more of the same -- more manufactured bogeymen, more obfuscation. They want to talk about anything other than their lies and their crimes.
saalweachter 13y ago
“Hasanoff relayed that the New York Stock Exchange was surrounded by approximately four streets..." I love that. It captures downtown Manhattan perfectly.
- SimHacker 13y ago
  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manhattan_distance http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manhattan_distance
gesman 13y ago
Well there is a bigger list of plots that has not been prevented.
jaysonelliot 13y ago
This is the wrong argument to have. The issue is not whether or not illegal surveillance has thwarted any plots. We could put a video camera in every home that can't be turned off and has a direct feed into the local police station. I'm sure that after a few months, the police could then point to all the crimes they'd discovered as a result. Success rates are not the only consideration when determining whether or not we should give a particular power to the government.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  My sentiments exactly. A high success rate does not justify violating constitutional limits on government or making people forfeit basic civil liberties.
- thufry 13y ago
  They're not the only consideration, but they are a major consideration. The public's tolerance of any privacy infraction will depend strongly on whether that infraction prevents 1 death a year or 1,000,000.
  - jaysonelliot 13y ago
    A privacy infraction that prevents a million deaths a year still has to be weighed against other ways to prevent those deaths without violating people's rights. Yes, the easiest way to do something might be to violate the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's the only way.
    - thufry 13y ago
      In an imaginary world where an unconstitutional privacy infraction could be demonstrably proven to prevent a million deaths per year, the Constitution would be amended.
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        You're completely missing the point. Let's take the worst-case disaster scenario: Terrorists are going to get a nuclear weapon and blow up a major city every year. Millions of deaths per year. Here are two ways to prevent this: A) We read everyone's private correspondence without prior suspicion and arrest anyone who we think has obtained nuclear materials necessary to make a bomb. Obviously if we hadn't arrested them they would have killed millions of people, so reading everyone's private correspondence without prior suspicion has saved millions of lives per year. B) We track down and secure all the nuclear material (e.g. what the Russians have lost) using traditional investigative work so that terrorists can't get it. Since it's too hard for them to make themselves, this prevents them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, problem solved. C) We send undercover operatives into terrorist networks and disrupt them before they ever get off the ground. You don't need A if B works. You don't need A if C works. You don't need A if any of D through Z works either.
hawkharris 13y ago
The only thing that scares me more than terrorism is U.S. policymakers' reaction to terrorism. I'm not sure which civil liberty they'll strike down next in the name of preventing future attacks. Their means-to-an-end attitude exposes not only hysteric, irrational thinking, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.
- k2enemy 13y ago
  I understand the spirit of your comment, but there should probably be a long list of things that scare you more than terrorism.
  - hawkharris 13y ago
    I could have taken into account clowns, Stephen King novels and high cholesterol, but for the sake of wordplay and relevance to this discussion, I thought I'd leave it at terrorism. (Jokes aside, though, I understand your comment and agree that we shouldn't let terrorism paralyze us with fear, as it's intended to; plus, the risks of an American being killed in a terrorist attack are very low.)
dear 13y ago
If they lock everyone up, I am sure the crime rate would be zero.
- mmagin 13y ago
  You'd be surprised at all the illicit activity that happens in prisons, at least in the US.
  - uptown 13y ago
    I'd also be surprised if any of that crime is counted towards regional crime statistics.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Let's go the other way then, would the crime rate be zero if the government never obtained any information about anyone?
- nano111 13y ago
  As a bonus, the private prisons would be happy to get all those workers
Alex3917 13y ago
This reminds me of that time the FBI caught a black kid taking pictures of his family at Disney World, and then claimed they prevented the next 9/11. Oh wait, this exact same thing has happened literally dozens of times.
- tptacek 13y ago
  When did this happen? Link?
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Sleeper_Cell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Sleeper_Cell My details were slightly off, but close enough.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      Just to be clear: no black kid, and a malicious witness trying to weasel out of multiple felony charges. :)
  - flyinRyan 13y ago
    There was also the Iranian (Iraqi?) group who had a vacation in Disney World and videoed some of the experience. They were charged with planning a terrorist attack with such ridiculous evidence as "here! The video is looking at a trash can, they're looking for a place to plant the bomb!". Never heard of any convictions out of that case...
aegiso 13y ago
It's shocking how fast "terrorism" has been redefined from "use of terror as a means of coersion" to "Islamic fundamentalists" to "evil". These days politicians mix that word into a sentence with anything or anyone they want gone, and the public supports the cause, for fear of their own safety. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is strong. But every now and then I like to think back to the original definition. By which it would seem that the United States' response to terrorism has been exponentially more terrorism. Were it not for all of these shenanigans maybe we could have all healed from 9/11 by now.
- redblacktree 13y ago
  > Were it not for all of these shenanigans maybe we could have all healed from 9/11 by now. This thought created a particularly deep reaction in me.
seeingfurther 13y ago
The Stock Exchange isn't a place anymore but a network.
- bwhite 13y ago
  Like many office buildings, it is of pretty good size and houses a goodly number of workers. What sets it apart from almost all other buildings its that it is symbolic. The financial reporters are still frequently "on location" there, it is in downtown Manhattan, and there is an enormous American flag covering the Broad St side of the building.

137 points by shill 13y ago

Fowler declined to comment any further, including whether he would seek to reopen the case, given the government admitting that secret, and constitutionally suspect, methods were used to gain access to his phone records. Well that's troubling.

NickNameNick 13y ago
It could be an interesting point. Does any investigation which used data from the NSA, especially early in the investigation to obtain warrants and more data suffer from a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' problem, where much of the evidence used later could be declared inadmissible on appeal? Has 'trying to be helpful' on the part of the NSA and/or FBI poisoned thousands of convictions?
- pilsetnieks 13y ago
  Considering the article, 50 planned attacks would not result in thousands of convictions, and it isn't known how many of them were in the US (Other countries could have different standards for evidence or may have, in good faith, believed that it was all acquired legally.) Even so, the point was not that some people were convicted of planning attacks but that the attacks were prevented. Meanwhile, it's the method of prevention that should be disputed, not the fact of it.

epoxyhockey 13y ago

spy techniques publicly disclosed two weeks ago had halted some 50 terror attacks in 20 countries Sean Joyce, modern day Iraqi Information Minister. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

b6 13y ago

It's also irrelevant. We're here to talk about their crime spree, not any supposed good works done during.

MichaelGG 13y ago
It's definitely NOT irrelevant. At some point (say, alien terrorist invasion that'd kill everyone on Earth), most people will decide it's a worthwhile tradeoff. If it only stopped one small bomb against a concrete statue, people would decide the other way. There is certainly a crossover point. The crossover is probably not even close to being reached, but discussion about it is certainly relevant. Many people believe they'd be under major attacks without these secret program. Dismissing their claims doesn't further the discussion.
- b6 13y ago
  I take your point. But if there's a credible threat, they should say what it is and allow the public to decide whether the law should be amended. In all probability, there is no credible threat. That's why they choose to do this stuff without consent, and why they've been blocking the courts from ruling on it for years. And this is more of the same -- more manufactured bogeymen, more obfuscation. They want to talk about anything other than their lies and their crimes.

saalweachter 13y ago

“Hasanoff relayed that the New York Stock Exchange was surrounded by approximately four streets..." I love that. It captures downtown Manhattan perfectly.

SimHacker 13y ago
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manhattan_distance http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Manhattan_distance

gesman 13y ago

Well there is a bigger list of plots that has not been prevented.

jaysonelliot 13y ago

This is the wrong argument to have. The issue is not whether or not illegal surveillance has thwarted any plots. We could put a video camera in every home that can't be turned off and has a direct feed into the local police station. I'm sure that after a few months, the police could then point to all the crimes they'd discovered as a result. Success rates are not the only consideration when determining whether or not we should give a particular power to the government.

hawkharris 13y ago
My sentiments exactly. A high success rate does not justify violating constitutional limits on government or making people forfeit basic civil liberties.
thufry 13y ago
They're not the only consideration, but they are a major consideration. The public's tolerance of any privacy infraction will depend strongly on whether that infraction prevents 1 death a year or 1,000,000.
- jaysonelliot 13y ago
  A privacy infraction that prevents a million deaths a year still has to be weighed against other ways to prevent those deaths without violating people's rights. Yes, the easiest way to do something might be to violate the Constitution, but that doesn't mean it's the only way.
  - thufry 13y ago
    In an imaginary world where an unconstitutional privacy infraction could be demonstrably proven to prevent a million deaths per year, the Constitution would be amended.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      You're completely missing the point. Let's take the worst-case disaster scenario: Terrorists are going to get a nuclear weapon and blow up a major city every year. Millions of deaths per year. Here are two ways to prevent this: A) We read everyone's private correspondence without prior suspicion and arrest anyone who we think has obtained nuclear materials necessary to make a bomb. Obviously if we hadn't arrested them they would have killed millions of people, so reading everyone's private correspondence without prior suspicion has saved millions of lives per year. B) We track down and secure all the nuclear material (e.g. what the Russians have lost) using traditional investigative work so that terrorists can't get it. Since it's too hard for them to make themselves, this prevents them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, problem solved. C) We send undercover operatives into terrorist networks and disrupt them before they ever get off the ground. You don't need A if B works. You don't need A if C works. You don't need A if any of D through Z works either.

hawkharris 13y ago

The only thing that scares me more than terrorism is U.S. policymakers' reaction to terrorism. I'm not sure which civil liberty they'll strike down next in the name of preventing future attacks. Their means-to-an-end attitude exposes not only hysteric, irrational thinking, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

k2enemy 13y ago
I understand the spirit of your comment, but there should probably be a long list of things that scare you more than terrorism.
- hawkharris 13y ago
  I could have taken into account clowns, Stephen King novels and high cholesterol, but for the sake of wordplay and relevance to this discussion, I thought I'd leave it at terrorism. (Jokes aside, though, I understand your comment and agree that we shouldn't let terrorism paralyze us with fear, as it's intended to; plus, the risks of an American being killed in a terrorist attack are very low.)

dear 13y ago

If they lock everyone up, I am sure the crime rate would be zero.

mmagin 13y ago
You'd be surprised at all the illicit activity that happens in prisons, at least in the US.
- uptown 13y ago
  I'd also be surprised if any of that crime is counted towards regional crime statistics.
mpyne 13y ago
Let's go the other way then, would the crime rate be zero if the government never obtained any information about anyone?
nano111 13y ago
As a bonus, the private prisons would be happy to get all those workers

Alex3917 13y ago

This reminds me of that time the FBI caught a black kid taking pictures of his family at Disney World, and then claimed they prevented the next 9/11. Oh wait, this exact same thing has happened literally dozens of times.

tptacek 13y ago
When did this happen? Link?
- Alex3917 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Sleeper_Cell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Sleeper_Cell My details were slightly off, but close enough.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Just to be clear: no black kid, and a malicious witness trying to weasel out of multiple felony charges. :)
- flyinRyan 13y ago
  There was also the Iranian (Iraqi?) group who had a vacation in Disney World and videoed some of the experience. They were charged with planning a terrorist attack with such ridiculous evidence as "here! The video is looking at a trash can, they're looking for a place to plant the bomb!". Never heard of any convictions out of that case...

aegiso 13y ago

It's shocking how fast "terrorism" has been redefined from "use of terror as a means of coersion" to "Islamic fundamentalists" to "evil". These days politicians mix that word into a sentence with anything or anyone they want gone, and the public supports the cause, for fear of their own safety. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is strong. But every now and then I like to think back to the original definition. By which it would seem that the United States' response to terrorism has been exponentially more terrorism. Were it not for all of these shenanigans maybe we could have all healed from 9/11 by now.

redblacktree 13y ago
> Were it not for all of these shenanigans maybe we could have all healed from 9/11 by now. This thought created a particularly deep reaction in me.

seeingfurther 13y ago

The Stock Exchange isn't a place anymore but a network.

bwhite 13y ago
Like many office buildings, it is of pretty good size and houses a goodly number of workers. What sets it apart from almost all other buildings its that it is symbolic. The financial reporters are still frequently "on location" there, it is in downtown Manhattan, and there is an enormous American flag covering the Broad St side of the building.