02-16-2018 12:28:03 PM -0800
01-23-2018 09:55:12 AM -0800
01-18-2018 11:02:22 AM -0800
01-09-2018 01:54:15 PM -0800
12-22-2017 09:40:32 AM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

Why Expanded Government Spying Doesn’t Mean Better Security Against Terrorism

What is most important to understand about the revelations of massive message interception by the U.S. government is this: in counterterrorist terms, it is a farce.

There is a fallacy behind the current intelligence strategy of the United States, behind this collection of up to three billion phone calls a day, of emails, and even of credit card expenditures, not to mention the government spying on the mass media. It is this:

The more quantity of intelligence, the better it is for preventing terrorism.

In the real, practical world this is untrue, though it might seem counterintuitive. You don't need -- to put it in an exaggerated way -- an atomic bomb against a flea.  Basically the NSA, as one of my readers suggested, is the digital equivalent of the TSA strip-searching an 80 year-old Minnesota grandmothers rather than profiling and focusing on the likely terrorists.

Isn't it absurd that the United States -- which can't finish a simple border fence to keep out potential terrorists; can't stop a would-be terrorist in the U.S. Army who gives a PowerPoint presentation on why he is about to shoot people (Major Nidal Hasan); can't follow up on Russian intelligence warnings about Chechen terrorist contacts (the Boston bombing); or a dozen similar incidents -- must now collect every telephone call in the country?

Isn't it absurd that under this system, a photo-shop clerk has to stop an attack on Fort Dix by overcoming his fear of appearing "racist" to report a cell of terrorists?

That it was left to brave passengers to jump a would-be "underpants bomber" from Nigeria, because his own father's warning that he was a terrorist was insufficient?

Isn't it absurd that terrorists and terrorist supporters visit the White House, hang out with the FBI, and advise the U.S. government on counter-terrorist policy, even while -- as CAIR does -- advising Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement? And that they are admiringly quoted in the media?

Meanwhile, a documented, detailed revelation of this behavior in MERIA Journal by Patrick Poole -- "Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government's Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy" -- a report which rationally should bring down the governmentdoes not get covered by a single mass media outlet?

Imagine this scene:

"Sir, we have a telephone call about a potential terrorist attack!"

"Not now, Smithers, I'm giving a tour of our facility to some supporters of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood."

How about the time when the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem had a (previously jailed) Hamas agent working in their motor pool with direct access to the vehicles and itineraries of all visiting U.S. dignitaries and senior officials?