Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WASHINGTON — In March 2011, the Russian security service sent a stark warning to the F.B.I., reporting that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was “a follower of radical Islam” who had “changed drastically since 2010” and was preparing to travel to Russia’s turbulent Caucasus to connect with underground militant groups. Six months later, Russia sent the same warning to the C.I.A.
Now why would I give some credence to this? They were traveling back and forth and they are someone the Russians would be interested in following, no? Do I support the Russians tracking American citizens in general? No, absolutely not but let's be clear, neither were American citizens when the Russians say they warned the government.
1-I thought the warning involved only one of them (not both).
2-The warning had nothing to do with animosity towards Russia (not the USA)
3-And are you claiming nothing was done about it?
Quote:
Since you won't dismiss the idea, I should?
You would be crying a different tune, if these were Americans? Because, after all, it will give validity to security versus privacy balance. Besides, should we trust foreign sources and focus have our government treat them as serious matter, regardless of who is involved? Yes, or no?
Quote:
If there is ever evidence that the Russian government is tracking every single American like our government seems to be I will speak against that.
So, if Russians warn against a person, the US government should...
1- Take it seriously if they are not US Citizens
2- Shrug it off, if they are US Citizens
1-I thought the warning involved only one of them (not both).
2-The warning had nothing to do with animosity towards Russia (not the USA)
3-And are you claiming nothing was done about it?
As far as we know there wasn't and if there was it certainly wasn't adequate.
Quote:
You would be crying a different tune, if these were Americans? Because, after all, it will give validity to security versus privacy balance. Besides, should we trust foreign sources and focus have our government treat them as serious matter, regardless of who is involved? Yes, or no?
I have answered the question over and over. If you have to create made up situations that have no factual basis, you have no argument to make.
Quote:
So, if Russians warn against a person, the US government should...
1- Take it seriously if they are not US Citizens
2- Shrug it off, if they are US Citizens
Right?
If the Russians are warning us about what people in this country are doing while in their country we should investigate what they are saying.
As far as we know there wasn't and if there was it certainly wasn't adequate.
One of two possibilities:
1- You didn't read your own link
2- You did, but failed to comprehend simple sentences.
And, ultimately, assume that the warning was as potential terrorism against the USA.
Quote:
I have answered the question over and over. If you have to create made up situations that have no factual basis, you have no argument to make.
What new situation? You're basically claiming that Russians are (and would only be) only interested in alerting US authorities that can be potential danger to Russia. And spinning it as a warning of terror against the USA. If Russians cared about threats to US, why would they limit their "role" only to non-Americans?
Quote:
If the Russians are warning us about what people in this country are doing while in their country we should investigate what they are saying.
Even if they are Americans (that is the key to my question). Right?
Honestly, does it even matter if the Patriot Act has worked to prevent terrorism if it is going to be misused the way it has? Do we honestly think that trading civil liberties for safety is worth it? That is what is infuriating about today's press conference: it's a modest intrusion - seriously? There should be no intrusions - we'll take our chances, thank you.
I think it does. If say the Time Square attempted bombing or Boston Marathon Bombing were prevented thanks due to the Patriot Act, I would say there is enough of a juice from the squeeze. But right now there is no working track record of it. If there were stopped terrorist attacks linked to the Patriot Act then it should be continued. There is no proof of it.
I am all for liberty but our collective liberty is more important than individual liberties.
I think it does. If say the Time Square attempted bombing or Boston Marathon Bombing were prevented thanks due to the Patriot Act, I would say there is enough of a juice from the squeeze. But right now there is no working track record of it. If there were stopped terrorist attacks linked to the Patriot Act then it should be continued. There is no proof of it.
I am all for liberty but our collective liberty is more important than individual liberties.
Weren't they apprehended via means that had nothing to do with the Patriot Act? I don't think you need it to mount cameras along the street or ask people to send in their phone camera photos. Plus weren't they American citizens and thus outside the scope of foreign surveillance?
One of two possibilities:
1- You didn't read your own link
2- You did, but failed to comprehend simple sentences.
And, ultimately, assume that the warning was as potential terrorism against the USA.
Does it make a difference as to who they were plotting against?
Quote:
What new situation? You're basically claiming that Russians are (and would only be) only interested in alerting US authorities that can be potential danger to Russia. And spinning it as a warning of terror against the USA. If Russians cared about threats to US, why would they limit their "role" only to non-Americans?
An argument I never made.
Quote:
Even if they are Americans (that is the key to my question). Right?
Weren't they apprehended via means that had nothing to do with the Patriot Act? I don't think you need it to mount cameras along the street or ask people to send in their phone camera photos. Plus weren't they American citizens and thus outside the scope of foreign surveillance?
Yes, I am saying should those events been stopped by the Patriot Act and not civilian vigilance like in both real situations.
During and after 9-11, we were not allowed to question anything the government did. Remember all the flags flying and the whole 'you're either with us or against us' rhetoric that was going on?
NOW, people are seeing how far government can go in the name of the Patriot Act and I do not think they are liking it one bit.
The willfully retarded are upset now?
Like my twisted sister told me, "You don't have to worry, Obama is a good man."
They've been upset since Nov 4, 2008. Although, I don't think "willfully" is the right term for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
