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.
The NSA can monitor all the social media it wants, but congress has shown it won't even prevent individuals who are on the terrorist watch list from exercising their "right" to purchase assault rifles. That makes NO Sense at all. Why even bother identifying anyone as a threat if you are not willing to take any actions to prevent them from causing another San Bernardino?
Rather stange how people are alright having the government spy on them but don't want to have possible terror suspects lose their right to own a gun.
The NSA can do all that and more. The phones have GPS as well.
Snowden uncovered all those spying programs the NSA does.
And they keep all that data in Utah and are building a second huge data center in MD.
"Snowden uncovered all those spying programs the NSA does."
I wouldn't bet the ranch on what the "media" claimed Snowden said and knew.
The NSA can monitor all the social media it wants, but congress has shown it won't even prevent individuals who are on the terrorist watch list from exercising their "right" to purchase assault rifles. That makes NO Sense at all. Why even bother identifying anyone as a threat if you are not willing to take any actions to prevent them from causing another San Bernardino?
Because in a free country we don't deprive rights for actions you MIGHT commit without due process or cause.
Malik and Farooq were both radicalized before they met. Neither used social media to communicate their support of radical ideology. Rather they used private messages.
Malik sent her sister private messages while both lived in Pakistan whereby she expressed support of radical ideology.
The FBI / DHS does not " listen" to private conversations between people unless one or both are suspected of something. As it relates to Farooq and Malik, there were no warning signs.
San Bernadino Shocker: Obama Administration Nixed DHS Probe into Southern California Jihadists
Quote:
There are terrorists in our midst and they arrived here using legal means right under the noses of the federal law enforcement agencies whose mission is to stop them. That is not due to malfeasance or lack of effort on the part of these officers; it is due to the restrictions placed on them by the Obama administration.
I was a firsthand witness to how these policies deliberately prevented scrutiny of Islamist groups. The two San Bernardino jihadists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, may have benefited from the administration’s closure of an investigation I initiated on numerous groups infiltrating radicalized individuals into this country.
Liberals cannot be trusted with the safety and security of this country.
So they wanted to spy on individuals that attended Mosque mentioned below, based on what?
By the way DHS's civil rights section shut it down, not this administration.
Quote:
We created records of individuals, mosques, Islamic Centers and schools across the United States that were involved in this radicalization effort. The Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque in San Bernardino was affiliated with this network and we had identified a member of it in our investigation. Farook frequented that mosque and was well-known to the congregation and mosque leadership.
Malik and Farooq were both radicalized before they met. Neither used social media to communicate their support of radical ideology. Rather they used private messages.
Malik sent her sister private messages while both lived in Pakistan whereby she expressed support of radical ideology.
The FBI / DHS does not " listen" to private conversations between people unless one or both are suspected of something. As it relates to Farooq and Malik, there were no warning signs.
Lets look at this problem a different way. Up until the time I retired; I drove truck and had a Class A CDL with the TX endorsements. To get that 'X' as an endorsement I had to pay and pass the TSA scrutiny. Also, years ago when me and my wife were foster parents, we had to pass an extensive background check as well as opening up our home weekly to Children and Youth.
OK, for the sake of argument, lets say that Malik was a licensed pharmacist. Of course Farooq was a food inspector. Both would have been in a position that they could have killed considerably more people because of their jobs and the fact they were radicals.
So, should we be discussing licensing and follow up testing to help determine if these jobs are being used for purposes other than intended? Just a thought; I really don't know. It just sounds reasonable if we put every CDL driver, that transports Hazmats, through this endorsement procedure every two years.
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.
San Bernadino Shocker: Obama Administration Nixed DHS Probe into Southern California Jihadists
