WaPo: The NSA counterterrorism program “was not essential to preventing attacks”

[Luminous Animal]

An analysis of 225 terrorism cases inside the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.”

In the majority of cases, traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case, according to the study by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit group.

The study, to be released Monday, corroborates the findings of a White House-appointed review group, which said last month that the NSA counterterrorism program “was not essential to preventing attacks” and that much of the evidence it did turn up “could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.”

Under the program, the NSA amasses the metadata — records of phone numbers dialed and call lengths and times — of virtually every American. Analysts may search the data only with reasonable suspicion that a number is linked to a terrorist group. The content of calls is not collected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-phone-record-collection-does-little-to-prevent-terrorist-attacks-group-says/2014/01/12/8aa860aa-77dd-11e3-8963-b4b654bcc9b2_story.html?tid=auto_complete

[jsr]

1. Recommend

[dgibby]

2. Well, this begs the question,

if it "was not essential to preventing attacks" and "has had no discerible impact on preventing acts of terrorism", then why is the Govt doing it? Hmmm.......

[OnyxCollie]

3. The simplest reason:

Objective monetary incentives.

[riderinthestorm]

4. To ensure US economic imperialism. Corporate greed mixed with politics.

There's a word for that....

[randome]

5. If you think about it objectively, it makes sense to have emergency access to the metadata.

If an attack did occur, they could quickly scan the records and find potential associates of the attacker(s).

With four levels of approval needed to even view the metadata, there's sufficient bureaucracy in the way -in my opinion- to tread that fine line between emergency response and protecting the data from malfeasance.

Not everyone agrees, obviously.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[woo me with science]

6. Two reasons for the monstrous surveillance state:

Last edited Tue Jan 14, 2014, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

1) Total information awareness FOR PROFIT,
and
2) A surveillance state to prevent resistance by those being exploited FOR PROFIT.

It's corporate fascism, by definition.

I dislike this argument about whether the spying is *effective,* anyway. Even if they had stopped a terrorist attack, it still would not justify trashing the Constitution and turning the United States of America into a surveillance state. The relevant issue here is that they are growing corporate fascism, and using terrorism as an excuse:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024189392#post15

That they can't prove greater safety from terrorism is ultimately beside the point. Even if they *HAD* stopped a terrorist attack, it still does not justify this trashing of our Constitutional protections. Life has risks. Making every citizen wear a personal camera and be accompanied by a government-appointed bodyguard might make everyone safer, too, BUT THE GOVERNMENT STILL HAS NO RIGHT TO DO IT. We are being propagandized to fear the danger of terrorist attacks, when we should be fearing the even greater assault of dismantling our representative, Constitutional system of government.

Even if a surveillance state DID make us physically safer, and the Rude Pundit is right that there is no evidence of that, THEY STILL WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPY ON US.

The Fourth Amendment does NOT say: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized....UNLESS IT MAKES EVERYONE SAFER."


We should not concede increased safety as a good reason for abrogating Constitutional rights. In the worst case scenario, I worry about desperate fascists who might try to *supply* proof of the grave dangers they keep telling us we face...

[Luminous Animal]

9. I love your posts.

[Vattel]

10. +1,000

[WillyT]

7. K & R !!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. It's like burning down the forest to protect us from falling trees.

Or, erecting elephant traps in New York to save people from stampeding elephants.