They're Here

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

"well if you don't have nothing to hide" is probably the most given answer. Which is bullshit. I too will never understand that.

I don’t have anything to hide from people with common sense.

It’s those who are both insane, and powerful, that I consider it wise to hide everything possible from.

[RoyalShock]

Just because I don't have anything to hide, doesn't mean it's anyone else's damn business!

[DUShock]

Yes and Snowden, the ACLU, and Rand Paul have changed everything. We need to find new tools to fight terror.

That ************ Snoden should be hung by his neck until dead.

[Shocker-maniac]

I find it hard to believe that this was a lone wolf terror attack. It seems like there is one primary reason that they tried to erase their digital fingerprint (remove hard drives, destroy cell phones, remove SIM cards), they were protecting the identities of the other radicals that they were in contact with. They were either part of a cell or were working directly with a foreign terrorist organization; or both.

[shocka khan]

Yes, but they were pretty dumb about doing it. The FBI has some people who are real good at restoring data deleted from hard drives. The only way they could have done this would have been to get their hands on a utility that totally reformats the drive (writes zeros). Usually takes at least 4 passes. There are utilities that you can get your hands on to do this, businesses that have PII or PHI routinely have to sanitize equipment prior to sending it to the manufacturer for warranty or servicing purposes. The company I work for has those utilities. IIRC I can download them to my laptop (but don't want to because I would not want to be inviting potential issues for myself).

Some businesses do it before disposing of old equipment. I believe that in some circumstances there are rules (such as Federal Government rules that extend to contractors and service providers) that require the drives to be shredded with company personnel witnessing the destruction.

These guys weren't that smart. The information the FBI recovers will lead them to any co-conspirators, I believe there were some who provided material support, but from what I've read, ISIS didn't have these people on their radars (the woman posted a facebook note praising the head of ISIS just as she started on her 'mission').

[SB Shock]

This week 5 middle eastern men where captured by the border Patrol on a Arizona ranch. The men were carrying stainless steel cylinders in their back packs. FBI took them into custody.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/4/5-middle-eastern-men-with-stainless-steel-cylinders-in-their-backpacks-arrested-near-mexican-border

On November 17, 1 afghani and 5 pakistanis where arrested near Patagonia Arizona. The FBI released them back to ICE because there was no "obvious signs of terrorism".

http://www.12news.com/story/news/local/arizona/2015/11/19/6-men-2-middle-eastern-arrested-along-mexico-border-patagonia/76063216/

[shocka khan]

This week 5 middle eastern men where captured by the border Patrol on a Arizona ranch. The men were carrying stainless steel cylinders in their back packs. FBI took them into custody.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/4/5-middle-eastern-men-with-stainless-steel-cylinders-in-their-backpacks-arrested-near-mexican-border

On November 17, 1 afghani and 5 pakistanis where arrested near Patagonia Arizona. The FBI released them back to ICE because there was no "obvious signs of terrorism".

http://www.12news.com/story/news/loc...onia/76063216/

And that's why we need to secure our borders.

One other thing, I'd be surprised if the usual suspects (cartels) are involved. They pretty much bribe the Mexical government with impunity. We kinda look the other way. If they're stupid enough to provide material support for terrorists, they will deserve the ass kicking they will get. I think the cartels realize that doing this would be bad for their business. One thing about it, the cartel leaders aren't stupid.

[Rlh04d]

You said Rand Paul (and others) changed everything. Please point out where that article says he changed anything.

I really fail to understand why people are so willing to give up their protections in the Constitution. I talked to a woman at work last week who said she wouldn't mind if the NSA listened to all her phone conversations in order to keep us safe. I was flabbergasted. How do you respond to something like that?

Probably the same way I respond to people who actually believe the NSA, now or ever, is listening to your phone conversations in the US.

I disagreed with bulk collection as well, but the issue was metadata, not content. No one was ever listening to your phone conversations. The quantity of people in this country who believe NSA's mission is bulk collection and monitoring of Americans, to this day, flabbergasts me.

[SB Shock]

[SB Shock]

From retuers today

Islamic State militants have slipped into Europe disguised as refugees, the head of Germany's domestic intelligence agency (BfV) said on Friday, a day after security forces thwarted a potential IS attack in Berlin.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-security-idUSKCN0VE0XL

[JJClamdip]

From retuers today



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge...-idUSKCN0VE0XL

It's evident that neither the democrats or republicans care about protecting this country or they would have taken action years ago to control illegal immigration.

[CBB_Fan]

I think the problem with bridge collapses is a major threat to our national security. The best way to stop this is to find out who is a threat. The government needs to put GPSs on all motor vehicles so that we can determine who is driving these bridges to collapse, and ban larger vehicles that are more likely to cause problems. Companies should have to report accessory purchases like snow tires or chains that could cause major damage. A major bridge collapse could kill dozens or even hundreds of people! It could happen to you.

Sound ludicrous? Bridge collapse has killed 39 people since 9/11. Terrorism has killed 45. And yet we are willing to give up our rights to fight terrorism, but I don't see anyone willing to switch our their F-500 for a Camry to fight bridge failure. And it is very easy to claim that terrorism is the direct result of trying to play kingmaker and police in the Middle East for decades (by both the establishment wings of both parties) and that committing to another ground war in the regime to prop up another shitty regime is exactly what will cause further acts of terrorism.

My approach would be pretty simple. Not a single foot on the ground. Let Arabs and Kurds and Persians fight on the ground. If something as despicable as ISIS arises, we bomb their territory until the other Middle Eastern forces can take them out. And we deploy a 1-strike policy for illegal immigration. Break a law, get thrown in jail. Not deported, incarcerated. A wall would be worthless; ever hear of the Great Wall of China? It bankrupted the Chinese and did nothing to stop the Mongols. A 20ft wall that cost billions to build could be beaten by a 21ft ladder. Sanctuary cities are fine (it basically just means you won't deport an illegal immigrant for reporting a crime), as long as you lock up the criminals. Deporting them is worthless if they can just get back in.

[wufan]

What rights are we giving up to fight terrorism? I do not agree that would-be refugees are granted/should be granted the same rights as citizens under the constitution.

[shock]

I think the problem with bridge collapses is a major threat to our national security. The best way to stop this is to find out who is a threat. The government needs to put GPSs on all motor vehicles so that we can determine who is driving these bridges to collapse, and ban larger vehicles that are more likely to cause problems. Companies should have to report accessory purchases like snow tires or chains that could cause major damage. A major bridge collapse could kill dozens or even hundreds of people! It could happen to you.

Sound ludicrous? Bridge collapse has killed 39 people since 9/11. Terrorism has killed 45. And yet we are willing to give up our rights to fight terrorism, but I don't see anyone willing to switch our their F-500 for a Camry to fight bridge failure. And it is very easy to claim that terrorism is the direct result of trying to play kingmaker and police in the Middle East for decades (by both the establishment wings of both parties) and that committing to another ground war in the regime to prop up another shitty regime is exactly what will cause further acts of terrorism.

My approach would be pretty simple. Not a single foot on the ground. Let Arabs and Kurds and Persians fight on the ground. If something as despicable as ISIS arises, we bomb their territory until the other Middle Eastern forces can take them out. And we deploy a 1-strike policy for illegal immigration. Break a law, get thrown in jail. Not deported, incarcerated. A wall would be worthless; ever hear of the Great Wall of China? It bankrupted the Chinese and did nothing to stop the Mongols. A 20ft wall that cost billions to build could be beaten by a 21ft ladder. Sanctuary cities are fine (it basically just means you won't deport an illegal immigrant for reporting a crime), as long as you lock up the criminals. Deporting them is worthless if they can just get back in.

Good God, this is about as ignorant as it gets. Are you going to vote for Bernie?

[CBB_Fan]

What rights are we giving up to fight terrorism? I do not agree that would-be refugees are granted/should be granted the same rights as citizens under the constitution.

How about the 1st and 4th Amendment? All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency should require a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, yet the powers granted to the Executive office by the Patriot Act allow the NSA to bypass the FISA. This has been widely recognized as a violation of the 4th amendment, a warrantless search. I can provide many foreign and national examples as well of specific laws used to either prevent speech against the government, allow warrantless surveillance of citizens and foreign nationals alike, allow for indefinite detainment of perceived threats without an arrest, etc.

Good God, this is about as ignorant as it gets. Are you going to vote for Bernie?

I identify mostly as a left-libertarian. In 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, and in 2016 I probably would have decided between either a moderate Republican, or a libertarian like Rand Paul. I think Bernie Sanders is the most trust-worthy candidate left in the race, with the most detailed plan and the strongest record behind his believes. Agree or disagree on policies, he correctly predicted the rise of ISIS before the Iraq invasion and he's had the same views for 30 years. That doesn't mean I'll vote for him, but I will consider him.

I highly disagree with the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. It is the single biggest change in US foreign policy in a hundred years, and it has proven to be either ineffectual or downright destructive. Everyone in this race except Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders endorse the Bush Doctrine. Likewise, I disagree with the Republican party's stance on immigration, not because I particularly care for immigrants or want illegal immigrants to become citizens but because the Republican solution is impractical, immoral, and in many ways unlikely to be effective. I will never support a policy on ideology, and I feel the conservative wing of the Republican party is the opposite.