Live Q&As

Hi everyone. Thanks for joining us. It's been a while. Measuring what works and what does not is a key question here. Does it really help to solicit tips from everywhere and then weed through them, or to have a more focused approach. In general the government has not done a good job evaluating the large number of programs out there. As money becomes tighter, this might happen more. We'll see. 

The government will tell you that the Patriot Act and amendments to it, gives them the right to do all this. Civil liberties experts say they are chipping away at the Privacy Act inappropriately. Both sides will also differ on why, in fact, the "probably cause" bar has been lowered to do this kind of data collection. It's a debate about the legal interpretation of post 9/11 rules for the most part. 

Probably. this is an area thick with problems. my best advice is to carry some proof that you are a member of some kind of enthusiasts group and if you see a policeman or someone else watching you, go talk to him/her. Putting people like you in the database wastes everyone's time.

We have only begun to see this strain of thinking. We will see much more of it. Hopefully the outcome will be a more vigorous and public discussion about terrorism and Islam that we all will learn alot from.

There is no screening process. State and local law enforcement can hire whomever they like really. The betters one are consulting with the FBI but that doesn't happen all the time, as you can see

Paranoia. Get back to work!

yes, one thing. 

Philip Mudd, the former CIA and FBI official quoted in the story makes the same case. And he prefers to call terrorists, criminals. And to deflate the entire conversation so as not to make them feel so powerful and not to egg us all on to overreact every time something almost-but doesn't, happen.

I agree. Newspapers have been digging up instances of state police abuse in this area for several years now. I hope that continues because it seems the only way to bring it out into the open. We're hoping that the online state-heavy emphasis to this story will prompt journalists who have written such stories to post them on our facebook site.

I would bet you that money it's already happening.

did you check online? lots of info there, and city-state locations

Don't know if there's a correlation. I do know, from personal experience, that government officials sometimes feel more willing to talk when the internal review process doesn't work at all, and when whatever it is they are concerned about seems, to them at least, to be a big deal.

People have made the comparison. But I think there's another factor here that wasn't present in the 1950s: The public's expectation that the government can, and must, stop the next attack at all cost. Even if it's a tiny one and no one gets hurt.  This means the government has to do everything possible, which is a lot. Because we have never had a rational discussion about this, about the risks versus costs, this paradym remains and government officials have nightmares of being called to testify in congress when something goes amiss.

Thank you. Can you post this also on our Facebook page? The feds are supposed to know better and I think, for the most part, they do. Although sometimes I wonder about the FBI. I think there is a range of opinion at the bureau, once you leave the counterterrorism section. The problem is at the state and local level.

Sorry I don't know the answer to this. Maybe someone reading will know. If you are out there, come chat.

A couple of things have been shelved--like a multi-billion stealth satellite program that never worked-- but overall, I think you are right, and are stating the correct reasons--none of which have to do with hard-nosed national security. If nothing else, commercially available technology is driving us towards a surveillance state.

Colorado helped with Zazi, the Afghan-born resident who wanted to bomb New York. The FBI says they were helpful although they also say it wasn't unique information they produced, and that the bureau probably would have come up with it soon anyway. DHS gave me a list of successes. There were not many related to terrorism. Some of them related to everyday crimes.

I think you are going too far: "covert lethal means" means assassinating people. I don't see that at all.

I thought I answered this but it's still in the queue: Neither the FBI, nor intelligence experts believe this view is true. I expect, though, to see the argument surface more and more. I sat in on the legal proceeding in Murfreesboro , Tenn, where several residents were asking a judge to stop a local Muslim community from expanding their mosque and school house. It was like watching the Scopes Monkey trial (also in Tenn) on evolution. One of the complainants' main arguments was that Islam is not a religion. (Hello? Tell that to Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country. Really now)

hopefully he was having a background check for a security clearance, not for something less than that. You could try to find out by appealing, if, in fact, he was denied a clearance. Otherwise, not sure. Good luck. His instinct about social media is a good one.

I'm not at all this pessimistic  but I think people need to pay attention to what the government is doing. So does the media, and we aren't doing enough of that these days.

Time is up. Thanks for joining me. Dana