Canada’s Internet Monitoring Stopped a Terror Attact
Canadian police foiled a homegrown terrorist attack by arresting 17 suspects, apparently inspired by Al Qaeda, who obtained three times the amount of explosive ingredients used in the Oklahoma City bombing, officials said Saturday.
The FBI said the Canadian suspects may have had “limited contact” with two men recently arrested on terrorism charges in Georgia. About 400 regional police and federal agents participated in the arrests Friday and early Saturday.
“These individuals were allegedly intent on committing acts of terrorism against their own country and their own people,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement. “As we have said on many occasions, Canada is not immune to the threat of terrorism.”
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested 12 adult suspects, ages 43 to 19, and five suspects younger than 18 on terrorism charges including plotting attacks with explosives on Canadian targets. The suspects were either citizens or residents of Canada and had trained together, police said
How Internet monitoring sparked a CSIS probe
The chain of events began two years ago, sparked by local teenagers roving through Internet sites, reading and espousing anti-Western sentiments and vowing to attack at home, in the name of oppressed Muslims here and abroad.
Their words were sometimes encrypted, the Internet sites where they communicated allegedly restricted by passwords, but Canadian spies back in 2004 were reading them. And as the youths’ words turned into actions, they began watching them.
According to sources close to the investigation, the suspects are teenagers and men in their 20s who had a relatively typical Canadian upbringing, but ” allegedly spurred on by images of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan and angered by what they saw as the mistreatment of Muslims at home ” became increasingly violent.
Police say they acquired weapons, picked targets and made detailed plans.
They travelled north to a “training camp” and made propaganda videos imitating jihadists who had battled in Afghanistan. At night, they washed up at a Tim Hortons nearby.
One was a math and chemistry whiz from Scarborough who grew up to become a 22-year-old husband and father.
It’s unclear why the authorities decided to act on their suspicions yesterday. None of these allegations has been proven in court, where the suspects are expected to appear for the first time this morning.
Sources say the arrests involve a “homegrown” terrorism cell ” Western youths who have never set foot in Afghanistan but allegedly were radicalized here, and who are thought to be potentially as dangerous as the cells that once took orders from Osama bin Laden. Western governments, including Canada’s, have repeatedly warned of this phenomenon and blamed recent attacks, such as last July’s bombings in London, as the work of such groups.
The Canadian investigation involves a complicated web of connections, with alleged ties to two men from Georgia who came to Toronto in March 2005 to meet with “like-minded Islamic extremists,” according to U.S. court documents.
June 3, 2006 - 08:26 PM on June 3rd, 2006
“Their words were sometimes encrypted, the Internet sites where they communicated allegedly restricted by passwords, but Canadian spies back in 2004 were reading them. And as the youths’ words turned into actions, they began watching them.”
The Gov’t was monitoring their Internet traffic? What? That’s a violation of their civil liberties! That’s almost as bad as Bush and his cronies listening in on our telephone conversations!!! Those investigators should be investigated and charged! That’s FAR worse than anything those youths could ever have contemplated! How could the people of Canada let that happen in their country? We must help them to stop all Gov’t activity that might catch terrorists, just like all good Lefties are trying to do here!!!
June 3, 2006 - 08:49 PM on June 3rd, 2006
It’s unclear why the authorities decided to act on their suspicions yesterday. None of these allegations has been proven in court, where the suspects are expected to appear for the first time this morning.
I could hazard a guess that a bunch of radical Islamofascists having large quantities of high explosives might have been considered a threat worth stopping.
June 4, 2006 - 09:54 AM on June 4th, 2006
But,,, they trampled the islamist civil liberties! Monitoring the internet,,, how dare they!
June 4, 2006 - 12:11 PM on June 4th, 2006
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course liberals, like everyone, wants terrorists to be caught before they can strike. To say anything else is just slander.
What we are saying is that we must observe civil liberties. We cannot throw out the Constitution just to accomplish a short-term goal.
The Govt can and should catch thse terrorists. But it must observe the following civil liberty restrictions:
1. No eavesdropping or wiretapping of any phone calls, wired or cell.
2. No data mining of records of telephone calls.
3. No harassment of mosques in attempts to gain information.
4. No racial profiling of middle eastern people. Any activity must be fairly applied to all.
5. No access or intrusion of any sort into any personal or financial data.
6. No demands of private companies that they must store data, or that they provide any data to the Gov’t.
7. No questioning, interrogating, or interviewing of anyone unless we know they are terrorists. No fishing expeditions, no more Abu Ghraib “roundups” of innocent people caught up in the violence.
8. No stakeouts, listening with microphones, or otherwise bothering mosques. We must especially be sensitive to the cultural and religious rights of immigrants.
9. No questioning of others in an attempt to gain information about any other person.
These are the minimum standards that must be observed in order to protect our civil liberties. And the ACLU is standing by to guard our freedom!
I’ll repeat once again that it is ridiculous, absurd for anyone to suggest that liberals are not every bit as motivated as anyone else to catch the bad guys. This nation is spending plenty of money on security; more than enough to get the job done. In fact we expect that those in charge will do their job! If they don’t it will be the Katrina aftermath ten times over! I mean, we are spending all this money on all of these so-called experts. And they better do their job!!!
June 4, 2006 - 03:57 PM on June 4th, 2006
Lenny you are an enabler of the terrorist. Just because you don’t wear a turban and carry an AK, doesn’t make you better than them. Just my opinion. Wish you were here.
June 4, 2006 - 03:58 PM on June 4th, 2006
the ACLU are traitors also. Since you adore the Constitution soo much, what is your opinion of the 2nd Amendment? Just wondering.
June 4, 2006 - 04:32 PM on June 4th, 2006
Lenny is an example of a severe case of mental illness. But he still represents a common thread among today’s Liberals. They say they want terrorists here in the U.S. caught, but they do not want to give LE the tools to get it done. They say they want our LE agencies to do they job, but they will not support them.
Is there any technique used to find terrorist infiltrators that is not on Lenny’s list?
On another topic, I was so outraged today by the ABC News. This latest case that is being investigated in Iraq: the investigation is not even complete, yet they are reporting it as a done deal. Those Marines massacred innocent civilians. Yet another case of Leftist MSM treason.
FAO may be right. The Left may provoke a civil war. When terrorists set off a dirty bomb in some major U.S. city, and the resulting panic and economic collapse occurs, people might just finally be fed up with the Left.
June 4, 2006 - 04:44 PM on June 4th, 2006
Robert. I bet if it wasn’t terrorist, but the “conservative, gun toting, homophobes” that the Klintons so hated, Lenny would gladly accept wiretapping,etc, etc. The left is so full of double standards. They talk about the constitution when it is to their advantage, however it is what they call “a outdated document written by a bunch of old conservative slave owners”. Piss on libs.
June 4, 2006 - 10:45 PM on June 4th, 2006
Hey Robert I have been told (but haven’t been able to independently confirm) that early in the Clinton administration they surveyed a number of elite military units and the marines as to whether the service members would fire on armed US citizens on US soil if ordered to do so. When 65% said they would refuse, the issue was dropped. Considering the way that the Clinton Justice department treated the Weaver family in Idaho and the Branch Davidians, I have no doubt that the liberals will try to disarm the US citizenry despite the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
June 4, 2006 - 10:57 PM on June 4th, 2006
These are the minimum standards that must be observed in order to protect our civil liberties. And the ACLU is standing by to guard our freedom!
These are the comments of a fool who lives in a fantasy land. Terrorists are not criminals, they are nonuniformed combatants in an undeclared war. Anything that can be done to capture them should be done. Because of this kind of idiocy, the 9/11 attack was successful. Without the Gorelick wall, Able Danger would’ve been able to provide the FBI with intelligence that former FBI director Louis Freeh agrees was actionable.
BTW Lenny under your minimum standards, does that include attempting to force someone to infiltrate a white supremacist group by filing trumped up charges against him? Does it include shooting a 14 yr old boy, and an unarmed woman holding an infant? Does it include filing murder charges against someone who never fired a weapon at them? Does it include protecting an FBI agent who carelessly fired through a door into a home with three children, hitting the mother holding the infant in the head? BTW Idaho filed murder charges against the FBI Agent but the Clinton justice department had them quashed saying that the agent had acted in his official capacities as an FBI agent.
Until the liberals learn that this is a WAR against an enemy who follows NO rules including those of their own religion, we will continue to have idiotic comments like this to respond to.
June 4, 2006 - 11:45 PM on June 4th, 2006
#9 FAO I seem to remember hearing about that at the time. I’m sure you’d agree with me that without the 2nd Amendment, the rest are effectively meaningless.
June 4, 2006 - 11:47 PM on June 4th, 2006
In fact the Anti-American Communist Liberals United (ACLU) is one of the greatest threats to America’s freedom. They are the most powerful and well organized of the boll weevils, doing their best to destroy America from within.
June 5, 2006 - 08:22 AM on June 5th, 2006
… my cold dead hands.
June 5, 2006 - 02:11 PM on June 5th, 2006
6, 12- John Galt and Robert, the ACLU helped Rush Limbaugh stay out of trouble. They filed a “friend fo the court” brief on his behalf.
As for monitoring, I know it’s hard to hear, but I would prefer to react to a terrorist attack than to have the government indiscriminantly monitor what I do. I believe that the essence of liberty is limited government, even when it’s inconvenient.
However, in deference to FrmrArtyOffcr, you’re right, this is an undeclared war by un-uniformed combatants. Habeas corpus is suspended on the battlefield. It’s cleary not possible to give due process to an army rushing towards our entrenched position. All I can say is that I hope we can find a balance, or we’ll lose our national identity in the process.
..Chuck..
June 5, 2006 - 03:21 PM on June 5th, 2006
14. Chuck, let me get this right,,,, you think it bad for us to listen in on conversations of people talking to people the NSA, CIA, and FBI know to be terrorist or linked to them…? Not every citizen, but those communicating with terrorist,,, aka the ENEMY.
June 5, 2006 - 03:30 PM on June 5th, 2006
Said Chuck- but I would prefer to react to a terrorist attack than to have the government indiscriminantly monitor what I do.
That is really sad Chuck! Take a look at the devastation of Oklahoma and multiply it by 3…I would just as asoon have them catch it before hand!
June 5, 2006 - 04:05 PM on June 5th, 2006
15 – John, absolutely positively without a doubt NOT the case. If you have probable cause to believe that someone is a terrorist, I believe they have NO right to privacy. The NSA, CIA and FBI should have unfettered access to all of their communications.
..Chuck..
June 5, 2006 - 04:42 PM on June 5th, 2006
16 – Peejz, the Constitution of the United States guarantees three things to all citizens: Life, liberty and the right to own property. It also mandates that none of those things can be taken without due process of law. It does not guarantee those rights to terrorists.
The problem is in separating the terrorists (aka enemy combatants) from the law abiding citizens. To that end, I will NOT give up any of the aformentioned rights in an effort to extinguish the terrorist threat. I would much prefer to live with my own son dying in a terrorist attack that is 100 times worse than Oklahoma City, than I would to see him grow up in a world that tracks and monitors his every move without due process of law.
“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
-General George S. Patton
Patton wasn’t speaking of civil rights in the above statement, but I think he’d agree that we shouldn’t kill the precious rights afforded to us by our forefathers in an effort to kill the enemy.
If you can stop a terrorist attack ahead of time without violating any of those rights, then so be it, that’s great! If not, then I’d prefer to suffer an attack before I suffer losing my liberty.
..Chuck..
June 5, 2006 - 05:02 PM on June 5th, 2006
Well Chuck, you and I are on opposite sides of the arguement. I am not giving up any liberties in having the NSA listen in on terrorists, and I am smart enough to refer to constitutional attornies that explain that our cell phones can be data mined. I am not willing to live through another 9/11. I am not willing to see the Jewish State eradicated from the face of the earth.
June 5, 2006 - 06:30 PM on June 5th, 2006
Peejz I never said I had a problem with three letter agencies listening in on terrorists. In fact, I encourage it, as long as due process has been observed.
As for data mining our cellphones, I’m not sure you understand what they’re truly doing. If a terrorist has a cellphone, the FBI/CIA/NSA/etc has a right and a duty to see those phone records and even listen in on the calls. If my number shows up on that record, then I’m immediately a suspect and they can, and should, get my phone records, lather-rinse-repeat. That is *NOT* data mining.
Data mining is when they download every call made from every cellphone in the entire US. Then they go through that list looking for patterns. From that, they can divine the social connections between anyone who uses a cellphone. This is wrong for at least four reasons (give me time and I can probably come up with more):
1. The government never got a warrant from a judge to look into *MY* phone records. Due process simply was not followed and it violates my 4th ammendment right to be “secure in my papers”.
2. If I choose to make public who my friends are, that’s my business. Unless I’ve committed a crime, the government has no business knowing who I call.
3. Despite their best efforts, that information WILL be used for non-terrorist-hunting reasons. It’s a fact of life that any information the government gathers will be misused after the original intent has been exhausted.
4. It’s a very short step down the slope to something slightly more intrusive, in the name of hunting down terrorists.
I do not want to see another 9/11 or the eradication of the Jewish State either, but less palatable to me is to see the revocation of my constitutional rights. Without those, this is no longer America and we might as well hang it up and hand our lives over to the facist dictators who “know what’s best for us”.
..Chuck..
June 5, 2006 - 08:28 PM on June 5th, 2006
Well Chuck, You have a great attitude, it’s just slightly misdirected in that the Supreme Court has already ruled on a law passed during the Clinton administration that telephone records belong to the telephone companies not to the individual. Therefore, they are not covered by the “Secure in his papers” portion of the 4th Amendment. They have been declared 3rd party records and the phone companies have been directed by statute to provide all assistance possible to the government in their regards. Of course since the statute is like so many others lacking in an enforcement capacity, the phone companies basically can refuse to comply with requests for records not backed up by a subpoena.
As for the NSA cell phone intercept program, the way that is supposed to work is that they are only eavesdropping on calls coming in from or going out to numbers either known to belong to suspected terrorists or to areas known to harbor terrorists. They are not monitoring calls inside the US, unlike the Clinton Echelon program.
Another thing to keep in mind about cell phones, technically they’re radio transmitters operating on publicly owned airwaves. The cell phone companies do not own the frequencies they operate on, the people of the US do. The cell phone service providers simply license the airwaves from the government who administers them for the people of the US. Technically the US government could simply require, as part of the licensing agreement, that any and all calls be made available for monitoring without warrant as a condition of the license. As long as the cell phone service provider informed the user of this change in terms of service, the only option that the user could do would be to not use a cell phone.
Honestly, now that the NSA program has been leaked (note to self: Shoot Jay Rockefeller if civil war/ revolution starts) the terrorists are probably using another means to call each other, or talk in code. If I were them, I’d sign up for comething like Vonage which would be damn near impossible to intercept because you’d never know where the calls would be coming from and if used from a lap top in a wi fi bubble (like the entire city of Tempe, AZ) would be next to impossible to pin down.
June 5, 2006 - 08:47 PM on June 5th, 2006
Chuck, Do you belong to the NRA? If you are worried about your constitutional rights being eroded, you should. They’ve been defending well defined (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) longer than the ACLU has been fighting to implement undefined rights like freedom from religion. If the US adopts the UN Convention on Small Arms, it will effectively eliminate the 2nd Amendment. For anyone who is interested, check out the StoptheUNgunban website.
Robert, you are absolutely right. Without the protection against tyranny afforded us by the 2nd Amendment, the other rights are meaningless. Without the means to defend them, they can be swept away with the stroke of a pen.
For the liberals and anyone else who doesn’t know, the single greatest killer of people over the last century has been their own government. Between Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot over 40,000,000 people were killed by their own government. Doesn’t that say a lot for totalitarian (1) and communist (3) regimes? Of course they all had to disarm the vast majority of their citizens first to do it. As one bumper sticker I’ve seen puts it: “A man with a gun is a citizen, a man without a gun is a subject.”
Chuck with that last bit of information to supplement your stated desire to prevent the US from becoming a fascist state are you going to come to Arizona for shooting practice? We also have an excellent school in Prescott. Gunsite is one of the premier shooting and self defense schools in the country. BTW doesn’t the very concept of “political correctness” fly in the face of civil liberties as it is in fact a form of speech censorship?
June 5, 2006 - 10:48 PM on June 5th, 2006
I have a great poster, at the to it says in large letters “The Experts Agree: Gun Control Works! Then below that is a rogue’s gallery of photos of the “Experts”. Hitler, Stalin, etc. Really puts things in perspective.
Reminds me of another saying: “What’s a Conservative? A Liberal who’s been mugged.” Well, not really right, but the meaning and the point is right on.
I have not yet ever heard one argument for banning guns that holds water, that cannot be torn to shreds. But the anti-2nd Amendment crowd just keep mindlessly bleating the same nonsensical arguments over and over and over, even though each and every one has been thoroughly defeated many times over.
June 6, 2006 - 12:01 AM on June 6th, 2006
21 – FrmrArtyOffcr some really good points there. I wasn’t aware that the supreme court upheld a law like that. I can see the reasoning behind it being 3rd party information, but I still don’t agree with it. It’s way too easy to “connect the dots” these days. I recommend reading some of what Bruce Schneier (schneier.com) has written on information and keeping it secure.
22 – I do not belong to the NRA, but thanks for the suggestion. I’m looking into it in another browser window as I type this. By the way, if you’re concerned about your electronic rights, I’d recommend you take a look at becoming a member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org).
As for shooting practice, I’d love to come to Arizona to take some shooting practice. Gunsite looks like a very interesting school (although their ammo prices seem to be a bit too high for my blood).
..Chuck..
June 6, 2006 - 08:49 PM on June 6th, 2006
Swing on down anytime. If you want cheap practice ammo, swing by a good sized gun show. I buy my practice ammo there in bulk. There’s a big one toward the end of July. Robert you’re invited too.
June 6, 2006 - 10:51 PM on June 6th, 2006
Thanks, FAO. Not sure how much travelling time I’ll get this summer due to strating a new business, but if I get down to AZ I’ll do so.
Where are you at? Phoenix area or Tucson area?
June 7, 2006 - 04:02 PM on June 7th, 2006
“If you can stop a terrorist attack ahead of time without violating any of those rights, then so be it, that’s great! If not, then I’d prefer to suffer an attack before I suffer losing my liberty.”
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
- Thomas Jefferson
June 7, 2006 - 06:04 PM on June 7th, 2006
And the relevance of states rights v federal rights would be of what value to this conversation SF?
STRENGTHENING THE STATE GOVERNMENTS
I shall hazard my own ideas to you as hastily as my business obliges me. I wish to preserve the line drawn by the federal constitution between the general & particular governments as it stands at present, and to take every prudent means of preventing either from stepping over it. Tho’ the experiment has not yet had a long enough course to shew us from which quarter encroachments are most to be feared, yet it is easy to foresee from the nature of things that the encroachments of the state governments will tend to an excess of liberty which will correct itself (as in the late instance) while those of the general government will tend to monarchy, which will fortify itself from day to day, instead of working its own cure, as all experience shews. I would rather be exposed to the inconve-niencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. Then it is important to strengthen the state governments: and as this cannot be done by any change in the federal constitution, (for the preservation of that is all we need contend for,) it must be done by the states themselves, erecting such barriers at the constitutional line as cannot be surmounted either by themselves or by the general government. The only barrier in their power is a wise government. A weak one will lose ground in every contest. To obtain a wise & an able government, I consider the following changes as important. Render the legislature a desirable station by lessening the number of representatives (say to 100) and lengthening somewhat their term, and proportion them equally among the electors: adopt also a better mode of appointing Senators. Render the Executive a more desirable post to men of abilities by making it more independant of the legislature. To wit, let him be chosen by other electors, for a longer time, and ineligible for ever after. Responsibility is a tremendous engine in a free government. Let him feel the whole weight of it then by taking away the shelter of his executive council. Experience both ways has already established the superiority of this measure. Render the Judiciary respectable by every possible means, to wit, firm tenure in office, competent salaries, and reduction of their numbers. Men of high learning and abilities are few in every country; & by taking in those who are not so, the able part of the body have their hands tied by the unable. This branch of the government will have the weight of the conflict on their hands, because they will be the last appeal of reason. — These are my general ideas of amendments; but, preserving the ends, I should be flexible & conciliatory as to the means. You ask whether Mr. Madison and myself could attend on a convention which should be called? Mr. Madison’s engagements as a member of Congress will probably be from October to March or April in every year. Mine are constant while I hold my office, and my attendance would be very unimportant. Were it otherwise, my office should not stand in the way of it. I am with great & sincere esteem, Dr Sir,
your friend & servt.
June 7, 2006 - 08:34 PM on June 7th, 2006
ohhh,,, smackdown goes to Peejz.