Even the presidentвЂ™s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies found that mass surveillance and bulk data collection was вЂњnot essential to preventing attacks.вЂќДЄccording to the congressional Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of Septemand the 9/11 Commission, the powers granted the NSA by the PATRIOT Act would not have prevented the 9/11 attacks. For example, the NSAвЂ™s claim that its surveillance programs thwarted 54 terrorist attacks has been widely discredited. The Headley case is not the only evidence that the PATRIOT Act and other post-9/11 sacrifices of our liberty have not increased our security. One former counter-terrorism official said when he heard that NSA surveillance was responsible for Headley's capture he вЂњwas trying to figure out how NSA played a role.вЂќ This is because, according to an investigation by ProPublica, NSA surveillance played an insignificant role in catching Headley. Saying a good end (capturing terrorists) justifies a bad means (mass surveillance) gives the government a blank check to violate our liberties.Д®ven if the Headley case somehow justified overturning the Fourth Amendment, it still would not justify mass surveillance and bulk data collection. For one thing, there is no вЂњterroristвЂќ exception in the Fourth Amendment. While few would argue that bringing someone like Headley to justice is not a good thing, HeadleyвЂ™s case in no way justifies mass surveillance. Headley played a major role in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 166 people. Apologists for the National Security Agency (NSA) point to the arrest of David Coleman Headley as an example of how warrantless mass surveillance is necessary to catch terrorists.

Usa freedom act s. rep.