Perhaps, but I think the best way to measure the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the program is not the number of attacks that have slipped through, but the proportion of those that were prevented compared to those that slipped through.
This type of false thinking is what allows government officials to manipulate public thought into agreeing to give up their rights. This has literally led to the FBI radicalizing young men in order to 'catch them' in the act -- thus justifying their existence by creating the very black-swan event they are supposed to stop.
Either an informed electorate runs the country or the security services do. That sounds like a false dichotomy, but if all of the important information is classified, and voters are prevented from becoming informed (which is what the security services want)? I don't see how the system can continue to operate.
And that doesn't begin to address the catastrophic civil liberties problems the surveillance state brings. I'm just wondering who is in charge.
Didn't think so.
Apparently the defense counsel is also secret since they don't come out afterwards to say what happened to their clients. Assuming the prosecuted had defense counsel.