Slashdot Mirror
NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for pointing out the testimony from NSA Director Michael Hayden, in which he talks about how the NSA worked pre-9/11 and post. And, as Bruce pointed out "...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety."
> where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world, after the Freemasons and the Elks. I'd be very surprised if this "interview" is anything but a very well-crafted propoganda campaign. Take everything he says with a large spoon of salt. Regardless of what they say about liberty, these people are not elected, so they have no incentive to protect your rights. Treat them as the enemy, and be ready to defend yourself when they come to haul you away for thoughtcrimes.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Despite the rhetoric from both sides, liberty and security are not mutually exclusive.
that the average American would want the line between liberty and safety drawn right at the national borders of the USA.
Ie the rest of the world is unsafe and the USA has liberty.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Counting on the government for saftey is like counting on them to spend your tax dollars wisely.
I choose Maximum Liberty. Please draw the line there.
Lets /. the government now, I'm sure that's a felony...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Wait, the last one isn't so much secretive as it is sad, lonely and pathetic.
I want Absolute Liberty: leave me the fsck alone unless I'm violating your rights.
Write to your senators. Write to your representative. Hell, write to your governors and state legislatures, just make it clear that you're not in favour of further restrictions on our rights.
Senators can be found here:
U.S. Senate Home
Representatives can be found here:
Representative Member Directory
If you do this, you have some form of say in our government, or at least a chance at influence. Don't waste it.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
With millions of cargo shipments coming in and thousands of planes in the air daily there's no way to secure it. The plans we've come up with seem similar to Microsoft's plans for 'Security'... i.e. The US governement seems to be securing their position rather than securing the people. I'd rather live in fear of terrorism than fear of the US government, something that's becoming more fearful everyday.
put the what in the where?
1 Eliminate civil liberties making security
:)
2
3 FREEDOM!
[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
This is not good enough. Because liberty is a more abstract concept than security, people tend to choose security on the principle that only criminals have something to hide ... until their liberty is eroded to the extent that it causes them problems, by which time it is too late to go back.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
How about drawing the line between liberty and safety at that spot where it isn't necessary to give up one for the other. We shouldn't have to give up liberties to feel safe or give up safety to feel free. There are numerous alternatives to the invasive procedures that Congress is allowing/considering. Maybe starting with better communication within the government agencies that feel as though we should be stripped of OUR liberties to make THEM feel safe.
Most respected IT professionals will state in private that they are hindered by their über vendor lock-in to the Microsoft Windows operating system and its draconian EULA. I don't have to point out to you that the software that runs these Fortune 500 companies is the backbone that holds American together. By making the move to Gnu/RedHat which is a non oppressive backbone, the Chineese government has jumped by leaps and bounds ahead in the race for global control.
I did some consulting work for the current Chinese regime and I can tell you with great certainty that the anti-American Zeitgiest is in full force and they have actually started a new political party, the GNU party, (inspired by the GNU software license) which claims to be for all things anti-American and pro socialism. The membership growth of the GNU party is Olog(n) which is several orders of magnitude higher than the population growth rate. I don't have to tell you what this, coupled with their freedom to innovate with the Linux operating system, means to democracy. The end is near. The paradigm shift should have all American Congressmen shaking in their plush leather chairs right now.
The only hope I see for America is for them to act quickly and make a government wide move to freeBSD or openBSD. It will surely take the Chinese several months to configure their Linux copmuters (remember, you still have to hand edit the resolv.conf file by hand to get them to work and it's a well known fact that Chinese are not very intelligent) so the US has a couple months before they start to feel the heat from the new Chinese regime. We can still save Democracy if we as a country act now!!
If security matters to the US then they will address this immediatly.
Wagner LLC Consulting Co. - Getting it right the first time
What do you mean "draw the line"? I have the patent for that, if you want to draw a line start opening your wallet.
rm -rf /home/leia
I want enough liberty to be able to use FreeBSD and enough saftey to be protected from these linux zealots!
Don't mod me, bro'!!!!
So they knew prior to 9/11 that something was going to happen, but waited until 9/12 to report it. Damn, this country is responsive.
Governments all around the world have been using the horrible events of September 11th to take away the rights guaranteed their citizens. It is not true, though, that giving up our rights actually makes us more secure.
Every time someone looks at the United States and wrongly believes that we live under a despotic and evil government, the world becomes a bit more dangerous for Americans. The sort of person who thinks that the United States is a horrible place is far more likely to be supportive to the insanity of radical-Islamist terrorism.
On the other hand, every time someone looks to the United States and envies our elections, our freedoms, our optimism, that is a victory in the war on terrorism. And with enough victories like that, I think that the world can truly become a safer place.
We already slashdotted the Department of Justice, the other day, with this story...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
... on Tuesday.
Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT.
Be careful what you wish for, USACITIZEN.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I know that violating people's civil liberties including taking away their right to speech, privacy and due process makes it easier for law enforcement, but aside from being unconstitutional, it's also bad policework.
If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through. If you tap everyone's phone, then you become bogged down in terabytes of data -- most of which is useless. If you suppress the speech of the hate mongers and racists, then you don't know who is a hate monger or racist.
Civil liberties aren't just respectful of constitutional and human rights, they also help law enforcement do their job right. So don't ask for a line to be drawn. Try playing by the rules instead.
CAN we draw a line distinguishing safety and liberty?
Through liberty.. there will always be safety.. in the sense that.. someone (the government) will always control our liberty.. and at the same time a government will do all it can to protect its country, even if it includes hindering our liberty.
If one were to go around chanting anti-american remarks and burning the flag, by the Constitutional law.. they have every right to do that, but our government will see it as a threat and most likely arrest the individual.
Unfortunately, freedom and safety are both two very strenuous issues when being discussed together, but as far as "the line" goes.. I personally don't think a line can be drawn..
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
""...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety." "
Why don't you just intercept their constituents' phone calls, email, web traffic, faxes, pages, and all other forms of electronic communications, and then you'll know exactly what they want.
Oh.. wait..
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They crossed it about 5 minutes later when the Patriot Act passed. And don't kid yourselves, it has been said the patriot act is supposed to be somewhat limited and a temp measure....Yeah Right a Temp measure like the Federal Income Tax was supposed to be when it passed...
Honestly I scared...of all of the things going on...Homeland Security is a term that scares the hell out of me....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
. ....Anyday.
I'll take my chances here, just so long as every time they hit us here, the miserable filthy rat bastards that plan, finance and harbor these immoral vermin get it back 100 times over.
Use all the daisycutters and hellfires you need, we'll make more.
.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
no matter how they restrict our liberties for the sake of protection, a determined individual or group will ALWAYS find a way. i'm willing to take the risk.
Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!
As if it's not on the tip of everyone's tongue, we all know one thing: the 9/11 attacks, like every war catalyst for the past century, were allowed to happen.
9/11 is in the same category as the sinking of the Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, and the Gulf of Tonkin: the government either conspired to create or simply let happen the catastrophe to spur the public into war.
Why? Because America needs war to sustain its multinational corporations, and the Bush administration has an agenda of tyranny. We are trying to secure the next 50 years of energy through securing the middle east and central asia with dictators who represent our corporate interests, and we're losing our rights every day to Bush's schemes.
The NSA may have changed their ways, but the senior leadership obviously knew of the plot and let it happen -- the workers there were simply blindfolded to what was truly going on. The entire pdf file is full of lies, deceit, and spin to cover up what really went on at the NSA.
There are a myriad of questions that have been raised (see links below), and we may never know the answers to them.
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/bushkn.html - Bush Knew!
http://www.rense.com/Datapages/inv911.html - 911 Datapage
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm - an indictment of Rumsfeld, Myers, and Bush
Oh, and fix the flag.gif please -- I may hate the government, but I love this country.
Malvo will probably not get the death penalty because he is a minor, but I could be wrong on that, because I know he faces federal charges as well.
Would the constituents be the people of the US, the businesses of the US, or both? The goals of businesses are different from people: businesses don't want individual privacy because it hinders their ability to market.
Since Congress has to answer to both, I wonder if they are the best group to answer Director Hayden's question. Perhaps this is an executive decision.
This is like saying that we need to draw the line between electricity use and pollution. Wrong. We need to innovate. The answer to a security issue isn't to take away freedoms to make it easier on us; the answer is to use more advanced methods to maintain privacy and liberty AND enhance security.
While the question is phrased that way -- liberty vs safety -- it's the only question we can answer. If we say: liberty is inviolate, now how else do we protect people? Then that question may be answered instead.
I voted. I voted for Libertarian candidates because I, like many people here, believe that the less intrusive government is, the better.
Writing letters and making phone calls only goes so far. No matter how many letters or phone calls legislators receive, it's still the same person who ignores them. The real solution is to get these people out of office and elect people who are more likely to give our concerns a voice.
So the next time you feel that our legislators truly aren't looking out for our interests, get your ass out of your chair and vote.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
The state has really started a disturbing trend in that regard. Despite the fact that Malvo has never been deemed legally responsible enough to drink, buy smokes, or vote, he's going to to be "charged as an adult" because it's more convenient or something. The message from the state is unambiguous: "No, he is not responsible enough. Yes, he is responsible enough."
I can NO LONGER stand idly by and allow Communist infiltration, Communist subversion...
s/Communist/NSA/, whatever...
My real concern puts the issue about where to draw the line between security and liberty off to the side: I'm more concerned about the United States being effective once we decide to act.
We're too concerned about the "world opinion" from nations we barely respect or who have historically been shown to be liars.
it's
"it's" is a contraction of the words "it is".
thank you.
Will somebody PLEASE mod this fucking troll down? This tired, rehearsed drivel detracts from an otherwise meaningful discussion.
How much of our freedom do we sacrifice for safety? Either all or none. Freedom doesn't come in variable quantities, ladies and gentlemen. You have it, or you don't. And as much as we'd like to think otherwise, so long as there are Osamas, we will never be free. We'll either be slaves to the tyranny or slaves to bureaucracy.
"During that session I even said without exaggeration on my part or complaint on yours that if Usama bin Laden crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, New York, U.S. law would give him certain protections that I would have to accommodate in the conduct of my mission. And now the third open session for the Director of NSA: I am here explaining what my Agency did or did not know with regard to 19 hijackers who were in this country legally."
It seems then, that the safest place for a terrorist to hide would be in US.
My cadre of fighters will overthrough all of you, silly pork-eating infidels!
Oh yes.. the Jews don't eat pork, but we'll get them too. Don't think you're safe if you're a vegetarian, we especially hate those. Tofu loving capitalists!
Best regards,
Osama
Every time someone looks at the United States and wrongly believes that we live under a despotic and evil government, the world becomes a bit more dangerous for Americans. The sort of person who thinks that the United States is a horrible place is far more likely to be supportive to the insanity of radical-Islamist terrorism.
If people thought the United States was a horrible place, they'd be more likely to completely ignore it! Do you give a shit about(insert currently-miserable-African country who I give so little a shit about that I can't name it)? Didn't think so.
how about thanking the USA for saving your ass in World War I and II..
and learn how to spell.. teh is the and its is it's
This not only applies to issues pertaining to the west's battle with Islamism, but also applies to all of the socialist safety nets governments feel they must create for us.
And particularly in America it applies to the economic destruction wreaked on us by trial lawyers. (Read Chocolate)
There are so many physical risks and dangers in this world and we'll never be able to crush, legislate and/or sue them out of existence.
I personally think Michael Hayden stated the issue he faces, and we all face, extremely clearly, and thereby did us all a favor. I also think Benjamin Franklin drew the line where it needs to be drawn -- do not sacrifice essential liberty at all, and especially not for temporary safety.
The task we face is to determine which liberties are essential. I'd start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience and expression. The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power.
I'd also point to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as important. We must not carelessly and capriciously deny due process to those whom we suspect. Historically, when we have, we've done no good -- for the others or ourselves. (Remember the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?)
Does anyone see anything important I've missed?
Catherine
There is no reason that I can see that our current liberties have to be compromised in order to obtain safety.
Snooping through libraries and e-mail are not going to stop someone from planting bombs in a school, or from hijacking a plane.
For liberty and security to exist simultaniously, the USA should set up a big firewall limitting what comes in. If you don't let terrorists in, then they can't really do anything here.
Once the flow of malicious packets into the USA has been controlled, then all they need to worry about are malice packets being sent from inside the US.
Instead of everyone running around as root, and the government trying to intercept their malice commands by taking away liberty, give the users essentially chmod 777 over their own directory, but keep the root applications out of reach.
You should not cure the symptom, but the source. Screening at the airport for metal is not a cureall. Instead, put the pilots on the plane in such a fashion that they cannot be accessed. If a terrorist brings a knife, gun, or bomb on board, the plane can not be used as a weapon.
Stop terrorists from r00ting the US and 0wning j00!
Draw the line between liberty and safety where it was on September 10, 2001.
It was not lack of security infrastructure that "allowed" the 9/11 attack. We had the infrastructure in place.
The hostile conspiracy had been testing the vigilance (or lack thereof) of the airport security screenings to _measure_ their complacency.
The hostile conspiracy was using techniques to keep their plans secret that would still work even if the present levels of internet monitoring and envelope steaming had been in place.
We have not really gained security. Observe that the perpetrator of the Anthrax letters still hasn't been identified, much less caught. Observe that the 2nd worst attack on U.S. territory, in OK City, was perpetrated by a U.S. citizen who used a rented panel truck. Safety still is just as illusory as it was before 9/11.
What has changed is that we've sacrificed liberty (or had it sacrificed for us) to create the image of security, without any real gains in security. Heavens, even Ashcroft admitted that U.S. agression abroad would probably increase our risk of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Security is not the objective. Control is the objective.
Draw the line between security and safety where it was before. We'd spent 35 years of hard civil liberties work to keep the words "national security" from being carte blanche for the abuse of our civil rights. Now we've got to regain that progress all over again. We _will_ regain it, even if it takes another 35 years to relearn the lessons.
After they draw that line, maybe they can sign their death certificate on it. This place is falling apart quickly and these goons are trying to secure the best spot as the house of cards falls.
Give me liberty or give me death. That seems pretty straight forward to me. If I have to die because I have freedom, so be it. I'm not gonna give it away, just so I can be "safe" and comfortably numb. That's where my line is drawn.
I have one word to describe "intelligence.senate.gov" - oxymoron.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither!"
Is it not possible that, having already made the decision for security over liberty back in the 1970's when the tools of self defense were banned from aircraft (and post offices, and schools, I might add), these formerly free United States had become a haven for terrorists without any help from the NSA?
Didn't anybody ever watch "Red Dawn?"
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Sheesh, where do folks get goofy ideas like this? Travel, see the world! There are a thousand places I'd rather be than one of the scarier parts of Boston, Chicago, New York, DC (and yes I've often been to or lived in these places). It says something about how the rest of the world is mostly OK, and much of our world sadly is not.
And, anyway, "security" here includes security from one's own gov't -- one of the fundsmental concepts the Revolutionary War was fought over, and the Bill of Right designed to address.
Michael is a trolling cunt
It's crucial to your argument. Like Peter and Paul.
"I then gave the NSA workforce a challenge: We were going to keep America free by making Americans feel safe again."
This could be interpreted a number of ways, but it seems as though he realizes the biggest threat to civil liberties comes from scared citizens.
I dont want congress to ask their constituents: look at what the contituency has done, elected G W pres and given him both parts of the legilature for him to play with. most people don't realize the freedom they have until the lose it
I'm sure many of the previous respondents to this story will disagree with me, but reading this guy's transcript he seems to be well aware of the sort of concerns raised and is asking for guidance on how to appropriately balance liberty and security.
It is easy to criticise but we do so from a comfortable armchair.
The context in which this guy is operating in is that he along with many people outside the US are fighting a war. They deserve our support and understanding.
Why don't we try a bit of constructive advice?
I am not an American citizen but spent Sep 11 last year in Washington.
Jesus Christ, this is probably one of the most intelligent comments I've seen posted on Slashdot...
You said it perfectly, Omega
That they would even ask. Personally I think they have exceeded their limitations. In the Constitution we have basic rights spelled out.
It's amazing how clearly those rights are stated and how quickly we're willing to give them up for a "feeling" of safety without actually being safer (the 1st and 4th for example)
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
and NO.. i AM NOT a racist!!
Then why the need to refer to them as niggers?
Intelligent life found in the US government! Quick, lets vote him into presidency before he gets away!
Disclamer: I am in no way infering that the current president is not intelligent...
yeah...
>.>
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Yeah, it was so nice of you guys to wait OVER 2 YEARS before you got involved in the war in Europe. And even then, you only did it because the Japanese attacked your forward military base in the pacific.
I'm sure the other people who went through the american school system applaud your thoughts. I'm sure the Poles, Danes, French, et al, who died while the US sat by and said "Not our war" have a different view.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Themself are one, do draw a line would be to destroy both.
Don't tell me I'm naive. I'm not.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Then why the need to refer to them as niggers?
Its much easier to type "nigger" than it is "obsolete farm machinery"
is that
Michael is a trolling cunt.
Shouts out to all the Slashdot trollerifics out there. You've inspired me, and this is my way of giving back. Fight the power!
"Of course the income of the top 2% of the country would drop significantly, but hell, we could live without them and their United Defense shares anyway"
No, you couldn't. Its a fact that the top 2% fund MUCH of the investment taken on in this country as well as others. I get so tired of people acting like the "wealth" of this nation does NOTHING positive for the country. The fact is, the "wealth" of this nation is what provides the initial funding for much of what you see around you. That's capitalism. Sorry.
Then compile a complete list of all know past abuses by the US goverment in regards to abuse of power and the like.
Document your work. Do not include anything that can not be proven. If you do, the critics will use those items to write off the entire report.
Intelligence.senate.gov
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Xaotik Designs
The NSA guy actually makes a pretty good point that the current regulations came from another traumatizing event: Law enforcement running mild counter terrorism domestically with regard to antiwar and black nationalist movements during and right after the vietnam war. The Vietnam war + Watergate was very tramatic and the result was legislation and regulation which weakend law enforcement.
I wish these issues could up in some normal time like 3 years ago when nobody was traumatized in either direction. The problem is then nobody cares.
Body of Secrets is a captivating book, The Puzzle Palace, I considered somewhat dry. These two books however are the best intelligence available on the best intelligence agency that we can legally get our hands on.
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
... did the abrogation of other people's rights become a matter of polling one's constituents? Look semitic? Practicing muslim? Now being searched and fingerprinted is official policy. Check out the wrong books at the library? Official policy to notify the authorities.
I don't give a tinkers damn that my neighbors said this treatment was okay, even if they outnumber me. A constitutional republic is not about two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The worry is that information intelligence agencies gained can be used against minor crimes like someone with a secret drug habit, or speeding, or whatever.
I'm very much for privacy as a basic civil right. But I think we have to ask the difficult question of what privacy is. And that hasn't been asked.
Yeah.
The 9th and the 10th which pretty explicitly limit federal powers to those granted to it by the people, while reserving those not explicitly graned to the states and the people.
Unforuntately, the 9 idiots on the bench have effectively destroyed both of these amendments, and are doing a bangup job on the 4th.
We, in the US, live in a climate of fear that has been nurtured by our government and the media for a very long time. We have ignored many of the problems in nations throughout the world and focused on being the toughest MF'er on the block. As king of the heap, we have to protect our position. In order to do that we have to justify it to the American people by daily demonstrating the need for that protection--that everyone is out to get us. It becomes a catch-22 situation. The need for security and the means of ensuring that security creates an ever increasing need for more security. Of course, ultimately, our rights must suffer.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
-- Heisenberg might have slept here.
Privacy is also the cornerstone of the right to abortion and birth control. Regardless of how you feel about these things, the significance of loss of privacy in this matter can't be overestimated.
Finding God in a Dog
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said something to the effect of, "A society which trades liberty [freedom] for security [safety] will have neither."
Personally, I don't care if NSA spys on folks in other countries. Those people aren't protected by the US Constitution, and if they have a problem with being spied on, then they can deal with it.
However, I don't want Big Brother reading my emails, listening to my phone calls, or otherwise intruding on my life without at least porbable cause to do so and an appropriate court-ordered search warrant for such observation.
In short, if we allow the "terrorist threat" to undermine our civil liberties, then the terrorists win and we lose.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
First we should start by questioning the assumption that loss of liberty even will buy us safety.
This needs to be done, on a point-by-point basis for each and every liberty that is being compromised. In engineering decisions there's always 'nice to have' and 'must have'. There are also times when the customer is asking for the wrong thing, and you can give a different solution that satisifes him even better than what he'd asked for. As far as I can see, current liberty/security tradeoffs appear to be a shopping list, without effectiveness review or modifications.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
>>The US government seems to be securing their position rather than securing the people.
Terrorism is the act of attacking a government through it's society/people. In the case of 9/11 the enemy sought to decapitate our country by attacking financial, government, and military leadership. It is the responsibility of a government to defend it's citizen's so in fact that "recognized" governments are those with license to use force. Terrorism would be the unauthorized use of force. Our current enemy chose to attack not only the people, but the government as well to make their statement. So naturally the government will need to protect it's self to ensure that it is around to protect it's people.
Life moves pretty fast; if you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it. -FB
Fact check time:
First, the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor was not simply against a "forward military base", it was an attack against American soil (Hawaii was a territory) and was accompanied (although belatedly) by a Japanese declaration of war against the U.S. and had nothing whatsoever to do with the war in Europe.
Second, the war in Europe which had been underway for a couple of years by that time was, indeed, "not our war". One European nation invading another did not make it an American concern. Popular American sentiment was very strongly against getting involved in yet another war which did not touch American soil.
Note that Europeans during this time (and also 25 years earlier before WWI) very much wanted Americans to interfere in European affairs by coming over to fight the bad guys for them.
As an exercise for the would-be historian, compare and contrast European attitudes in 1941 to the current European view of American policy.
How do you know they have no secret agenda? Are you under the impression that they would tell you about it if they had?? Then it wouldn't be secret, would it? Or did you ask them if they had one, and they said no?
Try to tell a court judge you won't accept his judgment because you didn't vote for him.
Is that an argument for why he shouldn't be considered the enemy? Cuz I wouldn't expect any enemy to care if I elected him either.
Whoa, they have to ask Disney AND the oil industry? Unprecedented!
(PS: It's a joke. Please don't tap my phone line.)
i forget, which side during that war was winning before the US joined? im pretty sure it was germany, i could be wrong though... dont be angry be greatful
Escape
Until the Japanese attacked our bases, it WASN'T our war, thank you.
B.G.A.T.(Billy Goats Against Trolls) is proud to announce that SexyKellyOsbourne has made our most wanted list. Normally it is pretty hard for us to prove our case against such people. But Ms. Osbourne has taken special care to ensure that the world knows she is a troll. Example #1 Right from her own journal. As much as B.G.A.T. would like to take credit for this, it does all come right from the trolls mouth!That one wasn't enough to convince you. How about This one? And then there is this one. She has also taken a moment to tell her something about herself. A quick glance at her posting History tells it all. Here is one of my favorites. Just have a look at the people on her FOE LIST. She has to go! So please take this time to spend just one mod point to keep this genital wart on society out of sight. MOD HER DOWN AS A TROLL!!!! Not because I said so, but remeber she is a self confesed troll.
B.G.A.T Mission Statement
The writing of this post makes me seriously wonder whether this is a troll. Something about that last sentence sounds like words from a Miss America candidate's mouth. Nonetheless, assuming you're serious, I would argue just the opposite of your position.
One of the main reasons people in other countries hate America is that we preach democracy, but export anything but to the rest of the world. Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers came from, is not a democracy. Rather, it's a monarchy propped up by the US government and its dependency on oil. Wouldn't you be pissed if one of your country's stronger allies had a democratic government but handed over billions of dollars a year to your government that threw you in jail for even mentioning how nice democracy might be.
For other examples of the US supporting (if not outright creating) non-democratic regimes, see Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Much of Central and South America and probably numerous others I'm forgetting right now.
In addition, I would argue that one of the primary purposes of last year's attack was to bring the choas that exists in so many parts of the world to the US's front door, if even temporarily. Remember that bin Laden is a strong crusader for palestinian rights and has stated his anger that America regularly ignores the choas and bloodshed of the region. He wanted the American people and politicians to feel the same sense of uncertainty and overwhelming dread that citizens of Palestine face on a constant basis.
You don't have to forgive or excuse to understand terrorism, but you have to understand it to defeat, defuse, undermine or otherwise declare "victory" in the war on terrorism.
How about we keep what we have written down in the amendments to the consitution? Allow us law-abiding citizens to bear arms, allow us to say what we want, meet wherever we want, and do basically anything we want.
Once someone crosses the line and breaks the law, prosecute them to the full extent of the law. Let's not go lenient on these people. But let's not violate the "not guilty until proven" idea.
If they are not a citizen of our country, let's treat their crimes a foreign threat. If several people from one country band together and try to blow up our buildings or citizens, then let's send airplanes and tanks to that country and explain that we don't like that. Let's stop being fools and closely examine every existing immigrant from that country -- especially the non-citizens.
Oh, by the way, people who are not citizens of the US should not be treated as such. If you come to my country, and you say things like "Hahaha. I laugh at your tragedy" you should be kicked out forever. However, a citizen has the right to say that, and even more dangerous things, up until they begin helping the enemy. It's like in a family. The husband and wife can say what they want, but if some guy walks in the house and isn't polite, they are going out the door.
And here's another idea: When a foreign invader attacks our homeland, let's wipe them off the face of the earth. Let's beat the crap out of them until they don't have the power to harm us anymore. I'll feel a lot safer when I know that China, Iraq, North Korea doesn't have nukes but countries like the USA, Great Britain, and our allies do. If Great Britain turns on us, let's put them on the "waiting list" along with Iraq and the others. Bottom line: You want guns, you'll have to show you are responsible enough to have them. As far as the US is concerned, we have left peace in the wake of our wars. You can't say that about very many other countries.
Anyone inside of our country who helped them should be tried according to the crime of "treason" if they are a citizen, and treated as a prisoner of war if they are not.
Heck, when a foreign power looks at us funny and makes threatening gestures, like building weapons of mass destruction and telling people they will use it to blow up America, let's wipe them out as if they carried out those gestures. Let's not play games with foreign policy.
Gee, let's just keep the laws that are on the books, especially the ones that do with immigration and citizen's rights.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
"...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety."
Phew, for a second there I though it actually said they can best help him by turning their back on their constituents.
Fair enough. Which US base did Iraq attack again? I can't seem to recall.
And no, the North/South no-fly zones don't count as "your bases". Thanks for playing.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Well I am not sure how these statistics will give you relevent info. These crimes were commited by a lot of individuals for a lot of different reasons instead of by an organized effort. Uniform Crime Reports - 2001
Also the crime reports do not specify whether they were shot in the street or inside a house or other structure.
I know a fair number of people that live in trailer parks but I do not know any violent ones although I'm sure there are some.
Perhaps, since statistics show that most murders are the results of arguments we should bomb all the arguers. I dare you to contradict that logic.
Coding Blog
Actually, the Japanese declaration of war came the day BEFORE Pearl Harbour, but was put in a diplomatic pouch and not delivered to Washington in time. I don't have the appropriate links handy from work, but if you aren't frothing in Pro-American sentiment, it might be informative to take a look.
And, if we're looking at American attitudes, lets look. Millions of people die, countries crumble, the Third Reich takes over most of Europe... America sits by. A ship under American flag gets sunk by a U-Boat... and america goes to war. Thank goodness for priorities!
And if by "coming over to fight the bad guys for them", you mean "begging you to save their lives from the Reich, which got powerful again because you didn't live up to your promises from the WW1", then yes, I agree.
Yes, the US made good contributions to the war, as did many other countries. But if you think you single-handedly saved the universe, then it's time you went back to your comic book.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Sadly this is a lie:
http://64.177.75.218/completetimeline/index.htm
In brief: you're being lied to by the GOP-bought, U$ media. Read the international internet newsfeeds and get the facts straight. Whether it was SIGINT or another source CIA/NSA/FBI/FAA/NORAD/awacs knew in advance and so did Bu$h's advisors. They knew as early as 2000 when the terrorists met in Malaysia and possibly prior to that.
Why/how did 9/11 happen? Because a small group of people wanted and still want to rekindle the military-industrial complex and WWIII and make money with mercs and defense contractors. Follow the dollars.
I say that and then--> Did anyone notice how quickly arrests were made RIGHT after 9/11 based on phone calls that took place on 9/11? So either we had a lot of taps already in place or...
Maybe something else happened, but I thought it was interesting. What I thought was even more interesting was that I didn't hear anyone asking any questions...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
THATS NOT THE POINT. The point is that our American legal system is based upon the idea that people are free to do what they like as long as they don't harm anyone else, they are innocent until proven guilty, and that you dont search/seize/surveill or anything else to a person if you don't have a very very strong body of evidence to suggest that they were doing something illegal. When you start tracking the whole population because 2% of them are doing something seriously harmful then you are using punitivie punishment. Lets set aside the fact that the majority of terrorist are not us citizens, and we don't need any new or special laws to eavesdrop on them. I am all for snooping on foreign nationals because our constitution technically only protects citizens, but to carry this over to everyday US citizens is treading on dangerous ground. You can make a herd of panicked cows run off a cliff if your timing is right and people are the same way. You can make them sign away their life if you tell them it will save them from the eye of the storm. Add to this that in an average day, the average person breaks over 50 laws. If you want to live in a place where big brother is there to enforce every last nitpicky law then I feel for you. On top of this, many of our laws have been railroaded through by special interests, and 90% of the people don't support them, never voted for them, and don't want them. The result is they arent enforced for long (see prohibition). If you start cracking down on all laws and using big brother tactics then we may as well just reanimate josef stalin right now and make pol pot our vp. We can keep ashcroft though because hes already a fascist. I'll never know how a man who lost his senate race to a dead man, can then be sucessfully appointed to such a powerful position just my 2 bits anyhow.
As I see it from outside, liberty is making progress in the US in the last times.
I mean President Bush's liberty to screw his own people and the rest of the world.
I have had enough of the NSA! The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this letter, but the conclusion's general outline is that if the NSA has spurred us to build a society in which people have a sense of permanence and stability, not chaos and uncertainty, then the NSA may have accomplished a useful thing. I imagine that the NSA says that the Eleventh Commandment is, "Thou shalt challenge all I stand for". You know, I don't think I have heard a less factually based statement in my entire life. The NSA has garnered enough support to consign most of us to the role of its servants or slaves but not enough support to till the cruel side of the racism garden. This is the flaw in its "compromises". It doesn't understand that we must anneal discourse with honesty, clear thinking, and a sense of moral good. Our children depend on that.
If I hear the NSA's henchmen say, "It's okay for the NSA to indulge its every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole" one more time, I'm truly going to throw up. The NSA coins polysyllabic neologisms to make its rantings sound like they're actually important. In fact, its treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. If we are to rage, rage against the dying of the light, then we must be guided by a healthy and progressive ideology, not by the anti-democratic and stubborn ideologies that the NSA promotes. Oddly enough, it is no accident that evidence exists to suggest that since their emergence on the stage of history, the worst kinds of neo-disgusting pickpockets there are have been a parasitic growth on the stem of true citizens. Stranger still, it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to operate on today's real -- not tomorrow's ideal -- political terrain.
In a similar vein, the NSA wants nothing less than to spit in the face of propriety, hence its repeated, almost hypnotic, insistence on the importance of its incoherent memoirs. As another disquieting tidbit, the following must be stated: The NSA keeps trying to promote the sort of behavior that would have made the folks in Sodom and Gomorrah blush. And if we don't remain eternally vigilant, it will doubtlessly succeed. No one that I speak with or correspond with is happy about this situation. Of course, I don't speak or correspond with uppity Huns, the NSA's satraps, or anyone else who fails to realize that the NSA's fibs manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: outrage the very sensibilities of those who value freedom and fairness. Phase two: torment, harry, and persecute anyone who crosses its path. The NSA's half-measures are in every respect consistent with the school of useless thought that tends to gain a respectable foothold for the NSA's politically incorrect, raucous prank phone calls. Lastly, I can't end this letter without mentioning that it is the height of arrogance and untruthfulness for the NSA to imply that the only way to expand one's mind is with drugs -- or maybe even chocolate.
The second amendment - your Homeland Security - was clearly intended to defend against roving marauders and bears, which were more common at the time. We have Police now.
Put another way... do you really think that if the US government suddenly, maliciously turned on it's citizens, an armed citizenry would prevent this? Really?
Sorry for the troll. I just can't understand this attachment to guns.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
"When in doubt, don't."
Benjamin Franklin
"We enact many laws that manufacture criminals, and then a few that punish them."
Allen Tucker
Just because the government says something is wrong, doesnt make it wrong. Just because we think taking away our own freedoms might prevent more violence, doesnt mean we should strip ourselves of that which we (I) value most.
Do you think that the American Revolution could have happened under the PATRIOT act? The Homeland Security Act?
We need just as much security as it takes to insure that another revolution CAN happen IF we need it to.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals."
Did anyone notice that the majority (roughly 1000 of 1400 detainees) of those detained after 9/11 were innocent? And spent months in jail, subject to degrading, abusive treatment, with no representation, and little, if any, contact with the outside world?
And all of this was with no regard to due process?
Is anyone else bothered by that?
As a child I was taught it was a noble thing that the first Americans had a slogan "give me liberty or give me death" which confuses me on how I should feel that the current common mentality is "take away whatever liberty you have to, just please make me feel safe."
I think those forefathers would be very, very disappointed if they were still alive today.
Or maybe htye just pulled a bunch of "towelheads" they had been sitting on for years to give the public something to burn in effigy and appear to be working quickly an efficiently.
-no broken link
Security and Liberty are absolutely two different entities with a thick black line between them. Only when we become fearful does that line turn grey.
Only when we fear others would giving liberty to someone else be equated with infringing on your security. Then you want liberties to be removed so others become constrained. But alas, you too are an 'other' so you are constained as well. Being secure != liberty.
If we had no fear, liberty would be given freely, to everyone. And because we don't fear, we don't need security. And if you don't need security, are you not then secure? (If you say no, then think about why you would be insecure - is it from fear?)
What you have to remember is that the NSA is outside the firewall, so to speak.
They get to monitor everything, then they follow certain rules as to what information they are allowed to report to other agencies.
The FBI, CIA, DOJ and DOD are their biggest customers, and all three have to prove that there is a need to know when they want information on a U.S. national. If proof is not shown, the information is censored -- every name is changed to "U.S. Person".
There is a long history of the NSA getting into fights with other agencies over this, hense the formation of the FISC, the main oversight committee.
What the NSA is really saying here is, 'Look, citizens, Ashcroft wants to stomp on your rights -- do something about it before it's too late.'
Sorry, you failed the fact check.
The Japanese declaration of war against the U.S. was scheduled to be delivered to the U.S. Secretary of State by the Japanese ambassador to the U.S. shortly before the attack on Pearl Harbor commenced on a Sunday morning. Due to bungling at the Japanese Embassy and the lack of staff at the State Department on a weekend, the actual declaration wasn't delivered until after the attack had started.
And again, the war in Europe was not our business until an American vessel was attacked. Did FDR want to get involved in the war prior to that? Yes. Did he have a legitimate reason to? No. Again, the vast majority of Americans were strongly opposed to fighting another stupid war in Europe and at that time the president did not yet have the power to initiate war without the specific approval of Congress (which holds the constitutional power to declare war). If FDR had the powers then that G.W. has now, he'd have gotten the U.S. involved much earlier. Note that in 1939, Europeans would have thought this to be a good thing, now they don't.
I'm guessing that you're thinking of the American withdrawl from the fledgling League of Nations. Too bad the Europeans couldn't find a way to manage themselves without American intervention. Oh, and don't forget that the stupid French and English insistence on massive reparations by the Germans at the end of WWI kept Germany in a state of financial ruin so extreme that they finally voted for Hitler because he promised to get them on their feet again. Note also that he did so and promptly decided to get even with the French and English - and would have done so very handily without U.S. interference.
Creative Uses for 9-11
"Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there is an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being by their world government." Henry Kissinger, June 8, 1992, Evian, France,
"With roughly 100 new stories warning of terrorism in the mainstream media just today, the possibility cannot be ignored that the American people are being pre-conditioned to accept as real a terrorist event manufactured by our own government, a terrorist event no more real than those created by powerful leaders through the ages to sell an agenda to a populace which would otherwise not accept it." Dictatorship through Deception by Michael Rivero, First posted on New Republic Forum Xmas 'Eve 1999
Operation Garden Plot
Operation Garden Plot
ABC News: Operation Northwoods
Operation Northwoods
Operation Cable Splicer
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
0% liberty = 100% safety. Yessir, those slaves were pretty safe and secure, all right. Just basking in the satisfaction that a caring government carried their welfare in the hollow of its hand.
"We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
I served with Gen Hayden when he was the commander of the AF's Air Intelligence Agency (www.aia.af.mil). I can't think of a better person to shake things up at NSA. He was always asking why things were done a certain way, and is definately an agent of change!!
there may be a line between liberty and not-liberty, but come on. let's use a little logic here; it works outside of source code too.
okay okay... you say, what about the classic computer science trade-offs? what about speed/size? no. that's a trend - a cute correlation. there's nothing inherent in speed or size that opposes the other.
what about guns? hey give everyone with a clean criminal record guns. there's some libiberty for you. that'll increase safety, right? uh wait...
Of course the NSA is secretive. It's all about protecting the source. If the public knew exactly what the NSA's capabilities were, so would the enemies of the USA (and don't kid yourself that we have no enemies). It is infinitely easier to lose a source than to exploit one.
Here's an example I used in my basic intelligence class, for new recruits: KAL 007. For those out of high school, you should remember Korean Airlines flight 007 in 1983. The USSR shot the passenger plane down for straying into Soviet airspace. The NSA had recordings of exactly what the pilots of those MIGs were saying, proving that they knew the plane was a passenger jet and not a spy plane. The recordings also proved that the commander of that unit ordered the shootdown, and it was not a rogue pilot acting without orders. This is pretty damaging material, right? But, as soon as it became public, the Soviets would change their radio security systems, probably blocking any intercept of their TacAir for months or years to come. The President makes those decisions, nobody lower. President Reagan, with advice from his security council (including big daddy DIRNSA), decided that embarrassing the Soviets and proving their official culpability in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians was worth the loss of Soviet tacair intercepts.
I worked with SIGINT for 12 years, and there is no doubt in my mind that DIRNSA is working in the best interests of the American people as a whole. Was this particular speech scripted? Of course, but then so is everything else in public sessions when dealing with intelligence. About 80% of what the NSA does is classified at levels that very few people even know exist, much less have access to. For good reason, too.
With all that said, I believe a healthy skepticism of our federal government is a good thing, an essential thing. A democracy cannot remain clean if the citizenry become sheep. Power corrupts, and there are few able to contain their greed for more power, if not for the watchful oversight of concerned citizens.
Illegitimi non carborundum
Well, yes, and don't terrorists essentially have a big dispute with the U.S.? More arguers.
... I do it all the time ... :)
Imagine a world with arguers
The big problem is the INS. How many of these terrorists have been let into this country when they should have been stopped at the borders?
I find this remark very interesting, because a great American once said this:
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That man was Ben Franklin, and his words are more true today than ever before.
I couldn't resist. Go easy on me.
Evil is the money of root.
If it keeps one person from dying, I don't mind at all. I have nothing to hide. If the NSA reads my email, finds out I'm breaking the law...lets say stealing from company and turns me in, that's wrong. It's wrong cause it has nothing to do with National Security. But if they read my email and find I'm planning an attack on National Security...go ahead, shoot me, I deserve it. Craenor
Of course the citizens don't know what the NSA is up to. If we knew, so would Bin Laden, Hussein, Prince Saud, and anyone else who is interested in thwarting those efforts.
The hardest part for most people to understand about intelligence is how fragile it is. SIGINT can provide amazingly detailed information about our adversaries, but it can be denied so much more easily and cheaply than it can be gained.
Illegitimi non carborundum
You only missed your fourth amendment right to not have your home torn apart in a search whenever someone in power decides that it's time to put you back in line.
Or your fifth amendment rights to not be hounded by the prosecution, and tried innumerable times on (possibly the same) bogus charge.
Or your sixth amendment right to be tried promptly, or to face your accusers and their accusations, or be able to call witnesses in your defense, or ask for the assistance of a lawyer.
Or your seventh and eighth amendment rights.
You know, i really hate this question. You can't be right, if you are to private you are unamerican, if too open, you are against human rights.
No matter what you choose to do with your life, someone will choose to condemn you for it. You can accept that or let them make you miserable. It's your choice. I figure let them say what they will as long as you are free to live your life the way you want to live it.
The part of the question that truly bothers me is the illusion that we must choose between liberty and security. It is a false dicotomy.
For example the hijacking problem has largly reversed itself. Before September 11th the best survival strategy on a hijacked plane was to cooperate and hope for the best. Since 9/11 the rules have changed and so far the passengers have mobbed the would be hijackers. Even assuming the terrorists raise the bar and find a way to overcome the passengers, the government could increase liberty by allowing citizens to carry stun guns and tasers.
Ask yourself a simple question, who stopped Richard Reed? Was it assinine security policies or the passengers on the flight?
The aiport is the perfect example of a place where the honest American is disarmed and left at the mercy of the criminal. It doesn't make a damn bit of sense particularly for non-lethal weapons.
The addtional government interferance has only made conditions worse for the airlines. While the fear mongers of the world seem to think terrorism is stopping people from flying, I tend to think a large part of it is the three hour plus waits and additional hassle. I hope someone repeals these ineffective security laws before they bankrupt any more of the airlines.
~~ What's stopping you?
Your information is slightly inaccurate. The Director of NSA has never ignored the Congressional Intelligence Oversight committee. He has, however, ignored on occasion a summons to testify in open session about things which are classified.
DIRNSA (at least the current Director) has been very cooperative with the Congress, as they do control his budget. He makes regular reports to the Security Council, as well as sporadic testimony to closed sessions and the very rare open session.
The oversight machinery in place to monitor DCI and DIRNSA is quite formidable, but it is, by its very nature, mostly invisible to the normal citizenry. It is a sad fact that countries do not have friends, only interests. Because of that, anything that a sufficiently large group knows (i.e., the US populace), so would people that you'd rather not know.
Illegitimi non carborundum
The differing philosophies of police and military come into play when the government decides that the Army should assist a local police force. The Police are trained to use minimum force to attain pacification and control. The military is trained to use overwhelming force to gain control in the minimum time possible. Also, the military is taught to minimize collateral damage, while the police are taught that collateral damage is unacceptable.
So, imagine the difference in how those two groups would handle, for example, a hostage situation.
Illegitimi non carborundum
"If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure."
Not sure if you picked it up from somewhere, or if you came up with it yourself, but it's an excellent quote; one of the best I've seen yet in this whole liberty vs. security debate.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
Thesselonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
The strong delusions are the artificial persons created to eliminate personal responsibility and accountability. We call them governments and corporations.
The elimination of corporations would place personal responsibility back into the hands of the private property owner. I have no incentive to pollute my property, as eventually, I have to sell it. Also, if I am polluting mine, I am probably polluting yours. Defend yours as a private property right.
Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.
Join a volunteer force, or are you too lazy? Oh, I see: The protection of your property is someone else's responsibilty. Personal protection is such that anyone who can carry a pistol can afford protection.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.
Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
Liberalism in a nutshell: I've got mine, what's yours is mine as well. After all, I know better than you how to manage your affairs.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
it's all even worse now that the republicans have all the control, it's gonna be the "American War Machine" all over again. Every branch of the military has just been given a green light in regards to implementation of new research projects and technology. You read everyday on /.,CNN,SALON,RUETERS,etc. about new weapons systems. remember the other day about the "laser" shooting down an anti-aircraft shell. What about a month (or so) ago that new super-stealth "experimental jet plane" (the name of which escapes me at the moment) that they released and then immediately scrapped because it was only phase 1 of their operations. phew can't go on...i'm just sayin people-Get ready for some serious shit comin.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the masses don't have any say... in the matter.... Isn't there a little something called the Constitution that has already set the guidelines?? or am i just smokin crack again...
*--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
+1, funny. That shit is hilarious. You are joking, right? A Christian theocracy is our only saviour from an Islamic theocracy? Hehe, good one.
A well educated populace, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
The Constitution and other works of the Founding Fathers should provide the answers the NSA is looking for.
I do agree with the 'lack of staff at the State Department'. It was for this reason that the declaration was never delivered on time. I've never seen definitive proof of "bungling" on behalf of the Japanese Embassy... but, of course, I still have the silly notion that it wouldn't matter if I was the janitor at the state department, if i saw a declaration of war I'd call the president myself. I did 'fact check', and the most reliable information I could find indicated that the declaration was left in a diplomatic envelope to be delivered in the normal manner on the Monday.
Depending on whom you talk to, the argument could be made that it was the US withdrawal from the League of Nations that caused its collapse. And lets not get into cases where the US hasn't had provocation to get into a war, but has anyways. And I'm not referring to the current "They might supposedly have the possible technology to maybe make a big bad weapon, someday". It's not so much that the US didn't join the war in 39, as Europe started to fall, but that they didn't seriously consider it. If it hadn't have been for one stupid U-Boat captain, I don't think the US would have joined up at all. The conspiracists would claim that the US was hoping for Third Reich world domination (sans North America), because they expected it to collapse in on itself within a few years, and that would make their own plans for the 51-60th states possible. But those would be the nutcases, eh?
Yes, how silly of the French and English and their reparations.... it's much better now to give billions to countries the US destroys. =) Seriously, though, that was an oversight, not so much that they demanded the reparations, but that they didn't closely monitor German compliance to the armistice agreement. Of course, I believe the LoN was supposed to help ensure stability in Europe, among other aims, so the US helping that collapse didn't help.
I, for one, am just impressed to find someone who actually knew the whole thing started on a Sunday. That alone puts you in the top 5% of people. Did you also know about the radar operator who tried to warn of the incoming planes, but was told to be quiet because, obviously, it must be a mistake?
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
There are some easy ways to be safe in an interdependent community: pay close attention to your government and get them to try and be a force for good in the world.
h t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonig
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
Cheers,
-b
Oh, sorry, is this Kuro5hin? ; )
"The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power."
Am I the only one who laughed at this sentence? Honestly, private ownership of guns would in no way give citizens more power than the government. Think: a militia with handguns and rifles versus a military with tanks. If citizens really did hold more power than the government, then there would be no government and we would be in a state of nature.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
Now, what is being pointed out to Congress in the document mentioned in this story, is that the hijackers on September 11th were in the country legally, and that domestic SIGINT has not traditionally been the job of the NSA (really, it's the domain of the FBI).
For NSA to go crazy on domestic SIGINT requires an executive order or act of congress to expand its mission. Hence, if Hayden is asking Congress where the line is, they're looking to expand their mission, possibly to include foreign people of interest while they are in the US.
Hayden also mentions their budget and how understaffed they have been. There is no way the entire US education system produces enough linguists to fill the needs of our intelligence agencies, especially now that Russian isn't the hot-button language to know.
If you haven't been paying attention, Hayden has been very open about NSA, his troubles, and his plans for the future of the agency. He's been in numerous print publications as well as features on TV. The two contracts he mentions, GROUNDBREAKER and TRAILBLAZER created a stir in the contractor community simply because they are such a diversion from NSA's MO. He's come right out and told the Washington Post that NSA had a huge computer problem at some point (Winter 2001? I forget...something about a snow storm), in addition to having a top-heavy management system with lots of in-fighting.
Hayden's not the bad guy. He believes in his mission. As do the rest of the people at the Agency. They are the heirs of the legacy of Bletchley Park and the other code breakers of WWII, and they do great work. What we've seen post-911 is the NSA get dragged into a catfight between the FBI and the CIA, neither of whom have been given a director like Hayden.
posted anon. damn FBI would probably decide i was a 'person of interest' and set out to ruin my life.
If criminal law was reasonable in the first place (drug laws, dmca, tax laws, blah), then it wouldn't even be bad if they *did* report it.
As long as they were consistent. The stuff where they leaked ugly things about MLK was unbelievably wrong... but if they were doing it to Hoover, the president, and every single public or private figure, it wouldn't have been nearly as wrong or nearly as damaging.
Of course, ideal would be privacy. It's just that legal sanity and consistency would mitigate the loss.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
It's funny when people counter each others exaggerated conclusions with their own exaggerated conclusions, when a little skepticism and a good standard of evidence will keep those kooky ideas from going overboard.
Here's where you went wrong:
1. You're trying to explain complicated phenomenon with a simplistic rule
2. Because bad influence makes a mind inhibited and stupid, you concluded ALL influence makes a mind inhibited.
3. Posing a simple counter example would have helped you see the flaw in your argument.
I'm really dissapointed that you failed to catch Science, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking's influence on a mind, and how it's integral in dispelling myths, falacies, and unmasking manipulation from those who aim to control you.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
... it legislates first under a limited delegated authority pursuant to Article I, Section 8 (exclusive of 17).
It also legislates under a special plenary authority over territory belonging to the self-interested United States (exclusive of the states of the Union); reference Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2.
The FBI, BATF, DEA, BLM, IRS, EPA, OSHA and all of the other alphabet soup agencies are limited in authority to federal territory. The next time the FBI knocks on your door, ask him if he is investigating a crime committed by a federal government employee (28 USC 535), if he says no, then tell him he is trespassing on your property and if he does not leave you are going to call the Sheriff.
DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
Eliminating, then, from the opinions of this court all expressions unnecessary to the disposition of the particular case, and gleaning therefrom the exact point decided in each, the following propositions may be considered as established: 1. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states; 2. That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev. Stat. 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question; 3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property; 4. That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish; 5. That the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries or to trials therein conducted, and that Congress may lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals, without the intervention of a grand or petit jury; 6. That where the Constitution has been once formally extended by Congress to territories, neither Congress nor the territorial legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewith.
Harlan's DISSENT: These are words of weighty import. They involve consequences of the most momentous character. I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.
Liberty is not a concept... Liberty is a way of life!!!
Here, I'll quote it for you:
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry was not talking about compromising everyone's safety for liberty, only about his willingness to put his life on the line for it.
He was also talking about a specific type of injustice, and not saying that liberty is an absolute. In the real world, there are obligations and greater goods that fall into gray areas, and it is a useful question to ask how much we are willing to die for our sense of liberty.
For example, most of us believe that metal detectors and x-rays at airports are a reasonable security measure, at the expense of a little privacy and speed. Most of us don't believe it's okay to have 24-hour police video surveillance in our own bedrooms to make sure they can catch any criminal activity that may occur there.
There is a line that needs to be drawn. I'm not sure I trust the general population to make that decision for me, particularly right after a tragedy that strikes fear into them. However, someone has to draw that line, and it moves all the time. I just hope it moves back about as much as it moves forward.
-Alison
Think: a militia with handguns and rifles versus a military with tanks.
Sort of like a bunch of farmers taking on the most powerful military in the world. This sounds familiar...oh wait that's right, the revolutionary war. Guess which side won?
Nobody thought it was possible then either.
Britain and France didn't give much of a damn, either, for the longest time. Read up on Hitler's fears on what would have happened if France had intervened early, when Germany began blatantly violating treaties, instead of waiting to be occupied.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
He used 'way too many words. When you run the entire document through a BS processor, the end message is the same that all bureaucrats give when testifying before Congress:
1. It's not my [our] fault.
2. I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you.
3. If only we had more money we could do a better job.
Yes, I was. And people like you and I feel powerless to stand up to the mob mentality.
Hard to blame those Germans in 1935.
I am all for snooping on foreign nationals because our constitution technically only protects citizens, but to carry this over to everyday US citizens is treading on dangerous ground.
I think we can all learn a lot from someone who has such strong moral fibre.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Past actions by the FBI (J. Edger Hoover), CIA (Nicaragua and El Salvador) and the Police (Mumia Abu Jamal, 17 year old Anonymous Coward losing in traffic court due to a cop committing perjury under sworn oath) in many jurstictions prove that you can not blindly trust those in authority.
I'll be willing to admit that some cops are not corrupt brutal thugs, but there are also cops who are nothing more than violent criminals persecuting a terrified populace.
Those in authority must always be dilligently watched.
Your statement about trusting the government to do a good job without supervision shows some serious naivete on your part. Always question authority! If you are lucky your questioning will uncover that those in authority are doing a good, fair job. However, if you discover the venality of man in your leaders, you are halfway there to fixing the problem.
I have. It's an interesting read. I think this completely OT thread, though, started more with regards to the US reaction *after* Europe went "Oh, sh*t, we screwed up!". Yes, they f*cked up, but they weren't the only ones, and when they spent 2 years screaming for help, the US sat by and did nothing.
OTOH, you are right. If france had discovered the Blitzkreig before it was unleashed, they would have changed from fixed fortifications to mobile, and he would have been das screwed.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
I did vote on Tuesday. Unfortunately, none of my candidates won. I'm wishing and voting and networking everyone I meet for change allowing greater freedom, but no one is listening to me, hence I get stuck with crap like the USA PATRIOT act, i.e. the new McCarthyism.
Despite this latest setback in the struggle to get my government to do what I want it to do, I will continue to vote in the future.
Remember, they had to get Al Capone on _tax evasion_. They wanted to get him, but had to find something, _anything_, that he was doing wrong. If they want to get you, they will get you one way or another. Even if they're not monitoring you.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
When are people going to realize:
Life is not perfect. We don't all get to live forever. YOu can't outthink the nature of the universe to destroy and create.
Tim McVeigh is going to happen if you have freedom. You can't prevent all of it. Some would argue that Tim McVeigh was a reaction to too much government.
Laws do not prevent crime, they only provide some penalty or instructions. Look at OJ.
The other sad truth: You can't evern be certain that people did something even when it is done. OJ, Tim McVeigh - there are people who believe they did and did not do it.
Now start trying to "prevent" crimes... if you can't be sure of actual events, then how can you be sure of future events?
Life / nature / unknown. All go together. There is a balance, we are heading back to too much government.
Unless INS had a record of every thought of every individual person in the world it couldn't really do anything. Most of these terrorists had no previous record, the ones that do aren't stupid enough to come here (I'm not calling them smart either, they are plenty stupid as well).
Hmmm... Pie...
There's a difference between /holding/ power and /exercising/ it. The public has substantially more power than they normally exercise, because it's been a long time since they've been driven to the point of rebellion.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin
Sometimes the behavior and ignorance of my fellow citizens of the US embarrass me. (I am assuming that you are a US citizen)
There are two ways of looking WWII. One is to say that we bailed out Europe but another is to say that we didn't have the guts to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies against an immoral aggressor bent on genocide.
There are millions of people who fought and died while the US sat undecided on the sidelines. To throw out, "how about thanking the USA for saving your ass in World War I and II" is to dishonor them and I think it is terribly unfair.
You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake -- but you could be if you got off your ass.
The level of freedom a society can handle is directly proportional to the level of self-discipline they maintain. If there is no self-discipline, the society will impose third-party discipline, whether that be the state or the neighbors, thereby eliminating the freedom of the undisciplined, and, frequently at the expense of the rights of the disciplined.
The government and media recently have turned this debate into a balance between security and freedom, but the reality is that a society can very well have both as long as the members are willing to discipline themselves without the need of an intervening society that is attempting to protect itself from a genuine or supposed threat.
The other part of this equation, then, is that the society consists of self-disciplined individuals who want to ensure that the line between security and freedom is not being redrawn in the face of conjectured threats or threats that do not affect the disciplined. If an undisciplined segment of the society wants to attempt a powergrab, then it will be by manufacturing and exaggerating threats so that the disciplined are willing to redraw the line needlessly.
The undisciplined fraction in society is like a flea on a dog's tail, and the disciplined class is more often than not, chewing its own tail to the bone in an effort to rid itself of the menace.
Photography, video, and the Internet have changed, and will change, the power of the tank.
But don't forget the deterrence power of an armed and liberty-loving populace when the government gets out of its Constitutional bounds.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
County sheriffs are elected by the people. I don't know how their jurisdiction applies to cities though.
I think we can all learn a lot from someone who has such strong moral fibre.
Non-American cunts who don't know how to spell "fiber" should really have no say in matters of the *US* constitution. Shut the fuck up and go grab a pint with your fucking mates or something.
I suggest you read "New Dealer's War: FDR and the War within World War 2" by Thomas Fleming.
This excellent book will give you some insight to the pervasive "no foreign war" and "no foreign entanglements" mindset of America in the late '30s and FDR's incredible machinations to get the U.S. involved against both Japan and Germany. The book makes and supports the assertion that FDR was actively working to provoke both the Japanese and the Germans into attacking U.S. shipping or facilities in order to change public opinion because we had no treaty obligations to defend any European country against Germany. Had there been any such obligations, FDR would have had the U.S. involved in 1939.
According to most histories, the Japanese ambassador (Normura) had been instructed to call upon the Secretary of State (Hull) to deliver a note prior to the commencement of the attack. However, because the Japanese embassy had a difficult time decoding the message (this is what I meant by 'bumbling'), the meeting didn't take place until after the attack had started.
As a result of the attack and the bumbling by Nomura, FDR gave the "day of infamy" speech to a meeting of the House and Senate on December 8th. War was declared against Japan that same day. Three days later the foolish Germans declared war on the U.S. (for no apparent good reason except for their treaty with the Japanese and over the grave misgivings of nearly all Germany military staff) and FDR finally had what he wanted: war against both Japan and Germany.
Yes, I've heard the story of the radar operator who couldn't convince anyone that he was looking at hundreds of aircraft from the north rather than a flight of a dozen B-17s approaching from the east. So far as monitoring German re-armament after WWI goes, there really wasn't anything to monitor until Hitler was elected - and then he wouldn't allow monitoring to take place. The other powers let Hitler get away with it, Germany re-armed, and "the rest is history" (tm).
Give that some thought: the tyrant refuses monitors while he re-arms and then starts a war against his neighbors. Remind you of anyone currently in the news?
Better yet, consult this document entitled "Constitution of the United States of America" and find out where it draws the line between liberty and "security".
Libertarians In A Nutshell - As a party, Libertarians support the political philosophy of "libertarianism." This philosophy states that you, as an individual, know best how to live your own life. Not the government.
Obviously, you don't know a whole hell of a lot about Libertarianism or you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations about us (yes, I am one) and our ideas. Not all Libertarians believe that we can one day just scrap police and fire protection, get rid of the entire governmental structure and leave people to fend for themselves. We don't want to destroy the world as we know it and replace with entirely privatized options. It's this kind of FUD that keeps the party down.
The LP wants to:
# Substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut all taxes.
# Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.
# Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.
# The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.
Stick to posting about topics you know. www.lp.org would be a good start to your reading.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Idiot. In those days Congress took seriously the Constitution which gives them (and only them) the power to declare war. Since the end of WWII this constitutional limitation has been ignored by a variety of presidents who've initiated war-like actions without actually asking for a declaration of war. Prior to WWII there was zero interest on the part of most Americans in bailing out Europe (particularly the supercilious French) yet again. The American public wasn't interested in saving the Frogs.
And essentially nothing was known either in Europe (including Germany) or the U.S. about the genocidal activities of the Nazis. Remember, most of the most notorious camps were NOT in Germany. How could Americans be expected to get all worked up over something they knew nothing about?
Note also that WWI wasn't all that popular and that the U.S. undertook very serious disarmament and reductions in all branches of the military immediately afterward. In 1939 the U.S. was in no military position to do much in Europe. FDR worked like a madman to build ships, tanks, airplanes, munitions of all sorts, and to increase the size of all branches of the military from 1939 onward. By the time the Japanese and German dictators (yes, Japan was essentially a military dictatorship) ignored their best military minds and attacked the U.S. in very late 1941 the U.S. was in a position to act.
>I am all for snooping on foreign nationals because >our constitution technically only protects >citizens,
Um, no. The constitution protects anyone who steps on US soil (not counting military bases) and US citizens wherever they may be (when it comes to action by the Federal Government), unless you are in the military (in which case you fall under the UCMJ).
These-the first ten known collectively as the 'bill of rights"- aren't "amendments" per se as amendments past #10 are, no, they are SUPPOSED to be inviolate, there are merely listed for clarification purposes, they may not be changed or altered, no code, law, piece of paper, published utterance, no government, plutocrat, politician, officer, bureaucrat,judge, cop, goon or any other assorted denizen of meddling are supposed to restrict, deny, "permit", regulate or otherwise offend these enumerated 10 BORN WITH NOT GOVERNMENT GRANTED RIGHTS.
It is NOT called "the bill of permissions that we can regulate on a political whim".
Webster is on record stzting that he wrote his first dictionary precisely for the fact of having an accurate record of word definitions so the original content would never be misconstrued.
The so called "government" with their "codes" uses a language outlined in a set of missives known as "black's law" dictionary. It is NOT the same. It exists, this is true, but it is in no way lawful or legitimate.
9-11 happened PRECISELY from government interference (if not collusion in exalted places) in the soverign citizens' enjoyment of said rights. It is THEIR FAULT that the pasengers and crew on those planes had no practical effective means of self defense to protect them from those criminals.
It is that simple.
The head of the NSA (and every single other governmental employee from the newest hired-on to the head of the executive branch) understands this or he does not. If he doesn't understand it, he's too incompetent for the job. If he understands it and doesn't support it by word and deed, he's a traitor, again, not fit for the job.
It is that simple. There's no wiggle room. The second you as a free soverign are demanded of a "permit", which is a "permission" to enjoy your born with rights, or you are outright denied one of your born with rights, it's an example of a fascist command ordered you by a fascist who is also a traitor, who's only claim to legitimacy is the threat or use of violent and coercive force.
It is that simple. If the illegitmate criminal junta that passes as "government" would follow our actual laws, we'd have a lot less problems. 9-11 would have been mostly a non event.
2. freedom = slavery;
Just redefine freedom as something completely alien from what it really is. Orwell knew this.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
> Libertarian's ideal of 'less government' seems to include doing away with all
> environmental and public safety laws that might get in the way of corporations
> turning a profit. No more pesky anti-monopoly laws, either.
This is a gross oversimplification. Libertarianism is a moral philosophy, and as such has little to offer us in terms of day to day political guidance. Liberal and Conservative philsophies, Christian philosophy, and Marxist philosophy all suffer from the same problem. For a cogent analysis of how little any particular moral philosophy has to offer our society, I recommend Richard Posner's _The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory_.
It is one thing for a libertarian to claim that X,Y, and Z are beyond the scope of government, and quite another for them to propose workable ways to secure clean air, civil society, and effective national defense. They have many theories, some with more or less empirical and historical grounding, but few concrete suggestions about getting to there from here. This, more than any kind of apathy or misunderstanding about the proper role of government among the population, is the main reason they continue to poll at the fringe level of 2-3%.
As a political movement, Libertarianism has two serious flaws. First, they admire "emergent properties" in creating order and peace, but they ignore the same when it leads to suboptimal market behavior. A concrete example is the traffic jam. Traffic jams emerge from each individual driver trying to maximize his speed or minimize his driving time. Thus, individual decisions lead to swerving, tailgating, and traffic jams. The society is thus screwed by individual actions and emergent order. Libertarians might protest that free markets could solve this problem, as with computer controlled freeways, strict enforcement by insurance companies who might own the freeways, etc. Whether any of these solutions is better or more feasible than gov't regulation is an open question. But libertarians often deny that the question exists, supporting free markets in a knee-jerk fashion.
The second major problem with Libertariansim as a political movement is its selectiveness about which government functions are within the scope of government. It is true that many towns and cities have privately contracted their police and fire brigades. It is also true that competitive markets in power and phone service can be made to work in the place of monopolies, and that monopolies historically tend to fail in the absence of gov't support. Nonetheless, Libertarian candidates are faced with some odd contradictions. Why is it necessary and desirable to privatize fire/police/water/etc service, but keep a strong national defense run by the gov't? If we could even privatize the national defense, why should any society bother with a Constitution? If Libertarians support the Constitution, how can they object to treaties like NATO, or actions like the Gulf War, which were approved by strictly Constitutional process? If they don't support the Constitution, how can they run for office?
In short, if the Supreme Court cannot find within Constitutional law strong objections to welfare, the NSA, the income tax, etc., how can Libertarians say with a straight face that these entities are unlawful? Even if you agree that that gov't is best which governs least, isn't it possible that a peaceful society can have a large public sector, created by democratic process, that doesn't violate the Constitution? Or are we to seriously countenance the idea that if only the Libertarian experts were elected, things would be so much better?
I am generally sympathetic to libertarian moral philosophy, but as a political proposal, Libertarianism isn't even a contender. To paraphrase Jon Stewart, Libertarians are in crazy sugared-gum land.
Yes. I did notice that. Very disturbing that the media doesn't see this as important. And these are just the ones we know about. With the new patriot laws approved, there's no need to let us know when an immigrant is taken in for questioning.
Reminds me of those horrible stories I used to here about the KJB when I was a kid and the cold war was on. Well now our secret service can do the same.
Scary.
I gotta disagree.
I had to go through a background check for my current job: a very thorough criminal history, including supposedly-sealed juvenile records; seven years of driving history; financial history (credit check and tax audit both); five references plus secondary references, plus interviews with most of my relatives; drug test; psych test; complete employment history with interviews of former supervisors and co-workers, and God only knows what else.
Not to mention, my work space is subject to inspection and search without notice and with very little justification needed. And an IA detective can conduct surveillance on me any time he wants.
I can live with it: I volunteered. By my count, though, even if every cop volunteered for that this leaves 299 out of every 300 people in the US who didn't waive their privacy rights.
And I won't lie to you: some cops won't use this surveillance to make sure that you're not Osama's secret gay lover and unindicted co-conspirator. They'll use it just to screw with you. Local yokels with both the motivation and the free time to pull a stunt like that are few and far between, but the federals are a different story. Hell, the FBI used to have a program designed EXACTLY to surveil and set up political opponents.
Besides, the Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. And it's law. Where the laws are universally unknown or ignored, they cease to be credible. That's why some people already hold our justice system in disrepute: Some cops are asses and most of the public knows nothing beyond what they've seen on NYPD Blue or Judge Judy.
Our Constitution has served us for better than two centuries. I vote for not toying with it.
If we are willing sacrifice our liberties to just gain more safety, then do we really deserve those liberties?
Many have sacrificed their lives from the Revolutionary War to the Civil Rights Movement just to secure the rights we have today. We should not diminished those rights just to gain a small measure of security from a very marginal threat.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
1. Sell weapons of mass destruction to a military dictatorship.
... and the scary part is that there is no "????" paragraph.
2. Ignore them for a while.
3. "Discover" that they have weapons of mass destruction, and attack them to destroy these weapons. Replace the hostile military dictatorship with a friendly military dictatorship.
4. Steal their oil.
5. Profit!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh come on!
What nation would be stupid enough to even consider an unprovoked attack on the US?
Non! Not Iraq, noone. And for a very simple reason. It is suicide, the US has to strong a military, and everone know they aren't excactly shy of using force...
The only current violent threat to the US is Al Quaida style networks of people that for one reason or another don't like the US foreign policy.
These problems are not solved with bombs, I assure you. There is no clear and present enemy coming at you with tanks and warships. The current US administration would be wise to modify their strategy accordingly.
Wait... Bush... wise?
Oh, just forget it....
You got "insightful", you should have gotten funny. I hope you intended humor with your post, otherwise it shows cluelessness on an almost Microsoft True Believer scale.
Most politicians want whatever will get them the most campaign contributions, mostly in the largest possible chunks. If you really believe that Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings wants what's best for any public but that of his 0wn3rs, I suggest you change your recreational drug of choice or at least find an honest dealer.
From the available evidence, most 'authorities', by which you presumably mean law enforcement want whatever will get them the most personal power at the expense of all the rest of us.
Tech Public Policy stuff
After the 2000 elections, I don't think anybody is looking to the USA for lessons on how to give free, fair, and democratic elections. You obviously didn't read the foriegn coverage of that election in places like The Guardian(UK) of little issues (like tens of thousands of voters disqualified in Florida because of false felony accusations based on a list from an organization controlled by major campaign contributors to the Bush campaign. Note that most of those falsely barred from voting didn't get to vote in the 2002 elections, either.
Why was this buried, spun, or completely ignored by US mass media? Why did I have to log on to an English newspaper to get decent US election coverage? Interesting question.
despotic and evil government
When the Hollywood content providers get most of their legislative agenda passed (who's going to stop them?), you may be using these words yourself to describe the US government.
Of course, if you're still employed in IT at this point, you'll probably be using those words in London or Copenhagen or Nuremburg. Hollywood's agenda is not compatible with the existence of high-tech research, development, or production in the USA.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Though I've also noticed that EU politicians are capable of doing things just as stupid as any of the things the whole world laughs at when our US Congresscritters do them,
Tech Public Policy stuff
If you cure cancer, you kill the future of humanity.
Cancer causes evolution.
Don't ever forget that.
- Is the person going to overstay their visa and/or work illegally?
- Has the person been convicted of any crime?
They were not tasked to look for potential terrorists because they have no access to the FBI computers. The FBI does have access to lists of all persons entering the US and can request copies of the forms presented to the INS representatives.There wasn't even a formal way in which they could warn the FBI that a person looked interesting. Certainly they don't have time to give people the third degree and in any case, those people from many EU countries get automatic waivers (visa granted on entry).
It should be emphasised that on paper at least, the terrorists had good reasons for their visit to the US. They could support themselves and were seen to be likely to leave (they had commitments back in their own countries).
The danger is that if you give everyone the third degree before they are allowed in, they will stop coming to your country to spend money. The US needs both tourists and trade.
As far as I know (please forgive my ignorance) tanks did not exist in the 18th century.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
Teinanmen Square was successful because the students were unarmed and the huge media exposure.
"Photography, video, and the Internet have changed, and will change, the power of the tank."
Yes, but what about what comes after (technologically) the tank?
You seem very idealistic. Media and information are important and all, but nothing overcomes brute-force. The United States obviously does not have a liberty-loving populace and I don't think arms will help them in any way to defend their rights.
The ballot box trumps the ammo box.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
Although I disagree that the public has substantially more power than they exercise, your point is moot because the public never exercises this "power." Less than 50% of the population votes, and American people in general are apathetic. Regardless, I think the idea of a revolution in a 1st-world country is over. It's just not plausible.
"I am a student. Please do not fold, spindle, or mutilate me." -Slogan of the Free Speech Movement, 1964.
...who to choose. Yes, indeed it is. VOTE THIRD PARTY. Get the career politicians out of office and put in Libertarians (who want LESS government and less taxes, etc.), or Green (who want environmental issues taken more into account, etc.), or Independant, or whoever else there is. Just DON'T vote for the same old bullshit and the "lesser of TWO evils" syndrome. Choose a new voice for the American people because you do have that choice. Third party candidates are showing up on more and more ballots across the country and are doing well considering they aren't spending US$15million dollars for advertising for a job that pays US$150,000 (or whatever) per year. This past Tuesday the Libertarians in Georgia alone drew around 3% of the votes with no statewide campaigning. What could have happened with $1mil in campaing funds? Better yet, what could have happened with a 100% turnout of all people between the ages of 18 and 35 who are registered to vote (and who are more inclined to vote third party)? The young people of America need to step up to the plate NOW, not when they're finished college or have a long-term job and a wife/husband and 2.4 children. NOW.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Well written. And yes, it does remind me of someone in the news, with the exception that Germany wasn't financed by the US to invade Prussia, whereas our current candidate was, in his war with Iran.
I've read similar books describing FDR's stance to the war (isolationist, some might say), but I still can't say it was something I would expect a reasonable person to agree with. I do, however, find the contrast quite amusing... FDR stood by as Europe fell, but waited until provoked before attacking.... GWB goes out in search of someone to attack, and makes up his own excuse for provocation.
Probably the most damaging long term impact of WW2, IMHO, was that it showed the US that war would bring it out of recession. Since then, it seems to be a pattern... poor economy -> war.
Have you heard the part about how FDR may have known that Japan may attack PH, yet elected not to alert the general populace for fear that signs of preparation would lead the japanese to land ground troops and occupy? Leans a little left of crackpot, but makes sense, in an odd way. Of course, I've always wondered if FDR was isolationist, or just frightened of his legacy being reduced to "Wartime President".
They do say that those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it... which reaffirms my view that all those shoddy nursing homes must be run by nazis'. =)
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Hate to be a grammer/English nazi; but even if your points were valid, they get lost when you make yourself look ignorant. The correct way to spell "it's self" is itself and "protect it's people" translates to protect it is people. Terrorism is not the act of attacking a government through its(no appostraphe) people, it's (it is) the act of promoting your own agenda by scaring the shit out of your supposed oppressor. It's(again, it is) using terror to get your point across, hence the word terrorism.
"Terrorism would be the unauthorized use of force." Um, unauthorized by whom? The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were quite authorized, just not by a government that is recognized by the USA. Al Qaeda is a government of its own sort, until we invaded Afghanistan (rightfully) they governed the people.
put the what in the where?
fibre Pronunciation Key (fbr)
n. Chiefly British
Variant of fiber.
Britain is the home of English. Thus, YOU spell it incorrectly, and you should go grab one of your mate's cocks or something.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Why do so many people have the same opinion of Libertarians that I do? How'd I get modded up to 4 for my 'obvious troll.'
You Libs need to do a little better at PR. It might help to come down harder on the greedy bastards who call themselves libertarians but just want to keep their unfair advantages.
Ayn is probably spinning in her grave over all the selfish nutters claiming to be libertarians. Objectivism may well be a brilliant philosophy. Christianity is a brilliant religion, that hasn't stopped people from killing in the name of God.
I have the feelings I do about Libertarians through direct experience. I ask you: what is it about Libertarianism that attracts selfish shortsighted fools? Can it be that Liberatrianism provides a convenient excuse for their behavior?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Again, read the book I suggested. You will be amazed. It's well documented and includes contemporaneous diary entries by those involved and newspaper reports in addition to fairly recently released government documents.
FDR was decidedly not an isolationist. He knew that he'd never get Congressional approval to initiate military action against either Japan or Germany so he acted aggressively to provoke both into action against the U.S. He probably needn't have bothered as both Japan and Germany were convinced that the U.S. had no stomach for war (same thing the Kaiser thought in 1914) and would, at most, take a limited role and would probably accept most of Europe being controlled by Germany and Asia by Japan. What neither country understood was that FDR was absolutely serious about bringing his New Deal to the rest of the world and was perfectly willing to subdue both Japan and Germany to make it happen. Fortunately (probably) he died before the end of the war and his successor (HST) was a bit more pragmatic.
The primary Japanese intention at Pearl Harbor was to cripple the U.S. Pacific Fleet which was all that stood between them and capturing control of all of the Western Pacific. There were no troop ships in the carrier group that attacked Hawaii and none planned. Therefore they couldn't have landed troops whether the local population knew anything or not. The attack failed its primary mission because the U.S. carriers were not in port. As a positive outcome, the battleship admirals (who had belittled fleet airpower) lost influence (not to mention their battleships) while the carrier admirals took over. Fleet airpower won the naval war for the U.S. - oh, having cracked the Japanes Navy codes didn't hurt, either.
Did FDR know about the attack beforehand? Only in a general sense as the U.S. military did know that something very big was about to happen - the smart money in December of 1941 said that it would be a Japanese attack on the Philipines. Apparently nobody thought the Japanese would be foolish enough to directly attack U.S. soil.
A better question to ask is why, even though the attack on Hawaii was underway, nobody bothered to go to a high state of readiness in the Philipines. The general in charge (sorry, can't remember his name but not Macarthur) knew of Pearl Harbor but never bothered to do diddly and in consequence his entire air force was destroyed on the ground when the Japanese finally got around to attacking the next day.
A traveling salesman was driving past a farm when he saw a pig with three
wooden legs executing a magnificent series of backflips and cartwheels.
Intrigued, he drove up to the farmhouse, where he found an old farmer
sitting in the yard watching the pig.
"That's quite a pig you have there, sir" said the salesman.
"Sure is, son," the farmer replied. "Why, two years ago, my daughter
was swimming in the lake and bumped her head and damned near drowned, but that
pig swam out and dragged her back to shore."
"Amazing!" the salesman exlaimed.
"And that's not the only thing. Last fall I was cuttin' wood up on
the north forty when a tree fell on me. Pinned me to the ground, it did.
That pig run up and wiggled underneath that tree and lifted it off of me.
Saved my life."
"Fantastic! the salesman said. But tell me, how come the pig has
three wooden legs?"
The farmer stared at the newcomer in amazement. "Mister, when you
got an amazin' pig like that, you don't eat him all at once."
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...