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."

Comments

Timing is everything

[SirSlud]

> 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.

Re:Timing is everything

[pixelpusher220]

>> 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.

agreed, but the breath of fresh air I'm seeing is that the NSA is actually 'asking' where to draw the line.

Re:Timing is everything

[SirSlud]

This is true. I certainly didn't intend for my post to construe criticism. I just wanted everybody to keep in mind that when you're asked to make important decisions in circumstances that represent less than 2% of your 'normal' circumstances, you would be wise to keep the timing angle in mind.

You make a good point, though.

Re:Timing is everything

[T5]

Don't just look at the "2%". You've got to evaluate the total risk of the situation. If 2% of the time a particular behavior could get you killed is a lot different than 2% where milk comes out your nose.

Risk assessment is the name of the game. I'm glad to see that one of the head spooks wants to include us in the decision making.

Re:Timing is everything

[JanneM]

True. And that's why any agency, of whatever stripe and in whatever country, should ask this not just once, but repeatedly, constantly getting feedback on where their _real_ taskmasters (ie. we) feel the line should be drawn. The role of the politicians are twofold: interpret and explain the issues as construed by these agencies to the public, and in turn interpret and present the meaning of the responses to the agency policymakers. This, by the way, really is the true role of politicains for any other issue as well.

And before people fly off the handle, the truth is that most politicians and most government authorities really do want what is best for the public; the problem is far more often one of execution, ability or knowledge, rather than deliberate and wanton disregard for the public in favour of special interests. Of course, it's the really bad apples that naturally grab the headlines, while those basically doing a decent job are rarely mentioned.

Re:Timing is everything

[Anne_Nonymous]

> where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety

"Give me liberty or give me death." -Patrick Henry, 1775

Re:Timing is everything

[WatertonMan]

Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.

It's been over a year and most of the important changes to the intelligence committees haven't taken place yet. Exactly how long do you want to wait?

While I agree with basic sentiment, the problem is that action is required now.

Re:Timing is everything

[Auckerman]

"While I agree with basic sentiment, the problem is that action is required now."

Why? I see no reason. The FBI's success rate at stopping Islamic terrorists up till 9/11 was pretty commendable. They slip up once, and all of a sudden it's a green light to let the Federal Govt do what it pleases. I don't buy. Can things be improved, perhaps, but there is only so much one can do about "security" when billions of dollars couldn't put a dent in the drug trade.

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.

Re:Timing is everything

[pmz]

While I agree with basic sentiment, the problem is that action is required now.

What sort of action? Bars on our windows, armed militiamen at every street corner, and a federal database of everything each person says from birth to death??? Anything less than this is just shades of the same situation and would still fail to address the real issues.

The fundamental problem with the fear about "terrorism" is based in our own society. It is basically an extension to the trend to fear our own damned neighbors; wierdo nuts from the middle east are just a special case. Why is it that we are so untrusting that simply walking down a city street at night can be nerve-wrecking. I really think "terrorism" is the least of our troubles.

Re:Timing is everything

[slattont]

WOW now, the NSA is chartered to do intelligence gathering outside the borders of the U.S.A. So the line should be drawn that anything they do outside the borders is correct. (Think a working Echelon system, links to this http://www.echelonwatch.org/ http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm http://mediafilter.org/caq/echelon/) Now the issue is what how can the NSA handle the Internet, when packets are bouncing around from inside and outside the U.S.A. If the U.S.(A.) government does not protect its citizens to the best of its abilities what is the purpose of the U.S.(A.) government.

Re:Timing is everything

[daeley]

For those who've never read the whole thing, link to the entire speech.

Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

Re:Timing is everything

[Guppy06]

"While I agree with basic sentiment, the problem is that action is required now."

Um... no. If you do nothing but demand "action," you get nothing but silly knee-jerk bills like the USA PATRIOT Act. You get what you ask for.

What really needs to be done is better enforcement of existing laws. The 9/11 terrorists got into the county with what are shining examples of faulty visa applications. They shouldn't have been in the country to begin with!

They attack, thousands die, thousands more just like you scream for "action," and all sorts of new laws get passed to make us "safer."

Less than a month after the creation of our "new, safer America," a homicidal Jamaican teenager gets in on an equally lousy visa application (faulty by the old standards as well as the "newer, better" ones) and participates in a shooting spree throughout the DC metropolitan area.

How much more "action" are you going to demand until you start demanding the correct action?

Re:Timing is everything

[beetinkle]

I agree, we should not have a "knee jerk reaction". We should let the FBI and the NSA focus on there respective areas of talent. The FBI for domestic and the NSA for foreign. If the NSA is overwhelmed by the foreign aspect of survalence, how will adding the domestic survalence to the mix help. Talk about an overload of information. And least anyone forget. Was George Orwell just wrong on the date, 1984? Let us hope that his work stays fiction.

Re:Timing is everything

[banzai51]

People trying to influence my decision is fine. It is still my decision. It beats the govt making the decision for me.

Re:Timing is everything

[Iguanaphobic]

No, you only think it's your decision. Try to think real objectively about something like, say, the Panama Canal. Your opinion of it will be influenced by what you were taught, not by what you might think if you knew ALL the facts.

Re:Timing is everything

[buzzdecafe]

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security.

Bullseye. That is it exactly. The men who founded the United States were not exactly in a secure position when they added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution--just coming out of a protracted conflict with England, expanding war into Native American territory, vulnerable on land and sea. But they had the vision to realize that this alleged liberty/security "trade-off" is completely bogus!

As Ben Franklin said: "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty."

Re:Timing is everything

[WatertonMan]

You miss the whole question of why existing laws aren't enforced. That takes some serious reworking of the structure of our organizations and the beurocracy.

If you are of the mindset (as sadly many are) that "action" entails merely new laws, then you are right. However many changes (such as reworking existing organizations, improving communication, etc.) still require a lot of support from the congress. Something that they don't appear to really care that much about.

Right now the changes to air travel are largely silly and often counterproductive. The DNS still is basically emasculated. The borders are so porus it isn't funny. And monitoring of incoming shipments is still woeful. (Although admittedly there is a lot more going on there than the public really knows about)

My big qualm is why we have SO many different law enforcement agencies all of which compete with each other. For instance in the so called drug war we have Customs, DEA, ATF, FBI, and other organizations all duplicating efforts and often competing with each other. The competition also tends to mean that one organization won't share information with the others in an effective fashion. This was criticized heavily long before 9/11 but not enough has been done since 9/11.

Like I said, if you REALLY think that everything was rosey before 9/11 and 9/11 WASN'T a wakeup call, that's fine. You've made your decision. However if you do think 9/11 was a wakeup call then the question is what needs done?

This is something that the government needs feedback on. Just leaving it to others won't cut it. I for one am thankful for the feedback of the NSA. Obviously not everyone here will agree on where the lines ought to be drawn. But hopefully most will agree that we ought to discuss it!

Re:Timing is everything

[DuBois]

Nope. Not Jefferson. Franklin. See .sig.

Re:Timing is everything

[susano_otter]

What, exactly, are "all the facts" regarding the Panama Canal?

Are all of the facts relevant to every decision that could be made regarding the Canal, or are some of the facts irrelevant for some purposes?

If all the facts are always relevant, do you expect to learn all the facts before making any decision? If learning all the facts turns out to be either impossible or impractical, how will you determine when you've got enough facts to make a good decision?

If all the facts aren't always relevant, how will you determine which facts to discard?

Assume that your fact-finding resources are always more limited than the amount of facts available. How confident are you that your decisions are well-informed and correct, given that you never have all the facts?

Re:Timing is everything

[Iguanaphobic]

What, exactly, are "all the facts" regarding the Panama Canal?

Let's take what most American children are taught in school about the history of the Panama Canal. Basically, the sanitized version is that the Army Corps of Engineers built it in a heroic effort for the betterment of mankind and the furthering of the American Way of life. Once you get to the real story, only then do you find yourself in posession of adequate information to form an opinion about what really happened. Many things are like this. I used the canal as an example because I was taught a different version in school and the subject came up recently while talking to a USian friend.

Re:Timing is everything

[susano_otter]

Fair enough. Your original post prompted some thoughts on my part about the metrics we use to determine "the truth".

Re:Timing is everything

[whereiswaldo]

..finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety.

That's easy - the line's way back there... it's already been crossed.

How can we get back to that line is the real question.

Re:Timing is everything

[Kenneth]

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.

It's a pretty thought, but not realistic. There is no such thing as total freedom. You make tradeoffs between freedom and safety all the time, and YOUR freedom vs MY freedom as well.

Drivers licenses restrict freedom, but keep people who are not competent to drive off the road (actually I think they aren't nearly tough enough, but that's a different rant).

You are not free to go and set up a medical practice without proving that you DO in fact have some sort of medical training. This keeps people safe from con artists, and quacks.

These restrict some freedoms, but actually grant others. People can drive, and be reasonably sure that the other drivers aren't totally wreckless. People can go to a doctor and be reasonably sure that he actually has some medical training.

Do people who shouldn't drive still drive? Yes, but the filter of the law keeps those who shouldn't from doing so. Con artists still practice 'medicine' but the filter of the law stops a lot from doing so, and provides a way to punish those who do.

No mater what, there are restrictions on freedom vs security. Should people be free to use alcohol? I would venture that most everyone reading this would say yes. What if they use copious quantities of alcohol, then climb behind the drivers seat of a car? Most anyone should be able to drink, most anyone should be able to drive, but the two together is an iota of your freedom that you (probably willingly) have given up in order for greater safety.

There IS in fact a line between freedom and safety. The more freedom you officially get, the less safety you have. Interestingly enough, after a point, the more freedom you officially have, the less you may have in reality. Take many third world countries as an example, particularly after a governmental collapse. There is no government imposed restrictions on freedom, but is there freedom? Nope. The guys with the guns get to make the decisions.

I actually like the words of the declaration of independance.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

All too often it stops here, but there is much much more


that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.




--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Re:Timing is everything

[Kenneth]

Damnit, I hate it when I accidently click off the entry window and hit submit by accident. NOTE TO SLASHCODE AUTHORS... HOW ABOUT HAVING PREVIEW BE DEFAULT INSTEAD OF SUBMIT.

Now to repost what I was saying.

Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.

It's a pretty thought, but not realistic. There is no such thing as total freedom. You make tradeoffs between freedom and safety all the time, and YOUR freedom vs MY freedom as well.

Drivers licenses restrict freedom, but keep people who are not competent to drive off the road (actually I think they aren't nearly tough enough, but that's a different rant).

You are not free to go and set up a medical practice without proving that you DO in fact have some sort of medical training. This keeps people safe from con artists, and quacks.

These restrict some freedoms, but actually grant others. People can drive, and be reasonably sure that the other drivers aren't totally wreckless. People can go to a doctor and be reasonably sure that he actually has some medical training.

Do people who shouldn't drive still drive? Yes, but the filter of the law keeps those who shouldn't from doing so. Con artists still practice 'medicine' but the filter of the law stops a lot from doing so, and provides a way to punish those who do.

No mater what, there are restrictions on freedom vs security. Should people be free to use alcohol? I would venture that most everyone reading this would say yes. What if they use copious quantities of alcohol, then climb behind the drivers seat of a car? Most anyone should be able to drink, most anyone should be able to drive, but the two together is an iota of your freedom that you (probably willingly) have given up in order for greater safety

There IS in fact a line between freedom and safety. The more freedom you officially get, the less safety you have. Interestingly enough, after a point, the more freedom you officially have, the less you may have in reality. Take many third world countries as an example, particularly after a governmental collapse. There is no government imposed restrictions on freedom, but is there freedom? Nope. The guys with the guns get to make the decisions.

I actually like the words of the declaration of independance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

All too often it stops here, but there is much much more.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Even more often, this is all people get. They seem to think that the rest (the actual substance) is somehow unrelated.

It is interesting that Pursuit of Happiness is listed last.

--That to secure these rights,

Life, Liberty and the bursuit of Happiness.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Quite often, particularly here on Slashdot, we get the juvinile libritarian viewpoint that anyone telling you that you can't do something is wrong. I know one individual who claims to believe that "Whatever you do is allright as long as you don't screw anyone else over." Which would be a nice thought if he wasn't constantly screwing over other people, and believing that he isn't. Government exists not only to protect us from predatory individuals whether terrorist or CEO, but also from thoughtles individuals who exercise their 'rights' while causing others to have to clean up after them.

In my view, the substance of the laws passed in the aftermath of 9/11 aren't unreasonable. What's unreasonable is that they are permanant reactions to a what should be a temporary situation. It would have been better to pass all these things as one law that gave lawmakers and citizens a simple quick and easy to jetteson it when the situation changed.


--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,


Now we get to the intersting part.


and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


It is perhaps of note that safety is listed first there, and happiness is once again listed last.


Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


I just like that part.

Government, indeed society is about drawing the line between freedom and security. Some restrictions on actions actually grant us freedom. The error is to make a knee jerk reaction just after a tragedy.

The line between safety and freedom will also be situational. During WWII there were blackouts in europe. People wern't allowed to have lights on at night. This protected the cities from a very real threat of bombing. Now when there aren't daily bombng raids, this would be a silly law, and with some of the newer nightvision technology would be now anyway, but at the time it temporarily exchanged some fredom for a little security.

The question the NSA seems to be asking is "Has the proper location for this line changed?", and if so, "Where should it be now?"

The no compromise ideal you espouse is a nice pretty idealistic viewpoint, but doesn't stand up to reality. You have traded many, many 'freedoms' for better security. You may not consider them freedoms, but if the laws governing them didn't exist, you might.

Should I be able to have some form of weapon to protect myself? I think so, but where should the line be drawn? Rocks, clubs, knives, firearms, guns[1], moarters, missiles, nuclear warheads?

I tend to think it would be a bad idea to allow most people to have access to nuclear warheads, and I think most people would agree with me. That is a restriction on my right to bear arms as outlined in the constitiution (it doesn't specify what is or isn't covered), but not something I mind giving up in order to keep them out of the hands of people less sane than myself.

As we move back up the list, we would get more and more people chiming in that such things should be restricted, hence the gun[1] control debate. By the time we got to rocks, I doubt very much that many would be in favor of restricting their access this being slashdot, I'm, there will likely be posts on the dangers of rocks, and even the rights of rocks not to be thrown, but that's just how things are here.

We choose every day how much freedom we want vs how much security. Sometimes the government has to step in and adjust that line. If the government makes a mistake it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it, or to decide that the government has indeed done the right thing.

----------
[1] acutal guns generally require a crew, and something to secure them. A handgun, or a hunting rifle do not qualify as guns. "This is my rifle, this is my gun, this one's for killing this one's for ..."

Re:Timing is everything

[DaytonCIM]

Very good point. Most people would give up some personal freedoms gladly after a "9/11" type of event.

Re:Timing is everything

[MentalPunisher2001]

He's not asking what should be collected, he's asking what should be pursued.
I'm sure that they collect ALL the info they can, but ignore most petty crimes and such.
At least, that's the vibe I got from the document.

don't believe it

[tps12]

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.

Re:don't believe it

[GoofyBoy]

these people are not elected, so they have no incentive to protect your rights.

Realisticly, do the people whom are elected do have a overwheming incentive to protect our rights?

Re:don't believe it

[Proaxiom]

Ridiculous. The police aren't elected either, do you think they have no incentive to protect your rights? Do you treat the army as an enemy because Generals don't obtain their posts democratically? Try to tell a court judge you won't accept his judgment because you didn't vote for him.

While you do not elect them, they are a government agency and they ultimately report to elected officials (indeed, this report is written for a Senate committee).

I am not an American, but I have met and worked with many fine people employed by the National Security Agency and I believe they are a great credit to your country. They are actively protecting you from real threats, and they have no secret agenda to destroy your freedoms.

In that light, the question posed here is entirely appropriate. There is a compromise between freedom and security, and the NSA is exactly right to ask the government to decide where the compromise should end up. And rest assured, it will end up where the American people say it should end up.

That may or may not give you some comfort. The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.

Re:don't believe it

[zeda]

Watch C-SPAN you moron.

I saw Lt. Gen. Hayden speak those words as testimony in front of the joint committee, as did thousands of other people.

Re:don't believe it

[Illuminati Member]

The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world, after the Freemasons and the Elks

Something tells me you are forgetting an organization.

Lets be philosophical, shall we. The most secretive organizations in the world you (read: your average person) probably don't even know about, or its something people 'joke about'.

Re:don't believe it

[rherbert]

He's testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He's appointed by the president - if he does something the public doesn't like, it reflects on the president.

And the NSA is certainly not the most secretive organization in the world, considering that you know their name and you can find a substantial amount of information about them on their website.

Besides, the NSA cannot spy on people in the US. Their charter is entirely foreign - worry about the FBI, if you must worry about someone tapping into your optic nerve.

Re:don't believe it

[Lord_Slepnir]

If they want to get re-elected, yes. Assuming, of course, people actually like their rights.

Re:don't believe it

[WatertonMan]

The way the NSA and other organizations get around the rules against domistic spying is to enter into agreements with the Canadians, British and so forth for information sharing and analysis. So some other government is "monitoring" American citizens here and requests the NSA to help them analyze their data.

I'm not saying that is intrinsically bad. And the fact that you frequently have such competition amongst government organizations limits how the information can be used. (i.e. it is unlikely the NSA would share such information with your local police department)

However the problem with the current terrorist thread is that the line between "outside" and "inside" becomes blurry and following traditional approaches doesn't work well. Further the idea that we can make a clear separation between "domestical criminal" and "foreign soldier/terrorist" is naive at best. We have to rethink these issues while trying to protect the basic views that the founding fathers gave us with our approach to individual liberty.

Re:don't believe it

[Samrobb]

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

Ah. I guess the same goes for local, state, and federal police forces. The military, certainly. Same thing for just about any government office. Oh - wait; I didn't elect any of our local, regional, or national news service reporters, etiher. Or any of the representatives of those watchdogs groups that claim to be looking out for my rights, or...

Hey, waitaminnit. I didn't elect you , either! You're just out to take away my liberties, you non-elected creep!

In my mind, potential corruption withing the FBI and/or CIA is much more of a threat. The NSA doesn't do law enforcement, they're an intelligence agency. So, yes, there is a serious potential for the agency to be abused (probably by an "elected official") but I think there's little chance of the NSA personally being the instigator of any assault against the rights of US citizens.

Re:don't believe it

[Iguanaphobic]

The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.

Oh, you mean like this?

Re:don't believe it

[Tassach]

Believe it or not, there *are* actually a few government employees who actually try to live up to the oath they took to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States". Granted, they are rarer than Bush family members at a MENSA convention, but there are a few out there.

Re:don't believe it

[WatertonMan]

Have you heard about Huey Long back in the 30's? Probably the greatest threat to individual liberty there was and was very popular amongst the electorate. Don't assume that voters think about things the way we do.

The mere fact that campaign finance reform was necessary tells us that people are so ill informed and so easy to manipulate that the amount of money spent on ads controls how people vote.

Re:don't believe it

[Guppy06]

"The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world, after the Freemasons and the Elks."

Why not throw in the Illuminati while you're at it? Or what about their connections to Kevin Bacon?

Hell, at least they're not Scientology...

"these people are not elected,"

Just because you didn't elect them directly doesn't mean:

1.) They weren't elected at all
2.) That you don't have indirect control over them

While you don't see NSA employees on your ballot, you do vote for the people that democratically select their higher-ups (not to mention their funding). If you have problems with the NSA, you need go no further than your local Congresscritter.

If the fact that Congress was able to "convince" the CIA to stop overturning foreign governments every other week in the 50's and 60's isn't enough to convince you of the chain of command, I don't know what will. Hell, I'm more comfortable with Congress deciding the NSA higher-ups than the members of the Electoral College deciding the president. At least members of Congress try to pretend there are things more important to them than political parties...

"so they have no incentive to protect your rights."

They do if they expect to see their paychecks.

Re:don't believe it

[quasi_steller]

The police and millitary are a very different breed of government. The police and millitary are at least somewhat accountable for their actions. The NSA, however, relies on secrecy to function. This secrecy removes any sort of accountability.

That people who work for the NSA are honest about protecting the citizens of the United States is not the question. Even if the Employees of the NSA desire to protect the citizens of the USA (which I believe many do), their actions are not accountable, even though they affect our lives. It is this system of accountability that is the foundation of the United States, but if the citizens don't even know what the NSA is up to, how can the NSA be accountable?

Re:don't believe it

[supabeast!]

"The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world..."

If you know it exists, it is not really all that secret. The NSA certainly cannot hold a candle to the secrecy of the shadow-government or the secret military courts used to prosecute Al-Quaeda members.

Re:don't believe it

[rodgerd]

Roughly half of US citizens fail to vote, so I don't think their politicians have much to worry about.

Re:don't believe it

[rodgerd]

The police have considerable oversight from internal policing mechanisms and judicial review of their behaviour. While the police generally have greater legal powers than other citizens they can be and are arrested and tried for breaches of them. In some parts of the US, senior police positions are elected directly.

The NSA regularly ignore Congressional oversight committess, refuse to provide information. They're a big black budget and legal hole who are largely free to do as they please.

Re:don't believe it

[pmz]

The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.

Everytime I think about these things, I'm reminded of the basic theme to Star Wars. When will the citizens of the US vote for GWB to be our supreme and all-powerful tyrant?

Re:don't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

This secrecy removes any sort of accountability.

Wrong. Thanks to the Church Hearings of the 70s NSA is accountable, as is stated in the document, to all three branches of the gov't. It even answers FOIA requests (I hated those, simply because it meant I had to go digging though file cabinets of papers I knew were unrelated to it).

Remember this is a Republic - NSA isn't directly accountable to the people, but it is accountable, as evidenced by that hearing, to those the people select.

Re:don't believe it

[demo9orgon]

The police exist to

1. Extract additional monies besides taxes for anything you do that violates law
2. Secure the monopoly of services you are taxed for
3. To serve as the guarantors of punishment as decreed by the judicial system
4. Properly intimidate, threaten, and by their very prescense quell any social unrest caused by the effects of laws on the system.

In short, if you are not a cop you are the enemy. If the ratchet of technology and laws and the info-tainment industry continue to erode the perception of security and liberty, soon we'll be living in a European democracy--the kind where people are rolled out of bed a 0400, given a tight pair of connected bracelets and be forced to explain anything and everything they're asked...and then spend some cursory time in jail w/o the ability or the right to tell anyone about it afterwards.

Now imagine the military in the role of police...the job of the military is to destory things and kill people. You don't send them anywhere to do anything but that...so once the zealots pass new laws subverting pre-existing law against just such a thing, which makes soldiers into cops, people are going to die, and things will get destroyed.

We would all be wise to remember that by Geneva Convention it's illegal to fire anything but light munitions at the enemy, all those 20mm, and 50-caliber rounds are really being fired at equipment. When the Military is turned against the people, we're no longer living in the United States, we're living in China.
Cheers!

Re:don't believe it

[ethereal]

Hitler was elected by the people (he said, ending the thread). Unfortunately, a Constitution and a strong judiciary seem to be better bulwarks against totalitarianism than the mere will of the people. The people, for the most part, seem to be easily swayed by events of the moment.

Re:don't believe it

[fobbman]

"Realisticly, do the people whom are elected do have a overwheming incentive to protect our rights?"

Yes, they certainly do. As long as the "our" that you are referring to are the major contributors that paid for that elected persons last campaign.

Re:don't believe it

[dogfart]

Ridiculous. The police aren't elected either, do you think they have no incentive to protect your rights?

Absolutely. This is why many citizens have called from police review boards responsive to elected officials. Consider, for example the Red Squads of the Los Angeles Police Department. Established outside the review and control of elected officials, the LAPD has seen itself as an elite "government within a government", to the point of keeping files on elected officials.

You are damn right I don't trust unelected and unaccountable police officials!

Re:don't believe it

[dogfart]

In case the link to Amazon doesn't work:

L.A. Secret Police: Inside the Lapd Elite Spy Network by Mike Rothmiller, Ivan G. Goldman (Mass Market Paperback - August 1992)

Re:don't believe it

[jasonisgodzilla]

You brought up a good point. No the police dont have any interest in protecting your rights. They have interest in circumventing them as best they can to make "big arrests" and get promoted. If a cop never arrested anyone he wouldn't be around long. After working closely with LE for many years it is very apparent that they don't give a damn about your rights. Your rights are just and obstacle for them. As for judges, JP's are elected and are usually the most lenient. Appointed judges almost always rule in favor of the state which ties back into the ideas about law enforcement. The only people who care about our rights are ourselves. Are government is owned by corporate pimps and we are their pawns or more accurately we are resources to them.

Re:don't believe it

[SacredNaCl]

Ridiculous. The police aren't elected either, do you think they have no incentive to protect your rights? Let's ask Rodney King. He survived police brutality ...Many of the other victims didn't. How about asking any of the protestors preemptively arrested a few weeks ago in Washington D.C.? The police *are* the enemy too. Not to leave out the National Guard didn't have those machine gun weilding choppers pointed at foreign terrorist, they were pointed at Americans. As well as the snipers on the roofs at WEF.

Do you treat the army as an enemy because Generals don't obtain their posts democratically? The Army is the enemy as well, and has been used as such against the American Public by the Federal Government. The most memorable example was during Lincolns reign, but it is far from the only example. Currently the Army has been conducting operations in concert with FEMA to simulate taking over entire American cities and forcing people into concentration camps. Hmmm.. Are they the enemy? They just *might* be.

Try to tell a court judge you won't accept his judgment because you didn't vote for him. In my state at least we can vote "Yes/No" on judges. If he commits a serious error we stand a chance of getting a different venue to air our grievences by the appeals process, there is also a totally ineffective judicial review process that usually results in your attorney getting disbarred if he tries to use it. Not always the enemy.

I am not an American, but I have met and worked with many fine people employed by the National Security Agency and I believe they are a great credit to your country. They are actively protecting you from real threats, and they have no secret agenda to destroy your freedoms. I am an American, and the NSA spent a ton of time, money, and resources chasing down & spying on foreign auto companies, foreign airplane builders, and foreign airplane customers ...and passed the information onto US military, auto, and aviation interest here. Maybe if they didn't spend so much of their time spying on behest of big corporate interest I would take them as more sincere. --- In fairness, they also occasionally look for terrorist threats as well.

In that light, the question posed here is entirely appropriate. There is a compromise between freedom and security, and the NSA is exactly right to ask the government to decide where the compromise should end up. And rest assured, it will end up where the American people say it should end up. That I agree with. It's just the last couple times we gave them and their counterparts at the Office Of Naval Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, & the FBI free reign -- they launched attacks and smear campaigns to root out communist, attack environmental groups, break into tap and spy on politicial parties, generate false evidence, MURDER, and disrupt genuinely lawful political activity in the US. The kinds of interest that would want this service now are even more entrenched in government than they were then.

Hell, we have defense contractors (and one with numerous felony convictions at that) owning major television networks in the US. Just an example of how entrenched some of those interest are.

If you let them start building huge databases on people, the information will be abused. Witchhunts will be started. People will be dragged off on trumped up charges. Political/religious enemies will be set up. What isn't illegal today may well be tomorrow. We have some very valid reasons not to want these intelligence organizations to spy on Americans. I'm less worried about them getting FISA warrants and spying on people who contact foreign powers, or people who are foreign nationals inside of the US. If they really suspect someone ...They can get a FISA warrant. They've had that power for a long time. It could easily have accomodated even the two *Americans* involved in the 9-11 hijackings as they had signifigant contact with foreign powers known to be hostile to the US. We can do this without the USA PATRIOT ACT. In fact, we can do all of this with the laws we had on the books prior to 9-11.

That being said...The NSA does need more foreign language people, it probably needs more communications & IT people as well. The volume of traffic makes it impossible to monitor everything. I'm not averse to their existence, but I'm well aware of their potential to be a tool for whoever is in power to crush dissent.

Re:don't believe it

[4of12]

I don't know that elected people necessarily have any incentivwe to protect my rights to privacy or to anything else.

That's because most voters haven't yet had a direct first-hand experience with loss of privacy apart from mild examples of direct marketing.

A growing minority have had some experience with stalkers, so I'd count on those people to value privacy more than the public at large.

The Federal Reserve board is not elected either, but they have an immense impact on my life. Given what I've seen of politics, I'm not really sure I'd want monetary policy in the hands of politicians. Their record with fiscal policy has not been all that great.

A cynical friend once told me that

"Democracies work great until the voters figure out they can vote themselves benefits."

While I'd rather live under a system with elections and representative government, they're not a cure-all. Benevolent dictatorship can work wonderfully until it's time to change the reins of power.

Re:don't believe it

[Orne]

My friends and I are involved in governmental and utility-type industries, from the Navy to Bulk Power to the NSA. We all read Slashdot, we all worry about the average person's right to get our data, because we're counted among that average. It is a little pretentious of you to say it's an "Us vs Them" battle, when the Them are citizens just like You.

Do I think the agencies needs oversight? Hell yea! But, I also believe my employer has the right to protect its assets (including its employees), and if that means taking the road maps off of the internet for fear of attack, then so be it. We need to Watch the Watchers, as the saying goes, and its time for our generation to step up into politics and demand our elected officials to provide accountability.

Re:don't believe it

[mencik]

While you don't see NSA employees on your ballot,

Actually, the former Deputy Directory for Information Security at NSA was Mayor of College Park, MD at the same time.

Re:don't believe it

[ethereal]

All right, I learned something today after researching this. The Nazis got at most 44% of the popular vote in the last parliamentary election, by using propaganda and so forth. It's still a pretty impressive swaying of the will of the people. And since many of the reasons that Hitler was able to do this were problems with the German Republic's Constitution, it still supports my point that a strong judiciary and a respected and well-written Constitution are better protections of civic good than the people themselves.

I'd have thought

[myowntrueself]

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.

Re:I'd have thought

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Ie the rest of the world is unsafe and the USA has liberty.

Isolationism will bring even less security. We begin to ignore what other countries are doing etc.... They have a larger excuse for their hatred and a larger window of opportunity to plan things unnnoticed.

Re:I'd have thought

[Iguanaphobic]

Isolationism will bring even less security. We begin to ignore what other countries are doing etc.... They have a larger excuse for their hatred and a larger window of opportunity to plan things unnnoticed.

Invade. Create new states, appoint governers and rule with an iron fist. The emperor will be pleased.

Re:I'd have thought

[myowntrueself]

well yeah, but with autonomous fighting machines, super lasers, advanced pilotless stealth fighters and so forth the rest of the world had darn well better watch out, right?

I prophesie this;
When the USA finally has autonomous fighting robots it'll all be over for the rest of the world. They may as well run up an American flag and swear the pledge of allegiance.

The only thing stopping the USA from kicking the arse of everyone that opposes them around the world, including the Chinese and the Europeans is that the USA can't replace combat losses of personel; the pre-9/11 CIA world factbook showed that of the total, gross, population of the USA less than 1% can be considered fit for military service.

Interestingly, not long after 9/11 the CIA changed the relevent statistics to "N/A" instead of giving the numbers.

Re:I'd have thought

[be-fan]

Actually, I think a lot of people are mad *because* we intervene too much. We do political jiggering in the Middle East (keeping non-Democratic governments in power in the process) just so we can have oil. We're fucking up some foreign countries real good, and in 100 years, the oil will be gone anyway, and they'll still have civil chaos because of the stuff we're doing now. At that point, we're all (us and them) screwed.

Re:I'd have thought

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Actually, I think a lot of people are mad *because* we intervene too much. We do political jiggering in the Middle East (keeping non-Democratic governments in power in the process) just so we can have oil.

This is a very common American mindset,"If we are not isolationists, then we must be interventionists". We need to realize that their is more than a right and a left there is a middle ground. As someone who lived in foreign countries I will tell you that yes intervention was scorned but aid was not. Aid can influence when it is not forced to, Also, there are other forms of involvement. Were we "just minding our business" by not attending any of the major environmental treaties of late? Would the world have seen us as "intervening too much" to sign on in Tokyo? We need to take a role in stewardship of the international environment (seas, polar landscapes etc....) and stop only influencing what directly influences Wall Street. That is really partly what your point was, I just wanted to add mine to it.

Re:I'd have thought

[PaulQuinn]

When the USA finally has autonomous fighting robots it'll all be over for the rest of the world. They may as well run up an American flag and swear the pledge of allegiance.

The business of America is business, and there is no business bigger than war (oil is just a red herring).

Think of how much money the US government and Lockheed Martin would make off selling millions of 'autonomous fighting robots' to both sides of a foreign conflict. Thus the technology will spread and everyone will have them.

Maybe your prophesy is wishful thinking in your eyes. But fear not, corporations and some powerful people will gladly sell the US flag for the ungodly amounts of money war creates.

Re:I'd have thought

[Idarubicin]

The only thing stopping the USA from kicking the arse of everyone that opposes them around the world, including the Chinese and the Europeans is that the USA can't replace combat losses of personel;

Um. Sure. Absolutely. An invasion can be deemed successful if the conquering power is too afraid to send armed troops into the 'vanquished' nation.

Really, the only thing stopping the USA from kicking the arse of everyone else would have to be the nuclear weapons belonging to other nations. And the chemical weapons. And the biologicals, God forbid. Oh--and six billion people, most of whom might take exception to any potential arsekicking. Granted, taking on the entire world all at once is unlikely in the extreme. Still, there's a half dozen or more nations (UK, Russia, China, India, etc.) that could mount a significant attack on the United States. They would lose, but after such a conflict the United States could certainly not be said to have won...

The notion of mutually assured destruction loses its deterrent effect once one side expects to be razed and burned anyway. Oh, and MAD doesn't deter people who don't care about their own destruction anyway, as long as they can get a chance to bloody the U.S. a bit.

Re:I'd have thought

[Zemran]

Or maybe the rest of the world would have some safety if the Americans did not have the liberty to leave the US

Re:I'd have thought

[paroxysm]

"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."

are you kidding, or what? that's a huge part of the problem we had with information prior to the 9/11 attacks.. the question at this point really isn't whether we should look at people who are in the US legally, but AT WHAT POINT do we start looking at them, what steps are we allowed to take, and what happens with the information gathered.. believe me, I'm not at all saying I'm willing to give up any liberties in this.. that's the one thing I feel we both can't, and should not do.. giving up our freedoms will only show that terror is succeeding.. If we're not free, what's left to protect? There definately needs to be some rules set into place, but I believe we can find a way to accomplish this..

Re:I'd have thought

[DuBois]

Isolationism will bring even less security.

You're correct that isolationism is a xenophobic and counter-productive attitude.

However, non-interventionism (the clear view of the world held by George Washington, et. al.) is the best way forward toward peace and progress.

Non-interventionists fully engage the world in trade, travel, and commerce. Non-interventionists DO NOT invade other countries (Russia, 1917: for which America was never forgiven), they do not prop up dictatorships (Viet Nam, Korea), they do not bomb drug factories in the Sudan (you know who, when).

Non-interventionism says, "We're here to do business with you, let you visit (and even stay, if you'll become a citizen), visit you in your country, be friends with you if you'll do business with us and let us visit you. If you invade our homeland, blow up our buildings, or commit suicide with airplanes, we're comin' to get you sucka!"

That's supposedly why the "War Department" changed its name to the "Defense Department." But that happened just around the time the Pentagon began to be used for committing war just about anywhere the President or the gullible Congress wanted to let him commit it.

Isolationism is the policy of a bunch of xenophobic racists (anybody for Charles Lindbergh?). Non-interventionism was American policy for over a century, and created the best and finest country on the world, which then got trashed by the interventionists from Teddy Roosevelt on forward.

Re:I'd have thought

[Archangel Michael]

You are so wrong. People hate the US because we are better off than they are. It the same with the rich and poor everywhere. Rich want what they have, and the poor want what the rich have.

The problem is when the poor expect to be handed what the rich have just because they are poor. When the poor develop weapons that threaten the rich then they can extort from the rich, that which they don't deserve, or cannot handle.

In the case of Crazy Muslims, it is a bit more intricate, because while they want what we have, they cannot have what we have because of religious institutions. There solution is if they cannot have it, neither should anyone else.

Re:I'd have thought

[banzai51]

Horsepucky.
It's a common non-American mindset to think only in terms of America is isolationist or meddling. Castro loves to have his cake and eat it too by portraying America as either, "the uncaring neighbor to the North" or as, "the imperialist interloper." America is damned if we do, damned if we don't. Sooner or later the rest of the world will reap what they sow with America. Either we'll end up isolationist and let the rest of the world pull itself apart or we'll end up with Pax-Americanna. Either scenario sucks.
And take the Kyoto accords and stuff it. The Kyoto accords would have done little to curb global pollution. Kyoto boils down to the conclusions that America is responsible for ALL pollution and should pay to fix it. We will never have a global plan to curb pollution until Europe gets realizes they have to get off their duff and contribute something to the fight.

Re:I'd have thought

[Stonehand]

Well, there's not just envy, but also severe doctrinal differences. None of the 11-Sep hijackers were exactly poor, if memory serves, and quite a few if not all received higher education in the western world.

However, the US isn't an Islamic theocracy, nor is it terribly friendly to terrorists, and they didn't exactly appreciate that.

Re:I'd have thought

[myowntrueself]

Good point.
I'm reminded of what was going down before the Soviets developed their own nukes;
Bertrand Russell (who most people know as a CND activist) was advocating a first strike nuclear attack against the Soviets to stop them developing the nuke.
It was only after they got the nuke that Russell changed sides on that issue.

Re:I'd have thought

[Jettra]

You are so wrong. The poor do not hate the rich. It's when the rich use their position to extract more riches from the poor... Or when they hold the poor down and keep them from claiming what is rightfully theirs.

Examples of this are when (mostly American) corporations negotiate tax free zones within poor countries and set up the equivalent of sweat shops. Or when an oil company stands by (encourages) the killing of locals that protest the pillaging of their countries resources.

Re:I'd have thought

[be-fan]

Um, as I remember it, Americans use several times more engergy per capita than any other group of people on the planet. When you're trying to stop something prevalent, it's too complicated to go after everyone. You go after the big abusers. It's like the MP3 situation. You don't bust the guy 100 MB of country, you bust the guy hosting 100 GB of Top 40 music. The US reps had a problem with Thailand getting off too easy. Thailand! That's complete and utter bullshit. The rest of the world will start picking up on their end when Americans stop buying 13 mpg SUVs.

Maximum Liberty

[bareman]

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.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[Ichijo]

"...[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 choose between liberty and safety? I agree with Franklin, who said the person willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.

Anonymity would make a better trade. It was never guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in the first place.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

I choose Maximum Liberty. Please draw the line there.

As a former paratrooper I thank you kindly. Many americans (military and civilian) traded their safety and even their lives for our continued freedom. The war on terrorism promotes the heroism of cowardice "I boldly tell the FBI what my neighbor says in confidence....because I am scared of the roughly couple dozen Al Qaeda reps that the President says MIGHT be in our country." That is a sad, sad statement.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[Romeozulu]

Actually, what Franklin said was "...trade liberty for temporary security". There is a difference.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[unicron]

WTF? Boobs? Oh, that's some sick shit man, you gotta have that looked at.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[mesocyclone]

Counting on the government to do anything well is asking a lot.

Expecting the government to attempt to provide for your safety against the depradations of others is correct, however.

The single most important purpose of government is to protect its citizens against crimes local and afar.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[Cervantes]

I wish I had mod points. Someone mod parent up.

The war on terrorism promotes the heroism of cowardice.

Amen, Zaphod!

Re:Maximum Liberty

[MAXOMENOS]

bareman++, and shame on both parties for chickening out and not taking this stand.

Re:Maximum Liberty

[lazelank]

"As a former paratrooper I thank you kindly. Many americans (military and civilian) traded their safety and even their lives for our continued freedom."

HOOAH

Thats it...

[TerryAtWork]

Lets /. the government now, I'm sure that's a felony...

Re:Thats it...

[nogoodmonkey]

I can just see a raise in taxes because /. linked to a government site. ;-)

Then we have a job to do...

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

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.

Re:Then we have a job to do...

[Shadow Wrought]

I agree whole heartedly. Let your representative know how you feel. I would add, however, that for the best results uses old fashioned paper stuffed in an envelope. For good or for bad, snail mail will carry more weight.

Staying unsafe...

[bhsx]

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.

Re:Staying unsafe...

[Iguanaphobic]

With millions of cargo shipments coming in and thousands of planes in the air daily there's no way to secure it.

Simple. Turn it all off. No international trade at all. Quickly, the economy would slow to the point where oil is no longer required to make it run, therefore freeing the military budget to actually perform socially useful things. Standard of living for everyone in the country would actually increase. 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.

Re:Staying unsafe...

[Dannon]

Quickly, the economy would slow to the point where oil is no longer required to make it run

I'm mentally picturing a society with no oil. I could live with it. But then, I grew up doing things like backpacking and hiking, and I enjoy a good walk. With winter coming along, though, it's a good thing I live in the south. Still, without the international commerce, I'd miss Korean and Thai food, and so much for my hopes of getting a game cube.

Standard of living for everyone in the country would actually increase.

Well, yeah, the average might rise. Of course, those who can't fend for themselves without grocery stores, or who are medically dependent on oil-based products and ambulances, that population will drop significantly, but hell, we could live without them. No need to be concerned with their standard of living if they aren't living.

Not trying to troll or flame you here, Iguana, don't get me wrong. Just holding up a broken mirror to your vision. I'm generally an optimist, but I've gotten into the habit of taking every idealist situation and asking myself, what's the worst that could happen.

I keep picturing another time the industries in the United States nearly stopped international trade, and the economy *very* quickly slowed down, back in the 1930's....

Re:Staying unsafe...

[Iguanaphobic]

No flame taken. My comment was merely a tongue in cheek reply to the notion of securing the borders to terrorists. Parallel thought to throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the freedoms for security, along those lines.

I too was raised in an area where a simpler way of life was possible. The oil thing: US has enough to look after everything if you take out transportation. So medical, plastics etc. would continue quite comfortably for a long long time.

Re:Staying unsafe...

[Dannon]

Securing the borders is a very tricky issue, you're right. The current situation is a choice between shutting down the borders completely (bad option) or keeping the system we've got now, which is absolutely useless. It's my optimistic hope that someone with brains and guts who can find a better option will get appointed to just the right job. Since politics is involved, I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not so sure this country would last more than a month without fuel-based transport, though. Transportation's gotten to be pretty integral to life. These days, a supply part from Taiwan can be unloaded from the docks in California on Monday, on a truck by Tuesday, sent to a factory halfway across the country by the end of the week. There it can be put into a finished product, which in turn can be sent to anywhere in the country before another week has passed. Not all stores and businesses have gone the Amazon.com way, but some industries have really stopped keeping their inventories local to their production or shipping centers.

And then there's life-essential perishables. Blood, platelets and organs for transfusions and transplants, for example. And the strongest demand for these things isn't always very close to the most-visited donation centers.

Plan for Freedom and Security

[Anonymous Coward]

1 Eliminate civil liberties making security

2

3 FREEDOM! :)

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[rppp01]

Someone MOD this up, please.

It is very insightful. It does indeed show the mindset of the US Government these days. Let's take away the right to do this, and we'll be free of that. It is like gun laws. Whether or not we have gun laws, those who want to use a gun will get one and use it. Example: see sniper.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[goon america]

Whether or not we have gun laws, those who want to use a gun will get one and use it. Example: see sniper.

Why, it was legal for him to own and carry the gun he used? He was acting perfectly within the law until he pulled the trigger. The kind of statement you made can't be supported except by an endless cycle of single examples and counter-examples. So why bother making it?

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[krinsh]

Actually, I believe he had his weapons illegally - hence the Federal weapons charges that first brought the Maryland authorties' attention to the guy. I completely stand by my right to keep and bear arms, and don't doubt I will fight for that right even if I have to break out my nail clippers to do so. The people that have guns legally here are usually hunters and people who wish to protect themselves in this manner - and that is their right and privilege. I'm no conspiracy theorist, civil libertarian or NRA good ol' boy; but I do believe the more rights and privileges we lose - and that's what they are privileges - the more we open ourselves to abuses by those from whom those privileges were not taken; as well as those that disregard the taking in the first place.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[goon america]

Most privileges come with risks. Some people may not value the privilege enough to undertake the risk -- and that is not necessary irrational. I could drive a motorcycle without a helmet, but I don't value it enough to undertake the risks associated with it. Some people do. You shouldn't choose to undertake an action solely by first asking yourself: "Is it a privilege?". That's irrational.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[Stonehand]

It was illegal for the older one to have a firearm of any kind due to his history of domestic violence, as per Federal law enacted during the prior administration.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[Elwood P Dowd]

As much as I believe in the right to bear arms...

no. See Japan.

Our right to bear arms is a trade off. We have the right to bear arms, which means that more people will die of gun violence, in exchange for guarantees on our freedom. If you prefer safety and less freedom, then you just don't agree with the authors of the constitution.

Of course, that's most americans. It's not required that we agree with the founding fathers on that point. But removing guns from the country would reduce the number of violent deaths, guaranteed. Hopefully there are better ways.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[Centinel]

no. See Japan

Using Japan as an example of firearms prohibition leading to less crime falls flat on its face when you look at the UK, which also has eliminated most firearms ownership, yet has skyrocketing violent crime rates...because the perps know the victims are unarmed.

I don't think it's too fringe of an assumption to say Americans are alot closer to Brits than than to Japanese in their core beliefs and values. In fact, some people warn that events in the UK are a foreshadow of possible events in the US.

The Japanese still have a modern tribalism based on honor and respect in a well-ordered society. With or without firearms ownership, crime would still be low there.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[halo8]

1 Eliminate civil liberties making security

2 Realize no amount of security can stop a Determined person(s)

3 FREEDOM! :)

Freedom? You say you want Freedom? Is that Freedom to? or Freedom From? Marget Attwood

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[krinsh]

That's a very good point - thank you for that. Actually, a lot of the more recent /. articles have sparked some lively (and healthy!) debate between my wife and I.

Re:Plan for Freedom and Security

[Elwood P Dowd]

Fair 'nuff.

Of course, I wasn't trying to imply that Japan's situation was *good* in that regard. But my reasoning was different. Thanks.

Re:We can have both

[jazzbotley]

The ideal mix is an armed citizen. Ask ESR!

Not good enough

[s20451]

[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.

Re:Not good enough

[billtom]

Ooops. There's a hidden assumption in the parent that liberty=privacy. Many people (myself included) would argue that this assumption is incorrect.

Liberty and privacy do have an impact on each other, but they are not synonymous.

Re:Not good enough

[darkonc]

people tend to choose security on the principle that only criminals have something to hide ...

This is close to the principle behind the support for most restrictions on civil rights -- be it liberty restrictions ("against criminals and terrorists only"), Jim Crow laws ("against blacks only"), Hitler's Neurenberg laws ("Against Jews only"), or Israel's security laws ("Against Palistinians only").

These laws are always against a subgroup that is unpopular and easily identifiable as "not me". It's always easy to get the public to support the supression of "Someone Else's rights". Unfortunately, once the tools and structures of supression are in place, it's easy enough to turn them against more and more people until everybody's rights are effectively infringed.
(Jim Crow laws -> McCarthyism, Nurenburg laws -> Gestapo supression of the German people generally, etc.)

What?

[crawdaddy]

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.

Re:what?

[Iguanaphobic]

Source of the following quote.

"The increase of $44 billion from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002 is greater than any other nation's annual defense budget."

When you consider that most of the wealth posessed by the top 2% of the population comes from this travesty, I think you might want to rethink your position. Capitalism is fine in an OPEN and DEMOCRATIC society. If you think you're living in either one of those...

Re:what?

[HBPiper]

Here we go again with percentages? Why don't Liberals ever use dollars? Because then people would understand the specious bull they are spewing. According to the IRS, in 2000, the top 1% were families or individuals that made above 313,469 dollars a year. The top 5% made above 128,336 dollars a year. The top 10% made above 92,144 dollars a year. The top 25% made above 55,225 dollars a year. You can verify this at the IRS's site in this Excel file. 00in01rt.xls

So we know the top 2% is somewhere between 128k and higher. Big deal! Prove their wealth came from defense and not from their plumbing business or their pizza shop.

Re:what?

[Iguanaphobic]

Wasn't speaking of income. Was speaking of the obscene amounts of wealth that individuals have. Income is a different story. Have no objection to income.

Re:We can have both

[mr_z_beeblebrox]

Despite the rhetoric from both sides, liberty and security are not mutually exclusive.

Realistically, no you can't. If someone else is free to do things about which you have no knowledge, the government has no control etc.... Then you are not truly safe. If someone else can not do that you are not really free. Either way the terrorists have us for the momen.

I don't it

[nogoodmonkey]

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.

Freedom

[Henry V .009]

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.

Re:Freedom

[JLucien]

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.

So does this mean that people from other countries are either with you or against you?

If you are an American who doesn't like the direction the country is taking does this mean you are a "bad" citizen?

I'm not trying to flame, I want to understand what you really mean.

-- Jude

Re:Freedom

[rsborg]

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.

So what do you think happened this last Tuesday? Notable victory? or Progress towards 1984?

Personally, I believe Americans deserve the government they have. Take from that whatever you wish to construe.

Too late...

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

We already slashdotted the Department of Justice, the other day, with this story...

You had your chance to send a real message...

[Smallest]

... 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

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Bartab]

Waitsec, didn't USAPATRIOT pass a Democratic controlled Senate?

You're talking about the difference between somebody who's going to take away my rights -and- my wallet, and somebody who's just going to take away my rights. Shitty choice, but it's obvious who to choose.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[-cman-]

Word.

It's been said here ad nauseum but still bears repeating (prefereably with a baseball bat with the words reverse inscribed).

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

The apparent mandate for the President's current security policy on Tuesday just confirms that most American's don't give a shit that the security apparatus can do whatever it wants (as long as they only do it to "rag-heads" and other non-Amurican types) in order to maintain our protective cocoon of blissful, consumerist ignorance.

Ouch. Suprised myself with vehamence there.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Guppy06]

"Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT."

Yeah, as we all know not a single Democrat voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. That's why it never got past the Senate and never became law.

Of course, when the major parties rely on nothing but FUD to get votes, we're bound to see die-hard party reactionaries like you chanting "{Democrats|Republicans} good! {Republicans|Democrats} bad!"

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[MAXOMENOS]

USAPATRIOT passed a Democratic-controlled Senate that still followed the Clinton strategy of "move the party to the Right."

I think in the future, you will not see the Democrats so ready to cooperate. Of course, that depends on what happens within the party in the next few weeks.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Bartab]

If you mean a party that moves back to the left, sure... They'll lose even more seats.

In fact, I see the Democrats in a losing position no matter what. If they stay centered, they lose votes to the Greens. If they move left, they lose votes to the Republicans. Not an enviable position. I expect them to stay put, and after 2004 start promoting election reform (condorcet or instant runoff)

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[rodgerd]

I fail to see where he specified "party". I think the only die-hard party reactionary in this conversation is you.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[MAXOMENOS]

I think you're underestimating what the party can do. The main thing they need to do is present a more attractive vision than Bush's police state, and convince the voters that they can do it. That's really not as hard as it looks. If the economy continues its slump, or there's a change in the Supreme Court, then that makes their job all the easier.

I agree that they can't afford to lose more votes to the Greens. It killed them in Florida in 2000, and it probably did even more damage in 2002 (as the liberals were not inclined to support the moderate New Democrat agenda). The party can go Green without much difficulty, though.

I don't see them calling for election reform. By all accounts this was the cleanest election we had in years. I don't see things getting worse in that regard between now and 2004.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[ethereal]

I expect the Republicans will continue to screw over the nation (don't get me started on the business groups that are already slavering to roll back environmental regulations), just enough so that they'll get thrown out in '04 but the situation will still be salvageable at that time.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Guppy06]

From the original post:

"Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT."

The post made reference to the elections two days ago, and the poster assumed that we all agreed with the new policies because of the way we voted. Drawing things along party lines is the only way he could have made that assumption, since that's really the only thing the newly-elected congresscritters have in common with the president and each other.

Are you going to argue that the poster may have been implying that we all agreed with the policies because all the new members of Congress are men? Are they all from Texas? Did they all go to the same college, perhaps?

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Audacious]

I have written to a senator this morning on the issue of truth in labeling. I was seeking information on how to submit a law for consideration in the houses. Here is the law:

Title: Truth in labeling

Body: A law which guarantees any article/law put forth for consideration by either house in the federal, state, or local governments shall only contain a title, composed of a single sentenc, which accurately reflects the body of the article/law and nothing else.

I am awaiting a response but if anyone knows how such a law could be presented (ie: Do I just write my congressman/senator and ask them if they will sponsor this? Or do I have to get a certain number of signatures? Or what?) I think it would be a great law and it would stop the "Let's make this law have a title that no one can vote against." Like was done with the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act would have been titled something like "A law to reduce several civil rights as well as to override some privacy rights for the sake of national security."

Personally - it will probably never make it. After all - look at the balanced budget act and how far that's gotten.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[dvk]

Uhm... while the "don't stick out" mentality might account for near 100% of the pledge issue, compared to, say, 80% or 90%, the BULK of them probably actually meant the support they showed, for one reason or another.
-DVK

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[dvk]

Funny, from my point of view, it was (and still are) the Democrats that screw both the nation and me in particular. Then again, for the Left, anyone disagreeing with them is not really "part of the nation", but "enemies of the proletariat".
Too bad most left ideologists never had to have my experience of living under socialism. They might change their minds in a hurry.
-DVK

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[rodgerd]

The "government" in the United States comprises the Congress and Senate, as well as the executive branch, who had to pass the so-called Patriot Act, which included the many Democrats voting for it.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[jpetts]

Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT.

Waitsec, didn't USAPATRIOT pass a Democratic controlled Senate?

And where in smallest's post was any reference whatosever to Democrats versus Republicans?

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Maul]

The real message is not sent by voting "democrat" instead of "republican." Either of those votes is one that does not send a message.

Bush is getting away with whatever he wants. He was doing so before the election. He would have done so no matter how the election would have turned out.

The only reason the democrats showed an inkling of fighting Bush on Iraq is because they were trying to go for a power grab before the election, hoping that there would be enough people unsure about going to war with Iraq to swing votes their way. Of course, it seemed to have backfired on them.

The only real way to send a REAL message is to start seeing a third party, ANY third party, get 30+% of the votes in some major elections. The real message will be to voters that a 3rd. party candidate actually has a chance, and that you don't have to pick one of the two "republicrat" candidates.

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Stonehand]

Um, no. Bush's domestic agenda has gone nowhere -- even the Homeland Security mess is delayed due to a fight over union/work rules. His desired judges haven't been getting hearings, his SEC head just had to step down, his tax cuts may NOT be made permanent despite his desire to do so, his TIPS program was squashed due to public protest, /his/ drug plan is deadlocked with the Dem's drug plan, his "private investment account" idea for Social Security is deader than Abel...

What crack are you smoking?

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[Guppy06]

Um... Einstein... that's what I just said...

Maybe I shouldn't even bother responding...

Re:You had your chance to send a real message...

[ethereal]

Actually, I voted for the other other guys most recently :)

The big problem with the Republicans is that they're inconsistent. They support states rights and increased federalism -- until we're talking about assisted suicide or drug laws. They support smaller government -- unless it's the part of government that pays attention to obscenity, or puts religion in the classroom. And they wrap themselves in the flag the whole time they make these contradictory arguments. Talk about enemies of the nation - I don't see liberal ideologues making death threats against conservatives and calling them enemies of the state, like conservative Ann Coulter did. Liberals may disagree and even hate, but they know better than to let that cloud the issues. Conservatives pick and choose when to apply their values; if they'd just pick an interpretation and stick with it they might actually stand for something for a change.

The Left may be splintered, weak at times, and (due to its orientation towards preserving traditional liberal values like free debate and open mindedness) at times easier to argue into a corner, but they're the only folks really standing up for the values that the U.S. really is founded on, and when you elect them they actually follow through on those values. (Except for the 2nd Amendment, unfortunately - you have to vote for some Libertarians on that score.) True liberals will admit that there's more to the U.S. than flag waving, Christianity, and money; conservatives run on the reductionist platform that that is all that America is. Unfortunately, that platform is very often an easy win, because people are lazy and prefer the simplistic viewpoint. Such is life in a democracy.

Why can't we have both?

[Omega]

Why does the NSA have to ask for a line between safety and liberty? Why can't we have both?

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.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

Why does the NSA have to ask for a line between safety and liberty? Why can't we have both

The NSA isn't asking you to choose one or the other. It is asking how much liberty do you wish to sacrifice in order to gain how much safety.

And contrary to the rest of your post, there is *always* that tradeoff in the real world.


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.

Wait... it makes it easier to do their job, so it is bad policework? That doesn't follow.

If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through.

Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals. There is a reason that every BOLO I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot of them) list the race of the suspect. And in terms of a more general profile, where you don't exactly know the suspect, it still makes sense. Not racially profiling is like making a spam filter that ignores certain words because it is politically incorrect to do so.

In other words, it is a dumb strategy from a law enforcement viewpoint.

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.

This is utter balderdash. Civil liberties in general impede law inforcement. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to enforce civil liberties against law enforcement, because they would have no desire or need to violate them.

The important issue, which at least the head of the NSA understands (unlike some posters here) is which civil liberties does one reduce (not eliminate) in trade for what sort of protection. This is a valid question. In fact, it is the fundamental question of all government: what freedoms do you take from your citizens in trade for what benefits do you give them?

After all, government ONLY works by removing liberties. This is something that those who favor big government should keep in mind. It isn't only safety that people trade for liberty; they are also all to willing to trade economic freedoms (typically the economic freedoms of others) for their own economic gain (or the economic gain of others).

Government is necessary in the real world. Government only works by removing liberties. The US government is contrained in its removal of liberties by a constitution, although the interpretation of that constitution is a matter of constant controversy.

Therefore the only interesting issue is how much the government can and should infringe on liberties. Anything else ignores reality.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[thatguywhoiam]

You know, I read this statement:

After all, government ONLY works by removing liberties.

... and it made no sense at all to me, on any level. I was going to retort, but then I saw the sig...

The only good weather is bad weather

... and I realized that you are living in the Bizarro Universe.

Racial profiling is a bad method. Your spam example does not hold up. To run with it a second, the spam filter is supposed to weed out as much 'bad' mail as possible. Police work needs to be 100% accurate, or as close as humanly possible. Exclusionary rules don't help the situation, and Tim McVeigh is a good example. In the case of the recent sniper shootings, the law enforcement people were looking for a young white guy in his 20s with a crew cut right up until the killer(s) pretty much gave himself away.

Civil liberties can impede law enforcement, but only in the same manner that asking for a subject's permission to test drugs on them impedes medical science. It's true, but for good reason.

I do agree that there is often a balancing act between liberty and security, but it's not absolute. You can't just say Ok, we'll go with 70% Liberty and 30% Security. You can have both. Calling it a 'line in the sand' even dilutes the idea... I think of it more as a semi-permeable membrane. Selectivity, flexibility, intelligence... this is what's needed, in conjunction with constantly-reviewed and adjusted policy.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[frenchgates]

"If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through."

This popular cliche is even more simplistic than racial profiling.

If you are trying to find Ku Klux Klan members you don't waste a lot of time interviewing non-caucasians.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[inkydoo]

Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals. There is a reason that every BOLO I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot of them) list the race of the suspect.

The description of an individual on a BOLO or APB is not racial profiling. It's based on the description by one or more witnesses or agencies of a single individual so as to identify the person as uniquely as possible to the public, not to describe an entire category of individuals.

Now, if you've seen a BOLO or APB that says "be on the lookout for (black|hispanic|asian|white) people" then I stand corrected.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[goon america]

Thank you, what a great post that would have been modded down except for the analogy to a spam filter.

According to contract theorists, with which our founding fathers seemed to agree, The Constitution is a legal contract in which both parties (the government, you) agree to give up something in exchange for a greater total good.

Unfortunately most of discussion here involves only subjective, poorly constructed definitions of what a right is, perhaps based mostly on how it makes them feel.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[karlmiller]

After all, government ONLY works by removing liberties.

It's a shame you don't have an organization like the ACLU in your country. Because in my country, the home of the ACLU, we are kept free to live our lives as we see fit, because of organizations like the ACLU, who work tirelessly to defend the rights of people which are being trampled on by a system that is manipulated by many outside forces, namely extremely wealthy commericial interests. Without organizations like the ACLU, our Bill of Rights would be more worthless than the paper it's written on.

Government is a necessary in the real world. It's necessary to prevent one entity from taking advantage of another entity, in other words, promote the general welfare. In our society, since we desire to govern ourselves, and place a high value on freedom, we build a government accordingly. Our government only becomes a usurper of rights when it becomes corrupted by the cancer of greed that is engendered by overly wealthy business interests.

Remember what happened in Germany, and in many other places on earth. Don't let those whose lives were sacrificed there be done so in vain. Support the ACLU.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[Steve B]

Civil liberties in general impede law enforcement. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to enforce civil liberties against law enforcement, because they would have no desire or need to violate them.

There are two basic fallacies here. First, civil liberties protections are, by definition, law enforcement (they prevent the police from breaking the law). Second, police agencies acting outside the bounds of civil liberties protections tend to exhibit "desires and needs" which have no legitimate relationship to law enforcement (e.g. politically motivated wiretaps and tax audits).

Re:Why can't we have both?

[nosilA]

Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals.

No, you don't. I hate to beat the sniper drum because people are making such a big deal out of it, but it is true that the snipers were observed near the scene of several of the shootings by the police, but not noticed because the police were on the lookout for white separatists, and black muslims don't fit that profile.

Had no such profiling been done and they had instead simply compared license plates or people, they may have caught on to them earlier. Or maybe not, but clearly having the contrary profile in that case did not make their job any easier.

-Alison

Re:Why can't we have both?

[Fjord]

The problem with racial profiling is that it is selfaffirming. You think black people do more crimes? Then you pull over more black people. When you pull over more black people, you catch more black people doing crimes. So you believe even stronger that black people commit more crimes. Meanwhile, if you're white you can get away with more shit just because of the colour of your skin.

That doesn't even deal with the societal implications: young iranians in the U.S. that are treated like terrorists thinking things like "well, if you are going to think I'm a terrorist anyway, I might as well blow some shit up."

Also, don't forget about the 20-30 year old white sniper in Virgina that turned out to be black and in his 40s. Or the successful, social Ted Bundy who was overlooked for 3 years in spite of 6 people reporting on him because he didn't fit his own profile. Profiling is bullshit, it looks great on TV where the writer knows who the killer is, but in real life, it's a randomly thrown dart that allows people to slip through and cause serious damage. Just ask the late Timothy McVeigh.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[dvk]

Uhm... he probably lives in the same country as ACLU, you and me. Except, he understands the politics on an intelligent (not touchy-feely) level. However, hist country of origin is irrelevant.

A system of 100% liberty to do anything one wants is not called Democracy, or Republic.
It's called "Anarchy" and is pretty far from US political system.

Most of the laws in the US restrict what someone can do. Some of them restrict what Joe Average can do - for example, you can't refuse to pay taxes, or drive over speed limit, etc...; some restrict what Law enforcement can do (i.e. they can't search your house without a warrant), some restrict what a particular part of government can do (i.e. congress can not pass a law establishing state religion).

As for ACLU, I refuse to support it because instead of Civil Liberties, it supports left wing causes. Which sometimes are the same, and sometimes (NAMBLA being the best example) are not.
The moment they stop helping NAMBLA and such, and start being less partisan, is the moment I'll support them. Basically, I agree with their charter but not their implementation of it.

-DVK

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

After all, government ONLY works by removing liberties. ... and it made no sense at all to me, on any level. I was going to retort, but then I saw the sig...

Government is the only institution which is granted that right to use deadly force, which ultimately is the only way to deprive someone of their liberties. Government without that capability (or some other effective form of coercion) cannot enforce its mandates, and thus doesn't work. I thought that was obvious!

Now, this doesn't mean that you have more liberties without government, as someone else may come along and use force to take them from you. But government works by the threat of or actual taking of liberties, backed up by its authorization to use deadly force.

Police work needs to be 100% accurate, or as close as humanly possible. Exclusionary rules don't help the situation, and Tim McVeigh is a good example. In the case of the recent sniper shootings, the law enforcement people were looking for a young white guy in his 20s with a crew cut right up until the killer(s) pretty much gave himself away.

Police work is rarely 100% accurate, or even close. What law enforcement needs is as much information as possibly applied to the detection of criminals. Racial profiling provides this information, just like other profiling does. Of course it isn't perfect, as your examples illustrate. But it *does* work. Police work, like most things involving humans, is ultimately proabilistic. Racial profiling works to improve probabilities. That is all it does. And when properly applied, it works. It is no different in that sense than age profiling.

In the case of terrorism, it should be obvious that most muslims are foreigners, and can be visually distinguished that way. Thus it is logical to be *more* suspicious of people with that appearance, even though 99.99 percent of them are not terrorists. It certainly makes more sense than strip searching 85 year old grannies just to be fair!

I never argued that civil liberties should not be allowed to impede law enforcement. As the NSA guy implied with his question, the issue is how much.
My post addressed the all too common absolutist view of civil rights.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

No, a BOLO isn't a racial profile. I bring it up to mention the obvious importance of race as a characteristic of value to law enforcement.

The typical BOLO I hear is "...hispanic male, 16-20 armed with a handgun."

Racial profiling is simply a matter of increasing the odds of detection. It of course depends on other circumstances.

DWB (Driving While Black) is an issue because a relatively high percentage of young black males are criminals in certain areas. This leads to a very natural inclination of police to watch young black males more closely. It isn't fair to the non-criminal young black males, but that says nothing about its effectiveness.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

Actually, I suspect that the main problem was the *public* being on the lookout for white vans.

The police know better. Furthermore, the police had information that at least one suspect was black - a phone call of his was obviously made by a black person, or an EXTREMELY good impersonator. They did NOT give out this information, which may very well have impeded the capture of the sniper. Furthermore, when Chief Moose told the public who he was after - before they were captured, he did NOT mention that they were black even though he knew they were. This was extremely wrong, but the sort of politically correct behavior that the anti-profiling mentality leads to.

Also, keep in mind that this sniping incident was unprecedented. No reasonable profiling could really be done. This is far different from where racial profiling is more useful, which is more ordinary crime. You tend to look at white bigots for hate crimes against black; where I live, murders of store clerks are usually by blacks, even though they represent 1% of the population.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

There are two basic fallacies here. First, civil liberties protections are, by definition, law enforcement (they prevent the police from breaking the law). Second, police agencies acting outside the bounds of civil liberties protections tend to exhibit "desires and needs" which have no legitimate relationship to law enforcement (e.g. politically motivated wiretaps and tax audits).



No, civil liberties are NOT law enforcement. Civil liberties are those liberties that man naturally has. Civil liberties don't prevent the police from breaking the law (although the *exercise* of free speech sometimes helps). Police don't violate your civil liberties (in most cases) because there are other systems in society to prevent it (courts, newspapers).

It is rare for civil liberties to impede the police in illegitimate acts. The most common use of civil liberties protections is to make it harder for police (and prosecutors) to catch and convict guilty people. And this is a price we *agree* to pay in order to prevent abuse, but it is also a price we constantly haggle about, as it is naturally a controversial issue.

Politically motivated wiretaps and tax audits are more likely to be the acts of politicans than police, and are most likely to be prevented by the free press or the threat of exposure than by any civil liberties rules.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

It's a shame you don't have an organization like the ACLU in your country.

I *do* live in the country with the ACLU (I assume you are referring to the *American* Civil Liberties Union).

And I know exactly what they do - which is to selectively protect those rights which are of most value to leftists, while occasionally defending some looney Nazi to allow them to claim they defend everyones' rights.

I'll pay a bit more attention to the ACLU when it defends my right to defend myself with a firearm, and when it defends, even slightly, the right of *any* unborn person.

Our government only becomes a usurper of rights when it becomes corrupted by the cancer of greed that is engendered by overly wealthy business interests

I see. Does this explain the 100,000,000 people of their own citizens that communist regimes murdered???

And while I remember the horror which happened in Germany, I also remember (unlike most of the left) what happened in the USSR (20-40 million dead), China (similar numbers) and many other communist countries.

Government becomes a usurper of rights when it is to the benefit of those in government to do so, and when the citizens do not or can not resist. The single most important weapon against government power is education about the dangerous trends of government whether motivated by capitalist greed, psychopathic rage or utopian ideals. Unfortunately, today that education has been twisted - too many people seem to believe, like you explicitely state, that the only government that is dangerous is one corrupted by the standard bogeyman: "wealthy business interess."

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

The problem with racial profiling is that it is selfaffirming. You think black people do more crimes? Then you pull over more black people. When you pull over more black people, you catch more black people doing crimes. So you believe even stronger that black people commit more crimes.

This is indeed a problem with racial profiling. But it neither explains the vast disparity in crimes rates between blacks and whites in the US, nor completely invalidates the idea.

That doesn't even deal with the societal implications: young iranians in the U.S. that are treated like terrorists thinking things like "well, if you are going to think I'm a terrorist anyway, I might as well blow some shit up."

I never said that racial profiling is without negative consequences.

o, don't forget about the 20-30 year old white sniper in Virgina that turned out to be black and in his 40s. Or the successful, social Ted Bundy who was overlooked for 3 years in spite of 6 people reporting on him because he didn't fit his own profile. Profiling is bullshit,

Two problems: you are confusing profiling on a specific crime with a more general profiling. They are not the same thing.

Second, profiling is useful - it just isn't the magic that TV makes it out to be. A lot has been learned about serial killers and spree killers, and it is in fact useful in tracking them down. But it isn't perfect. It isn't random, it just isn't perfect.

It is information, and its value should be weighted just like you weigh other information: some is highly specific, some is very suspect, all is useful as long as you weight it.

You bring up Tim McVeigh. If he hadn't been caught so quickly, it would have been obvious to all that there were two primary profiles to look for:

1) Foreign terrorists, most likely Arab, Persian or Pakistani

and

2) Anti-government local terrorists.

This is obvious, it is useful, and it is profiling.

Tim McVeigh actually fits the profile very well, and that profile is not 20-20 hindsight.

It is true that the FBI sometimes gets too hung up on a single investigative direction( ask Richard Jewell). But this is just the nature of large bureaucracies - see http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/Laswburo.htm.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[evilviper]

And contrary to the rest of your post, there is *always* that tradeoff in the real world.

Umm, yeah, because I loose my freedom of speech if cockpit doors are stronger... Thanks for clearing that up.

The truth is, the politicians are simply using security as an excuse to erode you rights, and give themselves more power over you. After the 9-11 attacks, congress couldn't push through privacy-eroding laws fast enough. Yet, our airlines are no more secure than ever before. I think the 'liberty' commercials are correct... We aren't protecting our country against terrorists, we are protecting against citizens who say anything bad about our corrupt government.

Buy tons of chemicals that can be used to create bombs, and no-one will notice... burn a US flag, and the CIA, NSA, and FBI will know within moments. (figuratively)

Re:Why can't we have both?

[Fjord]

I never said that racial profiling is without negative consequences.

No but you did purport that the benefits outweigh the negative effects. I argue otherwise, thus the discussion.

Two problems: you are confusing profiling on a specific crime with a more general profiling. They are not the same thing.

Actually, I know the difference between the cases I presented and they are both profiling, on one side is from attributes to crime and on the other is from crimes to attributes. Regardless, there are are problems in both kinds. More problems, IMHO, than the solutions they bring to the table. If a suspect is known to be black (because of an eyewitness report or physical evidence), then say he's black. If you believe he's black because it was a night time robbery in a neighbourhood that is often victimized by black burglars, then don't say anything. You're just letting white people vicitimize the area better.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

It isn't fair... but its effective."

My problem with your take on this issue is that you focus on solving one problem and don't consider the injustice of the means used. If you catch one criminal, and violate the civil rights of 10 people, were you effective? Lets say the criminal is prosecuted. Good. Shouldn't the civil rights violations lead to prosecution? So how "effective " is a method that is criminal by its nature? Isn't this another version of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it?"

Re:Why can't we have both?

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"The most common use of civil liberties protections is to make it harder for police (and prosecutors) to catch and convict guilty people. "

I rather suspect the most common of use of civil liberties involve living one's life, enjoying one's liberty, and pursuing happiness while particpating individually in self-governance and the evolution of our culture. Civil liberties are used by everyone every day. Its only when we lose them that we even realize they were legal protections. We're both using our civil liberties even as we participate in this discussion. I suggest that 99.99% of civil liberties don't involve criminals at all but rather the behavior of free citizendry.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[Steve B]

No, civil liberties are NOT law enforcement.

Please stick to the subject. What I said is that civil liberties protections are law enforcement. This is obviously true, inasmuch as any meaningful protections describe acts which the police may not do and penalties to be exacted upon police who go ahead and do them anyway.

It is rare for civil liberties to impede the police in illegitimate acts.

Your fallacy here is that you only count instances in which government agents actually violate the rights of citizens, while ignoring cases in which such crimes are deterred and prevented.

By this reasoning, it is rare for the laws against theft to impede people, since most people do not go around stealing things. However, the proper measure is to compare the situation as it exists to the situation that would exist if the laws against theft were repealed or fell into abeyance through utter lack of enforcement.

Politically motivated wiretaps and tax audits are more likely to be the acts of politicans than police, and are most likely to be prevented by the free press or the threat of exposure than by any civil liberties rules.

Again, are you seriously asserting that politicians would be no more likely to do this stuff if there weren't any laws against it?

Re:Why can't we have both?

[karlmiller]

I'll pay a bit more attention to the ACLU when it defends my right to defend myself with a firearm, and when it defends, even slightly, the right of *any* unborn person.

I'll agree with you that the ACLU does not usually defend the second amendment. That is why it also essential to support the NRA, one of the other wonderful organizations I was referring to earlier.

As for "unborn persons" I assume you are referring to embryonic and fetal humans, who have not reached infancy. Although I'm sure we completely diagree on this issue, and find it noble that you care so much about the rights of an embryonic or fetal being. However, I would truly be impressed if you also care about the rights of the woman who lives in poverty that would otherwise give birth to it. Or whether or not you will care to defend its rights after 20 years have passed and it has become a man who has murdered people and will be executed by the state.

Does this explain the 100,000,000 people of their own citizens that communist regimes murdered???

Well, no, I said our government which has never very close to communism. Communist governemnts such as Russia and China have also been infected much more severly by cancers of greed to the point where everyones rights as well as possessions were stripped from them.

However, I still debate your assertion that a government usurps the rights of individuals when it is in their benefit to do so. Your implication is that the government is a completely separate entity from the people. It never is. The government is always representing someone's interests, and usually multiple people's conflicting interests simultaneously. It's when one of the represented interest becomes too embedded and powerful compared to its competitors that the government begins to usurp the rights of segments of the population in manner where there is little negative effect on the embedded, powerful interest group(s) yet significant positive effect for them.

Take for example your own example of the right to bear arms. Corporate interests have no significant interest in allowing you to bear arms, because then you only become competition with the American military which they have some indirect control over through politicians. What's more, the politicians use gun control as an easy way to get the vote of someone who lives in fear, further entrenching their establishment, which has already been bought by corporations. In the end, if no group such as the NRA defends your rights, you loose your right to own your weapons.

But don't be illusioned into believing that the government strips powers simply because it is in its own best interests. Powers are always stripped because its in the best interest of some other person or collection of people.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

However, I would truly be impressed if you also care about the rights of the woman who lives in poverty that would otherwise give birth to it.

I am not interested in her right to murder her child. Babies do not happen by accident. They are the result of behavior, and killing the unborn is simply evading the responsibility to that behavior by destroying life.


Or whether or not you will care to defend its rights after 20 years have passed and it has become a man who has murdered people and will be executed by the state

If it has murdered people and been adjudicated guilty, I support its rights to appeal. And when they are exhausted, I support the need of the state to kill that person, just as I support the needs of a nation to sometimes go to war.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[rtechie]

The problem with racial profiling is that it is selfaffirming. You think black people do more crimes? Then you pull over more black people. When you pull over more black people, you catch more black people doing crimes. So you believe even stronger that black people commit more crimes.

This is indeed a problem with racial profiling. But it neither explains the vast disparity in crimes rates between blacks and whites in the US, nor completely invalidates the idea.

Yes it does, because there is no such thing as REAL statistics that measure ACTUAL crime rates. "Crime rate" statistics are generally based on crime arrest and conviction records. The only way to figure actual crime rates would be to do surveys, and I suspect few people would be willing to admit to unsolved crimes in a phone interview.

All they "prove" is that black people are a lot more likely to be arrested and convicted of crimes than white people. This COULD be because black people commit more crimes, but it could also be because of institutional racism or becasue blacks are poorer than whites (on average) and consequently can't hire lawyers to defend themselves as well as whites. Or perhaps blacks don't understand the legal system as well as whites so it's easier to railroad them. Or (insert another plausible theory here).

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

There are other ways to estimate crime rates. For example, there are a number of social pathologies that are closely associated with criminology, including drug use and family breakup.

Inner city blacks, which is where the vast disparity of crime rate occurs, also have those other disparities in large numbers.

Suburban blacks, OTOH, do not have a high crime rate (which blows your logic).

You can come up with as many theories as you want, but the real test is in practice. I can take you to the poor black portion of town here and let you out to walk the streets, or I can take you to the poor white portion. Take your pick. Your survival statistics should be a clue.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[rtechie]

There are other ways to estimate crime rates. For example, there are a number of social pathologies that are closely associated with criminology, including drug use and family breakup.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Since we don't have accurate statistics, we can't truly say that these behaviors are related.

Isuggest that the association between drug use/family breakup and criminology is based on interviews with prisoners. But the whole point, is that the prison population is not necessarily reflective of the ACTUAL population of criminals. All we've shown is that people with the a background of drug use/family breakup are more likely to get CAUGHT.

There is also the fact that the majority of those that use drugs (1 in 5 Americans) and are from broken families (1 in 2 Americans) don't commit crimes. So there clearly isn't causation here.

Inner city blacks, which is where the vast disparity of crime rate occurs, also have those other disparities in large numbers.

Suburban blacks, OTOH, do not have a high crime rate (which blows your logic).

Inner city blacks are much more likely to be caught, that's it. As an example, I am CERTAIN that there are more drug dealers in suburbia, but the IC dealers are easier to find (and the police focus more effort there) so they get busted more often.

You can come up with as many theories as you want, but the real test is in practice. I can take you to the poor black portion of town here and let you out to walk the streets, or I can take you to the poor white portion. Take your pick. Your survival statistics should be a clue.

I'm white. For this reason I believe I would be subject to greater hostility in poor black neighborhoods. However, I believe I'm more likely to be a victim of crime in poor white neighborhoods. In neither type of neighborhood do I feel particularly unsafe. I live near East Palo Alto which is considered quite rough, and mostly black, and I've never had any problems.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

Living in East PA you are lucky to have had no problems. Of course, I don't know where in East PA you live or what your behavior is like, both of which affect your risk. But then, anecdotes do not make statistics.

As far as your deduction that "clearly there is not causation" is nonsense. It only proves that the majority of those in the risk categories you mentioned are not criminals (or more precisely, haven't been caught). It says nothing about the relative rates, which is a far more interesting case.

And, of course, your categories are too large anyway. What kinds of drugs? Crack and heroin are a lot more likely to result in crime than marijuana or ecstacy.

Oh, and suburban whites who use drugs are *more* likely to engage in other criminal activity (which should hardly be surprising, since at least on the margin the willingness to break stupid laws is also associated with the willingness to break un-stupid laws). And suburban whites in broken families are VASTLY more likely to engage in crime than those from unbroken families. Blacks on average, and inner city blacks in particular, have a much higher rate of fatherless families, which have the highest correlate with both criminality and other social pathologies.

Except if we use your logic, we can never make statements like these, since you deny any ability to use criminal apprehension statistics to make inferences about either actual criminality rates or causation. Which means, of course, that we can't even reason about the subject, which means, I guess, that we should just throw up our hands and give up.

There is no question that using apprehension statistics to infer actual rates of criminality is imprecise. But to totally ignore it - to claim no correlation - is wrong.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[rtechie]

Except if we use your logic, we can never make statements like these, since you deny any ability to use criminal apprehension statistics to make inferences about either actual criminality rates or causation. Which means, of course, that we can't even reason about the subject, which means, I guess, that we should just throw up our hands and give up.

No, it means that we need sources of information other tha apprehension statistics (which are a flawed source of data, as previously noted). Surveys, conducted properly, could provide such information. I'm just not aware of any such surveys.

There is no question that using apprehension statistics to infer actual rates of criminality is imprecise. But to totally ignore it - to claim no correlation - is wrong.

It's abuse. In order to infer correlation we need accurate data, which we don't have. Everything else is just guesswork.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

All social science (and I use the word "science" guardedly) is loaded with uncertainty. A well designed survey can be just as inaccurate or more so. In fact, the world is full of inaccurate surveys. Just ask the election guessers.

However, social "scientists" in general do accept the higher rates of criminality among:

1) poor people, especially inner city
2) people from fatherless or substitute father families
3) drug users
4) combination of the above

To assume that the criminal apprehension or conviction statistics are so biased as to not support these hypotheses is to presume an extremely strong and consistent bias in the justice system. It is to presume that people not in these groups are getting away with a whole lot of burglary and murder and armed robberies and assault. It is also to presume that a lot of the crimes against inner city black people are done by non-inner city black people who for some reason go to their neighborhoods to commit the crimes.

In other words, it is absurd.

One needs to be able to reason with far from perfect data in almost any field of analysis. But this is especially so in the social areas, as we simply do not have the means to get accurate data. Contrary to your assertion, surveys wouldn't do the trick (and I'd bet that if you dug into it, you WOULD find surveys where people have tried).

Re:Why can't we have both?

[rtechie]

To assume that the criminal apprehension or conviction statistics are so biased as to not support these hypotheses is to presume an extremely strong and consistent bias in the justice system. It is to presume that people not in these groups are getting away with a whole lot of burglary and murder and armed robberies and assault.

I would say that there is almost certainly an extremely strong and consistent bias in the criminal justice system towards prosecuting "street crime" over white collar or other crimes. And a lot of people DO get away with, for example, assault. I wouldn't be surprised if 95% of assaults go unreported.

Almost certainly (IMHO) the most common serious crime in America is various kinds of fraud (everything from petty check fraud to defrauding shareholders out of billions), yet our prisons aren't completely filled with fraud offenders.

And again, it's possible that it only SEEMS kile there is more crime in inner-city black neighborhoods because such criminals are caught more often due to intense policing. It's entirely possible that just as much crime takes place in white suburban neighborhoods, it's just that criminals aren't caught as often. Or the crimes aren't "street crimes" and are lower priorities for enforcement.

One needs to be able to reason with far from perfect data in almost any field of analysis. But this is especially so in the social areas, as we simply do not have the means to get accurate data. Contrary to your assertion, surveys wouldn't do the trick (and I'd bet that if you dug into it, you WOULD find surveys where people have tried).

You're probably right, but I still think that such surveys would be a better tool than extremely misleading arrest statistics.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider economic crime to be more serious than violent crime!

Keep in mind that lots of crime statistics come from *reported* crime. And reported crime depends on the biases of those who report it, not the police. It is far more likely that those in high crime inner city areas *underreport* crime, both because it is so common and because they are threatened with retaliation!

Street crimes are usually crimes of violence, and should be given the highest priority. IMHO the biggest wrong priority in law enforcement is the overemphasis on drug law enforcement.

I would much rather be defrauded than murdered, frankly. And the difference between "minor" violent crime and murder is often luck. Burglary turns into murder too often, even if that is not the intent (except here in Arizona where we are legally allowed to kill burglars without warning). And big corporate fraud is not very common, in spite of all the headlines. Big corporate greed has been way too much, but *it is not criminal,* and over time is self limiting (as we are seeing now).

As far as surveys, how would you design one? Go ask people if they are criminals? Ask people if they have been victimized? The latter are commonly done and are used to determine the crime rates I have referred to (along with reported crimes and apprehensions).

The FBI crime statistics which are most commonly cited are reported crimes, not apprehended criminals. They also have reports on arrests and convictions.

One crime in which selection bias is unlikely to cause higher numbers in black inner city communities is murder. In fact, the bias is likely to be the reverse.

As far as arrests and conviction go, last year, more blacks were *convicted* of murder than whites, even though blacks make up only about 12% of the population! In fact, of cases where the offender's race was known, blacks made up 50% of murder offenders. This is very hard to explain by selective policing! Blacks killed 475 whites, while whites killed 180 blacks. Blacks killed 2802 other blacks (again, hard to explain by selective statistics).

For reported statistics, blacks make up 46% of those murdered, which supports the observation that crime rates (in this case, violent crime, but similar stats apply to other crimes) are highest in black neighborhoods (and of course a closer scrutiny will put the focus on inner city black neighborhoods).

Re:Why can't we have both?

[rtechie]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would consider economic crime to be more serious than violent crime!

In the big picture, sure. It's a more serious problem. Would you rather a mugger rob you at gunpoint and steal the $100 in your pocket or a crooked bank/company steal your entire life savings and your home? In our current criminal justice system the former is FAR more likely to be caught and imprisoned.

Here's an example that I was discussing just yesterday: dental fraud. That is, dentists tricking customers into getting unnecessary dental work. Not only is this extremely costly (one person I spoke to paid out almost $10,000 for unnecessary work) but potentially life threatening as some dental surgery requires general anesthisia which is always life-threatening. From talking with dentists it's my understanding that this practice is EXTREMELY common.

Now this is clearly a problem that affects everyone, and a crime has clearly been committed, but I suspect NO dentist has gone to jail over this practice and it's unlikey they will. Isn't this a problem?

In terms of money, I'd bet that if you took ALL of the money gathered from every armed robbery in California, a multiplied it by 10, it wouldn't even begin to approach the amount of money lost through just dental fraud.

I would much rather be defrauded than murdered, frankly. And the difference between "minor" violent crime and murder is often luck. Burglary turns into murder too often, even if that is not the intent (except here in Arizona where we are legally allowed to kill burglars without warning). And big corporate fraud is not very common, in spite of all the headlines. Big corporate greed has been way too much, but *it is not criminal,* and over time is self limiting (as we are seeing now).

I certainly agree that when firearms are involved the potential for injury in the crime is much greater. However I feel the crime itself is relatively trivial. For example, I would propose that armed robbery should normally get a sentence of 6 months to 2 years with a tag of an additional 5 years if a gun is involved (to represent the danger). Armed robberies not involving guns aren't a serious issue compared to fraud.

I would also agree with you about drug laws. But notice, as with other crimes, it's the lowest-level "street dealers" who are arrested and convicted (particularly those in inner-city areas) and everyone else is relatively untouched (except perhaps meth makers). I know this from experience.

However I disagree about big corporate fraud being uncommon. I have been in the position to work either in or with accounting in most of the companies I've worked for and I can assure you that EVERY ONE was commiting some sort of fraud. It's become so common that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore and just assumes that all companies are a bit crooked. Isn't this a problem?

As far as surveys, how would you design one? Go ask people if they are criminals? Ask people if they have been victimized? The latter are commonly done and are used to determine the crime rates I have referred to (along with reported crimes and apprehensions).

Both, probably. I'll admit that I haven't pursued this idea very far.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

You are still looking at things in economic terms. The reason armed robbery should be treated as a serious crime is that it contains the threat of deadly violence, which is sometimes carried out. That threat is itself extremely harmful. It matters not whether they get $10 or $10000, if they kill you! This is why I put violent crime way ahead of economic crime. Violent crime threatens your most sacred possessions - your health and/or your life. And I think mugging with a sharp icicle should carry a large penalty, although not as large as that with a gun (simply because I would rather the criminal be armed with an icicle when I pull out my gun to defend myself!).

But notice, as with other crimes, it's the lowest-level "street dealers" who are arrested and convicted (particularly those in inner-city areas) and everyone else is relatively untouched (except perhaps meth makers). I know this from experience.

Of course. They are the easiest to catch. The drug enforcement people would MUCH prefer to catch a kingpin, but making a conviction is extremely difficult in such a case. Thus they have to triage their resources. Of course, as we agree, all of this resource is misused in this case anyway.

However I disagree about big corporate fraud being uncommon. I have been in the position to work either in or with accounting in most of the companies I've worked for and I can assure you that EVERY ONE was commiting some sort of fraud.

Fraud is a big charge. Did you report them to the police? If not, why not? Fraud is a criminal offense.

Thus I take these assertions with a bit of salt. Perhaps you meant that they were engaged in some shady, but legal accounting. There is a big difference.

It's become so common that nobody even bothers to think about it anymore and just assumes that all companies are a bit crooked. Isn't this a problem?

I don't assume that all companies are a bit crooked. I do assume that they operate out of a desire for profit, and that the individuals operate out of a desire for personal profit (see Laws of Bureaucracy). I also assume that some people in many companies will engage in unethical behavior. And I assume that many fewer people will engage in criminal behavior.

So I am curious what sort of "fraud" you are describing.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[rtechie]

You are still looking at things in economic terms. The reason armed robbery should be treated as a serious crime is that it contains the threat of deadly violence, which is sometimes carried out. That threat is itself extremely harmful.

How exactly is the threat of violence harmful?

I'M GOING TO KILL YOU MESOCYCLONE!

Have you just been harmed? If the armed robber actually injures you that's an entirely different charge (assault and/or attempted murder). The threats in robbery are harmful because they are used to COERCE the victim into handing over money, it's the COERCION that is harmful, not the threat per se.

Fraud is a big charge. Did you report them to the police? If not, why not? Fraud is a criminal offense. Thus I take these assertions with a bit of salt. Perhaps you meant that they were engaged in some shady, but legal accounting. There is a big difference.

I largely work in the computer field and so these examples are only relavent to that field:

Embezzelment.
Overcharging customers for products.
Charging customers for products they did not order.
Lying about the capablites of products, the very definition of fraud (very, very, common).
Failure to report income (tax evasion).

I did report the first three to local police, who referred me to the state attourney general's office, who ignored the complaint.

Re:Why can't we have both?

[mesocyclone]

My blood pressure momentarily spiked.

The threats are harmful because the represent potential violence. I suppose we could just wait until an armed robber actually kills someone before giving him a severe sentence. Likewise, if you pull a gun on somebody because you are mad at him, but you don't shoot him, you have committed a violent crime and should pay a significant punishment. And that's how the law works today. SURPRISE!

the question is..

[MoceanWorker]

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..

Re:the question is..

[be-fan]

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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
If I recall correctly, you can't arrest someone if they have the right to do something. And last I remembered, making anti-american remarks and burning the flag was still Constitutional.

Re:the question is..

[MoceanWorker]

If I recall correctly, you can't arrest someone if they have the right to do something. And last I remembered, making anti-american remarks and burning the flag was still Constitutional.

right.. and if you actually reread my post.. you will see i had wrote ".. by the Constitutional law.. they have every right to do that"

and I know they can't be arrested for it.. but.. i'm saying that the government themselves would see it as a threat and arrest them.. believe me.. the government will find many different absurd reasons to arrest you.. just as long as they get ahold of you..

Re:the question is..

[PaulQuinn]

I personally don't think a line can be drawn..

To someone living in fear, the line is less obvious since their fear stops them from enjoying liberty. But for someone who is not fearful, the line is crystal.

Re:the question is..

[Stonehand]

Bullshit. Name some names of people who've burned flags without violating other ordinances like disorderly conduct, arson or trespassing, and have been arrested for it.

Re:the question is..

[MoceanWorker]

i wouldn't know of any names off the top of my head, but you got to realize that they can bust that guy for some absurd reason.. at my college (SUNY Stony Brook) a writer for the Stony Brook Press got busted for writing a satirical letter to Jesus asking him to "smite" George W. Bush.. in return he got a visit from the secret service..

click here for more info..

Well...

[Loki_1929]

""...[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..

I drew the line a long tma ago....

[haplo21112]

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....

Re:I drew the line a long tma ago....

[sweetooth]

Too bad it doesn't scare more people. I can't believe how many people think that TIPS, the Department of Homeland Security, and the US Patriot Act are good things. I've also met several people that think they aren't enough. Now that REALLY scares me.

Re:I drew the line a long tma ago....

[Guppy06]

"Yeah Right a Temp measure like the Federal Income Tax was supposed to be when it passed"

What the Hell gave you the idea that the US Constitution was so easy to modify that part of it could just be a "temp measure?"

Re:I drew the line a long tma ago....

[haplo21112]

Actually...the President at the time (Roosevelt I believe its been a long time since that History class) Said that the Income Tax was to be a temporary measure...

Re:I drew the line a long tma ago....

[timeOday]

Really, even TIPS? To me it seems the idea has been *unanimously* lambasted by law enforcement as well as the man on the street.

Re:I drew the line a long tma ago....

[Loki_1929]

And the social security number was NEVER to be used for identification purposes. For the first several years the cards were issued, it said right on the card, "not to be used for identification". Why? Those who created social security saw the inherant danger in boiling each citizen down to a series of numbers.

I am a human being with dignity and grace; not data to be stored, filed, and retrieved.

I'll Take Liberty Over Safety, please...

[GeneralEmergency]

. ....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.

.

Re:I'll Take Liberty Over Safety, please...

[bareman]

Please be careful with those daisycutters son. Under that definition some of those may land close to home.

http://www.soaw.org/new/

Re:We can have both

[Darth Maul]

Amen!

The concept of "Homeland Security" was invented 215 years ago with the 2nd amendment to our Constitution.

never will be...

[hollowmadman]

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.

Which Constituents?

[wayn3]

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.

wrong attitude

[MattW]

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.

Ironic, since we just had an election...

[TrollBridge]

Not to troll (as I know the name implies) but why is everyone here whining about the restrictions on our freedom that our legislators are imposing on us, when most of you (Americans, anyway) probably didn't even vote this past Tuesday.

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.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[Peyna]

I voted for Libertarian candidates

I vote without regard to political party because, like many people here, THINK FOR MYSELF!

Think for yourself next election, just because someone got on the ticket for a particular party doesn't really mean jack. Did you see the guy on the daily show that was on the ballot as a libertarian candidate even though the libertarian party didn't support him at all?

AND! Only vote if you know what you are voting for. Ignorant voters are more a bain to democracy than non voters. So you don't know who is running for congress in your district? Don't vote for your favorite party, turn the page and go to the next race and don't vote for anyone in that race.

Stupid voters suck! Immigrants probably have a better knowledge of how our government works than natural born citizens because they have to take a test about it to become a citizen. There should be a test on the basic principles of our government and the constitution required in order to vote. How can you vote if you don't know how your own government even works!

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[TrollBridge]

You are assuming I didn't know who I was voting for, and just voted straight Libertarian. In fact you make a lot of assumptions. Actually I only had 3 positions on my ballot to vote for (with Governor the race I was most interested in) and I knew very well the platforms of all of the people I voted for.

However I'd never vote for a Libertarian President. We don't need THAT radical a change right away, but a more Libertarian presence in our legislature certainly wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[DuBois]

Did you see the guy on the daily show that was on the ballot as a libertarian candidate even though the libertarian party didn't support him at all?

Yeah. I know one of those guys. Rick Stanley was running for Senate in Colorado. He's an extremely abrasive personality who listens to nobody and seems to think he's god's gift to humanity. He didn't deserve my vote.

But generally (I'd say about 98% of the time) if you vote for a Libertarian, you're voting FOR more liberty and AGAINST more government intrusions into your life, liberty and property. It's a lot better percentage than you'll find among Repelephants or Democrasses.

Disclaimer: I was a Libertarian candidate in the election on November 5.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[TrollBridge]

Actually Libertarianism is about smaller, less intrusive government and more personal choice/responsibilty, but feel free to share your bias and lack of knowledge with us.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[inkydoo]

Point of order:

It was actually the Green candidate not being endorsed by the Green Party (He was the only guy willing to pay the filing fee).

The libertarian is the guy that turned himself blue in fear Y2K.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[spun]

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.

Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.

Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?

Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[Peyna]

argh, that should read "Wasn't really directed at you"

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[TrollBridge]

The only responsibilities of government are to provide equal opportunity for its citizens to persue their goals, and to defend the populace (and I personally believe fire and police protection falls under that latter category).

Anything that falls outside of this can and should be handled by private enterprise. Socialist taxpayer-funded subsidies and entitlements only punish the initiated and reward laziness and mediocrity.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[waxmop]

right on. the market system is a great way to allocate capital, as long as certain assumptions hold.

the problem is, those assumptions (symmetry of information, fungibility, minimal barriers to entry, etc) don't really stack up well in real-world markets. give me a market and i'll show how it's not perfectly competitive.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[Steve B]

Ahh, libertarians - republicans without the nasty issue of morality.

Actually, we just define morality differently (we define it as the basic "thou shalt not kill/steal/bear false witness" stuff; they drag in all sorts of baggage about pr0n/gambling/dancing).

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[Steve B]

However I'd never vote for a Libertarian President. We don't need THAT radical a change right away

True, but if the LP could get its act together enough for their Presidential candidate to pull 5% of the vote, it would trigger some changes at a manageable pace. (Yeah, yeah; while I'm wishing I'd like Microsoft to fix all its bugs and a supermodel to give me a full-body massage.)

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

if you vote for a Libertarian, you're voting FOR more liberty and AGAINST

Of course if you're a libertarian you're not using the word 'liberty' like anyone else because to you being sold into slavery is liberty. Fortunately nobody other than libertarians sees it that way so you really ought to stop misusing laguage the way you do.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[nexthec]

Thats why you see so many people esposing it on slashdot. They got their shit, but dont want to pay for anything else. I have yet to meet a Libertaian that isnt out for a free lunch in one form or another. Infact one of my friends is one, however he still thinks bankrupcy protection is a good thing. hmmm

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[TrollBridge]

"True, but if the LP could get its act together enough for their Presidential candidate to pull 5% of the vote, it would trigger some changes at a manageable pace."

Exactly, and that's why I voted for a Libertarian gubernatorial candidate, even though I knew he was going to lose. Unfortunately, he didn't get the 5% (only 1.1%, in fact) that would have entitled the party to state campaign funds for the next election. Oh well, not like I didn't try :)

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[DuBois]

...being sold into slavery is liberty.

Oh really? And where did you find this "Libertarian" definition of liberty? I've never seen one. I've never advocated such. No Libertarian I've ever heard of has defended slavery of any kind, especially to a taxaholic government.

Yes, there are Libertarians who believe that the Confederacy was better organized for individual liberties (of white people) than was the Union at the time. But they also make it quite clear that slavery was an abhorrent practice that would have died out of its own abhorrence had it been abolished the same way every other society of the time accomplished its abolishment: peacefully. And if you believe that Lincoln was the Great Emancipator, you'd best think again, since the Emancipation Proclamation didn't cover any Northern-controlled states (where there were still plenty of slaves). The EP was a PR boost for Lincoln to get the British and French to stay away from siding with the Confederacy. It worked, but your government indoctrination center school teacher never told it to you this way. See The Real Lincoln for the true story you haven't been told.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[DuBois]

those assumptions (symmetry of information, fungibility, minimal barriers to entry, etc) don't really stack up well in real-world markets.

Libertarians aren't looking for utopia. They don't expect free markets to be perfect, just like they don't expect you to be perfect.

But they do expect that free markets, like free humans, will do a whopping lot better than government-controlled markets. For a real-world example, compare North and South Korea. This is a country with the same language, culture, and history that is divided into a (more-or-less) free market South, and a government-controlled market North. People are still starving in the North.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[Loki_1929]

The "Great Emancipator" also suspended habeas corpus in 1861, at which time he had many dissenting politicians arrested to shut them up, and declared that anyone discouraging enlistment in the army or who spoke out against the war in general would come under martial law. Some great emancipator, hmm? Jail anyone who says something you don't like? Execute anyone who won't fight for your cause? Some great president. Luckily, all of that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan.

Our most honored leaders have often broken our most cherished laws. What does this say about us as a society and as a species?

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[GrouchoMarx]

I voted early Tuesday morning, and spent the rest of the day as a poll watcher for an incumbant candidate who I personally and professionally admire, who was the very first politician I heard after 9/11 saying that we need to protect civil liberties, who voted against the (anti-)Patriot Act, and voted against the war on Iraq.

I am taking control of my government. How many people here can say the same?

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[deblau]

I know this is a troll, but I have to bite. Being a Libertarian myself, I have to defend the cause and educate the masses. The basic Libertarian goal is "Everyone should be free to do whatever they like, as long as that means everyone and not just you".

I'm going to preface my responses by saying that (IMO) one of government's key responsibilities in a capitalist society is handling market externalities, those things (like the environment and national defense) that are not in the direct interests of individual corporations, but otherwise leaving the market alone. Note that this stance has nothing to do with liberty, but economics.

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.

The environment is a market externality, hence should be covered by government. Public safety is core Libertarian philosophy, and also covered. As far as monopoly laws, you're right, they go out the window. Like those artificial monopoly laws granted for copyright and other IP. No more bogus patents. Not all monopolies are good, not all monopolies are bad. It's the Libertarian view that economic monopolies have nothing to do with liberty, so the government should have no policy one way or the other. Of course, an Objectivist might say that the market will eventually sort itself out, but I'll leave that argument for another thread.

Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.

People confuse Libertarianism with Social Darwinism a lot. There is a very good reason for this. Libertarians tend to be fairly good at being independent and thinking for themselves, and thus according to theory, more likely to survive in a Social Darwinist environment (or so they would have you believe).

In any event, this claim is ridiculous. Police and fire departments protect the public's liberties. If someone shoots a gun at you, the police arrest them. If your neighbor's house is on fire, the firemen save yours. Therefore, these roles serve important functions. Libertarians are focused on liberty, not money. If these services are better privatized, then so be it, as long as we have them.

Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?

Heh, you seem to be confusing indoor plumbing and electrical power with some sort of God-given right. Seriously. Millions of people in the world don't have either. Be thankful you have them.

In any event, if electric companies charge too much for their power, they lose customers and go under. If they don't, who cares if it's a monopoly? Again, Objectivist philosophy, not Libertarian.

Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.

Let me rephrase:

Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, you are free to get what's yours.

Don't confuse Libertarianism with Objectivism or Social Darwinism. The three philosophies overlap, but not enough for you to sling hateful mud like you have.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[samdu]

Nope. Libertarianism in a nutshell: I got mine, and I won't stand in the way of you getting yours. Give a man a fish and all. The less people rely on the government the better for the people. The more the government supports people, the more they rely on it. It's a viscious circle. That's why there was so much public outcry over the idea of workfare. God forbid that someone that's on welfare actually attempt to pick themselves up and make something of themselves.

Government can only succeed at certain things. Defense is one. Education is not. Interstate infrastructure is one. The DMV is clearly not.

To believe that there aren't any monopolies because of government is naive. There are plenty of monopolies that are, in fact, propped up by government.

I consider myself a libertarian (small "l"). The official Libertarian party is too anarchistic for my tastes. On the other hand, given a choice between the Libertarians and the other two parties, I'd choose the Libs any day. Between the Dems and the GOP, the GOP gets my nod. Mostly because of the inneffectualness of the right's fascist tendencies. The GOP has less of a chance of pushing through their moarlistic agenda than the Dems do of pushing through their socialist agenda.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

No Libertarian I've ever heard of has defended slavery of any kind, especially to a taxaholic government.

To corporations. Of course I'm not talking about governments. But a thousand headed hydra of unfettered corporations would be infinitely worse then a government controlled by a constitution. And that's the 'freedom' so called libertarians call for.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[rtechie]

No Libertarian I've ever heard of has defended slavery of any kind, especially to a taxaholic government.

To corporations. Of course I'm not talking about governments. But a thousand headed hydra of unfettered corporations would be infinitely worse then a government controlled by a constitution. And that's the 'freedom' so called libertarians call for.

And why is that a BAD thing? History has long shown that you simply CANNOT have political freedom without economic freedm. People must be free to have their own businesses.

Contrary to what you seem to think, the Amercian Libertarian Party is STRONGLY opposed to the current "state-sponsored corpratism" in the US government. If the LP was so corporation-friendly, why aren't they running America (since the corporations bsically run the elections)?

It's because the LP wants a LEVEL playing field. Corporations don't want that. They want to be able to manipulate the government to get money for pork projects, crush competitors, and squash innovation. All things the LP is opposed to.

The problem for the LP is that copyright and "intelelctual propery" has been tied to the whole concept of "real" property rights, which is a sacred cow for the LP.

Re:Ironic, since we just had an election...

[rtechie]

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.

Libertarians are of the opinion that such things are better-handled through lawsuits, which do must of the heavy lifting RIGHT NOW since environmental and product safety laws are only rarely enforced anyway. This would require a slight realignment of our legal system to favor the corporations less and to favor conduct remedies in lawsuits rather than hard cash.

Look at organizations like the ACLU, which basically exist for civil rights lawsuits and are highly effective. Imagine similar organizations for product liability and the environment that can sue offenders out of existens of force them to stop the offending behavior.

Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?

It's unlikely in a TRUE free market that such utilities would evolve into monopolies. The VAST majority of the monopolies in the USA are STATE-CREATED and not natural monopolies.

Look at Microsoft. Microsoft became a monopoly through a combination of clever marketing (legit) and using it's political influence so it could ignore laws that it's competitors had to follow (not legit). Look at the anti-trust lawsuit. If such laws actually WORKED, Microsoft would have been broken up. In the long run, the market pressure created by Linux, etc. will have a much more profound effect on MS.

Free markets aren't perfect, but they're better than the alternatives.

Women sense my power, but I deny them my essence.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can NO LONGER stand idly by and allow Communist infiltration, Communist subversion...

s/Communist/NSA/, whatever...

Drawing the Line

[wls]

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.

When did freedom get a variable slider?

[Malfeas]

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.

Re:When did freedom get a variable slider?

[JM_the_Great]

Freedom -does- come in variable quantities... for instance, you can have true freedom of speech, where nothing is regulated and you can say whatever you want... including posting pornography in Time Square for kids to see and [enter other thngs like that here]. Or you could have complete restriction of speech as in Communist Russia before the collapse of the USSR. We obviously don't have either total freedom or total restriction of speech here in the good 'ole U.S. of A.; therefore, freedom does come in variable quantities.

QED

Re:When did freedom get a variable slider?

[Malfeas]

Our freedom of speech is purely illusory. We are forced to guard our speech by politically-correct watchdogs. Saying something deregatory or threatening about our President, even in a completely joking manner, can legally be construed as a felony. True freedom has no limits. I'm not saying we live in a society as suffocating as many Balkan states, and I'm not saying that we don't lead a blessed life in the US. However, to say we are a free people is simply false.

Re:When did freedom get a variable slider?

[JM_the_Great]

I wasn't really arguing that we have "real" freedom in the United States. I was merely arguing that there are various levels to freedom. I agree that we think we have much more freedom of speech than we do (just look at the med school students in Florida, they were accused, not even proven, to have said something about terrorism...). However, we are nowhere near as oppressive as many other countries. I mean, at least we can argue about whether we have freedom of speech without fear of punishment, right? :)

Interesting quote

[zeda]

An excerpt:
"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.

The Risk of Simply Living

[footNipple]

What an incredibly brilliant thing to tell congress. Because we as Americans, and the west, have to decide what is the acceptable level of risk of simply living.

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.

Re:The Risk of Simply Living

[goon america]

And particularly in America it applies to the economic destruction wreaked on us by trial lawyers.

The problem isn't the lawyers themselves, the problem is the legal system that allows/encourages them to exist. In the US we have to internalize insurance costs of lawsuit, while in Europe the government essentially insures everyone of such costs. Which of these systems is better I don't know and won't try to argue.

It's like saying big corporations are truly evil. Of course they aren't evil, there is simply a system that allows them to exist, and that system can, with effort, be changed. Instead everyone just spends their energy attacking the corporations themselves, which probably won't do any good.

Re:The Risk of Simply Living

[footNipple]

>>The problem isn't the lawyers themselves, the problem is the legal system that allows/encourages them to exist

I think I have to disagree with this premise. The US legal system is among the best that has ever existed...with the exception of a "loser pays costs" provision in civil litigation.

Based on my observation, It appears that the problem lies within the culture of the professional lawsuit industry. These are people who want to create a massive wealth redistribution by incrementally raising the threshold of victimhood through ordinary and expected risks that we must face as the result of living. Face it, "$%&T Happens".

>>Europe the government essentially insures everyone of such costs

Whether its Western European socialism or big bad US insurance companies, they're both a major drain on productivity.

>>It's like saying big corporations are truly evil. Of course they aren't evil, there is simply a system that allows them to exist, and that system can, with effort, be changed.

Big Corporations := Necessary + Evil := NecessaryEvil :)

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[sakeneko]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin

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?

Re:NSA did NOTHING pre-911!

[the gnat]

Wait! You left out the Zionist conspiracies! And what about alien plans to breed a race of super-soldiers to enable world domination? I don't think you're telling us everything. . .

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!

[Iguanaphobic]

Since you feel so strongly about it that you were willing to use your real ID on the response.

Consider it done Mr. Coward.

_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety

[lildogie]

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.

Re:_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety

[doorbot.com]

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.

Isn't that the exact problem our educational system is supposed to help us avoid? In 35 years, we'll have a new generation of politicians and voters. If they can't learn the lesson now, by the time they learn it they'll be dead or out of office.

Re:_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety

[DuBois]

Isn't that the exact problem our educational system is supposed to help us avoid?

No. No. No. No. No. (to quote a previous President).

The current educational system is specifically designed to ingest impressionable children and excrete pliable, gullible, "citizens."

Our only hope is that the current system of government indoctrination centers either implodes like the USSR did (and for the same reasons!) or is defunded by the people so that our children don't get any more dumbed down than they already have been.

The number one goal of the current "education" system is to promote the religion of Goverment-is-the-solution-to-all-problems.

Re:_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety

[iSwitched]

Thanks for the clear-headed comments.

I couldn't agree more - perfect security can't be had at any price (the recent sniper attacks prove that). However, consider this. The 9/11 attacks succeeded because, with the exception of the Pennsylvania crash, the passengers didn't know or couldn't believe, at least not until it was too late, that they weren't the victims of a 'normal' hyjacking (i.e. one that was survivable). Post 9/11, as it has often been observed, we won't see this method of attack again, not because of racial profiling or airport screening measures, but because the pilots, attendants and passengers won't let it happen again, even at the risk of their own lives.

Our security, at least against some types of attack, can be improved without liberty-depleting initiatives, it's called taking responsibility. All of us must together use our vigilance to resist these sorts of attacks, using the proper authorities and channels, and to continue to resist giving up any freedoms at all. I won't make a political statement about US foreign policy here, but you can also fight back by voting and using your wallet intelligently, right here at home.

I don't think I was ever more proud to be an American than when, only a week after 9/11, late night comics were making jokes about the terrorists and the incident. Think of that message, and how it must piss off the terrorists, this is yet another way to fight back: Don't loose your sense of humor. They hate it when we don't cower in fear and allow our country to collapse!

Re:_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety

[pavera]

I'll have to agree with that!
Schools these days excel (hmm is that TM??) at teaching kids not to think for themselves, to accept what is spoon fed them by anyone in any sort of authority position, and above all else to maintain the status quo...

Re:_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety

[samdu]

Airport security did NOT FAIL on September 11th. The terrorists that flew into the WTC were not carrying anything that was prohibited on an airplane. The breakdown came in the intelligence community. As many have pointed out from said community, a great deal of the fault for that is because the Clinton administration prohibited our intelligence agencies from consorting with undesireables. I'm sure there are other reasons, but you cannot lay the blame at the feet of airport security (even though the government clearly did).

No line...

[WickedLogic]

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.

Remember Patrick Henry??

[dormat]

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.

Back to the root cause

[DuBois]

Is it possible that one widely disregarded factor in what happened on 9/11/2001 was that none of the passengers on those four flighs were allowed their pre-existing self defense rights, in complete and utter disregard of the 2nd Amendment?

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?"

Re:Back to the root cause

[greg_barton]

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

Are you daft? If anyone could carry a gun on an airplane, then ANYONE COULD CARRY A GUN ON AN AIRPLANE. This includes terrorists.

Re:Back to the root cause

[chazzf]

The airlines don't permit firearms on airplanes, with good reason. The thought of an agitated passenger opening fire inside a crowded cabin isn't a pleasant one.

Moreover, there's a lot more to self-defense than guns. What about kendo or judo? Hell, all the hijackers had were box cutters. Despite their lack of weapons, passengers were able to force down the fourth plane over Pennsylvania.

As regards your second point, do you seriously want teachers exchanging fire with students? I mean, really. I appreciate your concern about the right to bear arms (and support said right), but they aren't the only answer and there are places where I really don't think they are appropriate.

~Chazzf

Re:Back to the root cause

[Lochin Rabbar]

Guns are not a useful means of self defense in planes with pressurised cabins. The truth is that the passengers on the ill fated flights of 9/11 were not denied their right to self defense. They had the numbers to overpower the hijackers, and could have done so with less risk than would have been the case had both sides had guns. That they didn't do so probably reflects that at the time they couldn't know that the risks of not tackling the aggressors were greater than the risks of tackling them.

Given the same situation today it is likely that the passengers would overpower the terrorists, even if the terrorists had guns and passengers did not. Prior to 9/11 it was unimaginable that the plane would have been used as a flying bomb, now people are aware of the danger and will act accordingly. Knowledge is the essential weapon needed to preserve liberty, guns are an irrelevance.

Re:Back to the root cause

[sstamps]

Also:

Airplanes are considered "private property", hence the 2nd amendment does not apply.

If I tell you to leave your gun at home when you come to visit me, don't respond with shock and offense when I send you away because you came packin' heat.

In reality, of course, I don't discourage such a thing, because it means that there is one more tool to defend me and my property, as well as our lives, if trouble comes a-knockin'.

I support someone trained both physically and psychologically in responsible weapon use being present on EVERY airplane. Also, the cockpit needs a door that can't be kicked in so easily, and the pilots need to be trained and packing as well.

Re:Back to the root cause

[dlakelan]

And your point would be?

How many terrorists would consider going into an airplane full of 100 armed, responsible, citizens of the US and try to take it over and crash it into a building?

Not many believe me, they'd be looking for much easier targets, like empty parking garages under big buildings or something.

In something like 35 states there are laws requiring concealed weapons permits to be issued to any law abiding citizen that asks for them (with varying levels of qualifications). It isn't given it's proper status as right, but it isn't hard to qualify either.

In other words, in many places in the US, there are no gun battles in the street, yet there already ARE armed citizens aboard buses in office buildings, and throughout cities and highways.

Not nearly enough of them...

Otherwise responsible armed citizens don't commit violent crimes. It's been proven by experience over and over. Without armed citizens around, irresponsible violent people DO successfully commit crimes.

After all, we are currently flying armed air marshals and potentially armed pilots on airplanes.

By the way unarmed people are far more belligerent and fight-prone than armed ones. When there is little consequence there is little restraint.

Gun confiscation is based on irrational fear.

In the wake of Sept 11 there was an incident when a concealed weapon holder boarded an airplane (accidentally) without checking his firearm. If he can do it, why can't terrorists?

Re:Back to the root cause

[greg_barton]

And your point would be?

Terrorists aren't your average criminal.

Consider this: Minimal training is required to point a gun at a plane window and shoot. If anyone can carry a gun onto an airplane, then what's to stop a terrorist organization from getting 100 young men, eager to die for thier cause, to board 100 planes with guns and bring them down? Maybe some of them would be stopped. I'm betting most would not.

And, there's far more than 100 men in the world willing to die for their cause. There are hundreds of thousands. If your blindly pro-gun views were in effect we'd be wide open to terrorist attack.

Re:Back to the root cause

[DuBois]

Guns are not a useful means of self defense in planes with pressurised cabins.

False. A bullet hole in an airplane cabin (or even several hundred of same) would not cause cabin depressurization. I speak as a pilot of (admittedly small) airplanes. The pressurization system is set up to handle the loss of the square foot or so of an entire window. No bullet hole is that big. And depressurization is easily handled by the automatic dropping of oxygen masks. As someone who has been on an MD-80 where the cabin pressure exceeded 14,000 feet, I have personal experience of this.

That they didn't do so probably reflects that at the time they couldn't know that the risks of not tackling the aggressors were greater than the risks of tackling them.

What it reflects is an attitude of passive submission that has been drilled into Americans by their government indoctrination centers (read: government schools). The whole rejection of the 2nd Amendment as a vital part of the American ethos is more evidence of this.

Knowledge is the essential weapon needed to preserve liberty, guns are an irrelevance.

Tell that to the very intelligent and resourceful Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

Re:Back to the root cause

[DuBois]

Airplanes are considered "private property", hence the 2nd amendment does not apply.

Well yes, but when the rule preventing one from bringing the tools of self defense onto an airplane are enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration, disallowing any private airline from allowing its passengers to carry same, then we've got a different situation. I, for one, would much rather travel on an airline where I knew that at least some of the passengers could defend themselves against an agressive hijacker, than one where I know nobody can (the current situation). I don't have that choice, currently. Neither do you. And it's not because all the airlines have made such a rule. After all, those folks rummaging through your briefcase are no longer in private employ, so there's no "It's what the airlines want," excuse.

If I tell you to leave your gun at home when you come to visit me, don't respond with shock and offense when I send you away because you came packin' heat.

You're absolutely right and I couldn't agree more fully.

Re:Back to the root cause

[Pseudonym]

No it is not possible. An aeroplane is private property. Even if the government did not set rules, you would still have no rights apart from those which the owner of the plane allowed you to have. If you don't like it, you are perfectly within your rights to take your car instead.

Repeat until enlightened: Guns don't protect freedom, people protect freedom.

Re:Back to the root cause

[samdu]

Actually, as much of a supporter of the 2nd amendment as I am, I'd have to disagree. The idea of a bunch of civilians (hell, for that matter, pilots or agents) packing on a plane is not appealing to me. Decompression is a bitch. Besides, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee the right to keep and bear arms everywhere, all the time.

Re:Back to the root cause

[blueskies]

What it reflects is an attitude of passive submission that has been drilled into Americans by their government indoctrination centers (read: government schools). The whole rejection of the 2nd Amendment as a vital part of the American ethos is more evidence of this.

Passive submission? WTF?

When getting mugged at gunpoint you should:
a.) See if you can reach inside your jacket and draw before you get shot.
b.) Tell the mugger to wait while you run home and get your shotgun.
c.) Hand over your 50 bucks and walk away alive. Oh wait, you'd be passively submitting if you did this one.

Carrying a handgun is not going to magically make crime disappear. It might be nice to have the option to draw, but it might not be the best solution. Don't act as if handing out handguns to everyone cannot possible create a host of new problems.

Passive submission in regards to flying: When a plane is hijacked you were never supposed to attack the hijackers. You were supposed to allow the authorities to negotiate with the hijackers and take action. Wanna-be heroes get people killed. I don't want to get shot because you think you can take on trained hijackers with your handgun. How many stray bullets do you think are going to miss passengers?

The people on the planes had no idea if the terrorists had a bomb on the plane or not. It wasn't until the people on the PA flight (99?) learned that they were most likely going to die anyway did they rightfully take action and save lives.

Tell that to the very intelligent and resourceful Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.

This snide comment means nothing. Literally taken I'm supposed to tell the intelligent and resourceful Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto (who cares about the dumb and unimaginative ones) that knowledge is more important than guns. Because I mean look at all the redneck ignorant hicks that have guns. They are still free. Won't i rather be ignorant and have a gun then be knowledgeable and not have a gun? That way i can repel attacks if the US army ever invades my house. whatever. Besides, the poster is talking about knowledge not intelligence. If the jews in the Warsaw ghetto had the knowledge necessary to somehow evacuate their families and countrymen out of Poland, i'm sure they would have rather done that then simpy stocking up on more weapons only to be crushed by superior Nazi forces.

You didn't think

[MacAndrew]

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.

Re:You didn't think

[myowntrueself]

Oh but wait, doesn't the American government have to attack targets overseas so that Americans can walk their streets without fear of someone sniping at them? Oh wait, that sniper is most likely to be a fellow American using their constitutionally protected right to be a gun nut.

Or wait, how about Americans being able to enter federal buildings without fear of them being blown up? Surely that requires attacks on overseas targets? Oh wait that bomber is likely to be a fellow american too...

Is it my imagination or is there a pattern here?

Heres some stats I'd like to see;

A) Number of people confirmed dead from 9/11 attacks.

B) Number of people shot dead on the streets of America every year.

If AB shouldn't the B52s be carpet bombing trailer parks?

Re:You didn't think

[Planesdragon]

It says something about how the rest of the world is mostly OK, and much of our world sadly is not.

You mean you were able to LEAVE those places?

You don't know how good you've got it if you think even the worst parts of the USA have got the worldwide crown for "crappy living sitation." No, we're not perfect--but there are some FAR worse places in the world to live.

Re:You didn't think

[MacAndrew]

Yes, of course they are, but it's not one vast cesspool out there, nor is the U.S. all Disneyland, was my point.

I like living here. I want to improve it. I don't think nationalism will help us much, and the knee-jerk xenophobic crap I'm seeing now is a big step backwards to an age of immigrant/foreigner-bashing.

And, as our posts have pointed out, plenty of our terrorists and criminals have been home-grown. The sniper, the Unabomber, McVeigh/Nichols, the list goes on.

Re:You didn't think

[Planesdragon]

I don't think nationalism will help us much, and the knee-jerk xenophobic crap I'm seeing now is a big step backwards to an age of immigrant/foreigner-bashing.

While I hope we don't go that far, some reaction away from the "how dare you group me at all" mentality we picked up somewhere is a good thing.

If a population of sexual partners has an STD that no one else does, treat them as a distinct contagious population and quarantine them. If a large group of immigrants from a certain ethnic background is committing attacks on us via immigration, treat everyone from that background who comes in with suspicion--just monitor those dispensing the suspicion.

And, as our posts have pointed out, plenty of our terrorists and criminals have been home-grown. The sniper, the Unabomber, McVeigh/Nichols, the list goes on.

I can't speak for the snipers or other serial killers, but both McVeigh and the Unabomber had agendas marked with the USA gov'ts broken promises.

If I could change just one thing about my country, I'd make the federal government keep its promises for longer than an election. Forever sounds long enough...

Re:You didn't think

[Melantha_Bacchae]

myowntrueself wrote:

> Oh wait, that sniper is most likely to be a
> fellow American using their constitutionally
> protected right to be a gun nut.

Sorry, but the Constitution does not protect breaking court orders. The elder sniper was barred from playing with guns at the time he and his "partner" went on their multi-state murder spree. It seems his previous hobby was kidnapping his kids.

As with DRM and so much else, gun control laws only control honest, law-abiding citizens. Evil people don't bother with restrictions on what they can purchase, they just steal whatever they want.

Face it, no amount of regulation is going to make us all safe and secure, because this is not a safe and secure world. The only real security is the kind the heroes of Flight 93 bought with their lives: by confronting and stopping evil men even though they were just ordinary people riding an airplane. Their example has done a lot of good, as it has been the ordinary people on the airplanes, not the endless barrage of airport security, that has stopped further threats, like the Shoe Bomber.

Such evils can and have been defeated. But it has not been by casting liberty to the wind, ruining happiness, or destroying our future.

"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power .. "
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!

[goldspider]

"Since you feel so strongly about it that you were willing to use your real ID on the response.
"

...as you wish :)

the more telling quote...

[shadowsong]

"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.

Re:We can have both

[JonTurner]

Not mutually exclusive?? Have you NEVER taken a page from history or even bothered to read the newspaper headlines? Either are flush with examples of the exclusitivity of the two.
We have had to choose since the Federal Government starting ignoring fundamental components of our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments). Recent violations, just off the top of my head include:
1st amendment - Campaign Finance "Reform" which prohibits discussion of candidates within 60 days of election.
2nd - gun "control" (what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?)
4th - USA PATRIOT act - collecting library records, planting bugs/wiretaps/searching homes without notifying the owner, etc.
5th - Civil Asset Forfeiture. The police can take your property (money, car, home, etc.) without even charging you with a crime. No kidding.
6th - the imprisionment of American citizens in GitMo for an indefinite period of time, without being charged with a crime or brought to trial.
9th & 10th - The mere existence of the NSA. The Bill of Rights lists merely SOME, not ALL, of the rights of the people, but it clearly states that the Federal government cannot do anything unless it's expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't remember the clause allowing the creation of the National Security Agency.

I challenge you to explain how any of these items simultaneously increase my liberty and my safety, AC. I stand firm: The two are exclusive.

wrong move

[k3v0]

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

(Probably) a contrary view

[lazarus42]

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.

Here here

[greygent]

Jesus Christ, this is probably one of the most intelligent comments I've seen posted on Slashdot...

You said it perfectly, Omega

I stand all amazed

[u-235-sentinel]

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)

Oh my god...

[CrazyDuke]

"...[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."

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...
>.>

Re:Fuck off

[Cervantes]

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.

Liberty and Safety

[Publicus]

Themself are one, do draw a line would be to destroy both.

Don't tell me I'm naive. I'm not.

Re:Liberty and Safety

[PaulQuinn]

Security is the new liberty.

Or so the saying goes.

So, feeling secure makes you more free? Therefore, being more free should make you more secure?

Oh wait. Do you see fault?

what?

[tacokill]

"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.

If you want to stop this...

[DAldredge]

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.

anybody check the address

[Xaoswolf]

http://intelligence.senate.gov/0210hrg/021017/hayd en.pdf

Intelligence.senate.gov

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Traumatizing event

[jbolden]

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.

Re:Traumatizing event

[jbolden]

I don't know about government organized assasination. As for the rest, yes. Moderate is probably something along the lines of what Columbia, Argentina, Israel, China or Turkey has done regarding uprisings. Severe would be something like what Saddam did (just drop poison gas on the regions creating problem), or Assad (shoot everyone belonging to the tribe), Russia (burn the entire region to the ground), El Salvidor (11% of the population killed), etc...

The spectrum of counter terrorism (as opposed to anti terrorism) is pretty wide. I don't have any problems saying the 1970's FBI and Police forces were on the mild side of things.

Body of Secrets

[ralphus]

For anyone who wants to know more about the NSA's inner workings and history, read Body of Secrets and The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford.

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.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!!

[Iguanaphobic]

Who is more cowardly, the Anonymous Coward or the anonymous coward who mods him down?

Hmmm.. what a great idea. A moderation system that is fair and transparent. Can I patent that?? I'm sure that there would be no prior art here at least.

since when...

[scrytch]

... 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.

Re:since when...

[Mistah Blue]

A constitutional republic is about the voters voting for their representation in the form of Representatives and Senators (in the United States), hereafter called representatives.

These representatives determine what is right or not right. We (the voters) in essence have given our proxy vote to them. So, the General is quite correct in asking them to go back to their constituencies and asking where the line should be drawn.

If you don't vote, tough! If you have the right to vote, but don't use it YOU are part of the problem. If you don't have the right to vote, tough. You'll have to trust in those that do.

We do NOT live in a democracy, but as the poster pointed out a Constitutional Republic.

Re:since when...

[scrytch]

My emphasis was on "constitutional" more than "republic". In theory, it takes a whole lot more than a simple vote to override rights guaranteed by the constitution. Notwithstanding cynical asides about how federal statute pretty much disregards the constitution when it's inconvenient, it's SUPPOSED to take a rather concerted effort to pointedly alter the constitution, and require a supermajority of states to do so.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I would just like to point out....

[WatertonMan]

Mod this up. Excellent point.

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.

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[paitre]

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.

climate of fear

[gordona]

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.

Re:climate of fear

[MadBurner]

the article had several mentions of downsizing. now it seems they are growing at a mad rate. wonder if someone has planned this? I know i see conspiracies everywhere but someone is making a profit I'm sure.

Re:climate of fear

[benzapp]

The climate of fear was created by then fact the first half of the last century was an endless war. It was part of this reason that America focused intensely on having an invincible army AND in helping other nations. No nation in the history of mankind has spent as much of its GDP on helping foreign nations. The USA has virtually maintained the United Nations from collapse.

Note, I don't agree with any of that. If it was up to me, the US would never have entered WWI or WWII, we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation, and we would not have a standing army. Even though I believe that I realize that you are probably a socialist because you believe the US was trying to be the toughest MF on the block. That said, the socialist goal of aiding the poor was fullfilled admirably by the altruistic fuckwads who ran the country for most of the twentieth century. For you to suggest otherwise in a socialistic orgy of lies, is irresponsible.

Re:climate of fear

[DaytonCIM]

If it was up to me, the US would never have entered WWI or WWII, we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation, and we would not have a standing army.

What colour is the sky in your world?

"Never enter WW1 or WW2." Seriously? Granted we had more of choice in entering WW1, but WW2 became a necessity after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

we would never spend a dime for any foreign nation

I'm not a big fan of foreign aid, especially while so many in the US need assistance, but foreign aid promotes American commerce. And that's good.

and we would not have a standing army

Huh? What will you use to defend your freedoms, political views, and property? Harsh words?

It's an old theme

[fritz_269]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)

Nitpick

[MAXOMENOS]

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.

Re:Nitpick

[boomer_rehfield]

Privacy is the cornerstone of the right to birth control? I don't think the feds care about what type of condom you use..... ;)

EITHER WAY, I really don't want to get into a debate regarding one way or the other, but rather bring up a point. The reason that there are lines being drawn in the sand is because they are trying to figure out how much liberty people will give up to feel safe. With the amount of violence around abortion centers and their practices, I would think that even a little more protection would be welcome. I agree that it's something personal and should be private, but that's almost like saying "Someone's gonna come here and do something, we're not going to tell you who, but we want you to make sure they're safe...." Something has to give.... no?

Jefferson Said...

[blate]

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.

Re:Jefferson Said...

[DuBois]

Nope. It was Benjamin Franklin.

Words of Wisdom

[psychopenguin]

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

Question the implicit assumption...

[dpilot]

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.

Why shouldn't the government secure it's self

[Xandar01]

>>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.

"They have no secret agenda"?

[Gorimek]

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.

ask the public

[Dr. Awktagon]

...[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.

Whoa, they have to ask Disney AND the oil industry? Unprecedented!

(PS: It's a joke. Please don't tap my phone line.)

Re:Fuck off

[escape]

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

Re:We can have both

[dubious9]

2nd - gun "control" (what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?)

I urge you to read the 2nd again.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nowhere does it say that it is everybody's right to bear arms. A well regulated militia is given that right. You, explicity, are not. This is not interpretation, this is what it says.

9th & 10th - The mere existence of the NSA. The Bill of Rights lists merely SOME, not ALL, of the rights of the people, but it clearly states that the Federal government cannot do anything unless it's expressly stated in the Constitution. I don't remember the clause allowing the creation of the National Security Agency.

What about the FBI or ATF or frickin navy seals or CIA? You want to disband all of these? Also, the 9th and 10th say nothing about not creating anything not said in the constitution, it (the 10th) says to defer to the states on issues not in the constituion. I'm sure if you ask all of the governors, they will say that overall, the FBI,CIA,NSA&ATF do more good than harm.

B.G.A.T. ****TROLL ALERT****

[GoatsAgainstTrolls]

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.

Backwards

[inkydoo]

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.

Re:Backwards

[inkydoo]

No I'm not that same hypocritical type.

First, I didn't actually say anything about US intervention in Isreal/Palestine, I just pointed out that bin Laden had issues with our policy in that region. That said, I do think the US's handling of the recent mess could have been better.

In any case, intervention is a broad word and while some intervention is good, other times it's not. It's like accusing me of being a hypocrite because I'm for driving cars in some situations (like an ambulance going to the hospital), but not others (say when the driver is drunk).

The US has a role to play on the world-wide scene, I just don't think that role is "secretly" playing around with their governments. The US often complains about how the UN infringes on our sovereignty (case in point being Bush's repeated statements that the US would go forward in Iraq with or without a UN resolution), but we don't seem to mind undercutting other nations' sovereignty. That's what's hypocritical.

As the most prosperous country in the world, I think the US should intervene in places where our prosperity would help other nations rise out of economic, social or political hardship. Even these efforts have to be conducted in the open, though. Sadly though, as a proportion of our GDP, we're one of the stingiest countries in the world when it comes to international aid.

Re:We can have both

[rodgerd]

The idea of a tempramental midget who lashes out at people at random toting firearms is one of the better arguments *against* the Second Amendment. ESR, like the Ruby Ridge crowd are the people who scare others into believing Guns Is Bad.

If more 2nd Amendment advocates looked like the Swiss (who have their millitary service equipment in the home), they'd get a lot more support.

Re:Bull.

[WatertonMan]

How about you do a google on Echelon. After you filter out all the crackpots, it is clear they are monitoring all the people you say they aren't. One of the better sources is the official European Parliment study on this.

Note that I'm not opposed to this, although I think we as citizens need to think carefully about how the information is used and dissiminated.

I think, for instance, that it would be wrong to give this information to American businesses. (As some suggested a few years ago)

Radical Idea

[jgardn]

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.

Re:Fuck off

[Cervantes]

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.

Re:For $40 Bucks...

[Grax]

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.

Re:Fuck off

[Cervantes]

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.

lies

[ftide]

8. So, to the first question: What did NSA know prior to September 11th? . Sadly, NSA had no SIGINT suggesting that al-Qa'ida was specifically targeting New York and Washington, D.C., or even that it was planning an attack on U.S. soil. Indeed, NSA had no knowledge before September 11th that any of the attackers were in the United States.

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.

Re:lies

[DuBois]

"My god, it's full of crap!"

Re:I would just like to point out....

[rutledjw]

Keep in mind this: If the gov't were to take some action against you based on action obtained illegally (or by violating what is considered a basic right) they may have to reveal their methods. Public outrage would quickly qwell this activity whenever it was revealed, and eventually it would be.

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...

Re:I would just like to point out....

[jasonisgodzilla]

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.

Liberty?

[InrdZQdxdqn]

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.

No way.

[thatguywhoiam]

The gun thing is working out real well for the US so far. 11,000 gun-related deaths per year. Over 1000 times that of the other industrialized nations.

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.

Re:No way.

[DuBois]

I just can't understand this attachment to guns.

You'll understand it when you see the tremendous rise in armed criminality in the U.K. and Australia, both of which have banned the ownership and use of the tools of self defense.

And if anyone thinks that all the bears and bandits are gone, they should try a trip to Alaska, not to mention Montana, or even Colorado.

Re:No way.

[thatguywhoiam]

You'll understand it when you see the tremendous rise in armed criminality in the U.K. and Australia, both of which have banned the ownership and use of the tools of self defense.

Um... when do you think this tremendous rise will happen? AFAIK the laws in UK and Canada (two pick 2 at random) have been in place for many, many years. Less than 50 gun deaths per year in the UK. Around 100-150 per year in Canada. 11,000+ in the US. What am I missing here?

Re:No way.

[RgnadKzin]

A ratio of the number of events to the population. Per capita.

Re:No way.

[Cirvam]

Erm, yeah gun deaths, but what about deaths due to beatings and other such violent crimes? I mean sure in the US your probably more likely to get shot, but in the UK your more likely to get the shit beatout of you with a club or something else.

The American Revolution

[denisonbigred]

"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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[OwnedByTwoCats]

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?

the line between liberty and safety...

[Rai]

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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[Fjord]

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.

Nothing to fear but fear itself

[PaulQuinn]

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?)

Re:We can have both

[PaulQuinn]

If someone else is free to do things about which you have no knowledge, the government has no control etc

Think about what you just said.

You are actually in a place inside yourself where you feel that the goverment should have knowledge and control over everything that is done by everyone!

Oh my god.

NSA = Gatekeepers

[Templar]

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.'

Re:We can have both

[PaulQuinn]

(in my above comment, I meant to add 'in order to feel safe' after 'everyone')

Liberty? Safety? Yeah, right

[RgnadKzin]

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

Re:We can have both

[DuBois]

Nowhere does it say that it is everybody's right to bear arms.

What the....???? It says, quite clearly, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say, "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Did your government indoctrination center teachers not teach you the English language?

I can hardly believe someone would post something so obviously unintelligent. Sheesh!

And, FYI, a "well-regulated" militia was one that was well-regulated like a clock. It met regularly, it practiced regularly, it drilled regularly. And it was composed of all the able-bodied males and their home-stored tools of self defense.

As if

[brettlbecker]

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.

Re:We can have both

[bnenning]

I challenge you to explain how any of these items simultaneously increase my liberty and my safety

Actually, several of your items *decrease* both liberty and safety. Gun laws are an obvious example; substantial evidence indicates that when states restrict gun ownership, crime rises (and vice versa). Likewise the War on Drugs causes both reduced liberty (such as civil asset forfeiture) and reduced saftey due to increased violent crime. So it is true that liberty and saftey are not mutually exclusive, although sadly we're more likely to see actions that reduce both rather than increase both.

SECAT Astronomy

[Andy Social]

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.

argumentative

[MacAndrew]

Well, yes, and don't terrorists essentially have a big dispute with the U.S.? More arguers.

Imagine a world with arguers ... I do it all the time ... :)

FBI wasn't the problem.

[taxman_10m]

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?

Re:FBI wasn't the problem.

[RoundSparrow]

Yha, and how many cancer curing guys working in their basement were blocked because they seemed suspcision or didn't have the greatest social skills.

Freedom includes the ability to do stupid things and make mistakes.

Liberty vs. Safety

[Scratch-O-Matic]

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.

Listen to my calls, read my mail...

[craenor]

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

Re:Listen to my calls, read my mail...

[Chris Johnson]

What if the only security you're threatening is their political security? Do they still get to shoot you?

It's a serious question, this has happened many times. The question is whether it's to happen on US soil.

I'm inclined to agree with you about the privacy issue, provided the transparency can be made to go both ways- but even that is a problem, and once you start going 'okay, shoot me if I am a terrorist' you're on dangerous ground.

Re:Listen to my calls, read my mail...

[craenor]

These situations change naturally on their own though. As time goes by..if we adopt strict security measures..people will grow despondent to the threat and security will be reduced.

This will once again remind us that we need to heighten security. I consider this cycle to be as natural as the seasons.

Craenor

Oversight and accountability

[Andy Social]

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.

Re:Oversight and accountability

[Andy Social]

Did you have some other way to keep plain-text documents secure from bad guys yet open to the general public?

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[OwnedByTwoCats]

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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[broody]

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.

Oversight

[Andy Social]

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.

Military vs. Police

[Andy Social]

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.

Re:We can have both

[JonTurner]

>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Nowhere does it say that it is everybody's right to bear arms. A well regulated militia is given that right. You, explicity, are not. This is not interpretation, this is what it says.
Then you, sir, cannot read well and niether do you understand history. The Federalist papers (as well as the anti-federalist writings) written by the authors of the Constitution document well the desire for an armed populace. "Well regulated" means well trained, and the "militia clause" states merely one need for an armed populace, not the only reason. It was (and it) well understood that the most effective ultimate measure against tyranny is a populace which cannot be led by force because it posesses the means to fight back. The Miller SCoTUS decision, often championed by anti-gun zealots because of its ban of certain types of weapons (such as sawn-off shotguns). The SCoTUS came to this decision not because they believed that firearm ownership was a collective right, but rather that a sawn-off shotgun was NOT MILITARILY USEFUL. In other words, if a firearm wasn't a useful militar weapon, it wasn't covered by the 2nd amendment. This is precisely why I find some recent laws such as the ban on so-called "assault weapons" (which is really just a ban on scary-looking rifles) a henious violation of not only the 2nd Amendment, but also of prior Supreme Court decisions.
Additionally, All of the the Bill of Rights specifically defines INDIVIDUAL rights, would you agree? Why then, according to your claim, is this not true for the 2nd Amendment? The BoR was written as an explicit guarantee of certain rights that could NEVER be eroded by lawmakers in the future. Time has proven this not to be the case. I understand your want for the 2nd Amendment to say other than it clearly does, but that does not make it so.

What about the FBI or ATF or frickin navy seals or CIA? You want to disband all of these?
Yes, because I want to live in a Constitional Republic, not a nation of "whatever." The FBI, a Federal police force, is not specified in the Constitution, therefore it is extraconstitional. Ditto for the CIA.
The ATF (more properly, the BATF, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) is part of the Department of the Treasury -- a Tax collection agency. When was the last time a BATF agent collected taxes? Yeah, right. They're a Federal police force. Disband them immediately.
The Navy SEALs are another matter entirely. They are an elite force, part of the Navy, which is responsible for the defence of our borders and seas -- a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED role of the Federal government (along with coining of money, regulation of interstate commerce, etc.). The Federal government has its place, and it's role is tightly restricted by the Constitution.

An excellent quote...

[Loki_1929]

"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.

Re:We can have both

[dubious9]

If the amendment said just The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I would agree with you. But the sentence was prepended with the fact that the right to bear arms is in the context of forming& maintaining a militia.

If they had wanted to grant everybody the same right, they would have said militia and the people. The constitution says nothing about the right to bear arms with regaurd to anything but a militia.

I'm not in favor of banning all firearms, poeple here are quite use to having them. I do, however, agree with banning handguns.

Personal accountability

[RgnadKzin]

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.

Re:Personal accountability

[spun]

There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.

I have heard this tripe from liberatrians a lot, never with any proof, just a flat statement that it is so. Please explain, as it makes no sense. Without regulation, what's to stop monopolies from forming? How do government regulations enable monopolies to form? During the lassaiz faire period, with no government regulation, weren't there many huge monopolies? Didn't lassaiz faire capitalism fail miserably? Now you libertarians want us to go back to it. If anyone has fallen victim to lies, sir, it is you.

Re:Personal accountability

[Kwil]

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.

I'll not even ask how you intend to eliminate corporations, which are really just a handy legal term to use for "collective of people", but beyond that, we all know how all pollution is instantly detectable.. why, it hardly ever takes years for the effects to show up. No chance at all to dump & run.

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.

Because after all, we all have the extra time to be a volunteer policeman or fireman, rather than concentrating our efforts in the things that we're good at and can benefit the economy and our neighbors as a whole.

You also assume that you'll only ever be attacked by singular attackers. When the Hells Angels are bigger than your "volunteer" force, pray tell what do you do then? He with the biggest guns wins? Thanks, but I'd rather not live in the home-grown version of Afghanistan.

There can be no monopoly in a society free from government intervention. Governments enable the monopolies.

Try going back to economics 101, rather than ideology from-your-ass. The only thing that prevents monopolies are government laws and enforcements so that corporations are unable to go full-tilt. Or are you saying Microsoft was the result of government intervention?

Also, you might want to learn the difference between anarchism and libertarianism.

Re:Personal accountability

[rtechie]

I have heard this tripe from liberatrians a lot, never with any proof, just a flat statement that it is so. Please explain, as it makes no sense. Without regulation, what's to stop monopolies from forming? How do government regulations enable monopolies to form? During the lassaiz faire period, with no government regulation, weren't there many huge monopolies? Didn't lassaiz faire capitalism fail miserably? Now you libertarians want us to go back to it. If anyone has fallen victim to lies, sir, it is you.

The United States has never had a period of real free market capitalism. The big 19th century monopolies you're thinking of (Standard Oil, etc.) were essentially created through government intervention. The "barons" of the time simply bribed and manipulated politicians to get what they wanted. Pretty much how it works today.

Re:Personal accountability

[rtechie]

I'll not even ask how you intend to eliminate corporations, which are really just a handy legal term to use for "collective of people", but beyond that, we all know how all pollution is instantly detectable.. why, it hardly ever takes years for the effects to show up. No chance at all to dump & run.

He's probably talking about eliminating Limited Liability corporations, which limit the financial liablity (from things like lawsuits) of investors ONLY to the money they invest in the corporation.

Eliminating LLCs is an insanely bad idea that would destroy the entire American economy.

Re:We can have both

[JonTurner]

"Actually, several of your items *decrease* both liberty and safety."
That was my point; that they do not. ;)

Re:Why can't ....... Hello !!!!

[Tuna_Shooter]

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...

MOD PARENT UP

[commodoresloat]

+1, funny. That shit is hilarious. You are joking, right? A Christian theocracy is our only saviour from an Islamic theocracy? Hehe, good one.

individual right or group right?

[RgnadKzin]

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.

Re:Fuck off

[Cervantes]

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.

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?

No, play safe.

[Bobzibub]

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.

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/WorldNewsTonigh t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html

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? ; )

Re:No, play safe.

[Stonehand]

1-
Iraq is not being bombed for oil, regardless of whatever lies Chomsky and Ralls have been spewing out these days. Really, the way to get cheap oil would be to let Israel die so that the Arabs would back us... but we're not doing that.

Iraq DOES put itself in danger by consistently violating the terms of the peace treaty.

Oh, and the US does encourage democracy in the Middle East, e.g. via rapproachment in Iran and criticizing the Egyptians for cracking down on critics. However, it's not going to happen unless (a) the Arabs revolt and wipe out their governments, (b) an Arab government becomes altruistic and suicides itself Gorbachev-style, or (c) somebody invades, wipes out the government, and prepares the ground for a new one. Hereditary dictators don't normally switch over to democracy just because you asked them to. It may be in their PEOPLE's interest, but it's not in the DICTATOR's interest.

2-

Tried. Go find and read the Green Book. It doesn't work too well in conflict zones or dictatorships where aid has a habit of been redirected to somebody's coffers.

3-
The Chinese people, with their history of being dominated by foreigners, might resent external involvement. They have to find democracy by themselves, and it's going to take a while for roughly 1.6B that have /never/ experienced democracy for the last few thousand years. Sooner or later, they may begin to value rights over maximum stability, but it might take a while.

As for Russia, Russia can FUBAR the US's foreign policy repeatedly through its UN/SC veto (which the American and European left will insist that we adhere to, of course). I suspect that there's a tacit deal -- the US overlooks Chechnya, and the Russians play ball on Iraq and the War on Terrorism. The EU can better afford to criticize Russia, as it's less likely to do something requiring Russian backing.

4-
The Iraqi's aren't screwed both ways; it's not like they're mindless children dependent on the Baath party maintaining power. Once, in fact, they were among the most educated, wealthiest Arab countries around... and with a little assistance and removal of certain leaders, they could again be in that position.

As for all the paper, none of the treaties that the UN demands are worth a dime if they're ignored with no consequences... and refusing to SIGN a treaty is very different from refusing to IMPLEMENT a signed treaty. One is staying away, and the other is breaking one's word. The US never agreed to SIGN all treaties put before it, whereas Iraq AGREED to disarm.

Oh, and the US does NOT have the power to lift up the world; generally, people seem to have too high expectations of its power, like the Arabs who believe that Bush could call Sharon and suddenly there'd be a peace deal, ergo the US is to blame for not doing so. Not so. The US has SOME power, but it does not control other states; it has some economic and military leverage, but even that only goes so far. In many cases, regional problems demand regional solutions. The US can feed people, but first the people who don't want them to be fed must be dealt with. The US can encourage democracy through diplomacy, but we can only rarely impose it (e.g. Afghanistan, and even that brought protests. Incidentally, US SpecOps people were sometimes asked by locals to be their mayors / other officials, heh. Not their role; the locals need to learn to rule themselves.) The US can -- sometimes -- deal with a dictator, but the locals need to cooperate to resolve what happens afterwards...

Re:No, play safe.

[rtechie]

Iraq is not being bombed for oil, regardless of whatever lies Chomsky and Ralls have been spewing out these days. Really, the way to get cheap oil would be to let Israel die so that the Arabs would back us... but we're not doing that.

You're right, the big reason for a War on Iraq (and the "War on Terrorism" for that matter) is so that Bush can "wag the dog" to distract people from the failing US economy. It's been largely successful (look at the election results), both now and historically.

However the reason that Iraq was selected (and not some other nation, like North Korea or Canada) is because Iraq has lots of oil, and is an oblique threat to our oil interests in the region.

Weapons of mass destruction have always been a red herring. Saddam Hussien desperately wants such arms because it to make an invasion (which would likely dislodge him and his family from power) extremely unlikely due to MAD. Without such weapons Iraq is vulnerable to invasion by foreign powers (ex. the United States). That's why Bush wants to attack NOW, before Iraq can defend itself.

Re:We can have both

[dubious9]

First off, fantastically worded retort. I wish more gun control advocates communicated as intellegently as you.

"Well regulated" means well trained.

Then would you agree with gun owners being required passing a training course?

Yes, because I want to live in a Constitional Republic, not a nation of "whatever."

I agree with you that the United States is fairly far from any pure Democracy or Constitutional Republic. But where does it say that extra-constitutional institutions are not allowed? This is a true question, I simply don't know. I'm sure that the founding fathers didn't think they had thought of everything.

Also, yes, the BAFT has overstepped what it was designed to do. It is flawed but not fatally so. The same with the FBI: there are some problems that states can not take on themselves. They have to band together in the federal government. How would you divide the duties of the BATF, FBI, CIA, and NSA, (the latter two which are mostly international) to fit with your Constitutional Republic? Some has to do them.

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[fonnix]

"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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[Elwood P Dowd]

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.

A little self skepticism might help you with that

[JohnDenver]

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.

Because CONgress wears two hats ...

[RgnadKzin]

... 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.

Remember the first part of that sentence?

[nosilA]

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

Re:We can have both

[Stonehand]

Obviously, you haven't searched for either the contemporary or the modern definitions of "militia". Hint: they're very inclusive.

Oh, and read the first Militia Act with respect to who provided and stored the firearms.

Re:Fuck off

[Stonehand]

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.

His testimony, decrypted

[gentlewizard]

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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[RoundSparrow]

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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[jez9999]

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.

Re:Fuck off

[Cervantes]

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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[jazman_777]

As it is said, you have nothing to worry about if you are doing nothing "wrong". But, face it, we all do SOMETHING that the government wouldn't like us to do.

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.

Re:Why can't we have both? - Tim McVeigh

[RoundSparrow]

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.

Most 9/11 Guys Had No Record

[Nazmun]

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).

Re:Most 9/11 Guys Had No Record

[Myco]

Well, yeah, but they were all Arabic and stuff, I mean, c'mon! C'mon!

I kid, I kid...

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[Stonehand]

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.

Ben Franklin speaks volumes on this

[forrestt]

"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security." - Benjamin Franklin

Re:Fuck off

[Dasein]

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.

Security vs. Freedom (not the Ben Franklin quote)

[Alethes]

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.

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[DuBois]

Think of an unarmed student standing in front of a tank. Tien An Men square, anybody?

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.

Sheriffs are elected

[johnny cashed]

County sheriffs are elected by the people. I don't know how their jurisdiction applies to cities though.

The Real Libertarianism in a Nutshell

[hether]

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.

Re:The Real Libertarianism in a Nutshell

[civilizedINTENSITY]

yeah and if we were all "peaceful, honest people" then it might have a chance...but its really to simplistic: reduce the feedback and the circuit will run more effeciently...

the united States are unique

[zogger]

--we are designed to be the free-est and most unique political system ever invented. The founders had a vision, that if it had been followed, 9-11 wouldn't have occurred. We have born with rights, not government granted priveleges. The first one is freedom of speech, the second is the right to keep and bear arms. I am using my first now to speak on the second, the 'guarantee", the "insurance" of our other born with rights.

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.

The missing step 2:

[PhxBlue]

2. freedom = slavery;

Just redefine freedom as something completely alien from what it really is. Orwell knew this.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[Jettra]

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.

Re:I would just like to point out....

[Happy go Lucky]

Honestly, i wouldn't care if the NSA, CIA, FBI wanted to snoop on to what i do, just don't let me know about it. Don't report the little things that i (and everybody else) does.

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.

my response

[Enrique1218]

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.

Oil war business model.

[Markus Landgren]

1. Sell weapons of mass destruction to a military dictatorship.
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!

... and the scary part is that there is no "????" paragraph.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

You aren't serious, are you?

[alizard]

truth is that most politicians and most government authorities really do want what is best for the public

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.

Re:You aren't serious, are you?

[JanneM]

I did say "most", not "everybody" or even "most at the very highest level of power".

The vast majority of people in politics (at least in Sweden, and, I assume, in the US) are working at a local level, frequently without much in the way of pay, and usually with a day job to take care of. They, by and large, did not drift into politics because of the power (there is little at the local level) or the opportunities to enrich oneself (there is very little of that either, without starting to break laws). They entered politics because they felt it was important, and that they could make a positive difference. Some of those people sort of 'filter' up to the national level - and unfortunately, this does seem to concentrate the element of power seekers quite a bit - but even there, many are still motivated by the same things as when they started out.

It is always risky to compare different political systems, of course; I'm talking about politics and politicians in Sweden (as I see them), and you are talking about the US. There are a lot of differences between those systems, both in the power structures (where an individual politician in Sweden seems to be quite a bit more sircumscribed than his or her colleague in the US), and in how political activity is financed. It could be factors like that makes a huge difference, or it could be that people will behave the same regardless.

Now, I'm not saying a local council is composed of a bunch of saints with halo's on their heads; the same kind of backbiting, asslicking, railroading and so on goes on there as in any other organized enterprize. Any organization - whether political, hobby, religious, academic or whatever - will ahve the same kind of problems. I'm just saying that as a group, politicians are no better nor worse than the rest of us. The difference is really that a rotten, no-good politician can do a lot of damage and generate large headlines, while a rotten, no-good extension-cord salesman will not.

'envies our elections'?

[alizard]

On the other hand, every time someone looks to the United States and envies our elections,

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.

You have public campaign financing, right?

[alizard]

In the US, campaign financing is mainly private, coming from those who have the biggest financial stake in making sure someone is elected who can add to their profits. That makes a very big difference.

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,

Outside the INS remit

[anonymous cupboard]

The INS and the sate dept employees who do the actual screening were tasked to look for two things only:

1. Is the person going to overstay their visa and/or work illegally?
2. 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.

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[fonnix]

As far as I know (please forgive my ignorance) tanks did not exist in the 18th century.

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[fonnix]

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.

Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring

[fonnix]

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.

RE: Shitty choice, but it's obvious...

[fallen1]

...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.

Re:We can have both

[dubious9]

according to the IRS, the lowest 50% of taxpayers only pay 4% of the Federal taxes collected. In other words, the burden of running this country has been shifted onto only half the population. But that's another discussion for another day

It's another day :0) BTW I hate stats like this. You mean rich people have to pay more taxes than poor people?! Good God! Who make the majority of goods that the upper half uses? Yep, you guess it, the lower 50%

Re:Fuck off

[Cervantes]

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'. =)

Blatently wrong...

[bhsx]

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.

Re:That makes no sense

[Bvardi]

Err... I don't know about you, but if something horrifies and scares me I rarely ignore it. "Oh look, a 300 lb 7 foot tall man carrying a chainsaw and covered in human blood..... hmm... if I ignore him maybe he'll go away and leave me alone" The thing you're completely missing here is that the US is a powerhouse in terms of economic, military, and political pull - it is too much of an influence to be ignored. Many nations DO have genuine issues with the way that US agencies and governments have done things in the past (frequently without adequate consultation or approval from the US public) - when the Chilean government was overthrown with CIA assistance, leading to a brutal dictatorship (ironically a democratically elected government was overthrown because of land reforms and other actions that were seen as "too socialist" and instead a dictatorship was put into place) Think they had the option to just "ignore" the US?

Re:I would just like to point out....

[jez9999]

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.

So the real question is

[spun]

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?

Last Post!

[alpg]

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...