Slashdot Mirror
NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for pointing out the testimony from NSA Director Michael Hayden, in which he talks about how the NSA worked pre-9/11 and post. And, as Bruce pointed out "...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety."
> where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
"Old man yells at systemd"
The NSA is probably the most secretive organization in the world, after the Freemasons and the Elks. I'd be very surprised if this "interview" is anything but a very well-crafted propoganda campaign. Take everything he says with a large spoon of salt. Regardless of what they say about liberty, these people are not elected, so they have no incentive to protect your rights. Treat them as the enemy, and be ready to defend yourself when they come to haul you away for thoughtcrimes.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
that the average American would want the line between liberty and safety drawn right at the national borders of the USA.
Ie the rest of the world is unsafe and the USA has liberty.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Counting on the government for saftey is like counting on them to spend your tax dollars wisely.
I choose Maximum Liberty. Please draw the line there.
Lets /. the government now, I'm sure that's a felony...
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Write to your senators. Write to your representative. Hell, write to your governors and state legislatures, just make it clear that you're not in favour of further restrictions on our rights.
Senators can be found here:
U.S. Senate Home
Representatives can be found here:
Representative Member Directory
If you do this, you have some form of say in our government, or at least a chance at influence. Don't waste it.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
With millions of cargo shipments coming in and thousands of planes in the air daily there's no way to secure it. The plans we've come up with seem similar to Microsoft's plans for 'Security'... i.e. The US governement seems to be securing their position rather than securing the people. I'd rather live in fear of terrorism than fear of the US government, something that's becoming more fearful everyday.
put the what in the where?
1 Eliminate civil liberties making security
:)
2
3 FREEDOM!
[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
This is not good enough. Because liberty is a more abstract concept than security, people tend to choose security on the principle that only criminals have something to hide ... until their liberty is eroded to the extent that it causes them problems, by which time it is too late to go back.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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.
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.
... on Tuesday.
Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT.
Be careful what you wish for, USACITIZEN.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I know that violating people's civil liberties including taking away their right to speech, privacy and due process makes it easier for law enforcement, but aside from being unconstitutional, it's also bad policework.
If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through. If you tap everyone's phone, then you become bogged down in terabytes of data -- most of which is useless. If you suppress the speech of the hate mongers and racists, then you don't know who is a hate monger or racist.
Civil liberties aren't just respectful of constitutional and human rights, they also help law enforcement do their job right. So don't ask for a line to be drawn. Try playing by the rules instead.
CAN we draw a line distinguishing safety and liberty?
Through liberty.. there will always be safety.. in the sense that.. someone (the government) will always control our liberty.. and at the same time a government will do all it can to protect its country, even if it includes hindering our liberty.
If one were to go around chanting anti-american remarks and burning the flag, by the Constitutional law.. they have every right to do that, but our government will see it as a threat and most likely arrest the individual.
Unfortunately, freedom and safety are both two very strenuous issues when being discussed together, but as far as "the line" goes.. I personally don't think a line can be drawn..
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
""...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety." "
Why don't you just intercept their constituents' phone calls, email, web traffic, faxes, pages, and all other forms of electronic communications, and then you'll know exactly what they want.
Oh.. wait..
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They crossed it about 5 minutes later when the Patriot Act passed. And don't kid yourselves, it has been said the patriot act is supposed to be somewhat limited and a temp measure....Yeah Right a Temp measure like the Federal Income Tax was supposed to be when it passed...
Honestly I scared...of all of the things going on...Homeland Security is a term that scares the hell out of me....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
. ....Anyday.
I'll take my chances here, just so long as every time they hit us here, the miserable filthy rat bastards that plan, finance and harbor these immoral vermin get it back 100 times over.
Use all the daisycutters and hellfires you need, we'll make more.
.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Amen!
The concept of "Homeland Security" was invented 215 years ago with the 2nd amendment to our Constitution.
--- witty signature
Would the constituents be the people of the US, the businesses of the US, or both? The goals of businesses are different from people: businesses don't want individual privacy because it hinders their ability to market.
Since Congress has to answer to both, I wonder if they are the best group to answer Director Hayden's question. Perhaps this is an executive decision.
This is like saying that we need to draw the line between electricity use and pollution. Wrong. We need to innovate. The answer to a security issue isn't to take away freedoms to make it easier on us; the answer is to use more advanced methods to maintain privacy and liberty AND enhance security.
While the question is phrased that way -- liberty vs safety -- it's the only question we can answer. If we say: liberty is inviolate, now how else do we protect people? Then that question may be answered instead.
I voted. I voted for Libertarian candidates because I, like many people here, believe that the less intrusive government is, the better.
Writing letters and making phone calls only goes so far. No matter how many letters or phone calls legislators receive, it's still the same person who ignores them. The real solution is to get these people out of office and elect people who are more likely to give our concerns a voice.
So the next time you feel that our legislators truly aren't looking out for our interests, get your ass out of your chair and vote.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
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.
"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.
This not only applies to issues pertaining to the west's battle with Islamism, but also applies to all of the socialist safety nets governments feel they must create for us.
And particularly in America it applies to the economic destruction wreaked on us by trial lawyers. (Read Chocolate)
There are so many physical risks and dangers in this world and we'll never be able to crush, legislate and/or sue them out of existence.
I personally think Michael Hayden stated the issue he faces, and we all face, extremely clearly, and thereby did us all a favor. I also think Benjamin Franklin drew the line where it needs to be drawn -- do not sacrifice essential liberty at all, and especially not for temporary safety.
The task we face is to determine which liberties are essential. I'd start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience and expression. The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power.
I'd also point to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as important. We must not carelessly and capriciously deny due process to those whom we suspect. Historically, when we have, we've done no good -- for the others or ourselves. (Remember the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?)
Does anyone see anything important I've missed?
Catherine
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. . .
Since you feel so strongly about it that you were willing to use your real ID on the response.
Consider it done Mr. Coward.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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.
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.
Is it not possible that, having already made the decision for security over liberty back in the 1970's when the tools of self defense were banned from aircraft (and post offices, and schools, I might add), these formerly free United States had become a haven for terrorists without any help from the NSA?
Didn't anybody ever watch "Red Dawn?"
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Sheesh, where do folks get goofy ideas like this? Travel, see the world! There are a thousand places I'd rather be than one of the scarier parts of Boston, Chicago, New York, DC (and yes I've often been to or lived in these places). It says something about how the rest of the world is mostly OK, and much of our world sadly is not.
And, anyway, "security" here includes security from one's own gov't -- one of the fundsmental concepts the Revolutionary War was fought over, and the Bill of Right designed to address.
"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.
Jesus Christ, this is probably one of the most intelligent comments I've seen posted on Slashdot...
You said it perfectly, Omega
Intelligent life found in the US government! Quick, lets vote him into presidency before he gets away!
Disclamer: I am in no way infering that the current president is not intelligent...
yeah...
>.>
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Themself are one, do draw a line would be to destroy both.
Don't tell me I'm naive. I'm not.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Intelligence.senate.gov
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Xaotik Designs
The NSA guy actually makes a pretty good point that the current regulations came from another traumatizing event: Law enforcement running mild counter terrorism domestically with regard to antiwar and black nationalist movements during and right after the vietnam war. The Vietnam war + Watergate was very tramatic and the result was legislation and regulation which weakend law enforcement.
I wish these issues could up in some normal time like 3 years ago when nobody was traumatized in either direction. The problem is then nobody cares.
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.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
... did the abrogation of other people's rights become a matter of polling one's constituents? Look semitic? Practicing muslim? Now being searched and fingerprinted is official policy. Check out the wrong books at the library? Official policy to notify the authorities.
I don't give a tinkers damn that my neighbors said this treatment was okay, even if they outnumber me. A constitutional republic is not about two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The worry is that information intelligence agencies gained can be used against minor crimes like someone with a secret drug habit, or speeding, or whatever.
I'm very much for privacy as a basic civil right. But I think we have to ask the difficult question of what privacy is. And that hasn't been asked.
Yeah.
The 9th and the 10th which pretty explicitly limit federal powers to those granted to it by the people, while reserving those not explicitly graned to the states and the people.
Unforuntately, the 9 idiots on the bench have effectively destroyed both of these amendments, and are doing a bangup job on the 4th.
We, in the US, live in a climate of fear that has been nurtured by our government and the media for a very long time. We have ignored many of the problems in nations throughout the world and focused on being the toughest MF'er on the block. As king of the heap, we have to protect our position. In order to do that we have to justify it to the American people by daily demonstrating the need for that protection--that everyone is out to get us. It becomes a catch-22 situation. The need for security and the means of ensuring that security creates an ever increasing need for more security. Of course, ultimately, our rights must suffer.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
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...
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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
--Justin Mitchell
"2nd Place is a fancy word for losing" --Bender (Futurama)
Privacy is also the cornerstone of the right to abortion and birth control. Regardless of how you feel about these things, the significance of loss of privacy in this matter can't be overestimated.
Finding God in a Dog
First we should start by questioning the assumption that loss of liberty even will buy us safety.
This needs to be done, on a point-by-point basis for each and every liberty that is being compromised. In engineering decisions there's always 'nice to have' and 'must have'. There are also times when the customer is asking for the wrong thing, and you can give a different solution that satisifes him even better than what he'd asked for. As far as I can see, current liberty/security tradeoffs appear to be a shopping list, without effectiveness review or modifications.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
How do you know they have no secret agenda? Are you under the impression that they would tell you about it if they had?? Then it wouldn't be secret, would it? Or did you ask them if they had one, and they said no?
Try to tell a court judge you won't accept his judgment because you didn't vote for him.
Is that an argument for why he shouldn't be considered the enemy? Cuz I wouldn't expect any enemy to care if I elected him either.
Whoa, they have to ask Disney AND the oil industry? Unprecedented!
(PS: It's a joke. Please don't tap my phone line.)
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.
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.
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)
I say that and then--> Did anyone notice how quickly arrests were made RIGHT after 9/11 based on phone calls that took place on 9/11? So either we had a lot of taps already in place or...
Maybe something else happened, but I thought it was interesting. What I thought was even more interesting was that I didn't hear anyone asking any questions...
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
THATS NOT THE POINT. The point is that our American legal system is based upon the idea that people are free to do what they like as long as they don't harm anyone else, they are innocent until proven guilty, and that you dont search/seize/surveill or anything else to a person if you don't have a very very strong body of evidence to suggest that they were doing something illegal. When you start tracking the whole population because 2% of them are doing something seriously harmful then you are using punitivie punishment. Lets set aside the fact that the majority of terrorist are not us citizens, and we don't need any new or special laws to eavesdrop on them. I am all for snooping on foreign nationals because our constitution technically only protects citizens, but to carry this over to everyday US citizens is treading on dangerous ground. You can make a herd of panicked cows run off a cliff if your timing is right and people are the same way. You can make them sign away their life if you tell them it will save them from the eye of the storm. Add to this that in an average day, the average person breaks over 50 laws. If you want to live in a place where big brother is there to enforce every last nitpicky law then I feel for you. On top of this, many of our laws have been railroaded through by special interests, and 90% of the people don't support them, never voted for them, and don't want them. The result is they arent enforced for long (see prohibition). If you start cracking down on all laws and using big brother tactics then we may as well just reanimate josef stalin right now and make pol pot our vp. We can keep ashcroft though because hes already a fascist. I'll never know how a man who lost his senate race to a dead man, can then be sucessfully appointed to such a powerful position just my 2 bits anyhow.
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?
Or maybe htye just pulled a bunch of "towelheads" they had been sitting on for years to give the public something to burn in effigy and appear to be working quickly an efficiently.
-no broken link
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.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
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.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
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.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The big problem is the INS. How many of these terrorists have been let into this country when they should have been stopped at the borders?
I find this remark very interesting, because a great American once said this:
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That man was Ben Franklin, and his words are more true today than ever before.
I couldn't resist. Go easy on me.
Evil is the money of root.
Of course the citizens don't know what the NSA is up to. If we knew, so would Bin Laden, Hussein, Prince Saud, and anyone else who is interested in thwarting those efforts.
The hardest part for most people to understand about intelligence is how fragile it is. SIGINT can provide amazingly detailed information about our adversaries, but it can be denied so much more easily and cheaply than it can be gained.
Illegitimi non carborundum
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.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
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.
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?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
"If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure."
Not sure if you picked it up from somewhere, or if you came up with it yourself, but it's an excellent quote; one of the best I've seen yet in this whole liberty vs. security debate.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
+1, funny. That shit is hilarious. You are joking, right? A Christian theocracy is our only saviour from an Islamic theocracy? Hehe, good one.
There are some easy ways to be safe in an interdependent community: pay close attention to your government and get them to try and be a force for good in the world.
h t/WTC_zawahiri0101002.html
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonig
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
Cheers,
-b
Oh, sorry, is this Kuro5hin? ; )
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.
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
If criminal law was reasonable in the first place (drug laws, dmca, tax laws, blah), then it wouldn't even be bad if they *did* report it.
As long as they were consistent. The stuff where they leaked ugly things about MLK was unbelievably wrong... but if they were doing it to Hoover, the president, and every single public or private figure, it wouldn't have been nearly as wrong or nearly as damaging.
Of course, ideal would be privacy. It's just that legal sanity and consistency would mitigate the loss.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
It's funny when people counter each others exaggerated conclusions with their own exaggerated conclusions, when a little skepticism and a good standard of evidence will keep those kooky ideas from going overboard.
Here's where you went wrong:
1. You're trying to explain complicated phenomenon with a simplistic rule
2. Because bad influence makes a mind inhibited and stupid, you concluded ALL influence makes a mind inhibited.
3. Posing a simple counter example would have helped you see the flaw in your argument.
I'm really dissapointed that you failed to catch Science, Skepticism, and Critical Thinking's influence on a mind, and how it's integral in dispelling myths, falacies, and unmasking manipulation from those who aim to control you.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
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
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.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Britain and France didn't give much of a damn, either, for the longest time. Read up on Hitler's fears on what would have happened if France had intervened early, when Germany began blatantly violating treaties, instead of waiting to be occupied.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
He used 'way too many words. When you run the entire document through a BS processor, the end message is the same that all bureaucrats give when testifying before Congress:
1. It's not my [our] fault.
2. I could tell you, but then I'd have to shoot you.
3. If only we had more money we could do a better job.
There's a difference between /holding/ power and /exercising/ it. The public has substantially more power than they normally exercise, because it's been a long time since they've been driven to the point of rebellion.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
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.
I kid, I kid...
My deviantArt site
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Photography, video, and the Internet have changed, and will change, the power of the tank.
But don't forget the deterrence power of an armed and liberty-loving populace when the government gets out of its Constitutional bounds.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
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.
"My god, it's full of crap!"
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
Libertarians In A Nutshell - As a party, Libertarians support the political philosophy of "libertarianism." This philosophy states that you, as an individual, know best how to live your own life. Not the government.
Obviously, you don't know a whole hell of a lot about Libertarianism or you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations about us (yes, I am one) and our ideas. Not all Libertarians believe that we can one day just scrap police and fire protection, get rid of the entire governmental structure and leave people to fend for themselves. We don't want to destroy the world as we know it and replace with entirely privatized options. It's this kind of FUD that keeps the party down.
The LP wants to:
# Substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut all taxes.
# Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.
# Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.
# The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.
Stick to posting about topics you know. www.lp.org would be a good start to your reading.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
These-the first ten known collectively as the 'bill of rights"- aren't "amendments" per se as amendments past #10 are, no, they are SUPPOSED to be inviolate, there are merely listed for clarification purposes, they may not be changed or altered, no code, law, piece of paper, published utterance, no government, plutocrat, politician, officer, bureaucrat,judge, cop, goon or any other assorted denizen of meddling are supposed to restrict, deny, "permit", regulate or otherwise offend these enumerated 10 BORN WITH NOT GOVERNMENT GRANTED RIGHTS.
It is NOT called "the bill of permissions that we can regulate on a political whim".
Webster is on record stzting that he wrote his first dictionary precisely for the fact of having an accurate record of word definitions so the original content would never be misconstrued.
The so called "government" with their "codes" uses a language outlined in a set of missives known as "black's law" dictionary. It is NOT the same. It exists, this is true, but it is in no way lawful or legitimate.
9-11 happened PRECISELY from government interference (if not collusion in exalted places) in the soverign citizens' enjoyment of said rights. It is THEIR FAULT that the pasengers and crew on those planes had no practical effective means of self defense to protect them from those criminals.
It is that simple.
The head of the NSA (and every single other governmental employee from the newest hired-on to the head of the executive branch) understands this or he does not. If he doesn't understand it, he's too incompetent for the job. If he understands it and doesn't support it by word and deed, he's a traitor, again, not fit for the job.
It is that simple. There's no wiggle room. The second you as a free soverign are demanded of a "permit", which is a "permission" to enjoy your born with rights, or you are outright denied one of your born with rights, it's an example of a fascist command ordered you by a fascist who is also a traitor, who's only claim to legitimacy is the threat or use of violent and coercive force.
It is that simple. If the illegitmate criminal junta that passes as "government" would follow our actual laws, we'd have a lot less problems. 9-11 would have been mostly a non event.
2. freedom = slavery;
Just redefine freedom as something completely alien from what it really is. Orwell knew this.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
You got "insightful", you should have gotten funny. I hope you intended humor with your post, otherwise it shows cluelessness on an almost Microsoft True Believer scale.
Most politicians want whatever will get them the most campaign contributions, mostly in the largest possible chunks. If you really believe that Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings wants what's best for any public but that of his 0wn3rs, I suggest you change your recreational drug of choice or at least find an honest dealer.
From the available evidence, most 'authorities', by which you presumably mean law enforcement want whatever will get them the most personal power at the expense of all the rest of us.
Tech Public Policy stuff
After the 2000 elections, I don't think anybody is looking to the USA for lessons on how to give free, fair, and democratic elections. You obviously didn't read the foriegn coverage of that election in places like The Guardian(UK) of little issues (like tens of thousands of voters disqualified in Florida because of false felony accusations based on a list from an organization controlled by major campaign contributors to the Bush campaign. Note that most of those falsely barred from voting didn't get to vote in the 2002 elections, either.
Why was this buried, spun, or completely ignored by US mass media? Why did I have to log on to an English newspaper to get decent US election coverage? Interesting question.
despotic and evil government
When the Hollywood content providers get most of their legislative agenda passed (who's going to stop them?), you may be using these words yourself to describe the US government.
Of course, if you're still employed in IT at this point, you'll probably be using those words in London or Copenhagen or Nuremburg. Hollywood's agenda is not compatible with the existence of high-tech research, development, or production in the USA.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Though I've also noticed that EU politicians are capable of doing things just as stupid as any of the things the whole world laughs at when our US Congresscritters do them,
Tech Public Policy stuff
- Is the person going to overstay their visa and/or work illegally?
- Has the person been convicted of any crime?
They were not tasked to look for potential terrorists because they have no access to the FBI computers. The FBI does have access to lists of all persons entering the US and can request copies of the forms presented to the INS representatives.There wasn't even a formal way in which they could warn the FBI that a person looked interesting. Certainly they don't have time to give people the third degree and in any case, those people from many EU countries get automatic waivers (visa granted on entry).
It should be emphasised that on paper at least, the terrorists had good reasons for their visit to the US. They could support themselves and were seen to be likely to leave (they had commitments back in their own countries).
The danger is that if you give everyone the third degree before they are allowed in, they will stop coming to your country to spend money. The US needs both tourists and trade.
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
: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%
It's another day
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Hate to be a grammer/English nazi; but even if your points were valid, they get lost when you make yourself look ignorant. The correct way to spell "it's self" is itself and "protect it's people" translates to protect it is people. Terrorism is not the act of attacking a government through its(no appostraphe) people, it's (it is) the act of promoting your own agenda by scaring the shit out of your supposed oppressor. It's(again, it is) using terror to get your point across, hence the word terrorism.
"Terrorism would be the unauthorized use of force." Um, unauthorized by whom? The terrorist attacks of 9/11 were quite authorized, just not by a government that is recognized by the USA. Al Qaeda is a government of its own sort, until we invaded Afghanistan (rightfully) they governed the people.
put the what in the where?
Why do so many people have the same opinion of Libertarians that I do? How'd I get modded up to 4 for my 'obvious troll.'
You Libs need to do a little better at PR. It might help to come down harder on the greedy bastards who call themselves libertarians but just want to keep their unfair advantages.
Ayn is probably spinning in her grave over all the selfish nutters claiming to be libertarians. Objectivism may well be a brilliant philosophy. Christianity is a brilliant religion, that hasn't stopped people from killing in the name of God.
I have the feelings I do about Libertarians through direct experience. I ask you: what is it about Libertarianism that attracts selfish shortsighted fools? Can it be that Liberatrianism provides a convenient excuse for their behavior?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton