Slashdot Mirror
CIA and Military to Have U.S. Snooping Powers?
Mr.Intel writes "The NY Times is reporting that 'The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations.' Although the measure was beaten back in committee, it appears that the administration is not satisfied with Patriot or Patriot II type powers..."
Privacy?
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Need to create a mySQL Table?
The second amendment has been neutered by uses against purely violent threats.
I thought it was supposed to help us defend against a corrupt gov't.
I say the hell with the guns. Every home should have a legal counsel fully loyal to that home's interests with local, state, national, and global expertise.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
RTFA ato rldspecial/02TERR.html?ex=1052452800&en=682d535fc0 d83931&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/02/international/w
(remove the two spaces from the URL when you copy/paste.)
... were all about a smaller, less powerful Federal government.
Can any of the Republicans reading this explain this to me? How do you explain the actions of the Bush administration?
BTW, I have nothing against Republicans, and I am not a Democrat.
About their US Powers; They'll prob. get them (officially now, most likely)..and it'll suck to be a US citizen.
But, I can also see them getting 'world-wide' powers such as control over Echelon...scary stuff.
Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
I'm sure the CIA and military haven't been snooping before -- since it was against the law and all.
There are those who, in the wake of 9/11, felt that it was appropriate to point out all of our misdeeds around the world (and domestically) as being the source of this terrorism (let's not forget McVeigh and Waco). I am one of these people. HOWEVER....
It is shit like THIS that WE Americans slept through and let pass. When we have installed friendly dictators we did not tell our so-called leaders to piss off. These people do not work in a vacuum. They answer to us. And it is now, it is laws such as this which will go unchallenged which are the seeds of terrorism -- again, both here and abroad -- that will be sown into violent acts down the road.
So lets not deceive ourselves. If you don't like it, get off your ass and vote, protest, carry a sign, write a letter and most importantly talk to your friends and debate. WAY too much stifling of opinion these days and worst, justfied as being "patriotic."
And while I'm on a rant, I'll give an example. Our position in front of the UN was that Iraq was learning of the weapons team's destinations and playing a shell game with the WMD, right? We've now had unabated access to the entire country for a whole month with nobody left to move a goddamn thing. Where is it? Where are the WMD? Where is it, Bush? Where is it, Colon? Where is it, Blair? Thirty !@#$ing days in-country with thousands of military and private contractors looking for an OUNCE of banned weapons and nada. WMD requires infrastructre and we have half the deck in custody. Any of them would spill their guts in a second to get off light if there was anything to spill.
THIS IS NEWS. But do you see it? Do you see the reporters reporting? Do you see the investigators investigating? No. The country isn't stifled, my ass.
It is said that that in a democracy, people get the government they deserve. Well I hate to phrase it like this but the rest of the world has been getting the government we deserve. And now that the so-called chickens are coming home to roost in the form of Patriot I and II, everyone is bellyaching. Welcome to the disaster that has been the last 20 years.
Maybe this explains a few things. But whatever you do, don't pretend like the evedence wasn't there all along.
My
Limekiller
To the editors:
This kind of blantant power-grab should be on the front page, not buried in section. Even if you agree with the policies of the Busy administration, this is newsworthy.
That being said, this is nothing new. The military and CIA have been spying on the citenzry for a long time via the eschelon system. What this does is legalize it so that it is easier for the military and the cia. Currently the system is dependent on the good will of the canuks and the brits, and this move would get around that.
The way it works is that since its illegal for the US military and CIA to spy on their own citzens, they just request a the foreign goverments do it and report back to the US agencies. The US also does them the same favor by spying on canadian and brittish citizens.
The whole thing is a big load of crap.. but for Bush and the republicans to have the balls to try to make this legal.. wow.. 4th amendment anyone?
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
You couldn't be more right (I too have been dismissesed as unpatriotic...)!
Moderators: Mod down if what he said was wrong, or offensive, not insightful.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
I have had the same thougths myself...
1. Privatization of info seeking tasks.
2. Out sourcing by private companies to individual contractors.
3. Info contractors limited to having information on no more 10 people.
4. Info contractors must be legally knowledgable with yearly review.
In a country of 300,000,000 that would mean 30,000,000 would be aware of the laws that the country is crushed by. 30 Million... Aware... uh, we win!
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The current government, under the guise of trying to protect us from another 9/11 (pretty sad they are using such a tragic event in such a dastardly manner), won't be happy until they have totally raped the constitution and taken away any and all vestiges of privacy and freedom that we once had.
Of course no one listens to the mad loons until it's too late.
Oh well.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Can you be any more fucking left wing? One of the reasons I'll never buy a /. membership is I expect you'll donate money someday to ANSWER or the Amerikan Communist Party.
and I don't mean as in beer.
Next election I'm voting for the guy who wants to repeal all this crap. Otherwise we'll be in a 1984/wag the dog type situation.
Very interesting, because so much of it was censored, and the authors chose to leave blank space in the parts that were censored. Sections that the CIA wanted to ban, but a court ruled had to be allowed, were printed as boldface. Next time somebody tries to give you bullshit about how our government does what's best for the people, refer them to this book, written by former CIA operatives. Most interesting is the connection of Latin American coups with US business interests (e.g., United Fruit Company).
Oh, and if you're looking for a politician who stands up for his principles, and for civil liberties, read up on Russ Feingold (Winconsin senator, Dem.), co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and ONLY senator to vote against the Patriot Act. I'm no Democrat, but if he runs for pres., I'll throw my vote his way.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
The difficulty is that those who voted for Nader gave Bush the 2000 election, by splitting the anti-Bush vote. If Nader had not run, it is likely that the majority of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, rather than Bush, handing Gore the election. Note that this is not the fault of those who voted for Nader, who, as ubikkibu notes, thought they were doing The Right Thing(tm) by voting for the candidate they preferred. Rather, the fault is due to the plurality voting system, in which to get a result most in accordance with his desires a voter is sometimes best served by voting for someone other than the candidate he prefers--in this case, "whatever half-assed corporate whore the Democrats put up," instead of Nader. In 2000, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, which was likely not the intent of the voter (again, as ubikkibu notes). (And it works both ways--in 1992 Perot probably took enough votes from Bush I for Clinton to win.)
Other voting systems exist that are much more fair to the wishes of the electorate; one that receives high marks in this regard is the Condorcet system, in which the voter states his preferences pairwise among the listed candidates. The drawback of this method is its complexity, which may be a problem in a country in which the "butterfly ballot" is beyond the capabilities of the voter.
Well, let me first state some basic things on which my conclusions:
(1) I don't believe people care about anyone other than their own friends and family. I think everyone likes to say publicly that they care about other people, but as long as evil nasty shit is happening to Someone Else, Somewhere Else, everybody's generally OK with it.
(2) If a population has enough $$$, they don't care about anything else (i.e., the government can do whatever it wants).
(3) The old saying you can't have beauty without ugliness, or happiness without sadness. Yin-yang...you need balance in order to have definition.
Now, my point.
I don't understand why anyone is the least bit surprised about any of this. Power wants to remain in power. Simple as that. It doesn't matter whether it's Republican, or Democrat, or Socialist, or Fascist. And, when the U.S. public doesn't give a shit (because, economy notwithstanding, most of us still have enough money to, like, go to movies and shit), the people in power can do anything they want. So why wouldn't they try?
I think that we are seeing the symptoms of the post-Cold War world. Simply put, there is no longer a strong foil for American culture. No yin to our yang. When the Soviet Union was a reasonably powerful country...the best way for American powermongers to stay in power was to hold up virtues like freedom, liberty, privacy, etc., because it made us look better than them.
But, now that there is no longer anyone we need to look better than...liberty and privacy, things which just get in the way of power, can now be jettisoned.
Unless China rises up as an enemy of the USA, or something, I expect to see a trend toward more and more powergrabs, the destruction of the few democratic principles this country was founded on in the first place, and a move toward totaliarianism.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. But, I doubt it.
gameDB
"It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
That excerpt was taken from Santorum's AP interview. [Yes, yes, free registration required]
It should be noted that he made that statement (and many others) regarding a specific case, but I still find it alarming that my representative seems to think I have no right to privacy.
Apparently he never read the Bill of Rights. Last I knew, the Ninth Amendment stated we had rights not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments. I'd like to think a basic level of privacy is one of them.
Yes, remember Enron? The scandal that could reach Cheney and Bush? There were more indictments this week. Most of the second-level people now face long jail terms. Some of them might choose to give up Lay and Skilling.
Last I knew, the Ninth Amendment stated we had rights not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments. I'd like to think a basic level of privacy is one of them.
Better than that: The Fourth Amendment seems to imply some right to privacy in its ban on "unreasonable search and seizure".
Will I retire or break 10K?
When did McVeigh put up a website that everyone could discuss concerning his views?
Never, because it would have been ineffective. The bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City occurred in 1995, before a critical mass of American people had access to the World Wide Web.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So make it a link article
Unless nytimes catches on to our little trick and ignores partner= when partner= does not match the Referer: header sent by the browser. Pasting the link into the browser's location bar does not create a Referer: header.
But the reason the Republicans and Bush and his handlers have the balls to make this crap legal is that the Democrats got rid of the Second Amendment, and because the New Deal let the Feds control who could do radio and TV broadcasting, and because the population are asleep and would rather watch "Reality TV" than watch reality.
The CIA doesn't ahve domestic charter, that's what the FBI is for. I bet they meant the FBI not the CIA.
"Those who will sacrifice a little freedom for security deserve deither" - Thomas Jefferson
Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.?
- Benjamin Franklin
Why stand we here idle? What is that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of the chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what the course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!?
- Patrick Henry
Posterity - You will never know how much it has cost my generation for your freedom. I hope you make good use of it?
- John Quincy Adams
Sorry John...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
This year's one day seminar on Integrating Speech Technology in Language Learning has been cancelled. The InSTIL seminar was all that had been left of what was once a funded U.S. research program to use speech recognition to help people learn to read. However, over the past few years the budget of the Interagency Educational Research Initiative has been slashed and the Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnership program has been ZEROED. The IERI and LAAP programs were created to deal with DARPA funding deficencies, but DARPA has not taken up the slack for speech recognition in language instruction. Fewer U.S. polyglots will have a far greater impact on intelligence-gathering efforts than bandaids like Project Babylon or any of the DARPA advanced speech recognition programs can possibly provide. Please join me in asking John Poindexter and his advisory board and NIST to help get this vital funding back in the budget.