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?
I'm sure the CIA and military haven't been snooping before -- since it was against the law and all.
This might sound like a flamebait, but it's just an observation: Typically the people most eager to defend their right to bear arms for protection against a corrupt government are also the first ones to protect the government and the actions of the government in cases such as the Patriot act and similar.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
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.
I agree except that I have never seen those arms ever used to defend against the corrupt gov't.
Not in 200+ years anyway.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The Second Ammendment has been neutered by the shock and awe of the United States military forces. Haven't you been paying attention? What the hell does anyone think a bunch of rednecks with guns can do against that?
Sorry to rain on the gun lover's parade, but this is reality. A citizen's insurrection to correct the misdeeds of our government cannot stand up to our professional military. Fantasizing about it while you watch "Red Dawn" with your redneck friends won't change reality.
Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape
Oh, I wouldn't say it's impossible. Not bloody likely, I'll grant.
As Napoleon said, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." The question is not one of weapons and numbers, ultimately, but one of will. If one-quarter of the US population (75 million or so) were to rise in mass revolt, the million personnel in the US armed forces would have a heck of a time putting it down. If the revolutionary cause was good enough to attract even 10% of the citizen-soldiers, it'd be a walkover for the revolutionaries.
However, I don't see there's any cause that could bring a quarter of the population into the streets at once willing to fight and die, and also break the military chain of command. Except maybe for an overt grab for dictatorship like, say, a suspended presidential election.
But no president would be crazy enough to try that... right?
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
A bunch of peasants armed with little more than rifles kicked us out of Vietnam. Furthermore, studies have predicted that only slightly more than half of our soldiers would obey if ordered to fire on their fellow Americans. The remainder who aren't good Germans would, presumably, mutiny.
Read up on what a few urban Jews with small arms did during the reduction of the Warsaw ghetto. Had the European Jews of the late '30s been armed as well as the average redneck, there might not have been a Holocaust.
I will note that this is much the same as the position of the ACLU on the Second Amendment. (Fair Disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though I don't agree with their conclusion on this matter.)
As a student of military affairs, it is obvious to me that any attempt to fight a set-piece battle force-on-force with the U.S. military is pretty much doomed from the outset unless your men and equipment measure up to ours.
However, that does not mean that it is impossible to successfully engage and defeat our forces. Allow me to recommend The Battle for Hunger Hill by Daniel P. Bolger (ISBN 0891414533). This is the story of Colonel Bolger's experience at the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. FYI, Ft. Polk is where the U.S. armed forces train for what they call "Low Intensity Conflict" and "Operations Other Than War".
As I understand Col. Bolger's account, the OPFOR at Ft. Polk regularly hands even elite units their ass with only a comparative handful of men. The typical "enemy" soldier at Ft. Polk is armed only with a rifle, a few grenades, and perhaps a sidearm. They work in teams of four men, which take on units of company size with ease. Astoundingly, the OPFOR teams use exactly three basic drills against an enemy unit: Break Contact, Box Ambush, and Baited Trap Ambush.
These teams do have some support in the form of mortar fires, but these must be of necessity sporadic and consist of only a few rounds when available. If memory serves me correctly, the mortar teams sometimes move the not-designed-to-be-man-portable-tubes by hand in order to avoid counter-battery fires.
Another book that, while fiction, might prove both educational and entertaining is The Prince, by Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling (ISBN 0743435567). This is a compilation of the Falkenberg's Legion saga into a single volume. Much of the story concerns a ultra-modern military force fighting a well-funded and equipped guerrilla/terrorist uprising.
All of which is to say that small teams of highly motivated and dedicated individuals can and do defeat much larger units of our armed forces. Now, I'm not suggesting that every pick-up truck full of heavily-armed rednecks fits this description, but I think you'll allow that some of them might.
I would further point out that every member of the U.S. armed forces swears an oath to "[...] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;".
Imagine for a moment a hypothetical future in which the people have staged a general revolt against the federal government of the United States. For the sake of argument assume that this is a good-faith revolution with the stated goal of the restoration of constitutional government to the U.S. Furthermore, assume that the arguments for armed revolt are legitimate and beyond reproach, and a neutral outside observer would say that the President was an enemy of the Constitution. Now imagine the minds of the commanders. They have sworn oaths to both defend the Constitution and obey the President, each of which is now in direct opposition. I believe that at least some unit commanders would chose to join the rebellion. For further reading please see The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012 by Lt. Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.
You could say that the fact that the government troops would posses WMD might tip the balance in their favor, but I'm not sure even a cynical and corrupt U.S. regime would use WMD on their own soil. It is also unclear to me whether such WMD use would attract outside aid or intervention.
In conclusion, I think that the only time armed revolt b
Right on. With notable exceptions, "freedom" for most gun nuts means the freedom for everyone to Love the USA the Way I Do, or go back to Roosha^h^h^hFrance. Having said that, we are perilously close to the state of affairs where the right to bear arms actually starts to make a smidgen of sense again. I'm never going to buy a gun. But our government as it functions today with the current "leadership" needs to be dismantled completely. . Hello, spooks. How did you get here so fast?
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
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
Jerry, you're a pretty good writer, but you don't know much about Vietnam. As I recall, you went there and shook a few ARVN hands. I spent a year there, so I feel entitled to my opinion.
Here are the sad facts: For every American who died in Vietnam, we killed at least 20 Vietnamese. We just got tired of dying before they did. They were tougher than we were, and that's likely to happen when you go to war for no better reason than to keep politicians in office.
Ask just about anyone who actually fought in Vietnam and they'll tell you the Army of South Vietnam was a joke. Who could blame them for being more concerned with personal survival than fighting and dying for a series of corrupt puppet governments? Think about it. How eager would you be to die for Thieu?
When the United States left Vietnam, the ARVN forces had the best military machine in SE Asia. On paper. But they wouldn't fight. That's the fact, and all the wishful historical revisionism in the world isn't going to change it.
South Viet Nam accordingly fell, and Saigon became Ho Chi Minh City; but that is not the same as our being kicked out by a handful of peasants with rifles.
We're gone, Jerry, and the peasants are in charge. There's no effective way to spin those facts.
By the way, you folks who are convinced that our military would unanimously crush any uprising... you're selling our soldiers short if you think they'd all start dropping napalm on American suburbs just because King George told them to. Some of them would, no doubt. We have our inevitable complement of good Germans here. But we also have true patriots in the military, who understand that there are lawful orders and then there are war crimes. I believe that if our forces were divided into those loyal to the current crop of politicians, and those loyal to the American ideal of liberty and the rule of law, the latter would own more military competence than the former, as well as the superior motivation.
I think not even Jerry would dispute the idea that motivation wins more wars than the latest weapons.
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?