Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Seeks A Loophole In The Privacy Act
CygnusXII writes "As reported over @ wired.com. It seems that Homeland Security isn't the only govermental body wanting to keep a database on the good old U.S. population. 'The bill would allow Pentagon intelligence agents to work undercover and question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents. That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases and to the CIA, which is prohibited from operating in the United States.' Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?"
That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases...
Which is to say that the DoD is trying to get into the subject area that is presently the property of the FBI along with state and local police forces. It's not that this kind of work can't be done by the US Government, but that the wrong division is asking to do it.
The DoD runs our armed forces... they are not designed for law enforcement and when they are asked to do so they usually do a poor job of it. This provision in the law should be stricken and replaced with more funding to the FBI and other police forces so that the people who should be gathering info on US soil can continue to do so correctly.
Uncle Sam wants your civil rights!
Uhm..
-They set us up the database!
-All your secrets are belong to us
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?
Pentagon: How are you gentlemen!!!
Pentagon: All your secret are belong to us.
You are reading this online dumbass.
Secrets? I haven't had any secrets for 3 years now.
Because /. hasn't gotten around to renaming the category to "Rights you used to think you had". *ducks*
First the start taking over foreign policy, now law enforcement...?? What's next for the DoD? (Patriotic) education? Will American kiddies have to start going to camp wearing red, white, and blue scarves?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government.
We're getting there....
They forgot the 'online' part a long time ago judging from whats being discussed on yro.. or it must mean: our ONLINE ranting about rights or such..
Still have to find out why 'you' is in the title tho.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
"...to question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents"
So some asshole comes up to you and starts questioning you about Al-Qaeda, but doesn't say he's FBI. Either its blindingly obvious that he is, or you tell him to fuck off.
I can see it now:
"As you can see, Mr. Anderson, we've had our eye on your for some time now. Ignore the shades, and the earpieces, and the official-looking, unnaturally clean sedan we're driving, we're NOT government agents. We need your help to find a certain "individual". You want to waste your day talking to us, since of course we cannot compel you to, since we're not government agents, don't you, Mr. Anderson? Since we're not government agents, you're more likely to tell us what you know, since we're just regular guys who happen to have cornered you, dragged you into our car, and want to chit-chat about Al-Qaeda. m-kay?"
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
But if that doesn't scare you, what about the prospect of a United States getting what is effectively yet another intelligence agency in the middle of a war between the existing two?
I dismissed this article, about the author of this book as a little overstretched last week - but the more I look around the more real it seems.
Ok, so now I'm being hattish...
Hello,
Doesn't it ring the bell to you? I wonder whether they understand the meaning of the word privacy.
I find it astonishing.
Kisses (muaaaaaaaaks)
--
You'd stumble in my footsteps (Depeche Mode, "Walking in my shoes")
I'm sorry, but if someone wants to ask me questions, and they A) aren't wearing a police uniform or B) identify themselves as law enforcement/criminal investigators, I'm not saying jack.
Would not apply to this posting either...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
YRO is Timothy's personal rant topic heading. Your mistake was thinking it had to do with Online Rights.
resigned
Considering the "problems" between the US and Europe (EU/EEa) regarding the use of personal data, privacy is apparently some freakish, subversive, un-American Euro-trash concept. After all, real Americans have nothing to hide, right?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Well, We have this, traffic light cameras, security cameras everywhere, probably tracking via cell phone and GPS, personal and rental cars with built in GPS, grocery store coupon cards, etc... Where will it end? I guess it probably won't ever stop. Data mining is becoming the hot feature of buisnesses and goverments. Is it still worth the fight for privacy? If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems.
I'm sure there are people out there that detest all the personal surveillance, but if a crime is committed and caught on tape, I think it should be used to prosicute the criminal. I personally don't want to be tracked everywhere I go, but if I was mugged in an alley, I would hope a camera would catch the criminal. It would bring some justice to me and *help* to justify the big brother tactics.
--
Please submit any spare Gmail invitations that you might have
Flawed logic -- then all Slashdot categories must be suffixed with "online", hence none needs it, for it would be redundant.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Pentagon officials say the exemption would not affect civil liberties and is needed so that its agents can obtain information from sources who may be afraid of government agents, such as a green-card-holding professor of nanotechnology who formerly lived under a repressive government."
And this is supposed to make him feel better how? By HIDING the fact that he's talking to a government agent?
You're right. The DoD is not designed for law enforcement. And there is no reason for the DoD to have undercover agents checking on US citizens (and legal residents).
Do you really want Military Intelligence officers spying upon US citizens on US soil?
From the article:
"In February, Army intelligence agents improperly sought information about attendees at a University of Texas law school conference about Muslim women. Conference organizers refused to provide a videotape of the event to the officers and publicized the request, leading to an apology by the Army."
The only way to keep the government honest is to keep it open.
Beware. Beware. Beware.
If some years ago, winning your green card at the yearly lottery was a divine grace, today it seems closer to the first step toward the seventh circle of Hell.
I thought my country was a little bit too regulated, that, thanks to terrorists, we had too much policemen around the corners, but when I look at the USian's situation, I really feel safe and confortable here at the other side of the pond (the Atlantic one, that is).
Come over here, guys and gals: we surely smell cheese and wine, but at least we respect you as people. One thing the US government doesn't seem to do.
...only now it's not funny.
Yep, if you have a Green Card, you have to fill out those fucking forms.
Am I the only one that thinks that the current laws that are trying to be passed are as scary as hell and are taking away the rights of U.S. citizens?
Does the U.S. Department of Defence really need to spy on it's own people? The U.S.A. is really starting to scare the hell out of me with more and more of these silly laws trying to be passed. Thank goodness I'm a Canadain.
Its ok, they just need to collect information so they know exactly who to target when Dubya brings back the Draft after he is re-elected.
Seems whether you like it or not, YOU SHALL be made to support Dubya since he doesnt have enough troops to send to their deaths searching for imaginary WMD's, and imaginary links to Al-qaeda.
Land of the free and the brave.
(forced to serve, and ignorant is more like it)
DO something!!
you're headed into fascism.
Namely keeping records of their civilians.
Stasi (former Eastern Germany) / Gestapo (former 3rd Reich)
Of course all in the name of security.
Privacy is terrorism.
Man, I am nostalgic becoming for former Soviet Russia. There, we lie, they lie, but we all are constantly knowing it.
THEY WILL KICK YOUR ASS!!
...or the KGB, eh?
I don't think this is all invasive as people are making this to be. We're not turning the 1st Marine Division into cops here. We're talking about intelligence officers being tasked with gathering information in the US. I think in the fight on terrorism, the more the merrier in gathing intel about possible terrorists. Now, I agree to the fact that this is really the FBI's job and that they shold be doing it, but what I think is funny is that people are complaining that the US military is about to be doing this but that they are perfectly fine with the FBI doing it. I don't really see much of a difference.
What needs to be done is very active campaigning regarding privacy and civil rights, and why it is so important to preserve these rights and never ever give them up, especially now that there is this "war against terrorism." And it has to be done in a way that the above-mentioned people can understand.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
A terrorist is an enemy soldier. He is fighting a war, not shoplifting. We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue. The FBI is simply a glorified police force and has proven itself to be either completely inadequate or completely incompetent in fighting a war.
Arrest and try criminals according to the applicable penal laws, but capture or kill enemy terrorist according to the applicable customs and laws of war.
How about one day you're hanging out at a bar, and you meet a girl who seems really friendly, you get along, and you start to go out. You happen to be a writer, and one day your typewriter breaks, and guess what? she happens to have a typewriter she can give you! Then you find out a year from now that the typewriter is bugged and records everything you write ...
This is what happened to Philip Agee, CIA defector, in Paris. A long and elaborate ruse involving gaining his trust and a series of 'accidental' occurrences seemingly unrelated. But that was done outside of the US, where warrants aren't necessary and it's basically just espionage.
Do you really want this kind of thing to be able to happen domestically? No constitution, no bill of rights, no need for warrants, no need for transparency--just all out domestic espionage operations.
These 'Pentagon intelligence agents' aren't going to be checked or balanced by all those troublesome laws and regulations that civilian law enforcement has to abide. With no civilian agency required to do the initial investigating, it will nicely streamline the process of whisking away people to be held indefinately at undisclosed locations. Those pesky records kept by the CIA, NSA, or FBI agents will no longer be a concern, and accountability will be limited to following orders.
It is already clear that the completely closed military courts are neither just nor appropriate for the purposes they are being bent to. Eliminating the role of agencies already dedicated to those tasks can have only one intent, to expedite these un-American practices and do so without the knowledge or approval of the American public.
We should consider adding a "fool branch" to the government. If we want to question the people, let the fools do it... that's what they were for.
Has nothing to hide.
You would think the destruction of two sky scrapers and the death of over 3000 would knock some sense of reality into all ye ACLU zealots.
Need they drop a nuke or dirty bomb before such methods of interrogation is accepted? They're likely to be whats next, anyway.
Hard to pathom any American, even the most fanatic left idealist, could prioritize an intangible 'right' over the lives of thousands, if not millions.
The rich who rule over and dictate our lives fear that you are a terrorist and will possibly cause harm to beverly hills.
You are now a suspect because you are poor and have no voice (no money)
Vote the Republicans out of office based on their ACTIONS.
Does this look like LESS GOVERNMENT?
I cant beleive the amount of brainwashed republicans out there who go fuck crazy over their $300 tax return. "its your money" Yeah well "It's your country" and look at what these folks are doing to it!!!
These are not republicans.
Vote Bush Out!
And the dems are just as currupt, but i think they're learning a little.
Frankly in an ideal world we would have a 3rd party president win this election. Someone like Nader. Someone who is completely seperate from the two party system that is bought and paid for buy the enrons, the fords, the mcis, the halleburtons, krafts, aols, etc...
I'd vote for a fucking steel worker from PA if he was running. Oh yeah we dont really manufacture much of that anymore here in america.
That's no excuse for the US military to be able to harass US citizens in the US.
I think it's more like 'We want you dead or enslaved.'
...and I have plenty to hide.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
It really is quite sad.
The government can raid my house, throw me in prison, and ruin my life - all in the name of national security. It's an extremely disturbing thought.
Big government / brother is not science fiction anymore, it is a reality. It's disturbing, to say the least. RFID imbedded in to everything you buy, is just the next step. This database doesn't suprise me in the least. They've kept records for years, it's what they do.
I live in illinois, it's a police state. I've already been fined several hundreds of dollars for jaywalking, and owning a NOT USED, CLEAN, TOBACCO pipe. You are guilty until proven innocent, around here.
I'm 24, an american, and I want to leave. This is a nightmare. A law may come in to fruition, that if I leave and a draft is reinstated, I will be sent back here and possibly thrown in jail, or be forced to serve for a country I don't believe in. We aren't all greedy capitalist pigs, you know. Some of us are actually decent human beings.
I hate to be such a pessimist, but if you live in the states, your life is going to be more difficult, and if anything - MORE dangerous than it is now. Throw a wrapper out of the window of your car? You could be signaling terrorists that are on the side of the road planting IED's. Think i'm joking? Just wait. It's a pretty far fetched example, but with this administration, would you expect anything else?
How can anyone fail to understand the massive threat we are under? We don't have time to consider the consequences - this is a time for ACTION! We are at WAR!
"But wasn't there only one attack, and wasn't that three years ago?" you say?
"Are you a freaking communist?!" I say!
Pansy countries like England, who faced IRA terrorist attacks from the IRA for decades, never managed to secretly detain suspects for years. Wimps. They never even bothered to monitor the books and magazines their citizens were reading!
As usual, America is showing how to do things right!
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
That is correct, citizen.
Only those who oppose the government seek "privacy" and they only want "privacy" so they can plot to overthrow the government.
The government is your friend.
The government takes care of you.
Good citizens trust the government.
The government would never support a bad law.
(slavey)
The government respects all of its citizens.
(women's sufferage)
Only terrorists oppose the government.
Only terrorists seek "privacy".
Only terrorists oppose the Law.
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
The government welcomes the support of good, concerned citizens such as yourself.
Knock knock.
"Whos there"
Gestapo!
"Gesta...."
Silence!
Anyway, in all seriousness, we (the U.S.) are boned.
That's right. All your base.
shoplifters were considered terrorists now?
That's right. All your base.
The Upper Class: has all the money.
The Middle Class: does all the work.
The Lower Class: there to scare the shit out of the Middle Class.
That's right. All your base.
The sooner US citizens realize that they live in a facist dictatorship in all but name, and the sooner they start the revolution, the better off the entire world will be.
"We need to stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue."
That's right! Everyone! Please REMEMBER to NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA IN NOVEMBER. Terrorist forces are only MONTHS away from overthowing the US government and forcing ALL US CITIZENS to attend Islamic schools!
"He is fighting a war, not shoplifting."
The same as various mafia families fight "wars".
The same as various drug gangs fight "wars".
More US citizens die from drug-related crime than from terrorists.
Terrorism can be reduced by simply applying the same techniques that law enforcement does. Track the money. That's how all of those other terrorist cells have been found in Europe.
There is a reason why under the Geneva conventions, it is illegal for a soldier to operate dressed as a civilian. Because the laws and customs of war are based on the assumption that war is carried out by combatants who make themselves obvious in one way or another as combatants. In guerrilla war, people become obvious combatants when they attack, or when they are searched in a known war zone and found likely to be combatants based on having lots of grenades or whatever.
A 'terrorist' on the other hand, is defined as 'anyone who the State Department says is a terrorist'. If we were to use your logic and treat terrorists as 'enemy soldiers', then that would mean the ability of the authorities to shoot on sight anyone classified by the Department of State as a terrorist. But how do you identify a terrorist--unless he is packing weapons or you find out about his plans?
The fact is this is *not* a war. The USA is *not* a combat zone, any more than London was a combat zone when IRA attacks were frequent. Terrorism is political crime, but it is crime nonetheless--not carried out by a sovereign state subject to treaty law, not carried out by centralised organisations with clearly defined hierarchies, and most importantly it is damn near impossible to identify a terrorist 'combatant' until it is obvious that they are going to actually carry out an act of terrorism.
And the State Department has already decided that loads of people are terrorists who do not fit this criterion--for example anarchists, like a 14-year-old kid I knew who was arrested and interrogated by the FBI because he had an anti-war leaflet in his bag at the airport, and added to the 'terrorism list' before they let him off.
Who is an enemy soldier is a very clear question. Who is a 'terrorist' however is an extremely subjective judgement. And by your logic my 14-year-old friend should have been shot on sight, or at least taken to a POW camp for indefinite detention and military trial.
The world is not different to what it was before 2001, terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, the difference is that it's being used as an excuse for the biggest crackdown on opposition in the west and in fact in the larger world since the 1930s.
First, I applaud you having the guts to say something that is going to almost certainly get you modded down: slashdot isn't a haven for posts that suggest that privacy isn't the primal need in the world. Its just a need, to some degree or another.
However, the problem you're discussing is massively more complex than you're realizing: true, terrorists think they're fighting a war. However, they are most certainly not. A war is a conflict between nations - political entities that not only make themselves available for communication, but who hold physical territory. Terrorists such as Al-Queda hold no land which is their nation, but rather are hosted by friendly nations such as Saudi Arabia (our partner in peace, of course). As such, terrorists are able to engage in 'military' attacks which cannot be reciprocated (find me a tower full of civilian al-queda, please...). In a war, all attacks are potentially reciprocal (within the limitations of comparative wealth, size, obviously). This reciprocity serves as a form of restraint on the actions of nations, limiting their willingness to commit atrocities*.
Because terrorists by definition need not fear reciprocation, nor [in the case of Islamic extremists] do they fear suicidal missions, they cannot be dealt with by traditional or by-and-large existing military methods. Rather, they must be approached in the same manner as which domestic terrorists [a la the Unabomber] are: a combination of military and police intelligence and effort.
While I don't agree with the need for this ability for the CIA (since the FBI and local law enforcement have can fulfill this function so long as they're properly trained/breifed), I do agree with their reasoning for the nature of the 'war'.
*: Yes, obviously Russia, Italy, Germany and the rest of the Axis committed atrocities [purges of all types], as some would argue we did [Japanese internment, Dresden, Nagasaki]. However, those nations who knew they were atrocities kept them hidden, while those 'atrocities' which are debateable are obviously excempt.
"Stumble before you crawl"
A terrorist is an enemy soldier. He is fighting a war
On what nation's behalf are these soldiers fighting? What is their chain of command, where is their home territory, and what are the criteria to be used for measuring progress, achieving goals, and WINNING the war? What is the endgame?
No, we can declare war on terrorism all we want, but it is just empty rhetoric as was the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". One cannot 'kill' a cultural phenomenon.
In fact, so long as we pursue a course of war, we are at best delaying and at worst escalating the problem. The right strategy is to discover and ameliorate or solve the root causes, (inconsistent U.S. middle east/israel policy in the case of terrorism, treating addiction as a crime rather than an illness in the case of drugs.) As long as we continue to bury our heads in the sand on these issues, they will continue to plague us. Rattling sabers and blustering on about "that's it, we declare war" is poppycock.
(--U.S. citizen and patriot that understands that patriotism doesn't simply mean blind obedience to the current administration)
So if you don't follow the penal laws, how do you ascertain that the "terrorist" in question is actually a terrorist? Do you trust the military to patrol the US and decide who should be shot immediately as an enemy soldier? I suggest that you reevaluate your threat estimates; when you can be killed without a trial, you can be killed for any reason or no reason at all.
Unless you are ordered to by a judge under agreement of protection, you dont have to say boo to anyone...
So.. i suggest that if ANYONE asks you questions, you politly decline. If they turn out to be feds, then they will have to take you to court to get anything out of you.
Cant trust anyone.. BB is watching..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The terrorists have won over your heart it seems. Only fear and terror linger there now..
Sad.
Apparently taking our online rights and putting them through the wringer wasn't enough, they have to spy on us too. Not only do they spy on our internet communications but they're our neighbors.
-Rights? What rights?
Man, Victoria's going to be pissed.
Oh well, I guess her secret has been out of a while now anyway:
Victoria's Secret Revealed (big pic)
Matt Fahrenbacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
The Posse Comitatus Act is what currently prevents the military from being used for law enforcement purposes.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Plenty of human-rights abusing reigemes have had secret police for years, it keeps the population in check, because you never know who you're talking to! Start a conversation with that guy sitting in the park? better be careful what you say about your glorious leader or you might find yourself locked up and the key literally thrown away! Don't forget who started bribing locals to grass-up the whereabouts of all the jews - the nazis thats who, and guess which regieme also had an army of secret police ready to get freaky on anyone who said the wrong thing, heres a clue - we invaded them last year and now were using their former prision of injustice to make cheap BDSM porn. Hey maybe the pentagon could go the full way like Israel and send their secret police abroad to kidnap people!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I'd rather like a $300 yearly tax. Sadly I'm afraid that privlege is reserved for the big corporations, and the super rich.
See, this is the problem. 'War' is no longer a concept of nation-state vs nation-state. Just because your opponent is an ideological faction, not a chunk on a map, doesn't make them any less dangerous. If anything, it makes them more dangerous.
Military analysts had been predicting this for years. Go google for 'low intensity conflict.'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Low intensity conflict, AKA guerrilla warfare/paramilitary warfare, is very different to terrorism.
Guerrilla warfare is a strategy, a way to conduct war in specific conditions within a defined theatre of operations and an organised military hierarchy just like any other war, but with disparate and weak bands of combatants, rather than with a large, well-equipped army.
Terrorism is not a strategy, it is a tactic. It can be used by guerrilla groups, but it can also be used by ordinary political criminal organisations. Examples of guerrilla groups using terrorist tactics are car bombings in Baghdad; examples of terrorist tactics being used by non-guerrilla groups are IRA bombing in London.
The difference is that one is a combat zone, a theatre of operations in which one is fighting an insurgency or (e.g. in the case of Nicaragua versus the Contras) a foreign incursion in the form of foreign-funded paramilitaries. The other however is just an isolated attack, yes it may be part of a longer string of attacks (like the Unabomber) but that does not make it 'war'. It doesn't even make it 'low intensity conflict'.
War implies combat; terrorism does not. Striking back at terrorists or their cells (like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, or IRA) means finding noncombatant groups and arresting them, it doesn't mean engaging with them in protracted combat situations.
War is STILL the same concept as it always was. What you're doing is confounding an age-old tactic (terrorism) with something entirely different. The world has NOT changed. People have used terrorist tactics for at least centuries, and probably millennia. The Bush administration's 'war on terror' is more accurately described as a 'war on ex-mujahadeen', but even that is giving them too much credit, as it's actually more of an excuse for every country in the world who wants to crush its opposition to get US money to do it, by simply labelling them 'terrorists'.
What is a real terrorist? Someone who uses terrorist tactics. What is the Bush administration's definition of a terrorist? Anyone they decide they don't like. However neither one of these comes anywhere close to a conflict, or to combat, or to war.
Afghanistan was a war; Iraq is a war. It was incorrect to call the Taliban terrorists, and the insurgents in Iraq are combatants first, and only terrorists secondarily when they make use of terrorist tactics. But these two conflicts are completely distinct, in spite of the ludicrous propaganda, from e.g. the Madrid train bombings, which were not an act of war, combat, or conflict, but simply of criminal mass murder.
Yes, well, the military people may want me and the rest of the citizenry to give them a blank check to fight an endless, undefined, unwinnable conflict with 'ideological factions', but I certainly am not ready to do so. Years of worth of white papers and justifications notwithstanding.
Yes I said unwinnable. As I said in my previous post, you can't kill a cultural phenomenon. The war department can't solve this problem no matter how many groups they declare war on.
it's more like "All your secrets are belong to us"
No, thanks.
If you want all then ask to Alan Turing, ohhh, he's dead, he was killed, he was assassined, he was tortured by secret agents, ... :o.
open4free ©
Really just a natural extension to
...
Poindexter's TIA (Total Information
Awareness) project (which lives!)
I could have sworn that the only
military arm that has ANY LEGAL
DOMESTIC charter is the Nat. Guard.
Once DoD gets involved in domestic law
enforcement investigations, the next
step is assigning "political officers"
to each brigade, just like the Nazis
and Stalinists, as well as "Cuban-style"
neighborhood watch/informers
Oh, wait, we already have that bit with
the establishment of the HSA, via phone,
letter, or website. (Amaze your friends,
and strike fear into your neighbors:
file a suspicious report against them
and watch the fun ensue as various Fed
agencies trip all over themselves trying
to "score" the next "big terrorist plot".)
Don't think that the Patriot Act & HSA
are not being used to counter domestic
political opposition: that has already
happened when FAA, FBI, & HSA got involved
in the search for the "missing" Texas
Democratic legislators, as well as the
computer server "breakins" at the US
Senate.
These bastards that have taken over the
government all swore an oath to protect
the US Constitution and Bill or Rights.
Their actions already qualify them (IMO)
for impeachment and trial (and prison).
How hard is it going to be to get these
"national socialists" voted out of office?
(Especially considering their $6 billion USD
initiative for "upgrading to eVoting" ?
If someone stops me for questioning under the color of law, I immediately ask for ID, even if it's a police officer in uniform in his squad car. I've gotten a lot of hostile responses to that, even though I'm well within my rights. In these days of ID theft, I'm sure as hell not going to hand over my ID to any shmoe that says he's law enforcement.
A friend of mine has an even more interesting time: he has no ID. He doesn't even have an SSN. When it comes down to federal goons breaking down doors, he'll be the toughest one to find.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
... the do so at their peril. Just following orders is no excuse to engage in supporting despotism. The possee comitatus act allows for the military to be used in extreme circumstances inside the united states, so it becomes a matter of interpretation on a case by case basis. You are required to follow orders, but not illegal orders. The commander in chief does not have a blank check in these matters, although current thinking and actions by the military tend to indicate they don't understand this very well,(don't *want to understand it* is more my opinion), and your two examples ARE examples of it being abused, yet the orders got followed. Pity. Bad precedents after bad precedents. Following illegal orders puts you outside your oath, because if the person issuing you the order is doing so illegally, you must not follow it, and any citizen being persecuted by this illegal order has the moral and legal remedy of resisting whatever is being forced upon him. that's in the laws as well as all the other stuff.
Anecdotal but a few years ago my nephew, a career army nco, quit. He refused to re up despite being offered a huge amount of cash to do so. He is not very political,never was as far back as I can remember, but he told me he simply refused to go along with what he knew was coming, martial law,dictatorial military rule, and especially he didn't agree with what they were trying to brainwash him into, which is that the second amendment is only a government granted privelege, not a born with right, and that only regular military, the guard, and selected civilian police have any "right" to keep and bear. He also said it was rare to hear the term "civilian" without it being part of "fingcivilian" to help get that mindset established, part of a demonisation processs, similar to what police are undergoing today. The stories he related to me indicated that that is an on-purpose aspect, an indoctrination they are carrying out for the future. My personal opinion is that it is an accurrate assessment of his,because I haave heard correlating anecdotals based on talking to a number of other individuals I know who were serving. He was instructing at west point at the time, and I tell you, I was shocked. Here's a young man who liked baseball, girls, 4 wheel drives and hunting, and it was his interest in guns and hunting and being exposed to some gunrights information, etc, before he joined that clued him into what was going down. He did NOT want to quit, he had purposely gone in directly out of high school,just like his father way back, my BIL, but he stuck to his principles and did, he wanted nothing to do with todays new "follow any orders no matter what" army.
I think the trends are ominous, and I am not exaggerating when I will state I feel the USA in 2004 has more parallels with mid 30's germany than most people want to admit to right now.
Riiiight, lets set the ARMY loose inside the country!
Lets start cruising Boston and Miami with fully armed Abrams battle tanks and Apache helicopters chasing down the Earth Liberation Front, abortion clinic bombers, the Pennsylvania Citizens Militia, and I dunno, maybe even Greenpeace.
And no, it would not be a good idea having GI Joe running around the country chasing Al Queda either.
You think the FBI is a glorified police force completely inadequate or completely incompetent in fighting a war? That's nothing compared to how inadaquate and incompetent the ARMY would be at domestic investigation, searches, and operations. They don't know jack-shit about about subpoenaing records and whatnot. While I'm sure they have some sort of fingerprint and evidence lab capability, it doubtless pales in comparison to federal law enforcment labs and evidence collection and crime scene expertise. They are trained in evidence gathering and suspect searches through forcibly sweeping areas door to door with M-16's and hand grenades. They are trained to hunt ARMIES amongst potentially hostile populations and opposition governments, not to hunt individuals amongst it's own population and it's own government. When something startles them they are trained to pretty much shoot first and ask questions later. If they need something they just seize it. If a person or a door or a car or a building gets in the way, they knock it down or blow it up. They operate in WAR ZONES.
Pardon me, but I really don't need the the army running around treating Pleasantville Kentucky and Times Square like warzones. That 'cure' is worse than the disease.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Not that I'm saying that the US should get rid of such rules.
I just want to know how many other countries restrict their governments like this. Because I never see such rules mentioned outside of an "inside the United States" context.
Is there still an official State of Emergency in the USA?
If yes, then they don't need this law and if not, then they are not allowed to operate inside the country.
Is this the next step towards a Honecker state? Sieg Heil!!!
Oh well, what the hell...
Why not? I mean, it's not we've got anything to hide, right? They'll only get the bad people, right? Right?
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
What the hell would you call 9/11 if not an overt declaration of war on the US by an extra-governmental, non-national organization that had already foresworn what could be termed the "rules of war"?
Aleluya!!!L EluyA!!!L uYA!!!
aLeLuYa!!!
AlElUyA!!!
AleLuYA!!!
A
ALELUYA!!!
aleluya!!!
alELuYa!!!
ALe
alELUyA!!!
ALeLuYa!!!
It seems that for some strange reason I've been using the word "Orwellian" allot in the last three and a half years. I'm not going to venture a guess as to why...
Seriously though, it's funny how utterly apathetic people are these days. People bandy about the term "freedom" but as long as they have the "freedom" to buy things people don't seem to care about the rest of it. A minority talk about what rights are slipping away, but still cast the valiant few who take to the streets as hippies and whackos. It's sick really.
What is it going to take for it to be too much? Seriously, stop and think about what exactly the government would have to do for you to be willing to do more than talk. Then think about how effective your protest will be if it gets bad enough for you to protest at all. Will you wait for a total suspension of civil liberties? Mass arrests? Until there are turrets on the street corners and "papers" required to move across state lines? Seriously. I want to say that people need to do something now, but the truth is that people needed to do something a year and a half ago. I'm not talking about revolution or anything... just make the dissenting voices impossible to ignore by adding your own.
The current administration isn't ready (yet) to start ignoring elections and the army wouldn't follow orders from people who lost elections. So go out and freaking VOTE! And then make it clear to the people you get put in that they're there to fix things. Politicians want job security because it takes more than a couple of terms in office to really secure the personal fortune. Make them fix things or throw the buggers out.
... analysts who look at all the angles, have been pointing out for years that the US has been hijacked and is being run by a shadow government composed of various criminal cliques inside the civilian and military branches in government, with ties to international banking and various other interests inside what has become known as the military industrial complex. And a general and president warned us to be aware of this possibility, to be vigilant to protect out liberty, because he saw it coming, and used his farewell address to the nation on his retirement to emphasize this. I would call that a credible source for one. And several of the predictions indicate it would be a one step at a time manuever, and they would use lies and deceit to create over-blown artifical threats, sometimes even resorting to terrorism themselves in order to get supra governmental powers "granted" to them.
As far as I can see, they suceeded, and continue with their sucess.
google for the northwoods documents for a starter. Then go re-research the reichstagg fire. Then go google for 9-11, government prior knowledge.
Foreign "terrorists" did not remove a single born with right I have, my own government seeks to do so though, and it is apparent to me they can lie and lie with complete impugnity to do so.
And it's precisely because they have so many 100% "order followers" that they can continue to get away with it.
Heglian dialectic, currently US government official policy
1-Create a problem.
2-Garner the reaction you wanted to get.
3-Offer a "solution" to the problem you created.
4-Profit!
A minor act of terrorism far smaller than the terrorism conducted by the US in the Phillipines
and elsewhere - including Iraq and Afghanistan.
"War" is a conflict between state (and perhaps ethnic) actors.
"Terrorism" is not "war" (except in the sense that all conflict between groups is "war") and cannot be combated by (conventional) "war". It can only be combatted by a combination of counterintelligence and policy change. Remove the reasons for the support of terrorists by populations and you can then remove the terrorists who are then by definition limited in number. Any other approach is counterproductive.
NOTHING the US has done since 9/11 has had any significant effect on the ability of terrorists to function against the US or the rest of the world. See the Google news page on any given day for this obvious fact. Ergo, use of the military and the rhetoric of "war" to combat terrorism has been an abject failure.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Slashdot accepts this report (which is not terribly significant) but ignores submissions which establish that the Total Information Awareness Program - which is far more insidious than a few CID guys running around in civilian clothes - is alive and well and running right now as a Pentagon black budget item. /.'ers...clueless.
"Stuff that matters" - yeah, right.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
In 1981, then President Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, which reverses a number of the controls that were put in place in 1973.
Here is a link to the text of the executive order:
http://www.tscm.com/EO12333.html
- AC
The United States (a federal corporation) is not God. That United States is a citizen of the United States of America. In these States united we are not Citizens but (royal citizen) subjects of the (Crown) United States.
Ask around if anyone remembers state citizenship, instead of United States citizenship: they don't understand.
hell the privacy act should be abolished do to redundancy....i do belive "illigal search and seizer" is in the constitution. The only problem is if the US government actualy interpreted the constitution the way it is supposed to be then there would be little use for most of what the US government does....
stendec@gmail.com
I hear, over in Finland, when those people don't have any favorable candidates; they vote for Donald Duck.
Don't ask me how, although I hear that simply writing a name of a candidate that didn't attain their name on the ballot; is a vote.
I want to vote...
Pee-Wee Herman, President
Arnold Brownschwagner, Vice President
Chewbacca, Schaufer
Jeffrey Dahmer, Treasurer
Charles Manson, Secretary to the Treasury
Nixon, Wiretapping van
Jimmy Carter, Masquera and Lipstick applicator
Bill Clinton, Pen-Pal
When I was in CI, agents went to bars all the time hoping to pick up info. Not really undercover, and they often would have their IDs, but they didn't advertise their presence.
Funny story - two agents were in a bar in a rough area, playing pool, looking for info. When one of them leaned over the table to make a shot, his badge fell out. They got the heck outa Dodge.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
Wouldn't such a bill that allows government agents to not reveal their government employment also help crooks? Now they too could question potential victims and obtain very sensitve data and go under the disguise of a government agent saying "I'm sorry I can't reveal that. Its clanssified". And how would we be able to verify their identity? We can't even complain in some situations. If this bill is passed to law it would really help social engineering, and screw the rest of us. What are the repercussions for Canada? Will we have to comply through our various pacts and treaties?
--
Registered .sig quotient : 1337
That is correct, citizen. .
.
Only those who oppose the Computer seek "privacy" and they only want "privacy" so they can plot to overthrow the Computer
The Computer is your friend.
The Computer takes care of you.
Good citizens trust the Computer
The Computer would never support a bad law.
The Computer respects all of its citizens.
Only Communists oppose the Computer.
Only Communists seek "privacy".
Only Communists oppose the Law.
The Computer welcomes the support of good, concerned citizens such as yourself.
----
OMG the US is becoming Alpha Complex...
Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...
Will this law allow a private citizen such as i or you, to question George W Bush, or Dick Cheney?
They sure have built up a mighty fine wall around themselves (the government that is)
When was the last time a citizen that wasnt double background checked, able to speak to the president?
The whitehouse press core get close but they're background checked, and require permits... and even then, they only get to speak to the white house press secratary.
Oh but the president does occasionally speak to the press you say... And you are correct. However the Press SUBMITS their questions before hand and they are CHOSEN by the president BEFORE HAND. So he only need answer what he wants to. How fortunate.
Even the debates are controlled by the two major parties. And they look more and more like each other every passing year.
It sure is a mighty fine wall. A grand wall. A wall that any rich man would be proud of.
all your thoughts/secrets are belong to us...
Welcome to the new, brave, free America - free so long as you agree.
I agree with what you're saying, but I don't think you see my point.
What I'm trying to say is that geographical territory is no longer a factor in determining combatants in war. You can't point to a map and say 'this is the enemy.' Regardless of the tactics, Al-Queda, say, as an identifiable group, can wage war upon the US, using, in this case, terrorist tactics. The fact that they don't have a coloured section on a map shouldn't really matter.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Obligatory:
All your secrets are belong to us!
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We're not at war until WE declare war back (which we haven't, despite all the troops overseas).
For example, in WWII, we weren't at war after the Japanese attacked; we were at war once Congress voted, after FDR's speech.
Also, we technically haven't had a war since.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm a skeptic and deal in data. I don't know how old you are, but I'm old enough to have seen the government lie, I mean come up with whoppers, then years later it gets found out. Want a big one? Remember a little excursion called viet nam? We allegedly got attacked in the tonkin gulf by north vietnamese gunboats, so we had to go to war because they were gonna invade iowa any week later? that war not called a war but really was a war? I watched military goon after political lackey swear up and down that happened, eventually leading us into a more than a decade-long war, fifty thousand US dead, 2 to 3 million vietnamese dead. A war based on a total lie, just now this year offically admitted to, we have the released audio of mcnamara and johnson talking about it, yet all sorts of people-like me-kept saying it was a lie, and waited through drivel that statists like you spewed out for years and years. You aren't the first to defend a lie or liars, especially with not even a juvenile (and shopuld be embarrassing to you) debate 101 tactic. I don't know if it's on purpose, or you are uneducated, lack any sort of historical perspective, or if you get paid to do it, or what, but eventually, this generations governmental lies will become more well known than they are now, and the liars will be universally recognized as such. Already, hundreds of millions around the planet can see they are liars, funny you seemed to have missed any of the news lately. And frankly, with a tool like the internet, there is no excuse to remain uninformed any longer except crass laziness. Are you still maintaining that iraq = al queda and they bought uranium from niger? Is that a fact, or is it a lie? Which is it, binary answer now. So if I say it's a lie, and it's proven, that makes it ..what? To me, that makes it just a statement of data. It is not a theory now, it's data, even the government who first claimed it admits it's a lie. that makes them *liars* because they got told it was a lie before they uttered it in public, at the state of the union message, and in front of the Un security council.
I am a skeptic, and going from past governments track record, it is prudent to be skeptical of their statements, and to look for a wide range of sources and information before coming to a conclusion. Do you do that? Do you think I want my government to be lying, that this gives me some sort of pleasure? Do you think I like seeing people mislead, lied to, and murdered and thieved from, whether americans or others?
I have several personal friends suffering from the lingering effects of agent orange poisoning, based on the lies the war and political profiteers spewed way back then. The government - military, scientists, politicians, all declared *at the time* that it was perfectly safe, that it wasn'
t chemical warfare (how spraying chemicals isn't chemical is beyond me, but it's what they claimed). Turns out, they were lying, thousands died a pretty horrible death, suffering from it, hundreds of thousands in viet nam suffered from it, and they knew they were lying at the time, they just waited for a couple of decades and change to admit to it, that and after thousands of people showed them the facts and kept embarrassing them in public. Is this "conspiracy theory" or data? I say it's data, proven, but I heard a lot of drivel that it wasn't true-from the liars, bbecause that is their nature, commit crimes and lie about them. It's a simple concept. It's one of the things criminals do, they lie.
In short, your extremely amateur trolling means nothing, except people can read the entire exchange and realise that nothing has changed in the mindset of criminals or criminal supporters-they lie by choice, with phony sincerity, or with malicious sarcasm, which means they are clinically sociopathic, and they always deny involvement, or excuse it, which shows they are psychopathic.
Have a good one, next time send someone competent, perhaps with a higher GS rating. You won't make the data go away, it's still there, an
More US citizens die from car crashes than from terrorists. Like an order of magnitude more, even in 2001. More of us die from heart disease than from terrorists. More of us die from lots of causes than from terrorists.
We fought the Cold War for 50 years, and faced nuclear destruction every day of our lives... and we managed to keep the Constitution in pretty good shape. So why, why, why are we giving up our freedom now in the fight against a couple of thousand assholes living in CAVES, for God's sake?
Wake up, people. We need to change direction in the US... now.
Sean
Since the Pentgon agents would be attached to the military, would they not be prohibited from operating within the confines of the United States territory without imminent invasion or a declared war?
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
... but England certainly did practice the indefinite detention without trial of IRA types. In fact, some of the ground rules for indefinite detention at GTMO were based on the British protocols. Not that I'm in favor of the practice.
Didn't have a lot of time for googling, but here's a cached post that talks about this.
Welcome our new DOD overlords. Oh, wait, I left the military a year ago. Never mind.
hi,
Why can't we just start keeping tabs on the as many official in the DoD that we can? Keep our own open databases and what-not? Have it open and published on the internet. If it's legal to obtain certain records, then we should obtain them and post them.
A similar event occured in California. The CA DMV did not restrict who was allowed access to its driver license database and did not restrict what could be done with the information. Well, some individuals obtained records on the entire state legislature and published it to the net. They changed the laws after that.
sTc
Most things worth doing are worth doing twice. -- me I think or was that my boss' methodology?
stalin, hitler, mao, pol pot, pinochet, the shah, and on and on were all widely popular initially in their respective nations. It's the herd mentality, and it's easier for cult like leaders to tell a big lie and keep repeating it then to tell small ones and having to keep proving them. More effective, too. Large political groups/nations do this all the time. Got a problem? Blame it on the other guy. In the meantime the real creators of the problem are probably pointing anyplace but at themselves. Happens more often than not.
Humans are by nature tribal, and social, which means they want to "belong" to something, and they want to think the other guys are wrong, because that makes them "better" somehow. Witness sports team fanaticism and rivalries. It's real, corporations make upmteen billions a year on the phenomenon. Carry it to an absurd level, you get jingoistic nationalism. Now I'm a nationalist myself, but I really try to not be a doofus about it, and to be able to recognize good/bad in most cases, and stay honest enough to change my views when presented with new good data. I also consider it my duty to help make things more honest, or better. It's really just a normal civilisation concept, do unto others, and etc. The golden rule. Some people do this, a lot don't, and an even higher number apparently don't think one way or the other on most subjects outside day to day mundanities. I am not condemning them per se, just noting it as a general observation.
In our original rebellion against royal rule, and taxation without representation, and the other abuses, only a small percentage were actually rebels. An equal number stayed tories, or supporters of the crown, while the vast bulk just blew in the wind and stayed wishy washy until they saw which way things were getting sorted out. What happens though is eventually everyone realises there is no such thing as neutrality, either side in a conflict will notice you aren't "with" them so ergo, you must be "against" them. Sucks, but there ya go.
Oh well, whatever happens, happens. And yes, aquire a firearm, get training,and practice. It's a nice sport, a variety of sports actually, there's a lot of geeky aspects to it, ballistics, etc are quite fascinating, and hardware is hardware, it's always cool.... and you never know when use of a tool might come in handy.
Donald Kaul writes about Martha Stewart's error
It would be best to state:
Dear Sirs: Please be assured of my sincere desire to co-operate with you. "Because of what happened to Martha Stewart, I don't feel I can answer any oral questions at all unless I clear all your questions with a criminal lawyer. Please submit all your questions in writing, and I will get back to you. Please sign this letter below as a receipt for your copy of this document and as evidence that I gave you no information whatsoever in this or any other interview." _______________________-DATED: __________ NAME & OFFICIAL POSITION OF QUESTIONER ID # telephone number address:
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
I'd rather get Sen. Hatch's bank records. Proof that he is bought and paid for by the RIAA.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
- Disband the state of Israel. Possibly execute all Jews, but more likely just ship them off to concentration camps somewhere in Poland. Anything short of this, such as disarming Israel by force and granting the Palestinians the "right of return" (effectively disbanding the state of Israel without saying so) would just lead to someone else killing the Israeli citizens.
- Remove the current rulers from the existing Arab countries and replace them with an Islamic theocracy. A half-measure here would be to eliminate support for the current rulers and let them be overthrown. Might happen anyway at some point.
I don't see that any sort of "policy change" short of these two is going to help remove any motivations from terrorists. I don't think we are going to do either one of these things, so you can pretty much forget "policy changes".Suppressing terrorists isn't something you can just turn the switch on to do. The profit has to be removed from it, which is where this is going. As long as they think they might win either conflict - Israel or establishment of Islamic theocracies - they are going to keep fighting any way they can. We can either give them what they want or convince them they can't have it. I do not think we want to live in a world where they get what they want.
... I'll be the first to admit I don't have all the answers. I managed to aquire *some* of the answers, which lead me to start questioning more. The more I question and learn, the more answers I get, but they lead to a doubling of the questions.
In a nutshell, these are a few of my beliefs at this time:
Not a hell of a lot of differences in the top levels of the two major political parties. They are both run by international big money interests more than any other demographic. As such, it's silly to think one group or the other "in power" in the public sphere will be much different than the other, when the real power is above them, and they are just the script readers. At lower levels-county and precinct, you have normal true believers, who are more or less just regular joes and janes who believe in the "system" and want their point of view extended and they sincerely think it will make a difference. This is normal, but to my view, borderline naieve, if you really watch what is SAID all the time as opposed to what actually HAPPENS all the time, and it's historically researchable, so again, just my POV, but there's not much excuse to keep up the charade of the "system" working beyond inertia and a lot of wishful thinking.
I am convinced there have been several mini coups which have taken place since I have been politically aware, and that there are overlapping and struggling power groups all fighting for supremecy in running the nation (world too). I don't think there's any one over all master plan/conspiracy, just a lot of gigantic crime cartels who's interest and alliances with each other wax and wane. It's just the sheer scale of some of them that makes those cartels significant. An analogy I like to use is that there are a lot of big wolf packs, all fighting for supremecy over the herds, and they only thing they agree on is that they are all wolves, and the rest of the planet is where the prey herds live that they use, so they fight over them, but stay united as "wolves", or predators.
I'm afraid that the premier all-powers intelligence service we have, the cia, is mostly corrupt at the top and in the entrenched bureaucracy, and has been since it's inception. Other intel agencies I am still evaluating, I think they have some corruption, but not nearly as much. Perhaps inside the dod are a few groups that are really nothing more than organized muscle for some power blocs and get used more for economic and political profit than for any sort of legit "national protection" service.. NSA I think by and large is not all evil. ONI is split down the middle. I really can't comment beyond there, my contacts aren't as good. The civilian agencies, like the fbi, have been long compromised,this is more or less public info, it goes way back, they have consistently persecuted any whistleblowers, exactly like they are doing to 9-11 whistleblowers now. The DEA are just nuts,whacko,and the BATF are trigger happy by design now. All the other I think 40 different federal copshops-ehh, who knows. WHY we need 40 odd something federal police agencies is beyond me, other than someone seems to think that civvies need a lot of "herding" to keep them "in line".
It's obvious that really big money calls all the shots-mostly- so that means banks and the market, including commodities, so that's wehere the true corruption starts. For them to continue to be corrupt takes the connivance of judges, and the big media, and I think that should be apparent. You don't get to be a big time judge without being in someones pocket. It just won't happen. You don't get to be a big time reporter if you rock all the boats. A small raft once in awhile, sure, they'll let a few get rocked. big ones? Nope, they tippy toe and ignore the real important stuff when they can. the internet is blowing them out of the water now, and they can't control it, one of the few nice things lately.
I think there's something to the "secret societies conspiracies" angle, but I am REALLY confused on that because there's so many of them and t
No... word has it (but I have not read the bills yet) that it will be for both sexes. In addition there will be extremely tightened diferments. No college exemptions will be made and thanks to tightened border controls Canada will be a much more difficult proposition. People such as Clinton(hey, I'm a fair lib), Cheney, and Rush will not be able to avoid this one. Make no mistake that this is very real and the selective service system has recently been infused with $26,000,000 for "selective service readyness." It's going to take alot of troops to remove every dictator in the world so get ready for constant war if Shrub is re-elected. On the bright side what little money you have left after/during the Shrub administration can be safely invested in Haliburton stocks for healthy returns... that is assuming our dollar continues to be worth anything as our debt spirals out of control.
That's something people used to say when I was growing up in the 1960s, when somebody complained about the way our American system worked. In Russia you couldn't do things like travel without a permit, and the Secret Police could whisk you off if you said or did anything the government considered a threat. They could question you and detain you for as long as they wanted. That couldn't happen Over Here, because this is the Land of the Free.
Our government seems to have developed the same level of paranoia, and is seeking and getting the same level of power to swoop down on anybody at any time. I'm very afraid that people in other countries will one day discourage their kids from whining about their system by asking them that if they would rather live in America.
Reunite Church and State? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data
Hold citizens with[something missing ;-);-);-)] trial or bail? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data
Nation building without proper cause? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data
Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data
Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws? UNCheck ... due to no links to supporting data
Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity? Pending/already going on ??? no links to supporting data
... Where are your links to data supporting your claims???
... Dude, you are like several decades/centuries late and an Euro short ... Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it:
Famous Phrase To Know and Love: "data talks and bullshit walks"
This nation has gone to Hell and the changes they are making and have already made are going to haunt us for the next 50 years. [childish expletive removed]
Sedition Act of 1918
Sedition Act of 1798
A remembrance from "The Decade of Greed (1990s)" and its fun stock market bubble with its "White Stain of Courage"
I believe Juanita
I really feel safe and confortable here at the other side of the pond (the Atlantic one, that is).
I'm sorry, but the Pacific is NOT a "pond".
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Except instead of treating this as a law enforcement issue and assisting or coercing countries into imposing legal force, Bush promptly declared a "war on terror" was underway, started a far larger deployment of military hardware and invaded and overthrew two countries, killing and deposing all sorts of people that had nothing to do with "terrorism".
May we never see th
First, you are redefining war. A war does not have to be a conflict between nations. A civil war, for instance, is not a war between nations, but is between two political groups. A belligerant party to war need not control territory. For instance, gueriila armies often do not "control" territory.
A war is an armed conflict in which one or both parties seek to impose a policital aim on the other. Terrorism is certainly a war. Calling terrorism "war" is not hyperbole like the "War on drugs" or the "War on Crime" or the "War on Copyright Infringement", all of which are not wars. But the organized use of armed force to impose a political aim is war and terrorism falls within that definition.
Nobody said anything about combat divisions rolling through Times Square. The article was about "agents" (i.e. spys) conducting surviellance.
Civil wars aren't civil wars. They're insurrections. The term 'civil war' is a complete misnomer, contrary to political definitions of war since the concept was codified in the 1500s.
"Stumble before you crawl"
Military forces working over the civilians they are intended to protect. Sounds like the Gestapo, KGB, and many others.
This is bad.
Historically Bad.
The article was about "agents" (i.e. spys) conducting surviellance.
:) I was replying to your post.
If I was replying to the article I'd have started my own post
You said "stop looking at terrorism as a crime issue and realize it is a National Security/War issue. The FBI is simply a glorified police force and has proven itself to be either completely inadequate or completely incompetent in fighting a war" and "capture or kill enemy terrorist according to the applicable customs and laws of war."
There are maybe a handful of Al Queda hiding in the US. Tasking the army to "capture or kill enemy terrorist according to the applicable customs and laws of war" in the US would be a disaster.
It's bad enough we have soldiers stomping around people's homes (mostly innocent people's homes) in Afghanistan. It is an unfortunate fact that in an actual WARZONE and in the absence of a friendly and effective local government it is impossible to hunt down criminals with ordinary police methods.
Sending out the army out as "merely undercover agents" isn't much better. The FBI is far better trained and equipped for that task.
I do not think the FBI has been ineffective or incompetent. I have not heard of a single attack in the US since 9-11. Either every single terrorist decided to quit and take up knitting, or the FBI has not only been effective but effective AND lucky. Assuming there have been X additional planned/attempted attacks since 9-11 it's almost a statisical anomoly to have stopped all X out of X
Short of Martial law, the military is legally PROHIBITED from preforming any sort of domestic law enforment activities. And with good reason. They really are quite ill equipped to hunt down a few stray individuals inside the country. Domestic martial law is imposed under only the total breakdown of civilian law enforcment.
The military has the wrong training, the wrong mindset, and the wrong operating procedures for such operations.
Our military serves a vital purpose and they are experts at what they do. Give them a task and the'll damn well get it done, no matter what obstacle they need to blow to accomplish it. But you do NOT call in the military unless things are so bad that you're willing to say "oh well" when a hospital winds up getting blown up in the process.
Let the army be the army. Trying to turn them into ordinary cops and investigators will only weaken them.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Russia suffered massive losses at the hands of the Germans, they most certainly were not an Axis power.
Yeah, I heard about that after I posted. The "both sexes" part is good, but the college exemption is a problem - I'd rather we try to protect our best and brightest.
[sarcasm]Also, thanks for the Haliburton stock tip![/sarcasm]
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Just for the record, I oppose most civilian gun ownership, but for now, if you're an American and you own a gun, please don't give it up.
And when the brown-shirts start arriving to 'question' your friend at 3am in the morning, please have the courage to stand beside them.
With your gun.
You might need it.
Appears Warren might be concerned he'll finally have to pay a dividend to his stock holders one of these days.
Again ... "data talks & bullshit walks"
I believe Juanita
As far as I'm aware the US DOD's role is to deter actions of war and to protect US security. Determination of what is deemed "war deterants" or the interests of US security are broad in terms. Although generally you have a variety of agencies to handle different aspects such as the CIA NSA etc.. when involving "civilian" populations. Locally you have a more able paramilitary force in the patriot acted FBI DEA and local police forces. However effectively the difference between criminal acts/terrorist acts and national soveirgnty issues are determintion of focus and recognition. Effectively all the agencies are representing US GOV interests "presumably" as far as they have been mandated. The military does have police training in many ways however they may not be "legally" trained via lawschool etc, as police officers. However all legalities are is ways of creating barriers to interactions that may be unwanted. In times of war the military is fully allowed to gather intellegence it is part of their role in combat intellegence. For instance the SAS and other special forces both blackops and special forces routinely are said to conduct operations which go beyond regular operations both on US soil and in "foriegn territories" both known and unknown(presumed). Usually use of the paramilitary is enough however it seems that NATIONAL security by any means necisary in foreign populations and now domestic ones. Technically if in operations they can take actions "SROE do not limit a commander's inherent authority and obligation to use all necessary means available to take all appropriate action in self-defense of the commander's unit and other U.S. forces in the vicinity" Effectively police powers. Different ROE must be drafted for different tasks and different levels, e.g., information operations, counterdrug support operations, noncombatant evacuation operations, domestic support operations, and maritime/land/air/space operations. (SROE Enclosures B-J)" Effectively meaning that they can be employed in DEA like operations, hostage situations, domestic issues etc... including intellegence(interogation etc..) Looking into the other government agencies "rights" in potential miranda violation. The NSA itself seems to be able to monitor communications. And now after patriot act I am uncertain however they do not even need warrents for wiretappings etc.. Not to mention spy satalite imagry etc.. Essentially this could be a first step in actually allowing effective use of defence resoruces which homeland security began to foster, that is amalgamation of agency resources in some ways. They really arn't being effective. It is just the applications of different agencies "missions" where DOD may be seen as soviergnty, FBI National Law CIA as foriegn intellegence operations and other. DEA in with drug issues etc.. etc.. they are all serving a comman interest in the overall benifit of the progression of the united states as mandated by executive authority (and past generations legislative and executive) etc.. etc.. They could do allot more and with setiments of "antitrust" as inherent to defence and paramilitary(legal) authorities) I would guess if it was their choice everything would be monitored for the social benifit. What would you like to hide from big brother? Are you not with big brother.. but really. Personally I feel everything should be kept in a multivac(sorta like the net) to allow more information for public planning and to formulate methods of social involvment for public interst. Of course these are poeple that will kill but so are police whats the difference. A miranda right is silence the most they can do is torture you. and even then you arn't obligated to give information. What I would geuss it comes down to is what you value. Or something like that.
Reunite Church and State? Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques?
Your link contradicts your argument ... we find the Federal Government (ever mindful of the constitutional separation of church and state ;-) has addressed the issue (the DEVIL is in the details ;-):
BTW, the term "faith based" would appear to include "mosques." Any evidence that it does not?
Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.
More to follow ...
I believe Juanita
No, the subject of this email is not intended to piss people off. Very simply, there have been numerous discussions recently about the comparison to Germany in 1925 and how the USA is progressing. As someone who loves what this country was founded on and was, as to what it has become. The comparison initially disgusted me.
I'd love to get some Germans in on this comment, the comments I've heard sound mostly like
"That's just how it began in Germany" in reference to the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, and now this abomination.
I cannot confirm nor deny the allegation or allegations you may or may not have just made
The website has an apt name I suppose.
The point is the Senate has proposed reducing or eliminating dividend taxes. Buffet is criticising that.
IF Berkshire pays a dividend (it's not), then a reduction in dividend taxes just makes whoever Berkshire pays richer.
Whereas if the dividend taxes aren't reduced or eliminated, IF Berkshire pays a dividend, then there's less money to whoever gets the dividend.
AFAIK Buffet's main point is reducing dividend taxes just makes the rich people richer. How much richer is besides the point.
The people who get a significant income from dividends are usually the rich, thus halving or eliminating dividend taxes makes the rich richer. Buffet just uses his own case as an example.
The writer you link to who points out that Buffet isn't paying any taxes on dividends because there are no dividends, and Buffet is a bad guy for that is missing the point entirely.
My conclusion is the writer is either stupid or being disingenuous and biased.
From your statement that "Warren might be concerned he'll finally have to pay a dividend to his stock holders one of these days", my guess is that you are either stupid or very ignorant.
I'll probably be able to conclude pending your response (if any).
"Data talks & bullshit walks"
OMFG! Are you people daft? They don't need a fscking loophole. They are the Government. Anyone who believes that Americas "Agencies" ergo police FBI CIA NSA need warrents, writs, or permits to do anything to do you are stupid and niave to infinity. All the bullshit in the Constitution isn't worth the parchment and ink it was written with. Don't get me wrong I believe in this country, and I am greatful for the many who fought, served and died so I could have the rights I have, but our government today is perverted. The rules are bent to suit them and don't apply when their needs can't be met by adhering to them.
Under the recent Patriot Act anyone even your children can be held by the government indefinately under suspision of terrorism. What does that mean, you ask well an example. Let's say that you are watching the news. Oil prices have just been raised for the fourth times in as few months. You make mention of this fact in front of your son or daughter and something about someone should do something about this government. Well the next week at your childs school they are given a test. On this test it asks, "Have you every heard mommy or daddy speak about the government?" Well from this you can be held as a terrorist as defined under the Patriot Act. What you have done is exercised your RIGHT to speak out against your government and now you are a terrorist. You can chalk this up to me bieng a conspiracy theorist if you like, but the fact remains these questions are bieng asked in schools. Actions can be taken against you because of them as well. You think when you talk on your phone it is private? Yeah and Santa exists! We put these people in power. We let them run without regulation, now it has come to bite us on the asses. We have lost half of the Constitution for a false feeling of security.
I am proud to be American for America is the greatest nation in the world. God bless the U.S.A. Union of Socialist America
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!