Slashdot Mirror
Exception Expands Domestic Surveillance
drDugan writes "The Washington Post is reporting the next phase of American progress authorizing intelligence agencies to spy on law-abiding citizens without oversight. Primarily, new legislation allows an 'intelligence exception' to the privacy act 'allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.'"
With every iteration of goverment expansion to 'help' or 'protect' people we end up with more of this horseshit. A few people are having problems getting enough to eat? Increase taxes and feed everyone (even those who can fend for themselves). Don't like your neighbor getting high? Start a war on drugs. Three thousand people get killed in a terrorist action? Take everyone's civil liberties away.
National governments do few things better than non-profit community organizations and local governments. National government policies are over arching and generic. They often do not take into account local priorities and rarely meet their grand objectives despite spending billions of dollars.
This action is nothing new. Surveillance will always be pitched in the guise of protecting lives. Nothing is ever said about the potential pitfalls of giving the government unlimited surveillance powers. If you listen to the proponents of universal surveillance, no one will EVER use the information gathered for political advantage. No one will EVER harrass a political opponent based on intelligence gathered in a terrorist investigation. And because all of this data is gathered under the cloak of NATIONAL SECURITY, no one will ever *see* the information in order to check its veracity.
This is just one more example of bureaucracies grabbing power in the midst of national uncertainty. If you have ever worked either in a federal agency or as a contractor to one, you will recognize this as one more example of empire building. After they get these surveillace powers, they will need more staff and resources to maintain them. That means more Directors, more Assistant Directors, more Section Managers, and so on. Their budgets will increase and the deficit will continue to climb.
Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?
Open your wallet, bend over, and get ready to get your McCarthy injection.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
...for persons either:
1.) Within the physical borders of the United States, and/or
2.) United States citizens or permanent residents,
to legitimately be conspiring to commit actions against the United States or its citizens that would be outside of the bounds of the law, in concert or cooperation with a foreign influence?
What follows is a series of honest, and not rhetorical, questions:
Is it ever ok for US intelligence and/or military capability to use domestic surveillance and/or intelligence-gathering to protect our assets (be they life, property, and so on), or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
Is there ever a circumstance where preemption could be appropriate, or would universal privacy always trump, say, the lives of thousands of others?
Black-and-white liberty and freedom quotes aside, is there any gray area, any balance that can be struck between privacy and the desire of those charged with the protection of the United States to protect it, and indeed what I would regard a very important need to protect it from catastrophic (e.g., 9/11-style) harm?[1]
Is it possible to have appropriate oversight of such activities, or would you argue that such mechanisms for oversight and investigation already exist (e.g., warrants, etc.)?
If so, how can we expect the government and those charged with protection to keep up with all potential threats? There were numerous calls for better "human intelligence" after 9/11, including many by those opposed to the current war effort. If the collection of such intelligence is appropriate overseas, why is the same collection not appropriate in the context of people planning the same type of attacks against the US or its interests, but who are operating within our own borders?
I'd appreciate honest, and not cynical, answers.
[1] Please consider that no matter how much you personally may distrust the machinery of government, I would remind you that you would likely find that in face-to-face discussions with individual military, intelligence, or other government personnel, you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best.
Our basic rights that used to be protected by the Bill of Rights lost that protection decades ago. What's new? We still have those basic rights, government just ignored their restrictions on trampling those rights. It doesn't stop me from expressing them, I just have to be a little more careful.
I'm against government is every form, but I say to hell with it. Let them spy. The bigger and more intrusive government gets, the more people will flock to the underground economy and the more bloat and red tape will be created that will make the new intrusions pretty useless. Because the CIA and the FBI and the NSA are already off limits, they might be spying already and we have no idea. They just want to make it legit, in a country with the largest percentage of citizens in prison.
With another Congressman getting caught (taking bribes this time), the problem with our government isn't the CIA or the FBI or the War on Iraq or any of the usual suspects. The real problem we face today is the abuse of power that ALL government officers perform at every level of government. Do you really think the morons at the DMV don't abuse their power? Do you think the local cop doesn't? Do you think your zoning board doesn't abuse their power? Why would you think otherwise?
Government is one thing: a cabal with the unique monopoly on using force against anyone they please. Why keep voting for more thieves and murderers when you can do the right thing: stop voting, start finding alternate sources of income.
For those fearing chaotic nihilism from a complete lack of government: most minarchists, libertarians and even some anarchocapitalists such as myself are not adverse to very small governments at the city level. Want to live as a socialist? Find 30,000 other socialists and form a local government completely seperate from those outside of your town.
I do have a great solution to the abuse of power: unanimous majority voting. Don't pass any law without a completely unanimous voting group. If you can't get EVERY U.S. voter to vote YES for a law, try to get every Illinoisan to vote. If you can't get EVERY Illinois voter to vote YES for that law, try to get every Chicagoan. If that doesn't work, drop down to the district/precinct level. If that doesn't work, try to get everyone on your city block to vote YES. If you can't get a unanimous voting bloc there, guess what? You're witnessing the fraud of democracy. Anyone who votes in the next national election basically accepts all the atrocities the previous politicians enacted.
It will only add to your jail sentence.
Isn't it odd that the party that believes in "small government" is the one that keeps throwing all these laws on the books?
I know that people say "I've done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide", but come on. Government, please stay out of my personal life!
What are you eating? isItVeg?.
As long as there is a web-site where I can sign up for the opt-out option, I'm okay with that... =D
j/k
It's dis-heartening to read about the daily decreases in our freedoms, rights and priveleges that are being announced all in the name of the "war against terrorism".
Let's just take the fight to them, as opposed to turning the US into a militarized zone.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
How is it possible to carry on a rational, rhetoric-free debate when even the summary is riddled with such a subjective premise?
I read
Why not just remove the Constitution and make a new document outlining no freedoms? It would make it easier for them.
And me without any mod points.
No worries, it will be pumped up to +5 Insightful soon enough.
Technoli
And I thought they take away my internet pipe! Everything can go as long as I have my Precious Internet!
"Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction."
As opposed to what? In other words, what ways and means do we already have in place for handling the above situations, and why are they not working (implied by the fact that they're asking for more than what they already have).
> Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
Maybe this is their excuse for never finding any of either.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
He has systematically worked to centralize the federal government on a scale not seen since FDR, has worked to make the military an active component of civil government, instituted a much more massive welfare state and has found no shortage of reasons to give the government sweeping power to spy on us, deny us our basic rights and all that goes with that. Our border is still open during a "state of war," or is that a battle against violent extremism? I really wish that the Bush supporters and administration would get together and decide whether this is open war, thus justifying some war powers, or just an ideological battle that our enemies can simply wait until 2008 for it to end.
If there is another attack, especially a WMD attack, on our soil while he's still in office, the Congress should impeach him for failure to uphold Article IV, Section 4 which guarantees the states the protection of the federal government from invasion. We have wide open borders, MS-13 is actively working with several terrorist groups to smuggle people and materials in and yet Mr. "See no evil, hear no evil on the borders" calls the Minutemen vigilantes and extremists. The President won't even use his basic legal powers to take common sense precautions like clamping down on both borders so that people cannot easily sneak through, yet we need sweeping new surveillance powers?
Were he an engineer, not a politician, people would be demanding that Bush serve 10 years to life for his systematic failures. If his policies were judged by the same standards that our government judges the work of certified professionals, he'd be lucky if life in prison was the only thing he'd get in the face of a nuclear attack on our soil given how much he has actively undermined the core of our national security policies.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
...was that there actually were high ranking US government officials who were Soviet spies, including some paid by the Soviets.
If you think that's a good thing (or that ignoring it is a good thing), then we probably won't see eye to eye...
I mean, if you shouldn't try to stop people who are paid by your national enemies, or who espouse the core political and ideological ideals of your national enemies, then why even have nations and borders? If any national government is legitimate, it stands to be protected, else, what is its purpose?
To Sid Meier:
When you make Sid Meier's Civilization V, you should make it more realistic by allowing America to convert to a Police State over the course of a few years without suffering a period of anarchy.
For those who don't play Civ IV: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civics/
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Oh shit
Until they make what you're not hiding illegal.
...also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage. [Washington Post]
Economic espionage... sounds like an excuse the RIAA would use in their quest of a anti-consumer rights campaign.
401 - Attention span not found
Except your obvious ignorance goes against the grain of the US Constitution. Your should try reading it sometime. There's an interesting part in there about right to privacy and it makes no distinction about having anything to hide. Get it moron?
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Specifically, Brazil by Terry Gilliam.
It could be you.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
If you're sick of government intrusion and demand limited government it's time you stood up and started protecting your rights. This is the formula our Founding Fathers laid down.
(1) Participate politically using whatever method you have at your disposal. States don't run themselves, and if you aren't satisfied, then by all means, take it over lawfully. Ultimately, folks like YOU can become representative, senator, and president. So stop moaning and start getting elected.
(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns not just to hunt prey, protect our country from foreign invaders, and ensure our private security, but also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes. (I don't believe we are near that point at all. When we are, a whole lot more people will be reaching for their ammo boxes.)
America is founded on one principle: That people are smart enough to rule themselves. By corollary, the government is a reflection of the people, nothing more, and nothing less. If you don't like the government, get off your butt and do something about it. After all, you are in power here, not them.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
If the data is simply being passed from one intelligence agency to another, and all of these agencies are part of the federal government, then my question is this: Why haven't they been sharing information with each other in the first place?
Remember despite that everyone using p2p is doing it for free and no money is exchanged, the government considers that somehow p2p is feeding dollars to terrorists per an article posted here in the last week or two.
Anything can be justified as terrorism related so anyone can be survielled now.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
DId you ever read the Patriot Act? You might have noticed that the judicial branch is the only branch that has the power to grant the use of these measures on a case-by-case basis. The main point is that when the warrant is signed, it isn't a public document. However, it is still reviewed by the judiciary.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Who gets to decide the definition of terrorism? The government can redefine the definition as time goes on to such a broad extent that any crime could be deemed terrorism. At that point you can be incarcerated without access to legal council or even a trial because you are a terrorist. The slope is getting very slippery here.
I really resent a great deal of the Bush administration's policies but, your post has pushed me into the Bush supporters camp. Do you think before you post crap like this, or are you one of these "Minutemen" nut jobs holed up in a mountain cabin in Wyoming?
"The proposal, made by a presidential commission, would transform CIFA from an office that coordinates Pentagon security efforts -- including protecting military facilities from attack -- to one that also has authority to investigate crimes within the United States such as treason, foreign or terrorist sabotage or even economic espionage."
Isn't Bush guilty of at least two of the four crimes mentioned here?
I thought the FBI was doing this years ago when they revealed they had files on many regular citizens and famous ones like Elvis, Sinatra, etc. But look on the brightside, federal surveillance won't be needed in 10 years, they will just buy it from corporations. They will know damn near everything about you...what you eat, where you shop and what you buy, the books you read, etc. It's a Brave New World.
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/The problem isn't with the power given to the government. They already have the power, they can take everything you think you own and kill you, your family and every aquaintance you've ever had.
All legally and within their rights.
The only thing protecting you is effective and independant oversight. The thing that I think is becoming more important globally is having bodies capable of proper oversight and supervision.
I think the government can effectively do this themself, given the proper tools and an understanding of the grave importance of proper oversight.
Part of this oversight is proper supervision by management of the actual participants, internal auditing. (Think police, their management structure and internal affairs)
Secondly there is a second layer of outside supervision. think courts for both convicting criminals, and for supervising the use of special powers ie search warrants.
Thirdly elected officials.
Last (but not least) the freedom of speech & press to monitor and expose problems.
Remove too much oversight and you have a potential problem.
I know I've thrown out the following quote before when stories such as this previously came out but it bears repeating:
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Each form of intelligence/law enforcement body exists because it has a purpose - or at least was intended to. Over time, excessive amounts of secrecy made some of these agencies "mini-governments" of their own accord - most likely driven by the Cold War. The problem is that there is information that should be shared, but placing this data in a culture nuetral, yet protected form is next to impossible. Why? A definite lack of communication between agencies. At least President Bush wanted to make a singular head that would be accountable for coordinating this information and cooperation between agencies. That plan was struck down quickly by elected officials who must have taken their stance on party lines, since no one could come up with a reason why it was bad other than "it is bad". Granted, it would have been a "band-aide TM", at best.
For the conspiracy theorists out there, Kennedy had thought of disbanding the CIA. Look what happened to him. ;-) Seriously, the problem is not that these agencies do not have enough power. The problem, often is the case, that they have too much power and no ways of communicating the intelligence that they have gathered. It would be nice if there was a way to start over at square one and create a singular agency, or group of limited power agencies to operate in today's world - but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Hold on a sec. Be right back. There are some guys in black suits pulling up to the office... Hey, wait! ;-)
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
We are the space robots. We are here to protect you.
I'm sorry, did I miss something?
Where is the gulag in Cuba? I've heard of Guantanamo, but I have never heard of a gulag. Oh, I've heard that some left-wing liberals are accusing us of running a gulag, but there is absolutely no evidence of this. In fact, we treat the jihadis better at Guantanamo than they would get treated in their own homes!
What secret prisons in Europe? You are making another unsubstantiated claim. There is no evidence of this, no record, just a leak from an unnamed source. In fact, when the leak was reviewed whether it should be investigated, congress quickly dropped it. Perhaps there are no secret prisons and so the leaker wasn't leaking classified information?
Allowing the government to spy? And that's a bad thing? No checks? I'm sorry, I've never heard of such a thing. Perhaps you are referring to the Patriot Act. Except the Patriot Act requires that a judge signs all warrants for the installation of surveillance equipment.
A vice-president who lobbies for torture? I assume you mean Dick Cheney. I haven't seen him lobby for this. Sure, he is accused of this, but I have yet to hear him say one thing in favor of torture. What is it you call "torture" anyway? According to my definition, listening to an Al Gore speech was pure torture that no one should ever be subjected to. Was he the vice-president you were referring to?
And are we the USSR? Of course not. See, here, you still have the right to vote for whoever you want. And you have the right to accuse the government of things that they didn't do (as you just did). You had no such rights in the USSR.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
There have always been ways around the surveillance laws...Canada has been listening in on US phone calls for the US intelligence agencies while Americans keep an eye on us for our government. This is just the next logical extension of Bush' homeland initiative.
Right to privacy? I couldn't seem to find it in the Constitution. What constitution are you reading?
In fact I see here that citizens can be deprived of their rights, property and life with due process of law (amendment 5). There is no right to privacy.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Our neighbors to the North are looking ever more attractive...
What amazes me, is that Bush keeps taking away rights quietly, akin to Hitler. And yet, the vast majority of Americans are missing it since he wraps himself in the flag.
The States and the People are the ones who need to arm themselves to protect against "terrorists."
Yes, leave it to the States and the People.
Our current Homeland Security activities show the problems with your above statement. Right now, though there is a Fed HLS org., there are separate state orgs, and there is currently a massive mess. The KKK doesn't exist in a single state, international terrorists don't only stay in a single state. If you don't have a single overarching entity like the Feds to help track, then you better get a whole lot better at coordinating individual states. People like to complain about beauracracy now, can you imagine multiple state agencies (both inter and intra) trying to coordinate with each other. What was and continues to be the biggest challenge facing these organizations? Coordination, you've just made the problem expoentially harder. Oh, and exactly how can an individual "arm themselves" against a suicide bomber, or some C4 planted in a subway train?
for the government person's self or family or friends.
And by your logic, I can automatically dismiss any POV you have since it obviously only serves your best interest. That statement is totally self defeating, as you're saying that no ones motivations can be trusted, so therefore you've given anyone a very good argument for why EVERYONE should be able to be surveilled upon, regardless of who they are and if they are currently doing anything to "warrant" such surveilence.
(and remember... marijuana kills.)
I suggest you read Slashdot
The solution itself is simple. We need to firmly establish the legal principle that your personal information is your own property. To make this really work, I think it needs to be coupled with a right to physically possess your own personal information even when someone else wants to store it. In implemenation, if someone wants to store your personal information, they should be required to let you store it on *YOUR* own computer. They can sign it to prevent you from tampering with it, or even encrypt it if they have a good reason. However, if they want to see that information again, they must ask for your permission and explain why they need it. You should have the right to say yes or no to any such request.
As it applies in this situation, of course such a system would be very resistant to the kind of specific abuse described in this article. However, the reality is that this particular abuse is not a new problem, but only an erosion of already firmly established legal principles. The propsed system would create a power to resist this abuse, but right now the situation looks pretty bleak.
However, since I sincerely believe that freedom and democracy confer competitive advantage, then my conclusion is that either America will recover and fix the problems, or more free and democratic societies will win out in the long term.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
All the Communist states had that power - but it did not prevent them to collapse.
They were also fighting an external enemy ("the West"), which eventually beat them by making the Communist states to spend way beyond their ability to defend themselves from the invisible, but ever "increasing, external threat".
It's funny, how winners can't learn from the defeated in history.
I remember when the news first broke, all sort of measures went into effect to "protect citizens," including requiring packages over two pounds to be shipped only from local post office (ironically after all the mayhem Unabomber has created over nearly two decades long terror attacks, post office never for once does this.) Prior to that event it was possible to drop packages of any weight into mail boxes (provided it fits.)
Later AFTER FAA declared the incident as accidental (true or not still appears to be a matter of debate, but I digress,) guess what? The package shipping restriction remains in effect. My own conclusion about this is that once something like this went into effect, it's never going away. Keep that in mind whenever government put more measures into effect to "protect citizens."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Funny, I thought the article on CNN about the marble facade on the front of the Supreme Court building was literal.
I would hate for the Soviets to have won and inflicted the KGB on us.
what's next, bread and shoe lines? (seems the gulag's are aparently already covered)
The FBI isn't being granted any new authority to spy on people. The headline here is misleading/provoking/a lie.
If you wipe the froth from your mouth and slowly read the article to yourself, you'll see this is more a logisitcal maneuver allowing the sharing of info between intelligence bodies. Wasn't this something everyone was yammering for after 9/11?
So what if Congress wasn't allowed to discuss the matter. Congress has had decades to discuss all sorts of ways to improve this nation and have done nothing more than feather there own beds. If the FBI finds some domestic intel that would benefit the DoD in what they are doing overseas what's the problem. Again, nowhere in the article do I see that either agency gained new powers or has had the borders of their operational jurisdiction changed.
I suggest you read Slashdot
"Is it ever ok" is a dangerous statement to begin with when you are asking for a judgement.
"Is it ever ok" for a pervert to molest a child?
"Is it ever ok" for a government to revoke or neuter its own constitution?
"Is it ever ok" to "do the right thing", "no matter what the cost"?
--
I'm just like you. We both want to "do the right thing". Sign here.
Some people, perhaps enough to constitute an entire "side", play in the gray area. They manipulate it on the knowledge that it's a gray area. Nobody owns it, and nobody can or will protect it, until it becomes either blacker or whiter.
By then it's too late.
the south had won/draw the civil war. Call this flamebait cause of the slavery issue But, the war was also about a state's right to supercede federal law.
If the name Eisenhower doesn't ring a bell with anyone, I'd suggest some serious reading. During Eisnhower's reign, the FBI became what some might claim was dangerously close to a government-sponsored domestic terrorist group. It was commonly tasked with the disruption of peoples' lives that did not see eye to with the stated objectives of the government. The fact that part of this effort deals with counterintelligence is even more hideous - the story is already written, and it's title is COINTELPRO. It's just being adapted to accommodate several decades of technological advancement.
...as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence.
If someone travels to a foreign land or has dealings with foreigners, would that make their data relevant? Is there anyone in America that would NOT qualify?
The U.S. government is VERY corrupt. The roots of the corruption began when the government was allowed to have a Department of Break-the-Laws-Secretly called the CIA. Now there are many U.S. government controlled (and un-controlled) worldwide police forces, such as the FBI, NSA, and others for which we pay even though we are not allowed to know their names.
I did a review of a few of the books about the corruption. I found that there is far too much material for one person to know. My review is not perfect. It is somewhat out of date. It is, of course, the responsibility of every citizen to do his or her own review. Here is my review: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government
As soon as Bush has eliminated every last terrorist on Earth we can declare the War on Terrorism over and have our rights returned to us. Meanwhile the best we can do is grant extreme powers to the government so that we can hasten that day. If these nay-sayers all had their way then the government would be so crippled that this war would be unwinnable and we'll never get our rights back. The people complaining of our loss of rights are the ones who are bringing about their permanent demise.
I'm in the military myself and I can understand some monitoring in the age of terrorism. I also like my privacy and take steps to protect it. The problem is to find a balance between invasiveness for security and privacy. Do we need to monitor everything, no. If someone displays certain behaviors? Maybe. You can always use encryption to protect your privacy but then again using encryption is one of those things that may get you watched. Companies already monitor internet traffic and if you encrypt everything they're going to likely demand that you let them read it anyway which is their right as you're using their resources. The only way we can change this is to use the rights we have to fight it politically. If we just sit idly the next thing you know there will a little floating camera that follows you around 24/7 (a little much yes, but it's to prove a point) You have to be active to help prevent it otherwise you have no right to complain when it happens.
I though i'd never see the day.. To the american government: Why are you pushing your citizens out of the country? Forcing Americans to live under these Regime Like Anti-privacy Laws is rediculious. Our four fathers would/are rolling in their graves. I understand that we need to protect the courty but at what extend? Well i had an idea back in 2001 after the bombings and the speculations started to roll in about what this would mean and how this would change america. I started to look into islands for sale. ( there aren't many). Of course your reading this and saying wtf is this guy thinking.. Well i'm thinking co-operative island. Everyone buys a piece. Maybe Just maybe.. We have to talk this tough to keep some freedoms.. Nice to know i can't take a shit with out someone legally being able to watch me. ( with no probible cause or a warrant for that matter ) /rant
These are your rulers, the people you selected, and the system you chose. It's not as if you are defending your privacy, so you must not want it.
Look, if you want a solution, its the market. The free market, the private corporations, these entities run our society, but until recently, we had the ability to decide where to shop.
This will change soon, because once all the corporations have dirt on us all, they'll be able to force us to pay them to keep it quiet. If you want to do something positive, start a business like Google, become profitable, earn billions of dollars, and then you'll actually matter in the political world. If you can't start a company like Google, then you'll have to work with these companies because lets face it, Google owns us, just as bankers, insurance companies, oil companies and Walmart own us. We are owned by corporations, and the only way to own yourself is to start a corporation.
If you want to own America Inc, you'll have to start a business if you want a vote, and I'm surprised that we havent changed voting laws so only business owners have the right to vote. Maybe this would actually be a good idea.
It's not like the government governs itself and is a seperate entity. The government cannot function without businesses, big powerful businesses. $1 = 1 vote? or should it be 1 business = 1 vote?
If all the small business owners in the country could vote and people who don't run businesses cannot vote, then the owners would most likely vote for a much fairer, free market economy. If all the business owners could vote, there would be no more monopolys like Microsoft. The RIAA would most likely be given an equal share but not all the money and power and we'd actually have more of a competitive economy. Right now I don't know, the government says we are at war, but wont say what we are at war with. A war on "terror" is like a war on "fear" or a war on "scary", it does not really make much sense and its not precise.
All of this deception just makes people not trust the government at all anymore, and while some people might still fear the terrorists, even more people fear a government that keeps getting bigger, that no one, not even the politicians involved can trust.
If the politicians don't trust the government, if the courts, the department of justice, the CIA, and the richest men in the world don't trust the government, it leaves the citizens in a complete state of confusion. If citizens cannot trust the government, it makes a war very difficult if not impossible.
So right now it seems like it everyone for themselves, in that people are just trying to secure their own futures and financial situations, if you have money, go ahead and buy your stocks, if you run a business, prepare your business for every possibility, and most importantly, figure out how to actually profit from the instability, otherwise if we face another depression, there will not be an FDR to bail you out.
A few months ago I thought people who use PGP and GPG are just a bunch of paranoid freaks. Maybe they are paranoid freaks, but now I understand that there's a good reason to be paranoid. I've briefly considered using GPG myself. Then, at least the FBI would have to put a keystroke logger on my computer in order to read my mail.
Penny - plain text accounting
The fallacy of this argument is obvious when you look at the enormous political clout the NRA weilds. Politicians are terrified of them. Why? Not because the members are armed with pistols, deer rifles, AR-15s and the occasional .50-caliber sniper rifle. Because their actually show up and vote based on issues that matter to them instead of sound-bites and advertisements.
So, it's a fallacy to claim guns could be used to overthrow a corrupt government because right now an organization of gun owners vote their conscience in a noncorrupt government? The grandparent wasn't arguing anything about using guns for political clout. That's something you brought up and dismissed. He/she was arguing that when voting no longer functions (and the fact politicians fear the NRAs voting clearly shows it still does function) is when guns are important.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
This is headed to a very bad place.
When you have a government that has been allowed to get away with secret prisons both inside and outside of borders; Indefinite incarceration without due process; and the ability and authority to spy on any citizen with the cooperation and collusion of big business without any sort of warrant or any (even laughable) oversight- what do you think follows?
Disneyland? A safer America? Fuck No!
What follows is the same sort thing that has gone on for countless years in countries that the US used to decry for their cruel and unusual punishment. Basically anybody who disagrees with government or corporate policies loud enough or anyone who they think is a threat will disappear - They'll possibly be subject to torturous interrogation techniques and then will disappear (does it matter if it's into a mass grave, a shallow grave, a secret prison or a FEMA detention center)?
I am sure that there are government supremacists or apologists who will claim this sort of talk is overdoing it or exaggerating - probably the same people who claimed it was exaggeration when I warned everyone I knew about how dangerous the Patriot Act was/is - all I heard was "It sunsets in 2005" and "this is for extraordinary circumstances, it's all a cycle, it will turn the other way" and other similar useless crap.
This is America. WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT- WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO. This is our system of checks and balances and it's going, going, practically gone.
There are Americans who just refuse to see it. It doesn't fit their paradigm or occur to them as even being within the realm of possibility that our system is terminally corrupt and heading at warp speed in an anti-freedom, anti-human, and COMPLETELY anti-American direction.
Especially now that "Homeland Security" is a commodity.
What are we going to do? What are you going to do? (don't give me that vote crap - I'm not saying not to vote, I'm just saying if you can even get an honest election and an honest politician that's not going to happen soon enough).
I think people are starting to wake up. Finally, but then what? -
You believe that people are too stupid to govern themselves.
So you imagine a method of only having "smart" people vote, but are concerned because it would exclude the "dumb" races. (Your thinking, not mine. I don't consider any race inferior or superior to mine.) If you are a racist, why not just tell people that you are a racist? Why do you insist on equalizing the races?
Then you think that by passing candidates through some certification course so that they can become electable is somehow fair. Well, who gets to determine who is smart and who is dumb? What certification should be used?
You are forgetting that maybe everyone else is right and you are wrong. Maybe, just maybe, the idea of majority rule was the best system and the system that the Founding Fathers (who are quite possibly far more intelligent than you are) decided upon for that reason.
As for me, I've read their writings and I've discovered that they had one core belief: That people should govern themselves. They dispelled the idea that there was something that the King and the nobleman had that the commoners didn't that allowed them to rule. They proved it absolutely absurd to think that anyone is any smarter than anyone else and more suited to govern!
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Quick, I need to tell the world, I read about a terrorist bombing being plotted by a religious zealot and his sidekick.
7 cfaad-fac8-4734-9f5a-c68019ac98bc
They plan to bomb a friendly nations news network:
http://www.canada.com/news/world/story.html?id=ad
How do we stop this insane religious fundamentalism?!
Has there been even one, single, solitary instance of a "terrorist" being caught by all this nonsense? What exactly is all this good for, other than spying on citizens at will?
The "evidence" against Padilla was apparently obtained by waterboarding (drowning reflex torturing) two al Queda members until they made up something that the torturers wanted to hear. No case, no evidence, no "dirty bombs", no admin officals declaring him guilty without trial on TV anymore. And he was one of their Big Wins By Using Theeir New Freedom To Find Terrorists.
Still, people don't understand what's happening to their rights. And they won't care. Torture, false imprisonment, stripping a US citizen of his constitutional rights by executive fiat based on stories made up under torture, keeping him prisoner and helpless to answer his accusers for over three years, then a nonsense charge to maintain face -- and he's still under the King's justice, unable to examine the evidence against him -- because there never was any. Why is a US citizen in a secret gulag under trumped up charges? Why don't people care? How many others are out there?
They demanded trust, and they blew it. They don't care about justice, just power. Don't give them more.
... because the Libertarian bullshit is gonna get thick.
Don't fucking deny H2 visas and green-cards to sheet-heads from Saudia Arabia/Syria/Jordan/Turkey/Iran/Egypt/Morroco/Alge ria/Libya/Indonesia/Cambodia/Vietnam/India/Pakista n/Lebanon/Palestine. Just pass another fucking law that removes American rights and go right on about your pork barrel spending.
Sorry to have fucking disturbed your concentration, sir.
We just need more state power to protect the American people from evil doers...
"Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries." --Thomas Jefferson
and of course, the classic solution (look at the poll numbers), throw the bums out...
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [i.e., securing inherent and inalienable rights, with powers derived from the consent of the governed], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
My personal opinion: accept a few provisions (those pertaining to foreigners within the U.S.) of the Patriot Act, but reject most(and especially those concerning private liberties of citizens).
Prior to the passage of the Patriot Act, the majority of the states' Attorneys-General petitioned Congress to NOT pass the Patriot Act because they saw no need for additional legislation. The Attorneys-General said that they could do their job with existing legislation.
But Congress was completely cowed by the Bush Administration and the citizenry were crazed to pass SOMETHING, ANYTHING! As if legislation can stop a bomb from going off.
Now that the Patriot Act has been passed and passed again, I predict that it will be used to cut down other rights, including the Second Amendment. Any Democratic administration will use the Patriot Act to deny ownership of firearms to the citizenry.
As an aside, It is NOT possible to allow the military to participate in actions within the U.S. and this has been established by law. IMO it should not be changed. It might be possible to add a new MI5-like cabinet office to the executive branch, but note that that requires considerable debate and would be strongly opposed by all existing intelligence & judicial agencies(FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.), each whom cannot bear to share their power with each other, much less a new agency.
Is that Bill O'Reilly?
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
It all comes down to trust. Can you trust your citizens? Can you trust the people in power? Can I trust you? Can you trust yourself? Can we trust our businesses? Who's potentially a terrorist? Who's potentially a Nazi? Who really understands what is at stake here?? And who really cares???
Its going to happen anyway because our citizens are not educated. That makes them affraid. And the only thing they trust to comfort them from their fear is their government. By the time they realize they've become fascist its too late.
Now maybe we aren't so ignorant or extreme to go that far today, but one day, one generation, we will. Its inevitable until we decide to restructure our society in some form other than a heirarchy. We're not smart enough to manage our Republic or most forms of representative government. They have gotten out of control in the past and they will again in the future, until we open our eyes and search for the cause of this corruption.
You're too stupid to know the difference between 'to' and 'too.' No voting for you.
The problem with that is that there are usually only 2 reasonable candidates for whom to vote once November comes around. Neither of them probably is fically responsible. So the next step is to get involved at the local level, at the part caucus in your community.
The next thing is to get involved in local politics, like mayor, county commission, etc. Big-time politicians have to start out somewhere, no?
Our elected representatives are STILL accountable to us, even though it seems clear that they have forgotten it, and are trying to help us forget it.
We CAN escape the debt, but it will take some serious work and belt-tightening on our part. Is it any wonder the government is in inescapable debt? The citizenry is in inescapable debt. Look up figures on the indebtedness of the citizens of the US. It's frightening.
Sadly, the US government is a reflection of its constituency.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
This is completly true.
... and this flies in the face of the constitution)
Lack of privacy isn't a problem.
The problem is inegality of privacy.
One could argue (and I believe) that perfect surveillance (everybody knows everything about everyone) will create a better society than we have now. This is why the U.S. constitution calls for complete governement openness.
However, today we have inequal privacy : the governement and coorporations know quite a lot about the citizens, but the citizens know nothing about coorporations and about the governement only what the governement chooses to not declare "national security". (i.e. the governement chooses what the citizens might know about it
Knowledge is power, and with secret surveillance, the power goes to however does the secret surveillance.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof for my post which this sig is too small to contain.
I compare this to the war in Iraq. The reason we are still there is to liberate Iraq (insert knee-jerk, hugely off-topic ranting and raving here, on both sides of the issue). I don't think Americans have the stomach to wage war for money, just for right or wrong.
This was not intended to start a discussion on the morality of a war against Iraq, or indeed any war, just to examine motivations for war, and how far they can carry us.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Our privacy has been in massive decline long before this period in time. Lexus-Nexus and other companies get feeds about even individual credit card purchases. Soon, Google will be able to tell most people what their most commonly mis-spelled words are. Even without direct government surveilance, massive amounts of profiling data is only a warrant away.
Regarding the "so what, I'm not doing anything wrong" argument, history has shown that power accumulated is power abused. This includes the US government. Think of the japanese-american internment camps in the US. Much of the property they owned was lost as a consequence and many suffered horribly in the camp conditions. This occurred at the same time we were publicly decrying the mistreatment of our POW's. How does this tie into information abuse? Most of the japanese americans were found using census data by neighborhood.
Some may also argue that the government has taken draconian measures regarding individual freedoms during other wars - particularly WW I and WW II. That's true, but the cost was incredibly high compared to the benefit post-war. With the automation we have in place, the cost of maintaining it versus building it is minimal. When you add in the fact that the definition of "terrorist" is still nowhere to be found on federal law books, how hard is it to keep justifying what they are building?
On the other side of the equation, terrorism wouldn't be possible without the increasing power of technology given to any small group or individual that holds it. Until our corporations get their collective heads out of their asses and start taking networked computing security seriously, we are able to lose millions of lives to attacks on key infrastructure elements.
I don't pretend to understand the difficulties of weaponization of chemical or biological hazards, but I suspect that some of the very useful techniques and materials being developed even now lend themselves well to horrific abuse. If you read Heinlein, even he recognized that some technology needs to be suppressed until society had the controls to cope with it.
I greatly fear that we are, by default, going to end up with a total loss of privacy simply due to the need to intervene early enough to prevent the loss of so many lives from one single potential act. The real problem then becomes how do we manage to keep freedoms while allowing the loss of privacy?
I think that the current administration's major failing is the demand of power with no checks. If there's anything that is foundational to the constitution, that is it. There HAS to be transparency of executive branch activities to both the judicial and legislative branches. Along with that, there needs to be the corresponding ability to put a halt to abuses.
Unfortunately, congress is (for the most part) refusing to live up to those basic principles. Those that are trying to force the addition of such measures are failing or having them watered down to the point of uselessness.
The government is a nessasary evil. There is no good governments, only some are less evil than others. We do not live in a perfect world, therefore there are no perfect solutions.
What I think others are trying to say is that the best goverment we can hope for is one whose powers are the bare minimum needed to be able to accomplish its goals. This is generally considered a Libertarian philosophy. McCarthy like witch hunts are not needed to defend a government from outside influences.
Further the Soviet Union was never more than a nuclear threat to the US and the rest of the world. They did not have an economy capable of supporting a military attack on the US main land, except through nuclear attack. The doctrine of mutually assured annihilation (or MAD) made it unlikely that there would ever be a nuclear attack on the US or its allies.
Think Deeply.
The States and the People are the ones who need to arm themselves to protect against "terrorists.
Nobody needs to arm themselves against terrorists at all--terrorism simply isn't a big problem compared to other preventable causes of death. Normal police work plus some sensible precautions in air travel would be sufficient.
Politicians are simply using terrorism for fearmongering, with the goal of getting more power.
I strongly feel that I have a better feel for the needs of my students than any of my elected representatives do.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Go Away! Not for Sale
The witholding of tax dollars is one of the most fundamental methods the people can use to regain control of a runaway government. When/If there are enough people willing to refuse to pay taxes despite prosecution or incarceration, the effect would probably be more effective than either a vote or a gun in this day and age.
(2) Arm yourself under the protections of the 2nd amendments. We're allowed guns [...] also to protect ourselves from domestic threats (meaning from within our borders.) If and when our government has become so corrupt that reform through the ballot boxes is impossible, then it is time to turn to the ammo boxes.
.50-caliber sniper rifle. Because their actually show up and vote based on issues that matter to them instead of sound-bites and advertisements.
The fallacy of this argument is obvious when you look at the enormous political clout the NRA weilds. Politicians are terrified of them. Why? Not because the members are armed with pistols, deer rifles, AR-15s and the occasional
The argument is, IMHO, not falicious. But it is incomplete.
Most crimes stopped by a victim with a gun are stopped because the victim showed himself to be armed, not because he actually fired it. The latter is extremely rare.
Similarly, guns in the hands of the populace aren't just useful against budding tyrannies when things degenerate into a shooting war. They also serve as a deterrent to keep them from getting that far. (Much as nuclear bombs and the doctrine of "Mutual Assured Destruction" apparently held off WW III through the rise and fall of the Soviet Union.)
When a disarmed population, politicians bent on subjugating it can get directly to business. With an armed population they must first disarm it, or risk a bloody and costly war that, even if they win, would leave them with a much less valuable conquest (and may make them open to conquest from outside while they are at war internally). They also risk death from assasination or "collateral damage" in such conflicts, and loss of their position and/or power base as a result of either the conflict itself or the electorate's perception that they precipitated it.
Thus politicians have a strong incentive to achieve their goals by persuation rather than conquest - and to scale them back to what can be achieved without flouting the law badly enough to precipitate a civil war.
(There is a story that, during the Vietnam unrest and its rhetoric of revolution, Nixon actually commissioned the Rand Corporation to do a study on what would happen if elections were suspended. And that Rand reported the armed segment of the population would take that as an indication that the government WAS out of control, would precipitate the very revolution the war protestors constantly talked about, and that they were strong enough that the government would lose.)
Regardless of whether the above story is true, there are a lot of people who take abrogation of the 2nd Amendment as the litmus test. These people tend to be heavily armed - often sufficiently that one household could arm everyone else on their block - and a great number of them are current- or ex-military people who take their oath to the constitution with deadly seriousness.
Thus moves to disarm a populace must be done over decades of incrementalism rather than quickly. (In the US the government disarmament of its population has roots in the aftermath of the Civil War. But it didn't really get its direction straight until 1934 or start gaining major momentum until 1968).
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Geneva Convention applies to prisoners of war who were fighting in uniform, identifying themselves properly, are under orders of an identifiable authority that can negotiate an end to hostilities, attack military targets while avoiding indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations. (And there are a number of other qualifications.)
It does NOT apply to those who attack in disguise - unmarked as military or marked as some OTHER faction, indiscriminately kill up unarmed civilians, or do a number of other things that are outside the bounds of "civilized warfare".
It does this deliberately, to create an incentive for those engaged in war to do so in a conventional manner rather than via terrorism.
This is not an excuse for torture or indefinite incommunicado incarceration. But complaining that (alleged) terrorist internees are not being treated according to the convention merely shows that the complainer does not understand the convention.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Assumptions. I find it amusing how you seem to know how my mind works. Sorry. That's just plain conceit.
Second. . . Yes, I have noticed that there has been a lot of talk of war on TV these past few years, which is exactly why I question it. Those who watch television and believe it to present an accurate picture of reality are being made fools. Joseph Goebbels pioneered the science of mass persuasion and mind-control in Nazi Germany. Those sciences have been perfected and are in use today in Western Culture. This is not theory; everybody who knows, knows. Only those who don't pay attention are at risk.
You might want to look into the world a little more deeply and question things a little more thoroughly before name-calling.
'Broken-minded' indeed.
Good luck out there. You'll need it.
-FL
These cats couldn't sell pu**y on a troop ship.
Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.
What terrorism? What WMD's? We groundlessly attack Iraq and have the nerve to call people defending their country insurgents and terrorists. Are those the terrorists? And 911 looks like an inside job. Are those the terrorists? Terrorism is always a state sponsored activity. No small band of thugs have enough leverage to gain anything from it. A police state is being built around us by social engineers. I like to call them the Scientific Dictatorship. "Keeping us safe" is their ruse to build this police state. We have yet to see the reason, but speculation is a forced economic and social joining of N, Central and S America, aka FTAA. Keep your eyes on the weather, because it'll be the giant billie club hurled on the countries who resist the takeover.
Am i gonna be arrested and made an enemy combatant and put into a special and arbitrary classification divined by the criminal enterprise that has committed treasonous acts against the people of the US and other nations while subverting the law, hiding their crimes by abuse of power and propagandizing their acts and agenda through their conspiracy and its ties to the news media? It should be interesting because I believe i can say any gaht damned thing I want to, and having committed no act other than stating the opinion that I won't explain here, I simply think the manner of treatment of the Padilla case is yet another crime by the jakals Dick and Duhb...so lets just go on record. You Dick and Dumbass are crooked murderous and treasonous slime that have derailed the rest of my miserable life from a tolerable suckfest to a dark and selfloathing hatred of most everything this country apparently stands for today. A social construct serving greed, for the sole purpose of greater consumption, enrichment on an obscene scale for you and your cronies and with clear willingness to lie, kill and defile every aspect of truth justice and decency, to have more of it so...it is time to for all who can, to do. Sig files everywhere should say I support assassination of the current administration...then they can tap everyones phone, internet and choke on it... Really, it has been so long since we the people (collective we, including the wacko or zelot we sorely need) have knocked one off, killed one, dead... that lot of em' think we won't. 35 cent bullet would have been a helluva cost benefit if it had found its way to pontificating skuzz like Delay in the height of the wasted effort to shaft Clinton...because the lot of them act like we won't. I have little sympathy for us. It is what we deserve really for the way we behave in the world today and I just don't give a flying fuck anymore. I know what country I grew up in and this ain't it. I support the effort of al quada and anyone who would destroy this administration. Our troops and standing army have been spent for this criminal enterprise and y'all need to come to grips with this. They deserved a lot better...more of this ain't gonna change that. And to say we neen't bother with why ...just how to now git' though it...well, that is juat plain stupid. How it came to this is the more important and the fastrack to fixing things...kinda Dr. Phil, these jagoffs do not yet own shit for the hell they have visited upon us and that facial ticking cocksucker dick is still talking like he is anything but a monumental liar thief and cheat...somebody pop that pompous blowhard ...it ain't that tough with all the sleaze and stink on the man...Scooter, so why did you let hom take the fall? Dick? That works.
I urge the limp twits in house or senate, in whatever capactity they can muster to fire up the articles of impeachment forthwith and in everyway see that Dick be given unfettered access to a firing squad that he so clearly has earned...my fellow americans can kiss my ass too, or get off theirs, try to de-program the retail razzle dazzle that addles their pea brains to feed a jones, find the truth the media won't pump into you lemmings and do something. Make a statement more substantive than this please but do it...and stand for something.
The outrage of the towers coming down was long ago eclipsed by the crimes of these jakals and if you can't see it, go back to before the planes ...think of the way Attny Genital Jawn Q. Asscrevice hustled McVey to his end, giddy in fact, as we completely missed that opportunity to take stock of our actions that directly brought 911 and which Tim tried to point out...(sad choice yes, timewise...but 179 dead, if we had got our heads out of our asse then, seems pretty good...)but we just scapegoated the messenger and got all punitive while greasing the legalities as the constitution was too inconvenient for that procedure to be handled with due respect for the law...hypocriticalmass....boom, American n
That's why the US is set up as a republic not a democracy. The Federal Government is not supposed to be democratic... it was intended to be entirely appoined by state/local officals not at-large elections that way your local leaders are gauranteed to be heard by the feds because THEY put them there... not the other way around! The worst amendment in that respect is the one that gauranteed popular election of senators. That removed the last foothold states had in containing the feds. What people forget is that you are supposed to elect your local people.. and they are responsible to YOU; you kow their name. They are supposed to represent your "governmental unit" to the next higher level.. in that system past the bottom levels, everybody's ass is directly accountable to somebody else that really understands the issues. When you go to an "all popular" election, the branches are not accountable to anybody else.. there's nobody in the know to reel them in or set them straight.
The good news is that there will be fiber-optic lines to every home.
The bad news is that most of the bandwidth will be used for outbound traffic from the telescreens in every room...
WAR is POWER
FREEDOM is IGNORANCE
PRIVACY ACTS are PRIVATE
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?
If the answer to the previous question is yes:
Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:
This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.
And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.
Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
These people can be a powerful & highly destructive weapon against the American people... All it takes is one manipulative person, *somewhere* in the chain of command (not necessarily at the top) to manipulate the good intentions of others to match his desires.
Add a dash of lack of critical thinking, and you have a large group of earnest people, working extremely hard (since they believe it in the greater "good") for truly nefarious purposes.
And given their size, they might not be able to see the whole picture until it is too late.
We don't talk about that flight or that exploded over Queens a few weeks after 9/11 or that Osama Bin Laden is still wandering around or that all the Enron execs are still hanging at their mansions or that ballots in elections are now recorded electronically without a paper trail or that ...
Geomon,
not many would acted thoughtfully
in the face of the previous challenge.
i am impressed,
for many reasons,
from multiple perspectives.
may the Libertarian Party
withstand temptations and corruption.
my belief that Cato may be lost is transparent.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron