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.
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!
The only party that truly believes in small government anymore is the Libertarians. Republicans gave up on the idea of small government years ago, and now the only thing separating republicans and democrats is their excuses for creating bigger government. There is no longer a great divide between the parties because it has become more about who can we get into office then pushing their ideas. It is this sort of who is or what opinion is more electable that resulted in Kerry instead of Dean. Democrats began to waiver when they realized that Dean was a true leftist that held true to most all party ideas (and took a real leftist stance), while everyone else was holding that nice centrist line to get elected.
I mean look at Bush, when he first started running, we were all enlightened with the term 'compassionate conservative'. Of course it also does not help that we traditionally have low voter turnouts for elections because of some gross voter apathy with the state of things.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
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.
Actually, the McCarthy affair wouldn't have occured if our U.S. Congress stuck to their prescribed Constitutional powers. The Federal government is so restricted by the Constitution that no group would really have much power to do much, including Communists, Democrats, Republicans, whoever.
The answer is simple: reduce federal power to the Constitutional maximum.
"[They] first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish.
Then they came for the trade unionist,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant,
Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual,
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
--Rev. Martin Niemoeller, German Lutheran Pastor
"I've done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to hide" is the same thing as what Neimoeller was saying. When will people learn that they have to stand up to help each other if they expect anyone to care about them?
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.
The Republicans have basically gone insane, as far as I can tell. There are some I can respect, even admire, like McCain. But come on... running a gulag in Cuba? Endless detentions without trials? Secret prisons in Europe? Allowing the government to spy on people with almost no checks? A vice-president who's lobbying for torture? Who the hell are we, the USSR?
That's one of the best prescriptions for a solution to such problems that I've ever heard.
If the federal government's power was as limited as the Constitution laid out, the concerns about the broad implications of "spies" in government would be moot.
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.
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 was in the midst of doing an investigation on a piece of rural farm land for a property transaction in Southern Idaho. Part of that investigation required that I go to the local courthouse and look up records attached to that particular parcel. As I was scanning through the record books, I came across a whole section of records that all started and ended in roughly the same language. They were filed around the time of the McCarthy Army investigations. All of the people who filed these documents were doing so because they feared being labeled as Communists by a local demogogue who was riding along on the Red Scare. They were oaths of allegiance to the United States.
The thing that pisses me off about that whole record set is that all of these people were in fear of their OWN FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Not one spy would have missed an opportunity to follow the herd and file their own oath. So what did that exerise do in improving the security of the US? Not one fucking thing.
You are right: If you think that making people fear their government in order to MAYBE catch some spies is a good thing, they we will definately not 'see eye to eye".
I mean, if you shouldn't try to stop people who are paid by your national enemies,
You know I never said that, so beat your strawman by yourself.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
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.
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)
And the thing always ignored about McCarthy was that he was *right*.
Saying that McCarthy was right is like saying that the practice of lancing a patient and bleeding them half to death was right, because, after all, the patient really was sick.
But once we found and suspected paid Soviet spies in government and press, including some high posts, what should our reaction have been?
How about not going on a witch hunt? How about conducting a legitimate investigation? How about taking the evidence before a judge and getting a warrant to tap phones or search offices or whatever else needs to be done in the legitimate interest of national security? How about arresting and jailing or deporting those guilty once you've amassed enough evidence to convict them?
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
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.
A fair observation. But it used to be that they required a lot of paperwork and a judge to look at a domestic individual, otherwise they had no right to even be looking at you -- they had to demonstrate more that you potentially NOT abiding by the law, as opposed to just deciding.
The article implies that they would gain the power to do what they wish, say it is related to security, and then there would be no oversight of what they do. Secret government files on dissidents anyone?
Rhetoric or not, they can use this to look at people who otherwise haven't been linked to anything illegal without asking anyone's permission -- ie, innocent people. McCarthyism demonstrated that government agencies can fall prey to personal (or, institutional) witch hunts. This removes many of those safeguards.
It's always spooky when they get to decide who to investigate and why. Especially given some of the rather bad legal opinions which are being touted around to justify some of these things. (You know, human rights, due process, use of torture, what you're allowed to do with foreign nationals who haven't been "officially" admitted through airport security, wether or not you can decide a citizen is an enemy combatant and deny him constituional processes -- things like that.)
Sadly in this climate, it seems reasonable to conclude that the worst cases that everyone claims is a slippery slope, or would never happen because it's too extreme, are what will start happening very soon. Because it's what seems to happen time and time again.
The erosion of privacy and liberty which is happening under the guise of fighting terrorism makes me fear the rise of US fascism more than any of the so-called "Axis of Evil" -- because when one of the last superpowers, and self-appointed protectors of freedom become fascists, we're all screwed!
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's easy to have no evidence about Guantanamo, since the restrictions there are so tight. I'm sure you just ignore anything and everything Amnesty International has to say, but they do have this to say, plus a whole lot more:
Full judicial review of detention, and access to lawyers and independent human rights monitors, are basic safeguards against torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and "disappearance". Evidence that Guantánamo detainees have been tortured and ill-treated continues to mount, with FBI agents now added to the list of those making such allegations. Yesterday, the military announced that it will carry out an internal investigation into these latest allegations.
Anyways, I don't know about your home, but this picture from the BBC sure doesn't look like my backyard.
Look. I'm sure you enjoy playing word games, but Colin Powell's former chief of staff had this to say here:
"Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff in the first Bush administration and a former colonel, said Thursday that the view of Cheney's office was put in "carefully couched" terms in memos but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war" to extract better intelligence."
You may want to say that Cheney doesn't espouse torture, or that Guantanamo isn't torturing detainees. That's fine. You keep using your "carefully couched" language. Personally, I'm going to keep asking for trials and public disclosure, so we can figure out for ourselves what's going on instead of having to listen to endless talking around the subject.
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? -
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.
The funny thing about the VENONA files was that McCarthy had no access to them. Further, many of the people who he accused of being Communists weren't in the Venona papers.
You may be reading too much into Ann Coulter's writings -- your argument sounds suspicously similar to hers...and has the same flaws.
The fact is that it's simply not OK to make accusations with no proof. The man was grandstanding, and failed to offer any evidence...ever. Regardless of whether or not the evidence later surfaced, he never offered it, which suggests that this was speculative.
Finally, his goals weren't so much to expose traitors on the Soviet payroll, because he never offered an iota of evidence showing this. Instead, he attacked people as communists and communists sympathizers, thus advocating American thought police. You can substitute Communism with quite a few ideals or even religions and the whole concept of McCarthyism begins to crumble. Should Americans have a right to know who the Jews and Jewish sympathizers are? What about gays and gay sympathyzers? Libertarian and libertarian sympathizers? Republicans and republican sympathizers? It is all silly, because IMO, one of our deepest core values is freedom of thought.
Ultimately, it shows that the ends don't justify the means. McCarthy felt that his cause transcended the American justice system -- so he blew lots of smoke and used his power to ruin public figures. It's funny that you should advocate McCarthyism, since there are so many parallels which can be drawn to modern issues. The problem is that what all of these parallels have in common are paranoia, xenophobia, and intolerance...and I'm just not sure how I feel about these being our core values.
I just want to point out that you are making a straw-man argument. Nobody is arguing against looking out for our national interests. If someone is on our enemy's payroll and thus committing treason, bring them to justice. Put them in front of a jury of their peers, and try them using real evidence. The accusers should have proper oversight all the way. What opponents of McCarthyism (and opponents of the erosion of oversight and civil liberties) argue against is bypassing the justice system that helps make America free. IMO, this is more unamerican and more dangerous than the Commuinism/terrorism that we fight.
-Turkey
Lincoln hated blacks. He wrote the Illinois law barring blacks from his State. Google Dilorenzo real lincoln to read some sickening Lincoln facts.
Good post, btw.