Slashdot Mirror
Homeland Security Okays Closed Proceedings
CNet is reporting that a newly created branch within the Homeland Security Department that brings together many different federal agency employees and private sector players has been given the go-ahead to disregard a law requiring meetings to be open and proceedings public. From the article: "The 1972 law generally requires such groups to meet in open sessions, make written meeting materials publicly available, and deliver a 15-day notice of any decision to close a meeting to the public. The last is a particular point of concern for Homeland Security officials, who anticipate that private emergency meetings may need to be scheduled on short notice."
As near as I can tell, this means that somewhere there is a guy named "Homeland Security Okay", and these Closed Proceedings belong to him.
But speaking seriously:
The 1972 law generally requires such groups to meet in open sessions, make written meeting materials publicly available, and deliver a 15-day notice of any decision to close a meeting to the public. The last is a particular point of concern for Homeland Security officials, who anticipate that private emergency meetings may need to be scheduled on short notice.
The private sector, fearing that sensitive data will get to the wrong hands, has continued to resist sharing important information with the feds, the Department of Homeland Security said, citing government auditors' findings from late 2003.
Making the meetings public would amount to "giving our nation's enemies information they could use to most effectively attack a particular infrastructure and cause cascading consequences across multiple infrastructures," another departmental advisory council warned in August.
Is this not a valid reason for a group charged with advising on issues dealing with critical public infrastructure?
Also, please note that ANY meetings under FACA can already be closed, but a 15-day notice must be given of such closure. The end result, since 1972, is still that the meeting is closed.
The issue here is that the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council may decide it needs to have an emergency meeting, AND that it should be closed, but can't wait 15 days to hold the meeting. The waiting period would seem designed to discourage federal agencies from routinely closing meetings without an announcement period that presumably may allow for recourse, official or otherwise, if such a closure is improper. However, the importance of a critical infrastructure advisory board holding an emergency meeting trumps the waiting period. Remember: being able to hold a closed meeting is NOT new; the only new element is not having to give a 15-day public notice that such a meeting will be closed.
I'd encourage everyone to actually read the article. Of course, if you think nothing should ever be secret and think this is part of another conservative/Republican plot, then you probably won't agree with any reasoning for keeping such critical meetings secret, and/or not having to wait 15 days to hold such meetings.
Because security through obscurity is a time-proven strategy. It works for everyone that's tried it, doesn't it?
The current administration seems to make just about everything it can closed to public scrutiny; in this case, it's even easier than usual because they can claim "it's against terrorists / fer the children!!!"
Sigh...
We live, as we dream -- alone....
Under FACA, such federal advisory meetings can already be closed, and have been able to be closed for over three decades. However, a 15-day public notice must be given for such a closure.
The net result, however, is that the meeting is still closed.
This change allows for the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council to have closed meetings in an emergency without giving a 15-day notice that it is going to have a closed meeting.
I think that critical public infrastructure protection outweighs any need for a 15-day notice of a closed meeting.
I find it highly suspicious that someone who seems to know a lot about these types of meetings (I wonder why that is) is posting on Slashdot. Especially with a favorable view. Regardless of whether or not you are right in what you say, it seems to me that you have more of a political motivation for posting here. The kind of mind that takes a keen interest in government and politics and the kind of mind that has a strong interest in computers and technology typically do not mix. This is one of THE biggest problems with the net. We have people who are either "wannabe" career politicians or are virtual lobbyists astroturfing the view of their employers. You are one part of the formula that is trying to subvert people to the cause of the current criminal in charge of the Whitehouse. Unless you have some other defense for yourself (I'm not even touching why you might be posting AC) I recommend that people read what you wrote with a large degree of suspicion.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
In case there's any doubt regarding my position :
I fear the government of the US far more than I fear any terrorist.
Why ?
Because the US government has wasted far more American lives than any terrorist has.
That might be true of 15 year olds living with Mom, but some of us are adults that do care how a country a governed.
Dept. of Homeland Obscurity not caring 'bout laws. Anything else new?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... by widdeling away at it little by little.
just like what is happening to our freedom...
The more important questions are in regards to why is there such an huge apparent expectation of attacks on the US?
Try a google search on "Trillion dollar bet" and read the transcript.
I remember a quote of significant relevance: "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."
I am left to wonder what significant safegaurds we have remaining. Admittedly, I knew nothing of this particular 1972 law to begin with. But now I wonder if there are any more significant laws that are in place to preserve the transparency of the US government that will likely be targetted or otherwise disregarded?
This "war on terror" is such an incredibly dangerous witchunt. It struck my mind really hard the other day when I first heard it said that "terrorism is a method, not an identity." Nothing and no law could possibly prevent any free people from being stripped of their creativity when it comes to fighting for what they think is important. To attempt to target a "methodology" is like shooting at ghosts. Instead, they have to target people believed to be capable of using a methodology. It's just an inch or two away from "crimes of thought."
There are other nations that have been dealing with "terrorist activity" in the past and their reaction has been nothing so drastic as what is happening in the US. They treat the activity as they would any crime. This is exactly how the US should be responding. There must be a way to fight crime without taking civil liberties and government transparency further from the public's eye.
The next round of elections will not come soon enough for me. I still have hopes that the damage can be reversed.
Private security companies and public military are getting married, and we're not invited. Yes they've been engaged for a long time so it's proper.
Any "obscurity" can be thought of as an extra layer of security. It shouldn't be relied upon, but it does work to an extent.
People who know the "secret" will be able to see through the obscurity, while others need to spend time analyzing. It's not that different from "secret passwords", which are what most consumer-level devices and services use. A password is just a stronger "obscurity" than what you have in mind.
If this helps prevent another 911 (which, admittedly, there is a potential it may not), then maybe it isn't such a bad thing.
There were compelling reasons for secrecy even back in the day the Constituion was originally drafted, yet the framers thought it more important for the government not to operate in secret.
We didn't have the mis-named Patriot Act before 9-11 and the FBI and CIA had ample warning about the 9-11 hijackers. We KNEW about some of them going to flight school and didn't act on it. We had ample intelligence before 9-11 and law enforcement had enough power to pick them up if anyone had bothered to act on the FBI field report about potential terrorists in flight school. So why is it the government needs all these additional secret powers and wire tip authority now?
The real compelling reason for Republicans to want secrecy is because they've all but thrown accountability out the window. When there's no accountability, then you damn sure don't want transparency.
And do not give me any of that bullshit about the Democrats not being any better. All this is happening with a Republican House, Senate and White House and it's been that way since 2000 and you've had Congress since 1994. It's time to admit that if this country is in a bucket of shit it's because of the REPUBLICANS! Not the Democrats, not the liberals...the problem is YOU.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Not paying attention?? You been away from the keyboard for a few years? The effin gestapo, the guys who hijacked the government with the 911 coup (yes, they did it, the scum sucking traitors,the evidence is overwhelming now, the WTC buildings were taken down controlled demolitions while they were running a simultaneous "drill" as one of the covers) are going batshit nuts instituting complete online surveillence and data mining, installing video cameras everywhere, engaging in illegal wiretapping, using paid off government drones for online astroturfing, blackmailing congressmen and judges, paying off journalists to push propoganda, trying to get treacherous computing implemented, trying their damndest to get everyone to accept implantable microchips and various other RFID schemes for commeand and control and surveillence, pushing the cashless society with guranteed inflation (spend it or lose it fast), building freaking hover drones to spy on people and using penetrating radar to look in houses, forcing people to meekly accept jack booted thugs at airports and at random road blocks with that "yess massh" mindset they want everyone to have, setting up the internal passport scheme with the national ID act, forcing people to use their vote hijacking equipment, forcing them to "support" illegal wars by rip off taxes, killing off the middle class economy for their goal of the two class society with them as masters and everyone else slaves....
And dozens more.
This is just another example of how they are trying to cover their tracks and hide. EVERY example of them assholes mumbling "national security" to pull off some crap like this has to do with them covering up further fascism. They are the worst bunch of lying murdering thugs ever,because they *pose* as righteous nice guys, and they have just started wasting people by the thousands and taking over. It's only going to get worse with those boys.
They...are... PIGS.
The story is under politics. Don't read the politics section then, that is easy enough to do.
If you don't think all this affects you, you are either A-a moron, or B-one of those fascist pigs.
I am guessing B-an effin traitor. And possibly even one of the paid off online traitors, brainwashed into working for the coup plotters. Most of their drones and minions are TOO STUPID to even realise they are being lied to, used and abused, and if not that stupid, and they realise what is going on, they lack the courage to do anything about it. They don't even have the guts to *quit*, they just keep cashing the blood money government checks.
Either way, it doesn't matter which flavor of idiot and traitor you are, suck it fascist!
...with open meetings laws here in Rhode Island, I can tell you that the lead time is not just for informative purposes, but also for a person with standing to bring a challenge in court to the act of closing the meeting; a concerned person who has standing can attempt to get an emergency injunction preventing the meeting from going forward if he or she asserts that the meeting was closed improperly. I'm not sure about the federal guidelines, but if they are anything at all like Rhode Island's, then the feds can't close a meeting for just any old reason; there are guidelines, and if someone asserts that those guidelines are being violated and they are being harmed by that violation, it makes a huge amount of sense that they can seek remedy.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
Set a date for a meeting, post your notice, and then move the meeting date. Tada!
I'm not the original poster, but I must question your assumption that these two types of mind mix. I've got as strong an interest in computers and technology as anyone yet I still take a very strong interest in politics and Government matters. Fortunately, I also have the ability to look at things objectively without forming a knee-jerk "typical" reaction which the majority agree with.
I don't see this problem with the Internet that you see, I don't even post on the net either in favour of or against my employer; it's simply not worth my job.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Sounds okay to me. Maybe I'll just stop paying my taxes, too. I won't pay for a CD I can't listen to, or a book I can't read, so why pay for a government that won't let me see what it's doing?
If it's none of my business, maybe I shouldn't be paying for it.
Maybe not
Who is Homeland Security Okay and why do I care about his proceedings? Is that not what the article is about? http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
If you honestly beleive that tech-heads don't understand or research politics, then you need to broaden your scope. Come out of the box, man, there's a whole world out here.
So I was watching "24" on my "Wednesday" (Heh hem! cough! thanks to BT), and thought, what if Jack Bower had to go through all those red tapes to get things done to prevent the terrorists plots, or head of CTU/administration had to go through "15 days public hearing" disclosure before making any decision.
And then I wonder... what if terrorists also had to go through "15 days public hearing" disclosure before the attack?
Yeah, this could mean, a very long season for "24".
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
It's a fallacy to think that there is anything which the current administration cannot get away with, law or no law. The outrage is already to the threshold where people are talking in terms of "impeaching the President", which is the ultimate consequence short of a violent coup... And it is not going to happen.
So what do people imagine the current administration cannot do? Obviously there are outrageous things they could do which might affect the loyalty of the military system that keeps them in power, or that could sever the ties to the financial supporters, but they aren't going to do anything of that nature.
The people aren't going to act, at least not in significant numbers, and certainly not with real hostility. Congress isn't going to destroy this government, not even if the House turns over to the opposition party next January. And other countries aren't going to band together to wage war against the US, not to liberate Iraq from the US, and absolutely not in response to US *domestic* policy.
So tell me again, what is it that stops the executive administration from operating precisely as a term-limited dictatorship?
The real fun starts when this administration hands over all this newly asserted power to the next one -- equally likely to be a liberal democrat or a moderate republican. Either way, somebody new gets all this amazing unprecedented power that nobody ever seems to have discovered before Bush.
If Bush has a legacy, that's it: The President of the United States, formerly believed to be under severe constraints, actually has unlimited power as long as he can protect himself from assassinations and as long as he has a strongly aligned partisan majority in both houses of congress. Even when most of the people in the country are vehemently (but not violently) opposed to his government, and even when there is a widespread belief that he should be removed from office, it has no meaning at all, and certainly is no contraint on the president's actions, either in making domestic policy, or in waging wars of aggression.
Even if the money to fight these wars is borrowed from five generations in the future, he gets away with it. Lives another day. Isn't removed from power. Has a military that continues to follow orders from the chain of command, as opposed to turning against it. Faces no military or economic opposition from any other nation. That sort of thing. Get it?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
That's ok, we'll just wiretap the meetings. I understand that's allowed now.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
"Homeland Security officials, who anticipate that private emergency meetings may need to be scheduled on short notice" makes it sound as if their problem is operational time constraints. Something sensible people can hardly disagree with. While what they REALLY want to bury is the public accountability part of it!
1. Terrorist plans to release a biological agent or release a dirty bomb, and somehow (directly or otherwise, may heaven forbid) kill 1,000,000+ people.
2. There is a closed meeting that discusses, "Let's do X, Y, and Z to deter terrorists from releasing diseases or dirty bombs". They all agree.
3. The powers that be secretly execute and follow through on items X, Y and Z.
4. Terrorists plan to use a method to kill 1,000,000 (albeit, a VERY remote possibility) that would be counteracted due to the measures of X Y and Z previously taken.
5. Terrorists do not include in their plans ways to counteract X, Y, and Z.
6. Terrorists are foiled by X Y and Z, and 1,000,000+ lives are saved.
I admit, this is not possible. And there is a potential that the terrorists are using our anxieties to "turn us in to a dictatorship", and that is their plan. Albeit, that is remote as well.
As for saying the powers that be, somehow 'have a hidden agenda', as another gentleman who replied to my post suggested. I just don't think that is the case.
I knew/know a fellow who pre-Nov 2004, claimed adamantly, and rather passionately that if George Bush won the election that 'there will never be another election'. I just don't see events coalescing into anything like this. Perhaps I am just naive. Please BigTrike's logic almost sold me, but I just don't see a small number of people's lives at stake. If the terrorists play their cards right and are smart, they could theoretically do A LOT of damage. They claim and hope to do this, if you have heard their most recent statements.
Break My Linux Server [211.158.6.94]
:-)
Seems broken enough to me...
After all, GOD has told us to do this. Who are you to question GOD?
Wherever you go, there you are.
Making the meetings public would amount to "giving our nation's enemies information they could use to most effectively attack a particular infrastructure and cause cascading consequences across multiple infrastructures," another departmental advisory council warned in August.
As I recall, in 1972, we were in the midst of fighting a Cold War that had, as a very real possible consequence, the end of life on Earth as we know it. We were fighting against a highly organized and well-funded enemy that had thousands of spies at all levels of government and industry, sleeper agents ready to be called on when necessary, and military capabilities that made us legitimately doubt whether we would prevail in any conventional armed conflict. An attack from their formidable stockpiles of intercontinental ballistic missiles would give us less than an hour to pray to the God of our choice before the sun vanished and our component molecules were suddenly and violently redistributed into the ash that would, hopefully, someday support life again.
And yet, even with this Sword of Damocles hanging over our very survival, we had the conscience and foresight to realize that while we cannot control the behavior of those who would be our enemies, we can control ourselves, and refuse to sacrifice the ideals we believe more important than life in the vain hopes that by abdicating oversight of our government we will somehow gain immunity from outside aggressors.
I find it the greatest irony of all that those in power right now, who present themselves so vaingloriously, act with such great cowardice. Their willingness to preemptively sacrifice the ideals we hold dear is an insult to the oaths they took, and the people who trust them with their lives.
No bomb is capable of destroying the historical significance of the Constitution, the concept of modern representative democracy, religious freedom, free speech, or the notion that man has the right and responsibility to govern himself by reason. Yet we find ourselves in the peculiar position of surrendering these, our most valuable possessions, in the vain hope that they will purchase us safety, when we know with certainty that such safety is a chimera, that our lives will always be in danger so long as we espouse such dangerous ideas.
It does not take courage to hide in a shelter, to stifle dissent or cut yourself off from contrary opinions. It does not take courage to meet in secret, to persecute those who are different, to deny the humanity of those who oppose you.
What takes courage is knowing there are people in this world who hate you so much they will kill you, and to still get up in the morning and walk out the front door, refusing to change your life or your beliefs due to fear. We knew this after September 11th, we were even told this at the time by our leaders, but for some reason both they and we have lost sight of such a simple insight.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
1. This seems like flame bait, not insight. (perhaps I'm just overly sensitive, but he calls 3,000 people's lives not a major loss of life, and then tells me that because of my opinion I am 'throwing away my(italics added) liberty'... excuse me... 'LIBERTY')
2. Then out of all the posts in this thread, this was the only one modded to an insight level of 3. How dare they insult my level of insight through neglect.
Please consider me righteously indignant. Thank you. =0)
Oh, and the 'criminals' who perpetrated 911. Those criminals commited an act of war against us, just like the criminals at Pearl Harbor. They may not be of one nation, but 911 seemed like an act of war to me. I realize however, if you want to minimize the harm done to your nation, through semantics, that is your business, but I thougth that ought to be said.
Only crazy or incompetent people have enemies. If some crazed monkey throws poo at you, does it become your enemy or just a monkey to steer clear of? The "US vs Them" mentality has got to go; we can cope with people of different persuasions without branding them evildoers and going rambo on them.
What I'm worried about is it being so easy to close a meeting that it becomes routine.
Right now we have one safeguard: It's a pain in the ass to wait 15 days so people would mostly rather keep meetings open than close them. Unless absolutely necessary.
And I understand the probable necessity of having a closed meeting on short notice.
Where I have a real issue is the way that DHS has decided to work around this conflict. You can't just up and decide that the law doesn't apply to you. You can't decide to just break the law if it doesn't suit you. If the circumstances under which the law was created have changed, maybe it's time to change the law. Go to Congress, tell them how the law hasn't kept pace with reality and ask for changes. Better yet, suggest some.
Here's my suggestion: keep the 15 days notice the way it has been. However, in the case that the meeting has to be held much sooner than that and be closed, you have to do more than just give notice. You may have to have a counterpart in a different branch of government review an "emergency closure request" or somesuch and OK it. Maybe add a sunset provision in there where after a certain amount of time there will be a review (with a comment period) to decide wether or not the meeting stuff should remain closed. If the review isn't held, the stuff is automatically opened.
See, it isn't that complicated. DHS gets what they need to do their job. There is a check against the power from another branch and we have a mechanism to regain transparency after the fact.
But did DHS even ask Congress or entertain the notion? I don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that the President, DHS, the whole danged government and the general populace don't get to decide which laws do and do not apply to them. They can't selectively choose to obey this law and disobey that law. No matter what the percieved necessity may be.
And this has been happenning at an increasing pace in our executive branch as of late. It's criminal, anAmerican and unacceptable.
Sheesh, DHS... all you have to do is ask. We'll listen. But if you give up on the rule of law... you'll lead us down a path to anarchy or totalitarianism. And you know what... that's a bigger threat to America than Al Qaeda could ever hope to be. Don't do their work for them.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
I wonder if the /. infrastructure is labeled as critical to the nation?
"It's been that way for years" is hardly a reason to bite your lip if you disagree with something.
Or should we still be engaging in slavery and writing with quills?
I think it is wonderful that so many young people are becoming politically aware today. With all that we have learned from recent history, our distrust of marketing and authority, and our unique "open" perspective on knowledge and security, I think we can make a positive change in our country.
Or we can shut down our browsers, forget the outrage of the moment, and get back to playing some video game that simulates what we'd like to do in the real world, if only we had balls.
> I recommend that people read what you wrote with a large degree of suspicion.
I recommend that people read all slashdot comments with a large degree of suspicion. In fact, I recommend that people read everything with a large degree of suspicion.
My other car is first.
Excellent! It isn't actually my server. It was a scumbag phisher who had the misfortune to hit me on a day when I wasn't feeling too generous. I imagine that someone must have taken my up on my "challenge". Hehehe...
(a)(1) Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to the public. (2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register, and the Administrator shall prescribe regulations to provide for other types of public notice to insure that all interested persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto. (3) Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with any advisory committee, subject to such reasonable rules or regulations as the Administrator may prescribe. (b) Subject to section 552 of title 5, United States Code, the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the offices of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee ceases to exist. (c) Detailed minutes of each meeting of each advisory committee shall be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a complete and accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions reached, and copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the advisory committee. The accuracy of all minutes shall be certified to by the chairman of the advisory committee. (d) Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section shall not apply to any portion of an advisory committee meeting where the President, or the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code. Any such determination shall be in writing and shall contain the reasons for such determination. If such a determination is made, the advisory committee shall issue a report at least annually setting forth a summary of its activities and such related matters as would be informative to the public consistent with the policy of section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code.
No question: Chertoff's actions are entirely within the scope of the law.
NOW: is all this secrecy a good thing? I doubt it. But anyone who really cares about this ought to do something: join the NSA, put your uber-coding skillz to good use, and find bin Laden.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
I can't help but wonder what your agenda is.
You made a mistake. It's not "'Merican", it's "Murkan".
>> would give us less than an hour
It takes ICBM launched from Russia only 9 minutes to reach the US.
Your points are worth debating - they're debatable. But who are you? You anonymously post a long, formatted screed, in the first post, including a link to the law. Replying in the first post to an article published by ScuttleMonkey, but without the usual submitter's credit introducing the story.
Who are you, and where do you get off assuring us that anything isn't part of another "conservative/Republican plot", when our lives are so full of them already, and they always come with the same kind of denial? Like your comment that if we're suspicious of the government, then we probably won't agree with you, whoever you are.
This country is founded on distrusting the government, for exactly the reasons we produced the 1972 law, which made them rare exceptions, not the standard procedure.
Removing-accountability-is-always-fun dept indeed.
--
make install -not war
ROTFLMAO! What a crock! Just because somebody's interested in computers and tech doesn't mean they're not interested in politics and vice versa. Just to show you how possible it is, take a look at Jerry Pournelle, a major computer columnist (and SF author) with a PhD in Poly Sci, and another one in Psyc, both earned. He's not the only one, either. I'm quite interested in politics and I've been earning my living from computers, off and on, for over thirty years.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Or to put it another way: Yeah, this option exists already. And yeah, there are times when security trumps transparency. But it's always a dangerous move, the DHS seems congenitally disposed toward excessive secrecy, and if we don't keep our eyes open, we're going to find ourselves in a place most can't imagine we could ever reach.
The Roman Emperors eschewed titles of monarchy and pretended to be just "first in the Senate" for three centuries after the death of the Republic. You don't have to set fire to the National Archives to destroy the Constitution... you could do it one silly law or one far-reaching executive order at a time.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I find it highly suspicious that someone who seems to know a lot about these types of meetings (I wonder why that is) is posting on Slashdot. The kind of mind that takes a keen interest in government and politics and the kind of mind that has a strong interest in computers and technology typically do not mix. Are those pesky civil libertarians trying to infiltrate our geek club again? Seriously, what strange little world do you live in where taking an interest in the way our government operates is suspicious? You are one part of the formula that is trying to subvert people to the cause of the current criminal in charge of the Whitehouse. The audacity of actually reading the linked article and pointing out facts from the Federal Advisory Committee Act is not subversive. I know the AC dared to post a nonflaming message concerning a news article that mentioned Chertoff, Homeland Security and the names of several corporations, but do try to calm your knee down. It is still jerking.
I have to agree, I do not want the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council, which will be power-meetings with CIA, NSA, FBI and private sector allies, whom are all working on securing nation's infrastructure, cybercomponents included, to be on closed-circuit TV. Now I must admit, I'd sure like to listen in, but I'd gladly sacrifice that right so mine enemies to not listen in as well. Can I think such a way and still be on the left?
Horns are really just a broken halo.
What is the worst possible thing that could happen if these meetings were held totally open, maybe even broadcast on CSPAN? In my ignorance is that the average level of tension goes up for awhile, but terrorist might not go through with something once they realise that their secret is already broken.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Do you take issue with this, citizen? Patriotic Americans would have no problem with this. Your papers, citizen? Now.
What will you bet that every meeting is short term?
... but WHERE is the "typo" in the posted article that that the beta tagging area indicates of the post indicates? Did somebody fix it already, or is it a bad tag? Please post anonymous to save your karma like I did.
"a country a governed"
Um. Ok, so you're not one of those adults that actually finished school.
Or you didn't proof read.
They could still hold the meeting in private on an emergency basis and just get the court to allow it post meeting.
I work for a the guys who run those meetings
so I'm getting a kick out of a lot of these replies
The Bush administration is ignoring the law instead of trying to change it? Shocking!
I live in a state in Australia which was governed by an incompetants engaged in criminal activity who imposed draconian laws to limit public scrutiny. Infighting in the cabinet resulted in the leader being isolated from his own party, and only then did events unfold which resulted in the jailing of the police commisionioner and several government ministers. The situation had continued for years most likely due to limited public scrutiny and various pressures applied to those who spoke out agaist blatantly obvious criminal activity in a Westminster style democracy.
Elements of the police force were unaccountable (ie. no search warrant required and no requirement to identify themselves) under a piece of law called the "drugs misuse act" which bore some similarity to a watered down patriot act. An anonymous tip off was considered enough for a search by unidentified plain clothes police and the people subject to the search were not permitted to contact others on pain of prosecution - my neighbours house was searched in this way and she was very upset afterwards when she was permitted to leave. It didn't happen much due to incompetance by the corrupt portion of the police force and a reluctance to use these methods by the portion that was less politicised - so it would have gotten worse if it wasn't in the dying days of an imploding corrupt government. Australia differs from the current situation in the USA in that people cannot be detained without charge - but "resisting arrest" was the sole charge in many cases and was considered sufficient.
Now with secret homeland security groups that avoid the traditional chain of command you don't even need a corrupt government for things to get bad. People get up to all kinds of mischief when there is much profit to be made and they can be sure that no-one is watching. Examples should be taken from other uncontrolled US agencies far from home before giving the home gaurd secret police a chance to play at being bad guys out of James Bond on your home soil. What's wrong with the FBI, the military and state law enforcement that you have to have huge numbers of unaccountable secret police without the training to be car park attendants running around and doing stupid things like making an airline turn a plane around to teach Cat Stevens a lesson for becomming a Moslem?
The next round of elections will do exactly ZERO to stop this erosion of democracy through fear mongering. BOTH parties are going to run a flag waving fear mongering improve "national security" campaign. The Dems are calling their's "real security," and it's all about waving national and state flags, and "posing in front of tanks," according to the Dems leader Reid. Read it and weep neither party could care less for our most basic freedoms. Note this a critique of the Democrats from the left not the right.
""Real Security" calls for Democrats to hinge the 2006 fall campaign on how the Republicans have failed us on the issue of national security. Harry Reid says Democrats should wrap themselves in the flag, use tanks as backdrop and then try to outflank the Republicans from the right with demands for increased military funding, a better fought war, tighter borders, and ports run by white American-born Christians, preferably free of radical organizers from the ILWU.
As reported in the Washington Times, Reid's strategy memo advises: "Ensure that you have the proper U.S. and state flags at the event, and consider finding someone to sing the national anthem and lead the group in the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of the event." Next up was Joe Biden, standing between two gold-fringed flags, and probably with Old Glory underwear, telling the press that " to the extent that Bush fails in Iraq, American interests are seriously damaged, and I'm rooting for his success, not his failure." This is the man who explained his 30-minute opening speech at the Alito hearings by saying he wanted to put the nominee at his ease.
So what are we looking down the road towards, across the next year or two? A bunch of national Democrats like Hillary Clinton screaming about illegal immigrants and voting for funding for a wall running from Corpus Christi to San Diego, staffed by Israeli death squads. If the war gets mentioned at all, it'll be back to the old winning Kerry formula: We'll fight it better. They'll be drawing up Patriot Act 3, plus new national ID cards and street cameras on every street corner, just like they're installing in the UK."
http://counterpunch.org/cockburn03252006.html
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
...but it is true now more than ever.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
It's not 1984 yet, but it's looking more and more like November of 1983. Scarry stuff.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
You're spite (even if only in jest) only makes me more resistant to your patterns of thought.
This way the people wont know and so wont complain.
The only complainers will be the "conspicist theorists" that have been complaining for the last 5 years but no one ever listens to them.
If the people want this goverment corruption to stop then we can just make it harder for them to expose it.
Besides
1."clinton did it"
(and if that defense doesnt work invoke any other president that has held office for the last 50 years)
2."only terrorists want the mettings open"
3."dont you support the troops"
4."if kerry was president mettings would be run be bin laden"
5."its completely legal to close the meeting"
6."whatever the defense phrase of the week is"
> They can't wage a military war and win but they can boycott our products and win.
If we could attack Iraq based on the flimsy crap we used, who's to say we wouldn't invade nations that formed an organized boycott of our products, and MAKE them buy our products? Look at how we're making Iraq use our contractors to rebuild their country.
I'm a Unitarian!
One thing we are finding out is that wars of occupation are really expensive. If Bush was to invade europe it would be very expensive. Another thing is that the American public will react different when you are killing white christians rather then brown muslims. It will be much harder to convince americans that it will be necessary to kill white christians.
I guess in order for this to be effective Europe will have to boycott. If africa, south america, or any other country full of darkies did it then yes we could probably invade them.
I am presuming the chinese won't boycott anything, I think we are playing into their hands with this war. They are going to be holding more and more of our debt and they are happy to see an administration willing to go deeply into debt.
evil is as evil does
I take serious offense at that. Why do you assume that, because I'm 15 and I live with my parents (ask most minors, they do too), that I don't care about politics? Come on, THINK before you make a blanket statement like that. I'm very concerned about this as well. Leave the fact that I'm 15 out of this. I've heard many interviews come election time of complete morons off the street who vote only where there's a handout, and I've seen some really baseless arguments. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but that doesn't mean that what I have to say means nothing. And I do find it quite ironic that you misspelled your retort. ;)
HAY!!!
Some of us, even when we were 15 cared more about what the government was doing than the majority of adults, certanly here in the UK!
I spend a lot of time trying to get people go give a f*** about what the government are doing, or to rty and do something about it, and they just don't care.
I took my mum to and underground bookshop place yesterday, and she thought it was too "contravertial" for her, even though thease are the exact people fighting for HER rights.
and adults say we don't understand
___________________________________________
PLEASE comment out swearing, it stops some of us seeing good articals at work when our home proxy is down lol
I'm glad you know the grand truths that people seem unable to internalize.
Just one thing: If Bush was so damned bad then why was he re-elected?
Really, if he was such a lying jerk-wad then why wasn't there a huge voter revolt that threw him and all those horrible Rethuglicans out of office?
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
So they can close the hearing either way.
Just one way you get notice of a meeting on an unkown subject you CANT goto, and the other you hear about the meeting afterwards.
Either way, you dont get to hear what was dicussused.. So what is the difference?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The government should not have laws if it is not willing to follow them themselves! This is just ridiculous, though. It's a simple as giving notice, my god, is that so hard?
I was telling a friend about the article, he is Republican. He skimmed it and did not READ it. Now he is arguing in their favor "because military and intel agencies ALWAYS meet in closed session."
Well, okay, that's fine that they do - the article is saying that they're not giving NOTICE that they are going to, which is required by the law that they themselves created!
It's a really simple thing, really. You, as an agency, simply fax a piece of paper to a newspaper or other media source, or even just paste it on a bulletin board in a publically accessible place - that's all there is to it... Why the need for secrecy at the drop of a hat?
Makes you wonder what they're really up to...
And, I'm a devout member of the Church of the Subgenius and follow J.R. "Bob" Dobbs.
Wherever you go, there you are.
This seems to be your bottom line, but you fail to mention how it addresses your other concern:
The waiting period would seem designed to discourage federal agencies from routinely closing meetings
ah comrade bushkie what civil liberties shall we dispose of today?
They're the Government - they are ABOVE the law.
Now shut up before they send Bush's SS after you. (or lock and load...your decision. I'm already cocked, locked, and ready to rock.)
Andy Out!
Your arguments are mightly close to what the Freepers and other societal 2nd-raters use to justify this unfortunate situation.
"It's legal....that makes it OK."
Guess it makes you feel better to have an abusive government you can 'join teams' with, to make up for your lack of power over your own destiny.
"I can't get a job because of all the illegals".
Blar.
You make very good and interesting points. Of course, consider that the administration isn't really all that concerned with what's costly to the government. I mean, most of the money they're paying is going from the government (which they _want_ to bankrupt) directly to huge corporations like Halliburton (whom they want to have the money). So it's not expensive to them. It's expensive to the taxpayers who aren't getting tax cuts (i.e. the poor). And the poor are too often worried about stupid things like boobies on TV to oppose Republicans. Thus, they have sort of got the whole "expensive" thing all sown up. They can borrow almost infinitely and no one would stop them.
As for the white people vs brown people thing, honestly that didn't occur to me much before. It's interesting. I wonder if people really would be more upset if we were carpet bombing France instead of the middle east. I don't know the answer to that.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Now, I wonder why you're a Foe-of-Friend to me? I think i'll have to counteract it by friending you.
In retrospect, I bet it was nice to have two countries in the world with roughly equal amounts of military power. If USSR was still around, the US would not even attempt to attack Iraq, because Iraq would have a constant supply of first-class weapons.
First of all the Homeland Security Department was set up how long ago. They are NOW just getting around to this securing the infrastructure issue. They plan to meet about 4 times a year but 15 days notice is too much time for an emergency. Are we to believe our government and businesses are suddenly in response mode and will make a major infrastructure change in less than 2 weeks. The dept took 2 years to just set up these meetings. The airports, ports and chemical/power plants are still not secure but they need secret meetings to discuss the issue. Well I guess 60 Minutes and the like are unpatriotic, they have done shows about the ports, chemical/power and nuclear being unsecured months ago.
...". Their justification is always the terrorists will hear or read it and then they will attack. These secret meetings are always necessary to protect us, even though nothing is actually being done. I could go along with this if I actually saw that the government was responsive to issues. But the containers are still not being checked and the chemical plants have open gates. I FEEL SECURE. So the secrecy is bullshit.
What I really don't like is "such and such cannot be disclosed because
Homeland Security and FEMA could not respond to Katrina with warning but now all of a sudden we are to believe their emergency meetings will be more than an exercise in beauracracy.
Lastly is does stink of coverup when businesses get to meet with government outside of the public's view. There is a bigger chance the dept will be setting up "protection from liability" for companies than it will be setting up actual protection from attack at these meetings.
In theory there is no situation or issue the government could not use the red herring or secrecy for security. We need to hold people accountable and not just keep writing blank checks and given open license hoping someone will fall onto the right decision. That is the only way we can really be secure. It should be obvious their first defense of a choice is alway to play on your fear.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
By reading the comments of slashtrolls?
It's always a lot of fun to do, but not the least bit informative most times. Add to that the fact that this article is about US politics (and is sensationalist tripe) and you'll uderstand why I disagree that he is informing himself at all.
"The government grants you rights, not the other way around."-- beav007. Yes, these people really exist...