Slashdot Mirror
FBI Seeks To Restrict University Student Freedoms
amigoro writes with a link to the Press Escape blog, which is discussing new guidelines suggest by the FBI for university administrations. The Federal Bureau, worried about the possibility of international espionage via our centers of learning, now sees the need to restrict the freedoms of university students for national security. "FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls 'espionage indicators' aimed at identifying foreign agents. Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators."
It appears that that paragraph is a gross exaggeration of what the FBI is proposing, and indeed further in the article University spokespeople talk about a possible "chilling effect", not about the kind of wholesale assault on freedoms suggested.
I don't like the FBI sticking their nose into other people's business, but let's at least try to represent the problems accurately.
Three Squirrels
Federal agents are visiting some of the New England's top universities... to warn university heads about the dangers of foreign spies and terrorists stealing sensitive academic research.
FBI is offering to brief faculty, students and staff on what it calls "espionage indicators" aimed at identifying foreign agents.
Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.
What a paranoid and counterproductive list. Isn't the information in bold just about everyone who works in academia?
-Grey
Silver Clipboard: Time Management Tips
Unexplained affluence
:-)
Ummmm, that is what an education is supposed to get you.
failing to report overseas travel
Oh, my students are supposed to check in with me everywhere they go?
showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope
Hey! I want my students to explore new and interesting things. That is what they are here to do.
keeping unusual work hours
They had *better* be working their asses off.
unreported contacts with foreign nationals
Ummmm, collaboration? There are folks outside the US that *are* doing exciting science you know...
unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials
OK, I might give them this.
attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know
Oh, jeez..... these people have been in government too long. Compartmentalized information is certainly appropriate, but in an educational setting, where people are not doing sensitive work? Come on now, if you are involved in classified work, you have to pass background checks and *obtain* clearance, particularly for compartmentalized projects.
and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.
Sure, whatever. They might also be skiing...
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Tell you what, when they arrest the Attorney General, Vice President and President and charge them with the long list of crimes they have committed against the US people, against the US constitution and against humanity, then lets talk about this stuff eh?
They have by any objective standards ordered torture and committed other war crimes.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
"...showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope..." A true thirst for knowledge will arrouse suspicion? Do we really want this? Controlling information is the first step down a nasty road.
[quote]
Unexplained affluence, failing to report overseas travel, showing unusual interest in information outside the job scope, keeping unusual work hours, unreported contacts with foreign nationals, unreported contact with foreign government, military, or intelligence officials, attempting to gain new accesses without the need to know, and unexplained absences are all considered potential espionage indicators.
[/quote]
Other than the first point, that describes a large portion of the college population (especially at the graduate level).
The problem with a guide like this is that it returns too many false positives. The odds of a single person who fit most of those characteristics out of a group of 20,000 being a terrorist is almost nil. Yes, it will be true in some cases, but not in enough to warrant the massive investment in time. All this does it put people's minds at ease that the government is Doing Something.
Looks to me like 99% of all college students meet quite a few of their espionage indicators.
Here's an idea. How about not passing laws that further disillusion Americans into becoming terrorists?
This is like lowering the speed limit to try and stop drag racing.
IOU one (1) signature
The DIA guidelines on "combating the insider threat" refer to people with security clearances of at least SECRET. That's a standard list, and goes back to at least the 1950s. The article doesn't make a connection with it being applied to universities.
What's puzzling about this is that it's totally out of touch with reality. The USSR was interested in American R&D, but that's because they had an industrial base and weapons plants that could use R&D. No enemy of the US today has anything like that. (North Korea and Iran, maybe, but they're mostly trying to do things the superpowers did in the 1950s.) Al-Queda consists of loosely affiliated small groups that use off the shelf weaponry. This seems a mis-aimed effort, which isn't unusual for the current administration.
There is nothing in that article the describes the restriction of students' freedoms.
Instead, the FBI is advising these universities on how they can protect themselves from those that would steal important research.
As bad as the government might be, I don't see what good it does to distort the facts.
We should report observations of one or more of the following indicators pertaining to a person with access to classified information...
This seems to make perfect sense. If schools want the money that comes from doing classified research they should be vigilant in making sure that that research stays classified.Why are slashdot readers more prone to going apeshit insane over a blog post? Here is the website of the actual FBI group that works to protect domestic research and technology. It is a good read and will communicate far more useful, accurate information than a blog post.
IM In UR Skoolz
Learnin UR Competitive Advantagez
This is not new, people. What do you think was going on in universities during the Viet Nam War, when people actually had the backbone to stand up and protest like they meant it? This is just the next turn of the wheel; history flows like a river and events repeat themselves.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
That changes nothing about what the original poster was saying. Vastly overstating a case does no good, and often does harm. If you tell me that the government is severely fucking over my freedoms, and I then come to discover you are full of shit, I am much less likely to listen to you in the future. The whole "boy who cried wolf" thing.
If you want to get your message out you need to be accurate. In this case, this whole thing is amazingly overstated. The guidelines are for people with security clearance, and the FBI isn't suggesting that universities apply them to students. That isn't to argue that this is a good thing, but please let's be accurate with what is going on.
Slashdot could be a pretty good source for news on governmental restrictions of freedom, but most of the time they vastly overstate what is going on. Thus it doesn't take someone long to conclude the people are full of shit and start ignoring it. Trying to rationalize it with a pithy saying does nothing but further show that it is about sensationalism, not truth.
The nation has been de-balled. It is a fait accompli. Neutered. It's mostly over, and the goons won. You can't do anything about it besides *talk*, and pretty soon that will be going the way of speech in china, their poster boy model nation, full technology, full police state, one major party, in the US it is the globalist party with two wings and their platform is full technofeudalism...
If you do anything besides talk, it is considered a major crime, and you therefore are a criminal, maybe a "terrorist", so it becomes self fulfilling prophecy of their's.
I remember a lot of civil disobedience to try and stop thoroughly disgusting governmental action, and it was dangerous then, but now, it is beyond dangerous, and they just won't put up with it. They have all the power they need now and plenty of order followers and a cowed-enough population who have more interest in entertainments and just making a living, a desperate living for a lot of people. Bread and circuses tempered with governmental "legal terrorism" makes for a controlled population.
Voting doesn't work, that is obvious. Even among the intellectually aware and politically active, the meme of "don't waste your vote!!!" is still quite strong and repeated endlessly, like some cult chant, and results in the same type and form and demographic makeup of government, election after election after election, which is, the completely corrupt R and D power sharing cartel which has hijacked government and runs it as a power and jobs sharing racket.
I vote, but it is inertia, more to say I still vote than for any expectation it will actually mean anything.
The short phrase is *sigh*
What's left, blog about it? You can't even go protest, step outside of the completely illegal and unConstitutional "free speech zones" and their mercenaries will arrest and/or beat you. Be a big enoug hassle to them, you go on the lists, and eventually won't be able to travel or change jobs even. It's coming. The population has sucked up the no fly list so far, no protests, meekly stand in line for the perv search and the humbling glares.
I knew once that got accepted without mass protest it was all over.
And stuff like that. Too tired to list them all, but there's a big list.
I'm not a pessimist, but I will consider myself a realist. We have a defacto low threshold but growing fast one party police state. It is only going to get worse for a long time to come now. They have found out they can get away with the largest crimes, with no revolt from the people, and a mostly controlled and tame media who go along with it, so small crimes are just part of the system now.
I think the best people can do now is try and stay as free and independent as possible, especially inside their own hearts, and see what opportunities present themselves in the future. Who knows, pigs may fly someday and we might get humble and honest and decent government some election time.
It could happen. Low odds, but still possible.
And the difference is? Other that in the first cold war, the boogeyman existed and had an army, while this one is imaginary?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I mean, really the difference between the attempt to combat global communism and the attempt to combat global radical Islam is?
It *is* a second cold war, just with the assertion of different enemies.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Like it or not, commercial espionage is a very serious issue; despite what movies and TV shows say, espionage by "friendly" countries goes on every day. They're not worried about military secrets; rather they want industrial ones that can help their own companies; so ensuring US universities are sensitive to indicators of espionage, just as commercial firms should be aware of the potential as well.
Despite the headline, the FBI is not asking universities to restrict anyone's freedom, all it is saying is "We will be glad to brief your staff on what to be aware of to help identify *indicators* of espionage, and ask that you tell us so we can investigate as appropriate."
The article states:
"US university students will not be able to work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"
and provides a link to the guidelines that purport to do that. However, if the original author ever bothered to RTFG, they'd notice that the guidelines were simply that - a set of things to watch for that *may* indicate espionage; and don't ask anyone to restrict anyone's ability to "work late at the campus, travel abroad, show interest in their colleagues' work, have friends outside the United States, engage in independent research, or make extra money without the prior consent of the authorities"
Anyone who has had a US security clearance has received a similar brief on an annual basis; the idea is simply co-workers, who are in close contact with each other, are the best first line defense against espionage and should be aware of the warning signs.\\Of course, the truth is often not as newsworthy as some sensational spin.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
That is not the case at all. The International Criminal Court is simply a permanent court to replace the ad-hoc courts convened to prosecute previous war crimes. The US or more particularly the Bush administration opposes the ICC. That can be reversed by a future administration.
The ICC only has jurisdiction if the national courts are unable or refuse to prosecute. US law has multiple provisions to prosecute war crimes in federal courts. The only situation in which an international court would be required would be if Bush were to pardon himself or his accomplices.
The constitution only allows the President to pardon offenses against the United States. Gitmo is in Cuba and according to the Bush administration not under the jurisdiction of the US courts. If the US is not sovereign Cuba must be. I am sure that the authorities there would deal with the situation appropriately.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
BTW, having read the actual FBI document, it was not nearly as bad as the blog or summary made it seem. Those arguments seem to apply to people with security clearances exclusively, and the interest in other information is defined later on in the document as other *classified* information.
The next question is: What sort of classified information and research is done at universities? How much of it? What are the counter-intelligence ramifications? What is the appropriate response?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I'm a grad student and I have a hard enough time turning my student's grades in on time. I doubt I'm going to get around to report anything to the FBI. I'm making less than $13000 a year. That isn't enough for me to spy on my students. Give me a few thousand and I might think about it.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=usaicc
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/icc-US_threats-eng
Here's the quote from Amnesty International site:
The USA is currently approaching governments around the world and asking them to enter into illegal impunity agreements. These agreements provide that a government will not surrender or transfer US nationals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes to the ICC, if requested by the Court. The agreements do not require the USA or the other state concerned to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, to prosecute such a person in US Courts. Indeed in many cases it would be impossible for US courts to do so, as US law does not include many of the crimes under the Rome Statute.
Instead, he's killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Made hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions more, homeless in Iraq and surrounding Arab countries where they have fled to.
He refused to convene any type of investigative commission, until finally, he was forced to - and even then he underfunded them and refused to allow them sub peona powers.
And when he spoke before them with his handler Cheney, he refused to testify under oath. Wow, but I'm sure you know best, huh???
I'll bet you're in the crowd that believes torture works? If so, then WTF is Osama???? Or at least, WTF is he hiding out at??? Guess all that torture doesn't work after all, especially not on innocents.....
[Commonly heard phrase in the USA: "I'm a Christian, let's nuke Iran!"]
Not to mention that there are bombings by the hundreds in Thailand and Bangladesh. And others in the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Spain, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Russia, Argentina, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. Oh, and Iraq and Afghanistan. Similarly, there are failed bombing plots in Canada, Germany, Britain, New Jersey, Chicago, New York, and numerous other places.
To some people, these incidents are all imaginary, I guess. Or they're George Bush's fault, so they'll all magically go away on Jan 20, 2009.
Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.
Money is the root of all evil?
Objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...
Fixed.
That depends on when you perform rounding and what the values were prior to rounding. 1+1 does in fact eqaul 3, for sufficiently large values of 1.
Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
The majority just want to be left alone to live as they will.
I think that vocal minority also wants to be left alone and live as they will. People dislike the U.S. for many reasons, but a big one is that our policies and corporations get in their faces. I have a tendency to believe that there are organized units of people with a leadership that feels it has no voice and therefore resorts to violence to make itself heard. Who does it hire to commit the acts of violence? Brain-washable young people and others they can sway by religion which is still a dominant force for coercion in some parts of the world (including the U.S.)
People will fight over anything of course, and our attempts at globalization are just what they're picking on today. Perhaps if we just remained Fortress America, people would hate us because we weren't Muslim/Buddhist/Purple, or didn't allow others into our country, or because we were fat.
But I'll pretty much guarantee you one thing: you're not going to help matters by waging war against these people. You're just going to give them a valid reason to hate you.
The pictures from Abu Ghraib demonstrate how ridiculous your statement is.
And don't try to pretend that they were an exception. Someone decided to apply the Resistance to Interogation training protocol as an interogation protocol. it is stupid tactically and stupid strategically.
Lets take tactics first. Yes you can make people talk with torture. Everyone talks, even people who don't know anything. And those who do know what you want to know lie. A real life Jack Bauer would spend his entire time chasing dead end leads.
Remember the run up to the 2004 election when there was a security scare every week which would quickly be exposed as fake? Thats the quality of information you get from torture.
Now lets look at the strategic side. In particular lets look at the career of Zarqawi, who was a small time crook who didn't amount to anything until he was arrested by Jordanian police and tortured.
Instead of turning the US into a police state looking for terrorists lets stop making more of them.
The pictures of Abu Ghraib have entirely erased the images of 9/11 in the eyes of most of the world. They are the biggest recruiting sargeant for Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Shi'ia insurgents, and all the other groups in the region who mostly spend their time fighting each other but thanks to the incompetent in chief are fighting US forces instead.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
when people actually had the backbone to stand up and protest like they meant it?
I believe there was also this thing called the.. draft. Where people could be sent off to a war and potentially die. There were also a LOT more troops and a LOT more casualties, so I'd bet everyone knew at least one person who died, or had a friend/family member who knew someone who died. I'd bet everyone knew someone that was IN vietnam. As far as the Iraq war goes, I'm 3 degrees of seperation from someone who died, and I'd bet even THAT is rare.
The point being, this war has a lot less personal connections to it than Vietnam did. It has nothing to do with "backbone". For the most part people are motivated by what affects them. No one is going to be drafted (especially people on a college campus), and a much smaller percentage of the populace is personally connected to it. So it really shouldn't be surprising that no one is rioting in the streets because of it. On the other hand we did have an election driven by ending this war, so it's not a total disconect.
AccountKiller
Reality is that there are a minority (very very small minority) of Muslims that want to destroy the US.
There was a "very very small minority", With the horrible things we have done & are doing to/in Iraq, the number grows everyday. It is probably closer to "a minority" now.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Bombing in the world is not new. What is new is that it is made a propaganda of it, and in addition that people pretend that a single organisation (S.P.E.C.T.R.E.^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z I mean Al Quaeda) is handling the reign and direct all those bombing like a well ordered orchestra. and THAT is the ridiculous part. Long when Bush is gone there will be more bombing in other part of the world. (Heck even maybe in the US, done by one of those anti federal-nut).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Your objectivity clearly has an anti-Bush agenda...
It's related to reality's well known liberal bias.
Sure, there are lots of terrorists attacks. There are a lot of traffic accidents, too, absolutely dwarfing any terrorist-related deaths whatsoever.
Not to mention world hunger. 24.000 dead per day, was it?
Terrorism sucks, of course it does. But what on earth makes it so much worse than all the other things that kill so many more people every year? It's time to pull our heads out of the sand, suck it up, and deal with terrorism in a more rational way. At the moment, it seesm we're in some weird from of global panic.
Panic never helps.
I lost my sig.
Don't assume that since Emperor Dubya is president that he's in control of anything, including his own bladder. He's a figurehead. There most certainly are people in control of things, and they use Bush to deflect people's attacks from themselves. If you look at Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, and the rest of the neo-con gang, you'll find that they are incredibly capable people ... unfortunately they're also incredibly evil people.
... this article is but one example.
The reason no-one's tracked down Bin Laden is simple: the Bin Laden Group is Bush's biggest financial backer. The Bin Laden dynasty and the Bush dynasty go back a long way.
The reason why no-one's made any serious in-roads into bringing the so-called terrorists under control is that terrorism is the best thing that happened to ultra-conservative politics in the past century. It's vitally important for the Republicans, and increasingly more important for the Democrats, to have a horrible outside threat to protect the masses from, and to justify the increasing militarisation of the world, both domestically and internationally. Look at the rights we've lost in the name of protecting ourselves from the boogey man
Please note I'm not JUSTIFYING any of these... they're complete BS. but saying that there is no reason is also silly--the people doing the attacking have plenty of reasons. Iran doesn't randomly hate us, they hate us for helping to get rid of Mossadegh and supporting the repressive Shah all those years. UBL doesn't randomly hate us (though he comes close..) he has specific reasons. Again, I'm not saying any of these are GOOD reasons, I'm just saying, had we never interfered in the middle east, never supported cruel dictators, and never sent troops over there, things might be different.
One could also make the argument it's good to fight Islamic fundamentalism, period. I might even say that! I do rather think it's one of those self perpetuating things though...the more you fight it, the more it pops up.
I'll also agree that the original poster (the BLAME BUSH!!! guy) is a whacko...
You are a sick fool.
Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.
Disgusting Republican slave.
Drafted? No, I volunteered. I served in the US Army and did two tours in the Mid East. I met the thankful Kuwaitis who fell all over themselves to thank me, no matter how many times I said "No thanks necessary" and "Your very welcome". I saw the kids and parents who were missing hands, feet, tongues, eyes and got to meet them. I am sad that I could not be there to stop the mass graves from filling up. I'm sorry I was not able to kill the men who shot women in the head and threw them into mass graves, still clutching their screaming children. No, I could do nothing for these people because people like you don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves. It does not bother you at all to know that millions of men, women and children were murdered in cold blood while you rely on corrupt politicians to compromise with thugs, rapists and murderers. It doesn't bother you at all that children starve or die from preventable diseases because YOU don't care enough about them to shut your mouth long enough for me to rescue these people and give them a chance at life.
Yeah, if that makes me a sick fool, then I'll wear that badge with pride. However, don't you dare sit there and tell me I have the blood of Americans on my hands unless you want your blood to be the first! I may have Iraqi blood on my hands, but it was Iraqis that did all the stuff I described above. I'm willing to get blood on my hands for the lives and liberty of the innocent. What will you do beyond going to a "concert for peace" or put a "Bush-Bin-Lying" bumper sticker on your car? Sorry, but neither concerts nor bumper stickers have saved a life or freed a society. So until you are willing to get off your fat, peace-lovin ass and actually fight for something beyond "your right to party", I suggest you shut the fuck up as you have no idea as to what you are talking about.
So, yeah, there is justice and I helped provide it.
(Yeah, it's OT, but don't mod me 'off topic' unless you do the same for the parent)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
you'll find that they are incredibly capable people
They're capable, but yet they can't get the facts right about Iraq? They're capable, but yet they've seriously screwed up the Iraq war in multiple ways? They're capable, but yet Paul Wolfowitz gets caught in a conflict of interest giving his girlfriend a position of authority in the World Bank? Somehow these things don't come from capable people.
Seems like the actual evidence points to them being ass-clowns that screw up left and right, but until now have been able to talk their way out of it, or make friends who can do it for them.
You can talk conspiracy theories all day long, but until you actually have evidence instead of motivations, it's nonsense. You can make up anything you damn well please if all you have is motivations to guide you.
AccountKiller
Actually, it's not. You can onlhy vote for candidates and parties. You don't actually vote on the issues you want to vote on. If you don't agree with "the whole package" of a candidate, you don't really get a say. You might, say, vote Republican because you are a "fiscal conservative" - but your vote might be interpreted as a vote for the Religious Right, or an anti-gay agenda - even if you disagree with those aspects. Alternatively, you might vote Democrat because they're "not as bad as Republicans" - but that doesn't mean you voted for Democrats supporting a war in Iraq.
It's not a very direct reflection at all. In fact, it's a very distorted reflection, because the most extreme wedge issues tend to drive voters and politicians - not the mainstream beliefs that most hold. US politics is more a reflection of the lobbying powers of the monied classes, and the efforts of splinter groups.
So what you're really saying is that your whole country sickens you.Most people in America don't vote.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Since you asked nicely
It is amazing how little has changed between 1942 and today. It is amazing that Orwell's words are just as relevant today as they were 65 years ago.
Here is the whole quote: Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. It comes from a periodical called Partisan Review, August September 1942
A link to the whole Orwell article:
Pacifism and the War
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Oh, you mean the ones that planned the attack? The US is slowly picking them off.
See, the problem here is that "slowly" part. Why the hell did we go into Iraq when we should have been concentrating everything at taking down Al-Queda? I'll grant you that the OP is a nutcase that thinks the administration is a bunch of boobs on purpose (guess he's never run into a real gang of incompetents that back each other up).
The US has lost so much internationally because of this idiotic Iraq war. After 9/11 we had the whole world behind us and it was hard to say no to helping us find Bin Laden. That kind of thing takes international co-operation, not empty threats of "dead or alive" (you can't threaten someone when you don't even know where they are). Now less than 6 years later we've squandered all of that on a failed war and Bin Laden still runs free. Now we've got everyone chasing at their own shadows with the "find the terrorist" business.
AccountKiller
I know you meant that linking Bush to increased terrorism is just liberal Bush-hating, but to do so you'd have to be pretty ignorant of all the studies and articles pointing out that our actions in Iraq, the secret torture prisons around the world, the renditions, the detention without trial, etc are galvanizing the islamacist community and are basically a terrorist recruiter's wet dream. We're doing a better job than they are of making the USA look evil
So tell me, what exactly are the people who didn't vote accountable for? Not liking any of the candidates?
And if enough people understood that the two party system is what is holding us back, people would work to change it.I think plenty of people understand it. But how do you change it? The two party system excludes anybody from other parties. So, how do you vote for an alternative, when nobody from one of the two parties will support that alternative? the only way would be to get a third party elected - which the two-party system prevents.
So once again, you can't blame it on those bastards in Washington D.C. Those bastards are there because we willed it.Bullshit. Why are they blameless? I can certainly blame them for being bastards. There's plenty of blame to go around. It's true, it's not just them. But why can't I blame them for their actions?
Also, it's not true that people really willed this into existence. I don't think many people actually wished for a fucked up government and a two-party system. That already existed before most of us came along. The point is that you can't blame everybody, because not everybody wished for that, and some people opposed it. How am I to blame if my neighbor votes for a corrupt politician? I can't force my neighbor to vote the way I'd like him to.
Is someone born into a totalitarian dictatorship to blame for the dictator being in power?
... and then they built the supercollider.
The first crusade was in 1099. Islam was 1099 years old in 1731. In 1731, the Ottoman empire was on decline. Think about it - such parallels are useless.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
There have already been great points made about this -
But I will say this - the more we allow authorities to destroy our quality of life over fears of terrorism, the less our country is worthy of such 'protection.' If all of our freedoms are gone, what do we have left that is worth protecting; what remains that makes America so great? Don't get me wrong, I love my country, that is why everytime the government says that they are doing something that goes against our very principles to protect us I am suspicious and disgusted.
It is a fact of life that you could die or be killed at any time. It is just a fact, it doesn't matter how much money you have, who you are, or where you live. 20 year olds can have heart attacks, a meteor impact could hit the planet and start the cycle of life all over again from the beginning. Someone could go nuts and kill you - such is the price of living in freedom.
Besides, this government is way too corrupt and self preserving to truly protect this country and it's people, even if that is what they are truly trying to do on some level.
It's worth it. I would rather live in freedom then take up space in a police state.
That is not actually the case. Bin Laden was the Saudi money man for the Afghan resistance. The Saudis agreed to deliver matching funds to those supplied by the US.
Bin Laden's real issue is that he would prefer to be in charge in Saudi Arabia than the House of Saud. He can't do that with the US army camped on Saudi Arabia.
The real organizer of AQ is a guy called Zawahiri. He was the leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad and was a ringleader in the assasination of Sadat.
Taking out Bin Laden and Zawahiri would have a major impact in reducing terrorism. Torturing random Iraqis picked up by the US occupation will only increase terrorism.
And as for the wingnut campaign to mod down the original post as 'offtopic' circulating on their mailing lists. What could be more ontopic here than the fact that the Bush administration is lawless and refuses to comply with the most basic provisions of international law? The use of torture means that every new power grab must be resisted.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It started because of oil. Oil is a strategically and economically vital resource for the U.S. It has been since before Israel was set up, and probably has a lot to do with the creation of that country, since it gave the U.S. a friendly presence in an oil rich region.
Oil is what fuels the repressive governments in the Middle East. If they didn't have oil, the U.S. wouldn't care about them and wouldn't prop up governments that abuse their people. Those oppressive regimes create plenty of unhappy people, who turn to religion for answers as to why their life has to suck so much. They follow anyone who can give them hope for a better future.
Fundamentalism works the same over there as it does here, it preys mostly on the poor and disenfranchised, the people who feel they have no power of their own and want to belong to something greater than themselves. They join, feel a sense of belonging and community, and become willing to do whatever they are asked. Just like the cults here, those fundamentalist sects are run by charismatic individuals. These guys have no regard for the lives of their followers. They offer up the U.S. and the rest of the West as the reason for all the woes of these poor people, and why shouldn't these people believe them? They have very limited sources of information and often have very little education.
The ones who are educated see the U.S. as an interfering power that cares more about the oil than about the people who live on the land. Our actions, as a nation, just reinforce that notion.
If you want to end terrorism, end our dependence on oil. Push your representatives to support alternative energy, preferably the non-global warming kind. That is the only way to turn off the money supply to those governments. Do that, and those governments will eventually fall. What rises in their place will depend on how well we can repair the terrible damage Bush has done to our reputation.
Lets all hope we get wiser heads in our government soon.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
I am a little confused by comments like yours. On one hand you say your brother is doing a job he doesn't want to do, yet he does it anyways, duty, willing to do the tough things, etc. You also say that just because those men and women are over there doesn't mean they agree with it.
At the end of your comment you say that these people are risking their lives one a daily basis for people like us (non-military types), ready to "step in front of a bullet aimed at you".
I believe that many soldiers are willing to give it all to protect America and Americans, but being a soldier does not automatically mean you are doing so. In the end, whatever a soldier feels, he is at the call of the President. You can obey every order, and sacrifice your life, and yet hurt America. Take these people you mention in your post who are over there, yet don't agree with it. They don't agree with the war, yet continue to fight, because in the end a soldier executes orders, and that duty takes precedence over any personal moral stance they may have.
That is one sacrifice I am happy to say I am unwilling to make.
OK ArcherB, you're not a sick fool. What you are in fact is a patriotic, loyal, good-hearted, well-intentioned fool.
Thanks to your efforts and the efforts of thousands of others like you, death rates in Iraq have more than doubled; many thousands of Iraqis have fled the country, and life for those who remain has been horribly disrupted by the constant fear of violence. Yes, Saddam was an evil dictator who used of torture and violence. But if you look at the bottom line, most Iraqi citizens were better off before the US invasion than after.
The thankful Kuwaitis you rescued are exactly the affluent, self-serving egotists you rant against. They bless you for having rescued their material comforts, and saving their corrupt government from the consequences of drilling laterally into Iraqi territory. Furthermore, when they're not being rescued, they hate Americans every bit as much as the Iraqis do.
The fact that you risked your life does not automatically make you a better person than those who know better. You followed your evil, bumbling President into the greatest disaster in American history and are still blind enough to feel all righteous about it. If you ever come to see the truth, I hope it doesn't hurt you too badly.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
There are numerous places on the earth where great wrongs (like state-sponsored murder and such) are committed. I'm glad that the US occasionally sends troops to try and punish these people. However, I wish the US would act more of a supporter and enabler than a freedom installer. We can not hope to facilitate a false rebellion. Either the people are ready to rise up against the evil forces lauding over them, or they are not. If they are ready our support is merely just to speed up the process. If they are not ready the process will drag out because they are unwilling to support it.
In the end it must be the people that rise up to fight, not the US. Because eventually the US will leave, as we are not often viewed as the legitimate government of the territories we control. And without this sense of legitimacy we cannot maintain control. So in the end if the people do not rise up and fight for the government they wish to have, they will not be able to keep it and the US will not be able to maintain it for them. Because if a person does not wish to again live under a dictatorship, when given the chance they will oppose it's reinstallment tooth and nail.
Our current occupation is fueling the Iraqi people to rise up, but they are rising against us. As such we must respect their wishes and leave (or crush them utterly). Our vision of Iraq is not what their vision of Iraq is. They may be wrong, we may know they to be wrong in this decision, but it should be their decision to make. They will probably be burned by their decision, but there is nothing that I currently see the US can do to change their minds.
Bad things may happen from their decision, but they will learn from it. We can not help those who are now unwilling to receive our help. (And I refer to the people of Iraq, not the leaders of it.)