Slashdot Mirror
US May Invoke "State Secrets" To Stop Banking Suit
An anonymous reader sends us to the International Herald Tribune for news that the Bush administration is signaling that it plans to turn once again to a favorite legal tool, the 'state secrets' privilege. The administration wants to shut down a lawsuit brought against Swift, a huge Belgium banking cooperative that that the article calls the "nerve center of the global banking industry," after it was revealed that Swift secretly let the CIA comb through millions of private financial records. Quoting: "Two US banking customers sued Swift on invasion-of-privacy grounds. Many legal and financial analysts expected that the lawsuit would be thrown out because US banking privacy laws are considered much more lax than those in much of Europe. But to the surprise of many, a judge refused to throw out the lawsuit in a ruling in June."
Sue in Belgium.
So, uhhhh, when will Americans start to realize that there's just a wee bit of fascism taking hold of their nation? You'd think with something as clear-cut as this, more people would wake up to that fact...
Since when can the State Secret privilege be used to keep secret a program that is probably illegal? That's an enormous conflict of interest. The president doesn't (or at least shouldn't) have the "privilege" to cover up what are probably illegal actions.
Basically, those are the guys who run international banking, with the message centers and the networking. As far as I know, their physical location is a secret aswell, only a few of these centers exist in the world. SWIFT is more or less owned by the largest banks in the world, roughly based on their marketshare and size. That was the only way they felt assured that noone is going to swindle them with 8 bit xor "encryption" on financial transactions.
If these guys are cooperating with Bush/the US Govt., then basically the largest banks in the world are cooperating with Bush, giving the US access to international banking.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Banks help CIA spy, customers find out, sue banks, judge does not through out suit, gov plays "state secret" card for distance and/or to help the banks.
There you go, less than 30 words.
By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
Hey, can I rummage through your girlfriend's panty drawer? She won't mind, right? I'm looking for weapons of mass destruction. Seriously.
It's surprising how similar this administration is to Reagan's. I've been reading Noam Chomsky books just a little at a time because some of the things I learn make me physically ill.
Bush touts the media as having a liberal bias. In reality the media is strongly conservative, Fox news, rather than being the conservative voice, is just outright fascist, and most people still believe everything they hear on their particular brand of news. Expect very little protest as this most recent step in the massive defecation on our rights probably won't make a sub note in the evening news.
If not for the internet, you probably wouldn't have even heard about this.
Over here in Europe this was 'big news' a few months ago (I live in Belgium).
The problem over here was that Swift provided the CIA with access to the banking transactions and allegedly personal data from all EU citizens. They could do this because Swift also has a datacentre in the USA (because this data is very precious it has to be duplicated in geographically different areas).
At least that's how I remember it to be reported.
One of the things also mentioned was that the EU could not/would not do the same against American citizens, perhaps out of fear?
To my knowledge, the last report about it stated that the data-transaction to the American government had not stopped, since then the (small) mediastorm has passed over and nobody cares anymore.
"CIA takes neccessary steps to prevent the deaths of American children. Slashdot liberal weenies start to cry about the rights of terrorist criminals. CIA as usual disregards impotent nerdy chestbeating."
Even 'terrorist criminals' have rights. The value of an American child should not be greater than that of a child from any other country.
> They could do this because Swift also has a datacentre in the USA
> (because this data is very precious it has to be duplicated in
> geographically different areas).
So precious that bunch of Bushmonkeys get to pore over it?
This should all be taken care of within a generation or two, when even the holdout industries of banking and finance decide that doing business in the US is not worth it.
Maaaan - where are those moderator points when you need them...
More likely that the CIA cannot do that on american citizens iself(but an intermediary could probably be found.
All the administrations have been lockstep since Reagan fell to Tecumseh's Curse in 1981 (while he didn't die like all the other presidents elected at the decade mark, the rogue elements of his administration [led by V.P. George H.W. Bush] took over while he was recovering from the coup attempt).
George H.W. Bush had his speech about the New World Order and negotiated NAFTA. Clinton pushed NAFTA implementation through the congress.
I never really learned to read at teh government schools, and do much better listening to Chomsky's talks. Found Class War via bittorrent, and have borrowed a couple other cds from the local library. Definitely recommended listening.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
You mean to tell me that the rich are collaborating with the powerful? Well that's gotta be a first...
...to comb through private financial recordings from a Belgian bank in the first place? I mean, last time I checked, Belgium does not exactly fall under US jurisdiction, doesn't it? Wouldn't that fall under some international laws or something?
On some hypothetical "absolute scale" of liberal/conservative, it might be true that CNN or ABC is 'conservative' and Fox only more so, but in reality there is no absolute scale. Everything is relative to something else: either the citizenry at large, or to the consumers who affect a particular market.
To Noam Chomsky, it's probably true that CNN is very conservative. On his own scale, he's the zero point, and CNN is right of him, and Fox even further right of that. To Ann Coulter, they probably both read as rather leftist, because she's her own zero point and they're both left of her. Depending on which opinion poll you want to believe, the "American public" is somewhere else on the spectrum, and various news sources are 'conservative' or 'liberal' relative to that.
The only borderline-objective source for normalcy seems, to me, to be what the market actually produces in response to consumer desires. It's easy to lie on an opinion poll to make yourself look or feel good, when you're not spending your own money or time. But the market is a good measure of what people actually do; and people abandoned CNN in the late 90s and early 2000s to watch Fox News instead. That's an indicator to me, that the public is actually quite -- perhaps frighteningly -- conservative.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
So, USA citizens, when will you wake up and revolt?
because lets face it, there is a good chance the Republicans will not be in power..
Willy
One of the things also mentioned was that the EU could not/would not do the same against American citizens, perhaps out of fear?
The EU can't and won't do that, as they'd be breaking the law.> Bush touts the media as having a liberal bias. In reality the media is strongly conservative.
Well if a system manages to divide itself in two or more factions opposing each other, whatever faction you choose the system can't lose. I guess there is powerful and intelligent enough people to have thought up this one long ago.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
how prior to the 2006 elections, the networks justified the tremendous slant of the guests on their Sunday Morning talk shows by pointing out that Republicans controlled the White House, Senate and House.
But after the 2006 elections... well, the slant still exists. Guests are mostly conservative and overwhelmingly white males.
The public has elected a Democratic House and Senate but you wouldn't realize it from the media...
The bad thing is that SWIFT continues to allow free access to the data in violation of US and EU laws. What they've done is to put an auditor in place to review the queries and see if they are terrorist related (that auditor has no access to terror info and has no way of telling).
It's not legal in the US, it's not legal in Europe, it's only legal in Bush brain.
The damage the current administration has done will last for quite a while after the next election. Do you really think the loyalties of the judges that have been appointed in the past 6 years are to the American people? That is the scary part of what this administration has done.
To my knowledge, the last report about it stated that the data-transaction to the American government had not stopped, since then the (small) mediastorm has passed over and nobody cares anymore.
This was recently up in Norwegian media too. I wasn't (couldn't? be) stopped, but our banks have to inform all their customers the US is snooping in all international transactions. Personally I find it rather astounding that other governments accept that a third party nation can look at all the financial transactions between two nations, but what do I know. I'm sure they'll resort to the same way money is smuggled out by immigrants - good old cash.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you can't keep your ADD in check long enough to read a one-page article, it's not like you'll provide any useful feedback or do anything about it anyway. If you want to know what it says, take some goddamn ritalin.
'a bit of a southern drawl' is not the same as 'chews up and mangles the english language'.
thanks for playing tho.
I guess the it shows conservatives are focus better on issues that the lefty crowd.
it's almost comedy! speaking of mangling english...
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Belgium is the country (a noun), Belgian is the adjective. Being that I live in the country, this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine.
You may now mod me offtopic, and rightly so.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Since when did Clinton turn Liberal? Clinton was the guy who introduced the DMCA, 5 year max limit for anybody needing welfare, among other things. These points I just got off the top of my head. It's been said many times and in many ways that in America there is small "c" conservative and large "C" conservative. Nothing seems to be liberal about American politics except the rhetoric.
Your making two assumptions.
First, that whoever is in power next will WANT to investigate this.
Second, that there will be a "next election", don't forget that those in power do anything to stay in power. This administration has already tried to delay the elections in '04 due to concerns over security and has since set itself up with some scary martial law powers.
Anyone want to take bets on the odds of there being a major "terrorist attack" in the US within 4-6 months of the next election? And as long as it doesn't directly impact the "common person", increase in gas price, beer, cable TV or interrupt Monday night football, most of the sheeple will just let it happen.
Willy
----
WhoooRay!
New Democratic and Republican candidates are not be completely the same! They are associated with different rumors!
If a potential political candidate is rumored to admire the rule of wealth - they will register for a Democrat label and run in the Democratic party primary. If the potential candidate is suspected of warm feelings for the divine rule of Kings - they will register for a Republican label and run in the Republican party primary. I believe it's called managing your image. Our modern politicians are professionals.
It's surprising how similar this administration is to Reagan's.
I don't find it surprising at all, Dubya is a direct legacy of Reagan administration. I think this sort of ever growing control and privilege is a product of having a legacy. Why would we expect Dubya to have respect for the Constitution or rights of the common man, when he has been surrounded by power and privilege all of his life? He and Jeb were practically bred for the purpose of expanding power and control. All of the big decisions in his life point towards growing his power, and those decisions where without a doubt heavily influenced by his father, who was in tight with Nixon. This administration is just a continuation of a decades long, generation spanning grab for power.
We are all just people.
You only have the rights the biggest dog in the yard allows you to have, and the US is the biggest dog in the yard. I don't know why people like you hate that so much.
r ights But don't left those silly Founding Fathers get in the way of your jingoism.
Perhaps we hate it because we know the meaning of "Inalienable Rights".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_
We are all just people.
Last time I checked, "Texan" isn't a race, or even an ethnic group. The comment may have been in poor taste, and ad hominem at that, but it wasn't racist.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
As a result of this scandal, SWIFT plans to re-engineer their network to keep intra-European traffic within Europe. (Source: http://www.swift.com/index.cfm?item_id=62260)
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Apart from the mustache, you've described Bush and Cheney quite well.Similar to the upcoming US election results
God Bless America, land of the free. ... If you're a politician, you're free to do whatever the hell you want.
It is rather surprising, but life terms for judges actually works much like the founders intended. Once these guys are appointed they are not beholden to their appointers and often start thinking outside the box. Someone who has been on the Supreme Court for 10-20 years may have rather different opinions than when he was first selected, and of course legislative oversight works to keep the most dogmatic and radical judges out of these positions.
On the other hand, I haven't seen many politicans that I would call conservative. Seems like they love big government programs, spend like mad, wars of aggression, pork everywhere, dictating to their citizens what they can and cannot do, lots of new takes and fees, and stuff like that. They may lean to the right, but I wouldn't call the right conservative by any means.
there is a good chance the Republicans will not be in power..
That may happen sooner rather than later.
Bush's old Texas crowd is almost gone.
It has nothing to do with people desiring more conservative media as the grandparent states and everything to do with people exhausted by 9+ hour work days, then dealing with household chores, being quite literally hypnotized by flashing graphics and loud insistent voices. It worked for Hitler and unfortunately it seems to work for our new right wing authoritarians bent on taking over the world as well.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I was born in Texas.
I have lived in Texas all my life.
I have never in my life spoken any language with a Texas accent.
I've heard the Deep South drawl all my life, but never from someone who is thoughtful or considerate, let alone intelligent. It's a problem not because it implies poor diction or ignorance, but because it reliably represents a specific flavor of thoughtless, hostile, institutionalized idiocy. The stereotype didn't come from nothing.
And it is a fucking tragedy that the current U.S. president is one of them, nothing more than an ignominious third-grade bully, but even worse than that, he has validated the rest of the hostile, retarded hyenas who are just like him.
So I disagree, I think it was damned insightful.
I agree with WheelDweller. I totally *want* data mining so that Islamic terrorists are caught.
Don't put me in the LovesGWBush camp, I don't watch Fox News - live in a urban liberal haven and walk to work. I've read Chomsky for years. BUT I'm finding it hard to respect my fellow liberals on this war with terrorism thing. Its freaking serious and real, and it means data mining, inspecting suspicious behavior, arresting people, and dropping bombs in areas of the world.
Liberals should be ok with all of the above when used intelligently to thwart Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. ( I will agree, the Bush administration has NOT been so intelligent and also went to war in a totally wrong country, dumbasses) From the majority of posts in the thread all claims of wrongdoing are carte blanche condemnations of whole catagories of police activities. No wonder we have these idiot neocons running the show, intelligent non-neocons exalt privacy and freedom to meaningless and unbounded fundamental first-principle that disables all offensive and defensive measure our goverments can take to protect us. If the liberals aren't up to engaging in war, then we'll continue to allow conservatives to occupy positions of power.
Good point. I was really using "conservative" more as the way it is used in the media than it's actual formal definition. I think in general though that you along with the Slashdot community would get my point (without me having to go through all the vagaries of popular versus formal usage of the word).
"Liberal" too is something I would describe as a problem word. From a formal economic/political definition "liberal" is actually Laissez-faire, pro-big business, free-trade, etc; as opposed to the more popular folk usage where it generally means left-wing or socialist, and is used ironically enough, as a disparaging term by "conservative" commentators like Rush Limbaugh. Libertarians are far more accurately described as liberal than so-called liberals are.
First some history, there have always been times throughout history where violence tries to rob people of their rights and their humanity. It's even not the first time someone has tried to blow up a financial building in NYC. Here's one from 1920: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing Here's a different bombing not in NYC from 1927http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disa
Your right to be assured of your kids safety also doesn't trump the right of a "brownish shifty looking guy" to be secure in his person, papers and possessions or trump his right to Habeas Corpus. There are reasons that you equate the safety of your kid in whatever piss-ant town you live in, with massive invasive search that flaunt centuries old law. First you think that your kid qualifies as an important target, sorry no one outside of you family and friends thinks your kid is anything special. Second and probably the more important reason is that you are scared. When people are subconciously aware of their own moratlity they make very black and white emotional decisions. I highly recommend reading the whole linked article, it's shows the exact the Presidents insistence that "if we don't do this there will be another Sept.11th" works so well.
We are all just people.
Both sides mock each other. If you surround yourself in lefties, you're bound to hear some mockery of the right (and vice-versa). Conservatives mock people too. They are, after all, human beings.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
To a normal American, of course an American child is worth more than a child from some other country. This is not wrong and should not be surprising.
What country doesn't value it's own children most? Such a country, if it existed, would be failing the "survival of the fittest" test.
Silly Europeans. Our government does whatever it wants. Laws are for common folk.
Most people don't even think inside the box.
Banks help CIA spy, got caught, banks sued, judge sez cool, gov sez "state secret, stop suit"
There, now it even fits into a sig...with room to spare
What?
Odds are that the Bush administration is using this data for other purposes such as his war against porn and offshore gambling, industrial and political espionage, etc.
Have gnu, will travel.
Good points PPH
Bush&Co are probably using info for their own blackmailing. On the secret ops being low budget, even if there are then maybe "item of interest" trails could be traced?
What the hell do terrorists have to do with the Iraq war? Saddam had nothing to do with the crowd we're fighting. And if you're going to harp in 3000 dead US soldiers, don't forget the 100k dead Iraqi civilians - they had no dog in this fight.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Don't worry at all. The thing is, the Bush administration is simply doing this, ONCE AGAIN, to hide the fact that they've behaved ethically for the past 8 years. All the problems? All the lies used to justify an illegal war of aggression? All the illegal prisons in Cuba, all the secret prisons in Europe? All the secret illegal wire-tapping programs? All the firing attorneys for purely political reasons? All of them had perfectly good explanations, but the Bush Administration is simply too humble to want everyone to know, so they use things like "state secrets" or "executive privilege" to protect themselves from the lack of controversy.
It's been a long time.
That was then, this is now - I suspect that we'll have plenty of terrorists who (a) got pissed off at the U.S.A. because of how this war has been fought (note - I believe that the outcome could've been considerably different had more than 5 minutes of "the people will love us for liberating them" thought been put into reconstruction - maybe consider fixing what you bombed, right away, while the country was in shock at the massive defeat and change?), and (b) learned plenty of guerilla tactics there in Iraq - so, the next wave of terrorism is likely to have a lot to do with Iraq.
Sometimes the same ones get announced twice. Then there's the petty crims in the wrong place that get hailed as terrorists so we can have another show trial. Then there's things like the liquid explosives hoax that still makes it a pain to go through airports. Becuase due process is not being followed we have a lot of ghouls using the deaths of a lot of people in New York as the excuse for pushing their own petty agendas. Fighting terrorism becomes picking on schoolgirls with scarves on their heads, or arresting film makers that take photographs of a fence. With accountability and good leadership these abuses can be mimised, but there isn't much of either.
HAHAHAHHAHAHA
... for example, the same-sex marriage laws.
... and stayed out of Iraq ... and instead contribute to the effort in Afghanistan, you know, the place 911 was run from remember?
... we vote them out! We don't keep them around for a second term to cause more damage like you've done with Dubyafucker.
... but Vietnam was started under the same false pretenses as Iraq. the Spanish American war is the same story! and damn! you didn't even come out for WWII until 2 years after Canada joined in.
WOW!
Now if that isn't a disenfranchised american, I don't know what is!
I'm on his side, and he's pissed at me for not complaining more loudly!
By the way, here in Canada our judges not only shoot down unconstitutional laws as they should, they actually identify ways in which the government needs to adapt to protect the constitution
Here in Canada, we could see the blatant lies of George Bush
Here in Canada, the polls aren't fixed. We have consistent election laws across our country instead of separate conflicting laws in every state like you have.
Here in Canada, when we really dislike a government that has screwed us bad
Sure, I only spoke of recent times
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
They do all that monitoring and they let the robber wire money to his bank account FIFTEEN times? Not possible to catch him? Yeah right.
3 2
;).
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/30/03212
Call me real cynical but the reason why a lot of the stuff is secret is because the rich and powerful don't want "the wrong people" to know how much money they are moving about and where. Same reason why these "holes" are there in the first place.
They don't want to "accidentally" catch the big fish while catching the small fry
Oh, okay, looks like you're not one of the Saddam/AlQueda crowd. The guys in Iraq now aren't all terrorists. Some are, sure, but yeah, a lot of the people in there now are resistance fighters.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"I agree with WheelDweller. I totally *want* data mining so that Islamic terrorists are caught."
Not you don't if you look down the line. Why?
First off because it is illegal extraction of data by the US government on European citizens (or even its own, when done by the CIA and many US citizen data would have been in there) . Do you really want the your own gov. breaking the law?
And if you answer to this is "I don't care", will you say the same when the rest of gov's around the world start doing the same to YOUR records? Will you happy if/when the French, Chinese or Nigerians are data mining your transactions?
Also, this type of data mining is worthless for catching terrorists, most terrorists have known for years to avoid the regular banking system due the drug money laundering regulations that have been in place around the world for years
I would say this whole exercise had little to do with terrorism and a lot more to do with the fading power of the US Fed.
Now that many industries are slowly stopping doing large transactions though the US legal jurisdiction or in US dollars the US Fed is losing its ability to call the shots, something Bush and his people are not happy about, especially as it is his cronies who own the Fed
I don't find it surprising at all, Dubya is a direct legacy of Reagan administration. I think this sort of ever growing control and privilege is a product of having a legacy. Why would we expect Dubya to have respect for the Constitution or rights of the common man, when he has been surrounded by power and privilege all of his life? He and Jeb were practically bred for the purpose of expanding power and control. All of the big decisions in his life point towards growing his power, and those decisions where without a doubt heavily influenced by his father, who was in tight with Nixon. This administration is just a continuation of a decades long, generation spanning grab for power.
What legacy? A good many of the top levels of the current administration got into government under Regean, like Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld. They were the people behind the theory of the 'Evil Empire', and the guys who ran 'Team B' that gave us Star Wars. They glommed the credit for 'destroying the Evil Empire', then went looking for another 'Axis of Evil' to put us up against. Took 'em awhile, but they finally decided on picking on the Muslims.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Our problem is, we elected our whackos. It's gonna be difficult to get rid of them. Historically, it's always been a balance of the survival of the State and the liberty of its citizens. The more power the State gets, the less freedom of the citizens. Crunch time comes when the citizens demand their rights back and the State doesn't budge. Can't vote the bastards out when they control who counts the ballots...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
You whine about this. Then when the US fails to stop terrorism, you whine about that and ask why the govenment haven't done more to catch these people.
/. post a while ago when people were shocked and horrified when a Tor server was seized.
The innocent have nothing to fear, and if you accounts are in order, then why should it bother you if they're glanced at by a security official.
Its like a
I ask you, what are you doing that merits total anonymity? Forgive my cynicism, but could it be something illegal?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Terrorists had everything to do with the Iraq war. Terrorism is the organised use of violence and intimidation to exert a political change. Doesn't that sum up perfectly what the US/UK wanted to and did achieve.
And to make it more complex: The central bank of Belgium has been warned by SWIFT before sending data to the CIA. They gave their approval.
Legal stuffs wasn't at the top of everyone priority in september 2001. All you wanted to do (private companies included) is to help tracking down these bastards.
"When any other country achieves half as much as the US does...."
Remind me what that achievement was again? All I see are a set of mindless genocidal murderers who want to enslave the rest of the world. In the short 200 years this appalling country has been in existence it has broken every treaty it has signed, invaded the native lands and murdered the original inhabitants, then picked on small nations colonize by force, while staying out of every big war until it could see who was going to win, and selling arms to both sides in the meantime to make a fortune. It then lies to itself, pretends that it was solely responsible for any victory gained, and preens itself producing Hollywood films which show Americans as the sole heros performing feats which were actually performed by other countries troops.
It is amazingly bad at either cultural or scientific input to humanity - I cannot think of a single advance which was uniquely American, but I can think of a lot of advances which, having been made, the Americans tried to take over and claim that they were theirs. Computing is a good example here, and Microsoft is a classic example of what America has given the world.
When America has done a tenth of what Greece or Italy has done for the world perhaps it will be able to begin to talk about it!
Well in good old Aussie we have such strict privacy laws you can't even get your own information. However, that does not stop the government from getting all your financial info for their tax records. Guess what - they're exempt! So you would not want to try suing in Australia, because you never want to get between a government and a fast buck.
Allan Barker http://www.alphatech5.com/
Allan Barker http://www.alphatech5.com
and not offer a sale on that day. E-commerce retailers need to get into the act too.
"I highly recommend reading the whole linked article, it's shows the exact the Presidents insistence that "if we don't do this there will be another Sept.11th" works so well."
It works so well because he understands the risks involved. If you dislike patriotism so much, just come out and say it, don't hide behind these excuses.
Please stop lying.
It's not your fault I'm better than you.
Actually the right doesn't really have a thinker like Chomsky. Now before you think this is just a flame I'll say that the right does have intellectuals but that the thought process is very different, right wing intellectuals are more about process and ideals than observation like Chomsky. Thus you get right wing thinkers like Russell Kirk (who I do respect),
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/thought.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk
and Ann Rand who argue that as long as the process is "moral" that any outcome is acceptable. For leftists on the other hand observation of outcomes is key, that's why you here about "social justice" on the left with specific examples of sweatshop conditions, American empire and then specific examples of CIA coups in the third world, wars of aggressions, etc. I will say that one of the big reasons leftism appeals to me is that on the whole it's a more empirically based philosophy. One can blovate about the "free market" producing utopia until the cows come home but if the actual outcome is tremendous inequality, suffering, and environmental destruction then perhaps there is a flaw that is not captured in the idealistic model of "the market?"
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I like Canada, I lived there for several years.
... ... and instead contribute to the effort
>Here in Canada, we could see the blatant lies of George Bush
>and stayed out of Iraq
>in Afghanistan, you know, the place 911 was run from remember?
But this comment. You actually know where 9/11 was run from? And you say it was Afghanistan??? Does that even make any SENSE? Try Pakistan, USA, and probably Saudi Arabia (those passports and 'hijacker' identities came from somewhere, eh?). That any Afghanis short of ISI members took part in it is pretty hard to believe; they were just the patsies when the Taliban failed to allow the USA to build their oil pipeline through the country as they had initially promised.
Study up a bit more on what really happened on 9/11 and the motivations and causes of it and maybe you'll start rethinking your comment and more importantly how you came to hold/believe it.
Since when did Clinton turn Liberal? Clinton was the guy who introduced the DMCA, 5 year max limit for anybody needing welfare, among other things.
You can have DMCA but the 5 year max for welfare, to people not corporations, was part of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". Do you just love it how corporations can stay on welfare permanently but people can only stay on it 5 years?
FalconShould there be a Law?
On the other hand, I haven't seen many politicans that I would call conservative. Seems like they love big government programs, spend like mad, wars of aggression, pork everywhere, dictating to their citizens what they can and cannot do, lots of new takes and fees, and stuff like that. They may lean to the right, but I wouldn't call the right conservative by any means.
Don't you mean you wouldn't consider them Liberal, Classical Liberal? It was the Liberals who wanted small government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
From a formal economic/political definition "liberal" is actually Laissez-faire, pro-big business, free-trade, etc;
Actually Liberals, while laissez faire, and pro freetrade, were not pro big business. Liberals were most concerned with liberty thus "Liberal". And they wouldn't of given anybody a monopoly on anything, be it a "Right of Way" monopoly for cable, phone, or power companies to lay down cable or fiber; or a monopoly on patents. Heck Liberals in general did not accept patents. I say general because some did accept them eventually. Thomas Jefferson was one, at first he was against patents and copyrights, but after discussing it with his friend James Madison he changed his mind. Madison convinced him patents will help more than hinder progress.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hey, lots of us realized this and understood back in the 1950s, when President Eisenhower warned us about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex". And we've been pointing it out publicly ever since then, whenever there's an opportunity.
The thing is is even though Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex he actully made it stronger by building up the conflict in Viet Nam.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I suppose you've never heard of the history of the Taliban huh. Perhaps you just don't like to admit that it is yet another of a long list of enemies the USA has needlessly created for themselves. Or maybe you'd just like to forget about your country's failure to defeat them or even find their leader.
... The group created and empowered by the USA that is succeeding again at bankrupting their enemy ... YOU.
You know, the Taliban, the group that was funded and trained by the USA government through Osama Bin Ladin to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan.
-the group that was a big part of the slow bankrupting of the USSR that led to their defeat in the cold war.
-The group that then ran afghanistan turning it into a country of warlords and terrorist training facilities.
-The group that under the orders of Osama Bin Laden, from many locations around the world organized 911 to draw the USA into the same type of slow bankrupting war that they defeated the USSR with.
-The group that was allowed to gain power in Iraq, a country they were not previously present in, because of dubyafucker's destabilizing, misguided, and unncessary invasion.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform
Well, not so secret! James Bond broke into one of their vaults in Kuala Lumpur, and walked off with Billions and Billions back at the turn of the false century.
It's actually liberally conservative.
These words--liberal and conservative--they have been distorted so much they are pretty much unusable in any ordinary conversation. Pointless, they do not live up to their definition any more than Republican and Democrat. There IS an "us" and "them". We the people and they, the politicians confusing us. We have more in common with each other, we Christians and Muslims, we blacks and whites, we men and women, than they do with us. They are alien to our world of hard work and suffering. I'm not a communist, however. I think to a certain extent the free market economy causes the best to rise to power. The problem is that the forefathers intended that power to be balanced and not run away and expand. Both "republicans" and "democrats" have proven time and time again that they will increase their own power (politicians) at the expense of the people.
I refer to the story of Why Geeks are Libertarians. We like to control things, and we tend to have a deep understanding of complex systems. To us, it doesn't make sense to give these people the ability to create laws that allow them to give themselves (and their peers) more power. To the everyday joe, they just want to see low gas prices, feed their family and have unlimited whisky, porn and Jesus any time they want. And all the worthless shit they can lay their hands on, such as raised trucks, boats, and more toys like big screen TV's and shit. Big business has turned "freedom" into "owning things" while the real freedom this country was founded upon has mostly disappeared. There are those that believe it never existed in the first place, but that's a different rant for a different place and time.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
So you're saying you feel DIRECTLY THREATENED by radical islamism?
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Yours is either a good paranoia check or rhetorical subtefuge. I knew one person who died in 9/11. Since bombings in Spain and Britian and Israel are in general public transportation nodes I would have to say "yes".
I'm more concerned about a war waged to dismantle my economic system. A plan by others to harm me is not a war, and I would not expect my government to afford the same resources to protect a direct threat to me, whereas a direct threat to ports or transportation nodes I would want my government to expend massive resources if needed to stop the threat.
Yes, the Taliban was more or less created by the CIA, but which of the so-called Islamic Fundamentalist movements of recent memory haven't been created or heavily supported by it? (The Pakistani ISI, the insurgency in Iraq, the Wahabbi Saudi regime, the Taliban, etc?)
But that's not the point. The point is that this charade paraded around that Bin Laden masterminded this attack and that the Taliban supported him is just the official story. There were plans to attack the Taliban before, and the sole reason being that they didn't go along with the oil pipeline.
Arguing about the creations of the CIA is within the framework of acceptable discussion. Arguing that Bin Laden, just a patsy more than likely and possibly even an agent, was trained and funded by the CIA is also within that allowed framework. But it misses the picture. These things aren't unintentional, they aren't accidents of supporting some 'bad' guy for the hope he serves our purpose at that point in time. That's the allowed thought. The unallowed thought is saying that this is all a setup, it's intentional. You want to know who was behind 9/11? You just look at the Pakistani ISI (owned by the USA), you look at the CIA or its parallel structure, you look at high-ranking neocons, and you more than ANYTHING look at those who profit, and not only financially -- the bankers.
Look outside the box, there's a wealth of information available if you want to search. 9/11 was just the latest false-flag attack used as a means of control. It by no means will be the last nor the worst. It's just possibly one of the most believed when there is a wealth of evidence against it. The Taliban may not have been pretty to the westerner, but that may have been by design. The USA loves fundamentalists of any kind -- they are bred to do the CIA's bidding, they are easy straw-men to tear down and attack, and they are often oblivious to the fact they've been used. Why do the work yourself when you can have someone else do it AND be able to legitimately get rid of them at a later time?
SWIFT (not Swift) is the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT, and while headquartered in Belgium, its network SWIFTnet is, I believe, run out of Culpeper, VA. U.S.A., and their technology center is in nearby Manassas, VA. http://www.swift.com/