Slashdot Mirror
US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically
DigitAl56K writes "The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."
I don't even think you can use evidence collected by this type of illegal surveillance in court! So if I, for example (NOTE TO THE NSA, I AM NOT DOING THIS, I'M SIMPLY GIVING AN EXAMPLE), hacking into some computer, the NSA catch me with their illegal warrantless computer, and try to try me in court, can't I just challenge the evidence they are using or something? Claim it can't be admitted into court?
:)
In all respects, I knew this would happen. You destroy civil liberties with a pointless war, and what do yuo get? A POLICE STATE. What the United States are doing IS HOW HITLER GOT HIS RISE TO POWER! Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?
First Post
We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions. This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us.
Enjoy the last remnants of freedom while you still can.
I'll give you anything you want.
.... as soon as google makes the interface accessible.
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.
Does that mean that they now can see me tanning my filthy, hairy body in my yard?
AKA Google Maps and Google Streets.
If there was any real chance that this system would be used primarily for border defense, maybe I wouldn't mind it as much. But there really isn't... DC politicians have made it quite clear that they regard the nation's citizens as their enemies, not foreigners who enter the nation illegally.
This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.
Do they want a civil war?
Last year CNET reported on at least one county in North Carolina already using a UAV to "monitor gatherings of motorcycle riders at the Gaston County fairgrounds from just a few hundred feet in the air -- close enough to identify faces".
Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout, Global Hawk, Predator 2, and the Dominator, their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.
According to DefenseNews the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).
Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.
pssssssssssssss....... Croak!
The image resolution and capabilities of those satellites are a closely guarded secret. If they intend to use this in everyday criminal prosecution, one of two things are going to happen:
1. Every crime and investigation which uses imagery from these satellites will be classified a state secret; or
2. The general public, and by extension, the whole world... Will know the exact imaging capabilities of these satellites.
The first is not compatible with the Constitution, which provides the dual safeguards of (a) having all the evidence presented to the defendant and (b) that all such evidence must be available for public inspection. I would ask that anyone who is concerned that either of these situations is not happening in our domestic affairs take up the matter in public protest and through contact with their elected officials. Do not be afraid, but do be vigilant and as our government keeps an eye on us, so too must we keep an eye on them.
Their eyes may be in the sky, but ours should be on, and for, each other.
- A citizen of conscience
ignore other potential good uses from such technology.. Imagine being able to catch Kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk before they actually do more harm. Fleeing bank robbers, etc.. In all technology there is a chance for abuse of authority, be it in your own office or with government control. Chance for abuse does not negate the ability for technology to be helpful to society. To be sure - be vigilant of government practices, but don't cut off your feet to spite your nose either.
I wonder how long until this will be used as another way for munipicalities to get revenue, as another way to catch "speeders"... or perhaps just another way to get probable cause for searches.
Cue the /. crowd's standard Orwellian freak-out in 5, 4, 3....
Not that it's not definitely justified in this case. As the "dept." line says, "As long as you're not doing anything wrong...."
Here's to the crazy ones
a.k.a. take-more-of-your-civil-liberties away. I'll be glad when I don't have to be afraid of my own government anymore.
And it definitely is a case for "Wehret den Anfaengen". Somehow I doubt that the US population will do much better than others to prevent the creation of first a sueveillance state and then a dictatorship. Of course this is proceeding slower than most other efforts in that direction in the past, but I think if I would be living in the US, the time to become really afraid is now. Probably the best chance against this is the next election. Seems for once you have acceptable candidtaes all around, which must be a first in recent history.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
... another violation of your rights, brought to you by Bush & co & sons. Coming to a theater near you. Enjoy.
Read radical news here
I saw that movie!
Thanks to the Bush administration, we can have over 10,000 cameras in our home equipped with thermal sensors, motion sensor and blade dullers! Before we know it, they're going to ban everything except for refrigerators! Want coffee at work? Sorry thermoses have been banned. :( Luckily for you, work has been too! (Except for the refrigerator industry)
Please visit http://www.mederbil.com/ i7, GTX 275, 4 1TB Caviar Green in RAID 0+1 array, EVGA X58 3X SLI Board, Silver
They took a posse after posse comitatus
You know it's cuz those fuckers hate us
They'll use the mil-i-tary
Our ass to quickly bury
If anonymous, we try to make us.
--fyngyrz
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I've had it with this domestic spying, I'm going to get me a high powered laser mount it on my telescope and aim it at any passing spy satellites!
If the government views it citizens as enemies then the citizens should view the government as their enemies...
"Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?"
I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?
In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors.
But money is not the only purpose. One key to understanding why Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush family want violence is understanding the mental illness of anger. It is true that they are apparently helping their friends and family who have investments in weapons and largely hidden business with the U.S. government. But they are also acting out their anger. It's the anger of people who have put money first in their lives. It's the anger of alcoholic personalities; both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been arrested for driving while intoxicated.
Start with the politicians, lobbyists, those favoring globalization with influence, pro-"open border" law firms(such as Grigsby and Cohen) and H1/L1/F1/* applicants who enter this nation.
Then post the results to the citizens.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us. If we let domestic law enforcement have access to satelites without requiring top secret clearance, wha stops the mafia cops, crips, vice lords, etc from access the satelite through their moles in domestic law enforcement?
They need to restrict this just to people with top secret clearance. If they let everyone access it then we are in big trouble.
They should have to use juries to decide if they are stepping over the line, and those juries can report to the Supreme Court. I know this sounds silly, but without citizen oversight I do not care who is elected, they WILL abuse it.
Five words: The soccer mom voting contingency
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president. Are we going to let just anyone in domestic law enforcement access this?
They know that domestic law enforcement is infiltrated by the mafia, by the bloods and crips, the vice lords, MS13, the neo nazi's, all those people are able to join the police force and become police chief and none of these people have top secret clearances.
Are we supposed to start giving them access to top secret spy technology without requiring they have top secret clearances? I have a problem with this because they don't give us enough information on just who will have access to the technology within domestic law enforcement.
If it's someone in the FBI who has top secret clearance, thats very different than just letting any police chief access infrared spy satelites and scan out closets looking to see which of us is growing the marijuana plants.
Has anyone else seen the "Masters of Science Fiction" episode "Watchbird"? If you haven't, do.
Avoiding the technical issues of having an autonomus flying robot that can stun & kill people, the actual story of how politicians would use something developed for military use decide that a modified version could work just as well for domestic use, isn't far from the truth as has been shown here in the UK when a council used the RIPA to spy on a family for a month (including watching them in their house and following them in their car) because they applied for their 3-year old to go to a primary school and the council wanted to make sure the family wasn't cheating the system.
It proves that is the powers are there for the people in charge to use then there's no way in hell they won't eventually (ab)use those powers.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
It was based in the south, covered with the flags of the USA and the CSA, and railed against Clinton for the filegate thing, Waco, etc.
Odd thing was, it hasn't been updated since around 2000, the forums have gone strangely silent. Not a peep about Bush.
I think perhaps these brave defenders of freedom are so outraged by Bush, so aware of constitutional issues that they say the threat more clearly than others, and that they have decided to take their movement underground, make it more clandestine.
Yeah, that's probably it.
This space available.
I perceive that there will soon be a huge market for IR-shielding devices for your home.
This reminds me of that 'Weeds' episode where a couple of HomeSec goons going over high-altitude IR photographs can clearly see the giant cross that Nancy is using as a sun lamp for her crop (after Doug stole it from a church), even with the roof in the way.
Is he done wiping his ass with the Constitution yet?
Why not support this? the US already uses this on the rest of the world.
If its good enough to use on us, why is it not good enough to use on yourselves?
Oh, I forgot, the rest of us dont count..
Soon Bush will anounce a machine that will receive your brainwaves, detect if you're not with him, conclude you're therefore against him and will shoot you on thought.
Privacy is terrorism.
I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense. If you want to use federal powers for good police use, there already is an FBI.
What these people are trying to do is give LOCAL COPS the ability to access top secret spy technology.
Will these local cops have top secret military clearance? That is not being mentioned. Will these local cops have to follow all the federal laws?
Wtf is going to be next? Giving corporations police powers and making CEO's into deputy and letting them access all the top secret spy satelites and launch UAVS?
Do you realize what this does? The domestic law enforcement is even more filled with moles than the federal law enforcement. So instead of having to worry about the Soviets, the domestic law enforcement has to worry about the bloods, the crips, mafia, MS13, the vice lords, and all these other gangs and mafias who have infiltrated and who have moles all throughout domestic law enforcement and police departments all over this country.
If we give the domestic law enforcement access to all this technology, don't you realize that you'll be giving even more power and access to the very criminals you think this technology will be targeting?
You think they are stupid? They read the news too, they go to Slashdot too, their spies in the police department soon may have the power to look into your house and see what you do.
What is wrong with people? Don't you think the terrorists and the organized crime already infiltrated the police department?
The first thing they'd probably do is take over the local police department. Once one of their men are police chief, imagine how much power they have now that they have all the fucking guns due to gun control, and all the satelites and UAVs too!
Thisis the sorta thing which HELPS organized criminals! The only sorta criminals who will have to worry about this are criminals who aren't gang members or in the mafia.
At least he isn't smart enough to start wooing the younger population like Stalin and Hitler did. I bet most of Bush's autocratic crap will blow over when his term ends...unless he manages to extend it. I guess americans can hope that this will just turn out to be another cataclysmic waste of time and money.
'Tis only fair. Why should Americans be more protected from an Abusive American Government
than the rest of the world? Isn't the land of the free pro equal opportunity (to get shafted)?
Yes, flamebait. If you know how to ask this question without the flamebait part, I'd like to
hear it. In fact, continents numbers two through six *cough* wouldn't mind to hear it either.
The police has been using helicopters for years.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Aerial imagery is impersonal, and like ink blots in the sense that its possible for law enforcement to fit it to plausible seeming yet completely inaccurate crime scenarios. And even if it doesn't stand up in court, just being accused costs an innocent defendent a lot of time, money, and other problems. This stuff is seriously bad news. And we need to get past this being a partisan issue - its not coming from the top, from the 'Bush administration'. Granted that the Bush administration bears much responsibility, a lot of the people who are developing and pushing this technology are Democrats, and the issue isn't going to just go away when there's new leadership at the very top.
... under surveillance.
"Democracy." It's just a slogan.
The Fourth Amendment only applies where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. KATZ v. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (J. Harlan, concurring). Part of this reasonable expectation is the requirement that the person in question has a subjective expectation of privacy. This means that from the person's point of view, he or she could reasonably expect that the item, location, or information that was searched or seized was private. Thus, for example, the government can legally track somebody on a public street using visual surveillance.
/., but under current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, it's likely the one most courts would adopt. Moreover, it's probably the correct view, because the Fourth Amendment only applies where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and people have no such expectation in their physical location when they are walking about in public.
The Supreme Court further allows the use of tracking devices and other sensorial enhancing technology, so long as they do not allow the government to obtain information that could otherwise not be obtained using traditional surveillance techniques. United States v Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984). Thus, for example, the government can use a tracking device to track someone on public streets because they would otherwise be able to track them visually without violating a person's reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her location. UNITED STATES v. KNOTTS, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). Alternatively, the government cannot use infrared imaging technology to look into a person's house from a couple hundred feet away because people cannot see infra red light waves. KYLLO V. UNITED STATES 533 U.S. 27 (2001).
Applying all of this to satellite or UAVs, it does not appear that these technologies violate a person's subjective expectations in privacy in their locations. As stated, people do not have such expectations on public streets because the reality is that everyone around them knows their location.
The Court has already ruled that helicopter surveillance is permissible. FLORIDA V. RILEY, 488 U. S. 445 (1989). Satellite and UAV surveillance is just an extension of this. Much like helicopter surveillance, all this technology allows is for law enforcement to augment its visual senses to observe stuff that they could have previously observed anyway.
The mere fact that they can now automate a large chunk of the work should be irrelevant. Better police cars, more police helicopters, or simply more police would also make it easier for law enforcement to survey targets, and those are all recognized as legitimate ways for the government to approve its law enforcement capabilities. Why would satellite imaging and UAV's be any different?
Yah I know this view is not popular on
The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
i could hope that a new administration will mean that there will be a change to this policy. even if that happened though, the pendulum would probably swing back to the surveillance again.
on a related note, i noticed cameras on the traffic signal arms at an intersection near my home that look a lot like surveillance cameras. there are two sets of cameras with each signal now: what i THINK of as a traffic camera, that monitors traffic flow (more like a counter) and has been on the signal for a long time now, and then a "regular" camera, with a lens for real imaging and thus, watching and recording what happens in or near the intersection.
i'll admit i don't read the local paper (not that it'd likely be reported), so i don't know if there is a public explanation for these newer cameras, but they do intrigue. if i start to ask questions, i'll be the crackpot of course.
"To stop the terrorists."
Imagine all the speeding tickets you could give out with this kind of tech.
I wonder what they're really looking for. This brings to mind the cat on I-5. Can you build radiation detectors sensitive enough to see nuclear bomb components from space?
Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about.
Looking over one's shoulder is not sufficient: looks up surreptitiously at the sky once in the while, and winces whenever a something glitters there.
Your hasty disclaimer - that your relevant, mild, and ordinary hypothetical is indeed just a hypothetical - speaks volumes towards your fear of your own government.
I would recommend neither qualifying nor apologizing for such words. Don't let them take away your right of expression by censoring yourself for them. Instead, embrace your words and defend the strength of your feelings with an indignant fury.
You might want to read this essay: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081057
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
confirmed step 1) Make the people uninterested in elections (as far as I'm aware in the USA there's an election for way too many things).
confirmed step 2) Give the people a common enemy (terrorists).
confirmed step 3) Use step 2 to give yourself additional additional powers (partiot act)
confirmed step 4) Divert attention of the people to something more interesting then the situation at home (war).
confirmed step 5) Make use of the chance created by step 4 to give yourself more rights, and strip (or circumvent) the rights of the people.
step 6) Something happens which gives you a reason to use your extra rights (economic collapse?)... among which
step 7) Cancel the next presidential elections for an undefined period.
Notice how close you are?
I have a huge problem with this, as I think any American who isn't a sheeple would.
This stuff has to be stopped.
What they have been doing according to some goes way beyond what most Americans even believe is possible technologically.
Google Tice and RNM if you want to read about this sort of stuff.
It's extremely scary. I think Tice is extremely credible - I don't know how they stopped him from testifying the second tijme - but I did notice that they had the fascist pundit attack dogs like ORielly saying he should be jailed on time. When they have no defense they attack the messenger and his credibility and integrity, his mental state, etc.
Because we all know that "top secret clearance background checks" will keep guys like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and every one of our presidents, from having their finger on "ye olde nuke button" ??
Somehow, it seems that those with that kind of clearance are always far worse tyrants than the petty crook you can take a pistol to when he starts shit with you. The kind of "top secret clearance" thugs are FAR deadlier, and no private civilian has the resources to resist their aggression when it bears down.
Somehow I always think that giving "top secret clearance" spooks our full faith and credit is about as stupid as saying "mafia kingpins all wear pin striped Armani suits" and thus we let the solid grey Prada wearing ones right in because we all know no mafia boss or enforcer would EVER wear prada... but what do I know?
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Because the skies are watching you.
What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
At 3PM, Eastern Daylight Time, everybody look up, raise your right hands and FLIP THE BASTARDS OFF!
Then, aside from calling Guinness, make sure that someone stayed indoors and got a good copy of the several satellite feeds out there!
If we don't TELL the government what we think about this surveillance bullschiznet, then they will drive on as if nobody CARED!
You can already stop kidnappers, fugitives and their ilk before they do harm.
Carry a gun. Learn to use it. Carry ammo. Practice often. Learn hand to hand.
Not only will your gait improve and be that of a man who can handle himself (or woman) but your health and confidence levels will increase as a result of being less fearful of things around you.
Oh wait... lets see... Gun... 750 bucks average, one time purchase, spare mags, another 90 bucks at 15 bucks per mag... Ammo for a full year of practice plus membership at a "gym" (aka range). 500 bucks per year. Privacy benefits? Priceless.
But why should you learn to handle yourself and demand others do as well, when you can demand that fallible people with authoritarian complexes be paid to "spy on and protect" you? After all, they're good because they wear uniforms, right? They're good because they have clearance, right? You know Stalin had clearance too. As did the thugs who've murdered innocents throughout history. Innocents they were paid to "protect".
Pfft... no surprise. Just deserts for the stupid peons.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
PRE-CRIME!
You will be arrested before breaking the computer that you analyzed for a week.
Draw a gigantic goatse somewhere in the US. Not only would Google freak out, but the spy planes would have to include it on their maps every time.
I'm sure that the US government spying on its own citizens gets expensive after a while, then they will need to cut costs by outsourcing it to a foreign country.
The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to to ahead anyway.
... assuming it gets better. Now granted, Federal law enforcement has gotten too big for its britches before (such as the FBI under Hoover) and eventually Congress had to take notice and rein them in. There is a pendulum effect here, these things tend to go in cycles. Of course, under Hoover the FBI was a direct threat to Congress itself, which no doubt explains their desire to restrict the FBI's activities. I doubt concern for the citizenry had much to do with it, but at least they were willing and able to put some controls in place.
... they're on a collective power trip and see no reason to stop. Remember Darth Vader's first scene? He said "There will be no-one to stop us, this time." I think we're in the same boat as Princess Leia.
Well, if nothing else we have to give Hell, Bush, Cheney & Co. an "A" for persistence. This is totally within character for them, as well as the various agencies that have sprung up around and because of them (the TSA, for example.) This is going to get much worse before it gets better
The problem is qualitatively different today: Congress has proven inept at providing adequate oversight, and itself is interested in yet-more-powerful government. I don't think we're going to find salvation in Washington
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Unless satellites have been developed that can see into your mother's basement.
Have gnu, will travel.
Now I'm going to have to reorganize my movie collection moving titles like '1984' and 'Enemy of the State' from science fiction to current events.
There is no overthrow by an evil dictator if there is already one in charge.
Start a secret coalition of concerned citizens and use the $600 government rebates we are about to get to buy off some corrupt Chinese officials in their space program to shoot these spy satellites down.
Just more of the blurring of the lines between law enforcement and combating terrorism. This weekend there was a big law enforcement effort in the area aimed at combating terrorism. It was really hard to tell if this was a law enforcement exercise or anti-terror exercise. Particularly when the exercise spokesman goes on the news and says, "Any criminal activity can be used to support terrorism."
So that's where we are now. And any weapon in the anti-terror arsenal is now fair game for any criminal investigation. Wiretaps, satellites, National Security Letters, enhanced interrogation techniques, anything goes. We have banks spying on your financial transactions, telephone companies spying on your communications, the TSA spying on everyone....someone want to explain to me how deep this hole goes?
I believe history will pinpoint 9/11 as the beginning of the end of the United States.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Someone probably said that Google's toys(street view and all their tracking data) were cool so a spoiled kid decided he had to have the biggest(most invasive) toy on the playground.
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
We are busy point out the "problems" of other countries. They do not follow our moral standards.
We have demonstrations about China on Tibet, but we do not have anyone on street for our own right. Interesting.
Ron Paul.
Check out his voting record. Maybe you're not libertarian, but show me where he has voted in favor of any advances of government power like this.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
break out after Cheney/Bush -
Attack Iran
Declare a National Emergency
Suspend upcoming Elections
We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. - HST
Step #1: Obtain flourescent spraypaint Step #2: Climb roof with supplies obtained in Step #1 Step #3: Spraypaint "Eff You Bush" on flat-top roof of house Step #4a: Hilarity ensues Step #4b: Publicity ensues Step #5: Profit!
Because the bush administration tortured people in violation of the geneva convention, will you hand over bush, cheney, rice, powell, ??? to the hague for trial for crimes against humanity as required by international law?
First off im english and i know that our MPs are as spinless as the rest. Dont you think it time to do some serious protesting or something, like get it all noticed. Not just for americas sake either but for the world, cause if bush decided in the next elections that he doesnt wanna let go (and my moneys on he will, i would guess some national emergency) and he rolls out his little dream police state, then thats gonna have some serious reprocussions on the world. I know i shouldnt mention hitler and all, but look at him, bush is going the same way. hitler started with his country and then when he was firmly in control he went for other countries. If the american army was to attack another country they could do some SERIOUS dammage no matter what. You guys should be doing something, anything. After your global citizens as much as americans.
Slightly off-topic, but: Good heavens, Ben Metcalf appears to be the most eloquently dry and acerbically articulate American satirist I've never heard of.
His bibliography at Harpers consists of a paltry four articles, but you've got me sifting through Amazon now...
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Bush/Cheney would spy on everyone in the US 24/7 if they thought they could get away with it!
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
Sources:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeffsite.htm
Boycott Sony
An article someone sent me which makes similar points:
===================
545 People
By Charlie Reese --
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.
They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House?
She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are r
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
I'm wondering what happens if an individual State decides that any "evidence" derived from this wholesale Federal surveillance is Constitutionally inadmissable, and therefore refuses to allow any such evidence to be used against its citizens, either for prosecution or harrassment?
Seems to me that's not an impossible response from the stronger RealID Resistance states.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
One million is less than one half of one percent of the total population. I suspect that even within the /. population that less than 2% of us are on this list. The question is not whether or not the one million are actually part of an active terrorist network. The question is can the government get away with the systematic violation of the civil rights of these people. I think that the 99.5 plus percent of the rest of the population will for the most part not even notice it. The intent is to discourage dissent in as much as possible. These types of actions also tend to to cause the logical and physical retraction of groups, that is they close ranks helping to prevent large collations or confederations from forming. It is much easier to quietly deal with a few hundred "militia" types here and there than a confederation of hundreds of thousands of the same.
The sad part of this all is that one half of one percent of the population probably deserves to be on a list of persons who should be considered suspect of doing wicked things and being a danger to the nation, problem is most of them will never be on such a list, worst of all the cream of this crop are involved in creating such a list in the first place.
wabi-sabi
matthew
the vast majority of the populace will only care about what's on American Gladiators, or American Idol, or whatever is currently being pumped out to keep them placid...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
I'm quite familiar with Ron Paul. I'm also familiar with how he's not yet managed to change a damn thing. If he COULD change anything, and made it to president, you can be assured that he would be JFK'ed before he actually changed anything.
Don't delude yourself that things would change with Ron in office. All it would do is give the idea of liberty a bad name... "see those liberty lovers presided over a great economic collapse... see how bad liberty is? no safety in liberty!"
Oh well.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Lets get technical. "Overhead sensor data" - Anyone that knows anything about satellites and what purposes they are applied for would know that every sensor satellite in the sky passes "overhead sensor data", and it's used for "domestic purposes" by civilians and military folk alike. So basically this is news from the 80s. Wait! How about all the other countries out there that have satellites in the sky that pass overhead sensor data of the united states? And how about those damn Weather Satellites! They pass overhead sensor data to weather stations all over the United States - They have been spying on us for years (Damn weather balloons too! lol). Just because LEO satellites pass sensor data - doesn't mean that satellites capable of passing sensor data are automatically LEO Spy Ops Satellites that everyone knows from the movies.
:).
My buddy linked me this and told me that "Cops are going to use spy satellites" and made a referance to "Big Brother". The problem with sensitive news like this is, it cannot be this brief, you need to supply people with basic knowledge to percieve the article for what it is, and not spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). If you do not understand the article because of a personal agenda or lack of research, well then I'd suggest to not post about it at all
Quote: "As for the oil investors (myself among them) there is absolutely NO profit in Iraq."
Not so. Saddam Hussein was selling oil to Europeans for Euros and trucking it through Turkey. Invading Iraq stopped that, restricted the supply of oil, making the price rise. That was exactly what was intended.
A rather sad reality show that seems to revolve around the American Govt trying to limit, remove or simply trample the rights of it's citizens, while the citizens attempt to retain and exercise those same rights.
Current scoring has the Govt way ahead on points.
Both Cheney and Bush have alcoholic personalities. Here is my understanding of the issues: The behavior of Bush and Cheney is consistent with the behavior of alcoholics. Bush and Cheney arrest Records.
Even he says that one man can't do it alone. He has changed one thing though - there is now someone you can support. Get involved locally, find other people with similar desires for change. Support others to run for office. You could even run for office yourself. The situations not hopeless unless people give up, but the sort of people who want others to make the system right for them are not the ones who will get the changes they want.
... none of them happen overnight. Take part.
Liberty has dissappeared piece at a time. Unless you are crazy enough to want a revolution, it will be restored piece at a time also. Look at women's lib, equal rights, environmental movements
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
another unmarked grave out past Terlingua
hillary is a bitch. she just wants the presidency for presidency's sake, greed and ambition, so she just wouldnt care. just give her power, this is what she wants.
Read radical news here
The last DUI conviction of Bush was in 1976. Should we judge you too by what you did 34 years ago? Give me a break, its a non-issue for them and has been for years now.
... is how much of this is accessible to the wrong people. Say when Dick, George & company get out of office... how much will they be able to access to do their (evil) bidding?
"I'm not ashamed I can't function in society like I'm supposed to." - Paul Westerberg
...if they're really watching you.
--Pete
Women's lib had backers for different reasons, none liberty related, they just needed more workers in the factories. Pay attention... 1 salary in the "pre" women's lib days paid for house, hearth and put enough money away for both people to retire pretty well off.
1 salary today can't pay the mortgage. 2 salaries can barely keep a roof over the heads of hurriedly conceived babies.
Equal rights... same deal. The north needed the slaves of the south. They then needed to have a bone thrown to them.
Environmental movements?? Hah... yes... we all know how thoroughly researched their studies were. Did you know that half the gases they talked about are "heavier than air" even when relatively warm? You know what I really liked? A little thing I heard on the grapevine, where they removed sulfur (cause its so eeeeevil) from truck diesel, and how somehow the amount of sulfur in some other fuels (plane fuel?) has increased at the same time.
I haven't had a chance to verify these grapevine rumors, but I'm willing to bet cash they're fairly accurate. Sort of how Al Gore in his movie tells us how ice cores showed cleaner cross sections from the moment the Clean Air Act was passed... are you people THAT gullible? Clean Air Act wasn't even enforced until almost 10 years later... its like any bureaucracy, it takes time to get full steam AFTER its "enforce" period begins. For Gore to suggest that the ice cores would be clear and a difference be visible immediately is to say that Congress and their vote on a bunch of paperwork, not those chimney scrubbing devices cleaned up the atmosphere.
What do I know. People expect government to solve things. They believe popular history as taught by the enforcement and compliance arm of the government they are enslaved to... public schools. At least under communism, the people could see the tyrants for what they were. THAT is why I believe a revolution will happen but ONLY if a revolt does not. Mind you a "revolution" is something ELSE than a "revolt," a revolution involves a change in a system, or the scrapping of a system altogether. Revolts involve violence and aimless anger of the exploitees at the exploiters and usually result in huge crackdowns, which result in further violence and fear and rarely result in "freedom". What happened in 1776 was a fluke, and was quickly corrected, not by the king, mind you, but by those who would be kings, for at least 4 years a piece. Only 10 years later, the whole continent continued on the path to central government tyranny. Just deserts. And the Bill of Rights? It was a handbrake (more precisely a bone to pacify the recently retired revolutionaries) thrown onto the Leviathan that was the Constitution, but with all the loopholes for growth that the nascent tyranny required. The peons didn't hold onto their rights and gave them up without so much as a whimper. Just deserts. Now you had better hope that handbrake serves to stop the handcart to hell, because it sure as hell won't stop the Leviathan. Stop trying to save the system. It doesn't want to be saved. It merely wants willing participants. Save those you love, save yourself... the rest will get what they want, and no one, not you, not me, can save them against their wills.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
My first thought upon reading about county cops using UAVs from a few hundred feet was "What a nice target for an American 180." Then I realized that we long ago started allowing "reasonable" infringements on our second-amendment rights, thus making us unable to straightforwardly respond to such police tactics.
What, then, is the alternative? You mentioned EMP. Is that possible? I assume domestic-use UAVs will be cheaper and less hardened, but is it actually reasonable to set up some sort of EMP or other protection?
It saddens me to say that this is now a legitimate question: How do you shoot down a UAV while retaining some sort of plausible deniability?
Sales of umbrellas and parasols are way up.
I know it'll work, well, it worked for the coyote anyway.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
You didn't read what I said.
You didn't read the information at the link I posted.
"Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." The person may stop drinking, but his or her alcoholic personality does not change. The violence (killing more than 1,000,000 Iraqis) and dishonesty and feelings of being above everyone else that we see in the Bush administration are typical of people with alcoholic personalities, just on a larger scale than usual.
Bush is not really president. As has been widely reported, Cheney presents Bush with simple choices, with a strong recommendation about which he should choose. Bush is a simple-minded man, and is happy being treated that way. Bush calls himself the "Decider", but only a child would say that. Cheney makes the decisions.
If you have any evidence that Bush thinks independently except in a very simple way, please post a link.
On February 13, 2006, two years ago, Cheney shot his lawyer in the face while they were hunting. Cheney admitted that he had been drinking. Quote: 'Mr. Whittington's doctors "had no comment on whether Whittington's blood alcohol level had been tested after the accident." ' As someone mentioned in the comments, everyone stopped for DUI says they have had only one drink.
anyone got some old microwave ovens laying around? Time to do some real MAKEing!
That is a quote from George W. Bush, as reported by CNN: "I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."
However, it has been reported that Cheney makes a simple list of options that shows the preferred option, talks with Bush alone, and Bush chooses from the list. If Bush does not choose the option Cheney wants, then there is further discussion about why Bush's choice is the wrong choice.
If anyone has any evidence that Bush thinks independently except in a very simple way, please post a link.
Fact is, we need to take our government back, period. We were given the 2nd amendment, not to shoot helpless animals, but to secure our ability to take back our government, by force if necessary. With that said, screw the Big Brother crap, grab a gun, and do what's right for our country. Iraq is just an excersize to have the military practice subduing us......
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Not only that, but nothing in the constitution limits those rights to people located in the US geographically.
Since the facility at Gitmo is run by the US government, the abuses there are unconstitutional, despite not being in the US.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Could this be what Kurt Goedel meant:
"Einstein and Morgenstern coached Goedel for his U.S. citizenship exam, concerned that their friend's unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his chances. When the Nazi regime was briefly mentioned, Goedel informed the presiding judge that he had discovered a way in which a dictatorship could be legally installed in the United States, through a logical contradiction in the U.S. Constitution. Neither judge, nor Einstein or Morgenstern allowed Goedel to finish his line of thought and he was awarded citizenship."
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Another excellent, and more recent example was the hysteria over ritual satanic abuse based on so-called "hidden memories" that certain psychologists and psychiatrists claimed to have recovered from people who they hypnotised. Children were taken away from their families, people got sent to jail, newspaper articles and books were written about the great satanic plot which was so immense and endemic that it had ensnared entire communities in its evil clutches, and police forces in many countries (for this was far from being restricted to the USA) wasted resources digging up bits of land where the sacrificed corpses of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of ritually sacrificed babies were supposed to be buried without ever finding a single piece of physical evidence to back up any of the claims.
The above is a pattern that's been repeated in pogroms throughout history: somebody accuses somebody else of doing nasty things, quite frequently to babies or children (Jews eat babies, witches eat babies and children and make candles out of their fat, etc.); other people start making similar accusations; the authorities react, hysteria grows, and "they" start popping up everywhere that people look, thus proving how massive and deeply entrenched the conspiracy is at every level of society, so those charged with investigating it inevitably start to assume that accusation is proof of guilt, and association with the guilty is also proof of guilt (if that person was an X, and you didn't run and tell the authorities, you must either be an X sympathiser, or another X).
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
The bottom line is if they already sent out drones to spy on you, it is already too late.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Satellite surveillance on grandma is alarming and definitely an infringement on rights. I doubt it will stop at that though. Do we need to start doing bug checks on our phones, cars, and homes too? I wonder if anyone out there already is? .
PYROPHOR