Slashdot Mirror
FBI Lied To Support Need For PATRIOT Act Expansion
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "It probably won't surprise you, but in 2005, the FBI manufactured evidence to get the power to issue National Security Letters under the PATRIOT Act. Unlike normal subpoenas, NSLs do not require probable cause and you're never allowed to talk about having received one, leading to a lack of accountability that caused them to be widely abused. The EFF has discovered via FOIA requests that an FBI field agent was forced by superiors to return papers he got via a lawful subpoena, then demand them again via an NSL (which was rejected for being unlawful at the time), and re-file the original subpoena to get them back. This delay in a supposedly critical anti-terror investigation then became a talking point used by FBI Director Robert Mueller when the FBI wanted to justify their need for the power to issue National Security Letters."
This is an excellent of example of why we need to be more vigilent and less complacent when it comes to government legislation. The fact that with no actual precedent for requiring stronger powers, the FBI would lie to get them, is a testament to the fact that everyone is susceptible to feeling, and succombing to, a hunger for power, even at the expense of the people they are meant to be serving.
There is a laziness in the way people react to such legislative measures - a laziness that ignores the very real danger that our comfortable Western democracies could fall in to dictatorship much more easily than people think.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
--Edmund Burke
Amnesty International
that the state of affairs is bad when a news like this doesn't surprise you!
Apparently the National Security Letters are 'F', 'U', 'C', 'K' and 'U'.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
National Security Letters are awful because they are so secretive, and the fact that they don't need probable cause makes them constitutionally suspect.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
This is a perfect example of why we should not have blindly given our rights up. To all those people that say, "Hey, I am not doing anything wrong so why should I care if the government taps my phone", I say THIS is the reason. The "government" may have "good" intentions, but the people in government will use the power they are given for other reasons. Next thing you know it wire taps are looking for tax evasion tips, or drug deals. Heaven forbid a mistake is made and your phone is recorded because you said "bomb", as in "last night's concert was the bomb. hey did you score that sack?". Next thing you know your door is kicked in because the police got a "tip" you were buying drugs.
Golly. Talk about your basic police state.
I'm jolly glad that I live in the United Kingd.......
oh.
So that guy legally obtained documents by normal legal ways and was asked to cancel that perfectly legitimate procedure and restart from scratch using NSL, that was rejected by a judge? Or am I totally lost?
There is something seriously wrong when an organisation charged with upholding the law and maintaining the moral society in which we all want to live feels it's acceptable to lie and cheat simply in order to grab more powers for its self.
I can perfectly understand the agents desire for greater powers; "I know this guys a crook so why do I have to jump through all these damn hoops just to lock him away" but there should be leadership from the top which balances these needs with the needs of society and it's here the problem seems to lie with an administration unconcerned with the needs of the society and over focussed on 'improving' it's own machinery.
I seriously hope the next US President is able to take charge of his apparatus properly and put it use for everyones good rather than fulfilling some dubious goals of your own because as I think we can clearly see now the wrong people in the Whitehouse can produce all sorts of nasty and counter productive behaviour even in areas they aren't directly interested in.
Fuck you for turning a story about the Director of the FBI deliberately lying to congress in order to get expanded, unsupervised super-subpoena powers into a left-right story.
9/11 might have scared you to the point where you'll allow the government to do whatever they like with your private life. Many of us, however, aren't nearly so cowardly.
Asshole.
You could have gone to eff.org and found the source on the front page, if you weren't too lazy to care about the United States. (Apologies if you aren't American.) But because you are so lazy, here's a link (hopefully, this works): http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/eff-issues-report-abuse-national-security-letter
I wonder how long before we do that here to our police or air travelers?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=558597&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true
I guess we can change the motto to
The FBI lied, Rights died.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Allow me provide you with a new sig.
I would appreciate it if you could correct it as soon as possible. Thanx.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
But mom, I need NSL's. I need them or I'll DIE.
Who put these kids in charge?
So, let us see...suppose an individual had some
indication that they were being harassed by
sharply dressed men in neighborhoods where they
might not usually be...and suppose an individual
had made a FOIA request, but the request had gone
ignored because a US citizen without the consult
of a barraster or esquire or lawyer dude isn't
really a recognized citizen by anyone
Hey, everyone knows you had better lay out some
bucks if you want sweet Justice to wear a blind.
Now, I wonder if the FOIA documents bequeathed by
so audited and transparent an entity that might
exist under the unitary executive's thumb of late
I wonder if the names of those targeted by what is
called "exquisite intelligence" is redacted.
I wonder if, in the beginning, but a few
troublesome individuals were bullied and
threatened by implication and a "the gloves have
come off" mentality felt the need to bureaucratize
its systemic abuse and broaden its number of
transgressions to make an acute elision of the
Constitution's spirit merely a matter of numbers.
To lessen the legal ramifications...turn a
shoot-out into a civil lawsuit, knowing full well
(Senior Justice: "Well, well, well") citizens
can't very well sue its govenment as redresses
of grievance are CLEARLY covered in the Constitu-
tion.
I wonder...is my name among redacted? And what
FOIA's price is to be paid to find out?
Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
We need to go after these traitors, prosecute them as traitors, convict them as traitors, and then hang them as traitors.
but... but... the Government would not lie to us. (is there away to be mod'ed as misguided)?
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Remember this the next time the so-called "good guys" explain how the sweeping new powers they need to defeat terrorists and save all the children and puppy dogs would never be abused.
These people have a sense of entitlement coupled with an iron-clad conviction that they're right and everybody else is wrong that makes them at least as dangerous to the long-term survival of democracy as any pack of terrorists.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Let's say you are some rival nation, and you want to do some industrial espionage in the U.S. NSL are perfect for you to abuse: no probably cause, and gag-ordered so they can't be talked about. So you pick your target, dress a couple of your agents in suits, print up a couple FBI badges and some phony NSLs, and go to work.
You know what, there are "dozens" of abuses. That's actually comforting, given the size of the FBI. That means that abuses of NSL's are actually very rare.
The more and more I read, the more I think the decendants of Taft and Harding and Hoover are writing thank you letters to GB SR saying Because of your son over took our ancestor in the poll for the worest presidents....
Somewhere in heaven, he's wearing a dress and looking down with pride that his tradition of civil rights abuses, intimidation, and totalitarian thuggery was not forgotten after all.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
No search or seizure is reasonable unless determined by a court to derive from probable cause for the search or seizure.
NSLs are inherent violations of the Constitution. Every time, even when they're "properly" used. When they're not even used according to the FBI's rules, there is not even a flimsy excuse for violating the Constitution.
Thousands of times, as a matter of course, or on a whim. Mueller and every other official with their hands dirty from these crooked anti-American NSLs should be impeached immediately. And then charged with criminal penalties, then slammed in prison with the people they were charged with busting. Because they're all criminals. Some, like Mueller, far more dangerous than others.
In a slightly less civilized country (but one with perhaps more dignity), Mueller would have been hanged from a tree or ripped to shreds by an angry mob. He should be grateful that we have the decency to just throw him in jail.
--
make install -not war
So, how long before FOIA is repealed? Anyone? Anyone?
What always surprises me is that people working for these bodies, like the FBI, are more than willing to commit these deeds, and yet seem to have no thought toward destroying the evidence, let alone complying with a FOIA request.
Or are we only seeing the violations committed by the stupid ones?
Which traitors would that be?
People using their telephone to call their relatives in the middle east?
Or the ones in the White House who have violated their sworn oath to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." ?
Spidey!!!
With this NSL stunt, we see the entire Bush/Cheney Doctrine at its most blatant. The Doctrine is exploit any crisis first to expand Executive power far past Constitutional limits, without any accountability, then attend the crisis only so much as necessary to preserve those powers, then abuse them elsewhere without restraint. It's "Shock and Awe" for every occasion, especially domestically. Shocking and awful, though we're pretty numb to it by now, as the details finally start to leak out after years of digging by unsung heroes like the people at EFF.
You can look at any crisis, unexpected or manufactured, through the long 7 1/4 years of Bush/Cheney's presidency, and see that Doctrine hard at work (the only hard work done by the regime).
Or you can read Naomi Klein's book _The Shock Doctrine_ for the (literally) gory details.
--
make install -not war
No point in replying to a troll. Hell he obviously doesn't have enough neurons to rub together in order to remember far enough into the past about the unabomber, the Oklahoma City bombing, and all the other bombing attacks caused and/or attempted by non-muslims, so he thinks "profiling" will make him "safe".
I would, if the new crackdown on our borders didn't make it incredibly difficult to get a visa to move out of the country.
... but WE determine whether you're innocent.
"Apologies if you aren't American."
Well isn't that condescending? :)
SIG: HUP
life will continue on as it has - much uncared about by generation Y or Z. It seems that they put something in the drinking water that made the super suboridant and unwilling to confront anything, and to view the government as too large to take on. Look in the mirror - there is your government.
And for you gen Y'ers (i doubt many gen Z's read this page)you must have been bottle fed if you care.
Yup. I tagged the story "duh" for exactly that reason. When I heard about Mueller's testimonial, my first thought was "Is this going to be like the WMDs?" Apparently, it is.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Wow is the summary wrong, please see http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/eff-issues-report-abuse-national-security-letter for info.
Anyways the truth of the occurance.
1) It was used as a reason why the FBI needs administrative subpoena power instead of NSLs. (summary totaly wrong).
2) What happened. The FBI wanted information on a person who had meet with people involved with the bombers in London; that person had a attended chemical classes from NC State. They went to the professors who gave the FBI some information using a subpeona. Some news articles say this happened others say the subpeona was not honored by the university. Anyways he had some papers but was told by FBI HQ Counter-Terrorism Division to stop and the agent returned the papers.
The FBI agent was told a grant jury subpeona was not legal to use and an NSL was the legal method to use, however NSLs do not allow use for educational records so were also illegal. He takes the NSLS to the university they make some calls and do not honor it because it was an NSL asking for educational records. More details at above link along with the offices saying to use a NSL.
FBI comes back to the offices and asks what to do, after some dicussions he is told subpeona was the correct method so back he goes with another one. Univeristy ultimatly complied and handed over the paperwork.
So the problems with this are: Mueller to Congress said that it delayed by 2 days the processing, agents say it delayed by somewhere around 1 day, original request was on July 13 all was done on July 15; the main problem was the NC office did not report the problems and misuse of the NSL in the time frame they should of and during that time the FBI released a press release saying something that because of this incident was false.
He should just do what the rest of us Slashdotters do and pretend that all readers are American.
By the way everyone, don't forget that tomorrow is the siege of Toronto. Don't tell any Canadians, okay?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I'm not sure how that could be considered condescending. Why should a non-American care about the United States? Perhaps I should have said "citizen of the United States" instead of "American", but I think (for good or ill) the two are considered synonymous (or maybe I don't get out of the country enough :).
Of a couple of weeks, hasn't it? The FBI faking evidence so that it can get Congress to give it the power to violate the Constitution over and over again. And this comes on top of revelations that the Vice President, National Security Advisor, and 4 other top members of the Administration actually sat in a room and choreographed how the CIA would torture people who fell into their clutches.
And yet, there's no hollering and screaming in the public for heads to roll. The Democratic majority in Congress, our supposed check on this kind of abuse, still does not call for impeachment.'
Soon, my friends, very soon, there will be little recourse but to converge on Washington DC and burn it to the ground.
But in the small hope that that can be avoided, please call and write your Congresspeople and demand impeachment for these and all the many other crimes they've committed.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Is this a surprise or news for that matter? Of course you'll have people commenting that its for our safety, blah, blah, blah-the administration is doing the right thing. A bunch of other people will comment that this is appalling and that they should be held accountable. The truth of the matter is that they never will be held accountable, I guess its just good to know about it?
my last best hope is that there are a lot of decent, patriotic and reasonable people in military intelligence (and in the military generally), because the political branches of law enforcement and the justice department have been tainted for a generation by the last seven years.
There evidence that Rove has been using connections in the FBI for political purposes a lot longer than the last 7 years. Those rumors were circulating while Bush was campaigning for governor of Texas.
Funny no one thought it was any big deal when the FBI was showing up and intimidating political opposition in the run up to the '04 election. And that there was never any accountability for ignoring the field reports about suspicious people in flight school prior to 9/11. And now it's a big surprise they lied to Congress? I don't get it. Reminds me of the old phrase "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel".
I believe that most people at the FBI are there out of a genuine desire to do good. But there is a certain fraction of that population willing to use their official powers in pursuit of political gain. It's not the occasional misdeed that concerns me as much as the lack of independent oversight and accountability.
Does anyone know if the FBI is still like 40% Mormon? I know they used to account for a rather large fraction of the total but haven't seen any recent figures. Again, not a bad thing by itself but a tight knit religious community with that much influence over a law enforcement body with broad and loosely checked power should be cause for concern.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Since when do you need a visa from the US Government to move out of the country?
And to think that before I read your post, I was wondering what your id really meant: Cognitive Dissonance.
From LearningandTeaching.info:
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them.
Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
* if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know - particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge - they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised(sic) this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
* and-counter-intuitively, perhaps-if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
Kinda explains the reaction of the American public, don't it?
But then again, I'm pretty sure there's a little sarcasm hidden in your id. Er, at least I'm pretty sure?
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Would it really matter if they tap your phone?
If they're already fabricating evidence for the people that directly granted these powers (Senate in this case), what's to stop them from fabricating evidence for your arrest? Even better: secret evidence that you can't contest. They don't need to tap your phone to do that.
If you're only concern is with breach of privacy, I say that you're being optimistic.
This is not my sig
But kdawson is getting advertising revenue. /. is just as bad as foxnews. It's not the media's political bias that's the real problem, it's their universal, moneygrubbing capitalist "fuck the truth, I'm in it for the money" approach that makes them all the same. Look not at how they spinn the stories, but at the stories they ignore. There's the problem.
ON topic (for once): your sig - "No, I do not support the troops."
Sorry, I'm afraid you do. You did file your taxes this year, right? Just what do you think really DOES support the troops?
Anyone with a "support the troops" ribbon and a "no new taxes" bumper sticker on his car is a hypocrite.
Did I just supply you with a new sig?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
This is the way that empires have fallen in the past, and how they will fall in the future. Not by an invasion or war, but simply because they started rotting from the inside, corrupted by power.
Or maybe not, considering that you are commenting on some other guy's sig.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Salvor Hardin would say "XML is the last refuge of the incompetent"
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
No thanks, I like mine the way it is. have a nice day.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
For one, linking to a news summary of a publicly available testimony is why slashdot sucks nowadays.
The second laughable problem is that the FBI shouldn't need to justify the emergency. The director is correct. But they should be held accountable to what's done in such an emergency. If a police officer turns on his lights and sirens simply to run a red light and causes an accident, you get a fat check! The FBI doesn't need to demonstrate that it has an actual emergency, but does need to be held accountable to what it's done after the fact. The same concept applies to anyone or anything else. The cops don't pull you over randomly in your car and ask if you've been speeding because you aren't guilty until it's observed. You don't get shaken down on the street for assault and battery because you have a baseball bat.
This is why slashdot has gone to the dogs. Without linking to the original context of the testimony, you can't possibly hope to have any meaningful discussion. DON'T YOU LOVE SPIN?
because your posted stories are primarily about Graphics Boards trivia rather than this War Criminal,
Wake up and smell the burned U.S. Constitution... lamers.
Thanks for nothing.
PatRIOTically,
Kilgore Trout
In their defense, if you still say "the bomb" you could probably use a few nights in the can.
To Soviet Russia ?
Yeah, I filed taxes, but only because they will throw me in jail if I don't. I'm not willing to go to jail to express my non-support at this point.
I haven't actually seen any cars with those two bumper stickers on them... usually all I see is support the troops ribbons. But if someone did have those two, I would agree they would be a hypocrite.
Martha Stewart is a criminal. How does her prosecution in any way effect this case?
Or are you saying a criminal should go unprosecuted because somewhere some other crime is going unprosecuted?
I guess you'd say that you are forced by law to support the troops!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
You mean to tell me that the FBI is the evil FBI?! I'm shocked! Shocked!..Well not that shocked.
A subpoena is not a warrant, and demanding production of evidence is not a 'search' or 'seizure'
That happens when the feds show up at your house and turn over all of the furniture looking for evidence.
Basically, all they need to show for a subpoena is that the information or evidence sought is relevant to ongoing investigation
The practical difference between a NSL and a traditional subpoena is that the NSL can be issued by the FBI without requiring judicial review. Further, an NSL includes a built-in gag order while the judge would again have to rule on the appropriateness of sealing order and gagging the recipient.
This will probably not get modded anywhere, but I thought someone at least deserved to know why this problem has arisen now.
20 years ago I was working for a Western national security organisation. It was a great club. No one audited us, or checked what we were doing. Our budgets, which were not huge compared to other parts of government, were always cleared when we said the magic words "National Security - Hostile Intelligence Agents - Eastern Bloc".
Then in 1990 the Berlin Wall came down, and by '94 we were suddenly being asked what we did with our money, and our budgets were being cut. Government committees started questioning our reason for existence.
We needed a New Threat. Some people may think it a lucky coincidence that we found one so quickly, but I don't believe in coincidences...
That's not true at all. If the police are engaging in hot pursuit, they don't have to wait for a warrant to follow you (or anybody else) onto your property.
The health inspector or fire marshal doesn't need a warrant to inspect private property for code violations.
If there is active combat, say in a civil war, the army can enter your house without permission for combat purposes, either to seek combatants or to use it as a vantage point. This is one reason why Americans ought to be very concerned about blurring the definition of "combat" and "combatant".
The Fourth Amendment says that searches need only be "reasonable". It's presumptively unreasonable to search or seize in circumstances where a warrant is customarily required. However, if you can show that under the circumstances delaying to seek a warrant would be unreasonable, you don't need one, although you have to prove this, and may face challenges to evidence you introduce into criminal trials.
The flip side is that having a warrant issued on probable cause makes a search presumptively reasonable, but there are exceptions. If the warrant is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to the evidence supporting probable cause, or you exceed its specific limitations, then your search or seizure is unreasonable, warrant notwithstanding.
So, the Fourth Amendment is both stronger and weaker than people think it is. It is certainly not reasonable to play linguistic games to make a search appear "reasonable". Calling a person a "combatant" isn't enough to convert an unconstitutional search into a constitutional one, because it is the substance of the circumstances that matter. If you're shooting at people out of your window, it is the necessity of protecting people that makes entering your home, searching it, and detaining you reasonable, not the label the police apply to you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's not so much the difficulty in leaving as it is in finding someplace else to go. When considering a number of other "civilized" locations, it smacks of "jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire." UK? Nah. Russia? Hardly. N. Korea? They can't feed their people. Canada? It's basically "US-lite." Plus, it's cold up dere, eh?
So, let's say I want out. Where do I go?
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
One thing I didn't manage to work into the summary is the mention of documents which indicate that Mueller may have been mislead by subordinates. I do not know if this is true or not. And it may still be his fault if he pressed folks to find him justification "or else" (that's just a hypothetical, mind you). But it seems that when evidence is asked of them these days, our 'intelligence' community will find it whether it exists or not.
Whatever the reason, and whoever is at fault, I think that the willingness of the organization as a whole to manufacture evidence on demand is absolutely the most troubling aspect overall.
Suffice it to say that, if we suddenly start hearing about reasons we "need" to invade Iran any time soon, I won't be able to trust my own government in the slightest. And, as someone who loves America (but NOT the things it has been doing), I find that incredibly troubling.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Get a boat, and flee the grid.
those "damn hoops" of which you speak are called inalienable natural rights ... that means that even if they are legislated out of practical existence by a bunch of chicken hawk protofascist cowards like bush & cheney, they are still MINE. i am free to fight and die for them if necessary even if others are not.
... they answer only to corrupt corporate interests who are out to extort us for oil, defense contracts, control of electronics and technology, and any economic stability that we require to maintain our livelihoods as normal working people.
... every over-reaching law they pass is saying: "whatever we want, we will take from you, and we don't care how we get it or what we have to do to get it from you."
...
...
... get out and DO something to reclaim the life they are stealing from you.
and why exactly are you pandering to the administration by suggesting they are merely "improving their machinery" and creating "counter productive behavior in areas they aren't directly interested in?"
the whole point of them enacting all this bullshit is to co-opt power from those with legitimate sovereignty, i.e. YOU as a citizen.
it's not a matter of "oh we need a better bureaucracy." it's a matter of "we need more power to continue fucking over honest, law-abiding tax paying citizens, so that we can continue to accumulate power and money indefinitely." make no mistake here: bush & cheney are evil, lying, murdering cocksuckers who keep a like company
so please read this next line very carefully because it is important to understand it:
these pigs ARE interested in YOU
when someone tries to take what's rightfully yours, this is called thievery or extortion
and it is your God-given right to do your damndest to stop whoever or whatever is trying to cheat you out of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
don't just sit there and think this is a pretty essay full of high and noble thoughts
NO ONE ELSE WILL DO IT FOR YOU.
Have you ever wondered what was going through people's heads in Russia when the Committee for State Security began monitoring its own citizens? Early on I'm sure there were little news blurbs like this one. Then over time, people probably began to accept the necessity of this surveillance. Wikipedia has recognized this trend and accurately compares Russia's Committee for State Security to our own FBI.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
We're never encouraged to think about the motivations of people in power who want to keep all their funding. Which is why we need to.
When the discovery of material by FOIA is announced on the news, I have to wonder if the "news" aspect was the material itself or the fact that it was obtained by FOIA. This, I suspect, is for a whole bunch of reasons, which range from lack of resources to lack of scruples, with absolutely no way of telling from the outside which end of the spectrum any given department is.
I know people detest "big government", but I would argue that although a department should have a say in what material is releasable, it should not have control over that, that information releases should be handled by a neutral (or as neutral as you can get) body. Whether that would be a much-expanded GAO or a whole new department, it would need a fair amount of manpower and far more power to access whatever material they needed. I'd prefer a new department because that much power would need that much more policing, the GAO is the only meaningful policing that happens, and it's never wise for the powerful to police themselves.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It's easy to leave the country. The problem is getting back in. Have you been down to the US/Mexico border lately? You can walk right across it into Mexico and nobody is going to stop you.
HELP!!! please HELP!!!!!
.We should think of thought as free market and properly judge the value of ideas.
explains propaganda
Spread fast dont let them come up With stupidity to stop it.
pajamapanda dot blogspot dot com
The IDEA OF FREE THOUGHT IS FLAWED is flawed and overvalued.
I have spent a lot of time coming to this realization.
I have come to a completely new understanding. propaganda is not the problem
JOIN THE FIGHT
post this everywhere PLEASE
> Thirteen years ago, when I was in Military Intelligence, we were hounded and battered over even the appearance of domestic surveillance. A couple of years later, all that went out the window with the "Patriot" Act. Does anyone really believe that spying on your own people is Patriotic?
That makes me wish you were still there. I would like to believe that we can rely on our soldiers if not our politicians. I can only hope that more like you are among them, resisting the changes for the worse.
Actually, you do need a visa to visit Canada, either already or in the near future. Though not to leave the country to Europe, if I recall correctly.
And yes, my name is meant to be a bit sarcastic, because well, I'm a sarcastic guy. Referencing the fact that many people are slow to agree to ideas that go against ideas they already hold, even when given evidence, and that fact that I love to provide that evidence whenever possible.
Ah, now that's an idea. I'd need a gun, though, for those occasional pirates. Aaarrr!
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Are you fucking kidding? You wanted to know about Chinese concepts of free speech, values and democracy - so you went on Youtube for a bit and now you're an expert?
..." because for fuck's sake it's a nation 4 times the size of the US with thousands of years of history, it cannot possibly be even summarized in a slashdot comment, and you're greatly misinformed if you even imagine it could.
.. it's just this dumbfounding blind faith that the US is the centre of the universe, now and forever - it won't be forever, and anyone with any sense realises that it's not even the undisputed centre today.
...
I can't even tell if you're joking or not. If so - congratulations although I'm not sure it's funny. If you're not joking - you have no fucking idea what you are talking about, please just stop.
I'm not even going to say "no this is what chinese think about freedom
Suffice to say that the chinese are much more free than you americans seem to think - still less free on average, I'd say, but I can name numerous areas in which I consider the Chinese to be more free. More importantly, China's freedom is increasing, whereas America's is decreasing. They might not have intersected yet - though this is debatable - but they surely will soon. And as an Australian I personally feel a lot less nervous about visiting China than the USA, and I'm far from alone, which should tell you something.
I wish Americans would learn more about China. If you're under, say, 50, China will come to completely dominate global affairs within your lifetime. Do you remember the 1980s Japan Inc boom? What you will see in China will make that look like a garage sale.
I just cannot fathom the ignorance I see about such a massive player. You americans think NYC is big, right? Big and important? The largest combined urban precinct in China is the Yangtze Delta Metropolitan Area. That's got 88 million people in a single jurisdiction. The GDP of this single area is 1/7th that of the whole USA. The scale would blow your mind if you visited - which you wouldn't, since you're probably one of the 70% of Americans who don't even have a fucking passport.
Just don't try and talk about China, OK? Not until you've been there, stayed a few years, made chinese friends, fucked chinese girls, bought chinese food at chinese shops with chinese yuan. And even then you'll struggle to understand.
These stupid posts about "here's what china thinks" just leave me gob-smacked in their wilful ignorance and US-centric arrogance. It's not even arrogance actually
Here are the major power blocs in the world 20 years from now: AAA powers: the EU, China; AA powers: NAFTA/NAU, USAN, ASEAN/APEC, India, GCC/GAFTA, maybe CIS, maybe AEC.
Notice the USA is not at the top of the list. Notice the USA is not even at the top of the second tier. The sooner Americans get used to that idea, the better - and I hope it's soon, because you yanks are some of the smartest and most capable people in the world as long as you get off your asses and realise you have to compete with someone
My mother has received an amazing number of write-in votes in the last 20 years. And ya know what? Even though she didn't get elected, I still feel good knowing that she could do ANY of those jobs I voted her for.
Some of my friends have been known to vote for her too...
Without linking to the original context of the testimony
The summary HAS the context. You're grasping at straws that aren't there.
The second laughable problem is that the FBI shouldn't need to justify the emergency.
Of course they do. You ever hear of these things called warrants? Subpoenas? How about due process?
If a police officer turns on his lights and sirens simply to run a red light and causes an accident, you get a fat check! The FBI doesn't need to demonstrate that it has an actual emergency, but does need to be held accountable to what it's done after the fact.
No, you ignorant boob. The point of having a Bill of Rights is to prevent abuses from happening in the first place, not to punish government officials after the fact.
Use your brain please.
You first, Mr. Pot.
No president has publicly insisted they have the right to spy without warrants, torture people and imprison people indefinitely without due process during peace time.
I take in a lot of news coverage during the day and I couldn't for the life of me figure out why the Pope is supplanting normal news coverage. I haven't heard one mention of this story until reading it here. I'm conspiracy-theory prone, but go figure.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
... with a (somewhat, maybe) Randian candidate who would do many of those things (and then some), in your opinion? It is somewhat obvious why you put that qualification in, but what someone's taste in literature (which may or may not be present) has to do with solving problems in hand?
Paul B.
Meh. With some people there's no accounting for taste... or intelligence. I did try! Thanks though, I will have a nice day.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
If they profiled white, middle class men then profiling would make him safe. Perhaps that's what he meant.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
they would be aghast if a Constitutional Amendment actually passed to ban abortion, because then they couldn't use it as an election issue in every single election.
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment to ban abortions is because some Republicans are pro-choice?
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm with you. I would happily vote for, contribute to, and volunteer time to any non-Ayn Randian candidate who campaigns on some/all of the following:
Four of five of those you side with Rand yet you won't support a Randian candidate?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Libertarianism in general, and Objectivism in particular, is incompatible with my religious and moral beliefs. As a Christian I find it to be an ethical lapse and, as a citizen and taxpayer, I find it to be an illogical and unsustainable economic system.
My sister is kind of like you. She loved Rand until, as a Christian, she found out about Rand's Objectivism. Thereafter she turned her back on Rand.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I knew what was going on back then. For years, various services had been crying for more power and to break down the walls between agencies so that more domestic monitoring could occur. 9/11 just gave them the excuse they needed. They already had what they wanted drawn up.
Almost every power the Patriot Act gave the Bush admin Clinton requested as president but the Republicans refused to give him. Once they had one of their own in the Oval Office they were more than happy to give them to Bush. If they weren't willing to give these powers to Clinton they shouldn't have given them to Bush either. Now that Bush will be leaving office in less than a year, how would they feel about Obama or Hillary having those powers?
FalconShould there be a Law?
My hope is that our military and intelligence community career employees will be a firewall against a greater slide into tyranny.
Though I'm not sure about them today I think the people in the military now will be pretty much like the service people were when I was in the Army. I knew a good number of people in my infantry unit who would have fragged anyone who gave them orders to fire on US citizens.
After the last seven years, it's funny that the very notion of a "Bill of Rights" seems quaint and antiquated. Like something the Bush Administration has "modernized" out of existence.
And McCaine will make it a vague memory.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Just as the U.S. Army would wipe the floor with you and your delusional gun nut buddies.
Have you ever served in the US Army? I have, as a Small Arms Specialist colloquially known as the infantry. While in I knew quite a few people in my unit who would have fragged an officer who gave orders to fire on civilians. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq and I'm pretty sure he feels the same. While there may not be a lot of people in the military who would also do it there's enough to start infighting in the military.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If a future apocalyptic showdown in America was pretty much between the Armed Forces and a wide-ranging collective of gun clubs and "citizen militia" groups, my suspicion is that it would not go very well for the latter.
Having served in the US Army I think you're wrong here as some of those in the army would join citizens to defend liberty. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? Do you know how the Chinese government did it? China is made up many different ethnic groups who generally live within certain areas of China. When the government first ordered troops to Tiananmen Square the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing refused to fire because they were from the same ethnic groups. Because of this the government had to order the 27th Army, who was made up of different ethnic groups, from Mongolia to pull the trigger. Unlike Chinese units which are pretty much homogeneous US military units have people from different groups and who came from different parts of the US. Simply getting the US Army to fire on US citizens would be much harder.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Anyone with a "support the troops" ribbon and a "no new taxes" bumper sticker on his car is a hypocrite.
Taxes first, not only do I support "no new taxes" but I want to abolish income tax period. With that out of the way, I support the troops. Heck I used to be one, have you served in the military? Not having believed Bush's lies Saddam had WMDs I didn't want troops to be sent to Iraq to begin with, without UN support. Now, let's get them out of danger and bring them home.
FalconShould there be a Law?
First off, yes I did serve, at the end of the Vietnam war. They stopped bombing four days after I reached Utapao, Thailand and the day I got back to the US the headline was "Nixon Resigns!"
Secondly, the people with the "support the troops" ribbons disagree with you (and me) that supporting the troops entails getting them home and out of harm's way.
My point was that the military, as all government functions, are supported by federal taxes.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
...yet the Freedom of Information Act could. Interesting how a law passed by Congress a while ago has more power than the courts.
Out of context reactionary posting does not make a well thought out argument. Please reread my post past the first sentence.
I did read it to begin with, and what you said can basically be summed up with "The ends justify the means." You want the government to have the power to do whatever it wants, and only afterwards to be held accountable. By that tyme it may very well be too late.
FalconShould there be a Law?
First off, yes I did serve, at the end of the Vietnam war.
I apologize for my remark then.
the people with the "support the troops" ribbons disagree with you (and me) that supporting the troops entails getting them home and out of harm's way.
I've seen more than a couple of bumper stickers, and signs painted on sheets hanging off roofs, saying "I support the troops, bring them home" or some such.
My point was that the military, as all government functions, are supported by federal taxes.
Ok. Personally I disagree with how the military is set up. Instead I'd have a small professional core but with the bulk being a citizens militia, much like Switzerland's.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Mine is a Bushmaster. You can actually buy full auto sears quite easily and legally, but I wouldn't want one anyway. If we're in this situation, conservation of ammo will be a need.
While conserving ammo would be a problem for many, while in the army I was able to shoot 2 and 3 shot skirts with my M16s. I preferred single shots though. Then again I was qualified as an expert, which while I was in the service was hitting at least 36 targets out of 40 with 40 rounds of ammo, the targets being from 50 to 400 feet. I don't know what the qualifications are now.
AR-15's have been made by lots of manufacturers under government contract. It's an open source design - anyone can make them.
I know AR-15s, and M16s, are made by different companies but I didn't know they have an open source design anyone could use. Then again though, while I was in we used to joke that if we ever went into combat and found an AK-47 on the ground we'd use it instead. Unlike the M16s we had that were jamb prone, AK-47s can take a licking and keep on firing.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You're right I did. And I don't know why. I was called twice for jury duty and was hoping I'd be picked to serve on the jury for a drug trial or something along the lines of a victimless crime. I wanted to use jury nullification to protest a bad law.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The real problem here is that law enforcement at the highest levels has become lawless. Any law enforcement organization that has less than the very highest regard for the spirit and letter of the law, starting with the Constitution should be disbanded.
That respect should extend to ethics as well. The last thing we need is an ethically challenged law enforcement organizzation asking "what can we get away with" rather than "what is right".
The purpose of law enforcement is to enforce the law. It is not to see how much power and priviledge they can accumulate for themselves or how far above the law they can get. The instant they forget that, they are no longer worthy of any level of trust or authority.
What we have here is proof that they have purgered themselves and schemed (yet again) to grab power using fear as a weapon to implement political change (what was that called again?). None of that is at all consistant with even a modest respect for the rule of law, much less the hiigher level that is required of an organization entrusted with it's enforcement.
Getting back to the specifics of this case, the un-named "superiors" did knowingly compromise the security of the United States and then knowingly ordered an underling to violate the 4th ammendment in order to feed mis-information to their superiors.
That sounds like grounds for immediate dismissal, arrest, and prosecution for treason. After all, We are at war with terror, and so impeding the investigation of the terrorists is giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States.
I'll believe the rule of law is still in place when I hear the news of their arrest and trial.
Nobody votes for parties in this country. You vote for individuals who are representatives of a party, and not two are alike. Do you think Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney were on the same page? How about Dennis Kucinich and Hillary Clinton? No party is going to fit your laundry list of pet issues, some of them quite obscure, so you better start your own.
I want marijuana legalized. Which party should I vote for?
Easy: Barney Frank.
I want the PATRIOT act repealed. Which party should I vote for?
Jon Tester.
I want the Bono act repealed and copyright terms scaled back to 20 years. Which party should I vote for? I want the DMCA repealed. Which party should I vote for?
I don't know offhand of any politicians advocating for scaling back copyright laws. But this falls under the "primary crappy Dems, get better Dems elected" category.
I want it illegal to accept contributions from anyone who isn't eligible to vote for you. Which party should I vote for?
So not only will Puerto Rican's not be able to vote in the presidential election, they wont be able to support candidates? In any case, quibbling over the minutia of campaign finance laws is a distraction from the real solution: have public financing for all campaigns, for there will always be loopholes for other contributions. And if that gets your Libertarian streak all hot and bothered, which really costs you more: a few million for elections, or hundreds of billions in pork spending that rewards contributors?
I want it illegal to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race. Which party should I vote for? I want federal laws to expire after 5 years. Which party do I vote for?
Look, TJ was one of the pillars of this country, but he was a bit nutty to want the Constitution to be rewritten every 20 years. And you want federal laws to expire after 5? That is the craaaaazy and will just waste time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Wanting to limit contributions to a single candidate doesn't make much more sense.
Sure, bad stuff has happened before like you say, but we didn't know about it at the time.
Blaming Bush has become sort of cliche he is just the elites latest stooge
Bullshit. We KNOW Bush has violated the Constitution, CONTINUES to violate it, and he's still in office. He still has the better part of a year left in office.
Ah ... once again, I meet with someone who's not familiar with his own government's actions of the latest 50 years ...
... the lack of proven involvement of Mr Ousama Ben Laden, the reluctance of looking for the financial backers on the US govt part, and so many other "oddities"
...).
... An impending worldwide economic collapse would be scheduled within the next dozen of months to speed things up (as evidenced by leaked US Treasury report) ? No, cant believe it, have to fry my brain watching TV, and 'll work myself to nervous breakdown ...
Noam Chomsky (apart from his work in language recognition), you still do not know him while posting to slashdot ?
And on top of that, you may even think 9.11 was a real (foreign) terrorists attack ?
The Twin Towers that where THREE, the free-fall collapse of hardened concrete buildings, the insanely early time for the attacks (8 in the morning, for a TERROR ?), the smoking remains, several weeks after the incident,
While your call for vigilence is welcomed, I think it's at least 7 years too late, as you'll see in the next mock-up US election (hint : the winner will be coming from the Skulls And Bones, Harvard fraternity, like so many of the last ones, no need to vote on Diebold rigging machines
Welcome to a new world order. The only remaining question is weather it will come before or after the planetary alignment (amongst other things, such as an E-M storm) of 12/21/2012, as predicted by the Mayans ??
That's not a double standard, that's just your own ignorance. The fact that you can't see why they're different doesn't make this a double standard, it makes you a fool with an uninformed opinion.