As of October, FBI To Allow Warrantless Investigations

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected of any crime. As an editorial in the New York Times points out, this is a power that has a history of abuse. In times past, it was used to wiretap Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to spy on other civil rights and anti-war protesters." As Dekortage points out, "Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion,' which the Justice Department denies."

Comments

That sucks D:

[B4light]

That sucks D:

Re:That sucks D:

[Daimanta]

Bush was right: The consitution is just a damn piece of paper. Don't count on it to protect you. Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes. Keep voting Dems, Reps or the lot like it and you will sink deeper and deeper in shit untill you are stuck and can't get out. Because then you are fucked. And it won't be pretty.

Re:That sucks D:

[Firehed]

Yes, and just in time for the election, too. Big surprise.

Re:That sucks D:

[rabbit994]

Right, those Iraqis are doing a horrible job at killing American Soldiers using small arms and improved explosives.....

Re:That sucks D:

[tjstork]

Guns and homemade bombs worked pretty good against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes in Algeria, Viet Nam, Afghanistan (twice), and in Iraq. So yeah, let's imagine a scenario where the Feds try to impose some sort of dictatorship... you'd have an army of 500,000 active duty soldiers trying to suppress an technologically sophisticated and armed citizenry with 80 million rifles and god knows what sort of homemade contraptions. Good luck. Government by the consent of the governed is a statement of fact, not an ideal.

Re:That sucks D:

[quanticle]

Its a completely different situation. First, American soldiers, by and large, don't know Arabic. This means that they're dependent on a relatively small pool of translators, which can be (and are) targeted for assassination and intimidation. Once its translators have been killed or scared off, the US Army is blind, deaf and dumb - making for a much easier target.

Second, there's the lack of cultural knowledge. Even if all American soldiers spoke perfect Arabic and perfect Kurdish, they'd still have a hard time in Iraq, just like you'd have a hard time (initially) after moving to a new city. It takes time to learn the local culture, the local slang, and which neighborhoods are the trouble spots. A local with years of experience is going to fit in much better than the interloper, even if the two have identical skin color and speak the same language.

Finally, there's the problem of supply lines. All the resources for our troops have to be shipped out from the US. While airlifts can rush troops into a conflict area, it is extremely difficult to supply an army by air. Therefore, the US has to rely on ocean shipping, which is cheap, but very slow.

Fighting an insurgency on home soil, the US army would be subject to none of these disadvantages. Language and cultural barriers would be slim, and the problem of supply lines would be significantly ameliorated. Meanwhile, the insurgents would have to find safe havens, which would be significantly more difficult, given that the US is a larger country, and has a significantly larger interior region that would be relatively safe from border raids.

Re:That sucks D:

[quanticle]

As I posted above, all the situations you linked to involved troops of a foreign occupier, fighting far from home, against an intensely motivated, nationalistic home army. A better analogy would be the US Civil War, where, despite the guerrilla-like tactics of the South, the North won through the brute power of its military-industrial complex.

Re:That sucks D:

[BronsCon]

Yes, it does. Now we only have until October to organize and take back our country.

Time to stock up on ammo, my friends. :)

Re:That sucks D:

[Walkingshark]

It works both ways. Think about how long the Weather Underground moved around blowing shit up, and that was a small group of dirty fucking hippies. Now imagine the reaction in Smalltown, USA when Bubba is shot by storm troopers collecting guns from people on the "terrorist watch list." You think those fed agents are going to leave Smalltown on their feet, you've never been to Smalltown.

I know rednecks who'd pop your head at 500 yards just for looking wrong at their sister. Taking their guns... shit, you might as well grind up a beer bottle and eat it with a spoon, save yourself some pain and suffering.

Re:That sucks D:

[Walkingshark]

Yeah, when these people are like "your rifle is no good against a tank!!111" I always imagine what some dude is gonna look like after a month in his tank. Someone's gotta get out and pump the gas, ya know? You can't keep an attack helicopter in the air 24 hours a day.

A civil war in the modern US would be hell on earth, and it certainly wouldn't be the army, who would be fighting each other as much as the citizens, doing all the dishing out.

Re:That sucks D:

[Walkingshark]

Ok. So what happens when it isn't North vs South, but suburbs vs urban centers, or urban vs rural? If a civil war started in the modern US, it wouldn't be the clear cut situation you seem to imagine. You wouldn't be a neocon would you?

Re:That sucks D:

[quanticle]

Who's to say that it wouldn't be relatively clear-cut? The M/I complex in this country is actually concentrated in a few cities (all of whom are strongly supportive of the government). It wouldn't take much to secure those areas, and work outward from there.

I'm not a neocon, and I resent any comparison to such. I figure I'm a realist. If things really got that bad, I suppose I would take up arms against the government. But I certainly wouldn't have any illusions about being able to force a victory in my lifetime.

Re:That sucks D:

[BoberFett]

Idiot. Who do you think provides the supplies that drive the US war machine? If the US government declared war on the populous, who is going to pay the taxes to support the military? Or supply their food? Or manufacture the weapons and ammo?

Re:That sucks D:

[shaitand]

'The M/I complex in this country is actually concentrated in a few cities (all of whom are strongly supportive of the government).'

Entire cities aren't supportive of anything. Cities are made of individuals some of whom may support the government TODAY.

Even the military which is probably the most pro government segment of the population would be split if push came to shove on a large scale. It almost happened before a rather handy incident in Oklahoma City. Organized militias were formed and training all over the country at that point and I personally knew of numerous national guard units that were prepared to defect and secure the local guard armory when 'shit went down'. Waco did a lot to scare the population into taking the possibility of armed resistance seriously.

Then one supposed militia supporter blows up a civilian target of no strategic importance and kills children in the process and the support for the resistance dissolved overnight. The resentment and distrust of our government hasn't.

Re:That sucks D:

[StrategicIrony]

Well, actually, the number of soldiers killed is so small as to be almost insignificant in any real scale. Something like 50 (FIFTY) times more people are killed on American roads each year than are killed in Iraq.

I don't think we should be over there hemorrhaging money, but the death toll is hardly astronomical.

Re:That sucks D:

[StrategicIrony]

Oh bull shit.

Have you ever heard the parable of the frog in boiling water?

if you toss a live frog in boiling water it immediately jumps out to saftey (this is your analogy).

The reality is more like the other way of boiling a frog.

Put him in the water when it's luke warm and gradually warm it.

He will sit there enjoying the warmth until he's been boiled alive.

There won't be 80 million people who suddenly, some day, say "oh man, dictatorship just happened this morning, lets fight".

If it happens, it will start, as any other revolution...

The french revolution was started by somewhere between 50-100 people rioting outside a prison. The police forces arrived to put down the riot and they simply out numbered the police. The police shot many of them, but there were too many of them.

Then the survivors from the crowd broke into a prison and freed the prisoners. (are you seeing this happening in the US?)

In the US, the revolution was spurred on by events like the Boston Tea Party. Somewhere around 45 armed men took an entire port, by force, and destroyed a massive quantity of government-owned property.

They then escaped anonymously and were not able to be apprehended because they were not recognized due to the extreme darkness.

Does this work in the modern world?

You're grossly missing out on the historical context of revolution. There NEVER is a morning where everyone wakes up and goes "damn, that's the line, I'm going to join 80 million of my friends and riot".

No, it always starts with a few dozen people who, over months, gain traction and grow in numbers.

I don't believe this is possible in the modern world in quite the same way. I think the frog in boiling water will be the analogy of future declines in freedom.

Maybe one day it will be so bad that everyone in the country will know someone who is being detained for "political reasons" without trial and maybe then there will be substantial impetus for revolution en-masse, but isn't that point ALREADY TOO LATE to save the framework of what we already have?

At that point, it has to be trashed and started over...

That sucks.

Re:That sucks D:

[StrategicIrony]

OK. You're seeing things so black and white.

the US government isn't going to "declare war" on the people and such a simple-minded assertion is silly, prima facie.

But let me put it to you a different way.

The British Government "declared war" on its people in 1772. They were detaining people with no recourse, enforcing draconian taxes, making regulations about property that were completely contrary to the well-being of the populace.

However, many people were "sympathizers", siding with the British because of territorial allegiance, history or merely out of the belief that "to the victors, go the spoils".

Were the British unable to secure food or munitions? No, they weren't. Many of those fighting on the British side were neighbors and friends of those fighting with the Colonials.

If you simplify things that much, you make it sound silly and absurd. Study history. Read about how the French Revolution started (that's one of the most CLEAN CUT revolutions and still involved thousands of deaths). Read about some of those that were far worse in Latin America and South East Asia and read about the countless ones that have been put down violently, by force.

Re:That sucks D:

[StrategicIrony]

Sigh.

You have a really shallow understanding of how this sort of thing works.

the military, as a unit, wouldn't be fighting "the people" as a unit.

It would be a nuanced war of "dissidents" versus "sympathizers" where the population was split... some cities would be primary dissidents, others might be primarily sympathizers. Neighbors may be split.

Fighting might spark from a heated political exchange between neighboring states or between neighbors, or a popular riot that was violently put down by police forces, in much the same way as happens all over the world, on a regular basis (and even sometimes in the US).

This isn't some drone in a tank fighting the other 290 million people. It's people who believe in the system fighting against people who think the system is broken and would involve conspiracy, dissonance, propaganda and many other tools beyond just "my rifle, your tank".

Thinking of it in such simple terms is silly.

HOWEVER, if one of the two groups is able to maintain reasonably strong control over the current military structure of the US, any violent conflict would be rapidly, conclusively and decisively won by that side of the aisle.

Re:That sucks D:

[Cyberax]

No, they don't.

Military resistance in Iraq had been completely broken in less than a month (remember the famous "Mission Accomplished" sign?). You just can't win against tank army with light weapons.

Of course, later you can use guerrilla-style operations to destroy tanks one-by-one. But such strategy has its limits.

Re:That sucks D:

[Skjellifetti]

Have you ever tried to boil a frog in this fashion? The experiments to show if it is possible are inconclusive.

Professor Doug Melton, Harvard University Biology Department, says, "If you put a frog in boiling water, it won't jump out. It will die. If you put it in cold water, it will jump before it gets hot -- they don't sit still for you."

Re:That sucks D:

[lawpoop]

Fighting an insurgency on home soil, the US army would be subject to none of these disadvantages. Language and cultural barriers would be slim, and the problem of supply lines would be significantly ameliorated. Meanwhile, the insurgents would have to find safe havens, which would be significantly more difficult, given that the US is a larger country, and has a significantly larger interior region that would be relatively safe from border raids.

Yes, but at the same time, the US military fighting its own people would be a tough idea to swallow, both for civilians and the military. The whole society would split, right down the middle. There would be families split, communities split, states split. And each side would have sympathizers working from inside for the other team.

Yes, the American soldier asked to fight his own people would have the advantage of cultural literacy, but he wouldn't know who to trust. Perhaps his commanding officer would defect to the resistance. The Law and Order side would 'accidentally' kill civilians to teach towns and neighborhoods a lesson. The True Patroits would use guerrilla tactics to fight an imposing enemy, which will look a lot like terrorism to Ma and Pa in Kansas. The average citizen won't stand for an oppressive state, nor for terrorists who claim to defend our freedoms. Who would you side with?

It would be a right bloody mess all around.

Re:That sucks D:

[shutdown -p now]

Well, if you look at the casualty ratio, sure they do a horrible job. It's a few thousand US troops killed for how many hundred thousand Iraqis now?

Re:That sucks D:

[MJMullinII]

Oh, you're crazy!

Chicago is at war with Cincinnati.

Chicago has ALWAYS been at war with Cincinnati! :P

Re:That sucks D:

[DarkKnightRadick]

While you could count me in, don't count everyone else in. It most likely won't happen as many people will roll over to be ass raped by the razor-blade dildo that the government continues to proffer.

Re:That sucks D:

[Walkingshark]

You missed my point and then made it for me. Except that last bit. You underestimate the power of asymetric warfare, I think. It is a common mistake and one that is easily made up until the fighting breaks out. That kind of thinking has lead more than one country into decay and ruin.

Of course, I think any policy based revolution is bound to end up in a failed state, but systemic revolutions seem to be much more healthy. I've discussed a lot of this on my blog, feel free to kick over and read if you like this kind of stuff: Dealing in Lead.

Re:That sucks D:

[Walkingshark]

Exactly. Not only are cities extremely diverse, they're also very difficult to lock down. Imagine a civil war battle in Houston, a "city" the size of Rhode Island. You can't control access to something that big.

I think if you really want to get a quick and dirty impression of what civil war would be like in the US, take a gander at the movie "Enemy at the Gates" or any other details about Stalingrad in WW2.

Civil war in the US would be Hell on Earth (as it is anywhere, really). Having a powerful standing army doesn't do you much good when you can't bring your force to bear on the enemy. Its like this fly that got into my house a few days ago and has been buzzing around my head. Compared to the fly, I am monumentally, overwhelmingly powerful, and I could crush the life out of it without any effort, if I could only fucking hit the damn thing. Meanwhile, the thing is nibbling on my discarded skin particles and laying eggs all over my body.

Re:That sucks D:

[Hurricane78]

Yeah man... This was the most insightful comment in the thread.

We should start encrypting everything

[ksd1337]

We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Linux_ho]

Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[oldspewey]

How do I encrypt a conversation with my family? Use pig latin?

"iHay oneyHay! owHay asWay ourYay ayDay?"

When the FBI talks about spying they mean spying. They aren't going to stop at snooping your email. They're going to bug your phone. They're going to snoop your physical mail. They're going to go through your banking records. If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[furball]

I am a criminal. That's why I use encryption. Same reason I have a gun.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[KovaaK]

If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

That's the goal, I'd imagine. If we get them to waste enough resources on spying on ordinary citizens, we hope they will realize that it is hopeless.

In reality, they would probably come to the conclusion that they need to profile people better before they decide to spend such resources.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[lymond01]

Oh, you say you're not a criminal? Why are you using encryption if you have nothing to hide, citizen? Prepare to be boarded.

You do not chase me because I run. I run because you chase me.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Ortega-Starfire]

Criminals of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!

Guns, check
Knives, check
Crypto, check
Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
Internet connection, check

Go! Go! Go!

Am I missing anything?

Oh yes:

Law abiding citizens of the USA unite! All we have to lose are our freedoms. Wait, we lost those already. Unite!

Guns, check
Knives, check
Crypto, check
Copy of constitution and laminated ten command- er amendments, check
Internet connection, check

Go! Go! Go!

Am I missing anything?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[bill_mcgonigle]

We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be.

|Y8N oxLk- K7)m91= EVq:P !8/| yYS#O tue|# 7EmO pH=V kh8c
7m(C PP}Q| ;j1b 6`@| $|{HolY -#v[1
=q`ltEO ~%srt HGW1S

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

Oooh, do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights and how scared the citizens were of a big national government and that's why we first had the Articles of Confederation which were weak like a bad cup of coffee and now we have the Constitution which is sooooooooo being violated?!

Phew. That many 'ands' in a sentence is annoying.

IMHO (which, by the way, is never humble :-) ), our government was not intended to be a large overreaching government. Control was supposed to be retained by the people. Under the original Articles of Confederation, the U.S. government was more like an informal gathering, a club, per se. This didn't work out totally, as it was seen that a few uprisings, such as the Shays' Rebellion, could destroy the confederation.

The States sent delegates to fix the Articles, which the delegates ended up scrapping and instead creating the Constitution. However, I believe that some of this animosity towards large behemoths carried over. Look at the Bill of Rights, which were added after the Constitution was ratified. They in many instances reserve power to the people, and to the States. The federal government is thus limited in what it can do.

Even though the Bill of Rights was ratified after the Constitution was ratified, from what I understand, some States made the implied passage of the Bill of Rights a condition to their ratification of the Constitution.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

I've always wanted to star in a spy movie. :-)

So, if you're walking down the block, and happen to see a big black van, go ask the driver if /.ers can see the equipment in the back. :-)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Wandering Wombat]

I say that for EVERY citizen investigated in this manner, that citizen should be able to name ONE other person to be investigated, including but not limited to: politicians, CEOs, military officers, and FBI investigators.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Goblez]

Or we'll end up paying for more pointless Government bureaucracy while more hard-to-fire government employees laugh at how easy their job is spying on Joe Schmoe and their own personal soap opera of his life.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

This shouldn't be rated funny but rather insightfull. Any lawyer or cop can tell you that you are almost certainly guilty of something.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Ortega-Starfire]

Faraday your house, set up encryption on your home lines or use a voip to make that easier.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

emacs:
M-x spook

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[no1home]

And some of them will take what they witness while spying on Joe Schmoe and write a book, TV series, or movie, rake in the money, and retire... only to become one of those being spied on (if s/he wasn't already).

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[againjj]

We're sorry, you're going to have to come with us.

The FBI

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Sponge Bath]

asWay ourYay ayDay

I'm sorry sir, that name is on the do not fly list.
If you feel this is an error, feel free to petition the DHS.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[bjolley]

Encryption ain't no guarantee.

"...The secret cipher caused concerns that NSA had deliberately made the cipher weak in order to assist its intelligence efforts. ...the scheme included a special escrow key held by the government for use by law enforcement, for example in wiretaps." -wikipedia on cryptography

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Das Modell]

That's pretty much what this law professor/former defense attorney says at some point.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[againjj]

Good Lord, M-x spook is real.

From the docs:

`spook' is an interactive compiled Lisp function
-- loaded from "spook"
(spook)

Documentation:
Adds that special touch of class to your outgoing mail.

Project Monarch World Trade Center militia Delta Force New World Order Watergate Ft. Knox Semtex SEAL Team 6 counter-intelligence Albania Saddam Hussein Ortega Serbian cryptographic

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[I cant believe its n]

Kind of like seven steps of separation? Name the person most likely to know a "terrist"?

That is almost too easy. Just look at any former head of the CIA.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[pembo13]

nice... original? if not, could you link me?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[WillRobinson]

best thing is to format your hard drives, and get out more.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[homer_ca]

You mean like an anonymous "snitch on your neighbor" program? John Ashcroft proposed that may back when. The fun we could have with that... (hypothetically of course)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: pooly-made closed-source encryption ain't no guarantee.
 
Good encryption (such as AES) is in practice unbreakable on a human time-scale, even knowing the encryption algorithm (with a few caveats for side-channels and grossly huge known-plaintext attacks). Of course, if someone some day far in the future manages to create a quantum computer that can factor a number larger than 15, then Shor's algorithm will be usable and all current cryptography based on currently 'hard' to compute problems will be, in effect, screwed.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Original Replica]

do we get to have a discussion about the formation of the Constitution and how this totally violates the Bill of Rights

I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act? Everyone knows that the Founding Fathers employed terrorist tactics (for warfare at the time shooting from behind a tree instead of from a straight line in a field was the equivalent of using civilians for cover in today's warfare) So endorsing a return to their ideas of Rights is an implicit endorsement of fighting your government with terrorist tactics. It's not that far a stretch considering that asymetric warfare will be the only way to unseat the power elite in America should we as a society ever feel the need to do so. Voting between two brands of big government and centralized wealth, is a poor substitute for the kind of freedom this country was originally designed for. So at some point in the tightening of the DHS fist of security, accurately citing history will be a form of inciting terrorist acts.

Paranoia is my new litmus test for predictive accuracy.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[geobeck]

We're sorry, you're going to have to come with us.

The FBI

Hey, you're not the real FBI... they wouldn't say they're sorry.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

And there goes are civil liberties one again.

and if you r ok with it Linux ho , drop your pants grab your ass and give me 3 good coughs.

you had better get use to it .
but then again every one is ok until it happens to them.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

If you raise sufficient attention (say by encrypting your trivial email) they may even park a black van down the street with a bunch of electronic equipment in the back.

I was hoping they'd do that! That's why I bought that bazooka.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[witherstaff]

Man, you sound like the southern states - I thought we took care of state rights with that little civil war of Northern Aggression? Some say Lincoln was the father of big government. Big Business won, state's rights lost, and further rights have kept slipping ever since.

The founders really didn't want an all powerful central government - good intentions and paving the way have taken care of the original design.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Jorophose]

Use programs like zphone.

Inspect the code you use. Use OpenBSD or I guess Linux would be fine if sufficiently protected. Always try and use HTTPS:.

However, confuse them a bit. For normal crap like the news, use HTTP. Why not? Vary your stuff. Download small files once in a while via encrypted BT, then large ones that are porn/movies/music/ROMs/software, then get some unencrypted torrents about stuff like Haiku, ReactOS. Mess with their heads. Keep your encryption up. Alert your friends in person that they should only contact you via email, zfone, or an encrypted IM service.

I'd love to see them wasting all this time just to see that you like talking to friends and watching porn while learning to make cookies.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Evil Pete]

How do I encrypt a conversation with my family?

"Hello son. How are you? The message is encoded in this transmission. ..."

Wonder how long they will look for a hidden message before they realise there is none? Of course this applies to everything. Don't just exchange encrypted emails, but plaintext emails with odd spelling and binary files created from /dev/urandom. Oh man. That is sooo tempting. Must ... resist ...

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[lymond01]

You know, I wrote it because it seemed appropriate. I'll google it to see if it's been used before. I can't imagine it hasn't in some form or another. It's profound, but hardly an uncommon thought.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[zrq]

I'm from the UK so I don't know that much about the American legal system. However, a crazy though just occurred to me ...

• The US constitution has bit about the right to bear arms.
• At one time strong crypto was classified as 'munitions' under US export restrictions.

So does that mean that the law guarantees the right to use encryption ?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[DgtalPimp]

I did, whops I mean "oiun iunytvfyrc g8o0moid wodo0we0mwpfde2 c"

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

It's cool guys, everyone can just try to protect themselves with encryption. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[xaositects]

make sure you do a

for i in `find / -name '*.*'`; do shred -u $i; done
and wait a few hours first else a run of photorec will find that formatted data easily

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[xaositects]

and me with no mod points

mod parent informative....

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

In my neighborhood it's not wise to go up to a van and asking to see the driver's equipment...

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[DoubleReed]

Quoth the wikipedia page on the "Lost Cause" intellectual movement: "To the old Union they had said that the Federal power had no authority to interfere with slavery issues in a state. To their new nation they would declare that the state had no power to interfere with a federal protection of slavery. Of all the many testimonials to the fact that slavery, and not states rights, really lay at the heart of their movement, this was the most eloquent of all.[15]"

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a dying breed Linux ho. I am 25 and have surrounded myself with people that will fight your need for control. And we all have clean records and enjoy that nobody has to watch over our shoulder for us to be clean. So for you to choose to look over my shoulder simply to satisfy your need for control, well my friend, you are a dying breed. You can't hide behind your Linux system forever, we will find you, and you will be unarmed, and you will have your eyes and ears removed. Because without those your need for control will vanish. -From, a United States of America citizen who did not forget that the original intent of our country was to escape tyranny.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[LMariachi]

There were lines to that effect in Running Scared :

Fleeing Suspect: Why you chasing me, man?
Pursuing Cop: Why you running?
Fleeing Suspect: Because you're chasing me!

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

I would like to think that the issue at the heart of the Civil War was really states' rights, and not slavery. Whether I can prove it is another story.

It's hard to tell from the C.S.A.'s constitution whether they fought for states rights; some areas, the Confederate States had more rights than the C.S.A. federal government, whereas in others, the C.S.A. federal government gained more rights than the Confederate States. (Or so says Wikipedia.)

However, some believe that one reason the Confederates lost was because Pres. Jefferson Davis was unwilling to violate the Confederate Constitution, while Pres. Lincoln said it would be folly to obey every minuscule point, and end up losing the whole. This would imply that maybe Davis was concerned with constitutionality, and thus, states rights, or he was a closet lawyer. :-)

Of course, this could be just like any other conflict, where even on one side, there are different intentions. While some citizens of State A may have fought to keep slavery around, others of State B may have seen it as the North unfairly taking away rights. Still others (like Robert E. Lee) may have fought simply because which way their State turned.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[falconwolf]

The founders really didn't want an all powerful central government

While some of the USA's Founding Fathers, like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wanted a small and weak federal government others did want a strong central government. The Constitution of the USA was a compromise between them, with the Bill of Rights solidifying small government. Those who wanted a strong central government wouldn't approve of the rights later passed as the Bill of Rights.

Falcon

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[MuffinSpawn]

Control was supposed to be retained by the ruling elite, not the people. Working people have had to struggle from the very beginning against gross inequality between themselves and the rich and powerful. Also, originally one couldn't vote unless one was male and owned property, and much of that property was grabbed by those who were already rich and powerful enough back in England to get away with it.

Furthermore, the Bill of Rights may say it reserves any undelegated power to the states or the people, but can anyone name a single instance where the people actually have a direct say in what happens? The Bill of Rights was more of just a device to placate the masses in order to avoid revolt.

People act like the government has gone horribly astray, but I believe it's just gotten fatter. Our experiment in faux democracy worked quite well for a while; but now that the people have been lulled into a permanent state of complacency, the government has hardly anything to do but become more and more corrupt.

As the article mentions, this policy was easily abused in the past. I frankly don't see any reason to use it except to monitor dissidents. If you have good reason to suspect an individual, I don't see why it's so hard to just get a fucking warrant. It just gives me more of this feeling that the government doesn't even care if we know they're totally fucking corrupt anymore. What the hell are the people going to do about it? Stage a protest in a big city? Oooh, I'm sooo scared!

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

This.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[gd2shoe]

That's only true if you don't actually overwrite the data while formating. In other words, if you do a so-called "quick format", all your data is really still there. If you actually format the drive correctly, then they will need to send it to a lab for much more expensive forensic recovery.

Of course, running a "file shredding" program on the full volume is preferred.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[PrimalChrome]

All war is about power, be it influence or economic. The civil war, despite all of the romantic delusions, was no different. You'll find that many wars find rallying points, particularly if the military is filled with either volunteers or citizens of a republic. That rallying cry in the civil war became slavery. In truth, it was launched over economic controls and federal influence over states.

Were the war about slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation would have been a legal (as opposed to illegal) document freeing the slaves in the Union and thereby giving the Union the moral high ground in the war.

No war between nations (megalomaniac dictatorships aside) was fought for a princess fair or slavery.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[DamnStupidElf]

When is https://slashdot.org/ going to be anything more than a redirect to http://slashdot.org? How many subscriptions would pay for the beefier hardware to support SSL for most of the users?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Awptimus Prime]

Oh man. That is sooo tempting. Must ... resist ...

Tempting to waste time on something that will never be seen or touched by a fed?

The headline wasn't "FBI plans on spying on every American!" it's just them being able to investigate without a warrant. Pretty much the status quo for most countries on this fine planet.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

Those who wanted a strong central government wouldn't approve of the rights later passed as the Bill of Rights.

I would disagree. There is a Wikipedia article on the U.S. Bill of Rights that discusses arguments against the Bill of Rights; opposition to the Bill of Rights was not to instead institute a large central government, but rather, fear that a Bill of Rights would limit the rights given to the citizen.

Of course, there could have been citizens here and there who wanted a large central government. However, remember the years leading up to the Revolutionary War. Benjamin Franklin had brought up the idea of a colonial confederation as early as 1754 to assist in the French and Indian War (Albany Plan of Union), yet the colonies didn't bite. The problem was, they didn't feel like Americans. They felt like New Yorkers, and Virginians, etc. From what I understand, the early years of the Revolutionary War were similar. It appears that a widespread sentiment to create a large central government was not evident at the time of the Revolution.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

...can anyone name a single instance where the people actually have a direct say in what happens?

Citizens are supposed to vote. Voting is our "loudspeaker" to the government.

And who do Citizens vote for? Fellow Citizens. Thus, running for public office is one of our civic duties. Our government, being a republic should follow an orderly progression, where Citizens run for public office, elected by fellow Citizens.

No, it isn't as raucous as say, mob rule, but it works. :-) Imagine if 300 million people all tried to talk at once. Elected representatives simplify matters considerably.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[rastoboy29]

Why is it we have to be so concerned about the _intentions_ of people 180 some odd years ago?

I'm pissed off NOW.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[falconwolf]

opposition to the Bill of Rights was not to instead institute a large central government, but rather, fear that a Bill of Rights would limit the rights given to the citizen.

"Two groups opposed each other, the Federalists who wanted a strong government and no bill of rights, and the Anti-Federalists who wanted more power for the states and a bill of rights. To reach an agreement, James Madison promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution."

Falcon

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Wandering Wombat]

Uhm... no, nothing even slightly close to that. Ok, let's say you're being warrantlessly investigated. Your online tracks, purchasing records, confidential information, phone tapping, etcetera. You would be able to get them to investigate someone, as well... so maybe get them to put the senators that voted "yes" to this under this sort of scrutiny. Then we'll see how fast Democracy words.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

I think a butchered quote from Orwell's 1984 says it best:

Whoever controls the present, controls the past. Whoever controls the past, controls the future.

The schoolchildren are the next generation. Whatever the students in school are being taught, that is what will be the policy of our government this next generation. What will our students learn if the past is corrupted?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

I would argue that the viewpoint presented on the middle school's web page may be somewhat simplified.

Alexander Hamilton, one of the authors of the Federalist Papers, wrote that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because:

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.

From the Wikipedia article (Federalists Papers, No. 84).

Also, a pamphlet I have of the U.S. Constitution printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office notes that 11 of the 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights. It would imply that even if two of the thirteen states were anti-Bill of Rights strongholds, the majority of the states, including Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, were for the Bill of Rights.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[falconwolf]

I would argue that the viewpoint presented on the middle school's web page may be somewhat simplified.

That middle school, is it one I didn't notice, isn't the first tyme I read that Federalists didn't approve of the Bill of Rights. It was just the first result I found it in when I googled.

Also, a pamphlet I have of the U.S. Constitution printed by the U.S. Government Printing Office notes that 11 of the 13 states ratified the Bill of Rights.

I don't see what the number of states ratifying the Bill of Rights as to do with Federalists not wanting one. Well actually I do, because the Federalists wanted a strong federal government the states wanted something that guaranteed states rights. I'm not saying that that's why but the states that did ratify the Bill of Rights may have done it because of the Federalists. They may have feared the federalists would prevail in establishing a strong federal government. And unfortunately now we have one. The Supreme Court even had to use a bunch of mumble jumbo about the interstate commerce clause to justify denying California voters the right to approve of medical marijuana.

Falcon

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful now. Being too supportive of the U.S. Constitution makes you a terrorist.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

just speek the truth - they won't believe a work that you say.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[LowlyWorm]

I often encrypt text notes explaining the importance of the IV amendment etc. Maybe if those who read it think about it they might see the futility. I explain how boring their jobs must be, how better employment opportunities are elsewhere etc. I guess a lot of them just like porn but that just goes to their character.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if the US govt offshores its bog-propaganda now?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[bit01]

We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)

Don't bother. They have access to everything they want via M$ update, and possibly other update as well. It's just too easy. Encryption does nothing when they have the keys to your computer. Find paedo's (won't somebody think of the children!)? No problem. Trawl for those with terrorist plans? No problem. Check the competition on a multi-billion dollar international defence contract? No problem. Just hook a keyword/image checker to the disk indexer that reports back a simple yes/no on the next update. If yes then next update downloads a more comprehensive spy package. Easy.

Think they wouldn't do it? Look at the track record of the major agencies on everything from COINTELPRO to Echelon. Even this. It'd be surprising if they didn't do it.

And if they get caught? Sorry, you must've been infected with a virus, here's an update to "fix" the problem.

This move (warrantless investigation) may simply be to retroactively make broad scale computer tapping "legal". They don't even need to do that for the hundreds of millions of non-US computers - those have no constitutional protections at all.

Particularly if you are a non-US entity competing in any way with US interests you should not trust any network connected computer running any mainstream US software at all.

To repeat: Encryption does not help if they have administrative access to your computer.

---

Keep living the American DRM.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[mpe]

We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)

Actually if you encrypt you should encrypt everything. Sending most things as plaintext with a few bits encrypted tells any evesdropper to pay special attention to the encrypted. About the only situation doing something is likely to be a good idea is where all the encrypted messages are trivial/garbage and you can be sure of fooling the evesdropper into overlooking important ones sent unencrypted.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[TeraCo]

Why would Joe Average get some senator they don't even know investigated when they could do it to their boss, coworkers, ex-girlfriends, people who cut them off in the parking lot? I don't think you've thought this through.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[mpe]

Correction: pooly-made closed-source encryption ain't no guarantee.

It's more the case that proprietary cryptography equates to very poor cryptography. Thus you can probably be guaranteed that using such a system with not be very secure.

Good encryption (such as AES) is in practice unbreakable on a human time-scale, even knowing the encryption algorithm (with a few caveats for side-channels and grossly huge known-plaintext attacks).

It also matters how well the actual code follows the algorithm. Consider what happened with the Debian SSL code when an "optimisation" was made.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[thegnu]

You use code words. Like, for example, instead of 'salad bowl', say 'pot'. And instead of 'vegetables' say 'coke'. Instead of 'in-laws' say 'Crazy Fucking Eddie'. See?

"Honey? I'm freaking out right now. I can't find the pot, and Crazy Fucking Eddie is going to be here in an hour....Yes, I've cut up the coke!"

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[samcan]

That's not so much an issue of a strong government, but rather, a strong judiciary. That is fraught with problems as well.

Here's a quote from a college government textbook, Government by the People:

It has profoundly altered the relationship between the national government and the states. It has made the federal courts, under the guidance of the Supreme Court of the United States, the most important protectors of our liberties.

Now, is that what our Founding Fathers wanted? Federalist Papers, No. 49 written by either Alexander Hamilton, or James Madison (Note that whoever wrote it, both Hamilton and Madison are qualified members of the Revolution, as they had participated in meetings that produced documents such as the Declaration of Independence and later the Constitution. They were thus trusted by their peers, and would ultimately know what they are talking about):

The members of the legislative department, ..., are numberous [sic]. They are ... dwell among the people at large. Their connections of blood, of friendship, and of acquaintance embrace a great proportion of the most influential part of the society. The nature of their public trust implies a personal influence among the people, and that they are more immediately the confidential guardians of the rights and liberties of the people.

Emphasis mine.

The textbook, Government by the People continues with what I consider even more heinous:

Note that the Bill of Rights literally applies only to the national government, not state governments. Why not the states? The framers were confident that states could control their own state officials; also, most state constitutions already had bill of rights. But ... the new and distant central government they feared. As it turned out, those fears were largely misdirected. The national government, responsive to tens of millions of voters from a variety of races, creeds, religions, ... , has shown less tendency to curtail civil liberties than have state and local governments.

What is this textbook implying? "You know those Founding Fathers, they were well-intentioned guys and all, but they were wrong. It wasn't the federal government they had to be afraid of, it was the states."

Here are the problems, State government, being closer to the Citizens, was in theory supposed to be able to be influenced by the Citizens, and thus held accountable to the Citizens. The federal government, being less under direct control by the Citizens, and hence less oversight, would be easier for a few to gain control. I believe this textbook is stating what some are trying to promote in today's society, being that the national government is better than the State government.

Why do lawyers study case law, to see how the Supreme Court has ruled on constitutional issues, rather than reading the Constitution? The Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land should be the document that any lawyer (and justice, for that matter) should read daily, to know what it says, and to see what history shines on the intentions of those who wrote it. In a way, it's like dealing with contract law. :-)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Then let them waste their time, money, and van by investigating my law-abiding encryption-using lifestyle. I've got a lot of citizening to do.

When I find out about it, I'll send them a copy of the constitution and the name of the attorney I'll have hired at the ACLU.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

use tor for web surfing
get an im client with encrypted chat and get your friends to do the same.
introduce your friends and family to skype and use that to encrypt all your calls. Don't have anyone send you physical mail, there's not much of a reason to do that these days
stop using a credit card fr everything you buy; withdraw the money from the bank and pay for everything in cash.

If everyone does this, they won't be able to park vans on every street corner

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[goodtrick]

a few things.

shred is not very secure when used on files on modern filesytems
not all files have a dot in their name
what happens when you shred a library that shred depends on?
its much easier to pipe the output of find to xargs ( or use -exec ) than use a shell for loop
you should really just boot from another medium and use shred directly on the block device

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately that form of spying is rather expensive. It's the email snooping that's cheap. If enough people encrypt their email, it will be too expensive to physically spy on them all.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[mpe]

I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act?

Might photographs/videos of police officers breaking the law be the first example of this.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[FiloEleven]

Only if you keep voting in the same assholes...

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Original Replica]

Might photographs/videos of police officers breaking the law be the first example of this.

That's a very likely point you made. Officers don't really take kindly to being watched the way they watch us. That's when vague crimes like Obstructing Justice come into their own. "Modern obstruction of justice, in United States jurisdictions, refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials. Often, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice." So even if they can't make the charge stick, a police officer can arrest anyone who pays them special attention because they are a police officer. You might beat the charge in court, but now you have a few days in court and an arrest record (it might be struck from your formal record, but your fingerprints, mug shot, and other biometrics are going to still be in the police database in the same way as any criminal)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[PCCake]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither.~ Ben Franklin

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Wandering Wombat]

You're right. I'm putting far too much faith in the intelligence and foresight of the average American. Thank you for correcting me. As per your instructions, I will consider you all retards from now on.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

What did you call my grandmother?!?!?

-ksd1337 (too lazy to login)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech guarantees the right to use encryption. Simple as that.

Of course, we don't have the right to arms OR free speech here in Britain so you can be forgiven for not seeing the easy option.

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[MJMullinII]

I say that for EVERY citizen investigated in this manner, that citizen should be able to name ONE other person to be investigated, including but not limited to: politicians, CEOs, military officers, and FBI investigators.

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :)

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you keep voting in the same assholes...

Much like the mythological turtles supporting the flat Earth, in politics it's assholes all the way down.

- T

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[ps2os2]

I suggested the other day for everyone to encrypt their email (maybe with PGP) but you have an excellent point about everything else. How much do voice encryptors cost, Anyone?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[badkarmadayaccount]

Ammo?

Re:We should start encrypting everything

[Ortega-Starfire]

Fsck! I knew I forgot something!

And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Drakin020]

Nothing.

That's right, nothing.

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[The Moof]

That's becuase everyone I talk to thinks "I don't do anything illegal, why should I care."

Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[moderatorrater]

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

He said, posting on slashdot.

But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt? The last time something like that happened, we were left with the bloodiest war in US history, and that was before the advent of a lot of the modern weapons of war. Write to their congressmen? I wrote to Harry Reid while I lived in Nevada, and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!

Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[nomadic]

People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

Just so you all know, posting indignant posts on slashdot doesn't count as defending your rights. Preaching to the converted != protest.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[jawtheshark]

And(*) "becuase" most people can't even spell, indicating that their thoughts don't go further than what's for dinner in the evening and if their favourite character in a soap opera gets laid.
(*) I know that starting a sentence with "and" is bad form, but I was just completing the parent post.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Drakin020]

But seriously, what do you want to happen? Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt?

If a mass protest couldn't pull it off, then yeah...I wouldn't mind seeing that. Heaven forbid we take back what is ours right?

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Hoi Polloi]

In the Soviet Union they...oh wait, it is happening here.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[samcan]

A secession would be fun.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck 'rights'. The more people stand about screaming about their rights, the easier it is for government to ignore you on the grounds that the rights of the 'law abiding' citizen will be comprimised if these laws don't get passed.
Playing the 'these are my rights' game is a loosing battle. It always has been.

Start screaming about the fact that the laws are just /fucking insane/ instead.

Fuck it. Use these insideous laws to annoy/impeach/imprison the very people who enacted them. SHOW everyone how ridiculous they are. Cause some damage to the lives of the idiots who didn't read the bills, but who voted for them because there was a fucking rider that gave a tax cut to puppy dogs and kittens and all things that tug the public heart strings.

Sort it the fuck out, because I'm sick of hearing about it on /.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[linhares]

Nothing.

That's right, nothing.

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

I have 8 things I would like to bring up:

FIRST and FOREMOST, this is highly against both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Second,

Oh shit Ugly betty is on!

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Snuhwolf]

No, some of us know that in order to get the gubamint to *listen* you must join a PAC (political action committie). So thats why I joined the ACLU two years ago. Its not like the abuses of the Bush administration have blind-sided anyone who has been paying attention. So you have a choice: piss and moan (as per usual) or join a lobby that will *fight* for your civil liberties.
HTH

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Zen_Sorcere]

Sadly, things will have to get a whole lot worse before the people of 'merica will remember their rights are actually theirs, and not something the government should be able to strip away.

How many marches and protests did we have regarding the war in Iraq? What did Cheney say when asked what he thought about all the protesters? He said, "So?" (that may be a direct quote or a paraphrase, I honestly cannot recall. But it was certainly the gist of what he said).

So we find ourselves at a point where the peaceful protesting isn't doing any good, but people are not yet at the point for switching to a less softer stick.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Mr. Slippery]

But seriously, what do you want to happen?

I want Congress to impeach these motherfuckers and put them in the jail cells they so richly deserve.

That, of course, would require a competent, courageous, and non-corrupt Congress. Which in our case, we have not got.

So I want the voters to toss out the bums inhabiting Congress.

That, of course, would require an educated, informed, and engaged electorate. Which in our case, we have not got.

So, waiting for the whole thing to go to hell, "I want to get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames", as the Lizard King put it. And if it comes down to violence - and it might - I want to take as many of those bastards responsible for the destruction of this fine nation out with me as I can when I go.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[no1home]

Ah, TV... truly the opiate of the masses!

Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress.

I agree entirely: people need to get out there and get involved. When the system is breaking, fix it from within, not through violence.

That said, it seems that politicians become corrupt or unable to fight the corruption after joining the ranks of other politicians. Say you become a Congressman. You have a plan, and there is no compromise! Ya, sure. You realize that, to get anything done, you have to compromise, you have to trade favors. Not long after, you find compromise to be easy. A little longer still, and you become compromised yourself. Now, you are part of the problem. I don't say this to discourage (OK, maybe I say it because I'm discouraged), but to show the limits of what can happen. For a political uprising to work, it must truly be an uprising, involving all walks of life in this (US) country. Not a few disgruntled partisans, not one minority, but universal.

Back to my agreeing with your statement, this means the grass roots efforts must involve people from the suburbs, the inner cities, and the country-side; it must involve the blue collar and white collar workers; it must involve the many religions and the non-believers.

Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns. I hope it never comes to that. I fear that it might.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[moderatorrater]

Beautifully said. That's exactly how I feel.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Ifni]

I'm going to start slipping suspicious phrases and key words into every conversation, email, post, and letter. I will simply give them so much chaff to sort through that they'll either give up, or miss something truly worthwhile. If I start now, I'll have worn them down by the time I really want to say something I'd rather keep secret.

Example:

I was thinking of using a _plutonium_ based _weapon of mass destruction_ in a _terrorist attack_ on _President Bush_. Big words would probably do.

Take THAT, Skynet, er, Echelon!

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Get involved in your local party politics; grassroots efforts are the only peaceful way to pull this off, and changing from within the system seems to be the best method. Or get involved and try to grow a third party to where they can take a seat in congress."

And in the end nothing will still happen. The civil war may have been bloody but at least we still remember and learn from it.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Bob9113]

Nothing.

That's right, nothing.

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

People need to stand up and defend their rights, but unless it derails their daily lives, nothing will change. ....I hate being so negative...But you know it's true. :-/

But wait - what about Drakin020? I hear he's doing something about it. He's posting his concerns to a public forum to discuss them with his peers. He is helping to raise the awareness of the problem among a set of people with significant technical knowledge; one of the chief skills of the modern activist.

I believe Drakin020 is trying to make a difference, and I believe I am as well. That's two of us, and I see a bunch more on this thread. We are aware of the problem, which is the first and most important step. And we are discussing it openly with our peers, which is the second. We are doing something to fix this problem.

The next step is to begin discussing causes and effects, and means to steer the course of this great nation's internal dialogue. While considering negative potential side effects openly and honestly. In this potent forum we are discussing how to advance the proper, prosperous course for our nation. Debating serious issues like warrantless surveillance and economic wealth creation in a world of zero-cost copies.

We are doing it - right now, you and I, and our interesting and insightful collection of peers, in this thread.

We The People. On our soapboxes.

That makes me happy. :)

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[element-o.p.]

Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns.

Unfortunately, if you can't get enough intelligent, informed voters to vote in a Congress that will actually do their job rather than play partisan politics while the whole country falls apart, what chance do you think you will have rounding up an army to throw them out by force?

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[no1home]

You have a point. It can, and usually is, like herding cats. Cats with each their own self (frequently selfish) interest. Hence the concept (I forget the philosopher) of a people deserving the government they have. Yet another reason I fear it might one day come to this. It would be a bloody, messy, horrible affair to say the least.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one will do a single thing about it as long as they can watch their TV shows.

So it is time for the studios to cease making FBI-themed series and begin portraying FBI the same unethical and amoral way (of behaving) that the CIA is sometimes portrayed in Hollywood.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, just bring back 'Jericho'... Nuts!

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[istewart]

A whole lot of people are having their daily lives derailed or impinged upon right now, thanks to the government's poor economic policy. In addition, the spigot of foreign lending that kept consumer spending growing over the past decade is being cut off, meaning that the politicians in Washington won't have an easy time papering their way out of this. Change that affects the daily lives of everyone in the country is occurring, right now.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[istewart]

Why bother involving yourself with the existing parties or trying to seize a seat in Congress? There are far too many compromises down that road. Get involved in transforming your local politics away from a pathetic sideshow, and build sustainable institutions on the local level. Disregard what the national government is trying to do. It will collapse in upon itself.

Counterproductive, unsustainable, divisive policies like this one might appear to be the roots of dystopia to most people, but it really amounts to the last desperate thrashings of a dinosaur as it drowns in a tar pit.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[dogeatery]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos! (But seriously, I will vote Nader)

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and what I got back was a form letter that looked like it could have been written by a white house aide!

Consider yourself lucky. Most people get something that came out of a copy machine.
 

Would you like everyone to rise up in an armed revolt?

Of course you know things will just keep getting worse until this happens. The government will continue to push its citizens until they can't be pushed anymore. Every government does this, it's happened over and over and over again throughout history. The one thing that we can hope is that a political revolution can take place without costing too many lives and before the government becomes so powerful that a revolt would not only be useless, but would also give the government a reason to REALLY think everyone is a criminal.

Long story short, the price of freedom is human life. Someone has to die for our way of life to continue. Once people are unwilling to die for what they believe in, those who wish to take it away will do so.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[shaitand]

'I agree entirely: people need to get out there and get involved. When the system is breaking, fix it from within, not through violence.'

'Failing that, then yes, it must involve guns. I hope it never comes to that. I fear that it might.'

Unfortunately, we are WAY past the possibility of a peaceful solution.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[shaitand]

'The civil war may have been bloody but at least we still remember and learn from it.'

Sort of, the civil war failed and propaganda has masked the real issues of the civil war and turned it into a story of liberating slaves.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

change must come from the barrel of a gun. peaceful protests do very little. Ghandi's "peaceful protests" cost lives. They let the british soldiers beat and kill the protesters to make them look bad. Violence was still necessary for the change to occur. I would prefer to not get beaten up or killed. How many people had to get beaten and jailed to bring equal rights here? that was only 50 years ago. If you are serious about making a change you must neutralize those who oppose you. All the hippie love in's in the world will not stop a damn thing. But ask yourself if you are really dedicated to see an action through. you may get hurt, and you will be hurting others. Is it worth you risking your life..not risking "Americans'" lives. I suspect you are not willing to take any personal risk, so you just bitch on message boards.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[FiloEleven]

That said, it seems that politicians become corrupt or unable to fight the corruption after joining the ranks of other politicians.

This is true in most cases, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's harder to become corrupted if you make yourself accountable to the people you represent. The platform you run on can and should include transparency as a component. You obviously can't announce every conversation you have or action you take, but you can do a lot more than simply making your voting record available and having your staff write form letters. Respond personally, blog-style, to any questions that are asked by a large enough number of those you represent. Give them a taste of your thought processes and guiding philosophies as they relate to your government position.

The technology to do this, and do it well, exists. A fancy blogging/polling system on your official site, with user-created and moderated questions, comments, and/or discussions will keep you informed of what they are thinking and what they want from you. This system should be publicly readable, but most likely only verified users from your district (or what have you) can ask and moderate questions.

If they find that you are compromising too much, they will let you know. Forcing yourself to report on what you are doing will make you less likely to fall into the trap of corruption. Openness does to corruption what distance does to gravity.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.

Yes, but they should also point out *why* it's a terrible argument for the benefit of others.

Specifically, the point that they're missing is that it assumes that the government can never commit abuses, never acts improperly, that it can occupy a special role as an always-trusted entity.

The FBI's work to acquire dirty laundry on Martin Luther King, as mentioned in the article, is a good example of why this isn't true (and heck, our current administration isn't a great example of proper use of powers). The Soviet government and secret police is a rather more alarming example.

But let me rattle off an-off-the-cuff list of arguments against "if you aren't doing anything wrong, why do you care":

* The government is made up of people like you or me. They do abuse their powers and misuse information once obtained a percentage of the time -- they're not saints. Even if this comes up a small portion of the time in a comparatively good government, it is a concern. This is why we have restrictions on police powers at all -- why we are granted jury trials, why search and seizure are restricted, why warrants exist at all.

* We have a society structured to strongly encourage the free flow of ideas, and force ideas to constantly compete for survival -- probably more so than most countries today, but even most countries today would consider something like the Inquisition to be totally unacceptable. One tool that status-quo ideas can use to remain status-quo is the suppression of other ideas when they are young -- forcibly outing people who subscribe to those ideas and then having them be penalized for them is something that we want to avoid. If you can be spied on at any time, your opposition to the war, your discussion of ways to advance same-sex marriage, your argument that socialism or anarchism or what-have-you might be a better form of government can be quashed while still small. This isn't an environment that we want to promote. One doesn't need to be actively criminal in order to subscribe to currently-socially-unpopular ideas.

* The argument rests on the claim that change in the scope of law enforcement would have no effect on them, because they obey the laws. I don't think that that assumption is valid -- I'll bet that people *do* do illegal things. Oh, it varies person-by-person, but from speeding to copyright infringement to use of illicit substances to underage drinking, to playing with explosives as a kid, I would guess that few people have never broken the law. This doesn't mean that increasing the scope of monitoring is necessarily bad (hey, maybe it would force these laws to be changed if most people don't like them), but it does mean that they are unlikely not to be impacted.

* There is a significant difference between speech which is private and speech which is public. This moves private speech into the realm of potentially public speech. Unless you are extremely unusual, you *will* act differently on, say, the Olympic stage than you will when privately chatting with a friend. You can cover a broader range of topics, and bat around socially-taboo ideas -- maybe bin Laden isn't such a bad guy, maybe gay sex is fun, maybe blacks are an inferior race. Maybe these ideas can't compete in the public marketplace of ideas, but do we want to prevent people from ever being able to examine these ideas due to fear of being recorded?

* What is our goal here? Do we feel that crime, terrorism, what-have-you is at unacceptable levels? Are we trying to crack down harder in the War on Drugs on drug distributors? Is there a less expansive remedy to this? Being able to monitor anyone without judicial oversight is a big shift. Personally, yeah, I'd like to have fewer bank robberies, sure -- but the potential benefits don't even begin to compare to the costs here. "Why should I care?" Because there are ways to combat bank robberies other than unrestricted monitoring, and if that's our goal, we

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[no1home]

You are very correct. There are, unfortunately, two major difficulties.

First, the electorate (that would be us voters) must band together and DEMAND this from our elected officials and MAKE the elected officials perform or get out. Unfortunately, this requires educating the voters to this cause and getting them to spend precious attention-time (seemingly in drastically short supply) becoming familiar with the issue (reading!!!) and spend what really only amounts to brief moments at a time, extended through their entire life, keeping abreast of the issues and making their representatives do their due. It's hard enough to get people to become familiar with the issues and their representation beyond the party-provided sound-bites. Getting them to keep at it... oooh... that new show is on....

Second, while the tech certainly exists, the time doesn't. It would require new staff to be able to handle the deluge that ~could~ result, even if it was run Slash Dot style (which I think could work for this). The representative couldn't do anything remotely close to all of the work, not even answering all of the emails and/or blog postings. This would have to fall to, say, the communications manager. If the rep performed even half of this work, s/he would never make it to legislative sessions.

This is all doable, and advisable, but it won't come easy.

(True)Openness does to corruption what distance does to gravity.

I love this statement of yours!

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Jason Levine]

And some people I talk to are worse. My father, for example, has completely bought into the right-wing arguments about terrorism and the need for these types of steps. He argued with me during the 2004 elections that we couldn't vote for anyone besides Bush. His reasoning was that switching Presidents mid-fight would send the wrong signals to our enemies. Yes, he actually thought that voting non-Republican was somehow equal to supporting the terrorists. (If that's so, label me a terrorist supporter!) A few months back, he was actually telling me about how Obama is a closet Muslim. I tried to counter that with facts, but it makes no difference. Facts are no match for a mind that is completely closed in on its own opinion (or the opinion that certain influential others tell it to have).

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[FiloEleven]

This is all doable, and advisable, but it won't come easy.

Most good things don't. =)

First, the electorate (that would be us voters)

(Thanks, I knew there was a word for that, but couldn't for the life of me remember what it was.)

must band together and DEMAND this from our elected officials and MAKE the elected officials perform or get out.

It would probably be easier just to convince non-politicians who like the idea to run. The current crop of career politicians is getting overripe. I think we're going to see a lot of new blood in upcoming election cycles, and I'll bet a lot of those folks will like the idea of transparency, especially since many of them will be running in reaction to the secretive and deceptive Bush administration. They probably haven't considered how (relatively) easy it is to implement a large increase of transparency.

Getting the word out and garnering interest shouldn't be so tough either. Informally-toned TV spots would work wonders for getting people interested. "I mean...it's like an American Idol where you get to (in aggregate) pick the tunes to be performed, influence the singer's style, and find out more about his or her character through personalized questions. Oh, yeah--results of your choices affect the way you live." Young people today spend as much time on the web as they do watching TV. Shaping the legal landscape around them is a natural extension of shaping their social landscape through sites like Facebook and Myspace.

The second issue you raise, the lack of time, is the more difficult of the two to tackle. My own thoughts are also along the lines of /.-style boards for discussion, with something like a more complex Firehose (with a dash of Wikipedia for flavor) to moderate top items to which the elected official should respond. I see nothing wrong with retaining a communications manager or even a small team if necessary, but the content that they generate should be clearly labeled as such and again, the more relaxed the better. I believe that the days of nothing but formally polished ghostwritten form letters are finished, and that a greater measure of community is coming (back?) to the political process.

Re:And what are us Americans going to do about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

only too true :-(

Regs don't trump the constitution.

[jcr]

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.

-jcr

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[lgw]

And, really, the FBI should be free to "investigate" anyone they feel like by using public informations, observing them is public spaces, etc. Just as any citizen could "investigate" another. Fine, knock yourself out.

The important protection we have from over-eager police forces are the rules of evidence. Any private data collected without a warrant should be not just inadmissible, but prejudice the case.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[Kelson]

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

Cynical response: What makes you so certain they'll bother with a trial?

Practical response: There's an awful lot that can be done to harass people without actually arresting, charging or prosecuting them.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[Anonymous Coward]

they're endangering the public

I think you've just hit upon what government doesn't ever want you to realize:

It is government itself that is the biggest threat to you, your family, and your freedom.

this is a power that has a history of abuse (from the summary)

Correction: The power itself is the abuse. How can a special "right" to bypass justice itself NOT be abuse? The concept of guilty before proven innocent -- in whatever slimy manifestation it appears -- is an attack on human rights before the discussion even started.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[pixelpusher220]

remember that rule that evidence obtained via torture wasn't admissable? ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...

not legal, certainly not just, but sadly it is our current reality

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Read carefully. From TFA (emphasis added):

Attorney General Michael Mukasey intends to let Congress have its say before signing controversial new guidelines that reportedly broaden the FBI's authority to conduct investigations. But he will not delay their implementation.

Sounds like he'll tell his agents to go ahead in October, and then when the agents are caught in a civil suite by some citizen who didn't like being spied on, Mr. Mukasey can deny responsibility because he hadn't signed the papers yet. Big Brother gets his illegal intel and a scape goat.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[I cant believe its n]

Well, it is only illegal when you torture people. These are defined as "non-people" / "terrists" (which has been confirmed several times during torture).
---
Back in the day, witches where the ones who floated when tied up and dropped into the sea. The innocent ones sank and drowned. Thankfully we have gotten wiser since then.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[Dirtside]

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

It's not that hard to get a warrant, and if they're too fucking lazy to call up a judge and explain why they think a warrant is needed, they're endangering the public.

-jcr

You're right, as far as that goes, but it's not far enough. You're operating under the assumption that the FBI's only goal is to get criminals convicted of crimes. That's definitely one of their goals (more precisely, it's the primary or only goal of some of their employees), but the goal of this particular outrage is a power grab; if this were legal, it would make their jobs easier, and give them more power.

Strategically, they're betting on McCain winning in November; if he does, he'll likely fully support tactics like this, so they get to keep doing what they're doing. If Obama wins, the FBI higher-ups will likely get replaced regardless of this (and if they're lucky, they'll just get a new set of marching orders).

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[element-o.p.]

Exactly! I mean Gitmo was only running for eight years before...oh, wait.

Crap. Nevermind.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[Scr3wFace]

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

-jcr

This would be correct if you don't end up in Gitmo tried by a military tribunal, or like Jose Padilla!

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[SteeldrivingJon]

"The important protection we have from over-eager police forces are the rules of evidence."

That doesn't help if they pull a no-knock SWAT raid and some poorly-trained paramilitary jackass on an adrenaline rush shoots you dead.

Yes, it happens. Often. Sometimes they even kill someone after raiding the entirely wrong house. And the cowardly shit cops shoot harmless dogs.

Re:Regs don't trump the constitution.

[lgw]

But what other disincentive can you provide that will actually work? You can try to punish the cops, but thet'll be investigated by cops so good luck with that. The cops want to hang the blame on someone to look good, and blocking their ability to do that will get their attention.

WWJD

[colmore]

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

Re:WWJD

[jollyreaper]

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

I think his reaction would have been more along the lines of "Goodness, what is that peculiar blue box you stepped out of?"

Re:WWJD

[Underfoot]

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Re:WWJD

[Anonymous Coward]

Retardis.

Re:WWJD

[raymansean]

No I think he knew a large out of control Federal gov it was comming, he even warned the states against letting it happen,he just did not have a means to prevent the problem from happening. Now 225+ yrs later the problem is real and a solution still does not exist. We can reboot, recompile, and recode, but until we drastically change the code the end results will always be the same.

Re:WWJD

[Palshife]

He's an American. He'd ask about the DeLorean ;)

Re:WWJD

[pak9rabid]

More importantly, WWUJD?

Re:WWJD

[Anonymous Coward]

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this thing he would be saying back to you, "So, you've finally come around."

Jefferson et al knew that tyranny was inevitable. Hence one of the reasons why they explicitly reserved the people's right to bear arms.

Re:WWJD

[bill_mcgonigle]

I think if you told Thomas Jefferson that the United States would be up to this sort of thing, someone would have gotten a musket ball to the chest.

Well, he had to give Aaron Burr something to do.

Re:WWJD

[Eli Gottlieb]

Actually, I think that upon seeing the TARDIS he would more likely respond something along the lines of... "ALERT! ALERT!" At which point George Washington would pipe in with a high-pitched, "IT IS THE DOCTOR!"

This would lead to the entire Continental Congress shouting "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!" just like they did when they saw the Native Americans.

I have an active imagination.

Re:WWJD

[Anonymous Coward]

And... "Oh, my! And now a large, moving trash bin with a toilet plunger for a hand is here. What ever next?!"

[cue radical change of history]

Re:WWJD

[jollyreaper]

And... "Oh, my! And now a large, moving trash bin with a toilet plunger for a hand is here. What ever next?!"

We sic the cast of Queer Eye on the Daleks and turn them into metrosexuals? "EXFOLIATE! EXFOLIATE!"

Re:WWJD

[Anonymous Coward]

people died so we can be free i will never give up my freedom,Oklahoma city bombing was the start,they better know people of this great country can only be pushed so far then they snap,hold on i think i just snapped!

Re:WWJD

[Anonymous Coward]

What a car made in Northern Ireland?

Re:WWJD

[rohan972]

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson.html
Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.

No, in a country with this much employment rather than self-employment, he would have expected it ...

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
... and did expect it ...

Shoe Fits...

[thestudio_bob]

"If we don't speak up, we are cowards and accomplices."

I think this was originally said about Tibet and China, but it seems somewhat fitting here.

This is getting scary

[ThanatosMinor]

It really looks like the gov't is boldly marching down the road to hell. I would even feel a little better if it was one of those roads paved with good intentions instead of pure control and corruption.

I call shotgun in the handbasket.

whoopie

[jollyreaper]

How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place? Karl Rove tells Congress to take their subpoena, shine it up real nice, turn it sideways and shove it right up their collective asses. Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.

Re:whoopie

[jawtheshark]

What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?

The difference is that before they could have been reprimanded because they didn't follow the law. The keyword here is "could". Now, they have "carte blanche". There is no more law to protect you. Before you had at least a small chance.

Re:whoopie

[ScrewMaster]

Consequences? So far, none. Will there ever be? Doubtful. Will it be any different for the FBI? Doubtful.

Actually, yes, there will be. Remember the FBI under Hoover? It got pretty bad (the fucker had dirt on everyone.) Eventually Congress had to reign in the FBI ... many of those wisely-placed restrictions were eventually removed. This is a pendulum, but it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Re:whoopie

[Rob the Bold]

How is this any different from how they're operating now? What does it matter that they're no longer going to breaking a law they never paid any attention to in the first place?

So it works like this:

Step 1: Do whatever you want to do.

Step 2: When Congress or the people complain, ignore or deny Step 1.

Step 3: Announce that you will do whatever it is you started in Step 1.

Step 4: What's the point in complaining, they're already doing it?

I'm sure there's profit in there somewhere.

Re:whoopie

[dpilot]

Congress??

That's what signing statements are for.

Re:whoopie

[CodeBuster]

Karl Rove is a politically well connected and powerful person whereas the average citizen is not. Try giving the next police officer who asks you to do something some lip and you see what happens (i.e. don't taze me bro! Ahhhhhh!).

Re:whoopie

[jez9999]

Eventually Congress had to reign in the FBI

They're still reigning... WITH the FBI.

Re:whoopie

[Boronx]

This is a pendulum, but it's gonna get worse before it gets better.

My most hated phrase. Things can always get worse, and it's quite possible for things to get so bad that they'll never get better for a very long time.

Re:whoopie

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government, NSA, CIA, FBI, and police are the new China.

Why would you even post about something so obvious?

I'm sorry too.

by Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

They also do not have to inform you of the information that they are building against you until it goes to trial.

Suspicion?

[Stanislav_J]

"Several senators have formally complained that citizens could be investigated 'without any basis for suspicion...'"

I believe, in the current climate, that we are all pretty much considered "suspicious" anyway...

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[jawtheshark]

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

My history teacher pointed those out in 1997 and he wasn't thinking of the USA back then. I thought: come on, it can't be that easy! However, seeing what happens in the USA, I humbly have to retract that opinion.

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy: 9/11 Terrorists, enemy combatants and unspoken Islam
2. Create a gulag: Two words... Guantanamo Bay
3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.
4. Set up an internal surveillance system: See article
5. Harass citizens' groups: Again, see article and peaceful oriented groups have already been infiltrated. Okay, my source is Roger Moore so a grain of salt the size of Canada is needed.
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release: This goes along with Guantanamo. However, non-fly lists are in those lines....
7. Target key individuals: Is most certainly happening....
8. Control the press: Conglomerates do this... Don't even bother. Real historic dictatorships couldn't do this as well as capitalistic US.
9. Dissent equals treason: If you're not with us, you're against us.... I have to say no more.
10. Suspend the rule of law: Habeas corpus is gone, more laws have followed and more will follow.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[commandlinegamer]

[quote]my source is Roger Moore[/quote] You've got the inside scoop from James Bond ?!

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[jawtheshark]

Fuck... That's what happens if you watch Moonraker on DVD... I meant Michael Moore. Sorry about that!

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Roger Moore? The 007 guy?

Grain of salt - probably needed more for Michael Moore.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[jawtheshark]

Already pointed out the reason to another commenter... Yes, I feel stupid... Happy now?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[clgoh]

Michael Moore, perhaps?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Thug Caste? Protected from prosecution despite murder & mayhem? Among the only Americans allowed to be armed in New Orleans after Katrina?

Blackwater, anyone?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[jawtheshark]

For the third time, I know I made a mistake.... Stop it already!

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[corsec67]

Police officers.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

Blackwater?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[quonsar]

TSA.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

"Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least."

NSA.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[BlueStrat]

3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

I thought that "MTV Raps" was a recruiting show for this caste. Seriously though, I think the growing gang phenomenon would qualify here.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[corsec67]

When was the last time a TSA officer killed someone and got paid leave while they had an "internal investigation" and found the officer not guilty?

When was the last time that a TSA officer beat someone up in handcuffs and didn't get any consequences?

When was the last time TSA smashed someones door down and shot all of the dogs in the house, again without repercussions?

Hell, when was the last time a police officer got sent to jail?

(Not saying that TSA is bad, just saying that Police Officers are indeed a thug caste, who are all immune from prosecution on just about every law, and are assumed to be in the right when their word differs from anyone else)

I really, really wish this post would be worth of a "-1 Troll" moderation, but all you can say is "give more citations".

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[CodeBuster]

You know Dick Cheney would be an almost perfect substitute for Hugo Drax in that film (i.e. "Look after Mr. Bond, see that some harm comes to him").

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Palshife]

I'll have to type fast, since you'll likely be arrested and executed for step 9 momentarily.

1. 9/11 terrorists are external enemies of the United States of America. The detention of enemy combatants is legal and assumed to be applied in good faith. Thank goodness a system exists to challenge its legality.

Unspoken Islam as an...invoked enemy? Failboat.

2. May want to look up the definition and history of GULAG. You may be surprised it's not actually a place, and has almost nothing in common with Gitmo.

3. Damn, and I thought this Thug Life tattoo was helping.

4. Yes, because the FBI amending its policies equates to the creation of a nationwide integrated surveillance system. Maybe the Guardian was confused by the cameras mounted to the surrounding buildings.

5. Roger Moore's portrayal as an international spy makes him slightly biased. Granted, he did a terrible job.

6. The No-Fly list means...you can't fly. How does this have anything to do with detention and release?

7. I hope it's happening! But then I believe the sentiment here would be to target key dissidents and revolutionaries, and as far as I can tell, Michael Moore is still making movies. Targeting individuals is, well, the whole point of investigating a crime in a reasonable way.

8. Bullshit. The press is controlled by wealthy individuals and corporations. Television in the United States is not programmed by Uncle Sam. It may be biased, but it certainly isn't fascist.

9. Secret Police bagging you now?

10. Fail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Again, see article and peaceful oriented groups have already been infiltrated. Okay, my source is Roger Moore so a grain of salt the size of Canada is needed.

Here's a MSM source about the military spying on Quakers. In the Pentagon's favor, they admitted it was a mistake and said they'd purged nonviolent protest groups from their database. On the other hand, that was after they got caught.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[smoker2]

So the only thing missing at the moment is the canada sized grain of salt then.
Good job that'll never happen.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Rengin]

You just described the Lincoln administration during the Civil War.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, UFC and other Mixed Martial Arts wannabes.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[LoweD]

Police officers are not a thug caste.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[LoweD]

Key words: "Civil War"

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

They are called the Washington Grazies, or falcons or neoconservatives or ... goverment and military officials who have lost their concept of serving the USA.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

3. Develop a thug caste:
          -Seen anything about the Los Angeles gangs lately? MP3? Crips?

I think all 10 are visible and rising.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[dlgeek]

3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

Drug users?

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, it sure is Digg in here.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wish, there's a video of Naomi Wolf, the author of the article you mention, giving her talk on YouTube. I also found a Wikipedia article on her.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[falconwolf]

3. Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

I thought that "MTV Raps" was a recruiting show for this caste. Seriously though, I think the growing gang phenomenon would qualify here.

You don't need MTV, we have Blackwater and other private military contractors as the thug caste.

Falcon

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[falconwolf]

3. Damn, and I thought this Thug Life tattoo was helping.

Does the tattoo say "I work for Blackwater"? ;-)

4. Yes, because the FBI amending its policies equates to the creation of a nationwide integrated surveillance system. Maybe the Guardian was confused by the cameras mounted to the surrounding buildings.

Micheal Bloomberg is doing the same in NYC, he's creating a "Ring of Steel" with CCTV around the city.

6. The No-Fly list means...you can't fly. How does this have anything to do with detention and release?

No-Fly lists don't have anything to do with detention and release, not yet at least, but it does restrict travel. Actually last night CNN had a report about 3 people who have trouble taking a flight. They all have the same name, which is on a No-Fly list. One's a pilot for an airline, another is a 6 year old boy, and I don't recall who the third person is or what he does. All three have been working to get their names removed from the list for years, well in the case of the boy, his parents.

Falcon

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[amper]

If you want to know where the "thug caste" is, just take a look at who's joining the military these days, or Blackwater.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

Thug caste: TSA, police, private contractors.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

"...Okay, my source is Roger Moore so a grain of salt the size of Canada is needed."

Sweet.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[magus_melchior]

Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

Oh, they're way ahead of you.

Suppose you're an immigrant who has applied for permanent residency through your spouse (an American citizen). It's a long, grueling process that requires mucho paperworko and at least a couple of years to process and analyze the applicant, with enough draconian rules to make an eary 20th-century Ellis Island official blanch. Because, you know, we gotta make sure that them immigrants ain't terr'rists, nevermind that real terrorists would no longer use official routes, nor necessarily be foreign nationals.

Now, suppose your spouse dies in a car accident. Common sense would allow some time for you to grieve over your loss and maybe find some way for you to stay or pursue citizenship.

Under the Bush administration, they give you a notice to get out of the country ASAP. Now, the more legalistic among us would agree with the government on this one: their rationale for staying was just taken away from them, so their application may be rendered void. But it becomes complicated if you managed to have children by this time. Okay, says the Bush administration immigration officials, the kids can stay 'cause they're citizens, but you're leaving. Bullshit! you say and hire a lawyer. After a long, protracted process where the government plays all the dirty tricks that SCO and the various RIAA member companies played, the judge becomes pissed and orders the government to allow you to stay and finish the application. Victory?

Nope, there was a law signed ca. 2004 that gives the DHS and immigration expanded powers, to wit: they can kick you out for any reason, without recourse or appeal, or even an explanation. They legislated in a trump-card because they don't want to follow the law.

And that's just the lawyers and USCIS officials. Should we honestly expect the DEA, ATF, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, US Marshals, or the military to be free from political corruption, given it was this easy for the government to destroy someone's hopes, then spit and piss on them on the way out?

Reference: "The Audacity of Government".

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[Anonymous Coward]

There's another ingredient you can add to that list, which is to claim ignorance to all the other steps taken. Apparently that's all it really takes to deceive Americans.. that and your rich daddy's pocket change. It's worked wonders for the Bush Administration who, despite their sadistic roles in the past 8 years, will never be held accountable for their crimes.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

[ps2os2]

Your item:
Develop a thug caste: Not yet, I think so at least.

You haven't been reading the newspapers? Can we say "FBI" ? yes I know you could say it. Doesn't that make you feel better?

What.The.FUCK

[maynard]

You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this. While this is not - specifically - a function of FISA, the loosening of surveillance regulations it implied.

And they said, "We don't spy on Americans."

Right.

This is how it's supposed to work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist. Talk about a class war. Yeah, and they fucking won.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[gznork26]

"Shut the economy down and let the elites twist."

Unfortunately, the puppet masters have woven a bit of ambiguity into the word 'elite'. While the masses might assume that it means the rich minority who are in power, when those in power and those they influence say it, the word refers to intelligent people. That means us. When the slime machine called Obama elite, we're meant to think it means he's one of the powerful rich, but they're actually sliming the fact that he is intelligent and can express himself coherently, as compared to the drivel that his opponent spouts when he's not on script.

Words have power, and people such as Rove have been using our own words against us by redefining -- overloading -- what they mean. That is how they can have a candidate make a speech that means different things to different people. So pay close attention to what they say and how they say it. Think of it as code to be debugged. Note the ambiguities and work out the implied meanings before you accept whatv was said at face value.

P. Orin Zack

---
I write pointed political and business short stories at http://klurgsheld.wordpress.com/ [wordpress.com]
If you find something you like, pass the word

Re:What.The.FUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

With that view, you can thank **McCain** for not voting to help prevent this! What a coward!

And, as you yourself point out, Obama's FISA vote doesn't actually have anything to do with this upcoming FBI surveillance ability.

So, WTF with mentioning Obama?

Also, are you an idiot? The FISA bill that Obama signed made the concession that previous violators would not be convicted, in exchange for tightening the powers of the president. So, if anything, that bill is the exact OPPOSITE of empowering government to do this kind of thing in the future. You can make the argument that not punishing previous violators sets a precedent for lax pursuit of violators in the future, but that's outside the scope of the bill itself. The fact is, the FISA bill, at least on paper, imposes greater limits on the president's ability to order wiretaps.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[AHTuttle]

"Score:5 Insightful"??!!! WTF indeed!! Some how Obama's FISA vote (as infuriating as that was)is somehow worse than the other 67 Senators that voted for it? He saw the writing on the wall and wanted to score points on (perceived) security. McCain saw the writing on the wall (knew it would pass) and skipped the vote like he has over 60% of the time. I'm so disgusted with both right and left on matters constitutional I can hardly see straight, but lets keep perspective on who is leading the charge to destroy the constitution and who is simply unable to do anything about it due to a Bush veto and unprecedented levels of (Republican) filibusters.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[Pichu0102]

Strikes? You really think a strike is going to work against a government, something with no actual being and no qualms about killing those in it's way?

Re:What.The.FUCK

[shiftless]

Looks like we won't get that back without a bit of organized political action. I still recommend General Strikes. Shut the economy down and let the elites twist.

Sounds good until you realize that the average American household has $8,000 worth of credit card debt--not to mention mortgages, car loans, etc. Most Americans are one or two paychecks away from financial ruin. Americans in general are too spineless, and dependent on the "system", to ever revolt against it.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[shaitand]

If you actually think Obama (or anyone else you are permitted to hear of running for president) is not part of the same elite backstabbing central power grabbing slime, then you certainly have no place grouping yourself with an intelligent elite.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[bussdriver]

The Emperor's New Clothes.
Americans know the story but clearly not the moral of it.

Its the same pattern of character attacking anybody who sees the truth. In real life it is not so blatant as a children's story; however, it is embarrassingly close.

Class warfare has been waged in the USA for a long long time and the only people who are allowed to accuse others of "class warfare" without consequences are those who are perpetuating it themselves.

Oh and the tactic of blaming others for your yet-to-be-discovered actions works surprisingly well when combined with this. If you do it with 1 or more collaborators nobody will ever suspect you (and if they do, employ a character attack like saying they are paranoid; plus if you play stupid nobody will think you capable of something so "complex" as collaboration.)

Re:What.The.FUCK

[lawpoop]

Sounds good until you realize that the average American household has $8,000 worth of credit card debt--not to mention mortgages, car loans, etc. Most Americans are one or two paychecks away from financial ruin. Americans in general are too spineless, and dependent on the "system", to ever revolt against it.

There's a quote from anthropology "People don't protest when their bellies are full".

Staggering debt is a great way to foment a revolution. So, what is so wonderful about this system that makes people so dependent on it? The fact that it makes you a serf? When people are in financial ruin, and have nothing else to lose, *that's* when they hit the streets. When they have no food. When they have nothing left to lose but their shackles of debt.

Think about it. What if I said "I can't take it any more. I can't afford food, car payments, credit card payments, and my mortgage. Starting tomorrow, I'm not paying my bills." What would happen? We'll the bank would foreclose on my house, the sheriff would kick me out of my house, and the tow truck would come and take my car, and my credit card would be declined everywhere I went.

Now, what would happen if *everybody* decided to do that? What if almost everybody did that *because they had no money*? There aren't enough sheriffs and tow-trucks to take away everyone's things. And all the businesses need people to keep buying their stuff! We would just stay in our homes, driving our cars when we could afford gas, and all of our credit card bills and credit ratings become as meaningless as a pile of monopoly money.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[shiftless]

Good point, I didn't think of that. I think you may be right. Maybe there is some hope for the US after all.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[lawpoop]

Hey, thanks for no turning this into a flamefest :)

If you haven't run across this already, check out Dmitry Orlov's "Post-Soviet Lessons for a Post-American Century". He's a Russian national ( I think ) who lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union. He sees a lot of similarity between us and them ( He calls it the SU ( Soviet Union ) and the US ), and thinks that the US is in for a collapse. I think the psychological shock will be the biggest hurdle for the American people, but after that, he says the two big things are 1. have a small garden plot and 2. rely on your social networks. Ultimately, he ends on a very positive, hopeful note. Americans haven't been exposed to decades of hope-sapping communist work programs, and still believe in themselves, and believe they can 'make it' by hard work. I'm starting to believe that too!

The next few decades will be a fun, interesting time!

Re:What.The.FUCK

[lawpoop]

Important: note that I only linked to part one. I couldn't find any links to part two or three anywhere else on that page. Be sure to read parts two and three, any where you can find them.

Re:What.The.FUCK

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, McCain decided to skip that vote. But his (McCain's) record of lockstep running with George Bush means he could never get my vote. Obama is a constitutional scholar. He is one of the few politicians I have seen in the last 20 years of paying attention to politics that seems to have a snowballs chance in hell of reviving the bill of rights. At this point, you have two choices (or the third one, like McCain, you can coward out and abstain). McCain is not an option if you care about freedom. Or do you like what Bush has been doing?

Big Deal?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Is investigation without a warrant such a big deal? All it does is save some paperwork which is pretty much a rubber stamping exercise anyway. For the FBI to put manpower into investigating someone means they must suspect something and they'd pretty easily get a warrant anyway.

Re:Big Deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it matters. It means that it's much harder for one person (or a small group) to hide their nefarious activities.

Re:Big Deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it's a big deal. It says there is some outside oversight of the actions of the FBI. With the new rules the FBI can do whatever it wants and no one will know about it. Most agents don't want to abuse their powers but with this new ruling anyone can abuse it. If the people in charge decide to investigate someone there is no organization that can say no since there's no oversight.

Re:Big Deal?

[Free the Cowards]

The fact that nearly everything gets approved does not mean that the approval step does nothing. It could simply be that the FBI knows their judges so well that they know what the judges won't approve and don't even bother going to them. By taking this crucial filter out of the way, you open the gates for all sorts of cases which judges never see now because the FBI won't pursue them.

There's a huge difference between suspecting somebody and having enough evidence to justify a warrant. Policemen are notorious for deciding who's guilty first, and finding the evidence later. The FBI is just another group of police, and they are by no means immune to this effect.

The American government is built on checks and balances. Start removing them and you undermine the foundation of our entire system of government.

Re:Big Deal?

[dbcad7]

For the FBI to put manpower into investigating someone means they must suspect something and they'd pretty easily get a warrant anyway.

Or it could be that someone with connections in the FBI, has a beef with someone else, and has the FBI investigate them for no reason, other than to see what they find out that can be used against this person they don't like,.

Or perhaps they use their internet data mining program, and they find that your name comes up in many posts discussing things with keywords like FBI, and suspect, and that you have been to Hamburg and Prague, and though you haven't really done anything suspicious they decided to investigate you for awhile.. just cuz.. they may get lucky... Kind of like a cop poking around in your vehicle after stopping you for 5 miles over the speed limit.

In other news

[Anonymous Coward]

George W. Bush has announced the US constitution has been fed into a paper shredder. More at 11. Seriously though, why doesn't your president just officially declare himself dictator, and wipe his ass with the constitution on public TV? It would make it a lot easier for the government to adopt these laws. They wouldn't have to try and keep it secret.

COINTELPRO

[spun]

Who says they need to take anything before a judge? Look at what they did with COINTELPRO. Infiltration, psychological warfare, legal harassment, and extralegal violence were all considered acceptable tactics.

Re:COINTELPRO

[jcr]

Who says they need to take anything before a judge?

You've got a point. Of course, Hoover didn't have quite the nerve to harass MLK on his own authority alone, and Bobbie Kennedy authorized the FBIs illegal surveillance of King and other civil rights leaders.

-jcr

Re:COINTELPRO

[Anonymous Coward]

COINTELPRO sounds good. Lets do that to preserve the status quo and make USA safe. I don't like the whole being after the KKK thing, though, because us conservatives should be able to practice racism as we see fit.

Re:COINTELPRO

[mweather]

COINTELPRO is the reason these rules were created, actually.

Re:COINTELPRO

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? It's too bad that the they didn't help all of those pieces of shit from the 60s turn up dead in some fleabag motel before they had a chance to pollute the culture.

Nice guy

[ScrewMaster]

Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings

That's big of him. He'll "allow" Congress to hold hearings? Who wears the pants in this family, anyways?

Re:Nice guy

[Fallingcow]

Nothing will change until people start getting punished for this kind of activity.

I'm in favor of hangings, myself. I'm anti-death penalty in every case except for deliberate betrayal of this country from a position of power.

Investigate This Person of Interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Suspect Number One

Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another

[You Don't Know Me]

It will be interesting to see how this holds up at trial - just because the FBI does it doesn't make it legal. If anything, this may hinder prosecution if the "evidence" found in these activities is found to be inadmissible.

On the other hand, if the courts turn a blind eye to that whole "due process" bit it may well be time to move to a country that makes to pretense of "freedom".

Of course, I have nothing to hide (well, except the full bookshelf of banned Paladin Press books, a few chemicals, some explosives and a few other odds and ends).

Re:Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another

[TheRaven64]

And if the investigation happens to turn up something embarrassing but not necessarily illegal about, say, a senator or two who are voting on the FBI's budget next month, then that information certainly wouldn't make it into the public domain by accident.

Re:Investigate is one thing, prosecute is another

[Pichu0102]

On the other hand, if the courts turn a blind eye to that whole "due process" bit it may well be time to move to a country that makes to pretense of "freedom".

And tell me, where would that be? The path we're following in the US is being taken or has been taken by other countries in the world. There's no where to run anymore.

Re:Fascist America, in 10 easy steps MOD UP

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an excellent article everybody should read. Land of the free my ass.

Sigh...

[KovaaK]

From the last link about senators complaining:

Among their fears: Americans could be targeted in part based on their race, ethnicity or religion

and

Citing remarks earlier by Mukasey about the new rules, the spokesman said an investigation would not be opened based solely on a person's race, ethnicity or religion.

That isn't the problem. I'm glad that they are attempting to slow it down and stop it, but why does it have to boil down to racism for them to stop it? Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

Re:Sigh...

[ScrewMaster]

Why can't they just say "this is completely against what the founders of our country intended"...?

Because the Founders are long dead and cannot speak for themselves. We the People, who were supposed to stand in their stead, have forgotten that.

Re:Sigh...

[StrategicIrony]

Just because someone in power says "well... i know it's possible but, i promise we won't." - that doesn't make it OK.

In fact, that just underscores how gullible they think you are.

If it's possible, it will happen. That guy might not do it, but his successor might... or someone 20 years from now.

Maybe it won't be race, but economic or political or philosophical...

it shouldn't even BE POSSIBLE.

Trends shape history

[Brain-Fu]

History is not made by individuals. History is made by trends. Specific individuals who are surfing at the leading edge of a trend may get the spotlight, and hence the credit, but really it was the trend that made the change, not the person.

The net effect of current trends is a lot of corruption in our government, plainly visible to the public, with a large collective yawn in response.

Sitting around shouting that people need to stand up and do something will not, in and of itself, create a trend of people standing up and doing something.

For that we will need something bigger. And more painful.

Re:Trends shape history

[LoweD]

History is not made by individuals. History is made by trends. Specific individuals who are surfing at the leading edge of a trend may get the spotlight, and hence the credit, but really it was the trend that made the change, not the person.

A trend is only an idea. It cannot think, act, or change anything. It has neither will, nor power.

Individuals

make

history.

Regulations like this do not pass because of an invisible hand guiding human affairs. They pass b/c somebody works toward that end. The same can be done, to the opposite effect. Sure, sitting around and shouting may not do much, but marching and shouting sometimes do the trick.

Re:Trends shape history

[Jorophose]

No, I'm afraid we're all out for now, unless the Baby Boomers want to come into service one last time.

Really the baby boomers were the Great Generation, the generation that kept our countries free. Every step they took towards retirement during "their days" led us down a slippery slope to where we are today.

Re:Trends shape history

[smoker2]

So 9/11 was part of a trend ?
Seems to me the bin laden family and the bush family were both involved in that one before and after. When was the last attack on US soil by foreign terrorists pre 9/11 ?

Re:Trends shape history

[Evil Pete]

I don't buy this. Although trends are very important, human societies are often ruled by a relatively small number of people or are influenced by a small number. Individuals can make a difference at critical times.

Also the reality is that sometimes major events can turn on individual actions. Historical theory would like to make history some kind of scientific process but that is just not how it works.

Re:Trends shape history

[Dr. Donuts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing

Re:Trends shape history

[Anonymous Coward]

More painful than Dubya? Please... don't even joke about that!

Re:Trends shape history

[Pichu0102]

For that we need a populace to become well informed of what's going on. For that, we need to get information to them through the ways they get it. Oh hey, would you look at who controls the information, corporations and their buddies, the government.

Face it. It's too late to do anything. Just try to keep your head down and survive as long as you can before they come for you.

Re:Trends shape history

[myth_of_sisyphus]

In America, you can't fuck with two things: guns and gas. As long as people have reasonable access to either they will be happy.

People's confidence in this administration have dwindled in inverse proportion to the rising price of gas. (THe Bush administration knows this so what did they do? Give D.C. back all its guns of course.)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Alain Williams]

All of these new police powers never seem to come with more accountability or independent oversight.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[CodeBuster]

Silly citizen, we don't need oversight because we have George Dubya "The Decider" Bush using his own impeccable best judgment to decide who the evil doers are. You aren't one of the evil doers are you? You are with us right?

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Anomalyst]

we have George Dubya "The Decider"

Darth Dubya "The Decider"
Fixed that for ya.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Benito Bush is more fitting.

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[avandesande]

I hate to point out the obvious, but where in TFA does it say the FBI can wiretap without a warrant?

Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[amper]

Wait. If I understand you correctly, you're asking, "Who cleans up after the janitors", right? Aren't they making a comic book, or something, like that?

18 USC 371 and 18 USC 1001, FBI Agents...

[mikelieman]

FBI Agents have to be aware that Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell et. al. are guilty of violating the Law for years, and haven't done squat ( as in arresting the alleged felons... ) so who would expect them to be obedient to their oaths in any other way?

Thanks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooooooooooh! Thanks! Great news! Why don't I link my bottom to your fist and my paychecks to your bank account government?

Not the best plan

[davec727]

They want to sit in a black vehicle for hours at a time on a sunny street in August? Just so they can decrypt my midget porn? Joke's on them.

Re:Not the best plan

[blueg3]

It's relevant to remember that they're going to be allowed to conduct warrantless investigations. This doesn't automatically mean they're going to go about investigating anyone and everyone on a whim.

Re:Not the best plan

[rubycodez]

no, they'll investigate specific people on an agenda.

That agenda might be making trouble for those who oppose policy, those who protest, those who question government statistics on economy, etc.

Re:Not the best plan

[n3xg3n]

Which is why we all need to use encryption methods. If they see that someone is using encryption, using the "If you have nothing to hide" mentality they will assume that you do have something to hide, and you will become a viable target. If large amounts of people do this then we can protect our privacy by causing the watchers to spread themselves too thin.

Re:Not the best plan

[Paul Pierce]

This doesn't automatically mean they're going to go about investigating anyone and everyone on a whim.

However, if there is nothing that prevents them from doing just that...


Are we still the Land of the Free?

Re:Not the best plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The agency itself might, but just because the agency, as a whole might actually not abuse it, that doesn't stop individuals in the agency acting alone. If they have an axe to grind, they can easily abuse this.

Sometimes just being afraid of the government isn't enough. The government workers are people too, and remember, they too are human.

Re:Not the best plan

[blueg3]

Look, I don't agree with it at all.

I'm just saying that "everyone" isn't the appropriate word to use. There's basically no capacity to conduct investigation of that scale, yet people react as if the FBI will be tracking everything they do.

They could do it for anyone they want (where "anyone" means, in practice, a relatively small number of people at once) without oversight.

That's not "big brother", that's more like "brother without oversight". It's still a very significant problem, but a different problem than how many interpret it.

Re:Not the best plan

[blueg3]

The exact function of lots of people using encryption (or buying things in cash, or using anonymizers, etc.) is that an attacker (in this case, the FBI) can extract no information from the fact that you're using encryption (or whatever). They don't need to spread themselves thin, but it's no longer a useful "hey, this person might be up to trouble" flag.

I agree that this is good.

Re:Not the best plan

[mabhatter654]

the better word is "anyone". There's the saying you can't fight city hall... imagine dealing with the FBI snooping around. Like you said they can't snoop everyone.. so once they spend X amount of resources on YOU then they have to find SOMETHING to look busy. And being as anybody can "nominate" you without court oversight this will cause trouble.

Re:Not the best plan

[Anonymous Coward]

I have already had a van at my door. I don't give damn personally. However, I believe this is a a Violation of The Constitution so someone should shove this back where it came out of.

Re:Not the best plan

[quanticle]

No, the joke will be on you when you find yourself bundled into the black van for your free, all expenses paid trip to sunny Guantanamo Bay.

Re:Not the best plan

[houghi]

And then leak that information to the 'News aganencies' who then can tell that mr.X used the F word a lot in the private of his own home. and even has used the N word (when completely alone and listening to Clawfinger)

This then will ruin the starting politic carreer or if it is something 'worse' (like doing the nasty with the intern) wait to bring it out when needed.

Although they are not illegal in any way, they can be enough to influence the politacla agenda.

Oh and American Public, please bend over a bit more, because I am sure you love what they are doing to you, otherwise you would struggle more and perhaps even yell rape.

fiscally conservative

[fermion]

Once again, what happened to the fiscal conservative arm of the republican party. Have they been totally consumed by the socially conservatives types who want the government to pay for all their pet faith based projects, like eliminating muslims, no matter what the cost.

It is insane to think that any lackey who hates his neighbor or gets cut off in traffic can open a case file and waste tax money and other opportunities cost. Those Army of God fanatics who are going to kill doctors, don't worry about them, we don't have the resources, all the agents are busy harassing this guy who whistled at my girlfriend.

I think that too many people just see this as a privacy issue. It is a chain of command issue, where we the people of the United states, grant certain powers to our federal government, and through the first amendment make sure that there is due process before the government can restrict our actions. This was an explicit effort to prevent King George from stealing all our money by spending it willy nilly on his prince. Unfortunately the new King George does not respect those restrictions, and like the Prince, feels that the purpose of the peasants to fund his and his friends extravagant lifestyle.

Re:fiscally conservative

[Free the Cowards]

Once again, what happened to the fiscal conservative arm of the republican party. Have they been totally consumed by the socially conservatives types who want the government to pay for all their pet faith based projects, like eliminating muslims, no matter what the cost.

Nah, they've all just converted! Turns out that small government, fiscal conservatism, and individual liberties are only good things when the other party is in power. When your own party is in power, you want expanded government, unlimited spending, and lots of laws.

I watched my father do this. During the Clinton years he was all about smaller government and spending less. Once Bush hit the White House, bang! Bush is great, and anything he does is also great.

Most followers of political parties don't think, they rationalize. They will find any reasons they need to support what their party does. If the situation changes, the reasons will change too.

which the Justice Department denies

[TubeSteak]

I'm going to quote an old post from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" article:

Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

This is how Bush is going to finish out his Administration:
Administrative guidelines and Executive Orders that are not subject to debate or review.

And here I though Mukasey was supposed to be a breath of fresh air after the trainwrecks that were Ashcroft and Gonzalez. Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?

Re:which the Justice Department denies

[delong]

Whatever happened to reasonable suspicion?

What about it? Government does not need reasonable suspicion to investigate you. It needs reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention, and probable cause for an arrest or seizure. Some searches and seizures are investigations, but not all investigations are searches or seizures.

The Fourth Amendment, Article V, and the Fourteenth Amendment do not prevent the government from conducting investigations for any rational purpose it darn well pleases.

We need the USSR back.

[smellsofbikes]

Raise your hands, everyone who is surprised by this...

yeah, that's what I thought.

We need the old USSR back. As odd as this seems, there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness. I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things. I think that at least in part it's because we no longer have competition to compare and contrast our government's behavior to, so people are less apt to associate this kind of totalitarian behavior with The Evil Empire. As a result, we become The Evil Empire.

I'm not cheering for Russia as it stomps around in Georgia, mind you, but an odd side-effect of it might be that we start acting like the USA, rather than Trashcanistan.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs USSR, when we got USSA?

Re:We need the USSR back.

[dontmakemethink]

Check out Combat Baby by Metric, it's about a former hippy's boredom from a lack of moral activism:

Video

We used to leave the blue lights on and there was a beat
Ever since you have been gone it's all caffeine-free
Faux punk fatigues
Said it all before
They try to kick it, their feet fall asleep
Get no harm done no
None of them want to fight me

Combat baby come back baby
Fight off the lethargy
Don't go quietly
Combat baby
Said you would never give up easy
Combat baby come back

Get back in town I wanna paint it black
Wanna get around
Easy living crowd so flat
Said it all before
They try to kick it, their feet fall asleep
I want to be wrong but
No one here wants to fight me like you do

I try to be so nice
Compromise
Who gets it good?
Every mighty mild seventies child
Every mighty mild seventies child
Beats me

How I miss your ranting
Do you miss my all time lows

------------
And that song was released over 5 years ago. The caffeine-free part sure ain't the case anymore thanks to Red Bullsh|t...

P.S. html-formating song lyrics is a bitch...

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Free the Cowards]

I don't think that actually works. The worst abuses of freedom in US history happened during the Cold War, after all. Remember J. Edgar Hoover? COINTELPRO? McCarthy? Spying on civil rights activists?

The whole problem is that nobody is willing to take the long view. People in government are willing to do anything to defeat the enemy of the day, and damn what consequences it has afterwards.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately we have China.
Iran (and probably the arab world) is probably thinking what you're thinking.

Iran: Look at the USA with their secret courts.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, well, you know... it wasnt that peachy then either...
i mean... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthysm

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so returning USSR will help USA?
Ivan, call the necromancers, we are not bringing Lenin back.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[smoker2]

I agree, but it's not the sense of competition that's needed, it's something for the spooks to do !
Back in the late 70's early 80's things were pretty tense and the cold war was just something you had got used to. But there was a lot of people involved in that "war". Suddenly it was all over and every body realised they were basically out of work.
Now they're busy again AND they've got hi-tec. Happy days, happy days.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[PPH]

McCarthy was right. The Communists sought to undermine our government and system of civil rights. It appears as though they have won the war.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." -- Pogo

Re:We need the USSR back.

[smellsofbikes]

I don't remember them, but I've read about them.
Do you think that COINTELPRO and spying on civil rights activists was worse than an administration that has said they don't believe in habeas corpus and runs a worldwide network of secret prisons, where they torture people? The 1950's were a low point for counterculture in the US, but the government's persecution of them was legal, if unethical, and much of it was done publically. I'm not saying it was right. I'm just saying that it was done largely within the legal framework of the time (which is why the legal framework was changed, in large part.)
I think you have to go back to the government suppression of the labor movement in the 1890s before you find anything similar to our current administration in widespread disregard of law and order.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't so secret if you just mentioned them, now are they?

Re:We need the USSR back.

[shaitand]

'I remember mocking the USSR for having secret courts, secret laws, secret prisons. Now WE have those things.'

That's rather silly. We had all those things when you were laughing at the USSR!

Re:We need the USSR back.

[falconwolf]

Do you think that COINTELPRO and spying on civil rights activists was worse than an administration that has said they don't believe in habeas corpus

Bush wasn't the first US president to deny habeas corpus. Though another president may have before him, the first president I know of that did deny habeas corpus was President Lincoln. And just as this Supreme Court ruled, the Supreme Court in his day ruled suspending habeas corpus was unconstitutional.

Falcon

Re:We need the USSR back.

[houghi]

McCarthyismIt is the same as it is now. Just the name of the enemy has changed. Rember, we were never at war with Eurazia.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Berlin wall came down, I thought that it was not so much because they're free, but because we have become so much like them, like the rising water in a lock, it is now safe to open the gate.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Free the Cowards]

Worse doesn't matter. Fact is that the "freedom" competition with the USSR did not spur the US Government to greater and greater heights of liberty as was claimed. Quite the opposite, in their zeal to defeat the Commie at all costs, they cracked down on freedom a lot.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

there was actually a sense of competition going on back then -- competition for goodness

Competition for most political assasinations? Competition for most nukes? Competition for more citizens kept under fear in order to stay in power and do terrible things to minorities and citizens in general?
Cold War might have beed cold in the Bible Belly, regardless of churches. In other parts of the world the cold seemed quite hot, and not because it was so cold it felt like burning.

Re:We need the USSR back.

[Anonymous Coward]

Creative tension in all aspects of humankind is desirable. It brings an element of competition to the present and initiates a stepped up level of logical thinking in order to prepare and to plan.

Re:WWTJD

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas Jefferson had skills. Certainly, he would aim for the face. "Boom, headshot, good sir!"

Then he would proceed to place the blasphemer face down on the pavers with his teeth on a sharp edge, and proceed to cobble-check their shit like a redcoat on the 4th.

Finally he would urinate on the corpse while whistling the national anthem, with a triumphant shake at each note of "home of the brave" as he finished up.

A tip of his hat and a wink, and he was off to battle Chuck Norris for the freedoms we hold dear.

God Blasph America.

This is a big win for public security!

[NoobixCube]

How will we know who the terrorists are if we can't find out who's buying a chemistry set for his 7 year old son's birthday?

There is still hope

[tuxgeek]

After reading the posts previous, it looks like most individuals here don't support a facist nazi evolution to democracy in America.

GWB and the rest of the gestapo cartel will not be around much longer and all the damage these crack pots have done, can be undone.

The next election will decide this. One prospect proposes hope and change, while the other guy thinks the path we are on today is good enough and no reason to change our direction.

People just need to care enough to get out and vote this November.

Re:There is still hope

[Legion303]

Yes, the democrats have certainly done all they can to reverse the trend in the last two years, from Nancy Pelosi's "impeachment is off the table" all the way through congress "considering" a ban on lead in toys (what's to consider, guys?). I'm voting a straight "none of the above" ticket this time around, thanks.

Cyberwar?

[TheDarkener]

/me doesn't really care if this comment flags him by the FBI, as he probably already is anyway. We are all terrorists in the eyes of our federal government.

If technology is used to monitor we, the people, we can break into that technology and stop/slow/break/expose said monitoring.

I see a new bumper sticker in my head...

"HACK THE FBI"

Re:Cyberwar?

[Anonymous Coward]

I own a t-shirt printing business and website... not going to self plug right now ;)
 
How about some tees with that on them?

Re:Cyberwar?

[TheDarkener]

I own a t-shirt printing business and website... not going to self plug right now ;)

If you want to msg me (like it's any more secure) I have a *lot* of t-shirt ideas that pertain to this kind of thing.

Re:Cyberwar?

[dontmakemethink]

A rather paranoid friend of mine suggested that "the secret society behind the Bush administration" is pushing hard to harvest as much profitable data before they lose the ability to do so. He compared them to a whale that can only survive so long without coming up for air. "They took a DEEP breath this time."

If that were true, cyberwarfare would probably be your only defense. But then "they" would be ready for that next time...

How rude

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an FBI agent, you insensitive clod!

armed result == bloodbath

[moderatorrater]

Seriously, there is no good way for an armed revolt to be pulled off right now. It took over 100 years for the Civil War to be recovered from, and those guys thought 100 / minute was pretty sweet. We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile. Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[sleigher]

Except that if things really ever got to that point it is likely the country would be split and the military would also have splinter factions that support the revolution. Remember that the military is just a bunch of 'us'. I would expect most of the military to support the Union but there would certainly be access to commanders and weapons. Obviously this is an extreme example.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

I do. There's far less soldiers than armed citizens, and soldiers aren't going to all want to fight against their own families, friends, and neighbors.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Mr. Slippery]

We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile. Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you

Deploying a heavy weaponry to take out a small cell of freedom fighters is a terrorist action, one that tends to turn the population against the government because of the collateral damage.

Insurgencies can "work", for certain definitions of "work", against modern armies, Vietnam being the classical example.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Drakin020]

Well how you you propose we handle it? Sure we can all become apart of the political community, but let's think realistically here....

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmR0V6s3NKk
This is how you can do it.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is exactly why the constitutional right of posessing weapons does not make sense anymore, IMHO.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[bckrispi]

Insurgencies can "work", for certain definitions of "work", against modern armies, Vietnam being the classical example.

Iraq being the contemporary example.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Fulcrum of Evil]

what's interesting is that if something like Iraq were to happen here (with the local army), there'd probably be far more concentration on high value targets as opposed to 'kill everyone that cooperates with americans, and also whichever religious faction you don't like'. Hell, we've got a few hundred people who specialize in that sort of thing in the army today - some of them will certainly take offense to a full on subjugation.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the color revolution, which was non-violent and successful at overthrowing corrupt and/or authoritarian governments.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

And what?

We have home-grown weapons of mass destruction. We have home-grown cyber weapons of mass destruction. We have spies. We have communication. We have the internet itself. We are programmers working with robots and automated systems. We are the assistants to the high-ranking officers or big executives. We are doctors, lawyers, surgeons.

There is no need to fight from the out to the in. We are the in. We are the out.

We are legion. There is no where left to run. We have you surrounded. The cute girl in HR, the security guards, the hot-headed IT staff. We are your boss and your lackey.

There is no running. There is no need to run, because there is nothing to run from. You have already lost.

We are anonymous. We are legion.

And you, FBI, will now die, systematically erased from history.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

Which is presumably why the vast power of the United States military, supported by numerous allied nations, subdued Iraq and established a secure replacement government so quickly. Oh, wait, they still haven't quite done that, have they?

You seem to be confusing terrorism with asymmetric warfare. The two concepts, while often encountered together, are quite different.

You are also assuming that all that military and security power would willingly turn against its own people if it really came to the crunch. That seems unlikely, and it would only take a relatively small amount of resistance in military units or intelligence organisations to cause a great deal of damage. After all, that is why these groups take security so seriously when confronting other foes.

The really sad thing is that the US government (and those of many other nations) have basically talked themselves into the current madness by overreacting to a small number of isolated but high profile events, developing a culture of fear, and giving absurdy disproportionate emphasis and resources to vaguely defined goals that are somehow supposed to prevent any further high profile bad events. In other words, the terrorists have won, because now the government is doing their job for them and forcing people to change their behaviour out of fear. Meanwhile, orders of magnitude more innocent lives have been lost in the resulting conflicts than ever were in the original attacks. Even worse, orders of magnitude more damage has been done by wasting time, money and public awareness on assorted wars on abstract nouns instead of basic things like making roads safer, curing illnesses, heating the homes of the elderly in winter, and improving the education and opportunities of our kids so they don't go on to become bored and disillusioned enough to explore lives of crime in the first place, any of which alone would do more to improve the health and happiness of the nations than any military action or national security effort ever could.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[AceofSpades19]

Terrorist actions could win the fight in theory, but in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you. I just don't see any way an armed revolt could work given the realities of today's military.

Thats what the US thought when they invaded Iraq, and now were are they?

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Repossessed]

A properly organized revolt could end the whole thing in a few days. The government only has as much military power as the military lets it.

At which point either a dictatorship is set up, or we get new yahoos in office that are the same as the old ones. The first revolution worked only because the voters had already made wise decisions. And because Washington didn't go for dictatorship at the last minute.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, you can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs. And we're handing them ours on a silver platter.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[element-o.p.]

Seriously, there is no good way for an armed revolt to be pulled off right now...

How is this different from any other point in history? The Zulu nation overthrew the Brits in Africa, even thought the Zulu nation was armed with spears and arrows and the Brits were armed with guns. Japanese martial arts (well, at least some of them) were invented as a way for peasant farmers, who were essentially unarmed, to defend themselves against sword-wielding, armored samurai and ronin. In virtually every uprising in history, a relatively poorly armed militia took on a technologically superior army, with the possible exception of the American Revolution. The militia always took heavy losses because the regular army had the technological edge, but if the militia is sufficiently pissed, they can win.

The only thing that makes it look so overwhelming now is that we don't have the advantage of hindsight to see what the weaknesses of modern armies are. They are definitely there, but it's hard to see what weakness to exploit when you have a front-row seat to the battle.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[DocHoncho]

Check out the color revolution, which was non-violent and successful at overthrowing corrupt and/or authoritarian governments.

Funny you should mention that. I came across a book which insists that Obama is doing just that, in an attempt to conduct a "fascist coup."

Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate Of course, it's by Webster Tarpley, conspiracy-theorist-extraordinaire, so it should be taken with an appropriate dose of salt.

It'd actually be an interesting read if it weren't written in such a mushy-headed, stream-of-consciousness manner.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[falconwolf]

We've got van mounted miniguns that can shoot thousands of bullets per minute and are completely mobile.

And those manning the miniguns may shoot at anyone giving orders to shoot on civilians or citizens. Ever hear of fragging? During the Viet Nam War soldiers would frag officers and others for giving bad orders. During the Tiananmen Square protests the authorities were concerned that the Chinese army would split into factions that would fight each other.

Falcon

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Pichu0102]

Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what? Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween, and they would be executed on suspicion, right?

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Cathoderoytube]

I should point out the term you're looking for is guerrilla, not terrorist. I know it's a popular word these days, but there's a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[falconwolf]

Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what?

I'd ask my nephew, but he's a Marine stationed in Iraq, however when I was in the army we were taught not to follow orders we thought were illegal or violated human rights. When sworn in, yes people are sworn in when they go into the military, people pledge to uphold the Constitution of the USA though.

Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween

I take it you've never been in the military but when I was in there were plenty of people who'd disobey any such order. Viet Nam had a number of examples of fragging where unpopular officers had fragmentation grenades, where the name comes from, tossed at them by those under their command.

Falcon

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Until the army is a bunch of robots

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

soldiers aren't going to all want to fight against their own families, friends, and neighbors.

That's an easy one. They could just send soldiers from California to Georgia, soldiers from Montana to New York, etc.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Tuoqui]

Yep they're sworn to protect the country and the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic... So if your government becomes an enemy to the constitution the only logical result is to protect the country from the government that has become a threat to the country itself. End result is unfortunately either a bloody coup and/or civil war. But at least at the end the memories of such violent action it took to protect the country will serve as a prevention mechanism until such a time as a few generations pass and the memories fade into history and it has to be repeated again.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[LuxMaker]

A lot of the military have been brainwashed to obey orders "or else" and the military that does not comply could be quickly squashed.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

The collateral damage could also turn the population against the ones doing the damage. It really depends much more on who the population at large believes is in the wrong.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[jimicus]

in reality it's much harder to fight as a terrorist because the collateral damage turns the population against you.

Not if you're careful where you attack. But it works best if the people you disagree with are from another country.

The terrorist argues "Group X are infringing upon us, we've tried asking nicely, let's try blowing them up" and then goes to the country where Group X lives and starts exploding things.

The government of the affected country goes into the country where they think the terrorist originated from. Of course, the government doesn't have the remotest clue who or what they're looking for, but they feel they have to do something. The collateral damage comes when the government just starts mindlessly victimising some group thinking they're responsible for the earlier attack (whether or not that's true is neither here nor there - just because the majority of the IRA were catholics doesn't mean the majority of catholics were members of the IRA, for instance). Note that this attack doesn't have to be limited to killing; internment also counts.

The friends and family of the people who were attacked by the government which stormed in now start to think "Hey, maybe those terrorist people have a point." Congratulations, you've now got three terrorists where previously you had one.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[StrategicIrony]

haha

hahaha

HAHAHAHAHA

"a properly organized revolt"

That, my friend, is a good one.

When was the last time someone "properly organized" a group millions of untrained, citizens into spontaneous, irreversible and potentially violent action to overthrow their own government "in a few days"? AND did it with sufficient surprise that nobody in power was aware it was going on?

Good luck with that one.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[StrategicIrony]

The Zulu nation overthrew the Brits in Africa, even thought the Zulu nation was armed with spears and arrows and the Brits were armed with guns.

Which they outnumbered almost 15-to-1 and who's leader was so arrogant he didn't even bother with proper battlefield tactics.

Japanese martial arts (well, at least some of them) were invented as a way for peasant farmers, who were essentially unarmed, to defend themselves against sword-wielding, armored samurai and ronin.

Whom they outnumbered something like 500-to-1 (and continued to be subject to for almost 800 years).

The only thing that makes it look so overwhelming now is that we don't have the advantage of hindsight to see what the weaknesses of modern armies are. They are definitely there, but it's hard to see what weakness to exploit when you have a front-row seat to the battle.

I agree. I think their weakness is their infrastructure dependence. They can't fly without gas and electricity. I think it would involve shutting down essential services such as electricity and fuel to bring a modern military down to civilian "street fighting" actions.

How many people would willingly destroy their city's infrastructure for a chance to pick a new government? Not many, unless things were REALLY bad.

I don't mean "you might be jailed for subtle dissidence" sort of bad. I mean "random people put to firing squads in the street" sort of bad.

Unfortunately, the "you might be jailed for subtle dissidence" government SHOULD be stopped. but it won't happen.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily. Short answer: surgical decapitation strike. Shorter answer: CheyTac M-100

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

The military are citizens as well. If 0% of the military are amongst those rebelling, it wasn't a very popular revolt to start with.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

True, that's why the bastards who wipe their feet on the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be stealthily assassinated one by one until those in government fear the people, instead of having the people live in fear of their government the way it is now.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

A military coup could work. The irony is because of weapon restrictions, one large group of colonels could probably take washington with little or no effort.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, just look at Iraq, armed insurgents are having no success there whatsoever...

What are you going to do with that minigun when a single sniper round comes out of nowhere and takes out one of your soldiers? Kill everyone in the area? Collateral damage turning the population against you is something that works both ways. That's what insurgents have relied on at least since the time of Mao....take a potshot, melt into the civilian population.

Insurgent snipers have had a big impact in Iraq, doing exactly that...take one shot, sneak away. Then they post the videos on the web.

Yes, it would be horrible and there are other things we should do instead. I would hate to live in this country with that kind of mess going on. But the U.S. is much bigger than Iraq, and is awash in millions of hunting rifles that would function just fine for sniper attacks. If it came right down to it, the outcome would not be certain.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[element-o.p.]

Yup. I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. A sufficiently pissed populace *can* overthrow a modern army, although they will suffer great losses. With something like 300 million people in the U.S., there is almost certainly the numbers necessary to overcome the U.S. military. However, unless "random people put to the firing squads in the street sort of bad" happens, I don't think enough people will become sufficiently outraged to take action. We can't even get people to leave their televisions long enough to *vote*; an uprising is almost certainly out of the question.

Having said that, I wouldn't partake in an uprising at this point. Our government is bad -- there is enough unwarranted surveillance and corruption in government right now to make that a given -- but I'm not yet at the point where I want to participate in a violent revolution. I do wish, however, that there was a way to get the voters outraged enough to vote out all the losers in office and replace them with representatives who will actually try to make the U.S. a better place. Unfortunately, there is too much voter apathy and self-interest for that to happen. In my own home state of Alaska, one of our Senators, Ted Stevens, has been indicted on corruption charges. He is currently running for reelection, and I really think he will win, despite the corruption investigation against him. Why? Because Senator Stevens has enough seniority and clout in the Senate to keep bringing money to Alaska, even for projects that Alaskans would have to admit are wasteful and bad for the nation as a whole, if they would look at the issues objectively. However, even though money for many of these projects is bad for the country, they are (arguably) good for Alaska's economy, and so Stevens will probably be reelected this year, sigh. Somehow, I don't think Alaska is terribly unusual in this regard; were it any other state, it would probably be the same.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[originalTMAN]

but the splitting didn't happen at Tiananmen.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure about that? I really don't see the US military being able to turn its full might upon citizens. Large amounts of troops, and their equipment would join the revolution rather than attack uprising areaas. Not to mention Urban warfare is a bitch, our armys are having a hard time in Iraq, the population of the US is ten times that of Iraq.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you don't know the first thing about actual warfare. Really, it get's goddamnably annoying to hear armchair theorists spout off on the 'realities' of war when the closest they've ever been to it is a fucking video game.

Here's some actual reality for you, from someone who's part of those armed forces you spout off about, and who has a much better idea of how things would actually go down.

People who think a civil uprising is doomed from the start are ignorant fools. The entire U.S. Army amounts to about 50 fighting divisions (the rest are support), about 90% of which is currently overseas. Even if they were all home in the Lower 48, they'd be fighting a guerilla war in an enormous country, most of which would probably take place in an urban setting - the nightmare of any modern army. If even 2% of the U.S. population revolted, they'd be outnumbered 12 to 1 in the worst conditions they could imagine: city fighting, where armor is particularly easy to disable, and where any sort of free-fire will result in massive civilian casualties that will most certainly push millions more into open rebellion when confronted with the bodies of dead relatives, husbands, wives, children, and friends.

Remember, that's just *2% of the population*, a tiny fraction. Imagine if it were 5% or even 10%. Do the math.

According to the Army itself, in a civil war it's assuming that only about half the armed forces would actually commit to killing Americans. Of the remaining half, 50% of those would hunker down and sit out the fighting, while the remainder would most likely go over to the rebels. The longer the fighting continues the less reliable the original 50% becomes. They start to get worried about their own friends and families, or they get word that someone they knew was killed in the fighting and their loyalty wavers. The U.S.'s primary fire assets - artillery and air - can't be used at all unless the executive is willing to push the entire country (and even more of its own forces) into open rebellion. A president who authorized something like the bombing of downtown L.A. would probably find himself shot fairly quickly, or perhaps "hospitalized" after a "nervous breakdown".

The people who make the claim that the army can't be fought by a bunch of folks carrying small arms are people who've never been in the armed forces. People who've never seen what small arms, or molotovs, or home-made explosives can really do. People who've never given a thought to how to disable a tank (and the ways in a city are numerous).

The U.S. army is incapable of effectively garrisoning the largest twenty metropolitan areas in the country against large-scale resistance, much less doing this AND carrying out assault operations elsewhere. The country is too large, the urban settings are hell to fight in and give all the advantages to the rebels, and no matter how you slice it civilians are going to be killed in droves. Add to that defections and what you'll get is too little over too large an area, with supply lines being constantly cut by small rebel forces.

The government would like you to believe that resistance is futile, as would the liberals who want to outlaw guns altogether. But that isn't the truth at all. Sure, rebel casualties would be high, but the rebels would win. Given the size of the country and the inability of the army to cover most of it, they'd probably win fairly quickly.

By spreading the idea that the government can't be effectively fought you're acting like a shill for the people currently in power. The government can not only be fought by the people, it can be fought *and defeated* by a tiny fraction of the people. The only reason that this hasn't happened already is that a) people haven't yet been pushed to a violent reaction, and more importantly b) people buy into this silly myth that the U.S. military would crush any rebel action into paste, a lie perpetrated by folks who want us all to believe that resistance is, indeed, futile.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[StrategicIrony]

Having said that, I wouldn't partake in an uprising at this point. Our government is bad -- there is enough unwarranted surveillance and corruption in government right now to make that a given -- but I'm not yet at the point where I want to participate in a violent revolution.

Agreed.

However, I am actively investigating moving to another country. Both for above stated reasons and for cultural and personal reasons.

I do wish, however, that there was a way to get the voters outraged enough to vote out all the losers in office and replace them with representatives who will actually try to make the U.S. a better place.

Well, I frequently vote libertarian, but I don't like who they picked for president this year, frankly. He's a libertarian-leaning republican, not the other way around.

However, it's hard not to apathetic when my vote has never been in a group that gained more than 3% of the vote.

I won't even go into Ted "series of tubes" Stevens.............. gak.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[moderatorrater]

You're absolutely right, thank you.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[MJMullinII]

Aren't those in the military trained to follow orders from the government no matter what? Surely those who would refuse to raise arms against those they were ordered to kill would be few and far inbetween, and they would be executed on suspicion, right?

DAMN I WISH THEY HADN'T CANCELED JERICHO!

I LOVED that show...

It's discussions like this that really make me miss it...

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[MJMullinII]

Until the army is a bunch of robots

In that case, we must IMMEDIATELY take control of all the pharmacies. That way, we can cut off their fuel supply.

We, of course, all know that Robots use old people's medicine as fuel.

Where's "Old Glory" Insurance when you need it.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[Repossessed]

Most takeovers that succeed are done with a very small number of people, and from within the military. A full scale war can't take place if the military isn't willing to fight for the government.

Re:armed result == bloodbath

[ps2os2]

I was in the army 40 years ago. A couple of times I followed orders and almost got court marshaled for doing so. I was lucky as my boss was a civilian and he stuck up for me (he was a GS-15). The army listened to him and told the officers to go fight other battles. The other time I almost got court marshaled was for having a poster up in the barracks that the captain thought was obscene. I went straight over to the JAG and made a formal complaint. The JAG asked what I wanted and I said reimbursement for the poster (IIRC around US$4.50). I got it. So using the system wisely does work, and you don't have to kill your officers:-)

Sure, I'm up for it

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, it's probably more fun than going to work every day and getting kicked in the nuts for it.

nightmare

[drDugan]

Will this nightmare end?

Will the US go back to where Constitutional basic civil liberties are respected?

I'm not sure why Americans would want to stay in the US any more: on top of the overt repeal of historical rights, they have a declining dollar, poor education, poor and very expensive healthcare, and a culture of people that would attack and vilify those that stand up and point out these points.

For all the high brow talk about the Constitution and what the rights mean that it grants - any basic 4th grader can look at the situation, understand what the document intended, and observe that is no longer why US citizens have.

The financial system in the US is in active meltdown, right now. People are walking around with "debt" notes in their pocket and guess what, IT'S ALL DEBT - there are no resources to back it up. Boy that hangover is going to hurt when people realize how worthless their money is. The US has been on a 100-year bender, all the time mortgaging our resources to central bankers who whip up notes of debt for the people to carry around.

Education in the US is so much worse than it once was. Gates has given speeches on it. In international competitions, Chinese students kick the US students' asses. Higher and higher percentages of college students are non-native US.

I don't understand why more people are not acting in the US, why more people are not literally walking into every local government meeting and screaming long and loud for accountability from their leaders, pushing upward on the system every place they can.

Re:nightmare

[ScrewMaster]

poor and very expensive healthcare

I wouldn't say it's poor, not at all. People still come here from other countries to have procedures done that are simply unavailable in many parts of the world. I have had some health issues myself the past year, and have been well treated by the medical system so far. But you're right that it's definitely overpriced: I'm fortunate that my employer provides decent benefits. For now, at least.

Re:nightmare

[shaitand]

'People still come here from other countries to have procedures done that are simply unavailable in many parts of the world.'

The same is true equador for god sake. Procedures are developed all over the world, but for every breakthrough coming from the US there seems to be dozens of REAL breakthroughs elsewhere. Start getting your news from outside the US sources and you'll start seeing it to. I recommend the BBC for a start.

Re:nightmare

[falconwolf]

Procedures are developed all over the world, but for every breakthrough coming from the US there seems to be dozens of REAL breakthroughs elsewhere. Start getting your news from outside the US sources and you'll start seeing it to. I recommend the BBC for a start.

Ok, let's try the BBC, which I loved to listen to on shortwave radio:

• "Health Patients waiting longer for hospital appointments".
• "Hospital trolley waits 'obscene'".
• "Surgery delays 'to balance books'".

Falcon

Re:nightmare

[StrategicIrony]

I don't understand why more people are not acting in the US, why more people are not literally walking into every local government meeting and screaming long and loud for accountability from their leaders, pushing upward on the system every place they can.

Uhm.. hang on... Season 3 of "Lost" is about to start.

Can we get back to this later?

Yeah... that would be great...

Thanks for stopping by. Do you want some nachos?

Sorry, what were you saying?

Re:nightmare

[Boronx]

People still come here from other countries to have procedures done that are simply unavailable in many parts of the world.

That's only one part of "Poor". Many complex and expensive procedures are available all over the world, quite often for less many and for world-class quality. Americans can travel to exotic locations, have a two week vacation, get top notch care, and come out financially ahead, sometimes by thousands of dollars. They do it in droves.

Re:nightmare

[shaitand]

Those links would be so much more impressive if the type of hospital outpatient visits they are referring to weren't all but non-existent in the United States.

Further it seems to me that keeping waiting lists short by leaving the majority of medical conditions untreated for the bulk of the population is a less than ideal solution.

It is also a strawman, wait times have nothing to do with the drugs and surgery procedures being developed in Europe and elsewhere that the US hasn't approved. There are plenty of new drugs coming out in the US but no REAL developments. Instead the drug companies go the way of hollywood and replay the same rehashed drugs again and again making sure the patents don't run out.

Hell, the US won't even acknowledge the medicinal uses of cannabis yet and we've known about them for a few thousand years!

Re:nightmare

[ScrewMaster]

(sigh) how about you dispute what I actually said, rather than saying "well, you can get stuff done elsewhere so there." The GP said, "America's health care system is poor" and I disagreed with some of what he was saying. You just want to America-bash and don't really want a discussion.

Go away.

Re:nightmare

[shaitand]

'(sigh) how about you dispute what I actually said'

Right back at you.

You used people coming here to get procedures done as your basis for claiming our healthcare system is not poor. I countered by demonstrating that countries with notably poor healthcare still manage to draw in outsiders for procedures, knocking the support out from under your conclusion.

Your personal experience in the medical system neither adds credibility nor detracts from the quality of the US medical system so I simply ignored that part. Anecdotal evidence is worthless and even if it weren't you didn't experience what treatment would have been like elsewhere.

Re:Blame Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Curse you Canada, for being less crappy and making move to you when my current country could not control itself.

Who has the time?

[Efialtis]

I think one of the biggest things we should complain about is that if someone is NOT a suspect in a crime, or is NOT suspected of violating any law, or is NOT a "person of interest" then WHERE IS ALL THE TIME going to come from that the FBI will use to spy on all the Americans?
Where is all the MONEY going to come from for the FBI to spend on surveillance that isn't attached to any crime?

These are important questions that should be asked.

I hope ...

[PPH]

... any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

Re:I hope ...

[shma]

... any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

Just make sure not to use your real name when you do.

Re:I hope ...

[Free the Cowards]

We had that chance with the recent FISA vote. And the response from both of them was a big resounding "nothing whatsoever".

Re:I hope ...

[nawcom]

In all honesty, I personally think this will be on the bottom of the list of questions. Unless I am wrong at looking at the majority US citizens not giving a fuck. I sure give a fuck. You know what I'm doing? Moving to Canada. I actually have paid the lease for a place 30 minutes from where I am in Michigan to move to in the next week or so. I gave up on Americans a while ago. You ask them for a solution and they give you religious faith.

Note that I know that everyone is not like this. It's just surprising how many different people, conservative, liberal, whatever - it doesn't matter - they simply would care less. "It's not my business so I'm not worried about the FBI." I respect your opinion, but you have yet to understand that that "business" is no longer your own anymore.

Re:I hope ...

[scaryjohn]

... any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

Dude! Obama picked McCain as a running mate!?!? No wonder he was trying to keep his choice for Vice-President a secret.

Re:I hope ...

[Mitreya]

.. any of you that get the chance ask Obama/McCain what they intend to do about this if elected.

As recent FISA vote would show you, asking the candidate what they intend to do is not good enough. They might (and often are) simply lying to get elected.

If any of you ignorant, fat, bible-thumping...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Yanks describe yourselves as being from "The land of the free and the home of the brave" ever again, I will kill you. Seriously, I'm not joking.

Re:If any of you ignorant, fat, bible-thumping...

[ScrewMaster]

And you, sir, are an asshole, and while (as a civilized American) I would endeavor not to outright kill you, I would dearly love to knock you off your high horse. FYI, the fat, bible-thumping types are a minority in this country. Nobody likes fat bible-thumpers except other fat bible-thumpers. Stop judging all of us by the actions of a few loudmouths.

America is what it is, nowadays, but I'd like you to honestly say to yourself: why are you picking on us? Are there not much worse places to live? I know several people that emigrated from the ex-Soviet Union, and with good reason. They can tell you about what living in a true police state is really all about, and how different America, even now, is from what they left behind.

Find a nastier bunch of totalitarian pricks to jump on ... there are plenty to choose from around the world.

Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

[EgoWumpus]

Worrying about what other people are doing about it will only go so far. What are you doing about it? Posting on Slashdot - or preaching to the choir - doesn't count as an affirmative action.

Re:Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

[Neanderthal Ninny]

JFK is break-dancing in his grave with Jackie.
We have become the dictatorship we have be preaching about.

Re:Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

[Drakin020]

What do you propose I do about it then?

One man vs a nation doesn't get very far.

Hell even the Ron Paulinites that marched to Washington that day...Thousand didn't even make a budge in the government.

Did I go? Hell no cause they scare the f*ck out of me.

Re:Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

[EgoWumpus]

What do you propose I do about it then?

Until such time as you can answer that question for yourself, you have little ground to complain that other people aren't doing enough. All you've proven is that your initial statement that Americans will do nothing is true; after all, you yourself have not figured out what to do. It's ridiculous to indict others for not standing up for their rights if you, yourself, are unwilling to do so.

Re:Don't Ask What Your Country Can Do For You

[hacker]

Thousand didn't even make a budge in the government.

The final total was about 11 MILLION people. And Bush called the protesters a "focus group"

How many more people is it going to take?

Ob. Bash

[Anonymous Coward]

Stormrider: I should bomb something
Stormrider: ...and it's off the cuff remarks like that that are the reason I don't log chats
Stormrider: Just in case the FBI ever needs anything on me
Elzie_Ann: I'm sure they can just get it from someone who DOES log chats.
*** FBI has joined #gamecubecafe
FBI: We saw it anyway.
*** FBI has quit IRC (Quit: )

you say nothing but I'm willing to go.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have the capital to secure weapons? The manpower? The staff?

To change the system would require those of us who "disagree" to become the "enemy".

If you want to protect the Constitution, it won't be without bloodshed. People will die. MANY people.

If you want to fight enemies, both foreign and domestic, you will have to take lives.

Most people here on slashdot will not take life. The days of men taking lives were in the past and in the future.

At the moment, we post on websites.

Re:you say nothing but I'm willing to go.

[LoweD]

You're wrong.

You are guilty too

[rrohbeck]

Everybody is guilty of *something*. Now they have a way to find out. Yay!
Now all we need is a secret division of the FBI. Let's call it Gestapo. They should be able to protect us from those Jews, err, terrists. Middle Eastern types, anyway.

Criminals

[prikkebeen]

The USA is dragging the whole world into fascism 2.0

Obama's FISA vote and McCain's lack of vote

[Anonymous Coward]

From your comment history, it's clear that Obama rubbed you the wrong way big-time when he put in a yea vote for FISA, but don't forget that McCain abstained. I'm not sure what's worse, voting for a bill because you think voting against will hurt future possibilities - thus claiming the vote to be strategic, or not voting at all because you fear the repercussions regardless of which way you vote.

Re:Obama's FISA vote and McCain's lack of vote

[maynard]

Hey, I'm not here to promote a McCain presidency. He's just more head-banging unfun badness. I am very sick of both parties. But I have special nausea in the pit of my stomach reserved for Nanci Pelosi. From Newt Gingrich I'd have expected it. From her, I can't stomach it.

One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This

[CodeBuster]

The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not an foreign or even a domestic intelligence gathering agency. What is the point of gathering information in an unconstitutional manner when it will ultimately be of ZERO use in securing a conviction? If the defense attorney can show that warrantless spying or other unconstitutional methods generated the initial leads then everything else which follows from that, even if gathered legitimately, can be thrown out of court on the basis that none of it would have ever been obtained if not for the initial unconstitutional leads. With no evidence of any wrongdoing (because everything was thrown out) there is no case against the defendant.

Re:One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This

[avandesande]

This is a departmental/procedural change. They are not changing the law or the interpretation of the constitution, the FBI has no authority to do so.

It means they can open a case file on you without any good reason. How does this defeat the constitution? AFAIKT the FBI still has to apply for warrants to wiretap.

Re:One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This

[falconwolf]

The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not an foreign or even a domestic intelligence gathering agency.

Oh but the FBI is a counterintelligence agency. Legally the CIA can not spy in the US, that's the FBI's bailiwick.

Falcon

Re:One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This

[magus_melchior]

The federal government wants not only to catch crime before it happens (0.001%), but they want to contain political opposition in any and all forms.

Re:One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI is a law enforcement agency, not an foreign or even a domestic intelligence gathering agency. What is the point of gathering information in an unconstitutional manner when it will ultimately be of ZERO use in securing a conviction?

Who said anything about going to court? COINTELPRO. From the Wikipedia article:

4. Extralegal Force and Violence: The FBI and police threatened, instigated, and themselves conducted break-ins, vandalism, assaults, and beatings. The object was to frighten dissidents and disrupt their movements. In the case of radical Black and Puerto Rican activists (and later Native Americans), these attacks--including political assassinations--were so extensive, vicious, and calculated that they can accurately be termed a form of official "terrorism."

Re:One Wonders Why the FBI Wants This

[ps2os2]

Ahhh but that is where the republicans have got you. They appointed all the right wing judges they could and the right wing people lock in step and off to jail you go. Constitution? We don't need no stinkin bloody constitution.

Nothing to fear.

[changa]

If you are not doing anything illegial then you have nothing to wory about!

Oh... wait a minute.

Time for a new expression

[dontmakemethink]

The power available to investigators is an indicator like the housing market is for the economy. This isn't the end result of a breakdown in civil rights, it's just the beginning. It's a match, not the inferno that can ensue.

Those powers make "Live free or die" pretty much obsolete. "Leave or get reamed" would seem more appropriate. That's why the Berlin Wall went up. Good luck defending the 49th parallel! Maybe now Canada will get back from the US all the doctors and nurses it paid to train!

"Roll up the rim to win" indeed...

Investigate? Sure.

[Sloppy]

I don't mind if cops "investigate" anyone they feel like without probable cause. A cop with a radar gun is doing that. We're used to it.

Just make damn sure, that in the process of investigating people, that you don't break the law. An example of breaking the law, would be intercepting our internet packets without a warrant. Even the amended FISA didn't quite give you cart blanche on that.

BTW, if someone high up in the FBI claims they are planning to break the law, I think that calls for an investigation. Oh, and if this frightens people, then it's a terrorism investigation.

this is a power that has a history of abuse.

[smchris]

You think?

Hard rain coming with a Congress and Executive branch who have no respect for citizen rights. There really was a reason this stuff got put in the constitution in the first place. Reagan administration, wasn't it, when "Civics" was demoted in the secondary curriculum?

Man oh Man

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew this country would end up down this road eventually but I didn't think it would happen in my lifetime. Lets see what was it we hated about communist Russia, oh ya KGB. Seems the FBI thinks some of that power wasn't such a bad idea.

Decide to fly up and see grandma, Show me your papers (real id) oh you are on the watch list (terrorist watch list) to jail you go (nice little place in cuba) must watch your family now (warrantless investigation) guess I'll see you soon grandma (in cuba that is)

YRO Abuse

[OverlordQ]

Can we please stop posting this crap to YRO? This is what the Politics section is for, so those of us who want to come to /. for News for Nerds rather then Daily Kos can read a decent site with the politics section turned off.

FBI need MORE power

[partowel]

Warning : extreme sarcasm

The FBI need MORE power.

Investigations without a warrant or/and probable
cause isn't enough.

This is the FBI need to do their job.

1. Absolute immunity from every law ever made.

2. Absolute power to do anything they want.

3. Absolute power to incarcerate anyone, forever.

4. Absolute power to kill anyone, with NO
consequences.

5. Absolute power to rape anyone, with NO consequences.

6. Absolute power to seize anyone or/and anything that they want.

7. FBI don't need to pay taxes anymore.

8. FBI gets free cars, free houses, free sex,
free HDTV, free OC-10 Internet connections, etc.
The FBI deserve FREE everything.

9. FBI have absolute power to make any new law they want to create.

10. FBI have absolute power to erase any law they want to destroy.

NOW the FBI can do their job.

Everyone must support the FBI's NEW powers.

EVERYONE.

No one in the USA will stop the FBI.

NO ONE!

Welcome to the POLICE state of the USA.

ALL americans just love to give away their
civil rights and freedoms to the FBI.

Liberty? Who needs that.

This means one thing

[Froeschle]

The terrorists have won.

Parent is not funny

[Anonymous Coward]

He's +5 Informative. =/

Re:Parent is not funny

[witte]

Agreed. I'm a criminal too under these arbitrary 'laws'. Yet nothing of value was lost by my actions. What gives ?

Investigate THIS!

[Giant Electronic Bra]

TACO!

Dangit! Your nonsense filter doesn't like my ASCII art!!!!

And yeah, I agree, Obama Bin-Laden has won! :(

Re:Investigate THIS!

[Anonymous Coward]

..|..

Writs of Assistance - we fought a war against them

[Iowan41]

Back in 1775-83. . . This is *highly* unConstitutional. The several States should resist this with all their might.

Not the only place

[Iowan41]

California supreme court decides that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply in their State. Federal District court in Oregon and the 9th Circus decide that the people of Oregon do not have the right to petition for redress of grievances and vote on laws passed by their legislature - which is the procedure in Oregon's constitution. Don't forget VAAPCON and the FBI files, when the Clinton's used the FBI and the IRS to intimidate political opponents.

Founding Fathers spin - news at 11

[Count_Froggy]

Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock, etc. are rotating in their graves.

In Soviet Union...

[phr1]

oh, wait. :(

Trapped

[Derosian]

Does anyone else feel like there is no solution to the growing problem of American apathy?

If I use peaceful means, no one cares.
If I use violent means, people become martyrs and I am vilified.

Sometimes I feel like there is no solution to the current government's problem short of a revolution which will occur far down the road, long after I am gone, and that is rather frustrating.

Re:Trapped

[Anonymous Coward]

You could vote for a political candidate that is interested in the welfare of the American people. ...yeah, you're fucked.

Re:Trapped

[mbone]

No, if nothing is done it will end when people are holding their heads in their hands amidst the rubble. See Germany, Year Zero or Gone with the Wind for some ideas of what happens when societies loose their moorings.

Re:Trapped

[Pichu0102]

Even worse, the rest of the world is following the same exact path.
And no, not even a revolution will stop it. We've lost.

Re:Trapped

[Fallingcow]

Well, it's the system itself that's at fault. We need something new. Just getting new people in or whatever won't help. It'll eventually come back to this again.

Since that's unlikely to happen and you can't really do anything to affect that change, just try to get yours, you know? If the last 8 years have taught me anything, it's that at least 75% of this country is completely, mind-bogglingly stupid. Therefore, I should be able to bide my time, keep my eyes open, and spot a way to take advantage of that stupidity for profit, sooner or later.

We're too dumb for democracy. At least this kind of democracy. Grab what you can and run, I say.

Re:Trapped

[jessedorland]

I read some where that 90% of the people do what they because they are told to do so. They are are called herds, and we should not be angry at them, if we had too much "individualism" our society (what's left of it) would be in total chaos. Perhaps it's good to have lemmings. What should concern us is who is herding them, and where.

Duh! and Ha ha! - Internal USA matter only

[Helldesk Hound]

> "Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow
> Congressional hearings, but not to delay, the
> implementation of new FBI regulations that would allow
> them to spy on American citizens who are not suspected
> of any crime."

Most of the world expects this sort of dictator-despotism in the USA. It has been happening for years, and I really don't see why citizens of the USA are only just now starting to worry about the fact that their government is freely spying on them at any time and for any trivial reason at all.

I think that two phrases apply here:

1/ "Duh!"

2/ "Ha ha!" (a la Nelson in The Simpsons)

If the USA considers this to be acceptable, then that is that. But, I don't see why the use of an International forum such as Slashdot.ORG should be used by USians to push this. Isn't some other forum more appropriate for this internal USA matter?

Re:Duh! and Ha ha! - Internal USA matter only

[DragonTHC]

international forum?

do you read /. in your native tongue, despite that being a strange form of English, huh? do ya mr kiwi?

Re:Duh! and Ha ha! - Internal USA matter only

[shaitand]

Slashdot is not an international forum, Slashdot is a USian forum with international guests.

Calgary Police already doing this

[Anonymous Coward]

Calgary Police and other Police service in Canada have done searches with out the need of a warrant since 1996. If you are a legal registered gun owner in Canada, the Police can search your home at any time, your friends homes, you family homes, your work place and listen to your phone calls.

In Calgary with the highest crime rate in Canada, maybe the world (if you trust the Calgary media and the Police press meetings), they need to search homes, cars, and people at random in order to stop all gangs, drugs and guns (legal or illegal). If the Calgary Police do not do random searches of possible criminals, no criminals would ever be caught.

With out the Calgary Police telling people who the real criminals are in Calgary, the criminal would just be another law biding Canadian.

Wow was Re:COINTELPRO

[vic-traill]

I'm not a U.S. citizen, nor do I live in the U.S. But that COINTELPRO wiki read is enough to stand anyone up and make 'em pay attention: national law enforcement agency is frustrated with Supreme Court rulings limiting the Government's power to proceed overtly against dissident groups so it starts up domestic covert operations designed to disrupt any 'dissident' group and prevent the exercise of First Amendment rights of speech and association, with no oversight, and in the end, with no censure. Apparently much documentation still remains unreleased (that's a wikipedia assertion, so I'm not sure exactly what that means).

I'm not trying to do a Chicken Little here, but do Americans feel that TFA is just more of what has been seen in previous years (e.g. COINTELPRO), or is there a fundamental change to the relationship between the police and the American public occurring?

ammo box

[falconwolf]

Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.

Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army, responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army, based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.

Falcon

Re:ammo box

[Daimanta]

Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.

Re:ammo box

[falconwolf]

People carying guns don't look innocent

They may not look innocent to someone from a big city but they look fine to others. Growing up many people I knew owned firearms. My dad, who retired from the US Air Force, gave me a .22 long rifle rifle before I was 10. Between him and my best friend's dad we were taken out for target practice a bunch of tymes. And I knew others who did the same. Actually at least several tymes a year we'd have barbecues with 20 to 50 people where we'd cook gator tail, seafood, frog legs, venison, and wild boar or hog. Hunting, and fishing, was big with these people. And saying they only use rifles and not guns, handguns, shows you don't know much if anything about hog hunting. A handgun is needed for this, even after being shot a hog can attack you and hunters know this so they also carry a gun. The same applies to alligators.

Falcon

Re:ammo box

[lawpoop]

Well, soldiers wouldn't fire on innocent civilians, but I reason they have no problem with "terrorists". People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.

The average American soldier probably doesn't have a problem considering an Iraqi civilian a 'terrorist', and therefore firing on him, but he might have a more difficult time buying the idea that a mass uprising of averge, everyday white Americans is "Al-Qaida in America".

Some things will be just too big to spin.

Re:ammo box

[Anonymous Coward]

AC since it's so off topic: You made me miss Louisiana ... the only reason I'd go back is the food.

Re:ammo box

[jessedorland]

Are you saying we are becoming another Soviet Union. I always thought George Orwell's novel 1984 had become reality. Masses are being control through TV & Internet.

Re:ammo box

[kisak]

Why not just vote out the republicans?

Re:ammo box

[StrategicIrony]

Oh bullshit.

Rebellions are started by rabble-rousers. Usually a small group of people get together and cause a big fuss.

In the past, a determined group of 50 people could march on a town-hall meeting and pretty much overpower the local authorities by force. This was the case in almost every society where rebellion was successful, be it revolutionary France, pre-renaissance Scotland, Hapsburg Austria, colonial America, etc.

If a group of pissed off radicals with guns entered a US city, there would not be substantial resistance to shooting them down.

You don't just suddenly get 40% of the population to take up arms against the country. It doesn't happen spontaneously. It's a bit of a grass-roots thing and our government is EXTREMELY good at rooting out grass-roots armed resistance.

"the people of the US" in this sense is a misnomer. They wouldn't be out shooting Jane Soccer Mom... it would start with that crazy hippie who screams about freedom and those hackers who must have been up to no good.

If they showed up on the steps of the capitol with weapons, what do you think would happen? If they weren't shot on site, they would be met by a well-trained force of anti-riot police bearing full body armor, riot shields, tear gas, mace and loaded weapons.

One of the reasons for the riot police using so much "non-lethal" weaponry is that there far less resistance to shooting at protesters with that stuff, but it's enough to put down almost any crowd, as violent political protests in massively corrupt countries like Venezuela, Nicaragua, China, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and others have shown.

You simply don't have a pissed off band of civilians having ANY success against a large group of trained combatants with specialized crowd dispersal devices COMBINED with tactical weapons advantages.

I just don't see it happening.

Re:ammo box

[StrategicIrony]

revolutions don't start with well-to-do and influential members of society.

They generally start with people who are on the fringes and are regarded by "authorities" as "up to no good".

The concept of a "mass uprising" is not a historical reality. The truth is that a small group of dissidents gradually builds momentum by stirring up crowds and having small tactical victories over the course of weeks.

That wouldn't be allowed in today's society of instant communications and global response capability.

Re:ammo box

[lawpoop]

I don't know, I don't buy this idea that "In our modern technological age, governments will have complete control over the populace". In olden days, communications were difficult -- basically men on horseback. But look at all the uprisings and slave revolts that have happened. Now, with the internet, cell phones, text message, radio, television, I think it would be many times *easier* to 'route around' government propaganda and information stoppages.

But won't the government just order the telecom companies to stop all of the "bad" communications? Good luck! How could they do that without shutting down *all* communications? You can't have a computer reading each one. You couldn't stop the messages without some government agent reviewing every single one. And if the government ever put such a kink in our system, to where people couldn't get to work and couldn't get food, *then* people would really start resisting. Everyone has their breaking point.

Remember, when you start talking about a big enough government program, "they" become "us". Not everyone in telecom would comply. Certain people would actually work from the inside to support the resistance! It's not like all resistors are on the front lines, taking up guns against the storm troopers. Most resistors have normal jobs in society, and they do a little something on the side to support the resistance. Maybe intel, maybe a safe house, maybe they divert a little food somewhere.

evolutions don't start with well-to-do and influential members of society.

They generally start with people who are on the fringes and are regarded by "authorities" as "up to no good"

That is true, but successful revolutions are successful because the masses jump on board. I don't believe that it's the fringe group who stirs up the masses; I believe it's the masses who are dissatisfied with the status quo, and after a time, see the fringe group as a reasonable alternative, and then decide to get on board with the program.

The masses choose who rules them. In good times, they stick with the current elite; in bad, they switch to the fringe.

Re:ammo box

[Bonobo_Unknown]

Just like at Kent State you mean?

Re:ammo box

[sasdrtx]

Have you never heard of Kent State?

Re:ammo box

[lawpoop]

A myopic American perspective. Have you ever heard of South America? Time and time again, brutal dictators have been overthrown by poor Indians. When things get bad enough, the people rise up.

Re:ammo box

[nacturation]

... a mass uprising of averge, everyday white Americans is "Al-Qaida in America".

Some things will be just too big to spin.

Now I, too, watched the movie "Super Size Me" but calling the average American too big to spin is just over the top! :)
 

Re:ammo box

[sasdrtx]

What perspective are you talking about? The reference to Kent State is merely to show that soldiers (even National Guard) will indeed shoot innocent civilians.

Re:ammo box

[ElectADeadPresident]

Don't count on the ammo box too, guns are useless against an army with tanks, snipers and airplanes.

Tell that to the Chinese. At the Tiananmen Square protests the 38th Army, responsible for security in Beijing, and other local units refused to fire on demonstrators. So the People's Army had to send in the 27th Army, based outside of Beijing. Chinese officials were afraid the army would split into warring factions because of this. It would be even worse in the US military. I don't know about you but I served in the US Army and just as happened in Viet Nam when soldiers fragged officers and others when they gave bad orders, plenty of people in the US military would do the same if they were ordered to fire on people in the US.

Falcon

I would love to believe that you are correct, but "tell that to" the Germans when they allowed, no voted in, Hitler (and I am of German decent), or "tell that to" the Ohio National Guardsmen who fired on unarmed protesting students (you are old enough to remember that if you were in Veitnam). I am becoming more and more concerned for the future of our once great country. Our Congress, Presidents and bleeding-heart liberals can't give our rights and money and soldiers' lives away fast enough. I am often reminded of the old saying "Charity begins at home". If we aren't strong at home, how can we help others? If we don't wake up very, very soon, we will have tipped over the point of no return. Oh, and BTW, I know a Chinese, now American citizen, and she has warned me not to ever trust the Chinese government - "They hate America". Your thoughts?

Re:ammo box

[lawpoop]

What I was trying to convey is that the US armed forces aren't all going to buy into the idea that a significant portion of the American population has suddenly become terrorist.

Yes, in a few instances, some guard members have shot and killed unarmed civilians. The same things happens with police, and happened during the labor movements during the first part of the 20th century. However, the people won't stand for a government that has declared war on its citizens and uses the army to enforce it. Sure, there will be people who will be killed by the military. But, when power is used unjustly, the people see that, and rise up against it.

Re:ammo box

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the average american soldier would have a problem with firing on his fellow citizens, but what if they bring in UN 'peacekeepers'? What will hold them back?

Re:ammo box

[Anonymous Coward]

That is where Blackwater Comes in.

Re:ammo box

[falconwolf]

People carying guns don't look innocent

People from northern cities may not look at someone carrying a gun as being innocent but where I come from they look fine. Growing up I'd hazard to say half of the households had firearms, guns, rifles, and or handguns. And most knew how to use them. My dad, who later retired from the US Air Force, gave me my first firearm, a .22 long rifle rifle before I reached the age of 10. Between him and my best friend's dad they took us out target practicing several tymes a year. Many of the people also went hunting, for frog legs, gator tail, venison, and for wild boar or hog. The rifle in the gun rack in the truck was common. Hog Valley, there's no wiki article yet, was a popular place to go for hunting.

People carying guns don't look innocent and if they pick up their guns to fight, expect a big intel spin on it. They will do it, I have no doubt about that.

Reading this statement I'm pretty sure you never served in the military. Well I did. I was a small arms specialist, in the infantry in the army. Several people I served with as well as I would have fragged a commanding officer for giving an order to shoot civilians, unarmed or armed.

Falcon

Re:ammo box

[falconwolf]

government is EXTREMELY good at rooting out grass-roots armed resistance.

Yea, the government is so good at stopping armed resistance they stopped the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Oklahoma City bombing, and 911. Except they didn't. Not even the NAZIs with the Gestapo and SS could stop everyone. Heck they couldn't even stop the resistance in Berlin. And with today's communications technologies there's no way the government could shutdown communications.

"the people of the US" in this sense is a misnomer. They wouldn't be out shooting Jane Soccer Mom... it would start with that crazy hippie who screams about freedom and those hackers who must have been up to no good

Except it could be Soccer Mom who's in the underground. "Hitler Ordered Death Of Wisconsin Woman Who Led Nazi Resistance". And Theodore Kaczynski, the supposed Unabomber, was no hippy. Neither was Timothy McVeigh.

If they showed up on the steps of the capitol with weapons, what do you think would happen?

And do you really think resisters would show up on the steps of the capital with arms?

You simply don't have a pissed off band of civilians having ANY success against a large group of trained combatants with specialized crowd dispersal devices COMBINED with tactical weapons advantages.

Like other responders, I seriously doubt you've ever served in the US military.

Falcon

Re:ammo box

[KlausBreuer]

Depends on the amount of people marching out.

It's what caused East Germany (the DDR) to fall in 1989. Several million (yes, million!) people were on the streets every day, chanting the (now forgotten?) line "Wir sind das Volk!" ("We are the people!").

It happened only once so far. Let's watch the USA during its collapse, and see if it'll happen there as well.

Re:ammo box

[StrategicIrony]

Yea, the government is so good at stopping armed resistance they stopped the 1993 World Trade Center bombing [wikipedia.org], Oklahoma City bombing [wikipedia.org], and 911. Except they didn't.

Those are isolated terrorist attacks. They're impossible to stop and it's a bit silly to aim policies at the expectation that we could stop them.

They're hardly indicative of the government's counter-insurgency or crowd-disbursal capability.

I would accept the collateral damage of such occasional attacks to remain an open and free society.

And with today's communications technologies there's no way the government could shutdown communications.

Wha? The entirety of a modern city's communication system is in the hands of no more than 6-8 companies. Sure, HAM radio might still operate, but if Clear Channel pulls their radio stations and Qwest, Comcast, Verizon, ATT (et. al.) are compelled to block telecommunications briefly, a city is pretty much in the dark. Internet, cell, landline, etc.

They can't stop personal communication without going way further than the Nazis ever did, but i don't know if modern technology has that sort of capability in the same sense, in the face of national insurgency.

Re:ammo box

[falconwolf]

Those are isolated terrorist attacks. They're impossible to stop and it's a bit silly to aim policies at the expectation that we could stop them.

I wasn't saying they were possible to stop, actually it was my contention that the government could not stop determined people from wrecking havoc. As someone once said, I don't recall who, it's impossible to stop someone determined to assassinate the president if they don't care if they get away from it or not. All it takes is a few people to do many things, it's been small groups who have changed the world.

They're hardly indicative of the government's counter-insurgency or crowd-disbursal capability.

But it is an indication, whether you accept it or not.

I would accept the collateral damage of such occasional attacks to remain an open and free society.

While I agree, a look at what governments are doing, local, state, and federal, there are those who don't accept it. Michael Bloomberg, major or New York City, is ringing NYC with CCTV. Gun control advocates have spent decades trying to restrict private ownership of firearms. Chemicals are being monitored, who buys what and such. Heck, when I was in junior high I was given a chemistry lab, 101 or 1001 experiments as a gift. However since 911 I've looked for them and haven't seen any in years. If they are still available I don't know where.

Wha? The entirety of a modern city's communication system is in the hands of no more than 6-8 companies.

And not all of them will cooperate with the government. For instance when the feds asked telcom companies to turn over user records Qwest refused. As did Google when asked for search records.

Falcon

Re:ammo box

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what Blackwater and the privitization of the army is for. A compnay loaded down with immigrants and mercs. who have no affiliation with the US population on the one hand and will do anything for money on the other.

What did you THINK Cheney's and Rumsfeld's Addingtons and Bush's "privatizing the military was about?" Cost reduction? Think deeper. Read Animal Farm. The Pigs raised a bunch of dogs away from the other animals so those dogs were loyal only to the Pigs.

Same damn thing. The only way to preserve this democracy is for Dems. to arm themselves, and get ready for the inevitable by target practice.

Re:ammo box

[Anonymous Coward]

too bad you didn't spend more tIme in school there, redneck.

the product of...

[Anonymous Coward]

democracy

So much for principles...

[zooblethorpe]

Most followers of political parties don't think, they rationalize. They will find any reasons they need to support what their party does. If the situation changes, the reasons will change too.

The fun part is when this kind of willy-nilly-anything-goes attitude shows up in ostensibly conservative business circles like banking. This attitude seems to crop up in a cycle every few decades. We saw it in the S&L scandals of the 80s, and we see it now twenty-odd years later with the mortgage and loan (M&L?) scandal of the 00s (the Naught-ies).

Rationalizing, rather than reasoning, is putting Descartes before the horse -- and has, in fact, been the death of many a thinker through the long course of history.

Cheers,

get opportunistic encryption working

[Matt Perry]

We, the free software community, need to start working on making sure opportunistic encryption is easy to set up and turn on in our distros. If possible, make sure it works out of the box. Of course, you should still encrypt your communications anyway even if you are using OE. And stop making protocols that do not have encryption built-in. We always end up having to bolt it on afterwards and it never gets implemented in most programs because of this.

Re:get opportunistic encryption working

[MulluskO]

Newer versions of older protocols (LDAP, POP, IMAP) have features like StartTLS and SASL. It is interesting because these methods offer a way to standardize the way encryption and authentiction methods get build into a protocol.

best thing is to format your hard drives

[falconwolf]

Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data. Googling unformat recovery results in more than half a million results. The first result, Deleted NTFS Partition Recovery 1.0, recovers "ntfs data from deleted, formatted and damaged NTFS and NTFS5 file systems of windows operating systems." There are a number of other programs that do the same. Actually I have to use such a program to recover data on a hard disk on my Linux PC. It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.

I wished I had an external hdd for backups, because the hdd holding the user files was 750GB and had more than 500GB on it using DVDs it would have taken more than 90 disks. Now I have a 500GB and a 750GB external hdd. I use the 500GB drive but haven't used the 750GB drive yet.

Falcon

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[gd2shoe]

Formatting your hard drive doesn't erase or make the data unreadable. There are a nmuber of programs that can unformat a disk and recover the data.

You mean "quick formating" doesn't erase all data. So-called "full formating" does, though there are still ways of recovering the data in a lab.

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[falconwolf]

You mean "quick formating" doesn't erase all data. So-called "full formating" does, though there are still ways of recovering the data in a lab.

I once reformatted a disk then reinstalled Windows. I told Windows to reformat again. Once Windows was reinstalled I tried to install Perl, unfortunately install said it was already installed and failed in the install. So I did a compleat format again then reinstalled Windows again. The same thing happened though. After doing some research I decided to partition the drive. Once I partitioned it I formatted each partition, then deleted those partitions. When I reinstalled Windows again I got the same message from the Perl installation. I ended up partitioning a bunch of partitions, formatting them, then deleting them then repartitioning and deleting those. When doing it I made each partition a different size and in different orders. Finally I was able to install Perl. It took me more than 2 days to do.

Falcon

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[MadnessASAP]

At what point did the # of results returned by Google become a reasonable metric for anything but a googlewhack?

PS. I don't disagree with you, I'm just wondering.

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[mpe]

It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.

In which case the "tech" was an idiot. Since all they needed to do was replace the board.

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[falconwolf]

In which case the "tech" was an idiot. Since all they needed to do was replace the board.

I wondered why he wanted to reinstall the OS but when I asked the closest answer I got was that the motherboard was different. He had to order the mobo and after installing it he called to let me know. I was in my car on the way there when he called so I told him I'd be there in a few minutes. When I first dropped off the PC I left a note on the service order not to format or erase the second hdd but when I got there after he called I again wrote it down. I also explained to him what I did and why I didn't want anything to be done with the drive. I asked if he could do it then if he could make the drive the home directory and he said yes. It's been a year now and I still haven't downloaded an unformat utility so I may take it down to the Geek Squad at Best Buy and have them do it. Unfortunately the last tyme I asked for work on Linux, to setup the second drive as the home directory because I didn't know how to do it myself, the tech I talked to and who did it had to go online to see how to do it. He said the Geek Squad only had a could of people in the area who knew how to work with Linux.

Falcon

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[ps2os2]

Now this maybe folk lore so don't hold me to it. I was told by a reasonably reliable person that the NSA(CIA?) can retrieve data even if the data has been written over 10 times. We had a long discussion about this on an listserv and the 3-4 (spooks?) semi admitted that this was doable.

Re:best thing is to format your hard drives

[gd2shoe]

Scary. I thought it was half a dozen. Still, my point is they cannot do it without popping open the drive (with the possible exception of a few tracks using special drivers).

nothing to hide

[falconwolf]

Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom.

Falcon

Text of Declaration of Independence

[tjstork]

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â" Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing A

Allow ? WTF ?

[mbone]

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings

I hope that this is just the usual Slashdot sloppiness. The Attorney General has no role in determining whether Congressional Hearings are held or not.

FBI WATCH MAKING CRUELTY VISIBLE

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI is just 3 letters of the alphabet. Three letters of the alphabet are not breaking into your homes, tapping your phone and opening your mail.
The people who are committing these crimes against you are your neighbors. Why do you allow them to exist in your communities? Out them!
Picket their homes, educate their neighbors
and educate yourself about past and current crimes these neighbors have committed.
Boycott the sponsors of government controlled media that spew out disinformation about
these taxpayer funded thugs.
Most importantly realize you entered into a contract with FBI agents when you agreed to hire them as your bodyguards and pay them with your tax dollars.
Want to shut down the FBI? Then start policing your own communities.
As a voter and taxpayer you are the primary consumer of the criminal justice system and own it. Your tax dollars pay the salary of the people
bugging your phones, assassinating your leaders, etc.
To view over 300 pages of crimes committed by FBI agents that were funded with your tax dime see
campusactivism.org
click on home
click on forum
scroll down to FBI WATCH
Move this information around the internet.
You do know what to do?
a species that hires bodyguards to protect them looses the ability to protect itself and is doomed to extinction

Time to abolish the FBI?

[tjstork]

Should we just abolish the FBI? I mean, is there anything the FBI does that actually makes you feel safer than the threat posed by the FBI itself?

Re:Time to abolish the FBI?

[Anonymous Coward]

Marilyn Monroe in a telephone call to JFK (approximately):
M: "We have get rid of him (Hoover)"
M dies a while after. JFK dies little over year later.
Sorry, reference is some Monroe tv documentary shown years ago.

doing nothing wrong

[falconwolf]

That's becuase everyone I talk to thinks "I don't do anything illegal, why should I care."

Which, as anyone here will tell you, is a terrible argument.

For a good argument, to stop stuff like this, direct those people who say "I have nothing to hide" to Why, Even If You Have Nothing To Hide, Government Surveillance Threatens Your Freedom.

Falcon

Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good! Let's all apply for FBI junior positions. I want to investigate Bush and cronies

Somone has to say it...

[BountyX]

1984

Ugh.

[Anonymous Coward]

One more reason why I'm getting out of this shithole as soon as I can afford to.

Re:Ugh.

[Awptimus Prime]

If you can't "afford to" then you can just walk right down to Mexico and live with other types in your income bracket.

NSFW rude interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

We're sorry, you're going to have to come with us.

The FBI

I am not surprised that the circle jerk is a primary activity for FBI fascists.

So much for

[rossz]

So much for the Democratic majority putting a stop to government abuses as they promised. I'm sure the DailyKos crowd will denounce Bush for this. He deserves lots of blame, but the Democrats deserve contempt. They have the numbers to push through almost anything they want. From where I'm sitting, however, nothing has changed. The government is still violating the Constitution, my Rights no longer matter, the people in power are still enjoying their pork (pork spending has, in fact, increased with the Democratic majority).

Fuck the Democrats. Fuck the Republicans. The government needs an enema.

Re:So much for

[freedom_india]

The democrats spine-less, shameless, frightened cowards who think Obama is their Jesus.
Led by the *literal* pussy Pelosi, they are a shell of their formidable prowess in 1970s.
This is why the Democrats deserve to lose. And not just lose narrowly: they deserve to lose EVERY seat they contest in November. Obama should lose so heavily to McCain that he leaves for Kenya permanently.
But i wonder even if such a defeat will make democrats realize what they are doing wrong.
They will make a few noises, but then go back to suckling from their corporate parents' teets to get a few dollars for their families.
The Democrats should be swift-boated as a whole.
If FDR were alive today, he would have had two heart attacks just watching the cowering dogs who call themselves democrats.

Re:So much for

[Boronx]

Democratic politicians in congress that support human rights and the constitution are only about 50%. Since the Republican percentage is almost zero, that means the pro-freedom faction of congress is only about 25%.

Re:So much for

[flyneye]

Keep in mind the reason for your right to keep and bear arms.

          âoeEvery generation needs a new revolution.â
          âoeThe spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.â
          âoeIf once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.â --Thomas Jefferson

Re:So much for

[rossz]

You are very naive. The democrats are probably even more guilty of voting against your rights than the republicans. Democrats are socialist nanny-staters. They think they know what is best for you and don't trust you to take care of yourself.

No, I am not a republican.

Since when did POW's ever get court trials?

[unassimilatible]

ooops, they just created an *entire* separate legal system to handle those cases...

Uh, excuse me, but when did POW's or unlawful combatants ever get access to civilian courts? Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII) was to use military tribunals. Your post suggests that Bush made up some new legal approach. If anything, the current paradigm gives more rights (district court review of habeas corpus; DC Circuit and SCOTUS appellate review) to those less deserving (unlawful combatants not complying with any aspect of Geneva) than any enemy combatant in American military history. But suddenly, because it is Bush prosecuting this war, the enemy deserve to be Miranda'd and Mark Geragos defending the in a civilian court?

Re:Since when did POW's ever get court trials?

[Anonymous Coward]

suddenly, because it is Bush prosecuting this war

What gives you that idea? Nobody gave a damn until people started publishing pictures of prisoners being raped in the ass with electrodes stuck to their balls. Leaking the Republicans' private porn stash made quite a few important people uncomfortable, so natually an outrage had to be raised.

Re:Since when did POW's ever get court trials?

[jcr]

Seems to me the history and legal precedent (Civil War, WWII)

Seems to me that in both of the examples you cite above, the congress declared war.

Of course, Lincoln did an awful lot of illegal things which are now tolerated just because he did them first.

-jcr

Re:Since when did POW's ever get court trials?

[shoemilk]

Oh! Unlawful combatants! Those fuckers deserve to be water-boarded and tortured (water boarding isn't torture!). Since they're unlawful the only tribunal they should get is a wall and ten men with guns! What do their uniforms look like again?

Re:Since when did POW's ever get court trials?

[Descalzo]

I didn't think there was a formal declaration of war for the Civil War. To do so would have immediately legitimized the South's secession.

It's called separation of powers

[unassimilatible]

Please, show me where in the Constitution Congress has the power to subpoena a member of the executive branch? What would happen if Bush tried to subpoena a member of Congress or his staff? They'd tell him to honk off. How and when did this idea that the White House staff answers to Congress ever become accepted? The Constitution is quite clear on the checks - it's called impeachment, and elections. That's it. I've read Article I pretty carefully, and I have never seen anything about calling a president's top advisor on the carpet and demanding that he explain himself. All of you supposed "but the Constitution!" advocates out there who decry the end of the Republic every time the Feds do something, suddenly play fast and loose with the Constitution when it comes to using the law the way you want.

Just as the Clinton Administration did repeatedly, Rove is right to assert executive privilege, and good for Bush to assert it, not just for himself but for future presidents. If a staffer can't advise the president privately and candidly, he won't be getting good advice, regardless of what you think of Rove.

Re:It's called separation of powers

[s4m7]

Article 1

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

That is, they can call the president himself as a witness towards impeachment proceedings. Surely they can likewise call his advisors.

Allow?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Attorney General Michael Mukasey has agreed to allow Congressional hearings"

huh? Since when does congress need the approval of the attorney general to hold hearings?

True, but

[unassimilatible]

The FBI can decide whatever they want as far as their regulations are concerned, but if it gets to court, any evidence they gather illegally is useless.

This is true, but in all the hysteria here people are forgetting that unlike during the Hoover era, there are various civil and criminal laws preventing the kind of black bag shit that Hoover pulled on MLK and John Lennon (not to mention, more troublesomely, presidents, which is why Hoover survived 48 years as director - he had something on everyone, including every president). After the post-Watergate reforms, that stuff is so illegal it isn't funny.

And today, the FBI has an internal affairs division whose job it is to catch such stuff, not to mention the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. These are staffed with lawyers just looking to catch wrongdoing to make their careers.

And don't forget that the exclusionary rule isn't the only remedy for violations of law or constitutional rights of citizens. There are lawsuits under 42 USC 1983.

One should also consider that there hasn't even been the suggestion that the FBI director or the President has been using the FBI as a political weapon, a la Nixon or JFK or Hoover. You just can't get away with that shit today. Run the wrong license plate for a friend, and a computer catches it and that agent's ass is grass.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep an eye on the Feds. But to suggest that the MLK spying type of stuff could happen today without serious shit hitting the fan is just ludicrous.

Fourth Amendment

[OmegaWolf747]

I can never decide if the First, Second or Fourth Amendment is the most trampled upon by our benevolent government. I do not understand why government feels the need to crowbar its way into our private affairs in this way. What do they stand to gain by doing so? It just makes no sense.

Re:Fourth Amendment

[Z00L00K]

Well - the second is a bit outdated and more to the benefit of criminals these days than to the benefit of the average person.

It was fine when there was a very small military force and not many could rely on much support from a police force either.

A better version of democracy may be that at election day also indicate if you was satisfied with the previous term or not.

YES, IT DOES!!!!!

[Jane Q. Public]

ANY AND EVERY MESSAGE THAT CAN BE SENT, TO ANYONE WHO WILL READ IT, IS NOT WASTED EFFORT!!!

In fact it is people like you, who preach that actions are futile, who feed the enemy!!!

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!

"If we don't speak up, we are cowards and ..."

[Jane Q. Public]

Quote: "If we don't speak up, we are cowards and accomplices."

Who first wrote this? Who modded it down so I can't find it???

People with good karma, repeat this quote!

not exactly

[1800maxim]

The people who used the terrorists to their advantage have won.

Re:not exactly

[Wildclaw]

The people who used the terrorists to their advantage have won.

That depends on how you defines terrorism and terrorist. The most common usage seems to imply the following:

Terrorism: Blowing civilians up.
Terrorist: Person that does terrorism.

However, I personally find those definitions lacking and prefer the following that fits more in line with other -isms.

Act of terror: Blowing civilians up.
Terrorism: Using the threat of future act of terrors to coerce a population into obedience.
Terrorist: Person that does terrorism.

Bullshit

[Jane Q. Public]

Believe me, I am not a Republican. But Obama is an "elitist" of the classic and worst sort. They did NOT mean "intelligent"... they meant elitist!

And by the way, the term is "elitist", not "elite"! They are very different things. Obama is an elitist, no doubt about it. But elite, he ain't. Nor are the vast majority of Republicans, for that matter.

This has been going on since 2000.

[Max Threshold]

In 2000, I was investigated by the FBI after calling Janet Reno "the enemy I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against" in an email to my father and cousin. Within three days of my sending the email, they had interviewed numerous co-workers and convinced my housemate to keep tabs on my whereabouts so they could interview me. Interestingly, the printed copy of my email contained only what I had written; the parts of the conversation I had quoted were blacked out.

This was a few months before the name "Carnivore" started appearing in the news. The FBI swore up and down that Carnivore was only used to monitor suspected criminals. But I have no involvement in any kind of criminal activity (beyond the usual file sharing and moonshining, which I'm sure they know about so I don't mind saying it) and yet I was under surveillance. We are ALL under surveillance, and have been for a long time.

Are you DENSE?

[Jane Q. Public]

You never learned to read between the lines? How old are you?

The FBI, like any government bureaucracy, wants as much power as it can get. Always. Asking "why" is actually pretty stupid. Did you learn ANY history in school? (Believe me, I do not accuse many questions of being stupid. But that one definitely qualified.)

Be that as it may, THIS particular power grab came from the upper levels of this presidential administration. (Note the lack of capitalization, which is deserved.) It is not the FBI, per se, that is behind this move. But obviously they are going along with it, which makes them the enemy.

revolution

[falconwolf]

End result is unfortunately either a bloody coup and/or civil war.

Thomas Jefferson once said there should be a revolution every 20 years or so. He said it in his quote about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed periodically with the blood of patriots and tyrants:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

Falcon

Re:revolution

[Tuoqui]

Hehe well I think every 20 years is probably a bit TOO often... though about every 100 years would be about right. Since the last civil war was fought what 1876 I'd say that America is about 100 years overdue for one.

Re:revolution

[ResidntGeek]

Since the last civil war was fought what 1876

Uh, no.

This surprises you?

[Newer Guy]

This surprises you? It doesn't surprise me at all! After all, Dick and Bush are still in power through next February, which means they have FIVE MORE MONTHS to fuck over the American people!

It's amazing

[gothzilla]

how easy it is for Americans to believe every bit of enemy propaganda that crosses their way. Reading the comments here it wouldn't be hard to believe the majority of slashdot readers are members of CAIR.
You're supposed to fight against people who want to kill you, not help them make their jobs easier.

Michael Moore

[falconwolf]

That's where you made a mistake, using Michael Moore as an authority. I agree it seems like the US is turning fascist but I wouldn't use what Michael Moore says.

Falcon

Unless:

[Lost Penguin]

You can claim "Executive Privilege".

I know who "should" be investigated... /Every NeoCon in office

You can partially thank Obama's FISA vote for this

[falconwolf]

I used to support Obama as the Democrat candidate, but because of his vote to give businesses that helped the Bush admin spy immunity I won't anymore. He's running on change but immunity's is the wrong change. Making them pay would be a good change.

Falcon

redefiing and overloading words

[falconwolf]

Words have power, and people such as Rove have been using our own words against us by redefining -- overloading -- what they mean.

I don't like what Rove has done, but Democrats have also redefined, overloaded, words.

Falcon

Re:redefiing and overloading words

[gznork26]

"I don't like what Rove has done, but Democrats have also redefined, overloaded, words."

Thank you, Falcon. My comment was not about who is or is not an elite, but rather about what the word means to those who say and hear it.

Now let's change the focus of the discussion _from_ what politicians appear to be saying _to_ how those who have or want power are using language to manipulate the public debate. What other words and phrases have had their meanings twisted, by whom, and to what end?

For example... do people proclaiming the virtue of being 'pro-life' value to lives of those they also support killing in a war or occupation?

If the two sides to an argument are not using the same words to mean the same things, they cannot have a discussion or debate.

Re:redefiing and overloading words

[falconwolf]

do people proclaiming the virtue of being 'pro-life' value to lives of those they also support killing in a war or occupation?

I doubt it. For instance I saw one study about pro-life supporters. It asked if abortion was acceptable in any circumstances and most said no. SO they don't care about toe mother who is already alive, but who's live may be threatened by her pregnancy. It also asked if they supported life sentences or the death penalty for murderers and other criminals. Again most supported the death penalty, for instance against doctors who perform abortions.

If the two sides to an argument are not using the same words to mean the same things, they cannot have a discussion or debate.

Which is why I get angry sometimes when someone uses an incorrect meaning of a word, like "liberal". Or "hacker". I am liberal, I believe in small government and liberty. Put another way I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But the way it's used now is about bigger government.

Falcon

Read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering if any of the commenters actually read the articles ... just a show of hands, because they are both overwhelmingly innocuous for the description.

FBI Ignores Constitution and the sheeple sleep on

[Anonymous Coward]

So what else is new? Hasn't everyone figured out the US Constitution is dead? Killed by the people who swore to defend it. Appropriate, given all the other hypocrisy in American political life.

Time for some risen' up.

The Common Straw Man

[EgoWumpus]

A well articulated response...?

You're claiming that I am preaching actions are futile; a straw man argument. What I disagree with is when someone implies that a totally generically defined population will refuse to do anything, and so therefore they won't. Action starts with you; that is a message worth propagating. That 'Americans are too lazy to do anything' is not a message worth propagating. Neither is:

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THE SOLUTION, THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Oh?

[Jane Q. Public]

Quote: "Posting on Slashdot - or preaching to the choir - doesn't count as an affirmative action."

No, you admittedly preached that posting on Slashdot was futile. Well, guess what? There are a LOT of people on /. who are young and impressionable, not cynical assholes like yourself, and telling people that ANY message toward the good is futile is, in fact, catering to "the enemy".

Preaching futility is preaching futility, and it tells a lot about you, no matter how many you are preaching it to, or where.

the nightmare of stay in the US

[falconwolf]

I'm not sure why Americans would want to stay in the US any more

Two things, one is if you leave you're just consenting to what the government does, when if you don't like it you should be using the four boxes of liberty. The first is the soap box, then the ballot box and jury box with the last box used being the ammo box. The second thing is what country is better?

Falcon

Re:the nightmare of stay in the US

[StrategicIrony]

The second thing is what country is better?

Hmm.. well here is a ranking of subjective "freedom of the press". These rankings are based on how often reporters are harassed or jailed for their stories and how much influence the government has on deciding what they can and can't report. Since this is considered a "fundamental" freedom (as part of the first amendment) it should be important to the US, right? hah!

1 Iceland
1 Norway
3 Estonia
3 Slovakia
5 Belgium
5 Finland
5 Sweden
8 Denmark
8 Ireland
8 Portugal
11 Switzerland
12 Latvia
12 Netherlands
14 Czech Republic
15 New Zealand
16 Austria
17 Hungary
18 Canada
19 Trinidad and Tobago ...snip...

41 Croatia
42 Romania
43 South Africa
44 Israel (Israeli territory)
45 Cape Verde
45 Cyprus
47 Nicaragua
48 United States
49 Togo
50 Mauritania

Here is the "quality of life" index from "The Economist" which is US periodical that is very highly regarded by US Businessmen and Politicians, as being very neutral and well-documented. Here's the top 15 or so from the list.

Ireland 8.333 1 36,790 4 3
Switzerland 8.068 2 33,580 7 5
Norway 8.051 3 39,590 3 0
Luxembourg 8.015 4 54,690 1 -3
Sweden 7.937 5 30,590 19 14
Australia 7.925 6 31,010 14 8
Iceland 7.911 7 33,560 8 1
Italy 7.810 8 27,960 23 15
Denmark 7.796 9 32,490 10 1
Spain 7.727 10 25,370 24 14
Singapore 7.719 11 32,530 9 -2
Finland 7.618 12 29,650 20 8
United States 7.615 13 41,529 2 -11
Canada 7.599 14 34,150 5 -9
New Zealand 7.436 15 25,110 25 10
Netherlands 7.433 16 30,920 15 -1
Japan 7.392 17 30,750 16 -1

You might note, near the top of both of those lists reside some countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland. New Zealand, Canada, Australia and others also rank as very comparable to the US in quality of life, but much higher in freedom of the press.

So where would someone want to go? I don't know. Ireland? Norway? How about The Netherlands? Austria? They seem appealing these days.

Correction:

[Jane Q. Public]

"Admittedly" should have read "demonstrably". I don't give a damn whether you admit it or not; it is right there in black and white.

Alexander Hamilton

[falconwolf]

Actually Alexander Hamilton argued against the Bill of Rights.

Falcon

Re:Hmmm.

[One Childish N00b]

I know you're trolling, but you're invoking a common right-wing argument that simply needs to be shot down, so I'm going to reply anyway.

Here's the thing: You, as non-Muslims, cannot stop radical Islam. That is not a threat, it is a statement of fact. You cannot stop radical Islam because one of the major arguments, if not _the_ major argument, that terrorist leaders use to recruit people into their organizations is how the West is evil and is out to destroy Islam. The old argument that every survivor of a US bomb attack in Iraq becomes a terrorist or a sympathiser has been surpassed, and now every Muslim who sees his people being shot, bombed and invaded every night by the US is going to become more and more open to the few loudmouth idiots that will tell him they're doing it because they hate Islam, because they want to wipe Islam off the planet. Every time the US kills one radical Muslim, it is likely to create maybe five more, and the number of them will grow as long as you keep feeding the arguments of the loudmouth idiots that recruit them.

Now, on the other hand, you _can_ stop your government being stupid. At least, with far less bloodshed. So vote out the bad apples, write long letters to the good ones, and if all else fails, yes, you may have to rise up against your government. You rose up against us and cast off an oppressive leadership, and I respect you immensely for it. You can vote them out, if you got off your arses and did something about it every now and then. You could gun them out if it came to it, with your massively armed citizenry and an army that I would hope still believes in the reasons the country was founded, and would side with the people. Do it. Now I'm not saying that looking down my nose because I'm British, and we've backed ourselves into a corner on this as well, but you're the country that broke away from us to 'gain their freedom' - the whole point of your country's existence is based on a dream of liberty and justice. Act like it.

Re:Investigate? Sure.

[StrategicIrony]

The FBI recently argued in a case that is still pending that "reading email from a server" is not wiretapping as it is "public space", akin to reading post-cards left on the doorstep.

See, they're not breaking the law. They're "testing" the law.

If it fails, they'll try it again some other time, in a different jurisdiction... until it sticks and then IT IS the law.

meh.

Speech by Andrew Napolitano

[Anonymous Coward]

4 parts, this is link to part 1. part 2 is where it becomes pertinent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8

Re:ammo box - useless against police

[lpq]

The police already fire on citizens -- there's tons of cases of police abuse with SWAT teams -- which are close enough to military to wipe out any resistance the FBI and BATF would allow to exist (they usually come up with some reason to break into any well-armed defensive group -- tax evasion, child abuse rumors, whatever...they always find some excuse.
Not to mention that in some states, you can't even own semi-automatics, let alone machine guns or powerful electronic scrambling equipment needed to deflect much of today's advanced weaponry.

Finally a solution against illegal wiretapping

[thc4k]

... simply make all wiretapping legal! It's brilliant! They really learn from history, and not just their own.

US military

[toby]

Had no problem dropping nukes on civilians 6 Aug, 1945.

All that is necessary is for the targets to be dehumanised in some way - calling them 'terrorists' should work.

Re:US military

[shoemilk]

How is this insightful? That happened over 63 years ago, during an international war (do believe it was call World War II) on an independent state, with (at the time) brand new weaponry. Sure it's easier to launch the weapons now, but it's a lot harder once the effects are really well known (see 1950-1980, called them "commies" back then).

Re:US military

[falconwolf]

Had no problem dropping nukes on civilians 6 Aug, 1945.

However newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst had already done a good job of demonizing Asians with his yellow peril campaign.

All that is necessary is for the targets to be dehumanised in some way - calling them 'terrorists' should work.

And how do you make out Soccer Mom to be a terrorist? You'd have to control all of the media to successfully dehumanize a lot of people, and there's no way the government could do that in the US. There's no way the government could for instance control the internet without shutting it down. And there'd be major riots in the street if they tried. Not even with the Great Firewall of China can the Chinese block all the traffic they want to stop. The internet was built to, and people will finds way to, route traffic around bad nodes.

Falcon

true -

[toby]

4,000 dead soldiers versus about 1,000,000 dead civilians. I guess that's why they call it asymmetric warfare.

I know you were joking, but

[toby]

this paper is worth reading. (Here too.) ("I've Got Nothing To Hide" and other Misunderstandings of Privacy, by Daniel Solove).

even the briefest study of 20th C history

[toby]

(which provides numerous examples of totalitarian states) will show you how in detail how it works:

1. You ask, encourage, require and 'motivate' people to turn their neighbours, brothers, fathers, employees in. A failure to do so indicates personal guilt. Quotas may be used.

2. You drop any requirement for evidence or due process, and simply incarcerate, or in the case of celebrities, call a show trial. Pointless torture is sometimes involved, but this is now acceptable in America.

3. Yes, this is the journey y'all have begun. Either pull the emergency cord and stop the train, or enjoy the trip.

you might start giving a damn

[toby]

When they walk over and knock.

as of today

[toby]

It's safe to make such statements in a public forum...

how about betrayal of the rest of the world?

[toby]

The ICC is the venue that would give war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest of their collaborators a fair trial, which is more than they themselves grant captured citizens of other countries. Eventually, like in Nuremberg, they will be called to answer for all of this: a war of aggression, extraordinary rendition, war profiteering, civilian murders, manipulation and fabrication of intelligence, violating the Geneva Convention and countless other treaties...

Then perhaps they can be turned over to the American public to be ripped apart for the domestic betrayals. Just like Nixon! Uh wait... You guys don't really do accountability, do you?

My Contribuition - ROT13 (I'm Serious)

[DeanFox]

I write code for a living. I send nothing across a wire I haven't encrypted (AES). Nothing I store in a data base is human readable. If my program needs a parameter file, I convert each entry even to something as simple as ROT13, then for fun maybe I'll swap the first and last bytes. It doesn't have to be fancy just enough that scanners won't pick it up.

The only way the Government is going to be able to mass search everything is if they don't have to work for it. And as programmers we've been feeding them nothing but plain text. No wonder they're so twittered about reading everybody's stuff. They can!

The next time you write code and create a file convert it to something non-readable. The next time you design a system that connects over a wire use secure sockets. We're the solution. Quit handing your data over on a silver platter. I don't.

-[d]-

McCain has stated in many different ways

[toby]

That he will continue in the manner of Bush. It is obvious that his constituency is the same as Bush's.

Precisely.

[toby]

And those are the interests behind Bush and your presidential candidates. For names, just check Cheney's Rolodex.

and NOW you're starting to understand...

[toby]

The desperation of those people who fight for their own freedom with whatever weapons are available.

Dictator Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the New Regime! Hail Bush!

RD
http://useurl.us/12m

Imagine My Surprise...

[flyneye]

Imagine my surprise to find that stupid burglar I just shot headless had a badge in his wallet.Oh well,gunna have a bumper crop of tulips in the flower bed this year.Thank God for the right to keep and bear arms in order to keep our government in its place.

The american public wear the pants.

[Anonymous Coward]

The american public wear the pants - unfortunately, they're crotchless.

Who you talk to

[DrSkwid]

has value, not as valuable as what you say but still plenty.

From Straw Man to Ad Hominem

[EgoWumpus]

I did not preach that posting on Slashdot was futile - I said that it did not count as an affirmative action. Discourse is fine, and on some level you can call it an 'action', and even define it as 'good'. But in no situation is discourse a sufficient condition for bringing about change.

Therefore, if you want to be part of the solution, posting on Slashdot or preaching to the choir does not count.

I have nothing against people posting on slashdot - oh, the hypocrisy if I did! But I do not count it, and do not think well of anyone who does count it, as an action that helps to materially improve the situation. Note that I did not call it wasted effort, as you claimed I did. I did not call it futile, as you claimed I did. You entirely decided on your own that was what I was saying without at all reading what I said. It is not futile; it's not (usually - in this case I'm beginning to wonder) wasted effort. It is, however, insufficient to the task of bringing about a change - on it's own. That is why I asked what that person was doing.

That is in general. Specifically, this holds double when the post has nothing to say, save to reinforce the idea that Americans are too lazy to do anything, so long as they have their TVs. In this, I think, I actually disproved what appears to be the main point you're pushing; that I'm cynical.

I'm happy that I've served as your springboard to shout from the rooftops how virtuous an activity posting on Slashdot is, but rhetorically your argument is weak, and philosophically it's vacuous. Come back when you bother to read people's posts, digest them as posts in their own right and not what you want them to be, and have something useful to say. Marks of a useful post; it doesn't resort to profanity to make it's point.

Terrorism is subjective

[Anonymous Coward]

Terrorism is a basic tactic of warfare and I'd be surprised if somebody could find any war that did not have it. It is impossible to define terrorism in a way that excludes accepted forms of terrorism.

Terrorism in reality is NOT subjective every group tries so hard to avoid the taboo they fabricate lies to excuse their use of terrorism. It has become subjective, especially in the USA in which alternative realities are the political foundation.

Terrorizing government officials is the purpose of the 2nd amendment as well as voting.

How far we should go?

[Anonymous Coward]

When citizens are treated as such and shipped off to a torture facility because of their opinion then we'll show how far we've come. The problem isn't so much with national security as it is with common sense. Some but not all people in power are human and some don't have any sense of the human condition. They do it for their own political motive, they're own unrealistic beliefs. They are blinded by their own reason that they don't know anything else.

What scares me though isn't that they are doing this. What scares me is that they are doing this one month before elections. It not like anybody has any that important to hide. It's that everybody has something important to hide. It's like my dad, he was molested 40 years ago. Should the world know about that? Should the world know how he was screwed up because of it? Should the world know that my sister was molested when she was a kid? Should the world know that my mother was raped after her mother died? How much should the world know and why should they?

Re:Develop a thug caste

[Anonymous Coward]

TSA
FBI
SWAT - thug caste is the definition of no-knock raids

Oh please stop this "declared war" strawman.

[unassimilatible]

Seems to me that in both of the examples you cite above, the congress declared war.

I am so sick of this disingenuous argument, or should I say lack of argument.

One more time for the extremely slow: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war in Article I is a check on the Executive Branch, so one man can't wage war.

The purpose was not, I repeat not so anti-war people can use a semantic argument that since Congress didn't use the word "war" in its authorization, there is no "war" so enemy combatants become magically transformed into criminal defendants fully vested with Constitutional rights. There is absolutely no basis for this reasoning in our history, politics, or law. Vietnamese and Korean combatants were considered POWs (or, as the case may have been for some individuals, unlawful combatants), and those were not declared wars either. Congress authorized military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that is enough under our Constitution for the President to wage a war. There is no legal source that says otherwise, and Congress authorizing military action without actually using the word "war" has total acceptance within our political system, nitpicking strawmen notwithstanding.

And al Qaeda declared war on the USA. By your reasoning, since Congress hasn't passed a resolution with the word "war" in it, we can't respond militarily, only send out the FBI and start Mirandizing people. By this (lack of) logic, any Japanese captured during the attack on Pearl Harbor would be considered criminal suspects, and have to be arrested by police and given a lawyer, since Congress had not declared war yet. Utter nonsense.

Re:Oh please stop this "declared war" strawman.

[jcr]

One more time for the extremely slow:

Fuck you for getting snotty about it.

The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war in Article I is a check on the Executive Branch, so one man can't wage war.

Exactly. The constitution doesn't permit the congress to delegate the decision to the president. Until and unless the congress declares war, anything the executive claims as wartime powers are nothing but usurpation.

-jcr

Re:Oh please stop this "declared war" strawman.

[unassimilatible]

Fuck you for getting snotty about it.

And you, for your specious arguments, trying to argue technicalities in bad faith that you have no political or legal basis for.

The constitution doesn't permit the congress to delegate the decision to the president. Until and unless the congress declares war, anything the executive claims as wartime powers are nothing but usurpation

Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress cannot give the President conditions precedent before acting? Where is your SCOTUS case law for this? When has SCOTUS declared any/every war since WWII illegal?

Again, cockeyed reasoning. By your (il)logic, if Congress had suspected or known about Pearl Harbor in advance, it couldn't pass a resolution saying, "If the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, the President may exercise full war powers." So the Department of Defense isn't actually allowed to do any actual "defending" of the country, save a war declaration? So if China launches missiles at the USA, Congress has roughly 15 minutes to declare war or we cannot retaliate? So the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine, pre-authorizing the National Command Authority to launch massive nuclear retaliation as a deterrent, the USA's policy since the start of the Cold War, that was illegal all this time? This is absurd, and I doubt many people - law professor, historian, or average Joe, would agree with you. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. It was created, chiefly, to prevent abuses of power via checks and balances, not to prevent the two war-making branches from actually making war and defending the nation when they want to do so!

Thomas Jefferson (who launched his own little police action in the Mediterranean against shipping pirates) and James Madison laugh at your folly from the grave.

Re:Oh please stop this "declared war" strawman.

[jcr]

Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress cannot give the President conditions precedent before acting?

The constitution enumerates limited powers. The congress has only the powers given to it by the constitution. Trying to enumerate all of the things the congress may not do is absurd.

-jcr

Re:Oh please stop this "declared war" strawman.

[pixelpusher220]

Puhleaze,

nice straw man there. If Congress suspected or knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, they could quite easily issue laws that said "if we're attacked, we're at war". No POTUS needs to be involved.

Unless you were saying Congress should just write a blank check for POTUS to cash however and whenever he wants? Oh wait, that's basically what happened and why we're in this mess. Dubya/Cheney are at fault for starting this 'war', but Congress is just as at fault for allowing it to continue.

As for the '15 minute' threat. You don't think that 'MAD' as you say wasn't run through Congress? Specific threats are enumerated as they are discovered and *deliberated* as to the proper response. (see how your Pearl Harbor example fits this situation?)

The President does have 'limited' authority to act unilaterally on a temporary basis, as you say we can't always wait for congress to come into session. But ongoing operations can and must require more approval than just "the president says so". (note, my previous stmt on congress' fault in the current situation)

The Constitution was created to prevent madmen (both internal and external) from running roughshod over civil liberties.

Anonymous Coward.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just happy I am not american. Thing are getting worse each year over there. Is this democracy??? ROFLMAO!!!

--Encefalus from encefalus.com

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you pay attention to the fact that the AQ lawyers quit using Windows AND encrypting data? Think there is a reason? Don't you wonder just a bit why that section of the trial was put under a gag order? THink there was a reason? If the average person does not encrypt, then the amount of data that requires deep packet inspection (assembly of the packets back into a stream and then inspecting the context of it) suddenly got a LOT smaller.

You MIGHT want to take a lesson from Al Qaeda. Steganography is where it is at.

Re:Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

[MJMullinII]

Did you pay attention to the fact that the AQ lawyers quit using Windows AND encrypting data? Think there is a reason? Don't you wonder just a bit why that section of the trial was put under a gag order? THink there was a reason? If the average person does not encrypt, then the amount of data that requires deep packet inspection (assembly of the packets back into a stream and then inspecting the context of it) suddenly got a LOT smaller.

You MIGHT want to take a lesson from Al Qaeda. Stenography is where it is at.

Or it could be they were cheap and paranoid.

Have you even SEEN the cost of a Vista License for Terrorists Networks!

THEY should be the ones with the masks and guns!

Naomi Wolf said it better than I can:

[toby]

Watch this 47-minute talk if you are interested in the dangerously fragile state of your civil rights.

Screw the American Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the FBI and CIA.
I encrypt every drive and document I own just BECAUSE of this shit.
The government should be afrade of its people, not the people afrade of it.

Re:Nice guy (sig hijack)

[magus_melchior]

Congress: How about we get started with an investigation by your Justice Department?
Mukasey: I'm afraid we're fresh out of investigations, sir.
Congress: No matter, well then a special prosecutor, if you please.
Mukasey: Ordinarily, sir, yes. This term, we can't get Ken Starr. ...
Congress: A hearing, perhaps?
Mukasey: Ah, we can do a hearing!
Congress: Excellent!
Mukasey: Yes, um... the officials are a bit "runny".
Congress: Oh, I like them runny.
Mukasey: ... Actually, they're very runny, sir.
Congress: No matter, fetch hither the officials for me to grill!
Mukasey: I think they're runnier than you'd like, sir.
Congress: I don't care how fucking runny they are, bring them to me with all speed.
Mukasey: OH!!...
Congress: ... What now?
Mukasey: The cat's eaten them.
Congress: ... ... Has he?
Mukasey: She, sir.

(It would be much funnier if it weren't actually resembling reality...)

Why not just vote out the republicans?

[falconwolf]

Both Republicans AND Democrats have to be voted out. They are both part of the problem.

Falcon

I simply disagree.

[Jane Q. Public]

Okay... you did not actually state that it was "futile". But in my opinion, that was strongly implied by what you DID state.

If you want to get technical and pick nits (apparently you do), then according to several dictionaries you used "affirmative action" incorrectly.

Even so, I believe I know what you meant... and I simply disagree. Very strongly disagree, in fact. The very FIRST part of introducing societal change is the dissemination of information... and Slashdot reaches a lot of people. So -- in the context you used it -- posting on Slashdot IS, very much, a kind of "affirmative action". Even though that is not what the phrase actually means. Admittedly, I had to guess at your intention in using it.

I understand that you do not consider it "sufficient" action to bring about change... but that is a different subject. I am not arguing, and did not argue, that it is sufficient. But it IS action, and useful action at that.

And further, profanity does have its uses. Not to make a point, to be sure, but that is irrelevant... I did not use it that way. I used it for emphasis.

You should be careful about bringing up philosophy, when your own statements do not logically follow one another.

Re:ammo box - useless against police

[falconwolf]

The police already fire on citizens

And there are angry protests when they do.

Not to mention that in some states, you can't even own semi-automatics, let alone machine guns

No problem, weapons are bought across the stateline. And resistance can just take the weapons of those they capture or kill. Actually when I was in the Army we joked about taking the enemy's AK47 when we came across one, our M16's were prone to jambing whereas you could ram an AK47 into the dirt and it's still fire ok.

Falcon

Just like at Kent State you mean?

[falconwolf]

And hundreds of colleges and universities closed in protest of the Kent State shootings with over 4 million students protesting. Students at New York University hung up a banner saying "They Can't Kill Us All".

Falcon

I would love to believe that you are correct

[falconwolf]

but "tell that to" the Germans when they allowed, no voted in, Hitler (and I am of German decent)

I might have some Dutch but I'm not sure, however that's besides the point. The problem, a good really, is that mass communications is easy today. During the 1930s the NAZIs were able to control most of the communications in Germany, and the countries they invaded. It would be virtually impossible to control it today.

or "tell that to" the Ohio National Guardsmen who fired on unarmed protesting students

More than 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C. after the shootings. And because of protests on college campuses more than 400 colleges and universities were closed. A banner saying "They Can't Kill Us All" was hung up at New York University. And that was just because 4 students were killed and nine injured.

you are old enough to remember that if you were in Veitnam

I never was nor said I was ever in Viet Nam.

I am becoming more and more concerned for the future of our once great country.

I've been concerned about our country for years, at least since Reagan.

Our Congress, Presidents and bleeding-heart liberals can't give our rights and money and soldiers' lives away fast enough.

And conservatives, social conservatives not fiscal conservatives, can't stop grabbing for control of what individuals do in the privacy of their ow homes.

Oh, and BTW, I know a Chinese, now American citizen, and she has warned me not to ever trust the Chinese government - "They hate America". Your thoughts?

I don't trust any government. I fear government more than anything else, including terrorists. Afterall it's governments that creates and supports terrorists. My thoughts on the Chinese government? They are just as imperialistic as Europe was and America is.

Falcon

where do you want to go?

[falconwolf]

Here is the "quality of life" index from "The Economist" which is US periodical

"The Economist" isn't a US periodical. It has offices throughout the world but it's registered in London "The Economist Newspaper Limited Registered in England and Wales. No. 236383 | Registered office: 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG | VAT Reg No: GB 340 436 876".

You might note, near the top of both of those lists reside some countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland. New Zealand, Canada, Australia and others also rank as very comparable to the US in quality of life, but much higher in freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is only part of freedom. While I support Reporters Without Borders I value other things as well, such as economic freedom and the right to bare firearms.

So where would someone want to go? I don't know. Ireland? Norway? How about The Netherlands? Austria? They seem appealing these days.

Actually for now I want to go to Brazil. I'm hoping to go there as part of a study abroad program.

Falcon

healthcare waits

[falconwolf]

Those links would be so much more impressive if the type of hospital outpatient visits they are referring to weren't all but non-existent in the United States.

Let's see... The BBC article says:
"Department of Health statistics show that the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks for a first outpatient appointment in England following a written GP referral rose by 31,000 to 468,000 in the final quarter of 1998."
When I first saw my last doctor she wanted my throat to be tested, it felt like molten lead was being poured down it. So when I left her office an appointment was made right then and there to have the test. I was able to have the test scheduled for the following week. A person can't say it was an emergency and that the test had to be done asap as my throat had bothered me for years. If it had been an emergency then why wasn't it tested sooner?

There are plenty of new drugs coming out in the US but no REAL developments.

And what do you mean by "REAL developments"? New drugs aren't real?

Hell, the US won't even acknowledge the medicinal uses of cannabis yet and we've known about them for a few thousand years!

I agree the Federal Government won't but state governments do. I'm not sure, but I thing 7 states have voted to allow medical marijuana. Oh, and the federal government does acknowledge some medical uses for it, the feds used to allow prescription for glycoma for instance. Oh, and Thomas Jefferson as a framer grew it on his farm.

Falcon

Re:healthcare waits

[shaitand]

'When I first saw my last doctor she wanted my throat to be tested, it felt like molten lead was being poured down it. So when I left her office an appointment was made right then and there to have the test. I was able to have the test scheduled for the following week. A person can't say it was an emergency and that the test had to be done asap as my throat had bothered me for years. If it had been an emergency then why wasn't it tested sooner?'

What does that have to do with the outpatient hospital procedures referred to in the article? Your except only mentioned GP referrals but the article qualified that to referrals to HOSPITAL care.

'And what do you mean by "REAL developments"? New drugs aren't real?'

A drug is not an advancement in and of itself. The drugs the US companies are releasing are comparable to 'inventing' the tuna sandwich over and over and shaping the bread differently each time. For an example look to the latest anti-depressant which is a minor alteration to the previous anti-depressant and does essentially the same thing. But the drug company gets a fresh patent, charges new drug prices, and of course doctors aren't going to prescribe last years drug. Sure they work, but so did the same drug under another name last year.

'Oh, and the federal government does acknowledge some medical uses for it, the feds used to allow prescription for glycoma for instance.'

Once upon a time marijuana was both legal and used for medical purposes in the United States. There are a handful of people receiving prescription marijuana in the United States legally but the program was shutdown. Currently the FDA and DEA claim that there is NO medical use for marijuana and as a result it has a worse classification than Cocaine!

Really, I'm not US bashing. I'm an American and proud of the ideals here. I'm not as proud of the realities in the current day. Healthcare is a basic public service and I think it is sad that the wealthiest nation on earth has citizens that have to worry about dying from untreated illness or injury.

Re:healthcare waits

[falconwolf]

What does that have to do with the outpatient hospital procedures referred to in the article?

The test was an outpatient test. I drove to the hospital, was given an anesthetic, then the docs sent a camera on a tube down my throat. Afterwards I left the hospital, I was there no more than a couple of hours.

Once upon a time marijuana was both legal and used for medical purposes in the United States.

During the debates to approve the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which made hemp aka marijuana illegal, a doctor testifying for the AMA said hemp was a valuable drug for some medical treatments. Dr James Woodward, who was also an attorney, was denounced by Harry Anslinger the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Anslinger was also the nephew-in-law of Andrew Mellon, from the Mellon Bank, who was the Secretary of Treasury. And one business the Mellon Bank financially backed was DuPont, who had just been granted a patent on making plastic from petroleum. Prior to that plastic was made from plant cellulose, which hemp was a good source for.

Really, I'm not US bashing. I'm an American and proud of the ideals here. I'm not as proud of the realities in the current day.

Same here, I only wish the US would live up to it's ideals.

Healthcare is a basic public service

I disagree, medical care is an individual's responsibility, not society's. I used to take care of myself, live as a healthy of a lifestyle as I could. And I don't see why in the world I should have to pay someone's medical bills when they lead an unhealthy lifestyle. Now my situation is the reverse, because of an accident the drive who hit me was responsible for, I need help paying my medical bills. And I don't believe taxpayers should be stuck paying them. The driver, or in this case his employer because he was working and driving a vehicle owned by them, should be the ones responsible for paying my expenses.

I think it is sad that the wealthiest nation on earth has citizens that have to worry about dying from untreated illness or injury.

So do I but I blame that on there not being a free market in medical, health care.

Falcon

but the splitting didn't happen at Tiananmen.

[falconwolf]

You're right, the threat of the US army splitting is even worse than it is in China. Whereas Chinese military units are generally from the specific area of China they come from, US military personnel are from all over the US. I had people in my units from all over, heck I even had someone who was Israeli in a unit.

Falocn

who will they spy on first?

[Wyck]

And to get things started, everyone that posts a message in these threads gets put on "the list".

THis isn't mipeachment

[unassimilatible]

Bush isn't being impeached. Congress is trying to call Rove for a regular hearing. Short of impeachment, Congress should not be calling members of the exec. And there is nothing in that section that explicitly says the President has to show up as a witness. Besides, what are they going to do if he doesn't, impeach him?

Only buying time

[GameboyRMH]

Because the Democrats are not too far behind. You'd only be buying time.

To what end?

[Anonymous Coward]

So many of you know so little.

The United States Military cannot act upon US soil in any type of police action or military maneuver (except training actions) unless a police state has been declared.

So all of you that are worried about 500,000 soldiers knocking on your front door can relax.

As for the National Guard, a Governor can declare a state of emergency, and activate the guard to police home soil. ....

As for the suggested FBI regulations ... the implications are much farther reaching that you might think. If the FBI can ignore the 4th amendment for any reason that they choose, then what is stopping a local police force or the US Marshall, or even State or County cops? What is to stop the NSA from acting on US soil? To what end? What will stop any of them from violating any of your other "rights"?

This cannot be allowed to happen. It threatens our very freedom that so many soldiers and citizens have given their lives to protect. There is no more harmful attitude than complacency.

Rise up and let your voice be heard. And if that fails .... RISE UP and defend your freedom.

I was in the army 40 years ago.

[falconwolf]

A couple of times I followed orders and almost got court marshaled for doing so. I was lucky as my boss was a civilian and he stuck up for me (he was a GS-15).

I too was lucky at my first post. For some reason the captain of my company liked me. He frequently asked me if I wanted to go to this school or that school. One school I particularly liked was for Explosive Ordinance Disposal, EOD. He then made me one of the EOD experts for the unit. The last school he put me in for was Warrant Officer Flight School to learn to fly helicopters. A couple of months later I got orders to go overseas and asked him about it. He said orders to go overseas almost always cancels other orders. I was so disappointed, as I wanted and still do want to get my pilot's license. It also would have given me more tyme to take college classes, that's why I went into the Army, to save money for college. Once I served my tyme I could have piloted helicopters while attending college, I wanted get my PhD and be a Computer Engineer.

Falcon