Slashdot Mirror
Who's Flying Those Drones? FAA Won't Say
netbuzz writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation nine months ago filed a Freedom of Information Act request to prompt the FAA to release the names of government agencies and private entities that have received permission to fly unmanned aircraft over our heads. Nine months later, the FAA has neither released the information nor explained why it hasn't. On Tuesday the EFF filed suit (PDF) to force the agency to do so. Says EFF staff attorney Jennifer Lynch: 'Drones give the government and other unmanned aircraft operators a powerful new surveillance tool to gather extensive and intrusive data on Americans' movements and activities. As the government begins to make policy decisions about the use of these aircraft, the public needs to know more about how and why these drones are being used to surveil United States citizens.'"
Not me.. I don't want to be groped and scaned by the tsa or worse by any of those tla alphabet groups for not doing anything.
Citizen moving along, not looking at anything at all. Don't hellfire missile me bro.
Guess I can fly my own since they won't show me the list to prove my name's not on it...
With all the economic problems going on, and no end in sight, and the approval rating of the entire government in the shitter, it's pretty obvious. This government knows that the populist uprisings are going to eventually come to our shores, this is why they're bringing the troops home, this is why there have been so many laws restricting the rights of American citizens as of late...
There's going to be an American Spring, maybe not this year, but soon. Things cannot continue as they are...
Movements are publicly viewable.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
And here I thought they were bringing the troops home at the demands of the American people.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Needs a tinfoil had moderation option.
You must think the demands of the American people counts for something.
so, if a camera was placed on the street corner aimed at your front door, you'd have no problem with it?
your abstraction loses touch with reality.
what do you WANT for a world, in terms of how we live? you WANT to encourage this creeping intrusion on our privacy?
is that what you are arguing for?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I don't see any reason why such licenses couldn't be sold to the general public. The plane has to meet FAA UAV standards which they'll have to make up as they go along... and some sort of background check and licensing procedure for the pilots will be important. But why shouldn't everyone get in on this thing? UAV crop dusters. UAV traffic helicopters. UAV medical helicopters. Any situation where we might use human pilots... consider if we need them. Maybe we can get skybuses. Big helicopters that take people across traffic congested cities to depots, train stations, or airports.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If we finally get rid of George Bush and elect a Progressive (someone like Obama, who has campaigned on maintaining transparency in government), I think we'll do away with this.
But as long as we keep Bush and Republicans in office, we'll always have these types of issues.
It's gonna get really bad when those troops are demob'd, can't find jobs and join OWS.
Or gangs.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
you are probably right. they are circling the wagons. no american spring! that would upset the balance of power, here!
things will get worse before they get better; but oh boy, are we in for some 'interesting' times ahead of us ;(
anything that represents freedom to the people is fearful to the government (all of them, not just the US).
world war 3 is not going to be fought with conventional weapons and it won't be single countries against single countries. I hope this does not happen, but all roads point to some big problems ahead for us all.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
...it will be obvious that they must belong to some evil foreign country and you're allowed to kill their cams with that high powered laser that you have never built in your backyard. ;)
Ezekiel 23:20
Surveillance on US Citizens is wrong, but we the people have let our politicians rule over us and we gave them permission to do this. We constantly re-elect the same political individuals who have systematically stripped our rights away from the citizens of this country all in the name of "they know what's good for us". Well once those drones are taken down, that's when the FAA will try to step out of the picture and the owners who have to replace these (at taxpayer expense mind you) will come a hootin' and hollerin' claiming they need more Federal $ from the budget office to replace their drones.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
Capture one. See who knocks down your door.
Just make sure you're livestreaming, because you probably won't get a chance to talk to anybody about it for a very long time...
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Yeah, because just now all of a sudden people are demanding to bring the troops home. Everything was all hunky-dory up until recently.
Come on. There were a lot of people in this country that were against the war in Iraq before we had troops on the ground there. They're listening to the American people no more now than they were then.
You have no expectation of privacy in public, which is why we have those two words: "private" and "public". A camera looking at your door is the same as someone just standing on the street looking at said door.
which would be loitering
It is not reasonable for a police officer to watch your door, 24x7... unless there's been a warrant issued.
While there may be no expectation of "privacy", it's not the same thing as expecting the State is constantly watching.
Not the same thing at all.
There's going to be an American Spring, maybe not this year, but soon.
Problem is, what we get after is not likely to be any better.
The original founders of the country were pretty effing brilliant in ways that few are any more. They set up a system that worked for a pretty long time to guard against the kinds of abuses we're seeing now, with a recommendation that we throw it all out and start over every once in a while after it becomes too bloated and power-hungry, as it has. I haven't see much out of either OWS or the TP that comes anywhere *near* the sophistication of political thought that those guys had in the 1700's. These days, it'd be all about "gimme!" and not about trying to create a free state.
What would happen if someone shot one down?
I would be very surprised if that, in itself, did not qualify as one of those "terrorist acts" that allows the government to ship you off to Gitmo and hold you indefinitely without trial now thanks to the new NDAA.
Get some trial lawyer lobbying group to ask for this info and it will happen a lot sooner.
Once a drone crashes people will want someone to sue, and without a pilot there is no one to go after. Enter an attorney from Dewey, Faulkum, and Howe looking for his 33%, and you'll have more briefs flying around than in the showers at Penn State.
Sad when you own government by you own people does not trust you and has to keep a eye on everything you do with every new technology that comes out.
Incorrect. Aside from you (sic) atrocious language skills you've obviously never heard that the price of freedom is constant vigilance. Its just part of the price of admission. I also hope that this will serve as a reminder to everyone that its not longer "our" government anymore, its "a" government, one staffed by members of a ruling elite which stretches around the globe and into the other governments.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Drones being flown all over the country, by unidentified pilots, Microsoft giving their Flight Simulator game away for free. I coincidence? I think NOT.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Tinfoil, you say? It was a recent invention when my grandfather was sent to a gulag and my uncle was forcibly drafted into the Russian army to be what are now called "shock troops" or more accurately, "cannon fodder."
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
So to be clear, the EFF filed and FIA request to the FAA about USAF activity.
Omg, wtf?
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
Movements are publicly viewable.
I, sir, do my movements with the door locked and the window shade drawn. No one wants to see that.
so, if a camera was placed on the street corner aimed at your front door, you'd have no problem with it?
Nah! I can hit it with a paintball or pellet gun easy. Or, pay the neighbor's kid to smash it with a hammer. Or, just wait two days for someone to steal it.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
I actually find this subject interesting.
Ignoring evil government spying and abuse, and just focusing on the standard issue crime we all know and hate...
We are now near a point where we could use technology to very effectively cut down crime. The issue is no longer technological but social.
As you said, imagine a camera on every street corner. Imagine a system that constantly monitored every road for bad driving and issued immediate tickets. Cut someone off.. drive too fast.. forget your turn signal.. instant ticket. Imagine how much that would improve safety on the roads. Bad drivers would either improve or driving would become so expensive that they'd give it up.
Go forward a bit, imagine a system that can automatically detect crime. Imagine literally not being able to rob someone.. or steal anything.. because a system would immediately identify the action, and track you wherever you went until the police picked you up making it virtually impossible to escape. Imagine how much crime that would cut down on.
All at the expense of having very little privacy, and of course opening the door for massive abuse.
Do you want to live in that world? Personally I don't think I would either. Do we want to or can we find a middle ground?
Of course, because the people fighting the erosion of our freedoms here in the U.S. in the wake of 9/11 just want to institute a theocracy! It's all a big scam!!
It amazes me how many people support the restriction of our rights (or resist anyone upsetting the status quo) because a bunch of fucking assholes crashed hijacked planes into buildings 10 years ago. We can be safe without infringement of our constitutional freedoms.
I agree with you 100%. I mean, just the other day my neighbor was sentenced to 25 years of hard labor for Googling "free Tibet".
I have discussed the surveillance state we live in now with several people, and the one overriding factor that determines someones "ease" with accepting it is whether they have children or not. Those with kids almost always(actually always...) will accept any form of "safety" whether it's taking their shoes off at the airport, having all their electronic communications sniffed for anything suspicious or now, having drones with incredibly powerful cameras spy on them constantly. The argument invariably devolves into the "I want my kids safe, Dammit!" tack. Any amount of evidence pointing to how we are slowly but surely devolving into a 1984 style society is greeted by blank looks and animosity, almost as if I'm the bad guy because I don't agree with the "save the children via becoming a police state" direction we are on.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
FAR Part 91.119
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
You don't need to lock down a city. You just need to take out the trouble makers, most people are sheep and will act as such.
Take away food and water and reward people who tell on trouble makers - wont take long to get a tight grib on the population.
I have an expectation of privacy in my backyard. I have a 7 foot high privacy fence and trees which prevent/block views from my neighbors' 2nd floor windows. A drone flying above my house can easily look into my private backyard. So could a manned vehicle, I realize, but unless the FBI, local cops, etc. are using a U2 or something similar, I assume I'd know they're there visually or audibly. Drones can be much smaller, quieter, and even look like a bird.
Oh won't someone think of the children!
Traffic stations have had helicopters and small planes at low altitudes for decades, if you are scared of people seeing you in a bathing suit then cover your pool.
Hello, former sensor guy here.
No, they are very rarely detectable from the ground. Look at how efficient the exhaust system on a prius is at reducing acoustic signatures. Now put that on a plane that's blue-gray and 16000 feet over you and smaller than a cessna (in fuselage size).
Barely ever spotted unless deliberately flying low.
...the populist uprisings are going to eventually come to our shores, this is why they're bringing the troops home
This is much funnier if you read it with the voice of Dale Gribble. :-D
If the drones are prop driven, it wouldn't be hard to build a counter-drone to snag the prop on a line attached to a parachute.
Jet powered would be a bit harder, maybe a a strong, lightweight lead that could get sucked into the engine without breaking.
just sayin'...
damn, that would be a fun job, dreaming up and testing counter-measures.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Or the "Cancer Man" from The X-Files...
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
The issue here is that WHO these are operated by appears to be a government secret. The Government should not have a secret about which government agencies are operating in the US.
Most effective drone technology is still in government hands. (Yes there are some private drones available for anyone with the money to spare, but these are expensive and unlikely to be deployed on anything that is secret, and would more likely be used for forest management, crop evaluation, mapping, etc.)
That leaves two principal areas of sponsorship. Law Enforcement (DEA, ICE, etc), or Military. Military training over military training areas seems perfectly permitted. Military assistance watching the boarders or off shore seems well within the military mandate.
But military operating inland, over cities to spy on citizens is on pretty shaky grounds, and when doing so is a government secret the ground are not only shake they are slippery. You get tangled up with the Possee Comitatus act when you start using Air Force drones for non-defense purposes or to aid Law enforcement without a formal orders to do so, that must originate with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.
So if the drones are flown by CIA, or Air Force there is a problem.
If the government comes out and says they are flown by DEA, fine.
But refusing to say seems pretty short sighted for an administration that promised open government.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
>> All at the expense of having very little privacy, and of course opening the door for massive abuse.
Except that in all the cases you describe they have always been able to be there and monitor us, it was just more manual and luck based.
It was easier for us to look around for a man in a uniform watching, or a marked patrol car following, or a plane in the air, but they could always be there.
We aren't giving up any private area, or any privacy, we are just giving up our odds of being viewed in what was always a public area that we could be watched in.
How's the crime rate in London? Has it fallen significantly since they implemented this?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
OWS and TP both fail, but for different reasons. The TP followers had the passion and focus to affect some pretty significant political "change" in a remarkably short period of time. Their problem though, is that most of them were so "unsophisticated" that they failed to realize that they were being played by big money. Can you say "astroturf"?
OWS, on the other hand, seems to grasp the issue (that we are fast-becoming a facist state) but lacks the focus and leadership that was built into the TP movement from the start.
Will that change? If things get bad enough, sure, but right now, the only one's seriously making change happen are the the Tea Baggers.
I mean, just the other day my neighbor was sentenced to 25 years of hard labor for Googling "free Tibet".
Mod parent up. Comparing the USA to China does a disservice to people who live in true police states. Could the USA do much better? Absolutely - But Suggesting the USA is as bad as China means one has no clue as to how bad things really are elsewhere in the world.
Ask how well that's working out for the UK and the City of London?
Let me give you a hint - it hasn't.
You cannot EVER prevent crime. You can only prosecute it after the fact. Unless you make thoughts crime. In which case I don't want to live in your world.
Not in the US. At least not generally speaking. It was in fact ruled by the SCOTUS that loitering itself couldn't be outlawed (Chicago tried). It can only be illegal if done in a way that shows criminal intent. Stalking, for example. Watching a person's house may or may not be illegal, it would depend, but the police could likely warn someone who tried.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
You get more for less.
We have quite enough already, thank you.
Where did you acquire this lunatic idea that the purpose of government was to watch over every citizen every hour of the day?
Try this link. You may find it was something you slept through in the 6th grade.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
...the populist uprisings are going to eventually come to our shores, this is why they're bringing the troops home
This is much funnier if you read it with the voice of Dale Gribble. :-D
Just how did you get that name? Do I know you?
-- Rusty Shackleford
What the heck are you smoking (and the mods who modded you up, for that matter)? American Spring... American Spring my ass. We are very far from modern requirements for revolution:
1/ support from powerful entity abroad
2/ economical desperation (far far far from what we have now)
3/ a socially coherent massive enough organization of individuals ready to sacrifice dramatic part of their lives (including live itself).
The approval rating of the government could be 0.0%, yet the same 0.0% will go to street.
OWS failed miserably.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
One of the things that one of my teachers said to me in primary school was: "never compare yourself to the worst, or you'll always sink to their level. Always compare yourself to the best." That's good advice here. If you just keep patting yourself on the back for how great you think you are, you'll never get better, and you'll be less competitive.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I think you've seen too many movies where soldiers and sailors are non-thinking robots. Yes they are trained to follow orders, but they are also trained to think for themselves. It is highly unlikely they will shoot their fellow citizens without questioning the legality of the order. Plus the Constitution forbids the use of the Army and Navy for domestic law enforcement. That's the reason they aren't sent in immediately after national disasters... The state governors call up the national guard. And why Coast Guard detachments are assigned to Navy ships to make drug busts. The military doesn't even carry their guns around when on US bases, unless they are expressly training. Civilians provide most of the security and law enforcement on military bases. If anything, the political class would prefer the military deployed overseas if trying to suppress the population. Make it less likely they can join the rebellion.
This is *only* going to bite them in the ass. Sooner or later, somebody screws up - lightly - and in the resulting suit, some judge will order this information to be public. The fall-out will be considerable, and people will be less trusting. The general who now, obsessed by his power to protect and the technological possibilities, decided to withold this information, is going to rue the day. Or not. But hey - maybe it's his retirement in three or four years, and maybe he can sing it out until then.
Only one thing wrong with your scenario. It's very possible that the case would reach the SCOTUS. With the current membership on that bench, do you really think justice will be served?
I can't help but wonder if playing paint ball tag on an unmarked drone flying around on my property wouldn't be "entertaining?"
Don't worry. They'll come to you.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Control of a populace is merely a means to justify more spending. The Hitlers and Pol Pot's of the world -- those who honestly value power (that special "right" to employ coercion against others) more than the money it brings -- are extremely rare. The vast majority of political elites in the world are hungry for money, not power.
Above all, spying and mass surveillance is a means to justify spending. The complacency it breeds is valuable to government not merely because it makes their agenda (which is bigger government) easier to achieve, but because it makes spending easier to achieve. At the top of the pyramid, the more money passing through your hands, the more leverage you have to exploit that cash flow for personal gain.
That's really all there is to it. Not very romantic, is it? Government is all about money, money and money. Follow it, because following the money is 10x as good an indicator of government's true intentions than a politician's age-old speech.
Take away food and water
Historically doing such things has only served to provide more converts for the opposition/rebellion. In any case, members of the US military swear an oath to defend the Constitution. Asking the US Military to "take out" American citizens would likely incite a civil war; some of the military would "follow orders" while other portions would side with the population. You should also take into account the fact that the American population is well armed; rifles may not be a match for a tank or jet aircraft in a conventional conflict but they do make the prospect of imposing martial law upon the United States very expensive in terms of blood and treasure.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Gaaah, why must people say wrong things on Slashdot? I don't think the government is worried about the basement uprisings that are refering to.
The soldiers are being brought back from Iraq (the only real withdrawal I am aware of) because Bush signed an agreement to bring them back by the end of 2011. Also, Obama had negotiated to keep more soldiers in Iraq, but couldn't get unqualified immunity for them from the Iraqi government. You can read a well written article by Glenn Greenwald here if you wish to know more.
It's the lack of random chance that makes this effective however.
No more "did a cop see it" .. or "is anyone looking". You simply get caught every single time (well, there is always going to be errors, but not enough that a criminal might be tempted to try their luck). Right now if you commit a crime, you have a good chance of getting away with it, which is probably why there are so many criminals. I imagine the crime numbers would drop if commiting a crime was an automatic arrest, every single time.
Lets see :
.......
you are not in tibet yet. but the RATE things are going, are in that direction.
so far, people like you have been sitting pretty saying stuff like 'this is not china' and so on, and believing that such things may not happen in america.
and, meanwhile, while all of you were just sitting like that, the RATE things were going has not changed. increasingly, more repressive laws and bills have been put out. habeas corpus was basically gone out of the window back around 2001. but it had a condition of 'enemy combatant'. you people rationalized it, just kept sitting on your butt. and now, after 9 years, habeas corpus is gone out of the window for ALL american citizens. without any kind of reprieve.
there have been many attempts to censor internet and new media before too. the rate things were going in that direction. you just sit on your butt while these attempts were made. believing that these would not happen there. first attack on net neutrality circa 2005 was attempted, dmca passed, acta went into preparation aaand fast forward to today - there is sopa.
see the point ?
as long as there isnt any change at the RATE things are going and the DIRECTION they are going, it is only a matter of time before things just happen.
in short, if you just sit tight on your butt saying 'doh at least i am not in china', you will someday discover that, you ARE in china.
i cant believe that kind of stupidity which afflicts the modern society : there are a group of people who are saying that they WANT to limit your rights for their own profit, they are DOING things to limit your rights for their own profit, they continually succeed in incrementally removing your rights, so it is just a matter of time until your most basic rights are gone. it is on the horizon. these people are openly saying that they want to remove them, and they are not only telling that, but they are doing what they are saying.
it is the stupidity of looking at now, and seeing things as they are, and thinking that they will keep stay same forever, despite there are those who are incrementally changing it.
Read radical news here
I wish I had mod points for you. The moment you aren't concerned about it will the moment your caught up in a dragnet for viewing wikileaks, or go somewhere you're not supposed to IRL.
Whatever happened to spying at this level on ordinary citizens, simply being you know, WRONG?
---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
We can be safe without infringement of our constitutional freedoms.
Pretty sure you won't meet anyone in government who agrees with this. Which is a problem.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Those aren't mutually exclusive ideas.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
On a principled basis, I'd oppose such a system.
I would also oppose it on a practical basis. The laws of this nation (the USA) are so convoluted and messed up that it is impossible to get through a day without being in violation of something.
If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. - Cardinal Richelieu
this is a real problem. Before (and, to an extent, now) it was an odds game. Sure, you might be breaking the law by jaywalking, or speeding a little, or receiving oral from your spouse. But the odds of getting caught were acceptably low (for the majority of people, anyway. enough to not cause significant backlash against authority).
But, this was probably inevitable. This is what happens when you let people create laws that apply only to the governed. I can't believe I'm doing this, but Ayn Rand actually summed it up pretty well
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens' What's there in that for anyone?"
Nice try nutjob but makeup, hoodies, IR dazzlers, facial hair, glasses, etc. can all be used to trick the system.
You'd think someone on /. would realize that by giving more power to machines, you give more power to the few people who understand those machines.
http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
As another poster says, you do a disservice to your country by being proud of not yet being as bad as a state like China when you may be headed in that direction. Do yourself a favour and aim the opposite direction in policy if you wish to always be so proud.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Wow, you've got that backwards. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" means that the people must remain vigilant in monitoring the government, lest they lose their freedoms.
But I guess in one way you're right: If the government can take unlimited vigilant action against anybody anywhere without accountability, they have the freedom to do whatever they want to the people. That you seem to view this as desirable or at least expected is frightening.
No, OWS doesn't "grasp the issue" - they simply want a fascist state run to their liking, rather than the fascist state the Republicans (I refuse to call them conservatives, because they are not conservatives any longer) are aiming for. One wants cradle-to-grave socialism where the government runs and administers every facet of your life. And the other wants to let their buddies running large corporations lobby for no-bid contracts to decide who gets to run and administer every facet of your life.
If you really want to reverse the fascist tendencies BOTH of the major parties are following, you'll vote for the people who ACTUALLY want to reduce the size of government, and thus the scale of its ability to interfere with your freedom: the Libertarians.
And before some brainiac starts with the "Go to Somalia" bullshit, let's be clear: There is no disconnect between laws against fraud and general harm to your customers and the libertarian concept of a free market. "Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes," "free market" means that all the actors make consensual decisions based on their own self interests. Fraud can still be illegal. Use of force, coercion, and harm to others would still be illegal.
The less power you give the government to interfere with the lives of citizens, the less attractive the government becomes as a takeover target by corporations.
Just a matter of time. Don't you dare mod this as funny; you know it's coming.
Stop insulting the Tea Party. They're on the same side as the rest of the 99%, and you need them.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
It amazes me how many people support the restriction of our rights (or resist anyone upsetting the status quo) because a bunch of fucking assholes crashed hijacked planes into buildings 10 years ago.
What amazes me even more is how many people make this very argument, but then vote for a mainstream politician whose voting record clearly shows he or she is working hard to restrict our rights.
I agree completely, it amazes me as well, but we can't be safe, with or without constitutional freedoms; safety doesn't exist. You can be safer, but you're never safe. There are only varying degrees of danger... and the threat of terrorism is about the least of all physical dangers Americans face. I mean, 40,000 people die on the highways every single year. They could make America far less dangerous ("safer") by spending the TSA money on safer highways.
Oh, as to a theocracy, we already live under a theocracy. The religion is mammon and their temple is called a "bank" and their high priests are called "investment bankers". Look at how they call economics a "science", much like the Christian Science religion does. Also notice that if you put trojan rootkits on a single computer Sony owns, they'll find you and you'll go to prison, but if Sony puts trojan rootkits on thousands of uinsuspecting customers' computers, they suffer no penalties whatever? In a society whose god is a dollar, whoever has the most "god" rules.
Free Martian Whores!
So yes, nobody in China has been arrested for googling "free tibet". Even censored, the attempt to google it will be logged. The laws are on the books to use against people found "undesirable" (much like in the US, anyone can be arrested at almost any time, under the guise of, say, failing a field sobriety test (objective and unverifiable). All it takes is someone in real power who doesn't like you and your life as you know it is over. At least in China, you have a good idea of what it takes to become disappeared, unlike the US, which has assassinated US citizens without so much as a formal charge being laid against them. We aren't as bad as China, we are worse. At least in China you get accused before they come for you (or they tell you what you did as they shoot you - in the US, they kill you first, then accuse you in the media of being a traitor and terrorist without any formal legal charges at all). Presumed guilty is the current legal standard.
Learn to love Alaska
Stop insulting the Tea Party. They're on the same side as the rest of the 99%, and you need them.
Although they may be part of the 99%, they're on the side of the 1%.
They just don't realize it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
We aren't? We are assassinating "innocent" American citizens on secret presidential orders (assuming you believe in presumed innocent until found guilty, as the murdered were never even charged with a crime and never had a chance to respond, other than bleeding in the direction of the drone that executed them). http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/30/did-obama-just-assassinate-a-u-s-citizen-aulaqi-killing-raises-questions-over-presidential-powers/
When such terrorists/traitors (if he were one) were tried in absentia and legally determined to be "bad" then we have some high moral ground to speak from, but the US is assassinating/executing US citizens for suspected crimes without trial. Is that really the best we can do? If so, we really are no better than China, other than being less efficient at dealing with our undesirables (but they do it more doesn't work, if we do it at all, we are worse than them because we are no better than them, while simultaneously claiming to be better than them).
Learn to love Alaska
They are only bring the troops home because the new Iraqi government ( that we setup ) essentially kicked us out.
They asked us to leave and they basically said we are going to attempt to capture and jail US Soldiers if they violate any of our laws, which naturally most of them probably have to do in order to accomplish anything useful over there.
Nobody in the US government deserves any credit. All our officials were negotiating up until the last to keep the troops there, it was not until those negotiations failed they it turned into "We are keeping our campaign promise to bring the troops home". Its so hollow you'd think it was Sadam's former information minister writing the line.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
An excellent point, although many simply assume that America is already the best in this area and then ignore or derail any attempts to improve.
Plenty of people vote for a third party, just not enough; it's not human nature to go against the pack. The people who control this country are masters at understanding human nature, which is why things are as they are; they know how to manipulate the masses.
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
They asked us to leave and they basically said we are going to attempt to capture and jail US Soldiers if they violate any of our laws, which naturally most of them probably have to do in order to accomplish anything useful over there.
This was in direct response to contractors and soldiers committing outright murder of unarmed civilians on the streets of their major cities. Did we forget the helicopter gunship mowing down people minding their own business, and then attacking the people who came to help? How about the Haliburton contractors who opened fire in a public square for no reason? How about the group of soldiers in Afghanistan who've been convicted of randomly picking civilians to kill, essentially for fun, and planting weapons on them after the fact?
Besides all that, the right to enforce you laws inside your own borders is essentially the definition of sovereignty. You make it sound as if the Iraqis were trying to arrest soldiers for speeding when you should know by now that there have been serious criminal acts performed by US soldiers who have as often as not, gotten away with it with a slap on the wrist. It was a reasonable request by any measure, but it was obviously one that Obama couldn't have gone along with, it would have been political suicide. But I have to imagine that they could have leaned on the Iraqi government a whole lot harder and a whole lot longer if they really wanted to keep troops on the ground. Troops or no troops, the Iraqi government receives a lot of support from the US, threatening to yank that away would almost certainly have made the Iraqis change their mind.
One wants cradle-to-grave socialism where the government runs and administers every facet of your life. And the other wants to let their buddies running large corporations lobby for no-bid contracts to decide who gets to run and administer every facet of your life.
I never can tell with such people whether they deliberately lie, or simply don't listen. OWS wants even opportunity. Bush Jr. is explicitly against affirmative action. Nobody should ever get anything based on who their daddy was. Well, unless it's Bush Jr. getting into Yale with a poor record, in which case "legacy" (affirmative action for lazy white people) is perfectly acceptable. OWS recognizes the hypocrisy and such that the 1% uses to their advantage against the 99%. Nobody in the 99% should be eligible for "legacy" but everyone in the 1% should. As if the 1% needed even more handouts, or the 99% needed more hurdles. Yes, I'm explicitly stating that a qualified poor black person was rejected from Yale to let in a rich white person based on who his daddy was. When that's turned around, there's outrage, but when it's the poor black man being kept down, the 1% is fine with that.
"Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes," "free market" means that all the actors make consensual decisions based on their own self interests. Fraud can still be illegal. Use of force, coercion, and harm to others would still be illegal.
You are using economic terms incorrectly. A "free market" is a market with low barriers to entry and well informed consumers. The producers do not want a free market. They commit "fraud" (deliberately misleading consumers) whenever possible. The US does not have and would never have a free market. Such a beast requires tight government oversight, and those who say they want a "free market" do not want it, and those who are for governmental controls against corporate abuse wouldn't use that power to enforce a "free market." I'd love a free market. It puts the power in the hands of the informed consumers. But we don't have informed consumers, and may never have them.
Libertarians don't want to reduce the size of the government. They want to push their social agenda through, which may result in a smaller government than we have now, but they have no goal of "smallest government possible". If they did, they would support education more, as it's shown that $10 in education saves $12 in prison costs later. Instead, they have the "fuck education, we'll pay to put them in jail, but not pay to get them literate and productive" which indicates a goal of something other than trying to reduce the size of government as much as practical.
Learn to love Alaska
In any case, members of the US military swear an oath to defend the Constitution. Asking the US Military to "take out" American citizens would likely incite a civil war;
No, it barely got noticed in the news.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/09/30/did-obama-just-assassinate-a-u-s-citizen-aulaqi-killing-raises-questions-over-presidential-powers/
Learn to love Alaska
If that were as above board as you suggest, why would they not simply SAY that?
There must be a clear legal issue keeping them from putting any information out, something they are worried about from a legal perspective, or
an evidence admissibility standpoint.
After all, if the Taliban can't spot these things when their life depends on it, it seems the casual drug runner in unlikely to see them either when
they don't have to worry about a missile strike. Drug organizations know they are being watched.
Simply stating that the FBI or DEA is authorized should not be that hard.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Nope: the Iraqi government has wanted coalition troops out for years.
The withdrawal occurred so that no more casualties occur during Obama's re-election year. And no more embarrassments, either.
If the elections were in another 4 years then the troops would still be there for another 3.
There was some kind of show on TV that talked about the overlap between gangs and the military.
Apparently its way more extensive than you might expect -- they had dozens of photos of Disciples graffiti in BAGHDAD after the invasion and fairly alarming statistics about gang activity in the military (gangs continuing WITHIN the military).
Apparently the military's need for soldiers during Iraq led them to be less than selective when dealing with people who had criminal records or arrest histories.
There was also talk about discharged gang members using their military training against the police, but this seemed a lot more alarmist and harder to believe (I think they had one example they beat to death).
Not everyone who makes it into the military has a combat role assignment and I suspect that the low-end guys from gang backgrounds ended up in more service roles and not in front-line combat roles and thus while they may have had basic training in combat, probably didn't have a ton of first-hand experience or expertise in it,.
I am gonna risk an outrage with this, but my reasoning is that on global scale the biggest kid is the worst. Property of our system, it seems. Locally, sure, it is much better to live in a freer country (personal experience here). Somehow though, when thinking about humanity at this point in time I do not perceive China as worst country than the US. Perhaps if in the future China becomes the dominant country I will consider them worst just because they are the big one and in the system we live in somehow the big one can never resist screwing the smaller ones, never mind how the big one treats its citizens.
The things I hold dearest in a society (and data shows that these things correlate with positive societal development), well, the US is not exactly the champion in some (like violence, inequality) and others are in decline (human rights, free speech). I also favor the idea of different societies and groups within societies that live and let others live. That is not the US either. But wait, wasn't the original idea more or less on the right track?
Now that would be really interesting - if the the original idea of the US was preserved. Imagine all the states diversifying in culture over time, because of the free movement of people, a luxury that tribal people did not have. We have inherited in good measure the intrinsic distrust towards other cultures from the tribal times but with the development of civilization an issue of friction and ability to do great harm emerges that did not bother our ancestors. The idea of independent states with free trade and movement of people between them, with one very big stick in the hands of tightly controlled representatives that only take care to keep the peace between the states, if necessary, defend against outsiders and promote said freedoms, is quite good I think. It would be interesting social experiment too - it would allow for different cultures to test themselves against stability, progress and sustainability in conditions where they would not have to constantly waste resources in fighting the guy next door.
Alas, what I see and what I get from history is, that things tend to aggregate in our civilization system. Maybe because power tends to aggregate, I don't know. Look at the EU - it is already going too far trying to "harmonize" the domestic laws. This is the wrong direction, I think. Free trade and movement is good enough. And peace, of course, but that goes without saying. Is the aim to create singular global culture, so that there are no wars between cultures and countries anymore? If yes, I am not sure at all it is worth it or whether it would work...
WRONG.
We are bringing the troops home now because that is what BUSH agreed to years ago......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from_Iraq
Quote:
In 2008, the US and Iraqi government signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement which implments that all US forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by 30 June 2009 and that All US Forces would be mandated to withdraw from Iraqi territory by 31 December 2011 under the terms of a bilateral agreement.
On 14 December 2008, then-U.S. President George W. Bush signed the security pact with Iraq. In his fourth and final trip to Iraq, the president appeared with Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki and said more work is to be done.
>supremicists
Stopped reading there.
Do you have something against our supreme mice overlords?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
You want to know something absolutely bone-chilling?
You know that China that sentences people to labor for thought crimes? That big bad China? Huge population?
The US imprisons more people than they do. That's more people, period. Also more per capita, a shit-ton more per capita, but the really scary number is plain old More. There are over a Billion Chinese! It doesn't seem possible, but it is true.
Man, you really need that seminar!
It's a matter of degree.
I grew up prior to the Berlin Wall coming down, and the overthrow of the USSR government, and see all the things that we used to be taught made the Soviet Union evil being done to some extent in our own nation:
- Propoganda "news" sponsored by the powers that be
- Arrests without warrants
- Searches of the innocent
- Speech limited, and relegated to certain zones
- Science limited by politics
- Torture
- No habius corpus
- Prisons filled with prisoners of arbitrary laws for political reasons (war on drugs, etc)
The list goes on and on.
Still - we aren't quite as bad. Yet.
Check your premises.
I had interpreted their comment as meaning our govn'ts are now shit because of our lack of vigilance against them; not because our govn'ts haven't been vigilant enough.
Then I read it 3-4 more times and can no longer decide.
It is entirely relevant. Randy Weaver failed to pay a tax, and a soldier shot his wife on orders from the US government.
That quite directly contradicts what is being claimed, that US soldiers won't follow orders to kill US citizens.
If you've some specific beef with the example, there are plenty of others. Unsurprisingly, FBI snipers regularly train for and are expected to manage situations that are 'tense', by the very nature of their job. I was deployed for more than a year as an 8541 in the USMC and I can absolutely assure you that if you shoot people you aren't cleared to shoot you'll be in prison as fast as they can get you there, tense or not.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State