Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Gov't To Keep Data On Non-Terrorist Citizens For 5 Years
arnott writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Obama administration has approved guidelines that allow counterterrorism officials to lengthen the period of time they retain information about U.S. residents, even if they have no known connection to terrorism. The changes allow the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence community's clearinghouse for terrorism data, to keep information for up to five years. Previously, the center was required to promptly destroy — generally within 180 days — any information about U.S. citizens or residents unless a connection to terrorism was evident."
I'm surprised there is even a 5 year limit- figured they would keep that data indefinately. I'm sure they have loopholes to allow them to keep the data on anyone that they think is "interesting".
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
We need to take down these terrorists, and if that means ignoring the Bill of Rights and throwing Americans into concentration camps, like we did in WW2, then so be it. As Santorum said, "We must be united in this war. We cannot allow any criticism."
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Stopped for doing what? Traveling? Is that now illegal too? (Oh yes of course it is; you can't fly domestically without the SA's permission.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
You mean for yet another one that's just the same?
If it were Bush it would be 10 years!
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Keep in mind that it's security theater, not real security. They do these things to increase their budget and power, and justify the increase in budget and power itself and future increases, not to actually do anything to increase safety.
It would be a liability were the public to actually care. The government had good indications that this guy was bad apples, had all these increased powers and ability to suspend our rights, and obviously it failed. But rather than say "Okay, then this isn't working, you guys utterly failed in your stated mission, you guys are fired and we're throwing out all these suspensions of our rights and increased government powers," the public says "TAKE MORE OF OUR RIGHTS! SPEND MORE OF OUR TAXES!!! HAVE MORE POWER!!! JUST PROTECT US FROM ALL THESE BAD GUYS!!!"
the united states government is pursuing terrorists so voraciously, it is not because they have your safety as a primary concern. Natural disasters are easily shrugged off, for example little effort was put into katrina and many lives lost due to government neglegence but no real repercussions arose from the incident, just a smooth shuffling of deck chairs so to speak.
the occupy protests, while they included violent police crackdowns on citizens and journalists alike, also received no real repercussions that couldnt be easily dismissed by the government as the rantings of kids and slackers with "no clear message" and "subversive" tendencies.
terrorism on the other hand brings results. it undermines a government in ways that are unchallengeable as it is an amorphous concept. theres no real enemy, despite how badly america wanted it to be osama, or sadam, or al-awlaki. Terrorism is an ideology, and every troop from the legions of rome to the english military officer who stood guard against the irish menace during the troubles understands that no weapon will ever purge it from the earth. terrorism is determination with absolutely nothing to lose; the last resort of a broken people.
you dont disarm terrorists by spying on everyone, because anyone can be a terrorist at any time it simply is not efficient. the only way to stop terrorism is to recognize the demands of the terrorist and try to understand what it is thats driven them to it. so long as we continue to fight, we will meet the immovable object to our unstoppable force each time with no ground gained or lost on either side.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so. The remaining 10-20% falls into the "meh" category.
Check your premises.
While I agree he has his wacky side (a rather large one at that) it seems he would be much more constitutionally minded than any of the others running. The president's power is in the ability to sign or veto legislation, as commander and chief of the armed services, and who he appoints as judges. If Congressman Paul were elected as president what would be the worst that would happen. We probably wouldn't be starting any wars unless we were attacked. We would stand a better chance of bring all of our troops home. The federal government might shut down like it did in the 90s because congress can't get its shit together and produce a balanced budget because I highly doubt a President Paul would sign one that wasn't balanced. The biggest issue might be anyone who he would appoint to the US Supreme Court, and even there I think I would be willing to pick people who would support individual freedoms and liberties. Problem he comes with a lot of baggage as a large number of established Republicans would rather he didn't run as a R because they are rather embarrassed by his libertarian and dovish sides and the rest of the population is well aware of his more wacky beliefs (note there is probably a fair amount of overlap between these 2 groups). This is why he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of getting the republican nomination let alone winning the presidency.
Time to offend someone
The problem with Ron Paul is that while he's on the mark about 30-40% of things, he's bat shit crazy about another 50% or so.
50% bat-shit crazy beats 100% crook any day in my book.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
His supporters tend to ignore that Paul has no problem with state laws that criminalize drugs, homosexuality, or anything else under the sun. He doesn't care if your freedoms get trampled, as long as it isn't the Feds doing it.
...
I take it you've never actually read the Constitution? Specifically, the 10th Amendment, which reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
... which basically means that unless the Constitution (or the States, by a 2/3 vote) explicitly states that said function is a power of the federal government, it is not, but rather a power of the States and/or the people. While I personally may not agree with the idea of criminalizing certain groups of people or non-socially harmful activities, the fact remains that the Constitution, as written, gives the states (and the People) that power.
From your link (the one that worked), regarding Paul's "opposition" to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
"In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."
So, not the racist screed you want us to think it was, but rather Paul further iterating his ideal that the federal government regularly oversteps the authority granted it by the Constitution.
My favorite thing about Ron Paul bashers is how the 'evidence' they typically provide to show his 'intolerance' tends to have the opposite effect.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese