New Sanctions To Target Syrian and Iranian Tech Capacity

vivIsel writes "This morning, President Obama is set to unveil a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse. Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access), the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."

Comments

TSA

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if only they'd use that on the TSA

Re:TSA

[durrr]

you mean the USA

Re:TSA

[durrr]

Although I guess they are strongly convergent and will be synonymous ina year or two. The United Security Agency, sounds good yes.

Pot, kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

So when do the sanctions roll out against ourselves? I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no?

Re:Pot, kettle

[evanism]

Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.

Re:Pot, kettle

[i kan reed]

So, do you oppose the sanctions on the grounds that they're hypocritical, then? Or are you just happy that you can point out the hypocrisy?

Re:Pot, kettle

[ArcherB]

Bingo. The USA is the bad guys in too many peoples eyes. Time for a little self reflection.

Says the guy openly criticizing the USA with absolutely no fear for his safety or the safety of his family as a result.

Re:Pot, kettle

[h4rr4r]

He is not saying that openly unless his slashdot handle is his real name.

Say this stuff in an airport and see if they let you on a plane.

Re:Pot, kettle

[operagost]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem-tu-quoque.html

Re:Pot, kettle

[evanism]

Sorry, i dont understand your points. Are you suggesting that mearly commenting on a chat board implies freedom? Or are you suggesting that the NSA has ONLY harvested this information and added my dissidence to its profile on me, and not used it against me YET, is a form of freedom?

Freedom is freedom FROM government, not freedom OF government.

Critisism of ones government does not imply freedom, nor necessarily its ability to act against you... Yet.

The worm is turning in the USA. Facism is half a goosestep away, my friend.

Re:Pot, kettle

[cpu6502]

In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death (the Secretary of State acknowledged that stat to be true, but she said it was necessary), and led to 9/11. Now we are going to starve another million Syrians and Iranians. Knocking off innocent people is a perfect way to provoke anger & spark a war.

Re:Pot, kettle

[w.hamra1987]

it's not democracy, or republic, and far away from fascism yet. i prefer to call it "elected dictatorship". you elect a group of people to rule you dictatorially for few years, while ensuring whoever succeeds them, will have the same agenda.

Re:Pot, kettle

[rgbrenner]

What you described IS a republic.. which is exactly what the US is. Here's the dictionary definition:

1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

In other words, we all vote people into office, then those people do whatever the hell they want as our representatives.

If you don't like the morons in office, then why do you (we) keep putting them into office?

Re:Pot, kettle

[i kan reed]

I didn't MAKE a point. I asked a question with the hope of clarity. Do you oppose the idea of imposing sanctions just because the entity doing the imposition is hypocritical?

That's different than well, anything that you responded to at all. Do you think I'm defending the current and past actions of the U.S. government vis a vis its own citizens' rights? I don't get it.

Re:Pot, kettle

[rgbrenner]

A) "the powers that be" are the people of the US. Those are the people that benefit from the current system and refuse to change it. Why do you think social security is such a mess?

B) people "eat it up" because they agree with it. The people who call social security reformers 'crazy'? They're social security recipients (and no one else.. because only those who receive social security care enough about it to say anything.)

Politicians lie.. and people on their side think it's ok because it will advance their goals, and they vote for them. So we all get to see more liars in congress. Stop pretending that these people come from out of nowhere... they are Americans.

Re:Pot, kettle

[kawabago]

Guantanamo

Re:Pot, kettle

[ScentCone]

In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death

No, Saddam Hussein caused every single one of those people to starve to death. Not least by diverting the aid meant for them, but in general by never honoring the commitments he made when he was being pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait. His regime was sanctioned because of its conduct. His people were offered food and other support, but he prevented that from being used well or at all. His continued actions in that regard were part of what motivated his final ouster from power, as eventually even the deliberately obtuse UN couldn't pretend that he wasn't starving his own people.

Re:Pot, kettle

[jbolden]

Well actually a 1/2 million. And they were a secondary cause of 9/11, the primary cause was our support for the Saudi government against their internal rebels.

And this is about computer technology sanctions against Western / US companies not food sanctions against opposed countries.

Re:Pot, kettle

[jbolden]

James Risen published highly classified materials. He is not under criminal threat for anything other than failure to obey a court order to reveal sources. One can argue how strongly or not strongly the government should protect journalists who assist espionage, balancing national security against the public's write to know. That is far far different than not having a free society.

Similarly with wikileaks spokespeople. The USA does absolutely nothing to people who are outside the mainstream. You can read communist newspapers to kinist newspapers and they can publish freely. What you are talking about is going beyond dissent as a matter of opinion and instead and taking action to undermine the effectiveness of the government in carrying out actions. Yes that's going to get looked at more harshly.

Re:Pot, kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

It's beyond hypocrisy, it's laughable, sad, and scary.

Laughable because with these sanctions Americans do nothing but shoot themselves in the foot. They're not the only economic powerhouse in the world (are they still a powerhouse even?), and their sanctions have little effect on the targeted countries. Here in Canada, we thank Americans every day for their ever-growing restrictions on foreign visitors. We've seen a huge increase on ESL students who come and pour their money into our economy instead of USA's. Same with tourism: last year an international conference that was traditionally held in New York was moved to Vancouver and attendance nearly doubled... more money coming our way, more exchange of culture, more opportunity to learn and grow.

Sad because these sanctions do nothing more than insulate the Americans further from the world. USA has become the new Soviet Union.

Scary because during the past decade the Americans have become totally convinced that they're the One Special People who must tell the rest of the world what to do and how to behave. Do your thing your way, and let others do their thing their way, and eventually, maybe we can all get along.

Re:Pot, kettle

[i kan reed]

Ok, those are all moderately to completely valid criticisms of the United States and its citizens. Didn't answer my question.

Is it an appropriate reason to oppose these sanctions? Hypocrisy is bad, we all know that. That doesn't address the validity/appropriateness of this particular action.

Re:Pot, kettle

[Uberbah]

Says the guy willfully ignorant of the fact that the U.S. has had innocent people kidnapped, tortured, or killed:

The prime minister of Canada apologized Friday to Maher Arar and agreed to give $9 million in compensation to the Canadian Arab, who was spirited by U.S. agents to Syria and tortured there after being falsely named as a terrorism suspect.

Arar, 36, a former computer engineer who was detained while changing planes at a New York airport in 2002 and imprisoned in a Syrian dungeon for 10 months, said after the announcement that he âoefeels proud as a Canadianâ

Or subjecting alleged whistleblowers to psychological torture while letting actual torturers skate.

Or singling out a documentary filmmaker for dozens of searches and seizures. A filmmaker accused of no crime, which means the harassment is purely political intimidation.

Re:Pot, kettle

[jbolden]

Of course laws exist to protect abrogation of law. There would far less crime if the police just shot all suspects but the law prevents that even though it leads to greater abrogation of law.

   

Re:Pot, kettle

[tqk]

it's not democracy, or republic, and far away from fascism yet.

Spit it out. It's (so far, dependant upon who you are) a "benevolent dictatorship", with *a lot* of the stink of fascism. They just haven't bothered to come for you yet. That "benevolent" bit can change in a heart beat however. Keep watching.

This is turning out to be a very interesting century (as in the Chinese curse - "May you live in interesting times").

Re:Pot, kettle

[tqk]

If you don't like the morons in office, then why do you (we) keep putting them into office?

Probably because A) anytime someone runs for office on the platform of challenging the status quo, the powers that be immediately assault them by calling them 'crazy,' and B) the ignorant masses eat such marginalizations up like high-fructose corn syrup.

Or C) Candidates feel free to lie about what they're going to do in representing their electorate, and promptly forget about their promises once elected, and the electorate let them get away with that (or have no power to change this).

We need term limits and easy recall ("You're fired!") for all politicians.

And "None of the above" should be used as a write in candidate *much* more often, and should be accepted as valid by the authorities. People ought to read more L. Neil Smith.

Re:Pot, kettle

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Somehow, I don't think your example illustrates any of the issues under consideration here.

These examples are of people treated like political prisoners, without the issuance of warrants or the exercise of due process.

In the one case where a semblance of court procedure was attempted, the one you cite as criminal, the prosecution on legal grounds failed, rather spectacularly.

But don't let that get in your way of advocacy for eliminating protections of habeus corpus or dismissal of the first and fourth original amendments to the Constitution. They haven't been used much, this last decade, since people like you allowed the "terrorists to win", anyway.

Re:Pot, kettle

[Tasha26]

While I have many good American friends, I think the blame lies in their stupid greedy tyrannic government. Logically the latter should self-terminate when this executive order is activated.

Re:Pot, kettle

[jbolden]

Actually it does demonstrate the problem with your logic that the law shouldn't apply when other people have broken the law.

These examples are of people treated like political prisoners, without the issuance of warrants or the exercise of due process.

No they aren't. These are people are being treated much more lightly than americans accused of assisting espionage and the possible criminal components of it. Issues involving intelligence operations are handled via. the congressional committees not the public at large. Everyone has been given plenty of due process, you just believe there is some sort of journalist right to always expose "official wrongdoing" even in the case of national security and the real law is more balanced.

Re:Pot, kettle

[cold fjord]

Do you think you could come up with a list of foreign governments that you think are actually responsible for their own behavior, and that of their country? Are there any that have even a smidgen of influence over the activities within their borders? Or is everything the fault of the United States? The mass starvation in North Korea? The slaughter in Syria? The dreams of regional hegemony and genocidal inclinations of Iran? Do the leaders of these countries have their own dreams, their own goals? Are they responsible for their actions? Or is it all the United States again?

Re:Pot, kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding right? If you say things of a political nature in an airport they won't even bat an eye you jackass. If you say politically banned things in Iran like how you would like to elect a pro democracy president, they won't just ban you from flying they will ban you from everything. You'll be lucky if they don't kill you.

Jesus, what the hell is wrong with people. Iran is a brutal dictatorship, equating any western country, including the US with Iran is beyond idiotic it's callus towards all the political prisoners in Iran right now.

But hey, you're smarter than everyone else right? The US is clearly the evil bane of the world, and Iran is a shining beacon of freedom and liberty. Why you're there right now enjoying the grandure of the Persian empire right? Or certainly, if you arent there yet why you've packed your bags and are on your way there right now!

Re:Pot, kettle

[ArcherB]

Are you really comparing the killing of one man, on foreign soil, conspiring with and surrounded by enemies of this country, who had openly declared war on the country and was actively trying to find ways to kill as many Americans as possible with the hanging of hundreds or thousands of men in the streets found guilty of being homosexuals?

See, this is the kind of moral equivalence bullshit you guys pull all the time and it really makes you look seriously mathematically challenged at best. You truly see the two examples I've given above as equal. You really don't see how the killing of an admitted traitor who is plotting terrorist acts is somehow not as evil as the hanging of thousands of men who may or may not have been gay (Seriously how do you PROVE someone is gay?).

Re:Pot, kettle

[cpu6502]

Strawman argument. I never said the U.S. is responsible for "all" the bad things in the world..... only those countries where blood is very clearly on its hands. Such as the blatant slaughter (or maiming) of 1 million Iraqis, half-a-million Afghanis, and who knows how many victims of our Yemen and Libyan bombings.

Maybe we ought to find a better solution than going-round and murdering our neighbors. The amount of corpses the U.S. has created in the last two decades would create a mound higher than most buildings. And it was completely un-necessary, just as un-necessary as if the E.U. started dropping bombs on our soil and blowing our arms/legs off.

Re:Pot, kettle

[Uberbah]

Are you really comparing the killing of one man

Are you really expecting your fake outrage and filibustering to fly here? The Federal Government targeted an American citizen for execution without bothering to even indict him. Which alternates between insisting that no one should question this killing because there was so much evidence that he was a bad guy, and then refusing to give a shred of said evidence when pressed to do so.

Then you uncritically accept their storyline without bothering to cite anything. There is as much hard evidence to send Predator Drones after Glenn Beck (propagandized the Tides Foundation shooter), Ted Nugent (multiple implied threats against a sitting president) or Gordon Liddy (shoot government agents in the head because they might be wearing body armor).

This was exactly the sort of black booted government police state BS that you conservatives should be screaming about. But just like the Obama fanboys, you trade away your principles in a nanosecond if it's a decision you agree with. You're both pathetic.

Physician, heal thyself

[crazyjj]

Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[omfgnosis]

I get what you (and a bunch of ACs or one really bored AC apparently) are saying, but I think the argument is going to be a hard sell when you're forced to recognize the categorical difference between the technocratic repression of a modern megastate and the repression of shelling cities where resistance is detected.

That said, there's another powerful argument as to our hypocrisy, which is the double standard we hold our allies to versus these states we sanction.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Anonymous Coward]

Just playing devil's advocate here:

What would the US government's response be if a small (or a significant) portion of the population resisted/rebelled against the government?

Well, the Whiskey Rebellion was put down with violence. If you say that that doesn't count because the US is democratic, well, especially early on, the US was not very democratic, and that was a feature, not a bug. In fact, it was sort of like Syria, or Iran today, with elections, but also with features designed to perpetuate an existing ruling establishment.

Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America?

Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently. If Egypt had cleared out Tahrir Square claiming "health code violations", most international media would have laughed. But, in New York, it was done with a straight face.

The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[darkmeridian]

Sometimes the government will order others to do things on its behalf, and sometimes, these things may fall on its ass. No one will listen to the government if there's a chance that they can get sued for following orders, so the government can do things such as limit liabilities or to assume the liabilities resulting from these actions. If the government wants to spy, it has to have the telcos comply so the government will provide retroactive immunity. If the government wants airplanes made, it wouldn't do if the pilots can sue the fighter jet manufacturers if one of these planes are defectively designed and crashes, so the government will render those companies immune. Lastly, and most saliently, if the government wants companies to manufacture vaccines on its behalf, it has to render those companies immune to lawsuits from those suffering from side effects. That's why the government assumes the liability for the vaccines even though they're made by private companies.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[omfgnosis]

What would the US government's response be if a small (or a significant) portion of the population resisted/rebelled against the government?

Depends what form the resistance takes. There's a fairly large portion of the population actively resisting US policy of one kind or another, and there's a small bug significant portion of the population preparing for revolution of one kind or another. Since these are mostly impotent threats to the status quo, they're largely ignored, but with some repression to remind the resisters what the state is capable of.

Well, the Whiskey Rebellion [wikipedia.org] was put down with violence. If you say that that doesn't count because the US is democratic, well, especially early on, the US was not very democratic, and that was a feature, not a bug. [snip]

Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org].

You'll note that in neither of these cases was the US a "modern megastate" which employed "technocratic repression". The US is a different beast today than it was then. I'm not saying that the US isn't capable of the kind of brutality that was employed in its history (and it certainly engages in that sort of behavior abroad), but that it's not actively engaged in that sort of brutality today. It does a disservice to the argument against hypocrisy to blur these lines.

Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.

In some cases yes. And while a lot of that repression was awful, I still don't think it rises to the level of shelling cities which house resistance.

If Egypt had cleared out Tahrir Square claiming "health code violations", most international media would have laughed. But, in New York, it was done with a straight face.

Right. This is what I'm talking about. We have to form a better argument, because the argument that the US is like Syria isn't going to pass the laugh test. The US is certainly hypocritical here, and brutal in a lot of ways, but that doesn't mean we can be lazy with our arguments.

The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.

No. My point is that if we want to undermine the spirit of hypocrisy in US foreign policy, we need to be really fucking clear about the connections we draw.

We have a much more powerful argument in saying that:

1. While the US is internally much less brutal today than it has been in the past, and than Syria is today, it always reserves the opportunity to drop the other boot, and it will if rebellion rises to the level it has in any segment of the Arab Spring.

2. While the US has often championed human rights when convenient, it has ignored them at best and fostered brutal regimes at worst, also when convenient. We should be asking questions about, for instance, Bahrain right now.

3. We know the difference between shelling cities and domestic wiretapping.

One more point of correction...

Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war?

I don't think any of the parties have described it as such. The Syrian state describes the rebellion as outside meddling in internal affairs—essentially an attempted coup. The rebels largely describe themselves as seeking regime change and democratic reform. It isn't a war at all. It's a revolution. They have some similar characteristics, but it's dangerous to say that they're the same thing.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.

In what world do you get your news? How can you possibly compare the scale of violence that occurred in Tahrir Square to the removal of protestors in any of the Occupy camps?

It's actually a shame, because your post was making some decent (if IMHO flawed) points up to this point, and then you go and completely blow your credibility.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[betterunixthanunix]

I still don't think it rises to the level of shelling cities which house resistance.

Too many rich Americans in cities. Now, a small farming commune is another story...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

I guess that is totally different from the situation in Syria though. After all, the Branch Davidians were religious extremists.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[ScentCone]

Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?

Nice moral equivalency shenanigans, there. The US South was defending the indefensible, and the Baathis regime in Syria is defending the indefensible. Your attempt to flip things around backwards is (or should be understood to be, if you're paying attention) embarassingly lacking in a moral compass and any sort of intellectual integrity.

Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.

Oh, please. They were completely indulged at every turn, and completely abused their fellow citizens' patience as they squatted on public property that was not theirs to exclusively own. Their sense of entitlement to exclusive use of the commons, and their deliberate provocations in an attempt to gin up the appearance of rough handling by city governments was completely transparent and predictably juvenile. Yes, health code violations. You know ... because of the disease, filth, rats, defecation, and all of the other nice stuff that was put up with for far too many weeks in the name of not hurting the feelings of a bunch of trust fund hipsters and professional protesters, union shills, etc.

The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.

No, the message just seems to be: it's bad when Syria machine-guns protesters who don't want to live under a totalitarian tyrant, and it's bad when the people who live the US abuse their fellow citizens' good will by making a mockery of their freedom to assemble, even when they're cut slack on their squatting that no other group should expect or is ever given.

Not to trouble you with the facts or anything. You just carry on thinking that having Baathis snipers shoot you down in the street is the same as getting a two-day warning that the department of parks is going to spend a day hosing your crap off the sidewalk you've been sitting on for three months, after which time you can still march right back in and once again stand there and beat drums while tweeting on your smart phone about where to find a restaurant that will tolerate your use of their bathroom even though you refuse to patronize their business because, you know, businesses are Evil.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[jbolden]

Your analogy of the whisky rebellion is fair.

I had friends at Tahrir square. After they were arrested they were sent to jail for extended periods of time. At occupy they were mainly out within 24 hours with minor fines. In Syria the police are clearing the square with thousands of deaths. In the USA were are upset someone got hit and hospitalized and a few people got hit with tear gas.

We have problems but they are orders of magnitude different. And as an aside, London did assist the Confederate States of America and no we don't like it.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[jbolden]

Waco was an example of a group that had shot 4 federal agents trying to administer a court order and then refused to surrender. You don't have the right to violently resist police enforcement. You comply and after the fact sue if there were civil rights violations.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[jbolden]

He was surrounded for 12 days and told to surrender to federal officers who had a valid court order.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[whereissue]

What's scale got to do with right and wrong? The fact of something being less harmful that that which is far worse, doesn't lessen the fact that it's harmful.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

I don't understand why the replies I'm getting seem to treat me like I think the US gov't is all sunshine and daisies.

Maybe because you're being overly literal. The point of making analogies other comparisons isn't to say two things are identical, but to, you know, compare them where they are comparable.

In other words, you are sounding the like sort of person who hears a comparison between the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam and proceed to spend your time complaining that there is no draft, jungle, or communist army to deal with and little time talking about spending blood and treasure to prop up an unpopular, extremely corrupt government with no clear mission or way out of the occupation.

And yeah, having people kidnapped and tortured or assasinated by executive fiat are exactly the sort of activities that corrupt dictatorships like Syria engage in. We should know - the victim in the above "kidnapped and torture" link was flown to.....Syria to be tortured.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

The fact of something being less harmful that that which is far worse, doesn't lessen the fact that it's harmful.

So, to your moral compass, the actions of a single cop (or even group of cops) working for a single local government represents the same thing as a state system of coordinated violence directed by an unelected despot?

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[whereissue]

Through the divine powers of conflation, you are correct. The existence of an unelected despot is an abusive cop's best defense? Buh?

Two entirely unrelated things can be very, very, wrong and still remain unrelated. They need not be equally wrong for both to be wrong.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

You've got willful denialism. Thousands of peaceful protesters arrested, police brutality, cracked skulls, mounted police (both motorcycles and horses), mass use of tear gas and pepper spray....

It's all there man, whether or not you choose to ignore it.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

You think distinguishing between shelling cities and listening to phone calls is "overly literal"?

No, I think that's exactly the sort of quibbling I was talking about. Nobody is saying the U.S. military is shelling American cities, so I'm not sure just why you're stuck on that point. Yes, we really are aware there are no communists in Afghanistan, thank you.

I want to win the argument against US malfeasance, not to defend the US government.

Then I'd suggest getting less hung up on 1:1 comparisons that people aren't actually making. It is certainly possible to compare America's police state tactics to Syria, just as it's possible to compare the OWS crackdowns with the protests in Tahiri Square. That doesn't mean we're accusing Homeland Security of using rape as a weapon the way Mubarak's intelligence services did.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

You also have no sense of context.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

The existence of an unelected despot is an abusive cop's best defense? Buh?

Not what I said. A cop that busts a peaceful man's head open has no defense.

Occupy xxx (which one are you talking about anyway?) were not simply "peaceful protesters", they were also squatters. In NYC, there were a few incidents where cops used disproportionate force. In Egypt, meanwhile, there were running battles between agents of the state and protesters. Not only are these events different, they are on polar ends of a scale.

Let me ask you something: when it comes time to remove people from a place where they need to be removed from, do you think it is possible to do it without the use of force if they do not cooperate? Once you start forcing people out, don't you think some amount of injury is unavoidable?

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[omfgnosis]

Nobody is saying the U.S. military is shelling American cities

I didn't say anyone is. I'm objecting to drawing parallels between US repression like domestic wiretapping (and other violations of civil liberties) with Syrian repression which is much more severe than the examples of US repression used by the posters I responded to . Here are the comments I was responding to:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771745
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771781
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771803
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771811
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2805177&cid=39771965

Then I'd suggest getting less hung up on 1:1 comparisons that people aren't actually making. It is certainly possible to compare America's police state tactics to Syria, just as it's possible to compare the OWS crackdowns with the protests in Tahiri Square. That doesn't mean we're accusing Homeland Security of using rape as a weapon the way Mubarak's intelligence services did.

My point is that it's harmful to make comparisons that aren't valid. Yes, the US and Syria both surveil their populations extensively. But the consequences on either side are starkly different. You'll note that when a better comparison was made, I've acknowledged it.

I'm hung up on people being intellectually lazy about issues I care about—issues where thousands of lives are on the line. I'm sick of civil libertarians giving the fascists a persuasive advantage by failing to recognize that the way the US engages in repression is substantially more clever and advanced than that of brutal dictatorships. And I'm sick of the defensiveness of those advancing these lazy arguments (and those letting them slide) who revert to "with us or against us" braying when prompted to sharpen the critique. It's astonishing that people think I'm cheerleading for the US government because I'm pointing out that "retroactive immunity" for telecom companies isn't remotely equivalent to "monitor Twitter posts to prepare for ground assault". You do realize that's what the Syrian snoops are using their surveillance for, right?

There is a laundry list of US activities that do rise to the level of the ongoing atrocities in Syria. I'm grateful that some of this discussion has highlighted those.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[cold fjord]

It is certainly possible to compare America's police state tactics to Syria, just as it's possible to compare the OWS crackdowns with the protests in Tahiri Square.

Of course it's possible. It is also ridiculous.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[whereissue]

"Let me ask you something: when it comes time to remove people from a place where they need to be removed from, do you think it is possible to do it without the use of force if they do not cooperate? Once you start forcing people out, don't you think some amount of injury is unavoidable?"

I refuse to accept the premise you present. When it comes time to remove Peaceful people from any place, it is time to advance the dialogue and question the reasoning behind those who would rather remove Peaceful people than advance the dialogue. The only outcome desired by those who would "start forcing" Peaceful people from gathering is to silence the message those Peaceful people are struggling to convey.

Any person who willingly harms, or supports those who would harm, a Peaceful demonstrator is a monster. If your indoctrination has brought you to a place where you disagree that Peace should be met with Peace, then you, too, are a monster.

Moreover... "do you think it is possible to do it without the use of force if they do not cooperate?" Absolutely... Continue (or begin) to talk to them.

If Peaceful People have committed a crime, cite them, arrest them... That's what laws are for and what cops are for. But accepting a premise that "some amount of injury" is acceptable when faced with civil infractions being perpetrated by Peaceful people? That's just sick and stupid.

I mean no personal offense to you, but the whole notion of abusing and/or harming Peaceful people is disgusting. We can do better.

I'm glad that law enforcement is equipped to calm a violent scene. I am ashamed of law enforcement is empowered to inject violence into a peaceful gathering.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

I refuse to accept the premise you present.

I'll come right out and suggest that this is because it would lead you to an uncomfortable conclusion.

How about your own couch. There's a guy on your own couch. He refuses to leave. Yes, someone living on your own couch is different from someone living in your community's park - but really the two situations lie on the same continuum. I think a community has a right to set rules in their own park just as you have a right to set rules on your own couch. Obviously, these rules must be limited - you cannot say "anyone on my couch gets shot" and the same should be true on community property. It's neither a simple problem, nor is their any obvious right and wrong, but it is not absurd to ask you what should happen when people need to be moved from an area, no matter how peaceful they are.

The only outcome desired by those who would "start forcing" Peaceful people from gathering is to silence the message those Peaceful people are struggling to convey.

The only? I think you are not being fair. I initially got excited about the "Occupy" movement, just as I was initially excited by the "Tea Party" movement. Both looked like they had a real promise of shaking things up. But the Tea Party quickly dissolved into the regular old Republican political party and the Occupy movement exhausted everyone's patience and never issued any kind of goal or agenda. It ended up being a bunch of people just living in places where communities didn't want people living. In Philly (where I live), they let them stay for months - only ejecting them when the area they occupied was due for long-scheduled construction. But what came of those months? Nothing. No change. No pressure.

The people of Philly didn't boot them out "to silence them"... in fact, they weren't really even saying anything. They weren't a threat to anyone, physically, politically, or otherwise. The people of Philly booted them out because they were in the way of an improvement to the public space.

Any person who willingly harms, or supports those who would harm, a Peaceful demonstrator is a monster.

Now you are twisting my words. I don't support the intentional harm of a peaceful demonstrator. I do support the forced removal of people in certain situations, with the full understanding that physical conflict often results in flared tempers and injury.

If Peaceful People have committed a crime, cite them, arrest them... That's what laws are for and what cops are for.

Arresting someone and forcibly removing them from the scene will result in some injuries. I'd rather not take the step of arresting people for silly crimes like staying in a park overnight, but it is a crime depending on the locality. The occupy protestors were violating many local ordinances but were given a lot of leeway for several months. I think most of us were hoping the movement would coalesce around something if given some time - and they weren't harming anyone other than some local businesses and traffic, so it seemed reasonable to give them some room to see what happened. I think they had a good deal of public support initially.

That's just sick and stupid.

You keep saying things like that, without suggesting how you would move someone who is uncooperative without the risk of injury.

I am ashamed of law enforcement is empowered to inject violence into a peaceful gathering.

In some cities the law enforcement got out of hand. In others the clearing operations went off without a hitch. I think the Philly cops did a good job, and in fact the only real incidents that stand out are Oakland and the one early incident in NYC when the protestors were in traffic.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[whereissue]

"I'll come right out and suggest that this is because it would lead you to an uncomfortable conclusion."

- No. I reject that the use of force against a passive Peaceful assembly acceptable. Ever. A person on my couch is committing a criminal act. A person occupying a public place is engaged a civil act. The criminal, I cannot ignore or tolerate safely. The civil protestor... I can safely walk around and avoid.
--
"The only? I think you are not being fair... and never issued any kind of goal or agenda."

-False. "more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement] This "what do they want" line of rationalization has been disingenuous and pandering since it first emerged as the primary media meme to discredit the movement.
--
"Now you are twisting my words. I don't support the intentional harm of a peaceful demonstrator. I do support the forced removal of people in certain situations..."

-You twist your own words. You don't support intentional harm... but you do. Because... reasons.
--
"I'd rather not take the step of arresting people for silly crimes like staying in a park overnight, but it is a crime depending on the locality."

-We shouldn't, perhaps, expand the dialogue to question *why and how* those laws exist and begin working toward changing them into laws which support and affirm our rights.
--
"You keep saying things like that, without suggesting how you would move someone who is uncooperative without the risk of injury.

-Arrest the dangerous criminal. Do not move someone simply because they are uncooperative. Is it inconvenient? It's supposed to be.
--
"In some cities the law enforcement got out of hand. In others the clearing operations went off without a hitch."

-7000 arrests [http://stpeteforpeace.org/occupyarrests.sources.html], numerous (too numerous to readily quantify) injuries, many instances of abuse of power by law enforcement [http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/violent-pictures-from-occupy-wall-street-protests]
--

It's far from simple, but the true complications reflect the system, not the protestors.
I wish that I had more time to put into articulating these responses, because this exchange is a good one... All apologies for the odd formatting, but I think that the statements I'm attempting to put together are fairly clear =)

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

You're really this intellectually lazy? Hand waving and 7 word tautologies do not an argument make.

were not simply "peaceful protesters", they were also squatters.

Nonsense. What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency? See also, the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

More problems:

In NYC, there were a few incidents where cops used disproportionate force.

Mass use of tear gas, pepper spray, mounted police, and mass arrests are also disproportionate force. And of course there was far more than just NYC - like the vet who got shot in the head with a tear gas canister - funny how you left that part out or your storyline. Or the student sitting down that got sprayed in the face at UC Davis.

How about your own couch. There's a guy on your own couch. He refuses to leave.

How about...you try to come up with an analogy that doesn't insult the listener as well as your own intelligence. I suppose you thought some wingers really "got" Martin Sheen, an advocate for the homeless, when they drove a bus full of homeless people to his house and demanded that he take them all in. As if a couch in your house is a remotely relevant comparison to public parks and squares.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

You're really this intellectually lazy?

Arguing with someone who thinks that the Occupy xxx protests and the Tahrir Square protests were similar beyond being a bunch of dissatisfied people seems like a waste of time, and in that regard yes I'm being lazy.

What unoccupied dwellings were they located in for the purpose of residency?

Tents aren't "dwellings"? How about you discuss the gist of my argument instead of arguing about whether my use of the word "squatter" is appropriate? They were living in the park(s), not simply "protesting" - that is the important distinction I was trying to make.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Care to point to the part of the amendment where it says they can assemble wherever and whenever they want?

Mass use of tear gas

Now you are just making shit up (or you are only reading Occupy-biased blogs). NYPD doesn't even have tear gas.

I do agree that they shouldn't have pepper sprayed those girls that were blocking traffic.

I mentioned Oakland, so I'm not sure why you say I omitted the guy getting hit with the tear gas canister. That was in Oakland, unless I missed another incident.

I forgot about the UC Davis incident - again, I agree that the police were wrong to use pepper spray.

How about...you try to come up with an analogy that doesn't insult the listener as well as your own intelligence... As if a couch in your house is a remotely relevant comparison to public parks and squares.

Public property is nothing but communal property. Just because it has the word "public" in it does not mean that anyone can hijack it for their own purposes. It is perfectly reasonable for rules and regulations to be set through a democratic process. The rules and regulations should not infringe on inalienable rights, nor should they infringe upon our constitutional or other legal rights - but that's about it as far as limits go. The alternative is anarchy, which is fine if you are an anarchist. I am not. I don't want people living in our parks. I'd rather not have the public space if that were the case. I was willing to give the Occupy movement a chance, but nothing ever came out of it so it was time for them to go and give us our public space back.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

If you're a head-in-the-sand sophist. But from your other post, we know that already.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

I didn't say anyone is. I'm objecting to drawing parallels between US repression like domestic wiretapping (and other violations of civil liberties) with Syrian repression which is much more severe than the examples of US repression used by the posters I responded to . Here are the comments I was responding to:

I looked all all of the comments you linked to. How many engaged in the overarching, 1:1 comparisons you seem to be objecting to?

Zero.

Not one of those comments is saying that the OWS crackdowns are exactly like the brutality in Syria, or that DHS is a brutal as the Syrian military. No, they're all pretty much variations of "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones".

Now if only they'd use that on the TSA
...
So when do the sanctions roll out against ourselves? I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no?
...
Is this the same administration that has been falling all over itself giving retroactive immunity [wikipedia.org] to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens?

And so on.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

A person occupying a public place is engaged a civil act.

Why is trespassing peacefully on your coach a crime, but disobeying some local ordinance not? What if they just camped out on the little strip of municipal property between the street and your lawn?

"more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics."

Who the hell would argue with those goals? They had absolutely no demand as to how to accomplish those things. More and better jobs! Great! Let's get started! There was no way to satisfy the protests, because they had no concrete endgame. Did they have some unemployment number that would end the protest? No.

Did they know what the distribution of income should look like? Flatter. Great... big help. How to flatten it? Just take some assets from the "1%" and redistribute? Free education for the bottom 50%? What?

Bank reform. Great! What specific reforms would you like?

Corporate meddling in politics. Not exactly an easy problem to solve, is it? The same 1st Amendment that you cite as grounds to live in a public square also lets the New York Times publish whatever they want in a newspaper. I agree with the goal of reducing corporate influence, but I also recognize that it is VERY hard to restrict what a generic corporation can say without also restricting what the NY Times can say. In any case, there was no specific demand from the Occupy protestors.

So they went on like this for a couple of months. People gave them a lot of latitude. But eventually, they wanted their public spaces back.

You twist your own words. You don't support intentional harm... but you do. Because... reasons.

I say: I support kicking people out. I recognize that this will set up conflict and inevitably lead to injury.
You say: You support hurting people.

How is that not twisting words?
I say: I support allowing people to own dogs. I recognize that some people will abuse the dogs.
You say: You support hurting dogs.

It's total bullshit and I'm not giving you a pass.

We shouldn't, perhaps, expand the dialogue to question *why and how* those laws exist and begin working toward changing them into laws which support and affirm our rights.

I'm all for discussion of how our public spaces should be administered. Even though there are laws against sleeping outside City Hall, I was supportive of Philly not arresting everyone who did. But after a few months of it, it became clear that nothing was going to come of the movement and it hardly seemed appropriate to let them hold up the long-planned improvements to the park. It is possible that the residents of Philly disagree with me - and that is fine. The decision should be democratic.

Do not move someone simply because they are uncooperative. Is it inconvenient? It's supposed to be.

I'm sorry, but you propose anarchy. I could lay in a highway with a few good friends and completely destroy the local economy.

7000 arrests [http://stpeteforpeace.org/occupyarrests.sources.html], numerous (too numerous to readily quantify) injuries, many instances of abuse of power by law enforcement

There were far more "criminals" than there were arrests - I think the reaction to the protests was quite tolerant. There were indeed more injuries than I would have liked, and I hope those responsible eventually are punished (though I don't hold out much hope there). By the way, zero deaths.

Tahrir Square (the movement, not the single square): over 800 killed. Over 6000 wounded. Over 12,000 arrested. The only firm demand was the resignation of the President, which did in fact occur.

One was a bunch of dissatisfied people camping out in public parks for a few months before eventually getting booted out, with a few examples of law enforcement excess - though no evidenc

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

Arguing with someone who thinks that the Occupy xxx protests and the Tahrir Square protests were similar beyond being a bunch of dissatisfied people seems like a waste of time, and in that regard yes I'm being lazy.

Which part is your lazy mind having a hard time understanding?

The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?

The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?

The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?

The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?

The use of mounted police against peaceful protesters?

Tents aren't "dwellings"? How about you discuss the gist of my argument instead of arguing about whether my use of the word "squatter" is appropriate? They were living in the park(s), not simply "protesting" - that is the important distinction I was trying to make.

Try making an analogy that's not absurdly comparing apples to irrelevant oranges and I'll address it. Squatters are people who trespass into buildings they don't own for the purpose of establishing residency. The protesters were, you know, protesting. Not establishing residency.

Care to point to the part of the amendment where it says they can assemble wherever and whenever they want?

Care to back up from that lazy straw man? It didn't work the first time with the couch.

Now you are just making shit up (or you are only reading Occupy-biased blogs). NYPD doesn't even have tear gas.

Now you're claiming that the only OWS crackdowns were in NYC or that the NYPD receives no equipment or support from other law enforcement agencies?

Public property is nothing but communal property. Just because it has the word "public" in it does not mean that anyone can hijack it for their own purposes.

Was anyone prevented from traveling through or using Zuccotti or any other space used by any other OWS protest? No. So try explaining how you get around

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The rules and regulations should not infringe on inalienable rights, nor should they infringe upon our constitutional or other legal rights - but that's about it as far as limits go.

Okay, serious question now...do you have mono? Because even the most lazy mind would draw some connection between BS evictions based on "health code violations" and "infringing upon our constitutional rights".

But to get back to the point at hand...of COURSE the OWS crackdowns are comparable to the crackdowns in Tahiri square.

Mass arrests? Check.

Police brutality? Check.

Use of mounted police to force out peaceful protesters? Check.

Tear gas and pepper spray? Check.

Bullshit reasons for evictions? Check.

I'm sure somewhere in Egypt a police state apologist counterpart of MightyYar is whining that it's unfair to complain OWS crackdowns to Mubarak's because Egypt wasn't using LRAD audio cannons.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[omfgnosis]

I looked all all of the comments you linked to. How many engaged in the overarching, 1:1 comparisons you seem to be objecting to?

Zero.

This is ridiculous. Each one of them is explicitly making a comparison to Syrian repression. The Syrian repression is the context and the object of the accusation of hypocrisy. Is it "1:1"? No comparison is "1:1".

"Now if only they'd use that on the TSA"
How is the TSA engaged in repression like Syria, to warrant this comparison? Yes, TSA does engage in repression, but it's fundamentally different from that of Syria.

'I'd say "repressive regime" that "monitors dissidents" applies directly to the US, no?'
How is the repression and monitoring of dissidents in the US comparable to that of Syria?

"Homeland Security"
Same question as the last two.

"The NSA is currently building a huge data center to capture email, phone, sms, etc. data."
How is a data center to store and retrieve domestic surveillance records like Syrian repression?

And the one to which I actually responded:
"retroactive immunity [wikipedia.org] to telcos and other companies violating the civil rights of American citizens"
How is retroactive immunity for domestic spying like Syrian repression?

Syrian repression is the object of the criticism in all of these cases. The comparison to Syrian repression is the basis of each accusation of hypocrisy. None of the examples of hypocrisy used comes close to rising to the level of comparable.

No, they're all pretty much variations of "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones".

Exactly! And that's a weak argument, if we're talking about "stones" that are really pebbles and "throwing" that is really an underhanded toss.

You can (and clearly do) disagree that the argument is weak, but what you can't do is say that I'm cheerleading for the US. I said all along, there are far worse US offenses to expose.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

This is ridiculous.

Indeed.

Each one of them is explicitly making a comparison to Syrian repression.

Except they're not. At all. Not one of your cited comments makes such a comparison. Not even close.

"Now if only they'd use that on the TSA"
How is the TSA engaged in repression like Syria, to warrant this comparison?

Except that commenter never mentioned Syria, which means you have no basis for complaint, and it's the same for the rest of your links. Look, this really isn't that hard. Greenwald:

Khader Adnan and now-normalized Western justice

Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a "Human Rights Report" which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it's often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).

In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The âoeprincipal human rights problemsâ of the tyrannical Chinese government include âoea lack of due process in judicial proceedingsâ and âoethe use of administrative detention.â Indeed, âoearbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges.â Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?

It's the hypocrisy, stupid. Pointing out that the United States and it's closest allies routinely engages in behavior that it denounces from "rouge" states is not even close to saying that the United States is engaging in exactly the same abuses across the board.

That's a straw man that has existed only inside your head. You say you're concerned with human rights abuses at both home and abroad, but you're acting more like a Concern Troll looking to deflect and distract.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

The mass evictions under laughable pretenses?

I have no problem with the evictions, only with the methods used in some of the cities.

The use of tear gas against peaceful protesters?

Agreed that tear gas is out of bounds. It's not deadly force however.

The mass arrests of hundreds of peaceful protesters?

They got away with violating local laws for months before they were arrested. I'd say people were extremely lenient for the most part with the Occupy xxx protesters, only breaking it up when it had lost any semblance of momentum or purpose.

The many acts of police brutality against peaceful protesters?

Many is a weasel word. Document the brutality. I can count the really outrageous stuff on one hand, though the Oakland reaction in general was very disproportionate.

The use of mounted police against peaceful protesters?

It rather depends on what the mounties were doing, doesn't it?

The protesters were, you know, protesting. Not establishing residency.

All I can say is, holy shit. You're still debating my use of the term "squatters", even after I took it out of the argument. I told you I would be wasting my time. They may have been protesting, but they were also living in the parks. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Care to back up from that lazy straw man? It didn't work the first time with the couch.

You seem to be even less familiar with constitutional law than I am, which is amazing since mine is perhaps on an 8th grade level. The government may place restrictions on the right to assemble that will maintain law and order, facilitate traffic, protect private property and reduce noise congestion. It does not guarantee freedom of assembly wherever and whenever you want to assemble. It also does not guarantee total free speech - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and all that. Do some very basic reading before you lecture me on the first amendment. But I'm the lazy one.

Now you're claiming that the only OWS crackdowns were in NYC or that the NYPD receives no equipment or support from other law enforcement agencies?

Let me read my post again... nope. That's not what I said. I said the NYPD does not even have tear gas. They don't use it, it's not in their doctrine. If you'd done even a cursory Google check of that particular OWS claim, you will see that they had to retract it. Tear gas was most certainly used in Oakland, where it is part of their standard crowd control techniques. If I lived in Oakland, I'd probably want to work on rethinking that policy.

Was anyone prevented from traveling through or using Zuccotti or any other space used by any other OWS protest? No. So try explaining how you get around

Huh? Do you really think that when the people of NYC demanded open spaces between office buildings, the intent was so that other people could live there? They have specific rules on their use, including being closed at sundown. Further, the parks are privately owned and maintained but open to the public. Despite all of this, NYC was remarkably tolerant of the OWS protestors - they only kicked them out after several weeks, and only after the movement was largely stagnant. Most people were sympathetic to their cause - if they were Nazis, they'd have had a lot less time to illegally make their point.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If I direct you to a Supreme Court ruling about peaceful assembly, will you actually read it?
Cox v. New Hampshire (1941): the government may require permits for pa

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[whereissue]

"Why is trespassing peacefully on your coach a crime, but disobeying some local ordinance not?"
-To gain access to my couch in such a context, you would have had to break in. By going to a park... that's what they're for. We go to parks. We don't invade actual homes. Attempting to blend the two concepts makes for a horrible comparison.

"They had absolutely no demand as to how to accomplish those things."
-Right. How utterly... not arrogant, not-presumptive, and open-minded of them. An entire movement, deliberately not making demands... but demanding help. A person seeking relief from suffering cares little for the method of rescue. Arab Spring protestors do/did not have demands as to "how" they simply made themselves available to demand change. Why do you have two standards regarding this style of protest? Militant activists get a pass, but Occupy protestors must be economists to be valid? That's silly and propagandist.

"I say: I support allowing people to own dogs. I recognize that some people will abuse the dogs. You say: You support hurting dogs. It's total bullshit and I'm not giving you a pass."
-This is in no way an accurate comparison. You say you allow people to own dogs and that some people will abuse them. but by virtue of your comparison, you also say that the authorities have the right to be the ones to abuse them. I simply say that this is wrong. Have your bullshit call back.

"I'm all for discussion of how our public spaces should be administered... The decision should be democratic."
-There is no democracy in the use of force. No one votes for authoritarian use of force, no matter how much schadenfreude some may get from observing such.
Democratic? How many ballot initiatives have you witnessed to reflect the democracy of pepper spraying a seated protestor?

"I'm sorry, but you propose anarchy. I could lay in a highway with a few good friends and completely destroy the local economy."
-I do not propose anarchy. I propose peace. Laying prone on a highway is dangerous and is in no way comparable to sitting in a park. Your comparison isn't even rational.

I'm reluctant to continue this debate with you, because, again... conflation. There is a logic to your thoughts which I can appreciate, but your analogous references serve to re-define reality, rather than accurately describe it.

With respect to both of our reasoning, it's not an inaccurate statement to present that; You think it's okay to enable a system which will harm the harmless. I think that doing so is evil. Neither one of us have a plan. =)

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

We go to parks. We don't invade actual homes. Attempting to blend the two concepts makes for a horrible comparison.

OK, but that's why I said "What if they just camped out on the little strip of municipal property between the street and your lawn?". You ignored that.

but demanding help.

Demanding help for what?

Arab Spring protestors do/did not have demands as to "how"

They uniformly demanded the removal of the current dictator.

Why do you have two standards regarding this style of protest?

Because the "style of protest" is completely different. I already laid out why I feel they are completely different, and see little reason to repeat myself.

Occupy protestors must be economists to be valid?

No. But they must have some kind of actionable demand. General unhappiness is not a demand. I asked one of them in Philly, "What would make you leave this park tomorrow?" and he couldn't answer me in any coherent way. I realize that one idiot does not represent an entire movement, but I heard the same thing on NPR in an interview with two members of the leadership.

You say you allow people to own dogs and that some people will abuse them. but by virtue of your comparison, you also say that the authorities have the right to be the ones to abuse them. I simply say that this is wrong. Have your bullshit call back.

You can't admit when you are wrong.

There is no democracy in the use of force.

So you oppose jail for all non-violent crimes, then? So what should happen to me if I never pay my taxes? What if I'm a banker that broke laws that screwed a bunch of 99-percenters? No violence, no jail, right? Can't even force them to appear in front of a judge, because they might resist and get hurt.

How many ballot initiatives have you witnessed to reflect the democracy of pepper spraying a seated protestor?

That's a straw man - I've already agreed with you on the UC Davis incident. Few could defend that, let alone get a ballot initiative passed endorsing it.

Laying prone on a highway is dangerous and is in no way comparable to sitting in a park.

It could be done in a safe way. One could get two friends who gradually slow down their vehicles to a stop. Once the highway is at a stop, there would be no danger at all - in fact the highway would be safer than when it was moving. The protest would demonstrably save lives and injuries by halting the flow of traffic. For added safety, you could jam up traffic where it is already stopped - toll booths or traffic lights, for instance.

Your comparison isn't even rational.

No, it's just inconsistent with your worldview, which I find very naive and selfish.

I'm reluctant to continue this debate with you, because, again... conflation. There is a logic to your thoughts which I can appreciate, but your analogous references serve to re-define reality, rather than accurately describe it.

I share your reluctance, but continue because you seem to have enough intelligence to reason with. I have a feeling the discussion would be more cordial in person, but such is the nature of the internet. I feel like the reality you see is a very narrow subset of the larger reality. Even the word "reality" means different things depending on where you are standing... surely you can appreciate that?

With respect to both of our reasoning, it's not an inaccurate statement to present that; You think it's okay to enable a system which will harm the harmless.

I don't think that quite captures my opinion on the matter. I think the government is a necessary evil. Absent the government, people will hurt one another to get what they want. It is only when people feel th

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

Many is a weasel word. Document the brutality.

As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?

The government may place restrictions on the right to assemble that will maintain law and order, facilitate traffic, protect private property and reduce noise congestion. It does not guarantee freedom of assembly wherever and whenever you want to assemble. It also does not guarantee total free speech - yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and all that. Do some very basic reading before you lecture me on the first amendment. But I'm the lazy one.

Yes, you are.

maintain law and order

Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.

facilitate traffic

Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.

reduce noise congestion

Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?

I said the NYPD does not even have tear gas.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The law enforcement agency that has formed a partnership with the CIA and conducted massive surveillance on those living outside it's jurisdiction does not have tear gas.

If I direct you to a Supreme Court ruling about peaceful assembly, will you actually read it?
Cox v. New Hampshire (1941): the government may require permits for parading on public streets

As if you weren't actually aware that the Supreme Court has made countless rulings that are flatly unconstitutional, this obviously being one of them. The first amendment is quite, quite clear on this. "One nation, under God" was another open-and-shut case, but that didn't stop SCOTUS from punting on it.

Over 600 dead in Egypt.

And you're conflating the holy shit this turned into a fucking revolution part with the you protesters leave this square part. And I wonder if your lazy, authoritarian tool brain can comprehend the fact that all of your arguments against the OWS protests apply just as much to the protests in Tahrir Square. What right did the Egyptians have to squat in the square? What right did the Egyptian protesters have to refuse lawful orders from lawful authorities to leave? Bloomberg and Quan (much less Obama), unlike Mubarak, never lost control or had their authority directly challenged. If OWS had turned into an actual armed rebellion the U.S. government response would make Egypt's look like a riot at a football game.

You're one of those people that hears a comparison between the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars and gets his undies in a knot because Vietnam didn't have mountains and Afghanistan doesn't have jungles or a communist army. Nevermind that they are both pointless land wars in Asia doing little more than supporting corrupt puppet governments.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

As you have documented the brutality in Egypt?

Yes, exactly.

facilitate traffic

Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests.

You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".

reduce noise congestion

Irrelevant to the Wall Street protests. Also hilarious, given the use of LRAD audio cannons to break up the protests. You were saying?

So law enforcement tools should be chosen not based on effectiveness of the technique, but on how hypocritical the method might sound to Uberbah? I'm going to disagree with you there. If a guy is using a weapon in a crime I have no problem with the police also using a weapon in a crime - no matter how ironic it might seem to you.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The law enforcement agency that has formed a partnership with the CIA and conducted massive surveillance on those living outside it's jurisdiction does not have tear gas.

So I'll believe you why? Your assertion has no basis.

As if you weren't actually aware that the Supreme Court has made countless rulings that are flatly unconstitutional,

So you went from not being aware of the decision at all until I mentioned it to constitutional law expert? The amazing thing is, you clearly didn't even read about the case before spouting off again. It was a small march of Jehovah's Witnesses marching down a public sidewalk... much smaller in scale than the OWS protests. It is DIRECTLY applicable, which is why I pointed you in that direction. A UNANIMOUS supreme court decision that has stood up for 70 years vs. your completely uninformed legal opinion.

What right did the Egyptians have to squat in the square?

What right did an unelected despot have to tell them not to?

The City of New York is not an undemocratic institution. The people of NYC get to set the rules for their public spaces.

If OWS had turned into an actual armed rebellion the U.S. government response would make Egypt's look like a riot at a football game.

Yes, well, the imaginary revolution that happened in your head is a LOT like Tahrir Square. Back here in reality, the two events had very little in common other than angry protestors and sleeping in parks.

You're one of those people that hears a comparison between the Afghanistan and Vietnam wars and gets his undies in a knot because Vietnam didn't have mountains and Afghanistan doesn't have jungles or a communist army.

Huh? No I'm not. Look, we can branch into a comparison of those two wars if you would like, but you're getting off-topic.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[Uberbah]

Yes, exactly.

No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.

You are wrong here. The incident where the NYC cops used the pepper spray on the girls was during an operation where they were trying to keep people on the sidewalk and off of the street with orange snowfence - the "barricades".

According to the same police commissioner responsible for cracking down on the protests when he's not busy spying on hundreds of people for suspicion of not being Muslim. I don't trust the words of authoritarians, but you probably guessed that by now.

So law enforcement tools should be chosen not based on effectiveness of the technique, but on how hypocritical the method might sound to Uberbah? I'm going to disagree with you there. If a guy is using a weapon in a crime I have no problem with the police also using a weapon in a crime - no matter how ironic it might seem to you.

LOL, are you even trying here? Of course you're a transparent hypocrite if you use audio cannons to enforce your "noise ordinances".

So I'll believe you why? Your assertion has no basis.

A hell of a lot more than yours. The most heavily militarized police force in the country with a massive (and illegal) spy operation formed with the CIA does not have any tear gas in it's arsenal? They spy on people not living in New York state, much less NYC, but have no tear gas at all. You becha.

So you went from not being aware of the decision at all until I mentioned it to constitutional law expert? The amazing thing is, you clearly didn't even read about the case before spouting off again. It was a small march of Jehovah's Witnesses marching down a public sidewalk... much smaller in scale than the OWS protests. It is DIRECTLY applicable, which is why I pointed you in that direction. A UNANIMOUS supreme court decision that has stood up for 70 years vs. your completely uninformed legal opinion.

So you're a mind reader now? What are you doing on Slashdot instead of making millions on Vegas? Actually you might want to skip Vegas. And the hand waving.

Of coooorse requiring a permit to engage in peaceable assembly is an abridgement of your right to peaceably assemble, and no I don't give a shit whether Cox was 9-0 or 5-4. The Supreme Court has a long history of chipping away out our rights by making all kinds of "reasonable" allowances for federal, state and local governments - one of their recent gems is giving warrantless searches a pass if the cops say they think they hear you destroying evidence - that's just one ruling out of many. Except there is no such "reasonable" exception to the 1st Amendment any more than there are "reasonable" exceptions to the 4th Amendment for the Drug War. No, that doesn't mean that you can yell "fire" in a theater, it just means that:

although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. Also, that every parade or procession on public streets had to have a license and organizers had to pay a fee.

is an obvious farce.

What right did an unelected despot have to tell them not to?

Ooo, caught in a double standard are we?

Huh? No I'm not. Look, we can branch into a comparison of those two wars if you would like, but you're getting off-topic.

No, I'm making obvious commentary on selective retentiveness. No one is making a 1:1 comparison between OWS and Egypt any more than anyone makes a 1:1 comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan. If someone starts talking about Bloomberg's death squads, then go ahead and knock yourself out.

Re:Physician, heal thyself

[MightyYar]

No, not exactly. Unless you are referring to some past conversation which only took place inside your head.

Are you just trolling me? LOL. From our conversation:

Over 600 dead in Egypt. Thousands of terrible injuries, including gunshot wounds. Arrests were for whatever the police felt like and people, including journalists, were held without charge, in secret, and tortured by the regime. The entire duration of the protests were met with violent resistance by the regime, with dramatic running battles. The protestors had many and varied demands, but all coalesced around a single common one: Mubarak had to go. Once he was gone, the protests largely dissipated, and the military moved in with tanks and live ammo to clear the occupied public areas.

If you want actual figures and a big list of sources, you will find information here that expands upon my paragraph.

According to the same police commissioner

No, according to video taken by OWS protesters showing the police corralling the protestors away from the street. But if we're now arguing about whether or not the police commissioner was justified, I can at least see that you are accepting that police have the legal right to protect roadways. I'll take it.

LOL, are you even trying here? Of course you're a transparent hypocrite if you use audio cannons to enforce your "noise ordinances".

It's completely rational to make an ongoing problem worse for a short time in order to eventually solve the problem. If that seems hypocritical to you, it really is of no concern to me - the problem is solved. I'd rather be hypocritical if it means a lower chance of injury in resolving the situation.

The most heavily militarized police force in the country with a massive (and illegal) spy operation formed with the CIA does not have any tear gas in it's arsenal?

Correct. If you have information to the contrary that does not exist as a thought experiment, I would love to hear it - I'd hate to spread incorrect information.

So you're a mind reader now?

So you are claiming you looked up and read about the Cox vs. New Hampshire case before you replied to me about it not being relevant to OWS?

I don't give a shit whether Cox was 9-0 or 5-4

That's nine people who are better qualified to interpret the constitution than you. If it were 5-4 at least you could point to 4 other constitutional law experts that share your opinion.

one of their recent gems is giving warrantless searches a pass if the cops say they think they hear you destroying evidence

It was more narrow than that - the police were engaged in a chase of a drug dealer at the time, they smelled marijuana, and they heard the destruction of evidence. But at least in this case, you have Ginsburg who agrees with you. I happen to think drugs are a terrible reason to knock a door down, but that's an entirely different issue.

Except there is no such "reasonable" exception to the 1st Amendment

But then you go on to say that yelling fire in a crowded theater is a reasonable exception?

Ooo, caught in a double standard are we?

You don't see the difference between rules imposed by the people of a country and rules imposed by an unelected despot?

No, I'm making obvious commentary on selective retentiveness. No one is making a 1:1 comparison between OWS and Egypt any more than anyone makes a 1:1 comparison between Vietnam and Afghanistan.

No one? The post I was replying to waaaay up at the top of this thread said:

Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently. If Egypt had cleared out Tahrir Square cl

Abuses, eh?

[Khyber]

"a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse"

Good, start directly with yourselves, US Gov't. You're one of the worst offenders on this fucking planet.

Re:Abuses, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a new executive order that will allow the U.S. to specifically target sanctions against individuals, companies or countries who use technology to enable human rights abuse"

Good, start directly with yourselves, US Gov't. You're one of the worst offenders on this fucking planet.

This kind of ignorance is what keeps mass-murder from happening across the world. Does the US government have its share of problems? Heck yeah. Is it reasonable to compare it to what is going on in Iran and Syria? Far from it.

The next time civilians get gunned down systematically by our government on a daily basis you can bring up this point. Until then, leave politics at home and allow us to save lives.

Governing By Executive Order

[SuperCharlie]

It is far more dangerous that we are seeing an increase in executive order being the rule of law than the content of those orders whether justifiable or not. What little influence we have as voters is nullified by this side-stepping of congress and our system of government, however flawed it may be.

Re:Governing By Executive Order

[Ihmhi]

We'll know they're serious when the President repeals the National State of Emergency that we have been in since September 2001. It has to be renewed every year and it has been renewed every year. The SoE grants the Executive Branch several hundred additional powers reserved for a state of emergency.

Which companies?

[chill]

Is that the U.S. or European company that manufactures the products? Oh, no. They don't sell to customers in embargoed countries! Hold on a sec. I see a large order of "corporate internet filtering" products for shipment to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain that needs attention. Amazing how much tech stuff those guys use!

Where was I? Oh, yes. Those nasty gray-market distributors. You know, the shell companies incorporated a couple of months ago? Yeah. Those guys are ruining it for everyone!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a large order of CALEA equipment for delivery to U.S. telecom firms to ship out. Between that and the systems on order by the U.K. and China the bonuses should be fat again this quarter!

Start at home first?

[mspohr]

They should start with the good old USA.
The NSA is currently building a huge data center to capture email, phone, sms, etc. data.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance
This includes an interview with hacker Jacob Appelbaum, who has volunteered for WikiLeaks and now works with Tor Project and others.

what's new?

[Tastecicles]

Since WWII the US Government has sanctioned entire economies and betold woes on those who would deal with them.

What, you want a list?

(note: this is by no means exhaustive. Just the ones that actually made the news. Source: own research)

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia - Serbia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Libya 2011

Re:what's new?

[TheRealMindChild]

Iran is already on the list, so it doesn't count. However, Syria appears to be a newcomer to the club, so make sure you get em a jacket!

Re:what's new?

[Tastecicles]

Like I said, not exhaustive... Iraq should be there near the bottom again, unless you account for the fact that the US has maintained a military presence there since the invasion of Kuwait... Gulf War II is just Gulf War I: The Sequel much like Kill Bill Volume 2 is the sequel to Kill Bill Vol. 1.

beating the drum for war against Iran

[Medievalist]

We're already sanctioning Iran because they will take Euros or Yen for oil.

This is another straw for the camel; the American public is tired of invading Middle Eastern countries to keep the price of Texas oil high, so we need them to attack us.

Blood is already in the water, the sharks are circling.

Re:beating the drum for war against Iran

[cold fjord]

We're already sanctioning Iran because they will take Euros or Yen for oil.

The Europeans, like the US, say that they are sanctioning Iran due to its outlaw nuclear program. But lets go with what you assert, that it is about dollars versus euros. So are the Europeans sanctioning Iran because they take Euros for oil too? Wouldn't that be kind of stupid for the Europeans to do, to punish Iran for accepting their currency to pay for oil? And that's what you claim? Shouldn't they be punishing the Iranians for accepting their currency for other goods besides oil too? Or do they think it is OK for Iran to take European currencies for other goods, but only punish them for taking their currency for oil? If they were looking out for their own interests, why would they be punishing Iran for taking their currency at all? Hmmmm. Maybe I'll believe the Europeans, that this is about Iran's nuclear program after all, otherwise you have to believe something that is transparently stupid.

This is another straw for the camel; the American public is tired of invading Middle Eastern countries to keep the price of Texas oil high, so we need them to attack us.

I thought that the story was that the US invaded oil rich countries to get cheap oil, not to make oil more expensive? Do you think you could at least settle on a consistent line of bull? I guess after Chinese and European companies got so many oil contracts in Iraq that you can't really try to claim that bull any more, eh?

Blood is already in the water, the sharks are circling.

Excellent! A fresh supply of shark fins for soup, and aphrodisiacs to sell to China for a profit! And then there are all the other valuable parts of the shark.

You are sort of the "Professor Backwards" of disaster.

Re:beating the drum for war against Iran

[Medievalist]

You seem to have mistaken me for some caricature you have built in your mind. I have never in my entire life said the US invaded countries to get cheap oil - that is your narrative, not mine, my friend.

I don't know why people believe such illogical things, but reducing the supply of something never makes it cheaper, and turning a major oilfield into a series of flaming holes always reduces the supply of oil. Did you think Bush fils and pere were both unfamiliar with basic economics? Did you think their Texas Oil Baron constituency wanted oil to get cheaper? It's nonsensical.

So, ask yourself: What three countries recently tried to break the petrodollar? What happened to them? Do you know, without Google? If not, you have no idea what is going on in world politics.

Hewlett-Packard - Israel/Palestine

[LanMan04]

Can we start with HP?

In Palestine, HP is deeply involved with the Israeli occupation. HP develops and profits from population-control systems that assist the Israeli government in the restriction of Palestinian movement, ethnic-based discrimination and segregation, and human rights violations.

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/703/t/0/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1232244
-----------------

"Through its subsidiary EDS Israel, HP is the prime contractor of the Basel system, an automated biometric access control system installed and maintained by HP in checkpoints in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt).

Another control mechanism HP is involved in is Israel's ID card system, which reflects and reinforces its political and economic asymmetries and tiered citizenship structure. HP will manufacture biometric ID cards for the citizens and residents of Israel (Jewish and Palestinians) for the Israeli Ministry of Interior. In addition, HP also provides services and technologies to the Israeli army.

Furthermore, two of HP's technological services providers in Israel are Matrix and its subsidiary, Tact Testware, which are located in the illegal West Bank settlement of Modi'in Illit. HP is also taking part in the "Smart city" project in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ariel, providing a storage system for the settlement's municipality."

Re:Hewlett-Packard - Israel/Palestine

[h4rr4r]

Not gonna happen.

Nor will we go after the Saudis, these are the folks our government likes. In the case of Israel they even have their own senator Joe Lieberman. I am sure the Saudis have a couple too.

Re:Hewlett-Packard - Israel/Palestine

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, cry me a river. First you complained that border controls were too slow so they added biometric controls to speed things up. Now you're crying that there are biometric controls.

PS: The "occupied territories" are neither Palestinian nor occupied, but don't let facts get in the way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGYxLWUKwWo

Re:Hewlett-Packard - Israel/Palestine

[jbolden]

Palestine is a terrible example. The US directly sells arms to assist in Israeli actions, and those actions have broad support in congress and moderate support in the population at large.

Re:Hewlett-Packard - Israel/Palestine

[eisonlyme]

This is what came to my mind, as well as other companies involved in the US that have developed and deployed such systems.
I am not sure of the companies and can't be assed right now doing the research but if someone else wants to chime in with a list I would love to read it.

lol

[Galestar]

Especially as repressive regimes more effectively monitor their dissidents online (rather than simply blocking access), the sanctions focus on companies that help them do that."

So then US gov, what you're saying is you should place sanctions on yourself and the companies that aid you?

Double Standards everywhere I'm afraid...

[dryriver]

When the Saudi, Bahraini or Qatari governments buy "mass-surveillance technology" by the million-load, that lets them spy on all of their citizens, its perfectly "OK". After all, the Saudis provide the U.S. with cheap oil, Bahrain is another important oil-producer, and the Qataris provide military bases from which the U.S. can launch convenient wars against "rogue states" like Iraq. But when Iran & Syria do the exact same thing - buying snooping gear from the free market to keep their population in check - they are suddenly "evil", and "decisive sanctions" have to be imposed on them, and the companies. ------ Obama, either be fair and impose those sanctions on ALL surveillance tech vendors and ALL of their middle eastern clients (and perhaps the U.S. too?), or give your Nobel Peace Prize back, and let someone take office who isn't such a "double standards wielding" hypocrit. ------- The best solution to all of this would be to ban the creation, marketing and selling of mass-surveillance systems across the entire world. But where is the leader-class that could pull this off? Nowhere. The politicians who currently lead the "free world" seem to be far too fascinated by being able to "listen to" and "track" everybody within their state borders, to ever think about abolishing this practice in the first place.

Re:Double Standards everywhere I'm afraid...

[cold fjord]

But when Iran & Syria do the exact same thing - buying snooping gear from the free market to keep their population in check - they are suddenly "evil"

No, I'm afraid you are quite wrong there, Syria and Iran have been evil regimes for quite some time. The 1982 Hama massacre is a good taste of what the Syrian regime is capable of. It also serves as an example of what the Arab & Muslim world will tolerate in silence, but when an Israeli soldier kills one Palestinian Arab suicide bomber it is decried as a massacre and war crime. Iran has long practiced state sponsored terrorism.

Kettle and Pot

[JustNiz]

This seems somewhat hypocritical, unless this legislation can also be used against the US Government and companies like the RIAA.

Israel/Palestine

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans will never see the Palestinians as victims.

Never.

The reason is simple too. They aren't. They have played the role of terrorist for so long now Americans find it difficult to separate the words Palestinian and terrorist. To be honest, the Palestinians have never given the world any reason to separate the two words either. No reasonable person believes that they want to be anything more than terrorists. If it walks, quacks and shits like a duck ... it's a duck.

Re:Hypocritical

[betterunixthanunix]

We're doing it for the right reasons, and they are doing it for the wrong reasons. See, when we do it, it is to catch people who do not support our government or who might try to start a revolution, or to track and arrest people who do things the government declares to be immoral. When they do it, it is to stay in power and promote state sponsored religion.

The difference is as clear as day.

Facts. Look them up.

[Uberbah]

Everything the parent AC listed has actually happened. So stop blabbering on about hyperbole and start catching up on your Greenwald:

Practices once denounced by the U.S. as the hallmark of tyranny are now so normalized they barely register notice

Each year, the U.S. State Department, as required by law, issues a "Human Rights Report" which details abuses by other countries. To call it an exercise in hypocrisy is to understate the case: it is almost impossible to find any tyrannical power denounced by the State Department which the U.S. Government (and its closest allies) do not regularly exercise itself. Indeed, it's often impossible to imagine how the authors of these reports can refrain from cackling mischievously over the glaring ironies of what they are denouncing (my all-time favorite example is discussed in the update here).

In 2010, the State Department included a long section on the oppressive detention practices of China. The "principal human rights problems" of the tyrannical Chinese government include "a lack of due process in judicial proceedings" and "the use of administrative detention." Indeed, "arbitrary arrest and detention remained serious problems. The law grants police broad administrative detention powers and the ability to detain individuals for extended periods without formal arrest or criminal charges." Can one even find the words to condemn these Chinese monsters?

*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now

Sancations are useless

[MrLogic17]

Sanctions? I thought that was political speak for "shame on you". They don't do anything real.

Can anyone name an international issue or conflict that was resolved by sanctions?

Re:Sancations are useless

[Qzukk]

Can anyone name an international issue or conflict that was resolved by sanctions?

Any day now, Fidel Castro will see the light!

Aaaaaaaany day now.

Top of the list?

[J'raxis]

DHS?

Human Rights

[hackus]

TSA, NDAA, Executive Orders his inside circle buddies of Corzine of MF Global fame I could go on and on.

Human Rights Abuses Indeed, Obama should look out his WH window.

-Hack

PS: Oh, and just as a closing point. If you think gun sales are hot now, wait till Romney and his cohorts get into office. TSA will need every single one of those Hollow Point bullets....at last count, over 200 Million ordered for delivery....right between the eyes of every man women and child in USA.

how bout england?

[Dr Max]

So they are going to put tech sanctions on england?

Re:Hypocritical

[cold fjord]

The US government is using surveillance on people in direct contact with terrorist* organizations to stop people who want to do things like fly planes into buildings for mass slaughter and detonate bombs in crowds for mass slaughter. The Syrian government is using surveillance and mass slaughter to prevent free and fair elections. The difference is clear as the difference between night and day.

For the uninformed - this is the sort of regime that runs Syria, and what it is capable of doing to its own cities and citizens:

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about

Now, why might the United States government be engaging in surveillance? I'm sure you can figure it out if you try.

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 27, 2012

Denver: Man Arrested for Providing Material Support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization

Jamshid Muhtorov was arrested by members of the FBI’s Denver and Chicago Joint Terrorism Task Forces on a charge of providing and attempting to provide material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, a Pakistan-based designated foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

Baltimore: Man Pleads Guilty to Attempted Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction in Plot to Attack Armed Forces Recruiting Center

U.S. citizen Antonio Martinez, aka Muhammad Hussain, pled guilty to attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction against federal property in connection with a scheme to attack an armed forces recruiting station in Catonsville, Maryland. Full Story

Washington Field: Man Pleads Guilty to Shootings at Pentagon, Other Military Buildings

Yonathan Melaku, of Alexandria, Virginia, pled guilty to damaging property and to firearms violations involving five separate shootings at military installations in northern Virginia between October and November 2010, and to attempting to damage veterans’ memorials at Arlington National Cemetery. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending January 13, 2012

1.Tampa: Florida Resident Charged with Plotting to Bomb Locations in Tampa

A 25-year-old resident of Pinellas Park, Florida was charged in connection with an alleged plot to attack locations in Tampa with a vehicle bomb, assault rifle, and other explosives. Full Story

2.Baltimore: Former Army Solider Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

A man who secretly converted to Islam days before he separated from the Army was charged with attempting to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization, and was arrested upon his return to Maryland after traveling to Africa. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 9, 2011

Seattle: Man Pleads Guilty in Plot to Attack Military Processing Center

A former Los Angeles man pled guilty in connection with the June 2011 plot to attack a military installation in Seattle. Full Story

FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending December 2, 2011

San Diego: Woman Guilty of Conspiring to Provide Material Support to al Shabaab

Nima Yusuf, 25, a resident of San Diego, pled guilty to conspiring to provide material support to al Shabaab, a foreign terrorist organization. Full Story

More

Re:Facts. Look them up.

[cold fjord]

*cough* Patriot Act *cough* NDAA *cough* assassinations w/o trials *cough* massive NSA spy center under construction right now

Yes, all aimed at Al Qaeda and its affiliates that are making war against the United States, and legal under the law of war. The US Congress passed the laws behind them, as well as the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Al Qaeda is no longer being handled as a purely law enforcement problem. Bin Laden, as head of Al Qaeda, declared war on the US and launched attacks. The US is responding in kind. Not hard to understand.

You should probably see a doctor. You don't sound well. Of course you'll do less well if you take the fringe crank Greenwald seriously.

Re:Facts. Look them up.

[Uberbah]

Yes, except that's a big pile of police state apologist bullshit with no basis in reality.

If we are "at war" with Al Queda, then how many captured Al Queda operatives have been treated as prisoners of war? The Constitution clearly states that habeas corpus may only be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion, making the NDAA and military detention flatly unconstitutional. The AUMF only applies to the people who actually attacked us on 911, not everyone we point a finger at ten years later and call them "Al Queda". If you weren't involved in 911, then the AUMF does. not. apply.

So see your own doctor and and ask him to pry your head out of Dick Cheney's ass. Then maybe he can give you some pills to deal with your tendency towards sophistry and fascism. Then pick up an elementary level civics textbook and brush up on your Bill of Rights:

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Eighth Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.