Slashdot Mirror


Thomas Drake: You're Automatically Suspicious Until Proven Otherwise

colinneagle writes "RT had a very interesting interview with former NSA official turned whistleblower Thomas A. Drake, who said, 'Security has effectively become the State religion; you don't question it. And if you question it, then your loyalty is questioned.' 'Speaking truth of power is very dangerous in today's world,' he added. The interviewer pointed out that investigative journalists are labeled as 'terrorist helpers' for trying to reveal the truth, to which Drake said the government's take is 'you go after the messenger because the last thing you want to do is deal with the message.'" Network World also has a pretty good article on William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9, wherein he revealed some technical details and a bit more background on the NSA's domestic surveillance program. Unfortunately, neither audio or video of the talk are available yet.

79 of 502 comments (clear)

  1. power corrupts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But Americans have been hugely keen on giving more and more power to their federal government, so this is in inevitable byproduct. Of course there must be some government, but not one that grows without bound and attracts power hungry, corrupt authoritarians.

    But hey, keep on voting for those Republican and Democrats, because that's been working out so well thus far, amirite?

    1. Re:power corrupts by Applekid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because third parties that gain power never get corrupted, right? Oh wait, they do (see Republican party).

      The point is that it's cyclical. When a party becomes corrupt, they ought to be ousted. But the political party system in our mathematically flawed election process is built to prevent those in power from losing it to upstarts. This is how political parties become corrupt: because they become entrenched.

      Electoral collect, first past the post, no alternative vote, these are concessions against fair voting in an era where it took weeks to get a message from one end of the country to the other. Today? Not so much.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:power corrupts by Jesus_666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. In order to be of any relevance in the US system a new party would need to instantly get about one third of the votes. That's extremely implausible. If we look at Europe where proportional systems are the norm, new parties considered to be undergoing a meteoric rise to power gain single-digit percents - and that's in a system where the notion that a vote for anything but the biggest party is a wasted vote doesn't exist.

      It's easy to form a party and get the message out. It's hard to do so and instantly gain the support of a third of the country, especially when you consider that the incumbents can most likely outspend you by orders of magnitude and have the bonus of voters who always vote for the same party without thinking.

      Unless the entire nation completely loses faith in one of the two big parties it's extremely unlikely that any new entrant will have any chance of making their voice heard. At least not until they're willing to spend the equivalent of a mid-size corporation's market cap on their campaign.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:power corrupts by Patrick+Bowman · · Score: 3, Informative

      With power as finely balanced as it is in the US, a party doesn't need anything like a third of the vote. A percent or less of the vote - if concentrated so that it elects one or two congressmen - can give a party power way out of proportion to its actual electoral vote. Countries like Israel have long suffered from a tail-wagging-the-dog syndrome where tiny parties have vastly disproportionate power for that very reason: if they leave the coalition, taking their two or three votes with them, the government loses its majority.

  2. Verified, and will continue by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Many of us already know exactly what is being stated. You really only needed to investigate the Tea Party, OWS, and the Ron Paul followers to know this was happening. Many leaders of those groups have been jailed, detained, and publicly discredited by corporate owned media.

    Without the common statements regarding famous books, what people should be fearing is tyranny. Tyranny is a very short step away from where we are now. I would be a fool to state that it's everyone in Government. I would be a bigger fool to deny that there are people in Government pushing for a Tyrannical State and Oppressive Government.

    Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Verified, and will continue by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.

      Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate? Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?

      I always have to laugh when I see this "We might need to fight the government!" argument people make about the Second Amendment. If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces. The only way it would ever happen is for individuals that make up the police forces (that is, the police, National Guard, Coast Guard, and other domestic security agencies) to be on your side.

      You would be "removed" before you ever got to the point where you could seriously fight the government. If you're lucky, that means you'd be shipped somewhere like Guantanamo Bay (or more likely, extraordinary rendered to some godforsaken hellhole where they torture people).

      If you're going to change the government, you're going to have to do it by changing the hearts and minds of the U.S. citizenry to elect people who are willing to change the laws and give up some of the power the State has accumulated over the centuries. Not an easy task, I'll grant you, and many people believe that that will never happen. But if not, well, you're going to have to accept what we're stuck with today because armed revolution is not, nor will it ever be, the answer.

    2. Re:Verified, and will continue by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>> Many leaders of [Tea Party, OWS, and the Ron Paul followers] have been jailed, detained.....

      When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property (see the broken windows in Oakland, and feces found in churches/along sidewalks) but not about Tea Party or Paulbots in jail or detained?

      >>>Tyranny is a very short step away from where we are now

      I've said the same thing on my facebook, but 99% of the responders tell me I'm nuts. For example they defend the Obamacare Mandate saying it's "reasonable" and that TSA employees are just doing their job. ("Would you rather be blown up?") That when I was pulled-over in Texas by DHS, I should have left the police look inside my trunk, instead of saying no/no/no for an hour. ("If you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?") Perhaps I am wrong and the government really isn't heading towards tyranny.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Verified, and will continue by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property (see the broken windows in Oakland, and feces found in churches/along sidewalks) but not about Tea Party or Paulbots in jail or detained?

      Haven't you heard? They're all in the secret FEMA death camps.

      I've said the same thing on my facebook, but 99% of the responders tell me I'm nuts.

      You are. If you think the US is anywhere NEAR anything that can be described as tyranny, you have no clue what tyranny actually is. The irony is that anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for, and those aren't nations which respect anything resembling freedom or liberal democracy. Oh, I know: you'll say, "the US doesn't, either." I sincerely hope you don't get the world you wish for, because it will be one where you are far less free.

    4. Re:Verified, and will continue by khallow · · Score: 2

      Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?

      I take it you weren't. A small group of irate people with zero support can cause massive problems for the federal government? So what happens when half the houses in a region go Ruby Ridge? Then you segue to Civil War status. And there we see that a group of states can indeed give the federal government a run for the money.

      Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate?

      Sure, get enough buddies, enough organization, and eventually enough military hardware and you can beat the pants off the federal government.

      If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces.

      Aside from rendering that police force obsolete? Not a thing except maybe killing a bunch of police officers. The military is the elephant in this room not the domestic police force. A pop gun can mess up a squad car pretty well. It's a bit less effective against a 62 metric ton tank or a supersonic fighter jet.

    5. Re:Verified, and will continue by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do you mean by "anything which weakens the US" ?

      Because from where I'm watching, continued abuse of the US political system by monied interests (be they civilian or military-industrial) is weakening the US, weakening it's freedoms, weakening its civil rights, and weakening the prosperity of the majority of its people.

    6. Re:Verified, and will continue by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Informative

      You need to read more than corporate media accounts before you decide to get so close to branding them a violent group of people. Every big demonstration attracts people who want to be violent who may or may not have anything to do with group itself. It sounds like you are taking the corporate media story of the events for granted.

      And the issues at OWS goes way beyond wrongfully jailed person to police beatings, to police whose overtime is being paid by banks (which happened in New York), and all other types of problems. The corporate media *does*not*like* people that don't fall in line with their way of thinking.

    7. Re:Verified, and will continue by s.petry · · Score: 2

      No, Maybe, and Yes. I think the difference between now and then is that we have more people in the US Military and Police forces that are paying attention. I'm not confident that it will just be people with small arms against the whole Government, since many will revolt if the proverbial shit hits the fan from the Military and Police.

      I think something to consider is the plight of the Jews under Nazi Germany, and ask a fundamental question. Would you rather die fighting to be free, or die in the hands of an oppressor? I learned a lot of history, and I can tell you my answer. Millions of Chinese, Russians, and Jewish people waited for the storm to blow over hoping it would all go away and we see where they ended up.

      You can choose to sit and be complacent, however I would not advocate such action as the only action, since doing nothing will cause much more harm than good. Historically the previous statement is accurate.

      I agree with your last statement, however, I don't think it can happen before the proverbial shit hits the fan. I have been hoping that same thing for many years, and continue to hope. The problems is not just who controls the media, but also the candidates put on ballets. If those things get changed we have a chance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    8. Re:Verified, and will continue by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem is that the folks who have most of the money got a taste for tearing countries apart and sucking up their public sector at a profit. They did it in South America, they've done it in Europe a few times and have started that money train again, and they tried to do it in Asia. That leaves two more options for BIG money - try Asia again, but the last try was such a miserable failure because of the Asian Tigers and their propensity to buck the IMF's trend that rich folks don't want to deal with that shit again; or they could come to the US and break us down.

      Right now, a lot of public money flows to private enterprise because of the military, but there's a shit-load more money there. Communications, transportation, energy and education are all cash-cows that they're just starting to seriously milk to varying degrees.

    9. Re:Verified, and will continue by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I take it you weren't. A small group of irate people with zero support can cause massive problems for the federal government? So what happens when half the houses in a region go Ruby Ridge? Then you segue to Civil War status. And there we see that a group of states can indeed give the federal government a run for the money.

      So did you notice the part where the federal government won in each and every case? That afterwards, there was exactly zero meaningful change, except possibly to push the pendulum even further in the direction of unfettered federal power?

      As opposed to, I dunno, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.? Yeah, all of those weapons he was stockpiling sure helped shake things up. And all of those 60s hippies who were so gung ho about engaging in armed conflict really made the difference in stopping the Vietnam War. Wow, remember that bloody clash when the students at Kent State started firing back at police? Even today in, say, the struggle of gay people much much recent success to gain acceptance in society, I can't help but notice how it finally came about when they started espousing arming themselves to defend their rights.

      Except... Oh yeah, right! None of those things happened! All of those fundamental shifts in how government has changed were accomplished through non-violent campaigns to win the hearts and minds of the American people.

      Look, I know it's fun to romanticize the Revolutionary War, as if that's the One and Only Way to solve government oppression. Maybe you missed out on the history of things like 1) England was across the Atlantic Ocean, which posed a significant logistical disadvantage, 2) England was also mired in conflict with France at the time, and 3) England didn't have a massive arsenal of modern weaponry to use against the colonists. Yes, we won, but anyone who doesn't recognize that such an example is practically useless in today's world is an idiot.

    10. Re:Verified, and will continue by JockTroll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you go against a tank or a fighter jet with a shotgun you're doing it wrong. Are you aware that if you kill the personnel that maintains and operates the tanks, planes and drones, those shiny pieces of equipment do not work? And are you aware that the ubertechnoinvincible Western armies have had their asses sliced off, cooked and curry spiced and served to them with hot peppers and salad in a good lot of places? Mind you, the Serbs are still kicking their heads for playing too nice.

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    11. Re:Verified, and will continue by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Well over a hundred million Chinese, Russians, and Jews thought the same way and ended up in mass graves. I prefer to use a slightly different statement of "I'd rather die fighting to be free than die when an oppressor decides to kill me.". Similar thought for sure, but some people seem to neglect history when wrestling with rational thinking.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    12. Re:Verified, and will continue by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate?

      Sure, get enough buddies, enough organization, and eventually enough military hardware and you can beat the pants off the federal government.

      Do you honestly think you and your buddies could stand up against the full wrath of the US military, against unrelenting 24/7 aerial bombardment, against battalions of tanks, against biological and chemical agents, and nuclear strikes? Unless your "buddies" include major superpowers like China and Russia, you haven't got a prayer.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    13. Re:Verified, and will continue by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2

      Can I get a tank? I want a tank.

      Or maybe a drone that just orbits my house all day looking for shenanigans. I don't truck with shenanigans!

    14. Re:Verified, and will continue by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>> anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for,

      And now YOU sound like a nutter.
      It's the same bullshit we lived through during the Cold War, constantly being afraid we would be invaded if we did not invade them first (hence leading to wasteful wars like Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, and so on). We're better off to *cooperate* than to live in constant fear, like you pro-warhawks.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    15. Re:Verified, and will continue by azalin · · Score: 2

      "they can't kill us all"

      They don't have to, They just need kill enough. - I can't believe I'm actually commenting in this wacko thread.

    16. Re:Verified, and will continue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pretty much, yes actually. Because you are forgetting that all of those involve people. It's not a collection of equipment.

      Contrary to popular movies or books about left or right wing dystopian takeovers, most people are 90% good. Sure, they may lie a bit. "Was I really going 10 over the limit, officer" or not report internet purchases on their taxes. The average soldier is not going to nuke a city in America with a number of relatives in it. Well, unless it's the in-laws... Same with biological or chemical agents.

      Most you'll get soldiers to do is Katrina or putting down riots. Maybe targeted door kicking. Even during the American civil war, the two militaries did not directly target civilians. INDIRECTLY, sure, whole masses died. But neither would be likely to systematically commit intentional atrocities against civilians.

      I was one of those soldiers. And I can tell you exactly what would happen if we were ordered to do any of the above against relatively anonymous civilians. "Uhm. The key to the bioweapons is lost... We're calling the locksmith, but he hit a deer so it'll be a while..." In the meantime, a senior NCO will be yelling at the officer behind close doors to get the situation unclustered before folks start getting shot in the back of the neck. Convince soldiers that Joe Smith is a bad guy and it's legal to kick in his door, even if it's dubious, it'll happen. Tell soldiers to nuke Kansas City because Joe Smith is having a rally on net neutrality. Or heck, even if it's taken over by net neutrality activities, terrorists or rebels. It's not happening. Don't believe me? Ask Stanislav Petrov or Vasili Arkhipov.

    17. Re:Verified, and will continue by moeinvt · · Score: 2

      I disagree.

      Obviously you need "critical mass" to have an armed insurrection. Imagine 1% of the population willing to engage in hostilities against government forces and 10% of the population sympathetic to that cause. An army of 3.3 million with a support network of 33 million. If we ever get to that point, the government is toast.

      Read "The War of the Flea" by Tabor and William Lind's paper "Understanding Fourth Generation War." Look at the experience of the U.S. in Vietnam, Israel in Lebanon, Russia in Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. etc. The advanced military with the vastly superior weaponry always loses the will to fight and crawls away with its tail between its legs.

      "your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces."

      LOL Go fire something like a Remington 700 chambered in .300 Winchester magnum or maybe an H&K G3 in .308 and tell me they're "pop guns".

      Your armed revolt obviously won't work if you all stand together in the middle of the street with a big banner which reads "We are the Rebel Forces!". You need to use guerrilla tactics (sniping, sabotage, hit and run, etc.) and then blend back into the flock as if you're a good sheep.
      Yeah, the government has tanks and drones and F-16s. Using them against guerrilla forces however ALWAYS inflicts civilian casualties, thus fueling the insurgency.
      You also have to wonder how many police, Nat. Guard and military are going to shoot and kill their fellow citizens, drop bombs in suburbia and fire artillery into U.S. cities.

      Not saying "armed revolution" is "The Answer" but your argument suggesting that it's impossible because of inferiority of current civilian weapons is ridiculous.

    18. Re:Verified, and will continue by camperdave · · Score: 2

      Convince soldiers that Joe Smith is a bad guy and it's legal to kick in his door, even if it's dubious, it'll happen.

      Exactly. While it is (gratifyingly) true that soldiers would kick up a fuss against attacking domestic civilians, it is also true that they would be completely capable of reducing any traitorous paramilitary compound to rubble if ordered to do so, regardless of how many weapons the rebels had.

      In other words, it is not the second amendment keeping civilians safe from their government, but the conscience of the individual US soldiers.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    19. Re:Verified, and will continue by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Look, I have no issue with some people wanting to be a pacifist. All causes need martyrs. What I take exception to is someone telling everyone to be pacifist. Historically large populations that believe this is their only option end up being the victims of genocide. Just ask the 80 million or so Chinese pacifists that were murdered by Mao, or the 30 million Jews that were murdered by Hitler, or the 60 million or so that were murdered by Stalin and Lenin.. Oh wait, you can't because they were all murdered.

      No where do I state that a gun is your only option, what I state is that people need to protect that right.. just in case there are no peaceful alternatives.

      Lets remember something which you neglected to point out. MLK was assassinated right? As was JFK, as was Bobby Kennedy, as were at least hundreds of other people that spoke out publicly regarding Political Corruption, Equality/Human Rights, the dismantling of our Education system, and the MIC.

      This is long but there is a point. Keep this in context as you read.

      Would you care to really test your level of reality? How about you review some of the music figures that were assassinated relatively recently and find out their political affiliations and who they were being investigated by? Of course, it's just "those crazy gangsta rappers" right? Keep your hat on your head, I'm not claiming that all of the rumors and stories are true. I'm claiming that it's interesting that certain people were being investigated by certain agencies and ended up dead by assassination. Coincidences with the JFK assassination are interesting, such as police being removed from areas just prior to the assassins starting to shoot, and the same Police showing up at locations over and over and having no reports or reports that were completely fabricated, security video tapes vanish, evidence being destroyed, etc... If you investigate you will start to think, and thinking is pretty scary right? How many times can something be coincidence before it becomes a plot? Interestingly, there were specials on the news regarding the East/West Rap Wars that had no mention of Government agencies investigating and tailing these guys for years, the evidence tampering, etc... we only heard about those "Violent and Crazy N-words". Have you been manipulated in to believing in a reality that does not exist? Since I have been investigating, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that I have been presented a manipulated reality regarding many of those people. I am not convinced yet, but the best argument for the media presented reality is "The alternative is so far fetched it can't be true" which I hope you see as the self protecting fallacy it is.

      The point of that last paragraph is really this: All of those people were publicly asking for peaceful and progressive changes to the Government for the betterment of society. They were pacifists for the most part as well. Who won, the dead guy or the corrupt? I think you know the answer to that question. (The use of the term "corrupt" there is very intentional since I have invested a lot of time investigating many of these assassinations. That is my opinion of "who" and may not match your opinion of "who".)

      Now you are probably going to cry "Begging the Question" when you get done reading those two paragraphs but keep the fallacy card in your pocket. That would only be true if I stated that it was all factual, and I was very clear that I was not sure of all the facts. I stated that it was interesting, and worth investigation. Once you start to realize that your reality is being manipulated, I hope it pisses you off and you start to dig in to the truth in more areas.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:Verified, and will continue by arbulus · · Score: 2

      Do you really believe that voters have any power whatsoever anymore? Citizens United saw to that. Elections are a sham, a dog and pony show. We do not elect our officials anymore, they're bought and paid for by corporations with more wealth than any indivdiual citzien can imagine. They are the ones who get to decide politicians, and those poiticians are beholden to the ones who purchased them. The goverment is no longer about the peopel. We have zero - absolutely zero - say in our government anymore. We are irrelevant in every way. Elections are just a way to pacify the public without doing anything at all.

      The game is rigged. The dice are loaded. The house always wins. Would armed rebellion work? I doubt it. With unmanned drones, ICBMs, nuclear weapons - the US military could kill half the people in this country and never have to set foot off a military base. Citizens haven't the firepower to fight that. But trying to fight it at the ballot box is equally futile.

      We need mass stikes. We need work stoppages, strikes, walk-outs - bring this country's economy to its knees, and keep it there. The people have to realize that to do this, you have to be ready to lose everything you have now: your job, your home, your cars, your toys. You have to give it all up and fight. Destroy the economy, tank the stock market, stop all commerce. And not just here and there in a few cities, but everywhere all over the country. And when the economy collapses, and the businesses no longer wield the power they have now, then we truly bring the fight to the government. This can be done without violence on our part. It can be done without guns, without death. Will they fight us? Will they beat us? WIll they kill us? Yes, but we mustn't return in kind. We show that we are the ones who are right and they are wrong.

    21. Re:Verified, and will continue by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're mixing the ideas of what's "good" with what's "possible".

      Consider Oklahoma City where a couple of guys killed 168 people and wounded over 600. Did the feds "win" that one? Suppose there were 10.000 potential Tim McVeighs in the country. Is the government going to establish a defensive perimeter around every single federal building and guard it with military forces? Will they also build living quarters for all government employees and their families inside these "green zones"? How do they guard all of the supply lines and critical infrastructure at the same time? What about the $1.6T annual federal deficit? What would happen to the economy and the government's ability to levy taxes if they had to deal with a domestic insurgency?
      You don't need the American Revolution as an example when there are numerous modern examples.
      You think England was over-extended? What about the USA with 700 military bases in 130+ countries and demoralized military personnel?
      I don't think armed revolt would be a "good" thing or even a "likely" thing, but it's entirely "possible". Anyone that thinks "modern weaponry" is certain to defeat a determined insurgency fighting on its own soil is the idiot.

    22. Re:Verified, and will continue by Urza9814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate?

      Sure, get enough buddies, enough organization, and eventually enough military hardware and you can beat the pants off the federal government.

      Do you honestly think you and your buddies could stand up against the full wrath of the US military, against unrelenting 24/7 aerial bombardment, against battalions of tanks, against biological and chemical agents, and nuclear strikes? Unless your "buddies" include major superpowers like China and Russia, you haven't got a prayer.

      How long do you expect the federal government to continue to exist after they decide to use biological, chemical, and nuclear strikes in a genocidal extermination of their own cities? Which soldiers do you expect to push the button to launch a nuke at, say, Ohio? And were that to happen, do you think the rest of the world WON'T get involved? They didn't stay out of our first revolution, they didn't stay out of our civil war, they didn't stay out of Libya...

      Were there to be some kind of large and violent revolutionary movement, there would be FAR more resistance from the police forces than the military. Most soldiers would probably go AWOL. They joined to _protect_ the citizens, not kill them. That's the police's job. Aside from the fact that any soldier fighting a domestic insurrection would be in violation of federal law (though I'm sure that would change.) Yes, there are some SWAT teams with tanks, but we wouldn't be facing A1M1s, we wouldn't be facing aerial bombardment, and we CERTAINLY wouldn't be facing chemical/biological/nuclear weaponry. And if we did, that is exactly the point at which we would win. Just look at recent events in the middle east.

    23. Re:Verified, and will continue by scot4875 · · Score: 2

      I would think that if push came to shove, (1) and (3) would be roughly equal.

      I think you're vastly overestimating (3). Local militarized police forces have no problem using violence against *unarmed people* from their own cities! What makes you think that military grunts (who, by and large, are not the most educated or ethical people in the nation) would have a problem opening fire on some armed insurrection of "terrorists" (because that's what everyone who opposes the status quo is) from across the country?

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
  3. They have become what they fought... by jo42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Security has effectively become the State religion; you don't question it. And if you question it, then your loyalty is questioned.'

    Sounds exactly like the conditions that people lived in under the rule of the Nazis and Communists. The "the land of the free and the home of the brave" have become what they fought so hard against - "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Heil Amerika!

    1. Re:They have become what they fought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds exactly like the conditions that people lived in under the rule of the Nazis and Communists.

      Nope. Anyone who uses that argument doesn't actually study history. Christians used it when they took prayer out of school, did you know that (search for 26 similarities between America and Nazi Germany)?

      Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest? How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or their views of the government? Can I call the feds and report my neighbor for being a collaborator if I want his house?

      Stop feeding the panic and start fucking thinking.

      Bad hyperbole = bad argument.

    2. Re:They have become what they fought... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds exactly like the conditions that people lived in under the rule of the Nazis and Communists.

      Nope. Anyone who uses that argument doesn't actually study history. Christians used it when they took prayer out of school, did you know that (search for 26 similarities between America and Nazi Germany)?

      Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest? How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or their views of the government? Can I call the feds and report my neighbor for being a collaborator if I want his house?

      Stop feeding the panic and start fucking thinking.

      Bad hyperbole = bad argument.

      I hate to use the words "slippery slope", but Nazi Germany didn't just spring up overnight.

      When I was young, you could apply for a job without having to "show your papers" or prove that you weren't guilty of being a drug addict. We gave away the presumption of innocence in the 1980s.

      When I was young you could legally listen to any radio transmission you wanted to. Again, in the 1980s, that was changed to forbid monitoring cell-phone frequencies. Since then, almost all of the public service channels in my city, state and county are digitally encrypted from critical stake-outs and investigations all the way down to garbage collection and city buses. I learned a lot about how my city works from listening to the people I pay to keep it running. This year the city took the decrypting scanners away from the local newpaper and TV stations.

      When I was young, the fortified fence was what Communist countries used and America's borders were famously open.

      When I was young, US armed forces were supposedly "better" than Communist/Nazi forces because we treated prisoners fairly and didn't torture them. Torture, in fact, was unthinkable, even when faced with the very "agents of Satan" themselves.

      Not everything was better back then. Especially if you were black, female or gay. But if the reality didn't always measure up, at least we had the ideals. Since 9/11, the ideals have been flushed down the toilet.

      It may not be slippery - yet, but I'd definitely say it's a slope.

    3. Re:They have become what they fought... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I hate to use the words "slippery slope", but Nazi Germany didn't just spring up overnight.

      Didn't you get the memo? The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so we have nothing to worry about.

      Must be true, I read it all the time on Slashdot.

    4. Re:They have become what they fought... by cusco · · Score: 2

      In Washington state the Fatherland Security set up a "test" traffic stop south of Forks on the Pacific coast for several weeks. Several times they've insisted on checking the papers of everyone boarding local (intra-state) ferries, not allowing those without valid IDs to go home for days at a time. Since this is just reported as local news I'd be surprised if the same thing weren't happening in other states.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    5. Re:They have become what they fought... by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2

      Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)?

      Aside from the obvious of air travel (which also includes a quick fondle along with the paperwork), how about these? DUI checkpoints, local department of alcoholic beverage stores, any time I enter a government building for any reason, etc. Maybe those aren't all checkpoints, but the point is I have to have proof I'm allowed to be where I want to go. That's just me, as a normal white fellow. You toss in a Mexican woman with a heavy accent, citizen or not, and the complications quadruple.

      Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest?

      Arrests? Probably not, so long as I don't get upset at the way I'm treated. If I do get angry and want to argue about the situation, all bets are off. Citations and fines, though? You betcha, at a peace officer's sole discretion.

      How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or their views of the government?

      I'd say ask Nadia Habib, among others: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/college-student-wins-reprieve-from-deportation-to-bangladesh.html. She can stay.... for now. Even her reprieve was hard fought, and precarious. Many others get shipped out every day. Sure, immigration and undocumented and blah blah, but the fact is a LOT of these people have called the U.S. home for longer than their country of birth. Make em pay taxes, or exempt them from public services for a period of time to make up for being here illegally so long, or do whatever feels equitable to allow them to stay in their home, but to punt em back to a country they don't even know? Pretty harsh.

      Can I call the feds and report my neighbor for being a collaborator if I want his house?

      Yessir, you can. He looks an awful lot like he's an undocumented illegal who beats his kids, to me. Better get INS and the Neighborhood Watch on the case. Zing! Of course you don't get the house, but you can definitely screw a family up if you really want to plug away at it.

      Now, of course you are correct that this is a pale and forced comparison to Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, in terms of scale and intent. It's not even *close*. The analogy actually undermines the argument that we're losing our freedom, as it makes our situation here look pretty damned good by historical comparison. Even so, some of the things that made Nazi Germany such a terrible regime actually are happening here, albeit much less aggressively.

      The crux of the issue: our country is getting cumulatively more restrictive, and it fucking sucks. Just getting through the daily shit I have to do is 10 times more a pain in the ass than it was for my grandparents, and it appears to be getting worse, albeit in fits and starts. As individuals, we haven't really lost all that many freedoms, but many freedoms that were previously a simple given now require upkeep and diligence or we risk losing "access" to them. Some people argue that "this is where tyranny begins." I'm arguing that the here and now is shitty enough to warrant change, whether or not we're on a path to tyranny.

    6. Re:They have become what they fought... by HapSlappy_2222 · · Score: 2

      Slippery slope actually IS a logical fallacy, but Mr. Reindeer didn't appeal to a slippery slope logical argument to assert a claim. Like you, I believe his post was spot on.

      It's much different to say "I've seen these regrettable changes over my lifetime, and am not only worried I won't seem them undone, but I also worry it will get worse unless we curtail the trend we've been on." than "Past data guarantees a future trend of NAZIS!"

      On a related note, the biggest roadblock for change is that none of us can discuss the issues, since Godwin almost always rears his ugly head the moment the word "oppression" comes into play.

    7. Re:They have become what they fought... by deadweight · · Score: 2

      Until a few years ago, I could leave the country at will. I once filed my international flight plan over the radio after I WAS ALREADY ON MY WAY. They only needed *my* name as the pilot for recod keeping and couldn't care less about who else was with me. Now - thanks to EAPIS - I have to submit a passenger manifest IN ADVANCE to see if the passengers ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE OR NOT.

  4. Please flag my "loyalty" as questionable... by acidfast7 · · Score: 2

    for all of the NSA bots compiling all of the text associated with my username.

    1. Re:Please flag my "loyalty" as questionable... by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Request confirmed. Please stand by for orbital laser strike. Have a nice day!

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  5. I was at William Binney's talk at HOPE9 by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

    It was a good talk. I found it interesting.

    I think the big take away from his insights was that the root of this evil was the corruption that consumed the NSA, and the pressure to send money out to the military industrial complex that surrounds government agencies.

    It seems to me, in the context of this article, that the security religion is used as a veil to hide that corruption. By now, they may be using doublethink to believe their own lies, but that is the root cause. To fix it, we have to remove the dirty ties between the NSA and the MIC.

    He repeatedly said in his talk that no matter what he did to solve a problem, he was never allowed to call it solved. There was always more at stake, more danger around the corner that would be used to scare Congress into spending more money. As he said... keep the problem going so the money keeps flowing.

    -d

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:I was at William Binney's talk at HOPE9 by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right, I don't have a clue what NSA does inside. However, William Binney DOES. He worked there for many years. I'm just repeating what he said.

      -d

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:I was at William Binney's talk at HOPE9 by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

      Neither does the NSA, nor do you.

      No sociopath, no power structure, and no smug spineless bootlicker does. They have all sorts of delusions about it and euphemisms for it. And the Naked Emperor isn't even the last to learn the news -- often enough they are forever left guessing, then they die.

      Do you have anything but laughter for the needyness of Pharaohs? So why do you think you yourself are engaged in serious biz? I lolleth.

  6. And meanwhile, in TN... by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges.

    Because gays, democrats, and non-christians are evil, or something.

    Fascism will come wrapped in the flag, and the ones purportedly against it like the Tea Party, are helping the security state and fascism along with gusto. They crave it.

    Brown shirts for everyone.

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by bmo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You really didn't understand a single word I said.

      When the purges come, encouraged and led by people like you, they will not stop at just the people you yourself hate, they will continue until they meet up with you, personally. This was true during The Terror and every purge in history.

      Here's your shirt.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by bbecker23 · · Score: 2
      Oh really? The Qur'an would seem to disagree. http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_qura.htm

      Of particular interest

      "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous."
      Chapter 49, Verse 13

      and

      "God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable."
      Chapter 60, Verse 8

      or maybe you'd prefer

      "Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous - Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men - for God loves those who do good."
      Chapter 3, Verses 133-134

      Terrible things have been done in the name of every belief, both religious and secular. I'd be more careful with the generalizations. They have a way have coming back to bite you. Or, you know, keep trolling.

      --
      cat /dev/random > sig.txt
    3. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ron Paul and today's "libertarians" are not libertarian by the traditional meaning of the world.

      We need to call them what they are: corporate anarchists. Traditional libertarians didn't believe in elevating the rights of *any* institution (public or private) to that of the individual because it is dangerous and it would be a concentration of power. These idiots believe more in the rights of corporations than people.

    4. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In the graduate studies lab where I got my Ph.D., my adviser and most of my coworkers were from Islamic countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia. All identified as Muslim, but represented various points between conservative and liberal: several drank alcohol, several (including both males and females) had premarital sex, several smoked tobacco, one (at least) smoked weed openly (as possible in the States). Most, but not all, regularly attended religious services. Most, but not all, fasted during the day during Ramadan. All but one of the females wore just Western clothing; the other wore Western clothing plus a hair scarf. Two of the married males were, to the whole group's opinion, overly demanding of their wives (in this opinion, there was no disagreement between the Western and other Islamic students). Of these two males, only one (the Saudi) intended to marry a second wife; all the others felt this was a backwards practice.

      The rest of the lab consisted, with some fluctuation over time, of two Christians (one American, one Asian), two Atheists (one American, one Indian), one Jew (American) and two Hindis. And yet there was no cultural strife within the lab. Everyone got along, everyone helped out their fellow students when possible. The Islamic students would invite everyone to the evening meal during Ramadan, the Christian/Western-traditional students, if in town over Winter break, would invite everyone to Christmas dinner. As with any big group there were cliques of closer friends, but it didn't happen on sectarian lines.

      So obviously Islam isn't totally evil, and Muslims aren't a single organism. As with any group, there is a continuous spectrum between conservative and liberal. As with any group, you have a majority of people just trying to get by, a few bad apple loud mouths, and a tiny minority of dangerous psychopaths. I won't deny that Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem in the Middle East, and I won't say that there's never a reason for the US to intervene to protect our interests. But as an American, Christian fundamentalism is a much more pressing concern to me, as it can have (and has had) a much more direct negative impact on me and my country.

    5. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is nothing inherently evil about Christianity or Islam.

      Sure there is: they both require you to put non-Bayesian means ahead of Bayesian means as a way of knowing reality, and that is the root of all evil.

      In the case of religions, scripture and ecclesiastical authority are the favoured non-Bayesian means. In the case of political organizations, party doctrine and ideology are the favoured non-Bayesian means.

      Whenever anyone attempts to induce someone to abandon the only possible consistent way of knowing reality--Bayesian reasoning about systematic observations and controlled experiments--they are committing the most fundamental act of evil possible.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    6. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by Son+of+Byrne · · Score: 3

      Correct. This is why I couldn't possibly bring myself to expose my children to religion on an ongoing basis (a little of it is good to remind them of how crazy those folks are) as I was when I was a child.

      All that I need to do is remember the 20 years that I wasted as a child and early adult in the church to know just how bad the church is for humanity. It is not the time that I miss so desperately, it is the opportunities that I passed up. I disregarded anything that contradicted my misguided beliefs and did not think that my youth mattered that much since I was taught that the rapture would likely happen soon and that my earthly existence was not all that important.

      --
      I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
    7. Re:And meanwhile, in TN... by Son+of+Byrne · · Score: 2

      Spoken like someone who can't stand for any position that opposes their own.

      Spam filtering is a use for Bayesian reasoning. Bayesian reasoning is good for all sorts of other neat stuff, like making rational determinations.

      So, your assertion is that it is not evil for you to form an opinion of claimed and denied adultery using the Bible? If that is your assertion, then sure, you are correct. Forming opinions is not inherently evil.

      Rather than state that this is hyperbole and leave it at that, why not provide reasoned evidence to support your claim.

      --
      I'd happily pay you Tuesday for a biopsy today!
  7. Out of context by Jiro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The summary phrases it as though the person making the statement is stating his own position. In fact, he's attributing this position to the opposition.

    It's like having a summary which says "(name): Muslims should take over the world" without mentioning that the quote is from someone who doesn't like Muslims and is attributing that idea to them, and is not a quote from a Muslim at all.

  8. torrent? by vlm · · Score: 2

    William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9,... Unfortunately, neither audio or video of the talk are available yet.

    Officially or unofficially? Historically HOPE conference torrents are usually up by now. Whats up with that? I haven't bothered searching yet, but...

    I always used to like listening to the mp3 audio version as if they're audiobooks, and I'm looking forward to my next batch.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  9. Liberty and Justice for [REDACTED] by Picass0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm so glad I was born into the land of the [REDACTED] and the home of the [REDACTED]

  10. A couple of notes... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

    RT is Kremlin-controlled Russian state media. They love to do stories like this lately.

    Second, Binney hasn't been at NSA since shortly after 9/11. And a LOT of stuff was happening immediately after 9/11. His statements to the effect that NSA is "building a dossier on every American" are not based in any sort of proof.

    Also keep in mind that for NSA to perform its foreign signals intelligence mission — which INCLUDES discerning and targeting foreign communications within the US and on US equipment and networks, and does not require a warrant — mechanisms to identify that traffic are a necessity.

    Furthermore, it is unlawful to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the CONTENT of the communications of US Persons without a warrant. Period. This is not some kind of a joke.

    ("But they did it before!" Yes. To numbers of people in the hundreds, thought to have direct ties to terrorism, under a program asserted under the President's Article II authority under the AUMF, and briefed to Congress every 45 days. So to now say that NSA is wholesale building "dossiers" on EVERY American is a bit ludicrous. "But what about the data center in Utah? Did you see that article?" Yes. Yes I did. I have seen them all.)

    That said, there are many things that may indeed be collected and analyzed without a warrant, including certain kinds of communications metadata. This is a simple fact, and is not a new construct. Doing this for phone records was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Smith v Maryland (1979).

    So yeah, excuse me if I am suspect of something that is literally Russian propaganda pushing this story. That's completely separate from whether Drake had legitimate whistleblowing concerns. Whistleblowers being punished is, sadly, also not anything new.

    1. Re:A couple of notes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Furthermore, it is unlawful to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the CONTENT of the communications of US Persons without a warrant. Period. This is not some kind of a joke.

      Are you so naive?? It is well know, that NATO allies are doing this for US. And US is doing this for US allies.

      But lately, they don't even care to go around laws, just simply break them.

      https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying

      Of course, EFF is a Kremlin controlled state organization bent on destroying the west, right? right??

  11. American Freedom is dead by Eggplant62 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is just a sad testament to what GW Bush helped to destroy -- a land of the free and home of the brave. Now it's the land of the slaves and home of the caged. Don't piss off your masters or you *will* be dealt with.

    1. Re:American Freedom is dead by Swampash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is just a sad testament to what GW Bush helped to destroy -- a land of the free and home of the brave.

      Let's be honest: what every sitting president since Eisenhower has helped to destroy.

    2. Re:American Freedom is dead by bussdriver · · Score: 2

      Eisenhower was describing what he was seeing it does not mean it was not already underway before he was in office. It was bad enough he talked openly about it and did not dare to say something UNTIL he was leaving office which shows it was pretty bad already.

      WAR has no winners, everybody loses. Naturally, the excuse always is that the losses are worth it; problem is that people don't think about ALL the losses and the unforeseen losses are unknown even some time afterwards.

      The civil war gave us the modern corporation. The war on terror gave us a more powerful Bush Jr who helped make corporations human among many other things.

      The cold war caused immeasurable damage worldwide on the scale of the two world wars. It helped bring down Russia and the USA. Both were mortally wounded, Russia died already but the USA was infected and today seems delirious as it heads towards its projected death just after 2020 (by the same man who accurately predicted Russia; he did recently revise 2025 to 2020; however, his 2025 prediction was so far out in advance it is impressive. Nobody can blame him for adjusting it after one of the worst presidents in history.)

  12. Reduce the signal/noise of the system to 0 ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 2

    I'm just doing my part, as should you ... any monitoring system will fail when the "signal" is not perceivable above the background.

    The correct thing to do is to "flood the system" with false-positives.

  13. All suspects are GUILTY by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

    Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect.

    --
    -
  14. James Madison for the win by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

    I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  15. Plants and diversion by s.petry · · Score: 2

    Proving something like this is extremely difficult, however something to investigate is how the Tea Party was changed after it's initial founding and the public response to the movement. Check the "leaders" that were appointed, public messages, etc... and see how they changed shortly after the movement gained momentum. Much of this work is already being done, but you have to find the information.

    Historically we see very similar actions by other Governments and people (Nazi, Communism, Fascism, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc..). These take overs were not known to the public until after the fact. Call it sabotage or hijacking, the result is the same which ends with the movements being used counter to their initial purpose.

    Another thing to consider is why we are all up in arms about issues that divert from the main topic of corruption. Instead of having people focus on the corruption we have people focusing on Liberals, Gay Rights, Race, and Religion. In my opinion, all of those things are an illusion to keep people from looking at the root problem.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  16. They have become what they supported... by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who fought? And who supported. While volunteers American soldiers flew bombers at great personal costs to disrupt the Nazi war machine, American made ball bearings came in via Sweden in large enough quantities to offset the damage to production. While Americans born in the US with Asian ancestors were rounded up and killed if they disobeyed, the open Nazi Ford was never even questioned and his heritage continues to this day.

    Yes, America fought in WW2 against the nazi's but it was not exactly undivided in this and those who think those who wished the US to not aid the Allied forces were pacifists is gravely mistaking. It always amazes me when people come up with alternate histories were the US does not enter WW2, the far more likely alternate outcome would have been the US getting in on the Axis side. What after all is the difference between "keine juden" and "whites only" in spirit? Hell, IBM supplied the lists, Americans supplied the gas, the idea of going "east/west" for "lebensraum", of concentration camps (don't make the mistake of confusing concentration with extermination) (indian reservations). America was far from a natural ally for the Allied forces. Not that most of the allied nations were much better.

    Don't forget how hated Roosevelts New Deal was and still is in certain quarters, quarters that have only gained in power.

    Right wingers are like the Mafia, they are still fucking there! Want some proof? South Korea's whaling plans. WHY? They had given it up for decades, their economy doesn't need it and they have no depressed areas where people need any type of job. So why? Because some people who never let go of the past saw an opening. They were stopped, this time... but they will not go away, will try again and again and again.

    The fight for freedom never ends, because evil never stops. Not the evil that rapes and pillages but the evil that excuses it as being cultural or just the way things are or ignores it as being a fundemental part of the good old days the evil wants to bring back.

    See Romney's entire election campaign. They are not back, they have never gone away.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  17. NSAmerCIA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny

    In another recent development: The country of the USA is officially changing it's name to "East Germany". If geographically misleading, it seemed fitting in a number of other essential details.

    The name was cheap, through recent disuse. The US was able to obtain it through a swap for their equally abandoned Constitutiuon.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:NSAmerCIA by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      And Obama's and Bush's and Clinton's and ...... America

    2. Re:NSAmerCIA by azalin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our choice nowadays is between Romney and his Gestapo, or Obama and his Stasi.

      Nazi Germany or East Germany, choose your hell. Personally, I'll take modern Germany, they have more freedoms than we do.

      Well sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. I'm not sure though, what the rest of the world will have to go through, while the US goes through it's Third Reich Phase.

    3. Re:NSAmerCIA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

      No! Auto accidents are ALL Ted Kennedy's fault!

      http://tommcmahon.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834515db069e20115714e8332970b-800wi

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    4. Re:NSAmerCIA by ohnocitizen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      False. People comparing Obama to the Russians are stone cold drunk. The choice is between Romney and his corporate fascism, and Obama and his corporate fascism. Both use the policies and methods of right wing totalitarianism. The difference is Romney will mean a more conservative than now supreme court, is entirely in the corporation's pocket, and is going to pander to religious conservatives out of desperation. Obama will mean a possibly liberal-lite supreme court, is sticking out of the corporation's pockets (and sometimes isn't in there at all), and won't always pander to religious conservatives so much as give in to them.

      The supreme court is really the big reason to vote one way or the other.

    5. Re:NSAmerCIA by orgelspieler · · Score: 2

      You missed the point. There was an app where Romney misspelled America.

    6. Re:NSAmerCIA by jythie · · Score: 2

      I am guessing you have never had to follow freedom of speech issues in germany. They are a lot more restrictive then the US and you don't have that 1st ammendment to fall back on.

    7. Re:NSAmerCIA by Prune · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  18. Not new [Re:power corrupts] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But Americans have been hugely keen on giving more and more power to their federal government

    Sigh. No. The ignorance of history by the average American is appalling. No, this is nothing new. It goes back to the 1798 Alien and Sedition acts, at least. There's nothing "more and more' about it-- you do remember the domestic spying of the 1960s and 1970s, right? Or the Kent State incident where National Guardsmen shot a bunch of students on the quad (who, as it turned out, didn't even have anything to do with the protests over which that the Guards had been called out?) Well, no, probably you don't. What is new is the large amount of push-back against giving power to the federal goverment.

    There's been for the last two centuries a give and take between cries for security and the desire for non-interference; or, if you like, the battle between fear and freedom.

    , so this is in inevitable byproduct. Of course there must be some government, but not one that grows without bound and attracts power hungry, corrupt authoritarians. But hey, keep on voting for those Republican and Democrats, because that's been working out so well thus far, amirite?

    You're ignoring large amounts of debate and back-and-forth in order to phrase things as simple freedom-versus-evil. Even in the two-party system, the parties are not monoliths; opinions are not uniform nor black-and-white. However, if you don't like the two-party system, you might try to see if you can advocate changing the ballotting system that we currently have, which drives the politics to two parties. Try advocating approval voting, for example, which is a system that is not biased toward two parties: http://www.electology.org/approval-voting http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html (or any of several other methods that don't fail badly with multiple candidates).

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  19. you can still work in the system by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the idea is to cure our government of it's corporate disease, not condemn the whole thing. and replace it with what? no one controls a revolution. everyone suffers and what comes out on the other end can very well be worse

    so, as much as i despise the corporate influence on our government, i would equally warn against the parent poster who seems a little too eager to grab his gun

    think too much like the parent poster, with vicious enemies out to kill him around every corner, and this turns you not into the instigator of righteous revolution, this makes you a deluded paranoid schizophrenic shooting up a mall

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you can still work in the system by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      "i never understood the idea of state's rights. "

      That's because like most Americans, you probably don't understand the whole process very well. I have been studying American history for years now, in part because there is LOTS of important history that they just don't teach in public school.

      "it's not freedom from the feds, it's just another form that can screw up and hurt the individual"

      It *IS* "freedom from the feds". And no, the States CAN'T screw up just as badly, because they are closer to the people they serve. Sure some states will make mistakes, but they will see that other states are doing better because they didn't make the same mistakes, and they will correct themselves.

      "you agree with me"

      I agree with you if you were referring to the amendment process. But that's not what most people mean when they say the Constitution is a "living document". Usually what people mean when they say that, is that it is okay to "interpret" it in ways that are different from the original meaning.

      As for federal vs state:

      "Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste. --Thomas Jefferson, letter to Gideon Granger, 1800.

  20. The fate of every administration by Jesrad · · Score: 3, Informative

    The kind of slippery slope towards more and more blind zeal and further-reaching powers from agents of every kind of administration (private or public, it makes little difference) was at the center of Ludwig von Mises' 1944 short book Bureaucracy. He tried to explain why and how this happens in terms of systemic incentives and asymetry of information:
    - promotion works mainly on seniority inside a bureaucracy, thus the top bureaucrats are restricted in their long-term planning by having their own retirement as an event horizon, and having grown a bias towards the statu quo ; while the newly appointed officials are being selected only on their then characteristics (good grades and diplomas mostly), and then all innovation and vigor they might have is sucked out by the subordinate positions they are forced to go through and the fact that none of it will matter much, if at all, to their advancement.
    - having no market appraisal of the value of their action (which is not the same as there being no value to it, please mind), they they get no valuations of their own initiatives or actions from the rest of society, and they have no guidance for allocating their efforts and resources across many tasks and priorities, they cannot know how good or bad a job they're doing, except through conforming blindly to the rules and laws they enforce, and enforcing them as closely to the letter as they can - 'doing a good bureaucrat's job' often equates 'not doing anything that triggers the ire of your hierarchical superiors'
    - being on the side that enforces the law often makes them forget that they, too, are subject to it, especially when things like due process hampers their enforcement of the law ; this creates a double standard in their mind where the law is never applied strictly and widely enough to the general population, and always too tightly and too often to themselves
    - serving in an administration often has the perverse effect of turning the means at the disposal of the agents, into ends of their own:

    The dictatorial nutrition expert wants to feed his fellow citizens according to his own ideas about perfect alimentation. He wants to deal with men as the cattle breeder deals with his cows. He fails to realize that nutrition is not an end in itself but the means for the attainment of other ends. The farmer does not feed his cow in order to make it happy but in order to attain some end which the well-fed cow should serve. There are various schemes for feeding cows. Which one of them he chooses depends on whether he wants to get as much milk as possible or as much meat as possible or something else. Every dictator plans to rear, raise, feed, and train his fellow men as the breeder does his cattle. His aim is not to make the people happy but to bring them into a condition which renders him, the dictator, happy. He wants to domesticate them, to give them cattle status. The cattle breeder also is a benevolent despot.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  21. Onward in Lock Step! by blackbeak · · Score: 2

    Suspicion of ordinary citizens as official policy is an alignment technique.

    I'm sure I'll soon be trampled on by fine folks with the best of intentions (or maybe by paid shills), but it seems to me we are in an era where political and economic alignment is strong (politically via polarization, economically via [virtually] government sanctioned massive control fraud), and adaptive capacity is weak (thanks to the wrecked economy, strangulating regulation and serious problems at the patent office), thus we're simply following the "Lock Step" scenario as predicted and outlined in the now two year old Rockefeller Foundation publication Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development. (See page 16.)

    Whether NWO, Globalist, CFR, Bilderberger or otherwise simply Rockefeller aligned agents (like them nice gents partying over at the Grove) helped shepherd this into being is left for you to decide.

    By the way, the "Clever Together" and "Smart Scramble" scenarios representing proper ways out of this mess are the least likely to occur. The idealistically utopian "Clever Together" ignores the fact that governments are heavily invested in the status quo. "Smart Scramble" is a bit more likely, though government (pushed by behind the scenes corporate and personal power) will continue to disempower the "little guy" through legislation (and automatic suspicion).

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  22. And then some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And any group who rises up will be labeled a "terrorist organization" so that when they are exterminated by the Feds in front of the media cameras, the general public, who are under the impression that the "government is always right and tells the truth", will just think, "They had it come'in." And the media will just fall in line and report about the "terrorist cell" and bring up clips of Timothy McVeigh or any other home grown group who had something against the government and committed violence.

    The trouble is most Americans have no clue what freedom is. They think that as long as they can drive their cars where ever they want within the US, eat all they can, have their TV and bitch about the government to their buddies and online then they are "free". All this monitoring - like the Stasi - and the searches - electronic strip searches - are all necessary for our security and freedom.

    Oh and the biggest thing that cracks me up is gun ownership. Yeah it's our right but what we're legally able to own is nothing to compared to the military. Even if we were legally able to own a rocket launcher, a F-18, a howitzer and a nuclear weapon, very very very few of us could afford it.

    To quote Pris from Blade Runner, "We're stupid." We let it happen. We let the media - ALL the media - act incompetently, stupidly, and forced them via ad dollars to report the fluff and bullshit that they do now.

  23. Re:Are you kidding me? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    Impossible. You can't have less than zero credibility. Perhaps you mean that Fox News is as credible as RT.

  24. Re:Prove you aren't suspicious? by Johann+Lau · · Score: 2

    Paranoia is in the mind of the beholder.

    To bootlickers, someone who doesn't lick boots at all, is an even bigger threat than those who lick the wrong boot. You can see this with religious fundamentalism, racism, all sorts of things. "Those who have something to hide" indeed.

  25. We Have Always Been At War With Eurasia by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
    - George Orwell, 1984

    Remember, war is peace!