Slashdot Mirror
Journalist Sues NSA For Keeping Keith Alexander's Financial History Secret
Daniel_Stuckey writes Now the NSA has yet another dilemma on its hands: Investigative journalist Jason Leopold is suing the agency for denying him the release of financial disclosure statements attributable to its former director. According to a report by Bloomberg, prospective clients of Alexander's, namely large banks, will be billed $1 million a month for his cyber-consulting services. Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
This is an example of the perils of state and corporate power being merged. Fascism, according to Mussolini.
What does he do? Tell them to silence anyone who points out security issues?
Im not American has he suffered some damage because the guy has gone into private enterprise and his request was denied?
Go prospective clients of Keith Alexander!!!!!
Time to ditch the router and use a linux/BSD box? Or are we pretty much screwed because the hardware is affected similarly as well?
Right, because this only began the day Obama was elected.
Keep telling yourself that.
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension. He's corrupt to the core and no amount of "But Bush!!!" will change that.
Oh sorry, wrong person.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson. To state that the current state of affairs is Obama or Bush or any recent president's doing is very naive. People like you contribute to the problem.
Everyone knows that the government you see isn't what is calling the shots in this country.
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."
Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States,
Theodore Roosevelt - An Autobiography, 1913 (Appendix B)
"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men."
Woodrow Wilson,
28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
Woodrow Wilson,
28th President of the United States, The New Freedom, 1913
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent."
J. Edgar Hoover,
The Elks Magazine, 1956
"Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means We have a well-organized political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish a one-party state It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government This ruthless power-seeking elite is a disease of our century This group is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is practically irremovable."
Senator William Jenner,
1954 speech
"The Rockefellers and their allies have, for at least fifty years, been carefully following a plan to use their economic power to gain political control of first America, and then the rest of the world. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, November 1975,
from the introduction to a book titled The Rockefeller File
Oh fuck it. God damn nothing but idiots on this site. Trusting, naive idiots spoonfed political propaganda that will always eat it up without question.
"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.
So what does this consulting consist of? Telling the banks to silence all whistleblowers and try to get them arrested?
So the REAL question is what WILL stop it. Saying that "This one is a bad person and did nothing to change it" doesn't work. Saying "The previous one did nothing to change it" doesn't work.
Voting for "The other party" doesn't work.
No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.
What has he done to change anything beyond stupid platitudes that tons of ignorant liberals lapped up? We charge people who drive by the scene of an accident as negligible so why should Obama not be held to the same standard?
The only thing that will work is executing all these traitors in the government propping up the panopticon. We didn't buy the "just following orders" excuse in the Nuremberg Trials so I don't see why these traitors should be treated differently.
http://whatthefuckhasobamadone...
"Obama's America"? Really? Fucking moron.
What has he done to change anything beyond stupid platitudes that tons of ignorant liberals lapped up? We charge people who drive by the scene of an accident as negligible so why should Obama not be held to the same standard?
I might consider them negligent, but I'm not really sure what considering them "negligible" means in this context, nor why they would be able to be charged with anything for it.
"Negligible: so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded."
We quite honestly do need to improve our educational system, since it seems to produce lots of people who accuse others of ignorance, while at the same time showing their own ignorance of the English language.
A million is worth admittedly less these days, I get that, but I have the same feeling now.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Your Hoover quote was referring to communism, not the Illuminati. How's your spoon holding up?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented. Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops. And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down for real"
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Why the summary munged Alexander's laughable salary request and a lawsuit by a journalist is a bit baffling.
First issue, the lawsuit. The NSA refused to provide under Federal Law. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that this agency is ignoring (or at least attempting to ignore) Federal Law. The right answer is to disband the NSA and hand SIGINT over to the Military which tends to follow the US Constitution a bit more closely. While we are disbanding things, we should also revamp the CIA, FBI, DHS, and TSA removing most of their powers and executives that also ignore the law.
Second issue is that Alexander thinks he's brilliant enough to make a million a month telling people what most IT Security professionals can do for a much better rate. I'd do better than he does at securing a company, and I'll do it for much less. In fact I can think of a few dozen people I'd recommend for much less, and for a million a month I'd have a full staff doing audits _and_ consulting. You don't need to be a former General to be intelligent about security, you need knowledge.
In other words, if Alexander can get a million a month for consulting it sure as hell is not for security. It would be for cronyism.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So the REAL question is what WILL stop it. Saying that "This one is a bad person and did nothing to change it" doesn't work. Saying "The previous one did nothing to change it" doesn't work.
Voting for "The other party" doesn't work.
No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.
What must be done to change the status-quo with minimal violence or bloodshed is to unite people under common values, such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.
Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.
Start focusing on what we have in common, not what divides us. Despite what those with power would like you to believe, we have much more in common than we have differences. Those commonalities are also those of a much more fundamental and essential nature than our differences.
Extremely few on any side of the political spectrum in the US (barring government & MIC) wants an Orwellian surveillance//security/police state.
I'd have no problem at all standing side by side in public protests and demonstrations with almost anyone from TEA Party member to PETA and/or LGBT activist and beyond who also was willing to postpone our arguments for our common interests in a free and open society without mass domestic surveillance & data analysis and a militarized police force performing military-occupation and wealth-confiscation roles more than any sort of community-based & controlled "officer of the peace" roles.
Look, people, yes we have beefs over stuff *BUT*, unless we unite and curb government power and size, it won't matter because very soon none of us will have any choices about anything nor any meaningful rights at all.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think the point he's trying to make is that there's no such thing as "Obama's America" - he's just the latest in a long stream of presidents to dance on the strings of someone(s) far more powerful who are actually in control. Or get assassinated - that seems to be a pretty common theme among presidents that actually tried to take a stand against this tide.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
But you sir are on this site. What weight then shall we give your post?
I think Obama's one of the best Republican Presidents ever. He's guided the country through a healthy if slow economic recovery. Convinced the democrats to implement the Republican health care plan. And continued the Republican lovefest with the patriot act and secret surveillance
Whoever replaces them will be just as bad.
If there was a fundamental and widespread increase in both governmental involvement and critical thinking on the part of the "proles," then we would get a better government. As it stands, we have the best government that the current crop of potential voters is willing and able to produce.
Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
Only ONE of them?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There has clearly been success in creating a one-party state. The party just happens to have two faces, but inside, there is no significant difference.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You mean the Democratic-Republican party turning into the Democrats and Republicans, and then doing a member swap between Northern and Southern State Confederate War lines after Kennedy's civil rights "betrayal" on the Democrat (Confederate/KKK) ticket he was elected on? Old news is old news. Glad to see you're finally wising up
Gotta love that site, too bad "doing something" is not the same as doing the right thing. Sure, hes done alot, what has he done to make the country better jack shit
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Derp. Welcome to America. As it's been this way since the days of Andrew Jackson.
How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)
Sadly, sedition would be vilified. Look at Mr Snowden. Enemy of the state, now exiled in Moscow. He's one of many, and as there are no controls, and the game of extortion is played at the highest level like a bad poker game, the chances of clarity, openness, and even "just the right thing" are nil.
Martyrdom doesn't work with 72 virgins, and it doesn't work when corporate America controls the press-- especially Murdoch. Who has the WSJ by the printing press short-hairs? None other. Most of us just duck low, shaking our heads.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
http://www.militaryfactory.com...
Military pay grades are in the public record. Many sites (the above is just one) publish them.
Voting for the other party does works, so please stop spreading fud. At the very least if a 3rd party starts getting a lot of votes, the other 2 parties adjust their policies to closer align themselves with the 3rd party and thus 'steal back' some of the lost votes. And while major changes to policy this way is very slow, it does work. The real problem is too much business influence and the high cost of campaigning. Even if a 3rd party magically got elected those people can be influenced by large sums of money. The business pay all the parties so they end up winning any which way.
Extremely few on any side of the political spectrum in the US (barring government & MIC) wants an Orwellian surveillance//security/police state.
How many people support DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, unfettered border searches, constitution-free zones, the TSA, the NSA's mass surveillance, protest permits, stop-and-frisk-type policies, unwarranted surveillance in general, or assassination of citizens without trial? They only have to be a supporter of one of them to be a supporter of a police state, and I can't tell you how many people I've personally conversed with that supported a number of those as long as it makes them feel safe. In 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' freedom should be considered more important than safety, but I don't think most people see it that way.
And even if most people did see it that way, look at how many people changed their tunes directly after 9/11? If people are so weak and unprincipled that a disaster can make them give a bunch of power to the government, then all it takes is another disaster for the government to take advantage of, and we'll lose all that progress.
So either way, I'm not too optimistic.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why the hell do I have to enable javascript for that site and whitelist ajax.googleapis in order to see some fucking text? What a poorly-designed website.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented.
I assume you think that you're making a joke, but it is worth pointing out that government by assassination never works.
You think good guys have more money to hire hit men than bad guys? Or, you read so many honorable-mafia-killer novels that you think hired killers won't work for bad guys, only for the good guys? Or, you think that the kind of people who like to assassinate public figures have an unerring ethical sense, and can instinctively tell good from bad?
Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops.
This, basically, is a way to guarantee that the worst possible people end up in power. 'Cause once you get onto that Roman-Emperor assassination train, the ones that are ruthless, power-hungry, and have no morals will be the ones hiring the killers. Either directly, if they're bold, or through "grass roots- it's the people who support me" intermediaries if they're not.
And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down for real"
The message that will be sent is "if you want to survive, be paranoid, trust no one, kill quickly and ruthlessly".
Keith Alexander, what a waste of protoplasm; and it took 50 years to out this pervert.
Typically financial disclosures, such as the ones covered by OGE Form 450 (Confidential Financial Disclosure Report), are not public information and are exempted from FOIA requests
The form in question isn't the 450, which is confidential (hence its name). It's form 278, "Public Financial Disclosure", which is public (hence its name.
From http://www.oge.gov/Financial-D...
Public Financial Disclosure
The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires senior officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. The statute and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics's (OGE) regulations specify which officials in the executive branch file an OGE Form 278. Unlike confidential financial statements filed by some mid-level employees, the OGE 278 is available to the public. Reviewing officials within each agency certify and maintain these reports. Agencies do, however, forward reports of Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate and certain other reports to OGE for additional review and certification.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Anyone who ever believes that state and corporate power are, or were ever separate is hopelessly naive.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Yes, you do have the answer. We all do, but we won't use it. Everybody prefers to stick with what they have.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why do they always have to look like John De Lancie?
Larry McDonald died in the SHOOTING DOWN (by the Soviets) of KAL 007.
Coincidence? Lo dudo.
What a fantasy. Democrat liberals like to stroke themselves on that as if Republicans 'switched sides' in a giant dosey doe with Democrats who were leading the party of the KKK and slavery. What, Lyndon Johnson decided to create a social behemoth that destroyed the black family so Republicans should suddenly switch allegiance and philosophy? All Democrats have done is delude themselves that they are on the side of right when it is yet another form of the plantation, with the super rich and powerful just have more power in their world over the dependent masses, far down.
What you say is true, however the previous Presidents were members of the Democratic-Republicans (who bear no resemblence to the Republicans of today). Jackson in contrast, was a Democrat and despite having no similarity to the Democrats of today, must bear the brunt of being clearly labeled as such. Personally, i'm willin to give all these guys a pass and put the blame where it belongs - Pelosi. NEVER attribute to stupidity that which can be assigned to Pelosi.
there was a British TV show called "yes Prime Minister"
during one of the episodes, a political crisis developed
the prime ministers advisor presented the solution thus
"we are told something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it"
Holy crap, if that isn't the next sign of the dystopian future I don't know what is.
Private corporations getting the consulting services of the king spook of the spy agency which has tapped into the entire fucking world.
That scares the bejezzus out of me.
Because all of the secrecy of the NSA combined with the douche-baggery of corporations is straight out of a cyberpunk novel.
The surveillance state meets Wall Street. Oooh, they could privatize the NSA, that would be really profitable.
Time to stock up on Guy Fawkes masks.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
such as the massive & ongoing civil rights violations/infringements that most people agree are wrong, regardless of what political stripe they self-identify as.
But I think that's wrong.
You and I may not agree with this, but I think that MOST people are quite happy to trade-away their civil liberties for the illusion of security. Particularly those who are convinced that since they "do nothing wrong", they have nothing to fear from such violations.
It's a very sad commentary on our democratic peers, but unfortunately, factual, and consistent with pretty much everything else that's gone on since 9/11, (and more-or-less, since the McCarthy era - with regard to "communists").
We're not going to unite in this country. Period. It's like Morpheus said, in The Matrix: "Most people are not ready to be unplugged from the system, and will fight to protect it." Cliche, but true.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wow! Surprised at the mods. Makes me want to make an account again. I forgot the most important quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead
I'm guessing that the rest were all put in by contractors; totally not by a TLA.
I don't think he was suggesting assassins, but a core change to the government itself. People need to wake up and hold those in power accountable. Any kind of punishment against the traitors in government would have to be lawful, as defined by the people. A revolutionary war might do it but short of that, I find it difficult to believe that the corruption can be weeded out.
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension.
On the other hand, the current expansion and disclosures are resulting in the public demanding and end to it. I, for one, am never quite sure what to attribute to a politician for intent: whether his stated intentions, his actions, or the result of his actions.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
"Mr. Leopold, only a terrorist or those who harbour terrorists would want to know Gen. Alexander's financial details. Would you please accompany us to this windowless room were we can have a frank and vigorous discussion of your terrorist sympathies?"
Even if a 3rd party magically got elected those people can be influenced by large sums of money. The business pay all the parties so they end up winning any which way.
The thing is that a youg party has a lot of idealists in high positions and are less likely to be bribeable.
And even if they do eventually get bought you vote for a fourth party, because all the major three are essentially the same. With four parties the cost of buying them have doubled.
Because you're a braindead Luddite piece of shit. That's why.
"For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operation."
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961. "The President and the Press"
No Inflation Taxation without Representation
I wasn't aware that I was opposing useful technology simply because it might take away my job. You do know that's what a Luddite is, right? And you do know that not all uses of technology make sense, correct? Therefore, calling me a Luddite for criticizing a stupid use of Javascript makes absolutely zero sense.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
> http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/
Is that a joke site?
I went to it and it was mostly blank. Yellow banner with the sitename on a blue background with a little bar across the bottom with some inconsequential links. But absolute nothing listed at all.
I can't tell if it is meant to say that he's done nothing or the web designers suck ass and turned a simple listicle into something so complex and needlessly brittle that it won't render unless your browser is configured to maximize web-tracking and spying. Either way I don't think this website reflects particularly well on Obama, even if he is 100x better than McCain/Romney.
It is a metaphor.
Obama has done nothing for people who care about their security and privacy.
If you don't care about security and privacy then he's done a lot.
Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.
A SWAT team per city / county, a few of which might have a light armored vehicle, is an "occupation" army?
You don't suppose you might be overstating things a bit, do you??
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
And yet he hasn't stopped it. In fact, he has explicitly defended and expanded the surveillance state. If he was against it, he would've stopped it by vetoing the Patriot Act extension. He's corrupt to the core and no amount of "But Bush!!!" will change that.
Well that's far more basic that political parties. It doesn't matter which group you talk about its always the same outcome.
If they aren't the party in power, they hate government over reach and government interference.
If they are the party in power they love anything that lets them push what they want through.
Its not a Bush vs Obama thing, its all of them. If they aren't the ones abusing the power they are in favor of rolling it back, as soon as they are in a position to use that power to get what they want, nobody wants to give it up. Its why the problem will never go away.
He going to charge you a shit load of money to tell you secrets. Edward gave them away.
Once again being a patriot is all about how much money you can charge.
And what, pray, is the common goal of the "surveillance state" you live in according to you? The advancement of the interest of a "new order" or "world government"? Explain the big terms you're using. Also, calling the USA a fascist regime, because it has a secret service that does secretive and unpleasant stuff is a very simple minded view. The others do it, too. The fact, that they weren't found out yet [the only good thing one can say about Snowden is that he created more transparency, I guess] doesn't mean their not doing the very same thing [think France or Russia for instance. And according to Snowden, Russia a more free country than the US -- f*cking laughable].
Seems to me what you need is a political party that opposes this shit. Whenever Ds and Rs agree on anything, it is a pretty safe bet that the public at large do not.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
“It would be devastating if one of our major banks was hit, because they’re so interconnected.”
Is that NSA for "It be a shame if you had trouble with the health department in this fine establishment"?
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
According to you, then, there are no democracies in this world.
Democracy != free country. And yes, there are no truly free countries in the world, but being free is something we should aspire to. The US is, after all, supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.' So people here would look less like hypocrites if they stopped supporting rights violations and constitutional violations, whether it be to increase their safety or some other reason.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Driving is a privilege not a right. That's why the government issues a license. Just as one's employer can surveill what happens in the workplace, the government can surveill what happens on the roads. It's why governments of the world happily search cars. The problem being, it is too easy for the police to go from "are you a law-abiding driver" to "are you a practicing dissident"?
Driving is a privilege not a right.
I knew one of you morons would show up. Even if it is true that driving is a 'privilege' *that does not mean your constitutional rights are null and void the second you decide to innocuously exercise that privilege!* The fourth amendment still applies, and the government has absolutely no constitutional authority to disregard people's rights just because they want to exercise something the government deems a 'privilege.' This logic is simply insane, and it's killing our freedoms.
It's the same sort of logic that allows for the TSA. "You implicitly consented to having your fundamental and constitutional rights violated by government thugs by trying to get on an airplane, so it's not a constitutional violation!" You're in good company, AC; government thugs all over the world drool when they see people using this awful logic to justify the erosion of people's fundamental liberties.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How about this: By getting in a car, you implicitly consent to giving up your first amendment rights, and your right to life. An officer murdering you for saying something he doesn't like is therefore 100% constitutional.
The possibilities are fucking endless!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So the soap box did not work?
Neither does the vote box?
How about the jury box?
Any other boxes left to try?
And we could take solace in this, if not for the fact that this is now somehow considered a radical liberal agenda.
There's no we in "we didn't buy..."
Those who refused to accept "Befehl ist Befehl" weren't "we". They were the dominant political elite from the victor's side. No we about it.
The solution is to become ungovernable. This nearly happened at the time of the declaration of independence, but then some arseholes formed a constitution which people fell for, hook, line and sinker.
Viz. a newly legitimated political class.
Governments are created by arseholes who assert the right (with guns) to define the privileges and dole out licenses to exercise the same.
Just another bunch of racketeers.
Exactly. Corporations are created and defended by the political apparatus that calls itself "the state".
Soccer Moms with Precious Snowflakes.
As a spectator, I wonder how many of the recent presidents I can think of will/have written or said anything as insightful and eloquent as any of the quotes above.
Expanding it out the senate - even with all those extra stuffed shirts to choose from, how many now?
Way to put your incompetence out there, dumbass.
You don't give up your 4th Amendment rights just by getting behind the wheel. If you're driving erratically, the officer has probable cause to stop you and verify your sobriety. The officer is also able to shine his flashlight through your window and see if you have anything illegal *in plain sight*. He is not, however, allowed to search your trunk, make you pick your sweater up off the seat next to you, or otherwise SEARCH your car. And, if you are found to be driving while impaired, you still HAVE A TRIAL. You have the right to call into question the methods the officer in question used. If he violated your rights, and you are able to articulate and demonstrate it, your offense is null and void. If HE screwed up, you get a walk. And even if it's a small town, and the cop is the judge's brother (oh, hey, look, another reason the case should be tossed), you have the right to appeal. I know, I know, reasoned discourse is no match for vitriol, but it's early in the day and my hopes haven't been utterly eroded yet.
citation: WWI
Cheap storage VM.
No, I do not have the answer, because if I did I would be giving it.
The answer lies in recognizing that even though we oppose it in principle we are supporting it through funding.
If political leaders are misuses your money and the voting system is provably inadequate in changing this behavior than you are left with 2 options:
1) Leave the country and become a citizen in a less corrupt one
2) Follow the principles of Agorism and starve the beast with local barter or using Bitcoin instead and avoid paying taxes as they fund policies you oppose.
One way to stop this, prove to them that what they are doing doesn't work, and show them something that does. If you assume that these people actually want to defend America and are doing all these horrible things because they think this is the best way-
Recode.net quipped that for an extra million, Alexander would show them the back door (state-installed spyware mechanisms) that the NSA put in consumer routers.
Hasn't congress already warned this asshole that selling classified information is a felony? [[http://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/06/26/1929246/former-nsa-chief-warned-against-selling-nsa-secrets]]
While Alexander probably didn't actually say that, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-FL) hits the nail squarely on the head, "Without the classified information he acquired in his former position, he literally would have nothing to offer to you."
Which is pretty much everything, except some breast and circus issues
The problem is that "we the people" are powerless. And the ones with the power will make sure that never changes. In a civil war "we the people" against our government, "we the people" will all be labeled separatists and the military will kill us without any consideration.
land of the free
doesn't really mean that the people therein are actually free to do or from anything. Just that that some are, theoretically at least, free. I suppose this refers to the rich.
And it will stay that way for as long as Libertarians and Republicans block any attempt at outlawing private money in elections.
Likewise, the militarization of domestic police forces and their gradual shift from a community law enforcement role to more resemble a national occupation force complete with armored vehicles and heavy crew-served weapons.
A SWAT team per city / county, a few of which might have a light armored vehicle, is an "occupation" army?
You don't suppose you might be overstating things a bit, do you??
Were you in Boston on April 15-20th, 2013? Occupation army isn't too far off.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/radley-balko
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
So I was having a conversation at work the other day, and the topic of protests and the French came up. Everyone had a good laugh, because "haha those French, lost WW2 and go on protesting every weekend, yay freedom fries 'murica".
I'm appalled that when your elected representatives make decisions a large portion of the population decries, there is no sign of disagreement. I'm not suggesting murdering people, but the step before revolution, in a democratic country, should be to let your opinion known and denounce the situation. Which is what the French love to do, since they sparked this entire democracy thing with their revolution (yea, the Greeks, yadda yadda). Send mails to and call your congressmen, but more importantly, organize yourself. Protest it, denounce it, make it known, make it impossible to ignore. That's how you change things.
And if it doesn't? Then you need to admit you stopped living in a democracy, and do whatever is necessary to restore it, if you want democracy back.
Occam's Razor says your defense of Obama is baloney.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
We quite honestly do need to improve our educational system
America's education system works EXACTLY as intended, produces hordes of powerfully ignorant, fully brainwashed, obedient libtards, who know nothing of math, science, history, or language, but are fully versed in Political Correctness, union propaganda, modern anti-white racism, and the paradise of the Socialist Utopia.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I was wondering what the test for Treason is? Is it someone that shows the world a governments secrets for free? Is it someone that shows a coroporation a governments secrets for $1,000,000?
Is America a great country or what?!
Open up a history book once in a while. Look up 'monarchy'.
All rites reversed 2010
AC is the luddite here. Competent web designers understand progressive enhancement. He's advocating for incompetence because his technopobia prevents him from mastering web design and has relegated him to taking shit work for pennies, or should I say rupees.
What, you mean "family owned business"?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Which works as counterpoint insofar as one doesn't consider communist activity to also be another front of "the Illuminati".
I heard many years ago a rationale for considering such to be the case regarding that ill-defined entity, by way of Armand Hammer's questionable dealings with early members of the Soviet power structure, extolling and investing in the potential benefits of "managed conflict".
I'm not making a claim as to the veracity of this. Just pointing out that because a different descriptor like "communists" is used, that does not disqualify it overlapping the activities of other organizations with other names. Indeed, seeing a "(c) Illuminati Inc." on a particular economic or political movement would be the precise opposite of how that organization is surmised to work.
If one can fairly say that the most objective information on an organization often comes from its historical enemies who have no motivation to play-up its status, here's such a critique indicating that the organization did (does?) attempt to act on such a scale. For further information and/or amusement, from a source well predating all the current internet meme speculation...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathe...
It's true, ISIS is media savvy!
So if I think DUI checkpoints are a good idea I support a full blow police state? Are you nucking futs? Drop that from the list and I am totally with you. btw: I also support random vehicle safety road checks, helps keep under maintained trucks from crashing into me.
If you want freedom from DUI roadchecks, then I want the freedom to pull your drunk ass out of your car and beat you within an inch or less of your life.
Read more Hobbs, Mills and Locke. Your MORE free with intersection street lights then without. Welcome to civilisation.
The party(ies) itself is a farce. There is no party in power. Only men.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Driving is a privilege not a right.
Emphasis mine. Driving is a privilege. It can be revoked at any time for any cause that the elected government deems reasonable.
But your inalienable rights are not privileges. They cannot be revoked.
Police checkpoints by themselves do not violate any rights. But the methods of selection and screening at the checkpoints may.
Of course, I agree that associating checkpoints with free speech zones is a rather broad leap. It is wrong in the same way that the airport security lines by themselves do not violate anybody's rights, but the (current) method of screening by the TSA does. Now free speech zones and say, the no-fly list are far closer. Speech is a right. Travel is also a right.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I'd be up for some breast and circuses...
What's Occam's Razor got to say about the fact that I didn't vote for Obama*? My comment was about politicians in general, as you may have noticed from the lack of me saying "Obama".
* I wrote in "Ron Paul", though he wasn't running for president, knowing that my state and district would vote for Obama over Romney. If I'm going to waste my vote anyways (it's pretty clear what my district and state were going to vote), I might as well make some kind of statement.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
When you make a social contract you have to give up some freedoms.
The constitution is part of the social contract, you god damn idiot. Did you ignore all my points? Did you read my post about how exploitable it is?
The government can *only* do what the constitution says it can. It is that way *by design*. You *cannot* be forced to give up your constitutional liberties merely because you want to do something perfectly innocuous (i.e. drive around, get on a plane, etc.). Either respond to my points or don't bother responding; posting more authoritarian drivel that doesn't even look like a response to my comments is not going to do you one bit of good.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you're driving erratically
Do you know what a DUI checkpoint is?
Like the TSA, they stop everyone without any suspicion and violate their rights, as if everyone is a criminal.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I've been through this. They're unconstitutional, and it doesn't matter how much you support them. But like the TSA, the government simply violates the constitution to get what it wants.
If you want freedom from DUI roadchecks, then I want the freedom to pull your drunk ass out of your car and beat you within an inch or less of your life.
Absolutely no one is saying that you have the freedom to drive erratically while drunk. What I am saying is that I don't want more TSA-like nonsense where everyone is forced to be searched simply because some people are drinking and driving. If you want to pull people over who a cop *sees* driving erratically, then that gives them an actual reason to pull that person over.
See how that works? And best of all, you don't have to violate innocent people's rights.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
What the fuck are you talking about, and how does it relate to any of my points? Are you trying to convince me that the things I listed above are actually good because some of them supposedly keep us 'safe'? That's not going to work on me if so, because I believe fundamental liberties are more important than safety. And these things affect *everyone*, not just people who may die.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I disagree. Security lines at airports operated by the government are unconstitutional. So unless you're suggesting that we eliminate the TSA, I can't get behind what you're saying.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I understand your point. I wonder what the stats are. How many people that were pulled over in a road check and asked "Have you been drinking tonight" were subsequently arrested for other crimes? It would be interesting to know.
In all the road checks I have been through (in Canada) they ask about drinking and that's it. No show my your drivers license or anything else.
Local story. Last weekend there was a big house party in a neighborhood (100+ young people in the early twenties). A neighbor called the police and said they were worried about kids driving home drunk. The cops set up a road check down the road from the party and took 3 vehicle off the road for DUI. One was a car with a busted windshield, bumper hanging off, filled with young people including two sitting in the trunk with their legs out. Driver was drunk.
Would that be unconstitutional in the USA? Having a step daughter who was at that party (but slept in her van at the party), I was thrilled that the cops responded so quickly. Its a small community drunk driver car crashes that take the lives of three of four kids at once seem to happen every couple of years
Perhaps you simply need safeguards. You know where DUI road checks can only pursue other crimes in obvious situations like a guy covered in blood with a dead hooker in the back seat.
It would be interesting to know.
But it would have nothing to do with the constitutionality of DUI checkpoints. What concerns me is not safety, but freedom. The idea that everyone can be stopped merely because some people drive drunk is, to me, absolutely unacceptable, in addition to being unconstitutional.
Would that be unconstitutional in the USA? Having a step daughter who was at that party (but slept in her van at the party), I was thrilled that the cops responded so quickly.
Someone who was the victim of a crime might be thrilled to know that the police are busting into everyone's home on a fishing expedition looking for evidence. Does that make it right? People who are victims or are directly related to the event are usually biased and emotional; laws and rights become secondary concerns, no matter the consequences.
Perhaps you simply need safeguards.
That wouldn't fix the problem. The problem is that the DUI checkpoints are themselves unconstitutional.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Something seems off in your seemingly broad interpretation.
Ok how about a food health inspector showing up to inspect your restaurant? If you deny them access they just shut you down right? So you let them in. Its part of the requirements of having that kind of business license. Don't want the spot checks? then don't own a restaurant. Submitting to inspection is part of the requirement of the license.
Couldn't the same be true of a drivers license? Cops don't operate road checks on sidewalk randomly asking everyone walking by if they have been drinking right? You need a license to drive on the public roads and a requirement of the license is to submit to random road checks for the purpose confirming you compliance with the license requirements. Its not a road check asking "Have you assaulted anyone today?"
Perhaps what is needed is a different agency. If it was a "Traffic Safety Inspector" running the road check instead of the LAPD, would that make it different?
Its interesting.
Ok how about a food health inspector showing up to inspect your restaurant?
If the constitution does not say the government has such a power, then they don't. That's the end of it.
In the US, many things are left to the states and to the people (it explicitly says that multiple times), so health inspections may be constitutional if the states handle it. However, the bill of rights itself has been applied to the states, so you can't just force people to surrender their rights when they get in a vehicle; that is 100% unconstitutional. That makes DUI checkpoints unconstitutional. There's no amount of ambiguity here for anyone who actually reads the constitution and makes an attempt to understand it.
Again, the solution is simple: Don't punish or search everyone merely because some people are criminals. Instead, have cops on the lookout for people who are actually breaking laws. For instance, swerving around randomly and putting other people in danger. Is not treating everyone like a criminal such a problem?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So your saying that restaurant health inspectors are unconstitutional? Are you simply pointing out that they are unconstitutional? or do you agree that they should be stopped because they are unconstitutional?
I think that is overly simplistic.
Enforcement of many laws can not possibly be done simply by "being on the lookout". That's why we have regulations WITH compliance audits. How could you see if a bank was meeting its regulatory requirements? Stand on the sidewalk and look at the building? Come on that makes no sense. If you think road checks are unconstitutional, why isn't the whole process of requiring a license? Is there something in the Constitution that grants the government the power to limit and license ones access to personal transportation technology?
Look I agree with all your other points about your surveillance state and how terrible it is. I just think your going a little too far. It feels like the whole "Government IS the problem" falsehood that is floated around. "Bad" government is the problem (corrupt or incompetent or both) not any government.
I think DUI Road checks are a public good and are essential. I think its possible for them to be abused but that is a different matter right?
Democracy never really existed in the US to begin with because for one 'representative democracy' is a misnomer.
In order for us to have a true democracy is to switch over to 'direct democracy' (starting at the local level) and rid ourselves of political/corporate representatives once and for all.
So your saying that restaurant health inspectors are unconstitutional?
Why don't you read my post more closely? Particularly, the paragraph after what you quoted. Restaurants are also a public place (in the sense that basically anyone can enter them), so it's not even comparable to a car in any way, shape, or form.
DUI checkpoints, however, are absolutely unconstitutional.
If you think road checks are unconstitutional, why isn't the whole process of requiring a license?
You obviously know nothing of the US constitution. Many issues are handled by the states, but the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the US constitution) were applied to the states via the 14th amendment, so the power of state governments became more limited. DUI checkpoints violate the fourth amendment of the US constitution. The Bill of Rights says nothing about forbidding the government requiring licenses, and since we're talking about the states, they are technically (as far as I know) not forbidden from doing so.
But they must respect both their own constitutions and the US constitution. Again, DUI checkpoints violate the fourth amendment.
"Bad" government is the problem (corrupt or incompetent or both) not any government.
I agree 100%. Bad government punishes or searches everyone merely because some people are criminals/terrorists/whatever.
I think DUI Road checks are a public good and are essential.
Violating everyone's freedoms in the name of catching criminals is not good in any free country, though it might be good in North Korea.
As for being essential, well, we didn't always have DUI checkpoints, and yet we survived. I'm more than willing to sacrifice safety in the name of freedom. So basically, I oppose your thinking 100%.
Notice that I've never commented on how effective DUI checkpoints are or aren't. That's because I don't care.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Correct being a Canadian I am not super familiar with the US constitution.
However I think the analogy of enforcing license compliance re: restaurants is valid. If one agrees that it is within the governments power to license driving, you are compelled to allow inspections to confirm compliance with the license.
You don't need a license to walk the street or be in your home. The cops can't stop you and ask you if your complying with your walking license because there is no such thing. I believe cars on public roads are qualitative different.
You said that restaurants are different because they are a public space "because anyone can walk in". I think this is backwards. Operating a vehicle on a shared public road is as public as it gets. The kitchen and food storage area of a restaurant are very private by comparison. So if the state has the power to inspect these kitchens to confirm license requirements, why don't they have the right to stop drivers to confirm the compliance with their license? They are not in some magically private space when traveling down the highway.
Whole different story if there was random road checks to check, for example, for possession of illegal substances. because it does not relate to license compliance.
Also I don't think "we got along fine" before DUI road checks. I think a lot more families where crushed and maimed.
In 1990 your supreme court said that the 4th amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure and that road side DUI checks where not unreasonable and were therefor constitutional. (Granted I think they do get things wrong sometime re: citizens united).
I doubt they would same the same about the other things on your list.
Your original post reminded me of Ron Paul. He says a lot of things that make good sense, then he says fiat currency is the devil and we should return to gold....thats when he sounds like a kook.
So I do understand that it is a nuanced issue, and that YOU don't think they are constitutional. But your supreme court does and your constitution says they are the ones who make that decision right?
If one agrees that it is within the governments power to license driving, you are compelled to allow inspections to confirm compliance with the license.
Not if doing so violates people's constitutional rights! Once again, this is specifically a violation of the fourth amendment. You are compelled to do no such thing, and especially not by using methods that require searching and/or punishing everyone.
This is what you don't seem to get. You think the ends justify the means. That it's okay to punish innocent people in your pursuit of catching criminals. It is not.
Operating a vehicle on a shared public road is as public as it gets.
The vehicle itself is not public, so this is irrelevant.
Whole different story if there was random road checks to check, for example, for possession of illegal substances. because it does not relate to license compliance.
Except, using your awful logic, they could require *anything* in order to get a license. They could even require that you surrender *all* of your constitutional liberties, including freedom of speech.
This is the same logic used to justify the TSA: "By doing innocuous activity X (driving, trying to get on a plane, etc.), you implicitly consent to giving up some of your liberties." It's absurd, and there is no constitutional basis for this.
Also I don't think "we got along fine" before DUI road checks. I think a lot more families where crushed and maimed.
You said it was essential. I showed you that it's not. The fact is, we accept casualties in the name of freedom all the time, and that's absolutely fine.
So I do understand that it is a nuanced issue, and that YOU don't think they are constitutional. But your supreme court does and your constitution says they are the ones who make that decision right?
The Supreme Court makes many wrong decisions, as you noted. Here is a quote from one of the founders: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
The Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs." -Thomas Jefferson
Judges can be replaced. The people can try to get the government to follow the constitution if they are not doing so. DUI checkpoints are blatantly unconstitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't think he was suggesting assassins,
Ah. I apparently misread his post, specifically, the part where he said
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins
Yeah, you did because he actually said this:
The only thing that will work is executing all these traitors in the government propping up the panopticon. We didn't buy the "just following orders" excuse in the Nuremberg Trials so I don't see why these traitors should be treated differently.
Learn to read.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent." J. Edgar Hoover, The Elks Magazine, 1956
Yeah, that guy would certainly know about evil conspiracies destroying all that is good and decent.
If one can fairly say that the most objective information on an organization often comes from its historical enemies who have no motivation to play-up its status,
As opposed to its historical enemies with plenty of motivation to play up its status, so as to make people afraid of the Evil XXX Conspiracy against which the YYY Organization is valiantly and heroically fighting....
Oh my, the irony in this post is classic. Keep on listening to Rush Limbaugh kiddo, one day you'll get over your anger problem and you can be useful to humanity at large :) I will point out that conservatives are historically (and contemporarily) the ignorant ones when it comes to math, science, history, and language. Read your OWN FUCKING POST as proof.
99.9% right wing conservative, unfortunately :(
Ah. I apparently misread his post, specifically, the part where he said
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins
Yeah, you did because he actually said this:
The only thing that will work is executing all these traitors in the government propping up the panopticon. We didn't buy the "just following orders" excuse in the Nuremberg Trials so I don't see why these traitors should be treated differently.
Learn to read.
That wasn't the post I was replying to. The post I was replying to said this: "It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins"
Learn to read.
Learn to figure out what people are talking about.
You can find the specific post I was replying to by scrolling up on your screen. You might want to learn to use this technology.
The Hobbsian state of nature is undesirable, and although it's theoretically free it has a lot of practical issues with freedom. (It's easier to get along in society if you don't have to carefully figure out a reason not to kill everybody you meet who isn't family.) Nazi Germany had a lot of regulation, and still wasn't free. In my opinion, a lot of things the government does fall on the side of excessive regulation that reduces freedom.
This opinion is fairly widely shared, although different people will think different things are excessive regulation. Are you freer if you have laws that say you have to be able to get reasonable internet access at a reasonable price, or if last-mile providers are unregulated? If there is or is not a publicly supported health care system? If we could get people to agree on some of these things, we could start doing things about it.
For example, the problem with getting rid of the TSA is that there are a very large number of people I consider cowards who support it, preferring to trade liberty and dignity for extremely little additional safety.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There is something that stops everybody that few complain about: a red traffic signal. I take it that you object to a forced sobriety test, not the stop.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
State health inspectors normally enter areas of restaurants that are not public areas and conduct searches. Similarly, bank auditors (usually a requirement from the government) need to have free access to papers. Consenting to this is necessary to have licenses to run a restaurant or bank. How does this differ legally from a DUI stop?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Liberty vs Public good is in tension. Finding the sweet spot in the middle is the goal isn't it.
America like to deride Europe for leaning too much towards public good, but I am not so sure that the American model is working so well.
The areas that the USA leans more towards liberty sometimes often seems to promote poverty, violence and human suffering. As I am sure you know, America leads in many undesirable stats such as child mortality, violent crimes, inequality, etc.
I think a little more acceptance of the principals of harm reduction could go a long way and leave fewer people feeling like they have no choice. (As an aside you guys should have gone for public health insurance. I know the propaganda talks about "Guberment doctors" and death panels. But its malarkey. Its public "insurance" and private doctors. At least that's what we have in Canada)
TSA Screenings seem like an awfully petty thing to be concerned about considering the much larger glitches in the US culture. Its sort of like the commenter farther below who put Road Side DUI checks on par with mass unwarranted surveillance of phone and email.
As a spectator, I wonder how many of the recent presidents I can think of will/have written or said anything as insightful and eloquent as any of the quotes above.
What about these gems:
"I'm the decider" - G.W. Bush
"Hope we can believe in" - B.H. Obama
"There's something wrong with this banana" - I'll let you figure out who said that...
The only thing that will work is executing all these traitors in the government propping up the panopticon. We didn't buy the "just following orders" excuse in the Nuremberg Trials so I don't see why these traitors should be treated differently.
It might work - IF you could find enough competent assassins willing to become the target of the most intensive and well-funded manhunt ever to be implemented. Or perhaps better yet willing to become public martyrs to the cause. Shouldn't take more than a few dozen "educational killings" to get the message across. A few thousand, tops. And then just hope the message received is "you're public employees - stop being lapdogs to the ultra-powerful" and not "the proles are getting uppity, time to crack down for real"
I don't think he was suggesting assassins, but a core change to the government itself. People need to wake up and hold those in power accountable. Any kind of punishment against the traitors in government would have to be lawful, as defined by the people. A revolutionary war might do it but short of that, I find it difficult to believe that the corruption can be weeded out.
Ah. I apparently misread his post, specifically, the part where he said
Your post was a non-sequitur reply to my own reply to Immerman's reply regarding the post he replied to. You just jumped into the middle of a discussion without any apparent thought or orientation. Try learning what a forum thread is, you fucking idiot.
How does this differ legally from a DUI stop?
The kinds of health inspections you refer to might not be so different, which would make them unconstitutional. Did you think I would reach any other conclusion?
But there are still differences, and that is that the government may not just make you surrender your rights in exchange for being allowed to do something completely innocuous (and often essential) like driving a car. Anyone who supports such things is an authoritarian scumbag of the highest caliber.
Are you also in favor of the TSA ("You implicitly consent to giving up your 4th amendment rights by trying to get on a plane.")? How about we apply this logic to an entire city? "You implicitly consent to giving up your fourth amendment rights by living in or being in city X. If you don't like it, don't live or be there." It's just a bullshit way to get around constitutional restrictions. I will *never* accept this logic, so give up.
I take it that you object to a forced sobriety test, not the stop.
Yes. Whether or not traffic lights were replaced by a human doesn't matter to me. What matters is the sobriety test.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There is another difference: In a restaurant, you're serving other people food, which, depending on how contaminated the restaurant is, may be dangerous. I still don't agree with the health inspections you speak of, by the way.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
TSA Screenings seem like an awfully petty thing to be concerned about considering the much larger glitches in the US culture.
A massive, egregious, plain-as-day violation of people's constitutional liberties is not and never will be petty. They molest everyone and violate their rights merely for trying to get on a plane. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Also, the logic of, "There are bigger issues than X, so X isn't bad." is nonsense.
Its sort of like the commenter farther below who put Road Side DUI checks on par with mass unwarranted surveillance of phone and email.
They are *all* constitutional violations, and *all* constitutional violations are serious matters.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Driving a car is dangerous, too. You can do a lot of damage with one. I don't see a major difference.
You seem to be basing your beliefs on a rather strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and doesn't define "unreasonable". It then puts a requirement on warrants, for those cases where a warrant is required, but doesn't say that warrants are required for searches. I consider it reasonable to require restaurants to be inspected and banks to be audited. I'm not at all sure about DUI checkpoints, and I think the TSA has gone way beyond reasonable.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
TSA screenings are often physically invasive, and generally require somebody to submit to groping or nude photos. They may not be effective at all, and in any case provide only a really, really tiny amount of additional security. The TSA was first put in place when airliners were used as weapons, and it's been continued to simply "protect" passengers on what really is an incredibly safe method of transportation.
As a US citizen, I welcome changes that make people free to strike out and start their own businesses without having to worry about one health care emergency wiping them out.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Driving a car is dangerous, too.
The difference is that you're offering a certain service (and food) to people. Regardless, this doesn't even matter.
You seem to be basing your beliefs on a rather strict interpretation of the Fourth Amendment.
While you seem to be basing yours off an interpretation of the fourth amendment that renders it useless. There is nothing the government could not justify with your bullshit logic.
Personally, I think the word "unreasonable" shouldn't even be there, as it allows people like the fools who try to justify DUI checkpoints to twist the constitution's intentions to meet their authoritarian needs. That was a mistake on the part of the founders, though I suspect they couldn't predict every situation where tyrants would try to eliminate freedom.
Were it up to me, there would be a constitutional amendment that eliminated much of the government's powers and set things right, only allowing very explicitly defined exceptions, making it necessary to amend it in the future if it is required. I do think DUI checkpoints are absolutely unconstitutional, but people will abuse that "unreasonable" word to justify anything, as you yourself have proven.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But even if it weren't unconstitutional (it is), I would still be 100% opposed to DUI checkpoints. Much like the TSA, it's not something a country that is truly 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' would do.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Availability and access to omniscience for Wall Street should have been a foregone conclusion.
Concepts of PRISM and firewall holes perfectly coalesce motive, opportunity and rationalization.
MOTIVE: Wall Street already proves how preciously it protects fascism by funding who gets hired in Congress and what gets done at the NIH, SEC et. al..
OPPORTUNITY: Big banks, brokerages, oil, pharma and agra and insurance already own a slew of the world's most powerful computers, storage capacity and army of slash doters.
RATIONALIZATION: If greed was the Bandito in Blazing Saddles, "Rationalization!?.. Rationalization!?,,, Vee don neeed no stinkin rationalization!
For the sake of arguement. What about bars that pat people down to ensure they dont bring weapons in. Is that constitutional? I can hear you say that those are private businesses ao its different. But airlines are private businesses. What if they made the rules and hired the security to do the screening. That would be constitutiinally fine right?
There's "THE" answer, for sure: Much as Church & State were separated...
APK
P.S.=> It's the ONLY way to set things straight again (or @ least, "straighter" for the common-good of all, not just a select few on the "in-team")... apk
If airlines were making their own screening rules and hiring their own screeners, I'd figure that was their right. Not all airlines are going to do this in lockstep (otherwise we've probably got antitrust violations going on) and could can see who flew on the pornoscan-and-grope airlines and who didn't. Free market in action. Since this is a government operation going with government rules, it is theoretically subject to the Constitution.
If a bar demanded a frisk of customers, that's something entirely different from a city ordinance that required them to do so.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The problem is that if you remove "unreasonable" and require a warrant for all searches, you get the problem of police arresting somebody and being legally unable to frisk that person for weapons or tools to escaping jail. I consider such searches to be entirely reasonable, but I don't want the Constitution to be that detailed.
The word "unreasonable" is subject to interpretation, like the "cruel or unusual" punishment bit. Should the lawful methods of punishing offenders be detailed in the Constitution?
The Constitution was not written to prevent the government from doing anything evil. It has checks and balances, and tries to allow political action to change things. For example, before the Bill of Rights the only religion reference (that I remember) was that there were to be no religious tests to have a position in government. That meant that there were limits on what could be done to permanently limit new religions: if enough people wanted representatives following Swedenborg, for example, they could elect them and the laws would become more friendly to that religion.
While I do thing DUI checkpoints cross into "unreasonable", the Supreme Court disagrees with me. However, the government is not required by the Constitution to perform certain searches and seizures. The Founding Fathers expected us to use political means to keep the government in line, not simply accuse anything we really don't like of being unconstitutional. If you don't like a law, lobby for its repeal. If you don't like a government practice, lobby for a law to make it illegal. It may not work any better than trying to convince the Supremes, but it is what the Founders wanted.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The problem is that if you remove "unreasonable" and require a warrant for all searches, you get the problem of police arresting somebody and being legally unable to frisk that person for weapons or tools to escaping jail.
Sounds acceptable to me. Get a warrant. The current situation is unacceptable, and it's clear that such subjective language will inevitably be abused.
Should the lawful methods of punishing offenders be detailed in the Constitution?
Where possible, yes.
The Constitution was not written to prevent the government from doing anything evil.
Maybe not, but we know of a number of abuses now, and I suggested a possible fix. Amend the constitution.
The Founding Fathers expected us to use political means to keep the government in line, not simply accuse anything we really don't like of being unconstitutional.
There is little point to the constitution if all you can do is say that you don't like an unconstitutional law. Unconstitutional laws are inherently invalid laws.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I suspect airlines have lots of their own reasons for wanting security screening. (being of an age when I could remember what seemed like a hijacking ever other week).
If left to themselves the competitve urge to offer easier screening and faster boarding times would reduce the overall security.
I would not at all be surprised if it was the airlines themselves who asked the government to assume responsibility for security screening. I would also not be surprised if they paod a special fee to cover the expense.
I think I will go research that now