Slashdot Mirror
NSA Reform Bill Backed By Both Parties Set To Pass House of Representatives
HughPickens.com writes: The NY Times reports that after more than a decade of wrenching national debate over the intrusiveness of government intelligence agencies, a bipartisan wave of support has gathered to sharply limit the federal government's sweeps of phone and Internet records. A bill that would overhaul the Patriot Act and curtail the metadata surveillance exposed by Edward Snowden overwhelmingly passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of a 25-2, and is heading to almost certain passage in the House of Representatives. An identical bill in the Senate — introduced with the support of five Republicans — is gaining support over the objection of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who is facing the prospect of his first policy defeat since ascending this year to majority leader. "The bill ends bulk collection, it ends secret law," says Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the original author of the Patriot Act who has now helped author the Freedom Act. "It increases the transparency of our intelligence community and it does all this without compromising national security."
The Patriot Act is up for its first reauthorization since the revelations about bulk data collection. The impending June 1 deadline for reauthorization, coupled with an increase of support among members of both parties, pressure from technology companies and a push from the White House, have combined to make changes to the provisions more likely. The Snowden disclosures, along with data breaches at Sony Pictures, Target and the insurance giant Anthem, have unsettled voters and empowered those in Congress arguing for greater civil liberties protection — who a few years ago "could have met in a couple of phone booths," says Senator Ron Wyden. The Freedom Act very nearly passed both chambers of Congress last year, but it failed to garner the 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate. It fell short by two votes.
However some say the bill doesn't go far enough. The bill leaves intact surveillance programs conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency and levies high penalties against those offering "material support" to terrorists. It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019. "This bill would make only incremental improvements, and at least one provision – the material-support provision – would represent a significant step backwards," says American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. "The disclosures of the last two years make clear that we need wholesale reform."
The Patriot Act is up for its first reauthorization since the revelations about bulk data collection. The impending June 1 deadline for reauthorization, coupled with an increase of support among members of both parties, pressure from technology companies and a push from the White House, have combined to make changes to the provisions more likely. The Snowden disclosures, along with data breaches at Sony Pictures, Target and the insurance giant Anthem, have unsettled voters and empowered those in Congress arguing for greater civil liberties protection — who a few years ago "could have met in a couple of phone booths," says Senator Ron Wyden. The Freedom Act very nearly passed both chambers of Congress last year, but it failed to garner the 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate. It fell short by two votes.
However some say the bill doesn't go far enough. The bill leaves intact surveillance programs conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency and levies high penalties against those offering "material support" to terrorists. It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019. "This bill would make only incremental improvements, and at least one provision – the material-support provision – would represent a significant step backwards," says American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer. "The disclosures of the last two years make clear that we need wholesale reform."
Well, according to New York Times:
I'm not sure, we gained all that much here...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
when the democrats and republicans are voted out.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
He was right, but also very wrong at the same time. He committed civil disobedience, which means he should face the punishment his actions deserve even if he was morally justified.
>> also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019
This should be the headline: Bipartisan bill renews Patriot Act for four years, with minor tweaks
In fact, I think there's really no reform. From TFA:
"data would instead be stored by the phone companies themselves, and could be accessed by intelligence agencies only after approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court"
Um...guess what happens as soon as this bill is passed? "Hey Obama, er, I mean secret court, can we please continue access all the data from those boxes we installed at the phone companies again? Of course? Well, thanks!"
It's the "Secret Law" part that has my attention.
"the material-support provision – would represent a significant step backwards"
He's right. Providing material support to terrorists should be legal.
I mean seriously, is he dumb or something?
The only meaningful change will be phone companies adding an extra data storage fee to phone bills. They'll probably call themselves heroes for safeguarding private data from the government, who now will only be able to access the data on demand.
The bill leaves intact surveillance programs conducted by the Drug Enforcement Agency
the average age of a congress critter is 62. These politicians still believe things like communism and the war on drugs are legitimate aspects of foreign and domestic policy, not just ginned up talking points from the administrations they floated.
and levies high penalties against those offering "material support" to terrorists.
Queue the age range again. at 62 the greyhairs on the senate and house floors respond more to "isms" like communism, socialism, and terrorism than they do independent research from political and social scientists. To them, politics is established cannon and they discern that which is sacrosanct and true from that which is patently false over a medium rare tenderloin.
It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019.
Blame George Bush, but really blame politicians for making a bill thats toxic to democracy but even more toxic to repeal. Im certain you could find more than half of the house or senate willing to repeal a bill called the "spy on all people forever and build a torture prison" act, but you wont find so much as a ball of pocket lint in the carpet willing to touch "patriot" act. We've built a genuine third-rail that isnt getting dismantled until it zaps the ever-loving fuck out of someone with more brass than sense.
Good people go to bed earlier.
He upheld his oath to uphold the constitution. Not doing what he said is a violation of the highest order in America.
The US government has been breaking laws for years with no consequences. Why would this law be any different?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
It's because there's currently a rather pronounced backlash against all anti-terrorist provisions right now, because politicians and three-letter agencies keep using it as a "sky is falling, please cede more of your freedoms, privacy, and dignity to the state" excuse. And people are tired of it.
Yes, punishment for "material support" of terrorism is fine in theory, but only if you trust the government to justly apply that charge. And trust in the government is in short supply these days, at least among some demographics.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
...but I have a feeling that I will come away feeling that nothing covered in it actually means jack shit.
of pride is pretty much automatically going to be some of the worst shit imaginable (having not read either the article nor the bill).
If you have to ask this question, then the likely answer is no. We cannot explain it to you. The fact that this is a nebulous contrived term it will be twisted to mean whatever suits the agency needs du jour.
You see the NSA isn't collecting data on millions of Americans... The collection happens when the NSA reads the collected err. captured data.
Of course since there is an algorithm that sorts the data and no human touches it, then they can analyze it without fear of collecting err. reading your data.. no one is hurt you see.
I think that depends on whether you're using the Chop, Mince, or Purée setting.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"It also renews the expiring parts of the Patriot Act through 2019."
No. let that fucking thing die. The PATRIOT ACT and those that support it are enemies of the american people.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I was wrong, no hope for humanity.
If someone is providing "material support" to terrorists then fuck them. Lets say Osama bin ladin is living in my house and I know it is him... and I and feeding him and giving him cover. That is an example of material support. If you're doing that... then allow me to say on behalf of the American people, that you can eat all the fucking dicks.
Exactly why is this a bad thing? I don't get it. Someone explain this to me?
Does material support not mean what I think it means? I don't understand.
Well, here's what it means according to law.
However, whether something counts as "material support" or not is, well, up to interpretation, as has been noted by a number of people.
Since there doesn't seem to be any effective oversight of the NSA (or CIA) or any actual consequences when they break the law, why would anyone seriously expect the NSA would actually stop mass collection or even give a shit about this bill passing?
The expensive mass-surveilance mechanisms and technologies are already developed and in place. Unless all the secret data centres and backbone taps are identified and physically destroyed in front of independent monitors, There's not a hope in hell that the NSA and their buddies won't just keep using it no matter what some stupid bill says.
...I'll go get the Vaseline.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
It is a requirement that you know they're bad people. So in the case of your charity example, you'd have to show that whomever you wanted to charge with this knew the money was going to terrorists.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Look how the "Affordable Care Act" was re-branded by the Republicans to "ObamaCare" (thought that didn't quite work out). Perhaps we need to persistently and aggressively refer to these laws as the "Spy & Torture Act" instead of the "Patriot Act". Better yet....let's just call it the "Unpatriotic Spy & Torture Act"!
He upheld his oath to uphold the constitution. Not doing what he said is a violation of the highest order in America.
if only we had a place where we could decide what does or does not violate the constitution... then, we wouldn't have to run off to slashdot to decide the issue, or run off to russia to escape personal responsibility. we could call it... a supreme court. i just made that phrase up. do you like it?
None. They're too fat.
It is a requirement that you know they're bad people. So in the case of your charity example, you'd have to show that whomever you wanted to charge with this knew the money was going to terrorists.
Actually, I didn't give any examples, I gave a bunch of links. In the case of Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court held that
so that even trying to help a designated terrorist organization solve problems without blowing shit up could help them "promote terrorism" and "threaten, manipulate, and disrupt".
Perhaps 18 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B could use a little work here, especially given the chilling effects on donations mentioned in some of the links in my previous post.
The NSA is already ignoring the plain language of the fourth amendment, and they'll ignore this law too, if it passes. The only effective remedy is to disband the agency and prosecute every last person involved with their crimes.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
most powerful governnment AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 other countries) in human history.
I think the Brits beat us to that.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Oh my... do you really want to talk about the cold war?
Yes, the US did undermine democracies during the cold war but only when they were seen to be allied with Soviets. I mean, would we have bombed the shit out of Germany during WW2 if Hitler had been Democratically elected? It doesn't really matter.
It was basically WW3 but played out over a generation because we were all to shit scared to go nuclear. So we had a dozen proxy wars all over the planet, did all sorts of nasty economic things to each other, and infested each other with spies, psy ops programs, and other assorted shit.
Would it matter to you if I pointed out that a fair number of democracies were subverted by the soviets as well? I think not. Would it matter if I said that the calculation was that if the soviets gained a foothold they'd use it to project power and undermine other countries?
I don't know what to say to you. The cold war is complicated and the tendency for people that like to talk shit about it is to take a forest for the trees perspective where they only want to look at one tree and not acknowledge that there was a wider struggling going on that rendered that tree little more than collateral damage.
Now, here someone is going to say "but they're people!"... they always are... when you say collateral damage the point is not to dehumanize the situation but to acknowledge that sometimes when you do a thing people are going to get hurt.
Beyond that, a lot of the democratic regimes are fucking crazy and not much use to their own people. A modern example would be Venezuela. A country that has been begging the US to topple them for about 20 years. Not that we want to... its sort of pathetic. They just sit there doing absurd things and then swearing up and down that the Evil Americans are going to invade at any time. And every time they have a problem wtih anything... who did it? America.
They are currently rationing water... in the middle of a jungle. Which is a little like rationing sand in the desert. But if your government is completely incompetent, then anything is possible.
Regardless, if you want to bring up an incident, expect it to be connected to the cold war if relevant, and the issue to be gone through in more detail then you probably expected was possible.
The issues are not as black and white as you likely expect. And sometimes there are no good answers. Sometimes to save the world you have to push some old ladies down the stairs. You don't enjoy it while you do it. But you do it because you have to.
And that's not to say the US hasn't made mistakes or on occasion done some nasty shit.
But who amongst our peers has a better record? Name another world power in history that has tried as hard as us to be nice guys. Often as not when the US is compared to someone we're compared to Canada or Finland or something. That's a bullshit comparison.
You'd have to compare us against the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the Holy Roman empire, the Ancient Roman empire, the Mogul empire, the Islamic Caliphate... etc.
That is, if we're being judged for topping countries, please don't compare us against countries that couldn't topple other countries if they tried.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your example is very poor because you've not kept clear in your mind the criteria of the law.
The issue is helping a criminal element. That includes helping them by giving them medicine or helping them by giving them food or in this case helping them petition international bodies for aid.
The law doesn't stipulate that some kinds of help for terrorist groups are okay and some are not. It says helping them is wrong.
Lets say Zombie Osama Bin Ladin comes back and is up to his old tricks. And amongst his little programs is trolling international organizations by asking for aid or citing his terrorist organization as a charity so that people can donate money for him to buy whatever he needs. Helping him do that would be material support.
So... give me an example that makes me not like the law. Because that example seemed reasonable.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The issue is helping a criminal element. That includes helping them by giving them medicine or helping them by giving them food or in this case helping them petition international bodies for aid.
The law doesn't stipulate that some kinds of help for terrorist groups are okay and some are not. It says helping them is wrong.
Then I, at least, consider the law wrong, if it says that help to allow an organization to attempt to achieve goals such as rights for Kurds within Turkey or an independent state for Tamils without resorting to violence is wrong. I do not think helping them in that fashion is inherently wrong. That's what was being argued in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project.
Oh my... do you really want to talk about the cold war?
Sure.
Yes, the US did undermine democracies during the cold war but only when they were seen to be allied with Soviets.
Seen by people with a clue, or seen by people who thought "willingness not to be hostile towards the Soviet Union" constituted an alliance, or seen by the predecessor to British Petroleum to be a bunch of pesky nationalizers?
Would it matter to you if I pointed out that a fair number of democracies were subverted by the soviets as well? I think not.
You are correct - it wouldn't matter because 1) I already knew it and 2) "they did it, too" is insufficient for me to overlook our doing it.
Would it matter if I said that the calculation was that if the soviets gained a foothold they'd use it to project power and undermine other countries?
No, because I'm not convinced that they would have gained that sort of foothold in, say, Guatemala or Iran.
Okay, lets say we're fighting Nazi germany and you're going to run a charity in the US to send medical supplies to starving orphans in Germany that have suffered because of American bombing.
Do you think the US government is going to let you do that?
If you want a closer apples to apples comparision... lets say you're helping the nazis file legal challenges against the US war against Nazi Germany... See?
It all applies.
Look, I feel for the Kurds. They should really have their own country. But our alliance with the turks requires us to not recognize the kurds. And the tamil tigars are not getting their independence this side of ever. So what is the point?
Both of these groups are more likely to get genocided then they are to get independence. If I were them, I'd keep my head down and not piss off the powers that hold sway over me. I might prepare... stock pile weapons... organize. But never give them any provocation to distrust me or oppress my people. I'd recommend both groups be loyal members of their respective nations and stop fighting. It serves no purpose.
Turkey fell once... it could fall again. If turkey falls, then the Kurds could get a nation like THAT. The tamil tigers... all I can say is dream on.
Look, you don't help terrorists. With anything. That's the law.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Okay, lets say we're fighting Nazi germany and you're going to run a charity in the US to send medical supplies to starving orphans in Germany that have suffered because of American bombing.
Do you think the US government is going to let you do that?
No, but that's a different case. Quite apart from the fact that the Third Reich was a nation-state whilst neither the PKK nor the Tamil Tigers are, and that we're not at war with either of those organizations (aside from being "at war" with "terrorism"), what the Humanitarian Law project in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project said they wanted to do was "[trainin] PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; [teach] PKK mem- bers to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and [engage] in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka."
If you want a closer apples to apples comparision... lets say you're helping the nazis file legal challenges against the US war against Nazi Germany... See?
It all applies.
Again, no; there is no U.S. war against the PKK or the Tamil Tigers.
Look, I feel for the Kurds. They should really have their own country. But our alliance with the turks requires us to not recognize the kurds. And the tamil tigars are not getting their independence this side of ever. So what is the point?
The point of what? Trying to advise the PKK or Tamil Tigers how to peacefully attempt to achieve their goals? Maybe it's Quixotic, but that hardly makes it criminal.
Both of these groups are more likely to get genocided then they are to get independence. If I were them, I'd keep my head down and not piss off the powers that hold sway over me. I might prepare... stock pile weapons... organize. But never give them any provocation to distrust me or oppress my people.
Presumably by "stock pile weapons" you mean "stockpile weapons very secretly", as if "they" find out about it, that would sure turn into "provocation to distrust me or oppress my people".
I'd recommend both groups be loyal members of their respective nations and stop fighting. It serves no purpose.
Perhaps that's what the HLP had in mind?
Look, you don't help terrorists. With anything. That's the law.
It may be the law, but, if "with anything" includes "with trying to achieve your goals with non-terrorist means", then, well, the law is an ass, and should be fixed to more clearly indicate what is, and what isn't, "material support and resources".
Please don't be obtuse, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion. If I used Osama bin ladin instead of nazi germany how would anything have changed?
As to whether we are personally at war with these people, we are allied with people that are and thus it doesn't really matter.
The Turks view them as terrorists and we have an obligation on pain of them refusing to cooperate with us to treat the kurds as our enemies.
That said, we generally cooperate as little as possible. As to the tigers, they assassinated politicians in India and Sri Lanka so... we can't really associate with them either. Also from what little I know of them, they seem unworthy of our sympathy.
Regardless, if we accept that they're terrorists then we can't help them. They have to stop.
If they foreswear terrorism etc then it is quite likely that they'll be taken off the lists. That has largely happened to the various terrorist irish groups that all forswore terrorism going forward so you can donate whatever you like to them now.
As to their objectives, it is dangerous to take their word for it. Terrorists are very happy to say that a box is full of baby milk one moment and then use that same box full of "baby milk" to blow up a bus later. So you can't believe their position outright because they lie.
It is possible they just wanted to create political problems for their enemies by bringing in international authorities.
In any case, I am led to believe the Tamil Tigers were annihilated. So that book apparently can be shut. As to the Kurds... we'll see where that goes. But as I said, they're more likely to get genocided than get a homeland if they agitate prematurely.
This is foolish. They should keep a low profile and wait.
As to quixotic political struggles, there will be reprisals from the turks and indians if they perceive you as helping terrorists in their own country. That alone is very relevant.
You want to help the Kurds? Have them publicly renounce any extralegal activities to attain their goals. That should get them off the shit lists. As it stands they're on the shit lists. We can't take them off without losing the Turks. And if we wish to have a presence in the middle east we the Saudis, the Turks, the Egyptians, and the Israelis. Those powers legitimize us in that region.
So we can't give the Kurds anything. What we can do is not kill them even if the Turks ask us to. That's about all we can do in that situation.
I understand what you're saying, the problem is that I don't know if that is actually what they were trying to do. As you must know, the struggle would be quixotic. What happens when that becomes apparent? And what if they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time in full knowledge that it is all a farce?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to the Iranian adventure, I believe most regard that as a mistake.
Are we not permitted to make those? We are mortal after all. Things make sense at one time and later don't make as much sense. Is that a sign of a twisted and dark heart full of evil and wickedness?
We do stupid things sometimes. What of it? On the whole our actions are quite rational and quite defensible. We will of course make the occasional blunder. There's no escaping that. Price of living on this planet and being another of the semi intelligent shaved apes.
As to your moral absolutism, it is unaffordable in war. Lets say you refuse to kill a baby... what if your enemy ties babies to themselves. Armor made out of the screaming bodies of babies. Will you shoot him and kill some babies?
Of course not. Because you believe in moral absolutes. So that man wearing his armor of babies is invulnerable. He can walk amongst your people and shoot your children in the head... one by one. And you won't do anything more than shout at him. Because after all, if you so much as touch him you might hurt a baby.
I am not a moral absolutist because it is a non-functional moral system in conflict. And any moral system that ceases to make sense in conflict which is a very common state of existence is a stupid moral system.
Your whole moral frame work is counter productive and illogical.
You must accept collateral damage... that occasionally old ladies are going to be deliberately pushed down the stairs or you're going to be dominated by people with a more adaptable outlook. At which point what you believe ceases to matter.
As to footholds, we did it all the time though. We projected power throughout the world through a network of alliances, vassals, protectorates, and other various associates to strangle the soviet union.
We isolated them politically, militarily, economically, and culturally. It was quite deliberate, methodical, and relentless. To say that they couldn't have done it to us makes no sense. If we can do it then of course they can as well. The struggle was to make sure we did it better than them.
Why did Nixon go to China? We were isolating the Soviets. If they built up some sort of following in South America that would undermine our efforts to choke the life out of the soviets. We couldn't have that. So every contact had to be broken or poisoned or so expensive that it wasn't worth it. Everywhere they met nothing but knives in the dark, poison in the well, and hate on the lips of the people. And if they didn't, we did our best to see it happened.
THAT was the cold war. You're citing mere battles in that war. Moralizing D day or Gettysberg as if they're not just a moment in a larger struggle. The point of those proxy wars was to isolate the soviets.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Please don't be obtuse, it makes it hard to have a productive discussion. If I used Osama bin ladin instead of nazi germany how would anything have changed?
Not much, as neither example addresses the main point I was making, namely that the HLP wished to engage in an activity that one could reasonably consider not supportive of terrorism.
As to whether we are personally at war with these people, we are allied with people that are and thus it doesn't really matter.
The Turks view them as terrorists and we have an obligation on pain of them refusing to cooperate with us to treat the kurds as our enemies.
Presumably meaning "to treat the PKK as our enemies".
Regardless, if we accept that they're terrorists then we can't help them. They have to stop.
Can American organizations at least try to convince them to stop and offer them advice on how to press their cause peacefully?
As to their objectives, it is dangerous to take their word for it.
To whose objectives are you referring? The organizations deemed terrorist, or organizations such as the HLP?
Terrorists are very happy to say that a box is full of baby milk one moment and then use that same box full of "baby milk" to blow up a bus later. So you can't believe their position outright because they lie.
As do, of course, states.
It is possible they just wanted to create political problems for their enemies by bringing in international authorities.
What sort of political problems?
As to quixotic political struggles, there will be reprisals from the turks and indians if they perceive you as helping terrorists in their own country.
Then let the Turkish or Indian government take action against the HLP.
I understand what you're saying, the problem is that I don't know if that is actually what they were trying to do. As you must know, the struggle would be quixotic.
"They" the HLP? Presumably "would be" quixotic because the Turkish government won't ever grant the Kurds an independent state, and the Sri Lankan government wouldn't ever have given the Tamils and independent state, except as a result of being defeated in battle?
What happens when that becomes apparent?
People write them off as well-meaning but ineffectual?
And what if they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time in full knowledge that it is all a farce?
Hey, if they waste enough of the organizations' time that they make fewer terrorist attacks, wouldn't that be a Good Thing? :-)
Not that I see any evidence that they only engage in the process to waste everyone's time.
As to them not supporting terrorism... they were helping terrorists. You argue that you're helping them be peaceful but how has that worked out for the Palestinians? ehm? Most of the peace talks are just excuses to call a cease fire while the terrorists rearm.
Maybe it is me, but I am very cynical about terrorists asking for peace and I'd need a gesture of peace from them. They'd have to give something up. Maybe a big weapons cache or something. Short of that, I would have a hard time taking it seriously and that would render the whole process suspicious.
As to what we can offer them, we cannot be seen as their advocates. Consider if some other country came in and started arguing on behalf of Osama bin ladin, we wouldn't be well disposed to that country would we? Same thing. You don't want to be the devil's advocate. It is a shitty job.
As to nation states doing nasty things as well... yeah but we have treaties and alliances with states. Terrorist organizations are diplomatic dog food.
As to political problems... I ask you to not be obtuse. Come now. They could say "oh they're oppressing us" or "oh they're not giving us our human rights" or "oh they're waterboarding us" or something. And really they're just going anything they think will get their enemies in trouble. Oh they're raping our babies and eating our cats! Just whatever. And eventually something will come out that the media will buy into... maybe it is even true... and suddenly the terrorists don't look like assholes and now the host government is so pissed at the whole situation that they decide to just reduce ties to the west. And who wins then? Do the terrorists win? No. They get murdered in their sleep along with their babies and cats. Does the host country win? Not really... they're embarrassed and angry. Do we win? Nope, we lost friends for nothing.
So who wins... NO ONE... Weee!
As to letting the turks deal with your aid organization, actually they rely on us to deal with that in our country and in return they will deal with our enemies in their country.
It is very much a quid pro quo arrangement.
As to the end result being ultimately harmless... the diplomatic fallout would not be. So no.
The time of the terrorist organization won't be wasted though.
Here is the first rule of an insurrection which actually what both of those organizations really are:
"If you are not losing - you are winning." That is how insurrections work. Any insurrection that can just survive tends to eventually win. Any educated power knows this and so they don't let insurrections last even if they are ineffective.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
can you give me an example of it being misused? In my mind, material support has a very clear meaning and I am having a hard time seeing it misused with any legitimacy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's fine, I think I saw someone else say they felt the definition of material support was too vague. I think that's a valid complaint. I'd like an example of it being misused though so I know it isn't just a theoretical problem.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
First off, any objection you can't explain has no business being in a court of law or a legislature.
So either be able to explain it or shut the fuck up because you literally nothing to contribute.
Second off, you did actually explain your problem... you just were so busy trying to claim superiority that you didn't realize you contradicted yourself. You say the term is nebulous. THAT is a relevant complaint. You want a more specific definition for the offense. That is ENTIRELY reasonable.
Can you give me an example of material support being used inappropriately so I can understand your complaint?
I would further agree that the capture should be defined as read rather than read only being cited when the data is examined by a human being. I agree with you.
Don't assume people are your blood enemy and start mouthing off at them, please. And also grasp that being able to explain yourself is a prerequisite to even having a discussion. If you can't explain yourself... then you're making animal noises.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You said it best when you said you don't understand. If you can't define what material support mean in its fullest geometry then why would you feel safe accepting it as in your best interests.
"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that inhibits the work of human rights and conflict resolution groups. The 'material support law' – which is aimed at putting an end to terrorism – actually threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence. The vague language of the law leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom." Jimmy Carter
Not only are you now expressly forbidden freedom of speech, thought and association. You will be considered an enemy of the state and immediately you lose any and all rights to a free trial as a result.
Define clearly how material support can never be bent to the best interests of the government?
I didn't say I didn't understand. I asked why you felt it was a problem. I feel I understand what material support means. The term doesn't seems vague to me at all. I know material support when I see it and I know when I don't.
As to human rights groups working with terrorist groups, the issue is that a fair number of them are fronts. The Palestinians are big fans of using charity and relief groups to mask the logistics for their terrorist networks. So giving charity groups a pass is not acceptable without serious oversight.
As to freedom of speech, bullshit. Material support does not silence you. If you want to say you support the terrorists that is not material support. Saying something is not material support. Speak all you want and it won't qualify.
As to freedom of thought... wait what? Are you claiming the US government is going to mind probe you to find out what you're thinking and make sure you only Goodthink? Hyperbole isn't helping you.
As to freedom of association, here you are correct... associating with terrorists can be construed as material support. However this is a gray area. Going to a bar and sharing some beers with them won't be material support. However buying them dinner might be. So it is a a very fine line there. Best recommendation is to not associate with terrorists. Honestly, I have a hard time grasping why you people think you'd get away with something like that.
During WW2, if you were associating with some Nazis in the US exactly how long do you think that would be allowed to fly? And you can try that in WW2 England, or Australia, etc. Don't be silly.
We're at war with these fucksticks. And they've absolutely no honor so we're not allowing them to hide behind Western conventions like aid relief because they just use the vans to move weapons into the area or do other perversions.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
lol. This is an administration that defines the word "militant" as meaning any male that isn't a child or pensioner. "Material support for terrorism" doesn't mean anything at all, given that the last 15 years have shown governments will happily label anything they don't like as terrorism. Bear in mind the primary roadblock that prevents the UN agreeing on a definition of terrorism is western nations (i.e. America's) insistence that people who resist foreign occupation of their countries must be considered terrorists, and Arab nations insistence that they mustn't.
An aspect of material support is that I have to know they're terrorists when I help them. If you randomly define some person as being a terrorist and don't tell anyone until our day in court... then you can't cite me for material support. I have to know BEFORE I help them.
As to your cynicism about the government, I sympathize however hyperbole in this issue is not constructive. We must choose our battles and not just kneejerk react to everything.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Courts are useless here. They routinely let governments use secret definitions and secret evidence. You have no chance.