Slashdot Mirror
Marco Rubio: We Need To Add To US Surveillance Programs (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: The debate over surveillance hit the 2016 race for the White House again on Sunday when Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said he wants to add to American surveillance programs, many of which were created after 9/11. He invoked a recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a man who allegedly pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. "This the kind of threat we now face in this country," Rubio said. "We need additional tools for intelligence." Rubio also addressed the NSA leaks that led to this debate: "Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
People like like Marco Rubio, who think that any and every threat of violence is an excuse to make nearly omniscient government through every and any possible means of government, be president. He talks a game about reducing government. If/When the government attains the power he is talking about, then what's to stop it from using the power for other "unintended" purposes. He's a politician, he should know all about power creep. And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.
captcha:tactics
Coming out strong in favor of surveillance is a bad idea. It's true that recent polls have shown the majority of Americans favor surveillance of 'suspicious people,' but among the people I've talked to, most are indifferent, some are ok with it, and a sizeable minority vehemently oppose it (this is something that I've found on both the conservative and liberal side. Whether you think "Bush is Hitler" or "Obama is trampling the constitution," spying is something you can appreciate as bad). Of the people who absolutely favor surveillance, even those understand that abusing it can be bad.
So he's coming out with something that few people are strongly in favor of, but a sizeable minority strongly opposes. Something like that is a political loser.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Advocating the need for more tools while making yourself sound like a tool--it's an interesting strategy. Let's see how it works out for him ...
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people. Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...
The only surveillance I would approve of is the monitoring of our elected officials and how budgets are spent. THAT'S IT!
"Edward Snowden is a traitor. He took our intelligence information and gave it to the Chinese and gave it to the Russians. We cannot afford to have a commander-in-chief who thinks people like Edward Snowden are doing a good public service."
See I prefer a Commander In Chief who actually treats the civil rights of US citizens as something more than an inconvenience to be trampled over at their whim. We don't need more "intelligence tools" that demonstrably do not make us any safer but manage to oppress us in the process.
I look forward to the day when we have a republican candidate for president who doesn't ear big shoes, a colorful wig and have a red squeaky nose.
Remember how Hitler was able to suspend civil liberties in Germany? On February 27, 1933 Reichstag building was burned, which found to be an arson. This led Hitler to accuse communists of the terrorism, and he got Hinderburg to pass an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties. Of course, Germany was in shock and most of the smart educated Germans really thought that this action would protect them from the terrorist threat of communists and anarchists.
That's how Hitler was able to come to power. He came on the power of the fear of the masses, willing to suspend their civil liberties in return for security.
The correct answer to crime or terrorists is not more surveillance but more guns in the hands of citizens.
Trump - blowhard asshole
Cruz - scary blowhard asshole
Rubio - no concept of privacy
Clinton - unindicted felon
Bush - aww hell no
Christie - not considered corrupt only by comparison to New Jersey
Fiorina - Enriches herself by firing people
Sanders is the only one out there who makes any sense, and he's an unabashed Socialist!
You're only lying to yourself if you're pretending that Rubio's stance is unique to Republicans.
One of the reasons GOP gained so many seats in the last midterm election is that many were upset with Snowden's revelations about how much domestic and ally-country snooping the gov't was doing. Republican attack ads on Democrats made that a key issue (along with ACA).
But recent domestic attacks have caused the GOP to flip on snooping, in general. They are now pro-snooping.
I have to give them credit for taking advantage of both sides of the issues and leveraging voter forgetfulness. It's slimy, but it works politically.
Table-ized A.I.
> And he calls himself a conservative. I am tired of these people who claim to be conservative, complaining about big government, and then turning out to be power-hungry hypocrites.
I've made that point calling conservative talk radio, and I called and said that to my House representative when he visited the local radio station. I hope you and others do the same.
That's not a small detail. That is exactly why all the posturing about "needing to do something" is all bull. Yes, it sucks that crimes, especially violent crimes, happen. But you literally cannot prevent them. Prosecute people according to the law and do your best to be vigilant in the legal enforcement of the law. Don't try to pass additional laws as if they can stop these things from happening. They can't. Even if you outlaw guns, it will happen just like this. Even if you outlaw Islam. Even if you outlaw people being in the streets at night. And based on wanting to protect my freedom, I'd rather not be breaking the law by walking around outside with or without my gun. So stop trying to pull this BS. Republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives...just STOP.
I completely agree. However, the problem is that the Democrats are not any better: in the last eight years, things have only become worse despite Obama's "good intentions" before he was elected and none of the Democratic or Republican candidates have put forward credible steps towards reducing runaway government intervention. There is simply no presidential candidate at this point that I would even consider voting for. All of them are part of the problem.
I agree that Snowden was a traitor. (not for revealing the NSA collecting on citizens, that was whistleblowing. He crossed the traitor line when he dumped other documents such as the collection efforts on other nations. That was the treason.
That said Rubio is flat wrong, and is a dangerous candidate because he is for more invasion of privacy. We don't need more surveillance. We need more freedom.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
More accurately it's more like:
"Doesn't work, but it's good political theater to pretend it does. And I need more political theater to get elected."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Um, no we don't.
I've always wondered how conservatives can justify to themselves their vigorous defense of the rights granted under the Second Amendment, but seem far less concerned with those granted under the First and Fourth.
Let's start with a set of drones programmed to follow every single US Governor, Congressman, Senator, President or candidate for any of those jobs 24 hours a day, live streaming and recording it, viewable by any IP address located inside the USA.
We can put in an exclusion for when they actually meat on top secret/confidential meetings - as long as those meetings only consist of people directly employed by the US government.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
We need an addon that replaces the following six words after a Trump mention with "Trump".
Ex: Person accuses Trump of pandering to racists, general intolerance, and fascism
Becomes: Person accuses Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, Trump Trump, and fascism
Even moreso for those who say "We need our guns to protect against the government" while also saying "We need more government surveillance to protect against the terrorists." You're making the exact government you're claiming to need guns to protect against!
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
What is it with US politics. Do these people actually go out there and actually talk to real people.
Not really, no. And many of the ones they do talk to are fairly hysterical, racist, fearful and dumb. The republican base in the last few years seems to be particularly panicky and nuts. Used to be that the republicans were pragmatic economically and had a wing of the party where the kooks hung out that could be safely ignored. Now the tail is waging the dog and the religious nuts and the tea party loonies have gained enough power that they can't be ignored anymore. Combined with gerrymandered voting districts we've had both parties (but especially the republicans) getting more extreme for the last 10-15 years. If a politician isn't "pure" enough for their party they never make it out of the primary election.
Is the fear mongering that effective that people are actually wanting this?
Short answer? Sadly, yes.
Long answer? We've got a lot of dumb, fearful people who are religious bigots and racists. They'll vote for anything that gives them a way to act on these us vs them tribal fears and the mechanisms to keep the politicians from responding to these idiots are broken or badly damaged.
All this talk of spending more in surveillance and military makes me sick. Education is where money needs to be spent. Local infrastructure, innovation...
I couldn't not agree more. Education, infrastructure, research, clean energy, etc are badly needed. A larger military and surveillance state is not. We're borrowing to pay for a military that is way larger than we need and an inefficient and badly designed health care system.
That's how government works. Oh FBI/NSA/CIA/EPA/FDA/NBA couldn't detect the baddies? Then they need more funding!
Which is also why false flags are so popular amongst governments.
That's the thing of it, we need to see that it's actually working before we even continue to use it, let alone add more.
There have been several domestic incidents where there might have been some kind of Internet-based evidence that it was in the works, most not even based on Islamic terrorism. There was a shooter at a historically-Black church. There was a movie theatre shooting. There was an elementary school shooting. There was a congresswoman and people that came to see her speak that were shot. Hell, those wackos from Nevada that are in armed-standoff in Oregon that previously were in armed-standoff in Nevada are operating, and none of those are even Islamic in nature.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but one would think that in at least some case of domestic surveillance, authorities would react to communications or online rambling to actually go find the preparation for an attack. If not, then what's the benefit? Prosecuting some schmuck after-the-fact because he supplied rifles to someone else when it's not clear that he knew what they were to be used for?
When John Allen Muhammed an Lee Malvo were caught, it was because of their missteps along with some evidence that Malvo had not realized he left behind in an armed robbery well prior to their shooting spree that they referenced in their communications with authorities. In short, good old-fashioned, labor-intensive detective work. When the government has infiltrated groups that have domestically tried to commit acts, it has been because people tipped them off to the plots, and that infiltration again required labor-intensive work. To me, that makes it look like the labor-intensive work, not the technology, is what ultimately rules the day.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Not a valid reason to not be an (R). I am an(R) a rather staunch (R). I do not support or agree with him in the least. Now if he manages to get the nomination I will vote for him as I disagree with him less than I disagree with the (D) candidates, but I will push my congress critters to block him at all costs. But know that many (R)'s are not happy with the surveillance and security theater imposed by our party leadership after 9/11. It goes contrary to the basic principles of conservatism. But Rubio is an establishment candidate, but most the R candidates are better than him on this topic. We may not agree on much, but on this we are in more agreement than you think.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
I am not an (R) because they tend to be (D) in disguise far too often, and aren't right on a number of critical issues. I am not (D), because for the most part, they are fine with using state powers to take from others. Both (R) and (D) are fine with imposing their sociological experiments upon the people without any regard to liberty (freedom).
I am a Libertarian, and support Liberty. The purpose of government is to secure liberty, but that is contrary to state power.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Hillary the soon to be indicted felon? Mishandling classified information is no laughing matter. Ordering underlings to strip classification markings to send information via unsecure email is even more serious.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
And here comes the strawmen.
The left doesn't want to confiscate everyone's guns but to confiscate hand guns (which may or may not be useful in an armed revolt against a tyrannical government) and limit other gun ownership to those who aren't mentally ill or ex-felons. Meanwhile, the crux of "can't be trusted with information" is precisely that armed revolts succeed heavily on the element of surprise. It's why minorities in Iraq under Saddam and North Korea now are in control. It's not a lack of guns or a lack of willingness to die for a cause. Look no further than ISIS.
We're already seeing "violent confrontations". Adding more guns isn't some sort of solution. Removing guns wouldn't be per say a solution either (although it'd make it even more outrageous to claim a black man was "going for a gun"--as if the current outrage and absurdity is really doing anything). The solution involves actually dealing with the systemic racism. No, it's not ironic that New York has system racism even though it's heavily liberal. Being liberal doesn't make you not racist.
PS - Not that I even support the whole "take away their [hand] guns". But the whole point is that revolts are primarily based upon assembly of many people, not individuals with guns. It's why bloodless coups can occur. It's why moles in every organization so the FBI/CIA/NSA can keep tabs on every group is so much an issue. Because just like criminals who will ignore the rules about guns, so too will groups who seek to overthrow a corrupt government. So long, though, as there isn't systemic monitoring of communication (and activities), the "terrorists" (aka freedom fighters) will have the means to collect and/or make the weapons to overthrow a corrupt regime. That's why Marco Rubio is wrong.
Socialism has been noted as taking over the attracting features of religion, that gained them followers in millenia past, like caring for poor, the sick, hospitals, and orphanages.
It is no coincidence that youths no longer care for religion when government does all that. This was noted at least 20 years ago.
Political parties are literally religions in all but the most technical sense. Andike religions, as giant memeplexes, they happily adopt a righteous feeling they can jam their behaviors onto everyone, not just True Believers.
Freedom means freedom...from others' memeplexes.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The difference is that the people who say "we need guns to protect against government" actually mean what they say, whereas the government who says "we need more surveillance to protect against terrorists" actually mean "we need more justifications for expanding the business of government".
Apples and oranges, I'd say.
We need an addon that replaces the following six words after a Trump mention with "Trump".
Ex: Person accuses Trump of pandering to racists, general intolerance, and fascism Becomes: Person accuses Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump, Trump Trump, and fascism
Well, how about eggs, sausage and Trump? That hasn't got too much Trump in it.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
He's the strongly-establoshment candidate. If you like how the government treats people, vote for him for more of it. If you'd like some reform, that basically any GOP candidate other than him and Bush. Cruz is straddling the border but he might try to make some changes, while Trump would randomize everything, and the others fall somewhere in between.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Can you point to a single bill introduced to confiscate any guns? There have been some buy back programs, but if there are any federal laws introduced or seriously talked about that would make a gun you own illegal. Changes to buying them is the main focus.
But apparently, a new law to make private gun sales go through a FFL so background checks get done is the same as confiscation.
Learn to love Alaska
Progressives don't want HillaryClinton. They want Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
hile Trump would randomize everything
Trump is Pandora's box, please leave it closed, please.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Why? It's cool to insult him, but better to give reasons. Insults without reasons are a waste of a post.
Point taken.
Hey, Rubio! I am not, even the least little bit, so scared of "teh terrorists" that I am willing to let you and the rest of our government take away my right to privacy. No. Shut up and listen. I am not scared. If I am, the terrorists win. If you assume I am, the terrorists win. If you're just using the terrorists as an excuse to grab power for your corporate masters, the corporations win. In no case is this good for me, so start acting like the elected official you claim that you want to be and represent the interests of the people or get the fuck off the stage.
How do you add more surveillance to the US without weakening privacy protections? You can add laws making it harder to get a gun without taking away peoples guns.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
A government that's absolutely trusted to confiscate everyone's guns but can't be trusted with information.
The only ones talking about seizing guns are the pro-gun lobby and all of their unwitting minions. The rest of us just wish for more common-sense measures, like universal background checks.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
there isn't a party that wants this.
You haven't heard of the Libertarian Party?
I'm amazed that people didn't grasp the implications of the Jane Harman wiretap .
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon