However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets. For those, we need a court set up to deal with that sort of thing, not just a court to approve warrants, but a court to handle cases brought up by whistle blowers that evaluate the Constitutionality of cases like this.
Can't we just clear the judge and have him review evidence in private? Why do we need a whole new court system?
No, this court, like any other, would work within the law.
If it's secret, how do you know? The reason public scrutiny is important is that it enables just anyone to check and see that things are above board. There have been enough examples of people involved in secret dealings lying and withholding information that we know we need independent oversight.
Anyways I dont see how his claim that the military will always expand its power holds water. The military is at the mercy of the executive branch with regards to policy and the legislative branch with regards to funding.
Yeah, I'd say those with power always (or at least often) try to expand their power. It's not a military thing, it's a power thing.
I suppose, if by "truth" you mean the kind of ideas tinfoil-hat wearing socialists believe in. After all, as post-modernists tell us, there really is no "truth" anyway, it's whatever you choose to believe anyway.
This is the case, although it makes some people uncomfortable. There is only perception. Some things we all agree on and these become facts and "truth". Scientific experiments are a good example; they are repeatable and we can all agree on the outcome. But the only way we know anything is through our individual perception. So while there may be an objective reality, it is unknowable.
This isn't the only horrific industry. You will be shocked to learn that the very base of real estate is to take advantage of people's ignorance, then turn around and say "you should have known that".
9/11 happened in spite of the fact that the CIA were tracking some of the hijackers before 9/11 and just didn't tell anyone. And it happened in spite of the fact that two of the hijackers were living with an FBI informant before the attacks. Missed connections, intentional neglect, you be the judge.
This is like a newspaper cartoon series with the artist getting better each week.
You Americans are sooooooo screwed. And it was about time too. Perhaps you'll learn to pay attention when you vote now. There are more than two choices you know.
You really don't see the trajectory of this, do you? I'm not sure what country you're from, but it's a safe bet that the people responsible for bringing this attempted panopticon into being are coming for you too. This isn't about any nation state. It's about a supra-national elite running the world for their own power and gain. It's not a conspiracy, it's the recognition of shared interests. It would be irrational for the ultra-rich to not coordinate to ensure their continued preeminence. Unless you are a billionaire, or were an invitee at the last Bilderburg meeting, what is being done is not for your benefit.
So how does this relate to "war on terrorism"? This is plain and simple espionage, most probably for economic gain.
You may not believe me, and I can't "prove" it, but the War on Terror is a sham. It is a cover for expanding US power and influence around the globe and here at home as well. It is, as Zbigniew Brzezinski calls it, a mythical historical narrative. It is designed to create a focus for the fear and aggression of the population, enabling the powers that be to manipulate that fear into acceptance of whatever measures they claim they need to put in place to counter the external threat. It is classic use of the Hegelian Dialectic, in which one defines a problem (terrorism) and then supplies a solution (war, surveillance, a whole new security bureaucracy) in order to arrive at a desired state (a more complacent and compliant US populace, more power for the US abroad and $Texas for government contractors). That's my take, anyway.
Whether the US should take the moral high road or dive into the muck like "just another country" is a debate that goes back to the founding of the Republic. It looks like it's finally been settled.:-(
The US is still here. That means they did what was needed to survive. If you don't understand that, you are not qualified to be in charge of anything.
Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the US is still here does not mean that any given set of actions is responsible for it. I could just as easily say that the US is still here in spite of the actions taken by recent administrations.
Afterall he is only reporting what any 'responsible' government already knew and did......
Incredibly false. What he did was leak a bunch of documents in a very irresponsible manner. He could have chose to quit his job and go on to tell the American people they were being spied upon. That's been done at least three times before. But instead what he did was take a bunch of classified documents and release them to the press without any redactions -- and some international presses too. Why didn't he sit down and carefully consider all the information and just pare it down to only the details that Americans were being spied upon by their government? That's why he's legally screwed right now and will likely never be able to return to the United States and be jailed for life if he does.
I don't know, it seems like he released all these documents in an un-redacted and irresponsible manner, and yet the earth continues to tun and the US maintains "national security". The US government doesn't like these leaks because it exposes the fact that its actions often don't match its rhetoric about freedom and democracy and the rule of law and all that.
It's interesting to me that we all seem to tacitly acknowledge that intelligence agencies are criminal organizations; that is, they break the law as matter of course. We know now, and should have known for a while now, that they lie to their governments and the public about what they are up to. For our own good, of course. I'm glad when we find out about this stuff because in a democracy, even a representative one like ours, the public needs to be informed to make good decisions.
It's only illegal if there are consequences for it, and if some authority can punish you for it.
Since the USA is the richest, mightiest, most powerful nation in the world, "legalities" are just a concept. There is a reason we are the only superpower on the planet. We can do whatever the fuck we want to you and you will take from us willingly.
That attitude is not sustainable. If you go dicking around with other countries long enough, it will come back to bite you. No country, or empire, is invincible.
I assume you are referring to the indirect purchase of GOVERNMENT issued debt by the FEDERAL Reserve aka Quantitative Easing?
Well. you have just about every fact in your post either flat out wrong or completely muddled. First it's 85 billion a month, and second the money flow is this:
1. Federal Gov issues bonds.
2. Banks buy the bonds.
3. Federal Reserve buys the bonds from banks.
Note this is a flow of money TO the government from the banking system. The banks are simple intermediates in the process. They don't profit on the transaction.
If they don't profit from the transaction, then why do they do it? Altruism? Because they're supposed to? Or do they collect fees on those transactions?
The idea that this is extorting money from the taxpayers is complete unvarnished BS.
Really? "We need $700 billion or the world financial system collapses" isn't extortion in your book?
Well, I do not "hate" the hype, I just find it funny.
I hate the hype because it brings around Associate Principals who think they're "tech savvy" constantly asking me if we can do this or that in the "cloud".
Slashdot Mirror
However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets. For those, we need a court set up to deal with that sort of thing, not just a court to approve warrants, but a court to handle cases brought up by whistle blowers that evaluate the Constitutionality of cases like this.
Can't we just clear the judge and have him review evidence in private? Why do we need a whole new court system?
It's funny you mention that. I have seen a number of posts over the years here that made me wonder if they were coded messages disguised as spam.
No, this court, like any other, would work within the law.
If it's secret, how do you know? The reason public scrutiny is important is that it enables just anyone to check and see that things are above board. There have been enough examples of people involved in secret dealings lying and withholding information that we know we need independent oversight.
Anyways I dont see how his claim that the military will always expand its power holds water. The military is at the mercy of the executive branch with regards to policy and the legislative branch with regards to funding.
Yeah, I'd say those with power always (or at least often) try to expand their power. It's not a military thing, it's a power thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2013
These arguments lead nowhere. There's one inescapable fact:
Electricity is 100% efficient. Gas is not.
Technology will continue to advance and the impact of building the cars will be lessened.
Electricity is only 100% efficient using a superconductor.
Of course it depends on the energy source. I purchase wind powered offsets to power my focus electric. This changes the equation greatly.
RTFA, it doesn't change it that much.
Thanks for the tip!
Someone need to restrict them. What would happen with authority and power if everyone was equals? The horror.
This, unfortunately, is a large part of why the world is the way it is.
I used to read Samuelson in Newsweek (way back when it was a decent mag) and I often thought he was not the most insightful person.
I suppose, if by "truth" you mean the kind of ideas tinfoil-hat wearing socialists believe in. After all, as post-modernists tell us, there really is no "truth" anyway, it's whatever you choose to believe anyway.
This is the case, although it makes some people uncomfortable. There is only perception. Some things we all agree on and these become facts and "truth". Scientific experiments are a good example; they are repeatable and we can all agree on the outcome. But the only way we know anything is through our individual perception. So while there may be an objective reality, it is unknowable.
This isn't the only horrific industry. You will be shocked to learn that the very base of real estate is to take advantage of people's ignorance, then turn around and say "you should have known that".
I thought that was investment banking!
Yet 911 still happened.
9/11 happened in spite of the fact that the CIA were tracking some of the hijackers before 9/11 and just didn't tell anyone. And it happened in spite of the fact that two of the hijackers were living with an FBI informant before the attacks. Missed connections, intentional neglect, you be the judge.
This is like a newspaper cartoon series with the artist getting better each week.
You Americans are sooooooo screwed. And it was about time too. Perhaps you'll learn to pay attention when you vote now. There are more than two choices you know.
You really don't see the trajectory of this, do you? I'm not sure what country you're from, but it's a safe bet that the people responsible for bringing this attempted panopticon into being are coming for you too. This isn't about any nation state. It's about a supra-national elite running the world for their own power and gain. It's not a conspiracy, it's the recognition of shared interests. It would be irrational for the ultra-rich to not coordinate to ensure their continued preeminence. Unless you are a billionaire, or were an invitee at the last Bilderburg meeting, what is being done is not for your benefit.
So how does this relate to "war on terrorism"? This is plain and simple espionage, most probably for economic gain.
You may not believe me, and I can't "prove" it, but the War on Terror is a sham. It is a cover for expanding US power and influence around the globe and here at home as well. It is, as Zbigniew Brzezinski calls it, a mythical historical narrative. It is designed to create a focus for the fear and aggression of the population, enabling the powers that be to manipulate that fear into acceptance of whatever measures they claim they need to put in place to counter the external threat. It is classic use of the Hegelian Dialectic, in which one defines a problem (terrorism) and then supplies a solution (war, surveillance, a whole new security bureaucracy) in order to arrive at a desired state (a more complacent and compliant US populace, more power for the US abroad and $Texas for government contractors). That's my take, anyway.
Whether the US should take the moral high road or dive into the muck like "just another country" is a debate that goes back to the founding of the Republic. It looks like it's finally been settled. :-(
The US is still here. That means they did what was needed to survive. If you don't understand that, you are not qualified to be in charge of anything.
Correlation does not imply causation. The fact that the US is still here does not mean that any given set of actions is responsible for it. I could just as easily say that the US is still here in spite of the actions taken by recent administrations.
Why would he want to return to the US?
Heroes don't run when they know they're 100% right.
You understand that "right" can be a very subjective judgement, yes? I think Snowden is mostly "right", but I'm sure John Brennan would disagree.
Afterall he is only reporting what any 'responsible' government already knew and did......
Incredibly false. What he did was leak a bunch of documents in a very irresponsible manner. He could have chose to quit his job and go on to tell the American people they were being spied upon. That's been done at least three times before. But instead what he did was take a bunch of classified documents and release them to the press without any redactions -- and some international presses too. Why didn't he sit down and carefully consider all the information and just pare it down to only the details that Americans were being spied upon by their government? That's why he's legally screwed right now and will likely never be able to return to the United States and be jailed for life if he does.
I don't know, it seems like he released all these documents in an un-redacted and irresponsible manner, and yet the earth continues to tun and the US maintains "national security". The US government doesn't like these leaks because it exposes the fact that its actions often don't match its rhetoric about freedom and democracy and the rule of law and all that.
It's interesting to me that we all seem to tacitly acknowledge that intelligence agencies are criminal organizations; that is, they break the law as matter of course. We know now, and should have known for a while now, that they lie to their governments and the public about what they are up to. For our own good, of course. I'm glad when we find out about this stuff because in a democracy, even a representative one like ours, the public needs to be informed to make good decisions.
It's only illegal if there are consequences for it, and if some authority can punish you for it.
Since the USA is the richest, mightiest, most powerful nation in the world, "legalities" are just a concept. There is a reason we are the only superpower on the planet. We can do whatever the fuck we want to you and you will take from us willingly.
That attitude is not sustainable. If you go dicking around with other countries long enough, it will come back to bite you. No country, or empire, is invincible.
Ok, if you say so. I haven't tested it myself.
I have a BA in Psychology and my Sys Admin career is going fine so far.
I assume you are referring to the indirect purchase of GOVERNMENT issued debt by the FEDERAL Reserve aka Quantitative Easing?
Well. you have just about every fact in your post either flat out wrong or completely muddled. First it's 85 billion a month, and second the money flow is this:
1. Federal Gov issues bonds. 2. Banks buy the bonds. 3. Federal Reserve buys the bonds from banks.
Note this is a flow of money TO the government from the banking system. The banks are simple intermediates in the process. They don't profit on the transaction.
If they don't profit from the transaction, then why do they do it? Altruism? Because they're supposed to? Or do they collect fees on those transactions?
The idea that this is extorting money from the taxpayers is complete unvarnished BS.
Really? "We need $700 billion or the world financial system collapses" isn't extortion in your book?
Well, I do not "hate" the hype, I just find it funny.
I hate the hype because it brings around Associate Principals who think they're "tech savvy" constantly asking me if we can do this or that in the "cloud".
What, are you a biologist or something?
never assign to malice what can be explained by incompetence..
From what I've seen over that last 10 - 15 years, I'm going with malice first, sorry.