From DEMOCRAT Rep Henry A. Waxman's website:
Politics and science will always intersect in government, and Dr. Carmona is not the only Surgeon General to face political interference.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was Surgeon General during the Reagan Administration, was told not to speak on the subject of AIDS, which was regarded as a "gay disease." He courageously resisted this pressure.
Dr. David Satcher served as Surgeon General under President Clinton. He too faced political interference. His efforts to release a report on the benefits of needle exchange programs were blocked, an action that President Clinton has since called a mistake. And when he wanted to release a report promoting the use of condoms and other responsible sexual behaviors, he was told to submit his report for publication in a medical journal rather than release it as another Surgeon General's report. Also, may I remind everyone of DR. Joycelyn Elders who suggested teaching school children to masturbate. That went over real well in the Clinton administration. I remember her being pushed out for that.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of Bush Bashing.
And sometimes it is worth pursuing an outcome that is not maximally effecient for other reasons, a fact that people seem to overlook sometimes.
Yeah, like the services provided by those that can't afford to bribe AT&T don't choked off! Even if they do bribe AT&T, if they don't bribe other line carriers, like say, Time Warner and Comcast (or whoever owns the wires), then AT&T's bandwidth is still going to be lower because of the choked traffic coming off the other lines. Traffic is only going to be as fast as the slowest segment.
Can you point out where the Union government gets the authority to do such a thing?
That's an excellent point. Can you point out where the Interstate system is authorized by the Constitution? How about NASA or the Federal Park system? Did the founding fathers set up the IRS, the CIA, the FBI or DARPA? Can you tell me which amendment authorizes every single federally funded scientific research grant? Finally, where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can not pass laws that are not already in the Constitution?
If you really believe your argument, you must support the abolition of EVERY government program that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. If that is truly the case, I would have guessed that you would have started with something other than nationalized ID's. Aren't there much bigger fish to fry, like... I don't know... The Air Force? Which amendment allowed for the creation of war planes? The founders certainly did not intend on such a thing!
Totalitarian governments methodically consolidate power (Castro, Putin, ect).
I understand your concern, but is the LACK of a national ID the only thing keeping the Feds from tracking me? Granted, this card could be used as a tool to collect data, but no more or less than my existing state ID card. There is no difference except that it might make it a bit easier. Then again, you could say that about any tool, such as computers, and federal buildings, and federal cars for government employees, and every other tool federal employees use in their day to day lives. Should we ban them all because they might make it easier for the government to collect data on you?
A universal identity card and the accompanying database is a wonderful tool for a power-hungry politician (think of Bloomberg and then BATFE trace data). How? How does this help the corrupt in a such a way that the current banking (credit card, ATM cards), Social Security and state ID system can not?
posted a link to an article which lays out the argument more fully, but here's a short answer: It is going to cost a lot of money ($11 billion) and does nothing to improve security. In fact, it creates a single point of failure for id theft.
That's it? It's expensive and it doesn't work? Why not the same fervor of more expensive, less effective government security programs? Border security for example. The creation of the Internet was expensive and did nothing for security. Are you against that? Federal regulation on banking and the ACH (Automated Clearing House) offers a single point of failure for our entire banking system. Where's the outrage over that? There are several more worthy government programs to be against that a simple national ID standard.
Besides, your SSN is already a single point of failure for ID theft. With the biometrics built into these cards, it actually helps prevent ID theft. Of course, no system is perfect, but this is better. Isn't better still better?
I have NO idea why everyone is against this - it is NOT a big deal almost every modern country has good ID cards -
Funny, all of them are not totalitarian and their populations have rights? Why is everyone so against it here?
At this point just stick a freaking chip in me please or give me ONE ID card !!!!!
Which is kinda the point of REAL ID. It can replace your passport, drivers license and possibly SS card. Unfortunately, people are so afraid that Federal agents are suddenly going to burst out of every crevice and start asking "Papers, please!" that they oppose the IDea. They are afraid that somehow, carrying one card instead of several, will keep them from doing things like exercising free speech, freely assemble, carry a firearm or who knows what else. They are afraid that this ID card will take away all of their rights. How? Don't ask me. Why will it happen here when it will not happen in every other country with a national ID standard? Can't tell you.
Mods: Before you mod me down, why not post a reply instead and tell me why I'm wrong or answer my questions. I seriously want to know why the hang up with a national ID standard. (besides, down-modding because you disagree is against the guidelines anyway).
Wow, I'd really like to know how you determine that a cover operative wasn't covert. I mean, the original story ran under the tagline "cover operative", she had been a covert operative (as in, the CIA sent her out as a cover operative), and her mission had not been declassified yet.
Well, ignoring all known definitions (as we can debate definitions all night!) I will apply common sense:
Covert ops do not do a cover shoots for Vanity Fair
Even though her "cover" was already blown, if she really thought she were covert, then she would have gone into damage control mode, hiding her appearance, throwing out misinformation and disguising her face. Not doing cover shoots and signing book deals.
According to testimony in the trial, she was covert.
If that were the case, then Armitage would be in jail for outing a covert agent. Either way, it wasn't Scooter that outed her as the OP stated. They spent all this money investigating and needed a conviction. This is no different than what Clinton went through. That was BS and so was this. Covert ops don't do a photo shoot for Vanity Fair and sign book deals. Valery Plame and Joe Wilson were as covert as I am!
Also, notice how it was modded overrated, even though it had not been rated at all? I find it is a fine example of slashdot political moderation abuse. Here, you get down-modded for having an opinion that differs from the group-think. So much for open discussion, open mindedness or the free flow of new ideas. Here is my original post for those that have their filters set:
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"? Uh, Scooter didn't out anyone. Scooter was charged with perjury. He was the only one charged in the Plame scandal. In other words, Scooter was charged for lying about a crime that did not happen when a covert operative, who was not covert, was outed.
She was outed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not Scooter Libby.
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
Uh, Scooter didn't out anyone. Scooter was charged with perjury. He was the only one charged in the Plame scandal. In other words, Scooter was charged for lying about a crime that did not happen when a covert operative, who was not covert, was outed.
She was outed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not Scooter Libby.
Looks like you were wrong. I can read, but preview is beyond my grasp...
Well, no, he wouldn't, seeing as that he specifically mentioned things that would put people in harm's way as an exception. Well, let's see what else he said:
The only things that should be classified are things like nuke launch codes, agent identities, troop movements/orders... Stuff that would directly put people in harms way I guess all the intelligence gathering and stuff we do should be completely out in the open.
Dear Iran, we are sending a covert operative to check out your nuclear plants. Please act like he's not there. He has two kids and a wife and they despise enclosed spaces. So please do not use their claustrophobia as a torture technique. Besides, you can just ask use and we'll tell you anything you want to know anyway.
Thank you,
CIA
PS. We hope those formerly classified nuclear weapon design plans you asked for are working out well for you. Keep in mind that we have also released the formulas for all of our chemical weapons. We would be glad to post them on our web page, but you have to promise not to use them to hurt anyone. Toodles! Then again, seeing as that you can't read... Funny you would say such a thing seeing as you DIDN'T read. I don't know if it's because you are unable or just chose to ignore everything counter to your point. I'll assume it's the latter. Looks as if irony turned on both of us.
Well, no, he wouldn't, seeing as that he specifically mentioned things that would put people in harm's way as an exception. Well, let's see what else he said:
The only things that should be classified are things like nuke launch codes, agent identities, troop movements/orders... Stuff that would directly put people in harms way Then again, seeing as that you can't read... Funny you would say such a thing seeing as you DIDN'T read. I don't know if it's because you are unable or just chose to ignore everything counter to your point. I'll assume it's the latter. Looks as if irony turned on you.
What's your definition of national security? From what I hear, we're still as vulnerable to another 9/11 attack as we were on 9/10/01 and prior. We hear about Gitmo, we know about the NSA wiretapping, we know the CIA is still doing some messed up sh_t. Would you prefer that the CIA release docs on current operations? That would be kinda stupid, don't you think?
What do we not know about because it was classified in the interests of "national security." It's just another catch phrase for the masses. Like "war on terror." The next time a troop rotation ends and scores of soldiers are coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan, I want you to find a soldier or Marine and tell them that he was not fighting a war, the guy that planted that car bomb was not a terrorist, and the explosion that killed his buddy and injured him was merely a catch-phrase. I'd suggest doing so when he's had lots tequila to relax him. I'm sure you will find his rebuttal "enlightening".
The only things that should be classified are things like nuke launch codes, agent identities, troop movements/orders... Stuff that would directly put people in harms way Uh, releasing the details of ongoing spy operations would put people in harms way! Besides, how would we know where to move the troops to without any intelligence, which part of what the CIA does.
As it stands our government has a "classify everything first just in case there is a dirty little secret in there" mentality. That's not promoting national security. That's stuffing their skeletons in a closet. They found a way to "destroy" evidence without being held accountable. Uh, isn't the point of this that the CIA just released a bunch of those skeletons? From where I stand, it appears they didn't "destroy" the evidence after all.
Yes, some interesting information, but the underlying purpose of releasing it is TOTALLY dishonest. My understanding is that the CIA is releasing information as a public relations gesture. My understanding is that the agency is releasing only information that no longer matters to it, with any modifications it wants to make. Would you feel better if they released information on current operations? Wouldn't that make the the Central Agency, because such a move would require all references to "Intelligence" be removed!
Bush and Cheney have consistently claimed they are above the law. This fits the definition of a dictatorship: Wow! I had no idea that the current administration had a time machine. Not only did Bush and Cheney travel back in time to commit these operations, but they allowed the release of the documents explaining what all they did! So not only are they above our laws, but they are above the laws of physics!
Remember, the terms NSA and CIA are just names that you are allowed to know, to try to get you to think you know what the U.S. government is doing. There are many agencies with names and purposes you are not allowed to know. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are, however, expected to pay. If you are not a U.S. citizen (and sometimes if you are), you may be expected to pay with your life. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Free Masons? Is it Skill and Bones? What other secret societies/government agencies could you be referring to? Is it the same one that Arnold worked for in "True Lies"?
It's a numbers game. OBL and Al Qaeda have always had sympathizers through the 90's, but their popularity has only increased since the ill-fated invasion and occupation of Iraq. Increased popularity and increased recruitment make them a BIGGER threat. If the rate of recruitment exceeds the rate of catching or killing them, we lose. Understand now? Unless you're ready to enlist today, I'd say the U.S. military is just about tapped out in capacity to catch and kill more terrorists.
Iraq has some to do with it, but 9-11 is what gave them the biggest boost. It showed them to be strong enough to take down The Great Satan. Then when we went into Iraq, those that wanted to do something got an opportunity at bargain prices because we were right next door. They no longer needed to worry about how they were going to sneak into the US and avoid detection.
However, Iraq is very bad for Al Qaeda. It is not a big morale booster when you trained with 200 guys and 198 of them have been killed by the Marines or captured. It also doesn't help your approval rating when the best attack you can pull off is a car bomb in a crowded market or a good old mosque burning. Trust me, among the general "just want to go to work today" populace in Iraq, Al Qaeda is less popular than they are in a NY Fire station. I don't think they'll be picking up too many recruits in Iraq beyond the already bat-shit crazies anyway, and those guys were going to be terrorists one way or the other.
Radical Christians want to kill you. Some want to kill you because you break the Sabbath (what do you mean, you don't sit inside and read the Bible until it's time to walk to church?). Some want to kill you because you allow your wife to go around with her head uncovered. Some want to kill you because you allow your wife and daughters outside at all.
Really? Where? I call bullshit. So far, this century, there have ZERO honor killings perpetrated by Christians. There have been ZERO terrorists attacks (yes, that include abortion doctor killings) perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
In other words, you are either a complete idiot, totally ignorant, a very bad liar, or a combination of any of these. The Christians I know offer food and shelter to the poor, homeless and hungry, regardless of their religion. They invite any who wish to join them inside and only ask for 10%, although it is not a requirement. Granted, many Muslims will do the same, but they seem to have a hard time reigning in their radicals.
Christian Radicalism ended with the Spanish Inquisition. It's over. Move on. Comparing radical sheiks who want to see you beheaded with your Sunday morning TV preacher asking for money is so completely ignorant that it's offensive to anyone with common sense.
I'm wondering where that Orwell quote comes from. I'm reading a collection of his essays right now and find him pretty fascinating. Since you asked nicely:-) It is amazing how little has changed between 1942 and today. It is amazing that Orwell's words are just as relevant today as they were 65 years ago. Here is the whole quote:
Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. It comes from a periodical called Partisan Review, August September 1942
Get back to us when you work out how and why Saddam came to power....
Hmmmm. Let me look that up. Here it is:
In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals. Wait, that's from the BBC. We all know they are as conservative as Jerry Falwell! Let's try another source. Here we go:
At the age of thirty-one (31) he had acquired what could have been deemed the number two spot in the Baathist party. He would continue in the position for approximately the next ten years. During that time, he would continue to consolidate his power by appointing numerous family members to positions of authority in the Iraqi government. In his position of Deputy in Charge of Internal Security, he built an enormous security apparatus and had spies and informers everywhere in the circles of power in Iraq.
During this time, Hussein also began to accumulate the wealth and position that he so relished as a poor sheep-herder in the desert of al-Auja. He and his family, now firmly entrenched in the infrastructure of the country , began to control the country's oil and other industrial enterprises. With the help of his security network and several personal assassins, Hussein took control of many of the nation's leading businesses.
In 1978, Saddam had been working with othe r Arab nations to ostracize Egypt for it's diplomatic initiative in resolving Israel/Arab questions. An ally, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, almost became the undoing of Hussein's ascension. If a Syrian/Iraqi federation were formed against Egypt, Assad, not Hussein, would rise to a position of greater power in the relationship. President Bakr would lead the federation with Assad as second in command. Hussein could not allow that to happen and began to urge the President to step down. Again with the help of his family and security apparatus, Hussein was able to accomplish his task.
On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody.
A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq. Am I missing anything?
(OT, not if I'm responding to a post NOT marked OT)
Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.
Disgusting Republican slave.
Drafted? No, I volunteered. I served in the US Army and did two tours in the Mid East. I met the thankful Kuwaitis who fell all over themselves to thank me, no matter how many times I said "No thanks necessary" and "Your very welcome". I saw the kids and parents who were missing hands, feet, tongues, eyes and got to meet them. I am sad that I could not be there to stop the mass graves from filling up. I'm sorry I was not able to kill the men who shot women in the head and threw them into mass graves, still clutching their screaming children. No, I could do nothing for these people because people like you don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves. It does not bother you at all to know that millions of men, women and children were murdered in cold blood while you rely on corrupt politicians to compromise with thugs, rapists and murderers. It doesn't bother you at all that children starve or die from preventable diseases because YOU don't care enough about them to shut your mouth long enough for me to rescue these people and give them a chance at life.
Yeah, if that makes me a sick fool, then I'll wear that badge with pride. However, don't you dare sit there and tell me I have the blood of Americans on my hands unless you want your blood to be the first! I may have Iraqi blood on my hands, but it was Iraqis that did all the stuff I described above. I'm willing to get blood on my hands for the lives and liberty of the innocent. What will you do beyond going to a "concert for peace" or put a "Bush-Bin-Lying" bumper sticker on your car? Sorry, but neither concerts nor bumper stickers have saved a life or freed a society. So until you are willing to get off your fat, peace-lovin ass and actually fight for something beyond "your right to party", I suggest you shut the fuck up as you have no idea as to what you are talking about.
So, yeah, there is justice and I helped provide it.
(Yeah, it's OT, but don't mod me 'off topic' unless you do the same for the parent)
Instead of turning the US into a police state looking for terrorists lets stop making more of them. So, uh... what made all the 19 terrorists in 2001? What made those that blew up the Cole? What made those that blew up our embassies in Africa? What made those that blew up Marine Barracks in Lebanon? What made the Turks invade Europe? Did Jordan arrest and torture all those guys? Islamic fundamentalists made terrorists long before Zarqawi.
The pictures of Abu Ghraib have entirely erased the images of 9/11 in the eyes of most of the world. They are the biggest recruiting sargeant for Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Shi'ia insurgents, and all the other groups in the region who mostly spend their time fighting each other but thanks to the incompetent in chief are fighting US forces instead. So you mean that all these people that are blowing shit up all over Iraq and Afghanistan are doing so because of the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Geeze, WTF were they doing when the pictures were released from the previous Iraqi government cutting off hands, cutting tongues out, and the usual beaten with whatever the guards brought in that day!
No, I'm afraid that these guys were hating us long before Bush was in office. Abu Ghraib is just a way for people like you to blame Bush for it all. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that people who kill school teachers in front of the class are doing so for a logical reason and panties-on-head is the best you can come up with. They'll ignore Habib's daughters getting raped while his hands get hacked off, but the naked pyramid forces them to plant bombs under a school building while it is under construction.
Did universities in the United States become part of the FBI?
They aren't. The summary, and for that matter, that article is FUD. The FBI is not restricting a thing. They are just asking administrators and teacher to report anything suspicious, that is all. Nothing they haven't asked of everyone in America.
Nothing to see here. These are not the tyrants you are looking for. Move along.
its because the enemy doesn't exist. Do you really think that an organized, well financed enemy wouldn't be able to pull off any attack in 6 years? Not even bombing a school or some hit and run shootings? You think a group so incompetent they can't even do that would be able to pull off 9/11? No, there is no mystical Alqueda organization out there wanting to kill us all, thats a myth used by the government to keep us afraid and consolidate their power.
Dude! Do you live under a fucking rock or are you just plain stupid. Did you not see the videos from the leader of that imaginary group bragging about how he managed to pull off the attacks of 9-11. Did you not see him say that the original attack was to include the West Coast as well. When you go to NY, and you see that giant hole in the ground and all the memorials for the dead people, do you think to yourself, "Wow! That hot dog vendor must have laced my sour kraut with acid because I'm seeing a hallucination of a giant hole! This is almost as good as that bender back in 2001 where I kept seeing crashing planes!" Do you tell the families of those victims that they imagined it all and accuse them of being government conspirators?
Here is a news flash for you. Al Qaeda exists. Radical Muslims what to kill you. Some want to kill you because you don't pray 5 times a day facing west. Some want to kill you because you don't pray 5 times a day facing east. Some want to kill you because your beard is not the right length. Some want to kill your wife/daughter/mother/sister because they saw some ankle skin and it gave them a hard-on or they left the house without a male escort or they went to a male doctor who saw them naked. Denying these FACTS won't make them go away.
It is NOT a government plot so John Ashcroft can beat off while listening to your phone conversations with bill collectors. This shit is REAL. Don't take my word for it, go to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Gaza or Syria and ask the guy with the RPG or AK-47 what they think about your love of bacon. Be sure to offer them a pork rind and tell them how there is no such thing as Mohamed or God (Allah). Since it's all imaginary, you'll be fine.
I'm sorry, I don't take quotes from amNASTY intl as a valid source. Maybe it has something to with their constantly blaming Israel for human rights violations when they attack a rocket launcher next to an abandoned school, but remain strangely silent when rockets fall in neighborhoods filled with unarmed civilians. Maybe it's because they call the US the largest human rights abuse on earth while ignoring Rwanda, Haiti, Tibet, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela... and so on.
So please, try again.
That icc thing don't count either. I'm tired of all the "NOW" protesters. "Out of Iraq, NOW" "Open the borders, NOW" "Impeach Bush NOW!" "End straight sex NOW" "Constitutional rights for captured illegal immigrants NOW" "Free all captured terrorists to our neighborhood playgrounds NOW". Sorry, but it's gotten old YESTERDAY!
Slashdot Mirror
Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was Surgeon General during the Reagan Administration, was told not to speak on the subject of AIDS, which was regarded as a "gay disease." He courageously resisted this pressure.
Dr. David Satcher served as Surgeon General under President Clinton. He too faced political interference. His efforts to release a report on the benefits of needle exchange programs were blocked, an action that President Clinton has since called a mistake. And when he wanted to release a report promoting the use of condoms and other responsible sexual behaviors, he was told to submit his report for publication in a medical journal rather than release it as another Surgeon General's report. Also, may I remind everyone of DR. Joycelyn Elders who suggested teaching school children to masturbate. That went over real well in the Clinton administration. I remember her being pushed out for that.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of Bush Bashing.
For the really touchy-feely OS out there!
Does this mean all apps will play nice?
And sometimes it is worth pursuing an outcome that is not maximally effecient for other reasons, a fact that people seem to overlook sometimes.
Yeah, like the services provided by those that can't afford to bribe AT&T don't choked off! Even if they do bribe AT&T, if they don't bribe other line carriers, like say, Time Warner and Comcast (or whoever owns the wires), then AT&T's bandwidth is still going to be lower because of the choked traffic coming off the other lines. Traffic is only going to be as fast as the slowest segment.
Can you point out where the Union government gets the authority to do such a thing?
That's an excellent point. Can you point out where the Interstate system is authorized by the Constitution? How about NASA or the Federal Park system? Did the founding fathers set up the IRS, the CIA, the FBI or DARPA? Can you tell me which amendment authorizes every single federally funded scientific research grant? Finally, where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can not pass laws that are not already in the Constitution?
If you really believe your argument, you must support the abolition of EVERY government program that is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution. If that is truly the case, I would have guessed that you would have started with something other than nationalized ID's. Aren't there much bigger fish to fry, like... I don't know... The Air Force? Which amendment allowed for the creation of war planes? The founders certainly did not intend on such a thing!
Totalitarian governments methodically consolidate power (Castro, Putin, ect).
I understand your concern, but is the LACK of a national ID the only thing keeping the Feds from tracking me? Granted, this card could be used as a tool to collect data, but no more or less than my existing state ID card. There is no difference except that it might make it a bit easier. Then again, you could say that about any tool, such as computers, and federal buildings, and federal cars for government employees, and every other tool federal employees use in their day to day lives. Should we ban them all because they might make it easier for the government to collect data on you?
Also, it is not nationalized ID cards that cause totalitarian governments. For that matter, I don't think Cuba and Russia are on the list of countries that have a national ID standard. I do know that hose that do have such a card include Germany, France, Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. Not exactly totalitarian regimes.
A universal identity card and the accompanying database is a wonderful tool for a power-hungry politician (think of Bloomberg and then BATFE trace data).
How? How does this help the corrupt in a such a way that the current banking (credit card, ATM cards), Social Security and state ID system can not?
posted a link to an article which lays out the argument more fully, but here's a short answer: It is going to cost a lot of money ($11 billion) and does nothing to improve security. In fact, it creates a single point of failure for id theft.
That's it? It's expensive and it doesn't work? Why not the same fervor of more expensive, less effective government security programs? Border security for example. The creation of the Internet was expensive and did nothing for security. Are you against that? Federal regulation on banking and the ACH (Automated Clearing House) offers a single point of failure for our entire banking system. Where's the outrage over that? There are several more worthy government programs to be against that a simple national ID standard.
Besides, your SSN is already a single point of failure for ID theft. With the biometrics built into these cards, it actually helps prevent ID theft. Of course, no system is perfect, but this is better. Isn't better still better?
I have NO idea why everyone is against this - it is NOT a big deal almost every modern country has good ID cards -
Funny, all of them are not totalitarian and their populations have rights? Why is everyone so against it here?
At this point just stick a freaking chip in me please or give me ONE ID card !!!!!
Which is kinda the point of REAL ID. It can replace your passport, drivers license and possibly SS card. Unfortunately, people are so afraid that Federal agents are suddenly going to burst out of every crevice and start asking "Papers, please!" that they oppose the IDea. They are afraid that somehow, carrying one card instead of several, will keep them from doing things like exercising free speech, freely assemble, carry a firearm or who knows what else. They are afraid that this ID card will take away all of their rights. How? Don't ask me. Why will it happen here when it will not happen in every other country with a national ID standard? Can't tell you.
Mods:
Before you mod me down, why not post a reply instead and tell me why I'm wrong or answer my questions. I seriously want to know why the hang up with a national ID standard. (besides, down-modding because you disagree is against the guidelines anyway).
OK, I don't think I would actually make a copy and take it home, but I'd certainly check it out.
Well, wouldn't you?
Wow, I'd really like to know how you determine that a cover operative wasn't covert. I mean, the original story ran under the tagline "cover operative", she had been a covert operative (as in, the CIA sent her out as a cover operative), and her mission had not been declassified yet.
Well, ignoring all known definitions (as we can debate definitions all night!) I will apply common sense:
Covert ops do not do a cover shoots for Vanity Fair
Even though her "cover" was already blown, if she really thought she were covert, then she would have gone into damage control mode, hiding her appearance, throwing out misinformation and disguising her face. Not doing cover shoots and signing book deals.
If that were the case, then Armitage would be in jail for outing a covert agent. Either way, it wasn't Scooter that outed her as the OP stated. They spent all this money investigating and needed a conviction. This is no different than what Clinton went through. That was BS and so was this. Covert ops don't do a photo shoot for Vanity Fair and sign book deals. Valery Plame and Joe Wilson were as covert as I am!
Also, notice how it was modded overrated, even though it had not been rated at all? I find it is a fine example of slashdot political moderation abuse. Here, you get down-modded for having an opinion that differs from the group-think. So much for open discussion, open mindedness or the free flow of new ideas. Here is my original post for those that have their filters set: How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"? Uh, Scooter didn't out anyone. Scooter was charged with perjury. He was the only one charged in the Plame scandal. In other words, Scooter was charged for lying about a crime that did not happen when a covert operative, who was not covert, was outed.
She was outed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not Scooter Libby.
How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?
Uh, Scooter didn't out anyone. Scooter was charged with perjury. He was the only one charged in the Plame scandal. In other words, Scooter was charged for lying about a crime that did not happen when a covert operative, who was not covert, was outed.
She was outed by Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, not Scooter Libby.
Well, no, he wouldn't, seeing as that he specifically mentioned things that would put people in harm's way as an exception.
Well, let's see what else he said: The only things that should be classified are things like nuke launch codes, agent identities, troop movements/orders... Stuff that would directly put people in harms way I guess all the intelligence gathering and stuff we do should be completely out in the open. Dear Iran, we are sending a covert operative to check out your nuclear plants. Please act like he's not there. He has two kids and a wife and they despise enclosed spaces. So please do not use their claustrophobia as a torture technique. Besides, you can just ask use and we'll tell you anything you want to know anyway.
Thank you,
CIA
PS. We hope those formerly classified nuclear weapon design plans you asked for are working out well for you. Keep in mind that we have also released the formulas for all of our chemical weapons. We would be glad to post them on our web page, but you have to promise not to use them to hurt anyone. Toodles! Then again, seeing as that you can't read...
Funny you would say such a thing seeing as you DIDN'T read. I don't know if it's because you are unable or just chose to ignore everything counter to your point. I'll assume it's the latter. Looks as if irony turned on both of us.
Well, let's see what else he said: The only things that should be classified are things like nuke launch codes, agent identities, troop movements/orders... Stuff that would directly put people in harms way Then again, seeing as that you can't read...
Funny you would say such a thing seeing as you DIDN'T read. I don't know if it's because you are unable or just chose to ignore everything counter to your point. I'll assume it's the latter. Looks as if irony turned on you.
OK, Moulder, put your shiny hat away now.
It's a numbers game. OBL and Al Qaeda have always had sympathizers through the 90's, but their popularity has only increased since the ill-fated invasion and occupation of Iraq. Increased popularity and increased recruitment make them a BIGGER threat. If the rate of recruitment exceeds the rate of catching or killing them, we lose. Understand now? Unless you're ready to enlist today, I'd say the U.S. military is just about tapped out in capacity to catch and kill more terrorists.
Iraq has some to do with it, but 9-11 is what gave them the biggest boost. It showed them to be strong enough to take down The Great Satan. Then when we went into Iraq, those that wanted to do something got an opportunity at bargain prices because we were right next door. They no longer needed to worry about how they were going to sneak into the US and avoid detection.
However, Iraq is very bad for Al Qaeda. It is not a big morale booster when you trained with 200 guys and 198 of them have been killed by the Marines or captured. It also doesn't help your approval rating when the best attack you can pull off is a car bomb in a crowded market or a good old mosque burning. Trust me, among the general "just want to go to work today" populace in Iraq, Al Qaeda is less popular than they are in a NY Fire station. I don't think they'll be picking up too many recruits in Iraq beyond the already bat-shit crazies anyway, and those guys were going to be terrorists one way or the other.
Radical Christians want to kill you. Some want to kill you because you break the Sabbath (what do you mean, you don't sit inside and read the Bible until it's time to walk to church?). Some want to kill you because you allow your wife to go around with her head uncovered. Some want to kill you because you allow your wife and daughters outside at all.
Really? Where? I call bullshit. So far, this century, there have ZERO honor killings perpetrated by Christians. There have been ZERO terrorists attacks (yes, that include abortion doctor killings) perpetrated in the name of Christianity.
In other words, you are either a complete idiot, totally ignorant, a very bad liar, or a combination of any of these. The Christians I know offer food and shelter to the poor, homeless and hungry, regardless of their religion. They invite any who wish to join them inside and only ask for 10%, although it is not a requirement. Granted, many Muslims will do the same, but they seem to have a hard time reigning in their radicals.
Christian Radicalism ended with the Spanish Inquisition. It's over. Move on. Comparing radical sheiks who want to see you beheaded with your Sunday morning TV preacher asking for money is so completely ignorant that it's offensive to anyone with common sense.
Since you asked nicely
It is amazing how little has changed between 1942 and today. It is amazing that Orwell's words are just as relevant today as they were 65 years ago.
Here is the whole quote: Pacifism. Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' station which serves out pacifist propaganda indistinguishable from that of the P.P.U. They would stimulate pacifism in Russia as well if they could, but in that case they have tougher babies to deal with. In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted; in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism. It comes from a periodical called Partisan Review, August September 1942
A link to the whole Orwell article:
Pacifism and the War
Hmmmm. Let me look that up. Here it is: In 1979, Saddam achieved his ambition of becoming head of state. The new president started as he intended to go on - putting to death dozens of his rivals. Wait, that's from the BBC. We all know they are as conservative as Jerry Falwell! Let's try another source. Here we go: At the age of thirty-one (31) he had acquired what could have been deemed the number two spot in the Baathist party. He would continue in the position for approximately the next ten years. During that time, he would continue to consolidate his power by appointing numerous family members to positions of authority in the Iraqi government. In his position of Deputy in Charge of Internal Security, he built an enormous security apparatus and had spies and informers everywhere in the circles of power in Iraq.
During this time, Hussein also began to accumulate the wealth and position that he so relished as a poor sheep-herder in the desert of al-Auja. He and his family, now firmly entrenched in the infrastructure of the country , began to control the country's oil and other industrial enterprises. With the help of his security network and several personal assassins, Hussein took control of many of the nation's leading businesses.
In 1978, Saddam had been working with othe r Arab nations to ostracize Egypt for it's diplomatic initiative in resolving Israel/Arab questions. An ally, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria, almost became the undoing of Hussein's ascension. If a Syrian/Iraqi federation were formed against Egypt, Assad, not Hussein, would rise to a position of greater power in the relationship. President Bakr would lead the federation with Assad as second in command. Hussein could not allow that to happen and began to urge the President to step down. Again with the help of his family and security apparatus, Hussein was able to accomplish his task.
On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody.
A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq. Am I missing anything?
(OT, not if I'm responding to a post NOT marked OT)
You are a sick fool.
Your hands are covered in the blood of both Americans and Iraqis. If there were any justice, you'd get drafted. Instead, you've got all the Rush Limbo you can eat.
Disgusting Republican slave.
Drafted? No, I volunteered. I served in the US Army and did two tours in the Mid East. I met the thankful Kuwaitis who fell all over themselves to thank me, no matter how many times I said "No thanks necessary" and "Your very welcome". I saw the kids and parents who were missing hands, feet, tongues, eyes and got to meet them. I am sad that I could not be there to stop the mass graves from filling up. I'm sorry I was not able to kill the men who shot women in the head and threw them into mass graves, still clutching their screaming children. No, I could do nothing for these people because people like you don't give a shit about anyone but yourselves. It does not bother you at all to know that millions of men, women and children were murdered in cold blood while you rely on corrupt politicians to compromise with thugs, rapists and murderers. It doesn't bother you at all that children starve or die from preventable diseases because YOU don't care enough about them to shut your mouth long enough for me to rescue these people and give them a chance at life.
Yeah, if that makes me a sick fool, then I'll wear that badge with pride. However, don't you dare sit there and tell me I have the blood of Americans on my hands unless you want your blood to be the first! I may have Iraqi blood on my hands, but it was Iraqis that did all the stuff I described above. I'm willing to get blood on my hands for the lives and liberty of the innocent. What will you do beyond going to a "concert for peace" or put a "Bush-Bin-Lying" bumper sticker on your car? Sorry, but neither concerts nor bumper stickers have saved a life or freed a society. So until you are willing to get off your fat, peace-lovin ass and actually fight for something beyond "your right to party", I suggest you shut the fuck up as you have no idea as to what you are talking about.
So, yeah, there is justice and I helped provide it.
(Yeah, it's OT, but don't mod me 'off topic' unless you do the same for the parent)
Instead of turning the US into a police state looking for terrorists lets stop making more of them.
So, uh... what made all the 19 terrorists in 2001? What made those that blew up the Cole? What made those that blew up our embassies in Africa? What made those that blew up Marine Barracks in Lebanon? What made the Turks invade Europe? Did Jordan arrest and torture all those guys? Islamic fundamentalists made terrorists long before Zarqawi.
The pictures of Abu Ghraib have entirely erased the images of 9/11 in the eyes of most of the world. They are the biggest recruiting sargeant for Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, the Shi'ia insurgents, and all the other groups in the region who mostly spend their time fighting each other but thanks to the incompetent in chief are fighting US forces instead.
So you mean that all these people that are blowing shit up all over Iraq and Afghanistan are doing so because of the pictures from Abu Ghraib? Geeze, WTF were they doing when the pictures were released from the previous Iraqi government cutting off hands, cutting tongues out, and the usual beaten with whatever the guards brought in that day!
No, I'm afraid that these guys were hating us long before Bush was in office. Abu Ghraib is just a way for people like you to blame Bush for it all. It makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to think that people who kill school teachers in front of the class are doing so for a logical reason and panties-on-head is the best you can come up with. They'll ignore Habib's daughters getting raped while his hands get hacked off, but the naked pyramid forces them to plant bombs under a school building while it is under construction.
Did universities in the United States become part of the FBI?
They aren't. The summary, and for that matter, that article is FUD. The FBI is not restricting a thing. They are just asking administrators and teacher to report anything suspicious, that is all. Nothing they haven't asked of everyone in America.
Nothing to see here. These are not the tyrants you are looking for. Move along.
its because the enemy doesn't exist. Do you really think that an organized, well financed enemy wouldn't be able to pull off any attack in 6 years? Not even bombing a school or some hit and run shootings? You think a group so incompetent they can't even do that would be able to pull off 9/11? No, there is no mystical Alqueda organization out there wanting to kill us all, thats a myth used by the government to keep us afraid and consolidate their power.
Dude! Do you live under a fucking rock or are you just plain stupid. Did you not see the videos from the leader of that imaginary group bragging about how he managed to pull off the attacks of 9-11. Did you not see him say that the original attack was to include the West Coast as well. When you go to NY, and you see that giant hole in the ground and all the memorials for the dead people, do you think to yourself, "Wow! That hot dog vendor must have laced my sour kraut with acid because I'm seeing a hallucination of a giant hole! This is almost as good as that bender back in 2001 where I kept seeing crashing planes!" Do you tell the families of those victims that they imagined it all and accuse them of being government conspirators?
Here is a news flash for you. Al Qaeda exists. Radical Muslims what to kill you. Some want to kill you because you don't pray 5 times a day facing west. Some want to kill you because you don't pray 5 times a day facing east. Some want to kill you because your beard is not the right length. Some want to kill your wife/daughter/mother/sister because they saw some ankle skin and it gave them a hard-on or they left the house without a male escort or they went to a male doctor who saw them naked. Denying these FACTS won't make them go away.
It is NOT a government plot so John Ashcroft can beat off while listening to your phone conversations with bill collectors. This shit is REAL. Don't take my word for it, go to Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Gaza or Syria and ask the guy with the RPG or AK-47 what they think about your love of bacon. Be sure to offer them a pork rind and tell them how there is no such thing as Mohamed or God (Allah). Since it's all imaginary, you'll be fine.
Here's the quote from Amnesty International site:
I'm sorry, I don't take quotes from amNASTY intl as a valid source. Maybe it has something to with their constantly blaming Israel for human rights violations when they attack a rocket launcher next to an abandoned school, but remain strangely silent when rockets fall in neighborhoods filled with unarmed civilians. Maybe it's because they call the US the largest human rights abuse on earth while ignoring Rwanda, Haiti, Tibet, China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela... and so on.
So please, try again.
That icc thing don't count either. I'm tired of all the "NOW" protesters. "Out of Iraq, NOW" "Open the borders, NOW" "Impeach Bush NOW!" "End straight sex NOW" "Constitutional rights for captured illegal immigrants NOW" "Free all captured terrorists to our neighborhood playgrounds NOW". Sorry, but it's gotten old YESTERDAY!