Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

FBI Widens Use of National Security Letters 379

An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post reports that the FBI has drastically increased its use of National Security Letters (NSL), which permit it to collect information without judicial oversight. According to the article, the use of NSLs is up by a factor of 100, and the records are kept forever (in the past they were thrown away if the subject was cleared). Deep in the article, the author reports that NSLs were used to collect records '[...] of every hotel guest, everyone who rented a car or truck, every lease on a storage space, and every airplane passenger who landed in [Las Vegas]' for a two week period, in response to a terrorism threat in 2003. Those records, apparently, will be kept forever by the federal government. There's an ombudsman, and a procedure to resolve complaints, but the mere existence of an NSL is secret, so it's not clear how anyone can complain!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Widens Use of National Security Letters

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:40PM (#13964490)
    That's SO inefficient. It's better to attach a RFID/GPS to every egg.
  • Tourisme (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Councilor Hart ( 673770 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:42PM (#13964504)
    Another reason not to visit America.
    When I was a kid I wanted nothing more than to emigrate to the US of A. At the moment, I don't even want to visit it as a tourist.
    How things can change in less than a decade...
  • by fuzzy12345 ( 745891 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:45PM (#13964522)
    Langley, Fort Meade, and Washington D.C.

    Did you guys really vote for all this, um, stuff? Take your country back.

  • Sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:49PM (#13964536) Homepage Journal
    When we have sensible Supreme Court justices installed, who understand we're at war with an ideology that will never die, national security rules by the president will never be subverted by the meddlesome Congress. Or the people, who don't know enough about security intelligence to keep ourselves safe by electing Congressmembers. We need more justices like Roberts who insist on the privilege of the president to keep us safe, and out of the danger of risky "due process". Too bad we can't get Miers back, who saw the towering intelligence of our current defender. But Alito's committment to the security power of the supreme executive should keep us perfectly safe.
  • uuugh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by seabreezemm ( 577723 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:56PM (#13964584)
    Welcome to Amerika, please surrender your rights here!
  • by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:57PM (#13964596) Journal
    Only criminals will go to the trouble to avoid being caught in such a web of information collection, leaving innocent private citizens as the only victims in this process.

    Like is said for gun control laws, if you outlaw it, only the criminals will have it. This sort of crap will ensure that only criminals are outside of the jurisdiction of legal daily surveilance, thus achieving nothing but ill will and a semi-police state.

    If you think this is a troll, try again... When the government invents a reason to spy on you without your permission or that of the courts, they have found a way to be the big brother that we all despise and fear. Never mind tin-foil hats, when they know what you had for breakfast without having to lift a finger, the tin-foil hat does no good.

    How long will it be before it is made illegal to thwart such efforts by use of misleading electronic activities, and botnets that spoil the information gathered with false information and misleading information. How long before identity theft is not the real problem, but being accused of anti-american activities is the problem because of clever botnets that have seeded the government databases with information about you and your activities?

    Where is the oversight to stop the government from doing that, then arresting you on trumped up charges based on bad information... damn, the US started an entire war on bad information...

    FSCK, this is bad!
  • Who can complain? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadVulcan ( 182139 ) <dead,vulcan&pobox,com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:58PM (#13964602)

    ...the mere existence of an NSL is secret, so it's not clear how anyone can complain!

    There's an easy solution.

    Everyone should complain.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @04:58PM (#13964607)
    I recall posts from about 7 years ago where our American brethren would profusely claim such laws would (could) never exist in the U.S., and it was kind of comforting to know such a human-rights haven existed (contrast: we don't have a bill of rights in Australia).

    But it's frightening how Uncle Sam has managed to sidestep such safeguards in the name of "national security".

    I shake my head in disgust when I think of the governments trouncing basic rights to protect us against a threat that claims as many people per decade as cancer does in one day !!
  • looking closer... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xeoron ( 639412 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:03PM (#13964647) Homepage
    I think the submitter missed an important part of the article, which is this quote[ ...In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined. ...]

    This lack of respect to privacy is troubling....

  • by raoul666 ( 870362 ) <pi...rocks@@@gmail...com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:05PM (#13964657)
    Two points. One, you signed up willingly. Two, your credit card company doesn't have the power to tap your phone, arrest you, or interrogate you.
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:4, Insightful)

    by patricksevenlee ( 679708 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:05PM (#13964661)
    Another reason not to visit America. When I was a kid I wanted nothing more than to emigrate to the US of A. At the moment, I don't even want to visit it as a tourist. How things can change in less than a decade...

    Right before 9/11, I was offered a job in the US, but it fell through (guess for what reason) and at the time, it was really difficult because I wanted to leave Canada for the US. Looking back now, the job not coming through is the best thing that could have happened to me because I definitely would be making a quick exit out of the US of A.

    As well, I used to love driving to Buffalo, NY to spend money shopping, and took yearly vacations to places like Florida and Alaska, but since 9/11, I have not even come close to American soil. The last thing I need is to be body cavity searched or interrogated. Sure, I have nothing to hide, it doesn't mean I want to submit myself to a complete loss of my personal freedoms. America, it's been a slice, I hope one day you'll become a place of freedom again, when it does, I'll be the first in line to come over to celebrate.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:06PM (#13964666)
    And I thought the FBI was wasting time on porn cases and such, but the waste of time and effort that must of gone into that vegas data mining with such a wide net was epic. What could they hope to have found, considering the FBI hasn't managed to handle their other low level basic database problems so well. And considering all these false alarms they get as they roust people all over the world. Our street-level intelligence is truly clueless and out of touch and adding the epic waste of mass data mining is surely going to have the FBI chasing ghosts as our freedoms erode.
  • The thing is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:35PM (#13964837)
    Vegas is probably the most surveilled city in the U.S. Keeping rental car records and hotel receipts pales in comparison to the information stored by the casinos. What's frightening is that the government collecting such information about ordinary Americans doesn't amount to much on its own in terms of fighting terrorism, but it would offer unscrupulous feds a convenient database of information for blackmail purposes (as well as for a variety of investigations, both legal and illegal). A call by the feds to your hotel/casino could probably garner fairly detailed information about your activities in the city, including video of most of your public activities on the strip and in many cases even your activities in your room. Again, if the suspect isn't holding a terrorist or mafia meeting in Vegas, such information is probably not worth much for investigative purposes, but imagine its utility for blackmail purposes.
  • by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:43PM (#13964905) Homepage Journal
    No one who dies of cancer does so in a fiery ball that destroys a Billion dollars worth of infrastructure.

    No, but when you add up the $100,000+ treatment costs of the millions of uninsured Americans who do get cancer that the government pays... well, guess what? Billions of dollars.
  • Forget Bin Laden! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elrac ( 314784 ) <carl AT smotricz DOT com> on Sunday November 06, 2005 @05:47PM (#13964922) Homepage Journal
    GWB and his administration are the most dangerous threat that the Constitution and the American Way of Life have faced in the past century, easily topping even McCarthy.

    To quote one 'Madpride' from another board:
    Somebody hurry up and give George Bush a blowjob so we can impeach his worthless ass!
  • by alphorn ( 667624 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:12PM (#13965057)
    In the last ten years, traffic has killed about 400.000 Americans. Terrorism has killed less than 4.000. I'm still amazed how the American public is prepared the give up all kinds of civil liberties just to fight the risk that is 100 times smaller, not to mention that the success chances are doubtful. Accepting a small - tiny! - terrorism threat is a small price to pay for a free society.
  • by Councilor Hart ( 673770 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:12PM (#13965058)
    There is some difference between a nickname on /. and having a full cavity search when entering the states.
    It's not just this one thing. It's everything. The more I learn about and watch develop the current shape of the USA, the less I like it. The less I want to cross the atlantic, the less I want to be an American.
    There is also a difference between the EU, where I have a right to view the data they have on me (and have it alter if necessary) and the US, where privacy is being eroded. And everything happens in back rooms, under the pretence of terrorism, deepening the culture of fear.
    Was the culture of fear the best the states could create the last few hundred years?
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IdleTime ( 561841 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:13PM (#13965067) Journal
    Well, I've been living in USA since 1999 and over the years I have realized that USA:
    - Is not free
    - Is not democractic
    - Don't have free speech
    - Has more criminals than any other country and put a larger percent of it's population behind bars than any other country.
    - Has a cruel and barbaric justice system
    - Has a completly corrupt and criminal political system
    - Has more poverty than any other 1st world country
    - Has an increasingly horrible education system
    - Have their own world history which differs quite a bit from the history that the rest of the world knows.
    - Indoctrinates it's people about the same as old Soviet Union did and about the same as todays North Korea and China.

    I cpuld go on and on about these things but I'll stop here. Now I will be labeled as a USA hater, when it is the opposite. I actually love USA enough to care about what it does and how it is conceived around the world. If you hate USA, the current course if fine and you really don't have to say anything, just continue to support it's actions. That is hating USA when you really don't care what the rest of the world thinks.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:20PM (#13965122)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Fallingcow ( 213461 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:22PM (#13965127) Homepage
    Have you seen any terrorism here in the states since 9/11?

    Yes.

    Antrax (we still don't know what happened with that, right? Yeah, we're sure doing a bang-up job fighting terrorism), DC shooter, happy-face mailbox bomber (that was post-9/11, right? or was it right before? If it was the latter, then disregard it, obviously)

    We had a major attack in '93, and another in '95 (IIRC), so that was a 2-year gap followed by a 6-year gap ('95-'01), and the second one was domestic terrorism, so it was 8 years between "Al Qaeda" attacks. Yes, there were the embassy bombings, but putting aside that whole "embassies are technically US territory" thing, those were in other countries, and we've certainly lost a lot of people in foreign countries to similar attacks since 9/11, in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    It's only been 4 years since 9/11. If we go another 4 or 5 without a foreign-origininating attack, we'll be doing OK I suppose, though with only 2 prior major foreign attacks to work with, it's not like we've got enough data points to say much about this anyway, so arguments either way using this information are rather pointless. It could be that the 8-year span was an unusually short one anyway, or maybe unusually long. There's no way to tell.
  • by ThreeE ( 786934 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:38PM (#13965213)
    All before 2001 or not in the states. Fact is, the current administration is doing great -- and that makes those abroad that don't like a unipolar world upset; and it makes those on the left domestically jealous. Iraq has been expensive -- more than 2,000 American soldiers -- but that chaos and killing is over there -- not here. And it would have been there and larger if we wouldn't have gone to Iraq anyway. Too bad the world doesn't recognize the sacrifice our sons and daughters have made for them.

    Most people in the states don't worry about these "privacy issues." If they ever result in a true infringement of rights, they'll get repealed. Most likely they won't even come close. Why do I really care if someone in the government knows I was in Las Vegas on some date? The answer: I don't. I'd rather just make it easier for them to catch Ali trying to blow up my office.
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:2, Insightful)

    by adsl ( 595429 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:42PM (#13965247)
    What makes you think that your own country does not collect personal data also?
  • by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @06:50PM (#13965301) Journal
    The fear of having a traffic accident is one that many have faced successfully; the fear of being a victim of a terrorist attack is one that very few have faced.

    Of course, once you realize that it's just as likely for somebody to walk down the street and gun you down for no reason, you get a little perspective.

    The only way to beat fear is to confront the fear; hiding from the feared thing only makes it worse.
  • by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @07:04PM (#13965386)
    >Did you guys really vote for all this, um, stuff? Take your country back.

    Do you really think the average voter has any idea what a national security letter might be and if they did the proper checks and balances such a thing would need. Or if they are even aware of the big privacy debate going on? They don't. During the last election, from what I was told first hand, people voted on:

    1. Terrorism: Usually "Bush will teach them 'Rabs" kind of attitude.
    2. Gay marriage: This was surprisingly everywhere before the election and no where now. Funny how that works.
    3. Abortion: The usual crap here.
    4. Vietnam: Kerry's status as a vet opened up the old vietnam wounds.

    Only political junkies cared about privacy, civil rights, economic stability, social security, judge appointments, etc.

    I don't think most countries are too different, the LCD tend to vote on hot button issues and the educated and elitist classes take on everything else. Asking "Did you people really vote for this stuff" is kinda non-starter. People don't even vote on this stuff, they vote for what they know.

    Essentially this is your classic "raise the discourse" argument, but one of the nice things of being at the top of the world as a superpower in about a dozen different ways is that there's little incentive to learn about foreign policy, civil issues, other countries, other systems, etc. As long as there is wealth and safety one can remain fairly ignorant of a lot of things. This eventually does bite one in the ass and will probably coincide with the loss of a superpower status as Europe and Asia keep rising.
  • by ChePibe ( 882378 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @07:22PM (#13965455)
    The traffic accidents of which you speak did not:

    1) Cause billions of dollars of damage in less than an hour's time and shut down an entire industry for days.

    2) Generally result from malicious intent from people who have declared they will not be happy until millions of Americans are dead

    3) Paralyze an entire nation's ability to move people and goods

    4) Happen as the result of an accident

    Also, please provide a source for your 400,000 dead in past four years statistic. Statistics I've found from 1998 say around 49,000 died in North America from car accidents that year. Sounds like you're pulling your numbers out of thin air.
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @07:32PM (#13965500)
    - Is not free

    Ha! By what definition? You're not free to create anarchy, but I'd say you're a lot more free than most countries.

    - Is not democractic

    Again, by what bizarro definition do you think this is true? We have elections which is more than some countries have, representative government, etc, etc. You might not like the pols that get elected, but that's tough. You don't always get who you want. Fortunately, the elections are regular enough that we have the chance to vote 'em out next time around if we don't like 'em.

    - Don't have free speech

    That's complete crap, and you know it. For example, Look at the protests in San Francisco, and tell me we don't have free speech.

    - Has more criminals than any other country and put a larger percent of it's population behind bars than any other country.

    False.

    - Has a cruel and barbaric justice system

    Ha! You have to be kidding! Have you ever seen the prison system, say, in France? The jails in the states are resorts compared to other countries.

    - Has a completly corrupt and criminal political system

    Well, considering one of the parties has ex-KKK members (Robert Byrd), people that drive people have bridges and don't report it until much much later (Ted Kennedy), I'd have to say that there are corrupt and criminal Senators, that's for sure. Strangely, no one in that party seems to have a problem with racists in their part of the Senate.

    - Has more poverty than any other 1st world country

    That's also complete crap. Again, check out France. Those rioters aren't pissed off because they have jobs, bub.

    - Has an increasingly horrible education system

    That completely depends on where you are in States. There are a lot of places that have crappy school systems, but there are many many more that have good both public and private schools.

    And the last time I checked, there sure were a helluva lot of students from other countries coming over here for school.

    - Have their own world history which differs quite a bit from the history that the rest of the world knows.

    "the rest of the world knows...."...Yeah, right.

    Facts are facts. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

    - Indoctrinates it's people about the same as old Soviet Union did and about the same as todays North Korea and China.

    Except, if that were true, you: (A) Wouldn't have been able to post that message and (B) probably would already be arrested just for stating it.

    Now I will be labeled as a USA hater, when it is the opposite.

    No, actually you're just remarkably misinformed, or you need to get out and talk to people beyond the little circle you seem to have surrounded yourself with. Being here for six years doesn't make you informed enough to declare any of what you said as "facts". Opinions, sure...but again, Facts are facts. You're not entitled to your own version.
  • by bitkari ( 195639 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @08:05PM (#13965721) Homepage
    1) Cause billions of dollars of damage in less than an hour's time and shut down an entire industry for days.

    The destruction in NYC was paltry compared to the ongoing expenditure fighting the "war on terror".

    2) Generally result from malicious intent from people who have declared they will not be happy until millions of Americans are dead

    Sure, but the point being made by the previous poster was that their ability to do that is not especially strong, and the "intelligence" services are not exactly adept at preventing such things. Perhaps alternative measures may prove more useful in combating terrorism, rather than throwing away the liberty that so many have struggled to attain?

    3) Paralyze an entire nation's ability to move people and goods

    It wasn't that bad, really. And the harshness of the clampdown was more due to paranoia from the government than anything else. Remember that the point of terrorism is to cause fear, and let the fear do the work.

    4) Happen as the result of an accident

    ?

    Also, please provide a source for your 400,000 dead in past four years statistic. Statistics I've found from 1998 say around 49,000 died in North America from car accidents that year. Sounds like you're pulling your numbers out of thin air.

    The poster said in the last 10 years. According to your statistics, hey are acutally understating the figure somewhat.

  • by impos ( 805511 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @08:07PM (#13965728)
    in case you might've missed it, the OP said 400,000 over the last ten years... which about fits with 49,000 in 1998...

    and re: 3) Paralyze an entire nation's ability to move people and goods

    I was stuck in Toronto after 9/11, and I sure would've liked to be able to get home to Denver, I'm still baffled as to why air travel was stopped. I mean, Al Queda took their best shot, flying airliners into structures, and I'm sure they were thinking they'd get a whole lot more than they did. America freaks, acts like this could happen on every flight, the politicians and FAA shut down air travel, and inconvenience millions... utterly ridiculous.

    Almost like something out of a Simpsons' episode
  • by penix1 ( 722987 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @08:35PM (#13965898) Homepage
    "American soil is safer than ever. And whenever a terrorist travels to Iraq and gets swiss cheesed by one of our boys, it is even safer."

    Too much Fox News for your 2 neurons, eh...

    Let's try this in simpler terms. Our invasion and continued occupation of Iraq is making us MORE at risk of attack not less.

    Here is your assignment:

    Assume another country, say China since they would have the resources, decided to invade the US on the grounds that we have WMD. Further say that they, not us, will be the ones to "rebuild" after the invasion sending our economy into the toilet (as if it wasn't already there). Would you fight with any means at your disposal including terrorist acts? Would you continue fighting even after they "won" the war?

    That is exactly what is going on. The longer we stay there the more likely we are to have another 9/11. And while we are on the subject, why was it only AFTER 9/11 that the US decided to take terrorism seriously? You mean to tell me the other pre-9/11 attacks were unworthy of changing how we dealt with terrorism?

    B.
  • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @08:35PM (#13965903) Homepage
    Now I will be labeled as a USA hater, when it is the opposite.

    You can love your country and hate the current administration. There is no conflict between those positions.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @08:44PM (#13965955)
    While the "internet" came out of a US DARPA research project in the 1960's, it was little more than an obscure research channel until the development of the web. This was done at the CERN Physics lab. If you don't know where the CERN lab is, I'll give you a hint. Start looking in Europe.

  • by 10101001 10101001 ( 732688 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @08:59PM (#13966035) Journal
    >The traffic accidents of which you speak did not:

    >1) Cause billions of dollars of damage in less than an hour's time and shut down an entire industry for days.

    I'm not sure it was billions of dollars for the buildings (and, btw, that's the only fair measure; take 400,000 people / 2 people/car * $10,000/car and you're looking at ~$2 billion loss, btw; it's the people who survive all those accidents demanding more cars which apparently benefit society (look up the economic theory of the broken glass window on why it's not really a benefit, btw)). Millions, sure. As for shutting down an industry for days, that's just a silly statement. More below on that.

    >2) Generally result from malicious intent from people who have declared they will not be happy until millions of Americans are dead

    Yes, well, boohoo. Malicious intent that kills a person isn't nearly as destructive as accidents that kill 100. Until terrorists can actually do the sort of damage to make the numbers even *remotely* match, their wants aren't very relevant.

    >3) Paralyze an entire nation's ability to move people and goods

    The only thing that paralyzed the movement of people and goods was governmental interference. You see, there were only four planes involved in 9/11. There were literally hundreds in the air not affected. Instead of resolving to carry on, under the real and obvious fact that a) not acting like normal would be bowing to fear (the only power that the attacks had any real chance of enforcing, given how clearly they don't have the army to enact a real war) and b) the fact that people now knew what was involved if their plane was hijacked, so would be utterly less likely to just play along, the President of the United States made a solemn pledge to fight back. And then almost immediately the airlines were given huge loans, and 9/11 began being used as a fear campaign to enact far-reaching change, like what this whole article is about. And it's not like the media's push for sensationalism, to sell, helped.

    But that leads to your next point:

    >4) Happen as the result of an accident

    Yes, car accidents are by definition accidents. But what about the countless accidents caused by "road rage"? Few end in death, but certainly such has created a good bit of fear. In fact, this [fumento.com] site points out just how overblown the whole "epidemic" of "road rage" has been exaggerated. Road rage might even, possibly, be responsible for 2,000 deaths over the 10 years period original cited. Of course, the number is probably a lot lower than that (perhaps 500), but who cares; sensationalism sells, be it from the White House lawn, the Capitol floor, or the newsroom desk.

    This is the true evil of the post-9/11 world. Terrorism relies on one chief element: sensationalism. Without it, 4,000 dead people, a few destroyed skyscrapers, and four downed planes just turn into a week long tragedy. And while certainly the media grabbed onto this tragedy with open arms, it's been primarily the Bush administration that will not let this tragedy die. Why? Because without the fear of terrorism there's nothing much behind the Bush Presidency. It's little surprise that whenever any difficult questions come up, the talk turns to "the war on terror". Nor is it surprising that such fake news like "The Daily Show" would talk about 9/11 as Bush's security blanket. What Bush can't offer in strong leadership in the war on terror, he can always simply push an eye-for-an-eye of fear to justify extraordinary actions.

    But let me end here, as I'm now more ranting about the Bush administration. My general point is, accident or not, malice or not, wants do not equate actions. The observable actions indicate that we have a lot more to fear from simple car accidents than terrorists. Most importantly, the simple fact that so many people die and so many cars are lost so reguarly indicates that nothing about a few planes were what stopped industry
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 06, 2005 @10:24PM (#13966433)
    Same story from me.

    It seems some Americans do understand the masssive power grab thats going on and I feel really bad for them because their country is slowly becoming a giant police state-- inch by inch.

    propaganda......check.
    secret police... check.
    torture...........check.
    secret prisons......check.
    citizen "dossiers".... check
    heavily militarized.... check.
    WMD............check
    hate foreigners........check
    hated by foreigners......check
    manufacturing reasons to invade other nations.....check.
    patriotic indoctrination...check.
    death penelty.........check.
    naziesque-sounding-security (homeland security).... check
    economic caste system..... check

    Haven't guite lost the democracy part, but it's very close considering it only a deeply entrenched two party system. They say they are "free". They have a milion types of soft drinks but don't think to quesion why they effectively (keyword) only have two parties to choose between. Compare that with Europe where some nations have 5-10 feasible parties. We have NDP, Conservatives, Liberals, plus a few more that pull a few percent in the background.

    Unfortunately it seems many of them have become fanatics that drone freedom or shopping like no one else has those thing. They hinestly think they live better when they have a hundred of billions of dollars in deficits annually and have crappy social services and are under constant surveillance by their government.

    It's really scary because what seems obvious to us--is invisible to them. They can't understand why most of the world fear them today and why enemies are popping out of the woodwork everyday. I know very few people that have anything nice to say about the US these days and we used to best friends just a few years ago.

    All Americans really need to do is ask themselves what do they have that Europe, Australia or Canada don't have some variation of? Are your lives better,longer lived, freer or happier than us? I seriously doubt it. I can't speak for the rest of the world--but Canada has a booming economy, low crime, low unemployment, great social nets, free speech, no deficits for 8 years, far more political and economic equality and we even live longer.... and we don't need to invade anyone or use anal probes when tourists visit us.

    Why do Americans think they need a military so big? If the rest of the world wanted to they could build one just as big and powerful but we're all tired of war.

    When did America become so evil? There I said it,

        A huge chunk of the population seems oblivious to all this. I used to love going down to Florida to watch Shuttle launches or Murtle Beach for some golf. Now I generally avoid buying America products as it feeds the machine and does no service to the Americans that I do like.

    I'm really scared they're going to bring some of that patriotic, survivalist, empire building, paranoia trip up here. Please Please someone down there change something. You have lots of nice people and great places to go. We'll love you again if you give us a chance to.

     
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Just Another Poster ( 894286 ) on Sunday November 06, 2005 @11:47PM (#13966780)
    Another poor fact of yours is about the amount of imprisoned citizens, if I do remember correctly the US tops that list for quite some time now, you in anycase outclass I thought places like NK and China by a large margin.

    In North Korea, everyone is a prisoner.

  • by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @12:13AM (#13966911) Homepage Journal
    Because then we expected death to come in the form of bombs on ICBMs, or perhaps as armies marching across Europe. Nobody figured that an individual would do much damage.

    Not that an individual couldn't do some damage, but it wouldn't particularly advance the USSR's goals to kill a few people at a time (or even a few thousand). And if they did piss us off by, say, flying planes into a few buildings, we knew right where the USSR was and could drop a few bombs of our own on it.

    The war we're engaged in now is one of individuals doing a little bit of damage at a time. It can't bring down the US the way a full-on war with the Soviets could, but it is very demoralizing to be subject to terror attacks and it does lousy things to the economy. And when it happens, there's no place to bomb in retaliation (at least not without filling the media with pictures of civilians killed in the process.)

    The old enemy wore uniforms, so you can't even tell which of those dead civilians really were planning to kill you.

    So they check the individuals a lot more closely, both on entry and in the country. Illegally closely, perhaps, but that's not my point. You can, perhaps, feel safer knowing that the odds of you being wiped out along with the entire rest of the country in a nuclear holocaust are far, far lower than they were two decades ago. But it'll still kinda piss you off if you happen to be in the vicinity of a dirty bomb, suicide bomber, or whatever nasty trick they come up with next.
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cfulmer ( 3166 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @12:51AM (#13967086) Journal
    Cough... Cough...

    Are you serious? Let's see.... Go to an office supply store in San Francisco, buy some posterboard and a fat marker. Write up a sign that says "Down with Bush. Republicans are a bunch of morons." Put it on your car and drive around. See what happens.

    Try the same thing in China, except have the sign say "Down with Hu Jintao. Communists are a bunch of morons." Put it on a car and drive around. See what happens.

    Try having a student-led demonstration in the capitol of each country. (Anybody remember Tiananmen quare?)

  • Re:Fixing Gov't (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Create an Account ( 841457 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @01:50AM (#13967332)
    The problem is that corps., and any association, are groups of people.

    Corps are subdivided groups. The employees typically do not have much say over how politically active the firm is. Often the political activity of the firm is inimical to the employees (outsourcing, anyone?), the general public (e.g. any spending by tobacco companies), or the environment (DuPont, Halliburton, Union Carbide, Ford, GM, etc.) The concentration of wealth has created a concentration of power. I like the free market as much as the next guy, I'm just saying we've gone much too far. America is much more in the grasp of the Corporation now than it was in the 1950s, even considering the burgeoning 'military industrial complex.'

    Thanks for the feedback.
  • by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@ear ... .net minus punct> on Monday November 07, 2005 @03:12AM (#13967659)
    Nice justification for throwing the Constitution into the trash.

    The deaths, injuries, and other assorted damages commited by terrorists on the US pale in comparison to the damages the government has inflicted on the Constitution in a purported effort to protect us. Even were I to believe every word they said about the evidence and their purposes and intentions, I would still consider everyone who either votes for or enforces the "PATRIOT" act a felon who has comitted malfeasance.

    My actual thoughts do not give quite as much credence to their proclaimed honesty and integrity. I think them much worse than merely those who violate their oath of office because it's convenient. I'm rather convinced that they conspired to violate their oaths. This is normally considered a separate felony. I suspect that they collaborated with foreign countries to act against the constitution of the united states. If they weren't "elected" I would accuse them of attempting to overthrow the government, but since the same people have stayed in power, one probably can't claim that.

    The government is honest and trustworthy only in the sense that truth is a 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme Court.
  • Re:McCarthy called (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07, 2005 @04:37AM (#13967893)
    He wants his agenda back.

    In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed. Late last month, President Bush signed Executive Order 13388, expanding access to those files for "state, local and tribal" governments and for "appropriate private sector entities," which are not defined.

    Is it just me, or does this demonstrate nothing but the most vile contempt for the citizens of the U.S.?
  • by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @05:53AM (#13968129)
    You are "spot on-target"!

    The regime currently in power is using the "war on terrorism" to strip Americans of their rights, especially that of privacy. They justify their unconstitutional methods with the claim that "no further acts of terrorism have been committed on US soil", while totally side-stepping the reality that Al-Queda seems to spend a lot of time (between terrorist attacks) to plan their next offensive.

    The Dubya regime has been just as ineffective in their optional war in Iraq as in securing the USA's borders and seaports. The President, Vice President, Attorney General, Director of the CIA, Director of the FBI, and Director of Homeland Security have all come out at various times to state that "it is not a matter of if, but of when then next terrorist attack will come". By "predicting" such an event, they presume to "cover their collective backsides" when it comes to accepting responsibility/blame for their ineffectiveness.

    I fear that when AL-Queda does eventually attack the USA again, it will be far more spectacular than 9/11/2001, just as that terrorist attack far exceeded the results of the first World Trade Center bombing. Considering the state of the world today, I have concluded that they will use WMDs that they either can steal or purchase on the black market.

     
  • Re:Tourisme (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 07, 2005 @07:55AM (#13968464)
    People SPEAK UP* because they care.

    Reading your post I'd imagine that the last thing you'd be supporting is freedom of speech.

    "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism"
      - Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)

    *Those that don't like what they say call them whiners.
  • Re:Haha (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Monday November 07, 2005 @12:22PM (#13969985) Homepage
    I love what gets deemed as insightful here. This'll be a good one for the meta mods.

    Slashdot is primarily populated with geeks/hackers. That geek population will mod geekish things geekily. Most meta-mods will be geeks and I doubt they will have a serious objection to the insightful mod.

    One of the pecularities of geekish humor is the earnest application of intelligence to an absurdity. It tends to be both funny and insightful. The fact that intelligence was humorously applied to an absurdity does not (in the geek mindset) diminish the inherent value of the creative intellectual contribution. His post was indeed insightful, he provided at least a one billion fold increase in efficency to the suggested system.

    Maybe you're a bit too normal to get the peculiarly geekish appreciation in that :)
    And if you do consider yourself a geek, well no offence intended by that last comment :) I would not presume to revoke your geek-card over the esthetic appreciation of some humorous item.

    -

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...