Obama Admin Wants Hackers Charged As Mobsters 568
GovTechGuy writes "The Obama administration wants hackers to be prosecuted under the same laws used to target organized crime syndicates, according to two officials appearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning. From the article: 'Associate Deputy Attorney General James Baker and Secret Service Deputy Special Agent in Charge Pablo Martinez said the maximum sentences for cyber crimes have failed to keep pace with the severity of the threats. Martinez said hackers are often members of sophisticated criminal networks. "Secret Service investigations have shown that complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are rarely perpetrated by a lone individual," Martinez said.'"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
>>How about charging their fellow sociopaths - in the Administration & Congress - as mobsters?
You laugh, but I actually listened in on this talk on CSPAN Radio (I know, I know). They want pretty much anyone in a hacking group to be vulnerable to RICO statutes. RICO, of course, was invented to deal with mobsters, but as since then been applied to people such as antiabortion activists and even in civil cases. Now being a "cybercriminal" will get you thrown in jail, more. Which is the point - Pablo w
Re:While they're at it (Score:5, Insightful)
I only wish they would run the country like mobsters running their day to day operations. Mobsters usually deliver the paid-for product. Mobsters don't pretend they're doing God's work. Mobsters don't go out of their way to start gunfights with uninvolved parties, and they don't irradiate their own customers in the name of "security." Mobsters keep two sets of books like the government does, but unlike the government's, one of them reflects reality. Someone who loses 22 C-130 cargo planes full of Mob cash can expect to be held to account for it.
We aren't run by mobsters, we're run by idiots. This is why I have no patience for people like Warren Buffett who prattle on about how taxes need to be raised on "the rich." Why? So the government can lose 23 C-130s full of $100 bills next time?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The TEA Party has no religious platform (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about taxes, government finances.
In fact, they've been criticized by religious conservatives for not using their high profile status to push a religious agenda.
Re:While they're at it (Score:5, Insightful)
We do need to raise taxes on the rich, among other things. The fact that the government isn't efficient doesn't mean we should reduce our revenues. That would just make us inefficient and broke. This isn't a company where it can go out of business and be replaced by a new one, at least not without massive suffering and bloodshed.
We should try to get the government to run more efficiently, but we should also pay our bills in the meantime.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to raise taxes period, and cut government spending. You can't keep cutting taxes and maintain our infrastructure, it just doesn't work. Police, Fire, Roads, Military, Public schools, etc are all funded by tax dollars, and a lot of them are seriously hurting financially these days (schools especially), but we also need to cut welfare programs (or at the very least regulate them better) and pet projects. I don't want to use a broad statement to say welfare or lobbying is bad, it most definitely has it
Too late; already raised (Score:3, Insightful)
We do need to raise taxes on the rich, among other things.
They've been raised. Taking more away from "the rich" (the definition of which BTW will eventually encompass you if left alone) will mean that they will just leave, taking all the money they have with them. Why wouldn't they? If we simply shoot "The Rich" and take all the money they have, it does jack and squat to reduce the debt we have going. That should tell you a little something about how important taxing "The Rich" is vs. addressing the ac
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Education is a good, just like bread or living accommodations. In absence of government intervention, the cost of education is set in the market by the individuals, it's basically about how many dollars are chasing the same goods. Once government got involved it became impossible for a person of limited means just to work part time and in the summer to afford full prices of tuition, but don't worry, the government was there to give out student loans.
Well that's exactly the problem - now the amount of dollar
Re:While they're at it (Score:5, Insightful)
I only wish they would run the country like mobsters running their day to day operations. Mobsters usually deliver the paid-for product.
So does Congress. We just happen not to be their customer, except once every two to six years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mobsters don't usually deliver the paid-for product, except when the customer is another mobster, backing up their orders with a gun. Mobsters do go out of their way to start gunfights with uninvolved parties. Because mobsters are assholes.
You've got to stop thinking mobsters are Al Pacino and Marlon Brando. They're the thugs downtown and behind the gate in the suburb who rob and kill for business, and who also rob and kill on their way up for fun. Living in and around NYC and New Orleans, I've seen the rea
Re: (Score:2)
As for raising taxes on the rich, the government's failure to tax the rich isn't cutting into the C-130s the Bush/Cheney government "lost" (to some mobster). Those flights will continue forever, so long as Republicans like you keep voting for Republicans like them. But without raising taxes on the rich what gets cut off is education of everyone but the rich, investments in science that keep the US ahead of our competitors and worth believing in, and enforcing laws that put some limits on how the rich abuse
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You voted for Bush and Cheney twice, Teabagger. And your local Republican who voted for all their lies and crimes.
We're just living with the consequences of your insanity.
Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't realise being a mobster was a crime. I thought you actually had to commit a crime while in the mob to be charged; hence nailing Capone on tax evasion.
That was back in the bad old days when the government actually had to get a constitutional amendment to ban things, before they discovered that the interstate commerce clause allowed them to make any law they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Google the RICO Act. It's interesting stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Also known as the "if we had had this shit in the 30's, we could have gotten Capone for more than fucking tax evasion" act.
RICO act (Score:5, Informative)
I didn't realise being a mobster was a crime. I thought you actually had to commit a crime while in the mob to be charged; hence nailing Capone on tax evasion.
The RICO act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act [wikipedia.org], changed that in 1970. In particular leaders who directed or assisted those who actually committed the crime were now also part of the crime.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are laws against belonging to a criminal organization, under the RICO Act. Those laws were introduced in the 1970s, long after Capone's time, precisely because going after mob leaders for tax evasion isn't a good strategy (after Capone, they started paying their taxes), and neither is letting the leader get away simply because he didn't get his hands dirty.
The RICO Act requires an organization to commit a pattern of certain crimes before it can be charged with racketeering. Among those crimes are theft, fraud, and money laundering, all of which can be applied to organized groups of hackers. It seems completely reasonable to apply the law in this way. Of course the Slashdot anarchists will decry any law enforcement whatsoever.
Re: (Score:2)
The RICO Act requires an organization to commit a pattern of certain crimes before it can be charged with racketeering. Among those crimes are theft, fraud, and money laundering, all of which can be applied to organized groups of hackers. It seems completely reasonable to apply the law in this way. Of course the Slashdot anarchists will decry any law enforcement whatsoever.
I don't get it. If some of these hackers are indeed part of criminal organizations, then doesn't the RICO law already apply to them? W
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
There are some computer crimes that don't fall on the RICO Act's list, such as theft of confidential information, or spreading a virus with the intent of causing at least $5000 of damage, or bringing down a computer system on which public safety relies.
Obama wants to add those to the RICO list.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you have to be caught doing a crime. Being a mobster means your mob stops people from talking to the law about your crimes, and stops judges from saying something bad about your crimes. Capone kept people shut up, but his books were captured in a raid that implicated him. Tax evasion was a good way to bust a serious criminal who was such a bad guy that people were afraid to bust him.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
As somebody else pointed out, look up RICO. What I'd like to do take issue with your implicit assumption that *being* a mobster does not do the kind of harm that is obviously criminal.
Suppose you join the mob as their computer geek. You help them encrypt their records and all kinds of other things people in general have a right to do, but you do it with the full and explicit understanding that you're helping the mob kill and rob people. None of the things you do all day long like check the mail server logs for hackers or generating crypto keys for the hitmen is illegal in itself. And because you're a consummate professional, you fix things that the really sensitive information is safe even from you. If one of those hitmen murders somebody, you had no specific knowledge that specific murder was going to take place, so you can't be prosecuted for the murder. You *did* intentionally participate in the murder by helping the hitman do his job. It's possible the murder might not have taken place without your help (e.g., that the cops would have found the unencrypted contract on a laptop). But your criminal intent is effectively "laundered" so it can't be attached to any single crime.
I think that kind intentional contribution to many crimes without specific knowledge of any would be the point of applying something like RICO to black hat hackers. Let's say you're part of a hacker gang that steals identities. You don't necessarily participate directly, but play a supporting role knowing that this is what's going on. Although you knowingly play a critical role in stealing thousands of identities, you don't can't be implicated in any single instance of theft because you didn't know that individual theft was going to happen. So you acted with criminal intent, participating in thousands of thefts, but because that theft can't be tied to any one of those thefts you can't be charged with identity theft. That's because you're not an identity thief, you're an identity theft *racketeer*.
That's what's going on here. They're going to go after criminal hackers using racketeering laws that were designed for just that purpose. How many years have we been saying that putting "cyber-" in front of something doesn't make it a new kind of crime? Same goes here. Bringing up Capone here is quite apropos. Saying anyone charged with tax evasion is being charged as a "Mobster" would be logically equivalent to saying that anyone charged for racketeering is being charged as a "Mobster".
Re: (Score:3)
Although you knowingly play a critical role in stealing thousands of identities, you don't can't be implicated in any single instance of theft because you didn't know that individual theft was going to happen.
Consider that principle, and consider the idea of criminal copyright infringement. Would MegaUpload be a copyright infringement racketeer? What about Amazon S3? Who would decide which data storage providers would be targeted?
How would it apply to ISPs that allow Tor nodes, darknet nodes, VPNs, or proxi
Re: (Score:3)
And what if this betting shop was actually a front for something more sinister? Would software engineers working on the "generic" parts also become culpable of whatever other dealings go on in the company, of which they might not directly be aware?
So, for the sake of equality before the law
Mobsters ... but only if there are more than one (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like when they find that the electronic crimes are not perpetrated by a lone individual, then they ought to be able to target them appropriately.
I worry, however, that this sort of thing would be used to justify ruining the life of some poor dumb kid whose knowledge was larger than his wisdom.
RICO only covers certain crimes (Score:2)
Seems like when they find that the electronic crimes are not perpetrated by a lone individual, then they ought to be able to target them appropriately.
Note that the RICO act also requires the crime to be of a certain nature. For example extortion, theft, fraud, counterfeiting, money laundering, and obstruction of justice seem to be the relevant ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act [wikipedia.org]
I worry, however, that this sort of thing would be used to justify ruining the life of some poor dumb kid whose knowledge was larger than his wisdom.
Given the preference for using underage kids in the drug trade since they can't be prosecuted as an adult, I'd say that underage hackers will not be under the sort of risk you suggest.
Re:Mobsters ... but only if there are more than on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mobsters ... but only if there are more than on (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it's been proven over and again that group crimes are different, and usually worse, than crimes by an individual. It's been proven for a long time that when groups attack people and our rights, the law must attack the group - not just members of the group. It's necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been proven for a long time that when groups attack people and our rights, the law must attack the group - not just members of the group. It's necessary.
Huh. That sounds more like "make war"...
Compare this to the debt resolution (Score:2, Insightful)
How is printing money from thin air not the same as mobster?
Re:Compare this to the debt resolution (Score:4, Informative)
Because printing money doesn't kill people.
Money is voodoo. It's a completely abstract promise that someone will do something for you in the future, because someone else did something for you in the past. Whether it's printed according to some government formula, or passed around from rare materials gradually mined from the ground, or carved into huge stone discs, creating money is always based on some willingness to believe something that can be proven only by waiting and seeing.
That is not what mobsters do. Mobsters don't deal in abstractions. They rob, wound and kill in a very immediate demonstration of value given and taken.
Re:Compare this to the debt resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Because printing money doesn't kill people.
The hell it doesn't....
Printing money has literally lead to a WORLD WAR.
Re: (Score:3)
Because printing money doesn't kill people.
The hell it doesn't.... Printing money has literally lead to a WORLD WAR.
Yes, if only we'd all stuck to the gold standard, there would have been no First or Second World War.
Re: (Score:3)
No. People have needs, both physical and psychological. If your actions destroy a mans livlihood and his hope, you have killed him just as surely as if you pulled the trigger yourself. Do you really think the only person responsible for the death of Mohamed Bouazizi is Mohamed Bouazizi? The people of Tunisia would disagree.
Mobsters... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whats more the 'b' and 'n' keys are right next to each other making the inadvertent labeling of hackers as monsters that much easier ;-)
Instead of thinking about far-fetched scenarios (come on - like simply mistyping N for B could ever result in someone being negatively perceived), why don't you focus on the nigger problem here?
Wikileaks + anonymous + civilian obedience (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wikileaks + anonymous + civilian obedience (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be so hard on yourself. I only saw one now/know error in your whole post, despite lots of nows and knows. Your English seems perfectly fine. One error is easily attributable to a simple typo; maybe you didn't hit the 'k' key hard enough. It's only when you make the same dumb mistake over and over and over that you look like you're illiterate. This isn't a college English essay here, so perfection isn't necessary (though this shouldn't be construed to say that totally sloppy writing is OK either).
You remind me of non-native English writers who ask forgiveness for their English writing, when their writing is frequently 10x better than the crap that our (America's) younger generation is putting out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
'anonymous' are mostly kids from 4chan, doing what kids and teens in general do... get pissed about injustice and morally wrong things.
Most kids and teens when I was young liked fucking around, breaking stuff and annoying people. No doubt it's different with the internet-educated, politically-aware young people of today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
yeah. i will take the kids doing graffiti and then moving on to expose the shit i didnt allow my government to do. thank you. if free speech had a cost, we failed to pay that cost a long time ago. and now the kids are fixing it. shame on us.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are doing simple b&e and being 'praised' for it. If this same group had smashed open a door and stole the information and spray painted the walls would we still be applauding them? No we would throw their asses in jail.
Actually, I would call them Shadowrunners, and welcome the new era that I've seen coming for many years now.
Law targeting organized crime... (Score:3)
...being used against organized crime. News at 11.
Seriously, most cracking and virus-creation is for the money these days. It's the new bootlegging. Is this supposed to be controversial?
Better than Terrorists (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Though I don't think laws regarding organized crime should be used unless there is an actual organization involved or clearly working for an organization.
Like, for example, someone gets caught working with Anonymous?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought the problem was security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than the maximum sentences for cyber crimes have failed to keep pace with the severity of the threats, it seems that in many cases the problem is that hacked party's network security has failed to keep pace with the value of the data.
If a thief breaks a company's car window (where there's a sign that says "Credit card numbers stored here!") and steals a printout with a million credit card numbers, everyone will say the company was stupid for leaving the printout sitting on the car seat.
Yet when a hacker exploits a well known (and easily eliminated) SQL injection vulnerability to do the same thing, suddenly the hacker is escalated to "organized crime" level?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure if said hacker is part of organisation and committed two racketeering activities then why shouldn't the laws that have existed for 40 years (and have been applied to as diverse cases as the mob, a police department, the catholic church, a police department, and a texas health care provider) be applied?
Fraud seems the obvious RICO offense that said hacker would commit multiple times. Maybe theft if they snagged copies of secret government documents of if the jury squints enough.
Re:I thought the problem was security? (Score:4, Interesting)
If a group of people formed an organization with the goal of stealing credit cards, then yes, they can be prosecuted under organized crime law. Doesn't matter if their method for doing so is beating up pedestrians and taking their wallets, breaking and entering, or SQL injection.
If just one guy decides to steal some credit cards, he can be prosecuted for one of the several varieties of theft, but not under RICO. Doesn't matter what his method is.
Obligatory... (Score:2)
Martinez said hackers are often members of sophisticated criminal networks [...]
He also added that "Hackers are a grave threat to the national security and that they need more funding..." [youtube.com]
Some are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The man children of Anonymous aren't "civil dissidents". They're vandals and trolls. They delight in causing suffering for others, and then laughing at that suffering. They say so themselves. They do it "for the lulz". Arresting some of them doesn't hurt our liberty, it helps it.
You need to stop imagining Anon to be some white knights come to your rescue. You are seriously misunderstanding their motives. Today they may attack someone you hate. Tomorrow they may attack you. They have more in common
Holy Shit! (Score:5, Interesting)
Did anyone read the second half of the article?
Experts have warned that without some sort of enforcement mechanism [to compel compliance with Department of Homeland Security cyber security standards] companies will not take the necessary security precautions. [Democratic Senator] Blumenthal echoed that stance, suggesting the administration "consider some kind of stick as well as a carrot."
Industry has argued that resources are the main limitation and argued for incentives such as liability protection for firms that experience attacks.
Are you shitting me?
The government wants companies to actually secure their/our data and the response is "sure, if we're not liable for any break-ins"
Off the top of my head, the government has indemnified vaccine manufacturers and nuclear power plant operators.
For some reason, I don't see cyber security as being in remotely the same league.
If anyone else can think of other industries indemnfied by the Federal Government, don't be shy about responding.
I'm willing to bet that nothing anyone brings up will be remotely similar to indemnifying private companies for poor computer security.
Yeah. clueless morons. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They're well aware that 99% of the cyber-crime doesn't happen where their laws can reach, the rhetoric is for the justification so they can then use it for other purposes
They do the same thing here in Australia (and probably every other country) all the time.
But can we differentiate between "serious" et al.? (Score:4, Insightful)
Stealing money from people over the internet: Serious
But can our government tell the difference? I don't think so, yet.
Re: (Score:3)
So, crackers are terrorists, ..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
No, they stole the government, which is why Obama is in charge, and why Bush was in charge before him, etc etc. The money was given to them at least quasi-legally... once they owned the government.
what about hackers in russia? where it's easy to p (Score:2)
what about hackers in russia? where it's easy to pay off cops and get a way with it?
Right Idea, Wrong Application (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree with applying this law to hackers, but I have been saying for a while that Wall Street should have been tried under RICO Act [wikipedia.org]. That would allow to put at least half of the scum in jail, along with confiscation of property. Some justice would have been served.
WAIT a minute here (Score:3, Interesting)
What about all the patent trolls? shouldn't they be classified as mobsters too? After all, aren't they behaving in the same way?
Headline misleading as usual (Score:3)
uploading a torrent = mobster (Score:2)
Clearly! (Score:3)
Well, they would be the experts (Score:2)
If anyone knows about organized crime, it would be the gangster from Chicago... "The Land of the Voting Dead".
Computer crimes aren't special (Score:3)
Many of us have been arguing for a while now that computer crimes shouldn't be treated any differently from other crimes. Stealing credit card numbers is theft, whether you do it by breaking and entering a storefront or by SQL injection on a website. Vandalism is vandalism, whether you've defaced the front entrance to the New York Times building or the front page of their website.
Too many concerned public officials are trying to put computer crimes in their own category, as if they're somehow more terrifying and dangerous because a computer was involved. And contrariwise, many geeks seem to feel that crimes are not crimes if you use a computer to do them. Both of these positions are wrong. Prosecute the crime, not the tool used to commit it.
So this article is about government doing the right thing. They're treating people who organize for the purposes of committing computer crime as organized criminals, and prosecuting them accordingly, rather than trying to invent some new crime for the situation.
And for those of you who are posting "oh, so uploading a torrent is being a mobster now?", you're not paying attention. To prosecute under RICO, you must establish both that crimes were committed, and that a group was organized for the purpose of committing them. A prosecutor would be hard-pressed to convince a judge that a dude in his dorm room is an organized group.
Sad perspective from a foreigner (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's be clear here: Obama is not, and will not be remembered as the worst president ever - nor as the worst in recent history.
But dammit, he's probably the most _dissappointing_ president in recent history. Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself. Nobody expected great things of Clinton, but he wasn't really any worse than expected either. Hell, Bush Sr. was actually a pleasant surprise.
But Obama was the last great hope for the US, and he has turned into the worst sort of lying, deceitful, two-faced power monger. It's not that he's a dirtbag, it's that he actually came across as someone who gave a shit--until he got elected.
My US friends, I'm sorry for you. Really.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself.
Well, presumably the people who voted for him expected him to be something else. Possibly many of them still believe that he achieved exactly what they put him in office to do.
Which I personally find pretty darn scary, but there you go, that's democracy for you.
Uninformed perspective actually ... (Score:3)
Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself.
Wow, that is amazingly uninformed. War was not an issue in the 2000 election. Bush Jr.'s plan was to focus on eduction reform, trade reform (in particular with China), etc. 9/11/2001 changed that plan. Are you so uninformed that I need to point out that 9/11 was not Bush's idea?
Re: (Score:3)
The massive overreaction and power grab afterwards probably wasnt his idea either.
WTF? (Score:3)
Re:Its Official: Jimmy Carter is off the hook (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got to be kidding. Jimmy wasn't that bad, he was just stuck with a shitty economy, and he wasn't terribly effective. His death blow was when he failed to deal with the Beirut situation effectively.
That totally pales in comparison to several other presidents. The worst one in my book was Lyndon Johnson, who's responsible for destroying the American economy in the 70s because of the Vietnam War, plus the deaths of over 50,000 American citizens in that atrocity, plus countless Vietnamese. He's not quite as bad as Stalin who's responsible for 20-30 million deaths, but the Vietnam war probably killed about 1 million total, and most of the blood of those are on LBJ's hands.
His stupid Great Society program also helped to wreck the economy and create generations of inner-city blacks stuck in poverty, and is probably responsible for the destruction of the African-American family.
Nixon wasn't very good either; he also kept up the Vietnam war, plus he pushed the War on Drugs.
Reagan pushed deficit spending to levels far beyond what they ever were before in history. We only forget about that now because Bush and then Obama have raised the bar so much with their spending sprees.
What the heck did Jimmy do that was so bad? Nothing I can recall. Being ineffective isn't remotely as bad as what these other jerks did.
Obama is pretty bad too, but nowhere near as bad as his fellow Democrat LBJ.
Re: (Score:2)
That totally pales in comparison to several other presidents. The worst one in my book was Lyndon Johnson, who's responsible for destroying the American economy in the 70s because of the Vietnam War, plus the deaths of over 50,000 American citizens in that atrocity, plus countless Vietnamese. He's not quite as bad as Stalin who's responsible for 20-30 million deaths, but the Vietnam war probably killed about 1 million total, and most of the blood of those are on LBJ's hands.
Maybe it's time we humans figured out that being the aggressor in any multi-national conflict is a good way to ruin the economy...
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, I had forgotten to mention him. I really wonder what things would be like if we had just stayed out of WWI and let the dumb Allies lose. Germany would probably be a more powerful country now, but Hitler never would have happened, perhaps Stalin would never have happened either, and we could have avoided some giant wars and maybe even the Cold War.
Re: (Score:3)
Obama doesn't apply the same standard to the Teamsters and Jimmy Hoffa Jr.
Also, from TFS:
"Secret Service investigations have shown that complex and sophisticated electronic crimes are rarely perpetrated by a lone individual,"
Now, the common point of the two above is: how do you (Joe Citizen) know? "Secret Service investigations" doesn't sound too reassuring.
Allow it to happen and I bet the next thing will be: "Sentencing for associating in secret have failed to keep pace with the severity of the threats" (with the next steps "Sentencing for associations not formally approved by the Secret Services..." and/or "Sentencing for associating under other form than a for-profit corporation..."???)
Re: (Score:3)
Wow, the 'conservative' crap flood continues.
I don't understand why the Republicans hate to see blue collar people with middle class lifestyles. Labor unions built the American middle class and are often the only leverage against a race to the bottom. Government worker union are really the the only stability for Americans who's boss can change every couple of years. The continued GOP assault on unions is not to some some status quo, but an effort to pull the rug out from millions of Americans. Nothing b
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry Tea Partiers are more like terrorists.
For what? For peacefully working within the political process to support leaders whom they believe represent their interests? That makes them terrorists? Oh right, they don't agree with you.
.. .. .. then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me" was written for people like you. It was intended for the early stages of this kind of monstrosity, when it looks innocent enough, when you can still comfortably call "tin-foil hatter" instead of "prophet" anyone who can see what's coming, when it's embryonic and could still be easily stopped. After that time, it's too late and must run its course. Not that this means anything to you, I'm sure.
It's already becoming a trend in the media to label as "terrorist" anyone who disagrees with you. It's the new "racist" just as "racist" was the new "communist", "communist" was the new "uppity dark-skinned person" and that was the new "witch".
Congratulations. You are a useful idiot who is taking his place as a part of a system of oppression. I know you didn't arrive at the conclusion that "Tea Partiers are terrorists" by your own independent examination of the actions of Tea Party supporters. I know that because it isn't possible. Their peaceful participation in the political process is the exact opposite of blowing things up and murdering civilians in order to advance a political agenda. That means you are the recipient of some carefully crafted brainwashing, propaganda, whatever you want to call it. Like all such recipients, you will excuse and defend what you now consider your own original idea. Again, congratulations.
You really have no idea the forces that are behind your passionate beliefs or just how dangerous this really is. Once the label of "terrorist" is applied so carelessly, you are now in a world where anyone can be considered a terrorist. Once that happens, you're only a baby step away from suspending their civil liberties at will. As long as you get the childish satisfaction of making someone look bad because you disagree with them it'll all be worth it, right? At least until you become the next terrorist. But don't worry, whoever calls you that will enjoy it as much as you did when you imagined the tables could never be turned on yourself.
That saying "first they came for the Jews, but since I was not a Jew I did not stand up
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Informative)
Now for the actual reason they want to use those organised crime Rico Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, rather than the lie put forward by those two "seeming' dipshits Associate Deputy Attorney General James Baker and Secret Service Deputy Special Agent in Charge Pablo Martinez, it's because they can ramp up the "conspiracy" chargers when no actual crime is committed and the evidence is all circumstantial.
Basically about kangaroo courts targeting people who can not afford a proper legal defence and where judges and juries will fall under the bullshit baffles brains, of tons of techno-speak evidence without any real substance.
This is the government version of the blackmail recruiting drive, where cowards turn states evidence under threats of extended prison sentences for any kind of criminal fantasy they or the fed handlers can dream up, into targeting anyone they want to.
Sick stuff, some cop shoots and kills an unarmed person and, it's a slap on the wrist versus some script kiddy participates in a DDOS protest and it's life in prison and you have two government dipshits stand up and try the lickspittle mass media shuffle to make it sound all proper and acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Peacefully? In your dreams. Tea baggers are terrorists because they use scare tactics to get their way. Take health care town hall meetings of 2008. Retired tea baggers with drugged, crazy eyes yelling "Government hands off of my Medicare" and lunging at congressmen and opponents with their fists. Using these imbecile but scary tactics they managed to force many seniors to oppose health care reform even though most of those seniors already use government-provided Medicare.
Want another one? Debt ceiling
Re: (Score:3)
Why is it the right always believes themselves victimized for the slightest resistance after centuries of victimization of all those around them?
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I get that feeling you sit perfectly quietly as the right wing labels civil rights activists as terrorists, liberals as socialists, atheists as heathens, and women who get abortions as murderers?
People like you may like to ignore it, but the right has brought on being labeled by their own labeling of everything they disagree with, since the colonization of North America. The Tea Party and their supporters advocate terrorizing those they disagree with, and mass scale slander against those they dislike, yet there are always plenty to defend when those people- when those terrorists- are called what they are. Tell me why is that.
Why can the right go unscathed in labeling huge swaths of people as "unamerican" and worse for centuries, and yet it is the liberals who are constantly attacked for calling a tiny group managing to control national politics through propaganda and force terrorists? How many times are Republicans called terrorists on total - and how many times is Obama alone called a socialist?
I'll tell you why I think it is. Because just like fiscal conservatism, just like rhetoric about personal rights, and just like patriotism, political correctness is a tool that fascists learned artful use of. They obey it exactly when it suits them, and decry it whenever it does not.
You betray your own biases too obviously, and yet already many here in comments have jumped upon your bandwagon to defend the indefensible. How easily people are taken in by appeals to their own values, even when the goal of the appeal is against their own interests.
Re:Too bad (Score:4, Interesting)
The Tea Party is a creation of Fox News. I remember their creation while many seem to gloss over this fact. They are just another element of how we are goosestepping towards Fascism ever so quickly these days. We have our modern version of the Gestapo with a strong police state/prison industry to enforce whatever mandates are handed down to us. Both sides of the political coin are corrupt as can be; it's a matter of how you want screwed over, not if you will be screwed over.
If you monitor Rightwing web traffic and comments, you can see a major spike in the angry tones. We aren't even into the official election year or it's cycle and the political rhetoric is turned up on 11. Imagine how this is going to play out when this election doesn't play out the way these people want. I will be shocked if we don't see outbreaks of political violence before the election. It's all classic fascism in play; a quick study of the definition of it and it's history will chill your bones. Once you understand this element, things really start crystallizing clear. You have to step back, clear your head of preconceptions and look at the big picture.
These 24 hour news channels are epic propaganda outlets. If you look at the history of propaganda, and its modus operandi you will find disturbing similarities with these current propaganda outlets. Fox News has shifted into high speed, low drag with theirs, and their impact has been impressive. I have followed them since their creation, for it was interesting to see a Rightwing perspective after years of CNN's far Leftwing propaganda. Obama though has frankly made them snap. I have watched them go from "Fair and Balanced" to "Fairly Unbalanced" since his election. Their objectivity, trying to present a "balanced" approach to news has crumbled to dust, taking with it a huge audience down the Rightwing path.
Now they tote far Rightwing talking points and methodically craft their propaganda to suit a target audience. The Tea Party was their creation. It was incredibly partisan of them to create them, now they step back from it as if it wasn't something they created; as if this was some "movement" created out of thin air. It wasn't, they nurtured it, broadcasted it, provided web support and still keep them in the limelight.
People seem to forget about the shooting in Arizona, where a Rightwing nut job shot up a Congresswoman and part of a crowd. People forget how Sara Palin had "Gun Cross hairs" literally on her web site that had that Congresswoman targeted. Her people made changes to that site immediately after the shooting. The Tea Party has a history of violence to it that isn't making national news yet. Here is a local news cast about some on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8 [youtube.com]
Tea Party violence is amazing to research. I watched one video of a woman getting her head stomped on at one incident. Only blind political partisanship will ignore the signs of where this movement is going. It's symptomatic of a bigger picture though; which is a serious step towards Fascism. All the piece of this puzzle are here if you look.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you serious? Giffords was not shot by a "right wing nut job". She was shot by a nut-job, period. Just as Reagan was not shot by a left-wing nut-job. There was nothing to indicate that he favored either political party. There was also nothing to indicate that he ever saw Sara Palin's web page with the targets on it.
But don't let the FACTS get in the way of your Fox News conspiracy theory. However, I'm surprised you missed the quote from Glenn Beck from his 9/12 speech back when there was a debate o
Re: (Score:3)
Kin
Re:Too bad (Score:5, Informative)
Its amazing to me how this short-term arguments can be made and people will still believe them. I would like to invite you to not look at just the debt chart, but to try and see why was that money needed.
You will find that it was necessary to get some loans to pay for wars, broken banks and other failing financial industries like inssurance companies because Mr. Bush deemed necessary to not investigate nor have them report anything: you name it. War contracts, shady trading and stupid ass lending for houses, that all happened in Bush's era and it is WHY YOU CAN SEE THAT SPIKE IN THE DEBT CHART.
Just because Mr. Bush and the republican party (today led by the most stupid people ever in american politics since the prohibitionist party) didnt pay for what they spent in their time, it doesnt mean that the huge debt spike should be attributed to the current administration. It shouldnt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not as exciting as you probably expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As B- as Obama is, some Christian theocrat Republican would be an F-. Bush/Cheney was an F, and you voted for them twice. You never voted for Obama. You're just a Republican troll trying to get some Christian theocrat Republican elected.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. I'd give Obama a C- myself, and I voted for the fucking pussy.
Re: (Score:2)
can they prove the network has not become self aware?
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion...." - Bertrand Russell.
Re: (Score:3)
Interestingly enough, we already have something that could be used to increase the penalties for illegal activity.
Conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a felony.
This means that getting together with your friends to hang out, and then deciding together that it would be nice to acquire a small amount of marijuana is not a misdemeanor, as the law books state, but a felony because you involved your friends. The best part? You don't even have to actually acquire the green stuff, simply planning with someone else