Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Thomas Drake: You're Automatically Suspicious Until Proven Otherwise 502

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the CNCIS-IMF-plutonium-Albright-cybercash-insurgency dept.
colinneagle writes "RT had a very interesting interview with former NSA official turned whistleblower Thomas A. Drake, who said, 'Security has effectively become the State religion; you don't question it. And if you question it, then your loyalty is questioned.' 'Speaking truth of power is very dangerous in today's world,' he added. The interviewer pointed out that investigative journalists are labeled as 'terrorist helpers' for trying to reveal the truth, to which Drake said the government's take is 'you go after the messenger because the last thing you want to do is deal with the message.'" Network World also has a pretty good article on William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9, wherein he revealed some technical details and a bit more background on the NSA's domestic surveillance program. Unfortunately, neither audio or video of the talk are available yet.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Thomas Drake: You're Automatically Suspicious Until Proven Otherwise

Comments Filter:
  • power corrupts (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @10:59AM (#40686119)

    But Americans have been hugely keen on giving more and more power to their federal government, so this is in inevitable byproduct. Of course there must be some government, but not one that grows without bound and attracts power hungry, corrupt authoritarians.

    But hey, keep on voting for those Republican and Democrats, because that's been working out so well thus far, amirite?

    • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:40AM (#40686673) Homepage

      But Americans have been hugely keen on giving more and more power to their federal government

      Sigh. No. The ignorance of history by the average American is appalling. No, this is nothing new. It goes back to the 1798 Alien and Sedition acts [ushistory.org], at least. There's nothing "more and more' about it-- you do remember the domestic spying of the 1960s and 1970s, right? Or the Kent State incident where National Guardsmen shot a bunch of students on the quad (who, as it turned out, didn't even have anything to do with the protests over which that the Guards had been called out?) Well, no, probably you don't. What is new is the large amount of push-back against giving power to the federal goverment.

      There's been for the last two centuries a give and take between cries for security and the desire for non-interference; or, if you like, the battle between fear and freedom.

      , so this is in inevitable byproduct. Of course there must be some government, but not one that grows without bound and attracts power hungry, corrupt authoritarians. But hey, keep on voting for those Republican and Democrats, because that's been working out so well thus far, amirite?

      You're ignoring large amounts of debate and back-and-forth in order to phrase things as simple freedom-versus-evil. Even in the two-party system, the parties are not monoliths; opinions are not uniform nor black-and-white. However, if you don't like the two-party system, you might try to see if you can advocate changing the ballotting system that we currently have, which drives the politics to two parties. Try advocating approval voting, for example, which is a system that is not biased toward two parties: http://www.electology.org/approval-voting [electology.org] http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html [boulder.co.us] (or any of several other methods that don't fail badly with multiple candidates).

  • by s.petry (762400) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:00AM (#40686129)

    Many of us already know exactly what is being stated. You really only needed to investigate the Tea Party, OWS, and the Ron Paul followers to know this was happening. Many leaders of those groups have been jailed, detained, and publicly discredited by corporate owned media.

    Without the common statements regarding famous books, what people should be fearing is tyranny. Tyranny is a very short step away from where we are now. I would be a fool to state that it's everyone in Government. I would be a bigger fool to deny that there are people in Government pushing for a Tyrannical State and Oppressive Government.

    Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.

    • by KingSkippus (799657) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:10AM (#40686265) Homepage Journal

      Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.

      Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate? Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?

      I always have to laugh when I see this "We might need to fight the government!" argument people make about the Second Amendment. If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces. The only way it would ever happen is for individuals that make up the police forces (that is, the police, National Guard, Coast Guard, and other domestic security agencies) to be on your side.

      You would be "removed" before you ever got to the point where you could seriously fight the government. If you're lucky, that means you'd be shipped somewhere like Guantanamo Bay (or more likely, extraordinary rendered to some godforsaken hellhole where they torture people).

      If you're going to change the government, you're going to have to do it by changing the hearts and minds of the U.S. citizenry to elect people who are willing to change the laws and give up some of the power the State has accumulated over the centuries. Not an easy task, I'll grant you, and many people believe that that will never happen. But if not, well, you're going to have to accept what we're stuck with today because armed revolution is not, nor will it ever be, the answer.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Nyder (754090)

        Guard that 2nd amendment right people, since you are dealing with people that are armed to the teeth and have no issues killing civilians. Simply look at the body counts in the Middle East, Africa. Do so with unbiased corporate owned media, or check numerous sources.

        Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate? Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?

        I always have to laugh when I see this "We might need to fight the government!" argument people make about the Second Amendment. If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces. The only way it would ever happen is for individuals that make up the police forces (that is, the police, National Guard, Coast Guard, and other domestic security agencies) to be on your side.

        You would be "removed" before you ever got to the point where you could seriously fight the government. If you're lucky, that means you'd be shipped somewhere like Guantanamo Bay (or more likely, extraordinary rendered to some godforsaken hellhole where they torture people).

        If you're going to change the government, you're going to have to do it by changing the hearts and minds of the U.S. citizenry to elect people who are willing to change the laws and give up some of the power the State has accumulated over the centuries. Not an easy task, I'll grant you, and many people believe that that will never happen. But if not, well, you're going to have to accept what we're stuck with today because armed revolution is not, nor will it ever be, the answer.

        Well, don't complain when they come and get you because you choose to do nothing. And they will come to get you. No one is safe.

        • Well, don't complain when they come and get you because you choose to do nothing. And they will come to get you. No one is safe.

          As noted above, I didn't say "choose to do nothing." In fact, I specifically told you how change can come about. Sounds to me like you are the one who has given up, effectively choosing to do nothing.

          Or, I'm sorry, did you think that posting messages on Slashdot was actually going to lead to some meaningful outcome? That if enough Congressmen, judges, and the President just read your comment, they'd finally come to their senses?

      • by khallow (566160)

        Were you not paying attention to stories about Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.? Or hell, for that matter, the Civil War?

        I take it you weren't. A small group of irate people with zero support can cause massive problems for the federal government? So what happens when half the houses in a region go Ruby Ridge? Then you segue to Civil War status. And there we see that a group of states can indeed give the federal government a run for the money.

        Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate?

        Sure, get enough buddies, enough organization, and eventually enough military hardware and you can beat the pants off the federal government.

        If it ever comes to the point where we have to have an armed revolution, your little pop guns aren't going to do diddly against our domestic police forces.

        Aside from rendering that police force obsolet

        • by KingSkippus (799657) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:53AM (#40686865) Homepage Journal

          I take it you weren't. A small group of irate people with zero support can cause massive problems for the federal government? So what happens when half the houses in a region go Ruby Ridge? Then you segue to Civil War status. And there we see that a group of states can indeed give the federal government a run for the money.

          So did you notice the part where the federal government won in each and every case? That afterwards, there was exactly zero meaningful change, except possibly to push the pendulum even further in the direction of unfettered federal power?

          As opposed to, I dunno, say, Martin Luther King, Jr.? Yeah, all of those weapons he was stockpiling sure helped shake things up. And all of those 60s hippies who were so gung ho about engaging in armed conflict really made the difference in stopping the Vietnam War. Wow, remember that bloody clash when the students at Kent State started firing back at police? Even today in, say, the struggle of gay people much much recent success to gain acceptance in society, I can't help but notice how it finally came about when they started espousing arming themselves to defend their rights.

          Except... Oh yeah, right! None of those things happened! All of those fundamental shifts in how government has changed were accomplished through non-violent campaigns to win the hearts and minds of the American people.

          Look, I know it's fun to romanticize the Revolutionary War, as if that's the One and Only Way to solve government oppression. Maybe you missed out on the history of things like 1) England was across the Atlantic Ocean, which posed a significant logistical disadvantage, 2) England was also mired in conflict with France at the time, and 3) England didn't have a massive arsenal of modern weaponry to use against the colonists. Yes, we won, but anyone who doesn't recognize that such an example is practically useless in today's world is an idiot.

          • And then some (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            And any group who rises up will be labeled a "terrorist organization" so that when they are exterminated by the Feds in front of the media cameras, the general public, who are under the impression that the "government is always right and tells the truth", will just think, "They had it come'in." And the media will just fall in line and report about the "terrorist cell" and bring up clips of Timothy McVeigh or any other home grown group who had something against the government and committed violence.

            The troub

          • by s.petry (762400) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @01:36PM (#40688121)

            Look, I have no issue with some people wanting to be a pacifist. All causes need martyrs. What I take exception to is someone telling everyone to be pacifist. Historically large populations that believe this is their only option end up being the victims of genocide. Just ask the 80 million or so Chinese pacifists that were murdered by Mao, or the 30 million Jews that were murdered by Hitler, or the 60 million or so that were murdered by Stalin and Lenin.. Oh wait, you can't because they were all murdered.

            No where do I state that a gun is your only option, what I state is that people need to protect that right.. just in case there are no peaceful alternatives.

            Lets remember something which you neglected to point out. MLK was assassinated right? As was JFK, as was Bobby Kennedy, as were at least hundreds of other people that spoke out publicly regarding Political Corruption, Equality/Human Rights, the dismantling of our Education system, and the MIC.

            This is long but there is a point. Keep this in context as you read.

            Would you care to really test your level of reality? How about you review some of the music figures that were assassinated relatively recently and find out their political affiliations and who they were being investigated by? Of course, it's just "those crazy gangsta rappers" right? Keep your hat on your head, I'm not claiming that all of the rumors and stories are true. I'm claiming that it's interesting that certain people were being investigated by certain agencies and ended up dead by assassination. Coincidences with the JFK assassination are interesting, such as police being removed from areas just prior to the assassins starting to shoot, and the same Police showing up at locations over and over and having no reports or reports that were completely fabricated, security video tapes vanish, evidence being destroyed, etc... If you investigate you will start to think, and thinking is pretty scary right? How many times can something be coincidence before it becomes a plot? Interestingly, there were specials on the news regarding the East/West Rap Wars that had no mention of Government agencies investigating and tailing these guys for years, the evidence tampering, etc... we only heard about those "Violent and Crazy N-words". Have you been manipulated in to believing in a reality that does not exist? Since I have been investigating, the preponderance of evidence clearly shows that I have been presented a manipulated reality regarding many of those people. I am not convinced yet, but the best argument for the media presented reality is "The alternative is so far fetched it can't be true" which I hope you see as the self protecting fallacy it is.

            The point of that last paragraph is really this: All of those people were publicly asking for peaceful and progressive changes to the Government for the betterment of society. They were pacifists for the most part as well. Who won, the dead guy or the corrupt? I think you know the answer to that question. (The use of the term "corrupt" there is very intentional since I have invested a lot of time investigating many of these assassinations. That is my opinion of "who" and may not match your opinion of "who".)

            Now you are probably going to cry "Begging the Question" when you get done reading those two paragraphs but keep the fallacy card in your pocket. That would only be true if I stated that it was all factual, and I was very clear that I was not sure of all the facts. I stated that it was interesting, and worth investigation. Once you start to realize that your reality is being manipulated, I hope it pisses you off and you start to dig in to the truth in more areas.

          • by moeinvt (851793) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @01:54PM (#40688303)

            You're mixing the ideas of what's "good" with what's "possible".

            Consider Oklahoma City where a couple of guys killed 168 people and wounded over 600. Did the feds "win" that one? Suppose there were 10.000 potential Tim McVeighs in the country. Is the government going to establish a defensive perimeter around every single federal building and guard it with military forces? Will they also build living quarters for all government employees and their families inside these "green zones"? How do they guard all of the supply lines and critical infrastructure at the same time? What about the $1.6T annual federal deficit? What would happen to the economy and the government's ability to levy taxes if they had to deal with a domestic insurgency?
            You don't need the American Revolution as an example when there are numerous modern examples.
            You think England was over-extended? What about the USA with 700 military bases in 130+ countries and demoralized military personnel?
            I don't think armed revolt would be a "good" thing or even a "likely" thing, but it's entirely "possible". Anyone that thinks "modern weaponry" is certain to defeat a determined insurgency fighting on its own soil is the idiot.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by JockTroll (996521)
          If you go against a tank or a fighter jet with a shotgun you're doing it wrong. Are you aware that if you kill the personnel that maintains and operates the tanks, planes and drones, those shiny pieces of equipment do not work? And are you aware that the ubertechnoinvincible Western armies have had their asses sliced off, cooked and curry spiced and served to them with hot peppers and salad in a good lot of places? Mind you, the Serbs are still kicking their heads for playing too nice.
        • Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate?

          Sure, get enough buddies, enough organization, and eventually enough military hardware and you can beat the pants off the federal government.

          Do you honestly think you and your buddies could stand up against the full wrath of the US military, against unrelenting 24/7 aerial bombardment, against battalions of tanks, against biological and chemical agents, and nuclear strikes? Unless your "buddies" include major superpowers like China and Russia, you haven't got a prayer.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            Pretty much, yes actually. Because you are forgetting that all of those involve people. It's not a collection of equipment.

            Contrary to popular movies or books about left or right wing dystopian takeovers, most people are 90% good. Sure, they may lie a bit. "Was I really going 10 over the limit, officer" or not report internet purchases on their taxes. The average soldier is not going to nuke a city in America with a number of relatives in it. Well, unless it's the in-laws... Same with biological or chemical

            • Convince soldiers that Joe Smith is a bad guy and it's legal to kick in his door, even if it's dubious, it'll happen.

              Exactly. While it is (gratifyingly) true that soldiers would kick up a fuss against attacking domestic civilians, it is also true that they would be completely capable of reducing any traitorous paramilitary compound to rubble if ordered to do so, regardless of how many weapons the rebels had.

              In other words, it is not the second amendment keeping civilians safe from their government, but the conscience of the individual US soldiers.

          • by Urza9814 (883915) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @02:10PM (#40688499)

            Do you honestly think that you could fight the U.S. government with any amount of weapons you as an individual, or even organized with your buddies, could ever accumulate?

            Sure, get enough buddies, enough organization, and eventually enough military hardware and you can beat the pants off the federal government.

            Do you honestly think you and your buddies could stand up against the full wrath of the US military, against unrelenting 24/7 aerial bombardment, against battalions of tanks, against biological and chemical agents, and nuclear strikes? Unless your "buddies" include major superpowers like China and Russia, you haven't got a prayer.

            How long do you expect the federal government to continue to exist after they decide to use biological, chemical, and nuclear strikes in a genocidal extermination of their own cities? Which soldiers do you expect to push the button to launch a nuke at, say, Ohio? And were that to happen, do you think the rest of the world WON'T get involved? They didn't stay out of our first revolution, they didn't stay out of our civil war, they didn't stay out of Libya...

            Were there to be some kind of large and violent revolutionary movement, there would be FAR more resistance from the police forces than the military. Most soldiers would probably go AWOL. They joined to _protect_ the citizens, not kill them. That's the police's job. Aside from the fact that any soldier fighting a domestic insurrection would be in violation of federal law (though I'm sure that would change.) Yes, there are some SWAT teams with tanks, but we wouldn't be facing A1M1s, we wouldn't be facing aerial bombardment, and we CERTAINLY wouldn't be facing chemical/biological/nuclear weaponry. And if we did, that is exactly the point at which we would win. Just look at recent events in the middle east.

      • "they can't kill us all"

        • by azalin (67640)

          "they can't kill us all"

          They don't have to, They just need kill enough. - I can't believe I'm actually commenting in this wacko thread.

      • by s.petry (762400)

        No, Maybe, and Yes. I think the difference between now and then is that we have more people in the US Military and Police forces that are paying attention. I'm not confident that it will just be people with small arms against the whole Government, since many will revolt if the proverbial shit hits the fan from the Military and Police.

        I think something to consider is the plight of the Jews under Nazi Germany, and ask a fundamental question. Would you rather die fighting to be free, or die in the hands of

      • I have to laugh at the 2nd Amendment NRA types bristling with their automatic weapons and camoflage gear. Ever tried taking the 2nd Amendment into an airport?

        Even a "well-regulated" militia doesn't stand a chance against a determined Federal government armed with nuclear warheads and drones. So cut the pep rallies and let's look for something realistic. Violence isn't going to do it.

        I can sympathise with the need to keep secrets. Not all processes work well when done totally in the open. On the other hand,

      • by moeinvt (851793)

        I disagree.

        Obviously you need "critical mass" to have an armed insurrection. Imagine 1% of the population willing to engage in hostilities against government forces and 10% of the population sympathetic to that cause. An army of 3.3 million with a support network of 33 million. If we ever get to that point, the government is toast.

        Read "The War of the Flea" by Tabor and William Lind's paper "Understanding Fourth Generation War." Look at the experience of the U.S. in Vietnam, Israel in Lebanon, Russia

    • by cpu6502 (1960974) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:11AM (#40686281)

      >>> Many leaders of [Tea Party, OWS, and the Ron Paul followers] have been jailed, detained.....

      When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property (see the broken windows in Oakland, and feces found in churches/along sidewalks) but not about Tea Party or Paulbots in jail or detained?

      >>>Tyranny is a very short step away from where we are now

      I've said the same thing on my facebook, but 99% of the responders tell me I'm nuts. For example they defend the Obamacare Mandate saying it's "reasonable" and that TSA employees are just doing their job. ("Would you rather be blown up?") That when I was pulled-over in Texas by DHS, I should have left the police look inside my trunk, instead of saying no/no/no for an hour. ("If you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?") Perhaps I am wrong and the government really isn't heading towards tyranny.

      • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:17AM (#40686363)

        When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property (see the broken windows in Oakland, and feces found in churches/along sidewalks) but not about Tea Party or Paulbots in jail or detained?

        Haven't you heard? They're all in the secret FEMA death camps.

        I've said the same thing on my facebook, but 99% of the responders tell me I'm nuts.

        You are. If you think the US is anywhere NEAR anything that can be described as tyranny, you have no clue what tyranny actually is. The irony is that anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for [nytimes.com], and those aren't nations which respect anything resembling freedom or liberal democracy. Oh, I know: you'll say, "the US doesn't, either." I sincerely hope you don't get the world you wish for, because it will be one where you are far less free.

        • by Nursie (632944) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:29AM (#40686523)

          What do you mean by "anything which weakens the US" ?

          Because from where I'm watching, continued abuse of the US political system by monied interests (be they civilian or military-industrial) is weakening the US, weakening it's freedoms, weakening its civil rights, and weakening the prosperity of the majority of its people.

        • by cpu6502 (1960974)

          >>> anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for,

          And now YOU sound like a nutter.
          It's the same bullshit we lived through during the Cold War, constantly being afraid we would be invaded if we did not invade them first (hence leading to wasteful wars like Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, and so on). We're better off to *cooperate* than to live in constant fear, like you pro-warhawks.

      • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:29AM (#40686527) Homepage Journal

        You need to read more than corporate media accounts before you decide to get so close to branding them a violent group of people. Every big demonstration attracts people who want to be violent who may or may not have anything to do with group itself. It sounds like you are taking the corporate media story of the events for granted.

        And the issues at OWS goes way beyond wrongfully jailed person to police beatings, to police whose overtime is being paid by banks (which happened in New York), and all other types of problems. The corporate media *does*not*like* people that don't fall in line with their way of thinking.

      • by s.petry (762400)

        When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property

        This hit the news pretty heavy in the Bay area as well as nationally. It discredits the OWS which is why it made big media. Did you know that the Oakland Occupy movement had no idea where most of the violent people came from and that most of the people arrested were not even from California, let alone Oakland? You can check, that is factual information, and was reported on main stream media as well as local media in the Bay area. The same exact thing happened in other areas with violent demonstrations w

    • the idea is to cure our government of it's corporate disease, not condemn the whole thing. and replace it with what? no one controls a revolution. everyone suffers and what comes out on the other end can very well be worse

      so, as much as i despise the corporate influence on our government, i would equally warn against the parent poster who seems a little too eager to grab his gun

      think too much like the parent poster, with vicious enemies out to kill him around every corner, and this turns you not into the instigator of righteous revolution, this makes you a deluded paranoid schizophrenic shooting up a mall

  • by jo42 (227475) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:00AM (#40686131) Homepage

    'Security has effectively become the State religion; you don't question it. And if you question it, then your loyalty is questioned.'

    Sounds exactly like the conditions that people lived in under the rule of the Nazis and Communists. The "the land of the free and the home of the brave" have become what they fought so hard against - "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Heil Amerika!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Sounds exactly like the conditions that people lived in under the rule of the Nazis and Communists.

      Nope. Anyone who uses that argument doesn't actually study history. Christians used it when they took prayer out of school, did you know that (search for 26 similarities between America and Nazi Germany)?

      Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest? How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or the

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by dcsmith (137996)

        Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest?

        Just a guess, mind you, but maybe 10% of the Hispanic readership in Arizona?

      • Christians used it when they took prayer out of school, did you know that (search for 26 similarities between America and Nazi Germany)?

        Which is hilarious since the lawsuits brought about in the 60s over school prayer and mandatory pledge of allegiance were mostly from members of minority Christian sects and those who were not Protestants. But those facts don't play very well among the mdern-day ACLU haters.

      • by RabidReindeer (2625839) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:39AM (#40686663)

        Sounds exactly like the conditions that people lived in under the rule of the Nazis and Communists.

        Nope. Anyone who uses that argument doesn't actually study history. Christians used it when they took prayer out of school, did you know that (search for 26 similarities between America and Nazi Germany)?

        Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)? Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest? How many of you have had your entire families deported or locked-up because of their religions or their views of the government? Can I call the feds and report my neighbor for being a collaborator if I want his house?

        Stop feeding the panic and start fucking thinking.

        Bad hyperbole = bad argument.

        I hate to use the words "slippery slope", but Nazi Germany didn't just spring up overnight.

        When I was young, you could apply for a job without having to "show your papers" or prove that you weren't guilty of being a drug addict. We gave away the presumption of innocence in the 1980s.

        When I was young you could legally listen to any radio transmission you wanted to. Again, in the 1980s, that was changed to forbid monitoring cell-phone frequencies. Since then, almost all of the public service channels in my city, state and county are digitally encrypted from critical stake-outs and investigations all the way down to garbage collection and city buses. I learned a lot about how my city works from listening to the people I pay to keep it running. This year the city took the decrypting scanners away from the local newpaper and TV stations.

        When I was young, the fortified fence was what Communist countries used and America's borders were famously open.

        When I was young, US armed forces were supposedly "better" than Communist/Nazi forces because we treated prisoners fairly and didn't torture them. Torture, in fact, was unthinkable, even when faced with the very "agents of Satan" themselves.

        Not everything was better back then. Especially if you were black, female or gay. But if the reality didn't always measure up, at least we had the ideals. Since 9/11, the ideals have been flushed down the toilet.

        It may not be slippery - yet, but I'd definitely say it's a slope.

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          I hate to use the words "slippery slope", but Nazi Germany didn't just spring up overnight.

          Didn't you get the memo? The slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so we have nothing to worry about.

          Must be true, I read it all the time on Slashdot.

          • Slippery slope actually IS a logical fallacy, but Mr. Reindeer didn't appeal to a slippery slope logical argument to assert a claim. Like you, I believe his post was spot on.

            It's much different to say "I've seen these regrettable changes over my lifetime, and am not only worried I won't seem them undone, but I also worry it will get worse unless we curtail the trend we've been on." than "Past data guarantees a future trend of NAZIS!"

            On a related note, the biggest roadblock for change is that none of
      • I'm not saying your argument as a whole isn't sound, but this isn't:

        search for 26 similarities between America and Nazi Germany

        With the right keywords, you can produce "evidence" that current and past US presidents are saurian aliens in disguise. It would be far easier to point out the "similarities" between the USA today and Godwin's Germany.

      • Really, how many of you have been stopped at government checkpoints and asked to show your papers (except when leaving the country)?

        Aside from the obvious of air travel (which also includes a quick fondle along with the paperwork), how about these? DUI checkpoints, local department of alcoholic beverage stores, any time I enter a government building for any reason, etc. Maybe those aren't all checkpoints, but the point is I have to have proof I'm allowed to be where I want to go. That's just me, as a normal white fellow. You toss in a Mexican woman with a heavy accent, citizen or not, and the complications quadruple.

        Further, if you failed to supply papers, were you under threat of arrest?

        Arrests? Probab

      • Until a few years ago, I could leave the country at will. I once filed my international flight plan over the radio after I WAS ALREADY ON MY WAY. They only needed *my* name as the pilot for recod keeping and couldn't care less about who else was with me. Now - thanks to EAPIS - I have to submit a passenger manifest IN ADVANCE to see if the passengers ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE OR NOT.
    • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:21AM (#40686417) Journal

      Who fought? And who supported. While volunteers American soldiers flew bombers at great personal costs to disrupt the Nazi war machine, American made ball bearings came in via Sweden in large enough quantities to offset the damage to production. While Americans born in the US with Asian ancestors were rounded up and killed if they disobeyed, the open Nazi Ford was never even questioned and his heritage continues to this day.

      Yes, America fought in WW2 against the nazi's but it was not exactly undivided in this and those who think those who wished the US to not aid the Allied forces were pacifists is gravely mistaking. It always amazes me when people come up with alternate histories were the US does not enter WW2, the far more likely alternate outcome would have been the US getting in on the Axis side. What after all is the difference between "keine juden" and "whites only" in spirit? Hell, IBM supplied the lists, Americans supplied the gas, the idea of going "east/west" for "lebensraum", of concentration camps (don't make the mistake of confusing concentration with extermination) (indian reservations). America was far from a natural ally for the Allied forces. Not that most of the allied nations were much better.

      Don't forget how hated Roosevelts New Deal was and still is in certain quarters, quarters that have only gained in power.

      Right wingers are like the Mafia, they are still fucking there! Want some proof? South Korea's whaling plans. WHY? They had given it up for decades, their economy doesn't need it and they have no depressed areas where people need any type of job. So why? Because some people who never let go of the past saw an opening. They were stopped, this time... but they will not go away, will try again and again and again.

      The fight for freedom never ends, because evil never stops. Not the evil that rapes and pillages but the evil that excuses it as being cultural or just the way things are or ignores it as being a fundemental part of the good old days the evil wants to bring back.

      See Romney's entire election campaign. They are not back, they have never gone away.

  • by acidfast7 (551610) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:00AM (#40686135)
    for all of the NSA bots compiling all of the text associated with my username.
  • by MetalliQaZ (539913) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:02AM (#40686165)

    It was a good talk. I found it interesting.

    I think the big take away from his insights was that the root of this evil was the corruption that consumed the NSA, and the pressure to send money out to the military industrial complex that surrounds government agencies.

    It seems to me, in the context of this article, that the security religion is used as a veil to hide that corruption. By now, they may be using doublethink to believe their own lies, but that is the root cause. To fix it, we have to remove the dirty ties between the NSA and the MIC.

    He repeatedly said in his talk that no matter what he did to solve a problem, he was never allowed to call it solved. There was always more at stake, more danger around the corner that would be used to scare Congress into spending more money. As he said... keep the problem going so the money keeps flowing.

    -d

  • by bmo (77928) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:04AM (#40686191)

    ... the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges.

    Because gays, democrats, and non-christians are evil, or something.

    Fascism will come wrapped in the flag, and the ones purportedly against it like the Tea Party, are helping the security state and fascism along with gusto. They crave it.

    Brown shirts for everyone.

    --
    BMO

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by Chrisq (894406)

      Don't but all into the same category. Whereas there is nothing wrong with gays, democrats, and most non-christians, Islam is totally evil . White converts to Islam become terrorists. Black Muslims in the Sudan are terrorists. Brown Muslims are terrorists. The one unifying factor is their war-like belief. Anyone who lives freedom and equality, and who has read the Quran and heard what the Muslim scholars and Imams say will hate Islam. Anyone who believes in the freedom of religion will hate the commands to k

      • by bmo (77928) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:17AM (#40686367)

        You really didn't understand a single word I said.

        When the purges come, encouraged and led by people like you, they will not stop at just the people you yourself hate, they will continue until they meet up with you, personally. This was true during The Terror and every purge in history.

        Here's your shirt.

        --
        BMO

        • Your world view is to simple, just because someone has a brown skin, doesn't mean they can't be a Nazi. Holland was one of the most liberal nations on earth with its capital Amsterdam, gay capital of the world... attacks against gays have however changed that. Attacks committed by? No, not just Muslims. But a very high percentage of them. Right wing extremist have been working together with Muslim extremists. Oh, they are rare but they do happen.

          And there is no rule the next Hitler can't be a Jew, gay, memb

      • Oh really? The Qur'an would seem to disagree. http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_qura.htm [religioustolerance.org]

        Of particular interest

        "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous."
        Chapter 49, Verse 13

        and

        "God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable."
        Chapter 60, Verse 8

        or maybe you'd prefer

        "Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous - Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men - for God loves those who do good."
        Chapter 3, Verses 133-134

        Terrible things have been done in the name of every belief, both religious and secular. I'd be more careful with the generalizations. They have a way have coming back to bite you. Or, you know, keep trolling.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Correction... *religious extremists* are evil. That term also covers the assholes who believe we should herd gays into concentration camps and let them starve.

        There is nothing inherently evil about Christianity or Islam. As usual with the human condition, it's assholes that screw everything up.

        • by radtea (464814) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @12:05PM (#40687033)

          There is nothing inherently evil about Christianity or Islam.

          Sure there is: they both require you to put non-Bayesian means ahead of Bayesian means as a way of knowing reality, and that is the root of all evil.

          In the case of religions, scripture and ecclesiastical authority are the favoured non-Bayesian means. In the case of political organizations, party doctrine and ideology are the favoured non-Bayesian means.

          Whenever anyone attempts to induce someone to abandon the only possible consistent way of knowing reality--Bayesian reasoning about systematic observations and controlled experiments--they are committing the most fundamental act of evil possible.

          • Correct. This is why I couldn't possibly bring myself to expose my children to religion on an ongoing basis (a little of it is good to remind them of how crazy those folks are) as I was when I was a child.

            All that I need to do is remember the 20 years that I wasted as a child and early adult in the church to know just how bad the church is for humanity. It is not the time that I miss so desperately, it is the opportunities that I passed up. I disregarded anything that contradicted my misguided beliefs and

      • by An Ominous Coward (13324) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @12:04PM (#40687011)

        In the graduate studies lab where I got my Ph.D., my adviser and most of my coworkers were from Islamic countries: Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Tunisia, and Saudi Arabia. All identified as Muslim, but represented various points between conservative and liberal: several drank alcohol, several (including both males and females) had premarital sex, several smoked tobacco, one (at least) smoked weed openly (as possible in the States). Most, but not all, regularly attended religious services. Most, but not all, fasted during the day during Ramadan. All but one of the females wore just Western clothing; the other wore Western clothing plus a hair scarf. Two of the married males were, to the whole group's opinion, overly demanding of their wives (in this opinion, there was no disagreement between the Western and other Islamic students). Of these two males, only one (the Saudi) intended to marry a second wife; all the others felt this was a backwards practice.

        The rest of the lab consisted, with some fluctuation over time, of two Christians (one American, one Asian), two Atheists (one American, one Indian), one Jew (American) and two Hindis. And yet there was no cultural strife within the lab. Everyone got along, everyone helped out their fellow students when possible. The Islamic students would invite everyone to the evening meal during Ramadan, the Christian/Western-traditional students, if in town over Winter break, would invite everyone to Christmas dinner. As with any big group there were cliques of closer friends, but it didn't happen on sectarian lines.

        So obviously Islam isn't totally evil, and Muslims aren't a single organism. As with any group, there is a continuous spectrum between conservative and liberal. As with any group, you have a majority of people just trying to get by, a few bad apple loud mouths, and a tiny minority of dangerous psychopaths. I won't deny that Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem in the Middle East, and I won't say that there's never a reason for the US to intervene to protect our interests. But as an American, Christian fundamentalism is a much more pressing concern to me, as it can have (and has had) a much more direct negative impact on me and my country.

    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>>the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implement Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purges. Because gays, democrats, and non-christians are evil, or something.

      I find this difficult to believe. If you had said *the Republicans or Democrats* then I could believe it, but the Tea Party was started by libertarian Ron Paul in 2007, and spunoff as a way to fight for liberty in 2009-10. Not against it. LINK please to backup your claim. Or else retract.

    • Proving something like this is extremely difficult, however something to investigate is how the Tea Party was changed after it's initial founding and the public response to the movement. Check the "leaders" that were appointed, public messages, etc... and see how they changed shortly after the movement gained momentum. Much of this work is already being done, but you have to find the information.

      Historically we see very similar actions by other Governments and people (Nazi, Communism, Fascism, Hitler, Le

    • ... the Tea Party is pushing the governor to implements Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purge.

      Er, if I read that correctly they are really unhappy about two Executive Service Employees, one of whom is a muslim and an expert in Shariah Compliant Finance, the other gay. Totally a Nazi/Soviet/Insert Dictator Here, etc., style purge. No hyperbole at all here.

      And here is a better source... http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2012/county-gop-chapters-circulate-resolution-condemning-haslam/ [tennessean.com]

  • That would have been nice to include, since it's an "RT interview"

  • Out of context (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jiro (131519) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:07AM (#40686225)

    The summary phrases it as though the person making the statement is stating his own position. In fact, he's attributing this position to the opposition.

    It's like having a summary which says "(name): Muslims should take over the world" without mentioning that the quote is from someone who doesn't like Muslims and is attributing that idea to them, and is not a quote from a Muslim at all.

    • by Jiro (131519)

      Correction: I meant the title.

      Of course even Slashdot's summaries usually aren't that bad.

  • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:08AM (#40686245)

    William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9,... Unfortunately, neither audio or video of the talk are available yet.

    Officially or unofficially? Historically HOPE conference torrents are usually up by now. Whats up with that? I haven't bothered searching yet, but...

    I always used to like listening to the mp3 audio version as if they're audiobooks, and I'm looking forward to my next batch.

  • by Picass0 (147474) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:10AM (#40686261) Homepage Journal

    I'm so glad I was born into the land of the [REDACTED] and the home of the [REDACTED]

  • RT is Kremlin-controlled Russian state media. They love to do stories like this lately.

    Second, Binney hasn't been at NSA since shortly after 9/11. And a LOT of stuff was happening immediately after 9/11. His statements to the effect that NSA is "building a dossier on every American" are not based in any sort of proof.

    Also keep in mind that for NSA to perform its foreign signals intelligence mission — which INCLUDES discerning and targeting foreign communications within the US and on US equipment and n

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Furthermore, it is unlawful to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the CONTENT of the communications of US Persons without a warrant. Period. This is not some kind of a joke.

      Are you so naive?? It is well know, that NATO allies are doing this for US. And US is doing this for US allies.

      But lately, they don't even care to go around laws, just simply break them.

      https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying [eff.org]

      Of course, EFF is a Kremlin controlled state organization bent on destroying the west, right? right??

  • Isn't the correct saying "speaking truth to power"?

  • by Eggplant62 (120514) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:17AM (#40686357)

    This is just a sad testament to what GW Bush helped to destroy -- a land of the free and home of the brave. Now it's the land of the slaves and home of the caged. Don't piss off your masters or you *will* be dealt with.

    • by Loughla (2531696)
      Umm, being able to make that statement without fear of arrest, doesn't that mean that you have. . . . . . freedom?
    • by Swampash (1131503) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @12:11PM (#40687119)

      This is just a sad testament to what GW Bush helped to destroy -- a land of the free and home of the brave.

      Let's be honest: what every sitting president since Eisenhower has helped to destroy.

      • Eisenhower was describing what he was seeing it does not mean it was not already underway before he was in office. It was bad enough he talked openly about it and did not dare to say something UNTIL he was leaving office which shows it was pretty bad already.

        WAR has no winners, everybody loses. Naturally, the excuse always is that the losses are worth it; problem is that people don't think about ALL the losses and the unforeseen losses are unknown even some time afterwards.

        The civil war gave us the modern

  • by Hillgiant (916436) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:18AM (#40686375)

    Otherwise they wouldn't be suspect.

  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @11:19AM (#40686401) Homepage Journal
    I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
  • I can't help wondering if RT could get such a candid interview (assuming they ever wanted to) from some ex-KGB. I guess it's up to each country's media to show the other side's dirt.
  • by Jesrad (716567) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @12:15PM (#40687177) Journal

    The kind of slippery slope towards more and more blind zeal and further-reaching powers from agents of every kind of administration (private or public, it makes little difference) was at the center of Ludwig von Mises' 1944 short book Bureaucracy [mises.org]. He tried to explain why and how this happens in terms of systemic incentives and asymetry of information:
    - promotion works mainly on seniority inside a bureaucracy, thus the top bureaucrats are restricted in their long-term planning by having their own retirement as an event horizon, and having grown a bias towards the statu quo ; while the newly appointed officials are being selected only on their then characteristics (good grades and diplomas mostly), and then all innovation and vigor they might have is sucked out by the subordinate positions they are forced to go through and the fact that none of it will matter much, if at all, to their advancement.
    - having no market appraisal of the value of their action (which is not the same as there being no value to it, please mind), they they get no valuations of their own initiatives or actions from the rest of society, and they have no guidance for allocating their efforts and resources across many tasks and priorities, they cannot know how good or bad a job they're doing, except through conforming blindly to the rules and laws they enforce, and enforcing them as closely to the letter as they can - 'doing a good bureaucrat's job' often equates 'not doing anything that triggers the ire of your hierarchical superiors'
    - being on the side that enforces the law often makes them forget that they, too, are subject to it, especially when things like due process hampers their enforcement of the law ; this creates a double standard in their mind where the law is never applied strictly and widely enough to the general population, and always too tightly and too often to themselves
    - serving in an administration often has the perverse effect of turning the means at the disposal of the agents, into ends of their own:

    The dictatorial nutrition expert wants to feed his fellow citizens according to his own ideas about perfect alimentation. He wants to deal with men as the cattle breeder deals with his cows. He fails to realize that nutrition is not an end in itself but the means for the attainment of other ends. The farmer does not feed his cow in order to make it happy but in order to attain some end which the well-fed cow should serve. There are various schemes for feeding cows. Which one of them he chooses depends on whether he wants to get as much milk as possible or as much meat as possible or something else. Every dictator plans to rear, raise, feed, and train his fellow men as the breeder does his cattle. His aim is not to make the people happy but to bring them into a condition which renders him, the dictator, happy. He wants to domesticate them, to give them cattle status. The cattle breeder also is a benevolent despot.

  • by ryanisflyboy (202507) on Wednesday July 18, 2012 @01:36PM (#40688117) Homepage Journal

    "The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible."
    - George Orwell, 1984

    Remember, war is peace!

Byte your tongue.

Working...