CIA and Military to Have U.S. Snooping Powers? 82
Mr.Intel writes "The NY Times is reporting that 'The Bush administration and leading Senate Republicans sought today to give the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon far-reaching new powers to demand personal and financial records on people in the United States as part of foreign intelligence and terrorism operations.' Although the measure was beaten back in committee, it appears that the administration is not satisfied with Patriot or Patriot II type powers..."
Give me Liberty, or give me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Give me Liberty, or give me... (Score:1)
Fourth Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I knew, the Ninth Amendment stated we had rights not specifically stated in the Constitution or Amendments. I'd like to think a basic level of privacy is one of them.
Better than that: The Fourth Amendment seems to imply some right to privacy in its ban on "unreasonable search and seizure".
Slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
Need to create a mySQL Table [webcalc.net]?
Re:Slowly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slowly (Score:3, Insightful)
Clear-cut is probably more accurate.
Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought it was supposed to help us defend against a corrupt gov't.
I say the hell with the guns. Every home should have a legal counsel fully loyal to that home's interests with local, state, national, and global expertise.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:5, Insightful)
This might sound like a flamebait, but it's just an observation: Typically the people most eager to defend their right to bear arms for protection against a corrupt government are also the first ones to protect the government and the actions of the government in cases such as the Patriot act and similar.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in 200+ years anyway.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2)
But I doubt if guns can help America now anyway. I think our only defense against tryanny is education and voting. We have to educate ourselves and others on these issues, an
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
Part of the concept of a militia means an organized force, not some random act.
The Web wasn't as popular eight years ago (Score:1)
When did McVeigh put up a website that everyone could discuss concerning his views?
Never, because it would have been ineffective. The bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City occurred in 1995, before a critical mass of American people had access to the World Wide Web.
Re:The Web wasn't as popular eight years ago (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
I won't speak to the probability of this being possible.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2)
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
Yet, the government can always out-escalate you. Trained professional forces. Armor and artillery. Airforce. Hell, they've even got nuclear weapons if they feel like using them.
What's that you're saying? That the military would never use such methods on civilians? If that's so, then why do you need the gun in the first place? I thought you were carrying a gun because you need to protect yoursel
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry to rain on the gun lover's parade, but this is reality. A citizen's insurrection to correct the misdeeds of our government cannot stand up to our professional military. Fantasizing about it while you watch "Red Dawn" with your redneck friends won't change reality.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2)
You dissed Red Dawn.
You dissed Red Dawn?
You dissed Red Dawn!
Honey, this guy dissed Red Dawn.
Wait I thought I said get the lawyers...
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I wouldn't say it's impossible. Not bloody likely, I'll grant.
As Napoleon said, "the moral is to the physical as three is to one." The question is not one of weapons and numbers, ultimately, but one of will. If one-quarter of the US population (75 million or so) were to rise in mass revolt, the million personnel in the US armed forces would have a heck of a time putting it down. If the rev
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:5, Interesting)
A bunch of peasants armed with little more than rifles kicked us out of Vietnam. Furthermore, studies have predicted that only slightly more than half of our soldiers would obey if ordered to fire on their fellow Americans. The remainder who aren't good Germans would, presumably, mutiny.
Read up on what a few urban Jews with small arms did during the reduction of the Warsaw ghetto. Had the European Jews of the late '30s been armed as well as the average redneck, there might not have been a Holocaust.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
The parent poster specifically referred to the modern military. MOAB on yo'ass military. If Mr. Ashcroft or Rummy want in, your Winchester ain't gonna stop'em.
I wish it would, brotha, I wish it could.
Thousands of mortar rounds, thousands of RPGs and at least several thousand "well armed" militia met a sorry fate. Sure, it would be an entirely different conflict on every level, but it is not going to matter how much firepower your militia can muster.
Get over it.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2)
Okay, say you're right and our military forces are all robotic True Believers who wouldn't mind slaughtering their fellow Americans. When you're standing meekly in the line that leads to the gas chambers, I'll be taking a few of the bastards with me. Of course, it's all the same in the end, I guess, but I prefer to go hard, instead of easy. I suspect there's a few mill
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:2)
Vietnam was a pretty modern military. The big difference between then and now in the United States military is a matter of tactics and strategy, not hardware. Even the big bombs that you mention ("MOAB on yo'ass military") were first used in Vietnam (I'm speaking of the "Daisy Cutters" here).
You also seem to be speaking of the latest action in Iraq, where the mortars, RPGs, and "militia" of Iraq didn't do too well against the US Military.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
Seriously, the US military of Vietnam was a lot different than the US military of today. You can't even say that the US military of Desert Story could have done anything to the US military of today. The current US military is about 5 times more powerful than it was in 1990. It's probably 100 times more powerful than it was in 1975. And put in another factor of 10 times if you go back to 1965.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1, Informative)
In 1973 they sent 150,000 men south with a similar amount of armor. The Army of the Republic of Viet Nam, with US aid, and US Air support, destroyed that army, and destroyed or captured the armor. US casualties were about 400. In 1975 the Congress voted not
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Jerry, you're a pretty good writer, but you don't know much about Vietnam. As I recall, you went there and shook a few ARVN hands. I spent a year there, so I feel entitled to my opinion.
Here are the sad facts: For every American who died in Vietnam, we killed at least 20 Vietnamese. We just got tired of dying before they did. They were tougher than we were, and that's likely to happen when you go to war for no better reason than to keep politicians in office.
Ask just about anyone who actually fought
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:5, Insightful)
I will note that this is much the same as the position of the ACLU on the Second Amendment [aclu.org]. (Fair Disclosure: I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU, though I don't agree with their conclusion on this matter.)
As a student of military affairs, it is obvious to me that any attempt to fight a set-piece battle force-on-force with the U.S. military is pretty much doomed from the outset unless your men and equipment measure up to ours.
However, that does not mean that it is impossible to successfully engage and defeat our forces. Allow me to recommend The Battle for Hunger Hill by Daniel P. Bolger (ISBN 0891414533). This is the story of Colonel Bolger's experience at the Joint Readiness Training Center, Fort Polk, Louisiana. FYI, Ft. Polk is where the U.S. armed forces train for what they call "Low Intensity Conflict" and "Operations Other Than War".
As I understand Col. Bolger's account, the OPFOR at Ft. Polk regularly hands even elite units their ass with only a comparative handful of men. The typical "enemy" soldier at Ft. Polk is armed only with a rifle, a few grenades, and perhaps a sidearm. They work in teams of four men, which take on units of company size with ease. Astoundingly, the OPFOR teams use exactly three basic drills against an enemy unit: Break Contact, Box Ambush, and Baited Trap Ambush.
These teams do have some support in the form of mortar fires, but these must be of necessity sporadic and consist of only a few rounds when available. If memory serves me correctly, the mortar teams sometimes move the not-designed-to-be-man-portable-tubes by hand in order to avoid counter-battery fires.
Another book that, while fiction, might prove both educational and entertaining is The Prince, by Jerry Pournelle and S. M. Stirling (ISBN 0743435567). This is a compilation of the Falkenberg's Legion saga into a single volume. Much of the story concerns a ultra-modern military force fighting a well-funded and equipped guerrilla/terrorist uprising.
All of which is to say that small teams of highly motivated and dedicated individuals can and do defeat much larger units of our armed forces. Now, I'm not suggesting that every pick-up truck full of heavily-armed rednecks fits this description, but I think you'll allow that some of them might.
I would further point out that every member of the U.S. armed forces swears an oath to "[...] support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic;".
Imagine for a moment a hypothetical future in which the people have staged a general revolt against the federal government of the United States. For the sake of argument assume that this is a good-faith revolution with the stated goal of the restoration of constitutional government to the U.S. Furthermore, assume that the arguments for armed revolt are legitimate and beyond reproach, and a neutral outside observer would say that the President was an enemy of the Constitution. Now imagine the minds of the commanders. They have sworn oaths to both defend the Constitution and obey the President, each of which is now in direct opposition. I believe that at least some unit commanders would chose to join the rebellion. For further reading please see The Origins of the Military Coup of 2012 [dtic.mil] by Lt. Colonel Charles J. Dunlap, Jr.
You could say that the fact that the government troops would posses WMD might tip the balance in their favor, but I'm not sure even a cynical and corrupt U.S. regime would use WMD on their own soil. It is also unclear to me whether such WMD use would attract outside aid or intervention.
In conclusion, I think that the only time armed revolt b
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
You've got a squad. It consists of yourself, and the other dorks who responded to my original post. Each man fights just as well as he made an argument here.
OK, I see exactly one dude fighting well. That's you, and it corresponds to your very nice response.
The other guys just shot their feet off. Them's mighty slim odds.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
You're right. I have been trolled. Serves me right.
Oh well, another day another dollar.
8-)
Wolfe.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
My argument is sound, and only one person here (not you) put up a decent counter to it.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
And in this case, I very much doubt even half of the army would fight against their own people. And if at least half revolted, then we have a balance of forces.
Re:Where's the well armed militia? (Score:1)
Re:RTFA (Score:1)
I thought Republicans... (Score:2, Redundant)
... were all about a smaller, less powerful Federal government.
Can any of the Republicans reading this explain this to me? How do you explain the actions of the Bush administration?
BTW, I have nothing against Republicans, and I am not a Democrat.
Re:I thought Republicans... (Score:2)
democrat. I'm assuming you are going to get a lot
of replies talking about how some planes went into
some buildings and how that's why all our civil
liberties were suddenly worth squat. Prepare for
the onslaught.
Re:I thought Republicans... (Score:2)
Re:I thought Republicans... (Score:2)
I would have to say that, at this point, George II is just simply running amok with no clue about what he is really doing, and the long term affect
Re: I thought Republicans... (Score:2)
>
You missed the fine print:
Only US Powers? (Score:1)
But, I can also see them getting 'world-wide' powers such as control over Echelon...scary stuff.
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Insightful)
Intelligence agencies and military organizations tend not to care about your use of Kazaa, what you might be ingesting on the weekends, or what sorts of filthy things you might be doing with consenting adults before, during, or after said ingestion.
By contrast, law enforcement agencies can, do, and often must. They may choose not to for periods of time, but they're required to care, and if it's becomes apparent that there's a political payback for caring about the right sorts of things, they can change their minds about what they care about very quickly.
To take a ludicrous example, a college student could walk up the military recruiting booth at any campus job fair in the country with a CD-ROM full of MP3z, and say "Hi guys! I got this stuff off Kazaa for the troops! Have a copy! You can listen to anything you want, downloadin' from Alice's MP3 share!"
If just one person did that, he'd be looked at pretty strangely, but I guarantee you he'd be allowed to walk away. (And if there's two of 'em, they'll think they're both faggots and they won't take either of 'em. And if three people do it, just three people, why then they might think it's a conspiracy. But if fifty people, can you imagine, fifty people, walkin' up to the Army recruitin' booth and said "Hi, we're geeks who'd flunk our physicals, but we'd like our troops to know that they can listen to whatever they want, downloadin' from Alice's MP3 share", they just might think it's a movement... whups, wrong thread, it's nowhere near Thanksgivin'!)
To be perfectly clear, they'd probably get away with it at the FBI booth too.
But there's a world of difference between "definitely" and "probably". It's sad, but no matter how dumb and contrived I've made this example (and my example is about as contrived as it gets!), I still couldn't convince myself to type "the FBI does not care, and never will care, about the victimless crimes that 90% of us have probably committed at one time or another."
(No disrespect to tha [G-]Man when he's out hunting for terrorist azz, but I'd have CIA and NSA sniffin' my packets than you guys. If it's any consolation, I blame Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti and Sonny Bono for being such complete and utter dipshits, not you guys. Sucks that you're forced to waste time and money protecting their obsolete business model against music consumers instead of protecting us from the world's badazzez, but hey, the law's the law. :)
Re:It's about time (Score:1)
As contrived as your argument was, it is a perfectly legit argument.
As for the last of it, I believe there is precedent (probably not much, but I think it's there) for a law enforcement officer (or group of officers) to refuse to uphold a law s/he believes to be unjust. Granted, I'm not saying your ass won't still get busted, just it'll get busted later then sooner, and hopefully someone is taking a real long and hard look at why an officer of the law (who has sworn his life to upholding laws) in
Re:It's about time (Score:2)
being the biggest crime of the last fifty years, and everybody wanted to
get in the newspaper story about it. And they was using up all kinds of
cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer's station.
They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and
they took twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each
one was to be used as evidence against us. Took pictures of th
Re:It's about time (Score:1)
maybe then they have records
maybe they are going to use the records in some way because they don't like your policy
there are a lot of maybe's but we had something similar here in switzerland about 15 years ago
every journey to communist countrys had been recorded and membership in labor unions and leftist partys
for a lot of people the records were quite scary as they released them
especially if they contain things only your good friends could have
without enough polyglots, they're screwed abroad (Score:2)
This year's one day seminar on Integrating Speech Technology in Language Learning has been cancelled [jiscmail.ac.uk]. The InSTIL seminar was all that had been left of what was once a funded U.S. research program to use speech recognition to help people learn [nsf.gov] to read [nsf.gov]. However, over the past few years the budget of the Interagency Educational Research Initiative has been slashed and the Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnership [jiscmail.ac.uk]
Chickens Roosting (Score:5, Insightful)
It is shit like THIS that WE Americans slept through and let pass. When we have installed friendly dictators we did not tell our so-called leaders to piss off. These people do not work in a vacuum. They answer to us. And it is now, it is laws such as this which will go unchallenged which are the seeds of terrorism -- again, both here and abroad -- that will be sown into violent acts down the road.
So lets not deceive ourselves. If you don't like it, get off your ass and vote, protest, carry a sign, write a letter and most importantly talk to your friends and debate. WAY too much stifling of opinion these days and worst, justfied as being "patriotic."
And while I'm on a rant, I'll give an example. Our position in front of the UN was that Iraq was learning of the weapons team's destinations and playing a shell game with the WMD, right? We've now had unabated access to the entire country for a whole month with nobody left to move a goddamn thing. Where is it? Where are the WMD? Where is it, Bush? Where is it, Colon? Where is it, Blair? Thirty !@#$ing days in-country with thousands of military and private contractors looking for an OUNCE of banned weapons and nada. WMD requires infrastructre and we have half the deck in custody. Any of them would spill their guts in a second to get off light if there was anything to spill.
THIS IS NEWS. But do you see it? Do you see the reporters reporting? Do you see the investigators investigating? No. The country isn't stifled, my ass.
It is said that that in a democracy, people get the government they deserve. Well I hate to phrase it like this but the rest of the world has been getting the government we deserve. And now that the so-called chickens are coming home to roost in the form of Patriot I and II, everyone is bellyaching. Welcome to the disaster that has been the last 20 years.
Maybe this explains a few things. But whatever you do, don't pretend like the evedence wasn't there all along.
Mod up, not down (Score:1)
Moderators: Mod down if what he said was wrong, or offensive, not insightful.
Re:Mod up, not down (Score:2)
" You couldn't be more right (I too have been dismissesed as unpatriotic...)! Moderators: Mod down if what he said was wrong, or offensive, not insightful."
I don't say this to flame you, really, I understand your intent. But I have loooong since stopped giving a crap about what my posts are rated.
People that read slashdot who are interested in more than the "me too" crowd will read the death-by-moderation entries. As for the rest of 'em, fuck 'em. I'm baffled by people posting anonym
Re:Mod up, not down (Score:2)
just doing my part to promote it...
Re:Mod up, not down (Score:2)
Re:Chickens Roosting (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me just expand on this whole topic.
-Bush said we had to defend ourselves against the (non-existant) WMD. He couldn't wait 10 days to give the UN inspectors more time to look. Of course, he knew they wouldn't find anything, because there was nothing to find. That news would put a big damper on his great war push.
-So now we are stuck with rebuilding Iraq. Given the wonderful job done in Afghanastan, I expect Iraq will simply be milked for oil.
-Bottom line is, the world is no safer, and Bush's friends are getting richer.
Oh, and you are a traitor for disagreeing with the great leader!
Re:Chickens Roosting (Score:2)
We don't know they're non-existant. Saddam had 12 years to hide/give away/destroy at the last minute.
We know he had them at the end of the last wwar. He and his government said so, and the inspectors found them.
The recent activity was trying to verify (as was required by UN edict) that he destroyed them.
Saddam blocked each and every attempt to verify his compliance with UN resolutions.
He couldn't wait 10 days to give the UN inspec
Re:Chickens Roosting (Score:2)
Saddam had 12 years to hide/give away/destroy at the last minute.
We know he had them at the end of the last wwar. He and his government said so, and the inspectors found them.
The recent activity was trying to verify (as was required by UN edict) that he destroyed them.
I really don't understand what you are saying there. If he had already destroyed them, what threat was he to the world? If he had already destroyed them then the UN efforts were successful. Ari F. had
Why is this buried in section? Eschelon? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of blantant power-grab should be on the front page, not buried in section. Even if you agree with the policies of the Busy administration, this is newsworthy.
That being said, this is nothing new. The military and CIA have been spying on the citenzry for a long time via the eschelon system. What this does is legalize it so that it is easier for the military and the cia. Currently the system is dependent on the good will of the canuks and the brits, and this move would get around that.
The way it works is that since its illegal for the US military and CIA to spy on their own citzens, they just request a the foreign goverments do it and report back to the US agencies. The US also does them the same favor by spying on canadian and brittish citizens.
The whole thing is a big load of crap.. but for Bush and the republicans to have the balls to try to make this legal.. wow.. 4th amendment anyone?
-molo
HowTo Kill this program (Score:2)
2. Out sourcing by private companies to individual contractors.
3. Info contractors limited to having information on no more 10 people.
4. Info contractors must be legally knowledgable with yearly review.
In a country of 300,000,000 that would mean 30,000,000 would be aware of the laws that the country is crushed by. 30 Million... Aware... uh, we win!
What They Will Be Happy With (Score:1)
Of course no one listens to the mad loons until it's too late.
Oh well.
Re:It's time for a new party (Score:1)
Good for you. His name's Nader, but he's probably not running this time. Lots of us voted for him last time (and in 1996 against Clinton), but all it seems to get us is scorn.
"That guy" might have been Howard Dean, except he's already gone on record as not wanting to touch the defense budget.
I'd advise you to go with whatever half-assed corporate whore the Democrats put up. I knew I was doing The Right Thing voting for the can
Doing The Right Thing(tm) (Score:2)
The difficulty is that those who voted for Nader gave Bush the 2000 election, by splitting the anti-Bush vote. If Nader had not run, it is likely that the majority of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, rather than Bush, handing Gore the election. Note that this is not the fault of those who voted for Nader, who, as ubikkibu notes, thought they were doing The Right Thing(tm) by voting for the candidate they preferred. Rather, the fault is due to the plurality voting system, in which to get a result m
some nice inside info on CIA dirty tricks (Score:3, Interesting)
Very interesting, because so much of it was censored, and the authors chose to leave blank space in the parts that were censored. Sections that the CIA wanted to ban, but a court ruled had to be allowed, were printed as boldface. Next time somebody tries to give you bullshit about how our government does what's best for the people, refer them to this book, written by former CIA operatives. Most interesting is the connection of Latin American coups with US business interests (e.g., United Fruit Company).
Oh, and if you're looking for a politician who stands up for his principles, and for civil liberties, read up on Russ Feingold (Winconsin senator, Dem.), co-author of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and ONLY senator to vote against the Patriot Act. I'm no Democrat, but if he runs for pres., I'll throw my vote his way.
some thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) I don't believe people care about anyone other than their own friends and family. I think everyone likes to say publicly that they care about other people, but as long as evil nasty shit is happening to Someone Else, Somewhere Else, everybody's generally OK with it.
(2) If a population has enough $$$, they don't care about anything else (i.e., the government can do whatever it wants).
(3) The old saying you can't have beauty without ugliness, or happiness without sadness. Yin-yang...you need balance in order to have definition.
Now, my point.
I don't understand why anyone is the least bit surprised about any of this. Power wants to remain in power. Simple as that. It doesn't matter whether it's Republican, or Democrat, or Socialist, or Fascist. And, when the U.S. public doesn't give a shit (because, economy notwithstanding, most of us still have enough money to, like, go to movies and shit), the people in power can do anything they want. So why wouldn't they try?
I think that we are seeing the symptoms of the post-Cold War world. Simply put, there is no longer a strong foil for American culture. No yin to our yang. When the Soviet Union was a reasonably powerful country...the best way for American powermongers to stay in power was to hold up virtues like freedom, liberty, privacy, etc., because it made us look better than them.
But, now that there is no longer anyone we need to look better than...liberty and privacy, things which just get in the way of power, can now be jettisoned.
Unless China rises up as an enemy of the USA, or something, I expect to see a trend toward more and more powergrabs, the destruction of the few democratic principles this country was founded on in the first place, and a move toward totaliarianism.
Of course, I hope I'm wrong. But, I doubt it.
Distracting attention from the economy, and Enron (Score:2)
That has to be a misprint (Score:2)
What is happening to us? (Score:1)
Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free.?
- Benjamin Franklin
Why stand we here idle? What is that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of the chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what the course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!?
- Patrick Henry
Posterity - You will never know how much it has cost my generation for your f