Pentagon Seeks A Loophole In The Privacy Act 304
CygnusXII writes "As reported over @ wired.com. It seems that Homeland Security isn't the only govermental body wanting to keep a database on the good old U.S. population. 'The bill would allow Pentagon intelligence agents to work undercover and question American citizens and legal residents without having to reveal that they are government agents. That exemption currently applies only to law enforcement officials working on criminal cases and to the CIA, which is prohibited from operating in the United States.' Kinda adds a whole new meaning to 'We want you!', or should it be 'We want all your secrets'?"
A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is to say that the DoD is trying to get into the subject area that is presently the property of the FBI along with state and local police forces. It's not that this kind of work can't be done by the US Government, but that the wrong division is asking to do it.
The DoD runs our armed forces... they are not designed for law enforcement and when they are asked to do so they usually do a poor job of it. This provision in the law should be stricken and replaced with more funding to the FBI and other police forces so that the people who should be gathering info on US soil can continue to do so correctly.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
This is the part I like best. (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is supposed to make him feel better how? By HIDING the fact that he's talking to a government agent?
You're right. The DoD is not designed for law enforcement. And there is no reason for the DoD to have undercover agents checking on US citizens (and legal residents).
Do you really want Military Intelligence officers spying upon US citizens on US soil?
From the article:
"In February, Army intelligence agents improperly sought information about attendees at a University of Texas law school conference about Muslim women. Conference organizers refused to provide a videotape of the event to the officers and publicized the request, leading to an apology by the Army."
The only way to keep the government honest is to keep it open.
They have been for years (Score:2, Funny)
When I was in CI, agents went to bars all the time hoping to pick up info. Not really undercover, and they often would have their IDs, but they didn't advertise their presence.
Funny story - two agents were in a bar in a rough area, playing pool, looking for info. When one of them leaned over the table to make a shot, his badge fell out. They got the heck outa Dodge.
Re:This is the part I like best. (Score:4, Insightful)
If our government is, indeed, not repressive, they have no right to expect answers to such questions and he has a right not give answers.
Do you understand what a right is?
He may give or withhold information to whomever he choses and for whatever reason he choses. Even if actually charged with a crime (pre "PATRIOT", of course) he still retains the right to just shut the hell up and not utter a word.
This is exactly why this law is being sought, to infringe upon that right and lend credence to the idea that he has not traveled very far from government repression.
The secret police may be looking for him.
KFG
Re:This is the part I like best. (Score:2)
Yeah, sort of. But you miss my point, which is that someone holding a green card is a permanent resident and has no obvious reason to fear the government, at least w.r.t. immigration issues. I didn't say such a person would be obliged to invite the CIA in for coffee, but at the same time they don't have to duck into a phone booth when a squad car approaches.
Do you unde
Re:This is the part I like best. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here, then, is a list of instances where no illegal activity is occurring, but most people would prefer privacy:
1) Bathroom breaks
2) When the van's a rockin'
3) Nose picking
4) Writing in a journal
5) Meditation
6) Migraine headaches
7) Donating sperm
8) Getting a "Nosy Feds Suck" tattoo
As you
Re:This is the part I like best. (Score:2)
Actually, I do. And you're right, DC (like any large city) surely has plenty of illegals. Good thing, too, as Americans don't seem to want to do the work they do.
I'm sure it is hard to get them to admit it, though, unless you get intimate with them.
Yep, and you can guess that it'll be a lot harder for us to know anything about them if they think that every person who tries to ask them a question might be a government agent in disguise.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting case is the CIA contractor who apparently beat an Afghan detainee to death and was charged with assault this week. He is apparently being prosecuted under the Patriot Act, by the DOJ, in a really disturbing interpretation and extension of this already overly broad laws reach. The article being used was supposed to be for foreign terrorists who attack U.S. government facilities overseas but they are apparently reinterpreting it to cover a U.S. citizen, and government employee, attacking a foreigner at a government facility overseas.
The DOJ apparently had to stretch it this way or CIA and DOD contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan could quite literally get away with murder. The problem:
- Civilian contractors can be court martialled but only if congress officially declared war which it hasn't in Afghanistan or Iraq
- There is no way the U.S. will turn its citizens, especially a CIA or DOD employee, over to Afghanistan or Iraq which are the only entities with jurisdiction
-The U.S. has managed to exempt its citizens from prosecution by the international courts who prosecute war crimes wherever they occur. The U.S. blackmailed the U.N. in to this exemption by threatening to withdraw troops and support from peacekeeping operations in the Balkans in particular. China supported this, and helped pass it, but as of yesterday no longer will because of the obvious war crimes the U.S. is committing.
- The DOJ doesn't normally have jurisdiction outside the U.S. though it is rapidly taking upon itself the right to prosecute anyone for crimes anywhere, and become the worlds first truly global police force. The Bush administration is trying or has already given the DOJ the right to prosecute U.S. citizens who commit sex crimes anywhere in the world which is another huge extension of the DOJ's power. You can no longer count on escaping the long arm of the Bush administration by moving out of the U.S.
In an interesting twist it is quite possible the Bush administration was intentionally using civilian contractors to perform interrogations and torture, they've hired a lot of them, because they knew they couldn't be charged thanks to this long series of convenient exclusions.
It may only be because the Bush administration is under heat to make it look like they didn't approve torture in the first place, that they've been forced to go to these new extremes. So they turn to the Patriot Act to find a way to prosecute these contractors who were probably doing what the Bush administration wanted them to do in the first place when they tortured detainees.
If this use of the Patriot Act it upheld the DOJ gains broad new international law enforcement powers. If its not upheld CIA and DOD contractors guilty of torture and murder are given a get out of jail free card, at least until the UN cancels the U.S. excemption from international war crimes prosecution.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a civilian contractor we are talking about here. If you read my post you would see that civilian contractors apparently can't be court martialed except during times of war and the Congress has unfortunately not declared war in Afghanistan or Iraq so they can't be court martialed. This offense happened in Afghanistan so U.S. domestic laws against torture, which also enforce the Geneva rules, don't apply.
There should be a new rule, the U.S. should stop waging wars unless the Congress has the guts to actually declare war. It would fix a whole lot of evils. For example instead of passing a weak kneed authorization for the wars in Iraq or Vietnam Congress should have to actually declare war. When faced with this gravest of constitutional duties they might have come to their senses, do their jobs, investigate, contemplate, and decide if there is a reason to go to war. Iraq and Vietnam might not have happened as a result and the U.S. might be a lot better off.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident used to push the U.S. in to Vietnam was largely a U.S. fabrication. South Vietnamese patrol boats attacked North Vietnam, they fought back, there was a U.S. destroyer in the area that was apparently never fired on but Johnson claimed that it had been and used it to sucker Congress in to endorsing the disasterous escalation in Vietnam without declaring war.
And of course in Iraq the Bush administration fabricated the case for WMD's and ties between Iraq, Al Aqaeda and 9/11, launched a war that has alienated most of the world, resulted in war crimes and was once again not a declared war.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:3, Interesting)
We're at war, and saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
Were you just born ten or fifteen years ago?
The Constitution went out, oh, about five minutes after it was passed when one of the Adams, governor of Massachusetts, suspended habeaus corpus during Shay's Rebellion.
It hasn't been respected since.
You ever hear of guys like Nixon, Reagan, Carter, Kennedy, Johnson, etc.? They preceded Clinton by some time.
Clinton was just a bit slicker than Bush, that's all. And he got more pussy. Which, along with post-alcoholism and drug abuse, is pro
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
And you're a cheap character assassin.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:5, Insightful)
This essay [usresolve.org] , which was awarded the top prize for the Strategy Essay Competition at the National Defense University presented by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Colin Powell in 1992, explains why.
Briefly, the US military has a very important job, namely protection of the US from external threats, which the military should not be distracted from by acting as the police.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2, Interesting)
Which sub-branch of the executive body a particular government organization is under is really only an artifact of what sounded like a good fit at the time it was created.
I'd guess the problem here is that someone feels that the FBI is too full of bureaucracy and politics to do an effective job.
Raise your hand if you don't think the biggest problem with our government is the massive inert body of career bureaucrats. But you'd better be prepared
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
One of the jobs of the Secret Service is to investigate counterfeiting, which is why they are under the Treasury Department.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:5, Insightful)
That was part of the oath I swore when I joined the military. I don't know where people get the idea that the only activity the military can conduct within our borders is training. What is the point of having a military if not to defend our own soil?
I agree that the military make lousy police officers -- no one in the military I know is keen on the idea. Where I disagree is the idea that searching for Al Qaeda operatives is strictly a law enforcement activity. By conventions of war they are spies or saboteurs, and we'd be well within our rights to summarily execute them, just as we did with German agents during WWII. (Well, we actually sent them to military tribunals, which is more than is required. Simply put, if you find a spy, you can shoot them.)
Now, if you were opposed to Eisenhower sending in the 101st Airborne to enforce desegregation, and to Janet Reno using Bradleys to help burn down the Branch Davidians, I'll at least give you credit for consistency. I would be plenty happy to leave it to the FBI if I had faith that they would faithfully follow up on intel given to them by the CIA, but there is a big disconnect there, which the previous administration was more than happy to exacerbate (i.e., the Gorelick memo).
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, I thought the conventions of war only applied after a declaration of war? To the best of my knowledge the USA is currently not in a state of war with any foreign government, although it is conducting several military operations overseas. That's why the prisoners in Guantanamo aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, remember? It cuts both way
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:5, Informative)
I agree that it's fine to be shooting spies. Put a fucking bullet right in them. It's even better to be shooting terrorists. However, the military should not be running around harassing civilians. Protecting people trying to bring about desegregation and spying on U.S. citizens are very different things. Besides, there's already an organization designed to spy on U.S. citizens, it's called the FBI, and the solution is to form closer ties with them, not to send military spies out to interrogate the populace.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2, Informative)
> them. It's even better to be shooting terrorists.
How does one determine they are spies or terrorists? I am a bit relieved to hear that the more common practice is a military tribunal and not summary execution. How about giving a leg up to all those who might be summarily shot in error and making an arrest and tribunal mandatory (unless the officer is in mortal danger, of course...)
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
We need to get rid of our own terrorists before we try to claim we're morally superior to the terrorists.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1202-05
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:3, Informative)
From your country's laws.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020731_c arter.html
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:3, Informative)
At the behest of the US Attorney General, the army can be used against those deemed domestic enemies.
they can but..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anecdotal but a few years ago my nephew, a career army nco, quit. He refused to re up despite being offered a huge amount of cash to do so. He is not very political,never was as far back as I can remember, but he told me he simply refused to go along with what he knew was coming, martial law,dictatorial military rule, and especially he didn't agree with what they were trying to brainwash him into, which is that the second amendment is only a government granted privelege, not a born with right, and that only regular military, the guard, and selected civilian police have any "right" to keep and bear. He also said it was rare to hear the term "civilian" without it being part of "fingcivilian" to help get that mindset established, part of a demonisation processs, similar to what police are undergoing today. The stories he related to me indicated that that is an on-purpose aspect, an indoctrination they are carrying out for the future. My personal opinion is that it is an accurrate assessment of his,because I haave heard correlating anecdotals based on talking to a number of other individuals I know who were serving. He was instructing at west point at the time, and I tell you, I was shocked. Here's a young man who liked baseball, girls, 4 wheel drives and hunting, and it was his interest in guns and hunting and being exposed to some gunrights information, etc, before he joined that clued him into what was going down. He did NOT want to quit, he had purposely gone in directly out of high school,just like his father way back, my BIL, but he stuck to his principles and did, he wanted nothing to do with todays new "follow any orders no matter what" army.
I think the trends are ominous, and I am not exaggerating when I will state I feel the USA in 2004 has more parallels with mid 30's germany than most people want to admit to right now.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
I know a state of emergency was declared on 9/11, but I don't know whether it has been lifted yet.
Re:A soldier isn't a police officer... (Score:2)
> faithfully follow up on intel given to them by the CIA, but there is a big
> disconnect there, which the previous administration was more than happy to
> exacerbate (i.e., the Gorelick memo).
Not coming as a fan of the Clinton administration, but isn't the separation between the CIA and FBI intelligence gathering apparatus by design? They have completely different jurisdictions. Granted, information should be transferre
AYB (Score:5, Funny)
-They set us up the database!
-All your secrets are belong to us
Shouldn't that be... (Score:2, Funny)
Pentagon: How are you gentlemen!!!
Pentagon: All your secret are belong to us.
I haven't (Score:5, Funny)
wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
Shades of Tyranies Past ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Poindexter's TIA (Total Information
Awareness) project (which lives!)
I could have sworn that the only
military arm that has ANY LEGAL
DOMESTIC charter is the Nat. Guard.
Once DoD gets involved in domestic law
enforcement investigations, the next
step is assigning "political officers"
to each brigade, just like the Nazis
and Stalinists, as well as "Cuban-style"
neighborhood watch/informers
Oh, wait, we already have that bit with
the establishment of the HSA, via phone,
letter, or
Has anything changed for him? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're getting there....
Re:Has anything changed for him? (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I knew, it was illegal for US law enforcement to pretend to be reporters. Is that next to fall? If they aren't going to be cops, what's left for them, if this example wasn't a total smoke screen?
Re:Has anything changed for him? (Score:5, Informative)
Seems so. This part of the text sounds as if they can exempt a lot of actions on the part of an agent designated as working undercover. (See other parts of the text for how said agents would be allowed to doctor their income tax returns to hide their status as well):
Re:Has anything changed for him? (Score:5, Insightful)
A blanket exemption from any Federal regulation, rule, standardized administrative policy, process, or procedure, pretty much at will.
Federal laws? What federal laws? We're the GOVERNMENT! We're EXEMPT from any laws that are inconvient.
-
Re: (Score:2)
God Bless America (Score:4, Insightful)
Just say no? (Score:5, Interesting)
So some asshole comes up to you and starts questioning you about Al-Qaeda, but doesn't say he's FBI. Either its blindingly obvious that he is, or you tell him to fuck off.
I can see it now:
"As you can see, Mr. Anderson, we've had our eye on your for some time now. Ignore the shades, and the earpieces, and the official-looking, unnaturally clean sedan we're driving, we're NOT government agents. We need your help to find a certain "individual". You want to waste your day talking to us, since of course we cannot compel you to, since we're not government agents, don't you, Mr. Anderson? Since we're not government agents, you're more likely to tell us what you know, since we're just regular guys who happen to have cornered you, dragged you into our car, and want to chit-chat about Al-Qaeda. m-kay?"
More realistically (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what happened to Philip Agee, CIA defector, in Paris. A long and elaborate ruse involving gaining his trust and a series of 'accidental' occurrences seemingly unrelated. But that was done outside of the US, where warrants aren't necessary and it's basically just espionage.
Do you really want this kind of thing to be able to happen domestically? No constitution, no bill of rights, no need for warrants, no need for transparency--just all out domestic espionage operations.
Re:More realistically (Score:3, Funny)
Sure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just say no? (Score:3, Insightful)
The FBI already runs domestic undercover operations. The Department of Defense isn't supposed to. Theoretically, when the FBI arrests someone, the arrestee enjoys certain legal rights. But similar persons in the custody of the military (e.g Jose Padilla) are imprisoned at the pleasure of Mr Bush.
Soldiers get police powers (Score:5, Interesting)
But if that doesn't scare you, what about the prospect of a United States getting what is effectively yet another intelligence agency in the middle of a war between the existing two?
I dismissed this article [salon.com], about the author of this book [amazon.com] as a little overstretched last week - but the more I look around the more real it seems.
Ok, so now I'm being hattish...
Re:Soldiers get police powers (Score:5, Interesting)
Reunite Church and State? Check.
Hold citizens with trial or bail? Check.
Nation building without proper cause? Check.
Tax breaks that only benefit the rich? Check.
Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws? Check.
Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity? Pending/already going on.
This nation has gone to Hell and the changes they are making and have already made are going to haunt us for the next 50 years. Fuckers.
Whatever... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but if someone wants to ask me questions, and they A) aren't wearing a police uniform or B) identify themselves as law enforcement/criminal investigators, I'm not saying jack.
Re:Whatever... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm surprised its not mentioned yet (that I've seen) on Slashdot, but don't forget that a huge portion of hacking has always been social engineering, which of course includes asking the right questions in the right way.
I was an anthropology student for a while, and one of the most interesting classes was one called 'Doing Feildwork' which basically taught the techniques, problems and pitfalls of doing an ehtnography (think slightly more academic and analytical documentary). One of our main topics involved when and why you should or shouldn't mention that you're an academic, simply because there are many questions that people will answer if you're polite/friendly that they wont answer if they know you're an academic.
Someone else here already posted the story of an American spy in Paris who was tricked by a friendly, attractive girl. Think about the last time an attractive member of the opposite sex talked to you [this may be hard for some slashdotters, I'm sure]: don't you typically keep talking with them as long as they want, unless they become too annoying?
All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure there are people out there that detest all the personal surveillance, but if a crime is committed and caught on tape, I think it should be used to prosicute the criminal. I personally don't want to be tracked everywhere I go, but if I was mugged in an alley, I would hope a camera would catch the criminal. It would bring some justice to me and *help* to justify the big brother tactics.
--
Please submit any spare Gmail invitations that you might have [dealsites.net]
Re:All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us (Score:2)
Real men don't need (or want) any Rights. (Score:4, Funny)
That is correct, citizen.
Only those who oppose the government seek "privacy" and they only want "privacy" so they can plot to overthrow the government.
The government is your friend.
The government takes care of you.
Good citizens trust the government.
The government would never support a bad law.
(slavey)
The government respects all of its citizens.
(women's sufferage)
Only terrorists oppose the government.
Only terrorists seek "privacy".
Only terrorists oppose the Law.
"If you abide by the laws, then there shouldn't be any problems."
The government welcomes the support of good, concerned citizens such as yourself.
Re:All Your Secrets Are Belong to Us (Score:2)
That's right, because as we all know, the government and the military *always* act perfectly scrupulously when you give them huge amounts of power that they can excercise without any meaningful oversight. *No* genuinely democratic government should need to run the apparatus of a secret police state, complete with secret government agents, the complete absence of judicial oversight, and a total lack of transparency to the public. *Those are
U.S. Laws are starting to scare me (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the U.S. Department of Defence really need to spy on it's own people? The U.S.A. is really starting to scare the hell out of me with more and more of these silly laws trying to be passed. Thank goodness I'm a Canadain.
Organisations that did the same thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Stasi (former Eastern Germany) / Gestapo (former 3rd Reich)
Of course all in the name of security.
Re:Organisations that did the same thing. (Score:2)
There are certainly reasons that this loophole seeking by the pentagon is not a good thing. But 'the gestapo and stasi did it too!' i
Kind of like the Stazi... (Score:3, Insightful)
Military or FBI? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Military or FBI? (Score:3, Funny)
We already have turf wars between the FBI and the CIA. Do we really want to add in a third party? Is that also a case of "the more the merrier"?
Re:Military or FBI? (Score:2, Insightful)
This wild expansion of scope is redundant and dangerous, enough checks and balances have fallen by the wayside already. There is nothing 'Pentagon intelligence operatives' ca
Re:Military or FBI? (Score:2)
You don't see the US *military* torturing and killing people in Iraq?
How old are you? What fucking middle school did you go to? Who was your civics teacher; because either she sucks you you're a retard.
More importantly, what fucking section of the Constitution gives the goddamn US Army the right to exist *at all* unless in time of war? You might want to read it slowly, because it sounds like it'll be your first time.
In case you h
checks and balances (Score:2, Insightful)
It is already clear that th
Our government is a ruling class of the rich. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are now a suspect because you are poor and have no voice (no money)
Vote the Republicans out of office based on their ACTIONS.
Does this look like LESS GOVERNMENT?
I cant beleive the amount of brainwashed republicans out there who go fuck crazy over their $300 tax return. "its your money" Yeah well "It's your country" and look at what these folks are doing to it!!!
These are not republicans.
Vote Bush Out!
And the dems are just as currupt, but i think they're learning a little.
Frankly in an ideal world we would have a 3rd party president win this election. Someone like Nader. Someone who is completely seperate from the two party system that is bought and paid for buy the enrons, the fords, the mcis, the halleburtons, krafts, aols, etc...
I'd vote for a fucking steel worker from PA if he was running. Oh yeah we dont really manufacture much of that anymore here in america.
Re:Our government is a ruling class of the rich. (Score:2)
state of the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
The government can raid my house, throw me in prison, and ruin my life - all in the name of national security. It's an extremely disturbing thought.
Big government / brother is not science fiction anymore, it is a reality. It's disturbing, to say the least. RFID imbedded in to everything you buy, is just the next step. This database doesn't suprise me in the least. They've kept records for years, it's what they do.
I live in illinois, it's a police state. I've already been fined several hundreds of dollars for jaywalking, and owning a NOT USED, CLEAN, TOBACCO pipe. You are guilty until proven innocent, around here.
I'm 24, an american, and I want to leave. This is a nightmare. A law may come in to fruition, that if I leave and a draft is reinstated, I will be sent back here and possibly thrown in jail, or be forced to serve for a country I don't believe in. We aren't all greedy capitalist pigs, you know. Some of us are actually decent human beings.
I hate to be such a pessimist, but if you live in the states, your life is going to be more difficult, and if anything - MORE dangerous than it is now. Throw a wrapper out of the window of your car? You could be signaling terrorists that are on the side of the road planting IED's. Think i'm joking? Just wait. It's a pretty far fetched example, but with this administration, would you expect anything else?
You naysayers JUST DON'T GET IT (Score:3, Funny)
"But wasn't there only one attack, and wasn't that three years ago?" you say?
"Are you a freaking communist?!" I say!
Pansy countries like England, who faced IRA terrorist attacks from the IRA for decades, never managed to secretly detain suspects for years. Wimps. They never even bothered to monitor the books and magazines their citizens were reading!
As usual, America is showing how to do things right!
Re:You naysayers JUST DON'T GET IT (Score:2)
"Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty." -- President, and former General, George Washington, in his Farewell Address, Sept. 17, 1796.
Dont answer any questions (Score:4, Insightful)
So.. i suggest that if ANYONE asks you questions, you politly decline. If they turn out to be feds, then they will have to take you to court to get anything out of you.
Cant trust anyone.. BB is watching..
What about Victoria!? (Score:4, Funny)
Man, Victoria's going to be pissed.
Oh well, I guess her secret has been out of a while now anyway:
Victoria's Secret Revealed (big pic) [macnn.com]
Matt Fahrenbacher
Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (Score:4, Interesting)
The Posse Comitatus Act [dojgov.net] is what currently prevents the military from being used for law enforcement purposes.
Re:Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (Score:2)
How close can you legally get to the nazis? (Score:3, Informative)
'We want you!' or 'We want all your secrets'... (Score:2)
it's more like "All your secrets are belong to us"
Always Ask for ID (Score:4, Interesting)
If someone stops me for questioning under the color of law, I immediately ask for ID, even if it's a police officer in uniform in his squad car. I've gotten a lot of hostile responses to that, even though I'm well within my rights. In these days of ID theft, I'm sure as hell not going to hand over my ID to any shmoe that says he's law enforcement.
A friend of mine has an even more interesting time: he has no ID. He doesn't even have an SSN. When it comes down to federal goons breaking down doors, he'll be the toughest one to find.
State of Emergency? (Score:2)
If yes, then they don't need this law and if not, then they are not allowed to operate inside the country.
Is this the next step towards a Honecker state? Sieg Heil!!!
Apathy (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, it's funny how utterly apathetic people are these days. People bandy about the term "freedom" but as long as they have the "freedom" to buy things people don't seem to care about the rest of it. A minority talk about what rights are slipping away, but still cast the valiant few who take to the streets as hippies and whackos. It's sick really.
What is it going to take for it to be too much? Seriously, stop and think about what exactly the government would have to do for you to be willing to do more than talk. Then think about how effective your protest will be if it gets bad enough for you to protest at all. Will you wait for a total suspension of civil liberties? Mass arrests? Until there are turrets on the street corners and "papers" required to move across state lines? Seriously. I want to say that people need to do something now, but the truth is that people needed to do something a year and a half ago. I'm not talking about revolution or anything... just make the dissenting voices impossible to ignore by adding your own.
The current administration isn't ready (yet) to start ignoring elections and the army wouldn't follow orders from people who lost elections. So go out and freaking VOTE! And then make it clear to the people you get put in that they're there to fix things. Politicians want job security because it takes more than a couple of terms in office to really secure the personal fortune. Make them fix things or throw the buggers out.
Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
"Stuff that matters" - yeah, right.
Eisenhower's 'Military-Industrial Complex' (Score:3, Interesting)
Incorrect; CIA is permitted to operate in US (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a link to the text of the executive order:
http://www.tscm.com/EO12333.html
- AC
Opens new avenues for crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep Tabs On Them (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't we just start keeping tabs on the as many official in the DoD that we can? Keep our own open databases and what-not? Have it open and published on the internet. If it's legal to obtain certain records, then we should obtain them and post them.
A similar event occured in California. The CA DMV did not restrict who was allowed access to its driver license database and did not restrict what could be done with the information. Well, some individuals obtained records on the entire state legislature and published it to the net. They changed the laws after that.
sTc
Would you Rather Live in Russia? (Score:3, Insightful)
Our government seems to have developed the same level of paranoia, and is seeking and getting the same level of power to swoop down on anybody at any time. I'm very afraid that people in other countries will one day discourage their kids from whining about their system by asking them that if they would rather live in America.
Re:"Online"?? (Score:5, Funny)
Because /. hasn't gotten around to renaming the category to "Rights you used to think you had". *ducks*
Re:"Online"?? (Score:2)
Would not apply to this posting either...
Re:"Online"?? (Score:2)
Still have to find out why 'you' is in the title tho.
Re:"Online"?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Flawed logic -- then all Slashdot categories must be suffixed with "online", hence none needs it, for it would be redundant.
well... (Score:2)
Re:The Big Brother is watching you (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they probably understand the concept of privacy very well. It's just that they want to want to cover their asses legally. As an example of this, look at the current US administration (and Pentagon) handling of the concept of torture [infoshop.org] :
When one starts examining the defence of convicted war criminals in order to avoid prosecution, I think someone should be paying attention.
the sad truth... (Score:5, Insightful)
What needs to be done is very active campaigning regarding privacy and civil rights, and why it is so important to preserve these rights and never ever give them up, especially now that there is this "war against terrorism." And it has to be done in a way that the above-mentioned people can understand.
I am an honest woman... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:An honest man... (Score:3, Insightful)
9/11 = the lives of 3,000 (in America, anyway)
an inalienable right = the lives of all 250,000,000
Don't be a fool and vote to sacrifice all of our lives in order to "save" one or two.
Re:An honest man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Osama wants the White House! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right! Everyone! Please REMEMBER to NOT VOTE FOR OSAMA IN NOVEMBER. Terrorist forces are only MONTHS away from overthowing the US government and forcing ALL US CITIZENS to attend Islamic schools!
"He is fighting a war, not shoplifting."
The same as various mafia families fight "wars".
The same as various drug gangs fight "wars".
More US citizens die from drug-related crime than from terrorists.
Terrorism can be reduced by simply applying the same techniques that law enforcement does. Track the money. That's how all of those other terrorist cells have been found in Europe.
identifiability of enemy soldiers (Score:5, Insightful)
A 'terrorist' on the other hand, is defined as 'anyone who the State Department says is a terrorist'. If we were to use your logic and treat terrorists as 'enemy soldiers', then that would mean the ability of the authorities to shoot on sight anyone classified by the Department of State as a terrorist. But how do you identify a terrorist--unless he is packing weapons or you find out about his plans?
The fact is this is *not* a war. The USA is *not* a combat zone, any more than London was a combat zone when IRA attacks were frequent. Terrorism is political crime, but it is crime nonetheless--not carried out by a sovereign state subject to treaty law, not carried out by centralised organisations with clearly defined hierarchies, and most importantly it is damn near impossible to identify a terrorist 'combatant' until it is obvious that they are going to actually carry out an act of terrorism.
And the State Department has already decided that loads of people are terrorists who do not fit this criterion--for example anarchists, like a 14-year-old kid I knew who was arrested and interrogated by the FBI because he had an anti-war leaflet in his bag at the airport, and added to the 'terrorism list' before they let him off.
Who is an enemy soldier is a very clear question. Who is a 'terrorist' however is an extremely subjective judgement. And by your logic my 14-year-old friend should have been shot on sight, or at least taken to a POW camp for indefinite detention and military trial.
The world is not different to what it was before 2001, terrorism has existed for hundreds of years, the difference is that it's being used as an excuse for the biggest crackdown on opposition in the west and in fact in the larger world since the 1930s.
Re:identifiability of enemy soldiers (Score:2)
Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War (Score:4, Interesting)
However, the problem you're discussing is massively more complex than you're realizing: true, terrorists think they're fighting a war. However, they are most certainly not. A war is a conflict between nations - political entities that not only make themselves available for communication, but who hold physical territory. Terrorists such as Al-Queda hold no land which is their nation, but rather are hosted by friendly nations such as Saudi Arabia (our partner in peace, of course). As such, terrorists are able to engage in 'military' attacks which cannot be reciprocated (find me a tower full of civilian al-queda, please...). In a war, all attacks are potentially reciprocal (within the limitations of comparative wealth, size, obviously). This reciprocity serves as a form of restraint on the actions of nations, limiting their willingness to commit atrocities*.
Because terrorists by definition need not fear reciprocation, nor [in the case of Islamic extremists] do they fear suicidal missions, they cannot be dealt with by traditional or by-and-large existing military methods. Rather, they must be approached in the same manner as which domestic terrorists [a la the Unabomber] are: a combination of military and police intelligence and effort.
While I don't agree with the need for this ability for the CIA (since the FBI and local law enforcement have can fulfill this function so long as they're properly trained/breifed), I do agree with their reasoning for the nature of the 'war'.
*: Yes, obviously Russia, Italy, Germany and the rest of the Axis committed atrocities [purges of all types], as some would argue we did [Japanese internment, Dresden, Nagasaki]. However, those nations who knew they were atrocities kept them hidden, while those 'atrocities' which are debateable are obviously excempt.
Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War (Score:2)
On what nation's behalf are these soldiers fighting? What is their chain of command, where is their home territory, and what are the criteria to be used for measuring progress, achieving goals, and WINNING the war? What is the endgame?
No, we can declare war on terrorism all we want, but it is just empty rhetoric as was the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty". One cannot 'kill' a cultural phenomenon.
In fact, so long as we pursue a course of war, we
Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War (Score:2)
See, this is the problem. 'War' is no longer a concept of nation-state vs nation-state. Just because your opponent is an ideological faction, not a chunk on a map, doesn't make them any less dangerous. If anything, it makes them more dangerous.
Military analysts had been predicting this for years. Go google for 'low intensity conflict.'
Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War (Score:2)
Guerrilla warfare is a strategy, a way to conduct war in specific conditions within a defined theatre of operations and an organised military hierarchy just like any other war, but with disparate and weak bands of combatants, rather than with a large, well-equipped army.
Terrorism is not a strategy, it is a tactic. It can be used by guerrilla groups, but it can also be used by ordinary political criminal org
Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War (Score:2)
Yes I said unwinnable. As I said in my previous post, you can't kill a cultural phenomenon. The war department can't solve this problem no matter how many groups they declare war on.
Re:and Terrorism isn't common crime.... its War (Score:2)
Lets start cruising Boston and Miami with fully armed Abrams battle tanks and Apache helicopters chasing down the Earth Liberation Front, abortion clinic bombers, the Pennsylvania Citizens Militia, and I dunno, maybe even Greenpeace.
And no, it would not be a good idea having GI Joe running around the country chasing Al Queda either.
You think the FBI is a glorified police force completely inadequate or completely incompetent in fighting a war? That's no