Exception Expands Domestic Surveillance 320
drDugan writes "The Washington Post is reporting the next phase of American progress authorizing intelligence agencies to spy on law-abiding citizens without oversight. Primarily, new legislation allows an 'intelligence exception' to the privacy act 'allowing the FBI and others to share information gathered about U.S. citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies, as long as the data is deemed to be related to foreign intelligence. Backers say the measure is needed to strengthen investigations into terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.'"
The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
National governments do few things better than non-profit community organizations and local governments. National government policies are over arching and generic. They often do not take into account local priorities and rarely meet their grand objectives despite spending billions of dollars.
This action is nothing new. Surveillance will always be pitched in the guise of protecting lives. Nothing is ever said about the potential pitfalls of giving the government unlimited surveillance powers. If you listen to the proponents of universal surveillance, no one will EVER use the information gathered for political advantage. No one will EVER harrass a political opponent based on intelligence gathered in a terrorist investigation. And because all of this data is gathered under the cloak of NATIONAL SECURITY, no one will ever *see* the information in order to check its veracity.
This is just one more example of bureaucracies grabbing power in the midst of national uncertainty. If you have ever worked either in a federal agency or as a contractor to one, you will recognize this as one more example of empire building. After they get these surveillace powers, they will need more staff and resources to maintain them. That means more Directors, more Assistant Directors, more Section Managers, and so on. Their budgets will increase and the deficit will continue to climb.
Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?
Open your wallet, bend over, and get ready to get your McCarthy injection.
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:5, Interesting)
No, that's not the case... Your questions are more in line as such:
1. Don't like people medicating with drugs made by groups that don't bribe politicians?
2. Three thousand people get killed because the politicians before you killed millions of non-citizens?
Surveillance will always be pitched in the guise of protecting lives.
Which is why we need to show this for what it really is: extending the financial income of those voting for the bill.
Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?
Not really. The Chinese government has been culpable for a decade by continually buying our counterfeit dollars that Greenspan has been printing in high speed. What surprises me more is that I meet people every day who still have a love for government.
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's half the story. The other half is that power corrupts, and those with power strive to make it absolute. To many in power, privacy laws stand in the way of achieving perfect control through unlimited access to information on the citizens they proport to protect.
History, time and again, shows us exactly what comes from totalitarianism, which is where we are headed - a state that knows everything, and thus believes it can control everything. Government surveillance is merely the first step in control - being able to observe any behavior.
However, following closely behind is "controlling" such behavior. Then we start to see erosion in freedoms of speech, assembly ("freedom zones"), press, to the point of controlling media, information, even what people read or their levels of education, all in a nod to the "greater good."
This is a scary, greased up near-zero friction slippery slope with a locomotive sliding down it - good luck stopping said locomotive. We can bitch all we want on Slashdot, but the Patriot Act still stands, and legislation like that mentioned above is introduced almost daily. How does one - or even one group - fight such a relentless onslaught, such a tireless battle?? Most people in the US don't know and don't care about these erosions until it's just a little too late.
Call it conspiracy theory if you like, but I'm nervous.
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
"the" government is "your" government. (Score:2, Insightful)
If all the small business owners in the country could vote and people who don't run businesses cannot vote, then the owners would most likely vote for a much fairer, free market economy. If all the business owners could vote, there would be no more monopolys like Microsoft. The RIAA would most likely be given an equ
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
I tend to think it's not so much that people love government as much as they shudder when presented with the libe-anarcho alternatives. Libertarians have no solution for private entities amassing crushing power. Anarchists have no solution for anything. All-in-all, given a choice between private organizations I have absolutely no control over being in control vs. a government over which I could, if sufficiently m
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:2)
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:2)
The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:2, Informative)
If you think that's a good thing (or that ignoring it is a good thing), then we probably won't see eye to eye...
I mean, if you shouldn't try to stop people who are paid by your national enemies, or who espouse the core political and ideological ideals of your national enemies, then why even have nations and borders? If any national government is legitimate, it stands to be protected
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:5, Insightful)
The answer is simple: reduce federal power to the Constitutional maximum.
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the federal government's power was as limited as the Constitution laid out, the concerns about the broad implications of "spies" in government would be moot.
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:2)
If we could return to the days of a very limited federal government, the citizens could pick the State that best suits their beliefs. The federal government was built to make sure the States don't trample on the rights of the citizens, and to defend our borders. They were not set up to offend other countries or tax or surveil or build railroads.
I see you're a teacher: I also believe the federal governm
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:2)
This is the classic conundrum of "Who guards the guards?"
If the problem so far is that the current members of the federal government are no longer exercising restraint, we can't trust them to take a step back. They can't do their own reducing. Thus, we need another organization to reign in the powers of the federal government. OK, now what keeps that group in check? Well, we need another group to watch that group...
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:3, Interesting)
The War Between States (aka Lincoln's Civil War) was not about slavery, it was about getting away from the tyranny of Clay and Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism.
Re:Civil War (Score:4, Interesting)
Good post, btw.
Re:Civil War (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the people had the ability to withold tax money without fear of prosecution or incarceration then you could argue that the citizens are at fault for not paying attention.
The way it works here, though, is the politicians have already decided to do whatever they want. They have an endless supply of money from the tax system. What they can't take out of taxes they'll borrow from the Federal Reserve. That increases the tax burden to the c
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in the midst of doing an investigation on a piece of rural farm land for a property transaction in Southern Idaho. Part of that investigation required that I go to the local courthouse and look up records attached to that particular parcel. As I was scanning through the record books, I came across a whole section of records that all started and ended in roughly the same language. They were filed around the time of the McCarthy Army investigations. All of the people who filed these documents were doing so because they feared being labeled as Communists by a local demogogue who was riding along on the Red Scare. They were oaths of allegiance to the United States.
The thing that pisses me off about that whole record set is that all of these people were in fear of their OWN FUCKING GOVERNMENT. Not one spy would have missed an opportunity to follow the herd and file their own oath. So what did that exerise do in improving the security of the US? Not one fucking thing.
You are right: If you think that making people fear their government in order to MAYBE catch some spies is a good thing, they we will definately not 'see eye to eye".
I mean, if you shouldn't try to stop people who are paid by your national enemies,
You know I never said that, so beat your strawman by yourself.
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:3, Informative)
And I'm not trying to use a strawman argument. But your implication with your McCarthy statement ("bend over") was clear. How else should that be taken? And the thing always ignored about McCarthy was that he was *right*. I'm NOT saying that the ensuing methods and madness were appropriate.
But once we found and suspected paid Soviet spies in government and press, including some
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you are not arguing that McCarthy was right. He never uncovered spies; he carried around a stupid brief case that he claimed contained the names of known foreign agents working in the State and Defense Departments. I
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:4, Insightful)
Saying that McCarthy was right is like saying that the practice of lancing a patient and bleeding them half to death was right, because, after all, the patient really was sick.
But once we found and suspected paid Soviet spies in government and press, including some high posts, what should our reaction have been?
How about not going on a witch hunt? How about conducting a legitimate investigation? How about taking the evidence before a judge and getting a warrant to tap phones or search offices or whatever else needs to be done in the legitimate interest of national security? How about arresting and jailing or deporting those guilty once you've amassed enough evidence to convict them?
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:2)
Re:The funny thing about McCarthy... (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing about the VENONA files was that McCarthy had no access to them [wikipedia.org]. Further, many of the people who he accused of being Communists weren't in the Venona papers.
You may be reading too much into Ann Coulter's writings -- your argument sounds suspicously similar to hers...and has the same flaws.
The fact is that it's simply not OK to make accusations with no proof. The man was grandstanding, and failed to offer any evidence...ever. Regardless of whether or not the evidence later surfaced, he never offered it, which suggests that this was speculative.
Finally, his goals weren't so much to expose traitors on the Soviet payroll, because he never offered an iota of evidence showing this. Instead, he attacked people as communists and communists sympathizers, thus advocating American thought police. You can substitute Communism with quite a few ideals or even religions and the whole concept of McCarthyism begins to crumble. Should Americans have a right to know who the Jews and Jewish sympathizers are? What about gays and gay sympathyzers? Libertarian and libertarian sympathizers? Republicans and republican sympathizers? It is all silly, because IMO, one of our deepest core values is freedom of thought.
Ultimately, it shows that the ends don't justify the means. McCarthy felt that his cause transcended the American justice system -- so he blew lots of smoke and used his power to ruin public figures. It's funny that you should advocate McCarthyism, since there are so many parallels which can be drawn to modern issues. The problem is that what all of these parallels have in common are paranoia, xenophobia, and intolerance...and I'm just not sure how I feel about these being our core values.
I just want to point out that you are making a straw-man argument. Nobody is arguing against looking out for our national interests. If someone is on our enemy's payroll and thus committing treason, bring them to justice. Put them in front of a jury of their peers, and try them using real evidence. The accusers should have proper oversight all the way. What opponents of McCarthyism (and opponents of the erosion of oversight and civil liberties) argue against is bypassing the justice system that helps make America free. IMO, this is more unamerican and more dangerous than the Commuinism/terrorism that we fight.
Well then stand up and act like an American! (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) Participate politically using whatever method you have at your disposal. States don't run themselves, and if you aren't satisfied, then by all means, take it over lawfully. Ultimately, folks like YOU can become representative, senator, and president. So stop moaning and start getting elected.
(2) Arm yourself under the protectio
Re:Well then stand up and act like an American! (Score:5, Insightful)
The fallacy of this argument is obvious when you look at the enormous political clout the NRA weilds. Politicians are terrified of them. Why? Not because the members are armed with pistols, deer rifles, AR-15s and the occasional .50-caliber sniper rifle. Because their actually show up and vote based on issues that matter to them instead of sound-bites and advertisements.
Re:Well then stand up and act like an American! (Score:5, Insightful)
This doesn't seem like counterpoint at all. It looks like the politicians have noticed two concurrent behaviors of a specific group of politically active, freedom-loving citizens that support the constitution. There is far from a 100% corrolation, but I would venture to guess that anyone willing to consider revolution would rather fight without bloodshed, therefore it would be safe to say most members of the NRA vote and have political opinions. From the other direction, there's no reason to fight unless you have some underlying political or moral ideal to adhere to. That is, unless they are really the nuts the politicians make them out to be.
Politicians are targeting this group for two reasons: (1)To discredit opposing political activists who are members of this group, and (2)to put a bad taste in the mouths of the citizenry about the use, or threat, of violence to achieve political means.
They probably will drive things to a point that violence is the only answer, if more people don't start voting and educating themselves on the important issues. I think the current goal is to make people more fearful and less willing to take up arms against an oppressive regime at home. For the record, I'm not part of the NRA, and haven't supported them financially or otherwise. I personally dread that the day might come when citizens will have to die to re-institute the founding principles of this country, but I will concede that we're headed in that direction.
Jasin NataelRe:Well then stand up and act like an American! (Score:2)
Re:The Ever Expanding Bureaucracy (Score:2)
See: Education and healthcare policy.
I don't think foreign intelligence gather
Re:Its your country, its your fault. (Score:2)
I didn't vote for these idiots.
Look, if you want a solution, its the market. The free market, the private corporations, these entities run our society, but until recently, we had the ability to decide where to shop.
Are you claiming that private corporations influencing government decision making is a NEW thing?
Tell me, how does domestic surveillance help a corporat
So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) Within the physical borders of the United States, and/or
2.) United States citizens or permanent residents,
to legitimately be conspiring to commit actions against the United States or its citizens that would be outside of the bounds of the law, in concert or cooperation with a foreign influence?
What follows is a series of honest, and not rhetorical, questions:
Is it ever ok for US intelligence and/or military capability to use domestic surveillance and/or intelligence-gathering to protect our assets (be they life, property, and so on), or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
Is there ever a circumstance where preemption could be appropriate, or would universal privacy always trump, say, the lives of thousands of others?
Black-and-white liberty and freedom quotes aside, is there any gray area, any balance that can be struck between privacy and the desire of those charged with the protection of the United States to protect it, and indeed what I would regard a very important need to protect it from catastrophic (e.g., 9/11-style) harm?[1]
Is it possible to have appropriate oversight of such activities, or would you argue that such mechanisms for oversight and investigation already exist (e.g., warrants, etc.)?
If so, how can we expect the government and those charged with protection to keep up with all potential threats? There were numerous calls for better "human intelligence" after 9/11, including many by those opposed to the current war effort. If the collection of such intelligence is appropriate overseas, why is the same collection not appropriate in the context of people planning the same type of attacks against the US or its interests, but who are operating within our own borders?
I'd appreciate honest, and not cynical, answers.
[1] Please consider that no matter how much you personally may distrust the machinery of government, I would remind you that you would likely find that in face-to-face discussions with individual military, intelligence, or other government personnel, you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best.
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:4, Insightful)
This question is irrelevant as the Constitution does NOT give our Federal government any power to do anything about these problems. The States and the People are the ones who need to arm themselves to protect against "terrorists." Our Federal government is also guilty of causing the anger and hatred that exists against the country by others.
Is it ever ok for US intelligence and/or military capability to use domestic surveillance and/or intelligence-gathering to protect our assets (be they life, property, and so on), or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
The problem is much deeper as I partially explained above. US Intelligence and the US military has no power to be used against the citizens in any way, or on US soil in any way but defensive. If they want to tap our phones so they can NOTIFY a citizen they're a target, there MIGHT be some Constitutional authority (in defense) but I can't see much beyond that. The biggest problem is that government has no power to privacy -- they must be transparent and completely answerable to any citizen. US Intelligence is so hidden that there is no oversight and the 9th and 10th Amendments provide for the People to have the power to investigate the government.
Is it possible to have appropriate oversight of such activities, or would you argue that such mechanisms for oversight and investigation already exist (e.g., warrants, etc.)?
Yes, leave it to the States and the People.
Please consider that no matter how much you personally may distrust the machinery of government, I would remind you that you would likely find that in face-to-face discussions with individual military, intelligence, or other government personnel, you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best.
Whoops, you forgot a few words:
you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends.
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
Whoops, you forgot a few words:
you'd find a genuine and deep-seated desire to do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends.
While I would agree that every person's view of the world is colored by their own experience, and that individuals may view society in the context of their own position in the overall schem
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
I'm not saying they want these laws to protec their families -- they want these laws so government is forced to spend taxdollars towards these individuals and their families.
The motivation of govern
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
I fail to see how what's best for... say as an example... Haliburton's corporate officers and chief stockholders
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
Are you high?
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"
Re:How about some real thoughts or insights ... (Score:2)
If the KKK commits a State crime (murder is a State crime not a federal crime), they'll be prosecuted by the State. What's the problem?
Terrorists are not a problem. I have yet to see terrorist being a problem, other than 9/11, and I will argue to my grave that we asked for me through our interventions throughout the world.
The Federal government has no power to fight these groups -- NO POWER. But giving the
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
Yes.
or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
To answer that question you would have to know in advance the motivation and capacity of the group/individual to commit harm. There are laws on the book
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you think we need the government to protect us against all potential threats?
First, I don't think it is possible to absolutely protect against terrorism. Remember, the people who really stopped the 9/11 hijackers were ordinary americans on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Our problem was the policy of allowing hijackers to take over an airplane in the first place. That will not happen
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
I'll accept their honesty, but there is certainly some framing going on.
Is it ever ok for US intelligence and/or military capability to use domestic surveillance and/or intelligence-gathering to protect our assets (be they life, property, and so on), or is it always better to err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns, and use the standard US criminal justice system to prosecute crimes after they have already occurred?
This being a good e
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
I'm not saying it is. That's what the article and the submitter of this slashd
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well in your question you directly pitted intelligence gathering versus the right to privacy and asked who should win, so I'm confused. Equally so because "making certain exceptions" to privacy is explicitly giving up civil liberties.
Allowing surveilance of people without a warrant or any ki
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:4, Interesting)
Thats what freedom of the press is all about.
Of course, it has always been my personal opinion that no matter what it is, crime prevention runs entirely counter to civil liberties. Until a criminal act is actually committed, any police activity to prevent that act violates at the very least the freedom of speech and freedom of association. There are probably a few others in there, depending on the situation.
Re:So is it, or is it not, ever possible... (Score:2)
Without proper oversight, it is never OK to spy on citizens. We must err on the side of privacy in domestic concerns.
Is there ever a circumstance where
"Is it ever ok" (Score:2)
"Is it ever ok" for a pervert to molest a child?
"Is it ever ok" for a government to revoke or neuter its own constitution?
"Is it ever ok" to "do the right thing", "no matter what the cost"?
--
I'm just like you. We both want to "do the right thing". Sign here.
Some people, perhaps enough to constitute an entire "side", play in the gray area. They manipulate it on the knowledge that it's a gray area. Nobody owns it, a
Blame the voters for this atrocity (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm against government is every form, but I say to hell with it. Let them spy. The bigger and more intrusive government gets, the more people will flock to the underground economy and the more bloat and red tape will be created that will make the new intrusions pretty useless. Because the CIA and the FBI and the NSA are already off limits, they might be spying already and we have no idea. They just want to make it legit, in a country with the largest percentage of citizens in prison.
With another Congressman getting caught (taking bribes this time [upi.com]), the problem with our government isn't the CIA or the FBI or the War on Iraq or any of the usual suspects. The real problem we face today is the abuse of power that ALL government officers perform at every level of government. Do you really think the morons at the DMV don't abuse their power? Do you think the local cop doesn't? Do you think your zoning board doesn't abuse their power? Why would you think otherwise?
Government is one thing: a cabal with the unique monopoly on using force against anyone they please. Why keep voting for more thieves and murderers when you can do the right thing: stop voting, start finding alternate sources of income.
For those fearing chaotic nihilism from a complete lack of government: most minarchists, libertarians and even some anarchocapitalists such as myself are not adverse to very small governments at the city level. Want to live as a socialist? Find 30,000 other socialists and form a local government completely seperate from those outside of your town.
I do have a great solution to the abuse of power: unanimous majority voting. Don't pass any law without a completely unanimous voting group. If you can't get EVERY U.S. voter to vote YES for a law, try to get every Illinoisan to vote. If you can't get EVERY Illinois voter to vote YES for that law, try to get every Chicagoan. If that doesn't work, drop down to the district/precinct level. If that doesn't work, try to get everyone on your city block to vote YES. If you can't get a unanimous voting bloc there, guess what? You're witnessing the fraud of democracy. Anyone who votes in the next national election basically accepts all the atrocities the previous politicians enacted.
Re:Blame the voters for this atrocity (Score:2)
Re:Blame the voters for this atrocity (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to presume that if murder weren't illegal people would run about doing it all the time.
If murder weren't illegal you'd just kill the murderer yourself if they had taken the life of somebody you cared about.
You might actually see a -decrease- in murders. Hard to say.
Re:Blame the voters for this atrocity (Score:3, Interesting)
And you would find out the identity of the murderer in most cases how? By seeing if they weigh the same as a duck?
Trial by Fire?
Trial by Combat?
And if the murderer is a member of a gang, you are going to get to them how?
This is the real world, not Quake.
Re:Blame the voters for this atrocity (Score:2)
Re:Blame the voters for this atrocity (Score:3, Interesting)
The second time around, I'm pretty sure that significantly fewer people voted, as they had become disenchanted with the system they had originally put so much trust in.
Me, I wrote in "Harrison Ford" both times, because frankly, I didn't like any of the options available to me. I wish we had a "none of the above" option which, if in the majority, would preclude any of t
Don't complain (Score:3, Funny)
Subjective (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it possible to carry on a rational, rhetoric-free debate when even the summary is riddled with such a subjective premise?
Re:Subjective (Score:2, Insightful)
And you're reading Slashdot?
Re:Subjective (Score:2)
My observation is that the media believes that by saying what I said above mixed with the post, reporting on the issue is "fair and balanced".
You're right though, the way to talk about these things is to be more analytical and give the readers the benefit of the doubt that they can read between the lines (maybe add in some historical, or legal
Re:Subjective (Score:2)
From TFA ....
It's almost impossible to say anything fo
Re:Subjective (Score:2)
With this added tid-bit, the reader can only conclude that this is a law to legalize CIA & FBI peeping Tom's. I'm pretty sure the intent is to spy on citizens that are potentially NOT abiding by the law.
While I don't agree with this law, I do have a problem with spinning the reporting to match my political group-think.
Re:Subjective (Score:4, Insightful)
A fair observation. But it used to be that they required a lot of paperwork and a judge to look at a domestic individual, otherwise they had no right to even be looking at you -- they had to demonstrate more that you potentially NOT abiding by the law, as opposed to just deciding.
The article implies that they would gain the power to do what they wish, say it is related to security, and then there would be no oversight of what they do. Secret government files on dissidents anyone?
Rhetoric or not, they can use this to look at people who otherwise haven't been linked to anything illegal without asking anyone's permission -- ie, innocent people. McCarthyism demonstrated that government agencies can fall prey to personal (or, institutional) witch hunts. This removes many of those safeguards.
It's always spooky when they get to decide who to investigate and why. Especially given some of the rather bad legal opinions which are being touted around to justify some of these things. (You know, human rights, due process, use of torture, what you're allowed to do with foreign nationals who haven't been "officially" admitted through airport security, wether or not you can decide a citizen is an enemy combatant and deny him constituional processes -- things like that.)
Sadly in this climate, it seems reasonable to conclude that the worst cases that everyone claims is a slippery slope, or would never happen because it's too extreme, are what will start happening very soon. Because it's what seems to happen time and time again.
The erosion of privacy and liberty which is happening under the guise of fighting terrorism makes me fear the rise of US fascism more than any of the so-called "Axis of Evil" -- because when one of the last superpowers, and self-appointed protectors of freedom become fascists, we're all screwed!
Re:Subjective (Score:2)
This is not a new thing, most headlines have loaded statements in them. Maybe it's to jumpstart the comment dialogue, maybe there's another reason, I don't know.
But it seems to me that most summaries, particularly about political topics, have a least one trollish statement in them.
That said, it doesn't really matter, as long as there is debate... we can work off the assum
Phew! (Score:2)
Yeah, right. (Score:2)
Maybe this is their excuse for never finding any of either.
Bush is by far our worst president (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is another attack, especially a WMD attack, on our soil while he's still in office, the Congress should impeach him for failure to uphold Article IV, Section 4 which guarantees the states the protection of the federal government from invasion. We have wide open borders, MS-13 is actively working with several terrorist groups to smuggle people and materials in and yet Mr. "See no evil, hear no evil on the borders" calls the Minutemen vigilantes and extremists. The President won't even use his basic legal powers to take common sense precautions like clamping down on both borders so that people cannot easily sneak through, yet we need sweeping new surveillance powers?
Were he an engineer, not a politician, people would be demanding that Bush serve 10 years to life for his systematic failures. If his policies were judged by the same standards that our government judges the work of certified professionals, he'd be lucky if life in prison was the only thing he'd get in the face of a nuclear attack on our soil given how much he has actively undermined the core of our national security policies.
Re:Bush is by far our worst president (Score:2)
And now we return you to our regularly scheduled stupor.
Re:Bush is by far our worst president (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bush is by far our worst president (Score:3, Insightful)
To Sid Meier: (Score:5, Insightful)
When you make Sid Meier's Civilization V, you should make it more realistic by allowing America to convert to a Police State over the course of a few years without suffering a period of anarchy.
For those who don't play Civ IV: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civics/ [civfanatics.com]
If you got nothing to hide... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If you got nothing to hide... (Score:2)
And with all the money from P2P (Score:2)
Anything can be justified as terrorism related so anyone can be survielled now.
Definition of terrorism? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Definition of terrorism? (Score:2)
Wasn't the FBI doing this 50 years ago? (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the FBI was doing this years ago when they revealed they had files on many regular citizens and famous ones like Elvis, Sinatra, etc. But look on the brightside, federal surveillance won't be needed in 10 years, they will just buy it from corporations. They will know damn near everything about you...what you eat, where you shop and what you buy, the books you read, etc. It's a Brave New World.
gasmonso http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Effective oversight (Score:5, Informative)
All legally and within their rights.
The only thing protecting you is effective and independant oversight. The thing that I think is becoming more important globally is having bodies capable of proper oversight and supervision.
I think the government can effectively do this themself, given the proper tools and an understanding of the grave importance of proper oversight.
Part of this oversight is proper supervision by management of the actual participants, internal auditing. (Think police, their management structure and internal affairs)
Secondly there is a second layer of outside supervision. think courts for both convicting criminals, and for supervising the use of special powers ie search warrants.
Thirdly elected officials.
Last (but not least) the freedom of speech & press to monitor and expose problems.
Remove too much oversight and you have a potential problem.
James Madison said it best (Score:5, Insightful)
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
The real problem can never be fixed... (Score:3, Informative)
Each form of intelligence/law enforcement body exists because it has a purpose - or at least was intended to. Over time, excessive amounts of secrecy made some of these agencies "mini-governments" of their own accord - most likely driven by the Cold War. The problem is that there is information that should be shared, but placing this data in a culture nuetral, yet protected form is next to impossible. Why? A definite lack of communication between agencies. At least President Bush wanted to make a singular head that would be accountable for coordinating this information and cooperation between agencies. That plan was struck down quickly by elected officials who must have taken their stance on party lines, since no one could come up with a reason why it was bad other than "it is bad". Granted, it would have been a "band-aide TM", at best.
For the conspiracy theorists out there, Kennedy had thought of disbanding the CIA. Look what happened to him. ;-) Seriously, the problem is not that these agencies do not have enough power. The problem, often is the case, that they have too much power and no ways of communicating the intelligence that they have gathered. It would be nice if there was a way to start over at square one and create a singular agency, or group of limited power agencies to operate in today's world - but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Hold on a sec. Be right back. There are some guys in black suits pulling up to the office... Hey, wait! ;-)
In other news... (Score:2)
Our neighbors to the North are looking ever more attractive... [slashdot.org]
The truth is never redundant, is it? (Score:2)
The solution itself is simple. We need to firmly establish the legal principle that your personal information is your own property. To make this really work, I th
Remember the TWA flight 800? (Score:3, Insightful)
Later AFTER FAA declared the incident as accidental (true or not still appears to be a matter of debate, but I digress,) guess what? The package shipping restriction remains in effect. My own conclusion about this is that once something like this went into effect, it's never going away. Keep that in mind whenever government put more measures into effect to "protect citizens."
glad we won the cold war (Score:4, Insightful)
what's next, bread and shoe lines? (seems the gulag's are aparently already covered)
We've been down this road before (Score:5, Insightful)
If the name Eisenhower doesn't ring a bell with anyone, I'd suggest some serious reading. During Eisnhower's reign, the FBI became what some might claim was dangerously close to a government-sponsored domestic terrorist group. It was commonly tasked with the disruption of peoples' lives that did not see eye to with the stated objectives of the government. The fact that part of this effort deals with counterintelligence is even more hideous - the story is already written, and it's title is COINTELPRO. It's just being adapted to accommodate several decades of technological advancement.
Re:We've been down this road before (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/gen/21679prs200511
What data would NOT be relevant? (Score:2)
If someone travels to a foreign land or has dealings with foreigners, would that make their data relevant? Is there anyone in America that would NOT qualify?
A good thing too! (Score:3, Funny)
Why to use PGP and GPG (Score:2, Interesting)
Will you roll over too? (Score:5, Insightful)
When you have a government that has been allowed to get away with secret prisons both inside and outside of borders; Indefinite incarceration without due process; and the ability and authority to spy on any citizen with the cooperation and collusion of big business without any sort of warrant or any (even laughable) oversight- what do you think follows?
Disneyland? A safer America? Fuck No!
What follows is the same sort thing that has gone on for countless years in countries that the US used to decry for their cruel and unusual punishment. Basically anybody who disagrees with government or corporate policies loud enough or anyone who they think is a threat will disappear - They'll possibly be subject to torturous interrogation techniques and then will disappear (does it matter if it's into a mass grave, a shallow grave, a secret prison or a FEMA detention center)?
I am sure that there are government supremacists or apologists who will claim this sort of talk is overdoing it or exaggerating - probably the same people who claimed it was exaggeration when I warned everyone I knew about how dangerous the Patriot Act was/is - all I heard was "It sunsets in 2005" and "this is for extraordinary circumstances, it's all a cycle, it will turn the other way" and other similar useless crap.
This is America. WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO TRUST OUR GOVERNMENT- WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE TO. This is our system of checks and balances and it's going, going, practically gone.
There are Americans who just refuse to see it. It doesn't fit their paradigm or occur to them as even being within the realm of possibility that our system is terminally corrupt and heading at warp speed in an anti-freedom, anti-human, and COMPLETELY anti-American direction.
Especially now that "Homeland Security" is a commodity.
What are we going to do? What are you going to do? (don't give me that vote crap - I'm not saying not to vote, I'm just saying if you can even get an honest election and an honest politician that's not going to happen soon enough).
I think people are starting to wake up. Finally, but then what? -
Question: (Score:5, Insightful)
The "evidence" against Padilla was apparently obtained by waterboarding (drowning reflex torturing) two al Queda members until they made up something that the torturers wanted to hear. No case, no evidence, no "dirty bombs", no admin officals declaring him guilty without trial on TV anymore. And he was one of their Big Wins By Using Theeir New Freedom To Find Terrorists.
Still, people don't understand what's happening to their rights. And they won't care. Torture, false imprisonment, stripping a US citizen of his constitutional rights by executive fiat based on stories made up under torture, keeping him prisoner and helpless to answer his accusers for over three years, then a nonsense charge to maintain face -- and he's still under the King's justice, unable to examine the evidence against him -- because there never was any. Why is a US citizen in a secret gulag under trumped up charges? Why don't people care? How many others are out there?
They demanded trust, and they blew it. They don't care about justice, just power. Don't give them more.
Good news/Bad news (Score:3, Funny)
The bad news is that most of the bandwidth will be used for outbound traffic from the telescreens in every room...
Re:Isn't it odd (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean look at Bush, when he first started running, we were all enlightened with the term 'compassionate conservative'. Of course it also does not help that we traditionally have low voter turnouts for elections because of some gross voter apathy with the state of things.
Re:Isn't it odd (Score:2)
There is no surprise to any freedom lover that the Republicans are evil (as are the Democrats as well). Both parties are subsets of the Authoritarian Party, which believes in trampling on rights of the many to help the few.
I'm no libertarian: there is no way to save freedom through law
Re:Isn't it odd (Score:2)
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, only a politician who knows he can't win can really say what they want to say.
Of course, the great irony is that ca
Re:Isn't it odd (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't Jewish.
Then they came for the trade unionist,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant,
Then they came for the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a homosexual,
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak for me."
Re:Isn't it odd (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republicans have basically gone insane, as far as I can tell. There are some I can respect, even admire, like McCain. But come on... running a gulag in Cuba? Endless detentions without trials? Secret prisons in Europe? Allowing the government to spy on people with almost no checks? A vice-president who's lobbying for torture? Who the hell are we, the USSR?
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Full judicial review of detention, and access to lawyers and independent human rights monitors, are basic safeguards against torture and ill-treatment, arbitrary detention, and "disappearance". Evidence that Guantánamo detainees have been tortured and ill-treated continues to mount, with FBI agents now added to the list of those making such allegations. Yesterday, the military announced that it will carry out an internal investigation into these latest allegations.
Anyways, I don't know about your home, but this picture [bbc.co.uk] from the BBC sure doesn't look like my backyard.
Look. I'm sure you enjoy playing word games, but Colin Powell's former chief of staff had this to say here [66.102.7.104]:
"Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff in the first Bush administration and a former colonel, said Thursday that the view of Cheney's office was put in "carefully couched" terms in memos but that to a soldier in the field it meant sometimes using interrogation techniques that "were not in accordance with the spirit of the Geneva Conventions and the law of war" to extract better intelligence."
You may want to say that Cheney doesn't espouse torture, or that Guantanamo isn't torturing detainees. That's fine. You keep using your "carefully couched" language. Personally, I'm going to keep asking for trials and public disclosure, so we can figure out for ourselves what's going on instead of having to listen to endless talking around the subject.
Re:Remember kiddies (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to watch a movie. (Score:2)
It could be you.
Re:Exception to the Exception (Score:3, Funny)
Great idea. Why don't we start by catching what's-his-name. You know. With the beard. Blew up the World Trade Center? It'll come to me.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2)