Latest Revelations on the FBI's Data Mining of America 446
An anonymous reader writes "You probably already knew that the FBI was data mining Americans in the "search" for potential terrorists, but did you know that they're also supposed to be looking for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity that is not really supposed to be the province of the federal government? Now the feds are alleged to be data mining for insurance fraudsters, identity thieves, and questionable online pharmacists. That's what they're telling us now. What else could they be looking for that they are not telling us about?"
Among other things? (Score:5, Insightful)
They have a history of blackmail using that sort of thing.
Re:Among other things? (Score:4, Insightful)
After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.
Call me when they find Osama. Or all those "lost billions" in government funds.
Re:Among other things? (Score:4, Informative)
After the J Edgar Hoover bit, the FBI is in no position to blackmail anyone.
Call me when they find Osama. Or all those "lost billions" in government funds.
Actually, it's the CIA that is tasked with finding Osama. Well, unless Osama is somewhere in the US and commits a crime that crosses state lines or something.
That's Pre-Homeland Security (Score:5, Interesting)
That was true before 9/11. Now, the CIA and FBI are allowed to collaborate.. in fact, anyone in the DHS is allowed to share information, because they are all one big happy Gestapo now.
FIRST: realize that the F.B.I. is INEPT,then whine (Score:2, Insightful)
FIRST: realize that the F.B.I. is INEPT, then whine all you want. The more data collected, the more it buries the whole lot. Do you really think TBs upon TBs of raw data is somehow magically processed and folded into a nice, neat folder on you? Get real! It's like throwing a 1000s fish in a pond and letting a bunch of urbanites loose to catch their dinner. They look awfully funny trying, and by-golly, sometimes get lucky! The poor fish, you say. BFD! You are much, MUCH more likely to be killed by th
Re:That's Pre-Homeland Security (Score:4, Informative)
I'm actually starting to feel slightly hopeful for the first for years - this century, in fact! - that the tide of BigBrother-dom is going to get rolled back somewhat. The first cracks in the dam are appearing as the end of the Dubya regime approaches. It's just like Saddam's generals doing deals with the US through back-channels in 2002-3. Except without the bombs and bullets and such, obviously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have a wife? Happen to enjoy oral or anal sex? There have been times and places (and still are, actually) where that's a fairly serious crime. I'm not talking about other countries or the middle ages, either -- right here in the US. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that you've violated several laws without even knowing about it. You weren't caught because either A) Nobody saw you, or B) Nobody cared.
A law isn't some magical construction based upon something that is universally wrong. Laws
Re:Tag: republicans are... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Among other things? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that would just stop them from acting as publicly. Even if they didn't act directly, they could still do so through an intermediary.
That would also give them plausible deniability. "We at the Bureau are saddened and angered by the actions of this [rouge angent|hacker|whatever]"
Never kid yourself that they wouldn't sink to it again if they thought it would work in their favor.
Re:Among other things? (Score:5, Funny)
So, you think they'd sell Avon on the side?
Re:Among other things? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
this is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see a use for this. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're able to form a behaviour pattern from that and provide it to the state law enforcement agencies the I say that it would be okay.
As long as the FBI removed any individual identifying info (names, aliases, addresses, etc). Even in their database.
Fuck you, Boyd. What is "lawfully acquired" varies with the laws passed. When a private person does it, we often refer to that as "stalking" and it is illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a criminal now, huh?
-DrkShadow
Re:I can see a use for this. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They're generally misdemeanors and are so prevalent that nobody treats it as a criminal record.
I wager it is associations not behavior ... (Score:3, Insightful)
This assumes there are more chances that if someone has a different behavior to the majority's, then he is an undesirable person. This damages diversity by encouraging homogeneity.
I think you need to loosen the wrappings on the tin foil hat.
What we DO know (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I've been assuming that since before they admitted they were using it to look for terrorist.
Right. It's just unfortunate all the places they're mining now. Ride public transit? In Atlanta, MARTA has just recently transitioned to RFID cards that you scan to let you in. The gates have IR sensors that know when you're standing there. Up until just recently you walked up to it and it would let you out. Now you have to scan your card again to get out as well. So they're (and by they're I mean at least Atlanta City Gov, perhaps passing on to FBI/Feds) mining my traveling habits (I ride MARTA daily so I
Leakers! (Score:5, Interesting)
They're looking for 'leakers' who spread misinformation through government documents. Once they identify which government official's cell phone was in the same vicinity as the reporter who published the leaks they're gonna smack the leaker down.
Oh. They're also digging up dirt to discredit the leakers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What else are they tracking, you ask? (Score:5, Funny)
I think I've discovered the terrible future of reality TV.
Re:What else are they tracking, you ask? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do it for America.
Re:What else are they tracking, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is very little that you could say about this administration that I would find too insane to be plausible.
More on Ashcroft's Justice Dept. here. [findarticles.com]
And from recent testimony re: the NSA wiretapping it appears that Ashcroft was actually *less* disrespectful of the Constitution and rule of law than Gonzalez.
Re:What else are they tracking, you ask? (Score:5, Funny)
If this were fark.com I'd be posting an image macro: "Ceiling Ashcroft... is watching you masturbate"
Re:What else are they tracking, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I can: if I recall correctly it was elected by Americans not only once but twice.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly why a decent education for everybody is crucial for democracy to keep working.
Without good education, over the course of one or two generations a society will devolve into mob rule... and eventually fascism.
Re:What else are they tracking, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't force people to learn. Education is free here up to university level and university fees are laughable compared to other countries (or would you consider about 500 bucks a semester crippling?). Still, we have the same consumerdrones. Decent, free education has no power against marketing.
Let's look at the role models our teenagers have today. You have American Idol (or the localized version thereof), where they learn that all that matters is looking cute (voice is secondary, praise to the computer). You have Big Brother, where they learn what matters is to be fun, easy-going, sociable and likable, and to brownnose to the ones that can throw you out, if you want to win. What it comes down is that success depends on being liked. Liked, in turn, depends on fitting in. Don't stick out, don't raise your voice, don't differ from the pack. Neither in appearance, action nor opinion. And you're liked and you're loved, and you succeed. And here's where marketing steps in and tells you you gotta wear this junk, eat that junk and be at this party to be liked and loved.
Education has no power against this message.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We are a republic of individual states. The Electoral College system makes sure that those states still have power. In a popular vote system, presidential candidates would only have to campaign in LA, Chicago, and NYC. The first two caucuses that can
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tip of the iceburg (Score:5, Insightful)
More on Ashcroft's Justice Dept
And this is the Ashcroft who ended up quiting because he wouldn't go along with wholesale spying on the American public. If someone like Ashcroft turns out to be a hero, what kind of atrocities are going on behind the scenes? It's all legal as far as Alberto is concerned.
What a horrible chapter in our nations history.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I feel bad for folks of Hispanic descent, who, after seeing one of their own achieve such high office in the US, have to learn that the guy's a total schnook. With all that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The amount of porn everybody watches online. In thirty or so years when today's youth starts running for government office, mudslinging campaigns based on this knowledge (which by then will be hilariously declassified!) will be hugely entertaining and embarrassing for everyone involved.
I think I've discovered the terrible future of reality TV.
Mod parent insightful. I don't doubt this one for a minute. It's just so obvious. And with the face recognition technology being developed, just imagine doing a name and age cross-reference to find out if any of the performers were under 18. 17 years, 8 months? Oh my God! He's a porn-hoggin' pedo!
Political Blackmail (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tinfoil goes on your head, not up your ass.
Why are the allegations about Clinton so crazy? (Score:2)
BTW your great right wing masters formulated that Clinton story. Are you saying your masters are wrong, megaditto?
don't trust the governmetn (Score:5, Insightful)
When the FBI honchos go wringing their hands and lamenting over all the crimes they could have prevented if only they had more powers, the first question should be "why aren't you able to do your job with the resources you have?" Throw more money and more powers at the problem and you'll just get the same song and dance during the next budget hearing.
Re:don't trust the governmetn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree, the distinction is somewhat academic. It's a behavior to be completely anticipated from those who occupy those positions, and so is reasonable to restr
Re:don't trust the governmetn (Score:5, Insightful)
The most dangerous of all criminals are those who carry badges and whose chief weapons are the power and authority of the state.
Re:Don't trust nonsense anti-govt rants ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You say you need police, and that they are a necessary evil.
Ok. So what's your disagreement with him exactly? He's not suggesting dismantling the police.
However the trend of giving them ever expanding power to make it easier and more efficient to catch criminals only sets us up for an abusive and corrupt haven for criminals that is effectively untouchable. But recognizing that means we need to keep their power in check... not dismantle them altogether. Its patently obvious that we need law enforcement. The question is what should they be allowed to do, and how do we ensure they only do what is allowed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean beyond his being an idiot that thinks law enforcement agents are the most dangerous criminals? You do realize that the "evil" in "necessary evil" is figurative not literal, and that if there is anything evil it is the flaws in human nature that require large social units to have a professional policing force so
Re:Don't trust static entities. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll tell you how -I- see it, being a member of neither minority. (okay, maybe a little bit criminal, but less so than most of you, I tend to limit myself to 2 MPH over the speed limit, 5 on the freeway) I see it as which one of these groups offers me more trouble, and it's not looking good for law enforcement. They are bullies. You see that period on that sentence, it's there on purpose. Not all of them of course (the sample size is too large for that kind of homogeneity) but you'll find it the trend.
Let me give you an example of the last encounter I've had with each group.
Criminal: I was at a friend's housewarming party and a guy asked me if I wanted to buy a bag of weed. I said "No thanks, don't smoke." He apologized and walked away.
Law Enforcement: I was sitting at my house and get a call from my sister (who lives with me) telling me that she's being pulled over right outside the house. I walk outside and immediately get told (not asked) to go back inside by this large policeman. I say nothing and stand there (in my front yard, at least 10 yards from the officer) and he gets louder, more intimidating "I said, get back in the house" to which I reply "If I go back in, I'm coming right back out with a video camera". Oh, he didn't like that at all, told me that if I did that "things will get bad" for my sister so now, not knowing what my sister did in the first place, I get a bit scared and defensive, send my wife in the house, (I hope he thought for the camera) but I'm not gonna let this large angry and threatening man (who for some reason seems very afraid of being recorded) handle my sister without supervision. So I stand on my porch (5 feet back from my original position) and watch while he stammers out something about how my sister shouldn't be driving through a particular neighborhood. Oh, so THAT'S what she was going to be in so much trouble about. Driving home from work taking the most efficient route, because she's not too scared to drive straight home instead of a 2 mile detour through a more 'pleasant' neighborhood. Yep, her "crime" was being in the ghetto while white at night.
Spare me the "hero police" crap. Some of them CAN BE heros if the situation presents itself, but what profession could that not be said of? They are people, some are hero-stuff but honestly, most people are complete fucking turds who I would voluntarily give not one mote of authority over my life. Because some other complete fucking turd gave them a shiny trinket to pin to their shirt I'm supposed to think that they are somehow to be revered and that they automatically have my best interest at heart?
I'm sorry, but as the old saying goes, I may have been born at night but it wasn't LAST night.
This isn't Disneyland, hell Disneyland isn't even as Disneylandish as starry-eyed conservative hanky-grabbers like to think it is, with Andy Griffith walking the streets. Nowadays Barney Fyfe carries a couple full magazines to go with his loaded pistol, and Andy pulls over young women and intimidates them for driving through (not even stopping) through the wrong part of town.
Or demand transparency, checks and balances (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or demand transparency, checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's a completely false dichotomy. No matter how many restrictions you create on the government's power, if there is no oversight, they will disregard them entirely, without any repercussions.
Transparency is just one tool, and frankly, it's ridiculous to believe that transparency accomplishes anything on it's own.
Indeed. You need only look at the existing situation, where the public overwhelmingly disagrees with the administration, yet congress continues to go along with the administration, and completely fails to hold anyone accountable for even the most blatant legal violations, to see that our system of checks and balances doesn't work.
The culture of Washington, the two party system, etc., they all conspire to allow law breaking and corruption to continue unchallenged.
Well, duh! (Score:5, Interesting)
Every single head-of-department has had his eye on it since day one.
Echelon (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
you've been made to think that way by a system that has successfully reduced your free time.
this system, like all organisms, doesn't want to perish, and is in the process consolidating its control.
But, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cause that's what Professor Daniel Solove concluded in the article you are linking to said. You did read the article right?
FBI gathering date? (Score:2)
Now that's a scary thought, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it... (Score:2)
This is exactly what they *should* be doing. (Score:2, Interesting)
They *should* be looking into fraudsters, identity theft and other such items. These things cross state boundaries which the federal government is suppose to investigate. Frankly, I don't care if they'r
Not the feds' problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
*plonk*
Re: (Score:2)
Re:don't trust the governmetn (Score:3, Interesting)
To restrict something requires the use of force (i.e. power). Who are you going to trust to wield that power, the government? A better idea is to give the power to everybody so as to eliminate the power imbalances that lead to the abuse you speak of.
*cough* (Score:2)
"I have nothing to hide" == 1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
And, In the end,
My biggest problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
FBI mining data...with what? (Score:5, Interesting)
And the problem is what, exactly please? (Score:2)
Oh, and for the people who are going to say I'm promoting "I have nothing to hide therefore I don't care", NO, I'm not saying that. I'm saying, if someone in authority is going after the people who leech from tha intarwebs rather than contribute to same, I'm all for
sanity check... (Score:4, Interesting)
Since when is it not the province of the FBI to look for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity? It's their fucking job. That's why it's called the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If all you people can do is trot out the same old "government bad...GOVERNMENT BAD!" knee-jerk conspiracy theories when shit like this pops up in the news, nobody is going to take you seriously. At least RTFA and comment on the actual issues.
For example...
I can see this being a major problem. I'd hate to have a name like, oh I dunno, Osama Bin Laden, and try to get through an airport security checkpoint. More importantly, what if I do something mildly suspicious that comes to the attention of the authorities? I can imagine the conversation...
FBI Agent: We'd like a warrant to wiretap this man's phone.
Judge: What did he do?
FBI Agent: He wrote a strongly worded letter to his local police department contesting a parking ticket he received.
Judge: I dunno, that seems pretty weak. What's his name?
FBI Agent: Osama Bin Laden.
Judge: Granted.
Maybe in addition to a terrorist watch list we should have a not-a-terrorist-don't-watch list. Just a thought.
Re:sanity check... (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is it not the province of the FBI to look for people in the U.S. engaged in criminal activity?
Since forever. The FBI's job is to discover who committed crimes. A subtle distinction to be sure, but dig deeply enough in someone's life and you are likely to find some crime. Rather, when a crime has been committed and brought to the FBI's attention (subject to juristiction), the FBI is supposed to determine who committed it.
. I'd hate to have a name like, oh I dunno, Osama Bin Laden, and try to get through an airport security checkpoint. More importantly, what if I do something mildly suspicious that comes to the attention of the authorities?
Yes. Or any celebrity name. My friend, who prosecutes traffic offenders, recently had OJ Simpson (not that OJ Simpson) show up in his court. Naturally, the most experienced attorney was the one passing out the assignments. Naturally, he assigns himself OJ Simpson. So because of this guy's name, he unjustly has more zealous prosecution. I bet he gets off a lot fewer tickets than most people for the same reason.
But your solution ignores the context. TFA's context was not that agents would mistake your mythical person for a terrorist leader, but that the automated system would. How is the agent supposed to know why you were red-flagged (I imagine two terrorists with the same name are possible)? Having to prove that you don't deserve to be on those lists, that it is a case of mistaken identity, seems like having to prove your innocence. Which, IIRC, is the presumption in America anyway.
I really have to say (Score:2, Insightful)
That's so lame. It just makes the opposition look like a bunch of twerps.
That is the FBI's job. (Score:2, Informative)
"Conservative" Supreme Court will save us (really) (Score:5, Interesting)
It wasn't until Lopez v. United States [wikipedia.org] (and, subsequently, United States v. Morrison [wikipedia.org]) that the Supreme Court had the balls (well, with O'Connor, the ovaries) to draw the line for the first time in seventy years and keep the Feds out of the State's business.
Yes, that would be Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, O'Connor and Rehnquist. We can only hope that Alito and Roberts will be "conservative" that way too.
If it was up to those nutbags Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter, there would be no distinction between the States' province and the Fed's province. Those of you hoping for a democrat president better be aware that democratic appointees will almost surely give the Feds back all the power they lost under Rehnquist. (Yes, I know Souter was appointed by Bush I.)
A poem to think about... (Score:3, Interesting)
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
For those who think they're safe from all this, or that all this privacy "nonsense" doesn't affect them because they've got nothing to hide...
One of the reasons I admire the ACLU is that they stick up for the privacy even of insane druggie assholes like Rush Limbaugh. For all those Republicans who think this is some sort of liberal propaganda, keep this up -- in the totalitarian state where the neocon policies are taking us, it won't matter too much what your political affiliations are.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too... but then they started suing everyone who dare to put a crucifix or nativity scene in any spot that was visible to the public, because someone just might be offended in some abstract way. That, plus their rabid opposition to any laws that in any small way limit abortions (such as the recent late-term abortion ban) convinced me to stop donating to them entirely.
I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
I accept that the summary is against data mining - which clearly bothers me as well.
But I do not understand:
I thought that this was precisely the "province" of the FBI: nationally-coordinated police work, including into all sorts of fraud (here: insurance, identity, and wire).Easy to datamine (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What's that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI^W Gestapo is trying to find people breaking the law? This must be stopped!!!
The FBI^W KGB is trying to find people breaking the law? This must be stopped!!!
The FBI^W CIA is trying to find people breaking the law? This must be stopped!!!
The FBI^W FBI is trying to find people breaking the law? This must be stopped!!!
There, fixed that for you, asshole.
The law is what "Big Brother" says it is. Try to pay attention, will you??
This IS their job. (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF do you think we pay the FBI to do? Sit on their asses?
Maybe you think we should disband the FBI? Maybe the state police, county sherifs, and city cops too?
Sorry, anarchy doesn't work so well. Anarchy is a vaccuum that will get filled by something, and that "something" might be a whole lot less to your liking.
Re:This IS their job. (Score:4, Insightful)
It was my understanding that we pay the FBI to investigate crimes.
I'm not a criminal, nor have any crimes been committed against me, so it seems odd that the FBI would trample my privacy and waste resources mining through my online activity/phone calls/whatever.
If the FBI wants to investigate criminals, fucking wonderful. But they should leave the rest of us alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I was online chatting and said something like "Let's blow W3C up, and put WHATWG in their place" or something like that. One of the guys was seriously freaked out that I'm now on "someone's" list because of what I said.
What has become of this world?
Re:What's that? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have no one to blame but ourselves for the way our governments act.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You mean I unilaterally choose my government officials? Neato!
Oh, you mean I get 6.7e-7% (yes, both the e-7 and % were intentional) of a say I get because I live in a country where my decision is diluted by every dolt who thinks the most important issue is gay marriage/WMD in Iraq (to cover two popular but op
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're trying to find out IF people have broken the law. If they know or suspect they already have, they can get a warrant for the search. Otherwise, what they're doing is illegal and immoral.
What they're engaging in is essentially no better than a witch hunt. Don't call it gravy when you know perfectly well it's barf.
Re:Everyone is using data mining (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no.
Data mining does not necessarily mean that each and every data must be exact. Data mining is creating probability relationships in large populations.
There are mathematical and statistical methods where data can be obscured whilst the data mining still be accurate. Look up the field of privacy preserving data mining.
My point is that it is possible to data mine whilst preserving privacy. Privacy and benefits of data mining and not mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If everyone would just wake up and smell the Lee, we'd all be so much better off.
Going outside with tight pants on....we're big pant people!!!
Re:Everyone is using data mining (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention the fact that data mining like this would be a pretty ineffective way to do it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
- Providing adequate health care to all citizens of the country we live in
- Sensible foreign policy
- Finding alternatives to oil
- Abolishing capital punishment
- Making taxation more fair
- Taking better care of our environment
Yep, nothing but total mud-slinging at the Republican party....
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting something (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the data Amazon collects results primarily from my voluntary interactions with it. Thus, if Amazon abuses my trust, I can sever my relationship with it.
The government, on the other hand, retrieves this data without my consent and has the power to coerce me.
There's a big difference between those two scenarios.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nothing to hide (Score:5, Informative)
You claim you have nothing to hide, but you do. If you were forced to walk down main street without a stitch of clothes on, defecate into a bucket in plain sight, and then present the contents to passers-by for inspection, I guarantee that your respect for privacy would be improved tremendously. It would be even further improved if the details of your paycheck, credit card statements, and bank balance were to be presented to the world via a large electronic billboard on your front lawn. If this idea truly does not bother you, then I invite you to publish those financial details here. Put your money where your mouth is.
The long and short of it is that there are aspects of each person's life that they and they alone have the rightful authority to regulate. The only way to ensure that this right is not abridged or undermined is to keep those aspects secret.
Privacy is the first protector of liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean if you have nothing to hide surely you don't need to keep your pin number a secret, or your account numbers, or the amount of money/debt you have or where the spare key to your house is kept.
You have nothing to hide after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, and personally, I'm not at all for the 2nd amendment. Let's do away with that whole right to guns thing, eh? But you wouldn't be for that would you? That one fits well with your right wing ideology.
How about the 7th amendment... give me a break... right to a jury trial for any matter over $20?? What a waste of the j
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I guess I must have been asleep for the past few years. I thought FBI Director Mueller was nominated by the President, and I seem to recall that some guy named Alberto Gonzales is running the show at the DoJ. Furthermore, we're talking about questionable behavior and potential abuses of power that have been ongoing for several years now. Y'know, while the conservatives held the majority, wipin
Re:republicansarefuckingfascists (Score:5, Informative)
Some better examples:
(1) The Reconstruction Congress forcing the ratification of the 14th Amendment as a condition for readmitting the Confederacy to the Union. This eventually gave the federal government final say over whether just about anything the states did was Constitutional.
(2) The massive expansion in size and spending of the federal government under Roosevelt, claiming the right to regulate practically anything under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Would you believe that the Supreme Court determined that a man growing wheat for his own family's consumption could be prevented from doing so because that consumption, taken together with others doing the same thing, would overall reduce the national demand for wheat? You should, because it not only happened, it's still good law. In fact, the only pushback against it has come from...wait for it...Republicans.
(3) Abraham Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus on United States soil as applied to United States citizens.
You were saying?
Re:republicansarefuckingfascists (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:republicansarefuckingfascists (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea of the Republicans as the party of corporatism and big business is true to a degree, but only by degree in comparison to the Democrats or any other modern political party. Corporate influence permeates our political landscape too completely to distinguish party boundaries. Instead the true distinction between the Republicans and the Democrats is that old Confederate streak in the former, by now faded and disintegrating in the latter.
But in the GOP the stainless banner shines unsullied, albeit not in a public fashion. But it's a safe bet to assume that a great many in the Republican party hold the Confederate flag in no less reverence than they do the Stars and Stripes. Many have said that the Republicans are verging on, or have already committed, treason against their country. This may indeed be true, but only if that country was the old union. To a Confederate mind, their loyalty to the "true" United States is beyond question.
The effect of all this has been the general regression of American society. Essentially your entire country is reverting back to the southern mindset, but one for the modern world of course. Slavery might not be on the cards, but racism, xenophobia, jingoism, militarism and of course social conservatism all are.
The sad truth is there is little to nothing you can do to stop any of this. The American people have chosen this path. They vote for it, with ballots, feet and wallets. This isn't the result of some grand plan of Richard Nixon. He did not set any of this in motion. Rather he simply foresaw it, forty years ago, as he foresaw the rise of China and the end of the Gold Standard, and moved his party to a favorable position to take advantage of the inevitable flow of history.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh thank God! I thought there was a House Judiciary Committee who oversee the administration of justice within the federal courts, administrative agencies and Federal law enforcement entities.
Thanks for
Fascism is not about race (Score:5, Interesting)
The important components are authoritarianism and unity with the state. This runs heavily contrary to the "freedom" ideals of the US Constitution. Racism is often involved, but usually as a means to promote unity (nothing unites a group like a common enemy, and racial groups are an easily identifiable target to build up into an enemy.)
The current administration would appear to be using terrorists in a similar way. Terrorists have the advantage of not having any civil rights (since they were all legislated away), and not being a productive segment of the US economy (so it doesn't affect profits when you lock them up without trial). Since they are also stereotypically of a different (arabic) race and culture, they make a great fascist unifier because very few of the general populace actually understand them. If the terror attacks were actually genuine, the other advantage of using terrorists as a fascist unifier is that they are actually guilty of being dangerous, so the government doesn't have to make up stuff about them, it just has to make sure they have a high profile in the news.
You can't get away with using ethnic groups common to the US, because the population is familiar with them and even respects them. How many people in New York have never visited a Jewish deli, for example? America prides itself on being a melting-pot, so if you want a target, you have to use a foreign one. Terrorist are ideal.
Just exactly how many terrorists do you think are in Afghanistan? As a fraction of the population? Think that justifies occupying the country? How about Iraq?