US To Employ Overhead Spying Domestically 392
DigitAl56K writes "The Washington Post reports that 'The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon' and that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has said that 'Sophisticated overhead sensor data will be used for law enforcement.' Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes. Congress last October delayed launch of the DHS office that would coordinate law-enforcement requests for satellite and other technical data, and demanded answers to legal questions about the program. The administration supplied answers that some Congress members characterized as inadequate and appears determined to go ahead anyway."
Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Insightful)
In all respects, I knew this would happen. You destroy civil liberties with a pointless war, and what do yuo get? A POLICE STATE. What the United States are doing IS HOW HITLER GOT HIS RISE TO POWER! Could we be overthrown by an evil dictator soon?
First Post
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Informative)
The parent mentions dictatorship. Here is a great article about the steps necessary to secure power in that fashion, and the author (Naomi Wolf) compares what has happened recently to other situations in the past.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/ten-steps-to-close-down-a_b_46695.html
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Insightful)
They got detainees in Gitmo, that have been there for years with out trial or eve being charged with a crime.
Somehow I don't think the rhetoric of "You used illegal surveillance to jail me", will do much to convince them to let you go.
Our government will do anything it wants, and no one is going to stop them. We the people have already show how apathetic we are to this treatment.
But hay, enough with all this thinking and having opinions; American Idol and Survivor are on!
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Long after other presidents have been forgotten, George W. Bush will be remembered for what he did.
And domestic spying from outer space isn't even close to the worst. Hell, compared to the torture business that's been breaking in the news in the past 2 weeks with the John Yoo torture memorandum and now the information about the "star chamber" that layed out the plan for this torture regime, domestic surveillance like this is barely a blip on the radar of evil.
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Our own people don't know what is written on their own Constitution.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't use the word "citizen" but the word "national" of the United States, being a national of the United States anyone living in the territory or under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is no difference between citizens or non-citizens.
Now regarding your "I am a citizen they cannot do that to me" thin
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought they were called "inalienable rights" because they applied to everybody, no matter what? Where does it say otherwise?
How can we function as a nation if our marching order is to treat citizens of other countries as less than human and not deserving of basic civil rights? Although, now that I think about it, it would partially explain Bush and company.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only when twisted inappropriately. While the grandparent is wrong about "inalienable rights" in the Constitution, the great-grandparent poster is wrong about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights giving "specific rights to citizens of the US", they do no such thing: the first lays out the powers of the federal government, and restrictions on those powers, the second lays out further restrictions on those powers. The rights exist separately from the Constitution and its amendments.
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Informative)
Pretty sad that people like you still believe that congress critters listen.
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Interesting)
For the most part, since my area is thoroughly Republican, writing to my reps seems to be a waste of time. My HoR rep, in particular, is a powerful Republican (Roy Blunt) who doesn't give a tinker's damn about what his constituents think except inasmuch as it gets him reelected[1]. His counterpart in the Senate (Kit Bond) is the same, and being powerful Congressional Republicans, they are among Bush's chief enablers.
[1] One particular incident sticks: a few years ago in the regional town I lived in, a protest in favor of gay rights was held while Blunt was in town. They invited him to speak with them, but he refused, saying that he doesn't represent "those people". I was under the impression that a representative was supposed to do just that, represent the people of his district or state. Silly me.
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Insightful)
545 people decide for all of us (Score:5, Interesting)
===================
545 People
By Charlie Reese --
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.
They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it.No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House?
She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are r
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress these days seems to be taking care of its constituents nicely. Its true constituents, the corporations who donate to their re-election campaigns. The citizenry is their product, and we have been delivered to their constituents. Unless you are a massive campaign contributor, they're not listening to you. And I mean 'massive' as in the case of 'borderline illegal'.
You say that they can be voted out, but this is very unlikely. Somebody quoted me a figure of 98% re-election results for a sitting Congresscritter, although I haven't found any links on it, so take that figure with a grain of salt. Even if the figure was as low as 66.67% re-elected, replacing a sitting Congresscritter literally takes an act of Congress. Possible, but you'd have better luck playing the lottery.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that supposed to be funny or disturbing? The NSA won't bust you. They'd forward the info to another, more hands-on agency that will find an excuse to bust you. Remember to make only pleasant faces in public, especially while in front of the telescreens [wikipedia.org].
In answer, this little ditty: (Score:4, Interesting)
They took a posse after posse comitatus
You know it's cuz those fuckers hate us
They'll use the mil-i-tary
Our ass to quickly bury
If anonymous, we try to make us.
--fyngyrz
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?
In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors.
But money is not the only purpose. One key to understanding why Cheney and Rumsfeld and the Bush family want violence is und
Re:Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Operates independently of law, and unilaterally re-writes laws as they are signed.
The US Congress is like Julius Caesar's Senate - soon to be like Tiberius and Caligula's.
Re:Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this he not a dictator?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
retoric retoric retoric
*yawn*
You are still able to post this. W was democratically elected(blah blah blah 2000 Al Gore blah blah). The Surpreme Court is not doing it's job.
There is no dictatorship. W is doing what he wants and nobody really gives a shit. That's not his fault, it's the fault of the people that have the power to stop this kind of behavior.
W is not a dictator, you and the Surpreme Court are lazy bastards.
There.
I said it.
Now mod me down.
Lazy fuck.
Re:Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Painting with a very broad brush, you can probably say that people fall into one of three categories: they are ignorant of the ongoing situation, they have been instilled with too much fear or disenfranchisement in those elected to defend them, or they simply have no idea of any real means to make a difference.
Given the ease at which you can be branded a terrorist these days I bet a large chunk of the
Re:Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"... Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?"
You mean like this [lewrockwell.com]:
"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations â" Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard â" to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.
"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."
Re:Is the USA still a democracy? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?
Utterly ridiculous, of course they will there is no power or precedent for the 'state of emergency' in the United States.
In my opinion, the purpose of the U.S. government's war with Iraq is largely to make money for weapons and oil investors.
The market for weapons has expanded dramatically internationally ever since the end of the Cold War so while the War on Terrorism and the Iraq War are potential profit centers for weapons manufacturers they are not soley responsible for the increase in the arms business. Men have always been interested in newer and more efficient ways to cut their neighbors' throats so this is really no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder about that also. Will those who are in control of the U.S. government allow elections this time in November? Or will there be some "threat" that those in power say requires them to continue in power?
The election will take place, terrorism notwithstanding. Remember that even during the civil war, there were elections. In general, for a group to win a coup, they have to have (at least complicit) support of around 30% of the people, and a lot of them have to be in control. Do you really think Bush could rally support of 30% of the generals, fighter pilots, marines, soldiers, etc? He is not a charismatic military leade, they are not going to follow him.
Look at it a different way: we are not living in
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Is that admissible in court????? (Score:2)
(Can't wait to hear how loud their supporters scream when the next democratic president lets his little toe cross the line of legality.)
Wordaphobia (Score:4, Informative)
I would recommend neither qualifying nor apologizing for such words. Don't let them take away your right of expression by censoring yourself for them. Instead, embrace your words and defend the strength of your feelings with an indignant fury.
You might want to read this essay: http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/06/0081057 [harpers.org]
You already are overthrown... (Score:4, Interesting)
confirmed step 2) Give the people a common enemy (terrorists).
confirmed step 3) Use step 2 to give yourself additional additional powers (partiot act)
confirmed step 4) Divert attention of the people to something more interesting then the situation at home (war).
confirmed step 5) Make use of the chance created by step 4 to give yourself more rights, and strip (or circumvent) the rights of the people.
step 6) Something happens which gives you a reason to use your extra rights (economic collapse?)... among which
step 7) Cancel the next presidential elections for an undefined period.
Notice how close you are?
Re:Is that admissible in court????? (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem isn't that the Government is taking away any rights you have, the problem is believing you have rights that you don't.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of my friends is a cop, he is required by the courts to look through the cars windows for a handicap sticker before he can write a ticket for parking in a handicap space, do you think this is a unreasonable search?
It's called the plain view doctrine [wikipedia.org]
For the plain view doctrine to apply for discoveries, three criteria must be met:
1. the officer is where he has a legal right to be,
2. ordinary senses must not be enhanced by advanced technology, and
3. any discovery must be by chance.
So it is a perfectly reasonable search.
Is looking through a window with your eyes any different from using a camera on a pole. from a police helicopter of a blimp? Is taking a picture with a camera from an aircraft any different than looking and is doing something like taking a picture from a aircraft any different than takeing a picture from a spacecraft?
AFAIK, taking pictures from an aerial vehicle is considered legal, but not if you're doing so to peer into a window from an angle that is not normally accessible. Otherwise see #2 of the plain view doct
Blowback (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The current administration. As if the exponential growth of the US federal government over the past century, in both revenue and power over the people, and the steady consolidation of power into the hands of the few -- everything which makes abuse of power readily possible -- can be attributed to the current administration?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The previous president -- not just his administration -- called his political opponents terrorist sympathizers. The only difference back then was that 90% of the mainstream media voted for him, so they were more than happy to go along with his program.
"But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your
Who controls it? The Mafia? (Score:2)
We called the phenomenon of encountering weapons we handed out for anti-soviet use turned against us "blowback". This is the other flavor. All the defense contractors knocking together widgets for our wars aren't going to stop there, not when profits are on the line. The next logical market is domestic. The fact that the current administration loves abuses of power and defense contractors in equal measure doesn't much help. Nor does the revolving door between government posts and corporate positions.
This time, "blowback" means having the weapons and techniques we use abroad come home to meet us.
If we let domestic law enforcement have access to satelites without requiring top secret clearance, wha stops the mafia cops, crips, vice lords, etc from access the satelite through their moles in domestic law enforcement?
They need to restrict this just to people with top secret clearance. If they let everyone access it then we are in big trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the obvious privacy and civil liberties concerns, I'm worried about what this will do to the quality of policing. The old cliche about everything looking like a nail when you have a hammer is not without a measure of truth.
The way you think about a problem is, in no small part, determined by what tools you have to conceptualize and solve it. In this case, tools designed for military and intelligence use are being transferred to police use. Even w
So this means we all can spy on each other.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
New generation of privacy concerns (Score:5, Interesting)
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.
Re:New generation of privacy concerns (Score:5, Informative)
We're far beyond the ability to fight back against the stripping of our rights. Fight back and you're a terrorist, pedophile, and communist, of course.
Re:New generation of privacy concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
"DOMESTIC MILITARY OPERATIONS"?
that phrase scares the shit out of me. i want the military standing at the border looking out, not standing on the street corner looking at me.
Re:New generation of privacy concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
Communism, and Fascism, in practice, were the precursors to what we have today. Even socialism is too limited a term to cover the social and economical controls imposed from above.
Those guilty, however, reside next door, not at some white washed building in DC.
Re:New generation of privacy concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the weak point of most arguing for stronger privacy rights. The fourth amendment only protects you against unreasonable searches and seizures. Now some will flame away with their own personal views about what unreasonable means and what secure in ones papers, etc. means, but the fact is the view that is in vogue in most political circles is that unreasonable means that the person searched was somehow greatly inconvenienced by the search. This doesn' provide a very strong defense for privacy.
So, we are forced to look elsewhere. The greatest argument for privacy comes from the fourteenth amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The pertinent language their regarding privacy in there is the phrase "...property, without due process of law..." Therefore, any person arguing for a strong right to privacy has the fact on their side that the fourteenth amendment requires due process for any act that the government takes to manipulate the property of a citizen, intellectual or otherwise, must come with due process. This is where the libertarians have it right. To have any sort of privacy we must strengthen property rights, intellectual or otherwise. Now I know intellectual property is not a popular concept around here, but is going to become a political necessity in the near future when the cost barrier to record and store massive amounts of data about a citizen becomes lower and lower.
In short, forget the fourth amendment. No matter its original intent, it's been chopped up and rendered almost useless when it comes to effectively guarding privacy. A spying program is essentially a government requisition of private intellectual property. Due process is a much stronger defense for privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
What is YOUR LIFE, YOUR BODY, YOUR HOME, if not YOUR PROPERTY?
Personal effects, papers, secrets, privacy... all of it is based on the concept that YOU OWN YOURSELF!
When others own you, they can dictate whatever they please to THEIR PROPERTY.
It is ALL about property, and the fact that in their hatred of property rights, the idiot socialists have given property rights to those who should not have had them in the first place. "Government." "Social programs."
Who will be able to access this? What clearances? (Score:2)
If we take the fourth amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Examples:
Where are Americans, and the in fact the rest of the world, going to draw the line?
I am also gravely disappointed in Congress these days. The ask "is it legal?", or "can we manage privacy?" instead of noting that these kind of activities go against fundamental principles on which the United States was founded. "Is it legal?" is a gateway to allow anything, because as the Bush administration has demonstrated the law can be so easily changed, ignored, or interpreted, that it is a useless guard against any desire of the president.
Are we going to let just anyone in domestic law enforcement access this?
They know that domestic law enforcement is infiltrated by the mafia, by the bloods and crips, the vice lords, MS13, the neo nazi's, all those people are able to join the police force and become police chief and none of these people have top secret clearances.
Are we supposed to start giving them access to top secret spy technology without requiring they have top secret clearances? I have a problem with this because they don't give us en
Re:Who will be able to access this? What clearance (Score:2)
Somehow, it seems that those with that kind of clearance are always far worse tyrants than the petty crook you can take a pistol to when he starts shit with you. The kind of "top secret clearance" thugs are FAR deadlier, and no private civilian has the resources to resist their aggression when it bears down.
Somehow I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In 2001 the Supreme Court held in Kyllo v. United [wikipedia.org]
The Fourth Amendment Does Not Apply (Score:2)
If There Was Any Chance... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is for suppressing civil disorder and riots if it becomes necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've lived in Texas, and in Arizona for a shorter period of time.
Your picture of a migrant who wants to send money back home to his family, and prove himself useful to the US, may hold true for an immigrant working in the fields of Georgia or Alabama. What I saw in the Southwest wasn't even close.
They want to drive the Americans out while taking advant
More on the "advanced spy technology" (Score:5, Informative)
Discovery Channel's Future Weapons has provided insight into numerous UAVs, including the Fire Scout [youtube.com], Global Hawk [youtube.com], Predator 2 [youtube.com], and the Dominator [youtube.com], their coverage of the Predator 2 particularly demonstrating surveillance and tracking capabilities of these units.
According to DefenseNews [defensenews.com] the US Air Force just announced the purchase of 28 Predators as part of a contract awarded to General Atomics. The US Air Force has just begun running ads on cable TV as part of their "Above All" campaign that feature the UAVs (sorry, no online video yet).
Initially, it appears that the administration plans to leverage conventional satellites for domestic surveillance purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well, I guess "grumble while the shackles are put on" is a close second. It'd be worth seeing the Alien onslaught, just to see the aliens snack on all the talking heads and politicians, just before the power dies and the
All of the paranoid responses.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All of the paranoid responses.. (Score:5, Insightful)
At what point do we say enough is enough? We can already catch kidnappers, fugitives and the ilk. We already have helicopters. At some point the potential for abuse, which we know based on virtually every aspect of the Bush administration and governments worldwide will be realized eventually, must outweigh the marginal benefit we gain.
Re:All of the paranoid responses.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Organized crime may get access to satelites. (Score:2)
What is wrong with people? Don't you think the terrorists and the organized crime already infiltrated the police department?
The first thing they'd probably do is take over the local police department. Once one of their men are police chief, imagine how much power they have now that they have all the fucking guns due to gun control, and all the satelites and UAVs too!
Thisis the sorta thing which HELPS organized criminals! The only sorta criminals who will have to worry about this are criminals who aren't gan
We already have an FBI! (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense. If you want to use federal powers for good police use, there already is an FBI.
What these people are trying to do is give LOCAL COPS the ability to access top secret spy technology.
Will these local cops have top secret military clearance? That is not being mentioned. Will these local cops have to follow all the federal laws?
Wtf is going to be next? Giving corporations police powers and making CEO's into deputy and letting them access all the top secret spy satelites and launch UAVS?
Do you realize what this does? The domestic law enforcement is even more filled with moles than the federal law enforcement. So instead of having to worry about the Soviets, the domestic law enforcement has to worry about the bloods, the crips, mafia, MS13, the vice lords, and all these other gangs and mafias who have infiltrated and who have moles all throughout domestic law enforcement and police departments all over this country.
If we give the domestic law enforcement access to all this technology, don't you realize that you'll be giving even more power and access to the very criminals you think this technology will be targeting?
You think they are stupid? They read the news too, they go to Slashdot too, their spies in the police department soon may have the power to look into your house and see what you do.
Re:All of the paranoid responses.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you new to the world? This administration has abused every single bit of leverage or opening they've been given. You're damned right we're paranoid, and our government has demonstrated repeatedly why we need to be. Congress is questioning the legality of it while Bush is burning every copy of the Constitution he can find. I don't care at all whether this is legal - it cannot be allowed. As a nation, we elected a whole lot of congressmen in 2006 for the purpose of reigning in Bush and the Iraq war. Not only have they utterly failed to do so, they've allowed our civil liberties to be even further trampled upon. Congress doesn't seem to have the stomach for blocking the administration's abuse of power, so we as voters are left with a choice between evicting as many as possible and starting over, or just electing the same old crew to do the same old job.
I pray that all the Slashdotters who complain about stories like this (and who are citizens the USA) are going to use their right to vote this November to make their voices heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Not much variety in choices.
Would you like to be sodomized with a police baton, or a private security baton?
Wait... (Score:2)
Carry a gun. Learn to use it. Carry ammo. Practice often. Learn hand to hand.
Not only will your gait improve and be that of a man who can handle himself (or woman) but your health and confidence levels will increase as a result of being less fearful of things around you.
Oh wait... lets see... Gun... 750 bucks average, one time purchase, spare mags, another 90 bucks at 15 bucks per mag... Ammo for a full year of practice plus m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck man, I hope the hospitals dont generally release patients in the morning, or we're all going to eventually end up stuck in an endless hospital say loop... get out of bed, get mugged, go to hospital overnight. Released in the morning, you're mugged again at the hospital. You have to stay one additional day, being released at 6:30 in the morn.... and so on!
This will be interesting to observe... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"Fighting Americans since 2000" (Score:5, Insightful)
Fine. (Score:2)
Then post the results to the citizens.
Watchbird (Score:3, Informative)
Avoiding the technical issues of having an autonomus flying robot that can stun & kill people, the actual story of how politicians would use something developed for military use decide that a modified version could work just as well for domestic use, isn't far from the truth as has been shown here in the UK when a council used the RIPA to spy on a family for a month (including watching them in their house and following them in their car) because they applied for their 3-year old to go to a primary school and the council wanted to make sure the family wasn't cheating the system.
It proves that is the powers are there for the people in charge to use then there's no way in hell they won't eventually (ab)use those powers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
IR-shielding paint, anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
This reminds me of that 'Weeds' episode where a couple of HomeSec goons going over high-altitude IR photographs can clearly see the giant cross that Nancy is using as a sun lamp for her crop (after Doug stole it from a church), even with the roof in the way.
Think about it... (Score:2)
Overhead surveilance is nothing new (Score:2)
One nation... (Score:4, Insightful)
well (Score:2, Insightful)
on a related note, i noticed cameras on the traffic signal arms at an intersection near my home that look a lot like surveillance cameras. there are two sets of cameras with each signal now: what i THINK of as a traffic camera, that monitors traffic flow (more like a counter) and has been on the signal for a long time no
What are they looking for? (Score:2)
I wonder what they're really looking for. This brings to mind the cat on I-5. Can you build radiation detectors sensitive enough to see nuclear bomb components from space?
Some of you people need to get over yourselves. You're not important enough for the government to care about.
Re:What are they looking for? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What are they looking for? (Score:4, Insightful)
So too, does the cost of doing it wrong.
Re:What are they looking for? (Score:5, Informative)
Really? I am on the TSA's terrorist watch list. I am not allowed to use electronic check in at the airport, and I get my bags searched every time. This is not my paranoid imagination - airport personnel have explicitly told me so... but when I've called TSA they won't take me off the list and they sure as hell won't tell me how I got on it.
What have I done? Hell if I know. I'm a white non-religious male. I've bought a spur-of-the-moment one-way plane tickets. I own guns. I've spoken out on Slashdot a time or two. I've googled some weird shit. I will never know exactly how I got on that damned list, but the fact of the matter is I am getting special scrutiny from Bush's cronies and I have no fucking idea why.
Maybe YOU haven't been inconvenienced by this regime yet, because you stay home and watch TV all day. Just try exercising your freedoms and see what happens.
RNM (Score:2)
This stuff has to be stopped.
What they have been doing according to some goes way beyond what most Americans even believe is possible technologically.
Google Tice and RNM if you want to read about this sort of stuff.
It's extremely scary. I think Tice is extremely credible - I don't know how they stopped him from testifying the second tijme - but I did notice that they had the fascist pundit attack dogs like ORielly saying he s
Watch the skies (Score:2)
Outsource it (Score:2)
And this is news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if nothing else we have to give Hell, Bush, Cheney & Co. an "A" for persistence. This is totally within character for them, as well as the various agencies that have sprung up around and because of them (the TSA, for example.) This is going to get much worse before it gets better
The problem is qualitatively different today: Congress has proven inept at providing adequate oversight, and itself is interested in yet-more-powerful government. I don't think we're going to find salvation in Washington
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. Thats why they're building detention camps to hold hundreds of thousands of people. Mass civil unrest would give the current administration and the 'elites' in power the excuse they need to remove all remnants of democracy and declare martial law.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA could already retroactively get approval for emergency wiretaps, but at some point they just stopped seeking approval and tapped everyone. Maybe they will have laws that allow retroactive approval of time-sensitive overhead surveillance. Here is an interesting thing to consider: Who says the matter ever has to make it to a judge for approv
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If he can't manage that, just engineer an election. That's quite easy provided you don't get stupid.. win by 51%-49% and few will be able to seriously question the result.
Re: (Score:2)
The general public couldn't care less, and the whole world (China, Russia etc.) is likely well aware of the resolution of those satellites. Russia has plenty of their own satellites, and China has some as well, so they know what they could do.
In other words, this secret is probably already known to a handful of countries who'd want to know it. If the state decides that most of the dan