U.S. Secretly Tapping Bank Databases 537
The Washington Post and New York Times are reporting on a Bush administration initiative that has tapped into a vast global database of confidential financial transactions for nearly five years. Relying on a presidential emergency declaration made under the International Emergency Economic Powers, the administration has been surveilling the data from the SWIFT database, which links about 7,800 banks and brokerages and handles billions of transactions a year. From the article:
The NYTimes goes on to say that the joint CIA-Treasury program has played a hidden role in domestic and foreign terrorism investigations since 2001 and helped in the capture of the most wanted Qaeda figure in Southeast Asia. Still, the access to large amounts of confidential data was highly unusual, and concerns were raised about legal and privacy issues.
Together with a hundredfold expansion of the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain communications and banking records, the secret NSA and Treasury programs have built unprecedented government databases of private transactions, most of them involving people who prove irrelevant to terrorism investigators.
Corporate advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they use the information purely to look for money laundering or terrorism then that's cool, it would be 99% automated anyway... Looking for patterns and the like... But what if the security services use that information to give helpful hints to US companies over the international counterparts? Is that fair?
We are talking about large amounts of money, and most of us know that money can lead people to act less than morally, so it isn't a far stretch to believe that they might do that... Even be authorised to do that.
quick success (Score:4, Insightful)
seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
But please keep us europeans out of it.
When will Pandora's Box Open (Score:2, Insightful)
Ooops too late...actually they crossed the line in a petty way once (w/ Plame) which was just plain stupid. Being ones to learn from their mistakes (unlike the sheep on the other side of the aisle), further use dubiosly collected information for political gain will be much more subtle.
Re:A message from the right (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right though, in reality I do not mind secret courts, phone tapping, bank tapping, warrantless searches, americans being held indefinatly without access to a lawyer or charges being filed, torture, secret prisons, war, CIA leaks, and our spending more money on defense than all other countries on the planet combined and doubled while our education and healthcare go down the toilet and we run up a defecit that cannot reasonably be paid in the next 5 generations.
Yup, red handed. Was just trying to annoy you, my bad.
Can we go back to blaming communism?
Re:Secretly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is the government using threats to keep the banks quiet? If so, what threats do they use? And can anything be done about it to make sure it doesn't happen again?
In the case of the NSA tapping the phone switches, the threat was that of "future government contracts and renegotiations" which was/is CONSIDERABLE $$$. Since Google doesn't have the same business model (lots of $$ from lots of sources instead of lots of $$ from few sources), they had the flexibility (and dare I say it...freedom) to speak out loud.
Re:Secretly? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why don't companies announce immediately when they have been forced to do something by the government against their will
Uhm, because they are often specifically forbidden to. That's the real prize of 9/11 for law enforcement - they HATE transparency and accountability, all this "national security" stuff pretty much means that they don't have to be bothered with all that hippie liberal nonsense.
And the worst is... (Score:1, Insightful)
Rather, he blames the media for hating freedom and supporting the terrorist by showing that banks are monitored.
You know, if we dont keep secrets, oceania could win, right?
Corporate advantage?-Planetary style. (Score:1, Insightful)
You mean like other governments do with us? Are you all really that naive about global politics?
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:2, Insightful)
in total contrast to what exactly? sound like every political party out there.
Re:seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, I hardly think this makes us unique. Stop for a second to ask yourself if the British or the French intelligence services would have any qualms about examining the financial records of American citizens (or each others' citizens). Laughable. Not even an issue. It's only makes news here because we have an article in our Constitution that theoretically protects us from our unjustified snooping, and Americans keep getting caught in the dragnet. Do Europeans have similar articles? I'm sorry to say I don't know, but I've been told they do not.
the worst aspect of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
how much time is being wasted by the FBI when investigative man power could be directed more effectively at more pressing issues.
.....And purcashing habits... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just hope that what you bought today legally doesnt become 'questionable' ( or down right illegal ) tomrrow. You might find a knock on your door.
Re:Secretly? (Score:4, Insightful)
Given the Bush administration's behavior regarding these sorts of activities, likely the companies are threatened with federal prosecution if they reveal the attempt because it would the "terrorists" hints about how we're trying to track them down. It's more than convenient that these hints to the "terrorists" are also hints to the public that the White House is trampling our civil rights and evading oversight YET AGAIN.
Sorry to hear (Score:1, Insightful)
Hah! - it's almost ironic that the security word/image that I have to type in to post is 'defraud'...
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
If they should be checking up on financial transactions, why do they need to try to keep it secret?
Either make it a public policy and get it passed as a law or else don't do it. Same goes for illegal phone-tapping and other forms of spying on your own citizens.
Re:seriously (Score:2, Insightful)
But please keep us europeans out of it.
Well then, how about we make a deal? You keep your universities and other institutions from being petri dishes full of festering militant Islamo-fascism that occasionally ships people like Mohammad Atta (who spent his time in Europe organizing, recruiting, meeting, and arranging finances in advance of killing several thousand US citizens and no small number or Europeans) right through your own financial and legal system and straight over here, or back into the frey of proto-democracies in the middle east. You obviously don't care if operators like that kill hundreds of Spaniards, so perhaps they're not European enough for you.
Anyway, you stop that (from impacting US citizens), and stop being a haven for the very financial transactions that power that sort of thing, and then there's nothing to watch for. Out of curiosity, and do you really think the international banking operations in the EU don't monitor and report to your own law enforcement, intel, and counter-terrorism agencies on international money transfers, especially to and from known terrorist supporters? Are you that naive? No, I didn't think so. You're just grinding the usual blunt, directionless, anti-American axe. How about we transfer $10k back and forth between us, and you can speculate on whether or not your own government will know it happened, and attempt to correlate that transaction against all of your credit card purchases and travel?
Re:seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, we did help and we did join in. We could only hope you would do the same when it's time for us [CONNECTION TERMINATED]
Re:Very facist (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:3, Insightful)
So, out of curiosity, is that worse or better than subsidizing the company so it can artificially price itself into the market to try to steal contracts? You know.... like Airbus and the European Union does?
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand how people who agree with the Democratic/Republican platforms can vote for them - I fundamentally disagree with their platforms, but I know lots of folk think it's a-okay.
I can understand people who who've never even compared the platforms of the other parties voting Democrat/Republican:
What I don't understand is how people can choose the lesser evil to try to just slow the downward spiral. It's still a downward spiral even if it's a bit slower - the result is the same. Sure, if you're old you might not have to deal with the end result, but even then, do you really not care about the people coming after you?
Don't you want to do the right thing? Even if the party you vote for looses, doing the right thing is surely better than actually voting for the Democrats/Republicans?:
Re: And the worst is... (Score:5, Insightful)
If he's not embarassed to argue in favor of torture, why should a little thing like this faze him?
Re:Secretly? (Score:1, Insightful)
Personally, I'm more worried about where this security leak came from. Nobody seems worried about that, but this is a top-secret program. The NYT didn't just walk into the NSA or the DHS and say "So boys, slow news day; you got any secret programs we can bust the lid off of?" Someone here is involved in a huge breach of security, and this should constitute a much bigger flag going up than some imagined privacy rights being eroded.
And before you start with the Bush-bashing, I am a registered Libertarian and have voted 3rd party in every election in which I have voted.
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:quick success (Score:1, Insightful)
Why bother watching Fox? Better perhaps to take advantage of the BBC's reporting. Take a moment and any [bbc.co.uk] of their coverage. It's hard not to notice the actual facts of chemical weapon use. Which, of course, rather requires the existence of the same. Saddam's years-long campaign of obfuscation revolved almost entirely around hiding the ultimate disposition of such weapons, and the (then) ongoing, parallel work in missile development and manufacturing [bbc.co.uk].
The US is in Iraq for one thing, and one thing only. Oil.
Right, there's no interest at all in avoiding another Taliban-like haven for government-sponsored terrorism, as is found in Iran. That sort of retrograde, destabilizing influence on the entire middle east certainly does impact oil flow (for the entire world, in case you're not paying attention), and allowing it to thrive is unacceptable on a lot of levels, not just as it relates to oil. And before you start mentioning Saddam as some sort of not-so-bad alternative to the extremist jihaddi types, remember that he was busy shipping (along with press releases!) cash to organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and even to individual families of suicide bombers. To say nothing of lobbing scud missles across borders, trying to annex Kuwait, and so on. "For oil" is a tidy bit of sophistry, though, that must feel convenient. But the real issue with the oil is that it lies in a place where its value is being sought by medieval-minded theocratic crazies that use that single source of revenue to keep places like Iran running backwards from history. Putting those oil reserves in the hands of constitutional democracies is certainly acting "for the oil," but not in the way you so cravenly describe. That's like saying that when the US marched into Germany and liberated the concentration camps, that it was for the German beer.
oh yeah and russia is so innocent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Russia isnt so nice and they hide things, they go the shit and 50megaton nukes.
Oh but because they have 1000s of them and subs we cant invade em coz we're toast.
Who sold the chemicals? That damn photo of RUmselfd shaking hands with Saddamn in the80s is so damn funny!!!
Btw, Rumselfd also was a director of a company that allowed/helped north korea with reactors and now dont want iran to have any.
Its a global scam, they just want all OIL resources.
FACE it people, OIL is the reason for the last 150years of human achievements. He who has >50% of its resources wins.
No matter how many lies, or deaths or billions or trillions spent, he who has it rules. Even if its part ownership or proxy.
Get a clue people. With out oil there wouldnt be so much plastics/food/power and hence people!!!!!!!!!!
Coal cant achieve that role.
Re:quick success (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod me down all you want. It's still true.
-Eric
Not taking it sitting down (Score:5, Insightful)
We're not taking it sitting down. We're taking it in the ass, bent over the lap of a bound lady liberty. And the funny thing is, there's a bunch of folks saying they absolutely love it, because George Bush said they love it.
"C'mon, you know you love it!" he says. But still they don't squirm like he likes, so he says, "Terrorism! 9/11!"
And then they orgasm. "Oooo, I just love you, Mr. President!" And they say, "Those other people who don't love getting raped in the ass by their government are nothing but liberal crybabies." Because it's easier for them to call names and ignore the waxing fascism than it is for them to admit the truth: they support a fascist regime that has not made us one iota safer.
They, the party that once called for reduced government interference in our lives, are whining about how fucking great it is that the government is more involved in our lives to the point where they know how we spend our money and whom we call, and they are telling us how to think.
So, no. We're not taking it sitting down. We can't sit down. Our asses are sore.
"medieval-minded theocratic crazies" hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe should ditch American listening posts (Score:3, Insightful)
If Americans want to elect Bush, thats there problem, but we should be protecting our interests, not theirs.
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarian the word has some nice ideas attached to it. The active political party identified as the Libertarian party is full of crazies, or at least, really extreme viewpoints.
No, you've got it backwards. Libertarian, the ideal, is an extreme viewpoint. Furthermore, its basic tenants (government is always inefficient, the unregulated free market will work smoothly and provide for everyone's best interest, individuals can provide for their own security) are demonstrably false. There are some Libertarian people out there that aren't insane...but I frequently question whether they've really thought through to the inevitabilities of what Libertarianism leads to when actually put into practice.
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Decide which discount nursing home you'll spend the rest of your life in, for one.
Re: Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
They are not fools. (Mods if you don't like the truth just comment against it or get a life) The guys who are doing this monitoring have a full plan to monitor all data that can be collected on every person on the earth. I know this because I have read the Requests for Proposals from the various agencies involved. There can be only one logical conclusion of this effort. These guys want to establish a world wide Gestapo or SS. They intend to do so with impunity. They will do just as the NAZI's did, and cover their mafactor status as being "anti-terrorist".
For those who don't believe this just test a few facts. These people know full well that Al Qaeda doesn't use the modern banking system. These people know full well that their efforts have little or no effect on Al Qaeda. At the same time these people refuse to do border enforcement or any of the requested security measures already law in the USA which would protect the people from real terrorism. Where for example is the phone number where a US Citizen may call and have an illegal or undesirable alien (One who is acting badly for those who don't understand) promptly and properly dealt with under law. Where I live, if I call the Sheriff I may see an officer in 1 hour or so depending on the time of day. If I called about a real live Al Qaeda member to the US Border Patrol or ICE the call would never be responded to. There are only 65 ICE agents actually empowered to make arrests in the USA as a whole. Surely this tells the truth about the real intent here. It is pretty undeniable.
What is developing is obvious in another arena. George Bush has not issued a single Veto since he became president. This is because his treasure trove of info arrived at by this nefarious means that he couches as "Anti-Terrorist Efforts" actually is used as extortion against US Senators and Representatives who dare vote against his plans. This is why all measures always pass with at least a minimal margin no matter what. He doesn't care to eliminate the Congress as he controls it by this means.
My US Senator Jeff Sessions has come under serious pressure trying to destroy his career as a US Senator because he spoke up against the Immigration lies that were being spread. The cost he has paid has been very high. In an election he will face the Republican Party Machine trying to destroy his reputation and take away the money from contributors. Supposing you dare contribute a significant amount of money, you may find your business contracts with the government suspended if you have any. You may find your reputation destroyed by the data they developed in this mass spying effort. The senator himself will find every detail of his life made public to try to ruin him.
This is a direct threat to the very existence of a free people and a freely elected government. It makes the President of the United States of America and his team the chief terrorists in the world. It makes without doubt the danger very high. This is why we in the USA live in a continual state of "Terrorist Alerts" and other mechanisms designed to keep us sturred up and always afraid. This paranoid state they have us living in is making the whole world think we are insane. The fact of our sanity being in question because of this is becoming all of the discussion around the world. These people are up to no good in the White House. DO NOT MARK me as part of those who oppose the Republican Party generally. I support and go to meetings. I am a long standing life long Republican. These men in the White House only claim to be Republicans. I know most decent Republicans oppose what is going on.
What for example have they done to Preserve Protect or Defend the Constitution of the United States of America? (Their oath of office) I am a supporter of a strong America and I definitely support the efforts to put down Islamic Radical Terrorism. The efforts of these people are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of America at time of war. Yes their actions are TREASONA
Re:Cheney's response (Score:5, Insightful)
The question isn't "Why are they running a secret program?"
It's "Why are they doind it without the proper oversight?"
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
I vote against incumbents at all levels. But, I do believe that a Libertarian vote at local level elections is a very positive thing.
Re:Secretly? (Score:1, Insightful)
"A number of computer security experts have said the recent rash of data thefts is unprecedented in scope, method, and frequency. Some claim that the thefts appear to be coordinated and targeted at specific data types." See http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ [waynemadsenreport.com] under the June 17th heading with list of over 100 major data theft cases recently. That's an awful lot of merely sloppy guys carrying laptops home on trains, wouldn't you say?
Is somebody putting together a database on American citizens that it perhaps could not obtain legally?
Madsen, an ex-CIA analyst with history of credibility, identifies what's going on as: "part of a well-planned covert intelligence operation to obtain data on hundreds of millions of people in order to accomplish what former Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) official John Poindexter was not able to bring about through his defunct (but secretly restored) Total Information Awareness (TIA) system -- the population of intelligence and surveillance databases with files on the financial, medical, employment, telecommunications, and other sensitive data of Americans and foreigners."
Gosh, if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from an all-seeing all-powerful government... Good news! The chocolate ration has been increased to 5 grams this week! - Ministry of History Adjustment... - we are now at war with Oceania. Eastasia has always been our friend...
Oh, there's NO possibility of the administration using this data to intimidate or harrass opposition, or to blackmail elected representatives. No chance there's any consolidation going on of control over the population by any means available. I believe this administration is honest and honorable, and I truly believe they mean every word of reassurance repeated on the official government TV station, FOX. It's not like anybody in the adminstration has any history of lying, or has shot anyone in the face while hunting drunk, or done cocaine or been an alcoholic. You can trust these guys. (cough Gitmo) (cough Diebold) (cough AT&T) (cough your personal data in the hands of government thugs and you can't do a thing about it so just bend over and enjoy it)
Patriot Act, Section 314(a) (Score:1, Insightful)
Color me unsurprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I will be interested in seeing the BBC's take on the matter.
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not going to say that the gp is right, nor that he is wrong. Rather, I'd like to ask you to dismiss his arguments as impossible or at least extremely improbable and provide some reasoning for it, just like the gp made some arguments as to why he might be right and why it is not that unlikely at all that what he says happened.
In short, come with an argument instead of name calling, or live with not being taken seriously.
Re:Bush Derangement Syndrome strikes again (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor does it help that his defenders gleefully try to malign anyone who criticizes this train wreck of an administration, calling them anti-Americans, armchair terrorists, and worse. They also try to prove our insanity by saying that (in the case of "Dr. Sanity") we blame Bush for acts of God, like Hurricane Katrina and the Tsunami. If anyone goes around blaming hurricanes on human beings, it's Pat Robertson.
What we object to is our government's *reaction* to these events. The staffing of FEMA with incompetent ideological cronies was not an "act of God." The decision to redirect most government spending towards military pursuits, leaving us underfunded, undermanned, and underequipped at home, was not an "act of God." The ideology of "a government small enough to drown in the bathtub" didn't come from God, but from people who still have our President's attention and commitment.
Nor do we ask for the appeasement of terrorists. What we ask for are foreign policies that don't hand them one PR victory after another, helping them to radicalize vast swaths of the Islamic population. From Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghirab to rendition and torture, we are creating terrorists in the name of fighting terror. Frankly, it's not "appeasement" to recognize that had we spent the money squandered in Iraq on peaceful foreign aid, the true terrorists would find it much more difficult to get recruits. If we'd spent it on energy independence, our money wouldn't pour into the hands of people like the Saudi royalty, who use it to keep their people oppressed while using us as scapegoats to distract their own people. If we'd spent it on domestic programs, we would have saved more lives than were lost on September 11th. Had we not spent it at all, America would be on much more secure financial footing, and we'd have 100,000 soldiers home taking care of their families, rather than 2500 who never came home at all.
But then we'd have a mad dictator in power. Instead of a civil war. I'm about ready to call that one a toss-up.
So, yes, the man pisses me off to the point that it's hard to calm down when discussing him. Anyone who loves this country and can see where it's headed should be suffering from a severe case Bush Derangement Syndrome.
And that was mod'ed +5? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the YEAR in which they were used.
... and rather short on facts about chemical weapons.
If Saddam had them 20 years ago, that does NOT make him a threat TODAY.
No one is saying that Saddam did not have chemical weapons at any time in the past. We know he did. We were the ones who were helping him develop them for use in the Iraq/Iran war.
And your articles are rather long on descriptions of Saddam lounging by a pool in a speedo
Dude, Iraq fought Iran.
Iraq was a secular totalitarian state.
There was NO danger of them changing to a Theocracy while Saddam was alive.
So just leaving Saddam and the sanctions in place would have achieved your stated goal without the loss of a single US soldier's life.
If it's not about oil, then make the case without mentioning oil.
Because you cannot do so, without fantasy scenarios that Saddam's existance would have prevented, it is/was/will be about the oil.
So? No one is saying he was an angel. Just that he was not a threat to the United States of America or our allies.
Do not confuse "bad person" with "threat to the US".
Do you have some kind of calendar-phobia?
You keep bringing up actions from years before the last invasion. What he did in 1990 has no bearing on whether we should invade in 2003. There were THIRTEEN YEARS between those two events.
I don't know about "feel convenient", but it certainly fits the established facts.
And again you support the position that it was about the oil. Or, more exactly, about who controls the oil.
So, be as sarcastic/flippant as you want to be about it. The fact remains that you do not have a justification that does NOT involve the oil.
Oil does not vote. Oil does not elect representatives. There is nothing noble about going to war for oil. Therefore, saying that the war was for oil cannot be "craven".
Only in your mind, only in your mind.
Germany was actively invading other countries and attacking our ally England.
Iraq had
Re:echo $FREEDOM (Score:3, Insightful)
Now please excuse me while I go purchase drugs and weapons with CASH.
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:5, Insightful)
Government is always inefficient in a working republic or representative democracy, it is that way by design and for good reasons. I could explain it here, but it would be a bit lengthy. Instead of doing that, I challange you to think about why this is and why this is in fact a very good thing.
Re: Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't come up with anything usefull, then indeed you won't be taken seriously, not just by the slashdot crowd, but by anyone who has some capacity of independent thought.
That said, I am not the slashdot crowd, I am an individual slashdot reader putting up a question to you. Why the fuck are you posting here if you don't want to debate anything to begin with?
Besides, I suspect that I'm not in the minority with my viewpoint. I'm just not afraid to post non-AC.
I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.
So, are you capable of independent thought and making an argument or are you just one of the mindless sheep.
Re: Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
But I agree with you, it's sad how this administration uses 9/11 and "terrah" as the excuse for everything that has nothing to do with it.
Re:Corporate advantage? (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect that the more likely reason is to be able to "redistribute wealth" from the taxpayers to cronies & big campaign contributors. The "it's good for the economy" reason is just a rationalisation to divert peoples' attention from who is benefiting the most from those handouts.
If the people in the government _really_ wanted to help the economy, they'd just train & hire more infrastructure grunts (teachers, police officers, fireman, health care workers, etc).
This be a more effective way of injecting cash into the economy (since folks like these are much more likely to spend the extra cash immediately) without supporting welfare. It would encourage upward economic mobility and provide a much better educated & productive labor force.
The stronger infrastructure would also make it easier to do business, and having more people with money to spend would provide more business opportunities.
Of course, given past history, most people are going to rightfully suspect that allocating funds to hire more low-level employees will probably end up expanding the bureaucracy than it would actually hiring actual workers, but instead of making proposals to try and restrict the growth of the bureacracy, the kneejerk reaction is to reduce spending by _cutting_ low-level employees, which has _no_ benefits to the economy and often makes the infrastructure look bad (since it's under increased strain to provide services with less people).
Re: Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
You're an even bigger coward than the silent deniers: you're scared of your own shadow, and you're bullying it into submission.
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
The explanation is simple. Right now, our choices (our two parties) are between a fast downward spiral, or a slow downward spiral. That's it.
If you choose (as many do) to pick one of the various "third" parties, you are giving up any say as for which downward spiral you'd prefer, which is another way of saying you are doing absolutely nothing to promote the slower over the faster. In the choice of downward spirals, you're abstaining.
No, the results are *not* the same. Had Bush never won the Presidency, we would *not* be at war with Iraq right now (for example). And it would *not* have simply been postponed for a later date. It is possible we'd still be at war with Iraq again, eventually, but it is not inevitable (as you imply), nor would we necessarily have done it so poorly (note: by "poorly", I'm not referring to the troops, they've performed as ordered spectacularly. The problem is their leaders have failed them).
To simply think you're doing good by voting for a third-party at the national level is delusional. It's the "hail mary" of all "hail marys". While it's technically possible, the last time it worked was *150* years ago, and *that* was during a time of such great national division that it led up to a civil war!
To accept the fast downward spiral is a spectacularly awful plan which will lead only to spectacularly awful results. While my party may not be perfect, that's no justification for allowing the other party take us as far down that spiral as fast as they can.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
These same people, like Poindexter, [google.com]Negroponte [google.com], Bolton [google.com] and so many others, wrench our country into invading Iraq to the [google.com]benefit of Saudi Arabia and Iran [google.com], giving the NSA and CIA powers previously forbidden [google.com] by our constititional democratic republic. While spying on all Americans [google.com] for the political power that ensures their corporate backers will make all the money they want, forever.
They're pulling it off. As measured by $TRILLIONS in profits [google.com] and unlimited power [google.com], killing thousands around the world and leaving our country to rot. How can we possibly deny that they're smart, that they're doing it all on purpose, that it's malice, even evil, that is driving all their actions? Because the truth is too much to admit, especially since we like to believe what we see in the media: the Republican government works for us, not themselves and their corporate masters.
Re: Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect you are indeed part of the majority which dismisses arguments based on who is making the argument and not based on the merrits of that argument. At least, your posts are strongly suggesting this.
When ranting and raving on the internet without presenting any sort of corroboration, indeed with not even leads toward information that may serve as a basis of evidence, dismissal is pretty much the only option. Anyone can post anything, and chasing down the rainbows of paranoia isn't a productive activity. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This whole situation is kind of like the OJ defense: claim the administration is so incompetent as to be unable to conduct the normal business of the country, while at the same time masterfully organizing the biggest conspiracy in history completely successfully? Something doesn't fit.
There's an old saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I missed the part where the evidence of the CIA and the NSA allowing 9/11 was posted. Maybe it's in your super special edition of Slashdot that I don't get?
From here it looked like the unfounded assumption upon which the entire rest of the post is based.
Re:Not taking it sitting down (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
Horseshit. Most libertarians (small 'l') aren't extremists or fanatics; they simply want the smallest, least powerful government possible because the alternative will almost certainly lead to de facto or actual dictatorship. In other words, they're looking for a government that fears the people it represents, and rightly so - rather than the reverse situation we live under now.
Most real libertarians (as opposed to rabid slashdot posters, and their equally rabid detractors) actually think that government in small doses for specific tasks is a good thing. For example, it makes far more sense for a municipal government to build a single set of power lines and junction stations throughout the city, rather than let anyone who wants to try constructing a private infrastructure giving it a shot (putting up 18 sets of poles, lines, etc.). Where libertarians part from current practice is that they believe that after this is done the lines should be leased to any and all comers willing to pay the price and provide the power, rather than granting something that was built with tax money to a single monopolistic entity (corporate or government, it doesn't matter).
Real libertarians generally don't make a lot of noise, just as most political moderates don't make a lot of noise. Their agenda primarily rests upon the "Leave Me The Fuck Alone And Tend To Your Own Pathetic Life" plank, which means you really have to piss them off to get them motivated enough to start kicking ass. Fanatics (pro- and anti-libertarian) don't need any such inspiration; they'll scream, yell, and throw a tantrum at the drop of a hat, spouting vacuous claptrap and claiming that all 'real' followers of the One True and Right Way believe as they do - and that anyone else is a traitor. The internet, like real life, is probably populated by 90% moderates and 10% scumbag fanatics, but the fanatics make 90% of the noise, skewing the perception of who stands where badly out of proportion with reality.
And no, the Libertarian party doesn't speak for us. You can't be libertarian and be in favor of the slavery of women, for example, by supporting a ban on abortions - which the Libertarian party allows. They've chucked their principles in a bid to get actual third party standing, which means that in the end they'll only be Libertarian in name and nothing more. Fuck 'em and don't for a moment think they speak for everyone who claims to be libertarian.
Max
Re:p.s. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not saying that America doesn't need to wise up and get agressive on nutrition, but lets put the blame where the blame belongs. McDonalds didn't make America fat, poor education about nutrition did. The fact that 5 days of the week parents choose to bring home food from [fill in the fast food place] instead of preparing a balance meal themselves is what makes America fat. And also your attitude that [X] is responsible instead of ourselves is one of the biggest problems. It is much easier to blame something else than accept responsibility for our actions.
You could close McDonalds tomorow and do you really think America would miraculously get health? Guess what - America would just start going to Burger King, Chipolte, and KFC more...
Re:Secretly? (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as you ignore the Constitution, that is. But who really gives a shit about that stupid piece of paper anymore? After all, the people who wrote it were a bunch of fucking barbarians who didn't even have, like, TV!
Also, who the fuck cares if the government is looking at Joe Sixpack's bank info?
Perhaps Joe Sixpack - y'know, the guy the government supposedly works FOR. In case you've forgotten, the government, along with our elected representatives, were intended to be our SERVANTS, not our leaders. Their job is to get on their fucking knees and suck our dicks whenever we tell them to, and to thank us for the privilege after. The situation was NEVER supposed to be reversed.
And don't start with bullshit slippery slope arguments
'Cuz, like, they're far too difficult for you to follow. Sweet Jesus, if ever there were an argument against universal suffrage, you'd be the poster child for it.
this is not some insidious plot by the government to erode our civil liberties.
Apparently the study of history isn't something you've ever put your mind to. Governments are ALWAYS interested in eroding civil liberties, because the only way to get power is to take it from others. And in case you haven't noticed, the people who WANT power are the ones who work their way into government office in the first place.
It's a flawed system. Anyone who wants the job is one of the last people in the world you actually want to give it to. But rather than come up with a different way of doing things, we get to choose between a list of scumbags, hoping that the person we're voting for is the least evil among the lot. On the rare occasions when a real idealist gets voted into office, they're either a) corrupted, or b) destroyed if they can't be corrupted.
Someone here is involved in a huge breach of security
And here's hoping for more such breaches in the future. Since the government thinks it apparently doesn't need to inform me, it's employer, about what it's up to, I have to rely on leaks to get that information.
Max
Re: Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Going from there to 'the CIA and NSA allowed it to happen' isn't such a stretch either but it does not in itself explain why they 'allowed this to happen'.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. He mistakes bureaucratic incompetence for intention. Going from incompetence to intention is a huge stretch and implies a serious misunderstanding of how the career employees of the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies do their jobs. I leave to you the exercise of determining how such a thing could be covered up, given the number of people that would have been involved.
That said, allowing such an incident in order to control the population is far from unheard of, rather, it is a very well documented 'trick' that has seen a lot of use throughout history. With that in mind, suspecting a government of doing the same might be wrong in this case, but isn't exactly a matter of paranoia.
Whose history? US history? You're saying that the US government has allowed something like the 9/11 attacks to occur in the past just to inflame the populace? Now I'll admit that our government isn't run by a bunch of boy scouts, but I think that you're pulling something out of thin air here.
Incidentally, at some point, you claimed that I was dismissing the OP's comments by saying that he was paranoid. On the contrary, as I've already mentioned, he did the job himself. I was just challenging his own assertion that I might consider him a troll. I don't think that he's a troll at all. I never addressed his comments, though, because I really didn't think that they were worthy of discussion - at least on my part. Perhaps I was wrong.
-h-
Re:quick success (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they set themselves up for a war with Germany because Germany challenged their failing hegemony. They refused to recognize the fucking writing on the wall, that the British Empire was shit decaying in the summer sun...until the point was driven home to them via tank, plane and sub. There was nothing whatsoever altruistic about Britain's stand against a European challenger, one that made them shit their pants for the very same reasons only a generation before.
Russia was the main force (they had also been attacked by Germany like the US) that went, Britain was the second force
You've got to be kidding. The Brits were practically inconsequential by the time we invaded France. Churchill himself said that they would've surrendered had the Americans not entered the war when they did...and would've done so much earlier if the Americans hadn't been supplying them with weapons, munitions, food, tools, spare parts, and so on since the start of the war.
What the Brits did do, and well, was soak up a hell of a lot of Germany's time, attention and resources. That was the intended goal when Roosevelt decided to supply them 'under the table' and against the will of the majority of Congress - since Roosevelt intended to go to war with the Germans right from the get-go. This softened up the Germans considerably when the Americans finally did invade Europe. We did the same thing with the Russians (Lend-Lease, etc.) and for the exact same reasons.
Max
Re:p.s. (Score:2, Insightful)
You (the nation as a whole) elected them, you deserve a measure of responsiblity for their actions, that is what democracy means. And the same applies to me as I am british and my Govt also invaded Iraq. If I or any my friends is killed, while we may not deserve that to happen to us (nobody deserves to die), I can understand what may motivate someone to kill us. Even if the person doing the killing is just as fucked up as Bush senior himself.
Re:p.s. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's OK for the government to abrogate our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties but not to attempt to educate people about the obesity epidemic that is directly causing the deaths of 1 in 5 Americans that die every year? Is that really the way you want to go?
Here's the real secret, many that call themselves "conservatives" are right wing authoritarians who actually believe in a strong centralized Federal police state. The founding fathers who were decentralists would be appalled at this type of thinking. Far from being conservative and respectful of tradition you people are in fact radical authoritarians in the same vein as fascists.
Witnessing the decay of our Democratic Republic in real time is fucking depressing.
More people die... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I don't know what's worse... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The Framers" wanted it to be hard/complicated/inefficient to enact legislation so as to put a check on the Mob mentality. You know, like suddenly removing civil liberties and increasing presidential powers.
Almost worked too.
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)