NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring 542
Thanks to Bruce Schneier for pointing out the testimony from NSA Director Michael Hayden, in which he talks about how the NSA worked pre-9/11 and post. And, as Bruce pointed out "...[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety."
Timing is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
>Just dont ask me after a traumatizing event. I might say some things I regret down the road.
agreed, but the breath of fresh air I'm seeing is that the NSA is actually 'asking' where to draw the line.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:2)
You make a good point, though.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been over a year and most of the important changes to the intelligence committees haven't taken place yet. Exactly how long do you want to wait?
While I agree with basic sentiment, the problem is that action is required now.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? I see no reason. The FBI's success rate at stopping Islamic terrorists up till 9/11 was pretty commendable. They slip up once, and all of a sudden it's a green light to let the Federal Govt do what it pleases. I don't buy. Can things be improved, perhaps, but there is only so much one can do about "security" when billions of dollars couldn't put a dent in the drug trade.
Quite frankly, I'm not willing to one iota of freedom for the illusion of security. If my mind is not free, I will NEVER be secure.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I would just like to point out.... (Score:2)
The worry is that information intelligence agencies gained can be used against minor crimes like someone with a secret drug habit, or speeding, or whatever.
I'm very much for privacy as a basic civil right. But I think we have to ask the difficult question of what privacy is. And that hasn't been asked.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:2)
What sort of action? Bars on our windows, armed militiamen at every street corner, and a federal database of everything each person says from birth to death??? Anything less than this is just shades of the same situation and would still fail to address the real issues.
The fundamental problem with the fear about "terrorism" is based in our own society. It is basically an extension to the trend to fear our own damned neighbors; wierdo nuts from the middle east are just a special case. Why is it that we are so untrusting that simply walking down a city street at night can be nerve-wrecking. I really think "terrorism" is the least of our troubles.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... no. If you do nothing but demand "action," you get nothing but silly knee-jerk bills like the USA PATRIOT Act. You get what you ask for.
What really needs to be done is better enforcement of existing laws. The 9/11 terrorists got into the county with what are shining examples of faulty visa applications. They shouldn't have been in the country to begin with!
They attack, thousands die, thousands more just like you scream for "action," and all sorts of new laws get passed to make us "safer."
Less than a month after the creation of our "new, safer America," a homicidal Jamaican teenager gets in on an equally lousy visa application (faulty by the old standards as well as the "newer, better" ones) and participates in a shooting spree throughout the DC metropolitan area.
How much more "action" are you going to demand until you start demanding the correct action?
Re:Timing is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
And before people fly off the handle, the truth is that most politicians and most government authorities really do want what is best for the public; the problem is far more often one of execution, ability or knowledge, rather than deliberate and wanton disregard for the public in favour of special interests. Of course, it's the really bad apples that naturally grab the headlines, while those basically doing a decent job are rarely mentioned.
Re:Timing is everything (Score:2, Interesting)
"Give me liberty or give me death." -Patrick Henry, 1775
Traumatizing event (Score:2)
I wish these issues could up in some normal time like 3 years ago when nobody was traumatized in either direction. The problem is then nobody cares.
don't believe it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:don't believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
Realisticly, do the people whom are elected do have a overwheming incentive to protect our rights?
Re:don't believe it (Score:2)
Re:don't believe it (Score:2)
The mere fact that campaign finance reform was necessary tells us that people are so ill informed and so easy to manipulate that the amount of money spent on ads controls how people vote.
Re:don't believe it (Score:5, Insightful)
While you do not elect them, they are a government agency and they ultimately report to elected officials (indeed, this report is written for a Senate committee).
I am not an American, but I have met and worked with many fine people employed by the National Security Agency and I believe they are a great credit to your country. They are actively protecting you from real threats, and they have no secret agenda to destroy your freedoms.
In that light, the question posed here is entirely appropriate. There is a compromise between freedom and security, and the NSA is exactly right to ask the government to decide where the compromise should end up. And rest assured, it will end up where the American people say it should end up.
That may or may not give you some comfort. The decision-making capabilities of the American people can be questionable at times.
Re:don't believe it (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, you mean like this? [cnn.com]
Re:don't believe it (Score:3, Funny)
Everytime I think about these things, I'm reminded of the basic theme to Star Wars. When will the citizens of the US vote for GWB to be our supreme and all-powerful tyrant?
Re:don't believe it (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. This is why many citizens have called from police review boards responsive to elected officials. Consider, for example the Red Squads of the Los Angeles Police Department [amazon.com]. Established outside the review and control of elected officials, the LAPD has seen itself as an elite "government within a government", to the point of keeping files on elected officials.
You are damn right I don't trust unelected and unaccountable police officials!
Re:don't believe it (Score:3, Funny)
Something tells me you are forgetting an organization.
Lets be philosophical, shall we. The most secretive organizations in the world you (read: your average person) probably don't even know about, or its something people 'joke about'.
Re:don't believe it (Score:2)
Why not throw in the Illuminati while you're at it? Or what about their connections to Kevin Bacon?
Hell, at least they're not Scientology...
"these people are not elected,"
Just because you didn't elect them directly doesn't mean:
1.) They weren't elected at all
2.) That you don't have indirect control over them
While you don't see NSA employees on your ballot, you do vote for the people that democratically select their higher-ups (not to mention their funding). If you have problems with the NSA, you need go no further than your local Congresscritter.
If the fact that Congress was able to "convince" the CIA to stop overturning foreign governments every other week in the 50's and 60's isn't enough to convince you of the chain of command, I don't know what will. Hell, I'm more comfortable with Congress deciding the NSA higher-ups than the members of the Electoral College deciding the president. At least members of Congress try to pretend there are things more important to them than political parties...
"so they have no incentive to protect your rights."
They do if they expect to see their paychecks.
Re:don't believe it (Score:2)
I'm not saying that is intrinsically bad. And the fact that you frequently have such competition amongst government organizations limits how the information can be used. (i.e. it is unlikely the NSA would share such information with your local police department)
However the problem with the current terrorist thread is that the line between "outside" and "inside" becomes blurry and following traditional approaches doesn't work well. Further the idea that we can make a clear separation between "domestical criminal" and "foreign soldier/terrorist" is naive at best. We have to rethink these issues while trying to protect the basic views that the founding fathers gave us with our approach to individual liberty.
I'd have thought (Score:5, Interesting)
Ie the rest of the world is unsafe and the USA has liberty.
Re:I'd have thought (Score:4, Insightful)
Isolationism will bring even less security. We begin to ignore what other countries are doing etc.... They have a larger excuse for their hatred and a larger window of opportunity to plan things unnnoticed.
Re:I'd have thought (Score:4, Funny)
Invade. Create new states, appoint governers and rule with an iron fist. The emperor will be pleased.
Re:I'd have thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd have thought (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very common American mindset,"If we are not isolationists, then we must be interventionists". We need to realize that their is more than a right and a left there is a middle ground. As someone who lived in foreign countries I will tell you that yes intervention was scorned but aid was not. Aid can influence when it is not forced to, Also, there are other forms of involvement. Were we "just minding our business" by not attending any of the major environmental treaties of late? Would the world have seen us as "intervening too much" to sign on in Tokyo? We need to take a role in stewardship of the international environment (seas, polar landscapes etc....) and stop only influencing what directly influences Wall Street. That is really partly what your point was, I just wanted to add mine to it.
You didn't think (Score:3, Interesting)
And, anyway, "security" here includes security from one's own gov't -- one of the fundsmental concepts the Revolutionary War was fought over, and the Bill of Right designed to address.
Re:You didn't think (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean you were able to LEAVE those places?
You don't know how good you've got it if you think even the worst parts of the USA have got the worldwide crown for "crappy living sitation." No, we're not perfect--but there are some FAR worse places in the world to live.
Re:You didn't think (Score:3, Insightful)
> Oh wait, that sniper is most likely to be a
> fellow American using their constitutionally
> protected right to be a gun nut.
Sorry, but the Constitution does not protect breaking court orders. The elder sniper was barred from playing with guns at the time he and his "partner" went on their multi-state murder spree. It seems his previous hobby was kidnapping his kids.
As with DRM and so much else, gun control laws only control honest, law-abiding citizens. Evil people don't bother with restrictions on what they can purchase, they just steal whatever they want.
Face it, no amount of regulation is going to make us all safe and secure, because this is not a safe and secure world. The only real security is the kind the heroes of Flight 93 bought with their lives: by confronting and stopping evil men even though they were just ordinary people riding an airplane. Their example has done a lot of good, as it has been the ordinary people on the airplanes, not the endless barrage of airport security, that has stopped further threats, like the Shoe Bomber.
Such evils can and have been defeated. But it has not been by casting liberty to the wind, ruining happiness, or destroying our future.
"Lola, kindness is not enough, look for the reason of hatred and anger.
When you find and understand that, love becomes the strongest power
Belabera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Maximum Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
I choose Maximum Liberty. Please draw the line there.
Re:Maximum Liberty (Score:2, Insightful)
Why choose between liberty and safety? I agree with Franklin, who said the person willing to trade liberty for security deserves neither.
Anonymity would make a better trade. It was never guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution in the first place.
Re:Maximum Liberty (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maximum Liberty (Score:5, Interesting)
As a former paratrooper I thank you kindly. Many americans (military and civilian) traded their safety and even their lives for our continued freedom. The war on terrorism promotes the heroism of cowardice "I boldly tell the FBI what my neighbor says in confidence....because I am scared of the roughly couple dozen Al Qaeda reps that the President says MIGHT be in our country." That is a sad, sad statement.
Re:Maximum Liberty (Score:2)
Expecting the government to attempt to provide for your safety against the depradations of others is correct, however.
The single most important purpose of government is to protect its citizens against crimes local and afar.
Re:Maximum Liberty (Score:2)
Thats it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thats it... (Score:2, Funny)
Then we have a job to do... (Score:5, Insightful)
Senators can be found here:
U.S. Senate Home [senate.gov]
Representatives can be found here:
Representative Member Directory [house.gov]
If you do this, you have some form of say in our government, or at least a chance at influence. Don't waste it.
You had your chance to send a real message... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, though, the US is just fine with (even welcoming and asking for more of) the kind of government that would pass USAPATRIOT.
Be careful what you wish for, USACITIZEN.
-c
Re:You had your chance to send a real message... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're talking about the difference between somebody who's going to take away my rights -and- my wallet, and somebody who's just going to take away my rights. Shitty choice, but it's obvious who to choose.
Re:Then we have a job to do... (Score:2)
Staying unsafe... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Staying unsafe... (Score:3, Funny)
Simple. Turn it all off. No international trade at all. Quickly, the economy would slow to the point where oil is no longer required to make it run, therefore freeing the military budget to actually perform socially useful things. Standard of living for everyone in the country would actually increase. Of course the income of the top 2% of the country would drop significantly, but hell, we could live without them and their United Defense shares anyway.
Re:Staying unsafe... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm mentally picturing a society with no oil. I could live with it. But then, I grew up doing things like backpacking and hiking, and I enjoy a good walk. With winter coming along, though, it's a good thing I live in the south. Still, without the international commerce, I'd miss Korean and Thai food, and so much for my hopes of getting a game cube.
Standard of living for everyone in the country would actually increase.
Well, yeah, the average might rise. Of course, those who can't fend for themselves without grocery stores, or who are medically dependent on oil-based products and ambulances, that population will drop significantly, but hell, we could live without them. No need to be concerned with their standard of living if they aren't living.
Not trying to troll or flame you here, Iguana, don't get me wrong. Just holding up a broken mirror to your vision. I'm generally an optimist, but I've gotten into the habit of taking every idealist situation and asking myself, what's the worst that could happen.
I keep picturing another time the industries in the United States nearly stopped international trade, and the economy *very* quickly slowed down, back in the 1930's....
Re:Staying unsafe... (Score:3, Interesting)
I too was raised in an area where a simpler way of life was possible. The oil thing: US has enough to look after everything if you take out transportation. So medical, plastics etc. would continue quite comfortably for a long long time.
No, play safe. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Instead of bombing attacking Iraq for oil (come on, you don't honestly expect the rest of the world to believe its a terrorist thing do you?) why not actually encourage democracy in the Middle East? Sure there will be some Islamic governments elected. Let them run things for a bit to deflate them. It has been said by a late Quebec politician that "when one is in opposition, one can speak poetry, but when one is in power, one must speak prose." Let the fundamentalists speak prose for a while. That'll allow their voters to see the backwards bumkins they really are.
If you absolutely insist upon bombing Iraq, state that you could live with Iraq's next government joining OPEC and pledge that no US owned oil industry interests will be allowed to profit from Iraqi reserves (That goes for you too Cheney! ; ) ). Only then will most of the world know that the Administration is sincere. (Like that is going to happen.)
2) Try giving some aid to help out the little guys in under developed countries instead of supporting brutal regimes which happen to be friendly to your economic 'interests'. Sure you can cow-tow governments, but you can't cow-tow people living under those governments, and those people hating the US government has been your problem of late. Continuance of this policy just helps the recruitement efforts for Al Qaeda and other organizations like it. US supported Egypt (a "friendly") will round up more fundamentalists in the name of a "war on terror", torture them, and eventually release them as well adjusted citizens without a care in the world. Egypt's government has helped create this froot loop: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonig
The USA doesn't give much aid to the poor in the world in terms of its wealth. And one third of that budget goes to Isreal to buy helicopters, tanks, etc. The Isreali government is not the "kinder gentler" sort--not that the PLO or Hamas is... But when non-US news casts show the results of helicopters firing missles at a car full of Hamas dudes on a crowed street, everyone knows that Apache(TM) helicopters--"Made in the USA". Whether you agree with the Isreali actions or not, this imagery speaks louder than any US government commercial could to Muslims. In order to extend the image of the US being a "promoter of democracy, peace and freedom" outside your borders, your government should learn when to "take the toys from the boys". Not simply for the symbolism, but also for the practical well being of the world, and for your own citizens too.
3) Take a stand. Take a stand for democracy in China. Trade is important but not everything. Don't pander to the Russian government for their vote on the security council by giving them a free ride on their war in Chechnia. They are brutal to the Chechins who want their own state, and always have. Not saying taking hostages is a great thing either. duh.
4) If Americans truely believe in democracy, they cannot simultaniously believe that the US government's foreign adventurism can be represented by the wishes of foreign citizens. These people do not vote on the policies that affect them and so their well being is not a major consideration. Nobody asks average Iraqis whether they are "better off now than in the last four years". Not the Iraqi government for obvious reasons, but not the US government either. They're screwed either way.
How to change that? Participate in the international community when others want help, not just when you want help. There have been a bunch of international agreements which the US has been absent from the table: Agreements on child soldures, land mines, non-proliferation of nuclear materials, international courts, Kioto. The US has not been at the table with most other civilized countries, but suddenly GB wants the UN's help to legitimize it's war efforts, saying the UN will be a League of Nations if it allows Iraq to ignore the UN!!!! Well, kettle black pot calling. George shoulda been there two years ago. Not like the UN is far away.
It isn't that the US is a modern Roman Empire or a Nazi Germany. It is simply that the US uniquely has such an opportunity to make the world a better place and in so doing, earn a good name for itself. Sadly, it appears to be squandering this opportunity because it can't get out of it's 50s thinking: play this state against that state and we'll come out ahead. Al Qaeda has begun to think out of the box and shown that individuals--not only states--can have tremedous destructive power. As a countermeasure, shouldn't the US learn to think outside of the box to help improve the lot of the unlucky individuals in the world, not simply the wellbeing of their puppet governments?
Improving the security of US citizens in the world cannot be viewed as simply a military affair. Nor can it be improved simply by espionage as the NSA would have people believe. It is not closing off your borders to someone who happens to be born in Syria.
It is largely because the US is being seen as the power that helps prevent you from voting for the future leaders in your own country, as in Saudi Arabia. Or being buddy-buddy with the state that shells your house as in the refugee camps in Palistine. Or pals with the Russian government that deports your village to Siberia as in Chechnia. Or financier of the government that tortures you for your regigious beliefs.
Rationally none of this justifies killing people, but if it was your country, family, village or you, you might not be rational anymore.
So improve your image in the world by improving yourselves. This is how to be safe.
Cheers,
-b
Oh, sorry, is this Kuro5hin? ; )
Plan for Freedom and Security (Score:4, Insightful)
2
3 FREEDOM!
Re:Plan for Freedom and Security (Score:5, Insightful)
It is very insightful. It does indeed show the mindset of the US Government these days. Let's take away the right to do this, and we'll be free of that. It is like gun laws. Whether or not we have gun laws, those who want to use a gun will get one and use it. Example: see sniper.
Not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
[he] tells Congress that they can best help him by going back to their constituents and finding out where the public wants to draw the line between liberty and safety
This is not good enough. Because liberty is a more abstract concept than security, people tend to choose security on the principle that only criminals have something to hide ... until their liberty is eroded to the extent that it causes them problems, by which time it is too late to go back.
Re:Not good enough (Score:2)
Liberty and privacy do have an impact on each other, but they are not synonymous.
Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Every time someone looks at the United States and wrongly believes that we live under a despotic and evil government, the world becomes a bit more dangerous for Americans. The sort of person who thinks that the United States is a horrible place is far more likely to be supportive to the insanity of radical-Islamist terrorism.
On the other hand, every time someone looks to the United States and envies our elections, our freedoms, our optimism, that is a victory in the war on terrorism. And with enough victories like that, I think that the world can truly become a safer place.
Why can't we have both? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that violating people's civil liberties including taking away their right to speech, privacy and due process makes it easier for law enforcement, but aside from being unconstitutional, it's also bad policework.
If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through. If you tap everyone's phone, then you become bogged down in terabytes of data -- most of which is useless. If you suppress the speech of the hate mongers and racists, then you don't know who is a hate monger or racist.
Civil liberties aren't just respectful of constitutional and human rights, they also help law enforcement do their job right. So don't ask for a line to be drawn. Try playing by the rules instead.
Here here (Score:2)
You said it perfectly, Omega
Re:Why can't we have both? (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA isn't asking you to choose one or the other. It is asking how much liberty do you wish to sacrifice in order to gain how much safety.
And contrary to the rest of your post, there is *always* that tradeoff in the real world.
I know that violating people's civil liberties including taking away their right to speech, privacy and due process makes it easier for law enforcement, but aside from being unconstitutional, it's also bad policework.
Wait... it makes it easier to do their job, so it is bad policework? That doesn't follow.
If you racially profile your suspects, then the Timothy McVeighs slip through.
Nonsense. If you racially profile, you enhance your odds of catching criminals. There is a reason that every BOLO I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot of them) list the race of the suspect. And in terms of a more general profile, where you don't exactly know the suspect, it still makes sense. Not racially profiling is like making a spam filter that ignores certain words because it is politically incorrect to do so.
In other words, it is a dumb strategy from a law enforcement viewpoint.
If you tap everyone's phone, then you become bogged down in terabytes of data -- most of which is useless. If you suppress the speech of the hate mongers and racists, then you don't know who is a hate monger or racist.
Civil liberties aren't just respectful of constitutional and human rights, they also help law enforcement do their job right. So don't ask for a line to be drawn. Try playing by the rules instead.
This is utter balderdash. Civil liberties in general impede law inforcement. Otherwise, we wouldn't need to enforce civil liberties against law enforcement, because they would have no desire or need to violate them.
The important issue, which at least the head of the NSA understands (unlike some posters here) is which civil liberties does one reduce (not eliminate) in trade for what sort of protection. This is a valid question. In fact, it is the fundamental question of all government: what freedoms do you take from your citizens in trade for what benefits do you give them?
After all, government ONLY works by removing liberties. This is something that those who favor big government should keep in mind. It isn't only safety that people trade for liberty; they are also all to willing to trade economic freedoms (typically the economic freedoms of others) for their own economic gain (or the economic gain of others).
Government is necessary in the real world. Government only works by removing liberties. The US government is contrained in its removal of liberties by a constitution, although the interpretation of that constitution is a matter of constant controversy.
Therefore the only interesting issue is how much the government can and should infringe on liberties. Anything else ignores reality.
Re:Why can't we have both? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you don't. I hate to beat the sniper drum because people are making such a big deal out of it, but it is true that the snipers were observed near the scene of several of the shootings by the police, but not noticed because the police were on the lookout for white separatists, and black muslims don't fit that profile.
Had no such profiling been done and they had instead simply compared license plates or people, they may have caught on to them earlier. Or maybe not, but clearly having the contrary profile in that case did not make their job any easier.
-Alison
the question is.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Through liberty.. there will always be safety.. in the sense that.. someone (the government) will always control our liberty.. and at the same time a government will do all it can to protect its country, even if it includes hindering our liberty.
If one were to go around chanting anti-american remarks and burning the flag, by the Constitutional law.. they have every right to do that, but our government will see it as a threat and most likely arrest the individual.
Unfortunately, freedom and safety are both two very strenuous issues when being discussed together, but as far as "the line" goes.. I personally don't think a line can be drawn..
Re:the question is.. (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>>>
If I recall correctly, you can't arrest someone if they have the right to do something. And last I remembered, making anti-american remarks and burning the flag was still Constitutional.
Re:the question is.. (Score:2)
right.. and if you actually reread my post.. you will see i had wrote ".. by the Constitutional law.. they have every right to do that"
and I know they can't be arrested for it.. but.. i'm saying that the government themselves would see it as a threat and arrest them.. believe me.. the government will find many different absurd reasons to arrest you.. just as long as they get ahold of you..
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't you just intercept their constituents' phone calls, email, web traffic, faxes, pages, and all other forms of electronic communications, and then you'll know exactly what they want.
Oh.. wait..
I drew the line a long tma ago.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly I scared...of all of the things going on...Homeland Security is a term that scares the hell out of me....
Re:I drew the line a long tma ago.... (Score:2)
I'll Take Liberty Over Safety, please... (Score:2)
I'll take my chances here, just so long as every time they hit us here, the miserable filthy rat bastards that plan, finance and harbor these immoral vermin get it back 100 times over.
Use all the daisycutters and hellfires you need, we'll make more.
.
Which Constituents? (Score:2)
Since Congress has to answer to both, I wonder if they are the best group to answer Director Hayden's question. Perhaps this is an executive decision.
wrong attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
While the question is phrased that way -- liberty vs safety -- it's the only question we can answer. If we say: liberty is inviolate, now how else do we protect people? Then that question may be answered instead.
Ironic, since we just had an election... (Score:5, Interesting)
I voted. I voted for Libertarian candidates because I, like many people here, believe that the less intrusive government is, the better.
Writing letters and making phone calls only goes so far. No matter how many letters or phone calls legislators receive, it's still the same person who ignores them. The real solution is to get these people out of office and elect people who are more likely to give our concerns a voice.
So the next time you feel that our legislators truly aren't looking out for our interests, get your ass out of your chair and vote.
Re:Ironic, since we just had an election... (Score:2)
I vote without regard to political party because, like many people here, THINK FOR MYSELF!
Think for yourself next election, just because someone got on the ticket for a particular party doesn't really mean jack. Did you see the guy on the daily show that was on the ballot as a libertarian candidate even though the libertarian party didn't support him at all?
AND! Only vote if you know what you are voting for. Ignorant voters are more a bain to democracy than non voters. So you don't know who is running for congress in your district? Don't vote for your favorite party, turn the page and go to the next race and don't vote for anyone in that race.
Stupid voters suck! Immigrants probably have a better knowledge of how our government works than natural born citizens because they have to take a test about it to become a citizen. There should be a test on the basic principles of our government and the constitution required in order to vote. How can you vote if you don't know how your own government even works!
Re:Ironic, since we just had an election... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fire and police departments would be privatized. Can't afford protection? Too bad, social darwinism says you don't deserve to live, anyway.
Water and electricity would certainly be cheaper if they were completely unregulated monopolies, right?
Libertarianism in a nutshell: I've got mine, screw the rest of you.
The Real Libertarianism in a Nutshell (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, you don't know a whole hell of a lot about Libertarianism or you wouldn't make such sweeping generalizations about us (yes, I am one) and our ideas. Not all Libertarians believe that we can one day just scrap police and fire protection, get rid of the entire governmental structure and leave people to fend for themselves. We don't want to destroy the world as we know it and replace with entirely privatized options. It's this kind of FUD that keeps the party down.
The LP wants to:
# Substantially reduce the size and intrusiveness of government and cut all taxes.
# Let peaceful, honest people offer their goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government.
# Let peaceful, honest people decide for themselves what to eat, drink, read, or smoke and how to dress, medicate themselves, or make love, without fear of criminal penalties.
# The U.S. government should defend Americans and their property in America and let the U.S. taxpayer off the hook for the defense bill of wealthy countries like Germany and Japan.
Stick to posting about topics you know. www.lp.org [lp.org] would be a good start to your reading.
Re:Ironic, since we just had an election... (Score:3, Interesting)
But they do expect that free markets, like free humans, will do a whopping lot better than government-controlled markets. For a real-world example, compare North and South Korea. This is a country with the same language, culture, and history that is divided into a (more-or-less) free market South, and a government-controlled market North. People are still starving in the North.
Drawing the Line (Score:2)
We're too concerned about the "world opinion" from nations we barely respect or who have historically been shown to be liars.
Interesting quote (Score:4, Interesting)
"During that session I even said without exaggeration on my part or complaint on yours that if Usama bin Laden crossed the bridge from Niagara Falls, Ontario to Niagara Falls, New York, U.S. law would give him certain protections that I would have to accommodate in the conduct of my mission. And now the third open session for the Director of NSA: I am here explaining what my Agency did or did not know with regard to 19 hijackers who were in this country legally."
It seems then, that the safest place for a terrorist to hide would be in US.
The Risk of Simply Living (Score:2, Insightful)
This not only applies to issues pertaining to the west's battle with Islamism, but also applies to all of the socialist safety nets governments feel they must create for us.
And particularly in America it applies to the economic destruction wreaked on us by trial lawyers. (Read Chocolate) [slashdot.org]
There are so many physical risks and dangers in this world and we'll never be able to crush, legislate and/or sue them out of existence.
Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think Michael Hayden stated the issue he faces, and we all face, extremely clearly, and thereby did us all a favor. I also think Benjamin Franklin drew the line where it needs to be drawn -- do not sacrifice essential liberty at all, and especially not for temporary safety.
The task we face is to determine which liberties are essential. I'd start with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and especially the First and Second Amendments. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of conscience and expression. The Second Amendment guarantees that individual citizens, rather than the government, hold the balance of power.
I'd also point to the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as important. We must not carelessly and capriciously deny due process to those whom we suspect. Historically, when we have, we've done no good -- for the others or ourselves. (Remember the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII?)
Does anyone see anything important I've missed?
Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring (Score:3, Informative)
The 9th and the 10th which pretty explicitly limit federal powers to those granted to it by the people, while reserving those not explicitly graned to the states and the people.
Unforuntately, the 9 idiots on the bench have effectively destroyed both of these amendments, and are doing a bangup job on the 4th.
Re: NSA Director, Congress and Monitoring (Score:4, Insightful)
Or your fifth amendment rights to not be hounded by the prosecution, and tried innumerable times on (possibly the same) bogus charge.
Or your sixth amendment right to be tried promptly, or to face your accusers and their accusations, or be able to call witnesses in your defense, or ask for the assistance of a lawyer.
Or your seventh and eighth amendment rights.
_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety (Score:5, Insightful)
It was not lack of security infrastructure that "allowed" the 9/11 attack. We had the infrastructure in place.
The hostile conspiracy had been testing the vigilance (or lack thereof) of the airport security screenings to _measure_ their complacency.
The hostile conspiracy was using techniques to keep their plans secret that would still work even if the present levels of internet monitoring and envelope steaming had been in place.
We have not really gained security. Observe that the perpetrator of the Anthrax letters still hasn't been identified, much less caught. Observe that the 2nd worst attack on U.S. territory, in OK City, was perpetrated by a U.S. citizen who used a rented panel truck. Safety still is just as illusory as it was before 9/11.
What has changed is that we've sacrificed liberty (or had it sacrificed for us) to create the image of security, without any real gains in security. Heavens, even Ashcroft admitted that U.S. agression abroad would probably increase our risk of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Security is not the objective. Control is the objective.
Draw the line between security and safety where it was before. We'd spent 35 years of hard civil liberties work to keep the words "national security" from being carte blanche for the abuse of our civil rights. Now we've got to regain that progress all over again. We _will_ regain it, even if it takes another 35 years to relearn the lessons.
Re:_Replace_ the line between liberty and safety (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't that the exact problem our educational system is supposed to help us avoid? In 35 years, we'll have a new generation of politicians and voters. If they can't learn the lesson now, by the time they learn it they'll be dead or out of office.
Remember Patrick Henry?? (Score:4, Insightful)
Back to the root cause (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it not possible that, having already made the decision for security over liberty back in the 1970's when the tools of self defense were banned from aircraft (and post offices, and schools, I might add), these formerly free United States had become a haven for terrorists without any help from the NSA?
Didn't anybody ever watch "Red Dawn?"
Re:Back to the root cause (Score:3, Insightful)
the more telling quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be interpreted a number of ways, but it seems as though he realizes the biggest threat to civil liberties comes from scared citizens.
Oh my god... (Score:2)
Intelligent life found in the US government! Quick, lets vote him into presidency before he gets away!
Disclamer: I am in no way infering that the current president is not intelligent...
yeah...
>.>
Liberty and Safety (Score:2)
Themself are one, do draw a line would be to destroy both.
Don't tell me I'm naive. I'm not.
anybody check the address (Score:2, Funny)
Intelligence.senate.gov
Isn't that an oxymoron?
since when... (Score:2)
I don't give a tinkers damn that my neighbors said this treatment was okay, even if they outnumber me. A constitutional republic is not about two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
climate of fear (Score:4, Insightful)
Question the implicit assumption... (Score:4, Interesting)
This needs to be done, on a point-by-point basis for each and every liberty that is being compromised. In engineering decisions there's always 'nice to have' and 'must have'. There are also times when the customer is asking for the wrong thing, and you can give a different solution that satisifes him even better than what he'd asked for. As far as I can see, current liberty/security tradeoffs appear to be a shopping list, without effectiveness review or modifications.
ask the public (Score:5, Funny)
Whoa, they have to ask Disney AND the oil industry? Unprecedented!
(PS: It's a joke. Please don't tap my phone line.)
Liberty vs. Safety (Score:3, Insightful)
"Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
That man was Ben Franklin, and his words are more true today than ever before.
I couldn't resist. Go easy on me.
Security vs. Freedom (not the Ben Franklin quote) (Score:3, Interesting)
The government and media recently have turned this debate into a balance between security and freedom, but the reality is that a society can very well have both as long as the members are willing to discipline themselves without the need of an intervening society that is attempting to protect itself from a genuine or supposed threat.
The other part of this equation, then, is that the society consists of self-disciplined individuals who want to ensure that the line between security and freedom is not being redrawn in the face of conjectured threats or threats that do not affect the disciplined. If an undisciplined segment of the society wants to attempt a powergrab, then it will be by manufacturing and exaggerating threats so that the disciplined are willing to redraw the line needlessly.
The undisciplined fraction in society is like a flea on a dog's tail, and the disciplined class is more often than not, chewing its own tail to the bone in an effort to rid itself of the menace.
Re:We can have both (Score:2)
Realistically, no you can't. If someone else is free to do things about which you have no knowledge, the government has no control etc.... Then you are not truly safe. If someone else can not do that you are not really free. Either way the terrorists have us for the momen.
Re:We can have both (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen!
The concept of "Homeland Security" was invented 215 years ago with the 2nd amendment to our Constitution.
Re:Where to draw the line?... (Score:2, Informative)
Of course I'm going to get modded down for saying this, but oh well.
Re:Asking the people? (Score:2)
I hope that was sarcasm. But no the job of our ELECTED officials is to represent their perception of their constituents wishes. Our job as constituents is to ensure that we are clear with our wishes.
Depends... (Score:3, Interesting)
Anway
Remember, this is the administration whose press sec'y warned Americans to "watch what you say, watch what you do" -- then silently edited the controversial remarks out of the official transcript.
Re:NSA did NOTHING pre-911! (Score:2)
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!! (Score:2)
Consider it done Mr. Coward.
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN!! (Score:2)
Hmmm.. what a great idea. A moderation system that is fair and transparent. Can I patent that?? I'm sure that there would be no prior art here at least.