FFS! What NEXT!?!?!?!?

[Aidan]

Freedom to what, though? What freedoms are you losing?

 

The people monitoring emails will only read ones flagged by the system (there aren't enough people to read every email, obviously).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

you cannot say what our government is doing is good. My mother has a friend who is in charge of US funding in Africa, mainly, and he discovered that his emails to my mom are being edited by govt. agencies. doesn't matter, really. Most of the things the Bush administration would want covered up are common knowledge to anyone that pays attention (or reads my father's blog), but the general public of the US is too ignorant and daft to even know that there is anything TO know. They could be described as lemmings, following their leaders off cliffs in blind faith.

 

and mee, if bush was overthrown, we'd be in deeper trouble because his closer colleagues (those next in line for office) such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others are even scarier than our current "leader".

[Mouse]

Too right. You'd have to expell quite a few key players in your government.

 

It's all very well saying us good people have nothing to hide, but it's an invasion of privacy and something which will only escalate. Once a liberty is lost, it's very hard to get it back. Usually it takes the opposite route and simply gets worse. By Bush doing things like this it makes them practically irreversable without a seriously liberal new government to be appointed who aren't afraid of doing what the people want and changing all the things Bush did wrong.

 

Nothing personal here and I mean no offense, but I can't understand why the hell you voted him back in? Unless the votes were fiddled, which I doubt. You have the power to make change... so you can't complain if you don't use it.

[Hissing_Sid]

I probably said this before but I'll say it again for those who came late...

 

The problem is that it IS an invasion of privacy.

 

The first ethically questionable facet is that of who gets spied on.

They're only gonna spy on those who are terrorists, or terrorist supporters, right?

Cobblers.

Once this becomes "normal" it'll be a small step to brand any anti-establishment figure as a "terrorist" and spy on them.

 

The second dodgy thing is that on unimportant discoveries.

This falls into 2 sub-categories.

 

The first, and least harmful category is that of accidental discoveries. This could include anything from revealing that your missus likes to be spanked in bed to giving away stockmarket information.

In either case, this information is f**k-all to do with terrorism and is nobodys buisness but your own. Also, in the case of stock-market information, it's entirely possible that some NSA agent could end up getting rich off the back of the information.

 

The second, and more worrying, ategory is that where information shared by subversives is used against them.

Let's say that a muslim cleric plans to stage a (completely legal) protest which will highlight all the problem areas of the Bush administration. Is it likely that, if these plans are discovered, the protest will be allowed to go ahead?

 

Your rights ARE being compromised by this policy. Make no mistake.

[snowman]

But then again, both of our governments are representative, are they not, you do realise that lots of our people are still trying to offline the VCRB, and for us in the states, we're trying to tell the local governments here not to ban us, and trying to keep ahead of the hysteria-mongers and irresponsible parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But the problem is that BOTH governments are starting from the point that they SHOULD be restricting us, in case we do something naugthy...

 

Someone used to say that democracy started from the point of permitting EVERYTHING unless it actually harmed others...

 

You can marginalise EVERYONE by making them out to be wierdos, troublemakers and losers - Hitler did this and ordinary Germans said "It's not a problem, it's just those trouble making Jews" - I don't see a difference, except in hindsight and every person who REALLY cares about democracy SHOULD be concerned about THAT!

 

Chers.

[Sledge]

A man was being held by the Gestapo in a Nazi concentration camp awaiting persecution and he is said to have lamented in retrospect: "At first they came for the Jews, although they were my friends and neighbors, I did nothing. Next they came for the trade unionists, since I wasn't a member of the trade unions, I did nothing either; I did not stand up for them. Then they came for the Christians (accused them of harboring Jews), I still did nothing. I did not stand up to fight for my friends and neighbors. Now, they've come for me and there is no one left to fight for me."

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[RogueAngel]

So Havoc, you think its completely ok for the US government to decide that some guy is a threat to national security because he is muslim, and keeps a lot of guns in his house, and some thick headed suburban americans don't like the way he acts. Then, they can send the FBI to break into his house while he's out, go through his stuff, find some supposedly 'incriminating evidence', probably something like a biography of Bin Laden, leave without ever telling him they were there, and then come and arrest him and cart him off to Guantamano bay. He can then be imprisoned there WITHOUT TRIAL for years. The FBI don't even have to justify their actions to anyone, meaning they can arrest 'political dissidents', ie people who try and show the corruption of the government, and imprison them. Say, does this sound familiar? Someone had it right before, the situation is becoming eerily like George Orwells 1984, and the ironic thing is, he was predicting what he believed communism could do to the world, and it is actually the supposed pinnacle of freedom, the good old US of A that are moving down that path.

If I were an American citizen, I would be VERY afraid right now about where the Bush government is taking the country, as I would know that if I were to stand on a soapbox and speak out against Bush (freedom of speech) the FBI could arrest me and put me in Guantamano bay for years without ever telling anybody why.

And you think that this is good for the world?

[Sale]

Bill Hicks was wondering how come all the good guys get killed.

 

Jesus - crusified.

Lincoln - murdered.

Gandhi and Malcolm X - murdered.

JF Kennedy - murdered.

Reagan - wounded.

 

You get the point?

 

And then all the psychopath shooters let this son of satan Bush walk the earth. He was talking about the older, but didn't live to see the "W-sequel". I'm sure he would have gotten yet again a very good act on W, if even not a better one.

 

-Sale

[snorkelman]

Anything of a compulsory nature should be avoided as should anything of an invasive nature.

 

It does not matter if the original reasons for its introduction were laudable (DNA databases to identify murder victims/force absent fathers to pay support to kids from a one night stand)

 

or just from lazy assed convenience (E-cash to replace coins and notes - to cut down on muggings, black market goods and tax evasion)

 

It doesnt even require that at some future date we accidentaly or deliberately elect megalomaniac pointy headed seig heilers, or fist clenching wanna be Stalins who decide to abuse those facilities for political gain.

 

It just requires an unexpected 'crisis' that tempts even the most well intentioned govts to go over the line and put all their handy new toys to use in repressive ways.

 

That future crisis could just as easily be in the form of public health pandemic rather than anti terror 'national security' or political subversion.

 

And the only difference between the 'good guys' and the 'bad guys' in that scenario could come down to a few differences in their DNA.

 

Im not keen on my future liberty being at the whim of the flawed results of a scientific study that incorrectly puts my DNA in a high risk group for catching a deadly albatross flu thats sweeping the country in 2015.

 

If we got to that stage Id much rather my dna wasnt sat on a compulsory dbase waiting to be flagged as one of the suceptible ones, that my hard cash for doing a runner was still acceptable in notes and coins (rather than a frozen E-cash card) and that if all else failed i could still phone or email a mate to get me the *fruitcage* out of there without the public health gestapo getting tipped off as to where he was picking me up and dropping me off lol

 

 

Now I admit thats an extreme example verging on the bonkers but people who claim 'those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear' always fail to see that many currently perfectly innocent things (like their religious beleifs or even their grandparents religious beleifs) may at a future date be best left hidden

 

stevie

[bernie3674]

double post, sorry

[bernie3674]

"2+2=5" soon will be that way

 

 

5th amendment.  he is breaking the law.  privacy laws are not just there for democrats to *badgeress* about.  They exist for you republicans too, like it or not.

qft

And I for one am very disappointed in our government!  This is intolerable!  we're supposed to be a super power and it takes us until nearly 2006!  we should have beaten 1984 by a few years, and here we are 22 years late!  A disgrace!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dude, 1984 is a book by G.Orwell, it's talking stuff in 1984, in London, that government spying on citizens, and one guy named Winston Smith wants to rebel and stuff like that.

[doc_newstead]

Can I say it? Please?

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

And they say Americans don't get irony...

[bernie3674]

say "2+2=5" before the government beat you up and force u to say it

[doc_newstead]

I'd be very surprised if my government bother to do anything. I'd assumed they'd given up and gone home. And I'm not voting for that toff Cameron. At least Howard looked like he could scare people into doing stuff.

 

/flicks cape

[Shad Grimgravy]

What are these far-left wackos so afriad about the CIA or FBI or whatever finding out about them? And if you remember, in 1984, everybody was being watched all the time. Even their thoughts were being monitored. And it wasn't exactly spying, with all of the cameras and the BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU posters. I completely agree with havoc. And last I checked, the United States is a super power and is the only superpower on Earth.

[doc_newstead]

A superpower is defined as being a country that can exert it's political will upon others without retort. Nazi Germany was a superpower (though not for long). Soviet Russia was a superpower. Don't wave that flag too hard there.

 

Of course, once upon a time, we were too. 1/4 of the globe y'know... the mighty can, and will, fall. So good luck with that

[bernie3674]

who will be other superpower that is going to against US?

[doc_newstead]

Well the US is top dog for the forseeable future.

 

It's rich, it can do what it wants, other countries listen to it, it has a damn big Army.

 

The nearest rivals are China & India, but though big, these two don't hold much political currency. They are, falsely or not, seen as less developed countries. I think the US should be glad of their position; who needs rivals anyway?

 

They are the second Rome, and it'll be a long time before we see the back of the US, for sure. But within my grandmother's lifetime, the Royal Navy was the biggest colonial force in the world, and then it was a bit poo. I'll be interested to see what happens within my lifetime.

[Agent47]

If I were an American citizen, I would be VERY afraid right now about where the Bush government is taking the country, as I would know that if I were to stand on a soapbox and speak out against Bush (freedom of speech) the FBI could arrest me and put me in Guantamano bay for years without ever telling anybody why.

And you think that this is good for the world?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Depends on how far you can speak about the president - heck, an a$$load of celebs INCLUDING Donald Trump have spoken out against him, and perhaps at length about how dim his lightbulbs are.

 

Hell, you could say impeachment, but advocate overthrow or assassination and they'll most certainly come after you - of course...would you say such extreme things?

 

I honestly hate having to be blunt here, but you're blowing things out of proportion - if the otherwise is true, the ACLU would have already mounted a ginormous lawsuit against the US government, and you probably would get your wish.

[guinnessman]

Agent 47

I honestly hate having to be blunt here, but you're blowing things out of proportion - if the otherwise is true, the ACLU would have already mounted a ginormous lawsuit against the US government, and you probably would get your wish.

 

I have to agree with the above.

 

Reading through the entirety of the post I see the usual amount of 'George Bush is evil' stuff along with the now-regular comparisons to Hitler.

 

Meh.

 

Whatever.

 

First of all let me state that I come down firmly on the side of privacy and whatnot. I can see the rationale behind those who voice the opinion that they don't mind giving up civil liberties and having the feebs read your email etc, even if I don't agree with it. For me, it's not just the moralistic side, it's also the efficiency side - I'd hate to think our anti-terrorist guys would become reliant on what folks say in their emails. Lets face it, for all our faults in the west, our police forces are vastly superior to those in dictatorships simply because they have to work harder and smarter to get convictions. And old-fashioned police/intelligence work is still the mainstream of anti-terrorist operations.

 

However, the recent 'revelations' about intercepting emails has (as already been stated) been blown out of proportion IMHO. E-mail intercepts where not used to alert the authorities to individuals; these people were already 'flagged', for whatever reason. The biggest puzzle for me is why a warrant wasn't obtained anyway? If it was put up for Congressional oversight and renewal (with the resultant risk of opposition) why not just go the whole hog for a warrant? I'm not 100% up on US law but AFAIK you don't need a warrant in the US to put regular surveillance (without phone tapping, electronic eavesdropping etc) on someone, so why not just do that? Surely if you didn't have enough evidence to gain a warrant you would have some after a few weeks, or alternatively have enough to drop the person from the watch list. Can a US member in the know give a reasonable hyopthesis as to why this wasn't done? Please note by 'a reasonable hypothesis' I mean someone who can give me a logical, sensible answer and not 'It's because Bush is too dumb to have thought of that' or 'It's because Bush wants to spy on everyone 100% of the time.'

 

I don't honestly think that our civil rights are at risk because of this, in the UK or the US. You can't seriously worry about the local five-oh lifting you because you start an anti-Bush/anti-Blair rant when the majority of the newspapers, many TV shows and a helluva lot of internet sites are doing exactly that on a regular basis. The high level of general mistrust and disrespect of authority in todays society combined with our existing political systems make a conversion to a Hitler-esque state almost impossible; if you look at (say) Hitlers Germany he was able to do what he did because of a fairly unique combination of factors that quite simply don't exist in the modern-day US or UK. Granted, it's not impossible for us to be turned into a totalitarian state over the course of a decade or so; but it is extremely unlikely. The odds are lower than that of Scotland winning the World Cup in the next 20 years.

 

OK, maybe not that low

 

 

EDIT: I'm a Scotsman myself, except for the 25% which is Norwegian

[Links]

First, a comment that I have enjoyed your commentary for some time snowman, and whenever you talk of things airsoft, I listen closely and value your expertise. That being said, I must respectfully disagree on several points here.

 

mmmm - So WHO decides who are the good people and the bad...? Who decides if you ARE doing something wrong? We're all airsofters - Potential gun criminals - Should WE be monitored by the state?

 

Who decides when any crime is committed? Law enforcement agents decide when to investigate, based on criminal predicate. District Attorneys decide when to prosecute. Terrorism is against Federal and State laws, and probably violates local ordinances too.

 

Robert Mugabe does this - Is that OK? No? Ah!!!!

 

Totally irrelevant here, I'm sure he collects taxes too. Is every leader that collects taxes a despot? And wears glasses. Is everyone wearing glasses an African Prime Minister. Of course not.

 

It's actually illegal, too, but as it's the President, it's OK?

 

I'm sorry to break this to everyone, but littleguy08 was dead on. All of those remarkably uncivil people that made fun of him owe him a serious apology. It is most certainly NOT illegal. The fact is, as some have already mentioned, the United States government has had the legal right to do this for many years. Try looking up:

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (which specifically allows surveillance WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.)

Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (allows suspension of Habeas Corpus, among other things)

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

The Library Awareness Program

COINTELPRO(Arguably the only time the Feds overstepped their bounds.)(1956-1971)

 

Look at the investigations of

The Los Angeles 8,

Frank Wilkinson,

Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador

Amnesty International,

Earth First! (1990)

ACT-UP,

Todd Patterson (6th grader investigated by the FBI, etc.etc.etc.

 

What ARE we trying to defend FROM terrorists if not our freedoms?

 

The freedom NOT to be spied upon being one of those...

 

First, the Fifth Amendment is in no way applicable here. The Fourth (Unreasonable search and seizure) is closer, but not entirely applicable either.

 

Second, there is no "Right to Privacy" in our Federal Constitution. Some State Constitutions do have them (Alaska, for ex.). People need to stop waving the Constitution at everything. It's a great document, I love it, but it doesn't cover everything (as the Tenth Amendment clearly states).

 

The problem, as I perceive it is this:

 

There are not enough terrorists in any organization to kill every american, in an all out war they would be decimated. So instead they engage in asymmetrical warfare.

Terrorist groups seek to provoke repressive measures from the government they are acting against. They seek to undermine the legitimacy of those who govern.

 

Since they are few in number, they must commit very public acts, and leverage the media as a force multiplier so that their perceived danger is much greater than it is. This in an effort to provoke those repressive measures from the target government. Now, it is also to their advantage to if the media hypes these "horrible NEW repressive measures", thus multiplying their achievement, and bringing them closer to their goal. The only reason for the media to rehash all of this old news about government spying is to get ratings, but they do so at the cost of furthering the terrorist's objectives. And all of the people (many of whom are in this thread) that jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon are also furthering the terrorist's goals. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are ignorant tools, rather than malevolent.

 

By the way, if you want to read about this stuff, read Dempsey and Cole's "Terrorism and the Constitution". They harp a lot (a lot) on the FBI, and I disagree with them on many points, but they do a good job of explaining these things.

 

-Links

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Chimpy]

Since they are few in number, they must commit very public acts, and leverage the media as a force multiplier so that their perceived danger is much greater than it is. This in an effort to provoke those repressive measures from the target government. Now, it is also to their advantage to if the media hypes these "horrible NEW repressive measures", thus multiplying their achievement, and bringing them closer to their goal. The only reason for the media to rehash all of this old news about government spying is to get ratings, but they do so at the cost of furthering the terrorist's objectives. And all of the people (many of whom are in this thread) that jump on the Bush-bashing bandwagon are also furthering the terrorist's goals. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are ignorant tools, rather than malevolent.

 

Lets ban or heavily control the media then!