The National Security/Surveillence state

The National Security/Surveillence state (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 3:47:26 AM)
The furore over the NSA eavesdropping activities on US citizens, and revelations that similar programs are being operated by national Security Agencies in various other countries indicate that the issues raised are not exclusively a US issue. Nor indeed is it a new issue - it's as old as organised government and poses difficult complex questions about the relationship between a citizen and the State they reside in. Currently the debate is focused on revelations by whistle blower Snowden, but it far exceeds Snowden's personal predicament: "I hope that the average citizen of Australia, of the United States, of the world, is just thinking a little bit more deeply about these issues and is thinking a little bit more about the balance that they want. How do they want their information handled and what kind of powers do they want their government to have. Because ultimately if Snowden is sort of an interesting story until he is granted asylum someplace (if Russia grants him asylum, if Cuba grants him asylum), if he's only an interesting story until then and then he disappears, I think we lose something. This is a debate that we have been having, not for the history of the United States, but in some ways since the history of organised government. If you look to some of the political philosophers like John Locke, he was very, very much concerned with a contract between the people who were being governed and the people doing the governing. And he said we don't give up all of our rights to the government just to keep us safe. That's not the way it works. We have certain natural rights that we had before government was formed and those rights stick with us even after the government is formed. He said, look, yes it's important that the government protects us from another country invading us, but that doesn't mean that they get to give up respecting those basic rights that we had before we gave them the right to govern us. And that's the debate that we are still having today. You know, the ability to gather information, the ability to store information changes. But at its heart it is still this 200, 300, 400-year-old debate we're having that as an individual I have certain human rights. I will exchange some of those rights in to live in a civilised society. I will not give up all of those rights. And that's just the debate that we're still having today." Dr Derigan Silver is an academic and author of the book National Security in the Courts as quoted in: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/eavesdropping/4826552#transcript The model of the National Security/Surveillance State possibly reached its pre-digital zenith in East Germany, where the dreaded Stasi secret police held open files on millions of ordinary citizens and the reach of the State into the private lives of its citizens knew no boundaries, even forcing family members to inform on each other. Post-9/11, and with the advent of new technologies, the era of the modern National Security/Surveillance State arrived. It arrived secretly, with no fanfare or public debate. Quite the opposite, States have gone to enormous lengths to keep their surveillance regimes from their citizens and to this day actively resist public oversight. Debate over these issues transcends the traditional Left vs Right political polarity while the model and the information it produces is increasingly applied to non-security issues (see the thread here on DEA using NSA collected intelligence to pursue targets) The National Security/Surveillance State model is rarely mentioned in public discourse, but it provides one model to inform our thinking and analyses of this issue. Is this an appropriate model to discuss these issues? Have the reactions of various Western to the horrors of 9/11 aimed at removing basic freedoms in the name of 'protecting citizens from terrorists'? Are the dangers critics allude to real or imagined? What ought to be our response to the threats to our freedoms? Have privacy/information activists and info-warrriors such as Wikileaks become the revolutionaries of today's world? How can we protect our freedoms without hamstringing Govts' counter terrorist strategies? Or can ordinary citizens relax in assurance that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? More info http://digitaljournal.com/article/352137#ixzz2bHKel6s3 (Op-Ed: Is the US an authoritarian national surveillance state?) http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/birth-of-the-surveillance-state/276650/ http://www.thenation.com/blog/174748/five-stages-living-national-surveillance-state

Edwynn -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 4:59:03 AM)
I have nothing to hide in my phone conversations. I understand fully that that's not the point. But I have nothing to hide in my venturing out in public either, whether in an airport or at the train station or in attending a public event, or in driving a car, or in just walking home from the grocery store. I went for years carrying a tiny pocket knife in my pocket, no trouble in it. After 9/11, they found it after digging it out at the bus station and I was a suspected terrorist. Same with my dad who had done likewise for 50 years prior, when being searched and then interrogated by 22 yr. old fuckwit private contractor punks at the airport. The thing that people are missing out on in all this is that neither I or my elder aunt (I'm not even going to go into the details on that one, it pisses me off too much) get jacked up against the wall and pockets emptied or taken in semi-private (or semi-public, or in total public) and strip searched, etc. by the NSA or Interpol or MI6, etc. For the really important jobs, like at TSA, we hire HS dropouts to decide who gets told to get naked or not. As bad as it is that 'National Security' so easily transmutes to 'Drug Enforcement' in the current situation, it is nothing as compared to labeling drug users and politically questionable people as Commies all in one swoop, as used to be the case. No question, the National Security Trojan Horse has replaced the Domestic Communist Menace Trojan Horse, but in the earlier situation there were many people being put out of business and a few of them jailed, whereas now there are fewer 'honest citizens' being put out of work and career, in exchange for random public terrorism and humiliation by (legally) renegade armed authorities. I have been pulled aside twice by the police for, as it turned out, walking home from the grocery store, instead of driving an SUV for the 2 1/2 block trek. (The cause for my 'voluntary arrest' {i.e., I was stupid enough to co-operate at the time} was verified in subsequent calls to police internal investigation. It was indeed my walking with two bags of groceries that caused actionable suspicion. I am not making this up, I was told this by a police captain on the phone)). Modern day police are trained to treat every 'potentially anomalous' or 'questionable act' as presenting potential for some crime or possible act of terrorism. But what is most troublesome in this is what they are trained to think of as constituting such 'potential,' what is considered 'anomalous, or 'questionable.'' As apparently, walking instead of driving, walking barefoot in the dead middle of Summer, in a Southern US state, etc. In essence, the modern day police force are trained to completely freak out at what until very recently used to be considered normal behavior in appropriate circumstances. Whatever modicum of common sense they may have possessed theretofore is completely drilled out of them in their training. Witness the Charlottesville Va. ABC team of 7 idiots freaking out on two college students over their (the agent's) inability to distinguish water from beer. And in today's world, we call them 'Trained Professionals." Truly scary. That is a lot more dangerous to everyday citizens than the government merely expounding on what the digital era magnates are doing already. Instilling greater fear in and intentionally provoking LE personnel and especially recent-hire armed National Security/TSA/VIPR, low-wage staffers, etc. to become more trigger-happy and more easily freaked out does not bode well at all for the safety of society. Not well at all.

Zonie63 -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 8:57:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Post-9/11, and with the advent of new technologies, the era of the modern National Security/Surveillance State arrived. It arrived secretly, with no fanfare or public debate. Quite the opposite, States have gone to enormous lengths to keep their surveillance regimes from their citizens and to this day actively resist public oversight. Debate over these issues transcends the traditional Left vs Right political polarity while the model and the information it produces is increasingly applied to non-security issues (see the thread here on DEA using NSA collected intelligence to pursue targets) The National Security/Surveillance State model is rarely mentioned in public discourse, but it provides one model to inform our thinking and analyses of this issue. Is this an appropriate model to discuss these issues? Have the reactions of various Western to the horrors of 9/11 aimed at removing basic freedoms in the name of 'protecting citizens from terrorists'? Are the dangers critics allude to real or imagined? What ought to be our response to the threats to our freedoms? Have privacy/information activists and info-warrriors such as Wikileaks become the revolutionaries of today's world? How can we protect our freedoms without hamstringing Govts' counter terrorist strategies? Or can ordinary citizens relax in assurance that "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear"? I think the national security/surveillance state has been discussed in public discourse, although probably more in the past than now. During the Vietnam/Watergate era, it was discussed quite frequently, although the public discussion seemed to die down once Reagan got into office. Since then, we've been in an endless fight with "Evil Empires" and "Axes of Evil" that supposedly necessitated more stringent security measures. The government might argue "It's not that we want to do this stuff, but our enemies give us no other choice." Having an external enemy is very convenient for those who advocate tight security and surveillance. Americans have accepted temporary restrictions on their Constitutional rights during times of national crisis or war, such as during the Civil War, the Red Scare, the World Wars, and the early days of the Cold War. However, I think that people started to bristle under that during the Cold War. People were growing fed up and started to resist what the government had been doing. In theory, I can see that a situation could become so severe and urgent that it might require a swift government reaction using all the tools and technology they have at their disposal. Like if we lived in some sci-fi/apocalyptic type movie or some huge catastrophe. Something of the magnitude of a zombie apocalypse, then I can see where the government might be given a blank check to do whatever is necessary to restore law and order to society. Anything less than that seems to be open to interpretation. So, I guess it all comes back to what this is all for and why the government feels it's necessary to do this. If we take our politicians at their word, then we would have to presume that there is some serious danger out there that requires extraordinary means of protecting ourselves from them. But the question still remains as to the nature of the threat and how severe it might be. Over the course of history, some politicians have come up with some rather peculiar ideas as to what they think constitutes a "threat," and that may be where the real dispute actually lies. I don't think that we actually have to choose between liberty and safety. Perhaps a better approach would be to come up with a more coherent method of classifying and determining what is a "threat" in our society and how far we should go to deal with that "threat." We should also examine why they became a "threat" in the first place (but in doing so may bring more light upon some of the more questionable national security policies we've had in the past, which would equally discredit the policies many are advocating nowadays). There's also the question whether "tightening the grip" of security and surveillance will actually do any good in the long run, since it can have the effect of undermining morale and national loyalty if the government doesn't know when to let up. People will put up with it for a while if they really believe they're in danger, but only to a certain point before diminishing returns set in. It could actually create more enemies in the long run (which is kind of what we're facing today). Another underlying aspect to all of this is the evident intransigence and stubbornness on the part of our government. They don't want to negotiate or make a deal. They just want to keep tightening the screws. You'd think with all this spying and surveillance going on, they'd actually be listening to what the people are saying. But even with all this 21st-century technology which enables them to hear a mouse fart from 200 yards away, our leaders are still deaf as a post.

JeffBC -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 9:25:00 AM)
YEs, I was quite disappointed in my new adopted country to find that Canada was also doing a lot of this same shit... not to the extent the US is by far but meta data on phone calls, yup. That leads me to believe other things too. Here though I still have some faith in the supreme court. Near as I can tell there's still some checks and balances left so we'll see how this plays out.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 9:35:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 So, I guess it all comes back to what this is all for and why the government feels it's necessary to do this. If we take our politicians at their word, then we would have to presume that there is some serious danger out there that requires extraordinary means of protecting ourselves from them. But the question still remains as to the nature of the threat and how severe it might be. Over the course of history, some politicians have come up with some rather peculiar ideas as to what they think constitutes a "threat," and that may be where the real dispute actually lies. There is a threat out there that is very serious and will likely require extraordinary means to protect us and restore the rule of law to the US. Unfortunately, our politicians are part of that threat. quote: I don't think that we actually have to choose between liberty and safety. Perhaps a better approach would be to come up with a more coherent method of classifying and determining what is a "threat" in our society and how far we should go to deal with that "threat." We should also examine why they became a "threat" in the first place (but in doing so may bring more light upon some of the more questionable national security policies we've had in the past, which would equally discredit the policies many are advocating nowadays). If we determine what is a threat and how to deal with that threat, isn't it likely that we'll have to choose to give up some of our liberty (to deal with the threat adequately) to be safe (from that threat)? Isn't that choosing between liberty and safety? quote: There's also the question whether "tightening the grip" of security and surveillance will actually do any good in the long run, since it can have the effect of undermining morale and national loyalty if the government doesn't know when to let up. People will put up with it for a while if they really believe they're in danger, but only to a certain point before diminishing returns set in. It could actually create more enemies in the long run (which is kind of what we're facing today). Another underlying aspect to all of this is the evident intransigence and stubbornness on the part of our government. They don't want to negotiate or make a deal. They just want to keep tightening the screws. You'd think with all this spying and surveillance going on, they'd actually be listening to what the people are saying. But even with all this 21st-century technology which enables them to hear a mouse fart from 200 yards away, our leaders are still deaf as a post. I don't believe they are deaf to what is going on or being said. I fully believe some of them know and are making sure they know so they know what they are going to have to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DYeYPcougmA This isn't directly about the topic, but it has a fundamental equivalence with what we are discussing here. Aligns with the "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" quote.

kdsub -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 11:52:22 AM)
I believe we must keep our government democratic. Otherwise a division of governmental outlook, as in our political parties, is essential for a continual self-evaluating leadership. This demands, let alone allows, change. I am getting to the point really. Our advantage, as in all true democratic republics, is eventually all governmental action, covert or not, will be brought to the public eye. In this light and with the vote the public will affirm the actions of its government or demand change... And it works. So... given time and a voting cycle the actions of the NSA will be judged by the voting public. Many seem to think it takes the Snowden's of this world to bring these actions to light... This is not true...it only takes a political edge. Butch

Termyn8or -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 12:18:36 PM)
quote: So... given time and a voting cycle the actions of the NSA will be judged by the voting public. How would that happen ? You see a third party out there ? All this shit came form BOTH parties. T^T

JeffBC -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 12:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Another underlying aspect to all of this is the evident intransigence and stubbornness on the part of our government. They don't want to negotiate or make a deal. They just want to keep tightening the screws. You and I see it vastly differently. I used to think of them as "our elected leaders" and "our representatives". Game of Thrones taught me how THEY see us. They are our rulers. Their concerns are all about their power base. They are not being "stubborn". They are solidifying their power base. Honestly, when you look at Obama as Daddy Lannister everything makes a TON more sense without so many unanswerable questions and mental sleights-of-hand in order to construct a plausible scenario. For instance, one of my old questions was, "How could these people be smart enough to get elected to national office and be this stupid?" The answer is, they are NOT being stupid. It's just my expectations were incorrect. I thought they wanted to build a vibrant, strong, healthy nation. Once I realized that all they wanted was money and power it all made so much more sense (a few notable exceptions like Elizabeth Warren and even the nutjob Ron Paul). quote: You'd think with all this spying and surveillance going on, they'd actually be listening to what the people are saying. But even with all this 21st-century technology which enables them to hear a mouse fart from 200 yards away, our leaders are still deaf as a post. Oh no. They are not deaf. Make no mistake that conversations like this are of great interest to them. This is probably the single largest threat to them at the moment. The surveillance state will do wonders to help them eliminate this threat... just as it always has in history.

kdsub -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 12:46:32 PM)
That's right it did... but notice how the Republican party, well aware of this system, now thinks they can get a political edge and are now forcing a change in the policy. They realize their conservative constituents are dead against the government snooping in their private lives. Snowdens information was not new.. it was general knowledge years ago...but only now, far enough away from 9/11, could it be used to a political advantage. Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 2:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub That's right it did... but notice how the Republican party, well aware of this system, now thinks they can get a political edge and are now forcing a change in the policy. They realize their conservative constituents are dead against the government snooping in their private lives. Snowdens information was not new.. it was general knowledge years ago...but only now, far enough away from 9/11, could it be used to a political advantage. Butch And, here is where yours and my beliefs diverge. I fully believe the R's are going to use it to get a political edge, but I don't believe anything else will happen, other than it gives them talking points. That is, I don't believe they'll do anything about it, except gain some traction. If they retake the majority in Washington (regain Senate, keep House, regain the Presidency, or some combination), I don't see them giving up the very tools they were instrumental in putting in place after 2001.

PeonForHer -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 3:22:48 PM)
I grudgingly have to admit that, in one respect, Americans (as well as those of many other nations) have a streak of anti-authoritarianism in them that seems, to me, to be lacking in the UK. In no other country, George Orwell once said, is it easier to knock someone of the pavement and get away with it. ('The Lion and the Unicorn' - still the best short written portrait of the British character that I've ever seen, IMO.) Left wingers look to their shop steward masters and to the Labour Party, no matter how often the latter, especially, continues to sell them out. But more crucially, for me, right wingers here are stuffed up and complacent in a way that US right wingers aren't. Or at least, they're not stuffed up and complacent in the same way. Right wingers everywhere love tradition and the 'wisdom of the old'. But we don't have a three-centuries old constitution that explicitly warns of over-mighty central government. 'Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear' is a line that government ministers here know is bollocks, but also know that they can so easily get away with.

tj444 -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 4:59:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC YEs, I was quite disappointed in my new adopted country to find that Canada was also doing a lot of this same shit... not to the extent the US is by far but meta data on phone calls, yup. That leads me to believe other things too. Here though I still have some faith in the supreme court. Near as I can tell there's still some checks and balances left so we'll see how this plays out. Imo, its the effect of the US pushing their "great ideas" on other countries (worldwide), proding them to wholesale adopt the way the US "does it"... the "Americanization of Canada" is what I call it (& its the reason I will never live there full-time again).. but at least Canada doesnt generally copy US policy exactly.. take forfeiture for instance.. major differences between Canada & the US policy on that.. in the US they can just take your cash or assets even if they dont charge you for any crime, then you have to fight (with no money left to hire a lawyer) to get whats your back and that you did not do anything illegal to acquire your cash/assets..& US cities, cuz they get a cut of the assets, have a profit motive to abuse that law.. in Canada the cities dont get a dime of anything forfeited so they cant be corrupted that way and they cant even take anything from you until after you have gone thru a trial and found guilty of a crime (& that the assets were acquired from that crime).. the difference between Canada and the US with forfeiture is like night and day.. Canada imo has a much stronger privacy laws than the US does and they are imo more honest & fairer.. But as far as the spying shite goes, they (both countries/all countries) are basically keeping mum on exactly what, how, who, how many people are (unknowingly) affected.. so its hard to compare when you dont know exactly what is going on.. WE NEED MORE SNOWDENS!!!

kdsub -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 6:12:26 PM)
quote: That is, I don't believe they'll do anything about it, I agree because most Americans in my view, despite the majority view on CM, see nothing wrong with the NSA programs and are all for them if they help to stop terrorists attacks... So the Republicans will raise hell to satisfy their hard core privacy nuts... but as you say really do nothing. Butch

Termyn8or -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 6:59:00 PM)
The USSR had security up the ass. They ain't there no more. The government is experiencing a well concieved and most justified sense of doom. Acts of unwarranted defense are the actions borne of fear, and you SHOULD know that by now. They know they got alot of revenge coming because they are so fucking crooked and they know the jig is up. We know now. We know what they have been up to for over 100 years. They are not paranoid, their fears are 200 % justified. T^T

Zonie63 -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 8:56:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I don't think that we actually have to choose between liberty and safety. Perhaps a better approach would be to come up with a more coherent method of classifying and determining what is a "threat" in our society and how far we should go to deal with that "threat." We should also examine why they became a "threat" in the first place (but in doing so may bring more light upon some of the more questionable national security policies we've had in the past, which would equally discredit the policies many are advocating nowadays). If we determine what is a threat and how to deal with that threat, isn't it likely that we'll have to choose to give up some of our liberty (to deal with the threat adequately) to be safe (from that threat)? Isn't that choosing between liberty and safety? I think it would largely depend upon how we actually determine what is a threat and what kind of response will be necessary to meet that threat. Too often, it seems that we base our determinations of what is a "threat" (or not a "threat") on ideological reasons alone, and I don't think this is a very coherent or rational method of making such determinations. Generally, our foreign policy hasn't been very consistent or coherent which puts us in a precarious position where we're compelled to make the choice between liberty and safety. But better planning might have put us in a more favorable position where we wouldn't have to make that choice today. Every country that represents a threat to us today is invariably the result of some screw-up we did years or decades ago - because somebody thought there was a "threat" back then, too. I think that we need to think outside the box and consider all the angles. There may be other choices besides making a choice between liberty and safety. Whenever gauging any potential threats, we should ask ourselves: Are they really a threat, and if so, how did they become a threat? What makes them a threat? Why are they hostile to the United States anyway? (And if they're angry because of something we allegedly did to them in the past, are we willing to own up to that and make amends?) Even if we make a rational determination and agree that, yes, there is a threat, then it wouldn't automatically mean that we'd have to instantly curtail liberty just to make us safe from that threat. I know a lot of politicians and other government types think in those terms, but that's to their discredit. quote: I don't believe they are deaf to what is going on or being said. I fully believe some of them know and are making sure they know so they know what they are going to have to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DYeYPcougmA This isn't directly about the topic, but it has a fundamental equivalence with what we are discussing here. Aligns with the "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" quote. I'm not a big fan of Milton Friedman.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 10:18:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I don't think that we actually have to choose between liberty and safety. Perhaps a better approach would be to come up with a more coherent method of classifying and determining what is a "threat" in our society and how far we should go to deal with that "threat." We should also examine why they became a "threat" in the first place (but in doing so may bring more light upon some of the more questionable national security policies we've had in the past, which would equally discredit the policies many are advocating nowadays). If we determine what is a threat and how to deal with that threat, isn't it likely that we'll have to choose to give up some of our liberty (to deal with the threat adequately) to be safe (from that threat)? Isn't that choosing between liberty and safety? I think it would largely depend upon how we actually determine what is a threat and what kind of response will be necessary to meet that threat. Too often, it seems that we base our determinations of what is a "threat" (or not a "threat") on ideological reasons alone, and I don't think this is a very coherent or rational method of making such determinations. Generally, our foreign policy hasn't been very consistent or coherent which puts us in a precarious position where we're compelled to make the choice between liberty and safety. Emphasis Mine: quote: But better planning might have put us in a more favorable position where we wouldn't have to make that choice today. Every country that represents a threat to us today is invariably the result of some screw-up we did years or decades ago - because somebody thought there was a "threat" back then, too. I think that we need to think outside the box and consider all the angles. There may be other choices besides making a choice between liberty and safety. Whenever gauging any potential threats, we should ask ourselves: Are they really a threat, and if so, how did they become a threat? What makes them a threat? Why are they hostile to the United States anyway? (And if they're angry because of something we allegedly did to them in the past, are we willing to own up to that and make amends?) Our M.E. meddling has produced quite a shitstorm for us from M.E. countries. What amends will there be for our propping up Hussein against Iran? For our deposing a lawfully elected Iranian leader for the Shah system in place now? For damn near creating and arming al Qaeda to fight the Commies in Afghanistan? What amends can be made for our support of Israel? Do we now allow Israel to be obliterated? Do we do it ourselves? quote: Even if we make a rational determination and agree that, yes, there is a threat, then it wouldn't automatically mean that we'd have to instantly curtail liberty just to make us safe from that threat. I know a lot of politicians and other government types think in those terms, but that's to their discredit. quote: I don't believe they are deaf to what is going on or being said. I fully believe some of them know and are making sure they know so they know what they are going to have to deal with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DYeYPcougmA This isn't directly about the topic, but it has a fundamental equivalence with what we are discussing here. Aligns with the "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" quote. I'm not a big fan of Milton Friedman. Doesn't matter if you're a fan or not. Do you get the point I was trying to make?

Zonie63 -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/7/2013 11:43:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 Another underlying aspect to all of this is the evident intransigence and stubbornness on the part of our government. They don't want to negotiate or make a deal. They just want to keep tightening the screws. You and I see it vastly differently. I used to think of them as "our elected leaders" and "our representatives". Game of Thrones taught me how THEY see us. They are our rulers. Their concerns are all about their power base. They are not being "stubborn". They are solidifying their power base. I'm not really familiar with Game of Thrones, although I still believe in the fundamental principles of democracy and representative government. I agree that our leaders are concerned about their power base, but it's a shared power base in which competing factions continually vie for power. Sometimes, they've been compelled to make compromises so that they can keep some power rather than lose all of it. But then, history has seen other times when rulers stubbornly cling to power to the very end. In U.S. terms, I think the power base was already solidified decades ago. Today, it's probably more a matter of trying to keep it and hold it. quote: Honestly, when you look at Obama as Daddy Lannister everything makes a TON more sense without so many unanswerable questions and mental sleights-of-hand in order to construct a plausible scenario. For instance, one of my old questions was, "How could these people be smart enough to get elected to national office and be this stupid?" The answer is, they are NOT being stupid. It's just my expectations were incorrect. I thought they wanted to build a vibrant, strong, healthy nation. Once I realized that all they wanted was money and power it all made so much more sense (a few notable exceptions like Elizabeth Warren and even the nutjob Ron Paul). I don't think that they're stupid, not individually. I think some politicians might actually get into it for the right reasons and actually want to do some good. I don't think they're all bad. But I can also see where they might feel compelled to play ball with the big shots and the power brokers in whatever political machine they have to deal with. They need money for advertising and campaigning, they need favorable treatment from the press, they need the monied interests to smile kindly upon them. It's just politics - wealth, power and the constant fight over it. It's a constant in every age. I'd like to think that we've progressed a bit from earlier eras, when the lust for power and wealth led us to even worse atrocities. quote: quote: You'd think with all this spying and surveillance going on, they'd actually be listening to what the people are saying. But even with all this 21st-century technology which enables them to hear a mouse fart from 200 yards away, our leaders are still deaf as a post. Oh no. They are not deaf. Make no mistake that conversations like this are of great interest to them. This is probably the single largest threat to them at the moment. The surveillance state will do wonders to help them eliminate this threat... just as it always has in history. Not always, depending on what kind of threat it might be. If they believe the threat is an idea, then the logical approach might be to fight it with another idea. But they don't seem to have any other ideas, which is why they have to tighten the screws. They can't think of anything else to do. They may eliminate one threat, but in doing so, they may cause three more threats to pop up. As for the surveillance state, I sometimes think it'll end up as a confirmation of the old idea that it's only the stupid criminals who get caught. The smart ones, the ones who might actually be capable of being a true threat, will probably find ways of slipping by.

Zonie63 -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/8/2013 7:29:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Our M.E. meddling has produced quite a shitstorm for us from M.E. countries. What amends will there be for our propping up Hussein against Iran? For our deposing a lawfully elected Iranian leader for the Shah system in place now? For damn near creating and arming al Qaeda to fight the Commies in Afghanistan? What amends can be made for our support of Israel? Do we now allow Israel to be obliterated? Do we do it ourselves? At the very least, coming clean and admitting it might be a good start. Part of the problem here is a lack of coherency and consistency in our foreign policy. For some reason, this country is hampered in having any kind of collective public debate on what our interests are, what our role is in the world overall, and who we are (as Americans) and what we value as a nation. Our foreign policy is incoherent and changes from country to country, from region to region. quote: Doesn't matter if you're a fan or not. Do you get the point I was trying to make? Yeah, I get it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I agree with that, but I would say that's just as true for Friedman and his Chicago School disciples as much as anyone else. He says that "socialism is force," and in response to this force, the U.S. has set itself up as global defender against "socialism," in which we used plenty of force of our own, which in part created the shitstorm in the Middle East you're referring to.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/8/2013 8:11:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Our M.E. meddling has produced quite a shitstorm for us from M.E. countries. What amends will there be for our propping up Hussein against Iran? For our deposing a lawfully elected Iranian leader for the Shah system in place now? For damn near creating and arming al Qaeda to fight the Commies in Afghanistan? What amends can be made for our support of Israel? Do we now allow Israel to be obliterated? Do we do it ourselves? At the very least, coming clean and admitting it might be a good start. Part of the problem here is a lack of coherency and consistency in our foreign policy. For some reason, this country is hampered in having any kind of collective public debate on what our interests are, what our role is in the world overall, and who we are (as Americans) and what we value as a nation. Our foreign policy is incoherent and changes from country to country, from region to region. Who are we? Hell, we are everyone. We are the Great Melting Pot. The "problem" with having a population with such a mixed ancestry is that we have that many competing value systems. FFS, we couldn't even agree that English would be our National language! The only way we could make amends for what's done is to stop what we're doing now, and gtfo. Admitting what we did isn't that important, as all they need to do is read our press. Anyone who cares to know would know that we have egg on our faces over our consistent meddling in M.E. affairs. Are you willing to no longer back Israel? That causes enough enmity towards us from many M.E. countries. I support a firm statement backing Israel's defense coupled with a firm statement that Israeli actions that are not reactions to attack will not be supported. quote: Doesn't matter if you're a fan or not. Do you get the point I was trying to make? Yeah, I get it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I agree with that, but I would say that's just as true for Friedman and his Chicago School disciples as much as anyone else. He says that "socialism is force," and in response to this force, the U.S. has set itself up as global defender against "socialism," in which we used plenty of force of our own, which in part created the shitstorm in the Middle East you're referring to. Yes, we have forced our ideals and beliefs onto the M.E. and have come under fire - literally and figuratively - for it. I'm of the opinion that we should defend every nation's right to have it's population self-determine. We should support peaceful protests and peaceful reactions to protests. If one nation invades another without provocation, we should oppose it. We should support non-military resolution of disputes. All government action is force. All of it. Not all of it is bad, or a bad use of force, but it is still force. Threatening a people with a financial penalty unless they take a particular action, is using force. Choosing winners and losers is using force. Spying on your populace is a bad practice that can very, very easily end up as a bad use of force.

Moonhead -> RE: The National Security/Surveillence state (8/8/2013 11:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm of the opinion that we should defend every nation's right to have it's population self-determine. You've been failing miserably at that one for a very long time now, you'll find.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625