Big Brother is watching: U.S citizens rights continue to degrade.

[bhsup]

Hmm. I've avoided commenting so far in this one because I honestly am not sure what I think of this.

The idea of monitoring groups to determine if they are or are not a threat doesn't really bother me. If they had been a threat and eventually did something, but hadn't been monitored because they CLAIMED to be a peaceful protest group, the government would have been raked over the coals, and I think everybody knows that. So checking them out is not really that bad of an idea.

That the military is doing it domestically kind of gives me the creeps. That's what the FBI is for.

 

[Xen]

A person being named or mentioned in a report is not necessarily "keeping tabs" on them or even spying on them, so please feel free to turn down your paranoia dial.

no thank you; being an upright citizen is my duty.

Actually, you must have missed this: “[W]e have noted increased communication and encouragement between protest groups using the nternet,”

Please note the emphasis on groups. Nowhere in the text does it mention tracking invididuals internet traffic. They could very well be just visiting a public website maintained by some protest group...not actively spying on them.

perhaps you dont understant, but monitoring groups and individual persons are not mutually exclusive; fact is, they have been doing BOTH

After reading the story I am not convinced that a crime has been committed and the story does not say that either, so why should you think so?

to be crytal clear, I belive that irregardless of an actual crime being comiited, that this activity shoudl be halted, as it only invited possible abuses of it in the future, if no infractions have yet been commited. Just because somthign bad hasnt happend yet dosent mean it wont in the future; and whiel by the same toek, it dosent mean it will, the current situation dose not give me any reason to belive that such infractions would not occure in the future.

I am a traitor of the republic? Because I choose to give my government the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are known? You sir, are not fit to judge me in any event. I have served my country faithfully for 19 years and still going......you may choose to assign guilt prior to any charges being filed, but I wont. So you can take your baseless charge and jump off a cliff with it. You are quite fortunate you are not in front of me when you say such a thing.

And by tthat same token, members of my own familly are currentlyl serving in the U.S military, and have been for the last 3 generations in a row, and on my mothers side, being settled here longer, this linegage traces back to the civil, and a member of the familly by marrgie, has sat on the supream court; my back ground is one that eats, sleeps and dreams the ideal sir, and standing down while people may be infringing on the rights that garuntee those ideals are nothign less then traitorus in my book.

 

[CurtSibling]

You're right. I mean, I recall the last time I visited this site, it was blocked. After that, the authorities came, detained, tortured, and then sent me to a forced labor camp.

About time some of you slobs done some work!

Well, I think that the data-gathering can go both ways.
It really depends on how they use this info...If it leads to extremists
being locked up...That is a boon. If it leads to wasteful investigations
on silly middle-class 'rent-a-cause' morons, then that is a bit silly...

I would much prefer the USA keeping tabs on the people who move
to and from the country, and not people who are obviously not intent
on planning and executing 9/11/2001 part deux.

.

 

[CartesianFart]

There is nothing wrong with monitoring people behaviour,if you are intending to do wrong things as-committing an act of violence against another human being or sabotaging infrastructures,then it is justifiable that you should be under surveillance.

 

[Kayak]

There is nothing wrong with monitoring people behaviour,if you are intending to do wrong things as-committing an act of violence against another human being or sabotaging infrastructures,then it is justifiable that you should be under surveillance.

And if you're not?

 

[CartesianFart]

And if you're not?

then there is nothing for you to worry about

 

[Kayak]

then there is nothing for you to worry about

Riiiiiight.

 

[MobBoss]

But what posible reason could there be for watching these individuals? The threat to mainland bases idea is very tenuous I think.

Question, was the same thing done during the 1st Gulf War? or in Vienam?

I will tend to agree with you Kayak, the word tenuous is probably pretty good. But I have seen some of those anti-war protests, and they can get pretty, uh, shall we say, energetic. Myself, I would say that they get right up to the edge of violence and whenever one is known to be coming up military personell are urged to avoid it.

I certainly hope you are all not so naive to think its only quakers in the anti-war movement. There are people in that element that want the enemy to win and will subvert our military to the extent they can.

perhaps you dont understant, but monitoring groups and individual persons are not mutually exclusive; fact is, they have been doing BOTH

Not what the story says exactly. This is an assumption on your part.

to be crytal clear, I belive that irregardless of an actual crime being comiited, that this activity shoudl be halted, as it only invited possible abuses of it in the future, if no infractions have yet been commited.

So even if the military is within its right to do this legally you are against it? Because it "might" be abused? Personally, if my government has a right to do something and it is legal, and it is part of the protection of our military forces during time of war, then more power to them.

And by tthat same token, members of my own familly are currentlyl serving in the U.S military, and have been for the last 3 generations in a row, and on my mothers side, being settled here longer, this linegage traces back to the civil, and a member of the familly by marrgie, has sat on the supream court; my back ground is one that eats, sleeps and dreams the ideal sir, and standing down while people may be infringing on the rights that garuntee those ideals are nothign less then traitorus in my book.

Spare me the geneology. What you said was insulting and beneath you. A mans family does not indicate his loyalty, and if you truly eat, sleeps and dreamed the ideal, you would not judge the situation prior to all the evidence being in.

 

[carlosMM]

Not what the story says exactly. This is an assumption on your part.

You see, thgat is the problem with you: you try to find every possible little loophole to excuse behaviour by the government, making assumptions, but you do not even bother to answer our questions:

So, again:

What right does the state have to keep data stored on people who have been shown NOT to do anything wrong?




btw, this entire thing reminds me of the litle old lady who was threatened and intimidated by the SS (US Secret Service) because she had a 'Do not vote Bush' bpard in her yard.

 

[CartesianFart]

btw, this entire thing reminds me of the litle old lady who was threatened and intimidated by the SS (US Secret Service) because she had a 'Do not vote Bush' bpard in her yard.

that is not a valid argument,i live in a very liberal county in NE Ohio and alot of anti-bush slogan is still up.

 

[MobBoss]

You see, thgat is the problem with you: you try to find every possible little loophole to excuse behaviour by the government, making assumptions, but you do not even bother to answer our questions:

Its not called Loopholes Carlos, its called attention to detail. In other words, I dont try to read MORE into a story than is actually printed there. Considering that news stories can be spun an unlimited variety of ways, you do yourself a great disservice by assuming or implying more than is actually said.

What right does the state have to keep data stored on people who have been shown NOT to do anything wrong?

The military has different rules than the FBI does in regards to force protection. Odds are this maybe challenged in court. As to why names are being kept, it could be a variety of reasons, not the least of which people are not quite as "innocent" as they seem. In the course of my work, I have come to firmly believe that there is always two sides to a story and that its always best to reserve judgement until both sides have been explained adequately. But, it could very well be an oversight that the some of the data was kept by accident that should have been purged. Until more is known regarding the issue all we are doing here is assuming.

 

[carlosMM]

Its not called Loopholes Carlos, its called attention to detail. In other words, I dont try to read MORE into a story than is actually printed there. Considering that news stories can be spun an unlimited variety of ways, you do yourself a great disservice by assuming or implying more than is actually said.

untrue - if there are several ways to understand a text, you always choose the ONE, and only that one, way that suits your intentions.

The military has different rules than the FBI does in regards to force protection. Odds are this maybe challenged in court. As to why names are being kept, it could be a variety of reasons, not the least of which people are not quite as "innocent" as they seem. In the course of my work, I have come to firmly believe that there is always two sides to a story and that its always best to reserve judgement until both sides have been explained adequately. But, it could very well be an oversight that the some of the data was kept by accident that should have been purged. Until more is known regarding the issue all we are doing here is assuming.

So, you basically refuse to answer my question, invoking unknown elements (which is exactly what you did not allow just two posts ago), because you cannot find any law that allows them to store the data? Or what is all the yadda-yadda supposed to mean?


'Accident' - maybe you can call it 'sloppyness' - but then, we are dealing with a repeat offender. Thus, I'd call it paranoia.

 

[CartesianFart]

untrue - if there are several ways to understand a text, you always choose the ONE, and only that one, way that suits your intentions.

Listen dude,reading a text is determined by the reader itself in order to interpret what the author is saying.That my friend is what Postmodern Deconstructionism is all about.Look it up in the internet if your somewhat in the cave.

 

[MobBoss]

untrue - if there are several ways to understand a text, you always choose the ONE, and only that one, way that suits your intentions.

While I disagree with you on this Carlos, I also humbly submit, that you yourself would be as guilty of said charge as well.

Anyway, I am at work now and discussing this same topic with my boss, who knows this stuff way better than I do. He says that the real issue is active vs passive data collection - whats going to make it legal or illegal depends on how they got it. If, for example, if the data is open to the public on a public web site its fair game, but likewise, having someone infilitrate a Quaker peace meeting would be active, and thus most likely illegal.

And that is what needs to be investigated. Methods of collection and the reasons some data was kept when it probably should have beed deleted. Will charges be filed? Probably not. Will the practice change? Most likely. Will that satisfy everyone? Who the hell knows.

 

[Xen]

Not what the story says exactly. This is an assumption on your part.

the story says it loud and clear; even if only a limited number, the fact that names have been kept for reference, along with the other forms of itelligence gathering present present the situation clearly.

So even if the military is within its right to do this legally you are against it? Because it "might" be abused? Personally, if my government has a right to do something and it is legal, and it is part of the protection of our military forces during time of war, then more power to them.

quite right; the problem is, what they are doing might not be legal at all; the article indiates former members of military intellegence currentlly question the legality of it, and the article presents the situation as ont he tightrope; if such is the case, then I woudl prefer the military fully restrict its operations to what is legal, instead of walk that tight rope. Perhaps it wont give us more safty. but if we have to live in a society that alienates us to our values, then thier is little reason to defend such a government in the first place.

Spare me the geneology. What you said was insulting and beneath you. A mans family does not indicate his loyalty, and if you truly eat, sleeps and dreamed the ideal, you would not judge the situation prior to all the evidence being in.

perhaps it was insulting; but in my mind defending the ideal, and staying true to them is far more important then impeeding on citizens rights- its a slippery slop, to quote the article, and I firmlly belive that we shoudl not toe the edge, lest we fall down that path. Again, mabey some would like to have this "safty" of letting the military and government access, and collect such knowledge at will; but in my eyes to do so is to go agianst the very fabric of what we as Americans stand for- better to take the harder, but virtuous path, rather then the easy, but damnable one.

 

[CartesianFart]

perhaps it was insulting; but in my mind defending the ideal, and staying true to them is far more important then impeeding on citizens rights- its a slippery slop, to quote the article, and I firmlly belive that we shoudl not toe the edge, lest we fall down that path. Again, mabey some would like to have this "safty" of letting the military and government access, and collect such knowledge at will; but in my eyes to do so is to go agianst the very fabric of what we as Americans stand for- better to take the harder, but virtuous path, rather then the easy, but damnable one.

My friend,isnt it true that the very fabric of what we stand for consist of our founding fathers in the american revolution spying on individuals that is still loyal to the British crown?Havent we wiped out all of the Moscow leaning individuals by imprisonment and persecution?etc. etc.

Isnt it true for every State in every given world and histories have done such deeds.My friend,you are living in a disney land of history.

 

[MobBoss]

the story says it loud and clear; even if only a limited number, the fact that names have been kept for reference, along with the other forms of itelligence gathering present present the situation clearly.

Not necessarily. If some whacko posts on a public forum, and posts his real name (i.e. LEEERRROOOY JENKINS!) then of course his name could be obtained by passive means and thus legal. Ditto with public speech. You stand up, state your name and this say lord knows what, guess what...you have just made your name and view very public. But, in the case, where some agent questions people to get names and identities, sure, thats active intelligence gathering and probably illegal. If you will notice, the story never, ever distinguishes between the two.

 

[blackheart]

Just a question... is anyone defending why the military is doing this instead of the FBI? This sort of operation isn't within the military's bounds.

 

[JohnRM]

Just a question... is anyone defending why the military is doing this instead of the FBI? This sort of operation isn't within the military's bounds.

It starts out with subtle operations, something that the vast majority of Americans are not affected by nor even are aware of. They slowly work their way into normalizing the thought of the military operating on domestic American soil, and a decade, two, or three down the road, it is suddenly normal for the military to be policing its citizens.

 

[Xen]

My friend,isnt it true that the very fabric of what we stand for consist of our founding fathers in the american revolution spying on individuals that is still loyal to the British crown?Havent we wiped out all of the Moscow leaning individuals by imprisonment and persecution?etc. etc.

Isnt it true for every State in every given world and histories have done such deeds.My friend,you are living in a disney land of history.

well, I have to tell you, its more or less a resounding no; it is a very recent phenomenon starting in the late 19th century that has any sort of "public spy program" in active survice, and far more often then not, nothing came out of it. Attempting to use such an argument as any sort of legitimization dosent legitimize it all, indeed, even iof it was true, it just paints the fact that it it needs to be corrected all the more.

Not necessarily. If some whacko posts on a public forum, and posts his real name (i.e. LEEERRROOOY JENKINS!) then of course his name could be obtained by passive means and thus legal. Ditto with public speech. You stand up, state your name and this say lord knows what, guess what...you have just made your name and view very public. But, in the case, where some agent questions people to get names and identities, sure, thats active intelligence gathering and probably illegal. If you will notice, the story never, ever distinguishes between the two.

True, but as the article also says; the mere fact that they are taking such notes is of itself unsetteling. Lets say we give them the benifit of the doubt, and let them continue. At some point, someone will abuse the system; we already know the system at present has been perverslly abused before- Hoover was clear proof of that- and I honestlly cannot see ANY good coming out of allowinf such actions in the long run.

on another page, I'm sorry I insulted you; your very right, and it was wrong of me too do- one goal, different views on how to obtain it, one might say.