Gosh I love these guys for doing this. Seriously, there is some broken law here in the name of 'war powers' and frankly as a citizen it really annoys me. I understand the argument that in a time of war, extraordinary measures may be justified in order to insure the survival of the state, but neither the 'war on terror' nor the 'war on drugs' counts any more. In my opinion, these are criminal enforcement activities, not 'wars'. As such they should be fully constrained by the limits imposed by the constitution regarding due process.
I think that, as societies, we really need to reflect and debate on what counts as war. The US hasn't been involved in a total war, which I define as one in which both sides face the prospect of annihilation, since WWII. Since then, the West has been involved in countless conflicts that are, to varying degrees, removed from an existential threat. If we are truly fighting for survival, then I'm okay with forgoing certain rights in service to that fight. If it's just minor armed conflicts in service of political goals, as most wars since WWII have been, I'm not.
I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America was at risk of 'total annihilation' in WWII, at best the axis powers could have kept the country on the N. American continent, but even that wasn't a likely outcome. Our economy was just too strong for them to overcome.
That said, I tend to classify battles against nation-states 'wars' and battles against non-soverign groups and individuals as 'law enforcement.' To the extent that a group can declare 'war' on the US its really a statement about rejecting some sort of legal enforcement authority rather than trying to destroy the country.
We know Germany was working on the Bomb before the Allies, so I think it's safe to say that, had the war followed a different path, it could have easily resulted in an existential threat to North America. Regardless, I'm not so much interested in the definition of war, as I am in the question of what kind of war justifies limits on civil liberties. WWII did; Afghanistan does not. Regardless of whether military action is undertaken against a nation-state or non-state actor, it is the threat to society that I feel should dictate the degree to which civil liberties are sacrificed for military advantage.
By that definition (the possibility of annihilation) I only count two - the Cold War and the American Civil War. I don't like the definition, though - the US certainly was at war in WWII.
Somewhat unrelated, but I'd really like to see the War Powers Resolution get to the Supreme Court. It would be nice to either have it acted upon or thrown out instead of having it just sit there being ignored.
The cold war didn't kill many Americans, it was mostly about Americans killing Latin Americans or Koreans or Vietnamese or Laotians or Cambodians either directly by napalm or by puppet dictators that were installed after CIA-backed coups, such as the original 9/11: the 9/11/1973 coup against President Allende of Chile (or 1953 Iran or 1954 Guatemala or 1964 Brazil).
The Russians weren't in Cuba for no reason, we were in their backyard before they started their attempts to close the "doomsday gap" (quoting that term from Dr. Strangelove).
Quoting Blum:
Let's also not forget that Eastern Europe became communist because Hitler, with the approval of the West, used it as a highway to reach the Soviet Union to wipe out Bolshevism forever, and that the Russians in World War I and II, lost about 40 million people because the West had used this highway to invade Russia. It should not be surprising that after World War II the Soviet Union was determined to close down the highway.
IANAl but my understanding is that the current lines are drawn at active collaboration or directed communications to a designated foreign terrorist organization. I don't know whether this means that Brandenburg v. Ohio would come out differently today (remember, Brandenburg was accused of advocating terrorism at a domestic terrorist organization's meetings-- the domestic terrorism organization being the KKK, and yes the word terrorism occurred in the statute).
Under lines drawn in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project you can blog all day and night about how groups like Hamas could adopt nonviolent means of resistance and be more successful, but if you directly talk to Hamas and make such a recommendation, then the court has declined to say that is protected.
Worse, there is reason to think that is not protected. In Citizens United v. FEC the court said that independent expenditures were protected and corporations had a right to speak on election issues, but that speech coordinated in any way with candidates was not protected, because that makes it into a gift in kind that has the same effect, in essence, of a bribe. The idea that Citizens United and Holder v. HLP draw this funny line at who you talk to vs what you say strikes me as dangerous.
But at least it isn't hard for the EFF to stay on the right side of that line.
Maybe not a "known terrorist organization" but part of the "associated forces". The more vague the name in the law, the better, because they can catch anyone like that.
I think that many people post jokes here because on other similar sites they're an easy way to get (often quite a lot of) upvotes, and a lot of us here dislike that mentality.
My criteria for upvoting a joke are generally the same as my criteria for upvoting any other comment: if I feel it adds something to the discussion, it gets an upvote. If I feel like it contributes nothing at all, it gets a downvote, because reading it is a waste of someone's time.
Most of the jokes posted here are surface humor. They are relatively obvious and add nothing to the discussion, and so I downvote quite a lot of them.
Occasionally someone will use humor to make a good point, and then I will upvote them. In general I'd discourage it, though--it's usually much easier and clearer to just say what you mean, and people here are usually receptive to well-argued points.
There's a post from pg that I wish I could find where he says something along the lines of "the greatest enemy of intelligent discussion is not the outright troll but the witty one-liner". There's no rule against humour that I know of, but there is a culture that believes it's often detrimental to the discussion.
Hmm, that organization doesn't seem very active. No updates for >1 yr on the "news" page. But in any case, their "donate" page actually suggests that you donate to the EFF if you want to support their work: http://www.onlinerights.ca/donate/.
With the fervor the government makes everything a matter of national security and then refuses to disclose on what grounds it does so (because, duh, thats a matter of national security), surely systemic banks reach to the level of importance of "national security".
- EFF is today releasing FBI-redacted briefing from a major new ongoing case
+ EFF is today releasing an FBI-redacted briefing from a major new ongoing case
My personal guesstimate is that the general American public is more aware of such dirty things than it was, say, 20 years ago and I think it is due to internet, mainly due to alternative news sources that would get the truth out because the lame-stream media would rather tell you songs about democracy and not tell you about the secrecy and anything bad the government and corporations have been doing.
These wiretappings were probably more focus on black liberation movements and "Commies" a few decades ago, then the focus has been on Muslims now that the US is not supporting Osama bin Laden type in Afghanistan (they are still propping up the regimes in Saudia etc and supporting Osama-types in Libya, Syria etc).
The shameless NYPD spied on entire Muslim community and on ordinary citizens without any probable cause, without any legal authority. Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder lied about it and the Department of (in)justice hasn't done anything to correct it.
In the wake of the New York Police Department’s spy scandal, a coalition of Muslim groups in New York announced a boycott of the Ramadan conference, which was held this morning. Ramadan, the Islamic holy month, begins later this month.
I say the government and the corporations because it's all part of the same group of people, the Chertoff guy who gave us the porn scanners for TSA used to work for the Homeland Security.
The Summers guy hired by Obama to clean up the mess was the guy who helped create the mess.
There is good money to be made in this dirty business; we must kill them because otherwise X[n] is coming to get us.
President Y[m].
we must spy on our people because otherwise X[n] is coming to get us.
President Y[m].
Where m and n vary based on the year and X = {Bloody commies, Ruskies, Terrorists, Mozlums}
and Y = {JF Kennedy 1, LB Johnson 2, Jimmy Carter 3, Ronald Reagan 4, Bush I 5, Bill Clinton 6, Bush II, B Obama}
1 Wanted to "win" the Vietnam war rather than allow them to elect Ho Chi Minh (who would have won if elections were held, as Eisenhower himself acknowledged).
2 Continued the same shit in the same and some more countries
3 Helped South Korean dictator (yes, South Korean dictator) kill a few thousand protesters
4 Helped Saddam kill Iranians with US-supplied killing machines
5 The "I will never apologize for the United States — I don't care what the facts are" President (after killing a few hundred Iranians by shooting a civilian airplane) helped kill Iraqis on the pretext of helping Kuwaitis, remember the incubator babies hoax?
https://www.google.com/search?q=incubator+babies+kuwait+hoax
What is your point? Did you just sign up another account to leave this useless comment?
Your message doesn't clarify whether you prefer wiretapping of all civilians or just Muslims. Or perhaps you love bombing civilians around the world with your tax dollars? I am not sure what your objection was, I thought I gave plenty of references to prove my point; that it is all linked together and we cannot fight one little battle for privacy separate from the so-called war on terror (or war on communism or war on whatever minority group or whatever "outside" group you would like to hate).
You can't just demand liberty and justice for some, not only because it's hypocritical but because it won't work that way.
I might be wrong but you have to enlighten me with your ideas.
