The US House "Representatives" says NSA Spying... here to STAY

True.

I suppose Public Schooling does such a fine job of it (example: here) that the numbers of people who can leave and somehow think for themselves are so few and far between it's a non-issue to the State. It's "media" arm can mop-up most political dissenters easily enough (look at how they dragged Ron Paul through the mud).

There's still plenty of juice left in the system. We can kick the can down the road still. I personally don't think the SHTF until the baby-boomers retirement is in full swing and the weight of their lifestyle and medical expenses simply can't be sustained by what little productive part of society is left. Say, 25 years or so?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, we now live in a fascist State where corporations and state work like hand in glove. And, the thing is, people are so normalized to it, they really couldn't imagine society structured any other way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean you prefer that the US not collect intel and/or protect its secrets?

I guess that all boils down to who you think the enemy is.

You dismissed intelligence gathering and protection of secrets as benefits of NSA. I assume you'd agree that that's their mission. That just leaves it for you to decide whether you think there should be either of these activities or not. Once you've established your position, you can weigh the putative benefits of having a CIA, FBI and Homeland Security. You can then ask yourself whether any state or local police should be doing intelligence gathering and protecting secrets. Then I guess you could extend that to all government offices that do any kind of investigative work connected with their own affairs.

I guess I would draw an analogy with the local police. They are created under the law, but at best the voters get to choose a police chief and sheriff. Does that mean the voters participate in police investigations? Not at all. Then to what degree have we surrendered our rights to the arbitrary acts of individuals and/or policies of the police force? Obviously we have. I don't think anyone ever doubted that for a moment. We just have a tacit understanding that they had better not abuse their power or there will be hell to pay. . . although I doubt anyone has any idea how "the people" might engage against such a powerful entity to win back any ground they may take. So it is with every other agency created in government.

Do government agencies reflect the will of the American people? In the first place, most people don't possess much will one way or the other except for their own discretionary and selfish choices, which are not informed by front line realities, but largely the products of shallow headlines and the interest groups that choose and color them. Which is better: leaving decisions of personal liberty to the discretion of a mob of specialists, or to the mob of voters who can be just as blind and ruthless?

I would tend to favor the specialists. Odds are they are better educated, vetted for their positions and better qualified to judge. That certainly doesn't mean there won't be abuses. Given the alternative, it just seems the lesser of two evils.

There is no intrinsic harm in having been eavesdropped on. it all depends on whether the information is used in a harmful way. Anyone who thinks that the current crisis is anything new is just forgetful and/or naive. We have repeatedly been told all our lives that we are not immune from invasions of our privacy. Assuming that is correct, and I believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it, then what harm has befallen us as a result?

On the other hand, if the public really feels strongly about this, then now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of their country. Pass a constitutional amendment establishing the right of privacy. Strengthen the privacy invasion laws. Outlaw domestic intelligence gathering. Until then, this is all rather academic, don't you think?

My own personal opinion is that intel collection and protection of secrets is a necessary evil, and that the question of reading emails is much ado about nothing. Undoubtedly this has been taking place since the days the first big service providers started operating and there is no known harm that has resulted from it. That being said, if there is enough political will to change it, then it will change. I just doubt that that will happen.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nah, pretty sure such was covered in aforementioned high school class.

Though it's kinda funny how I've directed all of two, very brief posts at you, and you've already sussed everything that I do and do not know. Do you always operate under so many assumptions?

You've said this enough times at this point that it's, frankly, quite astonishing what you're overlooking.

Is that an attempt at "flair" or something, to make up for your usual rudimentary textbook-style responses? Why so tongue-tied? Are you some kind of press secretary or something?

 

I was referring to your statement, not necessarily expressing an opinion on the activities (see below).

Agreed, but again: see below.

This is where it becomes complicated for me. I'm not suggesting that the NSA's activities are anything like the former FBI operation, COINTELPRO--at the present, at least--but then again... it kinda seems that we're headed in that direction.

Have you seen the film Promised Land? It was a little too, well, Hollywood, but it had some moments. Nevertheless, one of it's themes--that of a massive corporation "playing both sides"--is illustrative of some of the daily activities of today's FBI. It would seem that there's simply not enough going on with the domestic terrorism front that the FBI sees fit to fabricate dastardly plots, and to seek out unwitting--and typically, otherwise harmless--dupes with whom to hatch said plots. Of course, they (FBI operatives, that is) never carry through--they just set the planning stages in motion, make a few arrests, and then come out looking like heroes and appearing to justify their existence in this roll. This is hardly a controversial assertion, it's amply documented even by mainstream news sources.

At the same time, a lot of what I consider to be a real threat--or potential threat, at least--of "terroristic" nature is largely ignored: militia groups, "racial separatists" (or whateverthefuck they call themselves), "Christian" organizations and individuals who threaten every one from gynecologists to homosexuals, and the like.

Oddly, they seem to go after the people whose "terrorist" activities are particularly noteworthy for being, well, "non-terroristic," i.e., exposure of corporate wrongdoing (cruel practices, illegal activities, etc.), economic disruption, etc. In other words, activities which are neither violent, nor intended to incite violence--or create "fear." In fact, the only people who could rightly describe such as "terrorism" are the same sort of people who can seriously entertain the notion of corporations as "persons." Can you say the same for the activities of militia groups, racial separatists, and Christian hate-mongers? (Seriously, I really do try to keep my sympathies and endorsement for much of what is described as "left-wing terrorism" in check, but frankly, it's kinda difficult. Also, I'm not denying that the FBI, and other organizations, do in fact perform work that is beneficial; it's just that there's a fair bit of this deviant shit that goes along with it.)

So it's not that I'm dismissing the notion of "collection of intel and protection of secrets" as unbeneficial; rather, I just find that a little vague: What sort of intel? How is it used? How is it obtained? And whom is it intended to benefit--us, or a very select few?

My analogy for the whole "national security" enterprise in the U.S. would be of a guy going to a physician and complaining of severe gastric irritation every time he eats a bunch of deep-fried shit, and so the doctor prescribes him every single acid reducer in existence and leaves it at that. You treat your body like shit, and it responds in kind--a lot of things work that way.

I'm not terribly concerned about national security, which isn't to say that I'm not at all concerned with it--it's simply that I'm more concerned with what spawns animosity and attacks towards the U.S. But then, I live in a nation of lard-asses who insist upon eating some of the most fucking grotesque shit ever conceived...

All that said, I'm not really in disagreement with anything you've said here; although I suspect that we differ with regards to what we consider "abuses of power" amd such.

Yeah, when this story first broke I actually had to do a bit of work in order to figure out what exactly was "new" about it. Still... Would you be ok with the police searching your home without consent? I'm not talking in pursuit of a serial killer here, I mean simply as a preemptive measure--'cuz you just might be doing something bad, in spite of there being nothing to suggest as much.

Absolutely. I honestly haven't a clue as to what motivates the public in the U.S. to do much of anything.

 

Just the trailers and some of the general discussion of Fracking that was resurfacing at that time. So you think the FBI is more politics than police work?

I doubt that, but like any other outsider, I just have no idea. I suspect that they are heavily staffed by ex-military and college grads who have a high sense of discipline and honor. Politics is of course another thing, and of course absolute power corrupts absolutely. But I also think there are much more pressures in the government workplace - which parallel the eradication of glass ceilings and cultural sensitivity training - which tend to keep them in check. "Internal Affairs" oversight is now a firm fixture and, I imagine, a hard thing to defeat. While there may be unscrupulous employees who go gung-ho I suspect they think twice before risking their careers and possible jail time for crossing the line. IOW I'm hopeful that there are effective deterrents against abuses. Most of all, I'm convinced there are more than enough honorable people working there who simply won't turn their heads. They no doubt have sworn to report all infractions and I suspect that this works quite well.

I just don't know. I doubt that most FBI work reaches the news media unless it involves something really sensational.

I wonder. Some of that would certainly be worthy of profiling. I do think the FBI watches and probably even infiltrates some of the more dangerous groups, if not only to assess their weapons cache and strategic aims. Hate crimes, unlawful weapons and even verbal threats of violence have been codified in most state statutes, so it may be that local and state police now cover this too. That being said, one of the important functions of federal law enforcers -- to include the Federal Marshal's Service - - is to monitor local law enforcement when there are allegations of wrongdoing. Hopefully we are acquiring better checks and balances over time.

The most extreme examples that come to mind are the extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists which go back a decade or so ago, but I think that's almost entirely been carried out in countries with relatively weak intel and police capabilities, where outright kidnapping of a suspect might go unnoticed. AFAIK that was not the fault of the FBI, though.

Some of that can be inferred by considering some of the older declassified examples such as this.

I'm operating under the assumption that there are dangerous people and organizations on US soil who need to be surveilled upon, but the nature and identities of those suspects are kept secret in order to allow the investigations to continue unhindered, and to prevent suspects from knowing what time it is, so they can slip away before being apprehended.

We really are in the hands of the authorities. We just have to have faith in their integrity, which may be a hard thing to do for a lot of people. My guess is that they are probably more honorable than the average citizen. There is no such thing as perfect freedom anymore unless you live under a rock which is somewhat of a contradiction. I'm resigned to living in a semi-police state, as long as they don't put me in their crosshairs.

Anything that violates the law is an obvious bar. It's just that when we look closer, we notice exceptions, e.g., that it's legal to kill a person in custody under certain circumstances. Further we recognize that whatever a covert group is doing "in the name of the law" they may have an unusually wide berth free from prosecution for abuses, which is effectively the same as saying that they are legit. For this kind of abuse, eavesdropping, there are only a few weak laws to draw that distinction. The right of privacy is largely an illusion, held up by a thin law or two. We don't have it in our Constitution. That doesn't mean eavesdropping isn't an abuse, it just means we are duplicitous in thinking of privacy as a right while failing to write it into an Amendment. My overall difference from you is probably that I see no harm in eavesdropping as long as the content remains secure and is only processed for counterterrorism purposes. A lot of people won't go that far in trusting the authorities. My point is, nothing is new under the Sun. Surveillance is older than the Republic. To date I'm not aware of any harm that has come from it, so I tend not to care one way or the other. In fact, I know that even if they were to target me, they would see a lot of harmless traffic, so what the heck? I have nothing to hide from anyone cleared to know. Besides, for every person like me, there are 10 bad guys who have to watch their back all the time and just about have a heart attack every time they see flashing lights or hear a siren. I don't really feel sorry for them, even though I strongly believe in the preservation of the Constitution. IOW, I would be highly outraged if this were a violation of the Bill of Rights.

I would be offended if I was searched as a suspect. I would be glad to comply if it somehow helped apprehend a bad guy. It just depends on the scenario. Ultimately it's all about justice.

That's the real kicker. We live in a dumbocracy. But that's on us – we the Sheeple.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Then go ahead and astonish me with what I’ve overlooked.

 

RE: Corporate personhood

One interesting aspect of corporate personhood, and I think shows what a farce it is.
From WIKI:

OK, so if corporate personhood is true, then Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AT&T etc... should be protected under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, what the NSA is doing is illegal search and seizer of a US Citizen/Corporation. Oh, but we don't seem to hear THAT argument?!

Why?

Because no one really gives two craps about the rule of Law. It's pretty much a fiction used to further this illusion we live in a free republic, when in reality we live on a tax farm.

 

While I don't disagree that we are/will live in a Fascist semi-police State, I wouldn't just roll over and accept it willy-nilly. We can do as much as possible to disassociate ourselves from the State. I'm not talking about going out to the woods and living off the land. Nor am I talking about joining some Patriot group. But, we can educate our children privately. Start private organizations around peaceful parenting. Perhaps starting and using community based currencies. Join community based outreach groups. While the Federal level is a total waste of time, community level government is effective. That sort of thing. Then, just live life as one does, trying to have as little to do with the State as possible. The less we rely on the State, the weaker the State becomes. The Gods really do need you to worship them or they wither and die.

 

Assertion is not evidence. Do you have any evidence of such accountability?

I would even allow evidence of accountability toward government officials almost none of the American people had any hand in installing - I'm curious as to just whom you think the NSA answers to.

Then we can expect no more delays, deflections, and denials, in our as yet unsuccessful attempts to find out - even in general terms - what they've been doing.

I regard running for cover when the light goes on as evidence of funny business in the dark, until otherwise explained. That alone, without the obvious setup and means arrangements and secrecy, would be enough evidence for legal inquiry backed by subpeonas.

Then no problem telling us what those activities have been - we're bound to approve, since they are so closely aligned with our will.

We can start by making the proceedings and decisions of the FISA secret Court, the one Roberts has packed with Republican appointees drawn from Republican executive branch positions, public in outline.

The market I named there was almost completely unregulated.

I would suspect it works for a about three weeks, under ideal circumstances.

The method of relying on honorable people to self-police otherwise unchecked secret police operations of any kind (much less surveillance) has such a bad track record everywhere and whenever that I'm surprised it's even suggested. But if anyone actually needs reminders: rendition, Gitmo, Black Panthers, Iran Contra.

 

And I explained, in detail, how you're completely wrong. I'm beginning to think you don't understand what the phrase "free-market" means.

 

Do you have any valid reason to believe that the above statement is not factual?

You, like most American citizens don’t have a need to know, and for operational security are kept out of the loop. Any concerns you have about the conduct of the NSA are dealt with by your elected representatives and their appointees.

Again, we don’t have a need to know. The most you can expect is an assurance from your elected representatives that the will of the majority is honered. That may not be good enough for you, but that’s the bargain in this particular constitutional republic.

Just like the rest of the federal court system, it’s no surprise that the makeup of the FISA court is likewise a condition of ideologic appointment.

 

No. You repeated your generalities and assertions of oppressive behavior by the US government, without addressing the particular market and time span I named at all, even once, with even one relevant detail.

I have plenty of occasion to observe that it is irrelevant to the extent that it is "factual". Recall that the issue is not whether the NSA overspends on office supplies and hotel accommodations, or similar matters, but whether its surveillance operations are accountable to anyone outside and independent of the agency in fact.

off the cuff - 1) the claims (explicit and implicit) by several of these officials and agencies that they are not responsible for misdeeds by the NSA, because they are not kept informed about the details of NSA operations. 2) the history of exposure of past misdeeds, such as the warrantless wiretapping of W's administration, in which all of these supposed oversight agencies were found to be oblivious to even the large scale and general setup of major NSA operations. 3) the established existence of physical hardware and surveillance capability and compilation resources which cannot be monitored or inspected or reviewed by anyone outside the NSA (by which term we include all private contractors) 4) the descriptions and revelations of Snowden, which reveal an absence of oversight throughout 5) the packing of the FISA court and other agencies listed there with complicit and uncritical and already coopted individuals (as established by past association with security agency misdeeds and administrative negligence 6) the last sentence in the paragraph, which I take at face value - this:

is accurate. The most important - in fact as currently arranged the only important - oversight of the NSA(/CSS sic) rests in the knowledge, understanding, and obedience of its employees (and of course of its thousands of private contractors such as Snowden).

And that is of course negligence to the point of absurdity, in such a matter.

As the US Constitution establishes, I'll be the judge of what I need to know about what my government is doing.

Let's see the evidence of that justification- in the form of public FISA court findings and accurately complete oversight descriptions of those operations. I don't want security of abusive operations - I want them blown, and the perpetrators exposed.

They inform me that they have no access to the information they would need address such concerns. The NSA does not keep Congress in the loop any more than it does me, and possibly you - although your role here is consistent with somewhat greater familiarity than a mere Representative of the public is entitled to, in the view of the people for whom increased efficiency and capability of surveillance are overriding priorities.

Well, I don't have even that. And I would of course expect much more - the will of the majority is nowhere near good enough excuse for abusive surveillance and government gone bad.

No. That is specifically and explicitly not the bargain made by the Constitution I live under. That is the bargain of some other, quite different Constitution, one suitable for a police state or the like.

And the consistent presentation of that bargain, of that ugly and threatening misreading of the US Constitution, by the people with their fingers in this pie, by the reps and spokesmen and apologists and media dissimulators of all this, is evidence point 7 to be added to the list above. If I had only that, and no other, piece of information about the people running this surveillance operation, I would be justified in trying to have it shut down immediately and completely, and its perpetrators blacklisted from government service for life.

 

Let's do this point by point then.

The US Derivatives market is priced in United Stated Federal Reserve Notes - a fiat currency (or another State fiat currency). The word fiat means decree, in this case, of the United States Federal Government.

Do you agree that US Federal Reserve notes are regulated by the US Federal Government?

Free market currencies OTOH are not fiat. Their value is only determined by the free market. Gold is an example of a currency that developed from free use into a currency. So is bitcoin.

So, do we have an agreement here?

 

The NSA is giving your phone records to the DEA. And the DEA is covering it up.

The DEA is using NSA gathered intel ON AMERICAN CITIZENS to prosequte these Citizens in court and send them to prison/a federal sanctioned rape-cage AND THEN LYING ABOUT IT. The DEA trains agents to cover-up how they gathered their intelligence, even going so far as to create an electronic false narrative. This means the defendant has NO WAY OF KNOWING how the information was gathered and used against themduring their prosecution BY the Federal Government.


The State, like any cancer, only grows until it consumes and kills its host. Expect to see a continued reduction in productivity, creativity, and open-forum in the USA. Again, prosperity is time + freedom, and our civil liberties erode away by the day. Yet, the public cheers for the loss of prosperity and looks up to and loves their Government. See: "Patriot Act"

Given the election of Bush and his son Bush Jr on the "Right", and the Kennedy Family on the "Left", and given the way our money was so easily replaced with a fiat currency and the fact that the worker is taxed of his/her labour; I wouldn't be surprized one bit to see the republic transition to some sort of Constitutional neo-Monarchy.

Alexander Hamilton argued for a POTUS and US CONgress should be for life. Perhaps this is the next transition in our "Free Republic"? Step by step, we'll get there.

 

As you know, my opinion is that you have no idea what a free market is, how currencies are established, or in this case how the derivatives market set prices for its financial products between 2000 and 2009.

Many of which's products were denominated in currencies and measures of value other than straight dollars, btw, not that it matters in the least.

For starters, just offhand, commodity based currencies are normally more tightly manipulated and regulated and messed with by governments than fiat currencies - one of the problems with fiat currencies is the ease with which unregulated financial markets can game them, and the extra need for governmental vigilance at the same time as the loss of direct benefit and direct means of coercion (control of the commodity by its monopoly of force). Meanwhile, the exchange medium is almost irrelevant to the regulation of a market in anything other than that medium - in a market as little constrained by regulation as the one in question, the exchange medium is merely another item of choice.

But your ahistorical sense of grand evil governmental conspiracy against the glorious freedoms of plutocracy does sharpen your hearing for actual governmental wrongdoing, such as keeping classified and unaccountable intelligence files including internet usage and phone records on all US citizens. The free market playgrounds of Goldman Sachs et al may not be much affected (notice how in this last insider trading prosecution of SAC the prosecutors were unable to gather evidence on the CEO involved? No warrants, no wiretaps, when it's the big guys on the line), but the rest of us are at considerable risk.

 

Yup, got it.

Are United States Federal Reserve Notes regulated by the Federal government?



As an aside, GoldmanSuxs is often referred to as GovernmentSachs. Banks and Government go together like hand in glove.

 

'Media NewStory': "Chatter" + "Terrorists" = good-NSA-good

Qaeda Messages Prompt U.S. Terror Warning

Hurry, look Left.
Quick, look Right.

 

Robert Shapiro (former Clinton official and Obama supporter):

The bottom line here is that Americans don’t believe in President Obama’s leadership. He has to find some way between now and November of demonstrating that he is a leader who can command confidence and, short of a 9/11 event or an Oklahoma City bombing, I can’t think of how he could do that.

 

No. I believe the Feds regulate the printing of physical currency, and the amount of money "created" by government action, and forbid counterfeiting and certain related forms of alteration, and track - but do not forbid or prevent - large cash transactions, but nothing significant: you can do with yours as you please.

As do banks and capitalist (free) markets.

Of course they need more privacy than the NSA grants mere citizens, but there is a market in encryption and so forth, and the NSA employes know better - no one was surprised that the CEO of SAC apparently lived a life free of NSA surveillance.