Rock, i'm glad youre taking it lightheartedly.
Maybe its nothing. Maybe i got reminded yesterday by watching footage of movement leader Fred Hampton getting murdered in his bed at 430am by unprovoked police bullets, 90 of them, that the powers that be will protect their interests no matter what legal constraints may be. legislation facilitating that just makes it seem all the more likely that it will happen. cointelpro 2012
Do you believe that the Black Panthers, besides doing many positive things in various communities, were an organization that preached violence against the government, had leaders that admitted and bragged about killing police officers, led murderous ambushes against police officers and tortured and murdered members of their community and own organization?
Obama has promised a veto, but the Senate has more than enough votes for an override.
What do people think the future of this will be?
This president pass up an opportunity to expand Executive power? Dream on. You really need to stop listening to what Obama says and start paying closer attention to what he does.
Seriously?
Have you looked at this and concluded it is an expansion of executive power?
True, the exec is CiC, but this gives power to the US Military to detain indefinitely, and without trail or legal counsel, US citizens.
I don't think it gives any specific powers to the president.
To me it's like any other law....if it's used properly it could do some good....if it's abused there will be consequences.
You asked for my comments earlier in the thread and I gave a serious answer to which you didn't reply.
If the government is going to assassinate someone they obviously don't need a law in place to do so.
my bad...been haphazardly checking the site.
i would be in the second group...the smaller demographic that is worried about our drift toward a police state. so If the law is abused, what consequences do you feel that there will be? for who?
definitely agree that the gov can assassinate with or without legal standing...theres too many instances to name. So why do they need to make indefinite detention legal?
btw, i'm not arguing, just interested where you all are at. i'm not into conspiracy theories, but i do get worried when overwhelming force and an absence of checks and balances link up at high levels.
I don't think this law could ever be applied in a "good" way.
The law specifically removes 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights.
My guess would be that if the supreme court ever heard this case they would throw it out.
The problem is the Court might decide that only an injured party could bring the case and thus the case would never be heard.
Thanks for the info, mang. I appreciate you making an effort to back up Laser's claim.
However, the Pentagon is not DHS. Also, the article doesn't seem to mention any of the equipment that the Pentagon gave to local police being used against OWS.
There was this sentence: "This upswing coincides with an increasingly military-like style of law enforcement most recently seen in the Occupy Wall Street crackdowns." But, I'm not sure it's the same as saying the gear given has been used on OWS.
I certainly can't recall any robots, M-16s, armored vehicles, grenade launchers or amphibious vehicles used. At least not yet. Plenty of pepper spray, though.
It's close, but the LW's assertion, that he says people who are informed and read know (something I presume he thinks I'm not based on his tone), was very specific: The DHS gave millions of dollars to local police and that money was used to disrupt the OWS protests.
The article is very informative as to where our tax money is going and how it could potentially be used against the public. Thanks!
I don't think this law could ever be applied in a "good" way.
The law specifically removes 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights.
My guess would be that if the supreme court ever heard this case they would throw it out.
The problem is the Court might decide that only an injured party could bring the case and thus the case would never be heard.
Lawyers am I close to right?
Possibly. SCOTUS many times has sided with the Executive if "national security" is asserted as the reason for the questionable law. (see Japanese-American internment camps). SCOTUS (usually, rightly IMO) posits that as judges they are not in a position to adequately determine if a law or action passed or committed based on "national security" is necessary and will defer to the executive.
They also may determine that it's a political question best left to the electorate. i.e, citizens can vote the bums out that passed the law.
I personally don't think this law will pass Constitutional muster. Mostly because it seems to circumvent Habeas Corpus if you can just put a guy in a hole permenantly without trial or evidence. And that can't be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion. Neither have happened.
Thanks for the info, mang. I appreciate you making an effort to back up Laser's claim.
However, the Pentagon is not DHS. Also, the article doesn't seem to mention any of the equipment that the Pentagon gave to local police being used against OWS.
There was this sentence: "This upswing coincides with an increasingly military-like style of law enforcement most recently seen in the Occupy Wall Street crackdowns." But, I'm not sure it's the same as saying the gear given has been used on OWS.
I certainly can't recall any robots, M-16s, armored vehicles, grenade launchers or amphibious vehicles used. At least not yet. Plenty of pepper spray, though.
It's close, but the LW's assertion, that he says people who are informed and read know (something I presume he thinks I'm not based on his tone), was very specific: The DHS gave millions of dollars to local police and that money was used to disrupt the OWS protests.
The article is very informative as to where our tax money is going and how it could potentially be used against the public. Thanks!
Military equipment has been given to local law enforcement for decades.
Here is an article with a bit of insight into the subject.
There have been photos of the armored vehicles at the protests in different cities.
Not at OWS. But I remember seeing this on youtube back at G20 in Pittsburgh.
But there is quite a bit of info out there on local police getting money from homeland security to buy things that could be easily be used against protestors.
"A Houston area law enforcement agency is prepared to launch an unmanned drone that could someday carry weapons, Local 2 Investigates reported Friday.
The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office in Conroe paid $300,000 in federal homeland security grant money and Friday it received the ShadowHawk unmanned helicopter made by Vanguard Defense Industries of Spring."
There's no doubt that DHS and the miltary have given local law enforcement equipment. There's no doubt that this equipment COULD be used against OWS protesters.
But COULD happen is not the same as actually happening.
Same goes for DHS giving money that is then used to disrupt OWS. It could happen, but that doesn't mean it did, or HAD to have happened (i.e., fair to assume). From what I can gather from getting informed and reading is that police are using standard police tactics. Pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, riot gear, etc, and arresting people. Not pulling a Tiananmen Square and running them over with tanks. At least not yet.
Is there even an Occupy Tampa? If there is/was, did the police bust it up? With an armored personnel vehicle? I don't think so. I could be wrong, though. Wouldn't be the first time.
@ Bon Vivant This goes way beyond OWS (how did this thread get diverted back to that convo anyway?). To briefly touch on the subject of militarizing the police, does this somehow circumvent The Posse Comitatas Act by giving local cops the same tools without actually having the military enforce the law? Here's another link for good measure http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and if you step back and look at it from a larger perspective, some frightening, unprecedented shit is taking place right now. The SOPA Act trying to censor the internet, The National Defense Authorization Act completely undermining due process and the right to a trial - which was the point of this thread, The Wall Street Journal and Wikileaks dropping hundreds of docs on global surveillance, even down to a local level in SF where they disabled cell phone service to prevent a protest (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-12-02/bay-area/30470664_1_san-francisco-stations-bart-board-lynette-sweet). I could go on and on and on.
That said, it's important to maintain an opinion grounded in reality and not speculate on some "conspiracy theory" shit - which has become the go-to label for someone who questions what's going on, unfortunately - and keep things fact based as best we can. I believe we all have a right to question what is happening here and abroad. And while it might not affect you now, who's to say it won't in days to come? When you've had enough and want to stand up to what's slowly becoming a monolithic power grab on your rights? On your kids and our future generation's rights? This isn't some fantasy plot from a bad movie, this is real and it's happening now. Right in front of all of us.
yup...those are two of the most visible usages. who knows what surveillance they are utilizing against OWS.
thanks for the links, Day. one quote, by a conservative, struck me as important to our discussion here...
It???s that it uses illegitimate means ??? censoring and blocking websites like they do in repressive regimes from China to Iran ??? to pursue these objectives.
to me, this is an appropriate answer to what Rock asked us...if these new measures and laws hamper criminals, why should we care? well, because the means go against our established rights. Hitler started by making some exceptions too. Even if our government, military and police already has an ugly record of above the law suppression, once you make it permissable, there is even less legal recourse for citizens. Even though Fred Hampton's assassination in '69 didnt result in any convictions against police, courts saw fit to have the family paid over a million dollars, recognizing that some illegal shit had gone down.
yup...those are two of the most visible usages. who knows what surveillance they are utilizing against OWS.
thanks for the links, Day. one quote, by a conservative, struck me as important to our discussion here...
It???s that it uses illegitimate means ??? censoring and blocking websites like they do in repressive regimes from China to Iran ??? to pursue these objectives.
to me, this is an appropriate answer to what Rock asked us...if these new measures and laws hamper criminals, why should we care? well, because the means go against our established rights. Hitler started by making some exceptions too. Even if our government, military and police already has an ugly record of above the law suppression, once you make it permissable, there is even less legal recourse for citizens.
Exactly. Not to mention what qualifies someone for being a target of surveillance or being put on a watch list? Could my posts in this thread be considered "subversive"? It's all very vague and open to interpretation. If you are missing any fingers or have more than 7 days worth of food in your home you could be labeled a possible terrorist. That's some crazy shit.
The fact that this bill has made it this far should worry people. I thought we got "the boogie man" this year? Why all this crazy, heavy handed stuff now?
and Day, in a way, i think the main thing that has changed is technology. it has allowed unprecedented connectivity and flow of information across the world. it has created amazing surveillance equipment and weapons.
but people in power have almost always tried to control and exploit the masses, whether through political means or financial ones. i mean, usa was founded by genocide, forced removal and slavery. we have long histories of indentured servitude, segregation and control of education stretching well into our parents' lifetimes. now we have a debt and consumer based society where the working classes can barely survive off established minimum wages, despite amazing wealth and resources accumulated at the higher rungs of the totem pole. and of course we have by far the highest incarceration rates in the world.
so, yeah, its real worrisome and we should be conscious of our connectivity, but its still the same shit, just more so.
i feel like the new deal and post WWII started to pick away at a lot of our societal inequalities, but behind the scenes, there's been a backlash and a digging in of heels by the most powerful to maintain and consolidate power.
bonv, sorry if i didnt footnote any of this, im just key-babbling
and Day, in a way, i think the main thing that has changed is technology. it has allowed unprecedented connectivity and flow of information across the world. it has created amazing surveillance equipment and weapons.
but people in power have almost always tried to control and exploit the masses, whether through political means or financial ones. i mean, usa was founded by genocide, forced removal and slavery. we have long histories of indentured servitude, segregation and control of education stretching well into our parents' lifetimes. now we have a debt and consumer based society where the working classes can barely survive off established minimum wages, despite amazing wealth and resources accumulated at the higher rungs of the totem pole. and of course we have by far the highest incarceration rates in the world.
so, yeah, its real worrisome and we should be conscious of our connectivity, but its still the same shit, just more so.
i feel like the new deal and post WWII started to pick away at a lot of our societal inequalities, but behind the scenes, there's been a backlash and a digging in of heels by the most powerful to maintain and consolidate power.
bonv, sorry if i didnt footnote any of this, im just key-babbling
Yeah I fully agree. This is why SOPA is another concern. Right now the internet is the strongest tool of the people. It's no wonder the powers that be worldwide want to maintain a grip on the flow and access to information.
Things go in cycles and like you said, this is a lot of history repeating itself. The difference is we're at a stage where technology and the slow erosion of rights (Patriot Act etc.) has made it easier than ever to put the smack down on people who speak out.
watched half of Rand's speech...agree with what he said. this is where i found common ground with libertarians.
he mentioned Egypt and it made me think of ARab spring. How would our country react if it was faced with a much more widespread, aggressive Occupy movement? Wouldnt they see it as a national threat like they did in the 60s and 70s, where they justified Cointelpro and intentional destruction of activist organizations? Would we take out movement leaders? attack people in the streets like the Syrians? The Arab political reality was/is much more authoritarian and was/is much more threatened by the popular movements. but I'm real interested in how our government would/will react with a bigger challenge to the status quo
Since I read Animal Farm in the 7th grade I have heard people state that we are in an Orwellian Big Brother state???..40 years worth. As you know there is always more than one viewpoint on any issue. Here are my views on the concerns that you bring up. I do realize that if someone has an inherent distrust for authority, police or our government they will hold what I consider irrational views when it comes to these issues, or quite frankly, any issue where these authorities are involved.
1) Local police getting ???military??? grade equipment ??? Let???s face it, if our police are corrupt it doesn???t really matter what kind of equipment they have, the problem is then corruption, not equipment. BUT???I want law enforcement to have better, more powerful and higher tech equipment than the criminals they are paid to control. When a rocket launcher is used on a police station in California or drug runners in Dallas are caught with bazookas and other military weapons, THAT concerns me more than our police having a tank. Personally I think it would be silly for our police forces to not keep one step ahead than the criminals like M-13 and other violent offenders.
2) Turning off of cell phones ??? If I read your link correctly this was done to try to prevent protestors from chaining themselves to BART vehicles. It was then decided that in the future these types of protestors would just be arrested, which I support. However, they do maintain the authority to turn off local cell phone service in ???the most extraordinary circumstances" posing danger to public safety, destruction of BART property or "substantial disruption" of service???. And the downside would be that for whatever amount of time this is implemented, in that specific area, people will have to be without cell phone service like in the ???stone age??? of 1980??????or like driving through the majority of this gargantuan slab of land called Texas.
3) SOPA(Stop Online Piracy Act) ??? The internet grew so quickly and with so little controls that now, after the fact, people are trying to get the genie back in the bottle. As an artist (Day), I think you should have the right to post your music online for free download, OR, have the authority to stop people from stealing/using it for free if you so choose. Musicians, moviemakers, etc. get paid when people use their product and not having control over that should be a concern to those who are not altruistic enough to just give their ???product??? away for free. Pre-internet playing and/or distributing music without paying for it was considered a crime???..bootlegging, pirate radio, etc. Why should the advent of the internet change that concept? But, but, but??????this law can be used for nefarious reasons outside the original spirit in which it was intended. Yep???that is possible, just like everything else in life???it can be used or abused. If we only implemented laws that had no chance of ever being abused we wouldn???t have any.
Your concerns are neither new nor unique. Within the last 60 years our government has executed some of its own citizens for treason, assassinated its own leaders and used questionable tactics to kill, control and jail supposed criminals. The laws in place, or not in place, had little or no bearing on these actions.
Like I said earlier, if you think that our government is evil and corrupt then there probably isn???t any reason to discuss any of this. But let me assure you that the ???big brother??? fears have been around since before you were born and they will be here long after you???re gone. I???m going to spend a few days with my 76 year old Dad this week and I???m sure a somewhat similar discussion will take place. Back in the 60???s he would say ???The country is going to hell in a handbasket??? and a couple of years ago during a visit he said the same thing. I reminded him that he???s been saying this for 40 years and he replied ???Yeah, but now it???s REALLY going to hell in a handbasket???.
I don???t believe it is???.it???s simply changing, as it always has. Evolving, but in many ways remaining the same. Bullets on the campus of Kent State vs. sound cannons and pepper spray. Some may consider that a step in the right direction. The sky never stops falling???..but life goes on.
rock, i feel where youre at and agree with quite a bit of it. but it makes it no less important to have checks and balances on power and to watchdog all that shit with suspicion. i think current incarceration rates and growing wealth disparities do spotlight the need for heightened vigilance...i dont see it as a positive that we are world leaders in both of these categories
and environmental concerns continue to be my main worry and concern but thats another thread (that i definitely know you can contribute too)
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Cool, Rock, you think all of this is peachy keen...as seemingly none of it affects a by-the-books kind of citizen like you. Possibly apart from your own situation, you do take the time to consider citizens in different situations than your own...like people targetted by racism or say people that actually are activists/protestors. But it's a shame that your preferences don't account for them AT ALL.
The pendulum always swings too far to one side and then too far to the other side and somewhere in between there is sanity.
Its not swinging. It keeps going further and further over to the intrusive, big, central government side. It's just the change in party from Republican to Democrat that gives the illusion of swinging.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rockadelic said:
z_illa said:
Rockadelic said:
Your concerns are neither new nor unique.
dude.
The pendulum always swings too far to one side and then too far to the other side and somewhere in between there is sanity.
Yeah, but if the range of the penulum swing is manipulated to where no matter how far it swings in either direction, we have insanity on one side and insanity on the other side...there is no sanilty within that.
You to me sound disproportionately concerned over domestic-sourced threats to the status quo here in the US...which is why I would say that you are promoting insanity just as much as someone with a tin foil hat of government paranoia on their head.
Consider the whole, and not just your own self, and that's the beginning of departing from all this overwhelming insanity IMO.
and im not sure what your pop was referring to, but shit WAS going to hell in a handbasket 40 years ago. thats not a lot of time at all. human failings are always the same, but they are magnified and have impacted the world significantly due to technology.
but just cause we had slavery for 400 years doesnt mean that sweatshops are ok now
just cause the Cuyahoga River caught fire, doesnt mean that we should be content now that its only laced with PCBs
just cause we used to have debtors prisons doesnt mean that we should be content with recidivism rates
just cause segregation is illegal doesnt mean we should be content with currently segregated schools
just cause southern courts used to protect lynch mobs....
on and on
people still and always should get up in arms about this shit. individuals gotta pace themselves so they dont burn out...you still gotta live life and appreciate all the beautiful things. but im thankful for all the tireless activists who put all their time towards what they believe
Cool, Rock, you think all of this is peachy keen...as seemingly none of it affects a by-the-books kind of citizen like you. Possibly apart from your own situation, you do take the time to consider citizens in different situations than your own...like people targetted by racism or say people that actually are activists/protestors. But it's a shame that your preferences don't account for them AT ALL.
My "preference" is that every human being on the face of the planet be honest, fair and treat everyone else with respect, generosity and kindness. And that's how I try to live my peachy keen life.
Think we can legislate something to acheive that?
And for the record, I have probably broken my fair share of laws and know what the consequences are if I'm caught. I just don't think that my computer is being monitored 24/7 or that the CIA is pointing a listening device at my home to catch me....if and when that happens you can tell me 'you told me so".
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rockadelic said:
HarveyCanal said:
Cool, Rock, you think all of this is peachy keen...as seemingly none of it affects a by-the-books kind of citizen like you. Possibly apart from your own situation, you do take the time to consider citizens in different situations than your own...like people targetted by racism or say people that actually are activists/protestors. But it's a shame that your preferences don't account for them AT ALL.
My "preference" is that every human being on the face of the planet be honest, fair and treat everyone else with respect, generosity and kindness. And that's how I try to live my peachy keen life.
Think we can legislate something to acheive that?
And for the record, I have probably broken my fair share of laws and know what the consequences are if I'm caught. I just don't think that my computer is being monitored 24/7 or that the CIA is pointing a listening device at my home to catch me....if and when that happens you can tell me 'you told me so".
Well, they aren't doing it to you. They are doing it to other people, which is exactly why you don't give a rat's ass about it.
Comments
Do you believe that the Black Panthers, besides doing many positive things in various communities, were an organization that preached violence against the government, had leaders that admitted and bragged about killing police officers, led murderous ambushes against police officers and tortured and murdered members of their community and own organization?
Seriously?
Have you looked at this and concluded it is an expansion of executive power?
True, the exec is CiC, but this gives power to the US Military to detain indefinitely, and without trail or legal counsel, US citizens.
I don't think it gives any specific powers to the president.
my bad...been haphazardly checking the site.
i would be in the second group...the smaller demographic that is worried about our drift toward a police state. so If the law is abused, what consequences do you feel that there will be? for who?
definitely agree that the gov can assassinate with or without legal standing...theres too many instances to name. So why do they need to make indefinite detention legal?
btw, i'm not arguing, just interested where you all are at. i'm not into conspiracy theories, but i do get worried when overwhelming force and an absence of checks and balances link up at high levels.
-t
It's more politically correct than assassinations?
The law specifically removes 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendment rights.
My guess would be that if the supreme court ever heard this case they would throw it out.
The problem is the Court might decide that only an injured party could bring the case and thus the case would never be heard.
Lawyers am I close to right?
Well for starters, if I belonged to an organization that had members that ambushed and killed police officers I'd probably be worried.
If the law is used properly and not abused what possible good could you imagine coming from it?
Thanks for the info, mang. I appreciate you making an effort to back up Laser's claim.
However, the Pentagon is not DHS. Also, the article doesn't seem to mention any of the equipment that the Pentagon gave to local police being used against OWS.
There was this sentence: "This upswing coincides with an increasingly military-like style of law enforcement most recently seen in the Occupy Wall Street crackdowns." But, I'm not sure it's the same as saying the gear given has been used on OWS.
I certainly can't recall any robots, M-16s, armored vehicles, grenade launchers or amphibious vehicles used. At least not yet. Plenty of pepper spray, though.
It's close, but the LW's assertion, that he says people who are informed and read know (something I presume he thinks I'm not based on his tone), was very specific: The DHS gave millions of dollars to local police and that money was used to disrupt the OWS protests.
The article is very informative as to where our tax money is going and how it could potentially be used against the public. Thanks!
Possibly. SCOTUS many times has sided with the Executive if "national security" is asserted as the reason for the questionable law. (see Japanese-American internment camps). SCOTUS (usually, rightly IMO) posits that as judges they are not in a position to adequately determine if a law or action passed or committed based on "national security" is necessary and will defer to the executive.
They also may determine that it's a political question best left to the electorate. i.e, citizens can vote the bums out that passed the law.
I personally don't think this law will pass Constitutional muster. Mostly because it seems to circumvent Habeas Corpus if you can just put a guy in a hole permenantly without trial or evidence. And that can't be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion. Neither have happened.
Yeah, I think you're close to right.
Military equipment has been given to local law enforcement for decades.
Here is an article with a bit of insight into the subject.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/police-militarization-9-11-september-11_n_955508.html
There have been photos of the armored vehicles at the protests in different cities.
Not at OWS. But I remember seeing this on youtube back at G20 in Pittsburgh.
But there is quite a bit of info out there on local police getting money from homeland security to buy things that could be easily be used against protestors.
Two seconds on google finds an example like this.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/New-Police-Drone-Near-Houston-Could-Carry-Weapons/-/1735978/4717922/-/59xnnez/-/index.html
"A Houston area law enforcement agency is prepared to launch an unmanned drone that could someday carry weapons, Local 2 Investigates reported Friday.
The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office in Conroe paid $300,000 in federal homeland security grant money and Friday it received the ShadowHawk unmanned helicopter made by Vanguard Defense Industries of Spring."
But COULD happen is not the same as actually happening.
Same goes for DHS giving money that is then used to disrupt OWS. It could happen, but that doesn't mean it did, or HAD to have happened (i.e., fair to assume). From what I can gather from getting informed and reading is that police are using standard police tactics. Pepper spray, tear gas, rubber bullets, riot gear, etc, and arresting people. Not pulling a Tiananmen Square and running them over with tanks. At least not yet.
Is there even an Occupy Tampa? If there is/was, did the police bust it up? With an armored personnel vehicle? I don't think so. I could be wrong, though. Wouldn't be the first time.
Welcome to our future.
@ Bon Vivant This goes way beyond OWS (how did this thread get diverted back to that convo anyway?). To briefly touch on the subject of militarizing the police, does this somehow circumvent The Posse Comitatas Act by giving local cops the same tools without actually having the military enforce the law? Here's another link for good measure http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and if you step back and look at it from a larger perspective, some frightening, unprecedented shit is taking place right now. The SOPA Act trying to censor the internet, The National Defense Authorization Act completely undermining due process and the right to a trial - which was the point of this thread, The Wall Street Journal and Wikileaks dropping hundreds of docs on global surveillance, even down to a local level in SF where they disabled cell phone service to prevent a protest (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-12-02/bay-area/30470664_1_san-francisco-stations-bart-board-lynette-sweet). I could go on and on and on.
That said, it's important to maintain an opinion grounded in reality and not speculate on some "conspiracy theory" shit - which has become the go-to label for someone who questions what's going on, unfortunately - and keep things fact based as best we can. I believe we all have a right to question what is happening here and abroad. And while it might not affect you now, who's to say it won't in days to come? When you've had enough and want to stand up to what's slowly becoming a monolithic power grab on your rights? On your kids and our future generation's rights? This isn't some fantasy plot from a bad movie, this is real and it's happening now. Right in front of all of us.
Relevant: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/dec/02/cyber-industrial-complex-spying?newsfeed=true
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/11/28/how-congress-and-the-entertainment-industry-plan-to-kill-the-internet-and-how-citizens-reddit-users-and-a-few-senators-are-fighting-back/
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/12/carrier_iq_it_s_totally_rational_to_worry_that_our_phones_are_tracking_everything_we_do_.html
thanks for the links, Day. one quote, by a conservative, struck me as important to our discussion here...
to me, this is an appropriate answer to what Rock asked us...if these new measures and laws hamper criminals, why should we care? well, because the means go against our established rights. Hitler started by making some exceptions too. Even if our government, military and police already has an ugly record of above the law suppression, once you make it permissable, there is even less legal recourse for citizens. Even though Fred Hampton's assassination in '69 didnt result in any convictions against police, courts saw fit to have the family paid over a million dollars, recognizing that some illegal shit had gone down.
Exactly. Not to mention what qualifies someone for being a target of surveillance or being put on a watch list? Could my posts in this thread be considered "subversive"? It's all very vague and open to interpretation. If you are missing any fingers or have more than 7 days worth of food in your home you could be labeled a possible terrorist. That's some crazy shit.
The fact that this bill has made it this far should worry people. I thought we got "the boogie man" this year? Why all this crazy, heavy handed stuff now?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/the-national-defense-authorization-act-is-the-greatest-threat-to-civil-liberties-americans-face/
but people in power have almost always tried to control and exploit the masses, whether through political means or financial ones. i mean, usa was founded by genocide, forced removal and slavery. we have long histories of indentured servitude, segregation and control of education stretching well into our parents' lifetimes. now we have a debt and consumer based society where the working classes can barely survive off established minimum wages, despite amazing wealth and resources accumulated at the higher rungs of the totem pole. and of course we have by far the highest incarceration rates in the world.
so, yeah, its real worrisome and we should be conscious of our connectivity, but its still the same shit, just more so.
i feel like the new deal and post WWII started to pick away at a lot of our societal inequalities, but behind the scenes, there's been a backlash and a digging in of heels by the most powerful to maintain and consolidate power.
bonv, sorry if i didnt footnote any of this, im just key-babbling
Yeah I fully agree. This is why SOPA is another concern. Right now the internet is the strongest tool of the people. It's no wonder the powers that be worldwide want to maintain a grip on the flow and access to information.
Things go in cycles and like you said, this is a lot of history repeating itself. The difference is we're at a stage where technology and the slow erosion of rights (Patriot Act etc.) has made it easier than ever to put the smack down on people who speak out.
he mentioned Egypt and it made me think of ARab spring. How would our country react if it was faced with a much more widespread, aggressive Occupy movement? Wouldnt they see it as a national threat like they did in the 60s and 70s, where they justified Cointelpro and intentional destruction of activist organizations? Would we take out movement leaders? attack people in the streets like the Syrians? The Arab political reality was/is much more authoritarian and was/is much more threatened by the popular movements. but I'm real interested in how our government would/will react with a bigger challenge to the status quo
Since I read Animal Farm in the 7th grade I have heard people state that we are in an Orwellian Big Brother state???..40 years worth. As you know there is always more than one viewpoint on any issue. Here are my views on the concerns that you bring up. I do realize that if someone has an inherent distrust for authority, police or our government they will hold what I consider irrational views when it comes to these issues, or quite frankly, any issue where these authorities are involved.
1) Local police getting ???military??? grade equipment ??? Let???s face it, if our police are corrupt it doesn???t really matter what kind of equipment they have, the problem is then corruption, not equipment. BUT???I want law enforcement to have better, more powerful and higher tech equipment than the criminals they are paid to control. When a rocket launcher is used on a police station in California or drug runners in Dallas are caught with bazookas and other military weapons, THAT concerns me more than our police having a tank. Personally I think it would be silly for our police forces to not keep one step ahead than the criminals like M-13 and other violent offenders.
2) Turning off of cell phones ??? If I read your link correctly this was done to try to prevent protestors from chaining themselves to BART vehicles. It was then decided that in the future these types of protestors would just be arrested, which I support. However, they do maintain the authority to turn off local cell phone service in ???the most extraordinary circumstances" posing danger to public safety, destruction of BART property or "substantial disruption" of service???. And the downside would be that for whatever amount of time this is implemented, in that specific area, people will have to be without cell phone service like in the ???stone age??? of 1980??????or like driving through the majority of this gargantuan slab of land called Texas.
3) SOPA(Stop Online Piracy Act) ??? The internet grew so quickly and with so little controls that now, after the fact, people are trying to get the genie back in the bottle. As an artist (Day), I think you should have the right to post your music online for free download, OR, have the authority to stop people from stealing/using it for free if you so choose. Musicians, moviemakers, etc. get paid when people use their product and not having control over that should be a concern to those who are not altruistic enough to just give their ???product??? away for free. Pre-internet playing and/or distributing music without paying for it was considered a crime???..bootlegging, pirate radio, etc. Why should the advent of the internet change that concept? But, but, but??????this law can be used for nefarious reasons outside the original spirit in which it was intended. Yep???that is possible, just like everything else in life???it can be used or abused. If we only implemented laws that had no chance of ever being abused we wouldn???t have any.
Your concerns are neither new nor unique. Within the last 60 years our government has executed some of its own citizens for treason, assassinated its own leaders and used questionable tactics to kill, control and jail supposed criminals. The laws in place, or not in place, had little or no bearing on these actions.
Like I said earlier, if you think that our government is evil and corrupt then there probably isn???t any reason to discuss any of this. But let me assure you that the ???big brother??? fears have been around since before you were born and they will be here long after you???re gone. I???m going to spend a few days with my 76 year old Dad this week and I???m sure a somewhat similar discussion will take place. Back in the 60???s he would say ???The country is going to hell in a handbasket??? and a couple of years ago during a visit he said the same thing. I reminded him that he???s been saying this for 40 years and he replied ???Yeah, but now it???s REALLY going to hell in a handbasket???.
I don???t believe it is???.it???s simply changing, as it always has. Evolving, but in many ways remaining the same. Bullets on the campus of Kent State vs. sound cannons and pepper spray. Some may consider that a step in the right direction. The sky never stops falling???..but life goes on.
dude.
and environmental concerns continue to be my main worry and concern but thats another thread (that i definitely know you can contribute too)
The pendulum always swings too far to one side and then too far to the other side and somewhere in between there is sanity.
Its not swinging. It keeps going further and further over to the intrusive, big, central government side. It's just the change in party from Republican to Democrat that gives the illusion of swinging.
Yeah, but if the range of the penulum swing is manipulated to where no matter how far it swings in either direction, we have insanity on one side and insanity on the other side...there is no sanilty within that.
You to me sound disproportionately concerned over domestic-sourced threats to the status quo here in the US...which is why I would say that you are promoting insanity just as much as someone with a tin foil hat of government paranoia on their head.
Consider the whole, and not just your own self, and that's the beginning of departing from all this overwhelming insanity IMO.
but just cause we had slavery for 400 years doesnt mean that sweatshops are ok now
just cause the Cuyahoga River caught fire, doesnt mean that we should be content now that its only laced with PCBs
just cause we used to have debtors prisons doesnt mean that we should be content with recidivism rates
just cause segregation is illegal doesnt mean we should be content with currently segregated schools
just cause southern courts used to protect lynch mobs....
on and on
people still and always should get up in arms about this shit. individuals gotta pace themselves so they dont burn out...you still gotta live life and appreciate all the beautiful things. but im thankful for all the tireless activists who put all their time towards what they believe
My "preference" is that every human being on the face of the planet be honest, fair and treat everyone else with respect, generosity and kindness. And that's how I try to live my peachy keen life.
Think we can legislate something to acheive that?
And for the record, I have probably broken my fair share of laws and know what the consequences are if I'm caught. I just don't think that my computer is being monitored 24/7 or that the CIA is pointing a listening device at my home to catch me....if and when that happens you can tell me 'you told me so".
Well, they aren't doing it to you. They are doing it to other people, which is exactly why you don't give a rat's ass about it.