HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » NSA Employee Spied on Nin...

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 09:54 PM

NSA Employee Spied on Nine Women Without Detection, Internal File Shows...

Source: the guardian

A National Security Agency employee was able to secretly intercept the phone calls of nine foreign women for six years without ever being detected by his managers, the agency's internal watchdog has revealed.

The unauthorised abuse of the NSA's surveillance tools only came to light after one of the women, who happened to be a US government employee, told a colleague that she suspected the man – with whom she was having a sexual relationship – was listening to her calls.

The case is among 12 documented in a letter from the NSA's inspector general to a leading member of Congress, who asked for a breakdown of cases in which the agency's powerful surveillance apparatus was deliberately abused by staff. One relates to a member of the US military who, on the first day he gained access to the surveillance system, used it to spy on six email addresses belonging to former girlfriends.

The letter, from Dr George Ellard, only lists cases that were investigated and later "substantiated" by his office. But it raises the possibility that there are many more cases that go undetected. In a quarter of the cases, the NSA only found out about the misconduct after the employee confessed...



General Keith Alexander said abuse of the NSA's powerful monitoring tools were 'with very rare exception' unintentional mistakes.
Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo

65 replies, 11531 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply NSA Employee Spied on Nine Women Without Detection, Internal File Shows... (Original post)
Indi Guy Sep 2013 OP
RC Sep 2013 #1
adirondacker Sep 2013 #3
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #29
inch4progress Sep 2013 #2
Hydra Sep 2013 #6
inch4progress Sep 2013 #8
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #9
inch4progress Sep 2013 #10
JDPriestly Sep 2013 #13
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #28
drynberg Sep 2013 #36
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #14
Hydra Sep 2013 #11
inch4progress Sep 2013 #12
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #15
inch4progress Sep 2013 #16
cui bono Sep 2013 #19
inch4progress Sep 2013 #20
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #22
inch4progress Sep 2013 #23
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #24
inch4progress Sep 2013 #27
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #40
inch4progress Sep 2013 #41
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #42
inch4progress Sep 2013 #43
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #44
inch4progress Sep 2013 #45
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #46
inch4progress Sep 2013 #47
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #54
inch4progress Sep 2013 #55
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #56
inch4progress Sep 2013 #57
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #58
inch4progress Sep 2013 #60
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #61
inch4progress Sep 2013 #63
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #64
cprise Sep 2013 #32
inch4progress Sep 2013 #34
Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #65
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #30
inch4progress Sep 2013 #50
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #48
inch4progress Sep 2013 #49
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #52
jsr Sep 2013 #4
Vanje Sep 2013 #7
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #31
Supersedeas Sep 2013 #62
Vanje Sep 2013 #5
blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #17
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #18
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #25
Uncle Joe Sep 2013 #53
grasswire Sep 2013 #21
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #37
Ash_F Sep 2013 #26
tavalon Sep 2013 #33
Indi Guy Sep 2013 #59
Sunlei Sep 2013 #35
Sancho Sep 2013 #38
CrispyQ Sep 2013 #39
Ash_F Sep 2013 #51

Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 09:59 PM

1. Stop the paranoia and shut the whole corrupt agency down.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:19 PM

3. I'm sure they have a private company or three that oversee's their work. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 04:03 AM

29. +1. I don't need to pay people to spy on me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 10:22 PM

2. There has to be a balance as well as an open conversation.

 

The president needs to come out and tell the people exactly what threats we are facing, and how the NSA's work protects us from these threats.

There are certainly corporate espionage aspects of the NSA program that violate international laws, these aspects of the NSA must be criminally prosecuted in the world court and reparations paid if our image is ever to be redeemed.

There is absolutely no question, spying on American citizens, collecting their phone records, emails, text messages etc MUST STOP! It violates the constitution, as do the secret courts. These domestic aspects must end, or we may very well loose the NSA altogether, which would leave us utterly vulnerable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:40 PM

6. There was a balance

It was called: get a legal warrant

Somehow that can't be done now...because the system isn't doing what they're telling us it is. Boston proved that.

The conversation we need to be having isn't one of balance, but of legality. Why can't these people follow the law, ever, and why are we endlessly funding them to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #6)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:50 PM

8. I completely understand your anger, and feel it myself

 

Nonetheless, I know America has MADE TONS OF ENEMIES because of the actions of certain financial interests, and while their anger at us is completely justified I am not about to accept that their guilt and crimes should put me in danger.

I'm a Socialist, Anti-war activist, Humanist etc I would never ever ever in a million years HAVE SUPPORTED invading sovereign nations or orchestrating coups. MAKE THE MEN RESPONSIBLE PAY THE PRICE, not me or other innocent Americans.

I want to be protected, and I understand that there may be a need to bypass the constitution to make sure I remain safe. It's that simple, I hate it but I recognize it's necessity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #8)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:55 PM

9. May I remind you...

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:00 AM

10. Which is where the balance comes in. I have no liberty if I'm the victim of a terror attack,

 

even if those attacking us were the victims of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld or other rethug corporate financial powers, I DON'T WANT TO BE ANY LESS SAFE BECAUSE OF THEIR CRIMES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:26 AM

13. The NSA is committing crimes. I don't care what the Supreme Court excuses with tricky

language when it interprets our Constitution, the fact is that the NSA is violating our fundamental First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and other basic rights. Nobody has the right to do that.

The NSA has the ready capacity to destroy the last vestiges of democracy in our country.

Imagine what would happen if we somehow managed to get a candidate for the presidency who was independent and had a stirring moral sense. Someone who really adhered to the demands of our Constitution? Someone who respected the other two branches of government? Would the NSA, could the NSA, allow that candidate to conduct a fair campaign? I doubt it because the first thing such a candidate would do would be to call in the leaders of the NSA and tell them that they needed to reduce their secrecy to a level that is compatible with the concepts and ideals of democracy. And that the NSA could not do. Because that would change the very purpose of the NSA.

Who has made the enemies for our country? The Wall Street greedy. Do you think that the NSA serves anyone else? Because I do not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:41 AM

28. Well said.

And once again the bottom line is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:56 AM

36. YEP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #10)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:27 AM

14. As Hydra points out in post #11...

...The government isn't interested in protecting you.

Do you think a government that violates its own constitution in order to further the aims of their financial contributors (the multi-national corporate elite) is in the least concerned with the safety of its citizens? Yeah ...like the fox is concerned for the safety of the hens.

Your safety is at great risk because of the crimes ongoing as we speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:10 AM

11. No offense, but the gov't is unwilling to protect you

The protection is for the people who buy it. The rest of us are on our own, and will be until we're all equal under the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #11)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:21 AM

12. Then why would Obama mention such inflamatory things on television like.....

 

More banking regulation? Getting corporate dollars out of politics? Raising the minimum wage? To tease us?

Don't Affordable Care Act is good for America? Don't you think democratic protection of Social programs such as food stamps, Soc Sec, Medicare, Medicaid etc is good for America?

I think realistically that the Republicans want this to be a permanent reality
but the gov't is unwilling to protect you
The protection is for the people who buy it


Who is the government? Is it Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren? Hell, and I know I will get some flack for this, Even ignorantly Idealist Ron Paul had a few good Ideas(foreign policy).

When politicians fight to protect my right to access dietary supplements, some of which have proven to be more effective and less dangerous than prescription medicine, aren't they doing that to protect my rights?

I don't think its as black and white as you make it out to be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:31 AM

15. Leaders can "mention" anything, all day - every day...

That & five bucks will get you a double latte.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:35 AM

16. Yes, and if they have an agenda they would "mention" things to convince us

 

that we should accept low wages and be happy about it like the republicans do! EVERYDAY!

So I have to assume that Obama's agenda HAS MY INTERESTS AT HEART!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:48 AM

19. You don't have to assume anything. You can look at his actions. n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:58 AM

20. His actions? He tried to appoint Warren and some other EXTREME LIBERALS!

 

Remember the constitution limits his actions, as does AN EXTREMELY OBSTRUCTIVE CONGRESS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 01:17 AM

22. You say, "I have to assume that Obama's agenda HAS MY INTERESTS AT HEART!"...

...Let's see.

Please read carefully and tell me what's different about what he said (or "mentioned" & what he did.


Picture #1 - looks good Right?:

August 28, 2013 9:48 AM

...Obama announced his intent to form the review group at a press conference earlier this month. He argued that the surveillance programs are critical to national security, but he acknowledged that some changes might be necessary to restore public trust.

He said the "independent group" would be made up of a "high-level group of outside experts."

The White House said that within 60 days of beginning its work, the group will brief the president "through the Director of National Intelligence" on its preliminary findings. Privacy advocates have expressed concern about how much control Director of National Intelligence James Clapper will have over the group. But the White House has insisted that Clapper is not leading the group or directing its efforts...

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/319115-obama-meets-with-nsa-review-group


Picture#2 - What!?:


September 22, 2013 9:13 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — With just weeks remaining before its first deadline, a review panel chosen by President Barack Obama to boost public trust in government surveillance programs has effectively been operating as an arm of the office that oversees those programs.


The advisers work in offices on loan from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Its meetings so far have been closed to the public, and all statements from the review panel are carefully coordinated through the DNI’s press office. James Clapper, the intelligence director, exempted the panel from U.S. rules that require federal committees to conduct their business and their meetings in ways the public can observe.

Even the panel’s official name suggests it’s run by Clapper’s office: “Director of National Intelligence Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies.”


Read more: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/22/nsa-spying-oversight-group-very-closely-tied-to-white-house/


It's time to get our heads out of the sand and see just who's interests are being served in D.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 01:36 AM

23. Well you didn't address any of his LIBERAL APPOINTEES, EFFORTS TO RAISE TAXES ON UBER WEALTHY,

 

SPEECHES ABOUT RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE ETC, ALL EFFORTS THAT THE REPUBLICANS OBLITERATED!

I have no issue whatsoever with this. Why shouldn't oversight of the NSA have close ties to the White House?

Was Obama able to clean out all the Conservative implants that Bush placed in these agencies? Personally, I'd rather not have any of them overseeing or having a thing to do with the NSA.

Even the panel’s official name suggests it’s run by Clapper’s office: “Director of National Intelligence Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies.”

When words like "SUGGESTS" are used it definitely means its an assumption. I will have to read more about this and get back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:20 AM

24. With respect...

...the hypocrisy I posted speaks for itself, and I've spent enough time with you on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:35 AM

27. I didn't notice hypocrisy. People expect every aspect of our national security to be

 

transparent, which is neither possible nor desirable. State Secrets are necessary for any country to survive in a imperfect, violent and deeply fractured world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:03 PM

40. OK - One more response to you...

If you "didn't notice" the hypocrisy exposed in post #22 you are either incapable of rational thought, a myopic ideologue, both, and/or a paid shill for the PTB.

"People expect every aspect of our national security to be transparent, which is neither possible nor desirable. State Secrets are necessary for any country to survive in a imperfect, violent and deeply fractured world."

Wow! That sounds like an introduction to NSA 101. Your knee-jerk rhetoric betrays your liberal disguise.

You forgot to mention the part about being "in a post 9/11 world." Oh, I see -- it's now a "violent and deeply fractured world." Nice try whoever you are, but your agenda here is clearly not as simple as you'd have one believe.

Welcome to DU (If you're an unpaid shill for the spooks let me know & I'll redact that line from this post.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #40)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 01:00 PM

41. The hypocrisy that I see isn't the same that you see.

 

The hypocrisy is having an expectation to enjoy a safe and secure America without A STRONG SECURITY APARATUS while such things exist as Chinese and Russian government sponsored hackers ATTACKING the US and its citizens, victims of war crimes who want to blow us up BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS PUSHING FOR WAR WAR WAR, MILLIONS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS WHO ARE ARMED TO THE TEETH, and Mexican drug gangs that have already killed thousands of people including U.S. federal agents etc etc etc.

You have to realize this isn't the America of yesterday when finding pedophiles meant years and years of undercover work. NOW YOU CAN FIND PEDOPHILES BY FOLLOWING THEIR INTERNET TRACKS. GOOD, our kids will be safer for it. Criminals and terrorists are using the internet to commit crimes! Shouldn't the internet be utilized to CATCH THESE CRIMINALS? If you don't think so I don't think we are ever going to agree on anything!

If you "didn't notice" the hypocrisy exposed in post #22 you are either incapable of rational thought, a myopic ideologue, both, and/or a paid shill for the PTB.


Explain the hypocrisy to me? WHY SHOULDN'T OUR SECURITY APPARATUS HAVE TIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE. I want it to have ties to the white house. IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR IT NOT TO HAVE TIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE! Obama is our President, I want him fully aware and connected to our SECURITY! That's part of his JOB!

Wow! That sounds like an introduction to NSA 101. Your knee-jerk rhetoric betrays your liberal disguise.

You forgot to mention the part about being "in a post 9/11 world." Oh, I see -- it's now a "violent and deeply fractured world." Nice try whoever you are, but your agenda here is clearly not as simple as you'd have one believe.


Knee-jerk rhetoric? Post 9-11 world? We are in a post 9-11 world. THERE ARE A LOTTTTTTTTTTTT OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN TO SEE OUR COUNTRY COLLAPSE INTO UTTER CHAOS.

I love my country! I love my President, but I'm not an idealist. I'm a realist. ITS A REALITY THAT TERRORISTS ARE USING THE INTERNET TO RECRUIT INSIDE AMERICA. I would rather have the NSA catch my uber libertarian, Government hating, liberal hating, HOMOSEXUAL hating neigbor BEFORE HE BLOWS UP A SCHOOL OR A WELFARE OFFICE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 01:38 PM

42. In other words...

...you're willing to give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.

Also, the hypocrisy in post #22 lies in the fact that Obama did precisely what he said he would not do. That is inarguable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:17 PM

43. Essential liberty? I don't know what liberty I'm giving up?

 

I mean I'm an anti-war activist, I'm super liberal(Semi-collectivist), I speak out against atrocities committed by our government against foreign nations yet I don't feel that my activities, my activism is being limited nor my rights, but you do and that bothers me. If you agree that we need security, and I'm sure you do, do you think there's a way this can be accomplished without you feeling like your liberties are being violated?

I'm seriously not a shill, I can't believe that someone thinks I might be a shill. I mean Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti are heroes of mine .

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease do not for one second believe that I don't wish the NSA, the FBI, and the DEA were unnecessary. I wish that so much! But we aren't there yet, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 05:45 PM

44. Can we agree that our spooks should obey the law?

???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #44)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 07:02 PM

45. I definitely agree.The laws need to be followed, by EVERYONE.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #45)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 07:53 PM

46. Well now I'm confused.

I don't mean to play gotcha here, but you just completely contradicted yourself.

You say, "The laws need to be followed, by EVERYONE."

I'm sure you don't mean to be duplicitous, but earlier you said, "I want to be protected, and I understand that there may be a need to bypass the constitution to make sure I remain safe."

The constitution is the law. You can't have it both ways, so which statement do you stand by?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #46)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:00 PM

47. It can be amended, and the constitution allows

 

For leeway if there is a direct threat to our government or the people, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 09:52 PM

54. Bypassing the Constitution is not the same as amending it, furthermore when every President

takes the oath of office they don't swear to defend the American People, they swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

From you post #8



I want to be protected, and I understand that there may be a need to bypass the constitution to make sure I remain safe. It's that simple, I hate it but I recognize it's necessity.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”



The reason they swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" is simple, a nation's citizens are far safer when they're governed under the rule of law, not the rule of men or women for that matter.

History is littered with countless crackpot dictators and tyrants abusing and murdering their own people in the name of protecting them against some imaginary enemy.

It's far too easy to demonize and persecute opposing political points of view when a nation isn't governed by the rule of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #54)

Sun Sep 29, 2013, 01:24 AM

55. We have the patriot act which has withstood the constitutional courts

 

therefore I'm lost as to your basic premise that Obama/NSA are violating the constitution.

Exactly how are the NSA's activities in violation of the constitution?


The reason they swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" is simple, a nation's citizens are far safer when they're governed under the rule of law, not the rule of men or women for that matter.

History is littered with countless crackpot dictators and tyrants abusing and murdering their own people in the name of protecting them against some imaginary enemy.

It's far too easy to demonize and persecute opposing political points of view when a nation isn't governed by the rule of law.


Unfortunately for the first 200 years, the constitution, while guaranteeing equal rights failed to protect freed slaves and their descendants. Obviously even with a constitution there is no guarantee that everyone is going to receive the same protections as everyone else.

History is littered with countless dictators who used AN IMAGINED ENEMY to isolate and murder certain portions of their population. THE UNITED STATES HAS REAL ENEMIES! Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Chinese and Russian hackers, RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN GUN NUTS etc are all very real VERY DANGEROUS THREATS. Yeah, there are FAR RIGHT WING LIBERTARIAN COOKS WHO CLAIM THAT ALL THESE ENEMIES ARE IMAGINED. These are the same stooges who claim that OBAMA PLANNED SANDY HOOK AS A FALSE FLAG ATTACK AND CLAIM THAT NAVY SEALS DIDN'T REALLY KILL OSAMA BIN LADEN!

WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK. THE PARANOIA MAY BE INFECTIOUS!
Alex Jones, one of the craziest of right wing cooks would have us believe that the government planned Sandy Hook in order to disarm Americans. Well, have American's been disarmed? NO.


I want to be protected, and I understand that there may be a need to bypass the constitution to make sure I remain safe. It's that simple, I hate it but I recognize it's necessity.


Imagine 10 years down the road. The American Economy is in what is undeniably a depression caused by A THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO CUT CUT CUT ALL SOCIAL/INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS. Chinese hackers attack our electricity grid. The east coast is black. Backup generators in hospitals are beginning to fail. The right wingers would have us believe that any effort to evacuate the citizenry, potentially with the help of Canadian or U.N. troops is an attempt to depopulate us by shipping us off to FEMA camps to be gassed. Right wing militias begin attacking U.N. convoys that are evacuating the elderly, sick and lame to more secure environments. It's a state of Emergency. Do you agree that the government has the right to suspend some constitutional rights in order to guarantee our safety? After all if order cannot be maintained there may very well be no constitution or country left over to protect!

A state of emergency is a governmental declaration which usually suspends a few normal functions of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alerts citizens to change their normal behaviors, or orders government agencies to implement emergency preparedness plans. It can also be used as a rationale for suspending rights and freedoms, even if those rights and freedoms are guaranteed under the constitution. A government would normally declare a state of emergency during a time of natural or man-made disaster, during a period of civil unrest, or following a declaration of war or situation of international or internal armed conflict. Justitium is its equivalent in Roman law.
In the United States, there are several methods for government response to emergency situations. A state governor or local mayor may declare a state of emergency within his or her jurisdiction. This is common at the state level in response to natural disasters.

The president of the United States, as head of the executive branch, has the authority to declare a federal state of emergency. The only emergency provisions in the U.S. Constitution are:[37] "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it[,]" a Section I grant of power giving Congress the sole authority to suspend the writ;[38] and an exemption from the privilege of a grand jury hearing for cases arising in the military when in service in a time of "public danger".

Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861 during the American Civil War by Abraham Lincoln in parts of Maryland and some midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to demands by generals to set up military courts to rein in "copperheads", those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps, and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War. It was decided in the Supreme Court case Ex parte Milligan 71 US 2 1866 that the suspension was unconstitutional because civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #55)

Sun Sep 29, 2013, 02:53 AM

56. I was responding to your assertion that they just bypass the Constitution.

You open up an entire Pandora's Box when you advocate that, using your logic if Obama or the Democrats can do it, then by all means, A THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO CUT CUT CUT ALL SOCIAL/INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS, would be fully justified in doing so as well.

In regards to Habeus Corpus, the United States is not even remotely facing a war or rebellion along the lines of the Civil War, we're not even in a state of emergency.

Having said that there is a Constitutional remedy for such a situation.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus

The United States inherited habeas corpus from the English common law. In England the writ was issued in the name of the monarch. When the original thirteen American colonies declared independence, and became a republic based on popular sovereignty, any person, in the name of the people, acquired authority to initiate such writs. The U.S. Constitution specifically includes the habeas procedure in the Suspension Clause (Clause 2), located in Article One, Section 9. This states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." Section 9 is under Article 1 which states, "legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States..."



The "Patriot Act" which came into being immediately after 9/11 by a Republican controlled Congress and George W. Bush has had its' own share of controversy.



The USA PATRIOT Act has generated a great deal of controversy since its enactment.

One prime example of a controversy of the Patriot Act is shown in the recent court case United States v. Antoine Jones. A nightclub owner was linked to a drug trafficking stash house via a law enforcement GPS tracking device attached to his car. It was placed there without a warrant, which caused a serious conviction obstacle for federal prosecutors in court. Through the years the case rose all the way to the United States Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned in favor of the defendant. The court found that increased monitoring of suspects caused by such legislation like the Patriot Act directly put the suspects' Constitutional rights in jeopardy.

(snip)

The USA PATRIOT Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF.[218] They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution",[219] and that it reduces the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in court—their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it."[219] They believe that this is bad because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ex parte, which means that the target of the order is not present when the order is issued.[219]

For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[44] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[220] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[221][222]


(snip)

In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his family,[224] Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, Judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[45][46]

Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticized by the EFF for infringement of freedom of association. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organization. They also used the example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train Hamas members how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach IRA members about international law, and peace workers being unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses.[225]



Regarding the secret FISA Court, did you know that John Roberts appointed all 11 members?

Now if you want to go down an imaginary road, imagine if you will that
10 years down the road. The American Economy is in what is undeniably a depression caused by A THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS THAT WANTS TO CUT CUT CUT ALL SOCIAL/INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
there is a major uproar by the American People and this
THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS
labels their primary political opposition to be "terrorists" or "enemies of the state" and uses the invasive Big Brother powers of the secretive NSA surveillance state to blackmail, ruin, harass, arrest and even kill the people opposed to the THOROUGHLY BOUGHT RIGHT WING CONGRESS' policies.

You will always have nutcases like the one you just posted and the U.S. will have its' share of foreign opponets and enemies, much of it due to our making, but a nation "Superpower" of over 300 million people should have enough courage and faith in their own institutions to not let the tail wag the dog.

The Constitution for better or worse is our preeminent institution.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #56)

Sun Sep 29, 2013, 03:14 AM

57. What. The congress is bought our soldiers would never

 

Last edited Sun Sep 29, 2013, 04:34 AM - Edit history (1)

follow an order to attack a domestic enemy that wasn't endangering the US. NOT THAT I BELIEVE FOR A SECOND THAT REPUBLICANS WILL EVER AGAIN GET A MAJORITY. They have destroyed their party with their actions these last few years.

The constitution is not our preeminent institution, consent is. If the people one day decide the second amendment goes ITS GONE. THE PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THE CONGRESS, NEXT ELECTION THEY ARE GONE. Even our liberal supreme court justices advise other nations not to mimic our constitution.
Similar to how i feel about the Bible, the constitution is not a holy work nor close to perfect or egalitarian. It couldn't protect women and black Americans for much of Americas existence, why hold it to such esteem? Its just paper full of ideas from a longggggggggggggg time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #57)

Sun Sep 29, 2013, 03:46 AM

58. The only people that lost faith in the Constitution were the slaveholders.

The didn't believe in the merit of their own argument, they were afraid of the 1st Amendment, so they left.

It isn't just soldiers, it's also the police, National Guard, professional mercenaries and private thugs figure in to the mix as well.

It doesn't even have to be an overt order.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

The Kent State shootings (also known as the May 4 massacre or the Kent State massacre)[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the U.S. city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. The guardsmen fired 67 rounds over a period of 13 seconds, killing four students and wounding nine others, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]

Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the Cambodian Campaign, which President Richard Nixon announced during a television address on April 30. Other students who were shot had been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.






Sometimes shit happens.

Furthermore as I stated they don't have to kill, they can arrest, harrass, ruin, blackmail, there are many tools in the bag.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[1] The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened fears of communist influence on American institutions and espionage by Soviet agents. Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries.

During the McCarthy era, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists or communist sympathizers and became the subject of aggressive investigations and questioning before government or private-industry panels, committees and agencies. The primary targets of such suspicions were government employees, those in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive or questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations or beliefs was often greatly exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and/or destruction of their careers; some even suffered imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts later overturned,[2] laws that would be declared unconstitutional,[3] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[4] or actionable,[5] or extra-legal procedures that would come into general disrepute.






The constitution is not our preeminent institution, consent is. If the people one day decide the second amendment goes ITS GONE. THE PEOPLE ARE SICK OF THE CONGRESS, NEXT ELECTION THEY ARE GONE. Even our liberal supreme court justices advise other nations not to mimic our constitution.

Similar to how i feel about the Bible, the constitution is not a holy work nor close to perfect or egalitarian. It couldn't protect women and black Americans for much of Americas existence, why hold it to such esteem? Its just paper full of ideas from a longggggggggggggg time ago.



To this I have several questions.

1. How many people?

2. What if the people are divided?

3. What if the people decide that the 1st and 4th Amendments are gone today as well, are they gone?

Don't make the mistake of writing off the Republicans too easily.

1. They will work to undermine the vote to maintain power.

2. They control or have sympathy from the vast majority of the corporate media.

3. They have most of the nation's wealth behind them.

4. Decisions like Citizens United will make sure the financial floodgates are open promoting issues the Republicans support and Democrats oppose.

5. 2014 and 2016 are a long time from now especially in regards to politics.

Even if the Republican Party were destroyed which is unlikely, they would simply rebrand under another name, keeping the same core beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #58)

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 12:17 AM

60. If they keep their "core beliefs" they might as well write their epitaph now.

 

The only people that lost faith in the Constitution were the slaveholders.
Actually there wasn't a popular movement to elevate the status of African Americans in early America. Most of the Norths and Englands issue with slavery had little to do with actual subjugation. English and Northern capitalist were concerned about their profits and ability to compete with the free labor of the south. Many movies, documentaries tout Abraham Lincoln as some sort of Humanitarian, unfortunately we can see from the speeches below, that isn't entirely accurate.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office. NOR TO INTERMARRY with white people and I will say in addition to this that THERE IS A PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WHITE AND BLACK RACES. Which I believe will FOREVER forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality and in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together. There must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am IN FAVOR OF HAVING THE SUPERIOR POSITION ASSIGNED TO THE WHITE RACES"

Speech on August 21, 1859 at Ottawa, IL:

"I hold that a Negro is not and NEVER OUGHT TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. I hold this government was made on the basis, by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity FOREVER and SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED BY WHITE MEN AND NONE OTHERS."

He said this to Negroes at Washington D.C. on August 14,1862:

"Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with white people on this broad continent not a single man of YOUR RACE IS MADE THE EQUAL OF A SINGLE MAN OF OURS. Go where you are treated the best. and THE BAN IS STILL UPON YOU…I cannot alter it if I would"


Sometimes shit happens.

Furthermore as I stated they don't have to kill, they can arrest, harass, ruin, blackmail, there are many tools in the bag.


Yes, and Kent state happened because of a conservative asshole who valued upholding the status quo over protecting life. The Constitution, being only a piece of paper, does not have the power of force to stop any of these atrocities. It is like any other piece of paper that can be easily ignored and disregarded when someone wishes to do so.


To this I have several questions.

1. How many people?

2. What if the people are divided?

3. What if the people decide that the 1st and 4th Amendments are gone today as well, are they gone?


Well it really depends. 1# Even if 80 percent of the country wishes to live under a different, more egalitarian set of principles, if the other 20% are radical libertarians with guns there is nothing to stop them, with the exception of presidential emergency powers that allow the president to put aside the constitution in order to restore order, from subjugating and massacring the 80% who wish(just for arguments sake) to be governed under the Declaration of Human Rights or some other Humanist principle.

2#I would absolutely love to see a referendum based system instituted on the national level. Unlike the way presidents are elected, the popular vote would be the sole vote that decides the outcome of the referendum.

3#I don't think the people would ever decide to fully abolish them. Rather it is likely that one day the people decide that the definition of free speech is different than what we think it is today. For instance today the KKK, Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren etc are protected by the 1st amendment and allowed to spread their hateful messages. Hopefully in the future people see this as not free speech, but hate speech and it would loose it's protection. Obviously most on this forum agree the messages of these men and groups are disgusting hate speech and have led to murders and violence here and abroad. In the future we might try to stop these men and groups, with the force of law, from influencing our children and propagating the hate that they are allowed to propagate today.
a Terkel on November 30, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Pastor Rick Warren The Ugandan parliament is currently considering an “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” under which any person “convicted of gay sex is liable to life imprisonment.” If that person is HIV positive or has sex with a minor or a person with a disability, he or she would be guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” and face the death penalty. The bill also proposes up to three years of imprisonment for anyone who “fails to report within 24 hours the identities of everyone they know who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, or who supports human rights for people who are.” The bill would even “apply to Ugandans who commit homosexual offenses, but who live overseas.” There are approximately 500,000 gay men and women living in Uganda.

The author of the bill is Ugandan Parliamentarian David Bahati, who organizes the Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and has been embraced by the far right in the United States. Journalist Jeff Sharlet, who has chronicled the secretive international fundamentalist Christian organization known as “The Family,” says that Bahati is “a core member” of the group, which has links to prominent U.S. politicians. In his book, Sharlet reveals the effects of some of The Family’s other work in Uganda (p. 328):

Uganda, which following the collapse of Siad Barre’s Somalia became the focus of the Family’s interests in the African Horn, has been the most tragic victim of their projection of American sexual anxieties. Following implementation of one of the continent’s only successful anti-AIDS program, President Yoweri Museveni, the Family’s key man in Africa, came under pressure from the United States to emphasize abstinence instead of condoms. … Meanwhile, Ugandan souls may be more “pure,” but their bodes are suffering; following the American intervention, the Ugandan AIDS rate, once dropping, nearly doubled.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/11/30/71429/warren-uganda/


Don't make the mistake of writing off the Republicans too easily.

1. They will work to undermine the vote to maintain power.

2. They control or have sympathy from the vast majority of the corporate media.

3. They have most of the nation's wealth behind them.

4. Decisions like Citizens United will make sure the financial floodgates are open promoting issues the Republicans support and Democrats oppose.

5. 2014 and 2016 are a long time from now especially in regards to politics.

Even if the Republican Party were destroyed which is unlikely, they would simply rebrand under another name, keeping the same core beliefs.


My brother is a Republican conservative. Recently he told me he believes "the people who CAN do more should, ya know the billionaire and millionaires", and I live in Pennsylvania lmao. The Republicans are dead, if I am wrong about this I will.................well I'll be disappointed lol. I don't think I am. Even my parents are disgusted with the pettiness of the Congress. I may have overestimated the result of their obstructiveness on the minds of Republicans, but, I am certain that going forward ,quickly or little by little, as our youth grow up Republicans won't be able to get into office if their campaign donations are coming from people their constituents know to be the ENEMY OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. I guess I'll just have to wait and see though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #60)

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 02:44 PM

61. Abolitionism was an "ideal" which had its' roots in the 16th century and was gaining strength

through out Europe, before it even spread to the Americas.

Starting with Spain's abolishing slavery in 1542, in the 17th century English Quakers and Evangelical Groups condemned slavery as being un-Christian, your home state of Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, France abolished slavery in 1794 before Napoleon reinstated it, after the Independence Wars, 1810-1822 slavery was abolished in most of Latin America, Great Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833, the French Colonies abolished it in 1842.

I never said Lincoln was an aboltionist in the truest sense of the world, his views evolved over time and no doubt strategic considerations came in to play as well, Lincoln's primary concern was keeping the Union together.

I said the slaveholders abandoned the Constitution and left the Union because they became fearful that via the 1st Amendment the ideals of abolitionism would spread to the Southern States as well, The slaveholders didn't truly believe in the merits of their own argument.

Ironically the 1st attempt at abolition came from slaveholder Thomas Jefferson and some of his peers.

Even in the upper South the ideal was taking root and this is what the slave holders feared most of all.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

The historian James M. McPherson defines an abolitionist "as one who before the Civil War had agitated for the immediate, unconditional, and total abolition of slavery in the United States." He does not include antislavery activists such as Abraham Lincoln or the Republican Party, which called for the gradual ending of slavery.[26]

The first attempts to end slavery in the British/American colonies came from Thomas Jefferson and some of his contemporaries. Jefferson included strong anti-slavery language in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, but other delegates took it out.[27] Benjamin Franklin was a leading member of the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, the first recognized organization for abolitionists in the United States.[28] Following the Revolutionary War, Northern states abolished slavery, beginning with the 1777 constitution of Vermont, followed by Pennsylvania's gradual emancipation act in 1780. Other states with more of an economic interest in slaves, such as New York and New Jersey, also passed gradual emancipation laws, but by 1804, all the northern states had abolished it. Some slaves continued in servitude for two more decades but most were freed.

Also in the postwar years, individual slaveholders, particularly in the Upper South, manumitted slaves, sometimes in their wills. Many noted they had been moved by the revolutionary ideals of the equality of men. The number of free blacks as a proportion of the black population increased from less than one percent to nearly ten percent from 1790 to 1810 in the Upper South as a result of these actions.

As President, on March 2, 1807, Jefferson signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves and it took effect in 1808, which was the earliest allowed under the Constitution. In 1820 he privately supported the Missouri Compromise, believing it would help to end slavery.[27][29] He left the anti-slavery struggle to younger men after that.[30]




Yes Nixon was an asshole, but do you honestly believe other assholes aren't going to come along in the future?

The message I was implying with Kent State is that government in one form or another can most certainly fire on its' own citizens as just one tool in the box along with other retaliatory measures.

A mass surveillance state as is being put in place now, makes those retaliatory measures; both overt and covert, all the easier to accomplish and get away with, while also increasing the damage potential.

Furthermore while I do believe a majority of the American People support gun control measures, I don't believe its' even close to 80% that support getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution is critical even if some people or government officials don't adhere to its' highest ideals or obey the rules as set forth, simply put it gives a framework for a nation to live by.

I'm all for the Declaration of Human Rights but if you're of the mindset to just trash the Constitution as being a piece of paper, what makes the Declaration of Human Rights any different?

Without a Constitution, a nation is ruled by whim and chaos with law having no basis.

As for my statement regarding the Republican Party's rebranding, if they believe exposing their core beliefs overtly to the masses would cause them loss, then it won't be advertized to the public.

They might even pretend to adopt more progressive or moderately liberal positions, warm and furry, like a puppy or kitty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #61)

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 07:26 PM

63. Jefferson was a very intelligent Humanist, Glad you mentioned him:)

 

Yes Nixon was an asshole, but do you honestly believe other assholes aren't going to come along in the future?

The message I was implying with Kent State is that government in one form or another can most certainly fire on its' own citizens as just one tool in the box along with other retaliatory measures.
Absolutely. And there will be other assholes, but with the internet today, it's very very very hard for them to hide their nefarious actions.

A mass surveillance state as is being put in place now, makes those retaliatory measures; both overt and covert, all the easier to accomplish and get away with, while also increasing the damage potential.

Furthermore while I do believe a majority of the American People support gun control measures, I don't believe its' even close to 80% that support getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.


There are various reasons I support extreme surveillance today.

1. We are experiencing a cultural decline, similar to what Rome went through. Its a very real possibility that people who support such movements proposed by Sovereign citizens, Ron Paul, Alex Jones, Michael Savage, Judge Napolitano etc will attempt a violent revolt. The message these groups are spreading are even beginning to taint the minds of Liberals, which really freaks me out big time.

2. Should republicans continue their obstructive terror tactics and attempts to dismantle the government, and Democrats do not grab them by the nuts, there is a very real chance of a military coup. I DON'T CARE IF THE LEADERS OF SUCH A COUP SAY THEY HAVE LIBERAL OR LIBERATING INTENTIONS, although the likelihood of that is very low, coups are always bloody, authoritarian with one groups more than any other receiving the blunt force of the attacks(creating scapegoats and genocide occurs more often during coups than not). Under no circumstance would I remain in this country should a coup take place, ABSOLUTELY NONE!

3. Ignorance and violence are sensationalized to such a degree there is no way to prevent this nastiness from influencing the youth. Desensitization and dissociation are very real, proven psychological syndromes. I don't care how much research shows video games are safe or violent movies have little effect on the sensitization. ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OF PROVEN RESEARCH INTO THESE PSYCHOLOGICAL PHENOMENONS IS CORPORATE SPONSORED RUBBISH, and should be taken with a grain of salt. If the imagery and games become more violent, so will the crime, and it will occur more often, and in more places. There is no denying that we are seeing this today, if this wasn't so WHY DOES THE MILITARY POUR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS INTO PUSHING VIOLENT GAMES INTO THE HANDS OF IMPRESSIONABLE YOUTH?

“We did a comprehensive review of every experimental study, reviewing 381 effects from studies involving 130,000 people, and results show that playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and physiological arousal,” says Brad Bushman, a psychologist at Ohio State University who is one of the best-known proponents of the idea that first-person shooters influence real-world violence.

To Bushman, video games aren’t likely to be the sole source of violence, but an amplifier. Indeed, if game-players, especially game-playing children, really do become more aggressive, Bushman is almost certainly right. It’s well known that aggressive children are more likely to become violent adults. Yet the studies that Bushman and colleagues cite tend not to answer a key question: Does game-induced aggressiveness persist? Does it become a hard-wired way of being in the world, or does it dissipate in a few minutes or hours?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/what-science-knows-about-video-games-and-violence/


There are also more formal offerings from the world's leading powers. America's Army, a free online simulator, was published by the US military in 2002 to aid recruitment. The British army launched their online game Start Thinking Soldier in 2009, to drive interest among 16- to 24-year-olds. Then in May last year, China's People's Liberation Army unveiled Glorious Revolution, a Call of Duty-style game for both military and domestic markets.

This is all in addition to numerous game-like training tools, from language apps through to tank-driving tutorials, which are used to educate recruits around the globe.

"For decades the military has been using video-game technology," says Nina Huntemann, associate professor of communication and journalism at Suffolk University in Boston and a computer games specialist. "Every branch of the US armed forces and many, many police departments are using retooled video games to train their personnel."

Like much of early computing, nascent digital gaming benefited from military spending. The prototype for the first home video games console, the 1972 Magnavox Odyssey, was developed by Sanders Associates, a US defence contractor. Meanwhile, pre-digital electronic flight simulators, for use in both military and civilian training, date back to at least the second world war.

Later, the games industry began to repay its debts. Many insiders note how instruments in British Challenger 2 tanks, introduced in 1994, look uncannily like the PlayStation's controllers, one of the most popular consoles of that year. Indeed, warfare's use of digital war games soared towards the end of the 20th century.

"By the late 1990s," says Nick Turse, an American journalist, historian and author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, "the [US] army was pouring tens of millions of dollars into a centre at the University of Southern California – the Institute of Creative Technologies – specifically to build partnerships with the gaming industry and Hollywood."

It's a toxic relationship in Turse's opinion, since gaming leads to a reliance on remote-controlled warfare, and this in turn makes combat more palatable.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/18/video-games-propaganda-tools-military


America is in for a rude awakening. There may not be 80% support now, but give it a few years and I guarantee there will be support exceeding this, and not just for gun control but for an outright gun ban. Once more people are scared to go about their normal lives, shopping, going to movies, fairs etc they will want to ameliorate that fear, and a gun ban will largely accomplish that.

I think you misunderstand my views and intentions as concerns the constitution. I do not support any forceful usurpation of constitutional rights. Rather, one day the people will find much of the enumerated rights unnecessary, and find others outrightly counter-productive.

"Politics was good a hundred years ago. Today, politicians have no ability to solve any problems because they are not students of behavior. They are not students of agriculture, oceanography, they know nothing about the factors that operate the world. So, they say things that people like to hear. And that gets them elected. Now scientists on the other hand are not concerned with public approval. What they do, even if everybody on earth believe the earth was flat, they would say: 'You're wrong, this is the evidence we have to support the fact that the earth is round' but they don't say: 'it's a little round and a little flat' - that's politicians." ~ Jacque Fresco

Whenever you make a law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," some jackass thinks that by making a law, you can control human behavior. Conditions that exist control human behavior, not the laws. ~ Jacque Fresco, TVP Teamspeak3 seminar, October 2nd 2011

"Crime is based upon need, making money. People sell drugs to make money. But if everybody is cared for, they don't sell drugs and if there's no money you can't sell drugs even if you wanted to. There'd be no such thing as gambling, prostitution, or selling out, or paying off a senator or a governor. There are no senators, there are no governors so you can't pay them off. If you take away the basis or the condition that generate abhorrent behavior, you don't have abhorrent behavior." ~ Jacque Fresco, TVP Teamspeak3 seminar, October 2nd 2011


Laws really don't do anything but allow you to punish people, essentially, because society is not filling their needs. Remove the need to commit crime, poverty, provide healthcare, resources, hunger etc. and you will not need laws.

Instead of setting a speed limit, make cars that drive themselves and aren't able to exceed the speed limit. Paraphrase from paradise or oblivion.



Please give it a watch, it is worth it. I really feel like I may be giving you the impression that I DESIRE an authoritarian government and a police state. No, I think both of these may be necessary to control the horror that results from a crumbling educational system,poverty, hunger, xenophobia etc. Honestly if the choice is between a surveillance states and anarchical chaos, I would choose a surveillance state. ITS NOT MY DESIRE, BUT IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO CONTAIN THE HORROR THAT CAPITALISM AND POVERTY ARE RELEASING UPON THE PLANET!

If you have the impression that this is what I desire, please read "The age of American Unreason" by Susan Jacoby. I hate HATE HATE WHAT has become of the America that corporatist republicans and their donors have given us, but I'm a realist, and I don't want to suffer under a revolution or coup. I can't, I refuse to. I will continue to support the right of our government to make sure they can digitally supervise the net for signs of radicalism and violent revolutionary ideologies, simultaneously I will flood every corner of the internet with the Humanist message, one of peace, unity and scientific ascension of mankind. I will do this because I feel that I have to, and I DON'T WANT ANY CHILD, ANY WOMEN OR MAN, TO EXPERIENCE THE HORRORS THAT I DID AS A CHILD. I know victimization breeds victimization, and i don't blame the victims OR THE VICTIMIZERS. Its human nature to repeat, and I have accepted that. It took me SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LONG TO TURN MY HATRED FOR ALPHA MALES INTO PITY. So this is where I am now, maybe my sentiment will change in the future, I don't know. But I have to say what I feel is true and in our best interest. I guess I feel that if you feel you can change things for the better YOU HAVE A DUTY TO SPREAD THAT MESSAGE. Not spreading the message I know to be true is tantamount to spreading a message of obstructiveness and hate AND I REFUSE TO DO THAT!

It's what occurs after this that I look forward to, not the now, but the results of the lessons we learn from the horrors we are seeing now. The fruition of those lessons will be a truly beautiful philosophy of peace and brotherly love.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #63)

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 11:43 PM

64. I agree with much of what you posted, however I see the U.S. and for that matter the world entering

a New Age of Enlightenment.



Absolutely. And there will be other assholes, but with the internet today, it's very very very hard for them to hide their nefarious actions.



The Internet; being a modern day Gutenberg's Press to the 10th power is the means to get there and it's' under attack from different directions whether it be a Big Brother form of surveillance, something that already has been and can be even more abused or the attempt by mega-corporations to eliminate Net Neutrality, they want to turn the Internet in to cable television.

The enlightened Founders recognized the power of free speech and make no mistake about it they had more than their fill of hate speech as well.

The Enlightenment had powerful forces working against it as well, that being the entrenched religious and political establishments of their day.

The Enlightened Ones believed as do I and many others that reason and logic can elevate humanity against those forces of hate.

That's why I view the building of a surveillance state to be in direct opposition to the highest ideals of the Constitution and the Enlightenment.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 05:34 AM

32. Most of Obama's appointees are Republicans and corporate lobbyists. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cprise (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 06:53 AM

34. BAh, He attempted to appoint leftists.............Republicans would only allow corporate stooges.

 

Kinda backfired though, cause ELIZABETH WARREN IS NOW A SENATOR!

Hell republicans admitted they didn't even want the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
That's what's happening this week in Congress, as House Republicans move to defang, declaw and de-energize a new agency created last year — over their unanimous opposition — to protect consumers.

For decades before the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumers were the orphans in a federal regime set up to regulate financial institutions. Anyone with a credit card might remember the consequences.

Banks were allowed to raise credit card interest rates on existing balances at any time for any reason. Regulators did nothing to stop it until 2008. Charging sky-high fees when a consumer missed a payment deadline even by a few minutes? Also fine with regulators. Explaining the rules in language so incomprehensible that a financial wizard would be hard-pressed to figure them out? Ditto.

The full list is much longer, including a major contribution to the ruinous financial crisis of 2008, which was triggered by outrageous mortgage lending practices that never should have been permitted. You might remember the lenders' TV commercials: No income? No assets? No problem.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-05-01-House-Republicans-threaten-new-consumer-protection-bureau_n.htm


Van Jones had to step down because Republicans threw a hissy fit. WHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

On Friday’s Morning Joe, panelist Van Jones argued that the Republican party as a whole — rather than simply the Tea Party movement — has undertaken a “bodies on the beach” strategy. Basically, he explained, “they” think that the more bodies there are lining the beach, the more likely people will be to “fire the lifeguard” — as in, the more likely Americans will be to vote Barack Obama out of office. The more Americans are in pain, he continued, the more they stand to gain.


The question you should be asking IS HOW THE MINORITY PARTY, A PARTY THAT HAS ADMITTED IT WANTS OBAMA TO FAIL(AMERICA TO FAIL) HAS SO MUCH FUCKING CONTROL OVER OUR GOVERNMENT?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hydra (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 1, 2013, 07:51 PM

65. Those are good questions

I don't know that you are ever going to get an answer.

The real answer, I think, is that they just don't want to have to get warrants. It doesn't fit in with their scheme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 04:05 AM

30. The NSA is the threat we are facing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:52 PM

50. You aren't concerned about radicalized armed Libertarians? Al quaeda?

 

Chinese and Russian hackers doing any number of terrible things like shutting down the electric grid? Screwing with our water supply?

Honestly it's really the radicalized armed Libertarians that scare me the most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to inch4progress (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:26 PM

48. Oh no, I'd feel so vulnerable if the NSA stopped!

 

Isn't it time to figure out that "terrorism" is the biggest protection racket ever perpetrated on the U.S. people? If there was a threat to show, they would have shown it. Their efforts in this regard are indicative. They give bullshit about threats they've supposedly prevented, and then it gets documented as bullshit, but the machine goes on anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:46 PM

49. I don't really believe that terrorism is a racket, uh, at least not a government fear scheme

 

Our history isn't exactly kosher. U.S. corporations and past administrations have done a number on the third world. Whether it was the Banana republics, the Cold War, or even some seriously nasty things such as the two things mentioned below............... We have made a lot of enemies. Some of their hatred towards us is justified, others not so much. simply put, I wouldn't want to get caught alone in a dark alley with the grown child of a DEAD IRAQI CITIZEN THAT RESULTED FROM BUSHES ILLEGAL WAR! Or a member of Al Quaeda! Would you feel safe in that scenario?

Sorry: US Apologizes for Syphilis and Gonorrhea Experiments on Guatemalans
On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered extensive apologies for actions taken by the U.S. Public Health Service.

"The sexually transmitted disease inoculation study conducted from 1946-1948 in Guatemala was clearly unethical," according to the joint statement from Clinton and Sebelius. "Although these events occurred more than 64 years ago, we are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all the individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices."

The apology was directed to Guatemala and to Hispanic residents of the United States, according to officials.

A telebriefing with Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and Arturo Valenzuela, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Affairs is expected around 11 a.m. ET.

The episode raises inevitable comparisons to the infamous Tuskegee experiment, the Alabama study where hundreds of African-American men were told they were being treated for syphilis, but in fact were denied treatment. That U.S. government study lasted from 1932 until press reports revealed it in 1972.


Or this..............

I thought only Stalinists were guilty of equating a person with their ideology. But in a brown red shift, the libertarian editor has gone full tilt into pure ideological venom:

There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the communists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Jim informed and he can report on my activities here at LR.

For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who voted for Obama to "fuck off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball mother fuckers." Wish me luck!


So there we have it: libertarianism is reverting to hate speech, and hate speech is the precursor of hate crimes. I always thought there was something Pre-Hobbesian about an ideology which reduces everything to a binary authority/liberty axis, and makes the state the only threat to individuals.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/08/1159134/-Has-Libertarianism-become-the-refuge-of-illiberal-violent-authoritarian-xenophobes


As a democratic collectivist I find the last one to be particularly troubling. I hear people equate my ideology, and even less dramatic ideologies such as democratic-Socialism or even guided capitalism as equal to the ideology of hitler, and I hear this often. Hitler was a terrible man who deserved to die, I know that and they know that, so if thats how they see me do they think I also deserve to die? THESE PEOPLE ARE ARMED, SOME OF THEM WITH AUTOMATIC WEAPONS SOME WITH MILITARY STYLE SNIPER RIFLES!!! THIS SCARES THE SHIT OUT OF ME.

So yeah, I'd certainly feel more vulnerable if there was no security apparatus. HELL I DON'T EVEN FEEL COMFORTABLE TALKING ABOUT MY POLITICAL BELIEFS IN PUBLIC!

In America no one should feel that way! EVER!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 09:24 PM

52. Thank you.

That's the best description I've heard of the terrorist boogie man ploy -- a "protection Racket." That nails it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:33 PM

4. 'The NSA only found out about the misconduct after the employee confessed'

There ya go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:42 PM

7. I'm sure the stalker had permission from FISA court.

We, the People been assured that its all covered by warrant, and there are checks and balances to stop any abuses.

My hair is on fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 04:07 AM

31. Yeah, real super sleuths, these guys, LOL

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #4)

Mon Sep 30, 2013, 03:55 PM

62. that's the crux of it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Fri Sep 27, 2013, 11:39 PM

5. The NSA is a blight to citizen's security.

I didnt give any little NSA contractees permission to "monitor" my communications.
I don't know any one who has.

Shut it down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:43 AM

17. Your tax dollars at work.

 

Against you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:43 AM

18. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Indi Guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:27 AM

25. Gotta wonder...

...how big the iceberg is beneath this tip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #25)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 09:27 PM

53. That's a good question.

I suspect it's big enough to sink the Fourth Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 12:58 AM

21. they only report abuses by EMPLOYEES of NSA here

What about the contractors??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 09:45 AM

37. Good catch.

Yeah, what about the contractors. Ironically, we can see by Snowden's freedom to act against the NSA's wishes that there's little supervision in that hen house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 02:32 AM

26. Our heroes!

Go get those Arabs...who treat women so poorly!

Aren't these people dreamy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 06:46 AM

33. Well, I do believe this sentence needs to be repeated for the lie it is:

General Keith Alexander said abuse of the NSA's powerful monitoring tools were 'with very rare exception' unintentional mistakes. As opposed to intentional mistakes, perhaps?

Shut it down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tavalon (Reply #33)

Sun Sep 29, 2013, 03:58 PM

59. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW!...

I'm tired of hearing about mistakes made by the spooks. The spy agencies should be held at to, at the bare minimum, the standard we all must abide by.

If we claim we didn't know the law when we broke it -- we're held just as accountable as if we'd flagrantly and willfully thumbed our noses at the authorities.

The hypocrisy is here is viscous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:14 AM

35. I remember reports of 'email hackings' of our top Gov. officials. Are some of these 1000s of NSA...

employees working for other persons, Corps, political parties, Countries as spies?

Here we have an employee going through emails on a personal agenda.

On the minimum any employee went rogue should be charged with a serious Federal crime. That includes the security company that used fraud. management too.

All employees should be checked somehow for spies and extra income.

The entire NSA should be shut down right away. Kept closed for years, maybe forever while this corruption is investigated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 09:51 AM

38. ..this is probably a tiny fraction of what's going on.....

Snowden was right; given a phone number or name or IP address, he could spy on anyone undetected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 10:45 AM

39. There goes the "If you're not doing anything wrong" argument.

For people not doing anything wrong, this kind of abuse is the kind they should be concerned about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Sat Sep 28, 2013, 08:54 PM

51. Is it any surprise that scum who manipulate politics, manipulate their own relationships?

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"

Liars, cheats and scoundrels.

Bad people, through and through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread