NSA's Trailblazer...

[MyndFyre]

Well okay if it's fair to say that, than it's by far more fair to say you cannot trust political leaders to thier word, you couldn't with Clinton, Nixon and many others, and you know that for goodness sake it is an educated pre-disposistion.

No.  I have never taken a political science class in which the professor has encouraged me to base an analysis in fact determined as the opposite of what a leader has said.  It is reckless and irresponsible.

Nor do I simply take a politician at his or her word.  I do, however, give them the benefit of the doubt, when they are in high offices (such as Senate or President), until they give me reason to believe otherwise.  Sometimes this is incompetent policy, but that doesn't necessarily direct me to distrust what they say; disagree is not the same as distrust.

Perhaps it is unfettered optimism that I have that there are good men and women who are trying to be or who are in power (I believe AZ Senator Kyl and Congressmen Hayworth are two such men, for instance; Condi Rice is another), but that is simply an optimistic and hopeful opinion.

[GameSnake]

I guess your signature rains true than (both ways).

Well okay if it's fair to say that, than it's by far more fair to say you cannot trust political leaders to thier word, you couldn't with Clinton, Nixon and many others, and you know that for goodness sake it is an educated pre-disposistion.

No.  I have never taken a political science class in which the professor has encouraged me to base an analysis in fact determined as the opposite of what a leader has said.  It is reckless and irresponsible.

Nor do I simply take a politician at his or her word.  I do, however, give them the benefit of the doubt, when they are in high offices (such as Senate or President), until they give me reason to believe otherwise.  Sometimes this is incompetent policy, but that doesn't necessarily direct me to distrust what they say; disagree is not the same as distrust.

Perhaps it is unfettered optimism that I have that there are good men and women who are trying to be or who are in power (I believe AZ Senator Kyl and Congressmen Hayworth are two such men, for instance; Condi Rice is another), but that is simply an optimistic and hopeful opinion.

[iago]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

Can't the government use this to suppress freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought?  What happens if you give a speech about how everybody should rise up and overthrow the Government of the USA (which is a perfectly valid scenario; in fact, it's how your government was FORMED) -- would you still not need your privacy from the government? 

It was determined to be illegal to secede from the US in the 1865 following the Civil War -- which was the real reason it was fought.

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?  I'm rather curious, I always assumed that your country supported (and was based on) the idea that, if the government sucked/was corrupt, you get rid of them. 

How can they use it to suppress freedom of speech? You have to understand that the NSA does not have teams of staffers sorting through your emails; it's done electronically, in most cases.

It can very easily be used that way.  Change the word "Al Quada" to "George Bush sucks", then start making people who say "George Bush sucks" silently disappear.  It can happen, the technology exists to do it, and apparently it's acceptable to spy on American citizens if they have a good reason.  All you need now is a president who's willing to take it to the next level, and you can't tell me that it's impossible to have a president like that. 

[GameSnake]

Oh shit the scary stuff is coming true.. So, uhh.. like, iago.. whats a hot field of work in Canada at the moment?

[igimo1]

It can very easily be used that way.  Change the word "Al Quada" to "George Bush sucks", then start making people who say "George Bush sucks" silently disappear.  It can happen, the technology exists to do it, and apparently it's acceptable to spy on American citizens if they have a good reason.  All you need now is a president who's willing to take it to the next level, and you can't tell me that it's impossible to have a president like that. 

If you recall, the US federal gov't is comprised of three branches - no one branch has total control. If Bush were to be found to have done this, he'd probably be impeached and jailed. The 'next level', as you call it, would violate the Constitution. Americans tend to be very protective of their base rights, and making people who disagree with the government disappear is more or less unconstitutional. Also, I don't believe Bush is that sort of person - he's demonstrated that he's willing to break a few laws here and there, but they've always been in the interest of the US.

[GameSnake]

he'd probably be impeached and jailed.

[/quote]I don't believe Bush is that sort of person - he's demonstrated that he's willing to break a few laws here and there[/quote]
LMAO

[iago]

If you recall, the US federal gov't is comprised of three branches - no one branch has total control. If Bush were to be found to have done this, he'd probably be impeached and jailed. The 'next level', as you call it, would violate the Constitution. Americans tend to be very protective of their base rights, and making people who disagree with the government disappear is more or less unconstitutional. Also, I don't believe Bush is that sort of person - he's demonstrated that he's willing to break a few laws here and there, but they've always been in the interest of the US.

A wiretap is a wiretap.  If they can do it to find terrorists, why can't they do it to find other groups of people?  Is it any less constitutional to use it for other reasons than terrorists?  I don't see the word "terrorist" in the constitution...

[igimo1]

What sort of people in particular? It's getting difficult to second-guess your posts, and it's not like he'd need wiretaps to find specific persons - the President has a lot of access.

[iago]

In the example I was using (sorry for going crazy and spanning it across 2 posts...), I was talking about the possibility of a president who changes the keywords that they are searching for from "Al Queda" to "<his name> sucks", then having anybody who says that silently rounded up and killed. 

Now, for the first part: it's been shown that the president (or somebody close, whatever) can order wiretaps on people if they suspect they are a threat to the country (currently, terrorists).  What if you had a president who decided that anybody who doesn't like him is a threat to the country?  Because there's no court order involved, he can get the wiretaps for it. 

For the second part, as you said, he has a lot of power.  I'm sure it would be possible to pull it off.  Or, if anything, have them arrested, tried, and hanged for being a traitor.  If they use propoganda properly (like with terrorists), people will think that the people being hanged are scum, non-human, etc. and won't care.  But that's neither here nor there. 

So what worries me about the wiretaps is that it's giving the president (not just the current one, ANY president) the excuse to remove freedom of speech/invoke 1984-style "thought police."

[igimo1]

In the example I was using (sorry for going crazy and spanning it across 2 posts...), I was talking about the possibility of a president who changes the keywords that they are searching for from "Al Queda" to "<his name> sucks", then having anybody who says that silently rounded up and killed. 

Now, for the first part: it's been shown that the president (or somebody close, whatever) can order wiretaps on people if they suspect they are a threat to the country (currently, terrorists).  What if you had a president who decided that anybody who doesn't like him is a threat to the country?  Because there's no court order involved, he can get the wiretaps for it. 

For the second part, as you said, he has a lot of power.  I'm sure it would be possible to pull it off.  Or, if anything, have them arrested, tried, and hanged for being a traitor.  If they use propoganda properly (like with terrorists), people will think that the people being hanged are scum, non-human, etc. and won't care.  But that's neither here nor there. 

So what worries me about the wiretaps is that it's giving the president (not just the current one, ANY president) the excuse to remove freedom of speech/invoke 1984-style "thought police."

'silently rounded up and killed', kind of extreme. If you've been paying attention to the news, there are investigations into the nature of the wiretaps, and it's nearly impossible to conceal something like you're suggesting completely. There ARE court orders involved in charging someone with treason, and even then, I've never seen a case (post-civil war) where the defendant ended up being hung or executed. Don't forget, us Americans are very zealous when it comes to issues like abortion and killing criminals. The wiretaps are VERY unlikely to bring about the removal of freedom of speech (which is entitled to everyone, even aliens in our territory).

Making up such ridiculous scenarios is lame, iago, even for the sake of debate.

[iago]

'silently rounded up and killed', kind of extreme. If you've been paying attention to the news, there are investigations into the nature of the wiretaps, and it's nearly impossible to conceal something like you're suggesting completely. There ARE court orders involved in charging someone with treason, and even then, I've never seen a case (post-civil war) where the defendant ended up being hung or executed. Don't forget, us Americans are very zealous when it comes to issues like abortion and killing criminals. The wiretaps are VERY unlikely to bring about the removal of freedom of speech (which is entitled to everyone, even aliens in our territory).

Making up such ridiculous scenarios is lame, iago, even for the sake of debate.

You're taking one minor part that I took to the extreme for the sake of making it interesting and using that against my whole argument.  As I said, it could be as small as a black mark on your record, or maybe they will incorporate a "secret police" that's in charge of taking care of the safety of your nation by locking up traitors.  Who knows how it can be implemented?  The point is, the president/government has been given the opportunity to spy on citizens without being penalized, as long as it's for the sake of, in his/their eyes, safety.  Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

Plus, if they really wanted to, do you realize how easily they could turn people against each other?  There have been studies done that, if you take a large group of people and single out a smaller group within them, no matter what reason you choose the smaller group, the bigger group will go along with hating them.  I remember in a documentary they had a large room and they started talking about how blue-eyed people are dumber, and everybody who didn't have blue eyes teamed up against them.  People will naturally turn against each other if they think it benefits them.  But again, that's neither here nor there.  What they DO to the people isn't the issue, it's the fact that they CAN do SOMETHING to them. 

[CrAz3D]

So what if they eavesdrop on you? If they find out that you haven't done anything wrong, they'll move on. You have nothing to hide unless you're in cohorts with terrorists, or plan on doing something illegal. Even if they specifically targeted Asian Americans because of a possibility we're in contact with terrorists, it wouldn't matter. Because why? Because I know that I'm innocent. The government is there to protect you and your rights, remember that.

Can't the government use this to suppress freedom of speech, and eventually freedom of thought?  What happens if you give a speech about how everybody should rise up and overthrow the Government of the USA (which is a perfectly valid scenario; in fact, it's how your government was FORMED) -- would you still not need your privacy from the government? 

It was determined to be illegal to secede from the US in the 1865 following the Civil War -- which was the real reason it was fought.

Do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?  I'm rather curious, I always assumed that your country supported (and was based on) the idea that, if the government sucked/was corrupt, you get rid of them. 

If the government sucks, then you change it.
I believe that secession was 'illegal' because there were no grounds for it. 
"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . ."
You'd have to decide whether or not the government was really being destructive in a manner so that the South would 'have' to secede.

[iago]

"whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, . . ."

Ok, so my original thought was correct.  I wasn't talking about succession, I was talking about overthrowing it.  So, what if a lot of people want to do that, and the president/government considers that to be enough of a threat that they get phonetaps and use that to track the people?  It seems that that situation is extremely close to the terrorist situation currently. 

[igimo1]

Secession is so unlikely in the post-Civil War era.

You're taking one minor part that I took to the extreme for the sake of making it interesting and using that against my whole argument.  As I said, it could be as small as a black mark on your record, or maybe they will incorporate a "secret police" that's in charge of taking care of the safety of your nation by locking up traitors.  Who knows how it can be implemented?  The point is, the president/government has been given the opportunity to spy on citizens without being penalized, as long as it's for the sake of, in his/their eyes, safety.  Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

There would have to be some grounds for being a traitor, and traitors usually generate publicity. If you noticed, the President/gov't has to do it spy on citizens under specific laws, notably the Patriot Act.

Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

What a joke. He's not in office long enough to do anything serious enough - and spying on citizens and quietly murdering them tends to be a long term thing.

Plus, if they really wanted to, do you realize how easily they could turn people against each other?  There have been studies done that, if you take a large group of people and single out a smaller group within them, no matter what reason you choose the smaller group, the bigger group will go along with hating them.  I remember in a documentary they had a large room and they started talking about how blue-eyed people are dumber, and everybody who didn't have blue eyes teamed up against them.  People will naturally turn against each other if they think it benefits them.  But again, that's neither here nor there.  What they DO to the people isn't the issue, it's the fact that they CAN do SOMETHING to them.

Where the fuck do you come up with this kind of stuff? We're not exactly brainless morons following the alpha male. We're not a secluded society, anymore; something like that is pretty unlikely to happen.

[iago]

Who knows what a corrupt president might do?

What a joke. He's not in office long enough to do anything serious enough - and spying on citizens and quietly murdering them tends to be a long term thing.

What makes you say that?  Politicians don't get to where they are by being transparent.  It is a distinct possibility that it could happen, and the entire basis for your government/constitution is the possibility that the government CAN become corrupt.  That's why they are NOT supposed to have the power to spy on citizens without a court order because of the POSSIBILITY that they aren't acting in your best interest. 

Where the fuck do you come up with this kind of stuff? We're not exactly brainless morons following the alpha male. We're not a secluded society, anymore; something like that is pretty unlikely to happen.

Sorry to say it, but modern people are very gullable.  As one example (there are many), whenever I even MENTION the idea that terrorists might be real people who think and care and love their family and are smart, people scoff at me.  People have been so brainwashed to think of terrorists as monsters that they can't even admit to the possibility that they might be rational human beings. 

Actually, that's a lot like the Romans.  They always assumed that the Barbarians were irrational, didn't learn, and they didn't even consider Barbarians to be real people.  There was plenty of propoganda supporting that in the first century BC.  Then in 9AD, the Barbarians led 3 Roman legions into an ambush, killing over 20,000 roman troops.  And do you know why?  Because the Romans totally underestimated the intelligence of the Barbarians, and assumed that they knew everything about them.  Do Americans feel the same way about terrorists?  Is the spying that your government is doing a false comfort?  Do you think they're really so dumb that they wouldn't encrypt all of their communications?  Again, that's way off topic, but it's a thought I just had

The point is: politics is like computer security.  You have to always think in the worst case, "If this [program|law] gets abused, what is the worst thing that can happen?"  In the case of the wire-tapping, the worst case seems to be the loss of the freedom of speech.