Can we all agree that we need spies?

[last1standing]

Can we all agree that we need spies but that there need to be clear and Constitutionally legal limits to who they can spy on and how they can do it?

Can we all agree that these programs started long before Obama won the White House but that they are still going on?

Can we all agree that whether a Democrat or Republican holds office, we still need to have safeguards against abuses?

And can we all agree that slinging insults at each other and posting snide OPs doesn't convince anyone that we're right, only that we've run out of ideas?

[99th_Monkey]

1. I "rec-d" this not because I think we need spies, but we DO need a national reassessment

and a coherent national discussion and review, to determine a course of action that actually
REDUCES TERRORISM (rather than constantly creating ever more terrorists) thereby making US
citizens way safer, while at the same time does not chip away at our supposedly "inalienable"
rights.

[think]

2. Well put /nt

[last1standing]

4. Thanks for the rec.

And while we obviously disagree on the need for spies, I would agree that I'd prefer a world without them.

[whatchamacallit]

3. We don't need spies spying on *us*

I know where you're trying to go with this, but that dog won't hunt.

[last1standing]

6. I thought I was pretty clear where I was going.

We need security but that security has to be balanced to respect our liberties. I hope that's what you got out of it.

[99th_Monkey]

12. I'm concerned that we are DEvolving into a sad state

Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 12:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Where increasingly, there are only TWO kinds of peeps:

1) "THEM" ... all the loyal professionals, overt and covert hirelings with very big guns, prisons, armies, etc. who get paid trillion$ of our tax dollars to monitor, control, administer, jail, servile, and if necessary to detain, torture or kill US citizens at will ... basically whatever is needed to keep the charade going ... This "THEM" also of course includes those who happen to be very wealthy with the "right connections", so they rarely pay any of the taxes themselves, that buys the weapons & spys and armies and such....

V.

2) "US" .... i.e. everyone else, meaning you and me? ... all us Joe & Jane Blows who work our whole lives to gain a little financial traction, send kids to school, etc. ... who have dreams, hopes and mostly honorable ambitions ... It couldn't be clearer that 99% of us are being handed a steaming pile of shit (from behind The Curtain) and being told to call it an acceptable "future".

[whatchamacallit]

14. I think we're there :/

[99th_Monkey]

15. Hedges agrees.

I saw him speak in Portland recently, and he said as much.

However, he also said that he doesn't regard this sad fact as a reason
to "give up" or cease Occupy-like mass resistance to the creeping tyranny
that keeps growing up around us, like nasty weeds.

[last1standing]

16. I agree with you.

I just wrote something similar in another thread where I focused on the fear the poor have of the system as it works today. We have become a society in which being poor is a crime. Seriously, there is no chance of getting through the day without breaking some law if you're homeless. In fact, many areas make it a crime to not be able to afford a home. It's a crime if you can't afford to pay the taxes on a home if you do have one. It's a crime to refuse to leave your home when the bailiffs come to kick you out for not paying those taxes.

We have devolved into that sad state. Many people I know literally freak out when seeing a cop pull up even when they're doing nothing wrong. If the cop decides they have, it's rare that anyone will stand up against them. In fact, that's a crime as well. It's a crime to try to stop a cop from hitting you when you've done nothing wrong. It's a crime to try to get away from a cop who is hitting you when you've done nothing wrong. This is not how life is supposed to be in this country.

[99th_Monkey]

33. "This is not how life is supposed to be in this country"

Aye-men to that. But I guess the "good news" is that everybody knows

There is actually some comfort in just knowing that everybody knows. Now if we can somehow manage
to collectively & effectively co-conspire to awaking ourselves, to the truths that we know in our blood &
in our bones, in time to turn it all around.

There are many forces in play, on many different levels, in this global drama we're dreaming up for
ourselves, many that we have little or no knowledge of at all. But what we DO know in our blood and
bones more than makes up for that, as it's our guide.

[L0oniX]

27. Atlas Shrugged III

[Arctic Dave]

5. Should we let all our spies out of prison?

Or is this one of those, "only we should do it because we are so much awesomer then everyone else but if someone else does it's bad" post?

[last1standing]

7. It's neither and I'm not sure how you got that out of the OP.

I'm really not trying to be subtle here.

[Arctic Dave]

9. If spies are needed then why is the goverment pissed about people leaking information.

Seems that we should just say, "oh well, it's a necessary evil, no biggie".

You can't have it both ways.

[last1standing]

11. I disagree with that.

I believe we need spies because other countries have spies. We need to know what they're doing. Would I prefer that none of us had spies. Yes. Do I think that's even remotely feasible? No. Because other countries do have, and will continue to have, spies, we need them as well.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't be restricted by check and balances and it doesn't mean those restrictions should be no more than rubber stamps that effectively serve no purpose. We need strong laws restricting any search and seizure of US citizens, whether on US soil or elsewhere, that forces the agency wanting the warrant to present factual information of why they believe the specific person (note not persons) should be searched, for how long, and by what means.

It isn't a question of having it both ways, it's about establishing a necessary program but ensuring it has clear limits to its authority based on law and Constitutional limits.

[Just Saying]

8. Yes X 4 n/t

[truebluegreen]

10. No.

[last1standing]

13. Ok. Thanks for your opinion.

[truebluegreen]

22. Sure.

[The Straight Story]

17. Here is the thing about spies to keep in mind

You spy in a foreign country and get caught, you get arrested at best.

You spy on us, and you get more funding.

[last1standing]

18. Agreed. Sad, isn't it?

That's why we need fundamental changes in our laws and policy. We need to stop that very thing.

[bluedigger]

19. This is DU; we could argue that water is wet.

[markpkessinger]

34. Hey, now . . .

. . . Everybody KNOWS that ONLY a paid GOP troll would EVER assert that water is wet. Don't think for one minute, buster, that we don't have your number!

[Scurrilous]

20. "I only regret that I have but 4 laptops of classified information to give for my country."

[pinboy3niner]

21. In some places that's worth a Hero medal with four laptop clusters

[quinnox]

23. No. But I would agree we need more spy thrillers starring Angelie Jolie

[hunter]

24. Fuck the spy business...

C.I.A. Vaccine Ruse May Have Harmed the War on Polio

By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: July 9, 2012

Did the killing of Osama bin Laden have an unintended victim: the global drive to eradicate polio?

In Pakistan, where polio has never been eliminated, the C.I.A.’s decision to send a vaccination team into the Bin Laden compound to gather information and DNA samples clearly hurt the national polio drive. The question is: How badly?

After the ruse by Dr. Shakil Afridi was revealed by a British newspaper a year ago, angry villagers, especially in the lawless tribal areas on the Afghan border, chased off legitimate vaccinators, accusing them of being spies.

And then, late last month, Taliban commanders in two districts banned polio vaccination teams, saying they could not operate until the United States ended its drone strikes. One cited Dr. Afridi, who is serving a 33-year sentence imposed by a tribal court, as an example of how the C.I.A. could use the campaign to cover espionage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/health/cia-vaccine-ruse-in-pakistan-may-have-harmed-polio-fight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

We don't need spies, we need open channels of communication and trust.

We need a free an uninhibited press.

We need to stop fucking over the rest of the world for natural resources and cheap labor.

Secrets and spying are always corrosive. Them that need to steal or conceal "secrets" have already lost the game.

[marions ghost]

25. People who work for the NSA

who design & implement these programs to spy on Americans (and innocent people all over the world we find out)--is this an honorable occupation? It seems like being an accomplice in a very sleazy activity.

I just wonder how anyone can justify this? The NSA is totally out of control and should be cut back severely IMO. It is a disaster.

So no, we do not need anywhere near this level of spying and monitoring of every communication.

[leveymg]

30. $200K/yr buys NSA a guy with a High School diploma, but not much company loyalty these days.

Not a good Return on our $80 billion investment in NSA and its contractors, I'm afraid.

[marions ghost]

35. They want to hire those who have no problem with

spying on the American people. So you have to pay for that ability to "look the other way." It doesn't come cheap.

I'm sure that after this, that ability will be cultivated and continue to be rewarded.

Not an honorable way to make a living. Dishonorable pays well.

[L0oniX]

26. Hoover reaches out from the grave to agree. n/t

[moondust]

28. I'm sure spying used to be a lot easier.

Back when it was just nation-states keeping tabs on each other; before cell phones were cheap and ubiquitous and terrorist organizations could easily get their messages out and travel to "enemy" lands or find converts there to blend in with the native population until attack day arrives.

Threats can come from individuals now, not just nation-states. Weapons available to individuals can do a lot of damage. I don't envy anybody charged with preventing serious attacks that could come at any time from almost anyplace.

Much of today's massive spying infrastructure has largely been built up since 9/11 at a time when privacy concerns were not at the top of the agenda. The safeguards probably need a comprehensive review and reconfiguration now that there are significant protections in place and the ongoing issues are better understood. The panic has passed.

[kickysnana]

29. You mean the kind that gave Ben Laden $50M in a hosp in Kuwait 6 mos before 911?

You mean the kind that hounded the girl W got pregnant at age 19 and led to his Dad securing an illegal abortion who they hounded until she "commited suicide"?

You mean the ones that killed all the biologists shortly before and after the anthrax attack?

You mean the ones who killed Kelly in England?

Do you mean the one who recruited the people who killed Pakistani President Bhutto?

Selling hackable voting machines and illegal weapons to countries or the American gas that Hussein used on the Kurds? School of the Americas training for assassination and genocide?

Do you mean the kind that murdered the daughter of a Judge who was working on a case against the government whose files were stored in the Murrah Building in OK? Or the ones who recruited the Murrah building bombers?

What exactly do you mean by spies?

[eomer]

31. Perhaps we do need spies but we haven't got any.

The spies that our money pays for are not ours, do not work on our behalf. In fact, to them we the people are the enemy.

[Narkos]

32. According to some DUers apparently not

[TeeYiYi]

36. Can't we rent 'em when we need 'em? ...

Do they have to live in our houses, under our beds...?

TYY

[Autumn]

37. There is a difference between say a spy like Valerie Plame and

a program like the NSA has, that collects data on every American. A big difference. Yes I agree, Bush started the program, however Obama has continued it. Yes we need safeguards against abuse but IMO it's better to end the program because it's a violation of our rights. No we should not insult each other. Reasonable people can disagree. i have made up my mind about it, I'm against it. No one can change my mind.

[LWolf]

38. No.

I can agree with all the rest. I started to agree that we "need" spies, but then realized I was making an assumption that you meant spies to spy on other nations.

I can categorically state that we do not need to spy on our own citizens.

Then I considered again. Do we really need to spy on the rest of the world? What does that say about our national character? That we are untrustworthy, that we lack principles and integrity...

I understand the issues of national security. I understand wanting to know what's going on in the world, to analyze and respond.

I don't have a need to control the rest of the world, though. I don't need to make the rest of the world agree with me or to make them act like me.

I think I would rather focus the defense of the nation on actually "defending" the nation, rather than on maneuvering for power positions or "pre-emptive" defense.

That means I'll defend against an attack. Do I need to spy to do so? I'm conflicted.

I might not be able to make the best defense if I don't have the best information. I'd rather be conservative, though, about gathering intelligence: restricting myself to what's available to me through principled channels.