General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGet One Thing Clear: NSA Domestic Spy Op Is FASCISM
Secret police, spying on everyone.
Know who said what to whom.
Operate under secret laws, in secret and unaccountable.
Wars without end make them ever more powerful.
Their banksters hide trillions in loot offshore,
We don't even know all their names.
So we can't talk about them.
And they hold the most wealth and power ever wielded.
And no one voted them in.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)But we know this, when everything is secret we have a right to be suspicious of all of it.
'Just trust us, it's for your security' doesn't cut it in a democracy.
Secret courts, secret warrants, secret trials, secret trade deals. What kind of democracy needs this much secrecy?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Corporations are un-democratic instruments for concentrating wealth.
Untaxed and unregulated they maintain the feudal system.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107041/WikiLeaks-releases-stolen-files-Shadow-CIA-buys-state-secrets-cash-Swiss-bank.html
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have seen so many posts using inaccurate/incorrect definitions of political terms (that have been accepted, then repeated) that I just reacted .... I should have been more circumspect in my post (above).
I was attempting to indicate that Domestic Spying can be/has been/is a TOOL of facsism; but, it is not facsist, in and of itself ... just like lynching is not racist.
That said, although we disagree on many, many aspects of this issue ... I agree here: the Domestic Spy program could be a huge step towards the establishment/furtherance of a facsist regimen.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Not over-the-top claims about how government sucks. Just reasoned arguments.
Thank you!!!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)not under direct attack in a major war, was not associated with fascism?
This kind of spying on metadata is rather new, but it provides an incredible amount of information about individuals and social networks when analyzed by our current computers.
Why would any country that wasn't fascist want that kind of information about so many of its citizens?
I'm asking this. I'm not trying to put you down.
I haven't thought of any countries that weren't fascist but that spent this much time and money and effort on surveillance of law-abiding citizens. But maybe there are some.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)But I don't think their tentacles stretched as far and wide as do the USA's.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that is very likely to happen.
So the government gets all this information. What are they going to do with it to justify the cost of the equipment and people who collect it?
They have to find or even invent reasons to keep doing it.
It becomes an addiction of a small group in the government who get to decide who will be placed under surveillance.
We need security, but we do not need this kind of surveillance.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)China, N. Korea, Russia, most of the Middle Eastern Dictatorships, etc.
I think you confuse "Facsism" with "Dictatorship" ... each have very specific meanings.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But yes I meant totalitarian state. Even dictatorship is, I suppose, the wrong word if we want to be picky, because some of those countries have constitutions that set up fairly democratic institutions or institutions that they present as being democratic.
So, yes, I used the wrong word. Can you think of any country that put in place this kind of comprehensive surveillance or collection of metadata and, in some instances, more that did not turn into or that was not to begin with a totalitarian state?
I can't think of one. Israel may be doing this. But it would be the only functioning democracy with it. I don't know that Israel is doing it, but it could be.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)those nations that utilize these systems are totalitarian states, or are arguably headed towards one.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The abstract information we have been given is too difficult to apply to reality.
Americans are very naive with regard to the dangers of this kind of surveillance.
Which is kind of funny when you think of the teenagers who are very resentful if their own parents snoop on their stuff.
I never did that. Spying on my kids was always repugnant to me. They were on the honor system. It worked. At one point I inadvertently found something in one of my daughter's things, but she knew that I was not looking for something I would disapprove of.
My children have left their diaries and other personal papers in my house for years, and I have no desire to peek. I just do not believe in invading the privacy of others in that way. It is really a horrible violation of the other's personality in my feeling.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Pretty clear.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
delrem
(9,688 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Well ... maybe you should define how you define facsism.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”
What Mussolini said and what Bertram Gross said also play into what fascism has become.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I think most people understand that action based on the conditions. I have always thought one of the qualities of fascism is rigid absolutism. Of course the left sometimes meets right when it comes to those qualities.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)FDR is the worst president ever, that the 4th Amendment can be interpreted many different ways.. I have learned that every Liberal writer, Amy Goodman eg, every Liberal Organization (the ACLU eg) and any Liberal Rep who doesn't support the Surveillance State are 'just a bunch of rat-fuckers'. Ari Fleischer and Cheney, and all the old Bush loyalists are now the ones who 'get it'.
It's amazing. On the bright side, the desperation to protect Bush policies that is evident by the sheer stupidity of some of the talking points, is a good sign. It shows the top 1% is worried, as they should be. Too many Whistle Blowers have come forward since these egregious Bush policies first began to emerge and there will be more, as good American citizens learn what their government is up to.
'If the American people knew how they are using the law, they would be very angry' - Ron Wyden
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)To other human beings. The difference is, from most liberals, he is given the benefit of the doubt. Obama? Not so much.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Just the first substantial response to the google query "fdr opposition"
http://david-sullivan.blogspot.com/2007/09/opposition-to-fdr-and-new-deal.html
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)was opposition to the New Deal back then. We know that much of it came from the political right, but also from the political left. I'm referring to how FDR is revered by modern day liberals who conveniently forget how FDR's policies were deemed as not liberal enough. I'm also referring specifically do his actions against Japanese Americans. Too many liberals TODAY excuse or forget about FDR's mistakes. When New Deal policies took effect and we started to see the negative impacts of the Great Depression decline, FDR listened to too many Republicans who pushed him to consider austerity measures. He did and doing do put this country back into a recession. So too has this president listened too much to Republican ideas and through we've done a little better, it's not good enough because we need MORE public works programs, not MORE austerity. (I work for the Federal Government, so I see it first hand; Department of Transportation getting funds cut for repair and renovation projects, for example.)
Obama could learn a valuable lesson from FDR, who despite his shortcomings, I STILL consider the best president this country has ever had.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Please.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)However we have the benefit of hindsight and know it was wrong. We also know we can count on government to take similarly wrong actions in times of stress.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)When it comes to FDR's policies- yes. When it comes to reacting to a condition where terrorists have access to and use technology to recruit and plan individual attacks with no state sponsor, we do not have the benefit of hindsight.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I can't make you drink.
I see the similarities and conclude we are doing the wrong things, you see the differences and conclude what we are doing is justified.
I refuse to live my life in fear. I refuse to jettison a free society over fear.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)I see logic in what they are doing. I have not seen a factual assessment backed by neutral evidence. The hyperbole has dominated a discussion we do need to have.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)There was logic in FDR's decisions about the Japanese interment. Courage? Not as much.
I submit that defending the NSA, CIA and other TLAs (Three Letter Agencies) operating in secret is not courageous. That they operate in secret is not hyperbole.
I also submit that there is no neutral evidence, which is why a lack of knowledge of secret operations allows things to be spun. Which is why things like attacking a messenger works to suppress or discredit evidence.
During Iran Contra, the vast majority of citizens would have said that the CIA selling crack to inner city dealers was total woo. Again, we have hindsight.
Why should I believe these agencies have changed their contempt for civilian oversight and the rule of law? Hindsight (along with recent evidence from witnesses and actions) tells me differently. It also tells me the likelihood of those at the helm will be held responsible is small until there is is a major sea change.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)fact that anyone ever fell for this propaganda that has so enriched so many criminals, is simply stunning.
44, 000 Americans have died each year since 9/11 because they couldn't afford the HC they needed to stay alive. If you think our government is worried about our safety and well-being while refusing to do what was necessary to keep those half a million Americans alive, I have swamp land to sell you.
More Americans die at the hands of other Americans, than any terrorist could dream of, again, if our government gave a rats ass about the people of this country, this would not be the case.
More Americans die on the road each year than any terrorist could dream of, so to be more afraid of a terror attack where the odds are about equal to winning the Lottery, is simply stunningly stupid.
I could go on, but what's the point. Some people are easily influenced by what they perceive as authority figures and it is they who are used to foment fear and hatred to justify the trillions of dollars wasted on 'fighting terror' when if we spent that money on Americans, the country would be far, far safer, stop killing other people's children and they won't have a reason to hate anyone.
But it isn't about terror, it's about MONEY! Big Money! And that is why they won't stop until we the people make them stop, then prosecute them which should have happened long ago.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)that we are not likely to get hit by a terrorist attack because of some of the national security measures that have been taken over the past 10 years?
I am well aware of the health care problems in this country.
I am willing to try to look at things from the point of view of policy makers because they are not going away. My personal opinions matter, but when dealing with very liberal representatives in a red state I learned that there is only so much they can do. Pretending they have the power to erase the conservative voters who help them get elected doesn't make it so.
It's great to be idealistic. I took that my way or the highway stance a few years ago. Then I started to realize that there are people who disagree with me and that they count. Seeing other people's points of view wouldn't destroy my values. And that getting only some of what I want is not the end of the world.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I mean, it would be a bit hypocritical of you to take advantage of a program that was created by "the man responsible for Japanese internment camps."
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)If you reread, maybe you will see that I was trying to explain that awareness of different historical contexts make it possible for me to understand political choices I don't like.
delrem
(9,688 posts)That's not correct.
Many people understand that action to be product of racism.
These were Japanese Americans, or rather, American citizens with Japanese ethnic roots.
There were no internment camps for "Germans", or rather, American citizens with German ethnic roots. Part of the "conditions" that you mention was a weird skin-color method of differentiation that continues today, and which makes internment camps for people of one skin color more "understandable" than internment camps for people of another skin color. When I say "continues today" I mean, for example, that I don't think GITMO would exist if the people "interned" were of a white/anglo or white/euro "color".
There may not have been camps for Germans, but many were barred from entering this country because of immigration restrictions. There was a mass fear of immigration that went far beyond what is happening now because it was based on eugenics. The effort was intended to ban any race other than white, religions other than Christianity, and people with disabilities from reproducing in the American gene pool. The goal was to build the Nordic superior race. Some were not welcome, but many Germans were more welcome than others at the time. What was happening was sick, misguided and copied by NAzi Germany.
There have been ugly times and disgusting policies in this country. Comprehending the justifications is not the same as agreeing with them. Paying attention is instructive. I agree with you about GITMO.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We are still voting. Our courts are operating. It was our own voted in representatives who passed FISA, in order to put checks on the President, who previously had no checks on his spying whatsoever.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I know you won't, but give Sheldon Wolin's "Democracy Incorporated" a read.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)to also note by way of support for your post here that we still have a nominal multi-party state and that Bush voluntarily relinquished power in January 2009. I think one-party dictatorship is part of the core of what constitutes fascism (along with the mobilization of mass support for same), so I have to agree with you here. I will be noting my disagreement with the OP on this at the end of this thread also.
If we had a truly fascist state, we here at DU would be the first ones rounded up for the camps, of that I am certain, and all our bickering about Snowden, Greenwald, Obama, et. al, would be like so many farts in the whirlwind.
Civilization2
(649 posts)It seems you are confusing a dictatorship with fascism. When the government is controlled and run by private corporate wealth, as we now have, then we have a fascist state. When we lose democracy to a mediated farce where lobbyists run the show and every four years they put up with the changing of the PR faces, while the will of the people goes unfulfilled, we have a fascist state.
Government without the consent of the governed is illegitimate., secrecy in government is always a bad thing.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)Now we can debate whether contemporary America matches Paxton's definition and, if so, how closely, but Mussolini's maxim that "
F)ascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power" should not and simply cannot be the last word on this matter.Civilization2
(649 posts)Paxton provides one definition, one that suited his needs, hardly definitive.
The point is not to argue semantics; the rise of Corporate-Military/Surveillance-State power OVER Democracy is the issue.
Your saying that "Bush voluntarily relinquished power" misses the point, as the power no longer resides with the PR face of the fascist state. Clearly, if you look to any public opinion poles, you know that the actions of the govt. over the last 40 years has move farther and farther away from the will of the people. The interests of the 1% wealth hoarders is what is reflected in the actions of the government in opposition to the will of the people.
Government without the CONSENT of the governed is illegitimate. Secrecy in government is always a bad thing.
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)"no longer resides with the PR face of the fascist state."
So you clearly think, based on that comment, that we already inhabit a 'fascist state.'
Fair enough, but history suggests that were your conclusion true and you to post such a notion, you'd be whisked off to the camps forthwith (as would I for similar reasons).
Look, I think we both agree that there are serious problems. I refuse (as I think you do also) to play Pollyanna simply because the current occupant of the White House has a 'D' after his or her name. I think the problem is the excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of a very small number of people. Since I argue that political power derives from wealth to a significant extent, breaking up said concentrations of wealth should have the salutary effect of providing comfort to democracy itself.
Civilization2
(649 posts)no real opposition will rise up, as there are so many levels of oppression already build into the system they control. Yes the rise of the Corporate-Military State has been going on for some time;
Dwight D. Eisenhower exit speech on Jan.17,1961.
Warning us of the military industrial complex
Yes I do agree, the concentrations of wealth/power are the key to the problem, balance needs to be reinstated.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)arguments like, "FDR slept with a mistress, so this definition of fascism is therefore automatically wrong!" The old character assassination strawman that the corporatists use here on a daily basis because they have no real supportable arguments.
They will also be denying that our government is controlled by wealthy private interests.
They might as well be telling us the earth is flat at the same time.
randome
(34,845 posts)It's just wrapped around the biggest bowling ball you ever saw!
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Octafish
(55,745 posts)He's about the biggest pro-corporate globalization ass around, a real menace to democracy.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3538166
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)You must first flatten the earth, otherwise the maths are too gnarly.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
blackspade
(10,056 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)define the definition of fascism?
you know what they say about opinions.
-p
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Not every body makes the connection but I am fully aware of what fascism is, thank you.
-p
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)Sorry your not specific cause you know what you know that's for sure. 
To bad ya'll like to generalize everything.
-p
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)ProSense?
'Cause you write posts the same way she does.
snot
(10,529 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Maybe they use the same stylebook.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Skittles
(153,160 posts)1SBM is not nearly as by-the-rules as is the Pro
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Skittles
(153,160 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Okay.
But that said ... I have a lot of respect for the information that Prosense puts out there; she/he puts a proposition out there and supports it with verifiable information (links) ... rarely, have I seen him/her engage in non-factual exchanges.
I know that is not popular around here ... but I kind of prefer facts to emotional back and forths.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)you get the feeling if Obama cooked a puppy on live TV Prosense would have a link saying why it had been necessary and why it's just not such a bad thing
randome
(34,845 posts)Don't respond if you find someone too abhorrent to you. It's pretty simple.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Skittles
(153,160 posts)take your own f***ing advice, PLEASE
delrem
(9,688 posts)Well, lets get real! What if reports from WH insiders speaking anonymously because they weren't authorized said the dish was in fact mouth wateringly tasty? What if, because the meal was classified, the anonymous leakers were targeted by the NSA? What if, convicted by secret proof in secret courts according as secret laws, the leakers were interned with all the other "terrorists", the key thrown away? What's the probability, in those circumstances, of a WH cookbook being forthcoming?
Skittles
(153,160 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)This place is really going around a bend. 
WHILE I HAVE GREAT RESPECT FOR PROSENSE ... WE ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE ... though we tend to agree on many things.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)"The merger of corporate and state power".
We appear to now have a version with added qualities from Orwell and The Stasi.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)By the time the Wall fell in 1989, one out of every four people in east Germany was spying on the rest of the East Germans. And of course, just being an East German actor, actress, painter, writer, journalist or any other form of creative person ensured you got spied on.
Meanwhile the infra structure in East Germany suffered tremednously, while in West Germany, where public monies were spent on education, and infra structure, so the economy in W Germany was booming.
I am pretty confident that those who approve of the Surveillance and Totalitarian State are business people and not creative types. For instance, Wozniak, the more creative side of Jobs/Wozniak, recently commented that the USA now resembles the old Soviet Union.
Of course, given what happens to an economy when most of the money goes into Totalitarian spying and massive court systems to imprison people, the economy becomes wretched for everyone but those like Di Feinstein who have contracts to implement the spying!
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The MIC must be fed.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...and owned. For instance, Carlyle Group is a real moneymaker off war and inside information, seeing how they own Booz Hamilton.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3493251&mesg_id=3497283
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)the money. Note that Carlysle Group's main principle is vulture capitalism. Then look at the "emergency manager" legislation and see that it's the same thing. The very rich are eating the country out from under us, literally!
(The americanfreepress link has expired and the original article is apparently only mirrored on two DU-unfriendly sites, that I could find a quick scan.)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)
sibelian
(7,804 posts)
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)Thx
snot
(10,529 posts)Truth is power in Democracy.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
siligut
(12,272 posts)All your pic are belong to us.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)
[font size="1"]Baron de Rothschild and Prescott Bush, share a moment and some information, back in the day.[/font size]
Thank you for the heads-up on Getty Images! The so-and-sos who also own Booz Allen of NSA fame will be scrubbing day and night. These are the cursed interesting times. Whatever happened to that inheritance tax thing anyway? Did it become just another anachronism, like the Constitution?
siligut
(12,272 posts)Can't let the people freely share information and bypass their carefully crafted media machine.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)Just another Republican who Obama loves so much.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)who could have predicted that so many in the cabinet was a bad idea?!?!
Heck it worked in 1860's?!?! for a republican president.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)--if I recall correctly--rivals from within his own party.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)We didn't go to such extremes during the cold war. Of course the apologists would disagree.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Possibly because there were no personal computers back then.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)It was a lot more time consuming to get paper data than it is today. Data today is stored and collated in microseconds.
And no, I do not believe that any governmental agency tried to collect info on EVERYONE during WWII. I am not an expert on that time, though.
But until someone shows evidence that the NSA is doing this, I don't see the need to light my hair on fire.
And personally I could not care less if someone has my metadata in storage somewhere. It doesn't even register on my radar any more than it does to know that T-Mobile, my provider, has that info.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Keep in mind that during the Cold War there were elements within our government who wanted to turn the United States into a Right Wing Dictatorship much as they were doing throughout Central and South America.
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Not ONE reporter dared ask him what the smirking warmonger meant by that telling remark. Not. One.
Video of him saying it on Valentine's Day, 2007:
I remember Cindy Sheehan tried to bring it to our nation's attention.
The media silence speaks volumes about the state of journalism, much to the shame of real journalists and all who appreciate the First Amendment. The silence of the presstitutes also speaks encyclopaedias about the pure evil occupying the "minds" of the liars who run the United States government as their own, private Mafia. That Bush and his Have-More cronies make a killing from war must go unstated. Those who know this and let it stand are just as corrupt.
* Seeing how that branch of the Bush family has never won federal office fair and square, cough Ayatollah, shows how far down the fascist road we as a nation have travelled.
johnnyreb
(915 posts)That OP is already well behind us-- Eyes FORward!
http://www.artvilla.com/madgerman/Audio/Citizens%20Prayer.mp3
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The poet spells out precisely what used to make our nation different, before the warmongering BFEE overlords returned it to the age of the Robber Baron:
We once all were free to pursue happiness, under law. Today, we gotta trust the secret holders to let us in on the action.
Going by who the never-ending-war on terror serves, we see it's the same warmonger set who got us into Vietnam in 1954 and just about every place since.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Octa I strongly recommend that you and anyone else interested in the surveillance issue read stevenleser's excellent NSA piece for some essential background and analysis. It's posted in the BOG and I just kicked it up but here's the direct link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110210510
Having just read I have to say that it provides an infinitely deeper understanding of the FISA issue than any of the Greenwald or Snowden defenses posted here. Just a suggestion! 
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)he was not at all enthused about FISA and other elements of the totalitarian state, back in 2007.
Don't know what happened to him - he sure became rather Nixonian in just six years:
treestar
(82,383 posts)They will keep ignoring it. It doesn't fit their narrative.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)I don't know why he does that, if he just doesn't get it or if he has some other more sinister motive, but he sure does not address any of my concerns. He avoids most of them, and the single concern of mine that he does address he gets it completely wrong.
From stevenleser's piece:
This is just plain wrong. It is contrary to the facts. It's a falsehood.
No one has been able to sue in court over the collection of metadata because no one has ever had legal standing. To have standing one must show that their data is being collected and that they're somehow harmed by that. Lower court cases that were won on these grounds have been repeatedly vacated in the appeals courts because, since the program is so secret, no one can prove that they have standing, i.e. that they have personally been spied on.
Greenwald published an actual FISA warrant that proves that Verizon customers have legal standing.
Let me repeat that: Greenwald published an actual FISA warrant, the ACLU immediately filed a lawsuit based on the fact that the warrant gives legal standing to Verizon customers, and this is new evidence, and by evidence I mean something that will be used in a court of law to make some claims.
I cannot believe that anyone who takes this issue seriously could miss such an important fact.
By the way, this is way far down on the list of my personal concerns about the program, I only mention it because it is the one thing that stevenleser says that even remotely impacts the real issues here. The rest of what he says is all stuff I could care less about. A strawman.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sheesh. Did you even read it?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Like I said, it ignores facts, for one thing, and then it also raises concerns that nobody really has, or at least it raises concerns that I have never felt very strongly about while ignoring the ones that have my hair on fire.
There are three separate primary concerns, for sure:
First, what are the privacy/property issues associated with the warrants that are used to acquire metadata from the various corporations?
Second, what policy is in place to acquire the warrants required for the recording and listening to phone conversations/reading emails?
Third, what are all of these secret courts really up to?
So these first two would be my primary concerns, although there is no denying that secret courts are a rather scary artifact of past fascist states. Then there are, of course, all the additional questions of whether or not the laws regarding these programs are constitutional and whether or not they are even being followed. This part, the part about faithfully following the law has always been the case with all 4th Amendment issues, ever since the country was founded. Nothing at all new here and this seems to be the only thing that the stevenleser argument is focused on.
(An additional fourth important question does exists in my mind, which is the intellectual property issues that, to my knowledge, have never been addressed. The metadata is intellectual property that probably belongs to the corporations that collect it. It certainly has value so the government is exercising a taking without a jury trial. I just don’t understand how that squares with the Constitution because even under an imminent domain case, the right to a jury trial is inalienable. But let’s set aside the property issues for the rest of this essay.)
Apples
Let’s look at the individual warrants required to monitor individual communications. By this I mean the opening of recorded emails or the listening in on digitally recorded phone conversations.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the order of things. The analysts can look at anything in their database (which includes recordings of all our conversations and emails) with little or no oversight. I think it works something like this:
1) Yes, they do need a separate warrant in order to access content of individual phone calls/emails.
2) Yes, the analyst has legal authority to access content of individual phone calls/emails of anyone, on his own, without first getting a separate warrant.
These are consistent statements. The FISA law allows 72 hours after the fact to seek the warrant.
My understanding is that the analyst has legal access, on his own authority, once he has been verbally authorized by either the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence. I think the analyst only need fill out a form in order to take a peek at anything.
At least this is my current understanding of the law and the policy. These analysts, once verbally approved, might might be compared to the robosigners we found in the banking fraud.
There is one important difference; unlike the illegal robosigners for the banks, Congress, the Adminstration, and the Courts all seem to have made this process perfectly legal.
If you start to parse the Q&A information with this timeline in mind, it starts to reveal an amazing consistency. Many of the contradictory claims evaporate.
Oranges
The concern about metadata collection is completely new, and it has to do with the use of this information. Metadata is used to create the targets for a counterinsurgency operation. Sometimes (or according to research, in most cases) the most influential person in a social network (or insurgency) is not the most high profile or the most vocal individual in the group. With very large groups (OWS for example), this new technology identifies those individuals who's participation in the group is the most critical.
That, in a nutshell, is the purpose for which the metadata is being used. It should be obvious how this information can be used/misused to affect our first amendment freedoms, specifically our right to peaceably assemble. There are a couple of stories floating around today about how the MIC is targeting opponents of the keystone pipeline. This counterinsurgeny technology and training is being used against law-abiding citizens right here in America.
Because the algorithms being used are easily handled by computers, and because no errors are introduced by trying to decode or translate any communication content, the system can create a very precise mapping of our social networks. Only actual metadata associated with each communication is logged into the software, and from that the algorithms sort out the social connections.
Almost everything about this particular type of surveillance is new. The science behind the algorithms that are used and the computers that store and sift the data are new. The idea behind controlling the pubic is not new, however. It has been done before, and very effectively, even without this new weapon.
This all fits into the bigger picture of the subject of this OP. Remember that our country was founded by insurgents. Many, if not all of our heroes, would have been easily thwarted under this type of surveillance regime and folks have written about how Paul Revere could have been stopped.
For some basic info about how the science is implemented, google the keywords: thesis+insurgent+social+network
This use of the metadata to undermine our right to peaceably assemble seems to be the more dangerous issue. This is an unmistakable mark of tyranny. The eavesdropping, OTOH, can be used to disrupt/detain/dissuade/discredit a target. It is the scientific selection of targets which is what thwarts our (the ones who are trying to change things) ability to properly organize any resistance. This is serious. Without organization we have no idea at whom to aim our pitchforks.
Basically, we are racing toward future where you either support the 1% or else you are a terrorist. This path leads to fascism and the restoration of slavery. There is no doubt about it.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and squarely. Not to be snarky but you seem to be off in a league of your own, as is the OP and many agreeing with it. That's why I recommend that you read the piece and not just scan it for a claim you think you can disagree with, erroneously I might add.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Regarding my understanding of fascism and its impact on the current day, check out my NAZI thread:
Know your BFEE: Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection
Let me know if you want to get Mr. Black on the stevenleser radio show. He's a friend of a friend of mine's cousin.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)delrem
(9,688 posts)Yes, it passes through two 8-year administrations now (I presume Obama will continue this gawdawful thing to completion of his 2nd term, since there's nothing to suggest otherwise) so any kind of football team rah-rah-ism is misplaced. Both sides are cooperating to do the exact same thing.
Puts you, the common citizen of the USA, in a mighty strange place, don't you think? But larger than that, it puts the entire English speaking world in a strange place.
Speaking from outside the box, a better distinction than those occurring inside the box is between "regulation" and "definition". Something cannot be regulated if it isn't defined. Privacy in the digital age cannot be regulated until it's defined. The definition itself will determine those regulations which, in the first instance, are intended to ensure that Privacy as so defined exists.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)People forget that the Iran/Contra conspirators were all pardoned and are back to work.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The intelligence community has been out of control ever since. Now we don't even prosecute obvious Wall Street fraud.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)When I was young we had a manufacturing-based economy, now we have a fraud-based economy.
Bribery and fraud have both been found to be constitutional by the Roberts' Court.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)
for putting it that way. That is exactly what it is.
And if you're not in on it, you are definitely OUT.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)
snot
(10,529 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)For examples of fascist and NAZI influence on America:
Know your BFEE: Like a NAZI
What would the world look like if the NAZIs had won World War II?
Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich
A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission
Shocking news to 99-percent of America who have no clue about the history. Must be a big shock to a heck of a lot of DUers, too, going by what they write.
Thank you, snot. Words cannot express how much I appreciate you helping carry the load over the years.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)And this happened because she gave to civil rights causes. Although her support for the Black Panthers set off a smear campaign and possibly worse. Under the category: Nothing new under the sun . . .
"FBI COINTELPRO investigation
FBI inter-office memo: "... cause her embarrassment and cheapen her image"
FBI inter-office memo: "Usual precautions to avoid identification of the Bureau"
During the late 1960s, Seberg provided financial support to various groups supporting civil rights, such as the NAACP and Native American school groups such as the Mesquaki Bucks at the Tama settlement near her home town of Marshalltown, for whom she purchased US$500 worth of basketball uniforms. The FBI was upset about several gifts to the Black Panther Party, totalling US$10,500 (estimated) in contributions; these were noted among a list of other celebrities in FBI internal documents later released under FOIA. This financial support, and her alleged interracial love affairs or friendships were evident triggers to a large-scale FBI program deployment in her direction.[citation needed]
The FBI operation against Seberg used COINTELPRO program techniques to harass, intimidate, defame, and discredit Seberg.The FBI's stated goal was an unspecified "neutralization" of Seberg; all intended to be done while hiding FBI involvement. One stated FBI subsidiary objective was to "cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image with the public", while taking the "usual precautions to avoid identification of the Bureau".[19] FBI strategy and modalities can be found in FBI inter-office memos, since declassified and released to the public under FOIA.
In 1970, the FBI created the false story from a San Francisco-based informant, that the child Seberg was carrying was not fathered by her husband Romain Gary, but by a member of the Black Panther Party, Raymond Hewitt. The story was reported by gossip columnist Joyce Haber of The Los Angeles Times. The story was also printed by Newsweek magazine. Seberg went into premature labor and, on August 23, 1970, she gave birth to a 4 lb (1.8 kg) baby girl. The child died two days later. She held an open casket funeral in her hometown to allow reporters to see the infant's white skin, to disprove the rumors that the child's father was African American. Seberg and Romain later sued Newsweek for libel and defamation and asked for US$200,000 in damages. Seberg contended that she became so upset after reading the story, she went into premature labor which resulted in the death of her daughter. A Paris court ordered Newsweek to pay the couple US$10,800 in damages and also ordered Newsweek to print the judgement in their publication plus eight other newspapers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Seberg#FBI_COINTELPRO_investigation
Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)You did us a favor to mention her name. Unbearable tragedy. She was utterly unable to protect herself from this shocking persecution.
Thank you for your post.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)provoked it, or worse. Cinemoi is a relatively new movie channel offered with our package. They are showing a couple of her movies "Bonjour Tristesse" and "Lilith" these days. It got me curious and then came across the Wikipedia entry about the FBI files. Very troubling when you realize that some of this was under the watch of RFK, Jr. Espionage has been with us since our inception. How on eath are we going to remove something so innate to this country?
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,120 posts)Makes me all suspicious. It was there yesterday and earlier today. What if this very post is being read by the FBI because I typed in Jean Seberg suicide and FBI. Cinemoi also was pretty progressive.
Call to action found here: http://www.cinemoius.com/
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)There are exceptions, but they are few in number.
A great many of them sold us out.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)About "follow the money." Just as we "had to have" a cold war with the Soviet Union to prevent them from coming here and destroying us, so we spent some 31 trillions of dollars over the decades preparing against that threat, now it is the terrorists that are coming to get us. So hundreds of billions of dollars from the military budget are going into surveillance.
But if treason means giving aid to the enemy, and Snowden gave the info he had to We the people, (via the portal of the excellent publication,The Guardian"
and now he is considered a traitor, I guess we all are the enemy and the terrorists, aren't we?
Judi Lynn
(160,542 posts)each president is "defending" them more than even the last one, to raise the number of victims, to create a more terrifying image to would-be "enemies" in other countries, and to increase the threat from this country globally.
They don't seem to be seeking peace any longer, although it's long PAST time to start creating a peaceful world, peaceful environment, to show diplomacy is the superior way, and that we have evolved beyond cavemen's instincts, with advanced technology.
Was so impressed with Jimmy Carter's pursuit of peace, such as it was, became sickened and disheartened by Bill Clinton, and stunned, disappointed with our last President.
People have mentioned the great possibility that at some point Presidents might start fearing for the security of their loved ones if they don't play the power game, as in actually being held prisoner by deadly blackmail in the "highest" position in the country.
Whatever it is, things look bleak right now. We know we will never find a Republican willing to leave harming people in other countries, but we need people of character to start coming forward from the Democrats if we are to have any future at all. We don't want to live like scum. That's for the right-wing.
You're so right. We're losing the right to imagine voting will ever count for anything ever again. So sad, considering our country pompously claims to be protecting and advancing "democracy" all over the world, and that's why we have to kill off so many people. How twisted can we get?
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)...suggets otherwise.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Are we freely complaining? While NSA corporate contractors collect our every word? Do some of us not put restraint on our words and thoughts in order to prevent becoming targets of the FBI, NSA or CIA?
I suppose you consider complaining to be free speech. But free speech involves more than mere complaints. It involves actually having the ability to organize and petition for redress of wrongs. To actually expect a chance that those wrongs will be addressed.
I do not believe our founding fathers equated freely complaining about government or anything else, to be free speech.
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)
You can contact your elected representatives, work for candidates of your choice, even run for office yourself. I've been politically active for years; many of the candidates I've supported have ben elected. perhaps you've heard of aome of them? Barack Obama? Elizabeth Warren?
Do the Republicans try to make it difficult? Cheat sometimes? Sure; that the way electoral poliics has worked for about 2,500 years. Doesn't make it fascism.
As I've said before, I grew up in a dictatorship. I don't like words like "fascism" and "police state" thrown around lightly.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Right now.
Corporations dominate the government. Corporate interests are addressed at the expense of the citizen, the voter's interests are shunted aside.
The banks engaged in outright fraud but have never been held to account. The previous administration lied us into a war and engaged in torture-war crimes, but nothing was done.
What do you call a nationwide coordinated attack on Occupy? Sounds like a police state to me.
The illusion of freedom is being maintained but it is Fascism nonetheless.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You know there is nothing stopping you.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...plus advertising on Corporate McPravda is very expensive, a rich person's game.
What Frank Church said about NSA tech in 1976:
“That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.
I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capability that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3510598
Where's freedom when the government knows all about the citizenry, but the citizens know little of import about the government? Fallen off the face of the earth, looks like an abyss...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because of Church's findings that led to the FISA, which was supposed to put some brakes on the executive power of spying, which was unlimited before?
You know you can organize freely and rant on about this all you want in any media that will hear you or that you can create.
You can even say completely insane things and make ridiculous claims. Has anyone who posts in the DU CT theory group been arrested?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--so I would say you need to talk to some people who have.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How do you know? No, I would not be afraid to do it, having observed life for the past umpteen years. You are not in jail right now, are you?
Look at the accusations made publicly to the government, and it's pretty clear no one can be arrested for it or will be.
There are a lot of political activists out there saying all kinds of things and organizing all kinds of groups, some of them for the express purpose of complaining government is too big or does too much.
The NRA wouldn't be able to exist, abortion groups on either side, environmental groups - reality is right in front of you.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--and I suggest you talk to some of them. Face to face, not here on DU. You would have your beautiful mind blown.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You could talk about it right here on DU. Are you pretending to be afraid to "talk about it?"
You mean you can't tell us here what you've organized for and how the government stopped you?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)& who is willing to tell you some of their experience. It should be someone you have affinity with (eg. some topic you share concern about) and hopefully someone you can trust, no matter where you are on the political spectrum. This is not the place for it, mainly because you would never believe me no matter what I'd say. So if you want truth, go direct. But deal with truth, not assumptions.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)So, given my rudimentary understanding of the Internet, that's something in my favor.
The government's lies catapulted on the media were too much for me to take, even knowing that every key stroke I made was probably being recorded.
As for ridiculous claims, please feel free to show where I'm wrong, treestar. I'll happily apologize and correct the record.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that you believe is the government's attempt to persecute you for your postings in the Creative Speculation Forum? They are watching the posts there, really? So what are they doing to stop you from enlightening your fellow Americans?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I know several DUers who seem to work to get my posts sent there, as fewer DUers can see them. Is that what you mean?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Why is that?
As far as I know, ANYONE on DU can see that forum.
Why do you claim "fewer DUers can see them"?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Is there anything you post on my threads that doesn't need correction?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)You said "as fewer DUers can see them."
Again, what is preventing DUers from seeing posts in Creative Speculation?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But you have never live in one so you are quite clueless on that
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)Political suppression, travel bans, censored newspapers, control of key business through friends and cronies....
Still waiting to see the equivalence here.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Two weeks of he army in the streets, checkpoints in the state of Guerrero for agricultural goods (and guerrilla). But otherwise pretty normal, with the knowledge you still had elections, part of the scenery mind you, you still had a free press, that was stenography, with people who knew that the dictablanda could turn hard in an instant.
Criticism was allowed, even mass marches...but ll had to keep within an accepted area, or the riot police was let lose (think occupy that violated those limits).
We even are calling what we have turnkey tyranny.
The Philippines was a dictatorship.
As I said, no idea.
The limits of this one and the similarities...are incredible...the parallels are actually chilling. And that includes corruption, in fact, at the highest of levels it's equal or above...
It is part of it.
But nope, you have not lived in what I am talking about. It is discussed in poli sci journals from time to time though...if you want to research it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You admit the Philippines was a dictatorship at that time.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)American Air force Step father (who was the dumbest republican anyone met). We lived off base however, 8 foot concrete fence with broken glass embedded at the top. Caught the school bus at the corner of house where and armed Filipino patrol guard was stationed. I remember hearing gun fire sometimes at night trying to go to bed.
There were always elections where the opponent running against Marcus would die all of a sudden. After a while it was obvious.
But I thought the OP was talking about fascism which is completely different than a dictatorship.
-p
Phlem
(6,323 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It is insulting to someone like you for these idiots to be running around claiming they are victims of living in the "police state."
brooklynite
(94,572 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Fascism: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."
Its absurd to think anything like that is going on now.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benitomuss388775.html#hC4YR6bPxDCsmHCf.99
tomp
(9,512 posts)tell me you don't see the u.s. exalting itself over other nations; tell me you don't see power reduced to a power elite if not an individual (you don't think hitler was responsible to the industrial power elite of germany?); tell me you don't see bush/cheney as autocratic in nature (i mean, even hitler delegated power at some level); tell me you don't see severe class repression through economic (and other) means; as for forcible repression of the opposition one could look at jfk, the black panthers, and occupy as outstanding examples among multitudes.
what's absurd is that anyone doesn't see it. just because it doesn't look like historical precedents doesn't mean it's not the same thing. it means that fascism has learned a thing or two in the meantime--like how to fool people into thinking they're free.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)I feel more like someone is trying to fool me into thinking I'm not free.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Phew!
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)and I've read plenty for that word.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)nebenaube
(3,496 posts)eShirl
(18,492 posts)after they really get settled in...
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023132301#post23
Note to for real DUers: don't waste you time replying to this.
randome
(34,845 posts)And who talks about 'capabilities' instead of direct knowledge of anything.
Your other link eventually links to a program that appears to still fall under the NSA's jurisdiction. i.e. at least one communicant lies outside the United States.
There is still no evidence that some type of domestic spy operation is being undertaken.
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 30, 2013, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)
That's a DIRECT WITNESS, who BUILT THE DAMN PROGRAM HIMSELF!
Edit to add: Second link quote...
Russ Tice, the original NSA whistleblower, told Business Insider that in 2005 the NSA "didn't have the capability to go after every American's communications. There were three things they didn't have: the computer processing capability, the power grid — they didn't have enough electricity to go after everyone, and the biggest thing they didn't have was the storage capability."
Now they have those things in the form of the Titan supercomputer (processing capability), the expansion of NSA headquarters at Fort Meade (electricity), and the new Utah Data Center (storage.)
A source inside the NSA today confirmed to Tice that increased capabilities allow the spy agency to copy "every domestic communication in this country, word for word, content, every phone conversation, every email — they are collecting everything in bulk and putting it in databases."
And Binney recently told Zero Hedge that the government believes it can gather and use any information (including content) about American citizens living on U.S. soil if it comes from "any service provider … any third party … any commercial company – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies – holding data about anyone, any U.S. citizen or anyone else."
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-processed-1-trillion-pieces-of-data-2013-6#ixzz2XijEwVNc
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, after some of the laws they passed, like the PATRIOT Act and their secret interpretation of Section 215, which is—my view, of course, is same as Tom Drake’s, is that that gives them license to take all the commercially held data about us, which is exceedingly dangerous, because if you take that and put it into forms of graphing, which is building relationships or social networks for everybody, and then you watch it over time, you can build up knowledge about everyone in the country. And having that knowledge then allows them the ability to concoct all kinds of charges, if they want to target you. Like in my case, they fabricated several charges and attempted to indict us on them. Fortunately, we were able to produce evidence that would make them look very silly in court, so they didn’t do it. In fact, it was—I was basically assembling evidence of malicious prosecution, which was a countercharge to them. So...
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)extraordinary claim.
History of abuse is of anything like such systems is very high, if not 100% even in the US.
The burden of proof is on the secret state not the concerned citizen, the secret state is the one with all the proof and all the benefit and especially the profits of the programs.
The rationale for the program also stretches the ability to suspend disbelief in the asserted context. The story supposedly is "we are looking for patterns, when we get a hit we then get an individualized warrant and dig in, if a crime is committed then we can go and rewind the associated content from the pattern matching data, and terrorism is stopped or can face justice". I don't know why anyone would think this high dollar and easily perverted (if it doesn't start that way) system can plausibly benefit commiserate with the obvious risks, costs, and potential for breaches and external misuse due to scope with thousands of contractors and for profit entities.
This doesn't make a lot of sense and is gambling with very long odds on our future as a free society.
randome
(34,845 posts)I seriously doubt that contractors have access to personal data. I would expect the Intelligence Analysts to be federal employees, not contractors.
But we don't know and we should.
I agree it's the government's responsibility to allay our concerns.
But OPs like this one screaming 'Facism!' are so over-the-top, the debate eventually degenerates into 'Yes, it is!', 'No, it isn't!'
[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Gotta catch terrorists. They're like pokemon.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)Narkos
(1,185 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Secret police, spying on everyone.
Know who said what to whom.
Operate under secret laws, in secret and unaccountable.
Wars without end make them ever more powerful.
Their banksters hide trillions in loot offshore,
We don't even know all their names.
So we can't talk about them.
And they hold the most wealth and power ever wielded.
And no one voted them in.
PS: A few sources are at each link. I have more if you need details. You also can use the names and events mentioned in GOOGLE.
PPS: Almost forgot. So, Narkos, what do you have to back up your opinion?
Narkos
(1,185 posts)more suited to the black helicopter crowd. Paranoia. Those aren't facts...they are the exaggerations of an overheated mind
Octafish
(55,745 posts)No links, either, of course.
Narkos
(1,185 posts)I just can't you seriously. I think you belong over at Infowars.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's like we're the Israelites enslaved in Egypt, and you're complaining about the quality of the food.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)The 14 Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
Free Inquiry
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
http://rense.com/general37/fascism.htm
treestar
(82,383 posts)And it did look something like it, but in perspective, it was just a hint, not even close. There was lionizing of the military, but it was still subject to civil power. There was obsession with national security.
There has always been a disdain for the arts in the US, but that's a lack of interest, the government doesn't do things like the Nazis and Fascists did.
The Sexism of the type described does not exist. Republicans of the extreme type are just that - extreme. Nobody thinks Todd Akin's views are likely to be made into law.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=156112
What is being run right now is a vast experiment to see if modern technology has fixed these problems with surveillance and oppressive states. Is it cheap enough to go full Stasi, and with that level of surveillance can you keep control over the economy, keep the levers working, make people do what you want, and not all slack off and resist passively, by only going through the motions?
The oligarchs are betting that the technology has made that change. With the end of serious war between primary nations (enforced by nukes, among other things), with the creation of a transnational ruling class, and with the ability to scale surveillance, it may be possible to take and keep control indefinitely, and bypass the well understood problems of oligarchy and police and surveillance states.
moondust
(19,981 posts)Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away
We better stop, hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down
Stephen Stills/Buffalo Springfield, 1966
1966
Fascism, hair's on fire!! Fascism, hair's on fire!! Fascism, hair's on fire!! Fascism, hair's on fire!!
Demagogue much?
Let me know when this kind of thing starts happening here:
Saudi Arabia court jails seven Facebook cyber activists
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)that are equivalent. Just look at the RNC & DNC security activities for the last eight years.
moondust
(19,981 posts)Talk to the SCOTUS or somebody about "Free Speech Zones" if that's what you're referring to. It's not locking people up for their Internet activities.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)and it happened a week or so before each event.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Totally!
neverforget
(9,436 posts)another terrorist attack on 911 scale, all bets are off. The foundation is there though.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)You're correct that it is no longer a national elite but a global elite. It's a transnational elite of inherited wealth directing things and ordering the close scrutiny of everyone: allies no less than enemies, and the folks back home in the "Homeland" MOST OF ALL. There is still an outside chance that if the little people residing in the Imperial center realized what was being done to their futures and got fed up enough, they might somehow change things. It certainly won't happen through voting. That has to be nipped in the bud.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)
If you keep your head down, it won't swing its baton at your skull. Keep shopping, keep smiling and clap harder than the rest: you may get to keep your job and your credit rating and your family will be spared.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)Since I'm not foreign to my own government, I'm having a hard time getting all "Fascists are coming" because of the NSA.
I object to the NSA spying on me without a warrant, but I've seen no proof that they have.
I'm still trying to find any links to any story about any American citizen who has been jailed, is missing, has been re-educated because of NSA data. That must be because they are afraid to tell what they know because the spies will just come after them again or it could just be that the spying has nothing to do with fascism.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Among other things, it goes into how apparently people who receive National Security Letters are not allowed to say anything about them.
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)of the Bush administration and whether he ever did to the Obama administration. Wikipedia says he resigned in October of 2001, five congressional elections and three Presidential elections ago.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)leads to spying on everyone. Then you can easily weed out people who object to living in a corrupted society and you can continue your ruthless exploitation. Spying on everyone is fascism, totalitarianism. What a sense of power and entitlement these people must have.
Who wants to live in a country like this? A world like this?
Who wants to be dominated by a ruthless government?
We have no choice but to name it and try to stop it.
b.durruti
(102 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Won't they use our medical records against us?
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Through "private" companies.
It's really no difference though, since the conporations are running the country
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)Does Medicare use medical records against seniors?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)If I believe much of what I read here on DU.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Well, I guess you will be "disappeared" soon, eh?
A fascist government is certainly not going to let you point it out on the internet, are they?
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I'm trying to be considerate of your level of understanding, zappaman, otherwise I'd tell you to read more.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Sounds more like paranoia and utter confusion.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The power of truth-tellers like Edward Snowden is that they dispel a whole mythology carefully constructed by the corporate cinema, the corporate academy and the corporate media.
By John Pilger
AlterNet / June 21, 2013
In his book, Propaganda, published in 1928, Edward Bernays wrote: "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."
SNIP...
In the new American cyber-power, only the revolving doors have changed. The director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, was adviser to Condoleezza Rice, the former secretary of state in the Bush administration who lied that Saddam Hussein could attack the US with nuclear weapons. Cohen and Google’s executive chairman, Eric Schmidt – they met in the ruins of Iraq – have co-authored a book, The New Digital Age, endorsed as visionary by the former CIA director Michael Hayden and the war criminals Henry Kissinger and Tony Blair. The authors make no mention of the Prism spying program, revealed by Edward Snowden, that provides the NSA access to all of us who use Google.
SNIP...
When I showed my own film, The War on Democracy, to a major, liberally-minded US distributor, I was handed a laundry list of changes required, to "ensure the movie is acceptable". His memorable sop to me was: "OK, maybe we could drop in Sean Penn as narrator. Would that satisfy you?" Lately, Katherine Bigelow’s torture-apologizing Zero Dark Thirty and Alex Gibney’s We Steal Secrets, a cinematic hatchet job on Julian Assange, were made with generous backing by Universal Studios, whose parent company until recently was General Electric. GE manufactures weapons, components for fighter aircraft and advance surveillance technology. The company also has lucrative interests in "liberated" Iraq.
The power of truth-tellers like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden is that they dispel a whole mythology carefully constructed by the corporate cinema, the corporate academy and the corporate media. WikiLeaks is especially dangerous because it provides truth-tellers with a means to get the truth out. This was achieved by Collateral Damage, the cockpit video of an US Apache helicopter allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning. The impact of this one video marked Manning and Assange for state vengeance. Here were US airmen murdering journalists and maiming children in a Baghdad street, clearly enjoying it, and describing their atrocity as "nice". Yet, in one vital sense, they did not get away with it; we are witnesses now, and the rest is up to us.
SOURCE: http://www.alternet.org/media/understanding-latest-leaks-understanding-rise-new-fascism
PS: Hope that clears things up for you.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)...only because the fascist reptiles also have lots of judges in their back pockets looking at Fourth Amendment arguments and coming up with new and innovative ways to say 2+2=5.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)backscatter, backscatter, backscatter, you big silly, LEGAL is the same as GOOD.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)in 2009 were triangulated, identified and tracked down using their cell phones? Thousands of people were tracked down, arrested, tortured and disappeared. What laws do we have in place now that will prevent peace demonstrators, environmental activists, or anyone against corporate rule now identified as domestic threats to be tracked in this way???NOTHING.
I am too getting bone tired of explaining these BASIC concepts to people who wish to remain in willful denial--what are you waiting for? For these abuses to HAPPEN right before your eyes? Then, just like SO many other things laughed at as CTs, only then do you change your mind.
Well some of us don't want to get to that point-- call us cautious, call us vigilant. But you know what? People assuring that YOU have civil liberties made this the country a place people flocked to, to get away from this very thing.
Some people need to be hit by a 2x4 upside the head, even after being told by everybody to watch out, that is the way if the world.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts) your post
The evidence has been presented.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Yes-- just look overseas at what has been done already, and gauge it against the mission creep domestically.
It can happen here. But not if we make ourselves heard.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Since then, I believe all of those arrested have been executed. The executions went on for several years.
My point being, it was a tiny proportion of the total population of 27 million. All you have to do is identify and neutralize the correct leaders and the people can no longer organize any real opposition.
I'm glad you are onto this. It is the scariest part of this whole agenda. It threatens our right and our ability to peaceably assemble.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Where did you find those numbers? I have known people from Iran, and the crackdown was nationwide and continued long after the election cycle. Being tracked in this way can have permanent consequences, ability to get a job, travel freely, ect.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There have been plenty of demonstrations going on all while this data was collected, and no such arrests, tortures, or disappearances.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)We will see now that domestic threats have been redefined.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)It's like..well...a teaspoon of arsenic as compared to a tablespoon of arsenic. And, it's actually good for you...as advertised by the manufacturers.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)It's done with love.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Secret police are used by many varieties of state, not just Fascist ones.
The NSA do NOT know all that is said - that is a direct and obvious lie. The bulk of the information is metadata that, of it's very nature, is public information. Some calls are examined further but that is with the rubber stamp of FISC.
The laws are not secret, not well know but not secret.
The agency is possibly unaccountable in practise but that is down to a do-nothing Congress.
Wars without end - err, Iraq has finished, Afghanistan is being wound down there is as yet no involvement with Syria or Iran. There are drone strikes but that can be classed (nauseatingly) as "police actions".
Bankers hide their money offshore because they want to avoid taxes in more stringent environments - like the USA.
Whose names? Your attack has been so embarrassingly wide ranging that we cannot know who you mean.
Talk about who?
Ah, I think you mean the 1% - sorry but with a bit of due diligence Google can solve your problem.
No, no one ever votes the wealthy to be wealthy any more than anyone votes for you to be a pauper. So what?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)all comers your right to say it.
But I must take issue with your use of the term 'fascism'. There are many labels one can use to describe post-industrial America and what ails her, but 'fascist' is probably one of the least useful.
First of all, fascist states are noteworthy for being one-party dictatorships that mobilize broad-based mass support. Even if you maintain that the Dems and Republicans are two factions of the same uber-party, you still must explain the Greens, the Libertarians, and other lesser parties. These would not exist in any meaningful sense in a fascist state.
Second, fascist states do not generally allow free and fair elections. Once a fascist party has consolidated its power, it brooks no challenges to it via the electoral process. Bush relinquished power voluntarily in 2009; the Republicans in the House relinquished power in January 2007. Surely you're not saying the Democrats are a fascist party?
Finally, fascist states generally do not tolerate dissent. In a real fascist state, a post such as yours would earn you a quick trip to the camps (or, in Argentina's case, to the desesparacidos at 30,000 ft.).
That nomenclatural dispute aside, I would like to suggest that people who look at what they see and call it 'fascism' are right to feel very uneasy about what they see and to feel a deserved sense of grievance, even if in calling it 'fascism' they attach the wrong label to it. But it's important to look at reality clearly and dispassionately. We can only solve our problems if we have clearly identified the problems first. A crucial part of identifying said problems is labeling them properly.
I might suggest 'banana republic' or 'oligarchy' as closer descriptions of contemporary America, recognizing that you may equally quibble with my choice of words.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Fascism is defined as:
1 : often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
The NSA programs has nothing to do with exalting "nation or race" above individuals.
We don't have a government headed by a dictatorial leader (if Obama was a dictator, someone should let Congress know).
There is no "severe economic and social regimentation" being enforced in this country.
And there certainly is no "forcible suppression of opposition". If that were the case both Fox and MSNBC would have been shut down by one administration or another. There would be no Tea Party or Code Pink. I don't even think DU would be allowed to exist.
Furthermore, these programs exist because Congress created the allowance for them to exist... Congress that the American people elected. I don't care if you are talking about Alan Grayson, Louie Gohmert, Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Al Franken or John McCain... they were all elected by the American people and are subject to being unelected just as well. If the American people want to elect a Congress that will gut the NSA programs, we have the power to do it. We probably won't, but we can. Likewise, the Congress we currently have elected have the power to gut those programs.
I believe the NSA programs go too far. I believe we DO need a certain amount of national security surveillance, but I believe it needs to be miles more narrow than it is and should be done on a case by case basis. Perhaps we require private companies to keep communication records for a certain length of time and then only get at certain pieces of it pertaining to suspects via a court order or something along those lines.
Regardless of that, one can disagree with the nature of our current surveillance programs without utterly destroying their own argument by engaging in hyperbole and hyper-exaggerated labeling of these programs. When you use the word "fascism" to describe something that comes nowhere near meeting the criteria for what fascism is, you don't help move the conversation along, you just make your argument look stupid.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)A corporation can use all the money it has to back a cause or a candidate.
An individual, unless he is very wealthy, does not have the means to saturate the airwaves, even the smart ones.
Who hears about raising taxes anymore? Who hears about war profiteering at all?
A few more questions to help you onto the path of understanding:
Who saturates the airwaves at election time?
Who sells the airtime and profits from the election?
Who owns the media corporations?
Who benefits from the system?
A: The wealthiest of the wealthy, the people the warmonger George W Bush called the "my Base."
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)I'm not arguing at the notion that theres too much corporate influence in politics. However, that has not changed the fact that whichever side of the political pendulum has been in power in this country, it has faced substantial opposition from the side opposing it. The very fact that the pendulum swings so frequently, from decade to decade is evidence of that.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)does the pendulum need to swing for that to happen?
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)But that has nothing to do with whether or not opposition to power is being silenced, which is what we were talking about. Its not. Theres a thriving opposition, an opposition to the opposition and an opposition to the opposition of the opposition. This country has some really shitty problems but its not fascist. And calling it fascist is an insult to anyone that's actually had to live in a fascist country. Its like comparing a broken arm to 4th stage terminal cancer.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)must "be reasonable", "compromise", "reach across the isle". But never the other way around.
The smashing up of the OWS camps foretells what we can look forward to :
The big banks bring the economy to the brink of disaster.
- They are publicly given $700 billion in taxpayer bailouts with no strings attached.
- They are secretly given $7 trillion in taxpayer bailouts with no strings attached.
- They don't use the money to resolve the mortgage and tight credit problems.
- They DO use a lot of the money to give themselves billions in bonuses.
- No meaningful investigations or legal action is initiated.
- When people gather to express their outrage and demand action their camps are violently smashed up by the cops in a nationwide coordinated sweep to shut them up.
temmer
(358 posts)something like crypto-fascism.
In Nazi Germany, if you told your neighbour that Hitler was a mass murderer and someone listened and reported this, you were thrown into jail immediately, if not shot.
In 21th century USA, if you say that Cheney is a mass murderer and behind 9/11 (and they are many who said that), noone cares, not even Cheney. Because it doesn't endanger him. The information overflow in the Western society makes it difficult to call other people's attention.
What I want to say it - this is a unique historical situation triggered by the rapid technological progress in the last decades, not only for the US, but for the whole world. And it enables a new kind of totalitarianism, fascism or how you want to name it.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thank you for the excellent phrase. Unless one can shut it off, brain dumping is exactly what we all face, round-the-clock.
Regarding the other, it was coined by Bertram Gross, a scholar who saw how things weren't what they used to be. The new, "Friendly Fascism," would make all go-along to get-along. How many not on DU do you see who've noticed?
The Specter of Friendly Fascism
excerpted from the book
Friendly Fascism
The New Face of Power in America
by Bertram Gross
South End Press, 1980, paper
The Unfolding Logic
p161
... as I survey the entire panorama of contending forces, I can readily detect something more important: the outline of a powerful logic of events. This logic points toward tighter integration of every First World Establishment. In the United States it points toward more concentrated, unscrupulous, repressive, and militaristic control by a Big Business-Big Government partnership that-to preserve the privileges of the ultra-rich, the corporate overseers, and the brass in the military and civilian order-squelches the rights and liberties of other people both at home and abroad. That is friendly fascism.
SNIP...
Although the friendly fascists are subversive elements, they rarely see themselves as such. Some are merely out to make money under conditions of stagflation. Some are merely concerned with keeping or expanding their power and privileges. Many use the rhetoric of freedom, liberty, democracy, human values, or even human rights. In pursuing their mutual interests through a new coalition of concentrated oligarchic power, people may be hurt-whether through pollution, shortages, unemployment, inflation, or war. But that is not part of their central purpose. It is the product of invisible hands that are not theirs.
SNIP...
p168
Although friendly fascism would mean total ruin of the American dream, it could hardly come suddenly- let alone in any precisely predictable year. This is one of the reasons I cannot go along with the old-fashioned Marxist picture of capitalism or imperialism dropping the fig leaf or the mask. This imagery suggests a process not much longer than a striptease. It reinforces the apocalyptic vision of a quick collapse of capitalist democracy-whether "not with a bang but a whimper," as T. S. Eliot put it, or with "dancing to a frenzied drum" as in the words of William Butler Yeats. In my judgment, rather, one of the greatest dangers is the slow process through which friendly fascism would come into being. For a large part of the population the changes would be unnoticed. Even those most alive to the danger may see only part of the picture-until it is too late. For most people, as with historians and social scientists, 20-20 vision on fundamental change comes only with hindsight. And by that time, with the evidence at last clearly visible, the new serfdom might have long since arrived.
SNIP...
p190
This transformation would require a new concept of presidential leadership, one emphasizing legitimacy and righteousness above all else. As the linchpin of an oligarchic establishment, the White House would continue to be the living and breathing symbol of legitimate government. "Reigning" would become the first principle of "ruling". Only by wrapping himself and all his agents in the trappings of constitutionality could the President succeed in subverting the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Chief Executive Network, Big Business, and the UltraRich could remain far above and beyond legal and moral law only through the widely accepted image that all of them, and particularly the president, were fully subservient to law and morality. In part, this is a matter of public relations-but not the old Madison Avenue game of selling perfume or deodorants to the masses. The most important nostrils are those of the multileveled elites in the establishment itself; if things smell well to them, then the working-buying classes can probably be handled effectively. In this context, it is not at all sure that the personal charisma of a president could ever be as important as it was in the days of Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, or John F. Kennedy.
It is no easy task to erect a shield of legitimacy to cloak the illegitimate. Doing so would require the kind of leadership that in emphasizing the long-term interests of Big Business and the Ultra-Rich would stand up strongly against any elements that are overly greedy for short-term windfalls. Thus in energy planning, foreign trade, labor relations, and wage-price controls, for example, the friendly fascist White House would from time to time engage in activities that could be publicly regarded as "cracking down on business." While a few recalcitrant corporate overseers might thus be reluctantly educated, the chief victims would usually be small or medium-sized enterprises, who would thus be driven more rapidly into bankruptcy or merger. In this sense, conspicuous public leadership would become a form of followership.
CONTINUED...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Specter_FriendlyFascism_FF.html
That was about 1980 -- before October Surprise and Voodoo Economics and Trickle-Down Iran-Contra crack cocaine Amerikkka went full effect.
EVDebs
(11,578 posts)In his book Nemesis, Johnson says that miltarism brought down the Roman Empire and it, along with a plutocratic Senate (in our case a plutocratic House and Senate) put power away from the masses and the resulting inequality and 'endless enemies' needed by the military state brought down the whole shebang. That's us.
question everything
(47,479 posts)Neither have I. But here is a clue - you will be in jail now for this post. With no habeas corpus, no right to an attorney, no right "to remain silent," and, of course no DU with others to adulate you.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Nailed it.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts) sibelian
(7,804 posts)I can't blame them.
Kurovski
(34,655 posts)DLevine
(1,788 posts)
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)marions ghost
(19,841 posts)---
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)You just went full teabagger.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Help out a brother DUer, WatermelonRat. What makes me a teabagger? What I wrote?
Here's something to chew on: The NAZI-Wall Street connection, through the likely superblackmailed House of Bush:
Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.
Let me know if you find any more teabagger.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Otherwise, I'll point out more than your journal is empty.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
malaise
(269,004 posts)for the truth
Rex
(65,616 posts)will lead civilians to conclude that the government deems it necessary to lie to them from time to time. The sad thing is, when it is a bad thing (that should require oversight or regulations or common sense) it gets treated just like a good thing and they are both swept away under the carpet or as I like to call it the National Rug. See prior warmonger for reference.
They ain't coming for your guns, but they might be checking into your phone calls and reading a email or two.
Outsourcing is coming back to bite us in the ass. So is shitty leadership.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Presidents Surveillance Program of 14 September 2001 (7-3-13 posting @ Cryptome)
http://cryptome.org/2013/07/Presidents-Spy-Program-Sept14-2001.htm
We, the people are not the adversary of America-the people that took impeachment off the table are.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Odd how those people who took impeachment off the table may've had their own conversations monitored and played back to them, sort of as "gentle reminders," like.
Russ Tice: NSA monitored nation’s top officials
By Linda Lewis
WhistleBlowing Today
In a bombshell interview, former NSA intelligence analyst Russell Tice provided new details about previously reported NSA wiretapping in the period 2002-2005. Speaking with Peter Collins and Sibel Edmonds (Boiling Frogs), Tice said NSA senior management were implicated in apparent monitoring of the communications of top government officials–Supreme Court judges, Senate Intelligence Committee members, senior military officers and candidates for public office–as well as international NGOs like the Red Cross. Tice said Barack Obama, Gen. David Petraeus and Sen. Diane Feinstein were among those targeted for surveillance.
CONTINUED...
link:http://whistleblowingtoday.org/2013/06/russ-tice-nsa-monitore-nations-top-officials/
PS: Miss you, bobthedrummer! Hope you and yours are A-OK!
PPS: Hi, General Clapper! Doing great work! Keep it up! John Brennan is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
bobthedrummer
(26,083 posts)Here's another link to some related info Sir (for those that give a damn)
NSA Architecture of Oppression (6-13-13 Cryptome posting)
http://cryptome.org/2013/06/nsa-arch-spy.htm
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Outstanding resource, that cryptome. An interesting observation that most histories seem to have missed:
In the Church Committee investigation of NSA in the 1970s, an NSA technician revealed "massive surveillance" that had been denied by senior NSA officials. Asked by the committee why the technician had not revealed this before, he answered, "nobody asked me."