Obama continues warrantless wiretaps - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 04-09-2009, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

do NOT let that officer, or officers, make an example out of one of your own. That is how you get marginalized, by not showing any teeth. The first time that a police officer puts his hands on a protester, he should get mobbed and beaten, and then the others that jump in should get mobbed and beaten.

I'm a surprisingly tough lad considering what a hippie I am, but I do not have the necessary ability or resources to stand up to a major metropolitan police force without risking massive escalation and collateral damage. Even if I came to a protest with a few hundred of my closest friends armed to the teeth, all I'd do is provide another "victory" in the "war on terror" when we were all eventually arrested or dead. I'm not interested in lending credibility to the garbage used an as excuse for warrantless wiretaps. I want them to stop.

The only thing I can think of that might stand a chance is corporate espionage, stealing the list of people being monitored and releasing it to the public so that the lawsuits against the telecoms can finally go through. The problem, though, is that no one in a position to release that list is interested in doing so either out of self-interest or fear.

Cimarron29414 · 04-09-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

what you seem to miss, cimmaron, even in what you relay of your own friend's positions is that first the wiretapping business did not happen in isolation but as part and parcel of the central "policy" of the bush administration--the loopy "war on terror". your friends appear to have opposed the entirety of that fictional "war" (the effects of which were in many ways all too real)...obama has self-evidently changed the situation--he has broken up the logic, such as it was, of the bushwar--starting to actively wind down the iraq debacle, moving to close guantanomo, explicitly rejecting the bushjustifications for torture, rejecting the compulsion to secrecy that the bush people derived from their "war"...on and on. i happen to think that much of what the bush administration did can and should be understood as criminal--but the likelihood of any action is, sadly, slim to none. such is the nature of criminal action if you're el jeffe for a time.

it is a real problem for me and almost everyone i know that obama has chosen to retain other aspects of the bushwar---to act as if there is sense in continuing the conflict in afghanistan for example, to act as if there is sense in maintaining the wiretapping business.

what you demand of those of us who are not on the right is a simple-minded black/white stand. personally, i don't consider the right to be relevant at this point, so see no need to take seriously any attempt coming from the conservative to impose anything on debate. so you can in this case see things as you like, but there's no particular reason for anyone who is not already in the same political camp to agree with the terms you'd like to set for it.

at the same time, this breaking up of the bushwar logic at the level of policy as maybe put folk in a it of an awkward position--by separating the more outrageous and/or absurd aspects of the "war on terror" from others, the administration has broken up the old frame. i don't think you'll find *anyone* who identifies themselves as even a little on the left who supports what the obama administration has decided to do on wiretaps. just do a basic search and you'll get ample evidence of it.

the point i tried to make above was that it seems to me that retaining this element of the "war on terror" nonsense should be thought about in the context of the administration's initial moves to attempt to dismantle to old, outmoded national security state--and so as a tactical thing connected to what appears to be its alternate plan for military strategy--and by extension procurement--which has to do with less conventional war--which is at the same time a wholesale rejection of the rumsfeld doctrine.

but i still oppose it.

So, the conservative voice is irrelevant because there is a Democrat in office? Nice. No point continuing this. Have a nice day.

Willravel · 04-09-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Do you know how many tirades I watched of Olbermann screaming at the camera for Mr. Bush to be impeached for this program? In the attached vid, Olbermann could be reporting that Obama picked out a name for his dog - he has that much emotion/indignation. That's about the level of indignation I'm getting from my liberal friends and the amount I'm detecting in posts here.

FYI, I'm a raging liberal and I was just considering the consequences of an armed rebellion over this. I don't know how much more worked up you think we can get. Let's not be disingenuous.

roachboy · 04-09-2009, 12:13 PM

cimmaron: not exactly. i don't think the right is relevant at this point because it is the wreckage they left behind from being in power that constitutes the mess that the obama administration is working it's way through. that's why. republican/democrat--not something i particularly care about.

but see it as you like. you only read some of my post in any event.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2009, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm a surprisingly tough lad considering what a hippie I am, but I do not have the necessary ability or resources to stand up to a major metropolitan police force without risking massive escalation and collateral damage. Even if I came to a protest with a few hundred of my closest friends armed to the teeth, all I'd do is provide another "victory" in the "war on terror" when we were all eventually arrested or dead. I'm not interested in lending credibility to the garbage used an as excuse for warrantless wiretaps. I want them to stop.

The only thing I can think of that might stand a chance is corporate espionage, stealing the list of people being monitored and releasing it to the public so that the lawsuits against the telecoms can finally go through. The problem, though, is that no one in a position to release that list is interested in doing so either out of self-interest or fear.

will, you've heard this before, but the only thing it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

roachboy · 04-09-2009, 12:19 PM

sometimes, dk, you sound like such an anarchist that it warms my heart.

Willravel · 04-09-2009, 12:20 PM

Yeah, but "evil" also prevails when good men do something, but that something is ineffective (protesting) or stupid (join hands day).

dippin · 04-09-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cimarron29414

Do you know how many tirades I watched of Olbermann screaming at the camera for Mr. Bush to be impeached for this program? In the attached vid, Olbermann could be reporting that Obama picked out a name for his dog - he has that much emotion/indignation. That's about the level of indignation I'm getting from my liberal friends and the amount I'm detecting in posts here.

I certainly can't look back and know the way each one of the posters here reacted to the Bush administration's actions, but I would be dollars to doughnuts that it was a bit more vitriolic than what we are witnessing here.

Read roachboy's first post.

To demand/expect the same level of "vitriol" to two somewhat distinct approaches is to miss the boat entirely.

The reaction to Bush was worse because the policies were worse.

What you are saying is effectively meaningless. You seem to recognize that the left and most liberals here are against the wiretapping program, and yet somehow in your mind they are hypocrites for not opposing it with as much gusto as they did to Bush.

Isn't their opposition enough? And maybe that vitriol was aimed not only at wiretaps, but at torture, secret memos, extraordinary rendition, gitmo, "enemy combatant" and so on?

I disagree with the wiretaps, and think they are a disgrace. But Im not shortsighted enough to equate Obama keeping SOME of the elements of the GWOT to Bush implementing them in a much broader manner.

If Obama backtracks and brings back what he has said he will dismantle, then Ill bet he will face the same level of vitriol.

flstf · 04-09-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

It's nice that we have a president that doesn't dig holes in the white house lawn anymore, but I refuse to replace one corrupt leader for another. I'm not upset, I'm fucking livid.

Thoughts?

Perhaps I'll get angry at some point but so far I just feel sad that Obama is missing what many of us thought was a great opportunity to return/bring trust in our government.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

sometimes, dk, you sound like such an anarchist that it warms my heart.

hmmmm, not sure how to take that rb.

Cimarron29414 · 04-09-2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

cimmaron: not exactly. i don't think the right is relevant at this point because it is the wreckage they left behind from being in power that constitutes the mess that the obama administration is working it's way through. that's why. republican/democrat--not something i particularly care about.

but see it as you like. you only read some of my post in any event.

These weren't your words? : personally, i don't consider the right to be relevant at this point, so see no need to take seriously any attempt coming from the conservative to impose anything on debate. so you can in this case see things as you like, but there's no particular reason for anyone who is not already in the same political camp to agree with the terms you'd like to set for it.

If that doesn't say, "Don't talk to us because you don't think like us", I don't know what does. So much for that old Liberal adage, "I disagree with everything you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it." How enlightened you are.

P.S. registered Independent, member of the Libertarian Party. Didn't vote for Bush, didn't vote for Obama, didn't vote for McCain.

Done.

Cynthetiq · 04-09-2009, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

We did it to demonstrate a united voice against the war, but the fact is that media outlets underestimated the numbers of protesters by leaps and bounds. I was in San Francisco, and there had to be something like 350,000 protesters on the street. Most media outlets said there were 50,000. There were over a million people on the streets in NYC, and the newspapers and media said something like 250,000. If people knew just how big the protests were, the odds of them taking the movement seriously might have had a bigger affect. All in all there were likely 10s of millions of people around the planet and several million in the US protesting that day, trying desperately to change the course we were on.

It did nothing.

There's no reason? What about free speech zones?

Fighting smart means no more bullshit protests that don't stand a chance of success. Fighting smart means employing methods that have succeeded in the past and stand a reasonable chance of succeeding now.

The total amount of people you see, are probably not what you'd think. Look at a full stadium of people, that's a shit load of people.

Rose Bowl 91,136
Candlestick Park 69,843
Dodger Stadium 56,000
Houston Astrodome 54,816

Rarely on New Years Eve does NYC get filled up with 1 Million people on the street in one area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

FYI, I'm a raging liberal and I was just considering the consequences of an armed rebellion over this. I don't know how much more worked up you think we can get. Let's not be disingenuous.

how would you be armed if we repeal the 2nd amendment?

roachboy · 04-09-2009, 01:00 PM

cimmaron---that's not what the sentences say. what they object to is the implication in your post that if "liberals" (whatever) do not act as you think they should, then conclusions 1, 2, 3 all follow--and that this is a way of seeing this question that's relevant for everyone, and not simply for you. you set your position up pretty clearly: if folk objected to the bush policy, which you reduce to this single point, and that policy, still without context and so more or less meaningless, persists, there "should be" the same kind of indignation. you want to use this to "demonstrate" some "hypocrisy" on the part of "liberals"...

but you presuppose that your framework would be read by other folk and recognized as binding on them. otherwise, you're just making an observation. but you didn't frame it as an observation--you framed it as moving from "your liberal friends" to "all liberals" as if it constituted an argument.

that's why i wrote what i did.

i also wrote a bunch of other stuff that you ignored.

Willravel · 04-09-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

The total amount of people you see, are probably not what you'd think. Look at a full stadium of people, that's a shit load of people.

Rose Bowl 91,136
Candlestick Park 69,843
Dodger Stadium 56,000
Houston Astrodome 54,816

Rarely on New Years Eve does NYC get filled up with 1 Million people on the street in one area.

That's true, but it was reported by international outlets as being substantially higher than domestic media, which traditionally low balls. Deutsche Welle is incredibly reliable when it comes to things like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

how would you be armed if we repeal the 2nd amendment?

Bombs. Molotov cocktails. The usual.

Edit: to clarify, it was just a hypothetical. I would never kill anyone because there aren't any reasons important enough to kill for.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2009, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Edit: to clarify, it was just a hypothetical. I would never kill anyone because there aren't any reasons important enough to kill for.

then why should the police ever bother to pause and think before they stomp and kick you to the curb?

Willravel · 04-09-2009, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

then why should the police ever bother to pause and think before they stomp and kick you to the curb?

For one they're not reading this thread.

If I ever were to kill, it would likely be an instinctual reaction, something I just do as a reflex. Some of them might end up dead and then I'd end up dead. It would solve nothing.

I kinda feel like we're getting off topic, though.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2009, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

For one they're not reading this thread.

If I ever were to kill, it would likely be an instinctual reaction, something I just do as a reflex. Some of them might end up dead and then I'd end up dead. It would solve nothing.

I kinda feel like we're getting off topic, though.

you wanted the government to take notice, did you not?

politicians in this day and age will ignore you until there are two reasons not to. One, is to resort to overwhelming violence. Two, is to have overwhelming numbers. enough so that they get the idea that those that elected them will visit consequences upon them if they don't do their job. unfortunately, with the issues we are facing today, unless you have millions upon millions, they will continue to ignore us, so long as we are peaceful.

Willravel · 04-09-2009, 02:13 PM

You assume massive violence will help things, but the Murrah Building bombing gave Clinton an excuse to tighten security. Trust me, it's counterproductive.

dksuddeth · 04-09-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

You assume massive violence will help things, but the Murrah Building bombing gave Clinton an excuse to tighten security. Trust me, it's counterproductive.

apples and oranges. one guy delivering a bomb truck is not going to get them to notice you the way you want. hundred and thousands rioting, like after the BART shooting, will do it.

Terrell · 04-09-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Well.... he ain't gonna because he knows that it's just not terrorists that are his regimes #1 threat anymore.... it's the people, the masses that are going to eventually get fed up and revolt.

There are elections in 2010 & 2012, violence is not necessary. People simply need to go to the ballot box and vote their opinions.

pan6467 · 04-09-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terrell

There are elections in 2010 & 2012, violence is not necessary. People simply need to go to the ballot box and vote their opinions.

We have voted our opinions and trusted these people and every chance they get they screw the people that vote for them and empower themselves. There are no true choices because the people who get the money and are pushed by the press win. The honest guys that go out door to door and work their asses off for votes get ignored by the press and don't have the money to advertise.

And the people we do vote in, retire to work for the lobbyists, think tanks and people that happily make sure we the people stay obedient, docile and lethargic.

So if this country survives to 2010, we'll elect more the same because they have made it impossible for someone not in their good graces to win. Thus the people see no choices, lose hope and vote almost how the press tells them to.

Violence should be a last option, passive resistance, organized marches on DC, state capitols, county seats, city halls should be done. But that also takes money and people willing to take risks... neither of which are prevalent. The people who would march are economically scared to because of lost work and are scared of the very government officials they put into office. Homeless marching may make a difference but they are just trying to survive and the rich or the people profiting in the status quo, will do all they can to make sure no one organizes or is taken seriously, via the press, via using any means necessary.

People should not be afraid of those governing, those governing should be afraid of the people. Somewhere down the line this country lost sight of that.

It has been said and I am of the belief our government and the political parties controlling it took lessons from the Mafia in how to keep people quiet, scared and obedient.

ottopilot · 04-10-2009, 02:26 AM

As I read through this thread, I believe I'm sensing some buyers remorse.

Buyer's remorse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comrades, Dear Leader is just getting started.

Cynthetiq · 04-10-2009, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Edit: to clarify, it was just a hypothetical. I would never kill anyone because there aren't any reasons important enough to kill for.

there are absolutely no rights you'd feel strongly enough to fight for until the death? Interesting how little actual conviction you really have.

roachboy · 04-10-2009, 05:10 AM

wait---this is about state surveillance that runs beyond any meaningful legal limit, but which is not itself illegal because the authorization for it comes out of the patriot act (god how i hate that name...)

i read through the thread so i understand empirically how we got to a debate about revolutionary action/insurrection---but logically, th the more i think about the connection the less sense it makes.

no-one seriously thinks that the only form of political action is revolutionary. if the question is how one might go about organizing protests, or pressure groups, or a campaign to bring pressure on congress to repeal the patriot act, or not renew it, and so undercut the legal basis for the wiretapping, the answer's not that complicated. it's easy enough to start a webcampaign that would result in, say, tons of emails or phone calls. it's not that difficult to organize a demo---the logisitics of a large-scale "legit" demo are pretty arduous (permits and all that) but not insurmountable, and it's not like no-one's ever done this work before so you're not exactly inventing the wheel. the point is that this is an issue that one may not like, but which functions entirely within the logic of the dominant order. to address it, what's required is sustained pressure.

running around with a gun pretending you're some kind of minuteman looking to overthrow the state is not only tactically absurd in this case, but it's strategically meaningless.

will's been making versions of this argument all along...

to skip over the legion intermediate forms and cut straight to fantasizing about armed revolt seems a circle jerk.
to go from this circle jerk to a second-order one, which is somehow about one's abstract "committment" to the possibility of an armed insurrection that makes no sense in this context to begin with...

what exactly is the point?

dksuddeth · 04-10-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

wait---this is about state surveillance that runs beyond any meaningful legal limit, but which is not itself illegal because the authorization for it comes out of the patriot act (god how i hate that name...)

political authorization doesn't mean it's legal or constitutional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

no-one seriously thinks that the only form of political action is revolutionary.

I don't think anyone here declared the only form to be 'revolutionary'. It's going to be a natural logical progression to it though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

if the question is how one might go about organizing protests, or pressure groups, or a campaign to bring pressure on congress to repeal the patriot act, or not renew it, and so undercut the legal basis for the wiretapping, the answer's not that complicated. it's easy enough to start a webcampaign that would result in, say, tons of emails or phone calls. it's not that difficult to organize a demo---the logisitics of a large-scale "legit" demo are pretty arduous (permits and all that) but not insurmountable, and it's not like no-one's ever done this work before so you're not exactly inventing the wheel. the point is that this is an issue that one may not like, but which functions entirely within the logic of the dominant order. to address it, what's required is sustained pressure.

I thought that freedom of speech, protesting, redress of grievances were rights protected by the constitution, why would you NEED a permit?

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

running around with a gun pretending you're some kind of minuteman looking to overthrow the state is not only tactically absurd in this case, but it's strategically meaningless.

nobody approached that tactic

aceventura3 · 04-10-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Remember when a few people were pissed that Obama voted to support the new version of FISA that provided retroactive immunity to telecoms involved in spying on their customers? Turns out we were right.

It's nice that we have a president that doesn't dig holes in the white house lawn anymore, but I refuse to replace one corrupt leader for another. I'm not upset, I'm fucking livid.

Thoughts?

I never understood the problem with the "wiretap" program, and still don't. I do look at the issue in two different ways and answers to the questions below could help me understand the problem if there is one.

Who was victimized and how were they damaged?

Why is "government" obtaining telephone records a bigger deal than, lets say the "government" obtaining and having access to virtually all of our financial records?
Since the tax deadline is around the corner and since I am doing my taxes I personally find this intrusion into personal privacy a much bigger concern than some CIA agent listening to what I am ordering on my pizza - but actually, I don't order pizza from known terrorists located in other countries. So, I guess my pizza ordering habits are still between me and my local pizza joint.

roachboy · 04-10-2009, 07:46 AM

i'm not going to defend the permitting thing---that they should not be necessary is one of the few areas in which we are entirely in agreement, dk...and even for the same basic reasons.

but the reality is that if you want to organize a demo of any size, the permitting process is a way to deal with police and other city regulations, almost all of which are geared around managing questions of circulation within the city of often very dense, overlapping types of movement.

but in principle, it is a problem---and there is little doubt that political protest should override these other management functions because, at bottom, these functions are part of the normal course of things that presupposes political consent--so it follows that political action, which effects or reflects (one way or another, to one extent or another) should supercede the regulations that presuppose consent.

------------

on the "logical" progression of protest to civil war/insurrection: have you been reading engels? this is his basic line.
EXCEPT that you leave out the central motor of this progression, which is that the movement that the state confronts is understood as posing a basic challenge to the legitimacy, if not the material existence, of the state itself.
protesting the wiretapping business--that is protesting the continuation of a conservative policy, undertaken by a conservative administration--is not a threat to the legitimacy of the state.

unless a hamfisted response from the police etc. makes it into one.

there's alot to be said about the changes in police approaches to public protest since the vietnam period, but that's another matter, maybe for another thread.

the point is that absent a significant threat to the state itself, there is no logical or normal progression from demo to anything else.

Willravel · 04-10-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

there are absolutely no rights you'd feel strongly enough to fight for until the death? Interesting how little actual conviction you really have.

I don't think you understand what "conviction" means. I'd die for rights, but killing for them or anything else violates my strongest conviction. The worth of human life cannot be allowed to be superseded by petty ideologies, and as long as they are there will be war and suffering.

---------- Post added at 09:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

apples and oranges. one guy delivering a bomb truck is not going to get them to notice you the way you want. hundred and thousands rioting, like after the BART shooting, will do it.

Yeah, until they started looting and lost all credibility. Same thing happened in LA 15 years ago. It started as a social issues riot and devolved into barbarism and theft.

Cynthetiq · 04-10-2009, 08:11 AM

It sounds more like you'd be a martyr for rights, not actually sieze what are your rights.

Willravel · 04-10-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I never understood the problem with the "wiretap" program, and still don't. I do look at the issue in two different ways and answers to the questions below could help me understand the problem if there is one.

Who was victimized and how were they damaged?

I'm almost certain we've gone over privacy before. If you don't value your privacy that's fine. No one will force you to be private. The problem is that not only do a lot of people value their privacy as a fundamental right, but that same fundamental right is in the Bill of Rights and numerous court rulings since. It's why we have warrants. You need probable cause in order to breach someone's privacy.

What the large telecoms and Bushco (and now Obama) did was bypass existing FISA laws to unlawfully spy on people. They could not supply probable cause, presumptively because there was none. Again, whether or not you value privacy, I know that you value adherence to the law, not just as a conservative but as aceventura, as a conviction.

I could explain to you why privacy is important to me, but that's not likely to convince you because you have a different set of values. If you disagree strongly enough with my values, feel free to do anything and everything you can to legally change existing privacy laws, but I should warn you that you'll be fighting an uphill battle.

---------- Post added at 09:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It sounds more like you'd be a martyr for rights, not actually sieze what are your rights.

I'd not be dying to further a cause, just to defend it, so martyr is the wrong term. My personal convictions tell me that people have been placing a low value on human life since the dawn of civilization, and I refuse to follow the trend. It is a conviction to value human life, even over other important rights.

I'll simplify. I'd not kill someone for free speech. Does that mean I don't value free speech? Only to an absolutist (and absolutists are absolutely always wrong without exception

). I do value free speech, a great deal in fact, but not to the point where I'd violate my strongest conviction and kill someone over it. As soon as I cross that line, I violate my own code of convictions and I'm no better than anyone that's gone to war.

roachboy · 04-10-2009, 08:38 AM

to add to what will said above in response to ace...

beyond the privacy question as it pertains to individuals, there's also the long inglorious history of american paranoia with respect to political opposition, particularly from the left. now the extent to which this history is even present for you as an object of thinking has alot to do with where you happen to be politically yourself---so for a conservative fellow who himself is maybe horrified by the idea of a serious political threat coming from the left, maybe this is a non-issue--but if you identify via that category of "left" then it is present for you. and it is self-evident that when the bush people instituted this warantless wiretapping, the rationale was the "war on terror" and "terror" was NOT a particularly tightly defined term.

as the controversy about the various mechanisms that were either in place to planned mounted, the bush people issued various qualifications to what they claimed was their operative definition of "terrorist" or "suspicious"---but given the black box environment within which this warantless business was happening, there was and could be no meaningful oversight, no transparency---and given the administration's track record with this whole telling the truth question, there's no reason to think that this program was not, in fact, being used to monitor opposition to the iraq debacle within the united states, in that glorious tradition of cointelpro which we all know and love so much as one of the grander moments in the history of free speech in amurica.

so it's a particularly nasty little bit of business, this wiretapping stuff, which harkens back to more explicitly repressive versions of this glorious land of ours.

thing is that i have no reason to assume that the obama administration is operating on the same paranoid logic as the bushpeople did

so the question so *why* this program would be continued is strange to me--which is why i was putting up questions about possible relations between it and the changes that the obama administration is starting to attempt in military strategic orientation, which would result in---FINALLY--a dismantling of the national security state if they were taken far enough. within that, there's another question about trade-offs and intentions---because it's a whole lot clearer what's being moved away from than it is what's being moved into.

you can't blame a boy for wondering about this.

dksuddeth · 04-10-2009, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'll simplify. I'd not kill someone for free speech. Does that mean I don't value free speech? Only to an absolutist (and absolutists are absolutely always wrong without exception

). I do value free speech, a great deal in fact, but not to the point where I'd violate my strongest conviction and kill someone over it. As soon as I cross that line, I violate my own code of convictions and I'm no better than anyone that's gone to war.

if i have you right on this, you'd not kill for your rights, but you'd die for your rights. You'd do this because you place a higher value on human life, but if you'd not defend your rights, are you not placing a lesser value on your own life?

Willravel · 04-10-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so the question so *why* this program would be continued is strange to me--which is why i was putting up questions about possible relations between it and the changes that the obama administration is starting to attempt in military strategic orientation, which would result in---FINALLY--a dismantling of the national security state if they were taken far enough. within that, there's another question about trade-offs and intentions---because it's a whole lot clearer what's being moved away from than it is what's being moved into.

you can't blame a boy for wondering about this.

Olbermann seems to be alleging it's because Obama is worried that he won't be able to count on the intelligent community if he doesn't acquiesce to their "needs" (wants), he is allowing them to continue to run around without any boundaries. This does make sense, considering how Obama has been treating the right (attempting concessions that the right didn't even ask for by putting tax breaks in the bailout etc.). I almost hate to say it, but if Olbermann is right he's acting too much like the proverbial codependent mother, and reinforcing the "republican = father" and "democrat = mother" stereotypes. I was hoping Obama would be a strong liberal, but maybe liberals don't know what to do with strong leaders. We need to resurrect Andrew Jackson's crazy ass.

---------- Post added at 09:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 AM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

if i have you right on this, you'd not kill for your rights, but you'd die for your rights. You'd do this because you place a higher value on human life, but if you'd not defend your rights, are you not placing a lesser value on your own life?

No, it's about responsibility. I take responsibility for my own life. If I fuck up, it's all on me. If I succeed, it's all on me. If I choose to fight and die for something I hold important, that's totally my call, but killing someone else is removing another person's right to choose what to do with his or her life and I refuse to take that kind of responsibility for that other person regardless of their decisions. If they want to die, that's their right, but I won't be the one that kills them.

If everyone adopted this philosophy, war would be something you read about in old books.

Derwood · 04-10-2009, 11:15 AM

Just to clear my own name: My "devil's advocate" post was not made as a personal defense of Obama, but as a method of opening up the debate. I resent the implication that my post was somehow representative of "typical liberal hypocrisy" on the issue.

aceventura3 · 04-10-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I'm almost certain we've gone over privacy before. If you don't value your privacy that's fine.

I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me. I don't expect my phone calls to be private. Don't expect my mail to be private, email, smoke signals or any form of communication that involves another party. However, I do find the intrusion by the government into my financial life to be more of a concern. For example if I have a nanny for my child why does the government need to be involved in what I pay him or her? Why do they need to even know I employ one? Why I am I responsible for his or her taxes? I really find it ironic how one form of a privacy invasion is o.k. and another is not. That is one my points.

Quote:

What the large telecoms and Bushco (and now Obama) did was bypass existing FISA laws to unlawfully spy on people. They could not supply probable cause, presumptively because there was none. Again, whether or not you value privacy, I know that you value adherence to the law, not just as a conservative but as aceventura, as a conviction.

I could explain to you why privacy is important to me, but that's not likely to convince you because you have a different set of values. If you disagree strongly enough with my values, feel free to do anything and everything you can to legally change existing privacy laws, but I should warn you that you'll be fighting an uphill battle.

I know they broke the original FISA law, but then they changed it. Breaking the law is not the point of my confusion. Nor is my confusion based on valuing privacy. My confusion is based on what harm resulted from the violation of the law. First, I am not sure anyone's privacy was actually violated who was not worthy of investigation. Secondly I am not sure any innocent party was actually harmed. So, I think when we have a privacy rights issue for the government to deal with and if at first the government handles it incorrectly, then needed adjustments are made, we are left with the legitimate issue of redress. However, I think redressing the issue should involve real victims and real damages. I don't see the legal basis for 'the government screwed up, therefore I am entitled to something' when I was not a victim, when I was not harmed. For example - Being "spied" on is one thing, being wrongly harmed as a result of being "spied" on is another and would be the basis of redress in my opinion.

Willravel · 04-10-2009, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me. I don't expect my phone calls to be private. Don't expect my mail to be private, email, smoke signals or any form of communication that involves another party. However, I do find the intrusion by the government into my financial life to be more of a concern. For example if I have a nanny for my child why does the government need to be involved in what I pay him or her? Why do they need to even know I employ one? Why I am I responsible for his or her taxes? I really find it ironic how one form of a privacy invasion is o.k. and another is not. That is one my points.

Right, and that's fine, but a lot of people (myself included) feel it's an important part of being in a free society to have the ability to communicate without a nanny state monitoring everything. It's as if we're being punished for being untrustworthy even though we never did anything wrong. I never emailed or said over the phone anything illegal, therefore I shouldn't be monitored unless the monitoring body has probable cause to investigate me. Frankly, I see my concerns over private communication as being very, very similar to your concerns about financial privacy. Why does the government need to know you have a nanny? Why does the government need to know that I need to call and tell my friend that I can't hang out because I had something come up at work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I know they broke the original FISA law, but then they changed it. Breaking the law is not the point of my confusion. Nor is my confusion based on valuing privacy. My confusion is based on what harm resulted from the violation of the law. First, I am not sure anyone's privacy was actually violated who was not worthy of investigation. Secondly I am not sure any innocent party was actually harmed. So, I think when we have a privacy rights issue for the government to deal with and if at first the government handles it incorrectly, then needed adjustments are made, we are left with the legitimate issue of redress. However, I think redressing the issue should involve real victims and real damages. I don't see the legal basis for 'the government screwed up, therefore I am entitled to something' when I was not a victim, when I was not harmed. For example - Being "spied" on is one thing, being wrongly harmed as a result of being "spied" on is another and would be the basis of redress in my opinion.

They broke the FISA. Regardless of whether or not it's changed after the fact, a law has been broken. You don't break a law until it's not a law anymore, that's just how it works. The fact that it provided retroactive immunity is pretty fucking disgusting and is a bastardization of the process of creating and obeying laws.

As roachboy said, because there's been such little transparency on this issue, combined with the fact that the previous administration demonstrated again and again and again that it wasn't trustworthy at least requires some form of investigation to see what they did. If they were responsible (and hell freezes over), that's great. If not, some people need to be prosecuted.

I'll put this in different terms. Let's say you have a very, very rich uncle that you never met, but that left you a hefty sum in his will. Before his will can be executed, someone robs the accounts of the money that was going to be given to you. You never find out about it. Have you been robbed? Of course. Similarly, anyone innocent that was monitored without probable cause was robbed of his or her privacy without even knowing it. Their lack of awareness doesn't negate the crime. I'm saying that being spied upon is the harm. I know you're not comfortable with that conclusion, but it's on the Bill of Rights and in tons of court decisions. We have a constitutional right to privacy. Just like I'll defend the Second Amendment even though I disagree with it, you should recognize that a right named in the Constitution is just as legitimate regardless of whether or not you value it.

dksuddeth · 04-10-2009, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me. I don't expect my phone calls to be private. Don't expect my mail to be private, email, smoke signals or any form of communication that involves another party. However, I do find the intrusion by the government into my financial life to be more of a concern. For example if I have a nanny for my child why does the government need to be involved in what I pay him or her? Why do they need to even know I employ one? Why I am I responsible for his or her taxes? I really find it ironic how one form of a privacy invasion is o.k. and another is not. That is one my points.

so only YOUR privacy concerns are important and those of others are not if they are not in line with yours?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I know they broke the original FISA law, but then they changed it. Breaking the law is not the point of my confusion. Nor is my confusion based on valuing privacy. My confusion is based on what harm resulted from the violation of the law. First, I am not sure anyone's privacy was actually violated who was not worthy of investigation. Secondly I am not sure any innocent party was actually harmed. So, I think when we have a privacy rights issue for the government to deal with and if at first the government handles it incorrectly, then needed adjustments are made, we are left with the legitimate issue of redress. However, I think redressing the issue should involve real victims and real damages. I don't see the legal basis for 'the government screwed up, therefore I am entitled to something' when I was not a victim, when I was not harmed. For example - Being "spied" on is one thing, being wrongly harmed as a result of being "spied" on is another and would be the basis of redress in my opinion.

you're missing the point entirely. The government should NEVER be given free authority or power to go on fishing expeditions. The reason for warrants from the courts was to prevent that kind of thing. The 'no harm, no foul' thing leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

aceventura3 · 04-14-2009, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

so only YOUR privacy concerns are important and those of others are not if they are not in line with yours?

Yea, that's it. It amazing how you can take what I wrote and boil it all down to the simple concept of me being selfish.

Quote:

you're missing the point entirely.

Didn't I say that I did not understand? So, you are all too correct. I am missing the point.

Quote:

The government should NEVER be given free authority or power to go on fishing expeditions.

I agree 100%. However, the "wiretap" thing would be way down at the bottom of my list of concerns. Higher on the list would be things like registering for selective service, gun registration laws, red light traffic cameras, filing income taxes, etc. In my view it seems the "wiretap" thing is focused on people who communicate with know terrorists located in other countries. I see that as a good reason to monitor the activity of US citizens involved in such behavior.

Quote:

The reason for warrants from the courts was to prevent that kind of thing. The 'no harm, no foul' thing leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

How about the 'break the law to save lives' thing. I would gladly break an "administrative" type law to save your life. In your view would it be like 'nor harm, no foul', life saved and slap my ass with a lawsuit or put me in jail? I would be happy with the 'no harm, no foul', life saved, give a brother a break!

But I am sure that I am still missing the point.

dksuddeth · 04-14-2009, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yea, that's it. It amazing how you can take what I wrote and boil it all down to the simple concept of me being selfish.

it's not difficult to realize when your first two sentences are thus:
I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I agree 100%. However, the "wiretap" thing would be way down at the bottom of my list of concerns. Higher on the list would be things like registering for selective service, gun registration laws, red light traffic cameras, filing income taxes, etc. In my view it seems the "wiretap" thing is focused on people who communicate with know terrorists located in other countries. I see that as a good reason to monitor the activity of US citizens involved in such behavior.

"involved in such behaviors". Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me that you've got no issue at all with the government recording any and all phone calls so that their little decoder/key word listening program can identify a recorded call to monitor, all without a warrant. Given your next statement below:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

How about the 'break the law to save lives' thing. I would gladly break an "administrative" type law to save your life. In your view would it be like 'nor harm, no foul', life saved and slap my ass with a lawsuit or put me in jail? I would be happy with the 'no harm, no foul', life saved, give a brother a break!

But I am sure that I am still missing the point.

and the fact that you've said you don't care if the gov monitors YOUR phone calls if it's to save lives from 'man caused disasters', whats to stop them from using the wiretaps to track drug crimes, money laundering, human trafficking, tax evasion?

Do the ends justify the means?

aceventura3 · 04-14-2009, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

it's not difficult to realize when your first two sentences are thus:
I do value privacy. I value the type of privacy that matters to me.

I guess if context has little value your assessment is fair. If you do take that point out of the complete context of my post, I admit that my view of the world starts from my own "view of the world", hence I am selfish in that regard. But realizing the weakness in having a one perspective view of the world, I interact with people who see things different than I do. I ask questions, I state when I don't get an opposing view, and I share how I come to my conclusions. Hell, I even admit when I don't have an open mind on an issue. I don't think that is "selfish". Take from it what you will, but I bet very few are different in that regard than I.

Quote:

"involved in such behaviors". Maybe i'm wrong, but it seems to me that you've got no issue at all with the government recording any and all phone calls so that their little decoder/key word listening program can identify a recorded call to monitor, all without a warrant. Given your next statement below:

First we are not talking about the government recording any and all phone calls. As I understand the "wiretaps" is that they involved a narrow group of people involved in communicating with known terrorists. It would be impossible for "government" to record, listen to, and do something with all phone calls. I see this point as of no importance, without proof of some abuse.

Quote:

and the fact that you've said you don't care if the gov monitors YOUR phone calls if it's to save lives from 'man caused disasters', whats to stop them from using the wiretaps to track drug crimes, money laundering, human trafficking, tax evasion?

Do the ends justify the means?

Sometimes the ends do justify the means. I want people in charge who share my values (yes, another selfish comment, but I bet it true for you too, even if you won't admit it) to make judgment calls. If they make poor calls or abuse the trust of the people, I do believe they should be held to account. But, I also will give them the benefit of the doubt when they act in good faith.

04-09-2009, 12:13 PM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cimmaron: not exactly. i don't think the right is relevant at this point because it is the wreckage they left behind from being in power that constitutes the mess that the obama administration is working it's way through. that's why. republican/democrat--not something i particularly care about. but see it as you like. you only read some of my post in any event. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-09-2009, 12:19 PM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	sometimes, dk, you sound like such an anarchist that it warms my heart. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-09-2009, 12:20 PM	#47 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yeah, but "evil" also prevails when good men do something, but that something is ineffective (protesting) or stupid (join hands day). Last edited by Willravel; 04-09-2009 at 12:24 PM..

04-09-2009, 01:00 PM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	cimmaron---that's not what the sentences say. what they object to is the implication in your post that if "liberals" (whatever) do not act as you think they should, then conclusions 1, 2, 3 all follow--and that this is a way of seeing this question that's relevant for everyone, and not simply for you. you set your position up pretty clearly: if folk objected to the bush policy, which you reduce to this single point, and that policy, still without context and so more or less meaningless, persists, there "should be" the same kind of indignation. you want to use this to "demonstrate" some "hypocrisy" on the part of "liberals"... but you presuppose that your framework would be read by other folk and recognized as binding on them. otherwise, you're just making an observation. but you didn't frame it as an observation--you framed it as moving from "your liberal friends" to "all liberals" as if it constituted an argument. that's why i wrote what i did. i also wrote a bunch of other stuff that you ignored. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-10-2009, 02:26 AM	#62 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	As I read through this thread, I believe I'm sensing some buyers remorse. Buyer's remorse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Comrades, Dear Leader is just getting started. __________________ "It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

04-09-2009, 02:13 PM	#58 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You assume massive violence will help things, but the Murrah Building bombing gave Clinton an excuse to tighten security. Trust me, it's counterproductive.

04-10-2009, 05:10 AM	#64 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	wait---this is about state surveillance that runs beyond any meaningful legal limit, but which is not itself illegal because the authorization for it comes out of the patriot act (god how i hate that name...) i read through the thread so i understand empirically how we got to a debate about revolutionary action/insurrection---but logically, th the more i think about the connection the less sense it makes. no-one seriously thinks that the only form of political action is revolutionary. if the question is how one might go about organizing protests, or pressure groups, or a campaign to bring pressure on congress to repeal the patriot act, or not renew it, and so undercut the legal basis for the wiretapping, the answer's not that complicated. it's easy enough to start a webcampaign that would result in, say, tons of emails or phone calls. it's not that difficult to organize a demo---the logisitics of a large-scale "legit" demo are pretty arduous (permits and all that) but not insurmountable, and it's not like no-one's ever done this work before so you're not exactly inventing the wheel. the point is that this is an issue that one may not like, but which functions entirely within the logic of the dominant order. to address it, what's required is sustained pressure. running around with a gun pretending you're some kind of minuteman looking to overthrow the state is not only tactically absurd in this case, but it's strategically meaningless. will's been making versions of this argument all along... to skip over the legion intermediate forms and cut straight to fantasizing about armed revolt seems a circle jerk. to go from this circle jerk to a second-order one, which is somehow about one's abstract "committment" to the possibility of an armed insurrection that makes no sense in this context to begin with... what exactly is the point? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-10-2009, 07:46 AM	#67 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm not going to defend the permitting thing---that they should not be necessary is one of the few areas in which we are entirely in agreement, dk...and even for the same basic reasons. but the reality is that if you want to organize a demo of any size, the permitting process is a way to deal with police and other city regulations, almost all of which are geared around managing questions of circulation within the city of often very dense, overlapping types of movement. but in principle, it is a problem---and there is little doubt that political protest should override these other management functions because, at bottom, these functions are part of the normal course of things that presupposes political consent--so it follows that political action, which effects or reflects (one way or another, to one extent or another) should supercede the regulations that presuppose consent. ------------ on the "logical" progression of protest to civil war/insurrection: have you been reading engels? this is his basic line. EXCEPT that you leave out the central motor of this progression, which is that the movement that the state confronts is understood as posing a basic challenge to the legitimacy, if not the material existence, of the state itself. protesting the wiretapping business--that is protesting the continuation of a conservative policy, undertaken by a conservative administration--is not a threat to the legitimacy of the state. unless a hamfisted response from the police etc. makes it into one. there's alot to be said about the changes in police approaches to public protest since the vietnam period, but that's another matter, maybe for another thread. the point is that absent a significant threat to the state itself, there is no logical or normal progression from demo to anything else. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-10-2009, 08:11 AM	#69 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	It sounds more like you'd be a martyr for rights, not actually sieze what are your rights. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-10-2009, 08:38 AM	#71 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to add to what will said above in response to ace... beyond the privacy question as it pertains to individuals, there's also the long inglorious history of american paranoia with respect to political opposition, particularly from the left. now the extent to which this history is even present for you as an object of thinking has alot to do with where you happen to be politically yourself---so for a conservative fellow who himself is maybe horrified by the idea of a serious political threat coming from the left, maybe this is a non-issue--but if you identify via that category of "left" then it is present for you. and it is self-evident that when the bush people instituted this warantless wiretapping, the rationale was the "war on terror" and "terror" was NOT a particularly tightly defined term. as the controversy about the various mechanisms that were either in place to planned mounted, the bush people issued various qualifications to what they claimed was their operative definition of "terrorist" or "suspicious"---but given the black box environment within which this warantless business was happening, there was and could be no meaningful oversight, no transparency---and given the administration's track record with this whole telling the truth question, there's no reason to think that this program was not, in fact, being used to monitor opposition to the iraq debacle within the united states, in that glorious tradition of cointelpro which we all know and love so much as one of the grander moments in the history of free speech in amurica. so it's a particularly nasty little bit of business, this wiretapping stuff, which harkens back to more explicitly repressive versions of this glorious land of ours. thing is that i have no reason to assume that the obama administration is operating on the same paranoid logic as the bushpeople did so the question so why this program would be continued is strange to me--which is why i was putting up questions about possible relations between it and the changes that the obama administration is starting to attempt in military strategic orientation, which would result in---FINALLY--a dismantling of the national security state if they were taken far enough. within that, there's another question about trade-offs and intentions---because it's a whole lot clearer what's being moved away from than it is what's being moved into. you can't blame a boy for wondering about this. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-10-2009, 11:15 AM	#74 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Just to clear my own name: My "devil's advocate" post was not made as a personal defense of Obama, but as a method of opening up the debate. I resent the implication that my post was somehow representative of "typical liberal hypocrisy" on the issue.