how far is too far?

[dksuddeth]

We've talked about the reaches of the patriot act, sneak and peek searches, library info demands and gag orders, enemy combatant rights (or non-rights), and wiretaps (legal or illegal), so my question is when is it enough?

WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.

Now, is this too far? for the government to go snooping through our snail mail also?

[Willravel]

It's all too far. The Patroit Act, sneak and peek searches, library info demands and gag orders, enemy combatant rights (or non-rights), and wiretaps (legal or illegal), and now they can open our mail without a warrent? I call bullshit. How in God's name is this going to stop terrorism? It won't and can't. They know it won't and can't. NONE OF THIS IS ABOUT TERRORISM!! It's been obvious from day one. We sent very little troops into Afghanistan, we pulled most of our troops from finding Bin Laden (how many troops did we send to Iraq versus how many we sent after Bin lade? The ratio is someything like 20:1), we passed legeslation that has proven not only ineffexctive, but to probably produce unreliable information, we spy on our own citizens(!), we went to a war that had nothing at all to do with terrorism (and LIED about it), global terrorism is up many times since we declaired war on terror, many iof our allies have realized that we're nuts and have abandoned us, we are drowning in scandals from many of the very people who are supposed to be leaders and serve the people, and now we are opening an 80 year old mans mail? Enough is enough. Current administration: apologize, and resign. We've all ahd enough of your idocy. You're not fooling anyone anymore.

[Cynthetiq]

Having lived in Singapore where they routinely opened my correspondence from my best friend and girlfriend... so what.

It bothered me at first, but over time, I didn't care because it didn't matter. I am willling to trade safety for some loss of privacy.

I also think that people and cultures should be self policing. This means that if :insert culture here: has a small group of people fucking it up for the rest, they should speak up and do something about it. This goes for all cultures that think they are being profiled etc.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It bothered me at first, but over time, I didn't care because it didn't matter. I am willling to trade safety for some loss of privacy.

This bothers me. It also proves my statement in the bush breaking the law thread....that america is doomed because people either don't care enough or they are willing to give up the rights and liberties that were fought for over 200 years ago.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

This bothers me. It also proves my statement in the bush breaking the law thread....that america is doomed because people either don't care enough or they are willing to give up the rights and liberties that were fought for over 200 years ago.

Let yourself think that. I thought that too at age 18. Over the years, I've learned that there are other things that are truly much more important that impact my day to day immediately and intrusively. Those do not.

I lived in another country that didn't guarantee the same rights as that of the US. People didn't like free thinkers in Singapore.

My sister could walk down the street drunk off her ass and not worry about being raped at age 16.

We could walk dark desolate roads at night without fear of being mugged or assaulted.

Streets were clean with NO TRASH anywhere. Fines for littering were large and enforced, right down to gum, spitting, curbing your dog and cleaning it up.

While these things may not be important to you, they mean something to me since I currently live in a city where you can do whatever you want and no one cares.

I've seen human feces in public places where you'd not expect them to be like going down strairs at the Port Authority Bus terminal.

I've seen crackheads smoking crack in parks, subway trains, in front of families.

I know of people mugged for their ipods.

I know people assualted and raped.

[dksuddeth]

all of those things are important. I could go on about 'slippery slopes' and small steps before more is taken, but we've all been through that and it gets most people nowhere because they are set in their views. just furthers my 'america is doomed' prophecy.

FYI cynthetiq, this is not a personal affront to you, just my thoughts in general.

[energus]

I am not an American, but I would be scared if the government wanted this much information about my private life. You may agree with this bunch that is in control, but can you say that for the next decades?

How long is this information stored? to what purpose? who has access? Will it be possible for every person with contacts within a government to use this?

The idea that a p-ed off friend/foe could have access to your private life would scare the jeebies out of me. The government is to rule for say 4 to 8 years, but not to be this involved in my or your life.

The implecations for this are so vast my mind boggles

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Let yourself think that. I thought that too at age 18. Over the years, I've learned that there are other things that are truly much more important that impact my day to day immediately and intrusively. Those do not.

Can't all these things and the current poltiical problems all be considered problems? I mean there is no number limit for the BIG problem list of things to fix. We might have different priorities, and I completly respect that, but I don't see how someone can see the current political crisis as completly acceptable. We aren't suggesting that we should ignore things like rape, drug use, muggings, or poop, just that we should also consider what it means to be free versus what is going on right now. If we don't fix this, no one will.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by willravel

Can't all these things and the current poltiical problems all be considered problems? I mean there is no number limit for the BIG problem list of things to fix. We might have different priorities, and I completly respect that, but I don't see how someone can see the current political crisis as completly acceptable. We aren't suggesting that we should ignore things like rape, drug use, muggings, or poop, just that we should also consider what it means to be free versus what is going on right now. If we don't fix this, no one will.

sure, but they generally fall deep within my priority list.

Mind you I used to call Hillary and Schumer's offices on a regular basis to tell them how I felt they were doing, how I wanted them to vote on particular issues. Did anything really change? Maybe.

But it didn't change if my bus was on time, if I could hear the subway announcer, stopped the high woman from showing some father her genitals in front of his family and verbally abusing them. It didn't alter how much my milk and eggs cost.

Looking at this from the perspective of an average city dweller, we have an opinion but we also have the practicality of how much time willing to invest to actually affect a change. For most it's quite low.

[Cynthetiq]

I'd also like to add that I know what was monitored and censored in Singapore for the most part, and again, it didn't affect my day to day. I spoke out against Lee Kuan Yew's viewpoints which was not taken lightly by many people. I'm sure that at some point in time I was noted as a "revolutionary" or "potential troublemaker"

It did not affect my day to day there either.

What will affect my day to day in the manner you are talking about? The ability for me to THINK as freely as I want to within the confines of my own domicile and space. Anything inbound or outbound of that space is in my opinion fair game, that includes other people who do not belong to that household.

edit: bad their grammar error.

[stevo]

You could do everyone a big favor by pasting the entire article. I see you didn't post a link to the article either, wonder why.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/

WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.

“I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,” Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. “That’s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,” he said. Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.

“I was shocked and there was a certain degree of disbelief in the beginning,” Goodman said when he noticed the letter had been tampered with, adding that he felt his privacy had been invaded. “I think I must be under some kind of surveillance.”

Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit’s position. “But we didn’t do it as clumsily as they’ve done it, I can tell you that,” Goodman noted, with no small amount of irony in his voice. “Isn’t it funny that this doesn’t appear to be any kind of surreptitious effort here,” he said.

The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.

A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn’t speak directly to Goodman’s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary.

“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,’” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.

“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said.

However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”

Mohan also declined to say how often or in what volume CBP might be opening mail. “All I can really say is that Customs and Border Protection does undertake [opening mail] when it is determined to be necessary,” he said.

So really this is nothing new. It has been going on since before the patriot act and before the creation of DHS. They aren't opening the mail I send to my mother in texas or my grandmother in florida, nor do they open the mail they send me. The only mail being opened is "originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory."

So you can relax now.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevo

You could do everyone a big favor by pasting the entire article. I see you didn't post a link to the article either, wonder why.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/

The missing link was just my forgetfulness, my apologies. As for not posting the entire article, I did not consider military members mail in a foreign country during active combat issues to be in the same purview or category as civilian based mail. That would be why I didn't post the entire article, no political subterfuge, obfuscation, vague representations, or otherwise nefarious intent.

Originally Posted by stevo

So really this is nothing new. It has been going on since before the patriot act and before the creation of DHS. They aren't opening the mail I send to my mother in texas or my grandmother in florida, nor do they open the mail they send me. The only mail being opened is "originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory."

So you can relax now.

It has always been my understanding that Packages were subject to this type of possible inspection whether they were UPS, Fedex, or USPS but I was not aware of (I'm sure that most americans aren't either) the fact that mail, as in personal correspondence, originating from outside the US was subject to have someone open them, read them, put them back in, and reseal them before they are sent on their merry little way. Those of the mindset 'you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide' or 'go ahead and spy on me, you'll just be bored' seem to have missed the entire foundation of revolutionary war and the US constitutional restrictions on the government. I'm not relaxed. I'm actually quite irritated and really unnerved that you so called 'americans' are so non-chalant at the power grabs that a centralized government is taking and you are barely batting an eye.

[roachboy]

would someone from the right explain to me why exactly they treat ALL questions about the restriction of civil liberties--real or percieved--with the assumed exception of gun control--in such a cavalier manner?

i dont see how this squares with the libertarian strain that you see floating to the surface in so many other conversations from the right...

on the other hand, i assume that these problems are treated as they are because a republican administration is in power--but even given this, what i see as a systematic refusal to take these questions seriously makes no sense.

another way of posing the same question: one explanation that i can come up with is the status of this "war on terror" thing--how folk from the right understand it, what relation they create between themselves and this "war"---for myself, i do not see anything coherent in this bushpolicy or discourse, frankly--perhaps this explains why this kind of information about surveillance bothers me as it does (in general)---

i have raised questions on this order before and probably will again----but right now the gratification to be had from repetition eludes me. (if there was no such gratification i doubt seriously that i would still be participating in this forum. that i dont walk around thinking "how nice is repetition is nice how" changes nothing)---but from what i have seen, there is a direct correlation.

so is this debate really about the putative topic, or is it about a cluster of other matters that converge in ways that are a function of political (or aesthetic) committments that are not necessarily directly addressed in the op?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by roachboy

would someone from the right explain to me why exactly they treat ALL questions about the restriction of civil liberties--real or percieved--with the assumed exception of gun control--in such a cavalier manner?

i dont see how this squares with the libertarian strain that you see floating to the surface in so many other conversations from the right...

on the other hand, i assume that these problems are treated as they are because a republican administration is in power--but even given this, what i see as a systematic refusal to take these questions seriously makes no sense.

another way of posing the same question: one explanation that i can come up with is the status of this "war on terror" thing--how folk from the right understand it, what relation they create between themselves and this "war"---for myself, i do not see anything coherent in this bushpolicy or discourse, frankly--perhaps this explains why this kind of information about surveillance bothers me as it does (in general)---

i have raised questions on this order before and probably will again----but right now the gratification to be had from repetition eludes me. (if there was no such gratification i doubt seriously that i would still be participating in this forum. that i dont walk around thinking "how nice is repetition is nice how" changes nothing)---but from what i have seen, there is a direct correlation.

so is this debate really about the putative topic, or is it about a cluster of other matters that converge in ways that are a function of political (or aesthetic) committments that are not necessarily directly addressed in the op?

I thought that I did.

I doesn't affect my day to day. I've had my rights already "suspended" when I lived overseas. I saw how it didn't make any difference in my life and I apply the same feelings, thoughts and repsonsibility here.

[stevo]

No, this is nothing more than something that has been going on for quite sometime. Something well within US Customs policy and procedure. This "case" in particular has nothing to do with military members' mail being censored by a CO. No one would have been upset 10 years ago if this happened. But oh no, big bad bush and co. are ready to strip away all our freedoms. Good thing they don't have the 3 more votes they need to suspend voting rights and repeal the 22nd amendment. Give me a break. I guess we'll have to wait until next week when the media creates some "news" about another "scandle" in a feigned attempt to re-create watergate.

As cynthetic has pointed out, this doesn't hamper anyones freedom, nor does it change the way they go about their lives.

As for the war on terror, most on the left think it is some charade. Nothing but another name for a waste of lives and money. The thing about this war is that we don't see the immediate results of victory as we would see the immediate results of failure. If we were to fail, we would know it. It would be in the form of thousands of deaths and destruction akin to 9/11. Success we don't immediately see would be the terrorist plots that never materialized because they were prevented ahead of time. Just saying we're winning beacuse we haven't been attacked isn't going to cut it for many. I know the arguements. And listing the plots that were foiled ahead of time would not be wise as it would advertise who we've caught and our methods of surveillance. So, this is a war where much has to be taken on faith, and it is hard to have faith in government. But really, I don't see any other way, we either call it quits or we trust that the people we elected to the top are making the right decisions.

[Poppinjay]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

My sister could walk down the street drunk off her ass and not worry about being raped at age 16.

We could walk dark desolate roads at night without fear of being mugged or assaulted.

Rape and assault are also illegal in the US. For that matter, so is walking down the street drunk off your ass. What would happen to your sister if she puked on the street?

Streets were clean with NO TRASH anywhere. Fines for littering were large and enforced, right down to gum, spitting, curbing your dog and cleaning it up.

Again, these are things that are illegal in most of the U.S. So are they much more law abiding in Singapore because they censor the mail - and find deviant plans to spit on the sidewalk before they are carried out?

While these things may not be important to you, they mean something to me since I currently live in a city where you can do whatever you want and no one cares.

Where is this? Surely not the U.S. We do have laws here.

I've seen human feces in public places where you'd not expect them to be like going down strairs at the Port Authority Bus terminal.

I've seen human feces in El Salvador. The punishment there for pretty much anything is death.

I've seen crackheads smoking crack in parks, subway trains, in front of families.

I've never seen this, and DC is supposed to be the crackhead capitol of the world.

I know of people mugged for their ipods.

I know people assualted and raped.

Again, how does opening personal mail stop this? Thugs don't write. Terrorists don't mug people for their ipods.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by stevo

No, this is nothing more than something that has been going on for quite sometime. Something well within US Customs policy and procedure. This "case" in particular has nothing to do with military members' mail being censored by a CO. No one would have been upset 10 years ago if this happened. But oh no, big bad bush and co. are ready to strip away all our freedoms. Good thing they don't have the 3 more votes they need to suspend voting rights and repeal the 22nd amendment. Give me a break. I guess we'll have to wait until next week when the media creates some "news" about another "scandle" in a feigned attempt to re-create watergate.

This Abrahamoff plea alone blows Watergate out of the window...reading on.

Originally Posted by stevo

As cynthetic has pointed out, this doesn't hamper anyones freedom, nor does it change the way they go about their lives.

Isn't it a federal offence to open someone's mail without a warrent?

Originally Posted by stevo

As for the war on terror, most on the left think it is some charade. Nothing but another name for a waste of lives and money. The thing about this war is that we don't see the immediate results of victory as we would see the immediate results of failure. If we were to fail, we would know it. It would be in the form of thousands of deaths and destruction akin to 9/11. Success we don't immediately see would be the terrorist plots that never materialized because they were prevented ahead of time. Just saying we're winning beacuse we haven't been attacked isn't going to cut it for many. I know the arguements. And listing the plots that were foiled ahead of time would not be wise as it would advertise who we've caught and our methods of surveillance. So, this is a war where much has to be taken on faith, and it is hard to have faith in government. But really, I don't see any other way, we either call it quits or we trust that the people we elected to the top are making the right decisions.

There is no such thing as a war on terror or a war on evil or a war on any ideal. You can't bomb the dictionary. If we are to declair war, then let it be against the al Qaeda or some specific group of people that actually exist, and let it be for a good reason, too. If we declair war on an ideal, that means that anyone who could be associated with that ideal is who we are at war against, and that isn't the way a war is fought. The fact is that if we were truely fighting terrorism, we'd be fighting ourselves. You know as well as I do that we bombed Iraq with a 'shock and awe campaign'. A campaign of bombings in order to bring fear into people is terrorism, pure and simple. It is because of the generality of the declairaction of war that people like me get nervous. Who is to say who is or isn't a terrorist? How does the president expect to stop evil? Isn't 'evil' subjective? How does opening an 80 year old mans mail help to stop anoyther 9/11? It doesn't. Neither would opening my mail. Neither would opening your mail. The war on terror is not a success because global terrorism has taken a very, very sharp rise since our declairation of war on terrorism. Also, I can't trust that these people who are now connected to dozens of scandals. I don't see how anyone can trust these people anymore.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by stevo

No, this is nothing more than something that has been going on for quite sometime. Something well within US Customs policy and procedure. This "case" in particular has nothing to do with military members' mail being censored by a CO. No one would have been upset 10 years ago if this happened. But oh no, big bad bush and co. are ready to strip away all our freedoms. Good thing they don't have the 3 more votes they need to suspend voting rights and repeal the 22nd amendment. Give me a break. I guess we'll have to wait until next week when the media creates some "news" about another "scandle" in a feigned attempt to re-create watergate.

You seem to have stupidly confused me with some 'bush hater', but thats probably because i'm not 'lockstep' with the conservative agenda so i forgive you. FYI, had this happened during clintons, bush senior, reagan, or even as far back as JFK and FDR, I'd still be upset and concerned but I realize that for people like you, it's just one more thing that doesn't affect you directly. Will it be the same way for you if you receive a snail mail with that CBP green tape across a piece of your mail?

Originally Posted by stevo

As cynthetic has pointed out, this doesn't hamper anyones freedom, nor does it change the way they go about their lives.

you could not be more wrong. This impinges on the 4th amendment of the BoR as there is NO WARRANT to inspect a US citizens PAPERS/PROPERTY and is therefore an illegal search and siezure.

Originally Posted by stevo

As for the war on terror, most on the left think it is some charade. Nothing but another name for a waste of lives and money. The thing about this war is that we don't see the immediate results of victory as we would see the immediate results of failure. If we were to fail, we would know it. It would be in the form of thousands of deaths and destruction akin to 9/11. Success we don't immediately see would be the terrorist plots that never materialized because they were prevented ahead of time. Just saying we're winning beacuse we haven't been attacked isn't going to cut it for many. I know the arguements. And listing the plots that were foiled ahead of time would not be wise as it would advertise who we've caught and our methods of surveillance. So, this is a war where much has to be taken on faith, and it is hard to have faith in government. But really, I don't see any other way, we either call it quits or we trust that the people we elected to the top are making the right decisions.

As much as I support the WOT, I have to disagree with the total blackout of it all. You say you don't see any other way and that we have to have faith and trust in our elected reps....tell me, do you trust pelosi? do you trust harry reid? do you trust any democrat other than joe lieberman? I don't trust ANY of them any further than I can throw them because they have ALL shown me time and again that they can't be trusted. Why do you?

[Guinevere]

My worry is who is setting the rules as to what is acceptable and what isn't. It's a slippery slope. Look how easily people gave up their 'right' to smoke. How soon before those same people give up their right to say...fuck on a Sunday?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

We've talked about the reaches of the patriot act, sneak and peek searches, library info demands and gag orders, enemy combatant rights (or non-rights), and wiretaps (legal or illegal), so my question is when is it enough?

Now, is this too far? for the government to go snooping through our snail mail also?

The real problem I have with this stuff is that it never goes away. If the threat of terrorism ends these policies won't. Even if people belive this is for their own good, the inevitable abuse of unchecked power will always be there. I wonder if these war on terrorism supporters will have the same view in 08 when Hillary is acknowledging that she does illegal wiretaps too.

Yes, it's all too much. Commander in chief means he's the commander of the military not the American people. Bush needs to stop breaking the law.

Why was this guys mail even opened? Sounds pretty stupid and pointless to me, but hey lets defend this practice just for the hell of it anyhow. They can't even provide an example of the reasoning that goes behind opening mail: "obviously it's a security-related criteria" ..... o rly?

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

Rape and assault are also illegal in the US. For that matter, so is walking down the street drunk off your ass. What would happen to your sister if she puked on the street?

If she puked, she gets cited and fined.

Again, these are things that are illegal in most of the U.S. So are they much more law abiding in Singapore because they censor the mail - and find deviant plans to spit on the sidewalk before they are carried out?

When was the last time you heard of someone getting a ticket for littering or obeying signs like "No eating on bus" or "No eating on platform"?

I don't see you responding to this thread, The Boy and the lollipop or Lady cuffed for eating on DC Metro

Where is this? Surely not the U.S. We do have laws here.

If you live in DC and don't see it then you are plain blind. I have walked the streets of DC and have witnessed many things from public nudity to people smoking crack and pot as they walk down the street.

I live in NYC and see it all the time. I'm paying attention and looking for it, just like you look for "people snooping through mail," I'm looking for things that affect my day to day quality of life. Walking over some asshole's dog shit because they didn't want to pick it up is annoying. Someone reading my mail???? When was the last time I mailed a letter? Several years ago.

I've seen human feces in El Salvador. The punishment there for pretty much anything is death.

Great. So?

I've never seen this, and DC is supposed to be the crackhead capitol of the world.

Pay attention, you'll see it.

Again, how does opening personal mail stop this? Thugs don't write. Terrorists don't mug people for their ipods.

It doesn't. It also doesn't change my day to day either. People stealing my stuff, making me feel unsafe outside my doorstep. Those do.

[Elphaba]

My packages, mailed within the United States, have been opened routinely since 2002. I don't believe any letter mail has been opened, but I really can't tell. I was accepting of the practice in the beginning, thinking it was due to the anthrax attacks, but no more.

Given that the anthrax found in that attack was a home grown germ of our US military, I have come to believe that it was useful to the government that we expect our packages to be opened. "We are Patriot's, dammit! Nothin' wrong with opening my packages, cuz our president is fighting terrorism and it's a hard job! I'm with him, not agin' him!" /dripping sarcasm

This has been going on for three years now. Just how many home decorating items, clothing, and dog biscuits do they need to check before a couple of senior citizens can be ruled out as a likely terrorist threat? The policy is illegal and obviously it is prone to abuse.

[roachboy]

cyn:
i didnt ask whether you personally were able to rationalise this--obviously you are. i see your position as wholly tied to the particularities of your experience (including the conclusions you drew from seeing what you did) and not in any way a generalizable argument. there are all kinds of factors, most of which would be personal, that i would need to know in order to see in your posts aything other than your personal response. central among these would be your personal sense of safety, what it entails, where it comes from. as it stands, the most i could say about it would be to specualte about your class position---maybe more exactly your "objective" class position crossed with your projections about the meaning of that position.
while these matters would no doubt be of interest were we hanging out somewhere having a beer or 12 and getting to know each other as 3-d people, here i dont even see your posts as political. they are anecdotes and nothing more. you dont give any logic that would amount to a general argument that would enable someone who is not you to see what it is about your position that would be compelling as a political position---as it stands, the only response i have to your posts is something on the order of.......interesting....that's nice.
that you do not see in the various surveillance actions of the bushsquad any infringement on your rights is also fine for you--but there is nothing about your experiences either travelling or living elsewhere or in an american city (what you list anyone could have seen--your response is not universal nor is it obvious) that moves beyond the subjective.
but you act in your posts as though your experiences override political argument.
that assumption is wholly arbitrary.
so there we are.

[pan6467]

You can listen to my phone calls....... and if you raise a stink, why is that? do you have something to hide?

You can open my mail........and if you raise a stink, why is that? do you have something to hide?

You can take my neighbor and hold him at an undisclosed military base with no charges and torture him....and if you raise a stink, why is that? do you have something to hide?

Anyone who questions the President shouldn't have a right to talk because they are treasonists and traitors who hate America..... yeah God Bless this FREELAND.... America haters......and if you raise a stink, why is that? do you have something to hide?


But goddamn you sons of commie assed bitches if you try to regulate my gun rights and not allow me to carry close to a school, or in a bar or at an amusement park or heaven forbid make me register and wait for a few days when I purchase a gun and if a community votes against guns... fuck them we'll sue them till they have nothing what do those voters that live in the community know.... and if you raise a stink, why is that? do you have something to hide?..........you rights stealing bastards...... go live in France you commie pinko leftist pigs.


/end sarcasm

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by roachboy

cyn:
i didnt ask whether you personally were able to rationalise this--obviously you are. i see your position as wholly tied to the particularities of your experience (including the conclusions you drew from seeing what you did) and not in any way a generalizable argument. there are all kinds of factors, most of which would be personal, that i would need to know in order to see in your posts aything other than your personal response. central among these would be your personal sense of safety, what it entails, where it comes from. as it stands, the most i could say about it would be to specualte about your class position---maybe more exactly your "objective" class position crossed with your projections about the meaning of that position.
while these matters would no doubt be of interest were we hanging out somewhere having a beer or 12 and getting to know each other as 3-d people, here i dont even see your posts as political. they are anecdotes and nothing more. you dont give any logic that would amount to a general argument that would enable someone who is not you to see what it is about your position that would be compelling as a political position---as it stands, the only response i have to your posts is something on the order of.......interesting....that's nice.
that you do not see in the various surveillance actions of the bushsquad any infringement on your rights is also fine for you--but there is nothing about your experiences either travelling or living elsewhere or in an american city (what you list anyone could have seen--your response is not universal nor is it obvious) that moves beyond the subjective.
but you act in your posts as though your experiences override political argument.
that assumption is wholly arbitrary.
so there we are.

they don't trump political argument. They are equally a valid point. You can point to all the political arguments you want, but at the end of the day, there's having to put food in your stomach and a roof over your head.

People say Opening mail is an invasion of my privacy. Okay and?

To some people that stops them dead in their tracks since the government must be doing something that must be stopped. Okay and?

My argument is that the average person out there does not care. Yes they care on its face, but if it doesn't alter the way they go about the day, it doesn't really matter more than simple lip service in saying that it's bad and should be changed. Your average person cares more about what's going on with their family and how it impacts their day to day. For the most part you aren't going to get them to march in the streets to Washington.

Governments have come and gone, and yet the people have stayed. Business have thrived, families grown rich and poor. Ours comes and goes every 4-6 years depending on the position, but nothing is wholly overhauled to make it a 100% change over night.

[scout]

I think it's funny how both sides want to pick and chose which rights can be violated. Here's a novel idea, why don't we all stand up for the ALL of everyone's rights instead of picking and choosing which rights should be restricted. The left has no problem restricting the Second Amendment but are quick to call foul for other transgressions. The right is quick to defend the Second but quite lax in calling foul on trangressions of the 4th and several others.

Both sides should be equally ashamed.

[roachboy]

cyn:

1. when you say this:

Governments have come and gone, and yet the people have stayed. Business have thrived, families grown rich and poor.

you seem to be arguing that politics is a matter of policy and everything not involved directly with policy, either at the level of forumlation (regular politcos) or as objects of policy are somehow operating at a level outside of politics.
on what basis do you say that?

2. "people in general" seems to me nothing more or less than a plural version of "the average joe"...who is "the average jpe"--this guy is generally a fiction, a name invoked in order to feign justifiation for what amount to prejudices you hold but which you pretend are developed from observation and reinforced from outside.---but both "people in general" and "the average joe" are non falsifiable categories--they are not rooted in anything beyond an individual's sense that they are smarter than other people--and the categories are basically just a way of personifying these prejudices.

unless you imagine yourself to BE the average joe: in whcih case i expect that you must spend lots of time fielding phonecalss from marketing companies all of whom want nothing more than to isolate something like the average joe--so if you were the average joe, you would quickly find yourself becoming a professional average joe, which would mean that you werent one at all.

i dont think you or i have have the faintest idea what "people in general" think. framing your arguments via this category is goofy because it undermines what you have to say--what is clear in your post is that **you** dont care about whether the bushpeople institute surveillance measures like opening mail etc.---that's fine--but your view is your own and does not come from any coherent "people in general" or "average joe". you dont speak for anyone beyond yourself, really.


3. you note phenomena that have to do with the question of the distribution of wealth and social mobility--but you act as though these are not political matters: on what basis?

4. i assume that you also somehow imagine the basic struggle for economic survivla to be extra political as well (from your post)--that view is wholly absurd.

side note: when you refer to people in general being agreed that bushpolicies are not a problem, how do you position debate in a space like this? tfp is not of "people in general"? then what is it? some curious space wherein the intellectual elite comes to debate? you cannot be serious....
fact is that, without an enormous amount of work that you have not undertaken, and the utility of which would be doubtful from the outset, you cannot position tfp population in a general context....so you have no way of knowing whether the folk who post here represent a cross section of anything--you cant position them inside or outside "people in general"----yet you seem to think you have worked out a way to do it and have no problem with trying to route arguments through this distinction. but there are folk who have posted on this thread who do not agree with these policies: are they therefore not of "the people in general"? the circle your post sets up is interminable--neither you nor i could resolve this matter. but unless you did resolve it--and hundreds of other questions of parallel character, your argument remains circular.

[Cynthetiq]

you seem to be arguing that politics is a matter of policy and everything not involved directly with policy, either at the level of forumlation (regular politcos) or as objects of policy are somehow operating at a level outside of politics.
on what basis do you say that?

History. Look at business that have have been in business for more than 20 years. There are plenty of businesses that have thrived under totalitarian governements and democratic ones. I cite Spain as an specific example, but you can look at any European country and come to a similar conclusion.

2. "people in general" seems to me nothing more or less than a plural version of "the average joe"...who is "the average jpe"--this guy is generally a fiction, a name invoked in order to feign justifiation for what amount to prejudices you hold but which you pretend are developed from observation and reinforced from outside.---but both "people in general" and "the average joe" are non falsifiable categories--they are not rooted in anything beyond an individual's sense that they are smarter than other people--and the categories are basically just a way of personifying these prejudices.

unless you imagine yourself to BE the average joe: in whcih case i expect that you must spend lots of time fielding phonecalss from marketing companies all of whom want nothing more than to isolate something like the average joe--so if you were the average joe, you would quickly find yourself becoming a professional average joe, which would mean that you werent one at all.

Actually I do. I field lots of research calls on a regular basis from policital surveys to beverage studies. I don't qualify for media ones since I work in the business. I do try very hard to get access to the research that we do here at MTV Networks as a personal insight to the "average" viewers for our channels.

i dont think you or i have have the faintest idea what "people in general" think. framing your arguments via this category is goofy because it undermines what you have to say--what is clear in your post is that **you** dont care about whether the bushpeople institute surveillance measures like opening mail etc.---that's fine--but your view is your own and does not come from any coherent "people in general" or "average joe". you dont speak for anyone beyond yourself, really.

I may only be speaking for myself, but the circles of people that I speak to which are not rooted in just my own peers but a diverse group of people from married, single, young, old, with children and without, people care more about their day to day. If not would not logic dictate that these things are so egregious that people would be with picks and torches trying to storm the government?

3. you note phenomena that have to do with the question of the distribution of wealth and social mobility--but you act as though these are not political matters: on what basis?

As a simple observer who has travelled and lived in other countries for longer than 1 month.

4. i assume that you also somehow imagine the basic struggle for economic survivla to be extra political as well (from your post)--that view is wholly absurd.

side note: when you refer to people in general being agreed that bushpolicies are not a problem, how do you position debate in a space like this? tfp is not of "people in general"? then what is it? some curious space wherein the intellectual elite comes to debate? you cannot be serious....
fact is that, without an enormous amount of work that you have not undertaken, and the utility of which would be doubtful from the outset, you cannot position tfp population in a general context....so you have no way of knowing whether the folk who post here represent a cross section of anything--you cant position them inside or outside "people in general"----yet you seem to think you have worked out a way to do it and have no problem with trying to route arguments through this distinction. but there are folk who have posted on this thread who do not agree with these policies: are they therefore not of "the people in general"? the circle your post sets up is interminable--neither you nor i could resolve this matter. but unless you did resolve it--and hundreds of other questions of parallel character, your argument remains circular.

People of TFP are for the most part more privileged than most. Since access requires a computer and internet service, that alone brings a certain level of person of education and economic stature.

[roachboy]

i am not sure whether to continue with this or not.
one result of my academic training is that i do not think it possible to refer in any coherent way to what entire populations think of anything. when ipost in here, i ususally stay within the constraints this assumption sets in that i only go after arguments and/or what particular posters specifically say--if i go beyond that, it is more often than not a function of either what previous posts that ihappen to remember have been like, or into kind of narrow generalities about a given poster that are rooted in what the posts actually say.
to my mind, the political is what lets people link phenomena together into models of the world and/or of experience that reduce dissonance or provide explanations of simply maintain a sense of coherence. so my starting point for thinking about the political is wholly other than yours, cyn, to the point where i am not sure that we could do much beyond talking past each other were we to continue this conversation, particularly if i continue to not quite present my point clearly enough for you to see that to address what i am saying you would have to shift how you think about what you are saying, and not simply repeat or expland slightly the same points.

suffice it to say for the moment that i do not believe your characterization of the "average joe" and his putative concerns or indifferences. nor do i think that your claims, most of which are rooted in the conception we have been not quite talking about, settle much of anything.
but i do have a fair idea of how you think on the matter and maybe thats all there is to be gotten here.

btw: the opening of mail would be an annoyance--it has been to me each time it has happened over the past 3 months or so.
but i know that there are many possible explanations for it and so my response stops there. and because it is just as likely that i have some shitheead neighbor as it is that xmas cards i get are a matter or national security interest, i dont really bother with the question too much directly.

with respect to the bushpeople and the various abrogations of civil liberties, including the right to privacy, as a function of their inane "war on terror", the opening of mail is simply one more signal of how far these folk think they can go in using this rationale to alter or ignore basic principles that have shaped (legally at least) life here for many many years.

what you make of the opening of mail is a direct function of whether you link it to other such actions or not, what you think of this "war on terror"charade, how you understand this charade's impact upon yourself and your sense of personal safety and so forth. the politics of the question is in these links or their absence or in the fashioning of alternative links, not in questions of what the average joe might or might not think---which is, if you think about it, nothing more than another version of the same process of making phenomena meaningful by linking them to others.

[Cynthetiq]

roach,

simply put, you filter your thoughts via academia, I filter mine via street. Theory vs. practical observation in my opinion.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

roach,

simply put, you filter your thoughts via academia, I filter mine via street. Theory vs. practical observation in my opinion.

Well it isn't that black and white, really. Roach may be an excelent prof, but he is also a citizen of the US who also walks the street and lives his life just like the rest of us. Likewise, you have had some kind of traning and schooling, so you are not completly seperated from the 'side' of acedemia. Another fact is that street knowledge lacks seriously because it often does not include a wider scope of information, both numerous and chronoligically. When Roach is making a point (and this is something I ntice), he considers what has happened in the past that could relate. As a history teacher, this gives him a decided advantage over someone who claims only to have street knowledge. Also, you have to consider that Roach has gotten his information from books and lectures and many other sources that can be proven credible. Unlike these sources, street information is often not only tainted, but is processed without experience and expertise on a given subject and incorrect conclusions can be made.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by willravel

Well it isn't that black and white, really. Roach may be an excelent prof, but he is also a citizen of the US who also walks the street and lives his life just like the rest of us. Likewise, you have had some kind of traning and schooling, so you are not completly seperated from the 'side' of acedemia. Another fact is that street knowledge lacks seriously because it often does not include a wider scope of information, both numerous and chronoligically. When Roach is making a point (and this is something I ntice), he considers what has happened in the past that could relate. As a history teacher, this gives him a decided advantage over someone who claims only to have street knowledge. Also, you have to consider that Roach has gotten his information from books and lectures and many other sources that can be proven credible. Unlike these sources, street information is often not only tainted, but is processed without experience and expertise on a given subject and incorrect conclusions can be made.

Just as incorrect conclusions can be made by being taught books and theory. Otherwise why would there be multiple authors on same subjects? Because people have different viewpoints and theories.

I didn't school computers because those that wanted to teach me wanted to teach me the constraints of the machine. I saw the machine as tabula rasa with infinite possibility.

He may be applying history, I'm applying practicality.

I read plenty of newspapers and my own study of history, from local elders (my personal favorite) to local paper archives. Academia reads those things and applies theory to them do they not? They research and apply their theory. Is it not the same? Or because there is some letter designations after someone's name gives them more credibility than someone else?

Is Bill Gates better businessman because he dropped out of college versus some MBA/PhD?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Just as incorrect conclusions can be made by being taught books and theory. Otherwise why would there be multiple authors on same subjects? Because people have different viewpoints and theories.

I didn't school computers because those that wanted to teach me wanted to teach me the constraints of the machine. I saw the machine as tabula rasa with infinite possibility.

He may be applying history, I'm applying practicality.

I read plenty of newspapers and my own study of history, from local elders (my personal favorite) to local paper archives. Academia reads those things and applies theory to them do they not? They research and apply their theory. Is it not the same? Or because there is some letter designations after someone's name gives them more credibility than someone else?

Is Bill Gates better businessman because he dropped out of college versus some MBA/PhD?

Let me put it this way, who do you go to if you're sick or injured, a doctor or some guy who's seen a lot of hurt people?

I still argue that because roach is not only a teacher, but he is up on current events that he has BOTH the academic and practical experience.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by willravel

Let me put it this way, who do you go to if you're sick or injured, a doctor or some guy who's seen a lot of hurt people?

I still argue that because roach is not only a teacher, but he is up on current events that he has BOTH the academic and practical experience.

and there as some Eastern doctors with no ivy league medical schooling that can heal just as well as any doctor.

I submit that it's a matter of viewpoint.

He states that my viewpoint is absurd. I state that only all book theory is equally absurd, which IMO is what roach espouses without much thought to the application of day to day practicality. I do try to inject the practicality based on some history.

edited for grammar and clarity.

[Xazy]

As far as to how far is to far, it is a good question. I have visited Israel, and understand the concept of what true security is. And in Israel it is needed since they have a daily threat of terrorists.

I think that is the new concern of the U.S. and we have not yet come to terms with it. I see national guards at penn station, and laugh in my head knowing how they just give some passengers peace of mind, but offer in fact no true protection. When in NYC they wanted to randomly search bags of people going into subways, everyone raised upset about invasion of privacy etc.. I was all for it, personally. In Israel you cannot even go into a mall without passing thru security like that.

9-11 was not the first terrorist attack on us, but the first big eye opener. I think that if it was to happen again, everyone would be upset that we did not take more steps. It is a tough balance between libterties and safety, and in my mind to some degree safety has to win.

[pan6467]

As I see it, the opening of mail, wiretaps, and whatever else they may be doing that invades our privacy in the name of terror is BULLSHIT.

Until we stop the deluge of 1000's upon 1000's of illegals coming into this country, anything the president does and says "is protecting us" is BULLSHIT.

How many terrorists are we allowing in as illegals? I've stated once, they don't need phones, mail, computers, etc. all they have to do is sit on the border and wait for their contact to arrive and give up the plans.

Opening an 81 year old, retired History professor's mail with someone he has corresponded with for decades, is a good example, they are opening mail just to open it. There's no, "he's a suspect", to it.

Wiretaps and mail opening admitted makes me wonder what else they are doing that they are not admitting to.

But like I said it's all freaking bullshit and a waste of resources, an invasion of innocent people's privacies, and so on, when you are allowing 1000's upon 1000's of illegals in daily. And God only knows what they bring with them.

I cannot see why more people, especially those who argue that they have no problem with mail be opened or wiretaps not in the least concerned with the illegals.

Aw well, if the next terrorist action happens and they can be traced to illegals.... I wonder if these people who were so quick to give away our rights and privacies will condemn Bush for his lackadaisical and non-handling of the illegals.

I have a feeling they will find all kinds of excuses for that though and give Bush a free pass saying he did all he could...... BULLSHIT!

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by pan6467

As I see it, the opening of mail, wiretaps, and whatever else they may be doing that invades our privacy in the name of terror is BULLSHIT.

Until we stop the deluge of 1000's upon 1000's of illegals coming into this country, anything the president does and says "is protecting us" is BULLSHIT.

How many terrorists are we allowing in as illegals? I've stated once, they don't need phones, mail, computers, etc. all they have to do is sit on the border and wait for their contact to arrive and give up the plans.

Opening an 81 year old, retired History professor's mail with someone he has corresponded with for decades, is a good example, they are opening mail just to open it. There's no, "he's a suspect", to it.

Wiretaps and mail opening admitted makes me wonder what else they are doing that they are not admitting to.

But like I said it's all freaking bullshit and a waste of resources, an invasion of innocent people's privacies, and so on, when you are allowing 1000's upon 1000's of illegals in daily. And God only knows what they bring with them.

I cannot see why more people, especially those who argue that they have no problem with mail be opened or wiretaps not in the least concerned with the illegals.

Aw well, if the next terrorist action happens and they can be traced to illegals.... I wonder if these people who were so quick to give away our rights and privacies will condemn Bush for his lackadaisical and non-handling of the illegals.

I have a feeling they will find all kinds of excuses for that though and give Bush a free pass saying he did all he could...... BULLSHIT!

I have always been concerned about the illegals ever since 1990 when I was in San Ysidro and I watched them run around my car. Even at 9/11 that was something that I have always been concerned with, borders with Canada aren't as porous I thought until I read about a kid drug dealer who ran across the border all the time to smuggle pot.

[pan6467]

I added this as Cyn was replying so I cut it and put it here.

And anyone who gives Bush a pass to breaking laws and being unethical in allowing mail to be opened and non warranted wiretaps but sits back and either vocally supports the illegals coming over or non verbally by not saying anything at all and just allows it...... is just freaking partisan and they truly don't give a damn about true terrorism, they don't give a damn about rights and they don't give a damn about truly protecting us..... all they give a damn about is that Bush is the man and Dems aren't in power.

What freaking hypocrites.

(To the few that do support thesensible use of wiretaps, mail openings AND doing whatever it takes to stop the flow of illegals. I appologize because in my eyes you probably are the ones sensible enough to stand above partisan politics and believe that we must do what we need to do.)

You are a rare one indeed Cyn. And you have my respect for that.

I may not agree with you on the wiretaps and mail openings, but as long as the consistency is there by the fact you see danger in the illegals also, shows me it's not just partisan politics with you.

Very rare indeed..... including myself, it's too easy to get lost in the partisan fighting and not see the whole picture and what truly may have to be done for the good of all.

[genuinegirly]

You see...

I was raised with the suspicion that there were government contracted agencies out there that tapped wires and read e-mails, snail mail, and all of this rot in the first place.

So seeing it come public doesn't shock me. It doesn't disturb me any more than it did when I saw my first spy movie or wherever I came up with that idea.

I don't know if I agree with all of the crap that happens in our nation, but I definitely know that I am basically unable to do anything about it. Even if they were to upturn the patriot act and impeach Bush, wire-tapping would still be a reality. People will still be imprisioned for being different -- Muslim perhaps -- whatever the fad may be.

It's a bunch of bull.


No real change will occur until people themselves change. If there are no corrupted individuals, there will be no corrupt government. But we are human, and with that we are flawed. Those that are the most gullible seem to be the ones that are leading our own little Christian counter-jihad.

Whatever.
There are movements in the world to change things. Maybe one day one of them will work.

In the meantime, let them wire tap. People will only talk in code.

[Paq]

here is something to consider, if only briefly...

If mail is personal property, legally, and that personal property can be seized and searched w/out warrant...then what about your car..or your house, or your garage or your business, or your anything.

This is where the 'slippery slope' argument ends up. This sets a very bad precedent, but then again, it's also one that has been going on for quite some time.

and honestly, i am for a common sense approach to the things (wiretaps, opening mail, etc) that are "illegal" from the bush admin, the only problem is that ANY government fails horribly when it comes to common sense.

and you're right, cyn, very little in your day to day life has changed, as has very little in most americans' day to day lives, but i have to feel for the few that have been unfairly damaged, injured, shuffled about, imprisoned, spied upon, tapped, kept under tabs, etc, mainly bc i don't buy the "You would only be afraid of it if you had something to hide" ideology.