Was gonna reply w/ something like this but we did have a few... Germans invaded near the statue of liberty and blew shit up (ww1).... and Pearl Harbor...those were technically acts of war, but amounts to the same, and the sinking of the Luscitania...
But, for the most part America has been safe before and after the one isolated event of 9/11 and there's no proof that anything we've done since has made us safer (likely it's had the opposite effect by stirring up animosity).
If the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 would have been more successful, it could have killed thousands of people - the bomb was intended to topple Tower 1 into Tower 2, bringing both down.[1] Luckily, it only ended up killing 6 and injuring 1000.
Pretty sure it's been admitted that many programs viable because of the Patriot Act have stopped absolutely zero terrorist attacks and have indeed completely infringed upon your freedoms.
ACLU has gone to crap in the last few years unfortunately. It's been fully co-opted by the democrats for many years. Just like the SPLC, ADL etc. Look at where vast majority of their donations come from.
Fun fact: Vermont ratified the individual right to gun ownership and the abolishing of slavery in their State Constitution at the same time in 1777. The second amendment actually helped defeat racism and the only thing racist about it is the disproportionate infringement against minorities.
> Vermont’s Declaration of Rights of 1777 set forth the following fundamental rights and abolished slavery: That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave, or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one years; nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years.
> Vt. Constitution, Art. I, § 1 (1777). See Zilversmit at 116. The Vermont Declaration also provided: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . .” Id., § 15.
3. ACLU used to defend free speech of even neo-nazis but have since then abandoned their principles:
The same lawyer has also called for banning of Abigail Shrier's book.
5. Last year, they warned against using COVID-19 passport systems as they endanger privacy rights by creating a new surveillance infrastructure to collect health data which has the potential of mission creep to expand into other areas such as conditioning travel or access to housing. Such status may be stored with other personal details, such as travel, employment, or housing information, heightening the intrusiveness of an immunity passport system. They recommended focussing on the implementation of widespread, free, and quick testing, without creating a new privacy-invasive infrastructure that threatens everyone’s rights.
Last I saw we just surrendered to the Taliban, freed 5000 of them including the current leader, the insurgency is now the de-facto government of Afghanistan, and we recently had a high profile journalist hacked to pieces with a hand saw in an embassy and didn't do a damn thing about it.
How is the war on terror "essentially won" in your eyes?
Also, for your bit about being hard to believe - the agency reported it themselves, so you're essentially saying you believe nothing except that which conforms to your existing world view. Not sure what to say about that.
The taliban are the legitimate government of Afghanistan and were never terrorists. Ironically, the United States seems to love shipping in terrorists to destabilize afghanistan.
Northern Alliance must've been some pretty bad dudes too.
Ironically, if we want to go by your definitions, Afghanistan doesn't exist, therefore nor does a government. It's a construct of the West.
In the reality you're trying to suggest, that entire region exists as a bunch of regional tribes, perhaps more like the Emir(ates). Unfortunately, they are not United.
No, they’re saying that targeting the Taliban was incorrect and illegitimate scope creep, perpetuated by war hawks who needed to conflate the Taliban as an enemy and mislead the American public with incoherent Islamaphobia.
The US mandate against the Taliban was to prevent Al Queda from using the Taliban’s military infrastructure.
The Taliban was never officially deemed a terrorist organization, or a non-state enemy combatant, and only Pakistan was ever involved (instructed) to arrest or detain Taliban operatives and leaders. (That being said, due to the consequence free nature and lack of oversight, Taliban operatives were targeted and killed fairly indiscriminately especially by the drone pogroms.)
Despite the lack of distinction made to the Americans who were needed to remain scared and confused to support the expensive operation, the war time and diplomatic efforts mostly distinguished between Al Queda and the Taliban.
Its just US news and leaders who were playing US and NATO’s people for two decades straight.
This discussion isn't about the tribal nature of that region, which is valid. You’re absolutely right that the “government” and even the nation state concept can be ignored there. Unless you are a woman with different aspirations than what the governing authority says. But thats not this discussion.
We have very visible and emboldened domestic terror groups despite whatever state preemptive capabilities the Patriot Act brought in
And for Islamic extremists, the US mainland was barely ever the target. It just remains an eligible target due to an interpretation of jihad as long as we are seen as an invader in traditionally islamic lands.
Al Queda has more extreme offshoots which have destabilized regions including the effects of so many refugees sent all over the mediterranean
Strict Shariah from “not terrorist groups” are back in force despite 20 years of US wasting its resources and dividing itself over the budget overruns. This includes the extreme interpretation of Jihad that endangers US and all NATO countries.
Can you tell me more about your influences? Like how is your world, your newsfeeds, thrown you into such a niche where you can only regurgitate a 17-year old DOJ report to support it and believe it
Plenty of other people have responded to this comment, I don't have much to add except that you're literally the first person I've ever heard even suggest this.
Didn’t someone in CIA claim they had all the data that could uncover the attack plan, just didn’t have enough analysts for that to have happened?
If that is true then increasing surveillance would not change a thing, at the end data collected will just sit there untouched, or waiting to be abused.
Frankly I’m disappointed you didn’t call me a “sheeple,” but I’ll let it go because I’m excited to meet the one person in the United States who still must like Dick Cheney. Hi!
(Or are you referring to the person I replied to…?)
To the OP’s defence, there has been numerous, large scale murderous terrorist attacks in Europe over the same period, so it’s not like if there was no bear in sight.
Now you can debate whether it is the result of good policing or of a much smaller muslim immigration or some other factor.
The Boston Marathon bombing is another example of the US intelligence community knowing about the danger. The Russians rang us up and said "hey these two traveled to and from a known terrorist training camp", and everyone just shrugged.
Day-of, the bomb sniffing dogs left the finish line area when the VIPs did.
But wasn't the patriot act pretty much neutered when it's most important sections (section 215 being the most controversial one) expired under the Trump administration back in 2020?
But it seems like the sunsetting of those sections received very very little coverage, all things considered and the discourse around the patriot act reads as if no one is acknowledging or giving any importance to those sections expiring. I don't understand and I know I'm missing something about how american lawmaking works. What's the catch?
>But it seems like the sunsetting of those sections received very very little coverage
Because the left didn't want to bring attention to something good that Trump did, and neither did the neocons on the right. Only the libertarian wing of the right and the privacy advocate wing of the left cared to talk about it.
Ya... No. The Patriot act didn't make it out of Congress. It had literally nothing to do with Trump, the Democrats shot it down long before it got anywhere near him.
I'm not sure that's accurate at all. I agree that Trump isn't really to credit since he also pushed for another (earlier) surveillance bill but in this case it's very clear that his veto was crucial to block an extension of the sections. Your article is from march 2020 and while it does mention the house dems/senate GOP agreeing on a new bill, the Trump's veto threat came in 2 months later.
>House Democrats scrapped a vote to reauthorize national security surveillance authorities that have been expired since March after Republicans revolted from the measure following tweets from President Donald Trump urging them to oppose it.
[...]
>Pelosi charged at a news conference Thursday that Republican support for the bill "disappeared by a tweet -- the twinkle of a tweet."
[...]
>Trump issued a veto threat over Twitter Wednesday after telling Republicans to vote against it, and he celebrated the bill's failure in the House on Thursday.
> House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., announced he would pull the legislation Thursday morning after the chamber failed to pass it on Wednesday. As the House considered the measure Wednesday, President Donald Trump pledged to veto it.
> "At the request of the Speaker of the House, I am withdrawing consideration of the FISA Act," Hoyer said in a written statement. "The two-thirds of the Republican party that voted for this bill in March have indicated they are going to vote against it now. I am told they are doing so at the request of the President. I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people."
He threatened the veto because of how FISA was used by Obama admin to spy on his campaign.
When the Patriot Act was sunset it was replaced with the even more Orwellian sounding USA Freedom Act, which on face value includes better safeguards. It's hard to know if that has improved matters as we have little insight into the government's legal interpretations or real world application of the written law.
Even without these two laws it's likely government spying would go on unchanged, a large amount of the domestic surveillance is done under the 2008 FISA amendment. For example, the NSA Prism project where they have direct access to the user data of major big tech companies in the USA, that's authorized under the 2008 FISA amendment not Patriot Act.
I found the economist a good resource. They have a very explicit bias (free trade is good) and slammed him for the tariffs, but their coverage of the dreamers legislation early on was very informative for a non-American.
It wasn't "achieved by doing nothing or by accident". It was because Trump threatened to VETO it because the FISA was used by Obama admin to spy on his campaign.
Pretty much why everyone criticized the act in the first place. I believe they were desparate to turn up any dirt. At this point I believe people to support such issues for the party they disagree with.
I'm confused because as far as I can tell the Patriot Act is not currently in force, having expired in 2020[0]. But it seems that everyone is proceeding as if it is still in force, as if waiting on Congress to actually renew it is just a formality? Is this really how things work?
If you believe in rule of law, you're gonna have a bad time! At least in France and USA (the examples i know best), written law has mostly never been applied:
- NSA gathered tons of info before 9/11 and before dragnet surveillance was legal
- CIA imported tons of cocaine to feed popular neighborhoods with crack (destroy solidarity) and finance their counter-revolutionary wars which Congress knew nothing about (like financing and arming the fascist Contras in Nicaragua)
- let's not even talk about FBI's CoIntelPro program of surveillance, manipulation, and assassination of militants (see also: Cointelpro 101 documentary)
- likewise in France, la Sûreté de l'État (CIA equivalent in the 19th century) persecuted anarchists long before the "lois scélérates" (scoundrel laws) outlawed anarchist propaganda
- french police at the border deports people before they can apply for asylum, which is illegal in french law and according to international convention; just like french police deports romanian citizens back to Romania while it's illegal under Schengen accords
- french criminal police (supposedly "anti-criminal", la BAC) is every year involved in scandals of drug trafficking, corruption, fake testimonies, assassinations, and many other mafia-like activities; the chief of anti-drugs police was arrested for being the top importer of drugs in the entire country, which everyone knew for many years
- let's not even get into the even bigger corruption scandals at the heart of State (Cahuzac and so many other ministries found evading taxes, Macron enabling his personal bodyguard Benalla to dress up as a cop and beat random people on the streets, Sarkozy assassinating Kadhafi who illegally financed his political campaign...)
These are just examples. The rule of law is just a myth we tell children so they're happy to be exploited by a boss and live miserably because they had a "fair chance" in life. The truth is laws and cops are the tools of the oppressors and have never served the people. The psychopaths in power will do all they want and can get away with, no matter what the law says.
So yes, sorry to break your dreams, but that's how things work.
> the chief of anti-drugs police was arrested for being the top importer of drugs in the entire country
Sounds like rule of laws then?
I see your point but I think you bent it a bit too much on the other side. Law is a tool that's used for many different things, from justifying oppression to arrest corrupt officials when they threaten the desired equilibrium.
Yes and no, he was only arrested when his involvement became too obvious, but it was a well-known "secret" for many years on the streets that he was running the show the whole time.
And out of all cops and politicians accused of serious crimes (rape, murder, theft) it's very rare to see any of them condemned. And when they are condemned to a prison sentence, it's usually never enforced. Many well-known french politicians have been condemned to a prison sentence but i've never heard of a single one of them actually sitting behind bar. This creates a culture of impunity in the official representatives.
> arrest corrupt officials when they threaten the desired equilibrium
Yes, precisely. Only when they're too much of a bother to defend, they're rid of. I heard in germanic countries corruption and crime in State representatives is taken more seriously and it's not uncommon for ministers to be kicked out of public affairs even before they're condemned.
In France, corruption is business as usual, so you get in a situation where homeless people can be jailed for stealing food from a supermarket or cracking a squat in a building that was empty for many years, but people in power doing much more serious crimes will never face any sort of consequences beyond the very few independent media giving them bad press (which is not relayed by mainstream media which is owned by their friends from the industry). Differential justice based on class and connections does not fit into the definition of "rule of law".
EDIT: Strongly recommend reading Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. It offers a certain perspective on how modern social control operates, and how "justice" is not an independent power.
You can. When a word like "Patriot" is in the name of a bill about security and intelligence, it screams "fascism inside!"
It was fascism wrapped in a big ol' American flag so any critics could be attacked as shitting on the graves of heroes and victims, with a side dish of "endangering America" and "not giving us the tools we need so you're to blame if it happens again."
The hijackers weren't caught was because Bush ignored six briefings about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and suspicious activity. Not because of lacking intelligence. Bush was outright told that terrorists were in-country, planning to use airplanes for an attack along with explosives. Bin Laden's aides told a reporter they were planning an attack. The CIA knew there was group in the country. Bin Laden was under pressure; he was largely seen as a failure militarily and was trying to remain relevant as attention shifted to Chechnya.
The intelligence community was so concerned they titled one of the last of the briefings "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" hoping that would get his attention. It didn't.
People think his "oh shit" face the morning of 9/11 was because of some horror at the scale of the attack or something. Nah. He realized he was in deep, deep shit because he'd been warned, repeatedly, about Bin Laden planning an attack.
Reportedly Bin Laden was shocked at the scale of American response, but I think he didn't realize that Bush was willing to do anything to stay in for a second term (and how many dollar signs Cheney saw.)
The fallout of the Patriot Act cannot be understated. One of many effects: dramatically reduced access to the US banking system for people who lack the right sort of identification, for whatever reason. Real ID bullshit is doing similar, making it much more difficult to secure government-issued ID, solving a problem that by and large doesn't exist.
Well I keep hearing all kinds of people ranting about their freedom, often in relation to COVID restrictions. Or taxes, or... As if living off of the back of a highly complex society incurred no responsibilities. That’s a parasitic not a symbiotic relationship
Well i'm at least somewhat glad there are some people pushing back against micro control of one's life. You of course might enjoy the odd tolaitarian diktat, but each to his own.
The idea of "freedom" mixes "freedom from" and "freedom to" ("freedom to shoot" is a thing, "freedom from being shot" is another etc.). If you demanded freedom from dumb, irrational positions from the public, you will want to demand the same freedom from dumb, irrational positions from the administration. Such freedom includes freedom from unreasonable restrictions - freedom to do what is reasonable.
I am not sure about the USA, but I grant you there has been extreme abuse of good sense around the world in the past two years (if literal, non generalized rules for Los Angeles had been made valid for the Mojave, for example).
The legal construction of American rights was unique for its day (and remains unusual), being essentially a big list of freedoms & protections you have, with the assumption that government otherwise has unlimited authority.
Governments across the US then presuppose that if it's not on this list, then they can stop you doing it pretty much arbitrarily, and then write baroque laws to nibble away at what you did have. This is in contrast to the constitutional fundamentals of many older nations that start with the assumption that individuals can do anything, and then make laws saying what's illegal and/or compelled, and it's the rights of government that are limited by default.
Which is more free? I've always taken the view that the axioms of the US style are deceptively less free at an individual level, although this is an opinion often wildly unpopular with many Americans, who are powerfully indoctrinated from birth to assume they're the one true "land of the free". I guess "land of the most overtly protected from government abuses" is a bit of a mouthful.
The saving grace being, it's also the system best aligned with democracy, that famed system of selection whose principal value-add is enabling removal of the most egregious governments every few years without needing an army.
In any case, the consequences of the alternative construction of freedom are felt throughout American society and jurisprudence.
I won't disagree that this is largely how things work in practice, but I'd add the caveat that this practice
is a dishonest interpretation on the part of the legislators. There are specific powers enumerated to the Federal government. Individual states have their own constitutional restrictions.
Yes, that's definitely a tension. The unstated reason is that if you don't write that in specifically, then national government has default unmitigated power. Those clauses are a reaction to that fundamental American expectation of all governments, as informed by the experience vs the British.
And indeed they don't work, they just lead to creative workarounds; in the rare event that it can't find a foothold on any existing or implied power, then national government will enable regional and local government, or private interests, to do what it wanted instead.
Given that mass surveillance and warrantless wiretaps violate even the stated limitations, I'm left with the question of whether constitutional protections can restrain government?
Plato's five regimes describe a cycle of degeneration which may be inherent to the human condition. Constitutional protections are only as good as the legislator's and judicial branch's will to honor them. A fig leaf which has little bearing on the underlying incentives.
Quite the opposite, actually. Originally there were three buckets.
Feds do it, States do it, People do it.
There is also an implied negative version of said bucket. Government explicitly CANNOT do.
Anything not explicitly enumerated for the Feds, or denied to the Feds, and not explicitly delegated to the States or denied to the States falls into the bucket of the People.
Never shall something move from one bucket to another except by legislative action. This goes for either direction. This results in the "tyranny in 3 Acts" state of affairs where since no one has the stomach for a good ole purging of Federal/regulations over time, or using sunset dates by default, our legal code has become a minefield/cornucopia of selective enforcement justifications for the ambitious prosecutor. Lincoln, I think, said it best; and I think it is best to let his words stand for themselves. The speech of interest is his Lyceum Address, and I cannot recommend a full read highly enough.
Say what you will about the times, I find it extremely difficult to be dismissive of the essential points of that speech.
If the Temple of Liberty burns, it is because we have grown so overly complacent as to have put the torch to it. We have neglected the stone edifice of reason, erected a temple of sticks out of expediency, and burned it.
Yes, this was the new normal when freedoms were offered up on a plate because of some underdeveloped people in another continent decrying the west as a bad place...
Now it's the alter of covid that freedoms are offered up on. It's a shame nothing changed much in 20 years
I don't think that's a fair comparison. If we look at this rationally, an incredibly small percentage of the population was and is at any risk of terrorist attacks. Any further attacks could have been prevented without the widespread erosion of privacy and giving incredible powers to the government and law enforcement.
Covid on the other hand put everyone at risk. Even if your individual chance of getting seriously sick is relatively low, (nearly)everyone is at risk of catching it and playing Russian roulette with the outcome. That alone warrants certain steps that limit personal freedom temporarily. I support those measures, as long as they are actually removed soon. Maybe I'm being naive, I don't know, but I certainly don't think comparing the terrorist threat to covid is correct or even appropriate.
Yes, but why stop there? Let's increase the powers of the state.
Give them authority to mandate experimental vaccinations. Movement is a privilege, not a freedom. After all, this is an emergency!
Grant them authority to centrally dictate energy consumption and print permission to consume energy via carbon credits. If the climate apocalypse isn't an emergency, I don't know what is!
Better yet, let's move on from that and synthesize both concepts. We need to mandate a cashless society, UBI, proof of vaccination, CBDC, social credit scores, digital IDs and carbon credits.
I'm always surprised how many people openly condemn the previous manufactured crisis and usurpation, while proudly walking into the next. The flippant dismissals of concerns and demands for conformity fit the same pattern. Yet somehow, the fearful appeals always manage to convince members of the public that, "This time is different, it is an emergency!"
Dear Aww, // surely you do not believe that the current world can do without the use of tags,
/S
without having some readers agree to the literal idea in expressions intended as ironic. // And think of the people that reading your words may have fainted in a moment of doubt. // Best Regards,
Would we decry such measure in other countries that are not our allies? Would we call it autocratic/authoritarian/fascist etc.?? If so then why are so compliant here.
We The People should hate on, not only the Patriot Act, but every other "we have to pass it to see what's in it" piece of vast legislation that is:
- rammed through substantially unread;
- despite its prolix nature, is hardly more than a requirements outline to be filled in by un-elected, faceless Executive Branch bureaucrats as "regulations";
- continues to place financial burdens on unborn generations with gusto--"Taxation without representation" turned up to eleventy.
Rather than offer a standard spleen dump, the broader point for this audience that's being made is that the government isn't scalable.
The 1787 Constitution (while brilliant) is as a script that ran more-or-less well on a single instance, but has not forklifted into the cloud gracefully.
And people are not software, but the readers of this site can make some important recommendations about how to capture the liberty we hold dear and avoid the various tyranny traps.
There was this hilarious John Boehner riff when he was speaker after 2010:
“History has shown that future spending cuts rarely materialize,” said Andrew Roth, vice president of government affairs for the Club for Growth, which is best known for financing campaigns against Republicans deemed not conservative enough. "Nothing binds a future Congress from erasing them.”
However theoretically true Boehner's statement, the entitlement spending IS treated as binding, for all the unmet obligations of the government are something like an order of magnitude higher that the already ludicrous debt.
No one can credibly accuse Congress of fiscal sobriety.
85 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadMaybe my freedom is being infinged somehow but I haven't noticed it
But, for the most part America has been safe before and after the one isolated event of 9/11 and there's no proof that anything we've done since has made us safer (likely it's had the opposite effect by stirring up animosity).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombin...
https://tutanota.com/blog/posts/nsa-phone-surveillance-illeg...
here's a real report not a political charged blog: https://www.justice.gov/archive/olp/pdf/patriot_report_from_...
If you only respect government sources then the GAO has plenty of gems on this topic.
I’ll make a separate comment for my other thoughts
1. ACLU actively gives their data to Facebook:
https://www.axios.com/aclu-data-shares-facebook-4f1d21f4-d43...
https://fortune.com/2021/04/02/aclu-shares-data-facebook-thi...
2. ACLU claims Second Amendment is Racist
> "Racism is foundational to the Second Amendment and its inclusion in the Bill of Rights." https://twitter.com/ACLU/status/1419294620417155074
Fun fact: Vermont ratified the individual right to gun ownership and the abolishing of slavery in their State Constitution at the same time in 1777. The second amendment actually helped defeat racism and the only thing racist about it is the disproportionate infringement against minorities.
> Vermont’s Declaration of Rights of 1777 set forth the following fundamental rights and abolished slavery: That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore, no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave, or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one years; nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years.
> Vt. Constitution, Art. I, § 1 (1777). See Zilversmit at 116. The Vermont Declaration also provided: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . .” Id., § 15.
3. ACLU used to defend free speech of even neo-nazis but have since then abandoned their principles:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstain...
4. ACLU's most famous lawyer calls JK Rowling and Abigail Shrier "white supremacists" without any proof whatsoever:
https://twitter.com/abigailshrier/status/1358246098364583936...
The same lawyer has also called for banning of Abigail Shrier's book.
5. Last year, they warned against using COVID-19 passport systems as they endanger privacy rights by creating a new surveillance infrastructure to collect health data which has the potential of mission creep to expand into other areas such as conditioning travel or access to housing. Such status may be stored with other personal details, such as travel, employment, or housing information, heightening the intrusiveness of an immunity passport system. They recommended focussing on the implementation of widespread, free, and quick testing, without creating a new privacy-invasive infrastructure that threatens everyone’s rights.
https://archive.is/5KrP8
But now, ACLU claims ‘Vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties’:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vaccine-mandates-actually-...
The ACLU, Prior to COVID, Denounced ...
Last I saw we just surrendered to the Taliban, freed 5000 of them including the current leader, the insurgency is now the de-facto government of Afghanistan, and we recently had a high profile journalist hacked to pieces with a hand saw in an embassy and didn't do a damn thing about it.
How is the war on terror "essentially won" in your eyes?
Also, for your bit about being hard to believe - the agency reported it themselves, so you're essentially saying you believe nothing except that which conforms to your existing world view. Not sure what to say about that.
Northern Alliance must've been some pretty bad dudes too.
Ironically, if we want to go by your definitions, Afghanistan doesn't exist, therefore nor does a government. It's a construct of the West.
In the reality you're trying to suggest, that entire region exists as a bunch of regional tribes, perhaps more like the Emir(ates). Unfortunately, they are not United.
The US mandate against the Taliban was to prevent Al Queda from using the Taliban’s military infrastructure.
The Taliban was never officially deemed a terrorist organization, or a non-state enemy combatant, and only Pakistan was ever involved (instructed) to arrest or detain Taliban operatives and leaders. (That being said, due to the consequence free nature and lack of oversight, Taliban operatives were targeted and killed fairly indiscriminately especially by the drone pogroms.)
Despite the lack of distinction made to the Americans who were needed to remain scared and confused to support the expensive operation, the war time and diplomatic efforts mostly distinguished between Al Queda and the Taliban.
Its just US news and leaders who were playing US and NATO’s people for two decades straight.
This discussion isn't about the tribal nature of that region, which is valid. You’re absolutely right that the “government” and even the nation state concept can be ignored there. Unless you are a woman with different aspirations than what the governing authority says. But thats not this discussion.
They might have had poor taste in house guests (which cost them a generation of war) but they are the legitimate government of Afghanistan
Are you from Afghanistan by any chance? Or are you trolling way too hard?
Are you serious? The US looks terribly weak against terror because the fear alone makes them infringe on civil liberties on a massive and broad scale.
We have very visible and emboldened domestic terror groups despite whatever state preemptive capabilities the Patriot Act brought in
And for Islamic extremists, the US mainland was barely ever the target. It just remains an eligible target due to an interpretation of jihad as long as we are seen as an invader in traditionally islamic lands.
Al Queda has more extreme offshoots which have destabilized regions including the effects of so many refugees sent all over the mediterranean
Strict Shariah from “not terrorist groups” are back in force despite 20 years of US wasting its resources and dividing itself over the budget overruns. This includes the extreme interpretation of Jihad that endangers US and all NATO countries.
Can you tell me more about your influences? Like how is your world, your newsfeeds, thrown you into such a niche where you can only regurgitate a 17-year old DOJ report to support it and believe it
Apart of the zombie outbreak at January trying to hang the vice president in the damned Capitol of the USA all looks fine, yep
If that is true then increasing surveillance would not change a thing, at the end data collected will just sit there untouched, or waiting to be abused.
Trump gave it a shot by assassinating Soleimani, the Iranians just didn't retaliate enough to provide justification.
https://youtu.be/60RuXCV71ic
Lisa : That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer : Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa : Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer : Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa : It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer : I see.
Lisa : But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer : Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw
(Or are you referring to the person I replied to…?)
Well, this is awkward... Yes.
Now you can debate whether it is the result of good policing or of a much smaller muslim immigration or some other factor.
San Bernadino shootings.
Day-of, the bomb sniffing dogs left the finish line area when the VIPs did.
Not long after, the bombers set up their bombs...
But it seems like the sunsetting of those sections received very very little coverage, all things considered and the discourse around the patriot act reads as if no one is acknowledging or giving any importance to those sections expiring. I don't understand and I know I'm missing something about how american lawmaking works. What's the catch?
Because the left didn't want to bring attention to something good that Trump did, and neither did the neocons on the right. Only the libertarian wing of the right and the privacy advocate wing of the left cared to talk about it.
https://archive.md/tBIHY
>House Democrats scrapped a vote to reauthorize national security surveillance authorities that have been expired since March after Republicans revolted from the measure following tweets from President Donald Trump urging them to oppose it.
[...]
>Pelosi charged at a news conference Thursday that Republican support for the bill "disappeared by a tweet -- the twinkle of a tweet."
[...]
>Trump issued a veto threat over Twitter Wednesday after telling Republicans to vote against it, and he celebrated the bill's failure in the House on Thursday.
source: https://cnn.com/cnn/2020/05/27/politics/house-vote-fisa/inde...
This isn't accurate at all and your link is outdated. Give the man some credit where it's due.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/fisa-bill-house-withdraws-su...
> House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., announced he would pull the legislation Thursday morning after the chamber failed to pass it on Wednesday. As the House considered the measure Wednesday, President Donald Trump pledged to veto it.
> "At the request of the Speaker of the House, I am withdrawing consideration of the FISA Act," Hoyer said in a written statement. "The two-thirds of the Republican party that voted for this bill in March have indicated they are going to vote against it now. I am told they are doing so at the request of the President. I believe this to be against the security interest of the United States and the safety of the American people."
He threatened the veto because of how FISA was used by Obama admin to spy on his campaign.
Even without these two laws it's likely government spying would go on unchanged, a large amount of the domestic surveillance is done under the 2008 FISA amendment. For example, the NSA Prism project where they have direct access to the user data of major big tech companies in the USA, that's authorized under the 2008 FISA amendment not Patriot Act.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/fisa-bill-house-withdraws-su...
People need to stop being so hyper biased.
[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/section-215-expired-ye...
Nope, most of it remains in force, only a small (but important) minority of it is covered by sunset provisions. [0]
[0] https://www.aclu.org/other/patriot-act-sunsets
- NSA gathered tons of info before 9/11 and before dragnet surveillance was legal
- CIA imported tons of cocaine to feed popular neighborhoods with crack (destroy solidarity) and finance their counter-revolutionary wars which Congress knew nothing about (like financing and arming the fascist Contras in Nicaragua)
- let's not even talk about FBI's CoIntelPro program of surveillance, manipulation, and assassination of militants (see also: Cointelpro 101 documentary)
- likewise in France, la Sûreté de l'État (CIA equivalent in the 19th century) persecuted anarchists long before the "lois scélérates" (scoundrel laws) outlawed anarchist propaganda
- french police at the border deports people before they can apply for asylum, which is illegal in french law and according to international convention; just like french police deports romanian citizens back to Romania while it's illegal under Schengen accords
- french criminal police (supposedly "anti-criminal", la BAC) is every year involved in scandals of drug trafficking, corruption, fake testimonies, assassinations, and many other mafia-like activities; the chief of anti-drugs police was arrested for being the top importer of drugs in the entire country, which everyone knew for many years
- let's not even get into the even bigger corruption scandals at the heart of State (Cahuzac and so many other ministries found evading taxes, Macron enabling his personal bodyguard Benalla to dress up as a cop and beat random people on the streets, Sarkozy assassinating Kadhafi who illegally financed his political campaign...)
These are just examples. The rule of law is just a myth we tell children so they're happy to be exploited by a boss and live miserably because they had a "fair chance" in life. The truth is laws and cops are the tools of the oppressors and have never served the people. The psychopaths in power will do all they want and can get away with, no matter what the law says.
So yes, sorry to break your dreams, but that's how things work.
Sounds like rule of laws then?
I see your point but I think you bent it a bit too much on the other side. Law is a tool that's used for many different things, from justifying oppression to arrest corrupt officials when they threaten the desired equilibrium.
Yes and no, he was only arrested when his involvement became too obvious, but it was a well-known "secret" for many years on the streets that he was running the show the whole time.
And out of all cops and politicians accused of serious crimes (rape, murder, theft) it's very rare to see any of them condemned. And when they are condemned to a prison sentence, it's usually never enforced. Many well-known french politicians have been condemned to a prison sentence but i've never heard of a single one of them actually sitting behind bar. This creates a culture of impunity in the official representatives.
> arrest corrupt officials when they threaten the desired equilibrium
Yes, precisely. Only when they're too much of a bother to defend, they're rid of. I heard in germanic countries corruption and crime in State representatives is taken more seriously and it's not uncommon for ministers to be kicked out of public affairs even before they're condemned.
In France, corruption is business as usual, so you get in a situation where homeless people can be jailed for stealing food from a supermarket or cracking a squat in a building that was empty for many years, but people in power doing much more serious crimes will never face any sort of consequences beyond the very few independent media giving them bad press (which is not relayed by mainstream media which is owned by their friends from the industry). Differential justice based on class and connections does not fit into the definition of "rule of law".
EDIT: Strongly recommend reading Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. It offers a certain perspective on how modern social control operates, and how "justice" is not an independent power.
Bills imo shouldn't be able to be named something akin to propaganda for smear campaigns
It was fascism wrapped in a big ol' American flag so any critics could be attacked as shitting on the graves of heroes and victims, with a side dish of "endangering America" and "not giving us the tools we need so you're to blame if it happens again."
The hijackers weren't caught was because Bush ignored six briefings about Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and suspicious activity. Not because of lacking intelligence. Bush was outright told that terrorists were in-country, planning to use airplanes for an attack along with explosives. Bin Laden's aides told a reporter they were planning an attack. The CIA knew there was group in the country. Bin Laden was under pressure; he was largely seen as a failure militarily and was trying to remain relevant as attention shifted to Chechnya.
The intelligence community was so concerned they titled one of the last of the briefings "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US" hoping that would get his attention. It didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_Ladin_Determined_To_Strike...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_intelligence_befo...
People think his "oh shit" face the morning of 9/11 was because of some horror at the scale of the attack or something. Nah. He realized he was in deep, deep shit because he'd been warned, repeatedly, about Bin Laden planning an attack.
Reportedly Bin Laden was shocked at the scale of American response, but I think he didn't realize that Bush was willing to do anything to stay in for a second term (and how many dollar signs Cheney saw.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us/august-01-brief-is-sai...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-ho...
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-report-shows-how-many-wa...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/cia-director...
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/04/while-bush-vacat...
The fallout of the Patriot Act cannot be understated. One of many effects: dramatically reduced access to the US banking system for people who lack the right sort of identification, for whatever reason. Real ID bullshit is doing similar, making it much more difficult to secure government-issued ID, solving a problem that by and large doesn't exist.
Just like the "HEROES Act" which funnelled trillions into the hands of corporations and foreign nations while giving chump change to Americans.
I am not sure about the USA, but I grant you there has been extreme abuse of good sense around the world in the past two years (if literal, non generalized rules for Los Angeles had been made valid for the Mojave, for example).
Governments across the US then presuppose that if it's not on this list, then they can stop you doing it pretty much arbitrarily, and then write baroque laws to nibble away at what you did have. This is in contrast to the constitutional fundamentals of many older nations that start with the assumption that individuals can do anything, and then make laws saying what's illegal and/or compelled, and it's the rights of government that are limited by default.
Which is more free? I've always taken the view that the axioms of the US style are deceptively less free at an individual level, although this is an opinion often wildly unpopular with many Americans, who are powerfully indoctrinated from birth to assume they're the one true "land of the free". I guess "land of the most overtly protected from government abuses" is a bit of a mouthful.
The saving grace being, it's also the system best aligned with democracy, that famed system of selection whose principal value-add is enabling removal of the most egregious governments every few years without needing an army.
In any case, the consequences of the alternative construction of freedom are felt throughout American society and jurisprudence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers_(United_Stat...
I won't disagree that this is largely how things work in practice, but I'd add the caveat that this practice is a dishonest interpretation on the part of the legislators. There are specific powers enumerated to the Federal government. Individual states have their own constitutional restrictions.
And indeed they don't work, they just lead to creative workarounds; in the rare event that it can't find a foothold on any existing or implied power, then national government will enable regional and local government, or private interests, to do what it wanted instead.
Plato's five regimes describe a cycle of degeneration which may be inherent to the human condition. Constitutional protections are only as good as the legislator's and judicial branch's will to honor them. A fig leaf which has little bearing on the underlying incentives.
Feds do it, States do it, People do it.
There is also an implied negative version of said bucket. Government explicitly CANNOT do.
Anything not explicitly enumerated for the Feds, or denied to the Feds, and not explicitly delegated to the States or denied to the States falls into the bucket of the People.
Never shall something move from one bucket to another except by legislative action. This goes for either direction. This results in the "tyranny in 3 Acts" state of affairs where since no one has the stomach for a good ole purging of Federal/regulations over time, or using sunset dates by default, our legal code has become a minefield/cornucopia of selective enforcement justifications for the ambitious prosecutor. Lincoln, I think, said it best; and I think it is best to let his words stand for themselves. The speech of interest is his Lyceum Address, and I cannot recommend a full read highly enough.
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/lyceum....
Say what you will about the times, I find it extremely difficult to be dismissive of the essential points of that speech.
If the Temple of Liberty burns, it is because we have grown so overly complacent as to have put the torch to it. We have neglected the stone edifice of reason, erected a temple of sticks out of expediency, and burned it.
Now it's the alter of covid that freedoms are offered up on. It's a shame nothing changed much in 20 years
Covid on the other hand put everyone at risk. Even if your individual chance of getting seriously sick is relatively low, (nearly)everyone is at risk of catching it and playing Russian roulette with the outcome. That alone warrants certain steps that limit personal freedom temporarily. I support those measures, as long as they are actually removed soon. Maybe I'm being naive, I don't know, but I certainly don't think comparing the terrorist threat to covid is correct or even appropriate.
I’m not taking sides here but that’s a pretty heavy euphemism for 9/11
Give them authority to mandate experimental vaccinations. Movement is a privilege, not a freedom. After all, this is an emergency!
Grant them authority to centrally dictate energy consumption and print permission to consume energy via carbon credits. If the climate apocalypse isn't an emergency, I don't know what is!
Better yet, let's move on from that and synthesize both concepts. We need to mandate a cashless society, UBI, proof of vaccination, CBDC, social credit scores, digital IDs and carbon credits.
I'm always surprised how many people openly condemn the previous manufactured crisis and usurpation, while proudly walking into the next. The flippant dismissals of concerns and demands for conformity fit the same pattern. Yet somehow, the fearful appeals always manage to convince members of the public that, "This time is different, it is an emergency!"
/S
without having some readers agree to the literal idea in expressions intended as ironic. // And think of the people that reading your words may have fainted in a moment of doubt. // Best Regards,
- rammed through substantially unread;
- despite its prolix nature, is hardly more than a requirements outline to be filled in by un-elected, faceless Executive Branch bureaucrats as "regulations";
- continues to place financial burdens on unborn generations with gusto--"Taxation without representation" turned up to eleventy.
Rather than offer a standard spleen dump, the broader point for this audience that's being made is that the government isn't scalable.
The 1787 Constitution (while brilliant) is as a script that ran more-or-less well on a single instance, but has not forklifted into the cloud gracefully.
And people are not software, but the readers of this site can make some important recommendations about how to capture the liberty we hold dear and avoid the various tyranny traps.
Can you expand on this?
“History has shown that future spending cuts rarely materialize,” said Andrew Roth, vice president of government affairs for the Club for Growth, which is best known for financing campaigns against Republicans deemed not conservative enough. "Nothing binds a future Congress from erasing them.”
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0728/Why-John-Bo...
However theoretically true Boehner's statement, the entitlement spending IS treated as binding, for all the unmet obligations of the government are something like an order of magnitude higher that the already ludicrous debt.
No one can credibly accuse Congress of fiscal sobriety.
Thanks, Johnny B.