Spying on Americans = no prosecutions, whistleblowing programs that spy on Americans = prosecution

[Yugl]

There's actually an article that uses a similar format to explain social movement (I think it was called "Social movements of the Left and Right" by Mark or something). The problem, as I see it, is that the institutions for holding politicians accountable during the non-election years is disjoint in the US. Even if one were to use election cycles as a means of retrospective judgment, the options are limited because you're faced with a mild abuser and a heavy abuser. Knowing all of this, I'm still wondering what the actual solution would be.

[Kuya]

Well unless someone suggests a revolution because the rule of law is false, then i don't have many ideas. And really, asking people on a video game forum to feel outrage over this is hard, unless you're asking them to feel outrage over a politician saying how vid games are bad. People who are comfortable and surrounded by distractions aren't prone to care about anything other than their distractions.

[Alleya]

Well unless someone suggests a revolution because the rule of law is false, then i don't have many ideas. And really, asking people on a video game forum to feel outrage over this is hard, unless you're asking them to feel outrage over a politician saying how vid games are bad. People who are comfortable and surrounded by distractions aren't prone to care about anything other than their distractions.

http://danliterature.files.wordpress...us_huxley2.jpg

Oh, hello. Didn't hear you come in.

[Athas]

Well unless someone suggests a revolution because the rule of law is false, then i don't have many ideas. And really, asking people on a video game forum to feel outrage over this is hard, unless you're asking them to feel outrage over a politician saying how vid games are bad. People who are comfortable and surrounded by distractions aren't prone to care about anything other than their distractions.

Not revolution, evolution.

[Rothbardian]

NSA won't get punished, they've been doing this since the Cold War ended. They're part of the UKUSA intelligence community which has been using the "Echelon" program not only to spy on it's own people but also to commit international economic espionage.

I'd personally like to see Cheney get the chair rather than this guy get prosecuted, but it's not gonna happen. In fact, i'd like to use this program to bury both Bush and Cheney for every illegal action during their administration.

Well, let's not forget the rest of the gang. Good ol' Clinton, Obama, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, and the rest back to Truman & FDR vice OSS.

But, to the OP who loves State power, it is just a by-product of power, that same power you love to give them. Take a look at Britain sometime. Yes, I am not shitting you:

http://www.craphound.com/images/fdsz...jfsdfphoto.jpg

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-conte...in-225x300.jpg

When the State has the power to tax you, print money, regulate every little detail of your life, you expect them not to abuse that, or to reach for more?

I always find it funny how Statist complain about abuses of State power. You are the motherfuckers who complicently give them the power in the first place!

Anyways, in the name of progress, I welcome principled-leftists in the fight to end the Imperialism, and rampant liberty violations coming from DC. You guys seriously need to spend less-time huffing and puffing about right-wingers, and more time huffing and puffing about DC.

[Rothbardian]

There's actually an article that uses a similar format to explain social movement (I think it was called "Social movements of the Left and Right" by Mark or something). The problem, as I see it, is that the institutions for holding politicians accountable during the non-election years is disjoint in the US. Even if one were to use election cycles as a means of retrospective judgment, the options are limited because you're faced with a mild abuser and a heavy abuser. Knowing all of this, I'm still wondering what the actual solution would be.

Anarchy, or more specifically, voluntary Stateless societies.

[Tomk]

I would suggest supporting the ACLU. Writing individual letters is nice but your effort would be better served helping a group that has the power and knowledge to actually sue the Government over issues like this.

[Kuya]

Rothbardian

I have little interest for your ahistorical banter.

The Bush administration managed to increase State power because of 9/11, meaning they used fear. The same applies to the Cold War; the US government grew its defense spending exponentially using overinflated fears of Soviets (although unlike you, i don't have to analyze the situation by assuming that this was the effect of some sort of conspiracy) and with that it also increased the intelligence apparatus of the State.

A State does not abuse power because of some metaphysical principles, it abuses power because it is no longer held accountable. Americans do not have control of their government because they've grown apathetic and proud.

What do you expect when you give a State power? The correct way to frame it is: What do you expect when you give a State power, but you don't care to take responsability for it?

[Rothbardian]

I have little interest for your ahistorical banter.

The Bush administration managed to increase State power because of 9/11, meaning they used fear. The same applies to the Cold War; the US government grew its defense spending exponentially using overinflated fears of Soviets (although unlike you, i don't have to analyze the situation by assuming that this was the effect of some sort of conspiracy) and with that it also increased the intelligence apparatus of the State.

A State does not abuse power because of some metaphysical principles, it abuses power because it is no longer held accountable. Americans do not have control of their government because they've grown apathetic and proud.

What do you expect when you give a State power? The correct way to frame it is: What do you expect when you give a State power, but you don't care to take responsability for it?

Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts. The State is absolute power. It is a monopoly. As with all systems that rely on plurality voting it soon begins to devolve into looting each other.

Yes, Bush was horrible, but he certainly wasn't the first. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, threw elected Democrats in jail for voicing opposition to the War, instituted the Draft, arresting Supreme Court Justices for following Constitution, etc. Even going back to our earliest times, we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Wilson was as bad if not worse than Lincoln throwing Anti-War Republicans (Pretty much the vast majority of the GOP -- the traditional Anti-War, Non-interventionist Party) in jail, etc. Then we had Reagan and Iran-Contra, huge spending spikes, expanded bureacracy, etc. etc.

You think writing letters, marching on DC, or whatever other little shenanigans you do will work? When will you learn that the folks in DC don't give a shit what you say? The only way we are going to win our liberty back is through Civil Disobedience, Resistance, & Education. You think you are going to vote a lot of these people out and bring in principled liberty defenders like Ron Paul, or Kucinich (Kucinich is fucking atrocious on half the liberty spectrum, but I digress)?

Yes, Fear is one tactic they use. Bribery & looting another. Another yet, is merely power. Imposing societal views, and shielding from criticism. The goal isn't to try and corral the uncorralable, but to kill the animal. Nothing is going to change if we don't reduce the size of DC by at least 99%.

I guess you forgot that the State is nothing more than INDIVIDUALS. All groups are solely comprised of Individuals. No individual is immune to the corruption that power entails. This is why us Market Libertarians are Free-Marketeers and not Statists. You can more easily abate corruption through the market than you can through a monopoly. You vote everytime you spend your money. Your vote actually matters. Corruption will always be with us. Thinking that a monopolistic institution will achieve the least amount of corruption, is absurd.

I have been fighting against the State for half a decade now, and many before me for many many decades. Those people aren't 'taking responsibility'? Sorry, but in this system if you don't hold a plurality it doesn't matter how much you fight you won't win electorally, and even if you do, good luck getting a principled Majority! No. You can't corral the State. If you look back at History the one unifying fact is that the State always grows in power. You may start off with a minimal State, but it always will result in a monolithic totalitarian State.

Also, I'm not a conspiracy type of guy. I'm more of an intellectual -- Misesian, than a WeAreChange Jones guy. That isn't to discourage the latter, but its just not my thing. I'd much rather stand side by side with them though, than the Nader-Kucinich-McKinney types.

Besides -- Meet your new boss same as the old boss -- Barrack H. Bush III. I don't have time to deal with partisan hacks. I guess the left is a lost cause to liberty, if you are going to be so hostile when I extended the olive branch. I'll stick with my fellow Misesians, which are actually growing immensely. You should also learn what it means to be a liberal. Hat tip: Read some John Locke, Thomas Paine, Frederic Bastiat, Thoreau, Spooner, J.B. Say, Richard Bright, Henry Cobden, Voltaire, La Boetie, etc.

[Leaf]

Some might remember the NSA's illegal wiretapping that let the NSA hear practically any private conversation in America, it was ruled illegal by three separate federal judges:

Actually, judges don't rule things "illegal" (this is a very important distinction to make). Another importance distinction to make is before you sue somebody, you actually need to have a victim. You have to have someone whose rights have been violated.

This is why judges dismiss those cases. Plaintiffs kick and scream, but they can never actually produce evidence that anybody's rights have been violated. This may have something to do with the fact that the federal government does not listen in on conversations between little Jack and Bob, and instead diverts its resources to Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta.

When the government releases tapes of you cheating on your spouse, then you can sue them. If the government uses tapes to put you in prison, you can get your ruling.

This is not a small issue, there has been an illegal war, torture, and illegal spying and yet nobody involved there has been prosecuted, so why should the whistleblower be prosecuted when nobody else is?

You cannot keep repeating the meaningless claims that the war was "illegal", that we used "torture", and that spying is "illegal". They are all untrue.

As to your question as to why we don't prosecute people who try and defend America (this is accomplished by fighting wars, interrogating bad guys, and spying on terrorists) instead of those people who try to undermine our national security (The New York Times), I think the facts speak for themselves.

Revealing secret government programs that have not been ruled unconstitutional (otherwise known as "legal") to a national newspaper is known as "treason".

We prosecute people for betraying the United States, not for defending it.

You can't even prove in a court of law any of those silly things you claim, but we can prove that someone intentionally undermined the security of the United States of America.


This thread is stupid.

[Kuya]

Power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts. The State is absolute power. It is a monopoly. As with all systems that rely on plurality voting it soon begins to devolve into looting each other.

Yes, Bush was horrible, but he certainly wasn't the first. Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, threw elected Democrats in jail for voicing opposition to the War, instituted the Draft, arresting Supreme Court Justices for following Constitution, etc. Even going back to our earliest times, we had the Alien and Sedition Acts. Wilson was as bad if not worse than Lincoln throwing Anti-War Republicans (Pretty much the vast majority of the GOP -- the traditional Anti-War, Non-interventionist Party) in jail, etc. Then we had Reagan and Iran-Contra, huge spending spikes, expanded bureacracy, etc. etc.

You think writing letters, marching on DC, or whatever other little shenanigans you do will work? When will you learn that the folks in DC don't give a shit what you say? The only way we are going to win our liberty back is through Civil Disobedience, Resistance, & Education. You think you are going to vote a lot of these people out and bring in principled liberty defenders like Ron Paul, or Kucinich (Kucinich is fucking atrocious on half the liberty spectrum, but I digress)?

Yes, Fear is one tactic they use. Bribery & looting another. Another yet, is merely power. Imposing societal views, and shielding from criticism. The goal isn't to try and corral the uncorralable, but to kill the animal. Nothing is going to change if we don't reduce the size of DC by at least 99%.

I guess you forgot that the State is nothing more than INDIVIDUALS. All groups are solely comprised of Individuals. No individual is immune to the corruption that power entails. This is why us Market Libertarians are Free-Marketeers and not Statists. You can more easily abate corruption through the market than you can through a monopoly. You vote everytime you spend your money. Your vote actually matters. Corruption will always be with us. Thinking that a monopolistic institution will achieve the least amount of corruption, is absurd.

I have been fighting against the State for half a decade now, and many before me for many many decades. Those people aren't 'taking responsibility'? Sorry, but in this system if you don't hold a plurality it doesn't matter how much you fight you won't win electorally, and even if you do, good luck getting a principled Majority! No. You can't corral the State. If you look back at History the one unifying fact is that the State always grows in power. You may start off with a minimal State, but it always will result in a monolithic totalitarian State.

Also, I'm not a conspiracy type of guy. I'm more of an intellectual -- Misesian, than a WeAreChange Jones guy. That isn't to discourage the latter, but its just not my thing. I'd much rather stand side by side with them though, than the Nader-Kucinich-McKinney types.

Besides -- Meet your new boss same as the old boss -- Barrack H. Bush III. I don't have time to deal with partisan hacks. I guess the left is a lost cause to liberty, if you are going to be so hostile when I extended the olive branch. I'll stick with my fellow Misesians, which are actually growing immensely. You should also learn what it means to be a liberal. Hat tip: Read some John Locke, Thomas Paine, Frederic Bastiat, Thoreau, Spooner, J.B. Say, Richard Bright, Henry Cobden, Voltaire, La Boetie, etc.

Yes, yes power corrupts, free markets, unicorns. Thank you for the enlightment.

Let me just address a few points quickly since you are not the type of person one can have an honest debate with.

The folks in DC (and the Pentagon) are a lot of different folks, in different groups, with different interests. When one talks about the State, especially a republican one, one understands that the State is actually composed of various groups with different interests. Generally speaking, we can divide that into the executive, legislative, and judicial. One fact in the US has been that as time has passed, especially after WWII, the legislative branch has been losing more power to the executive, and in some cases even abdicating powers to the executive. The legislative branch is a far more democratic group than the executive, considering that the executive is tied into the Pentagon, one of the most undemocratic institutions of the American system of government.

There are a lot of factors for why the executive has gotten more powerful and people have become more apathetic (this apathy is also a reason why Congress is weaker). One can even posit that people enjoy so much material freedom and wealth that they pay very little attention and merely focus on entertainment and the every day musts of life; they don't have time for politics. Naturally, that is not the only reason, but saying that governments always grow and become more tyranical without explaining the reasons why in a nuanced manner is a mere waste of time. Governments don't grow and become more tyrannical just because or simply because of corruption. That is mere lazy intellectualism.

There are States that were once empires and are now far more democratic than they used to be; clearly not even history agrees with the notion that all States inevitably become tyranies and remain as such. England, Spain, France and all the others are good examples of this change. The process, a little less chaotic for some (England).

Finally, i don't need an imbecile like you to tell me that voting isn't enough or that Obama's foreign policy isn't empire-light. I'm well aware of these things and i don't need a lecture from someone who merely makes statements as if they were ineliable principles, without providing context, elaborations or details. You are merely an ideologue searching for some belief to make the reality of life seem less depressing for you; you're not very interested in nuance. You're just looking for a more logical religion. In truth, you're just as powerless as everyone else, though a little brighter.

[Kuya]

Actually, judges don't rule things "illegal" (this is a very important distinction to make). Another importance distinction to make is before you sue somebody, you actually need to have a victim. You have to have someone whose rights have been violated.

This is why judges dismiss those cases. Plaintiffs kick and scream, but they can never actually produce evidence that anybody's rights have been violated. This may have something to do with the fact that the federal government does not listen in on conversations between little Jack and Bob, and instead diverts its resources to Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta.

When the government releases tapes of you cheating on your spouse, then you can sue them. If the government uses tapes to put you in prison, you can get your ruling.



You cannot keep repeating the meaningless claims that the war was "illegal", that we used "torture", and that spying is "illegal". They are all untrue.

As to your question as to why we don't prosecute people who try and defend America (this is accomplished by fighting wars, interrogating bad guys, and spying on terrorists) instead of those people who try to undermine our national security (The New York Times), I think the facts speak for themselves.

Revealing secret government programs that have not been ruled unconstitutional (otherwise known as "legal") to a national newspaper is known as "treason".

We prosecute people for betraying the United States, not for defending it.

You can't even prove in a court of law any of those silly things you claim, but we can prove that someone intentionally undermined the security of the United States of America.


This thread is stupid.

I did not give you permission to reply to me. You will have a debate with me, when i deem you have made reasonable points, otherwise, simply remain quiet.

[Feedmenow]

What do you expect when you give a State power? The correct way to frame it is: What do you expect when you give a State power, but you don't care to take responsibility for it?

With power comes responsibility? If you hand power to the state, you're giving it the responsibility to use that power wisely. In many cases (this topic, police brutality, military killings of civilians, other shit that gets complained about on BG threads, etc), it doesn't use that power responsibly, but since they have most of the power we can't do much to quickly change anything. We have no real ability to make government take accountability, since we mainly influence government through voting, and both parties support government expansion for either economic or personal security.

My question is: Is giving power and responsibility to the State worth the abuse that may come of it?

[Kuya]

With power comes responsibility? If you hand power to the state, you're giving it the responsibility to use that power wisely. In many cases (this topic, police brutality, military killings of civilians, other shit that gets complained about on BG threads, etc), it doesn't use that power responsibly, but since they have most of the power we can't do much to quickly change anything. We have no real ability to make government take accountability, since we mainly influence government through voting, and both parties support government expansion for either economic or personal security.

My question is: Is giving power and responsibility to the State worth the abuse that may come of it?

Let me put this in a very simplistic manner at first, i am going to channel Hobbes for it.

People, that is, human beings, more than anything in life, desire safety and security. This may likely be the main purpose of the State. (btw, you may already know all of this, so do not take it as if i am lecturing you, i am mere in the process of replying to you) If you want to have the most security possible, then you give the State as much power as you possibly can. The State in this sense, a republican one, but if you want to be even safer, then don't divide the government, and put all the power into one person.

Perhaps there is a mathematical way to know this, i don't know, but there is a certain point where putting more power into the State may make it seem like you're safer, but it starts to be the case where the State becomes more of a danger to you rather than your protector. Remember Saddam? In his State, there was very little crime; fear works, but it's a double edged sword.

So when you give power to the State, you have to decide whether this genuinely makes you safer and if it is necessary, or if it will actually be a detriment to you. For example, the government or rather the intellegence agencies could already wiretap you, but they needed a warrant that justified it. Warrantless wiretapping means just that, they no longer need a warrant. Was this necessary? The assumption was that getting warrants was to slow a process and thus it needed to be faster in order to stop terrorist attacks, yet could anyone really prove that? Unfortunately, 9/11 made it so it wasn't a logical choice, and people were already pretty apathetic to begin with.

The argument can even be extended. Is it necessary to have so many intellegence agencies? The CIA, NSA, SPECOPs? Or what about the size of the US military, is it proportional? Does having it be so big mean more spending than is necessary and does it create an incentive for the US to go to wars? The public rarely has these discussions, but they are questions worth asking. I can agree with Roth that the US government, specifically its executive branch, and the Pentagon, have far too much power, and once you give the government certain powers, it is hard to take them away, if not impossible.

A seemingly democratic society should be very careful with what powers it allows the government to have and in what manner, because a democratic society is not compatible with an empire. You need an open environment to run a democracy, and that's not what the US is becoming. And as opposed to what Roth says, it's not just about the powers you give to the government, but how you divide the government so all the powers aren't in the same hands. That's why part of the problem isn't just corruption; Congress's power over the purse, which would be what can control the executive has become useless because Congress only takes on the president if he is from a different party (unless they are democrats lol) and they never take on the president if it has to do with war. Let me repeat that, part of the problem is not just corruption, but a failure of constitutional safeguards to divide power.

Let me clarify just in case i did not actually make a point: The responsability belongs to the citizens, not the State; they have to decide what powers to allow the governmetn and what powers to give each branch. The circumstances of history and voter apathy have made it so power has accrued in the executive and constitutional safeguards have weakened. After you have given the government power out of fear and let it centralize, what do you do? I don't know, even the voting system has weakened due to private campaign financing. So, is giving power to the State worth the possible abuse? Depends on whether you think the positives outweigh the negatives. Most Americans seem to have thought that Guantanamo outweight the negatives, even though many innocent people were tortured there.

[Xno Kappa]

Let me drop some knowledge on you Kuya.

"With great power, comes great responsibility."
- Uncle Ben

[#686578]

With power comes responsibility? If you hand power to the state, you're giving it the responsibility to use that power wisely. In many cases (this topic, police brutality, military killings of civilians, other shit that gets complained about on BG threads, etc), it doesn't use that power responsibly, but since they have most of the power we can't do much to quickly change anything. We have no real ability to make government take accountability, since we mainly influence government through voting, and both parties support government expansion for either economic or personal security.

My question is: Is giving power and responsibility to the State worth the abuse that may come of it?

The very ideas you've mentioned in this posts are false and fiercely oppose the foundations of our government. With great power comes great responsibility to police that power. If you hand power to the state you have a responsibility to police the state. You, the individual. Remember that we're not forced solely through voting to influence the government, we can take violent arms against our government if the need arises.

Edit: Whoops looks like Kuya finally got around to that in his response

Let me clarify just in case i did not actually make a point: The responsability belongs to the citizens, not the State

[Feedmenow]

I left my post pretty open-ended to open up discussion about it, but a mathematical view of rights v benefits to security was in my mind as I posted that.

The assumption was that getting warrants was to slow a process and thus it needed to be faster in order to stop terrorist attacks, yet could anyone really prove that? Unfortunately, 9/11 made it so it wasn't a logical choice, and people were already pretty apathetic to begin with.

The argument can even be extended. Is it necessary to have so many intellegence agencies? The CIA, NSA, SPECOPs? Or what about the size of the US military, is it proportional? Does having it be so big mean more spending than is necessary and does it create an incentive for the US to go to wars? The public rarely has these discussions, but they are questions worth asking. I can agree with Roth that the US government, specifically its executive branch, and the Pentagon, have far too much power, and once you give the government certain powers, it is hard to take them away, if not impossible.

It's hard to solidly care on either side of an issue if there is no proof for either side. Not to say that classified information should never be classified, but the absolute vacuum of any information that would help individuals decide on whether allowing the government to pursue warrantless wiretaps. It's hard to care about the effect of giving government more power if you never see the effects of it.

I agree that the public apathy in instances like Guantanamo Bay and new instances like this are the main problem we have when information about government abuse of power comes into play. We should be supportive of whistleblowers like discussed in the beginning of the topic, but it seems like unless someone is directly affected, they generally don't care.

A seemingly democratic society should be very careful with what powers it allows the government to have and in what manner, because a democratic society is not compatible with an empire. You need an open environment to run a democracy, and that's not what the US is becoming. And as opposed to what Roth says, it's not just about the powers you give to the government, but how you divide the government so all the powers aren't in the same hands. That's why part of the problem isn't just corruption; Congress's power over the purse, which would be what can control the executive has become useless because Congress only takes on the president if he is from a different party (unless they are democrats lol) and they never take on the president if it has to do with war. Let me repeat that, part of the problem is not just corruption, but a failure of constitutional safeguards to divide power.

Let me clarify just in case i did not actually make a point: The responsibility belongs to the citizens, not the State; they have to decide what powers to allow the government and what powers to give each branch. The circumstances of history and voter apathy have made it so power has accrued in the executive and constitutional safeguards have weakened. After you have given the government power out of fear and let it centralize, what do you do? I don't know, even the voting system has weakened due to private campaign financing. So, is giving power to the State worth the possible abuse? Depends on whether you think the positives outweigh the negatives. Most Americans seem to have thought that Guantanamo outweigh the negatives, even though many innocent people were tortured there.

What can WE really and honestly do to provide check and balance to the state again? Individuals could take up mass protesting, much like the current Tea Party movement. Simply moving the Tea Party movement back to a libertarian issue might end up working for our favor. The only problem is getting enough people mad about the issue instead of just taxes alone. Aside from that, the voting system is hard enough for individuals with private funding and such, nevermind the issue of voting for mild abuser versus a heavy abuser.

It seems like civil unrest/disobedience is the only answer to this.

[Stumblingdrunk]

I can agree with Roth that the US government, specifically its executive branch, and the Pentagon, have far too much power, and once you give the government certain powers, it is hard to take them away, if not impossible.

It is important to note that the "war on terror" is very convenient for our government in that it is a war that will never end. The reason a war with no real end in sight is nice for our government is that the power available to the executive branch increases exponentially during wartime.

[Rothbardian]

It is important to note that the "war on terror" is very convenient for our government in that it is a war that will never end. The reason a war with no real end in sight is nice for our government is that the power available to the executive branch increases exponentially during wartime.

Don't forget to add in the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.

What's next, the War on Promiscuity?

[Stumblingdrunk]

Don't forget to add in the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc.

Though they are just as silly as a war on terror, its not really the same thing. Mostly because we're not invading other countries (officially) to further those wars