An Interesting Conversation over on Reddit

click image to enlarge and read

The following was copy/pasted from: http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1fv4r6/i_believe_the_government_should_be_allowed_to/

The following comment was in response to the image above, which includes the cliché that "I have nothing to hide, so what if we are all under constant surveillance of the government."  I found the comment responding to that notion eloquent and worth sharing:



I live in a country generally assumed to be a dictatorship. One of the Arab spring countries. I have lived through curfews and have seen the outcomes of the sort of surveillance now being revealed in the US. People here talking about curfews aren't realizing what that actually FEELS like. It isn't about having to go inside, and the practicality of that. It's about creating the feeling that everyone, everything is watching. A few points:

1) the purpose of this surveillance from the governments point of view is to control enemies of the state. Not terrorists. People who are coalescing around ideas that would destabilize the status quo. These could be religious ideas. These could be groups like anon who are too good with tech for the governments liking. It makes it very easy to know who these people are. It also makes it very simple to control these people.

Lets say you are a college student and you get in with some people who want to stop farming practices that hurt animals. So you make a plan and go to protest these practices. You get there, and wow, the protest is huge. You never expected this, you were just goofing off. Well now everyone who was there is suspect. Even though you technically had the right to protest, you're now considered a dangerous person.

With this tech in place, the government doesn't have to put you in jail. They can do something more sinister. They can just email you a sexy picture you took with a girlfriend. Or they can email you a note saying that they can prove your dad is cheating on his taxes. Or they can threaten to get your dad fired. All you have to do, the email says, is help them catch your friends in the group. You have to report back every week, or you dad might lose his job. So you do. You turn in your friends and even though they try to keep meetings off grid, you're reporting on them to protect your dad.

2) Let's say number one goes on. The country is a weird place now. Really weird. Pretty soon, a movement springs up like occupy, except its bigger this time. People are really serious, and they are saying they want a government without this power. I guess people are realizing that it is a serious deal. You see on the news that tear gas was fired. Your friend calls you, frantic. They're shooting people. Oh my god. you never signed up for this. You say, fuck it. My dad might lose his job but I won't be responsible for anyone dying. That's going too far. You refuse to report anymore. You just stop going to meetings. You stay at home, and try not to watch the news. Three days later, police come to your door and arrest you. They confiscate your computer and phones, and they beat you up a bit. No one can help you so they all just sit quietly. They know if they say anything they're next. This happened in the country I live in. It is not a joke.

3) Its hard to say how long you were in there. What you saw was horrible. Most of the time, you only heard screams. People begging to be killed. Noises you've never heard before. You, you were lucky. You got kicked every day when they threw your moldy food at you, but no one shocked you. No one used sexual violence on you, at least that you remember. There were some times they gave you pills, and you can't say for sure what happened then. To be honest, sometimes the pills were the best part of your day, because at least then you didn't feel anything. You have scars on you from the way you were treated. You learn in prison that torture is now common. But everyone who uploads videos or pictures of this torture is labeled a leaker. Its considered a threat to national security. Pretty soon, a cut you got on your leg is looking really bad. You think it's infected. There were no doctors in prison, and it was so overcrowded, who knows what got in the cut. You go to the doctor, but he refuses to see you. He knows if he does the government can see the records that he treated you. Even you calling his office prompts a visit from the local police.

You decide to go home and see your parents. Maybe they can help. This leg is getting really bad. You get to their house. They aren't home. You can't reach them no matter how hard you try. A neighbor pulls you aside, and he quickly tells you they were arrested three weeks ago and haven't been seen since. You vaguely remember mentioning to them on the phone you were going to that protest. Even your little brother isn't there.

4) Is this even really happening? You look at the news. Sports scores. Celebrity news. It's like nothing is wrong. What the hell is going on? A stranger smirks at you reading the paper. You lose it. You shout at him "fuck you dude what are you laughing at can't you see I've got a fucking wound on my leg?"

"Sorry," he says. "I just didn't know anyone read the news anymore." There haven't been any real journalists for months. They're all in jail.

Everyone walking around is scared. They can't talk to anyone else because they don't know who is reporting for the government. Hell, at one time YOU were reporting for the government. Maybe they just want their kid to get through school. Maybe they want to keep their job. Maybe they're sick and want to be able to visit the doctor. It's always a simple reason. Good people always do bad things for simple reasons.

You want to protest. You want your family back. You need help for your leg. This is way beyond anything you ever wanted. It started because you just wanted to see fair treatment in farms. Now you're basically considered a terrorist, and everyone around you might be reporting on you. You definitely can't use a phone or email. You can't get a job. You can't even trust people face to face anymore. On every corner, there are people with guns. They are as scared as you are. They just don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want to be labeled as traitors.

This all happened in the country where I live.

You want to know why revolutions happen? Because little by little by little things get worse and worse. But this thing that is happening now is big. This is the key ingredient. This allows them to know everything they need to know to accomplish the above. The fact that they are doing it is proof that they are the sort of people who might use it in the way I described. In the country I live in, they also claimed it was for the safety of the people. Same in Soviet Russia. Same in East Germany. In fact, that is always the excuse that is used to surveil everyone. But it has never ONCE proven to be the reality.

Maybe Obama won't do it. Maybe the next guy won't, or the one after him. Maybe this story isn't about you. Maybe it happens 10 or 20 years from now, when a big war is happening, or after another big attack. Maybe it's about your daughter or your son. We just don't know yet. But what we do know is that right now, in this moment we have a choice. Are we okay with this, or not? Do we want this power to exist, or not?

You know for me, the reason I'm upset is that I grew up in school saying the pledge of allegiance. I was taught that the United States meant "liberty and justice for all." You get older, you learn that in this country we define that phrase based on the constitution. That's what tells us what liberty is and what justice is. Well, the government just violated that ideal. So if they aren't standing for liberty and justice anymore, what are they standing for? Safety?

Ask yourself a question. In the story I told above, does anyone sound safe?

I didn't make anything up. These things happened to people I know. We used to think it couldn't happen in America. But guess what? It's starting to happen.

I actually get really upset when people say "I don't have anything to hide. Let them read everything." People saying that have no idea what they are bringing down on their own heads. They are naive, and we need to listen to people in other countries who are clearly telling us that this is a horrible horrible sign and it is time to stand up and say no.

Chains You Can Bereave In

Obama, in Europe, signs Patriot Act extension
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43180202/ns/us_news-security

Minutes before a midnight deadline, President Barack Obama signed into law a four-year extension of post-Sept. 11 powers to search records and conduct roving wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

The provision on collecting business records can expose law-abiding citizens to government scrutiny. And like Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said - "If we cannot limit investigations to terrorism or other nefarious activities, where do they end?"



Interesting timing for this. It goes hand in hand with Congress reauthorizing three controversial provisions of the surveillance law related to the (un)Patriot Act.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/

Is there any Bush policy that Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama hasn't renewed yet?

Vote for him or you are a racist. Support Israel's campaign of terror and genocide in Palestine or you are an anti semite... you can see the marketing brilliance of this manufacturing complacent consent throughout emerica.

Bill to Kill Habeas Corpus in the United States

I heard on NPR about a debate going on regarding suspects being held for alleged affiliation with the 911 hijackings. NPR was discussing the "threat" of having these suspects come to trial in NYC and the "emotional harm" it would have on the citizens of NYC. It also had a brief discussion with Bloomberg stating that hosting "these trials not only put New Yorkers in grave danger, but also would cost the city a huge sum of money in extra security costs."

NPR then cut to some brief sound clips of New Yorkers being stopped in the street and asked how they felt. ALL of the clips were of people suggesting that the military hold the trials in a secured location off-shore somewhere. Of course NOBODY expressed the dangers this kind of president will have on the future of Habeas Corpus as we know it!

Read this transcript from "Your World With Neil Cavuto," February 2, 2010 show:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584706,00.html

Pay attention to quotes like, "you are going to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed four years of a platform to spew hate. And, keep in mind, he beheaded Daniel Pearl and was the mastermind — and he has already acknowledged both — was the mastermind of resulting in killing almost 3,000 people on 9/11."

So much for innocent until proven guilty! And we should deny a civilian trial on the grounds that the defendant will "spew hate" and say things we might not like? In essence this bill directly attacks habeas corpus AND free speech!

Apparently, in defense of attacks against our "freedom," the government continually "suspends" those very liberties that make us "free."

Keeping in mind the information I posted in yesterday's entry, things are getting darker for Liberty as we know it here in The United States...

Intelligence Chief Says U.S. Can Take Out American Terrorists

Read this Direct Re-Post from ABC News story by Jason Ryan
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/license-kill-intelligence-chief-us-american-terrorist/story?id=9740491

The director of national intelligence affirmed rather bluntly today that the U.S. intelligence community has authority to target American citizens for assassination if they present a direct terrorist threat to the United States.

"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community; if … we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee.

Rep. Peter Hoekstra D-Mich., addressed the issue at today's hearing.

"The targeting of Americans -- it's a very sensitive issue, but again there's been more information in the public domain than what has been shared with this committee," he said.

"There is no clarity." Hoekstra said. "What is the legal framework?"

"Whether that American is involved in a group that is trying to attack us, whether that American has -- is a threat to other Americans. Those are the factors involved." Blair explained. "We don't target people for free speech. We target them for taking action that threatens Americans."

According to U.S. officials, only a handful of Americans would be eligible for targeting by U.S. intelligence or military operations. The legal guidance is determined by the National Security Council and the Justice Department.

In the past, the U.S. has killed Americans overseas but they were viewed as "collateral damage." In 2002, the CIA killed American-born Kamal Derwish, a member of the "Lackawanna 6" terror group during a CIA Predator drone strike. Derwish was driving in a car with other members of al Qaeda, the government said.

In 2008, a missile strike in Somalia killed American Ruben Shumpert, a Seattle man suspected of being an Islamist radical. Shumpert was wanted by federal authorities on gun and counterfeit currency charges. He had agreed to plead guilty but fled the country days before sentencing in 2004.

The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al Awlaki, who has become a prominent influence with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was at a meeting with leaders of the terror group when U.S. officials knowingly launched a cruise missile strike to eliminate the terror leaders. Several people were killed but Awlaki survived.
The disclosure about detailed guidance to target Americans as part of terror plots comes amid fresh warnings about increased threats and concerns about new al Qaeda attacks.

"We have been warning in the past several years that al Qaeda itself and its associated affiliates and al Qaeda-inspired terrorists remain committed to striking the United States," Blair said today, "and in the past year we have some names that goes behind these warnings."

Blair cited the cases of Colorado terrorism suspect Najibullah Zazi, the accused Christmas Day bomber Farouk Abdulmutallab and Major Nidal Hasan, who was charged in the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people.

"We have made complex, multi-team attacks very difficult for al Qaeda to pull off, but as we saw with the recent rash of attacks last year…identifying individual terrorists, small groups with short histories using simple attack methods, is a much more difficult task," Blair said.

Blair added that radicalization and recruitment foments suicide bombers. "Al Qaeda's radical ideology seems to appeal strongly to a group of disaffected young Muslims, and this is a pool of potential suicide bombers and this pool unfortunately includes Americans," Blair said.

The DNI said that Internet and social media sites have become critical to terrorism recruitment efforts. Speaking about the Hasan case and his alleged Internet communications with al Awlaki, Blair said, "The homegrown radicalization of people in the United States…is a relatively new thing."

Blair said U.S. intelligence was rapidly working to counter the emerging problem. "There are some technical things, which are making it more difficult, with the use of social networking as opposed to simply looking at a Web site and responding by e-mail."

Blair said this is "a threat, which may be increasing. We're taking it more and more seriously and this is a -- this is something that is very -- is potentially very dangerous to us because of all of the -- for all of the reasons of the rights that American citizens have.

"We may be shooting behind the rabbit here and it's moving faster than we thought and we're spending a lot of additional effort on that, to try and understand it." Blair said.

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

I really liked how they make it a point to discuss the "threats" that the internet cause our security in that article and how Blair says the rights we have as americans are a political obstacle to controlling that threat...

These cases that this article speaks of - are the direct way to further fascist infiltration into legislation.

Enter Thought Police

Associated Press published an alarming article called Mind-Reading Systems Could Change Air Security. Of course Fox News picked it right up. Read the entire article here:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2010/01/08/general-health-care-us-airport-security-the-future_7259737.html

President Obama says "we have to stay one step ahead of a nimble adversary" which, according to security experts (opportunists that stand to make unprecedented profits) means the use of Mind Readers, Lie Detectors, and the Privatization of another arm of our National Security.

"Some of the ideas that have been offered by these security expert capitalists include a lifting of the U.S. prohibitions against profiling."

Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International commented, "Regulators need to accept that the current approach is outdated. It may have responded to the threats of the 1960s, but it doesn't respond to the threats of the 21st century."

Perhaps the threats of the 60s included those pesky Civil Liberties and their accompanying activists? Good thing today's decedents (or should I say decadents) of that era have been dumbed-down and brainwashed with media and fear mongering to accept any violation to their freedom as "necessary in the fight against terrorism."

The article continues to sound more and more Orwellian, as it introduces Mind Readers being developed by a company with the audacity to call itself WeCU. As explained in the article, "this system would use humans to do some of the observing but would rely mostly on hidden cameras or sensors that can detect a slight rise in body temperature and heart rate."

It seems the introduction of a Thought Police agency is being cleverly made to the public within this article and one can only wonder how a slew of similar news articles and other media sources will be slowly making their way to the public in an attempt to build familiarity and acceptance of this totalitarian device.

The article goes on to explain there are, "far more sensitive devices under development that can take such measurements from a distance would be incorporated later."

From a distance? Like - through your roof? In the near future perhaps - however much simpler technology is also being proposed here in this article. For example, the suggestion to profile folks at the airport and then pull them aside to conduct LIE DETECTOR tests. Tests that monitor your nervous reaction to questioning. The same kind that are not admissible in court in many states due to inaccuracy.

Companies, such as IDO Security Inc. and WeCU stand to make obscene amounts of profit through the hyping of fear. This article boasts that field testing of the systems will cost around $20 million to develop. Is it any wonder why guys like Mike Goldberg (president of IDO) say the US SHOULD BE MORE LIKE ISRAEL in terms of security, praising their methods of screening?

In Israel screeners are scrutinizing every item in a bag - unfolding socks, squeezing toothpaste and flipping through books. Israel also employs profiling: At Ben-Gurion Airport, Jewish Israelis typically pass through smoothly, while others may be taken aside for closer interrogation or even STRIP SEARCHES.

But should the government's giant eye hold this type of power over our life? Not according to companies like IDO Security and WeCU - who seem to be beating to the drum of PRIVATIZING airport security so that they can get a piece of the action there as well. In other words, don't be surprised if we see the likes of paramilitary (the type that have allegiance to no country, the type that always exist in closed societies) forces like Blackwater setting up henchmen in our local airports.

Is this really happening in our lifetime?

With the proper sense of fear (or terror) injected into the masses it certainly can. After all, in the end, even Winston Smith did learn to love Big Brother.

Google Doesn't Respect You

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know,
maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines — including Google — do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”

Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt