I particularly loved the 'You're infringing on that uniformed, on-duty officer's right to privacy by filming his epic beatdown of a helpless homeless person!' defense.
Their behavior proves they have no shame, but their justifications prove they have no freakin' sense.
Software allows them to acquire an absolutely horrifying amount of data about Americans. They can predict behavior, they can monitor real time reaction to whatever they like (and learn from their mistakes), they can trace the origins of dissent back to the individual who first inspired others to think in a way counter to the aims of those in power... The applications are limitless, and if you think it's all just been done willy-nilly with no practical applications already in mind, then... Well, you're wrong.
The information is already being laundered for other police agencies whose charters prevent this sort of data collection. That's a known fact.
All hyperbole aside, this is the architecture of absolute tyranny. Now, not at some vague future date. Police state. Right now.
Do you really think the amount of data in any way makes it unwieldy or useless?
The applications are as staggering as their horrific as they are antithetical to any meaningful freedom whatsoever.
It's heartbreaking that this 'Bill' person actually meant that comment.
Look up the law under which he was detained. It is spectacularly clear and obvious that his detention was unlawful. It is a law written and intended for "terrorists" - even it's authors have expressed outrage at it's application in this case. As for your assertion that it was unlawful for a reporter to accept leaked material from Snowden... No, it wasn't. That's what having a free press means, Bill. It does not mean 'You're free to report on anything those in power allow you to report' (for the moment, the US does not have an Official Secrets Act... just underhanded and illegal intimidation tactics against reporters and their sources [and families, it seems]).
Do you really not understand how that defeats entirely the purpose of a free press?
That you defend this suicidal authoritarianism and state intimidation (and by extension the mass surveillance of every person on the planet) against the families of journalists is staggering.
How far we've fallen that you consider their actions to be remotely acceptable.
Of course, since the differences between available candidates is almost meaningless (apart from a social issue or two...not that you can even count on Dems to protect a woman's autonomy over her own body anymore), blaming people for the outcome of a national election is a little less than constructive. What, Romney would have defended us from NSA spying? Lol.
Let's work together to change a dynamic that is hurtling the world toward oblivion, not blame those people least able to effect change for the actions and candidates of the wealthy class.
Actually, PBO has now tweaked that comment.... He most recently said he was in favor of "orderly" debate.
Presumably that means 'a debate whose parameters are defined by those responsible for the vast expansion of NSA powers (and FBI, DHS, CIA, etc) and the utter destruction of American Democracy'
A people whose every communication is searched and cataloged by a secret police organization answerable to no one (or even those answerable to 'someone') is by definition a police state. That's what we now have.
This isn't directed to the person to whom I've responded, but I'm sick to death of all the hedging 'Gosh, this is almost like a police state', or 'If we're not careful, policies like this could eventually lead to...yaddayaddayadda'.
It's a police state. Whether or not they've brought the hammer down on an individual known to us personally or not, that's exactly what it is. Now.
But... Y'know... So nice that he's open to an "orderly" debate about the actions he's going to continue taking regardless of broad public opposition to them and the inarguable Constitutional prohibition against them.
What a peach he is. Expected an even more right wing Clinton, and I got an even more right wing Bush.
But I'm sure our election process will allow a true opposition candidate to get on the ballot and repeal some of these vast new powers....(I kid, I kid.)
At this point, it's spectacularly clear that anyone still defending the many egregious actions of the shockingly authoritarian Obama Administration has absolutely no claim on the label 'progressive' (however nebulous the word's definition)
I voted for him knowing full well he was a center-right Reagan Republican - only because the alternatives were quantifiably worse.
That does not mean I am blind to his undeclared war on the Constitution and the American People.
I hate the many attacks on PBO that are inventions born of racism (like, say, "the teleprompter president"), but he HAS done an enormous amount of real, lasting damage to the country; just like his fellow "Democrat" Bill Clinton - the man who codified this second gilded age in law.
Once it became clear the unpopularity of certain ideas/actions/laws could not be passed by their Republican standard bearers, TPTB simply bought people operating under a different meaningless political label and got THEM to pass it.
America IS a police state, and Obama is in no small part responsible for that inarguable fact. His decisions/policies as President - both passive and active - have in large part been utterly disgraceful.
And the alternatives are still worse.
The system that has been created does not allow for a candidate that seeks to in any way curtail or reform that system. The system protects/enables/enforces the will of the one percent. T'was ever thus, but lately they seem to have abandoned the desire to obscure that fact.
We can't vote ourselves out of this. I really don't have any hope of a good solution that isn't preceded by horrible and widespread suffering on the part of the people least deserving of it.
"First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they ...."
Sincere thx for the links, Bill B - appreciated
Exactly.
I particularly loved the 'You're infringing on that uniformed, on-duty officer's right to privacy by filming his epic beatdown of a helpless homeless person!' defense.
Their behavior proves they have no shame, but their justifications prove they have no freakin' sense.
Software allows them to acquire an absolutely horrifying amount of data about Americans. They can predict behavior, they can monitor real time reaction to whatever they like (and learn from their mistakes), they can trace the origins of dissent back to the individual who first inspired others to think in a way counter to the aims of those in power... The applications are limitless, and if you think it's all just been done willy-nilly with no practical applications already in mind, then... Well, you're wrong.
The information is already being laundered for other police agencies whose charters prevent this sort of data collection. That's a known fact.
All hyperbole aside, this is the architecture of absolute tyranny. Now, not at some vague future date. Police state. Right now.
Do you really think the amount of data in any way makes it unwieldy or useless?
The applications are as staggering as their horrific as they are antithetical to any meaningful freedom whatsoever.
It's heartbreaking that this 'Bill' person actually meant that comment.
Look up the law under which he was detained. It is spectacularly clear and obvious that his detention was unlawful. It is a law written and intended for "terrorists" - even it's authors have expressed outrage at it's application in this case. As for your assertion that it was unlawful for a reporter to accept leaked material from Snowden... No, it wasn't. That's what having a free press means, Bill. It does not mean 'You're free to report on anything those in power allow you to report' (for the moment, the US does not have an Official Secrets Act... just underhanded and illegal intimidation tactics against reporters and their sources [and families, it seems]).
Do you really not understand how that defeats entirely the purpose of a free press?
That you defend this suicidal authoritarianism and state intimidation (and by extension the mass surveillance of every person on the planet) against the families of journalists is staggering.
How far we've fallen that you consider their actions to be remotely acceptable.
Shame, shame.
I am grateful that Wyden (and one or two others) have made the statements they've made on this subject.
But.... y'know... At the same time, if they sincerely meant those oaths of office they took....
Of course, since the differences between available candidates is almost meaningless (apart from a social issue or two...not that you can even count on Dems to protect a woman's autonomy over her own body anymore), blaming people for the outcome of a national election is a little less than constructive. What, Romney would have defended us from NSA spying? Lol.
Let's work together to change a dynamic that is hurtling the world toward oblivion, not blame those people least able to effect change for the actions and candidates of the wealthy class.
Actually, PBO has now tweaked that comment.... He most recently said he was in favor of "orderly" debate.
Presumably that means 'a debate whose parameters are defined by those responsible for the vast expansion of NSA powers (and FBI, DHS, CIA, etc) and the utter destruction of American Democracy'
A people whose every communication is searched and cataloged by a secret police organization answerable to no one (or even those answerable to 'someone') is by definition a police state. That's what we now have.
This isn't directed to the person to whom I've responded, but I'm sick to death of all the hedging 'Gosh, this is almost like a police state', or 'If we're not careful, policies like this could eventually lead to...yaddayaddayadda'.
It's a police state. Whether or not they've brought the hammer down on an individual known to us personally or not, that's exactly what it is. Now.
But... Y'know... So nice that he's open to an "orderly" debate about the actions he's going to continue taking regardless of broad public opposition to them and the inarguable Constitutional prohibition against them.
What a peach he is. Expected an even more right wing Clinton, and I got an even more right wing Bush.
But I'm sure our election process will allow a true opposition candidate to get on the ballot and repeal some of these vast new powers....(I kid, I kid.)
At this point, it's spectacularly clear that anyone still defending the many egregious actions of the shockingly authoritarian Obama Administration has absolutely no claim on the label 'progressive' (however nebulous the word's definition)
I voted for him knowing full well he was a center-right Reagan Republican - only because the alternatives were quantifiably worse.
That does not mean I am blind to his undeclared war on the Constitution and the American People.
I hate the many attacks on PBO that are inventions born of racism (like, say, "the teleprompter president"), but he HAS done an enormous amount of real, lasting damage to the country; just like his fellow "Democrat" Bill Clinton - the man who codified this second gilded age in law.
Once it became clear the unpopularity of certain ideas/actions/laws could not be passed by their Republican standard bearers, TPTB simply bought people operating under a different meaningless political label and got THEM to pass it.
America IS a police state, and Obama is in no small part responsible for that inarguable fact. His decisions/policies as President - both passive and active - have in large part been utterly disgraceful.
And the alternatives are still worse.
The system that has been created does not allow for a candidate that seeks to in any way curtail or reform that system. The system protects/enables/enforces the will of the one percent. T'was ever thus, but lately they seem to have abandoned the desire to obscure that fact.
We can't vote ourselves out of this. I really don't have any hope of a good solution that isn't preceded by horrible and widespread suffering on the part of the people least deserving of it.
"First they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they ...."