U.S. is spying on its citizens and others

[kimmy]

Yep, I agree that they knew what they were doing was wrong. Perhaps I worded it badly. The point I was trying to make is, they didn't stop themselves. I'm sure there were some who did, but there were plenty who gave into the idea of rioting. Why would they do that? And why would some stop themselves? I find that very interesting.

I submit that there was a time when Canadian kids in that exact same situation would not have rioted. They would have simply walked away. It that such a crazy thought? And so, what's changed?

I submit that you're imagining a sanitized version of "the good ole days" that never actually existed.

In "the good ole days" rioting Canadian youths didn't just smash cars and shops, they smashed people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_Pits_riot

http://violentaugust.com/

http://www.library.ubc.ca/chineseinbc/riots.html

-k

[sharkman]

So you think that nothing has changed? I look at society and think something has.

[kimmy]

There's a lot that's changed, obviously. But morally, I think that if anything we're collectively better than we were back in "the good ole days". Just think of all the deplorable things that we as a society have done in the past that we would never accept today.

And the proposal you're presenting fails anyway: the politicians and officials who built this massive surveillance program aren't "today's kids" anyway. These people are in their 60s and 70s. They grew up in the imaginary age of morality that you're longing for.

And if you look at opinion polls, you'll find that it's the older generation that supports the NSA surveillance programs and the younger that oppose it. Consider how many times President Obama referenced Edward Snowden's age in the early days of the controversy, or how many times has Keith Alexander dismissed the NSA's critics as a bunch of kids who live in their parents' basement and similar contempt-filled comments.

No, sharkman, the issue is not that my generation let this happen because we don't have morals.

The issue is that people who grew up in the age of The Red Menace (!!!) view the government as their noble defender against The Enemy and want the government to do whatever it takes to protect them from The Enemy. That's why by and large the Boomer types support the NSA surveillance programs and the Millenials don't. The Millenials just aren't that scared of The Enemy.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

The issue is that people who grew up in the age of The Red Menace (!!!) view the government as their noble defender against The Enemy and want the government to do whatever it takes to protect them from The Enemy. That's why by and large the Boomer types support the NSA surveillance programs and the Millenials don't. The Millenials just aren't that scared of The Enemy.

Or perhaps Boomer types just aren't as "scared of The [Government]" as "[Millenial] types are.

[bleeding heart]

One thing I never saw coming however was the number of sycophants who would be cheering on the race. Maybe for them it's more about the journey than the destination.

I have been mildly surprised at the level of support and defense, too. Not so much apathetic acquiescence...but outright support for it.

However, after the many unfortunate erections-for-cruelty on disturbing display after the torture "scandals" broke, I guess surprise is a bit naïve.

Edited September 19, 2013 by bleeding heart

[bud]

how about the relationship between brazil and u.s.? this is a pretty big deal:

The Brazilian president's cancelled visit, over NSA spying, ought to jolt the US out of its arrogant disrespect for Latin America

link

Edited September 19, 2013 by bud

[Topaz]

Anyone that has a smartphone, is being spied on, did anyone know about this? The government is getting smarter in spying on its citzens. http://news.yahoo.com/smartphone-spying-204933867.html%C2'>

Edited September 19, 2013 by Topaz

[Topaz]

Sorry, here's the link.........http://news.yahoo.com/smartphone-spying-204933867.html

Edited September 19, 2013 by Topaz

[jacee]

The issue is that people who grew up in the age of The Red Menace (!!!) view the government as their noble defender against The Enemy and want the government to do whatever it takes to protect them from The Enemy. That's why by and large the Boomer types support the NSA surveillance programs and the Millenials don't. The Millenials just aren't that scared of The Enemy.

-k

I think you're forgetting that it was young boomers (now in their early 60's) who blew the whistle on the "Red Menace" crapola, protesting the US war in Vietnam until the US was forced to pull out.

The difference isn't generational, imo, or not the generations you're citing. People over 65 - the war generation - are the ones who slavishly support government and control. Boomers 50-65 are more likely to resist control.

It's just the same old issue of private profit motives (arms industry) and methods (surveillance, intimidation) for subjugating and controlling populations vs social conscience (public good) and strategy (whistleblowing, protest) for demanding public accountability and defending individual freedoms.

The ones who scare me are the young fanatic power bootlickers who'll do anything to please 'the masters' and to become the masters, and have no social conscience.

They have existed in every generation, but never with as much electronic reach and power as they have today.

Fortunately, young whistleblowers have some electronic skill and 'reach' too.

Edited September 19, 2013 by jacee

[Guest American Woman]

how about the relationship between brazil and u.s.? this is a pretty big deal:

The Brazilian president's cancelled visit, over NSA spying, ought to jolt the US out of its arrogant disrespect for Latin America

link

Oh, yeah. That's going to stop the U.S. from spying.

[Moonlight Graham]

Oh, yeah. That's going to stop the U.S. from spying.

There are definite benefits to having the US as the sole superpower, at least for other liberal democracies countries around the world like Canada. But one of the great dangers of having even an ally like the US as such a powerful nation beyond all others, militarily/economically/politically etc., is that it is so powerful that it's very difficult for even US allies to stand up to the US when it's done something clearly wrong like this NSA program nonsense. Even if it wanted to, could the Canadian government publically condemn the US over this program that may be affecting Canadians without massive political & economic consequences from the US? If it was ie: Australia who had this NSA-type program it would be politically much easier and less costly for Canada or any other country to speak and act on their grievances.

Another problem I've seen recently with the unipolarily of US power is in regards to Syria. Before the Russian proposal, the US was extremely close to deciding virtually on its own the nature & extent of any military intervention in Syria in response to its chemical weapons use. The US President and Congress was going to decide this intervention unilaterally, outside of the UN or NATO or any other multilateral decision-making process. I think it's very dangerous to have one country deciding such important security matters that have massive consequences.

My point is, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if Brazil's president could have more of an impact on what the US does and doesn't do. Even the US needs a check on its power to avoid abuse.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

There are definite benefits to having the US as the sole superpower, at least for other liberal democracies countries around the world like Canada. But one of the great dangers of having even an ally like the US as such a powerful nation beyond all others, militarily/economically/politically etc., is that it is so powerful that it's very difficult for even US allies to stand up to the US when it's done something clearly wrong like this NSA program nonsense. Even if it wanted to, could the Canadian government publically condemn the US over this program that may be affecting Canadians without massive political & economic consequences from the US? If it was ie: Australia who had this NSA-type program it would be politically much easier and less costly for Canada or any other country to speak and act on their grievances.

You think Canada should blast the U.S. for something it's doing too? As I already pointed out, if Brazil isn't spying on the U.S. at all, if Brazil isn't spying on any foreigners/foreign nations, it's only because it doesn't have the ability - and I doubt very much that it doesn't. Canada, too, spies on foreigners and foreign governements. Canada spies on Canadians. So why the big fuss because the U.S. is doing it?? It would be pretty hypocritical of Canada to condemn what Canada also does. Perhaps Canada is saving itself the embarassment of doing so.

Another problem I've seen recently with the unipolarily of US power is in regards to Syria. Before the Russian proposal, the US was extremely close to deciding virtually on its own the nature & extent of any military intervention in Syria in response to its chemical weapons use. The US President and Congress was going to decide this intervention unilaterally, outside of the UN or NATO or any other multilateral decision-making process. I think it's very dangerous to have one country deciding such important security matters that have massive consequences.

I think it's dangerous to rely on the UN, where allies to the country in question have veto powers, to determine whether or not any action be taken. But for the U.S.'s response, Russia's proposal (which came out of a comment made by Kerry) would have never come to pass. As for NATO, this issue is really outside of its dominion as it's purpose was to support allies that were attacked. Does that mean that no one should do anything? What if you felt strongly about a moral/ethical situation, but no one else cared to do anything. Would you then not act?

My point is, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing if Brazil's president could have more of an impact on what the US does and doesn't do. Even the US needs a check on its power to avoid abuse.

So Brazil should have an impact on what the U.S. does in this regard - as Brazil does what it's criticizing the U.S. for? As I said, surely Brazil is doing some spying of its own on other governments. Or do you actually believe that Brazil is morally and ethically above that? Edited September 19, 2013 by American Woman

[Moonlight Graham]

You think Canada should blast the U.S. for something it's doing too? As I already pointed out, if Brazil isn't spying on the U.S. at all, if Brazil isn't spying on any foreigners/foreign nations, it's only because it doesn't have the ability - and I doubt very much that it doesn't. Canada, too, spies on foreigners and foreign governements. Canada spies on Canadians. So why the big fuss because the U.S. is doing it?? It would be pretty hypocritical of Canada to condemn what Canada also does. Perhaps Canada is saving itself the embarassment of doing so.

No doubt that most any country with a decent amount of resources, Canada included, takes part in espionage in foreign countries. But most of that is targeting things that are government-related or related to security. The programs the NSA has implemented can, allegedly, target any civilian at anytime on a vast array of media without a warrant. That should concern you, I, and every person who uses the internet. The scope of this program goes well beyond typical security-related espionage, not that I agree with much of that either.

Does Canada or Brazil have the ability to remotely spy on your email and Facebook and Dropbox accounts any time they want? Or your cell phone records, without a warrant? Even with the cooperation of these communications companies? Never seen anything to suggest that.

I think it's dangerous to rely on the UN, where allies to the country in question have veto powers, to determine whether or not any action be taken. But for the U.S.'s response, Russia's proposal (which came out of a comment made by Kerry) would have never come to pass. As for NATO, this issue is really outside of its dominion as it's purpose was to support allies that were attacked. Does that mean that no one should do anything? What if you felt strongly about a moral/ethical situation, but no one else cared to do anything. Would you then not act?

The UN (as it currently functions) and NATO are clearly not capable of effectively addressing international security matters. A new organization, or a vastly reformed UN or NATO, is needed. Maybe something like a "League of Democracies", where stable democracies all vote on security actions, and unstable democracies and undemocratic states (like Russia and China) don't have a direct veto power (but maybe they could sit at the table to get them at least involved in the process and avoid isolating them).

So Brazil should have an impact on what the U.S. does in this regard - as Brazil does what it's criticizing the U.S. for? As I said, surely Brazil is doing some spying of its own on other governments. Or do you actually believe that Brazil is morally and ethically above that?

Show me how Brazil has the ability to track my private info from my gmail or Facebook account or even my ISP? With or without a warrant?

[jacee]

Oh, yeah. That's going to stop the U.S. from spying.

Do you think it's true that "Pride goeth before the fall?"

What about arrogance?

[jacee]

What if you felt strongly about a moral/ethical situation, but no one else cared to do anything. Would you then not act?

Probably wouldn't drop bombs on innocent people.

Oops! ... I guess I should use the politically and militarily correct term ... 'collateral damage' ...

Ya ... probably wouldn't drop bombs on innocent ... 'collateral damage'.

[Shady]

Probably wouldn't drop bombs on innocent people.

Oops! ... I guess I should use the politically and militarily correct term ... 'collateral damage' ...

Ya ... probably wouldn't drop bombs on innocent ... 'collateral damage'.

You mean like we did during WWII?

[jacee]

You mean like we did during WWII?

You mean the H-bombs? Yes.

I believe that was another US cowboy stunt.

[dre]

I have been mildly surprised at the level of support and defense, too. Not so much apathetic acquiescence...but outright support for it.

However, after the many unfortunate erections-for-cruelty on disturbing display after the torture "scandals" broke, I guess surprise is a bit naïve.

Im not suprised. "Generation Useless" inherited all of these rights. We dont understand the reasons for them, and we dont understand the sacrifice that folks who came before us made so that we could have them.

"Honey I just read the the right to free speech has been suspended."

"Okay! Survivor is on at 9!"

Stupid things happen to stupid people.

[Shady]

You mean the H-bombs? Yes.

I believe that was another US cowboy stunt.

No, not H bombs. Ever heard of Dresden? The allies leveled that city. Including civilians. But not, Pearl Harbor was the stunt. The H bomb was the response, and the ending to the stunt. Apparently after one H bomb, the Japanese still didn't have enough. So they needed a second to be convinced. Pretty dumb on their part.

It doesn't suprise me that you're on the Axis side though. It's why you're on the side of Putin, Assad, Saddam, Castro, Chavez, etc. Murderous dictators have always been in vogue to the far leftwing.

[Shady]

I have been mildly surprised at the level of support and defense, too. Not so much apathetic acquiescence...but outright support for it.

However, after the many unfortunate erections-for-cruelty on disturbing display after the torture "scandals" broke, I guess surprise is a bit naïve.

You correctly put scandsls in quotations.

[Shady]

Im not suprised. "Generation Useless" inherited all of these rights. We dont understand the reasons for them, and we dont understand the sacrifice that folks who came before us made so that we could have them.

"Honey I just read the the right to free speech has been suspended."

"Okay! Survivor is on at 9!"

Stupid things happen to stupid people.

Oh yes, your type knows all about free speech. Don't you have another conservative to prevent from speaking at a college or university soon?

[dre]

No, not H bombs. Ever heard of Dresden? The allies leveled that city. Including civilians. But not, Pearl Harbor was the stunt. The H bomb was the response, and the ending to the stunt. Apparently after one H bomb, the Japanese still didn't have enough. So they needed a second to be convinced. Pretty dumb on their part.

It doesn't suprise me that you're on the Axis side though. It's why you're on the side of Putin, Assad, Saddam, Castro, Chavez, etc. Murderous dictators have always been in vogue to the far leftwing.

The Japenese were soundly defeated before any H-Bombs were ever dropped. When the order was given folks in the US military basically said "What? are you stupid? Why the hell would you do that!" But they did it anyway, needlessly as a show of muscle and to make sure the Russians didnt move in.

Heres what Dwight Eisenhower said about it...

Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that

dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."

All of those people died for nothing. Japan was done, and those bombings were a couple of the biggest atrocities commited against people in human history.

Edited September 20, 2013 by dre

[Shady]

The Japenese were soundly defeated before any H-Bombs were ever dropped. When the order was given folks in the US military basically said "What? are you stupid? Why the hell would you do that!" But they did it anyway, needlessly as a show of muscle and to make sure the Russians didnt move in.

Heres what Dwight Eisenhower said about it...

All of those people died for nothing. Japan was done, and those bombings were a couple of the biggest atrocities commited against people in human history.

But they didn't surrender. Yes, he believed that they were done. It doesn't make it true. It's classic though. You go from defending Saddam, to now defending the Axis in WWII. I mean, do you realize how foolish you look?

[dre]

But they didn't surrender. Yes, he believed that they were done. It doesn't make it true. It's classic though. You go from defending Saddam, to now defending the Axis in WWII.

Its not just him that believed the bombings were not necessary....

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY chief of staff to Roosevelt and Truman...

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs

GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ

if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).

General Carter Clarke

when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Paul Nitze, Chairman of the strategic bombing survey...

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

John McCloy, assistant Secretary of war...

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

Ralph Bair, undersecretary of the US navy...

Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

General Douglas Macarthur...

What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Admiral William Leahy

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were politically motivated, and had a lot more to do with sending a message to the Russians and preventing a Russian landing than they had to do with defeating the Japenese, who at that point were subject to a complete and total naval blockade and an effective targeted conventional bombing campaign.

I mean, do you realize how foolish you look?

Actually I consider being called foolish by the MLW version of crusty the clown, to be quite a compliment.

Edited September 20, 2013 by dre

[dre]

You go from defending Saddam, to now defending the Axis in WWII.

Cool story bro! Problem is I didnt in any way whatsoever defend Hussein OR the Axis. You are either just being dishonest or you are such a simpleton that you believe your own shtick. I wont bother picking one or the other on your behalf.