U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Why the US citizens and government propaganda insists that US is about freedom, when US ignores its own constitution, takes away freedom from its citizens, and most important to me, takes away freedom from citizens of other countries while claiming to do the exact opposite?
I am from Brazil, and many people here remember the US backed (and enforced sometimes) rightwing government that we had during the cold war.
Many people remember their loved ones that will never come back from our prisons, or from CIA hands.
Many people in many countries, why the US come to "save" them, and instead put in power people like Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, Castelo Branco, Augusto Pinochet, Mohammad Pahlavi, and many, many, many others.
US only care about its corporations, it only fights to defend its profits, it is clear when it kicked João Goulart out of Brazil for supporting agrarian reform and other left-leaning policies, when it helped rebels kill both Lybia and Iraq leaders after they stopped selling oil for USD, when it "saved" Afghanistan from URSS by training Osama Bin Laden...
I think it is a outrage that people around the world only started to remember 11 of september after the Trade Center was attacked, not after US bombed Chile (9/11/1973) and forcefully kicked out a elected president to "save" chileans and give them "democracy" in the form of a oppressive dictator friendly to US business.
More seriously, it's complex--painting it in the simplest broad strokes of "The US only cares about corporations" is unfair. The US is not the US; it's a combination of local, state, and federal governments and bureaucracies.
There's almost certainly near no magical evil council sitting atop it all scheming about how to wring profits from other countries at any cost; instead, we have the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people that are so segregated from the big picture and scared of losing their jobs that they make mistakes which snowball.
That's a pretty generous supposition ... in regard to both intent and competency.
If we assume malice, well, that puts all kinds of interesting moral burdens on us, right? Better to assume agents mean well than that they are actively hostile--it is much easier to reason about.
When it's the actions of others, especially official enemies, it's usually regarded in pretty straight forward right/wrong terms. For example, for those old to remember, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's was recognized for what it was, pure aggression.
Our military actions abroad? Well, it's complex, nobody's perfect, we all make mistakes, we had the best of intentions, etc, etc.
The US's moral compass was thrown overboard decades ago.
Failure to learn from the past leads to comments such as the United states was once a "pure/nobel, innocent country" instead of like almost every country that ever existed--an amorphous conglomerate of both well intentioned ideas/movements/people as well as those that were less honorable. While reaching out in an attempt to do good, a country may at the same time push out in an equally misguided/naive or negative direction, failing to see the consequences of their actions until it's too late.
Like every country, the US has its malicious entities. However, no one (except maybe the truly sadistic) thinks of themselves as being evil. Even those that we would universally consider malevolent probably justify their actions somehow for their own motivations or sanity. Some humans, especially those that feel they're in a situation they cannot change, have an odd way at times of making even the most despicable of actions seem justifiable within their conscience. Even the worst of Nazis (Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler included) had families they claimed (term used loosely) to have loved.
When one talks about things that happened outside of the lifetime of one's audience, the response tends to just be "oh but that was a long time ago", hence the observations on recent trends.
But I suppose the better option was to conduct a land invasion of Japan which would have likely led to much more death and destruction. It seems the people of Germany had a positive note to consider while they were sifting through the rubble of their cities after the extensive carpet bombings the Allies conducted when they invaded their country; at least they weren't bombed with nuclear weapons.
It just bothers me when someone mentions that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on a civilian population in anger but not offer any sort of context as to why they did such a thing. Without context you are heavily implying that the US government just randomly decided to nuke civilians just for kicks. Which is quite sad since you are essentially doing the very thing you complain about in your second sentence, willfully forgetting your history.
Plus there's the conspiracy theory that the US cutting off Japan of necessary war materials is what led to Pearl Harbor in the first place.
But I agree, it wasn't the only option. They could have waged the same war to the bitter end, starved them out, use nukes, asked nicely for them to stop, or who knows how many more. Options were presented, an option was chosen.
Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with my complaint of lack of context of the reasoning for using nuclear weapons at the time.
Conspiracy theory? Pearl Harbor, in the form of the attack on a US territory quite so distant from Japanese interests, came about as a result of the US embargo on Japanese use of the panama canal, and their import of metal and oil. The attack happened during the negotiations between the Japan and US about the embargoes, which were not going remotely well for Japan.
Ultimately, it was Japan's hostile action, but the embargoes directly precipitated the military reaction. Had the US completely ignored Japan (not that that would have been a good thing - ultimately the US did the world a service in ending their brutal expansion), the US would not have been drawn into war with them at that point, or likely for years hence, if ever, as the USSR would likely have taken care of it, or, hell, maybe even allied with the US throughout a quick and decisive war - the Japanese would have (and nearly did, on Aug 9th '45) crumbled under that opposing force. Wouldn't that have been a world.
The fun part of the conspiracy was the fact that the all-important aircraft carriers were not in port for the attack.
Mind you, I don't necessarily agree with the theory, just mentioning it.
But your what-if at the end there, that is one that would be interesting to consider the outcomes of that potential path of history.
The US military warned the populace numerous times that their cities would be firebombed. I would assume this was an effort to push towards surrender. Why else warn them? No surrender.
Before the first bombing the Japanese government was told to surrender. No surrender.
After the first bombing, a demand to surrender was made. No surrender.
The second bombing and another demand to surrender. Around five days later the Emperor finally told the people of Japan that surrender was necessary. Know why it was almost a week later, even though they were told more were coming? Because the Emperor wanted to stay Emperor.
That's the part that people don't seem to understand. The nuclear bombings were not intended to convince the Japanese populace to surrender, because many might have on their own without the bombings. Even many in the military might have been willing to surrender. It is said that Yamamoto despaired attacking America from the beginning. But more than likely, none of them would have surrendered until the Emperor told them to do so. In the end, the nuclear bombs were to convince the Emperor to surrender, not the people. Even facing this threat of total destruction he still held out for his own selfish reasons, and even then claimed he was doing it to save mankind. The simple fact this statement of saving mankind came from a military leader who's policy seemed to be maim, torture, and kill anyone that wasn't Japanese is one of the most brazen attempts at spin that's ever been tried.
Never mind the fact that the Soviets were ready and willing to invade. You can ask the Germans how that went for them.
Now, I've heard of this thought that there are examples of the Japanese willing to come to a peace agreement. But suing for peace is a different matter than total surrender. Peace agreements with the aggressor often have a problem of leading to future conflicts when the peace agreement no longer holds true. Ask the Koreans how they feel about their "peace agreement" with the never-ending threat of war, as comical as it may seem.
Think of the times; America had suffered huge losses in men and wealth to fight two massive fronts in a war they didn't start. Don't forget the millions, I'll say it again, MILLIONS, of people that died at the hands of the Germans and Japanese. The war in Europe was mostly over and the only reason for that is because Hitler was dead, many Germans fought to the bitter end even though it was obvious they were going to lose. No one wanted a repeat of the ending days of the European theater in Japan. The people around the world wanted that crap to end as soon as possible. You have to understand that the Allies at this point had built up such hatred for the Japanese that many would not have a problem whatsoever invading and killing every man, woman, and child of that small island nation. It would have cost dearly to do so, but it would have been done. The likely outcome is that the Japanese people would have become the human equivalent of an endangered species.
So all this talk of they could have done this, they could have done that, or whatever else all has the benefit of seriously strong hindsight.
I agree, nuclear weapons were not needed to end the war, but considering the other options, it was probably the best choice at the time.
I know the history perfectly well, hence my view.
Anyway, a quick look at Wikipedia gives us this.
During World War II, the 2nd General Army and Chugoku Regional Army were headquartered in Hiroshima, and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
Looks like a military target to me. They just lacked the foresight not to locate such assets within a civilian population. Sadly, the US does the same thing.
Granted, Nagasaki didn't seem to have quite as much in military assets but it is listed it had 9000 soldiers in the city. Sadly that came nowhere near the number of civilians in the city, which included a number of POWs. I wouldn't have picked it as a target.
But if you want to demonstrate the destruction caused by a weapon in an effort to force surrender, you don't bomb a soft target. You unfortunately bomb the biggest target you can. During WWII firebombings of entire cities was a common practice. That is common in total war scenarios.
Personally, if I were in a position to have some influence on the matter at the time, I would have said the same. I would have nuked any military target of suitable size and hoped that it would suffice to force surrender.
But, as I stated elsewhere, this discussion has little to do with my initial complaint of stating the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons in anger with no context to explain the reasoning behind it.
You're evidently not familiar with the concept of lobbying.
Clearly neither are you. It's not like there's one big magic evil lobby firm that tries to suppress everything in your best interest.....
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_wor...
However, while "it's complex" is the right answer, it's almost certainly never a good answer. I run a company with a team of eleven, and "it's complex" often comes up as an answer to difficult challenges. Well, it is complex and it isn't. Difficult issues are difficult by definition, but doing nothing is almost never the right answer. There is sufficient body of evidence to at least establish a pattern of civil rights being eroded in the U.S., granted for very complex and often perfectly valid reasons. That's what leadership is about -- cutting through complexity to guide the overarching system in the right direction. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that from our government.
EDIT: I also agree that the original argument smells unnecessarily of conspiracy theories and drastically oversimplifies the issues.
It is only the observable behaviour, it is that the people in power do have ties in the corporation, what they do, naturally go in the direction of self-preservation, not fairness or justice.
For all the people in power in the US, when a situation is bad for them (for example the risk of the USD becoming valueless, or of a country stopping to do business with their companies), why they would refrain themselves from using that power to their interests?
Specially in a individualistic society...
What bothers me is why people lie to themselves, and lie to others about it?
Why the US sent a aircraft carrier here in 1964 to defend "freedom" and instead helped dictators?
Why when Brazil announced it found massive amounts of oil on its coast, US announced the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet and sent ships here while claiming it was to fight drug smugglers? (that by the way, were sent back that time when Brazil invited Russia to do "exercises" here, and the Russian ships did came, probably for their own selfish reasons too)
EDIT: Lincoln Gordon (US Ambassador) before brazillian 1964 coup: "covert support for pro-democracy street rallies…and encouragement [of] democratic and anti-communist sentiment in Congress, armed forces, friendly labor and student groups, church, and business"
CIA message to Washington recently declassified message after the coup: "The change in government will create a greatly improved climate for foreign investments."
Now tell me the coup was about freedom and not corporate interests.
Uh... nice strawman?
the misguided actions and interactions of generally well-meaning people
Have you read "War Is A Racket"? And what big corporation are you the CEO of, or what public office did you hold for how long, so that you would even know what the priorities at top levels are? Are you, for example, telling me the Bush administration was genuinely worried about Hussein having WMD? Could you say that with a straight face?
And are you denying that quite a bunch of those individuals aren't generally doing individual actions for their own benefit? Eichmann was "just scared of loosing his job", too, so where exactly do we draw the line, how is that not just an euphemism you could apply to anything, how does this not apply to China or North Korea? It's just the son of a dictator afraid of loosing his job, his privilege, so he plays it the best way he knows how. And if you were born in China, you would make damn sure to do the right thing, too, which would be to join the communist party and do whatever you need to put food on your family. Who is anyone to judge a culture that is older than dirt, right?
Okay, so let's not judge people for what they do, nobody is without sin, so no stone throwing. Point taken. But can we still call out that they do things that, spoken about plainly without euphemisms, are generally agreed on to be bad and yes, even evil; and that others fall for them? Instead of hand waving the instant it is even brought up?
HOW-FUCKING-EVER...you really ought to be careful to make a distinction between those specific policies and practices and the rest of the United States as a whole. We have 300+ million people and we don't all agree with this stuff in lockstep with the factions within the federal government that do it. The fact that you're reading an article in The New York Times (the "paper of record" in the U.S.) that is calling out bad behavior of the government ought to give you a clue that you're painting with too broad of a brush.
CATECHISM OF NON-RESISTANCE.
..
Q. Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part
in government or law business?
A. No; participation in election, government, or law
business is participation in government by force.
While it can be easy to point the finger at figures high up in government, any participation in that system is, as Tolstoy says, conducted "by force," and all participants share the blame to some extent. The argument follows that the only way to truly banish such abusive systems is to retract all endorsement and participation.
[1] Tolstoy's relationship with Mohandas Gandhi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_Yo...
I'm sorry, but that blows my mind.
You distinguish their policies when their policies are distinct. Obama hasn't closed Gitmo. Obama hasn't ended the warrantless wiretapping program. Obama hasn't discontinued the TPP negotiations or brought any useful transparency to the process. Obama hasn't refused to sign any budget unless it includes significant cuts to defense spending. I could go on. Which of these things do you imagine Romney would have done better?
Why do you have to be uber wealthy to run in a country ruled "by the people"?
The U.S's primary problem seems to be that it has transformed into (or perhaps always was) a corporate run oligarchy. Except it walks around saying it's a democratic republic...
The newspeak runs so deep, that what I say is controversial, despite being quite factual... it's very saddening (if you care about such things).
This is why: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post#Effect_on_p...
"Why do you have to be uber wealthy to run in a country ruled "by the people"?"
Because of the logistical costs of running an election. Though, technically, you don't need to be uber-wealthy, you just need enough donors. Obama is not that wealthy.
"The U.S's primary problem seems to be that it has transformed into (or perhaps always was) a corporate run oligarchy. Except it walks around saying it's a democratic republic..."
It's not an oligarchy. There's a perception that wealth is what give people a political voice but that's only true up to a point. Yes, you need money to run a newspaper, buy campaign ads, or higher a lobbyist, but that's true in any country (that allows those things.) But the fact is that politics is quite a bit more subtle. US politics is driven primarily by groups of extremely dedicated voters who vote narrowly on an a small range of cultural issues which they perceive as moral issues and upon which they cannot compromise: guns, abortion, marriage. This leads to some ridiculous factionalism, which means subtler issues get ignored.
I understand what you mean but one of the big problems in US politics is that citizens vote for people not policies. Most people are uninformed and it's not completely their fault. It's because the politician's are allowed to attack each other, lie about each other and there isn't an unbiased major media outlet the public can turn to for the truth.
If I were Chilean I wouldn't be outraged. And many of the Chileans that I talked to were not. I think there are better examples of misused American power. Like encouraging war between Iran and Iraq, arming Mexican drug cartels, invading Canada under the auspices of Manifest Destiny, Japanese internment camps, slaughter of First Nations. Intervention in Chile was wrong, but it can also be used by neocons as a banner for effective Real Politik thinking and outcomes.
I did some light reading on this topic. How exactly were a large number of people saved from death? Did you misspeak? Because from what I've read, the overthrow of Chile's elected government actually resulted in a large number of people dying/being tortured/'disappearing'. I'm guessing the Chileans who you spoke to weren't from that group.
You should stick to subjects you actually know something about.
It's not an ad hominem, it's an insult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%C3%A9tat
People on all sides of the political spectrum were distraught. It wasn't as clear cut as "left versus right" or "poor versus rich".
Intervention in Chile was wrong,
but it can also be used by neocons
Because U.S. society values the concept of freedom. >'Why does the U.S. gov't ignore it's constitution?'
Well for some prerogatives, freedom is less important and some people decidedly make decisions that violate the law and freedoms of a people.
> 'takes away freedom from its citizens'
See above
>'takes away freedom from...'
U.S. gov't really doesn't have any obligation to citizens of another country unless explicitly stated. I of course, understand the general premise that the United States stay largely out of other nations affairs is well intentioned, however the previous two times that happened (beginning of WWI and WWII) did not go well. So while meddling U.S. foreign policy is far from perfect, it seems as there has yet been a WWIII to be better than the other alternative, and I'd say the track record is such that more freedoms have been guaranteed to more people via the U.S. than otherwise. I've got no data to back that up though.
The U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution, although many things it does are greeted with cries of ignoring the Constitution. It goes to great lengths to lawyer it's way around the Constitution, no doubt, but most countries don't even bother.
As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs, and most Americans would agree that the U.S. has zero obligation to do anything internationally other than what advances its own interests. No other country in the world would do any differently if they were in the U.S.'s position. Remember, as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world.
as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most
benevolent such entity in the history of the world.
The reference point should be absolute moral good, not third-world dictatorships. The whole "city on a hill" idea and what have you. That is what the top-level comment is getting at: Blatant hypocrisy from a state whose denizens have proudly proclaimed it to be "the greatest country on Earth" or "the greatest nation in history", some beacon of freedom and humanism, throughout its existence: The farce that is American Exceptionalism.
The world in the 18th century was not -- and today still is not -- able to grow and nurture a powerful country towards "absolute moral good." The world is still a primitive and dangerous place full of despots at worst in inequality at best.
It's good to hold the US to a higher standard, but unfair IMO to critique with such loathing the way the OP did.
Finally: It's certainly true that many of the ideals of the American Revolution were inspired by European writing on the subject. Not surprising considering most colonists in North America then were Europeans themselves. We can never know exactly how the 19th century would've unfolded had the British Empire not been so immature and insecure with themselves. They were a relatively young world power and they seem to have believed in the same age old "Domino Theory" that still trips up the US today. Had they been more wise in their choices, they would've granted the colonies freedom from Parliament's authority in exchange for full economic participation in the empire. Most likely you would've seen this unfold over the 19th century and quite possibly maintain itself to this day. Had America been a Sterling country, the British economic situation during WWI & WWII would be so vastly different that it's hard to even speculate. And if that were the case, how would that have changed the pace at which democracy unfolds across the European continent and around the world?
I think it's easy and fair and accurate to argue that the spread of democratic and republican ideals was influenced and catalyzed by the 8 years of hot conflict during the American Revolution. I don't think you can over-state how inspiring a Saratoga or a Yorktown was.
There's no doubt that villains abound .. the question is, does the world need a "global policeman"? The historical record shows that these powers, even when acting with the best intentions, usually lengthen suffering where they intervene by distorting local and regional power dynamics. And more often than not, the motives for selecting a given site at which to intervene are less than scrupulous (Britain in India, US in Iraq) or are perpendicular to the host's interests (Vietnam), in which case there is no excuse for the resulting fallout.
After WW2, the US wanted a united front against the USSR. France used their membership in a Western European military alliance as a bargaining chip for the recapture of their Indochina colonies.
The US felt supporting France in Indochina was a lesser evil than letting Western Europe fall to Soviets.
Switzerland has been a republic since 1523 at the latest, 1291 at the earliest. The Most Serene Republic of Venice was founded in 421 and lasted more than 1500 years. But France has a much, much better claim than either to have founded the modern republican movement. The idea that the US had more influence on early modern republicanism is risible.
Chill with the historical revisionism. The American revolution was a very important historical event. But it was NOT the first example of a western Republican government. Both The Netherlands and Switzerland preceded it. The process of moving the west away from monarchic rule was a long one with many important steps along the way. One of these was the American revolution. Which IMO was less influential than the French revolution in ending monarchy.
This is absolutely correct. However, that also applies to the rest of the world. So, what problem do we fix first? The USA's possibly illegal wiretapping, or state caused disappearances, state encouraged suicide bombings (on civilian targets), political prisoners, slavery, nuclear weapon development, attempted genocide?
So, yeah, "greatest country on Earth" or greatest nation in history" may be going a bit far. But from what I can see, we should take care of the more egregious human rights issues first. It is the Law of Diminishing Returns. Preventing illegal wiretapping provides margin return compared to stopping the bloodshed in Syria.
If we're going to have a discussion on how America is not a good nation, we do need to keep it in perspective, and build a priority list for how things in the world should change.
Only from an American view point is that true, lots of differing view points come to lots of different conclusions about which govt is "better". That is entirely the point with why the US insists on pushing it's value system on others (by force if neccersary).
But that aside, I'm pointing out that saying "our government is better (for you!)" is complete BS. Countries in general shouldn't push their values on each other. Just because some do, doesn't make it all of a sudden a good idea.
That's true. Internally the US functions as a quite good democracy. But don't get too complacent. Off of the top of my head:
- Death penalty. In 2013. Including for 15 year olds and the mentally ill in some states. - Disproportionate number of blacks in jail. - World incarcerations record. - Segregation until some 40 years ago (and "in practice" segregation still today). - Slavery until 140 years ago. - Mass surveillance. - Awfully class based health care system. - Horrendous labour laws. - McCarthyism.
>As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs, and most Americans would agree that the U.S. has zero obligation to do anything internationally other than what advances its own interests.
It's not that the US has ever done anything else ("other than what advances its own interests"). Except for some amounts of "foreign aid" and other crap to help secure a pro-American government lackeys here and there.
Unfortunately, it has also done a lot of stuff to "advance its own interests". After the big colonial powers declined, it has royally fucked up countries the world over like there's no tomorrow. Where "advancing it's own interests" means "doing whatever, from invasion to establishing a dictatorship to get whatever resources and military support it needs, in the terms it wants it, to the detriment of the locals".
>Remember, as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world.
Compared to what? The Roman empire? I'd say it has been on par with the European colonial powers (France, UK, Belgium, etc) in taking advantage of the poorer 2/3 of the world, from the enslavement of African people to work in the South, to direct invasions, proxy wars and establishing puppet governments and dictatorships.
> Very little of this is actually true, at least with regards to what the U.S. does internally.
The majority of the OP's comment is not about domestic US politics, it's about support of dictatorships abroad. I'm guessing you are not very familiar with the history of Latin america, you should read up on that before making comments like this again. By the way, the US backed ex-president of Guatemala was just found guilty of genocide[1], Hillary Clinton said Egypt's dictator Mubarak was a "friend of her family", and the US strongly backs the regime in Saudi Arabia which is one of the most repressive in the entire middle east. When Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought the death of half a million Iraqi children due to the sanctions was too high a price to pay, she said "I think...the price is worth it"[2].
> The U.S. government very rarely ignores the Constitution
Are you aware that it was recently revealed that Henry Kissinger was recorded saying "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer"[3] Or are you familiar with the regime of secret law that surrounds drone assassinations, do you think that just because the president can get his lawyer to write him a permission slip that it makes assassinating US citizens abroad constitutional? What about locking people up in Guantanamo bay without a trial? What about torture? What about the 4th amendment. Do you even know which one that is, or why that is relevant to the article about spying on reporters from AP? What about freedom of the press?
> As for externally--the Constitution puts almost no limits on the American government's ability to intervene in foreign affairs
Have you even read the constitution? It doesn't sound like it. The entire point of the constitution is to constrain the ability of the government to do things. It says that the government is bound by all foreign treaties[4]. It also happens to say that congress is the only body of government that can declare war, even though after Vietnam that clause has pretty much been ignored.
> as far as global hegemons go, the U.S. is the most benevolent such entity in the history of the world
are you serious?
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/13/us-guatemala-riosm...
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
[3] http://rt.com/news/wikileaks-assange-release-files-475/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_State...
Humanity can do better than that, and your comment is frankly sickening in its moral complacency.
This must be how engineers who help build nukes and drones and surveillance systems rationalize to themselves so they can sleep at night.
"The US government is better than every other government!" isn't a valid argument.
You beat that drum all the time. I don't understand how anyone reasonably informed could ignore the weekly violations of the Constitution by the US Government.
The Constitution itself was intended to place very strict limits on the size and scope of the Federal Government. Its spirit as well as the letter of its rules have been almost totally breached. If the Constitution would be adhered to, we wouldn't have that monstrosity in Washington wrecking everything it touches.
"The Constitution itself was intended to place very strict limits on the size and scope of the Federal Government."
In fact, there was no single intention in creating the Constitution. Roughly there were two factions (though both wanted a stronger federal government than what existed at the time). The conflict between the two was largely resolved during the founding generation or very soon after--the "powerful federal government" forces' interpretation of the Constitution won, in Congress and the Supreme Court. The Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment cemented that interpretation at the point of a sword.
The fact that the interpretation of the Constitution has changed so radically where you can point out where it decisively was interpreted differently implicitly tells us that the original language and spirit are no longer obeyed. We're somewhere else as a result of the Civil War, the New Deal, the Great Society, and now the utter capitulation to the Nanny State that is Obamacare.
I mean, the language hasn't changed that much. We have written records of the Constitutional convention and the ratification debates within the States. Obamacare, for example, was a universe away conceptually from what the Constitution allowed the Federal government to do.
No amendments have been introduced since then that would allow for many of the functions of government. Yet there they are.
You can argue that judicial precedent and inherently unconstitutional laws have brought us to this point - but you can't really argue that our Federal government isn't in constant violation of the Constitution.
I didn't have this impression at all but then again I might spend too much time on http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian.
Land developers are wiping out wildlife habitats with no conscience as to the animal life they're destroying so they can put up ugly, treeless cookie-cutter suburban neighborhoods for a quick buck.
What Canada is supposedly famous for is becoming no longer. Municipal and federal governments would rather have more highways and big box stores.
I wrote about it at length here: http://allsprawldown.com/activism/a-big-reason-canadians-are...
If it helps, there are many folks in the US who would agree with you, most especially those of us who have spent significant time abroad. Even Ron Paul (in all other respects a libertarian wacko) owes much of his popularity to being outspoken about the consequences of blowback due to American interventionalism abroad. He was in the news again today saying much the same about Benghazi: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/ron-paul-benghazi-9126...
The US did not directly put Ríos Montt into power. However, the CIA did orchestrate a coup in Guatemala in the 50s, which triggered a bloody civil war and years of conflict that culminated with Ríos Montt coming to power in the 80s.
Why not? Have you seen a crook come at you and say "I'm a crook"? It's a facade, and as such, it helps with maintaining appearances, diplomacy, UN excuses and such. The "freedom" part is for lip service only -- well, and for the people to feel "privileged" and "patriotic".
When the facade doesn't help to maintain their interests, they strike will all their force, either directly, like in Vietnam or Iraq, or indirectly like tons of US backed dictatorships. If a nice pretext can be found, like "bringing democracy" (as if democracy can be brought with invasions from outside) even better. Else, the naked support of a dictator (like Pinochet) toppling the legitimate leaders will also do.
What the US does care for are it's "interests". Which are not exactly the interests of their people, mainly the interests of big corporations and large backers of politicians, those than can influence foreign policy.
(Yes, the explanation above is simplistic and naive. It's only meant to paint the big picture. And in their essence power and large interests work in a very simple ways too -- always had. It's the ideological manipulation and the feel-good excuses that are nuanced and very eloquent. The more nuanced, the more BS.).
That the population is not informed, doesn't understand, and doesn't even care for foreign policy also helps those in charge do whatever they want. Heck, the worst offenders are the "deeply informed", those that read supposedly "hi-quality" world and foreign policy coverage, which in the US, ever since the eighties, is full of self-censorship, bias, and ideology, when not a direct manipulation (from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird to the NYT Iraq war coverage).
>I am from Brazil, and many people here remember the US backed (and enforced sometimes) rightwing government that we had during the cold war.
As in my country, and in tons of other places.
If a US cope beats you, you most likely hit the lottery, in other countries if they didn't beat you, you hit the lottery. The rest of your examples are oversimplifications. What if US didn't exist and tyrants didn't fear anyone? How many local if not world wars would we have?
As for oil, US lost trillions fighting Iraq and Afghan war, not sure what you mean. But yeah, generally speaking US wants countries to drill as much as possible to have cheaper and plentiful oil.
Like, Pinochet? Costa e Silva? Rios Montt? Hosni Mubarak?
Oh wait, those were US-backed and sold stuff that US wanted and bought stuff that were profitable from the US, thus they were not tyrants.
Is the post-Mubarak Egypt any better for the average Egyptian? You can argue that US should mind it's business, but otherwise do not assume that the alternatives are perfect.
Using that logic we could reason that yes, Saddam was horrible, but Iraq without him could be much worst.
Shouldn't the US be showing how it is supposed to be done? Shouldn't the US be the one that is holding itself to the highest standards?
Also, didn't Bush threaten democratic Pakistan with a bombing back to the stone age if it didn't comply with US demands? Which strikes me as being a bit tyrannical.
I have to say that the idea that the US is the only thing stopping war and / or world war is arrogant and insulting, or just laughable, in the extreme. The rest of us are not savages on the verge of war, and we are capable of negotiating before knee jerking to shock and awe, torture, drone assassinations and Tom Clancy special forces TV events.
Ultimately, Im saying its more complicated than US good and those lot are tyrants, or terrorists.
But what bothers me more than any thing else though, is the sheer contempt and paranoia which which the US government treats it own people. It blows my mind that on one hand it's all "USA, USA, USA" (BTW, do Americans know how awful that looks? I, perhaps in my ignorance, only know two countries with a national chant. One lost WW2), while at the same time the US gov takes away their freedoms. The reason it bothers me is that at some point there has to be a tipping point where Americans have had enough, and I'm not sure a vote will solve it. Obama, the great hope, seems as bad, if not worse than Bush. So, who do Americans turn to?
Mean while, China grows......
I'm a US citizen and I don't go around spouting this nonsense. Please realize that there are many Americans who would agree with much of what you're saying. Please also realize that many USians are terribly ignorant of the many things their government has done in their name around the world.
The US has done an immeasurable amount of good in the world over the years, for example the US is by far and away the largest donor of foreign aid in the world and has been for a long time. I think most people are angry that what the country represents at face value is not always reflected in policy or actions. That's fine. Get involved and do something about it.
The easier we make it for some analyst in FBI headquarters to determine everywhere a potential terrorist cell has been, the easier we make it for some other analyst to conduct political spying and harassment like the world has never seen before. You can't pick one and not get the other.
In many, many ways, the political side of this is the worst part. This has nothing to do with parties or politics. It's the normal and automatic result of the creation of systems without appropriate checks and balances.
That could be extremely ugly politics, or it may not be. Paying special attention to tax status compliance of anti-tax activists might just be a pragmatic profiling. Kind of like giving extra attention to young men flying alone on one way tickets while checking no luggage.
No, the party line is that that targeting some groups is "Outrageous". I'm taking the unpopular contrarian position that maybe some organizations are more prone to be compliant with tax laws than others.
http://www.propublica.org/article/irs-office-that-targeted-t...
Perhaps you could argue that digging into these groups was being 'prudent', if that was in fact all they did. (I'm not buying it - being opposed to taxation has nothing to do with the eligibility requirements for a 501c4.)
But whatever could be the justification for sharing a confidential application with the press, if not partisan politics? That's actually a felony, not that anyone will ever be charged.
What is in question here is competence in government and how tax exempt orgs are regulated.
That's the only way I travel right now. Pragmatic or not, that's bullshit.
What happened was the IRS decided to ask extra questions for groups attempting to register as charities but suspected to be engaged in political activities. If, as you say, they were "political opposition groups" then the IRS was completely correct in reviewing their applications; they didn't qualify to be charities.
Why do "political opposition groups" deserve special tax status? Why shouldn't the IRS enforce the law?
The creators in this case gave their groups names indicating they intended to use the group fraudulently. The IRS was completely correct to investigate them.
And you need to be more specific about how these charities, excuse me, social welfare groups, are fraudulent, you haven't clearly outlined what you claim they're doing that's a fraud.
Rove's group pays no taxes because it is supposedly a social welfare group, but it's actually a political slush fund. And the Republicans, having broken the law flagrantly, are now attempting to prevent the IRS from taking any action to end their abuse of the tax-exempt nonprofit status. That's the scandal.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/05/irs-sc...
"Rove's group pays no taxes..." because it is a non-profit. Contributions for political activity are taxed. And claims that it's a "slush fund", with all the connotations that implies, need more than just a bald accusation.
Look, this corruption of the political process is worse than Watergate, because it was successful in suppressing a lot of election year political activity, compared to the latter getting caught early and therefore not going very far. It calls into question the very legitimacy of Obama's reelection, as pointed out by e.g. James Tatarnto: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732371630457848... A lot of people including myself were wondering where the "Tea Party" was in the 2012 election ... well, now we know part of the answer: getting stomped upon by the IRS, or avoiding that and staying too small to matter.
You can stop your ears up and say "La, la, la" all you want, but we on the other side are not buying it. And your side should think really hard about the ultimate long term consequences of illegally suppressing the loyal opposition, if we're pushed out of the political process, that doesn't leave us with any palatable options.
That's okay, in and of itself. The problem is they only did this to conservative groups, while leaving obvious law-breakers on the left (like MMFA) alone.
In other words, the IRS has applied the same standard to MMFA that the Republicans so vigorously object to having applied to them.
No, I don't mean that at all. The IRS has decidedly not applied the same standard. I would have thought the fact that the president himself has described the IRS's conduct as "outrageous" as he tries to run away from the scandal would clue you in a bit.
Actually you can. But it requires ethics, something the current administration has tossed by the wayside.
Fifth and fourteenth haven't been seen in a minute, either.
Peaceable assembly's overrated anyway. (RNC '04)
How much of the first needs to be gone until it's enough to recognize that the USA is no longer a free society?
How many whistleblowers, security researchers, and cryptographers need to be thrown in prison on bullshit trumped-up charges? How many hunger-striking political prisoners need to be held in secret prisons indefinitely without trial?
How many decades of PATRIOT Act abuses of individual privacy will be enough?
It's time to emigrate. Vote with your tax dollars.
If all people leave who disagree with, say, a police(ish) state and aggressive wars, +and+ are able to leave, then guess who remains? People who can't leave for one reason or another, and, uhhmm, the rest. And it's not like economical strain ever nipped fascist tendencies in the bud, to the contrary.
Think of a nuclear reactor, and the cooling elements saying "it's getting too warm in here, let's split". I can understand that when it gets really really bad, but right now, I dare say it would only make it worse. You need to stand up, not run away. If America falls, the rest of the world is pretty much caught between whatever it morphs into, Russia and China. So unless it gets bad enough so you want to move to either of those countries, please reconsider..
Until such time as moon rockets become practical and affordable, I don't see emigration as a viable option.
Not even close. True if you live in one of 10 very bad states, two of which oddly are shall issue concealed carry ones that just went very bad (Connecticut and Colorado), but continuing that concealed carry theme, i.e. the "bear" in "the right to keep and bear arms" (RKBA), there's been a nationwide sweep of shall issue, starting in Florida in 1987 and ending with Iowa and Wisconsin in 2011. And Illinois has a Federal court deadline to go shall issue by June 9th. So that's ~42 states and ~2/3rds of the population.
And other good things have happened, and in general the political RKBA Zeitgeist has drastically changed. So there's hope here ... which is important, since it's the ultimate check on an out of control government.
What I'm pointing out is that when you have people like Bloomberg and Emanuel individually violating double-digit millions of individuals' constitutional rights on their whims, you don't have a free society.
Whether it's RKBA this month or the right to peaceably assemble during a political convention in an election year, they get to pick and choose which rights you are allowed, with no repercussions.
That's tyranny.
I was born, raised, and have retired to Missouri, which once it shook off its "KKK" post-Civil War anti-gun laws in the last decade has ... well, kept up with the rest of the "good" states. When I lived in Arlington, Virginia it was also good. Massachusetts for college and work for a dozen years ... not good at all, much worse today.
So due to the wonders of Federalism I believe I've lived in a free society since 1991; you, obviously not so much. And it's not a month to month thing, e.g. NY's Sullivan Act comes from 1911, when the Irish NYC Tammany Hall machine wanted to keep newer immigrants in their place.
But I agree its a very big problem, about 1/3 of our nation's population are by definition subjects, not citizens, and this makes me think about Lincoln's "'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free."
As for the political convention, I suspect you and I have different definitions of "peaceably assemble", plus I see no inherent issues with suppressing protests at a political convention. That's not what I understand that part of the 1st Amendment to be protecting, rather, it e.g. protects each of the conventions, where people are peaceably assembling as part of politics. I submit to you that it is at least a debatable point.
You might as well ask 'why do people love states rights except when it comes to free speech?' Same thing in my book.
Doesn't matter a bit to me, though - it's incorporated now.
Although it remains to be seen if this means much of anything, the changes on the ground to date are minimal to nothing. They recently denied cert in an appeal of NY's capricious concealed carry laws, and have given Illinois extra time to appeal an opposite direction decision against it. Keep and bear arms, after all.
The whole process of incorporation has been a modern attempt at redrawing the boundaries of federalism to address things the Founders got wrong. The most decisive revision was with regards to slavery/civil rights, where the Constitution was revised at the point of sword with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. A lot of other things have come along for the ride (from free speech to abortion), but all of that is rooted in a modern understanding of what states can be trusted to do.
Consider a hypothetical where 90% of the population was in favor of state-level gun bans. If you held up the 2nd Amendment in opposition to that consensus, you'd be in the position of arguing that states should be constrained in a way that neither the framers nor contemporary consensus contemplates them being constrained.
You already acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated, so I'm sure I just don't follow the point you're making with the hypothetical.
He goes on to add that "with the defeat of the British [for whom gun grabbing was a major strategy and what sparked the war], no one feared that the natural and common-law right to have arms was any longer in danger."
Among other things, how could the states be allowed to prevent the Congress from calling up the militia, one of the latter's enumerated powers?
You're also skipping the step in 14th Amendment jurisprudence where it was explicitly passed to protect freedmen from things like stripping them of the RKBA, and it was judicially nullified in 5 years. That the Supremes started taking it seriously decades later is not a bad thing, at least if you care about the rule of law. That they took 140 years to apply it to the 2nd Amendment has more than a little to do with today's lack of respect for a Federal government which all too often holds itself as being above the law.
Fun factoid #2, most states had (varying degrees of) "official" religions. This 14th amendment ruling also ended state support of religion in the few states that hadn't changed their constitutions by that time.
Fun factoid #3: This ruling happend about a month before the Scopes trial [2]. Interesting time the 1920s.
Realistically, a bunch of pea-shooters stand no chance against the US military. This holds true whether it's Americans or hired sub-Saharan mercenaries driving the tanks.
Forgot to add: a "pea shooter" would be a lot better description of the US rifle/carbine that's been issued since the '60s, especially with its FMJ ammo.
The people bearing arms isn't to shoot at the government. That's a common misconception.
It's a deterrent - enough people armed and willing to shoot at the government means that the government doesn't come knocking to create the situation wherein everyone loses.
It's basically p2p/distributed mutually assured destruction.
Eric Blair once wrote: "That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
"Stays there" both in the RKBA sense, and "stays there" in the "above the mantel and not taken down out of necessity" sense.
just imagine how far worse off we'd be.
Leaving is always your choice, but the U.S. would still have the power, just with less moderating influences such as yourself to ensure that it's used with a conscience.
"We" in this sentence would refer to the people who stayed.
Don't be one of those.
It's a fucking shitty situation, but I'm making the best of it, and I don't really miss my former country. Just some of the people in it.
Which is the default for 2/3rds of the US population, and includes permanent resident aliens.
I know there are significant cultural differences, but when you come down to it, does the government trust the people or not? This is the touchstone for that question.
Nevermind that Americans have no sense of civic duty.
We're all just sitting around drinking out of our Buy N Large sodas watching the latest Kardashian life drama.
The touchstone of whether a government trusts it people is allowing them to keep and bear arms without conditions besides the usual disbarments for criminals and the seriously mentally ill.
This is only tangentially related to their actually doing so and why. 14-17% of American gunowners (if you assume there are only 75 million, which I think is low) do so at least to hunt. In Western Europe that's obviously a lot more limited due to population density. In Switzerland, a max of 600,000 or so can be issued the current service rifle (because that's how many were manufactured...) and serve in any capacity including the reserves, which by tradition is structured differently (e.g. personal weapon stored at home).
The best source I can find now for a relevant quote from John McPhee's La Place de la Concorde Suisse, written back in 1984 when this was very significant, is "Communist Swiss soldiers keep rifles and machine guns at home. It is said that this is not dangerous for political purposes; it is dangerous only for the wife."
I'm up for it, but where?
I think the Civil Rights Movement would like to have a word with you.
You mean the assembly whose Wikipedia page has... ?
"Expected security expenditures reached $70 million, $50 million of which was funded by the federal government."
"The NYPD infiltrated and compiled dossiers on protest groups (most of whom were doing nothing illegal), leading to over 1,800 arrests and subsequent fingerprinting."
"Over 1800 individuals were arrested by the authorities, a record for a political convention in the U.S. However 90% of those charges were eventually dropped."
Wow! Indeed, a great failure of the right to peaceful assembly!
(Who were they protesting against, anyway? An illegal act of war? Their leaders, who had lied to them into said war? Minutiae.)
You aren't hearing any serious dissent from the AP.
That said, we have to be vigilant about any overreach, as civil rights are too hard to get back once you give them up.
Had there not been a subpoena the U.S. would likely not have informed the AP of the search at all.
The CIA wants to maintain the AP's ability to lure in more leaks in the future.
This isn't a problem that needs one solution, but multiple, layered ones. Communication should be disposable and deniable.
Is a leak of classified information not supposed to be investigated?
If the government has clear and verifiable evidence of damage that has happen as a result of said leak, then there should be documents to show it. Where are the dead bodies or the loss of material goods?
News organizations that have consistently rolled over and let the government have its way with secret this and secret that -- and they're shocked! shocked! that they are subjected to secret ops too? Wake the eff up, special snowflakes.
Instead of arguing politics (ie the moral argument) it would be more interesting to discuss the reasoning behind the wire taps or the implications of such a wire tap.
If the public cared, this kind of thing could potentially result in Obama's impeachment. Since the public doesn't care, it's a tempest in a teapot.
The nice thing for the officials is that while this kind of story riles some people up a bit, it quite effectively sends a chilling message at journalists and would-be informants. Surely a cost-benefit analysis was conducted and ironically the NY Times coverage is part of the desired outcome.
Consider for a moment what the coverage would be like if there were truly a hostile/adversarial relationship between the press and the government.
The public does not care about the rule of law, so we don't have it. There is no better way to join the establishment than to become a reporter.
This is just the AP using the propaganda power of its infinite supply of ink to attempt to protect itself from criminal investigations. Congratulations, HN--you fell for it. The amount of critical thinking on this site has dropped to unmeasurable levels.
>Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.
>A subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period," according to the rules.
>The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that "might impair the news gathering function" because the government recognizes that "freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news."
Regarding the attorney general approving subpoenas,
>Rules published by the Justice Department require that subpoenas of records of news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general, but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained through subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.
In general it is really shady that so many things are 'unknown' about this. Presumably the reporters who wrote this article should have been able to gather this information (since the article is itself written by the AP). That they didn't implies either a) that the journalists are supremely incompetent, or b) that the DoJ is intentionally withholding information it normally has to hand over by law or regulation. That may be why the journos are calling this "secret" information gathering.
This sums it up--the reporters who wrote this article are the ones whose records were subpoenaed. Classic conflict of interest, but the AP does not recuse themselves from writing this story. Thus, I cannot trust anything that they say. Facts are "unknown"? They will be if it helps the AP spread FUD. Subpoena is too broad? Says who--why, the AP, of course.
From what I can tell, the subpoena covers the five reporters involved in the article under investigation, plus all the communal phone lines used by all reporters in the office, lest reporters try to cover their tracks by using a phone that's not on their desk. That doesn't sound unusually broad to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/technology/chinese-hackers...
In each case, a government accessed a newspaper's network without authorization to determine the source of a leak.
This is only going to make the hole deeper for Obama with the Benghazi and IRS scandals already aboil.
Not my department [29c3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mnuofn_DXw
Enemies of the State [29C3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBp-1Br_OEs
after this nothing of what happened here should surprise you
"In late August 2006, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage revealed publicly that Novak had based his disclosure of Mrs. Wilson's CIA identity on then still-classified information that Armitage initially gave him while Armitage was still serving in the State Department." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair_timeline
"In any case, it was clearly not a good idea for Richard Armitage to reveal her identity to Bob Novak."
Let's keep the established facts straight.
Otherwise, since you're ignoring my statement that she was no longer a covert agent when this happened, I'm not sure what's the point of your reply.
Richard Armitage is also accused of leaking Plame's identity, and first, but that didn't make it less of a crime for Libby to do so as well.