Ghost Writer
26th May 2003, 10:44
Admiral John Poindexter, a former Navy man, and co-conspirator in the Iran Contra scandal has been appointed as head of DARPA's www.darpa.mil/iao/+iao+logo&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Information (http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:GiKBckIECkoC:[url) Awareness Office[/url]. This office was set up to compile an intelligent database that tracks credit card purchases, signal transmissions both digital and analog, and even advocates compiling this data with human biometrics.
Notice that the purpose of this project is to curtail terrorists ability "to move freely throughout the world, to hide when necessary, to find unpunished sponsorship and support, to operate in small, independent cells, and to strike infrequently, exploiting weapons of mass effects and media response to influence governments." I submit that the only freedom of movement that will be supressed is that of the American people's.
Let's face it we have done a number of things to aid ourselves in this war on terror, and many of them have been to the detriment of those citizens that the measures are designed to protect. This is coupled with a hapharzard approach to waging war on those people who threaten us. While attempting to wage a politically correct war on the terms of the international community, we spend money combating the foreign threat in a predicatable manner. In short, we are being goaded into spending mass amounts of the national treasury. At the same time we are operating under the largest trade imbalances in history, we are giving away some of the largest political handouts to causes like AIDS in Africa. If our enemies plan is to bankrupt us and erode the rights of the citizens of the United States; one must ask what side our government is on?
Quite frankly, I am getting a little wary of living in a society where all people are treated as suspect before any specific crime has been comitted. Prior to 9-11, there were specific laws that prevented the intelligence community from turning the apparatus inward on its own citizens. However, this was often bipassed through the use of corporate marketing and data-mining operations. Throughout the last ten years, the level of intrusion has increased, as corporate policy has become more brazen in its methods of obtaining this data. From grocery cards, cookies, spyware, check cashing protocol, employee drug screening, credit reporting, and medical record keeping; we are entering a most precarious turning points in the information age. Because of terrorism, the information generated by those faceless entities is being compiled into large data-mining programs owned by the government, for the sole purpose of tracking the movements and activities of its own citizens.
We have a real choice. Will we take prudent measures to combat terrorism, or will we ignore the issue in order to capitalize on an opportunity to subvert the privacy, and overall freedom of the American people? Will we allow Orwell's Big Brother to materialize, and if so, how can freedom and democracy be used as the mantra to accomplish those ends?
To me the answer if simple. Let's forget about the nonsense that we have been taught regarding immigration. Frequently, I hear the language of the left sighting the importance that immigration has had on the development of our nation. Obviously, the terrorist threat is more or less foreign, and we have a good idea about what regions of the world, and what type of fanatacism is causing such rampant destruction. Why not focus most of the energy on those factions which aim to destroy us.
Deporting those who fit into a certain category might be the cheapest and most rational means by which to secure the safety of the American people. That's is not to say that there is only one source of terrorism. However, if this step were taken, the risk factor would decrease, leaving us in a position to better evaluate the use of methods that most certainly run anti to the spirit of the 4th Amendment.
I propose a Constitutional Convention, where privacy discussed, and the merits of the 4th Amendment are carried over to the electronic medium of the American citizens.
This is not to say that some groups do not deserve serious investigation. However, I think FISA and the previous modes of protection were more than adequate. They were just not being used properly. Blanket coverage of the entire population, is not only impossible and intrusive, but it is a waste of valuable resources. Proceeding in the present manner, will do nothing to advance to safety of the world from terrorism. If anything, it will saturate the law enforcement and intelligence agencies with useless information that complicates the machinations of those agencies, leaving the American public more vulnerable to the violence that the device aims to prevent.
Luckily, I am not the only one who remains vary of this situation. Others within Congress, and the media are also suspicious. In fact, legislation has been introduced to put a stop to this nonsense. Ultimately, I think this may be a decision the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on in the near future. This is a case where I am hopeful that Judicial review plays an important role. Otherwise, we may be headed in the wrong direction as a society.
(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:12 pm on May 26, 2003)
Notice that the purpose of this project is to curtail terrorists ability "to move freely throughout the world, to hide when necessary, to find unpunished sponsorship and support, to operate in small, independent cells, and to strike infrequently, exploiting weapons of mass effects and media response to influence governments." I submit that the only freedom of movement that will be supressed is that of the American people's.
Let's face it we have done a number of things to aid ourselves in this war on terror, and many of them have been to the detriment of those citizens that the measures are designed to protect. This is coupled with a hapharzard approach to waging war on those people who threaten us. While attempting to wage a politically correct war on the terms of the international community, we spend money combating the foreign threat in a predicatable manner. In short, we are being goaded into spending mass amounts of the national treasury. At the same time we are operating under the largest trade imbalances in history, we are giving away some of the largest political handouts to causes like AIDS in Africa. If our enemies plan is to bankrupt us and erode the rights of the citizens of the United States; one must ask what side our government is on?
Quite frankly, I am getting a little wary of living in a society where all people are treated as suspect before any specific crime has been comitted. Prior to 9-11, there were specific laws that prevented the intelligence community from turning the apparatus inward on its own citizens. However, this was often bipassed through the use of corporate marketing and data-mining operations. Throughout the last ten years, the level of intrusion has increased, as corporate policy has become more brazen in its methods of obtaining this data. From grocery cards, cookies, spyware, check cashing protocol, employee drug screening, credit reporting, and medical record keeping; we are entering a most precarious turning points in the information age. Because of terrorism, the information generated by those faceless entities is being compiled into large data-mining programs owned by the government, for the sole purpose of tracking the movements and activities of its own citizens.
We have a real choice. Will we take prudent measures to combat terrorism, or will we ignore the issue in order to capitalize on an opportunity to subvert the privacy, and overall freedom of the American people? Will we allow Orwell's Big Brother to materialize, and if so, how can freedom and democracy be used as the mantra to accomplish those ends?
To me the answer if simple. Let's forget about the nonsense that we have been taught regarding immigration. Frequently, I hear the language of the left sighting the importance that immigration has had on the development of our nation. Obviously, the terrorist threat is more or less foreign, and we have a good idea about what regions of the world, and what type of fanatacism is causing such rampant destruction. Why not focus most of the energy on those factions which aim to destroy us.
Deporting those who fit into a certain category might be the cheapest and most rational means by which to secure the safety of the American people. That's is not to say that there is only one source of terrorism. However, if this step were taken, the risk factor would decrease, leaving us in a position to better evaluate the use of methods that most certainly run anti to the spirit of the 4th Amendment.
I propose a Constitutional Convention, where privacy discussed, and the merits of the 4th Amendment are carried over to the electronic medium of the American citizens.
This is not to say that some groups do not deserve serious investigation. However, I think FISA and the previous modes of protection were more than adequate. They were just not being used properly. Blanket coverage of the entire population, is not only impossible and intrusive, but it is a waste of valuable resources. Proceeding in the present manner, will do nothing to advance to safety of the world from terrorism. If anything, it will saturate the law enforcement and intelligence agencies with useless information that complicates the machinations of those agencies, leaving the American public more vulnerable to the violence that the device aims to prevent.
Luckily, I am not the only one who remains vary of this situation. Others within Congress, and the media are also suspicious. In fact, legislation has been introduced to put a stop to this nonsense. Ultimately, I think this may be a decision the U.S. Supreme Court issues a ruling on in the near future. This is a case where I am hopeful that Judicial review plays an important role. Otherwise, we may be headed in the wrong direction as a society.
(Edited by Ghost Writer at 12:12 pm on May 26, 2003)