FBI Says Paper Trails Are Optional 244
WerewolfOfVulcan writes "According to this Washington Post article, the FBI says that it doesn't have to comply with even the unconstitutional provisions of the Patriot Act when asking for phone records. Apparently that whole due process thing doesn't include them. Funny thing is, they've apparently already been doing it for years." Quoting: "Under past procedures, agents sent 'exigent circumstances letters' to phone companies, seeking toll records by asserting there was an emergency. Then they were expected to issue a grand jury subpoena or a 'national security letter,' which legally authorized the collection after the fact. Agents often did not follow up with that paperwork, the inspector general's investigation found. The new instructions tell agents there is no need to follow up with national security letters or subpoenas. The agents are also told that... they may make requests orally, with no paperwork sent to phone companies. Such oral requests have been made over the years in terrorism and kidnapping cases, officials said."
double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, that's funny. it's almost a real riot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, that's funny. it's almost a real riot.
Click here [wikipedia.org] to gain a new understanding of the sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a clever move on the part of the Foul Breathed Investigators as it seems that "exigent circumstance" requests may be made by phone; in the interests of saving time and lives of course. Now, with no need to issue even minimal follow-up paperwork there will be far fewer traces of the abuses of power that will continue. After all, the cockroaches can now safely occupy the middle of the room: the lights have been turned off. No need to worry about having to scurry for cover should any noxious Inspector General or Congresscritter show up asking "What the hell?" So, America takes yet another step towards the darkness that is a police state. How long before phone records are used to justify having the military pick up some local "unlawful enemy combatant" in your neighborhood? Think it can't happen here? Think that Americans somehow don't have that "dark side" that shows up everywhere else in the world when governments are allowed virtually unlimited police powers? If that's true, how do you account for the FBI PATRIOT ACT abuses, the current dustup over the firing of eight US District Attorneys, the Valerie Plame affair, the use of secret CIA prison camps and the "extraordinary rendition" of prisoners to other nations with even fewer safeguards against torture than we have, the fact that the military tribunals now being held at Gitmo are secret (can't have anyone finding out who we really detain down there), and the remainder of the whole sordid list of abuses that our little sawed-off tinpot "Decider" in the White House has loosed on this country?
It's getting to be very close to the point at which openly dissenting from government policies will become very dangerous. It will be too late to put a stop to these abuses once the malevolent piece of vegetation that we "elected" President decides to start really using all the powers he's been given over the past six years. After all, how many people are going to be willing to openly risk the "midnight knock" that is more and more a possibilty for anyone who stands out from the crowd? Once people begin to disappear in numbers large enough to attract the attention of the sleep-walking American populace there will be little chance of peacefully reigning in our out-of-control Federal government. The time to act is now. Join the next demonstration against the war, start one to call attention to how Texas' Favorite Idiot has trampled our Constitutional liberties into the mud, write the spineless wimp that occupies your local Congressional district office and insist that he begin living up to his oath of office - which requires the protection of the Constitution and I'm not talking about shielding the document itself from destruction, write your local newspapers explaining why continuing to allow President Bush, Vice President Richard "Sparky Crashcart" Cheney, Attorney General Alberto "Torquemeda" Gonzales, and Secretary of State Condi "Head in the Sand" Rice to remain in office is a Bad Idea, do something to protect this country before it's too late. The government IS NOT THE COUNTRY and the sooner everyone realizes this the sooner we can kick the SOBs out of o
Re: (Score:2)
Just my $.02,
Ron
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:double entendre (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember also consider the number of terrorists amongst the people not being investigated. One of the basic problems with corrupt law enforcement is not only do they waste time harassing innocent people they also have a tendency to ignore (even "partner with") actual criminals. "Law enforcement" is by it's very nature attractive to criminals, which is why proper oversight is needed.
it was worth giving up my civil liberties to catch this child molester.
How do you know that giving up your civil liberties actually made it easier to catch this person. It may have made no difference, it may even have made them harder to catch. Mass snooping (even if conducted by entirely honest operatives) tends to increase "noise" far more than "signal".
The FBI and the Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the committee for State Security, (Russian translation KGB) is alive and well in the USA. It now comes out what I have been posting for some time that this was an effort to trounce the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, since when did FBI become KGB? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to step on these bastards necks NOW.
Re: (Score:2)
>
> We need to step on these bastards necks NOW.
If you want a picture of Soviet America, NOW you picture these bastards' boots stepping on YOUR neck!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You want big government? This is it.
I still can't believe how many people think they can have their cake and eat it too. Enough is enough -- it's time to grow up and realize that injustice is proportional to the amount of power at the center.
Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth.
-- R.J. Rummel
Let's stop chasing impossible dreams and admit that he was absolutely correct.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
When you're above the constitution... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When you're above the constitution... (Score:5, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you.
Dual Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dual Responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want privacy you're better off finding other means of communication.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI can't just willy-nilly go requesting tax records from the IRS -- they have to have a warrant to do so. Neither can the IRS request your FBI file, if one exists. Government agencies, from local county registrars to Federal agencies are notorious for petty squabbles and infighting, and plain old bureaucratic machinations. Thoug
Re:Dual Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen. In a nutshell, they were handed a golden goose by the government. In order to keep that money-train rolling, they've willingly cooperated with government requests -- including unlawful ones.
Yes, nowadays there's more of a duopoly between them and the cable companies. But don't think they are any better. One reason the government is scrutinizing VOIP is because they want the same level of oversight that they've had with the telcos for years prior.
So when you see members of Congress pass bills such as the Patriot Act and others, granting overreaching powers to the FBI, think carefully for a moment. Considering that the average age [senate.gov] of Congress members is 55 for Representatives and 60 for Senators, most of them should be familiar with J. Edgar Hoover [wikipedia.org]. That should be required history for the younger generation as well. Substitute "terrorist" for "radical", with superior surveillance technology, and that's what you have today.
When your elected representatives express shock and disbelief that the FBI could ever abuse its power, don't believe them. They know damn well what they are voting for from the start.
Re:Dual Responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm just telling you why it's not going to happen..."
I have to grudgingly respect your point. I think there was a time in very recent American history ( i.e. before 9/11 ) when people would have raised a huge outcry is this story had broken. I think it was probably that way for the past 100 years. But like they kept telling us, "9/11 changed everything". I guess they were trying to hypnotize us with a mantra. It worked.
So now, you are right. After torture, extraordinary renderings, illicit war, warrantless wiretaps, FBI sneak-and-peaks, nobody is surprised that telcos are sharing information with the government. I hope someday I'll be able to return to the country that I grew up in.
Re: (Score:2)
Expecting phone companies to protect your records from the government is like trying to get a home loan without revealing your credit history. Good luck with that one.
In the case of getting a home loan without revealing credit history, that's asking another entity to take one hell of a financial risk on you without any knowledge of your financial reliability. That's rather unreasonable.
While I do agree about the here-and-now practical circumstances of the phone companies in the US, that doesn't change the fact that it is reasonable to expect that government must go through due process to acquire private information about its citizens. Likewise, phone companies (and ot
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree with you on the phone companies, but not the IRS or Fed. The IRS is, in fact, a bureau within the Treasury Department regardless of what conspiracy theorists tell you. It most certainly is a government organization and not som
Those oral requests can be denied (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't wire taps, this is getting your phone records. This is social engineering.
You could do this too, you don't have to be a federal agent.
Fuck that! Jail the agents who try this. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, this is abuse of authority.
This is about removing accountability.
We don't need a paper trail just for a paper trail. We need one to make sure that the requests are legitimate and fair.
Is it? Who owns the CDR? (Score:2)
Re:%uck that! Jail the agents who try this. (Score:2, Informative)
The concept here is very simple. The memo defines situations where the FBI will ask the phone company for a voluntary disclosure of information. They are not forcing the phone company to comply through some draconian legal provision- the phone company can easily deny the request if they do not agree with the exigency of the circumstances, and there is nothing that the FBI can do about it.
Accountability has not been removed. According to the article, there will still be a
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you want to go to jail. Impersonating a federal agent is a felony.
Re:Those oral requests can be denied (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton [...]"
Sorry, you lose.
Both parties do suck. On the other hand, when my 3-year-old tells me "but [random kid] did it too!" I don't accept that as a valid excuse. Apparently your parents had different ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
The only references I could find to that make no mention of Clinton. Explain? The rest of your stuff is too vague to check.
I didn't vote for Clinton, but the current admin makes me nostalgic for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, of course it doesn't! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, of course it doesn't. What are you gonna do, call the cops? Oh, wait, the FBI are the cops!
Silly citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember this little country over thar in Europe. Well the people got sick and tired of their government and revolted. They rounded up the king and queen and separated their heads from their necks.
I suggest all your emails and letters to Congress finish with this little reminder:
"Don't be a Louis the XIV !"
Re:Well, of course it doesn't! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all well and good in a monarchy, but what are you supposed to do in a democracy? Unfortunately, in a democracy, the chain of responsibility gets severed at every election. Lopping off Bush's head, as appealing as that may be, isn't going to solve the problem. He didn't authorize it (as far as we know). Suppose Clinton authorized it. Lopping of Clinton's head also isn't going to solve anything. He's out of the picture. So, who do we hold responsible? The current administration who know nothing about it, or the previous administration who are no longer in power?
Ripe for abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
Insufficient accountability morphs directly into a complete lack of accountability. Who is surprised by this? Who did not anticipate this over five years ago? Those who were blinded by fear. Everyone else was either outraged by the potential -- and thus innevitable -- abuse, or lying and appealing to the fearful. Don't worry, there doesn't need to be any safeguards because we promise to use our powers wisely and justly, and besides, don't you hate Terrorists?!
Re: (Score:2)
What's your secret to keeping the creeps off of you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ripe for abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI seems to love terrorists, because they have bought about a regime in which anyone merely claiming to be an FBI agent can ask for and receive any confidential or private information on any US citizen. The terrorists will surely be posing as agents NOW, and because there is no validation of authority, paper trail or any safeguards at all, they will be able to find out everything they want to know.
Robert Mueller and the rest of his complicit conspirators need to be in jail.
Not wholly bad, but strange justification (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. That law they cite provides a justification for a telephone provider to turn over records; it does not provide a justification for law enforcement to request the records. Semantics, but important.
That the law clarifies under what kind of emergency such requests can be made is good-with-a-capital-G. What remains to be seen is if the old definition of emergency ("I can't be bothered with paperwork") will continue to be the de facto reason for a subpoena-less request.
IMO, any federal agent who acts outside the law wrt information requests should be prosecuted. They've broken the law no less than someone who smoked a joint -- and the cumulative negative effects on society are probably far worse for those who act outside the law in the name of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Because federal agents usually have the authority of the federal government behind them. And in cases right now, federal agents are using templates for letters which are intended to be used in emergencies.
But you are right: when agents make an information request without a subpoena, communications companies should resist unless it is *very obvious* that there is an emergency (i.e. publicly broadcasted threats).
Re:Not wholly bad, but strange justification (Score:4, Insightful)
Agent: We're the FBI, turn over the documents or we'll get a warrant, trash your offices, and disrupt your business for the next six months looking for them. And then maybe charge you with "obstruction" and "interfering with a Federal officer."
And refer whatever we find to the IRS as well.
Yeah, your average corporate wageslave or corporate idiot manager is going to refuse...
At least some librarians have been known to do so when asked for library patron records. But they don't work for the phone company or a bank - where obedience is Job One.
You see "Smokin' Aces"? Remember the sceen where Ray Liotta is asked by his partner about whether there'll be a problem at the hotel getting access? He says something to the effect, you show them the badge, they bend over.
That's how it works. These companies are regulated and controlled by the US government - they do what the government says (unless it means revealing their own management graft or corruption or monopoly acts, of course.)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Not wholly bad, but strange justification (Score:5, Insightful)
Because in an presumed emergency, you trust the authority figures who are tasked with dealing with them. If your an IT manager for a bank, and a child has just been kidnapped from the premises, do you really want to tell the police to go back to the station fill out a subpoena, and get it signed by a judge before you'll let them review the surveillance tapes to see if they show who grabbed the child. You could, but that delay might seal the kids fate.
The people you should be angry with are the corporate folks who comply they're the ones who should ask for a warrant, subpoena, etc...
I disagree.
The reason for these 'emergency protocols' is so that things can happen as quickly as possible in emergencies. We really shouldn't blame 'corporate folks' for assisting law enforcement just because full protocol hasn't been followed, especially if the 'corporate folks' have been misled to beleive that an urgent response is required.
If the federal agents are verbally asking for records and its not an emergency we should be angry at the federal agents, and demanding accountability from them. They should be harshly dealt with when they abuse those policies. I'd even say it should be a matter of public record when emergency protocols are invoked, so that we can all review them after the fact.
The challenge is to make law enforcement accountable *without* making the accounting so onerous that they are unable to respond effectively in time sensitive situations. "Due Process" is great when time isn't a big deal, but sometimes it needs to be set aside for the greater good -- the trick is to ensure that it only happens when its actually needed. Simply banning 'emergency responses' isn't going to get rid of emergencies, and without emergency responses those emergencies are going to end badly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you know if this is an emergency or not? Do you expect the agents to brief you on the case, so that you can make your own decision?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since we quote a lot of Orwell: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Since we quote a lot of Orwell: (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, you heard me, this is just another example of the FBI's deep and ingrained bipedalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, obey the Law (Score:2)
The real worrying thing is (Score:5, Insightful)
That US telcos comply to such oral requests alone should tell you something of the state of this country, which is the merging of the corporate world and the state. As in country that have this other form of government... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Merging of the corporate world, what?
No, the reason this is happening is because every time a company does something bad (whether its censorship, seizing assets, turning people over to the gestapo, or whatnot) the droning starts. Millions of people chanting in unison: "The Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only appli
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I work (through three contractor levels of abstraction) for a telco here in Aus, and there are laws and BIG penalties for giving out customer records to anyone, including the police, who doesn't have the correct authority
What I'm trying to say is, aren't the US telco's here breaking a few laws?
Re:The real worrying thing is (Score:5, Informative)
I work (through three contractor levels of abstraction) for a telco here in Aus, and there are laws and BIG penalties for giving out customer records to anyone, including the police, who doesn't have the correct authority
What I'm trying to say is, aren't the US telco's here breaking a few laws?
No, because the USAPATRIOT Act gives the FBI the authority to get this information from the telcos.
Now USAPATRIOT only grants that authority under certain circumstances, and given that the FBI takes certain actions such as filing the correct paperwork afterward, but the telco has no way of knowing that the situation is really how the FBI says, nor does it have any idea that the FBI is not producing the correct paperwork for accountability. Basically, they have little choice but to comply.
Normally in the United States if you want to know if an agent of the law has the proper authority to get information or search your premises, you ask to see the warrant.
The whole problem with USAPATRIOT is that it makes warrants unecessary in certain circumstances, and worse it allows the FBI to decide what those circumstances are, and even worse it does not at any point require a judge to verify that the circumstances were such that a warrant could be bypassed. It basically grants law enforcement super-powers, then puts them on the honor system for not abusing those powers.
Making this into a problem of the telcos is tempting, and yeah I would love it if they fought back, but this is at its heart a problem of our government and expecting the telcos to fight the government for us is naive.
Re: (Score:2)
And if so then how does this not get followed up on?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Funny how for poor people, black people, Muslims or whomever (and often times these overlap) this doesn't work. If you tell the cops to sod off, they arrest you for whatever damn thing they please. After all, what is going to happen? They can search you without a warrant, and if you refuse, they arrest you then search you. Most you can do is log the incidents, and then shoot the fuc
Re: (Score:2)
So even if a gov't has a large measure of nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, and corporatism, we can't call it fascist, because it was defeated in the second world war.
It may be that we need a new term for something similar, something which hasn't been defeated yet.
Bad Summary no cookie (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for that completely useless and misleading article summary.
Wait, if there's no paper trail (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I caught a little bit of the hearing today... (Score:3, Informative)
The FBI counsel came back to that whole "in an emergency" thing, but they cannot gaurantee that it's an emergency. They couldn't even gaurantee it was part of an investigation (a requirement). What a mess we've created these last six years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What does the last six years have to do with anything? Didn't the Clintons [assumption.edu] use FBI files against their political opponents? At least this is done under the guise of National Security and not for political intimidation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this. I am telling you to not assume that this started when Bush took office. If anything, they're making a step in the right direction. I guess if you are going to abuse governmental powers, at least do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Senator Clinton will be quite surprised to find out that she has been doing charity work all this time.
I don't see the big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a story about the FBI calling up and making a request that doesn't have the force of law. If you want to do something about this call up your phone company and ask what the policy is regarding oral requests from the FBI. If you don't like it, use a different one.
And we're not talking about wiretaps, here. We're talking about records of who you call. The courts have ruled, over the years, that this data is not yours. It belongs to the phone company. In fact, those court rulings are probably what prompted the change in policy.
How's Verisign handling those requests? (Score:5, Informative)
Much wiretapping in the US is actually outsourced to Verisign. Verisign's NetDiscovery [verisign.com] center provides a full-service wiretapping service, with hooks into telcos, cellular networks, VoIP providers, cable TV systems, wireless data networks, and ISPs. Verisign's proprietary back door into the SS7 telephone signaling control network makes this not only possible, but allows Verisign to offer wiretapping services at a lower cost.
Verisign is extending their wiretapping network internationally. Italy is already hooked up. [64.233.167.104]
So if Congress or the press wants to look into this matter, the place to go is Verisign's Network Security Office. Also, attending Intelligence Support Systems for Lawful Interception, Cybercrime Investigations and Intelligence Gathering Conference and Expo [telestrategies.com] in May, in Washington, DC. "Now that most nations of the world require lawful interception support of VoIP and other IP-based services, ISS World Spring 2007 is a must attend event." Talks include "Best Practices for Successful Deployments of Word Spotting Technology" and "Content and P2P Monitoring and Filtering". Major topics for this year include inteconnecting multiple intercept systems to allow easier remote access.
Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
how to fix this problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the feds didn't follow up with the required paperwork, then does this even qualify as a patriot-act request? Seems like the companies could follow up in next month's phone bill:
Dear Customer,
On Jan 1, 2007 the FBI invoked the patriot act to ask for the records of John Q Smith, saying they would provide us with a subpoena in a timely fashion to keep this request confidential.
The subpoena was never brought to us. We thought you might like to know.
Sincerely,
Phone Company
Re:how to fix this problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
They could, but that would generate no profit while pissing off the government. So why would they?
Someone hit the "reset" button (Score:2)
Can someone find the "reset" button on the U.S. Government and hit it on the way out? Thanks.
Re:Someone hit the "reset" button (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We've GOT to Get Rid of the Bush Administration (Score:2, Insightful)
That's fine! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's fine! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"We have rule of law, and not rule of man."
Not that this has in recent years done much to deter prosecutors in general, the FBI, as well as other law enforcement agencies from trying.
STB
Re:That's fine! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just becuase you can point out what a democrat did wrong doesn't mean that the current administration is free to do as they please.
Re:That's fine! (Score:5, Insightful)
This separate firing of eight attorneys, however, is very different. Firing some US attorneys in the middle of a Presidential term for more-or-less undocumented reasons and then replacing them without Congressional approval (as per the provisions of the PATRIOT Act) is unprecedented and worrisome. Although they are appointed by the President and serve "at his pleasure", they are not supposed to be his employees, there's a huge difference.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the difference you are speaking of. At the same time, to think that their is much difference between Democrats and Republicans is a mistake. Democrats provide only a kinder form of facism.
Re: (Score:2)
>
>
Hey, we're all pseudonymous here. Maybe FatSean is an elected official, in which case it'll work fine.
Done and done. (Score:2)
I was being sarcastic. I think anyone who abuses authority granted to them by the people of the USA should be shot in the face, and a bill for the bullet sent to their family. Corrupt cops and any other cops covering up for them, corrupt politicians and the people who cover for them, etc...
It'll never happen tho.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Later,
Ron
Re:Somebody tell me, please: (Score:5, Insightful)
"I, a concerned citizen of this country, was left feeling unsatisfied and betrayed by the very government I am forced to pay to support."
Welcome to - the nature of the state. You have just learned what every OTHER citizen of every OTHER country in the entire history of the world has learned at some point.
"I'm growing tired of hearing about how the democratic process will repair these evils. How? When?"
Never. No democracy ever has and no democracy ever will. Because democracies that reach this point are no longer democracies - if they ever were.
When you reach this point, revolution or destruction by outside attack are the only solutions left.
It's a tossup which one - or both - will occur to the US and when, but it is inevitable.
And you haven't seen anything yet. Wait until the war on Iran starts, and car bombs start going off all over the place here as the US economy sinks into the sunset due to quadruple oil prices and the Chinese dumping the US dollar. The Constitution is history. Fergeddaboutit.
The only thing you need to understand is: the people really running this country WANT THIS TO HAPPEN. To paraphrase the "feel good" movement, everything that happens happens for a reason - and it serves them (not us.)
But if you're smart enough (which I apparently am not), you can make it serve you, too...
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are being overly pessimistic - it's just sabre rattling they are not stupid enough to do it even for big bribe from extremists in Israel. It just like the fools that want a cold war with China which would turn the USA into an isolated economic basket case within a couple of years.
Re: (Score:2)
The sad part is that it's pretty clear that Iran knows that, which is why they keep calling our bluffs. Yes, that is a vastly better outcome than war, which is why Bush is and will continue to let them get away with it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I would think that's probably true except that they do seem to be stupid enough to let Ahmadinejad and company play them like a fiddle time after time. I remember the good old days when our government was evil
Re:Somebody tell me, please: (Score:4, Interesting)
I share many of your fears but not your complete lack of hope. You are right on about the terrible consequences of a possible war with Iran. Such would most definitely result in the collapse of US global hegemony and domestic security.
These problems both domestic and foreign, stem from our current neo-conservative, ultra-nationalist world view (at least among our elected representatives, both Dem. and Rep., legislative and executive). I would point out that we put too much emphasis on the platitude "democracy" and not on freedoms (speech/expression, religion, from want) and rule of law. Autocracies and constitutional monarchies can sometimes provide these freedoms better than democracies (e.g. Wiemar Germany, the French Revolution, the current Iraqi "democracy"). Viewed in these terms, the global condition is nowhere nearly as dire as we now all think: the massive increase in quality of life in China, Russia, and many parts of the Middle East, though their regimes are not as "democratic" as the West.
Further establishing "democracies" or other governments that provide the freedoms and rule of law does not ensure that either the government or the people governed will agree with all US policy, contrary to the neo-conservative understanding that all "democracies" toe the US policy line. US citizens and their elected representatives are no exception with respect to the policy of the executive branch. And understanding that this disagreement is natural and may be completely innocent (i.e. one need not be an Islamic Fundamentalist to disagree with the government but could have a conflict of interest that is economic or social) will lead to less hard-line, no-holds-barred domestic and foreign policy.
When we think of things practically and take into account the other side's point of view, we begin to realize the benefit of more restrained policy both to ourselves and others. The more we can get others to think rationally, the more who will buy into it, including our own government and those of the Arab nations we are currently needlessly threatening (i.e. not all Arab nations hated the US before the Iraq, and still many depend on us to maintain a world order that makes them wealthy). We need fear mongering among neither the conservatives (i.e. "The whole united Muslim world wants to destroy the West") nor the liberals (i.e. "Put on your tin foil hat"), because both are equally hyperbolic and lead to dangerously extreme, reactionary behavior. I shared both your fear of Muslim reprisal and of Right Wing conspiracy. However, a careful, rational examination shows that the Muslim world is as fragmented and complex as the West, it has age old feuds and religious scisms as does the West (e.g. Al Qaeda/the Taliban and Iran almost went to war in the late 90s!). Further, right wing neo-conservative philosophy is less about conspiracy and more about a knee-jerk mass hysteria, ultra-nationalism, and near infinite greed. Simple, deliberate changes could begin to heal the rifts that we currently think are beyond repair. Just look at examples in history: France and England, the US and China.
I just recently read Ethical Realism: A Vision for America's Role in the World by John Hulsman and Anatlo Lieven (ISBN: 0375424458), and most of my opinions above are influenced by an Ethical Realist worldview. Though the book is more focused on foreign policy, its tenets of Ethical Realism could easily be applied to domestic policy as well. It was a fascinating read, and it illustrates the dangers of our current ultra-nationalist/fascist neo-conservative course, but also outlines some relatively sensible changes we could make to salvage both our foreign relations and our affairs at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The private sector holds the influence, does the favours, and the government takes all the blame. Its the perfect oligarchy.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't blame citizens for rolling over when the word from the government is "comply or be watch your stock hit the floor due to bad press over audits".
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't blame citizens for rolling over when the word from the government is "comply or be watch your stock hit the floor due to bad press over audits"."
I think you've found it ...
Re: (Score:2)