Counterterrorism Agents Were Told They Could Suspend the Law 369
politkal writes "According to the FBI's internal inquiry on counterterrorism training, the FBI taught agents that the Bureau 'has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedoms of others;' that agents should 'never attempt to shake hands with an Asian;' that Arabs were 'prone to outbursts' of a 'Jekyll & Hyde' nature."
Even better: "That review, now complete, did not result in a single disciplinary action for any instructor. Nor did it mandate the retraining of any FBI agent exposed to what the Bureau concedes was inappropriate material. Nor did it look at any intelligence reports that might have been influenced by the training."
"did not result in a single disciplinary action" (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems about right. Business as usual.
Carry on.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Interesting)
agents should 'never attempt to shake hands with an Asia
Christ. The racism I can cope with, but the sheer incompetence... how can these people have jobs?
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they work for the government? I wish there was a better explanation, but that's pretty much it.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously you do not work in or have significant experience in the private sector.
Private sector is.... wait for it..... private. If a private company tells their 5 employees not to shake hands with Asians, that's on them.
But when the government does it? That's when there's a problem.
How is that relevant? (Score:5, Insightful)
The parent a few level up said that they can get away with incompetence because they work for the government and thus implied that government accepts incompetence and private sector doesn't. The GP answered "There are just as incompetent people on private sector". Now you're derailing it with "Sure, but it doesn't matter, because it's the private sector".
Sure, I (think I) understand the point: If someone wastes their own money, it's less important than if they waste taxpayer money. However, when someone says that "Government accepts competence, private sector doesn't" they're more or less implying "If we let private sector take care of things, they'll be done better than when we let the government take care of them". When someone refutes by saying that private sector is just as competent, they're implying that transferring stuff to private sector might not do any good because there are always incompetent people, no matter what the organization is.
After that, saying what you just said seems to be completely irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never implied that the private sector doesn't accept incompetence. I stated that the government allows it in mass quantities. I do work in the private sector and see incompetence routinely. However, there's a huge difference between what happens in a private company and what happens in government. When incompetence is allowed in a private company, the company suffers. Sometimes, depending on the type of incompetence, the customers suffer by having to pay higher prices for inferior products (see things lik
Re: (Score:3)
Your entire post was basically trying to say that incompetence in the private sector is not as bad as in the government sector, and that everything wrong with the private sector is the result of government. Two things which have absolutely nothing backing them up whatsoever, and have no bearing at all on the current discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point, that the government may be dumb, but the private sector is plenty dumb too.
Takeaway: people are dumb.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Funny)
Instead of a bonus driven board of directors?
Obviously, you've never had a serious medical condition.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, is that the "revise broad plans to resolve budget problems as needed" panel [quinnscommentary.com]?
I totally agree about the "Secretary shall determine" bit, though... I'd much rather my insurance coverage is determined by an MBA who measures success in dollars rather than a government official whose success is measured in lives, yep.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you conceptually, but that's the same government that is training its members that the law does not apply to them.
Assuming you meant "lives saved" by "lives", rather than "ruined", "ended", "imprisoned", or something else.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the correct assumption, yes... I meant something along the lines of "lives improved and lowered death rates, and approval ratings, and local economic growth, and several other metrics generally unrelated to the Secretary's personal finances" but that didn't fit the structure as well.
The FBI's apparent flaunting of the law may indeed be a problem, but I won't be quick to judge. This story is full of so much sensationalism that I doubt the entire thing. Not so much doubt the factual content - I'm sure
Re: (Score:2)
Who says the government official isn't measured on cost? I'd argue they are probably more cost conscientious people than private sector... mainly because they are public figures and people will be nitpicking every cost they cause. I mean, have you seen the tremendous amount of information people collect on how much Obama's wife spends (of taxpayer money via use of Secret Service/Air Force/Food/Lodging) on vacation?
If the bureaucrat's salary was based on the amount of lives saved like the private sector (i
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Interesting)
they probably don't, or at least not the same job or training contracts.
It might have been so farcically stupid that people in the training rightly realized it was asinine and didn't actually do anything from it either, hence the lack of a need for retraining.
Inevitably in life you will go to a training session where the person doing the teaching clearly has no clue what they're talking about, and sometimes it's easier to just write it off as a wasted venture than to try and argue the point or get a refund. This happens in technical training as much as social, business, security, safety or any other kind of training and I somehow doubt this is the first time the FBI has got a bad deal training people on something.
It depends how long ago all of this was, and what has happened since, but a lot of times you can't get your money back, since the person is out of business, or it would cost more in lawyer fees to recoup it.
And, sadly, there are racists in the US. The sooner you get used to dealing with that the better off you'll be. They're everywhere, even if there aren't a lot of them, you should have enough brains to know to ignore them. It's not like the FBI is training 5 year olds on racial profiling, these are adults who should have the brains to realize when information they're getting is batshit crazy, and the ones who think it's the greatest thing ever were racists already. By the time they get to the FBI they're long past the point of being able to influence their biases (or lack thereof) about people from a training session.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I doubt it. There are enough regular cops, prosecutors, rent-a-cops, politicians, and company directors who think they can bend the law because they are "special."
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
malice
Almost everyone wants to think of themselves as a good person. I think you meant "incompetence or outright delusion throughout the institution." I would throw in group-think as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you're reading this the wrong way. Asians usually do not shake hands, they bow.
Read it the other way around if you still don't understand. "Agents should never attempt to bow in front of an European."
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Funny)
Or that all Americans are obese gun fanatics.
Oh wait.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I do so love my fat gun. Thank you Fleshlight (Made in the USA!). Any of you Iglooians up for some Chatroulette?
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Funny)
agents should 'never attempt to shake hands with an Asia
Christ. The racism I can cope with, but the sheer incompetence... how can these people have jobs?
What racism? That's just cultural sensitivity. Everybody knows you don't shake hands with the Asians, you bow to them. And serve green tea, not black tea. Gee, in Africa, you would shake your spear instead of shaking hands, for example.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe "shake hands" is a euphemism for "get involved in a land war"?
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Informative)
Not so much with the shaking spear, but I did get in trouble when I tried to shake hands in Ghana. As both I and the person I met were carrying luggage in our right hands, I extended my left. The left hand is often used in lieu of toilet paper, so that's an insult. The man understood my mistake, and explained it to me, but I was much more aware of my left hand for the next few months.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:4, Funny)
Well I, for one, am much more of other people's left hands now.
Re: (Score:3)
I was much more aware of my left hand for the next few months
".... if you know what I mean."
Re: (Score:2)
What racism? That's just cultural sensitivity. Everybody knows you don't shake hands with the Asians, you bow to them
That's the equivalent of saying that Europeans only eat cheese and garlic and wear striped shirts and berets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I live in Mozambique
Re: (Score:2)
Mozambique
That's in Mexico, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Dude. Look at the spelling.
It's in Canada, obviously. Quebec, I bet. Crazy Frenchies. You can't shake hands with 'em. They get all Jekyll-and-Hyde on your Anglophone ass.
Re: (Score:2)
The racism I can cope with
Spoken like somebody who appears at least to be in the racially privileged group, and doesn't have friends outside of that group. If you or somebody you knew well were vaguely Arab looking, the racism is not something you can cope with.
Also, there's an obvious Equal Protection problem.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:4, Insightful)
Or the shaking hands things is just a cultural etiquette thing. My company has similar things in its overseas travel guide.
But, no, let's just assume racism because it's easier to rage than think.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be to careful when it comes to bird flu.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting to see that Obama supports overt racism like this.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps that's a cultural thing. The article also mentions not staring at Asians (which I understand, since eye-contact means very different things in different cultures).
And did you really want to approach an Arab woman before approaching a male first?
This isn't racism, people, these are rules of thumb that look like they're attempting to help you establish relations, trust, whatever.
The rage thing I'm really not sure about. I have seen that effect in several people of Arab descent but have no idea how pervasive it is compared with other groups.
Re:"did not result in a single disciplinary action (Score:5, Interesting)
They were recently scolded by a Judge, for trying to imprison a group of supposed "terrorists" who were really just a rifle club:
"The prosecution is not free to roam at large â" to shift its theory of criminality so as to take advantage of each passing vicissitude of the trial,â Judge Victoria Roberts said. âoeIf the government now admits that the plan alleged in Count 1 of the indictment (seditious conspiracy) did not exist, then defendants must be acquitted," Roberts wrote in her 28-page ruling. "The governmentâ(TM)s case is built largely of circumstantial evidence. While this evidence could certainly lead a rational fact finder to conclude that âsomething fishyâ(TM) was going on, it does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants reached a concrete agreement to forcibly oppose the U.S. government."
http://www.infowars.com/hutaree-acquitted-in-federal-terrorism-case/ [infowars.com]
So, in other words... (Score:2)
they were right?
Re:So, in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably not going to be popular, and may cost me Karma, but the reality of the world is there are cultural differences between people from region to region, trying to be PC about everything even to the point of using the term PC does not work in the real world. Training agents about the tendancies of one culture or anoher is not racism. If it was done right or wrong at this time I do not know.
Re:So, in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
If we're going to teach cultural differences then let's at least be accurate about them.
Re:So, in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! I don't see any falsehoods in that training program.
I was referring to the 'ability to bend or suspend the law'. After all, nothing has been done to correct that statement.
FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s when they would send their own agents into groups of protesters to start a fight in order to justify moving the police in to arrest and remove the "violent" protesters. They were called provokateurs, and in large demonstrations back then, activists were taught to surround them and then quickly beat the f*ck out of them and leave them in a puddle of their own blood, vomit, and broken bones.
These days, with cameras everywhere, they have to rely on other tactics, but they're just as dirty. It is no surprise the FBI trains agents to worry about the law later -- the law is sufficiently complex right now that it can be interpreted to allow just about anything. We're now shipping US citizens who have never been convicted of any crime, nor left the country, to jails in other countries where we torture them in ways that the Geneva convention bans as war crimes; We simply redefined the legal definition of war. The US has not fought a war in 30 years, under the existing definition.
The FBI, homeland security, and other agencies get away with this kind of abuse of its citizens because nobody stands up and fights back. Imagine how different things would be if that guy who decided to mace those students who were sitting, in a peaceful protest, was suddenly mobbed and reduced to a bloody pulp. In most countries, this is how police brutality is dealt with: The citizens literally mob the guy and sometimes police die as a result... and this is how the balance of power is maintained.
It is a radical position to take, but our founding fathers were right: The right to bear arms is meant to ensure that when you, as a citizen, see abuse of power, you grab your gun and blow the guy away. Mind you, I don't advocate violence except as an option of last resort... but if a friend, family member, or fellow protester is being beaten or about to be "disappeared" for excercising their lawful and constitutionally granted rights.... the Founding fathers were quite clear on what you should do: Stop them, by any means necessary. I don't know whether you should, or whether I would, but... it was the method used to secure our freedom from Britain and ensure civil liberties for almost 150 years so it is worth thinking about at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear, hear!
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Documented proof has been provided of the Kochs sending provocateurs
Link please.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
http://my.firedoglake.com/cgrapski/2011/10/09/american-standard-editor-admits-to-being-agent-provacateur-at-d-c-museum/ [firedoglake.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One case is not a pattern. Or even a line. It's just one person. (And you provided no connection from him to the Koch Brothers..... but there are tons of link from Occupy to the globalist Soros. He started the movement.)
Re:FBI (Score:4, Insightful)
YAAAY! Conspiracy poker!
"I see your agent provocateur theory, and raise you one shadowy globalist Illuminatus directing from behind the scenes."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://boingboing.net/2011/02/25/madison-police-chief.html [boingboing.net]
Oh and fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s
Really, the 1960s? How about since the 1940s, when the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was running around investigating people for being homosexuals or communists, and blatantly violating due process? It has been said that, had this been known at the time, we would have called it "Hooverism" rather than "McCarthyism."
Re:FBI (Score:5, Funny)
The FBI has been a corrupt investigative agency since the 1960s
Really, the 1960s? How about since the 1940s, when the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover was running around investigating people for being homosexuals or communists, and blatantly violating due process? It has been said that, had this been known at the time, we would have called it "Hooverism" rather than "McCarthyism."
Hoover just wanted the list of homosexuals so he could find out who'd pull up his pretty little dress and boink his fat ass. The list was really more like a menu.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement. I'll wait for your example. No, really, after you. Please shoot the officers arresting your friend. I'll bring the popcorn. In the meantime, I'll do what civilized people do - get the courts involved.
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement. I'll wait for your example. No, really, after you
A judge recently ruled, in a cop abuse case, that the victim had every right to shoot the cop, since the victim's life was in mortal danger. And the judge would have found the victim "not guilty" by reason of self-defense.
Re:FBI (Score:5, Informative)
A judge recently ruled, in a cop abuse case, that the victim had every right to shoot the cop, since the victim's life was in mortal danger. And the judge would have found the victim "not guilty" by reason of self-defense.
Well, the judge was actually the US Supreme Court, and the summary of that decision is basically "We can't ask people to go against human nature, and when someone threatens another's life, that person has every right to fight back because that's instinctual and primal -- no law can stand against that." Exact quote follows...
The law has grown, and even if historical mistakes have contributed to its growth, it has tended in the direction of rules consistent with human nature. Many respectable writers agree that, if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant, he may stand his ground, and that, if he kills him, he has not exceeded the bounds of lawful self-defense. That has been the decision of this Court. . . . Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife. Therefore in this Court, at least, it is not a condition of immunity that one in that situation should pause to consider whether a reasonable man might not think it possible to fly with safety or to disable his assailant rather than to kill him.
J Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in Brown v United States, 256 US 335, 343 (1921).
Re: (Score:3)
1921 is "recently?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A high school buddy of mine made good friends in college with a guy who went on to become a public defender. This guy worked hard, got good grades, went to a good school. He chose to be a public defender on principle and to get good experience for becoming a criminal defense attorney. He has said that his experience with the courts has shaken his confidence in the legal system, and this coming from a guy who has one of the highest acquittal rates in the history of that office.
So? I can watch the Al Pacino movie And Justice For All and it shakes my faith in the legal system, and that's just a movie. Did your high school buddy honestly graduate law school thinking being a public defender was going to be a cake walk?
You do also realize that not everybody who gets assigned a public defender is innocent of their crimes, right? His faith might have been shaken by the fact that his acquittal rate was due to the number of guilty people he let walk. How should I know?
You then go on to sa
Re:FBI (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, Internet Tough Guy advocates shooting at law enforcement
I advocate defending yourself from unlawful violations of your civil liberty, which can (and historically usually does) lead to violence. I do not advocate suicide. Violence is the last thing to try, not the first!
Those men have families too -- they're not going to unload their gun on a crowd of people with the will and determination to fight back if attacked when they are outnumbered 10 to 1 or more. They aren't suicidal either. A show of force and solidarity is a better deterrent than a truck load of guns... Liberty has historically been paid for in blood. It is is maintained by the willingness to pay for it. It's how we avoided a nuclear holocaust when the USSR still existed: Mutually Assured Destruction was the most successful peace policy the modern world has seen.
I'll do what civilized people do - get the courts involved.
There is nothing dignified about dying, or being beaten, arrested, and/or tortured, much less at the hands of a corrupt authority. Civilized people try to avoid those things -- but civilized people also understand that sometimes the individual must be sacrificed for the greater good. If that means standing in front of a tank, so be it. We send our men and women overseas to fight for our freedoms every day, and they have the same attitude; They do everything possible to avoid violence, but if the enemy is intent upon it, then by god we give it to them. That's what patriotism is; It's not standing by your government, it's standing by your country -- it's about the people.
Re:FBI (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised you don't mention the #1 tool in the arsenel of the FBI and other corrupt agencies: blackmail. There's some well-documented cases of the FBI doing just that to public figures (e.g. Martin Luther King), and there's probably more that didn't get made public.
The best part about blackmail is that unlike other techniques (like agent provacateurs), the only people that know about what's going on are people that desperately don't want the public to know what's going on. So, if, for instance, they had
Video evidence will be useless in a decade (Score:5, Insightful)
Within 10 years all video evidence will be useless, for the simple reason that anyone will be able to render any sort of video. Want a video of the Prez free-basing with hookers? No problem. Want a video of the prosecutor and the judge having sex with a dead donkey? No problem.
Eventually, the standard of proof will fall back to "if you don't have at least 2 witnesses, forget it."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:FBI (Score:5, Funny)
The press corpse
(squints)
Not sure if clever or typo.
Again with the 99% (Score:5, Funny)
From the article:
> Of the approximately 160,000 pages of training material reviewed, less than one percent contained factually inaccurate or imprecise information or used stereotypes
I say: let's occupy Quantico!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:2)
"Who watches the watchmen?"
The answer is apparently Donald Duck, Elmer Fudd, Archie Bunker, and the KKK
Wikileaks watches the watchers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Score:5, Funny)
"Who watches the watchmen?"
As I recall it was kind of a flop in the box office; so relatively few people.
Re: (Score:2)
John Carter of Mars watches the watchmen
There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the primary reasons that the United States continues its descent into this strange dystopian corporate/security fascist state is because there are, almost without exception, no criminal or political repercussions for acts which are outside the realm of social norms. Black youths can be gunned down, drones can fly unrestricted, SWAT teams can invade and kill completely innocent people, bankers can steal/defraud trillions of dollars, whistleblowers are thrown in jail without trial for years, American citizens are executed at the sole and extra-judicial behest of the President, MPAA/RIAA-friendly treaties are negotiated in secret...
And on and on and on.
There are no repercussions for the actors in any of these cases. Here, the FBI says they can suspend the law because, well, who's going to stop them? Congress? Hardly. The President? Incredibly unlikely. The FBI, and most of the national security apparatus, is wholly safe from suffering any consequences to their actions, no matter how heinous they may be to the American public or the world at large.
Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:5, Insightful)
And you know why there are no repercussions? Because a significant chunk of the population - look no further than Santorum supporters - believe that Trayvon had it coming, drones will make us safer (from unsafe things - the details are never specified), SWAT teams killing some retired woman is a fair price to pay for getting tough on drugs, bankers are better people than blue-collar workers, and whistleblowers are a threat to National Security.
We are the problem. We, the collective of the American Voter, are the reason why these types of transgressions keep happening, and are being condoned by the government we elect.
You might think that you are in the majority with your opinion, but if you are, it is a very slim majority. Slim enough that many politicians, and bureaucrats answerable to politicians, don't care about you or others like you.
Welcome to Democracy. We get the government we deserve.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is the "silent majority" may disapprove, but they don't disapprove strongly enough to do anything about it. In fact, here's their likely response to your whole post:
Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:4, Insightful)
the "silent majority" is too silent. none of this will change until the "silent majority" turns into the "pissed off majority"
Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:4, Insightful)
Pissed off majority will then go and vote established Party lines. Um, yay?
Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:5, Insightful)
On a personal level, it's often much easier to get around the problem than trying to change the whole system. For example here in Norway there's some real silly restrictions on when you can only buy beer in the store like until 8 PM on weekdays, 6 PM on Saturday and not at all on Sunday. It probably goes as far back as prohibition, we had one too. Can I be arsed to campaign against it? Nah, I'll just buy enough beer that I have some around if we suddenly at 7 PM on a Saturday find out we're gathering for beers anyway and so does the other 75% of the population that drinks alcohol even though if we were arsed to do something about it we have a huge majority. It doesn't help that there's one party on the left (socialists) and one on the center/right (Christians) that with about 5% of the votes each want to keep it this way.
The Roman who called it "Bread and circuses" had this figured out 2000 years ago. As long as people a job that puts food on the table and entertainment, you're pretty much good. A lot of the big noble revolutions in history were to the man in the street about money. "No taxation without representation" leading to the Boston Tea Party, that's things that hit people in the wallet. Say all you want about the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, but I doubt the average farmer cared - except maybe he didn't have to quarter any soldiers. Hitler came to power on top of massive unemployment. Gandhi knew attacking the Salt Tax was something everyone could get behind. Don't think a major part of the Civil Rights movement was equal jobs and equal pay as white people. The fall of the Soviet Union was most of all an economic collapse.
If the "silent majority" is getting pissed, it's got to be because they think the government is making them really poor or really miserable. Can most Americans say they feel the clammy hands of government on them? No. You don't see them anymore, you don't feel them. There's cameras and car registration readers and the NSA bugging everyone's phone calls but there no physical stalker to creep you out, like in the old East Bloc where large parts of the population were snitches. The bank bailout that hit people's wallet, now that makes people angry. Maybe not armed revolution angry, but at least occupy wall street angry. Personally I'm rather surprised Europe hasn't had more civil unrest than they have, with countries like Spain at 23% unemployment and rising. That's a lot of people with no bread and you don't enjoy the circus on an empty stomach.
Re: (Score:3)
At least in America there's another interesting experiment to "prove" this. Walk into a room of your average peers and say, "Americans have the best
Re: (Score:3)
Chalk this up on comparatively higher social welfare standards that are the norm in Europe, handouts which tend to keep people passive, even when unemployed.
Re: (Score:2)
The general population doesn't control the actions of agencies like the FBI. The FBI and agencies utilize the population for their own agenda or purposes or it targets them. They are fighting a war and nothing stands in their way of their objectives.
Re: (Score:2)
The last time I checked none of us voted on any of those decisions. We might have elected some of the people who later made them, but that's as far as it went.
...and yes, elderly white people (the 'majority' of people who vote) probably don't care about any of this, just don't even think about taking away their medicare or social
Re: (Score:3)
Well, when we are given, even at the primary level, a pack of well funded alpha sociopaths to vote for, what do ya do?
Yeah, yeah, I know. Run for office and show those bastards a thing or three, right? Me against sociopaths with millions of corporate dollars and a media machine to crush anyone from outside the political class.
And, no, I don't have a solution. I'm one of the few people left willing to admit when he has no answer rather than copypasting something from some ideological pamphlet.
Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:5, Interesting)
The solution is fairly simple, though I'm not clear on all the details. The solution is for the USA to collapse and break apart. Just like parts of the USSR were much better off after its collapse, so it will be with the USA. (The west coast, with all its tech industry and better education, will do much better on its own without the rest of the country dragging it down, for instance.) Large countries simply don't work with democratically-elected governments, only small ones do.
So voting for Santorum might just be the best solution here, to bring about collapse more quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
We are the problem. We, the collective of the American Voter, are the reason why these types of transgressions keep happening,
Hold on. We The People don't exist in a vacuum. We have been constantly propagandized, and deliberately undereducated for decades. You can't blame us for that.
Re:There are no repercussions, across the board (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is the best the FBI can do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Congress did not intent for this (Score:4, Insightful)
... since Congress could have put exceptions in the law for them, but did not.
Good Guys Equals Bad Guys (Score:2)
Now I read that someone thinks that Tyranny is acceptable conduct for public servants? I believe that this person should wake up from their wet dream in prison.
Having visited the middle east (Score:5, Insightful)
After visiting Egypt, Jordan and Syria I came away with the feeling that the people I met there would literally give you the shirt off their backs if you needed it, but if you crossed them then it would be bad news.
While on my travels I got invited into many strangers homes and offered uncalled for but extremely gracious hospitality.
Yet at least one time, while in a hostel in Syria I seemed to be the instigator of a huge yelling outburst from a Syrian because he offered me a cup of tea and I absentmindedly waved him off because I was busy writing in my diary. Yes, it was my fault. I admit that I did not follow his social norms and I regret doing it, but the reaction was extreme. And while that may be one specific example after all my travels I came away feeling that this was not out of the ordinary.
So while I have no idea of the extent of the FBI training, I can understand the J&H comment - although probably would disagree with how the material was presented.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I found your comments to be very very interesting. I wish I had mod points left even though you don't need them.
The fact is, if more people looked after each other, we would not be busy with our own self-interests but making sure that the interests of everyone around us was looked after. Since capitalism sort of insinuates we should look after ourselves before our brothers we end up more isolated in a way.
Furthermore, the ideals you share do put a new light on extremism. Specifically extremism in the m
The Lucifer effect... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He might be okay though.
Question: is he holding iced tea and a bag of skittles?
Re: (Score:2)
Sssssh! That's the new ending DLC to Mass Effect 3! SPOLIERS!
Re:What can I do? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing. There is nothing you can do. We are totally and utterly fucked and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We're not getting out of this hole without another Civil War.
Re: (Score:3)
We're not getting out of this hole.
FTFY.
War == power grab. Civil war's not going to do squat except kill off a lot of well-intentioned but unlucky people. The ones running the show are still going to be right there doing what they normally do, except with fewer checks on their power, and possibly even handing you the gun and the bullets.
What there needs to be is a revolution, but not in the sense of fighting and guns. There needs to be an ideological revolution. The civil rights movement began it, but never really finished it. That's the kin
Re: (Score:2)
1. Gather millions of dollars. Doesn't matter how.
2. Kill everyone in your past who might know the least dirty thing about you
3. Stick needles in your brain and shock the areas that control empathy, conscience and morality until they are dead.
4. Pick a Party. Left, right, it's ultimately unimportant.
5. Practice making ideological claims that are so disconnected from reality that you could probably copyright them as IP.
6. Winning!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the US is so far gone that the only actual recourse is to start killing politicians.
Currently there is absolutely no way within the system (legal or not) to actually make the people responsible pay for what they've done.
If bad laws meant dead politicians (god knows you've given people lethal injections for less) there wouldn't be nearly as many.