Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

A few days ago a poster referenced an example of our civil liberties being violated. It involved a UMASS student who was questioned by Homeland Security officials after he checked out Mao's "Little Red Book" from the school library. The guy now admits he made the whole thing up. He wanted the publicity and he got it from this hoax.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a01lo719.htm

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

[ QUOTE ]
d Book" by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story.
The 22-year-old student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his history professor, Dr. Brian Glyn Williams, and his parents,

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

This happens alot. Reminds me of the women who pretended to be the victim of a hate crime.

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

Out draws happen!

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

Mao's book is so 2004. Nowadays the FBI only watches The Moosewood Guide to Vegetarianism and Herbert Sees a Who.

Those readers are the real terrorists.

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

I have eaten at the original Moosewood restaraunt -- no doubt they have some agents watching me here in Viet Nam. I did see a couple of guys in suits and dark glasses diving with me this morning!!!

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

meh...

GWB is still a douchebag who is violating American Law with his illegal wiretapping of Americans...

doesn't change a thing about that - the Impeachment word is still coming up in mainstream press these days...

RB

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

fake but accurate?

Re: Student who was visited by Homeland Security
 

[ QUOTE ]
fake but accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]
Good enough for Dan Rather -- good enough for Whiskeytown.

No hoax
 

[ QUOTE ]
A few days ago a poster referenced an example of our civil liberties being violated. It involved a UMASS student who was questioned by Homeland Security officials after he checked out Mao's "Little Red Book" from the school library. The guy now admits he made the whole thing up. He wanted the publicity and he got it from this hoax.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily...5/a01lo719.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

To dismiss the threat to American civil liberties because this one particular case turned out to be a fake is inexcusable for supposedly "advantage poker players", as it constitutes short-term results oriented thinking, pure and simple.

The monitoring is real. What Americans are reading, watching and talking about is being monitored with less restraints, checks and balances than ever. That's no hoax.

And if the monitoring is being done, following up on it is only to be expected.

Re: No hoax
 

Whos to say he didnt get another visit that made him change his mind?

Tin Foil Adjustment
 

What's the Frequency, Kenneth?

Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

STROT aka short-term-results-oriented thinking is prevalent in the current American administration (e.g. No attacks in Iraq for a week --> "the insurgency is in its last throes"), therefore it's understandable that the administration's most faithful acolytes here would adopt the mode.

However, it is still a wrong way of thinking.

The original story turns out to be a hoax. This story turns out to be true.

What is proven either way? Practically nothing. The EV here is negative : They ARE monitoring what Americans read, write and say and they do it with fewer checks and balances than ever (a libertarian's nightmare, btw, but they have not realized it yet!) so you can expect them to follow up on it, one way or the other, sooner or later.

The rest is variance.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

If I had to take a wild shot at what is going on, they are racially profiling Arabs and using the patriot act to monitor people with the losest possible connections to potential anti-American idealogoy.

Are they listening in on my moms phone calls, no. Are they bothering people because they donate to Howard Dean, equally unlikely. More likely it fits the above scenerio.

Is it right, no. But I really doubt there is a vast conspiracy as you might think.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
But I really doubt there is a vast conspiracy as you might think.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am certain that in their minds the KGB only monitored those likely to commit atrocities against the USSR and/or bring down that state.

The point is that NO such monitoring for any reason, without proper due process and many protections, is acceptable. What is going on is quiet, hidden, under the wraps, not transparent, without oversight, without due process and initiated in many cases from a small coterie of like minded folks.

No conspiracy
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it right? No. But I really doubt there is a vast conspiracy as you might think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about a conspiracy ? It is all out in the open!

Now, about being right :

I was watching on TV the other day a re-run of Judgement At Nuremberg. It's a Stanley Kramer movie, so I don't need to mention that it wears its heart on its sleeve! I like my films more restrained.

But some of the dialogue is for all seasons. Here is a sample:

The 1948 trial of the Nazi judges is over and Judge Haywood (Spencer Tracy), head of a 3-man tribunal, and originally a federal judge from Maine, has just condemned all of them to life in prison, despite severe political pressures by the American political leadership to show leniency in view of the Berlin Crisis and the coming Cold War. The young, non-Nazi German defense lawyer Rolfe (Maximilian Schell) has come to visit Haywood at his residence, just before the latter flies back to the States.

Hans Rolfe: I'll make you a wager.
Judge Dan Haywood: I don't make wagers.
Hans Rolfe: [chuckles] It will be gentleman's wager... In five years, the men you sentenced to life imprisonment will be free.
Judge Dan Haywood [looks him over]: Herr Rolfe, I have admired your work in the court for many months. You are particularly brilliant in your use of logic.
[Rolfe nods with an appreciative smile]
Judge Dan Haywood: So, what you suggest may very well happpen.
It is logical in view of the times in which we live. But to be logical is not to be right. [pause]
And nothing on God's earth could ever make it right.


link

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Did you know, AC, that the patriot act provides for an oversight comittee on all survellience conducted in the borders of the US?

All this stuff about abuses of power is fear mongering and an over inflated sense that the average American is worth watching. Seriously, take me for instance, I go to work, come home, play poker on the internet & pay my taxes. Why would anyone think I was a threat?

Also, lets consider the enourmous resources it would take to actually utilize what information was gained about the average Joe to implement some measure of control over him. There are far more cost effective tools that the government has at it's disposal. The USSR example that you bring up fits well here. There was so much of the resources of the state directed at control through the use of the police state that the economy became unsustainable and collapsed under the weight of the politbureau.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
All this stuff about abuses of power is fear mongering

[/ QUOTE ]

Stuff about abuses of power, if it is fearmongering, is fearmongering of the best type. Dismissing criticism as fearmongering is scary.


[ QUOTE ]
an over inflated sense that the average American is worth watching.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not the average american, or the majority of Americans being watched that you should fear. It is the very first American who is being watched, whether from a car park, a library card photocopied, a credit card purchase traced, a phone call tapped, a lawyer denied, a hearing denied that you should really fear.

Some or all of this has already happened to that first American under this administration. That is frightening, not just fearmongering.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Time and again I have asked people on here to specify which provisions of the Patriot Act they find to be unconstitutional and why. The best I got was a link to a list of ACLU talking points. Most people dont realize that most of the provisions in the PA are either logical extensions of the FISA because of rapidly evolving technology and/or a standardization of common law enforcement practices whose Constitutionality has been upheld by Supreme Court decisions.

I realize there is more than concern over the Patriot Act here, but I dont have time to comment further. Suffice to say, you are right in that much of this overblown rhetoric at best.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

I didn't mean to come off as dismissive.

OK, what American has this happened to? Are you talking about Padilla? The Buffalo 5 or whoever they were?

Similar things have happened in the US before. Members of the American Nazi Party in WWII, not to mention the American citizens of Japanese descent that were interned into concentration camps. This was FDR and this happened in America. We survived WWII with greater freedom and prosperity after, am I right? Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus in the civil war. Seems everyone except the Southerners were OK with that one. J Edgar Hoover did everything you are talking about and more.

Is it frightening that there are forces within the US Government that can do whatever they want unchecked? Well, yes. Is it anything new? Not exactly. Should you and I be worried? Doubt it. Is it a necessary evil? Maybe. Can you or I change it? Maybe. Would it do more harm than good? Prolly.

The fact we are having this discussion in a thread about a ficticious story is what really frightens me.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

If anyone is interested, Here is a link to the actual text: Patriot Act

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
If anyone is interested, Here is a link to the actual text: Patriot Act

[/ QUOTE ]

I love how all the government bureaucracies are enriching themselves with this bill in ways that do nothing to protect us:

"SEC. 1007. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR DEA POLICE TRAINING IN SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA.
In addition to amounts otherwise available to carry out section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291), there is authorized to be appropriated to the President not less than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for regional antidrug training in the Republic of Turkey by the Drug Enforcement Administration for police, as well as increased precursor chemical control efforts in the South and Central Asia region."

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone is interested, Here is a link to the actual text: Patriot Act

[/ QUOTE ]



I love how all the government bureaucracies are enriching themselves with this bill in ways that do nothing to protect us:

"SEC. 1007. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR DEA POLICE TRAINING IN SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA.
In addition to amounts otherwise available to carry out section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291), there is authorized to be appropriated to the President not less than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for regional antidrug training in the Republic of Turkey by the Drug Enforcement Administration for police, as well as increased precursor chemical control efforts in the South and Central Asia region."

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that a large portion of terrorism is subsidized with proceeds from drug sales?

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Aside from what Vulture said, you do realize that a bureaucracy by its very nature will use any opportunity to enrich itself, don't you? This will be true regardless of who is in charge or the impetus. Pointing this out as an indictment of the act itself carries about as much weight with me as saying "Look, the sky is blue."

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If anyone is interested, Here is a link to the actual text: Patriot Act

[/ QUOTE ]



I love how all the government bureaucracies are enriching themselves with this bill in ways that do nothing to protect us:

"SEC. 1007. AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR DEA POLICE TRAINING IN SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA.
In addition to amounts otherwise available to carry out section 481 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291), there is authorized to be appropriated to the President not less than $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 for regional antidrug training in the Republic of Turkey by the Drug Enforcement Administration for police, as well as increased precursor chemical control efforts in the South and Central Asia region."

[/ QUOTE ]

You do realize that a large portion of terrorism is subsidized with proceeds from drug sales?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where are the provisions to control oil money, which was the actual source for the 9-11 attackers.

The Tailiban eradicated the Afgani drug supply much more effectively than any US attempt.

Plus, we supported the "Northern Alliance", a band of opium growers.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

The point was that a legitimate case could be made as to why funding drug enforcement measures is linked to anti-terrorism.

[ QUOTE ]
Where are the provisions to control oil money, which was the actual source for the 9-11 attackers.


[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know, ask your Congressman. See above as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, we supported the "Northern Alliance", a band of opium growers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Northern Alliance support was crucial to being successful in the tribal driven Afghani society. Kill the alligator closest to the boat first, you dig?


So Im curious, what provisions of the Patriot Act do you find unconstitutional and why? Im giving you a chance to break away from the talking points and do some actual thought. Dont let me down.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Im not your monkey.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Im not your monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldnt want a monkey whose only trick is spewing liberal talking points. A monkey who [censored] in his hand is light years ahead of that.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Im curious, what provisions of the Patriot Act do you find unconstitutional and why? Im giving you a chance to break away from the talking points and do some actual thought. Dont let me down.



[/ QUOTE ] Im not your monkey.

[/ QUOTE ]


No, but it's a valid and important question: which specific parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional, and why?

Analysis of this question is something Congress too should be attempting, instead of playing so much partisan politics.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Time and again I have asked people on here to specify which provisions of the Patriot Act they find to be unconstitutional and why.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be bad policy. Something doesn't have to technically violate the constitution to be violative of the principles behind the constitution.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Incidentally, I thought this law review article was interesting (quick blurb quoted below).
<u>THE FUSS OVER TWO SMALL WORDS: THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AMENDMENTS TO FISA UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT</u> 71 GWLR 291


[ QUOTE ]
The above quotes embody the convergence of two basic values of our American society: national security [FN3] and individual liberties. The government has a duty to defend our nation against foreign threats. [FN4] In doing so, however, the government must respect our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion. [FN5] In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FN6] ("FISA") in an effort to reconcile these conflicting but complimentary values in the area of foreign intelligence. [FN7] Composed of specific standards that permit lawful wiretaps where the government seeks to obtain foreign intelligence information, FISA provides a check to the President's asserted authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillances on the grounds of national security. [FN8] In the end, FISA appropriately balanced the executive's intelligence needs in defending our nation with its obligation to uphold constitutional freedoms.
The intricate balance came with a cost. FISA achieved constitutional and political equilibrium by enabling the executive to conduct electronic surveillances without having to meet the traditional probable cause requirement for criminal investigations. [FN9] Although the fruits of a FISA surveillance may lead to criminal prosecution, FISA simply requires probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign agent and the targeted facility is, or is about to be, used by a foreign agent. [FN10] This relaxed probable cause standard adequately reflects the nature and severity of the foreign threat at issue and the difficulty in obtaining information associated with such a threat.
Conversely, this relaxed probable cause standard is applied only where "the" purpose of the surveillance is to gather foreign intelligence. [FN11] Codified in FISA, this requirement was integral to the law's constitutionality by providing a nexus between the national security interest and the intrusion imposed on the individual. Thus, the foreign intelligence purpose requirement ensured that the relaxed probable cause standard of FISA applied only to *293 situations genuinely involving national security from foreign threats. [FN12] Courts deemed this FISA prerequisite fulfilled so long as the primary purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. [FN13] The role of the foreign intelligence purpose standard in protecting Fourth Amendment guarantees and bringing FISA within that amendment's constitutional dimensions cannot be overlooked. Indeed, judicial reliance of and executive adherence to the foreign intelligence purpose standard, before and after its codification, is indicative of its significance in allowing FISA to effectively balance the interests of both the government and individual citizens. [FN14]
Almost a quarter-century after the enactment of FISA the United States became victim to the most devastating foreign attack in its history. On September 11, 2001, over 3,000 people perished and thousands more were injured at the hands of a sophisticated foreign terrorist organization. [FN15] In the wake of this tragedy, the government's pressing interest became the ability to fight an unprecedented threat undeterred by old laws and strengthened by advancements in technology. As a result, Congress enacted the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Interrupt and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 [FN16] ("USA PATRIOT Act") to strengthen the federal government's ability to carry out this objective. [FN17] It provided sweeping new powers to both domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to fight terrorism. [FN18] In the process, however, it altered many procedural guarantees vital to our personal freedoms and eliminated much of the checks and balances that previously gave courts the opportunity to ensure that criminal investigatory powers were not abused. Moreover, the large and complex body of law was passed hastily without the use of traditional legislative procedures in light of the immediate threat of terrorism that continued *294 to exist after the attacks and the overwhelming public outcry for effective security. [FN19]
One of the subtle yet far-reaching changes made by the USA PATRIOT Act is the foreign intelligence purpose standard of FISA. Under section 218 of the USA PATRIOT Act, a FISA warrant may now be issued so long as "a significant" purpose of the electronic surveillance is to gather foreign intelligence. The fuss over two small words cannot be larger in consequence. A warrant to conduct an electronic surveillance can now be issued under FISA's relaxed probable cause requirement so long as an ancillary foreign intelligence purpose exists, thereby enabling the government to illegitimately circumvent the normal probable cause requirement in a criminal investigation. In disregarding the nexus required between the national security interest and the intrusion upon the individual to make the search reasonable, this new standard wholly ignores the individual interests that necessitate the protections of the Fourth Amendment. In the end, the new standard serves as an invitation for any proclivity that law enforcement authorities may have in abusing its surveillance authority under the guise of national security while diminishing the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal rights against unreasonable law enforcement activity. As a result, the technical modification to FISA fails to provide an appropriate balance between the government's interest in national security and an individual's Fourth Amendment rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
The fact we are having this discussion in a thread about a ficticious story is what really frightens me.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just nuts. I had many a good discussion about many fictitious story - ever attend a book club meeting?. If it is fiction, then the discussion is meaningless. If it is true then the discussion is frightening.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Frighten is a bad word. I only used it because it was used before. The word is more aptly disturbed. I find it disturbing due to the fact that this ficticious story was picked up by an ever so eager political machine whose only obejective, it seems, is to discredit and disrupt the Executive Administration that is in place. The fact that this story originated with a professor taking the word of his student at face value is even more illustrative in my mind.

So what you have here is a professor who is eager to find evidence his student's rights are being violated calling up some journalist who is eager to publish a story about someones rights being violated which is picked up by the leftist internet propaganda squad who is oh so eager to pass it along so that it may be posted in politics forums like this one all over the place.

What's more, people bought it. What's more than that is that there are posts in this thread that say something to the effect that even though the kid changed his story and recanted tearfully saying he was sorry it still must be true and he must have changed his story because he got another visit.

Is this the future of American politics? One side in power is constantly derided by made up propaganda from the other sides media machine? It's true of both parties. It can only serve to paralyze the government and make it more ineffective and wasteful than it already is.

Non producers want to be owners. Non producers ends are served best when the government is ineffective and cannot protect the owners or producers.

Lenin was a law clerk. Stalin was a priest. Hitler was an artist. Goebbels was a journalist. So was Mussolini. Do the math.....That is, since we are talking fiction here.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be bad policy. Something doesn't have to technically violate the constitution to be violative of the principles behind the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except very few people are arguing those particular points. Most of the critcism's I have read regarding the Patriot Act consist of vague platitudes about the Constitution being trampled on, accompanied by some vigorous hand waving when pressed for specifics.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]

Something doesn't have to be unconstitutional to be bad policy. Something doesn't have to technically violate the constitution to be violative of the principles behind the constitution.
[ QUOTE ]
Except very few people are arguing those particular points. Most of the critcism's I have read regarding the Patriot Act consist of vague platitudes about the Constitution being trampled on

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Go back and read the thread. Nobody mentioned the Constitution until you brought it up. You brought up and argument nobody was making, then tried to refute the argument. Weak.

Incidentally, many people who say that the USA PATRIOT act is trampling on the Constitution mean exactly what I said in the quote referenced above, i.e. that it violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Go back and read the thread. Nobody mentioned the Constitution until you brought it up. You brought up and argument nobody was making, then tried to refute the argument. Weak

[/ QUOTE ]

Go back and read my post. I said that I have asked that in past. That said, lets be realistic here and admit that the Patriot Act is often mentioned and at least implied in discussions of this sort. I mentioned it because Submariner mentioned it in one of his posts.

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, many people who say that the USA PATRIOT act is trampling on the Constitution mean exactly what I said in the quote referenced above, i.e. that it violates the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im still waiting for someone to tell me which fundamental principles and how they are being violated.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

How about the fundamental principle set forth in the fourth amendment of the constitution:
[ QUOTE ]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Warrantless searches under FISA and the extension of those searches under the USA PATRIOT act run counter to the long-held principle that warrants (based on probable cause) are required.

Tracking library loans and other actions taken under the USA PATRIOT act violate this same principle.

The general principle is that you have the right to be left alone unless the government has probable cause to snoop (sorry about all the complex legalese [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Warrantless searches under FISA and the extension of those searches under the USA PATRIOT act run counter to the long-held principle that warrants (based on probable cause) are required.


[/ QUOTE ]

Section 213, delayed notification? A power that has been granted to investigators now for decades and has been validated by the Supreme Court.

[ QUOTE ]
Tracking library loans and other actions taken under the USA PATRIOT act violate this same principle.


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably a reference to Section 215? Criminal investigators have always had been allowed access to 3rd party disclosures without needing a warrant or probable cause.

[ QUOTE ]
The general principle is that you have the right to be left alone unless the government has probable cause to snoop (sorry about all the complex legalese

[/ QUOTE ]

Generally speaking, as a conservative, I generally agree with this. I just dont think that the Patriot Act violates those principles. And thanks for keeping the language, we conservatives have enough trouble with that as it is. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

All that said, my real gripe with people attacking the Patriot Act, is more of an irritation with their almost pathological inability to provide any details. I think your post is by far the best Ive seen in response to my challenge. Guess this means you are my monkey! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this the future of American politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just politics. I refer you to:

Willie Horton, Daisy child from the past for derision of the other side based on innuendo, extensions, propaganda. I refer you to plenty on this forum who throw around liberal, america hater, fascist bushie's etc.

To cut through the propogand you look at the story -- that is your hand at the moment. Look at the game conditions, the political and legislative environment, and make a guess as to the value of the hand.

To assess the value of this story, without apriori knowledge of whether the student is lying or not, I refer you to Cyrus' excellent hand/table analysis of this story in this thread.

Re: Short-term-results-oriented thinking
 

Well, AC, I see your point. There is no credibility to be lost with the opposition, since there was none to begin with and the true believers in the cause are going to beleive everything no matter what. Just more spinning wheels trying to desparately get tracktion whereever they can.