[SynthethicalY]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-w...b-site-terror/

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Department of Homeland Security has taken down a Web site it operated that included gay rights and anti-war organizations in a list of groups that could include terrorists.

The Web site identified different types of terrorists, and included a list of groups it believed could spawn terrorists. The list also included environmentalists, animal rights advocates and abortion opponents.

The director of the department, Jim Walker, said his agency received a number of calls and e-mails from people who said they felt the site unfairly targeted certain people just because of their beliefs. He said he plans to put the Web site back on the Internet, but will no longer identify specific types of groups.

Howard Bayliss, chairman of the gay and lesbian advocacy group Equality Alabama, said he doesn't understand why gay rights advocates would be on the list.


"Our group has only had peaceful demonstrations. I'm deeply concerned we've been profiled in this discriminatory matter," Bayliss said.

The site included the groups under a description of what it called "single-issue" terrorists. That group includes people who feel they are trying to create a better world, the Web site said. It said that in some communities, law enforcement officers consider certain single issue groups to be a threat.

"Single-issue extremists often focus on issues that are important to all of us. However, they have no problem crossing the line between legal protest and ... illegal acts, to include even murder, to succeed in their goals," it read.

Walker said the site had been up since spring 2004, and had gotten a relatively small number of hits until it recently became the subject of blogs, he said.

Birmingham attorney Eric Johnston, president of the Alabama Pro Life Coalition, said he was concerned about any list that described people doing social justice work as terrorists.

"Our group's main mission is educational. The thought that we would somehow be harboring terrorists escapes me," he said.

[king_buzzo]

Interesting...

Why do people feed their own anger on such psychobabble? I mean, you thread-starter, who takes such things as seriously as you seem to do, is just as responsable for the prolification of incorrect and ultimately useless information as those who truly spend some time giving us a hard time for our own sexual activities. Terrorist/Gay/Other evil, it gets more and more stupid by the day.

[atari 2600]

http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/sho...5&postcount=12

Quote:
Originally Posted by SyntheticallY
I wonder who will they spy on first?


Well, as we know, the major telecommunications corporations were all pressured by the White House post-9/11 to start recording calls until all or most (not sure) were compliant.

Now, as the news slowly seeped out this was going on, and due to the constitutional issues it raises, we the public, learned a bit more.

We were told that the monitoring was due to Homeland Security as a way to counter terrorist activity within the United States.

Most, naturally, and out of their fear, accepted this logical explanation for a sacrifice of part of our freedoms.
Besides, everyone has a general malaise and believes we've lost control over our representation and our government, so it's easier to lie to oneself and just blindly trust the government than to think about what's really happening because, such thinking, after all, is only going to make you uncomfortable and unable to fulfill your duties as a slave to the system, and it might just serve to drive you crazy to dwell on the naked truth too much, right?

Now, to get back to the subject, the method by which these monitored calls would help intelligence agencies and law enforcement fight terrorism has, to my knowledge, never been explained and expounded upon to the general public, at least. I suppose that would be letting the terrorists know too many of our supposed secrets haha.

So, that leads us to a point in this reasonable step-by-step analysis of a case in which the government spies on its citizens where we must start to engage in conjecture. The speculation we are embarking on has to do with the nature of how the monitoring network actually is supposed to work and function. Because therein lies the shadow of the truth, you see.

Reportedly, monitoring began on 9/12/01, the day after the tragedy when we here in the United States were horrifically attacked on continental soil. Somewhat ironically, 9/12 was also the day bin Laden relatives begain being jetted out of the country by secret executive (presidential/vice-presidential) order while all other flights were grounded. But, forgive me for straying from the point.

Since montitoring began, it has indeed led to the successful apprehension of legitimate potential terrorists. Then again, the spying is also allegedly responsible, as many know from the alternative media, for the false arrests of far too many an individual and some of these are rather bizarre cases with seemingly no rhyme or reason. At any rate, before I begin to really get to my point here, I'd like to relate about how terrorists in Los Angeles were arrested and found guilty because some chatter was picked up after the death of journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002. The police went in and searched an apartment when the suspects were not home and confirmed their valid suspicions with the literature, weapons, and bomb-making substances that were confiscated. Here we have a success story. A reason to not be afraid of the monitoring because, hey, the monitoring gets results, right? Desperate times call for desperate measures and so on, right?
No, no--wrong, wrong. In the area those particular arrests were made, there has been a lot of monitoring going on since Bush, Sr. authorized all those types of activity by permission of court order. He did that in 1991. The difference between Bush, Sr. and Jr.'s regime, is that now, no court order is required. Gotta protect, you see, haha at any cost.

Anyone with any sense in their head (any sense of patriotism as well) knows the constitution also needs protecting. Besides, any rube can also know deep in their bones that it's a simple invasion of privacy. Racial profiling also raises valid ethical questions. Where does one strike a balance then?

But, damn me, I still haven't gotten around to my point...
And that point is the method of the gathering of some sort of data that supposedly catches terrorists. The common view holds that there is a network in place that scans for code words. Words like "bomb." This is not science-fiction entirely as systems like this were, I believe, first developed in Britain (as Orwell rolled over in his grave, no doubt) some time ago. Anyway, anyone that's not an idiot (interjection of my opinion) should know that there's no possible way to monitor all the calls that get recorded. At best, maybe the same type of system that detects the word "bomb" (& a few variations on that theme) could, I suppose, be adapted to pick up any chatter in Arabic languages. Personally, I think it's all bullshit. There's no possible way to effectively monitor any kind of significant percentage of all the telecommunications activity in this country. It's simply not possible for people or machines to carry out that type of task. If you believe otherwise, I'd like to hear why.

Personally, I think that the main reason that monitoring began is so that the government could spy on leftist groups, and that they could finally do so without fear of reprisal really. There has been evidence to support this assertion. It's Nixon's revenge* from beyond the grave hehe to be able to spy so openly. Now, to elucidate a bit further, the government, for many reasons that should be obvious, has much vested interest in monitoring so-called "leftist" groups because they consider them a threat to exposing their lies, corruption, and abominable misdeeds. In today's information age, the power that small media and policital groups have and the word-of-mouth that can be engendered is a political force that genteel politicians have to reckon with. The monitoring also affords the government a handy-dandy databank to use against anyone or any group that it deems a threat. If they start to get annoyed with you, they'll just pull and actually really listen to your phone records until they find some dirt on you or an angle to work, you see. At this point, I will guess that the "databank" of recorded info is not all that comprehensive, that there are major kinks to still sort out, but I'm sure it's a major priority to get it all up and running and recording as much of everything as possible in the near future. And this will certainly happen unless a course of action is followed soon to disallow this reprehensible practice that is extremely dangerous to our way of life, democracy and freedom which are the very virtues we are supposed to be protecting.

But, while dastardly benefits can be gleaned by a tyrannical government spying on its citizenry like some potential future day mega-Gestapo, it now alarmingly has been seemingly just accepted, and it's yet another bad rationalization the American people got force-fed after 9/11. While it should be readily apparent that the (in the beginning) secret monitoring began to keep tabs on those organizations that held dissenting views, it also served a specific purpose at the time of its initial inception.

Monitoring began so the government could spy on leftist groups, yes, and the principal telecommunications activity that the government set out from the beginning to monitor was not the activity of Muslim terrorists as they claim, it was American activists (and possibly American terrorists) they were worried about that might be planning to terminate the terms of the (in their mind) treasonous Bush or Cheney and take them out by non-violent, or possibly even violent, means.

And there you have it. Sorry it took me so very long to get there.


__________________

 

[atari 2600]

footnote to the above

*Nixon got much of his start as Joe McCarthy's aide and learned spying from former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, a man whose name is synonymous with "scumbag." Tricky Dick founded COINTELPRO by which agents infiltrated leftist groups with the objective of digging up dirt and stirring up trouble. He also founded the DEA and suspended the Bill of Rights in doing so. Many maintain this was done in order to set up a government-run black budget distribution network for illegal substances. And of course, Nixon infamously was caught for authorizing spying on the Democrats at the Watergate hotel for which, as you may know, he was forced to resign in great disgrace. Nowadays, we have the new "Red Scare" in the "War on Terror" that is invoked as "a bumper-sticker slogan" by politicians to further their agendas, as presidential candidate John Edwards (D-NC) recently remarked.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

"You see, people talk about the same thing, or they talk about the same thing in a different way, its because the people have a different view and understanding of what reality is all about, because it was taught to them, in a different way."

[evollove]

"And this will certainly happen unless a course of action is followed soon to disallow this reprehensible practice that is extremely dangerous to our way of life, democracy and freedom which are the very virtues we are supposed to be protecting."


What course of action? What can I do? Or do I have to depend on the kindness of strangers who went to law school?

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by evollove

What course of action? What can I do? Or do I have to depend on the kindness of strangers who went to law school?

Ah, that's cute. But, please, don't assume you're as helpless as all that. One can start by supporting a presidential candidate that promises to end the Homeland Security monitoring. And, in the case your candidate does get elected, you better be one of the people demanding updates on the progress of them fulfilling their promise.

Right now, I can only see how the homeland security monitoring is only being addressed as an incidental issue with most of the soundbytes being about the Iraq war in general. So far, to my knowledge, Kucinich and Edwards both voted against the Patriot Act and have made statements that they will end the practice, and Obama and Biden have now come to their side after both initially supporting and voting FOR the practice. On the Republican side, Texas (keep in mind, he's a tad racist) Rep. Ron Paul is the sole proponent of ending monitoring.

To get an overview of all the candidate's positions
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
& on Homeland Security
http://www.ontheissues.org/Homeland_....htm#Headlines

[evollove]

Vote and Hope... I've BEEN doing that. Anything else?

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Now, to get back to the subject, the method by which these monitored calls would help intelligence agencies and law enforcement fight terrorism has, to my knowledge, never been explained and expounded upon to the general public, at least. I suppose that would be letting the terrorists know too many of our supposed secrets haha.

my guess is that the answer lies under a few hundred feet of concrete at the Sandia Labs bunker in White Sands. I would also guess that this has been going on for a long time before the government sought out legitimacy.

they have the ability to soak up and sift though mountains of microwave transmissions from all over the world and I don't think they ever would discount information recieved from a domestic source.

anyone remember that Navy E-3 that China forced down a few years back? these planes are one of the first capture points of data collection and you can bet that there is an aircraft with similar capabilities in range of every cellular call you make.

STAY TUNED for our next installment where we discuss cutting edge A.I. Crypto-breakers and the men who love them.

 

[atari 2600]

Originally Posted by evollove

Vote and Hope... I've BEEN doing that. Anything else?

Contact your local chapter of the aclu and anti-defamation league for materials and helpful suggestions.
www.aclu.org
www.adl.org

Your next post will be about how you did that too, right?

[tesla69]

Turns out so far less than a tenth of a percent of HSA cases have been actual terrorism. Gosh woduthunkit? That Bush would massively grow the federal govt and produce yet another bloated bureaucracy. You just gotta love them republicans! Spend the future now while we have it to spend is their attitude.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by atari 2600

Ah, that's cute. But, please, don't assume you're as helpless as all that. One can start by supporting a presidential candidate that promises to end the Homeland Security monitoring. And, in the case your candidate does get elected, you better be one of the people demanding updates on the progress of them fulfilling their promise.

Right now, I can only see how the homeland security monitoring is only being addressed as an incidental issue with most of the soundbytes being about the Iraq war in general. So far, to my knowledge, Kucinich and Edwards both voted against the Patriot Act and have made statements that they will end the practice, and Obama and Biden have now come to their side after both initially supporting and voting FOR the practice. On the Republican side, Texas (keep in mind, he's a tad racist) Rep. Ron Paul is the sole proponent of ending monitoring.

To get an overview of all the candidate's positions
http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm
& on Homeland Security
http://www.ontheissues.org/Homeland_....htm#Headlines

democracy is a myth once it reaches such a large scale..... anyone's best bet is to build up the strength of their own communities and work outwards from there. think much smaller in regards to the bigger issues, make pragmatic solutions, politicians don't really do anything, they pay other people to things for them. if democracy is to work, the people who are paid to do the biddings of politicians need to be in solidarity with the rest of the people, and truly represent their interests before those of politicians... but good luck with all that America. A country founded on such negativity, isn't very likely to succeed in erradicating it....

[atari 2600]

ANd our education system is obviously failing us too^.
DOn't ferget dat, duuude. ..but yeah, perhaps the land is cursed with th blood of dead natives...huysaasdfwe

Did you know that Doris Haddock, age 89 (she's 97 now and still an activist) walked all the way across America and effectively got signed into law the first attempt at campaign finance reform?

Originally Posted by http://www.mendocinobeacon.com/local/ci_5976746

It all started with a newspaper op-ed column that caught her eyes disclosing an amendment tacked onto a bill that streamlined money to the tobacco industry. Once Haddock was made aware of the "soft" money campaign strategy, she began what's become her unyielding mission to "get illegal money out of the system." She lends her voice, and even continues to walk, for states other than her home state of New Hampshire as other statewide efforts also develop.
Haddock, wearing her signature straw hat, told reporters along the way, that some think "this is crazy."
Haddock admits she got lonesome sometimes, so she recited poetry and made up stories in her head as she marched 10 or more miles most days and wore out four pairs of shoes. "Life is lived in acts," Haddock said. "This is my last act."

Anyway, Granny D, as she is called, she went down in the Mohave and collapsed in the first month of her walk, poor old crusader. She was in the hospital for a month. She attracted the attention of many like-minded individuals along the way and it grew into a huge grass roots march on D.C. with John McCain spearheading the Congressional effort to get at least a little campaign finance reform on the books.

We just have to demand more to take the big money out of politics, that's all. It's a Herculean task for only a few like-minded people, but it wouldn't be difficult if a huge number of people got behind it and made it a major campaign issue.

Personally, I think that politicians will always find a loophole, that's why I believe nothing short of a constitutional amendment limiting all terms for major offices to one term of only one year is what is truly called for. This is probably the only adjustment that can really save and preserve democracy. Widespread political corruption has been at abhorrent levels for generations, so much to the point that people have no real trust in our government anymore. You see, I'm only jaded with politicians. Politicians, on the other hand, would have you thinking that one should be completely jaded with society and that without them, (the "professional" politicians), society will fall to pieces. I have plenty of faith in society. In fact, as I've just outlined, I think it's high time we toss out the "career politicians" and hand over the government to We the People. It's politicians that make Society A Hole and it's time to turn the tables on the whole "Justice is Might" creedo that undermines the effectiveness our increasingly non-representative government. I have all the faith in the world that regular people can do a much better job of things.