You say Police State, I say potato. Either way let's discuss surveillance and government overreach.

To be honest, the third line makes no sense to me in the context of that statement: If A is valid (positive), and B is a subset (part) of A, then logic would say that B is also positive. I don't think "subset" implies what you meant it to, and that's what Malor, I think, was responding to.

What I mean by the term "baiting" was an illegal entrapment. That makes it a subset of the use of double agents, not a subset of the *valid* use of them. I agree, in hindsight it's confusing. But being accused of craziness for poor grammar is *not* confusing, it's highly annoying.

I can agree with that

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/feelthesemantics.jpg)

Spoiler:

meant to be taken in good fun

Of course, Cheeze.

Malor wrote:

I understand your argument, but I think I disagree; it's kind of coming from both ends. The nature of a police state is high surveillance, absence of control of use of authority, and suppression of political enemies. (aka, call them terrorists, and you can do ANYTHING to them, without having to prove anything. In fact, they don't even need to be vaguely guilty, you can just assassinate them with a drone.)

So you can have that coming down from on high, with laws saying that cops can do anything they want, but you also have it coming from down below, cops actually doing anything they want.

For the person on the street getting the f*ck beat out of them for being an undesirable, it doesn't matter who authorized it.

NYPD has a long history of racism. Doesn't necessarily mean I live in a police state.

Robear wrote:

Now? You mean interpreting a military police manual laying out rules for detention in conflict areas as being rules for domestic pacification was not over the threshold? :-)

There's appears to be a lot more going on here than simply "detention in conflict areas".

Here's a second follow up article: Army Admits Re-Education Camp Manual “Not Intended For Public Release”

...As we have exhaustively illustrated, the document is a training manual for U.S. Army personnel that details how to treat detainees incarcerated in prison camps both abroad and inside the United States.
The manual outlines how officers will develop programs to “indoctrinate” “political activists” incarcerated in detention camps into developing an “understanding and appreciation of U.S. policies and actions.” The document also explains how “reeducating the I/R facility population or setting the stage for acceptance of future operations,” is the responsibility of ‘PSYOP’ personnel within the camp
...As we have proven using only direct quotations and screenshots from the manual, it is clearly designed to be applied both abroad and “within U.S. territory,” including against “civilian detainees” incarcerated for “security reasons, for protection, or because he or she committed an offense against the detaining power,” as part of “domestic civil support operations” involving FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security.

Looks like TSA's incompetence has drawn Congressional attention at last.

The TSA Administrator should take the following immediate actions:
 Halt all equipment procurement unless there is a bona fide need.
 Require an extensive review of the agency’s management of technology procurement, deployment, redeployment of screening technology.
 Require an internal review performing a cost-benefit analysis of procurement and deployment for all screening technology.
 Require TSA to formulate a deployment plan prior to procurement of all screening technology.
 Require periodic reviews to ensure that TSA is effectively deploying screening technology.
 Require that screening technologies must be reviewed and approved by an independent group of scientists. The independent group of scientists must be entirely impartial and objective.
 Halt deployment of any screening technology prior to validation by an independent scientific community and a cost-benefit analysis for utilizing the screening technology.
 Immediately implement – not simply concur with – all recommendations by the Government Accountability Office related to the procurement, deployment, and storage of screening technology.
 Increase the frequency of direct shipping from the equipment manufacturer to the deployment location to reduce excessive shipping costs.
 Improve the management of technology deployment to limit excessive storage times and reduce the impact of technology depreciation.
 Review and adjust TSA’s policies to ensure compliance with Congressional oversight.
 Ask the U.S. Department of Homeland of Security Inspector General to review TSA’s compliance with congressional oversight during the 112th Congress.
 Mandate a review of TSA’s production of inaccurate and misleading documents (Quarterly Warehouse Inventory Report) to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is responsible for oversight of TSA, on February 13, 2012.

Should the military and federal government have a contingency plan for dealing with armed insurrection by private militias?

There's appears to be a lot more going on here than simply "detention in conflict areas".

Yes, if you don't think it through it could seem that way. As Infowar says, the vast majority of manual is for use in overseas situations. But they cite a section on page 56, which notes that in the case where the US is under a declared state of emergency, and used in case of natural or man-made disasters, terrorist attacks and incidents within the US. That is, they are severe enough that the civil authorities have been destroyed and the military is needed to restore order.

This lets military authorities in a declared national emergency deal with people who might take advantage of the situation by attempting to overthrow the government, locally or nationally. That's it. The military plans for *everything*; they have committees looking at the long-term effects of climate change, economic disasters, natural disasters; they have plans for invading Mexico and Canada. All sorts of things that could be blown out of proportion by someone looking for an inflammatory accusation to throw.

So unless your theory is that somehow the President will declare a state of emergency without a disaster, and escape immediate arrest and removal from power, the idea that this is something that is planned for political use is ridiculous. Now, if you've got a plausible scenario on how the President's aides don't just have the Secret Service detain him while informing Congress of his plan, present it. (Heck, Nixon escaped this fate only by promising to resign the next day, and his own True Believers did it to him. The Secret Service made it clear they would not support his order to arrest and kill journalists who had uncovered information on Watergate and it's aftermath.) But this is not something that gets switched on for political reasons. That would be a coup, and frankly, after that happens, all the manuals get thrown out anyway. If the President establishes martial law for political reasons, there's no way in hell he'll honor the Code of Military Justice.

The only way this will ever be used is if there is a national state of emergency where the military is called in as a medium or long-term police force and some group starts throwing grenades and shooting local politicians and law enforcement, or fomenting massive riots or the like. Which is not entirely implausible when neo-Nazis organize "border guard" units and attack law enforcement even in normal times. But as a political tool? No way.

That's why it's over the top. It's taking what is simply thorough planning for extremely unlikely situations (which have nonetheless occasionally arisen in the last 200 years) and pretending that those plans are part of some nebulous hijacking of the US government. But it ignores even the base realities of a coup, instead just raising fears and letting people be scared of government without thinking it through.

Put another way, if you think the government is capable of declaring a state of emergency and deploying the military, why the *hell* are you even worried about what military manuals say? Because that situation - martial law imposed for ideological reasons - is so far out of the normal that all the rules would be gone anyway. You'd be a lot more likely to be killed by one side or the other in the resulting civil war than to be incarcerated because some MP didn't like that you were peacefully protesting troops patrolling in the aftermath of a meteor strike or massive electrical grid failure or something; ie, during a legitimate deployment to deal with a real disaster.

Robear wrote:

Looks like TSA's incompetence has drawn Congressional attention at last.

The TSA Administrator should take the following immediate actions:
 Halt all equipment procurement unless there is a bona fide need.
 Require an extensive review of the agency’s management of technology procurement, deployment, redeployment of screening technology.
 Require an internal review performing a cost-benefit analysis of procurement and deployment for all screening technology.
 Require TSA to formulate a deployment plan prior to procurement of all screening technology.
 Require periodic reviews to ensure that TSA is effectively deploying screening technology.
 Require that screening technologies must be reviewed and approved by an independent group of scientists. The independent group of scientists must be entirely impartial and objective.
 Halt deployment of any screening technology prior to validation by an independent scientific community and a cost-benefit analysis for utilizing the screening technology.
 Immediately implement – not simply concur with – all recommendations by the Government Accountability Office related to the procurement, deployment, and storage of screening technology.
 Increase the frequency of direct shipping from the equipment manufacturer to the deployment location to reduce excessive shipping costs.
 Improve the management of technology deployment to limit excessive storage times and reduce the impact of technology depreciation.
 Review and adjust TSA’s policies to ensure compliance with Congressional oversight.
 Ask the U.S. Department of Homeland of Security Inspector General to review TSA’s compliance with congressional oversight during the 112th Congress.
 Mandate a review of TSA’s production of inaccurate and misleading documents (Quarterly Warehouse Inventory Report) to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is responsible for oversight of TSA, on February 13, 2012.

That list is almost entirely focused on their use of technology. It sounds like fiscal incompetence is all they care about.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Robear wrote:

Looks like TSA's incompetence has drawn Congressional attention at last.

The TSA Administrator should take the following immediate actions:
 Halt all equipment procurement unless there is a bona fide need.
 Require an extensive review of the agency’s management of technology procurement, deployment, redeployment of screening technology.
 Require an internal review performing a cost-benefit analysis of procurement and deployment for all screening technology.
 Require TSA to formulate a deployment plan prior to procurement of all screening technology.
 Require periodic reviews to ensure that TSA is effectively deploying screening technology.
 Require that screening technologies must be reviewed and approved by an independent group of scientists. The independent group of scientists must be entirely impartial and objective.
 Halt deployment of any screening technology prior to validation by an independent scientific community and a cost-benefit analysis for utilizing the screening technology.

 Immediately implement – not simply concur with – all recommendations by the Government Accountability Office related to the procurement, deployment, and storage of screening technology.
 Increase the frequency of direct shipping from the equipment manufacturer to the deployment location to reduce excessive shipping costs.
 Improve the management of technology deployment to limit excessive storage times and reduce the impact of technology depreciation.
 Review and adjust TSA’s policies to ensure compliance with Congressional oversight.
 Ask the U.S. Department of Homeland of Security Inspector General to review TSA’s compliance with congressional oversight during the 112th Congress.

 Mandate a review of TSA’s production of inaccurate and misleading documents (Quarterly Warehouse Inventory Report) to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is responsible for oversight of TSA, on February 13, 2012.

That list is almost entirely focused on their use of technology. It sounds like fiscal incompetence is all they care about.

What about the one's I've bolded?

In order:

1) Validating the effectiveness of the technology. I guess that could go either way but given the rest of the context I interpreted that as "is the technology working and worth this money/time?"
2) "Cost-benefit analysis" backs up point 1 and my original point
3) This list is the Congressional oversight they need to comply with.
4) See 3)

It's still all about not wasting our money with stupid technology.

It's also going to make Congress look more closely at TSA in the future, as well as other allegations of FWA.

Robear wrote:

It's also going to make Congress look more closely at TSA in the future, as well as other allegations of FWA.

I am interested in this and I think focus on the budget of TSA is still incredibly helpful. Those full body scanners were extremely expensive and accomplish nothing. Any oversight for TSA is progress.

Not just that, but TSA is a part of DHS, and they don't have the best record themselves.

As good as that decision is, the Supreme Court is probably going to rip her a new one.

It's a good decision. It essentially enjoins the act because the relevant sections are poorly written.

Has it occurred to anyone that Congress will likely address this by penning a more clear statute, thus locking in the powers *beyond* what's in the AUMF?

Robear wrote:

It's a good decision. It essentially enjoins the act because the relevant sections are poorly written.

Has it occurred to anyone that Congress will likely address this by penning a more clear statute, thus locking in the powers *beyond* what's in the AUMF?

It's possible that will make it easier to reject or strike down. The vagueness of the NDAA was huge, I think.

I'm especially encouraged that the chilling effects of the law were considered as grounds for the enjoinment.

The problem with so-called nuclear options is not necessarily their use but their acting as a deterrent to otherwise legal activity.

I'm both encouraged by the ruling, temporary as it may be, but also having read the NDAA a little more clearly, I'm edging closer to the other side of this argument.

And that seems to be the issue. While it was possible to read it optimistically, the judge zeroed in on something we had not caught - what exactly *is* material support? That's a good question, because it affects more than just this law, and it could be the beginning of a rollback of some of the Bush policies, whether Obama wants that or not.

In the decision, and the case, the idea of mass arrests for speech violations in the US sensibly never came up. The case dealt instead - realistically - with worries that the US military would pick individuals up in conflict zones after they had made speeches or contacts elsewhere. That definitely *would* have been possible, given that proper protection was not handed out in 1021 (which I argued had been, but I was wrong, based on this judge's decision.)

Robear wrote:

the judge zeroed in on something we had not caught - what exactly *is* material support?

I think the $10 and above donor level on the Al-Qaeda Kickstarter.

Or mentioning Al Qaeda's Kickstarter to other potential donors

Malor wrote:

Or mentioning Al Qaeda's Kickstarter to other potential donors

Or donating to an otherwise unrelated Kickstarter that Al Qaeda also funds.

Oso wrote:
Malor wrote:

Or mentioning Al Qaeda's Kickstarter to other potential donors

Or donating to an otherwise unrelated Kickstarter that Al Qaeda also funds.

*cough* Wasteland 2 *cough*

Tanglebones wrote:
Oso wrote:
Malor wrote:

Or mentioning Al Qaeda's Kickstarter to other potential donors

Or donating to an otherwise unrelated Kickstarter that Al Qaeda also funds.

*cough* Wasteland 2 *cough*

{nervously shuffles feet}

Oso wrote:
Malor wrote:

Or mentioning Al Qaeda's Kickstarter to other potential donors

Or donating to an otherwise unrelated Kickstarter that Al Qaeda also funds.

So if Al Qaeda leadership was crafty they'd just donate money to "all the kickstarters", causing all Americans using Kickstarter to be thrown into jail, thus winning. It's so devious. It's almost like they knew when they attacked us that we'd overreact and harm ourselves more than they ever could.

It's almost like they knew when they attacked us that we'd overreact and harm ourselves more than they ever could.

It's Dinosaurs vs. Mammals, 2.0. The little mouse scampers over the T. Rex, and even if the Rex successfully kills and eats the mouse, he's biting huge chunks out of himself to do it.

The bureaucracies of the world are just too stupid to look deeply and realize that their reactions to these pinpricks make the GOVERNMENT the problem, not the TERRORISTS. Or, they know, and they don't care, because it gives them an excuse to accumulate power and expand their bureaucratic fiefdoms.

And, yes, 9/11 was a pinprick. We could have a new 9/11 ten times a year, and we'd still be losing less people than we do to automobile fatalities.

Malor wrote:
It's almost like they knew when they attacked us that we'd overreact and harm ourselves more than they ever could.

It's Dinosaurs vs. Mammals, 2.0. The little mouse scampers over the T. Rex, and even if the Rex successfully kills and eats the mouse, he's biting huge chunks out of himself to do it.

The bureaucracies of the world are just too stupid to look deeply and realize that their reactions to these pinpricks make the GOVERNMENT the problem, not the TERRORISTS. Or, they know, and they don't care, because it gives them an excuse to accumulate power and expand their bureaucratic fiefdoms.

And, yes, 9/11 was a pinprick. We could have a new 9/11 ten times a year, and we'd still be losing less people than we do to automobile fatalities.

Yes indeed. Here's a classic that still rings true: http://www.theonion.com/articles/new...

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban

An amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill, BuzzFeed has learned.

The amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon, according to the summary of the law at the House Rules Committee's official website.