Steve Silverman has these very important and useful rules on recording police, and on dealing with certain situations involving interaction with government police goons and thugs.
Justin Raimondo explains how Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney pressed for extreme torture measures because they were obsessed with connecting Iraq to 9/11.
And Amy Goodman interviews Alfred McCoy on how psychological torture had been enshrined in U.S. law long before Bush and Cheney.
Kit Daniels explains how the NSA can hack a corporation such as Sony Pictures and blame it on North Korea.
My latest article is now up on LewRockwell.com:
Recent polls show that, despite the Senate’s torture report, most Americans still support the Central Intelligence Agency’s use of torture on suspects. Obviously the mainstream media misinform the public, neglecting to tell them that such torture techniques do not even produce reliable information and are mainly used to extract false confessions from innocent detainees.
And on the National Security Agency’s spying on innocent Americans, people love it, and then they hate it, and now they’re back to loving it again. Alas, most people are ignorant of the actual criminality being committed by the federal goons.
But one American who shows enthusiastic support for NSA intrusions, a Federal Appeals Court judge, says that privacy is “overvalued,” and that “much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct.” If some unauthorized individual intruded into his cell phone, one would find a picture of the judge’s cat and some emails.
“What’s the big deal?” Judge Richard Posner asked, contemptuously wisecracking, “Other people must have really exciting stuff. Do they narrate their adulteries, or something like that?”
So, yeah, he’s all for NSA spying on innocent people without any reason to suspect them of anything.
He is one of those, “well, if you have nothing to hide. . .” kinds of judges, so people should just let government goons have complete access into all their personal information. After all, it’s in the name of “security” and to protect us from “terrorism.”
Never mind the fact that the government and its enforcers having the power to search people’s cell phones, get information on their calls and emails or search their cars and homes is a power which makes the people less secure. And that is the kind of power which enables government tyrants to terrorize the people, as Michael Rozeff correctly noted.
But the obedient defenders of the State and its sick criminality seem to assume that the NSA and other State enterprises such as CIA,TSA, etc., really are protecting people from terrorism.
Like DC District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, who rules based on not wanting to “second-guess” the CIA and its authoritarian judgments, Judge Posner believes that we needn’t second-guess the NSA, as its agents’ authority and judgment ought not be questioned.
So, what kinds of security-protecting deeds have the good folks at the NSA actually been doing that we shouldn’t be concerned about? Well, according to Glenn Greenwald, we know that the GCHQ (Britain’s NSA equivalent) presented the NSA with classified documents on GCHQ’s own sleazy tactics of posting false material on the Internet to destroy reputations and turn people against one another. And GCHQ’s main targets are not even alleged “terrorists” but private companies just doing business, and political activists.
That sure sounds like they are protecting us from terrorism, if you ask me.
And, according to James Ball of the U.K. Guardian, we know that NSA and GCHQ have been infiltrating online gaming networks such as Xbox Live and World of Warcraft to collect gamers’ buddylists, profile photos, geolocation information and chats. But Ball notes that there is no evidence that such gaming network infiltration has thwarted any terrorism plots or even that members of any terror groups actually use these kinds of gaming networks.
A main purpose of such warrantless Internet intrusions is to put together biometric information of gamers and others. Governments just love to have as much information on each individual as possible such as biometric information that includes facial recognition photos, location, personal associations, etc., despite the overwhelming number of false positive matches and incorrect facial recognition results those databases give officials. Such databases of personally identifying information are just as unreliable as fingerprint databases and DNA testing as well.
But Judge Posner says, “What’s the big deal?”
And according to Glenn Greenwald, the NSA uses a tool called XKeyscore to collect “nearly everything a user does on the Internet.” With XKeyscore all the NSA agent needs is a user’s email address or IP address, and is only required to fill out a form giving some general rationalization for such criminal intrusions that don’t even require a warrant. Greenwald notes that NSA agents “can also search by name, telephone number, IP address, keywords, the language in which the internet activity was conducted or the type of browser used.”
Obviously, Judge Posner is very comfortable with all this. He isn’t exactly doing a Danny Thomas spit-take when hearing about all this stuff. What could possibly go wrong? And there are many other Americans who don’t mind their personal lives being an open book for the government, despite so much potential for abuse, such as blackmail.
But the truth is, only the most naive and gullible could endorse such powers of intrusion wielded by the State. (Or someone who has been blackmailed, of course.)
As the ACLU has pointed out, J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI and the Chicago Police Department used private, personal information to intentionally blackmail politicians and members of religious and political organizations. I’m sure other law enforcement agencies and bureaus have been doing exactly that since the days of J. Edgar Hoover and 1970s Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley.
From an interview with Peter B. Collins, Washington’s Blog quotes NSA whistleblower Russell Tice, stating that the NSA has been spying on and targeting “high-ranking military officers; they went after members of Congress … lawyers and law firms. All kinds of–heaps of lawyers and law firms. They went after judges. One of the judges is now sitting on the Supreme Court that I had his wiretap information in my hand. Two are former FISA court judges. They went after State Department officials. They went after people in the executive service that were part of the White House …”
And Washington’s Blog also quotes other government whistleblowers such as William Binney, Sibel Edmonds and Thomas Drake as to the various blackmail schemes of these criminal government spy agencies.
The NSA, FBI, CIA – the agents of all these bureaucracies take oaths and swear to obey the U.S. Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, yet they seem to violate such oaths every chance they can. (Oh, wait – CIA Director John Brennan took his oath of office using an early draft Constitution, without the Bill of Rights included. Never mind, as Emily Litella would say.)
But there are some CIA or NSA employees who really do believe in upholding their Constitutional oaths. Former CIA officer and torture whistleblower John Kiriakou is the only CIA officer in prison – not because of torturing people, but because of revealing information about the CIA’s torture.
But Kiriakou in an interview asserted that the CIA clearly didn’t care about his possibly revealing classified information, as they encouraged him to write op-eds and do interviews as a way to use such communications against him even though information he gave was cleared through the agency.
Kriakou concluded throughout his ordeal that “everyone is corrupt” in that agency. Or most everyone, that is. And the same thing is probably the case in all these other criminal agencies, NSA and so on.
I just can’t imagine anyone with a moral conscience actually inflicting the kinds of sick, deranged and sadistic torment on others as CIA agents have committed.
And I can’t imagine anyone, such as NSA personnel, with any moral conscience actually listening in on people, recording or videotaping them, breaking into their emails or phone calls or their cars or bedrooms without any suspicion, and “digging up some dirt” to use against innocent people including judges and military generals.
But “if you have nothing to hide …” as some judges have asserted, you should be okay with goons watching you and recording your actions. Alas, those who guard themselves against criminal intrusions and attempt to protect their private lives are labeled as “suspicious” in the eyes of the State and its statist defenders, toadies and dupes.
Sadly, “those who resist being inventoried present a problem for the state,” as Wendy McElroy observed.
Yes, honest and moral people are a problem for the State.
As McElroy points out, there should be one standard of morality. If it’s wrong for your neighbors to dig into your private life, it’s wrong for government agents.
To cure the problem, NSA whistleblower William Binney and several other well-intentioned government whistleblowers have presented 21 recommendations toward reforming the NSA. But the truth is, it is impossible to reform an agency that is part of a monopolistic governmental “security” apparatus, unless it is de-monopolized and we remove restrictions on free competition.
In any case, Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger has the best solution I’ve ever heard: Abolish the NSA.
And the CIA has outlived whatever usefulness it may have had after World War II, so we should get rid of that, too.
In fact, as Hornberger has suggested, it really is the entire evil National Security State that has long ago outlived whatever usefulness it may have had after World War II. So the real solution to restoring freedom and security is to thoroughly dismantle the entire National Security State apparatus, root and branch.
Here is a very good article by Paul Joseph Watson with links to several other articles which explain why North Korea is not responsible for the Sony hack, but in all likelihood it appears to be an “inside job.” The totalitarians of the U.S. government want more excuses to censor the Internet.
New York Times sheeple David Brooks says that Elizabeth Warren can win the 2016 Presidential race. I am not sure whether he really just believes that to be the case, or perhaps it’s more the case he is hopeful that she will win. His writing sure seems to indicate that he is hopeful, like in an encouraging kind of way. And Brooks writes of Warren as though she would be an anti-Establishment candidate. No, David Brooks, Ron Paul was the anti-Establishment candidate, while Elizabeth Warren represents the statist quo.
Or perhaps Brooks just wants to see some sort of cat fight between Elizabeth and Hillary in the fight for the Democrat nomination. I know I do. Actually, Brooks does bring up how Warren uses the word “fight” in her rhetoric, particularly in her memoir,
Fat Chance A Fighting Chance. And Brooks thinks her chance of getting the nomination is good because of her using that word, “fight.” (But it didn’t help Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. Didn’t she say something like, “We have just begun to fight!” in her convention speech? And then she and Mondale lost 49 states. Someone tell sheeple Brooks that fact of history.)
But the reality of today’s politics is that Elizabeth Warren will not win in 2016, and neither will Hillary Clinton. Nor will Rand Paul. The hard reality is that Jeb Bush has been given the approval of the high-and-mighty, and he has launched his way to the White House, following in the footsteps of his war-criminal brother George and his war-criminal father George. It was just meant to be, that’s all. That’s what you get here in the USSA.
Sometimes I wonder if all this is just planned and staged to keep TPTB entertained, with pretend campaigns as though they actually mean anything. If you read Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy the God That Failed and his more recent book From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy: A Tale of Moral and Economic Folly and Decay you’ll see that elections don’t mean anything, except for choosing who gets to have more power over the lives of others, and who gets to be above the law and who doesn’t. That’s about it.
John Whitehead comments on the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation that ignorance is no excuse for wrongdoing, unless you’re a government police goon neanderthal.
Becky Akers on Christians supporting torture.
Ron Paul tells the government that for better relations with Cuba, the government and its helpers should get out of the way!
James Bovard writes about the CRomnibus bill passed by Congress: Blind, deaf and dumb.
David Henderson discusses his questioning the U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Harry Harris.
John Taylor comments on whether Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel is a saintly conscience of mankind, or a liar and a hypocrite.
Judge Andrew Napolitano asks, Is government faithful to the Constitution?
Laurence Vance says that, rather than donating to conservative organizations for the holidays, donate to LewRockwell.com and the Mises Institute.
Philip Giraldi on what the Senate torture report is missing.
And Jonathan Cook says Israelis are rattled by the search for truth about the Nakba.
Glenn Greenwald asks, What bad, shameful, dirty behavior is Judge Richard Posner hiding?
Jacob Hornberger asserts that the Purism vs. Gradualism libertarian debate is over.
The Daily Bell says that CIA torture is but the tragic tip of the proverbial iceberg.
Robert Wenzel provides an important example of government prosecutors in fear of liberty and jury nullification.
Laurence Vance says that protectionism is central planning.
Paul Rosenberg with Thomas Jefferson’s forgotten plan for restoring a failed republic.
Eric Margolis writes about the American Inquisition.
Kurt Nimmo on a new Senate bill calling for political warfare against Russia.
And William Anderson on rape, accusations, and the destruction of individual rights.
Now, it’s not ME saying that, mind you. I’M not saying that, it’s LARKEN ROSE saying that. So, that’s who’s saying that about cops. (And he really goes on to make some interesting points.)
Jesselyn Radack on the torture report’s bombshell: how a glaring double standard was exposed.
John Whitehead says the game is rigged and explains why Americans keep losing to the police state.
David Gordon describes some thinkers who challenged the need for a small group of elites to rule over us (i.e. the State).
Andrew Napolitano on the CIA and its torturers.
Jacob Hornberger says that once again the only solution is to abolish the CIA.
Ryan McMaken on calls for government to save us from “overpriced” Chinese food.
William Grigg explains why “support your local police” is a formula for despotism.
Mikael Thalen on a local sheriff deputy who speaks of “Constitutionalists” as enemies.
Wendy McElroy on the rape culture hysteria.
Walter Williams discusses the rule of law.
Thomas Knapp says that government police should be on, not behind, cameras.
Justin Raimondo on the United States of Torture.
John Pilger says that if the news media did their job, all these wars would most likely not be happening.
Ron Paul discusses Washington’s desire for war with Russia.
Richard Ebeling presents the case for monetary freedom and free banking.
Kirkpatrick Sale points out that American greatness is increasingly a myth.
And Ralph Nader with 10 reasons he doesn’t have a credit card.
Regarding the out of control, psychopathic government police in USSA who display severely pathological narcissism when it comes to precious “officer safety” at the expense of the civilians, and who get away with violent criminality inflicted on innocents: Has anyone brought up the possibility of these officers being influenced by prescription drugs? We know that many of them are using and abusing steroids. Some local government police departments have been cracking down on that, by testing cops for steroid use. According to WebMD, anabolic steroids can cause “irritability, rage, aggression, violence, uncontrolled high energy (mania), false beliefs (delusions), and addiction.” And we know that some officers are themselves street drug users (and sellers) despite their own zealotry in enforcing the drug war. But also many police recruits are military vets having returned from their criminal activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, suffering from PTSD and are on those SSRI antidepressants (which also include the “cocktails” of different prescription drugs at the same time). And such antidepressants have been shown to make people more depressed and suicidal, and cause aggressive and violent behavior. I’m just saying that these chemical influences could be at least a contributor to the irrationality, stupidity and violence being committed by government police criminals against innocent people. But I could be wrong, though.