Though surprised by the proof, I'm not surprised by the gist.
3,178 karma · joined April 6, 2013
The political game is obviously rigged against us. Our strength is the technical solution, not the political solution.
Can you back up this specious claim with hard evidence?
"Next in importance to personal freedom is immunity from suspicions, and jealous observation. Men may be without restraints upon their liberty: they may pass to and fro at pleasure: but if their steps are tracked by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination, their associates watched as conspirators, who shall say that they are free? Nothing is more revolting to Englishmen than the espionage which forms part of the administrative system of continental despotisms. It haunts men like an evil genius, chills their gaiety, restrains their wit, casts a shadow over their friendships, and blights their domestic hearth.
The freedom of a country may be measured by its immunity from this baleful agency. Rulers who distrust their own people, must govern in a spirit of absolutism; and suspected subjects will be ever sensible of their bondage."
The Constitutional History Of England Vol II (1863), pg. 288
by T. E. May
http://archive.org/stream/constitutionalhi029622mbp#page/n31...
The government began to make claims about traveling being a "privilege" in the 20th century. The Soviet government used to claim the same thing, so perhaps the US government took a lesson from them.
Traveling is a right, regardless of what power any government exerts to claim otherwise.
I'm pretty sick of Neocon "security analysts" making shit up in order to give themselves excuses to have jobs.
The entire passage beginning with:
> "This implies that the new rulers are at first considered “barbarians” by comparison to the old ones..."
was also expounded upon at length by Toynbee in "A Study of History". The 'creative minority' that is the heart and soul of most economic/political efforts (such as building out of the American industrial base in the 19th-20th centuries) later becomes the 'dominant minority' that is more interested in holding the power given to them by previous generations rather than building out the company/corporation/empire. As the dominant minority lose their grip and their power, a new generation of 'barbarians' or outsiders (as viewed by the decaying powerbase) fills the vacuum left by the old elites.
It's a dynamic we see time and again in smaller and larger spheres of human activity.
When someone, such as a rapist or a politician, has proven that they're incapable of peaceful behavior in society, we have the right to defend ourselves from them.
IOW, self-defense isn't coercion. The coercion has already been committed by the criminal. If you're walking down the street and I mug you, I'm applying the force. You, in self-defense, aren't being "violent" in your intent to protect yourself. You're trying to stop the violence I'm committing against you.
I guess what I'm saying is I wish people would worry less about labels and more about principles.
To get back on topic a little, the government using the tactics as laid out by Sunstein is a fraud being perpetrated by the force of government so it rings all kinds of bells.
Force = authoritarian.
And much, if not most, of the National Security State was built with the ideas of academics.
Sunstein and his ilk should be kept far, far away from the levers of power.
The US has the highest incarceration rate on the planet and perhaps in history. I'd say we're there.
Not for me. The author has more credibility in my eyes than any employee of the TSA.
> Is there reason for me to automatically doubt the sincerity of those who tested him?
Since they lied to him through the entire ordeal ("We’ll just be a few minutes, and then you’ll be able to go."), the rest of their declarations are equally suspect.
Since there's no proof of this "positive", this claim sits in doubt. If he was already targeted, they'd claim the machine would say anything.
It's not a wise course to take government employees at their word.
Of course they do. That's why they're harassing people that dissent from their black and white views.
They didn't arrest him, so no.
This is harassment of political dissent by the policing arm of the government. What makes this even worse is that it's the British government harassing a Brazilian national for the sake of American intelligence.
Occam's Razor cuts both ways when dealing with neurotic geeks or with megalomaniac billionaires.
"Mother Earth Motherboard"