Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
caseymoz
caseymoz's Journal
caseymoz's Journal
November 28, 2013
Are you one of those radical lefties who believe in free love? Well, the NSA has a special weapon against you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html
Or how about bringing Occupy radicals or NSA hostile politicians under control? J. Edgar Hoover did this, and had the elected government in his palm by doing it.
Is stopping terrorism (and drugs) worth the measures we're taking? Police kill eight times as many people per year terrorists do. Since 2001, they're killed more people than the number of US deaths in Iraq.
Also, I can't forget the irony that mischief by the US intelligence community is what brought terrorists on us to begin with. If it weren't for the CIA and NSA and such, we wouldn't need the CIA and NSA. They perpetuate their own existence to protect us from the wrath from what they did yesterday.
The NSA fights dirty, who'd a thought?
Are you one of those radical lefties who believe in free love? Well, the NSA has a special weapon against you.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html
None of the six individuals targeted by the NSA is accused in the document of being involved in terror plots. The agency believes they all currently reside outside the United States. It identifies one of them, however, as a "U.S. person," which means he is either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. A U.S. person is entitled to greater legal protections against NSA surveillance than foreigners are.
Stewart Baker, a one-time general counsel for the NSA and a top Homeland Security official in the Bush administration, said that the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets is a sound one. "If people are engaged in trying to recruit folks to kill Americans and we can discredit them, we ought to," said Baker. "On the whole, it's fairer and maybe more humane" than bombing a target, he said, describing the tactic as "dropping the truth on them."
Stewart Baker, a one-time general counsel for the NSA and a top Homeland Security official in the Bush administration, said that the idea of using potentially embarrassing information to undermine targets is a sound one. "If people are engaged in trying to recruit folks to kill Americans and we can discredit them, we ought to," said Baker. "On the whole, it's fairer and maybe more humane" than bombing a target, he said, describing the tactic as "dropping the truth on them."
Or how about bringing Occupy radicals or NSA hostile politicians under control? J. Edgar Hoover did this, and had the elected government in his palm by doing it.
Is stopping terrorism (and drugs) worth the measures we're taking? Police kill eight times as many people per year terrorists do. Since 2001, they're killed more people than the number of US deaths in Iraq.
Also, I can't forget the irony that mischief by the US intelligence community is what brought terrorists on us to begin with. If it weren't for the CIA and NSA and such, we wouldn't need the CIA and NSA. They perpetuate their own existence to protect us from the wrath from what they did yesterday.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Aug 1, 2008, 07:40 PMNumber of posts: 5,763