Judge: Give NSA Unlimited Access to Digital Data

[TorxT3D]

goodbye old world, hello new world order.
"welcome to the indoctrination of global monitoring acceptance, and we are going to make you like it."

i can understand his point about people of the world need to have self control and conduct themselves behind closed doors like they would in front of someone theyre having an interview with for a new job. but its not gonna work this way. by scaring people or forcing a babysitter over us wont make people behave better.

the idea that "we are all being scrutinized by the all seeing eyes" is supposed to keep everyone in line and straight with good behavior is a joke. Its not gonna work, people are gonna act like asses and say rude things regardless. They will make threats, and plot against world governments regardless if they know theyre being watched or not. Theyre gonna sell drugs on facebook, over the phone, through email regardless. Theyre gonna talk about assasinating presidents, racial hatred, revolutions on youtube regardless.

noone cares if theyre being watched or not. This guy just wants information open not to protect us, but for his own personal gains and hidden agendas.

 

[arasta]

okay so Posners' credit card numbers and social security numbers have no expectation of privacy under that reading - if he wishes to hide them then hes obviously neither the person who he claims to be or is undertaking 'bad activities' with his lines of credit?

and this guy is a judge? can he be rendered senile and removed from office or something?

 

[Jospeh]

“I think privacy is actually overvalued,” Judge Richard Posner, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, said during a conference about privacy and cybercrime in Washington, D.C., Thursday.

“Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct,” Posner added. “Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.”

Is this guy serious

 

[CPY]

Iiving in USA now worse than in Baghdad.

 

[mope54]

No its not; there's no guaranteed right to privacy given by the US Constitution.

Nearly 100 years of Supreme Court decisions that a right to privacy exists within the Constitution disagree with you.

 

[Commander FAT]

Posner is actually not a bad judge. These statements appear to be his personal opinion. He is a good judge though. He is one of the judges that found Illinois's complete ban on carrying a loaded firearm unconstitutional.

 

[Lith1um]

I'm going to throw a spanner here. I agree the NSA should have access to anything they want with the cavot that the info can not be used to prosecute you. IE they only share warning of major threats, and everything else they simply tell the other Bureaus to investigate this person or company.

I have a right to say anything I want and I have a right for to not be used against me, I don't have a right to commit crimes.

Trust the government? Yeah.......

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering

August 6, 2013 | By Hanni Fakhoury

DEA and NSA Team Up to Share Intelligence, Leading to Secret Use of Surveillance in Ordinary Investigations


UPDATE: Add the IRS to the list of federal agencies obtaining information from NSA surveillance. Reuters reports that the IRS got intelligence tips from DEA's secret unit (SOD) and were also told to cover up the source of that information by coming up with their own independent leads to recreate the information obtained from SOD. So that makes two levels of deception: SOD hiding the fact it got intelligence from the NSA and the IRS hiding the fact it got information from SOD. Even worse, there's a suggestion that the Justice Department (DOJ) "closely guards the information provided by SOD with strict oversight," shedding doubt into the effectiveness of DOJ earlier announced efforts to investigate the program.

A startling new Reuters story shows one of the biggest dangers of the surveillance state: the unquenchable thirst for access to the NSA's trove of information by other law enforcement agencies.

As the NSA scoops up phone records and other forms of electronic evidence while investigating national security and terrorism leads, they turn over "tips" to a division of the Drug Enforcement Agency ("DEA") known as the Special Operations Division ("SOD"). FISA surveillance was originally supposed to be used only in certain specific, authorized national security investigations, but information sharing rules implemented after 9/11 allows the NSA to hand over information to traditional domestic law-enforcement agencies, without any connection to terrorism or national security investigations.

But instead of being truthful with criminal defendants, judges, and even prosecutors about where the information came from, DEA agents are reportedly obscuring the source of these tips. For example, a law enforcement agent could receive a tip from SOD—which SOD, in turn, got from the NSA—to look for a specific car at a certain place. But instead of relying solely on that tip, the agent would be instructed to find his or her own reason to stop and search the car. Agents are directed to keep SOD under wraps and not mention it in "investigative reports, affidavits, discussions with prosecutors and courtroom testimony," according to Reuters.

"Parallel construction" is really intelligence laundering

The government calls the practice "parallel construction," but deciphering their double speak, the practice should really be known as "intelligence laundering." This deception and dishonesty raises a host of serious legal problems.

First, the SOD's insulation from even judges and prosecutors stops federal courts from assessing the constitutionality of the government's surveillance practices. Last year, Solicitor General Donald Verilli told the Supreme Court that a group of lawyers, journalists and human rights advocates who regularly communicate with targets of NSA wiretapping under the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) had no standing to challenge the constitutionality of that surveillance. But Verrilli said that if the government wanted to use FAA evidence in a criminal prosecution, the source of the information would have to be disclosed. When the Supreme Court eventually ruled in the government's favor, finding the plaintiffs had no standing, it justified its holding by noting the government's concession that it would inform litigants when FAA evidence was being used against them.

Although the government has been initially slow to follow up on Verrilli's promises, it has begrudgingly acknowledged its obligation to disclose when it uses the FAA to obtain evidence against criminal defendants. Just last week DOJ informed a federal court in Miami that it was required to disclose when FAA evidence was used to build a terrorism case against a criminal defendant.

Terrorism cases make up a very small portion of the total number of criminal cases brought by the federal government, counting for just 0.4 percent of all criminal cases brought by all U.S. Attorney offices across the country in 2012. Drug cases, on the other hand, made up 20 percent of all federal criminal cases filed in 2012, the second most prosecuted type of crime after immigration cases. If the government acknowledges it has to disclose when FAA evidence has been used to make a drug case—even if it's a tip leading to a pretextual traffic stop—the number of challenges to FAA evidence will increase dramatically.

SOD bypasses the Constitution

Even beyond the larger systemic problem of insulating NSA surveillance from judicial review, criminal defendants whose arrest or case is built upon FISA evidence are now deprived of their right to examine and challenge the evidence used against them.

Taken together, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant a meaningful opportunity to present a defense and challenge the government's case. But this intelligence laundering deprives defendants of these important constitutional protections. It makes it harder for prosecutors to comply with their ethical obligation under Brady v. Maryland to disclose any exculpatory or favorable evidence to the defense—an obligation that extends to disclosing evidence bearing on the reliability of a government witness. Hiding the source of information used by the government to initiate an investigation or make an arrest means defendants are deprived of the opportunity to challenge the accuracy or veracity of the government's investigation, let alone seek out favorable evidence in the government's possession.

Courts must have all the facts

The third major legal problem is that the practice suggests DEA agents are misleading the courts. Wiretaps, search warrants, and other forms of surveillance authorizations require law enforcement to go to a judge and lay out the facts that support the request. The court's function is to scrutinize the facts to determine the appropriate legal standard has been met based on truthful, reliable evidence. So, for example, if the government is using evidence gathered from an informant to support its request for a search warrant, it has to establish to the court that the informant is reliable and trustworthy so that the court can be convinced there is probable cause to support the search. But when law enforcement omits integral facts—like the source of a tip used to make an arrest—the court is deprived of the opportunity to fulfill its traditional role and searches are signed off without the full knowledge of the court.

Ultimately, if you build it, they will come. There's no doubt that once word got out about the breadth of data the NSA was collecting and storing, other law enforcement agencies would want to get their hands in the digital cookie jar. In fact, the New York Times reported on Sunday that other agencies have tried to get information from the NSA to "curb drug trafficking, cyberattacks, money laundering, counterfeiting and even copyright infringement."

Teaming up to play fast and loose with criminal defendants and the court, the DEA and NSA have made a mockery of the rule of law and the legal frameworks intended to curb abuses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

Parallel construction in the United States Drug Enforcement Administration[edit]

[icon] This section requires expansion with: commentary by legal analysts on the legal status of this practice. (October 2014)

In August 2013, a report by Reuters revealed that the Special Operations Division (SOD) of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration advises DEA agents to practice parallel construction when creating criminal cases against Americans that are actually based on NSA warrantless surveillance.[1] The use of illegally-obtained evidence is generally inadmissible under the Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.[2]

Two senior DEA officials explained that the reason parallel construction is used is to protect sources (such as undercover agents or informants) or methods in an investigation. One DEA official had told Reuters: "Parallel construction is a law enforcement technique we use every day. It's decades old, a bedrock concept."

An example from one official about how parallel construction tips work is being told by Special Operations Division that: "Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle." The tip would allow the DEA to alert state troopers and search a certain vehicle with drug-search dogs. Parallel construction allows the prosecution building the drug case to hide the source of where the information came from to protect confidential informants or undercover agents who may be involved with the illegal drug operation from endangering their lives.

A number of former federal agents had used parallel construction during their careers according to Reuters interviews. Most of the former agents had defended the practice of parallel construction because no falsified evidence or illegally-obtained material were presented in courts. A judge can rule evidentiary material inadmissible if it is suspected that the evidence was obtained illegally.

Parallel construction in this case in the US usually is the result of tips from the DEA's Special Operations Division that are derived from sources within foreign governments, intelligence agencies or court-authorized domestic phone recordings. According to a senior law enforcement official and a former US military intelligence official tips are not given to the DEA until citizenship is verified to avoid any illegal wiretapping of US citizens who are abroad. US authorities require a warrant to wiretap domestic US-persons (citizens and non-citizens alike) and to wiretap US citizens who are abroad.[1]

The Reuters piece occurred amid reporting of the 2013 NSA leaks, although it made no "explicit connection" to the Snowden leaks.[3][4]

 

[Annoyance]

This idiocy is ONE of the reasons I want to leave the country and move with my friend in Helsinki...

 

[Retronym]

The government has a higher claim to your property than you.

This is about control. Not security.

It was never about security.

 

[westrock2000]

Your right preventing unreasonable search on the part of the government is not equivalent to privacy.

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Privacy (noun):
the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people.

Don't see any similarities?

Could even argue that the 3rd Amendment points to the idea that your belongings are yours and not the government.

3rd Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

 

[d_stilgar]

Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct, privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.

Disreputable? And who decides this? In the spectrum of behavior where you draw the line is very subjective.

There's speaking bad about your political leaders.
There's debating whether or not it would be a good thing if they were assassinated.
There's describing a method to assassinate.
There's plotting to assassinate.

These are different things. In some countries you don't even have the freedom of speech enough to say something bad about your political leaders.

I don't want to have, or deserve to have my computer searched because I say "Obama sucks" or "Republicans suck." I'm not guilty of plotting murder if I say those things, but you'd be a fool to think that those in power wouldn't search every computer in America to make sure. Rulings like this suggest no right to privacy, guilty until proven innocent. "Innocence" a moving target, defined to be 'people who agree with me.'

 

[Sovereign]

The scary thing is, Judge Posner is actually a very well known and respected Judge whose name has come up a few times for consideration for the Supreme Court. He is the most cited judge in legal opinions ever, for one.

Thankfully at the conference, other Judges and even a DOJ attorney had some more reasonable thoughts on the subject.

No, what's worse is that Posner actually has some very reasonable ideas in other areas of the law (see patent trolls)... But then he does this?

 

[Etherton]

Wonder what the NSA found on him?

 

[Romale23]

Always remember those same people who did the wrong thing growing up with you, fuckfaces like that do work for these government agencies. Its just like anywhere else there is always someone who will abuse any system for their advantage. You should sacrifice some security for your freedom, thats what this judge seems to forget.

 

[Dildonose]

Wow this judge really has his head up his ass.

 

[Lith1um]

Why Are We REALLY Being Spied On? Russell Brand T…: http://youtu.be/ItMKNsu5x5o

RB knows how to rant.

 

[amddragonpc]

Judge Posner, prepare yourself for the NSA probe. Now relax, THIS WON"T HURT A BIT.

 

[TechLarry]

The old "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" philosophy. How did this commie ever get to be a judge...

 

[lcpiper]

statement: we need more surveillance because: terrorism and children

no attacks of terror happen: because of surveillance (without proof ofcourse)
something happens: we need more surveillance because it's the answer to everything

absolutely everyone has something they don't want publicly known (medical records, friends, money transactions, etc). if you can't think of something yet, i'm sure someone else will figure it out for you and use it to their advantage.

also, inb4 Icpiper shits up this thread with six posts per page

Actually, I think this Judge is way the fuck off the reservation. My problem is not an issue with our privacy Rights as citizens, I am all in favor of that. My problem, the one you seem to keep missing, is that the media is misleading the public and presenting an incorrect image of the problem. What's more, that the result of this effort is actually causing more harm then good and that we are in more danger of losing our privacy now then before Snowden ran to Hong Kong.

 

[Raffin]

So when the time comes for a revolution from within (which should be any time now given this bullshit), this complete lack of privacy will just make it harder to plan - which I guess is the point.

 

[spintroniX]

So when the time comes for a revolution from within (which should be any time now given this bullshit), this complete lack of privacy will just make it harder to plan - which I guess is the point.

a revolution would be quite easy... just get a large chunk of the population (high income earners) to withhold taxes.

Given that most people revere their chains, as evidenced by the posts on this forum and others, I don't think a revolution is imminent. At best, we'll get a stripped down version of what we have now - which will promptly blow back up into the police state we are decrying.

 

[DoubleTap]

The reason we have 4th and 5th amendment rights is to serve as a check against tyrannical, "mala prohibitum" laws.

There are a lot of things that are against the law simply because they're illegal, and not because they are inherently wrong. If you violate a local law against leaving your dirty dishes on the counter overnight, the general inability of the local authorities to inspect your home and interrogate you on the cleanliness of your kitchen serve to undermine the enforcement of that law.

If we lived in a perfect world of "mala in se" laws - where only truly evil behavior was against the law, then the judge might have a point. I would still disagree with him because even if the government had the power to conduct warrantless searches of your property for murdered bodies, stolen jewelry and kidnapped co-eds (and not much else) that power would still be subject to abuse because virtually every action the government takes against you feels like a punishment despite not being legally defined as such (arrest, questioning, auditing, etc)

Americans have several very good reasons to conceal their actions. It is no longer possible for upright people to be entirely certain that they have not committed a criminal act.

 

[mope54]

Posner isn't referring to warrantless searches of anything, much less people's tangible property.

He was specifically referring to the NSA gathering digital information in the furtherance of maintaining national security. He also included the caveat that the information should not be used by prosecutorial agencies to resolve crimes on national soil.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with that position, most of what's been discussed in this thread are strawmen of the judge's actual position.

 

[Catalan]

Whether one agrees or disagrees with that position, most of what's been discussed in this thread are strawmen of the judge's actual position.

We can read the actual quotes, thank you. No amount of "context" excuses the thought behind what he said.

 

[mope54]

We can read the actual quotes, thank you. No amount of "context" excuses the thought behind what he said.

I'll provide you the context that Posner is aware of that you apparently are not:
for hundreds of years, according to both common law and statutory law, there has never been an expectation of privacy shielding the commission of a crime.

Lay-persons get confused about this because of relatively recent ruling governing the exclusionary rule in regards to criminal prosecution but from antiquity to modernity, from judges in jolly ole England, to the framers or our Constitution, and every single judge in the US since then, no one has ever understood any of the privacy protections to shield someone while committing crimes (even in private spaces).

 

[Catalan]

I'll provide you the context that Posner is aware of that you apparently are not:
for hundreds of years, according to both common law and statutory law, there has never been an expectation of privacy shielding the commission of a crime.

It does not follow that the government needs to know everything in advance of hypothetical crime being committed. Try again.

 

[xJ321x]

He was specifically referring to the NSA gathering digital information in the furtherance of maintaining national security. He also included the caveat that the information should not be used by prosecutorial agencies to resolve crimes on national soil.

National security, the only excuse necessary, got it.

 

[mope54]

There are one of those pernicious strawman attempts again

 

[the_servicer]

I really want people to hack the shit out of this guy and post his entire life, and see how he feels about it.

It could be that his data actually are boring. It sounds like he thinks everyone should have boring data. If they don't then something must be wrong with them.

 

[Catalan]

Posner believes in privacy when it comes to law enforcement. He's against citizens keeping police in check via audio or video recordings, and he doesn't want to see police hindered by mandatory monitoring either.

 

[Catalan]

There are one of those pernicious strawman attempts again

Lay out your "strawman" claim clearly. Please.

 

[lcpiper]

a revolution would be quite easy... just get a large chunk of the population (high income earners) to withhold taxes.

Given that most people revere their chains, as evidenced by the posts on this forum and others, I don't think a revolution is imminent. At best, we'll get a stripped down version of what we have now - which will promptly blow back up into the police state we are decrying.

"We"? You're "we" is actually a very small number. "They" on the other hand are many times more and you can't even convince them that a Police State exists in this country. But I'll give them an A for effort that's for sure though a wasted effort is all it will amount too. The few people who will actually go so far as to take any action will likely suffer greatly for it too.

So on the one hand you are correct, no revolution is imminent, on the other hand you are mistaken, people are not in the chains you claim exist. The police state isn't there yet but that shouldn't stop you from making it easy on them. You should check your sources better btw. Like this article which was written by Grant Gross who works for IDG.

Check out IDG by the way, here is their Corporate "About" page.
http://www.idg.com/www/home.nsf/docs/about_idg

IDG Communications' global media brands include ChannelWorld®, CIO®, Computerworld®, GamePro®, InfoWorld®, Macworld®, Network World®, PCWorld®, TechHive® and Techworld®. IDG’s media network features 460 websites, 200 mobile sites and apps, and 179 print titles spanning business technology, consumer technology, digital entertainment and video games worldwide.

One of the largest demand-generation companies in the media industry, IDG Communications works with approximately 2,700 direct advertisers and more than 7,000 programmatic buyers. The IDG TechNetwork represents more than 570 independent websites in an ad network and exchange complementary to IDG’s media brands.

On the IT side of things IDG can sell a message across the entire IT Spectrum from CIOs and yuppie types to basement dwelling gamers. All they have to do is send the message in a format that their audience is receptive to.

I wonder what these guys are selling?

 

[mope54]

Lay out your "strawman" claim clearly. Please.

Posner specifically limited his opinion to NSA and you strawman that position by converting it into an argument for all government agencies to have access to the information

Posner specifically limited his opinion to analyzing data in order to thwart concrete and specific crimes against the State. You strawman that portion of his position by converting it into "what-if" scenarios and extending it to all crime.


I don't even agree with Posner but you undermine your position when you demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to understand his actual claims and the historical antecedents that lead him there.

 

[Catalan]

Check out IDG by the way, here is their Corporate "About" page.http://www.idg.com/www/home.nsf/docs/about_idg

On the IT side of things IDG can sell a message across the entire IT Spectrum from CIOs and yuppie types to basement dwelling gamers. All they have to do is send the message in a format that their audience is receptive to.

I wonder what these guys are selling?

If you have evidence to suggest the quotes are outright fabrications, say so, and present it. Otherwise, you're just making insinuations. I have to expect that all sources, random forum-ites included, have ulterior motives in choosing what to report on.

Posner specifically limited his opinion to NSA and you strawman that position by converting it into an argument for all government agencies to have access to the information.

I don't even agree with Posner but you undermine your position when you demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to understand his actual claims and the historical antecedents that lead him there.

I know what Posner said. I know he specified that this information should be limited in scope. That's not how it's been going down. Parallel construction is already a thing. Information, when collected, will be used. They already have it, why waste it? That's how this crap works in reality, and all it takes is a little fear to expand what they can get away with.

Posner's opinions don't exist in a vacuum. What you're calling a strawman is in response to what others, like drakken, have suggested: why should the NSA have to keep all those goodies to themselves?

 

[lcpiper]

If you have evidence to suggest the quotes are outright fabrications, say so, and present it. Otherwise, you're just making insinuations. I have to expect that all sources, random forum-ites included, have ulterior motives in choosing what to report on.

Why is it you think I am suggesting the quoted statements are fabrications, I said no such thing, I insinuated no such thing, frankly I have no idea why you even are thinking it.

 

[Comixbooks]

http://www.news.com.au/world/brekki...n-kgb-agent-says/story-fndir2ev-1227149256095

You guys here about the KGB female who tried to get into Snowden's pants and leak some secrets?

 

[lcpiper]

I know what Posner said. I know he specified that this information should be limited in scope. That's not how it's been going down. Parallel construction is already a thing. Information, when collected, will be used. They already have it, why waste it? That's how this crap works in reality, and all it takes is a little fear to expand what they can get away with.

Catalan, you should take some time and go back and reread that information on parallel construction because at it's base this isn't an illegal or underhanded tactic. The place where it becomes iffy is when the base information is obtained illegally. The problem with assuming that anything that is collected will be used is that that just isn't the way things work. I did intelligence analysis in the Army and I can assure you that the problem is not what to do with everything you are getting, it's how to focus yourself on what you need right now and weed out all the static. It's all based on questions that need answering, not on finding a purpose for everything you get.

In the end, when you read these claims made by all these "experts", you need to keep some things in the front of your mind. Of course everything the NSA says is about security and terrorism, that's their job, that's the slice of the world they inhabit. Their job is world wide, everyone who isn't a US Citizen is a possible target, and sometimes US Citizens communicate with foreigners or through foreign communications systems so yes, sometimes Americans will have their communications captured, that's just the reality of it all. And lastly, just because you are an American citizen this isn't a perfect shield that can prevent you from ever having the government inadvertently discover your misdeeds if you talk about them on the phone or communicate them to others and if that happens, the intel guys are required, not forbidden, to pass the discovery on to LE. It's no different then a health worker who's doing a check on your kids at the house spotting a dime bag on your counter-top, they are required to call the cops and report it.

Re-read that piece on parallel construction, pay close attention to what it is before the talk of NSA interception, then pay close attention to the specifics of who and where they are reporting intercepted information on. It's somewhat clear they are talking about Americans overseas or communicating overseas, mostly with foreigners, many of those foreigners turn out to have been intelligence targets which is why they were under the scope to start with. A bad guy talking to more bad guys, why would you think otherwise?

 

[lcpiper]

http://www.news.com.au/world/brekki...n-kgb-agent-says/story-fndir2ev-1227149256095

You guys here about the KGB female who tried to get into Snowden's pants and leak some secrets?

It was in the news over a year ago that Anna Chapman was talking with Snowden, it was done up as an "oddity piece" The weren't suggesting that She was doing it under orders but that seems stupid to me, he's already given them everything he has, what else can they want from him, he's just an IT tech when it comes down to it. most of the secrets he stole he doesn't even have the knowledge to fully understand them. If he didn't give it to the Russians before he flew to Russia then he did when he was stuck outside and they were letting him get desperate on the stoop afraid he would be turned away and grabbed by the FBI before he could find someplace safe.

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/07/04/russian-spy-anna-chapman-professes-love-for-leaker-edward-snowden/

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Yeah, I could not disagree with Posner more.

What a tool...

IMHO there can be no "balance" between civil liberties and national security. If there ever is the minutest conflict between the two, national security should lose 100% of the time.

Terrorism isn't a real threat. Sure they can kill a few hundred to a few thousand people, but they can never defeat us through violence. As an American on average year to year, your statistical chance of being harmed by a terrorist is less than being harmed by a bolt of lightning. That is why it is called terrorism. Its intent is to scare us into changing, rather than defeating us outright.

When we change our ways and compromise our founding beliefs in liberty, and - as the quote goes - "trade liberty for some temporary security" THAT is when the terrorism is successful. A foe that can not defeat us, has succeeded in scaring us into changing instead.

The counter argument tends to be, "no one wants to be the leader blamed for being lax on security after the next terrorist attack", and while that is true, it is still an exceedingly rare occurrence, one to which I would like to re-appropriate a phrase often used in regards to the military:

The risk we take by maintaining our liberties in the face of those who would use them against us to harm us, is the TRUE meaning, of "Freedom not being Free".

That is all.

 

[Lith1um]

Yeah, I could not disagree with Posner more.

What a tool...

IMHO there can be no "balance" between civil liberties and national security. If there ever is the minutest conflict between the two, national security should lose 100% of the time.

Terrorism isn't a real threat. Sure they can kill a few hundred to a few thousand people, but they can never defeat us through violence. As an American on average year to year, your statistical chance of being harmed by a terrorist is less than being harmed by a bolt of lightning. That is why it is called terrorism. Its intent is to scare us into changing, rather than defeating us outright.

When we change our ways and compromise our founding beliefs in liberty, and - as the quote goes - "trade liberty for some temporary security" THAT is when the terrorism is successful. A foe that can not defeat us, has succeeded in scaring us into changing instead.

The counter argument tends to be, "no one wants to be the leader blamed for being lax on security after the next terrorist attack", and while that is true, it is still an exceedingly rare occurrence, one to which I would like to re-appropriate a phrase often used in regards to the military:

The risk we take by maintaining our liberties in the face of those who would use them against us to harm us, is the TRUE meaning, of "Freedom not being Free".

That is all.

9/11 was a definite win for the perpetrators, I'm not talking about some buildings or the lives lost on that day, I'm talking about the changes in American culture and American law enforcement.

Imo, it's about money, power, and control. It's about monetizing fear, promoting a change in our culture to the point that we are now indoctrinating children with Homeland Security curriculums in our schools.