US Elections 2016

[Zoraptor]

Something unsettles me looking at Cruz.

 

I find that from certain angles he strongly resembles a certain computer game developer.

 

OTOH Rubio has an almost uncanny valley effect, like he was cast direct from plastic.

[BruceVC]

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

The reality of the world is simple now, we have to accept that certain ideas of liberty and privacy that we use to consider as sacrosanct are changing due to the threats the West faces...so please dont see this an attack on your way of life...its about your various elected governments trying to make the citizens of there countries safer 

 

I can't disagree with you more. 

 

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.

 

Now I don't necessarily have a problem with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies obtaining a search warrant with a federal judge based on a specifically outlined probably cause; but the idea of mass surveillance of the general citizenry or introducing a backdoor to break encryption with the understanding that it'll only be used this one time and that no one else will ever have access, or can steal, or hack into the software, pretty please you can trust us; is a bit naive.

 

I'll be honest this is exactly the response I thought you were going to post, its very reasonable and its similar to the concerns I have seen posted by other people who like us I would consider are liberals and support the whole Obama legacy..so this is one example where we disagree on this type of government initiative. And I think its because of where we live

 

So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism?

 

And I'm not trying to catch you out but this does seem to be the general criticism of Federal ideas like this whole Apple request..." no we are not going to help the Federal government out by providing a backdoor because of the possible problems we may face in the future" ...you see its just a general fear mongering tactic that immediately galvanizes support from many Americans who don't like the idea that the government can now read your emails ...if you are connected to terrorism'. So of course there may be some instances of perhaps misconduct but I don't think its naive at all to suggest that the likes of the NSA  can manage a system like Prism without us assuming there will be egregious abuses, you need to have more faith in the abilities and integrity of people who work there 

 

In the rest of the world governments make changes to laws like the Apple event because of real terrorist attacks...so you guys in the USA have the luxury to object to certain laws based on a possible outcome 

 

 

Bruce, I actually don't have a fundamental mistrust of the NSA, CIA, FBI, or any other three letter acronym agency. I like the USA and I like the federal government. But yes, misuse and abuse of law enforcement and intelligence databases is a not so uncommon an occurrence as you assume it is. Sure, most of it is minor and there are very few serious abuses, but they do, and will continue to happen, no matter how innocuous. That's why there are internal Offices of the Inspector General, Internal Affairs, etc., to monitor and investigate abuses. Most of these violations are handled internally and appropriate action is taken against the offending party.

 

Nevertheless, it's precisely because of this potential for more serious abuse, and the likelihood for information and technology to be leaked or hacked that gives pause and worry. 

 

Also, I take the Fourth Amendment very seriously and as such, it is not the role of the government to be Big Brother, because...TERRORISM. This is the rule of law and the belief of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is part of the inexorable spirit of what is an essential American characteristic. I may disagree with some of our more libertarian voices here on many issues concerning the role of Government, the FBI,  the Second Amendment, and the Post Office, but there are also cases where I will disagree with Uncle Sam.

 

 

am gonna avoid the obvious and overused european examples, but the US internment o' the Japanese in ww2 is a prime example o' the danger ' sacrificing liberties in the name o' safety and security.  

 

http://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm

 

Japanese internment were not unpopular, and many liberal-minded newspapers such as the LA Times actual wrote editorials in support o' internment before and after it occurred. peoples were afraid and they thought their fears were justified. the US government had cracked Japanese diplomatic codes which included Japanese ambassadors speculating that in the event hawaii were occupied by the Japanese, the bulk o' the hawaiian-japanese population would support the occupation. the fears were real.  heck, perhaps the fears were more justified than is typical taught in US schools.  even so, Japanese Internment is almost universal recognized as one o' the low points in US history... with the exception o' trump who sees Japanese internment as legitimizing some o' his more extreme immigration plans.

 

the more liberty you willing give up, the easier it is for governments and corporations to take away your remaining liberties and freedoms. 

 

gotta learn from history.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

What Gromnir wrote is very relevant. Generally speaking they do a great job, and for the most part --don't deserve the blind cynicism and vitriol some of us direct their way. However, the U.S. Government is not infallible. They make mistakes. Repeatedly. Security over liberty is one of them.

 

Fear of terrorism should never give cause to the infringement of our fundamental rights to liberty and privacy. It's un-American.

 

Sure, I recognize your rationale  support for the USA government and what motivates them. I share and appreciate your views and to be honest I don't like debating with you because I think we share many of the same opinions so I'll make one final comment about this

 

I have come to realize how seriously most of you American guys take the Constitution...even if it doesn't make sense to an outsider . And this is not a criticism, its just the way you guys feel about how relevant the actual US Constitution is to modern issues the US grapples with

 

A couple of examples that come to my mind that I never agreed with but I understand you guys made a decision on because the Constitution said it

 

• I remember that appalling and provocative Prophet Muhammad  art gallery in Texas, despite the fact it was very insulting to Muslims most of the American members said it had to be allowed because of the Free Speech part of the Constitution even though they said it was insulting  
• When the US Supreme made the Gay Marriage Bill mandatory in all states everyone celebrated this important on this forum but there were some criticisms of it from some of the liberal members on this forum who support Gay Marriage but said in fact this bill was pushed through unconditionally. Like Gromnir who restrained his legal criticism of it because he didn't want to seem to be attacking this long overdue social development
• The whole Gun Control debate in the USA finds support in the Second Amendment from some members of the NRA
• This whole event you see as a form of an attack on the Fourth Amendment....I get it but I wish people would just see  this initiative as a valid step to ensure better domestic security 

Okay so finally I guess the difference in our views is I firmly believe that it makes sense that it is very possible that there may come a time where the NSA may need to access an Apple device but now they will be prevented. I still don't agree with Gromnir's example as the targeting of the Japanese was a knee-jerk reaction as the USA was at war with Japan and was ended when WW2 ended  but the interest to have a backdoor to devices will never end as social media will always be a form of data monitoring that the US needs to have access to...but we can agree to disagree

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jeb Bush is out, expect Rubio to pick up what meager support Bush had.

[BruceVC]

Jeb Bush is out, expect Rubio to pick up what meager support Bush had.

I just saw this, I liked Jeb Bush. He did come a dynasty which I think worked against him but he did make some reasonable points and he publicly challenged Trump which I appreciated   

[Tigranes]

So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism?

 

This line has been trotted out a lot by people. As someone who's doing some related research, let's make it very clear: based on publicly available evidence, the harms of programs like Prism are 'potential' - in exactly the same way that the benefits of those programs are 'potential'. 

 

I don't have time for a long post and citations, but the simple point is that you can't take one without the other. If you want to say that it's paranoia to be afraid of Prism until we know for sure that somebody's life has been ruined, then surely we must admit that there is no concrete evidence of Prism's benefits, because despite some wild claims (famously the '54 cases stopped' cited in 2013 by Keith Alexander & others), it has been shown (e.g. by the White House committee) that there are, at most, one or two cases where these programs have made a difference.

 

And if someone wants to say, as Dianne Feinstein did in 2013, well of course Prism has actually helped stop a lot of attacks and such but we can't tell you about it because of national security - OK, so now you're imagining potential evidence. *shrug* there might just as well be secret evidence we don't know about that Prism has caused harm. 

 

The argument that you have to show Prism has specifically screwed someone over is ignorant of the structure of this entire problem as a whole. The US government has consistently used this argument as an excuse to try and shut down legal challenges and other forms of debating the problem - or even revealing details that would be relevant to the problem. See the catch-22? It's easiest to see in the case of Stingrays (devices that mimic cell tower signals to spy on your phone location): the government has a track record of pulling out of numerous court cases specifically because they did not want to reveal any details about the use of Stingray (and often the very existence of Stingray they refused to confirm). It would be narrow-sighted to just argue that the public, which is denied a lot of confidential information, must first prove that Stingrays have caused specific harm, before the state can be induced to release information or to not dodge the court cases. 

 

And we haven't even gone into the definition of harm or abuse. A rubber stamp secret court which, by its own admission, has no ability to audit the intelligence agencies: is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we find out someone's been killed? Police officers routinely damage and purposefully obstruct the use of cameras and mics. Is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we can concretely show that a camera was destroyed to conceal the fact that they shot an innocent man? (If you can ever concretely show that without camera footage?)

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Gromnir can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe incitement to violence is not protected speech. Also I think here the court was wrong to rule in favor of "free speech", I think the protestors' actions went way beyond just speech: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2016/01/06/first-amendment-ruling-christian-evangelists-arab-festival/78376188/

is more chaplinsky than brandenburg.  

 

brandenburg's incitement to violence exception is most typical used in cases where an individual is encouraging folks to perform acts o' violence.  is a three part test requiring intent, imminence and likelihood. facts: a kkk guy  gets on tv  and says,  “if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken," and  “the **** should be returned to Africa, the Jew returned to Israel.”  Court strikes down the ohio conviction o' the d-bag kkk member.  as reprehensible as were the words, the speaking were not likely to result in an IMMINENT and violent response from other d-bag kkk members.

 

fighting words, as 'posed to incitement, is those utterances that the listener is likely to respond to with violence, but chaplinsky is... problematic.  fighting words is Not protected speech, but the SCOTUS has refused to uphold a challenge based on chaplinsky since... well, ever.  chaplinsky were the first, and last, successful fighting words case.   fighting words is "those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."  unfortunate, lower state and fed courts has been kinda all over the place and the closest we got from SCOTUS is dicta that cross burning is likely verboten when is intended as a threat o' harm, so providing you with the rule is less than illuminating, eh?

 

if it makes you feel better, angry muslims could march outside fenway park, set fire to the stars and stripes while spouting... well, pretty much every third qistina post.  stuff 'bout american antichrist and how the west will burn.   wouldn't offend the Constitution even if it angered almost every drunken southie sox fan. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Yeah, sorry, now I realize it sounded like my first and second sentences were linked. Actually I was making two unrelated comments on stuff said before in the thread. My problem with the court decision in the link has nothing to do with incitement of violence and instead with court saying the protestors had the right to disrupt someone else's festival.

 

 

"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

-Benjamin Franklin

He said it about something utterly unrelated though.

 

 

 

Something unsettles me looking at Cruz.

Yeah, I also don't like his general mannerisms....its something I can't quite put my finger on ?

 

I think it was Psychology Today that did an article that something in his face makes people dislike him. Also if you look-up "Grandpa Munster" Cruz is the spitting image. Although I have to admit judging people by their looks is a form of fascism.

 

Edit: Btw, this isn't directly election related, but since we've discussed US and Russian foreign policy earlier, here's an article that agrees with me: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/moscow-tigris

Edited February 21, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

Best guess is that with Jeb! departing you're going to basically see the entire republican campaign coalesce into Rubio (who'll take most of the Establishment voters), Cruz (who pulls evangelicals) and Trump (who takes in the disenfranchised), with each of them staying tight enough that former "doesn't matter" states (like California for example) become massive internal battlegrounds to win voters and delegates. But ultimately the Establishment will win out because they control the Super Delegates (much as they did back in 2008 against Ron Paul).

 

Democratic side? It's a toss up. Bernie is the idealist that everyone wants but would ultimately be powerless in the office due to his inability to push his agenda, while Hillary would end up as the new "Steel Maiden" who manages to steamroll over congress while using her husband as a political tool to keep support. She'd probably get quite a few pieces of what Sanders wants done through, but not all.

 

 

Side note in Politics. Remember Shrelki? The guy we all blamed for kicking the price of that drug up 5000%? Yeah he's currently in prison and basically without any real control, and the drug is still stupid expensive. Although the two democratic candidates have been trying to push through the idea of allowing Medicare D to negociate prices rather than paying whatever's on the sticker while drug companies fight kicking and screaming to keep their profits (seriously, from what I've read that's the only reason they started to support the Affordable Care Act)

[Gromnir]

Japanese Internment weren't knee jerk.  Americans didn't wake up December 7, 1941 and decide that all Japanese had to be locked up for the safety o' the nation. 

 

*shrug*

 

how 'bout a different example?  in the US, cops can make searches incident to an arrest.  makes sense that cops could search the person they were arresting, yes?  the thing is, cops can also search those areas within the immediate reach o' the person to be arrested. so, the courts clarify and announced that if cops wanted to arrest bob in his home, even if cops didn't have a search warrant for the home, they could search drawers and shelves n' such that were w/i immediate reach o' bob.  and what do you think law enforcement started to do? it became standard policy to arrest suspects in homes, and then the cops would escort the suspect from room-to-room o' the entire domicile, searching everything w/i reach.  it took awhile, but the Court finally put an end to the practice o' escorting a defendant through homes to facilitate a search.

 

law enforcement is tasked with stopping crime.  law enforcement, more than the average citizen, sees criminals getting away with stuff all the time.  unlike some folks on the boards, we do not see dirty cops everywhere, but cops (local, state, fed) will use every legal option available to them to apprehend those they believe is criminals... and that ain't a bad thing as long as the courts do their job. what we call reasonable suspicion or probable cause in the US is much higher standards than similarly labeled standards in virtual all o' europe, and to top it off, we got the near unique exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree which makes cops job even tougher.  am understanding why cops feel hamstrung at times, and we get why so many feel justified in doing anything legal to make an arrest that sticks.

 

the point is that if there is the possibility that a law can be abused by law enforcement, you should not be surprised when it happens. obvious solution: don't expose law enforcement to temptation.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps to wod-- there is no Constitutional right to have a peaceful and undisturbed festival, but there is a fundamental right to free speech. am likely to muddy the waters a bit, but part o' first amendment is the public forum doctrine.  if wod wants to hold an undisturbed festival, he should avoid sidewalks, streets and parks, and he should avoid making it open to the public.  over-simple observation is that streets, parks and sidewalks is fair game for protesters.  hold a street festival and the possibility that losers carrying pig heads and offensive placards becomes increasing likely.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Gromnir

[Tigranes]

 cops (local, state, fed) will use every legal option available to them to apprehend those they believe is criminals... and that ain't a bad thing as long as the courts do their job.

 

In full agreement. It's besides the point to witch hunt average joe cops or NSA analysts for the various current controversies.

[Elerond]

 

Donald Trump demands Apple boycott to force it to unlock phone

 

"US presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a boycott of Apple until the tech giant helps unlock the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino killers.

Apple has clashed with the Justice Department (DoJ) over a court order forcing the company to help break the encryption on one of its phones.

On Friday the DoJ called Apple's refusal a "marketing strategy".

Apple said it will not help break into the the phone, citing wider privacy concerns for its users.

The phone belonged to one of the two people who opened fire at an office event in San Bernardino, California, last December, killing 14

Speaking at a campaign rally, Mr Trump said: "Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information."

On Thursday, a court ordered the tech giant to help break the encryption.

The government has called the request narrow and argued it is only focused on this particular iPhone.

The DoJ filed another motion in court on Friday after Apple's chief executive, Tim Cook, said Apple would continue to refuse the order.

A California court has set 22 March for the hearing."

Whats your view on this Elerond?

 

I say Apple is being unreasonable and must abide by the governments wishes...its just one phone. Yes if the request is an automatic backdoor for the Federal government  for all Apple devices I would also consider this reasonable but this just takes more time

 

I get a little annoyed when people debate something like " its a privacy issue " when in fact its more important like state security 

 

 

Ok lets look this case bit deeper.

 

It is not just one phone, but every phone everywhere in world that locate countries where Apple can't or has difficult time to back out. Because this is not case where ability to unlock the phone is in hands of US government but that it is in hands of Apple, so any government that has even bit of ability to pressure Apple in way US government does now has then ability force Apple to open phones for them. Like for example China, most of Apple's manufacture plants are there, so how Apple ever can say no to them in opening phones that Chine's government wants to open. Or Russia where Apple would lose million of customers if Russian government put trade embargo over Apple's products and this list goes on and on. As long as Apple don't themselves have way to unlock their phones it is for them much easier to say those other governments that they can't do it, but if USA publicly force them to unlock one phone then every other country knows that they can also force Apple to unlock phones for them.

 

This particular phone in question may or may not have useful information in it and any case it is very unlikely that at this point of time it has any information that can save lives. Because its owner has already done their terrorist act and killed people and died themself. And their possible contacts know that government has that phone and may get its information so they most likely have already burned (figuratively) things that link them to phone's owner and possible things that phone contains. (It is not like phone belonged to someone with deep connection to terrorist organisation and other terrorists)

 

State security is important, but so is security of people's personal security and breaking this particular phone in my opinion does quite little for adding state security, but as precedent it will mean that Apple's phones will not any more protect people's privacy against governments and there is always possibility that technology/method to unlock said phones will leak to criminals and then Apple's phones ability to protect people's privacy against anybody will be highly compromised. Not end the world but quite bad for Apple (as it will hinder their ability to compete in markets that ask more protections for personal privacy) and it isn't good for Apple's customers.

 

So I would say that Apple isn't unreasonable with their concerns. This case don't just effect USA and its federal government, There is quite small change this phone in question has information that US government can't live without and that would save lives of people, best it may identify couple not so important terrorists that USA can't then assassinate with drone strikes. I am not sure if this is way to go to protect State security or people of state. I am not sure if this actually would put more people under risk than it ever can protect people. So at end I will not give my support for it.

[Leferd]

George P. Bush 2K24

[Hurlshort]

 

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

 

 

Nope, Volourn is entirely correct.  Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim.  40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size?  Color me unimpressed.

 

I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work.

[ShadySands]

Democratic side? It's a toss up. Bernie is the idealist that everyone wants but would ultimately be powerless in the office due to his inability to push his agenda, while Hillary would end up as the new "Steel Maiden" who manages to steamroll over congress while using her husband as a political tool to keep support. She'd probably get quite a few pieces of what Sanders wants done through, but not all.

I think Hillary will win the nomination but I'm thinking it will be closer than I originally thought it would be. I'm not sold that she would win the whole thing but if she does then I'm not so sure she would be able to "get stuff done" either and especially not the things that are more important to me.

 

As for me, I'm going to back Bernie til the end then likely vote 3rd party

Edited February 21, 2016 by ShadySands

[Calax]

 

Democratic side? It's a toss up. Bernie is the idealist that everyone wants but would ultimately be powerless in the office due to his inability to push his agenda, while Hillary would end up as the new "Steel Maiden" who manages to steamroll over congress while using her husband as a political tool to keep support. She'd probably get quite a few pieces of what Sanders wants done through, but not all.

I think Hillary will win the nomination but I'm thinking it will be closer than I originally thought it would be. I'm not sold that she would win the whole thing but if she does then I'm not so sure she would be able to "get stuff done" either and especially not the things that are more important to me.

 

As for me, I'm going to back Bernie til the end then likely vote 3rd party

 

The one thing that Hillary would be able to do is play politics. Between her and her husband in office you've got nearly a century of political experience and acumen to wheel and deal for political gains. And while she doesn't seem to have the same grand "Change everything" plan for politics, I'm willing to bet that the republicans would be far more willing to deal with her than they would with Bernie.

 

The thing with Bernie is that while his politics speak to the population of the disenfranchised, he'd get stymied from the word "go" because in order for his agenda to get kickstarted, he needs to have his party in congress on the same page. And right now that page is probably not Bernie's. 

 

Another interesting side note. The only viable "White guy christian" still in the race is Trump.

 

Rubio and Cruz are Hispanic

Bernie's a Jew

Hillary's a Female with a Snuke

[BruceVC]

 

I think it was Psychology Today that did an article that something in his face makes people dislike him. Also if you look-up "Grandpa Munster" Cruz is the spitting image. Although I have to admit judging people by their looks is a form of fascism.

 

Edit: Btw, this isn't directly election related, but since we've discussed US and Russian foreign policy earlier, here's an article that agrees with me: http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/moscow-tigris

 

Thats a good article and largely accurate but WOD it doesn't just attack Obama as it doesnt assume he is  is weak for not getting more involved in Syria, it goes into real reasons for the Russian intervention in Syrian and is quite honest about why the USA isn't more involved.

 

So in fact I would say it supports my view that end of the day the USA doesn't care about getting involved in Syria and if the Russians want to be the heroes...let them. I maintain that the USA foreign policy is about prudence and not doing things to " prove the USA can militarily " ...people abuse this idea, allies of the USA claim the USA needs to support them in wars that ultimately end up meaning the USA has to provide the military resources and then they are disliked anyway in places like the ME. And then when Obama wisely decides that to intervene in Syria would mean they have to now support the reconstruction and in fact this will become another Iraq he keeps the USA out of Syria the USA is accused of being "weak"

 

No my friend, trust me even once there is an eventual end to this interminable conflict in Syria the real drain of finances is going to be how they rebuild Syria...and its going to be funny if the Russians are tasked to do this, they don't understand concepts like " rebuilding nations " 

[BruceVC]

 

 

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

 

 

Nope, Volourn is entirely correct.  Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim.  40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size?  Color me unimpressed.

 

I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work.

 

Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it  was clear..okay it must be me 

 

So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can  Volo  be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148

[Elerond]

 

 

 

 

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

 

 

Nope, Volourn is entirely correct.  Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim.  40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size?  Color me unimpressed.

 

I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work.

 

 

 

Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it  was clear..okay it must be me 

 

So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can  Volo  be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbYk2l9w-E

[BruceVC]

 

So it seems your objection to the likes of Prism is not based on real examples of abuse of the system but rather on the concept of the potential of abuse? In other words can you give me some examples of how people have been illegally detained due to Prism?

 

This line has been trotted out a lot by people. As someone who's doing some related research, let's make it very clear: based on publicly available evidence, the harms of programs like Prism are 'potential' - in exactly the same way that the benefits of those programs are 'potential'. 

 

I don't have time for a long post and citations, but the simple point is that you can't take one without the other. If you want to say that it's paranoia to be afraid of Prism until we know for sure that somebody's life has been ruined, then surely we must admit that there is no concrete evidence of Prism's benefits, because despite some wild claims (famously the '54 cases stopped' cited in 2013 by Keith Alexander & others), it has been shown (e.g. by the White House committee) that there are, at most, one or two cases where these programs have made a difference.

 

And if someone wants to say, as Dianne Feinstein did in 2013, well of course Prism has actually helped stop a lot of attacks and such but we can't tell you about it because of national security - OK, so now you're imagining potential evidence. *shrug* there might just as well be secret evidence we don't know about that Prism has caused harm. 

 

The argument that you have to show Prism has specifically screwed someone over is ignorant of the structure of this entire problem as a whole. The US government has consistently used this argument as an excuse to try and shut down legal challenges and other forms of debating the problem - or even revealing details that would be relevant to the problem. See the catch-22? It's easiest to see in the case of Stingrays (devices that mimic cell tower signals to spy on your phone location): the government has a track record of pulling out of numerous court cases specifically because they did not want to reveal any details about the use of Stingray (and often the very existence of Stingray they refused to confirm). It would be narrow-sighted to just argue that the public, which is denied a lot of confidential information, must first prove that Stingrays have caused specific harm, before the state can be induced to release information or to not dodge the court cases. 

 

And we haven't even gone into the definition of harm or abuse. A rubber stamp secret court which, by its own admission, has no ability to audit the intelligence agencies: is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we find out someone's been killed? Police officers routinely damage and purposefully obstruct the use of cameras and mics. Is that a problem? Or is it only a problem when we can concretely show that a camera was destroyed to conceal the fact that they shot an innocent man? (If you can ever concretely show that without camera footage?)

 

I'm glad you responded to this contentious but interesting  debate because I know you believe in the importance of certain liberal  values and I'm sure your point and perspective is echoed by many other people. I will be honest I dont think the point I'm trying to make about the relevance and importance of Prism will be supported by any people on this forum because fundamentally most people are misunderstanding my reason why Prism and other government intervention in monitoring data should not be considered an infringement of the US Constitution or an example of " Big Brother " intervention 

 

So I'll try to make my point another way because I do agree with much of the post you are making. Do you guys in the USA accept that devices can be used to store information about a terrorist cell and if you agree with that what is your view of a potential situation in the future where the NSA arrest 3 out of 4 people in cell and now the authorities don't know where the fourth suspect is. Lets say the 3 terrorists aren't talking and the NSA find that all the 3 suspects have Apple devices which are now locked. Lets say this fourth suspect has a bomb and is now suicidal...what do you suggest the NSA do to get access to the 3 phones

 

Now because you guys have been saying " a backdoor is a infringement on the privacy of citizens " how would they access the phones?

 

 

 

Japanese Internment weren't knee jerk.  Americans didn't wake up December 7, 1941 and decide that all Japanese had to be locked up for the safety o' the nation. 

 

*shrug*

 

how 'bout a different example?  in the US, cops can make searches incident to an arrest.  makes sense that cops could search the person they were arresting, yes?  the thing is, cops can also search those areas within the immediate reach o' the person to be arrested. so, the courts clarify and announced that if cops wanted to arrest bob in his home, even if cops didn't have a search warrant for the home, they could search drawers and shelves n' such that were w/i immediate reach o' bob.  and what do you think law enforcement started to do? it became standard policy to arrest suspects in homes, and then the cops would escort the suspect from room-to-room o' the entire domicile, searching everything w/i reach.  it took awhile, but the Court finally put an end to the practice o' escorting a defendant through homes to facilitate a search.

 

law enforcement is tasked with stopping crime.  law enforcement, more than the average citizen, sees criminals getting away with stuff all the time.  unlike some folks on the boards, we do not see dirty cops everywhere, but cops (local, state, fed) will use every legal option available to them to apprehend those they believe is criminals... and that ain't a bad thing as long as the courts do their job. what we call reasonable suspicion or probable cause in the US is much higher standards than similarly labeled standards in virtual all o' europe, and to top it off, we got the near unique exclusionary rule and fruit of the poisonous tree which makes cops job even tougher.  am understanding why cops feel hamstrung at times, and we get why so many feel justified in doing anything legal to make an arrest that sticks.

 

the point is that if there is the possibility that a law can be abused by law enforcement, you should not be surprised when it happens. obvious solution: don't expose law enforcement to temptation.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps to wod-- there is no Constitutional right to have a peaceful and undisturbed festival, but there is a fundamental right to free speech. am likely to muddy the waters a bit, but part o' first amendment is the public forum doctrine.  if wod wants to hold an undisturbed festival, he should avoid sidewalks, streets and parks, and he should avoid making it open to the public.  over-simple observation is that streets, parks and sidewalks is fair game for protesters.  hold a street festival and the possibility that losers carrying pig heads and offensive placards becomes increasing likely.

Gromnir like most of us on these forums I love a debate in a mature way, of course I always think I'm right but I have been wrong occasionally  

 

But you are one of the few people I have decided to not engage in a debate unless I'm 100 % sure and committed...and this is not one of those cases. I agree with you that any changes to law enforcement can be abused. But end of the day the point I made with Tigranes is why I support this Federal request, what  happens now if the NSA  has  no way to access these devices?

[ShadySands]

So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148

NSA chief’s admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders

 

Also, just for kicks, 10 Things More Likely to Kill You than Islamic Terror

 

Edited out most of the quotes

Edited February 21, 2016 by ShadySands

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

 

 

Nope, Volourn is entirely correct.  Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim.  40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size?  Color me unimpressed.

 

I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work.

 

Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it  was clear..okay it must be me 

 

So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can  Volo  be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148

 

NSA chief’s admission of misleading numbers adds to Obama administration blunders

 

Also, just for kicks, 10 Things More Likely to Kill You than Islamic Terror

 

 

Okay now I have to say Im misunderstanding why you guys are objecting to this notion that the USA has prevented more terrorist attacks than any other country...okay forget that link I posted and use this one I posted earlier. 40 attacks prevented since 9/11, lets keep this simple and find me one other country in the world that has had and prevented more than 40 attacks between 2001-2011

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

[Gromnir]

am suspecting that bruce has a point... maybe not a big point, but one worth considering. recall how fervent and animated were obama before he were elected regarding the need to stop the US from spying on Americans, and to close down guantanamo.  these were campaign promises that, unlike various domestic policy issues, obama did have the power to see actualized.  almost eight years pass and near 100 of the guantanamo prisoners is still incarcerated at the site, and domestic spying has increased significant.  why?  just how dangerous must those remaining 91 in cuba be?   were obama a liar who never intended to follow through on his promises?  doubtful.  makes one wonder what changed obama's perspective, no? 

 

am suspecting that only a small number o' folks know how great the threat o' terrorism actual is. terrorist acts prevented is subject to a great deal o' subjectivity.  am also not sure what is being counted and how these folks decide that a particular threat is/were credible enough to count towards their statistics.  furthermore, as shady's link shows, there is a bit o' fuzzy math and outright bamboozling going on when speaking o' USA counterterrorism success.  even so, we cannot help but wonder that a President such as obama, who were no doubt genuine concerned 'bout the excesses o' the bush administration regarding attempts to curb terrorism, changed his tune considerable once coming into office.  

 

again, is hardly evidence, but is worth considering.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

am suspecting that bruce has a point... maybe not a big point, but one worth considering. recall how fervent and animated were obama before he were elected regarding the need to stop the US from spying on Americans, and to close down guantanamo.  these were campaign promises that, unlike various domestic policy issues, obama did have the power to see actualized.  almost eight years pass and near 100 of the guantanamo prisoners is still incarcerated at the site, and domestic spying has increased significant.  why?  just how dangerous must those remaining 91 in cuba be?   were obama a liar who never intended to follow through on his promises?  doubtful.  makes one wonder what changed obama's perspective, no? 

 

am suspecting that only a small number o' folks know how great the threat o' terrorism actual is. terrorist acts prevented is subject to a great deal o' subjectivity.  am also not sure what is being counted and how these folks decide that a particular threat is/were credible enough to count towards their statistics.  furthermore, as shady's link shows, there is a bit o' fuzzy math and outright bamboozling going on when speaking o' USA counterterrorism success.  even so, we cannot help but wonder that a President such as obama, who were no doubt genuine concerned 'bout the excesses o' the bush administration regarding attempts to curb terrorism, changed his tune considerable once coming into office.  

 

again, is hardly evidence, but is worth considering.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Also guys the fact that over 40 attacks have been prevented by various state security institutions is something that should be celebrated as a  real success story of how your various governments, Bush and Obama  have been successfully keeping the US safe..just because the FBI don't announce them doesn't detract from the point that they could have been a successful attack. 

 

And I'm not suggesting living in the USA is a dangerous place that you are likely to die in a terrorist attack...no quite the opposite. It seems only homegrown attacks, more the loan wolves who don't use the Internet to plan there strategies are successful...like Boston Marathon attack

 

And I have to add that we can't say for certain but I'm pretty confidant that systems like Prism play an instrumental role in preventing these 40 attacks?

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

"The USA is the biggest target for Islamic extremist attacks in the world."

 

No, they aren't. Other Muslims are.

No they aren't, since 9/11 the USA has always been the ultimate target for Islamic extremists. But to target the USA is  much harder for groups like ISIS due to the logistics and distance  and also as I mentioned the USA has very effective security mechanism's  and information  gathering that prevent these attacks...people just arent aware of it. So I am referring to attacks that were prevented. You will see from this link that 40 attacks have been prevented since 9/11 and this link is from 2011..so I am confidant that no other country has been targeted for extremist attacks this much since  2001 including any Muslim country?

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror

 

 

Nope, Volourn is entirely correct.  Your chances of being involved in any type of terrorist attack in the US are incredibly slim.  40 attacks in 15 years in a country of this size?  Color me unimpressed.

 

I risk my life way more every day I get on the freeway to drive to work.

 

 

 

Wow you guys arent understanding my point and I thought it  was clear..okay it must be me 

 

So I stand by the statistics but maybe you guys are misunderstanding the definition of terrorist attacks. This is a planned and orchestrated attack on a country by Islamic extremists. So this is not the endless violence perpetuated by ISIS or the killings in Libya, so firstly how can  Volo  be right when he is comparing the entire race of Muslims to a single country, its an incomparable concept. But lets say that Volo is talking about every Muslim country in the ME I still doubt they have seem more single attacks than the USA....but you guys can find the data on individual countries in the ME. Saudi Arabia has been a high target for extremist attacks and they have only seen 20 or so 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

So again the USA has been the country that has received the highest number of successful and prevented attacks...here is another link that says the number is 50 and this is in 2013 so we can safely add another 20? 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nsa-director-50-potential-terrorist-attacks-thwarted-controversial/story?id=19428148

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHbYk2l9w-E

 

Elerond thanks for posting this potentially interesting video but I'll be honest I cannot determine the actual number of terrorist attacks per country? I just see some map of the world with flashing lights and annoying music 

[Elerond]

http://www.cityam.com/228884/global-terrorism-index-2015-mapped-terror-attack-deaths-and-economic-cost-hit-an-all-time-high-as-uk-is-hardest-hit-of-any-eu-country

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30883058

Edited February 21, 2016 by Elerond