BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More

Subject: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 03:09 PM

We are in trouble. The pendulum does swing the other way - usually too far for awhile until it finds equilibrium- but I wonder where we will be before it swings.

Daniel Ellsberg, one of my heroes, has something to say. Bush, the Frightened Man

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. -Eric Hoffer

"Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower from the Nixon scandals, has some thoughts on the matter he shared in an interview with CommonDreams.org:

"I think our democracy is going to be tested to the breaking point by some very dark days ahead and before long. I do expect there to be another major terrorist event. Ports, the nuclear power plants and the chemical factories are extremely vulnerable to an attack. To a considerable event, the war against terrorism has been a hoax because the president has not only spent so much money on the war in Iraq, but because the war in Iraq virtually subverts the war on terror. You cannot reduce the appeal and the strength of Al Qaeda while we occupy Iraq. You can only strengthen it, and strengthening it is what we've been doing steadily for the last couple of years. This is the worst public policy decision making, most antidemocratic and most inclined to be authoritarian, I would say, since the Nixon administration, but Nixon was confronting a Democratic House and Senate and a relatively liberal population in media 40 years ago. John Mitchell and John Connolly and Nixon himself had quite authoritarian instincts, but they weren't allowed to act on them, and to the extent that they did act on them -- it brought them down.

"It is not terrorism that motivates George, or patriotism, or even profiteering. It is fear, pure and simple: Fear of the truth, fear of the world, fear of any data that collides with his faith-based bubble-encapsuled worldview, and fear most of all of the people he would represent.

"Virtually all the things Nixon did against me that were illegal to keep me from exposing his secret policy are now legal under the Patriot Act. Going into my doctor's office to get information to blackmail me with, wiretaps without warrants, overhearing me--all legal now. The CIA supplied the burglars in my doctor's office with disguises and with cameras and they did a psychological profile on me. That was illegal then, legal now.

"You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Now we know, and the knowledge is deeply and profoundly disturbing."

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 04:46 PM

Thank you for posting this, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 05:20 PM

Yeah, I heard him on C-Span radio a couple months ago (maybe it was Pacifica)... He is no fan of Bush and like a lot of folks is worried that the US just might not come out from 8 years of crooks running the country with any sembelence of what it once was... It certainly does seem to be in a tailspin with it's pilot AWOL, out grabbing dough fir his buddie....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 05 - 08:31 PM

Thanks, Ebbie!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Janie
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 09:36 AM

Thanks, Ebbie. and if any of you have not yet read Ellsberg's book about the Pentagon Papers and his experience with our government, I strongly suggest you do. Pretty scary stuff.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: DougR
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 06:29 PM

It's surprising to you folks that Ellsberg didn't like Nixon, doesn't like Bush? Oh my! Will wonders never cease?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, behave yourself and you won't have to fear the Patriot Act. Let's have a show of hands, how many mudcatters have been arrested as a result of the Patriot Act? None? Surprise, surprise, surprise.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:01 PM

Doug is definitely a man of infinite faith.

I am reminded of Wile E. Coyote, who dashes off the edge of the cliff, and does fine hanging there in mid-air--until he looks down.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 01 Apr 05 - 07:58 PM

Behave yourself and you won't get in trouble. That has a ring of familiarity to it. Didn't someone say it before. Hmmm. Was it Sadaam? George Wallace? Hitler? Stalin? Torquemada? Maybe someone can help us here.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 12:01 AM

The people who have been blocked from public events which the Shrub was appearing at were behaving themselves; some were even government officials. This admin. is so paranoid, I'll bet they'd consider you guilty by association, DougR and not let you in, either. You'd better watch yerself, hanging around the likes of us!

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 02:03 PM

Bev and Jerry,

I believe it may well have been all of them, and of course Doug R, who will never be a danger to them until he reaches the age of reason, and stops believing everything that a proven liar tells him.

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 04:29 PM

Bingo, Don. You win the prize.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 05 - 06:23 PM

No, but he's a clear and present danger to himself- and he's too ignorant to even realize it.

Like the reason Nizon was taken down wasn't because he was a felon commanding a gang of felons, but because Ellsburg "didn't like him".

Moronic.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 12:39 AM

Doug, Idaho is dam near a one party state, and our Congressman Butch Otter is dam near an Idaho Republican's ideal.

But he's been working against the Patriot Act for a long time.

You going to tell ol' Butch to shut up and behave himself and quit acting liberal because he hasn't been arrested under the Act? Or would you listen to him because he's on God's side? I'd be interested to know.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: DougR
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 03:03 PM

Nope clint, to each his own. If no one has anything to hide, however, I fail to see how the Patriot Act is going to adversely affect them.

If hurling insults at one because his/her opinion differs from one's own, however, I can think of lots of Mudcatters that should be ducking!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM

Doug, If no one has anything to hide, however, would you also fail to see how a state-sponsored video camera in each room of anyone's house would adversely affect them?
Before you point it out, I know the government doesn't have the funds, but do you grasp the principle behind my question?

Do you see why voting by secret ballot is not only nice, but necesssary?

Can you see why allowing the government to deny anyone due process is wrong?

Do you understand the expression "checks and balances" as applied to government?

Do you understand the old question "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"* and why it needs to be asked?

clint

*That's "Who shall watch the watchmen themselves?" or "Who is to guard the guards?"

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 04:53 PM

And you do know what they say about 'absolute power', right?

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 07:52 PM

Have we a latin scholar to hand to confirm "custodes"?

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 03 Apr 05 - 10:19 PM

I hope so; otherwise my whole argument is as naught.

clint

custodians?

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 08:19 AM

ignorant: (adj.) lacking knowledge or comprehension, resulting from or showing lack of knowledge.

I didn't say you were a moron, Douggie, but that your assertion was moronic- which it is.

However, if you feel the shoe fits....

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 08:37 AM

The Latin phrase "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes", is a quotation from Juvenal's Satire VI 'Against Women,' often translated as "Who watches the watchmen?".

Custodes from the latin root custos to hold or keep. Literally one who holds or keeps something safe.

Custodian is a close modern equivalent

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: frogprince
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 06:00 PM

"behave yourself and you won't have to fear the Patriot Act"
Anyone remember, back when, the passage of "no knock" legislation, because of the overpowering need for law enforcement to catch drug dealers with the goods? I said at the time that someone innocent would be dead before long. It was just a very few days; it just took a moment when narcs got the wrong door, and kicked it in. An old guy who had no reason not to think it was a deadly home invasion went for a gun, and was promptly shot to death. So behave yourself, never defend yourself against strangers, and you'll have nothing to fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: DougR
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:08 PM

Yes, frogprince, I'm sure there are millions of instances, such as the one you describe, that have taken place.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:31 PM

One is too many, Doug.

How many successful drug raids does it take to justify killing an innocent person? What about an innocent member of YOUR family?

"Well, yeah, I really liked Dad*, but as long as it helps arrest some of them druggies it's ok by me."

clint

*or Mom, or my child. I hate to spell this out so tediously, but you don't seem to get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 05 - 09:35 PM

" . . . behave yourself and you won't have to fear the Patriot Act."

The Act itself is benign. The interpretation and enforcement of the Act however . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: DougR
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 01:05 AM

So, Clint, you know of a perfect law? One that never has caused an innocent person to be punished? Perhaps there should be no laws at all, then no innocent people would be punished unjustly.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 02:03 AM

Because I'm against some laws doesn't mean I'm against all laws. You're using a cheap right-wing tactic to accuse me of that.

There's all kinds of laws, more kinds than just (1) imperfect. and (2) imaginary. Some laws are less perfect than others.

"No knock" is a dangerous law, as frogprince saw, and well designed to kill innocent people. I remember a similar case -- in Chicago? -- where it was the entering cops that got fatally shotgunned.

The old vagrancy laws, probably all repealed now, were so loosely worded as to justify arresting almost anyone the Establishment didn't like. "Persons of immoral character," or something like that. I knew a guy -- Russ Nobbs of Spokane -- who got busted for vagrancy sometime close to 1970 because he was putting out a newspaper some big shots didn't like. I believe the law did get modified, and high time.

The law allowing people to be held without due process and without records, as our present administration is doing is also badly designed. If indeed it is legal. It's an invitation to imprison a person for political reasons - who'd know? - and I wouldn't trust anyone with it, including me, you, and the next Pope.

And the Patriot Act is another invitation to abuse, according to both us elderly hippie sympathizers and a number of staunch Republicans who don't want the goverment on their backs.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: DougR
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM

It was just a question, clint.

I noted this morning on the Internet that the new Attorney General, and the head of the FBI is up on the Hill this morning urging Congress to renew the Patriot Act, and he (the AG)as them to strengthen it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM

All sorts indeed, but I bet you citizens of the good ole USA never had one like the upcoming age discrimination legislation over here in the UK.

Seems that it will be illegal from December 2006 to discriminate against anyone on grouns of age, but the government recently stated that companies wishing to operate a compulsory retirement at 65 policy, may do so.

So 1. Imperfect 2. imaginary   3. Non Compulsory

You can't top that
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 05:53 PM

You should have more faith in the U.S., Don.

Believe me, they'll top it, given half a chance.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 05:55 PM

You're using a cheap right-wing tactic ...

No he's not. He actually BELIEVES this shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 06:08 PM

Seems to be little difference--

A free-lance application of the 'no-knock' policy/law.

Subject: RE: BS: Daniel Ellsberg: the Privacy Act & More
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 05 Apr 05 - 07:04 PM

It wasn't "just" a question Doug. You had a definite point to make. Have the cojones to admit it.

clint