Shouldn't the guys in charge of this intelligence business operate with the general assumption that if they're keeping unsavory or illegal things secret for a good reason that it's their job to keep them secret, and not bitch about it when they get caught?
Or, that say, if coverage of the items is bad in and of itself, then capitalizing on the coverage by screeching until you get more coverage of the items and your righteous indignation is also bad?
It's like we're working from different playbooks here. The press is a check.
NOTE: Members using Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo—PLEASE remember to transfer accounts by COB!!!!! Read this new york times article, major changes to business model!!!!! If questions aks corporate office thank you. Remember ONLY use Google e-mail. Thanks you.
Has McCain commented on this yet? Becuase if not, I think it's likely we're about to see a press swoon about how it takes a bipartisan maverick to say that the government shouldn't have unlimited discretion to choose what information about it the press may publish, and why can't the Democrats be as reasonable.
Henry's piece on this at CT is pretty good as to how this matter is likely to proceed in the EU
On a vaguely related topic, there are few things that irritate me more than the government's new policy of asking for suits to be dismissed because discovery, etc. and litigation would be a threat to national security.
The argument is so circular, and self-referential, in this case.
1. We need to look at people's records without judicial oversight, because we have to have ultimate power to do whatever we want, so we can protect America.
2. If the fact that we're totally violating our constituents' civil liberties is exposed, then we might not be able to do it anymore.
3. If we can't do it anymore, we can't Protect America as well.
4. Therefore, exposing dubious practices hurts America.
Seriously, you fucking motherfuckers (yes, I am pissed about this shit), there are limits to what you can and can't do. Don't you understand that? Have you no sense of the ideals of this nation?
Surely they do, though. They just set the bar for limits too high. I mean, if you deported all the Arabs living in the US, and didn't allow any more to come in, that would reduce the risk of a [Muslim extremist] terrorist attack, right? But they know they can't do that.
Anyway, I blame the population. Seriously, there are so many people who want the government to do anything and everything to protect us from terrorism, without realizing that eventually, the more you ramp up your anti-terrorist efforts the more it starts to look like a zero-sum game.
And yet, here I am, just sitting in my office, bitching about it.
h. They just set the bar for limits too high. I mean, if you deported all the Arabs living in the US, and didn't allow any more to come in, that would reduce the risk of a [Muslim extremist] terrorist attack, right? But they know they can't do that.
Wait and see. At some point, there were references to a poll indicating that 25% of Americans thought Arabs (or maybe Muslims) should be forced to register with the government.
At some point, there were references to a poll indicating that 25% of Americans thought Arabs (or maybe Muslims) should be forced to register with the government.
But what would "registration" actually mean? How would the information gathered be different from what the government knows about me, such as my Social Security number, my address, how much money I made last year, etc.?
I'm not saying I think "registration" would be a good idea. I'm just saying it would be pointless.
And do people think the government doesn't already have a special list of people with Arabic-sounding names and people who have donated money to Muslim charities? I'm sure it's a really big list, which makes it utterly useless, of course.
I just realized that the next news cycle is sure to feature the NYT revealing the existence of such a list, followed by accusations that the NYT reporters are traitors who hate America.
I have a long standing self-righteous schtick* of asking that people not call their fellow citizens traitors unless they're either completely joking or want the other person killed (or at least thrown in jail for a really really long time). I repeat that request.
*That was among my first unfogged comments but, according to this, not the first.
But what would "registration" actually mean? How would the information gathered be different from what the government knows about me, such as my Social Security number, my address, how much money I made last year, etc.?
Well, for one thing, the government hasn't openly identified you as a class of suspects, and the country hasn't supported it. The idea is so repugnant to me that I have trouble gathering my thougths to describe the harms; this means it's entirely possible that I'm overestimating those harms. But I'd be more troubled by that than Padilla, and I'm more troubled by Padilla than anything else that has happened in the last five years.
I didn't think participating in the census was optional. Does he just choose not to answer some of the questions, or is there and "I object" box or something? You can't just ignore it, can you?
20: There's the short form that most people get, which pretty much just asks how many people live in your residence, what their relation is, and how old they are. A few people get the more detailed long form (we got it last time), it includes questions about income, ethnicity, education, and so on. They then weight these responses up to the total population.
JM, I'm surprised your father manages to not respond--since the census bureau is mandated by law to literally count every single person (as well as they can, at least), they're pretty persistent to get everyone to fill it out. If you don't send the form back in the mail, they send you another one. If you don't send this one, they call you. If you don't answer or are uncooperative, they come to your house.
If you hold out long enough, they might actually offer you money--I don't know if government-run surveys do this, but independent survey research firms do, especially if they want a high response rate.
I wouldn't put it past him either to send back the form with a note refusing to fill it out or to shut the door in some hapless census-worker's face. He sure wouldn't take money to change his mind.
I'm not sure whether I'm entirely right that his position is to refuse to fill it out at all. He might have been willing to fill in how many people were living in his household. There is literally no way they'd be able to get him to give up information about ethnicity, income, and so on, though.
I'm pretty sure I'm on some kind of watch list, as I get pulled aside for a search every fucking time I fly. Seriously.
Try varying your name. for example, use both your first and middle name. Or just use your first two initials and your last name, or just your middle name and last name, or a nick name easily derived from your first name, or some other combination, the goal being that it doesn't get you on the no-fly list and yet the person checking your ID won't flag you. A colleague of mine had a similar problem and started using his first two initials (or stopped using his first two initials and switched to his first name) and had no further problems.
Of course, this says something about the effectiveness of the no-fly list.
Behaving in this kind of dumb-ass 'forget the law, we have the power' way just pisses of all the US's allies as well.
'Course I think all the EU powers shuld have completely ceased all judicial cooperation with the US around the time they started locking up, without trial, citizens of EU countries in Guantanamo. That would require some actual integrity on the part of our governments though, so was too much to ask.
#13: For the record, I don't want anyone executed who isn't actually guilty of treason.
But I am way beyond tired of people raising legitimate questions about government behavior only to be accused of hating America, supporting terrorists, yadayadayada by those who are, in fact, actively tearing down some of the things that made America great. Like, oh, say, the rule of law.
So I'm suggesting that the next time some asshat tries that schtick, everyone within earshot give it back to him and see how he freakin' likes it. I did that once last year on my blog and some folks screamed like I'd thrown a bucket of battery acid into a basket of kittens. (I realize that's LizardBreath's specialty, not yours, but still.*)
I feel kind of lame bringing it up, but the persistent claim that making these surveillance programs public endangers us misses a certain point: if they're not using those technologies, the capabilities of the terrorists are reduced.
If terrorists now know we're listening to satellite phones, they won't use satellite phones. This is a good thing, in a way, because that's one more powerful technology they won't be able to deploy against us.
If terrorists now know they can't use the checking accounts and wire transfers, then that means they're stuck with briefcases full of cash and all the attendant dangers and difficulties that come with them.
Clearly this has limited application, but it seems obvious that if they stop using useful things... well... good.
Hm, appears I was wrong up above--turns out it ismandatory to answer census questions.
For what it's worth, though, information on individuals isn't released. They pool everyone within a census tract (sort of like a zip code) and only report the aggregate results. Even other government agencies can't use the individual data, or even see it.
Point being, they take privacy concerns seriously, because they need a high participation rate. Any time someone refuses to answer, especially for sampled surveys like the American Community Survery (which replaced the long form), it really screws with the results. It's not like they can just go down the list to the next person if someone doesn't answer--doing that makes the statisticians cry. It's pretty important to get as close to universal participation as is possible.
Shouldn't the guys in charge of this intelligence business operate with the general assumption that if they're keeping unsavory or illegal things secret for a good reason that it's their job to keep them secret, and not bitch about it when they get caught?
Or, that say, if coverage of the items is bad in and of itself, then capitalizing on the coverage by screeching until you get more coverage of the items and your righteous indignation is also bad?
It's like we're working from different playbooks here. The press is a check.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:50 PM
The critical letters to the Times today were pretty ludicrous.
Posted by Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:55 PM
From: al_accountant69
To: Jihad.list
NOTE: Members using Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo—PLEASE remember to transfer accounts by COB!!!!! Read this new york times article, major changes to business model!!!!! If questions aks corporate office thank you. Remember ONLY use Google e-mail. Thanks you.
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 1:59 PM
Has McCain commented on this yet? Becuase if not, I think it's likely we're about to see a press swoon about how it takes a bipartisan maverick to say that the government shouldn't have unlimited discretion to choose what information about it the press may publish, and why can't the Democrats be as reasonable.
Henry's piece on this at CT is pretty good as to how this matter is likely to proceed in the EU
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:00 PM
National security is the new communism.
On a vaguely related topic, there are few things that irritate me more than the government's new policy of asking for suits to be dismissed because discovery, etc. and litigation would be a threat to national security.
The argument is so circular, and self-referential, in this case.
1. We need to look at people's records without judicial oversight, because we have to have ultimate power to do whatever we want, so we can protect America.
2. If the fact that we're totally violating our constituents' civil liberties is exposed, then we might not be able to do it anymore.
3. If we can't do it anymore, we can't Protect America as well.
4. Therefore, exposing dubious practices hurts America.
Seriously, you fucking motherfuckers (yes, I am pissed about this shit), there are limits to what you can and can't do. Don't you understand that? Have you no sense of the ideals of this nation?
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:09 PM
5: In a word, no.
Posted by I don't pay | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:12 PM
Surely they do, though. They just set the bar for limits too high. I mean, if you deported all the Arabs living in the US, and didn't allow any more to come in, that would reduce the risk of a [Muslim extremist] terrorist attack, right? But they know they can't do that.
Anyway, I blame the population. Seriously, there are so many people who want the government to do anything and everything to protect us from terrorism, without realizing that eventually, the more you ramp up your anti-terrorist efforts the more it starts to look like a zero-sum game.
And yet, here I am, just sitting in my office, bitching about it.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:17 PM
h. They just set the bar for limits too high. I mean, if you deported all the Arabs living in the US, and didn't allow any more to come in, that would reduce the risk of a [Muslim extremist] terrorist attack, right? But they know they can't do that.
Wait and see. At some point, there were references to a poll indicating that 25% of Americans thought Arabs (or maybe Muslims) should be forced to register with the government.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:21 PM
Rather sh*t on the Constitution than burn a flag? Traitor.
Rather bash the press than act like a citizen? Traitor.
Rather trust a person than a law? Traitor.
This sh*t cuts both ways. Actually, it cuts BETTER my way than theirs. And it's past time it did.
Posted by Lex | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:31 PM
At some point, there were references to a poll indicating that 25% of Americans thought Arabs (or maybe Muslims) should be forced to register with the government.
But what would "registration" actually mean? How would the information gathered be different from what the government knows about me, such as my Social Security number, my address, how much money I made last year, etc.?
I'm not saying I think "registration" would be a good idea. I'm just saying it would be pointless.
And do people think the government doesn't already have a special list of people with Arabic-sounding names and people who have donated money to Muslim charities? I'm sure it's a really big list, which makes it utterly useless, of course.
I just realized that the next news cycle is sure to feature the NYT revealing the existence of such a list, followed by accusations that the NYT reporters are traitors who hate America.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:39 PM
special list of people with Arabic-sounding names
I'm pretty sure I'm on some kind of watch list, as I get pulled aside for a search every fucking time I fly. Seriously.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:45 PM
And yet ogged doesn't. Truly there is no justice in this world.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:48 PM
I have a long standing self-righteous schtick* of asking that people not call their fellow citizens traitors unless they're either completely joking or want the other person killed (or at least thrown in jail for a really really long time). I repeat that request.
*That was among my first unfogged comments but, according to this, not the first.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:49 PM
But what would "registration" actually mean? How would the information gathered be different from what the government knows about me, such as my Social Security number, my address, how much money I made last year, etc.?
Well, for one thing, the government hasn't openly identified you as a class of suspects, and the country hasn't supported it. The idea is so repugnant to me that I have trouble gathering my thougths to describe the harms; this means it's entirely possible that I'm overestimating those harms. But I'd be more troubled by that than Padilla, and I'm more troubled by Padilla than anything else that has happened in the last five years.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 2:50 PM
Wow, that list reveals that I first commented on Unfogged over a month before The Meat Man Matt Weiner!
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:04 PM
But yeah, this stuff gets me incredibly steamed too.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:05 PM
16: "me" s/b "M/tch"
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:07 PM
If they were to start registering Muslims, I think I would go find a local mosque and ask about converting.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:16 PM
My father refuses to participate in the census because he regards it as a de facto registration of this sort.
Wait a minute! That means I haven't ever been censused because I was out of the country when they did the 2000 one. Huh.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:16 PM
Due to various quirks, I missed the last census, too. What kind of information do they ask for, anyway?
Posted by strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:22 PM
Dunno, really. They certainly ask about ethnic identification, though.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:24 PM
I didn't think participating in the census was optional. Does he just choose not to answer some of the questions, or is there and "I object" box or something? You can't just ignore it, can you?
Posted by M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:28 PM
You can't just ignore it, can you?
I think you can.
Posted by sam k | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:30 PM
20: There's the short form that most people get, which pretty much just asks how many people live in your residence, what their relation is, and how old they are. A few people get the more detailed long form (we got it last time), it includes questions about income, ethnicity, education, and so on. They then weight these responses up to the total population.
JM, I'm surprised your father manages to not respond--since the census bureau is mandated by law to literally count every single person (as well as they can, at least), they're pretty persistent to get everyone to fill it out. If you don't send the form back in the mail, they send you another one. If you don't send this one, they call you. If you don't answer or are uncooperative, they come to your house.
If you hold out long enough, they might actually offer you money--I don't know if government-run surveys do this, but independent survey research firms do, especially if they want a high response rate.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:32 PM
M/tch--it's technically optional, but they won't make it easy for you to opt out. If only they worked this hard to get everyone to vote...
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:33 PM
I wouldn't put it past him either to send back the form with a note refusing to fill it out or to shut the door in some hapless census-worker's face. He sure wouldn't take money to change his mind.
I'm not sure whether I'm entirely right that his position is to refuse to fill it out at all. He might have been willing to fill in how many people were living in his household. There is literally no way they'd be able to get him to give up information about ethnicity, income, and so on, though.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:39 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm on some kind of watch list, as I get pulled aside for a search every fucking time I fly. Seriously.
Try varying your name. for example, use both your first and middle name. Or just use your first two initials and your last name, or just your middle name and last name, or a nick name easily derived from your first name, or some other combination, the goal being that it doesn't get you on the no-fly list and yet the person checking your ID won't flag you. A colleague of mine had a similar problem and started using his first two initials (or stopped using his first two initials and switched to his first name) and had no further problems.
Of course, this says something about the effectiveness of the no-fly list.
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:46 PM
If only they worked this hard to get everyone to vote...
If there was a constitutional mandate that they get everyone to vote, then maybe...
Posted by Ugh | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:51 PM
Don't laugh -- it's mandatory in Australia. (Probably other places too, but I know about Australia.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 3:56 PM
Behaving in this kind of dumb-ass 'forget the law, we have the power' way just pisses of all the US's allies as well.
'Course I think all the EU powers shuld have completely ceased all judicial cooperation with the US around the time they started locking up, without trial, citizens of EU countries in Guantanamo. That would require some actual integrity on the part of our governments though, so was too much to ask.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:03 PM
Yeah, but then the responsive bombing runs would have gotten ugly. (Probably wouldn't have happened. But can we be sure?)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:16 PM
#13: For the record, I don't want anyone executed who isn't actually guilty of treason.
But I am way beyond tired of people raising legitimate questions about government behavior only to be accused of hating America, supporting terrorists, yadayadayada by those who are, in fact, actively tearing down some of the things that made America great. Like, oh, say, the rule of law.
So I'm suggesting that the next time some asshat tries that schtick, everyone within earshot give it back to him and see how he freakin' likes it. I did that once last year on my blog and some folks screamed like I'd thrown a bucket of battery acid into a basket of kittens. (I realize that's LizardBreath's specialty, not yours, but still.*)
*Kidding, in case it wasn't obvious.
Posted by Lex | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:49 PM
No, that's right. Remember the signs in chem lab: "Watch out for the mittens; add acid to kittens."
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 4:51 PM
32 gets it exactly right. In fact, there wouldn't be one single tiny problem with 9 if "Traitor" were replaced with "You're betraying our country."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:01 PM
I feel kind of lame bringing it up, but the persistent claim that making these surveillance programs public endangers us misses a certain point: if they're not using those technologies, the capabilities of the terrorists are reduced.
If terrorists now know we're listening to satellite phones, they won't use satellite phones. This is a good thing, in a way, because that's one more powerful technology they won't be able to deploy against us.
If terrorists now know they can't use the checking accounts and wire transfers, then that means they're stuck with briefcases full of cash and all the attendant dangers and difficulties that come with them.
Clearly this has limited application, but it seems obvious that if they stop using useful things... well... good.
Posted by TJ | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:03 PM
briefcases full of cash and all the attendant dangers and difficulties that come with them.
I would like to announce to all that I am willing to suffer these dangers and difficulties, if anyone out there wants to be relieved of them.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:06 PM
Cool, we'll be in touch.
Posted by Terrorists | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:22 PM
""Watch out for the mittens; add acid to kittens."
Yes! I still have one on my wall.
Posted by Lex | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:42 PM
TJ, that is a good point and not kind of lame.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 5:51 PM
Hm, appears I was wrong up above--turns out it is mandatory to answer census questions.
For what it's worth, though, information on individuals isn't released. They pool everyone within a census tract (sort of like a zip code) and only report the aggregate results. Even other government agencies can't use the individual data, or even see it.
Point being, they take privacy concerns seriously, because they need a high participation rate. Any time someone refuses to answer, especially for sampled surveys like the American Community Survery (which replaced the long form), it really screws with the results. It's not like they can just go down the list to the next person if someone doesn't answer--doing that makes the statisticians cry. It's pretty important to get as close to universal participation as is possible.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 06-28-06 6:42 PM