Hi Greg and Maria -

I owe you both a response.

"Sincerely, I'm not asking this in an adversarial way at all. I just really would like to understand why you are so unconcerned about it, because I'm guessing that there are a lot of other people who are thinking the same as you, or pretty similar. Will you help me to understand?"

Greg asked me the above.

I'm not going to spend time researching everything I state here. I don't have the time. I will try to let you know why I feel the way I do - in my gut. I owe you both that. I can get dramatic and you both seem to accept that in me.
I appreciate that.

We have a different kind of enemy, the terrorist. Terrorist organizations are pretty tricky to uncover - small cells could be anywhere. With this loose terrorist organization, the terrorist is hard to track down. Using information seems to be the logical key source of locating
terrorists. If terrorist organizations are going to plan attacks on the US, there has to be some kind of transaction going on - pilots' license? Credit card purchase?

Greg, you seem to think it is reasonable to assume that if different agenices - such as the CIA, FBI, and Immigration -shared information, there would be a higher probability that a terrorist attack could be halted. I certainly think this, and I have mentioned it before. So I won't get in to that area.

You and Maria are concerned about our individual rights - that the personal information about our citizens be protected. You are both concerned about Poindexter, who was convicted in 1990 for misleading Congress during the Iran-Contra investigation (decision later overturned). It is my understanding that Poindexter is now working to develop information technology for the intelligence community. This info might reveal patterns of behavior that might reveal terrorist activity. Poindexter seems to be recognized for being extremely intelligent - a tech kind of guy. I have not read anywhere that Poindexter will be making ANY decisions on how the information will be used. The agencies will determine that, and they will be able to get information from unified databases. DARPA is about research.

Let me try to explain why I am not that concerned about my loss of individual rights:

1. When I go through airport X-ray, this could be an infringement on my personal rights. If I am trying to pass through with a gun, and it gets taken away, this could be an infringement. The right to own and bear arms is a constitutional right. In my mind, the right of the passengers on my flight to be safe supersedes my right to own and bear arms. Usually, though, I pass right on through. I've learned to not take any carry-on luggage. If I get stopped, it's because I have metal in my current favorite pair of shoes. I don't mind.

2. Every time I go into the local Seven Eleven, I'm
going to get videotaped - I am undersurveillance (sp?). They are looking at everyone and no one. Is this an infringement on my personal rights? If a murder or robbery is commited, the tape my be saved. Otherwise, they probably tape right over my Joyce visit. Same with the bank. I get videotaped. I don't think my visit is going to get catalogued and stored somewhere with my name on it. If I demonstrate "trigger" activity, I'm going to get a second look. Otherwise, nothing is going to happen. Doesn't bother me.

3. I got a call the other day from my credit card company. Our records indicate that you made a purchase at this store, for this amount of $, for this product. Our information indicates that this is a type of transaction that you have never made before. Did you really buy this product? I said, "Thanks. I really made the purchase. I have lost my wallet before, so I appreciate the call." Infringement on my personal rights? Didn't bother me.

4. I drive by the same intersection and see the same policeman every morning. He looks at me, notices me. He might not like my coat, but he sees nothing wrong. I drive on. If I had a passenger in the car with a gun, he would pull me over. Infringement of my personal rights? Doesn't bother me.

Yes, there will be surveillance through our communication systems - private communications, commercial transactions - etc. To me, it will be similar to the above examples. Information will flow in and out, with no record kept - unless there would be some sort of trigger. That trigger could be the word "bomb" - I don't know. Hopefully, my post would then be read. No problem. Now if this word "bomb" happened to be used in plotting to actually bomb something - action would be taken. If you are plotting to hurt other people in society, you have to expect a higher probablity of getting caught. Yes, when you use your computer, maybe pick up the phone, or use a credit card - you could possibly be under surveillance. This is a way to look for data that would provide clues to pre-empt terrorist threats. For most of us, our personal information will pass in and out, just like the video camera working at the bank. You can still say whatever you want. You can hate Bush; you can even run against him.

We have a different kind of enemy. This Homeland Security is going to take YEARS to mature. There will be mistakes made. Just like juries convict innocent people. I'm glad to see that the bill has passed. Our present system is not working. We live in a big country. The CIA and FBI haven't done a good job in protecing our citizens. They certainly don't work together or share information. We have to restructure. Homeland Security is a step in the right direction.

This post is taking forever. I am writing while at work, and doing many things at the same time. Still, I got my ideas across.

I have spent this time for you, Greg, and you - Maria.

Love,
Joyce

Terri,
They were talking about all this on the "Today" show this morning. Matt Lauer was doing the interview but I'm sorry I dont' remember who he was interviewing as I was trying to get kids ready for school.

Joy, you made some very valid points in that post and I agreed with alot of what you said in it.

Do you mind stating your opinion on forced vaccinations?
If you think it is too personal or too controversial I will definately understand.

Hi Peggy,

I don't *think* there's anything afoot in terms of *forced* vaccinations, although I'm sure they could force people in the military to be vaccinated. I thought I read something recently about some people leaving the military with illnesses they have attributed to recent "new" vaccinations.

The part of the Homeland Security Act that is tangled in with vaccinations is that one of the things the Republicans put into the bill protects drug companies who come up with new vaccinations for the war on terrorism from being sued when their vaccinations kill people or turn them into vegetables.

...Kind of like what I was writing about in my latest post in the Wm Safire thread, about the protections insurance companies have, through which they can keep the money they take from us in premiums, and we "little guy" individuals can have our lives ruined even though those insurance premiums we and our employers paid were supposed to protect us from that.

The government seems to be falling all over itself lately -- well, actually, for quite a long time now -- to protect big-money industries like pharmaceuticals, while letting plain old individuals whose lives are ruined by bad vaccines or health challenges just fall all the way into the toilet and be flushed.

How do you spell "c'est la guerre" ?

Maria

Peggy,

WriteOn wasn't in the military, so she is maybe guessing. I was actually in the military so I can give you a first hand account. We had to take vaccinations, because we were considered government property. There were even a few deaths because of allergies.


Sabra

No Sabra, I'm not making a guess. My sister was a Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. She legally represented the Army. I can tell you stories about the Army medical system turning people into vegetables.

Roll your eyes at yourself.

I was drawing a distinction between forced vaccinations of the public, where there is nothing I know of afoot, versus in the military (where I said I am sure they can force them, and I said that because, duh -- I am sure). I don't go around saying I'm sure when I'm making a guess.

Joyce -

Thank you for taking the time to explain how you are thinking about these things, I really appreciate it.

For the record, I feel pretty much the same as you do about most of the scenarios you mentioned. I believe the reason for our disagreement is that you envision the system being used only positively in all the ways its sponsors say it will be used, while I ask myself "what would it be like if these capabilities - many of them with no recourse to any independent oversight or appeal by courts, congress, or anyone outside the executive bureaucracy - fell into the hands of folks whose intentions weren't as honorable as that? And the answer to that is truly chilling! Given the maxim, pretty well validated by history, that power currupts, I assume that the corrupt use of this power will come to pass sooner or later, even if the intentions of the folks sponsoring this are 100% honest and above-board in every way. Unrestrainable power scares the bejesus out of me, for pretty much the same reasons it scared the authors of the constitution.

Of course it's also true that I don't trust the folks behind this as much as you but that's really a different issue. Honestly I'd be an alarmist about this bill no matter who was at the helm.

I do understand better now where you are coming from, and that's a good thing! I think one of the things that happens when we debate issues that we feel strongly about is to attribute bad motives or irrational qualities to each other, and it's rarely true. But when others operate from world-views that are very different from our own, it's easy to imagine that the only explanation for their expressed viewpoints is hostility, greed, envy, stupidity, dishonesty or other unworthy motives.

But that's not true of you or me, and I'm sure it's not true of anyone else who posts here regularly.

I think we all want basically the same things: peace, freedom, security, the opportunity to apply our energy to worthwhile pursuits and reap the rewards, and the same rights and opportunities for folks everywhere in the world. We may have VERY different ideas of how to get there, and where we've gone wrong in the past ... so what else it new?

Thanks again for your openness and clarity and good will Joyce, I'm really glad you're here.

Love,
Greg

Hello WriteOn

You're the one who introduced both Wm. Safire and Bob Woodward to these discussions. Just curious but why would you be embarrassed by the Bob Woodward online interview?

And why would you ever think Joyce needs anyone to defend her?

jwhop

Hi Greg

Actually, there was a question about conspiracy and ulterior motives on the part of the President on the Bob Woodward online interview. About 3/4 of the way down the page, you'll see a question from San Francisco.

A question about the President's oil objectives in going after Saddam and Iraq was asked by someone from Alexandria, Va. You'll find that one about a third of the way down the page.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/sp_nation_woodward111902.htm

jwhop

Hello Aries

Are you suggesting Paul Wellstone was murdered?

Since "ego energies/problems" have come up twice now; your posts ooze an aura of intellectual, moral and spiritual superiority. I wouldn't bring up the issue of ego if I were you. That's OK with me Aries, until you made an issue of it. You have strong opinions and so do Joyce and I. Let's just leave it at that and discuss the issues.

So you think the Feds are lurking in the shadows eavesdropping on what Joyce says here?

jwhop

Hello Rusty

The Woodward online interview relates to this discussion because WriteOn brought it up. Woodward interviewed the President for about two and a half hours, asking him questions on a wide variety of topics. According to Mr. Woodward, the President was candid, direct and convincing. Further, if you believe Mr. Woodward and/or trust in his intelligence and sources, he backed everything up with at least 2 additional sources. And lastly, the picture Bob Woodward paints of President Bush is poles apart from what's been said about the President on this forum.

Let me direct you to the answer Joyce gave Greg about the Office of Information Awareness and the Homeland Security Act for the answer to your other question. Essentially, I think the same way on this issue.

Just remember the Total Information Awareness program is a research project at this point, unfunded and untried with a blizzard of hearings in the future. In the mean time, those with concerns will have plenty of time to voice their objections and the press will have a field day. Privacy concerns will have to be addressed in a convincing way or I doubt this project will ever see completion.

jwhop

jwhop, I can (almost) assure you because of the carnivore system, this site has been looked at. Key words and phrases carnivore uses have been mentioned here.
I know for fact another site I frequent has been tapped into,as well as peoples email addresses taken.
Anyone experiencing email delays need to be aware of that.
The other site has military veterans, and its moderators have been not only harrassed, but "they (feds)" have tried to shut us down. Its also been professionaly hacked.
But we dont let them scare us, or shut us down.
As I said, its fact. You can choose to believe it or not.

My statement about "murder" could mean Wellstone or murder within wars. And yes Jwhop, actually I do understand about moral issues.

Terri, (and others). Theres a chance the forcing of a small pox vaccine may have something to do with an identity mark system.
Just letting you all know to be aware of this.

jwhop,

Just for the record , that's not what I said and neither of those things is true for me. Thanks.

Maria

OK WriteOn

Have it your way. You didn't start the Safire and Woodward threads, you didn't say I was trying to embarrass you by posting comments about the Woodward interview and you didn't say I was trying to strike a blow for Joyce.

Love,
jwhop

Ahem jwhop,

Look out . You may get a thread named after you too .

Just fill in the blank . . .

"_____________ has decided he hates me"

Hey, when the point of a post is to say something negative about another poster, that's crossing the line. Let's keep it on the ideas, not the people, okay?

- Greg

Here's what you said:

In reply to:

---

Just curious but why would you be embarrassed by the Bob Woodward online interview?

And why would you ever think Joyce needs anyone to defend her?

---

I never said either of those things, and neither of them is true for me.

Just wanted to make clear.

Maria

Hi WriteOn

OK, that's your story and you're sticking to it!

jwhop

Precisely!

I was disappointed Woodward didn't seem to think there was any need to address my question.

Joyce and I are always going to be OK with each other, but I understand your urge to gallantry. A lot of folks around here have gallant crusader energy as part of our makeup, myself included...and, Joyce -- I hope you won't mind me including you. Well, you know, I could go on listing for a long time, it seems to me. Sometimes we unleash it on each other. O, imperfect us!

What a piece of work is man, so noble in reason.

Maria

Hi WriteOn

I doubt Woodward ever saw your question. The screener is probably behind the curve on the issue of the Total Information Awareness project.

In reply to:

---

What a piece of work is man , so noble in reason.

---

Let's be sure to give the ladies their due as well

Love,
jwhop

Yep, yep, yep. Of course, it screws up the meter to say it that way.

Maria

Please read if ya'll have time. This is truly "scary"..
-----
Its from todays Globe and Mail (Canada)
-----
Uncle Sam and Big Brother

Pentagon's planned surveillance system
goes much too far, privacy advocates say


By MIRO CERNETIG

Monday, November 25, 2002 – Page A1

NEW YORK -- Cross the U.S. border in a few years, and a hidden camera may zero in on you from 150 metres away, able to recognize you by the shape of your face, perhaps by the telltale markings of your eyeball or even in the way you walk past the border guard.

In milliseconds, a supercomputer would sift through a massive "data warehouse," able to dip into your life: Credit-card purchases, travel patterns, health and banking records would all be scanned. Your old telephone conversations -- in any language -- would be instantly available, along with e-mails that you sent years ago.

It may seem a far-off Hollywood fantasy; indeed it sounds strikingly similar to Minority Report, the Steven Spielberg film in which all U.S. citizens live under constant computer surveillance.

But under the Homeland Security Act awaiting U.S. President George W. Bush's signature, a top-secret Pentagon program known as Total Information Awareness hopes to have such a system ready as early as 2004, potentially giving Uncle Sam the powers of Big Brother, the omnipresent state in George Orwell's 1984.

"It's the most extensive surveillance program in history," said Gabe Rottman, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is trying to derail the plan. "It's unprecedented. . . . Anything you want to know about anybody, you will find out.

"While the promoters of this Orwellian program have argued that such snooping should be accepted as part of the war on terrorism," the ACLU adds in a background paper, "it is clear that this proposal goes too far."

In fact, it is much more than a proposal.

The Pentagon's Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, which pioneered groundbreaking technologies such as the Internet, supercomputers and stealth cloaking devices to render fighter jets and bombers nearly invisible to radar, has created an office to carry out what is known as data mining.

The Information Awareness Office, equipped with a $200-million (U.S.) startup budget and a logo that shows an all-seeing eye perched on a pyramid, staring down at planet Earth, is at work under the Latin motto Scientia est potentia (knowledge is power). Created after the Sept. 11 attacks, the office promises to build "revolutionary technology" to carry out unparalleled background checks and an assessment of someone's "lifestyle patterns," to try to pinpoint future terrorists.

Under the auspices of the Homeland Security Act, the Information Awareness Office hopes to give U.S. intelligence a computer system that can dig into commercial and government files, a fusion of public and private data never before achieved.

A system is being planned to instantly translate telephone conversations in foreign languages -- Arabic and Mandarin are singled out as priorities -- that will produce transcripts that could be analyzed by the computer.

"In all cases, terrorists have left detectable clues that are generally found after an attack," the office states on its Web site. "To fight terrorism, we need to create a new intelligence infrastructure -- that data base envisioned is of an unprecedented scale."

While most U.S. politicians have supported the idea of such a tool after last year's deadly terrorist attacks, it remains unclear what will be done to protect individual privacy. Civil libertarians and politicians of all stripes have qualms about the project's chief architect: retired Rear-Admiral John Poindexter, a man complicit in past intelligence cover-ups and violations of the U.S. Constitution.

A decade ago, Adm. Poindexter was convicted of five felony counts for lying to Congress under president Ronald Reagan during the White House's Iran-contra scandal, in which the admiral secretly sold missiles to Iran and used the profits to fund Nicaragua's contra rebels. The former national security adviser was sentenced to six months in jail for the illegal operation, though he was acquitted after a higher court ruled he was protected by an immunity deal in return for testifying.

"In some ways, Poindexter is the perfect Orwellian figure for the perfect Orwellian project," said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional-law expert at George Washington University.

"As a man convicted of falsifying and destroying information, he will now be put in charge of gathering information on every citizen. What is most astonishing is the utter lack of public debate over this project."

That debate, however, is heating up.

Since the 1970s, the United States has created dozens of laws aimed at protecting citizens from spying by government agencies. Congressional committees also have a tradition of overseeing the operations of the government's spy apparatus, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, although often in secret. As well, U.S. law has generally made it necessary for the government to get court orders to see bank records or listen in on communications, laws that may apply to data mining.

Since Sept. 11, however, the White House has pushed through the Homeland Security and U.S. Patriot acts, sweeping laws that are challenging those privacy protections. For example, a U.S. court ruled this month that under the Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation can now work in concert with the CIA and other agencies, making it easier to get wiretaps.

"As of today, the Attorney-General can suspend the ordinary requirements of the Fourth Amendment in order to listen in on phone calls, read e-mails and conduct secret searches of Americans' homes and offices," ACLU spokeswoman Ann Beeson declared after the ruling. It is unclear whether there will be an appeal.

Also unclear is how members of Congress will be able to oversee domestic surveillance and the reach of data-mining technologies under the new Homeland Security Department, which is being created by the most massive reorganization of the U.S. government since the 1950s.

"The whole system is very confused right now," said Chris Hoofnagle, an expert with the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Center. He said Congress must come to terms on "what limits will be on homeland security and data mining."

If not properly policed, he said, innocent individuals -- perhaps those who like to pay cash, or buy one-way plane tickets or buy carpets in Pakistan -- may find themselves deemed suspicious in a computer system looking for irregular patterns. That could cause them to end up on data bases that may make it difficult or impossible for them to fly or get government jobs.

"This could change the presumption of innocence in the United States," Mr. Hoofnagle said, adding that surreptitious cameras will also shred another basic freedom: "When you appear in public people can see you, but you have the right to be anonymous." William Crowell, a software engineer who is on a Pentagon task force on terrorism and deterrence, said the scientists developing data mining are concerned about protecting privacy rights. He said they realize that such technology is not infallible and that it must be guarded from abuses. "Quite frankly, the fact we are having this debate is a testament to the strength of our system, that we aren't going to use the technologies irregardless of the consequences," he said.

The Pentagon's Big Brother plan

The U.S. Homeland Security Act includes plans to set up a system to 'mine' data sources to try to head off terrorists. Critics say it would go too far in invading citizens' privacy.
AN INTERNATIONAL POOL

The pool of information could be worldwide and might include details such as banking transactions, education and medical records, travel history and physical identification files.
U.S. DATA REPOSITORY

A Pentagon office would be a central repository for the information, using 'revolutionary technology' to assess patterns in the data.
DETECTION, RECOGNITION AND ANALYSIS

U.S. intelligence agencies, overseen by Congress, would have access to the system and follow up on the leads it generates.
SOURCE: INFORMATION AWARENESS OFFICE
------

Pat Buchanan admits theres a New World Order!
--------

...."Commentator and failed presidential candidate Pat Buchanan called Canadians "spoiled brats of the new world order" on Friday.

from
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=54f21a4d-a558-48b2-ac19-e5f9d16ae36f

Whoops! That's quite a slip up! The government will have to be even more careful about what they say from now on.

Well, I guess it's confirmed then. A failed Presidential candidate has blown the cover of the NWO. Gee, wonder why the other failed Presidential candidates, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart and John McCain, et al. didn't jump in too.

I'm sure whatever Pat said about Canadians was said in jest.

jwhop