...but maybe it isn't.

I'd like to point out that politics "isn't really my thing", so if I'm misinformed, please re-inform me. I promise I won't yell at you or criticize you (even if you do the same to me...).

Anyway, what's scaring me is:
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/

I read in the Homeland Security Post (I think) that jwhop said this wasn't anywhere near a reality yet. Even so, this is a pretty frightening concept.

Ethics about individual rights aside, what really scares me about this is the fact that it's run entirely by computers. Here's some of the features of this new project (copied directly from the website):

Collaboration and sharing over TCP/IP networks across agency boundaries
Large, distributed repositories with dynamic schemas that can be changed interactively by users
Foreign language machine translation and speech recognition
Biometric signatures of humans
Real time learning, pattern matching and anomalous pattern detection
Entity extraction from natural language text
Human network analysis and behavior model building engines
Event prediction and capability development model building engines
Structured argumentation and evidential reasoning
Story telling, change detection, and truth maintenance
Business rules sub-systems for access control and process management
Biologically inspired algorithms for agent control
Other aids for human cognition and human reasoning

I'll be the first one to admit I'm a bit of a technophobe. As we drunkenly lurch onwards into the future, we're seeing our lives being made more and more automated all the time. I'm not ashamed to admit that this scares the living **** out of me.

This is a strange sentiment coming from me, as I've always been heavily involved with computers. But this is precisely the reason the Information Awareness Office scares me. The most important thing I've learned from my 11+ years of programming and other computer-related things is:

Computers screw up. A lot. And they can cheerfully do it without any human error.

And the other most important thing I've learned is:
Anything electronic can be decoded or altered- by anyone. It just takes time. With a little time you can change or simply disrupt normal operations. With a lot of time, the system is yours.

Does anyone else see the inherent problems with the Information Awareness Office? Am I being technophobic again? The way I see it, if their computer systems screw up, things would get rather ugly. And all it would take would be an attack by a terrorist group or even some disgruntled individual somewhere. The system could also decide to crash whenever it feels like it. This could lead to things like John Q. Public's "model citizen" profile being switched with that of Osama Bin Laden and so forth.

Please don't tell me things like this don't happen. They do. Frequently. When I was in 7th grade I received a letter in the mail stating that I was failing science. My parents promptly grounded me. When I asked my science teacher what happened, she simply said "Oh, it's just a computer error. It failed everyone in the class. You're doing fine. You have an A."

My point is: being labeled as failing a 7th grade science class is a lot different from being labeled as "dangerous" by the military.

And of course there's the other issues, too, such as "Who decides what constitutes "dangerous" behavior?" The Pentagon? Again, I'm kind of in the dark as to how much (if at all) the U.S. military is legally constrained. Technically, if a political act of questionable morality is introduced we as citizens have the ability to have it changed or even eliminated. Can we do this if the military behaves questionably? I honestly don't know; I'm not trying to be rude or insinuate that the military does behave questionably.

Any thoughts?

Rusty,

The front page of that web-site is like a bad dream, like a SNL comedy sketch about Big Brother coming to America. And yet, it's the actual site of the military Information Awareness Office, right here in the USA here and now. Scary as anything I've ever seen in my life.

Here's a quote from the front page:

In reply to:

---

Elements of the solution include gathering a much broader array of data than we do currently, discovering information from elements of the data, creating models of hypotheses, and analyzing these models in a collaborative environment to determine the most probable current or future scenario. DARPA has sponsored research in some of these technology areas, but additional research and development is warranted to accelerate, integrate, broaden, and automate current approaches.

---

Gather vast amounts of data on everyone and sift through it, applying "behavioral" psychology, trying to figure out who's likely to present a "problem" of some kind.

This is totally, completely OPPOSITE the philosophy of justice our nation has always upheld -- that people have a right to be free of government intrusions into their private lives and associations and commerce, until and unless there is probable cause meeting a certain legal standard, in which case one of the various law enforcement arms of the various governments, depending on who has jurisdiction over that type of suspected wrongdoing, is allowed to investigate.

We will not be free if this Poindexter plot comes to pass. We will no longer be able to say it's a free country.

On the train back from California, one of the people I talked with a lot was an immigrant from Russia who was granted asylum in the U.S. What he had to run from was not the Communists; they had already fallen. But the leftover residue of everyone spying on each other for all those years meant that when he started having some success with his business, he became a target for corrupt local officials who threatened to set him up -- frame him for some criminal action and send him to Siberia unless he disappeared. Russia has already showed us what it's like to be constantly monitored, not knowing who among your neighbors and business associates is "passing along" whatever information about you, colored by whatever their opinion of you is.

We can't let this happen. I've written all of my Congressmen specifically objecting in strong terms to the Department of Defense's Total Information Awareness program and further objecting to any elements of the Homeland Security bill that would serve to support the program.

Thanks for posting this, Rusty. The eye over the pyramid on the back of the dollar shining a police searchlight on the whole world... Can you believe that? It's like National Lampoon came up with their insignia. On behalf of the keepers of the mighty bucks we are going to keep you in our searchlight and rifle sights and under our thumbs. We own you, we rule you, because Scientia Est Potentia, Knowledge Is Power, and our knowledge of you is our power over you.

Saints preserve us.

Maria

I think everyone should go out and rent 1984 before we get put on the "list".

I have a hard time believing this is REAL!!

It really feels "surreal" to me. There has to be a voice of sanity left in our government.
Whose is it???

Peggy, I think there are plenty of voices of sanity left. Problem is, if they say anything they are labeled "anti-American" terrorist-sympathizers and reprimanded by their peers. We've already seen this happen to a few lone voices in Congress. And of course nobody's saying a word about Paul Wellstone. The whole public opinion infrastructure, including public opinion polls and selective coverage is so slanted that everyone is afraid they are the "lone voice" and that they'll be crucified if they speak out. Nor, without sounding overly melodramatic, is that impossible.

Our country is now gripped by and largely controlled by fear. At first it was fear of terrorists, and rightly so. But that has gradually shifted toward fear of disagreeing with or standing up to the rapidly mushrooming power of the military-industrial complex (re-christened the "antiterror" establishment).

There is a surreal element to it, because it's so out of step with what our brains are equipped to "grok" about our leaders and institutions, but it is all too real. This is the time for those of us brave enough to stand up and say what's happening to do so -- every chance we get, to everyone we meet, and encourage them to do the same thing.

Americans who believe in freedom are still in the vast majority, I believe. But if we don't have the courage to stand up now and call tyranny what it is to its face, so all our neighbors and the world can see and hear, being in the majority won't make any difference pretty soon. That's how serious I think it is.

Love,
Greg

I would like to thank WriteOn for posting the link to the live online interview with Bob Woodward of the Washington Post.

Mr. Woodward presents quite a different picture of President Bush than most here seem to hold.

It was also striking that no one asked Mr. Woodward a single question about the loss of American Civil Liberties under any of the President's favored "war on terrorism" legislation.

Mr. Woodward found the President, candid and forthcoming asking the President 300 questions on a wide array of issues, which he answered.
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/02/sp_nation_woodward111902.htm

jwhop

Jwhop said:

In reply to:

---

Mr. Woodward presents quite a different picture of President Bush than most here seem to hold.

---

SO????

I really wish you would stop making such snide and unproductive comments about people who think differently than you. Really, what is the big deal about 'most here' having what you imply is a bad attitude towards Bush. Isn't that part of the beauty of the freedom of the United States? People are allowed to think differently than you Jwhop, and you really aren't helping anyone with anything by getting so much of your ego involved here.

IMHO, of course.

Love,
Terri

I also found it striking that no one asked Mr. Woodward a single question about the loss of American Civil Liberties under any of the President's favored "war on terrorism" legislation. Very striking, in view of the public attention this issue has stirred up at the current time, and the voting on it this week.

I suppose the only two possible explanations are that whoever selected which questioners would be put through chose to screen out questions about this issue, or that most of the American people truly don't care about civil liberties concerns.

Either one is pretty scary.

Love,
Greg

You know Greg up until this most recent election, I thought like you did, that there were more Americans concerned about losing freedom in the name of security but the results of the election speak for themselves. (Of course I remember what Leno said after the elections about Jeb Bush...he said "See I TOLD you I would FIX those voting machines!! Yeah, He "fixed" them alright!) Hey folks-Leno said it...I just found it humorous.

But seriously, I think the everyday working class American
might just BE willing to trade security for freedom. I never believed it possible but it's starting to look that way.
Most people I know don't even WANT to discuss what's going on anymore...they just want someone else to "handle it" so they can live their lives as normally as possible. Most of my friends "chide" me for watching the news like I do.

So I don't know. I keep an eye open for a "hero". But I think they are afraid, too. Very afraid.

As my favorite song writer Leonard Cohen says..."Everybody Knows."

Hmmm, I just read on the other thread that Maria DID submit a question about civil liberties concerns. So I guess that answers the question about which of the two possibilites accounts for no such questions being asked at this critical time.

I think whoever made the selection of what questions would be allowed to get through has a rotten sense of what's timely and important but it still makes me feel better than thinking Americans don't care about our our liberties any more.

Love,
Greg

Terri

In reply to:

---

SO????

I really wish you would stop making such snide and unproductive comments about people who think differently than you. Really, what is the big deal about 'most here' having what you imply is a bad attitude towards Bush. Isn't that part of the beauty of the freedom of the United States? People are allowed to think differently than you Jwhop, and you really aren't helping anyone with anything by getting so much of your ego involved here.

---

Temper, temper. Wonder who has their ego involved here. You don't even live here and won't be subject to any of the provisions of the Homeland Security Act.

And where were you when it was pointed out to me that Wm Safire is a conservative journalist and by implication, if he was scared of the Homeland Security Act I and everyone else should be too?

Snide and unproductive?

"ALL PIGS ARE EQUAL"

"Sorry - I didn't realize you were in possession of the "absolute truth". We should make sure everyone knows that, and then we can all just listen to everything you say and not have to worry about thinking for ourselves about things anymore. Wow - you've saved me so much effort!!! Thanks a bunch!"

Hmmm, what is that old saying about people who live in glass houses?? Well, I'm sure it will come to me later

jwhop

Hi JWhop -

I am sorry you are not treated with a little more courtesy. Guess you should just be grateful that your posts are not deleted. Suppose that is courtesy enough.

By the way - I am the true working class. Worked hard all of my life. I am not in the same class, however, as many here. Different cut and different cloth. Grateful to be a citizen of the United States. No, Greg. Not fearful. Not blindly trusting in government, either. Not hysterically worried about my individual rights. Just glad that after the 11th, the current administration is taking a hard look into the lack of communication between agencies.

From one pig to another,

Joyce - oink oink!

Hi Joyce

May I ask you something for my own curiosity? This is not meant to be argumentative, it's a sincere question because I really, really want to understand what's in people's minds about this.

You say (about the Homeland Security bill) that you're neither fearful nor blindly trusting in government, just "glad that the current administration is taking a hard look into the lack of communication between agencies." Well I can understand that, and I think that's prudent too. But do you really think that that is essentially all this bill is?

If you do think that, then I can readily understand why you're not at all concerned about it, I wouldn't be either. But then the question is, why do you think that? With all the discussion that's gone on here and all the concerns being voiced (and even jwhop conceding that the bill has some provisions that will probably be found unconstitutional on civil rights grounds), and even the actual text of the bill being listed with all of its provisions and suspension of the Freedom of Information Act and so on ... I am really mystified why you would describe it as just "taking a close look into the lack of communication between the agencies." I mean, even the bill's enthusiastic supporters recognize that it is the biggest bureaucratic reorganization of the executive branch in the history of the nation!

So my question is, was that a true expression of what you think of it, or was it just minimization for dramatic effect? And if that IS the extent of your concern, then why? Do you not believe that any of these threats to civil liberties are contained in it, or do you not care? Or is there some other alternative that I haven't considered?

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? Thanks!

Love,
Greg

hi Peggy, I dont know a lot about who's got any sanity now within your government down there, but Im sure theres a few of them.
The only one I knew of died when his plane fell from the sky.
Probably any "good" ones who are left are now scared to open their mouths...unless they are willing to go down with the fight for truth as well as compassion. They will have to be prepared to die for it.
But its great to hear so many are opening their eyes.
Unfortunate for those who arent. But for some reason, I guess thats "their" karma.

Hi Joyce

Well, we do have different opinions than our friends here about a lot of things. They have their reasons and you and I have ours. Ain't America great I don't even mind a shot or 2 every once in a while.

Work hard and hopefully smart, take the necessary risks to put your ideas into practice, stay focused and most anyone can be a millionaire or at least comfortable in America. According to this report, 1 out of every 36 American workers is a millionaire. God Bless America.

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pd011999f.html

No lines at the airports or dockside of people wanting out of America Joyce. Most, trust their government---to a point.
So do I---to a point, recognizing there are lots of problems and the government is far too large, cumbersome and involved in activities never intended or contemplated by the founders. 9/11 showed most of us that the government has been neglecting it's primary duty, the protection of it's citizens. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction now as it always does when things get too far out of whack.

I remember when a pig was either dinner or according to the "tune in and drop out" crowd, a cop. Now, I guess it's anyone who has more of anything than someone else and of course, they must have cheated in some way to have acquired it, so it isn't fair.

oink, oink
jwhop

Hi Aries

You sure Wellstone's plane didn't have some help falling out of the sky? Or, was it just "his" Karma?

jwhop

Chicken Little Revisited . . .

CHICKEN LITTLE FOR GROWNUPS

In the children's version of everyones favorite political fable, Chicken Little, struck on the head by a falling acorn, runs off to tell the king, collecting on the way an entourage of other animals. In the end they are lured into a fox's den and eaten, victims of their own foolishness.

In the more realistic adult version it is not themselves alone that the hysterics destroy. Chicken Little runs around screeching and squawking that the sky is falling. Other hens, infected by the hysteria, take up the refrain. Some, under the oak, are themselves hit by falling acorns. Within minutes the barnyard is filled with Chicken Littles running around in frantic circles cackling and squawking, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" They knock over their feeding trough and waterer and even break a hole in the fence through which some flee seeking to escape the threat. The noise is so overpowering, the hysteria so contagious, that few can hold out against it.

Nevertheless, a few of the hens take the trouble to look upward and find that the sky is not actually falling in spite of the passionate cries of the true believers. So they go on pecking and scratching for food. One or two even notice that only those under the oak tree get hit on the head. So they peck and scratch elsewhere.

But not for long. Soon the Chicken Littles realize that some of their neighbors are going about their business as though the sky were not falling. It doesn't take the Chicken Little mind long to realize that any hen not afraid of the falling sky must be responsible for whatever dark forces are causing it to fall.

So the Chicken Littles attack their more observant brethren and peck them to death, leaving the barnyard a gory scene of bloody bits of flesh and bone and flying feathers. Those who have fled return to take their part in the purge. The acorns have all fallen from the oak by this time, so nobody now gets hit on the head. The Chicken Littles heave a collective sigh of relief and go back to clucking and scratching placidly, secure in the knowledge that they have averted disaster by their prompt action in identifying those responsible and eliminating them.

So intent are they on their self-congratulatory cackling that none notice the fox slipping in through the hole they've knocked in the fence.

Yes Jwhop, it probably was his karma...that, or he chose to help out somehow..which is still his karma.
But for anyone who "murders"..the karma probably still carries on, as its against the laws of god and the universe.

What many may not understand..is that you and Joyce both speak for the "majority", so I can understand it.
Its how things will come to pass.
Its also just as well Joyce,that you verbalize your feelings the way you do, or you would probably soon be harrassed by the feds since you have military in the family.
But theres certainly ways to do it without the ego energies Terri eluded to. I think that may be more the problem than both your actual beliefs. Evrryone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs.

Maria:
Thank you. I thought I was the only one worried about this. It *is* almost funny, in a nightmarishly-terrifying sort of way, isn't it? I could barely believe it myself.

Jwhop:
I'm not sure I get the reference to the Woodward interview and how it relates to this. Please forgive my ignorance; as I said, I know very little about politics. What do you think of the Information Awareness Office? You don't seem that concerned. Are you? Why or why not?

You changed your signature, Rusty! Good for you!

Sabra, thank you for sharing the parable of Chicken Little, that was very profound.

Yes! Aries, we all have a right to our own opinions. No reason why the folks who are concerned about this can't take an activist role in preserving the freedoms we think are endangered while the folks who aren't concerned don't, and still all live peacefully together. We might not always want to be involved in the same conversations, and that's cool too.

Yes, jwhop, ain't America great!

Love,
Greg

Rusty, Thanks for coming back into this thread. Woooosh! Things sure do go all kinds of ways around here. A person can't post a new thought without it hooking into a whole bunch of sshtuff that gives this World Community forum a funny combative tinge.

See, I just started having concerns about these things because they're just now being presented in the context of mainstream news sources I trust (and I trust them because that's the stream I swim in...I was part of it; I have relatives and friends who are part of it; I trust it for solid personal reasons).

So I have expressed concerns -- very serious concerns, just in the last couple of days. Having done that, I have now apparently won myself a spot in "the opposing side" in a debate in which I believe jwhop and Joyce believe they are on one side and anyone expressing concerns over the political direction of our country is on the other.

So, I'm trying to bring all the responsible voices I know of to bear on the issue, because this is how I do things. I seek out as many knowledgeable sources and perspectives from people I feel I can trust to understand the implications and what is and isn't about to change...what is and isn't happening here in the US as a result of all that's going on in the world.

I was especially focused on my search last night, and posted as much as I could find that addressed the issues over which I am concerned. An online discussion with Bob Woodward about Bush in connection with war plans also seemed interesting and germane, and I submitted a question for him and posted the link.

Woodward didn't address my question or anything like it, as they seemed to be focusing on issues raised in a series and book Woodward wrote. I was disappointed, I must admit.

So, jwhop thought he should mention it snidely here on your thread to make a joke on me and make me feel embarrassed, because I was trying to joke with Joyce yesterday when she hurt my feelings, and I don't know, but maybe I embarrassed her, and jwhop probably thought he should strike a blow for her.

Aren't you glad you asked?

Ah, life.

What a world. (Shakes head.)

I still say, this is the scariest thing I've seen in my whole life.

Maria

In reply to:

---

So, jwhop thought he should mention it snidely here on your thread to make a joke on me and make me feel embarrassed, because I was trying to joke with Joyce yesterday when she hurt my feelings, and I don't know, but maybe I embarrassed her, and jwhop probably thought he should strike a blow for her.

---

HUH?!?!?

Its all over now but the signing...

Senate approves Homeland bill
Wednesday, November 20, 2002 Posted: 7:11 AM EST (1211 GMT)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Capping months of debate, the Senate on Tuesday approved 90 to 9 a bill that would create a Department of Homeland Security -- a massive reorganization of the federal government sparked by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/20/homeland.security/index.html

Hey Peggy, it looks like 9 still have some sanity left!!

Yes, Aries, but somehow that's not very comforting!

The thing is I don't really object to the government organizing certain agenies together to cut down on red tape which we certainly have an abundance of.
But...

I was outraged that the republicans tried to "tack on" those amendments that were a payoff to the drug companies about limiting their liability when sued for their dangerous and untested vaccines that the government is still trying to "decide" if we are going to be FORCED to take. Two Republican women made them agree to "table" that part of the bill.

I still don't really know where the big computer base fits in with all of this. So does this mean that's been given a green light?? The thing about that is I think they have been "secretly" doing that for years. But now they think the coast is clear to bring it out in the open and apparently they are right.

There is appallingly little public outrage.

Maria, I'm sad too.

In reply to:

---

I was outraged that the republicans tried to "tack on" those amendments that were a payoff to the drug companies about limiting their liability when sued for their dangerous and untested vaccines that the government is still trying to "decide" if we are going to be FORCED to take. Two Republican women made them agree to "table" that part of the bill.

---

Does anyone have more info about this? I have read / heard alot about a forced vaccinaion conspiracy from 'alternate' sources, but I never knew that a provision for it was actually close to being voted into law. Makes me start to wonder if some of these 'radical' groups that are called crazy and worse actually know alot mor ethan they are getting credit for!

Love,
Terri

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

Well I think THIS is scary...civilian aircraft are now being called up..
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/09/sprj.irq.civil.fleet.action/index.html