NSA Recruitment Drive Goes Horribly Wrong 530
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian is running a story about a recent recruitment session held by the NSA and attended by students from the University of Wisconsin which had an unexpected outcome for the recruiters. 'Attending the session was Madiha R Tahir, a journalist studying a language course at the university. She asked the squirming recruiters a few uncomfortable questions about the activities of NSA: which countries the agency considers to be 'adversaries', and if being a good liar is a qualification for getting a job at the NSA.' Following her, others students started to put NSA employees under fire too. A recording of the session is available on Tahir's blog."
If they had trouble answering the questions (Score:5, Informative)
Then the answer to question #2 is no. Also, the answer to question #1 is all of the above.
Re:come on (Score:5, Informative)
Have you actually listened to it? No one attacked them. They asked them some very pointed questions, but even the pointed questions were generally in reference to what they said (while referencing what is now known because of the leaks). When they ask about which countries were "adversaries" it was because they said they analyzed the communications of "adversaries". So she asked what they considered adversaries, since we know they analyze the communications of our allies. A lot of hard questions were asked, but no one attacked them just because they worked at the NSA.
Better blog link (Score:5, Informative)
A recording of the session is available on Tahir's blog.
It would probably make more sense to link to the blog post [mobandmultitude.com] instead of the main blog page so people can actually find the recording in the future after new blog posts are added.
NSA muzzles the Press... (Score:5, Informative)
The NSA is wiping their ass with the U.S. Constitution again.
A recent article in CNN outlines why there is little in the US Media regarding Eric Snowden and the NSA Prism program--the NSA is literally threatening journalists with prosecution for espionage for doing their jobs.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/03/opinion/snepp-journalists-espionage/index.html?hpt=us_mid [cnn.com]
We are sliding down that slippery slope fast, folks. I honestly feel the next few months will determine whether or not our Constitution remains viable as a means to protect basic human rights. Help the press help us--tell as many people as you can about this article and the serious repercussions the article outlines. These are not potential repercussions--this is happening folks. A near-complete lack of articles in main-stream media about the Prism program and Snowden is all the evidence I need to come to that conclusion.
Re:Dumbasses (Score:5, Informative)
Re:come on (Score:5, Informative)
The law is public.
No... It is not [senate.gov]!
Stop trolling :-)
Re:come on (Score:5, Informative)
The amount of stupidity in your post is too high. Why the hell are you not allowed to know how the law works? The law is public. You're just too lazy to study it.
To actually study and know all the laws that apply to you living in the US of today would require more than just not being lazy, it would require a full-time staff, at least. Even the so-called "representatives" voting on the laws don't have the time to study and understand them. And even if you could get to that point of knowing all the "public" laws (not to mention the ones you have to pay a license fee to even read, or the ones that are kept secret for "national security"), the amount of machinations you would have to go through to not break any of them would be outside the realm of feasibility. At times you will find yourself in a catch-22 where one law says you must do A, and another says you are not allowed to do A. Did you know if you toss out a piece of junk mail addressed to someone else you could be charged with a felony that carries 5 years in jail time? That law exists in spite of the fact that the post office cannot forward that mail anyway.
Harvey Silverglate estimates that the typical American unwittingly commits three felonies a day [kottke.org], and he backs it up very well. This is the infrastructure that police states are built upon. You don't need to look for crimes, you just pick someone and find some laws to charge them with violating.
Re:ONE THING I agree with Chomsky on (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with your bad attempt at an analogy is that none of those crimes really represent anything personal. The kinds of people that commit those crimes don't care who their victim are. Even a rapist doesn't have any strong preference. It's not personal.
Uh no, not always. About 30% of the time they're targeted attacks for car jacking. Armed robbery is almost always a targeted attack, with the person checking out several locations and picking one. Rape about 70% in all cases the person knows who attacked them. And in all cases it *is* personal, that's the thing with rape and a graduated crime. It's the same with psychopathic killers. It is personal, and they've graduated from a lower series of criminal acts to the point at which they're at.
Terrorism on the other hand can be both personal and impersonal. Sometimes terrorists are out to kill *insert religious branch here* or *kill people of x society.* In other cases they meticulously target and select exactly who they're going after and where.
And in case you've forgotten the main point (Score:2, Informative)
The NSA are "doing their jobs" in exactly the same way the the Stasi were.
And the NSAs job is to be "an instrument of totalitarian rule" just like the Stasi were.
Re:Normally I don't reply to ACs (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps you are not familiar with journalists who ask hard, uncomfortable questions to someone's face. If you are in the US, you are probably used to interviews where the questions are vetted beforehand, and "questioning" is done in the absence of the questioned in clearly biased opinion broadcasts. Professional journalism in a functioning democracy consists of asking people hard questions to their face, and either have them answer them fully or partially, make a promise to give an answer if they don't know, or obviously refuse to answer them. An important part of that sentence is the bit allowing them to answer the questions; "opinion" televeision does not allow that. The only time I saw an american president being asked hard unscheduled questions in a live interview, it was a foreign journalist who later received death threats for being "rude" enough to ask the president a question he had not agreed beforehand was an acceptable one for him to answer. And you call yourselves the land of the free.
I think you are referring to Irish journalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carole_Coleman [wikipedia.org] Carol Coleman's interview with George W. Bush.
THE PRESIDENT: ... Look, Saddam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, against the neighborhood. He was a brutal dictator who posed a threat -- such a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr. Saddam Hussein --
Q Indeed, Mr. President, but you didn't find the weapons of mass destruction.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me finish. Let me finish. May I finish?
He said -- the United Nations said, disarm or face serious consequences. That's what the United Nations said. And guess what? He didn't disarm. He didn't disclose his arms. And, therefore, he faced serious consequences. But we have found a capacity for him to make a weapon. See, he had the capacity to make weapons. He was dangerous. And no one can argue that the world is better off with Saddam -- if Saddam Hussein were in power.
Q But, Mr. President, the world is a more dangerous place today. I don't know whether you can see that or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do you say that?
Q There are terrorist bombings every single day. It's now a daily event. It wasn't like that two years ago.http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040625-2.html Transcript of Interview-White House
In defense of American journalism, I must point out that there are also American journalists who have asked tough questions of American presidents (although not too many):
AMY GOODMAN: You’re calling radio stations to tell people to get out and vote. What do you say to people who feel that the two parties are bought by corporations and that they are — at this point feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference?
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: There’s not a shred of evidence to support that. That’s what I would say. It’s true that both parties have wealthy supporters. But let me offer you — let me just give you the differences. Let’s look at economic policy. First of all, if you look at the last eight years, look where America was eight years ago, and look where it is today. We have the strongest economy in history. And for the first time in 30 years, the incomes of average people and lower-income working people have gone up 15 percent after inflation. The lowest minority unemployment ever recorded, the highest minority home ownership, the highest minority business ownership in history — that’s our record....
AMY GOODMAN: President Clinton, since it’s rare to get you on the phone, let me ask you another question. And that is, what is your position on granting Leonard Peltier, the Native American activist, executive clemency?
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON: Well, I don’t — I don’t have a position I can announce yet....
Re:ONE THING I agree with Chomsky on (Score:4, Informative)
Usually outside the country. I like Al-Jazeera as they might hate the US but at least it's not partisan. Especially since both sides are corrupt and neither side can see their party has gone bad.
BBC is ok too but they don't want to anger the homeland.
Selective enforcement (Score:5, Informative)
relates to your point; from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement [wikipedia.org]
---
Selective enforcement is the ability that executors of the law (such as police officers or administrative agencies, in some cases) have to arbitrarily select choice individuals as being outside of the law. The use of enforcement discretion in an arbitrary way is referred to as selective enforcement or selective prosecution.
Historically, selective enforcement is recognized as a sign of tyranny, and an abuse of power, because it violates rule of law, allowing men to apply justice only when they choose.[citation needed] Aside from this being inherently unjust, it almost inevitably must lead to favoritism and extortion, with those empowered to choose being able to help their friends, take bribes, and threaten those from whom they desire favors.
However, the converse can also be true. Police officer discretion is sometimes warranted for minor offenses,[citation needed] for instance where a warning to a teenager could be quite effective without putting the teen through a legal process and also reduces costs of governmental legal resources. Another example is patrol officers parked on the side of a highway for speed enforcement. It may be impractical and cost prohibitive to ticket everyone who is going any amount over the speed limit, so the officer should watch for the more egregious cases and those drivers who are showing signs of driving recklessly.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886),[1] was the first case where the United States Supreme Court ruled that a law that is race-neutral on its face, but is administered in a prejudicial manner, is an infringement of the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Re:come on (Score:4, Informative)
It goes way deeper than that.
I am Canadian, but we have the same basic system. There are systems and laws in place to stop you from even just learning one law.
Unless you go to school and become a lawyer you cannot know the law, or what will get you arrested. And only then, will you have a best guess at a probability of getting arrested. Alternatively, if you have enough money to own a lawyer, you can also be generally safe, as you can ask their advise before doing anything.
I once tried to learn knife laws in Canada. We only have about 5 laws, maybe 100 words of laws concerning knives.
But our systems are built on precedent, and really how much you can afford to spend on a lawyer.
So there will be literally be hundreds of books law precedent, which is more important than the letter, to read with respect to knife law. And unless you can afford it, their is absolutely no talking to a lawyer before you are arrested.
What I got out of this.
From my understanding, after reading the letter of the law over and over again is that technically I am allowed to do pretty much anything (carry any knife I would care to own anywhere in any way). And if I could afford a team of lawyers, I am pretty confident that I could protect that right. But in the real world were I do not own a cent, I absolutely should not even carry a Walmart pocket knife across the street to cut up a bunch of boxes. Because people have ended up going to jail for less.
You cannot know the law, because the real law is hidden (non lawyers are not allowed to give law advise, and lawyer cost too much). And even lawyers and the police do not know the law. it is all interpretable to mean anything that they want it to mean.