Free speech: Why I'm lucky to live in America, not Iran

By | February 21, 2012, 5:00am PST

Summary: The big reason we’re better: they don’t execute you for blogging in America. Sometimes your page rank goes down, but it’s not quite the same thing.

Yesterday was President’s Day here in the United States. It’s a strange little holiday, in part because even what’s being celebrated is unclear both legislatively, and between the states and federal government.

Briefly, the holiday is and always has been officially Washington’s Birthday, celebrating the birth of our first president, George Washington. And even that has some degree of controversy, because when ol’ George was born, it was on February 11, 1732, according to the Julian calendar. But when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752, the date George popped in the world suddenly became February 22.

And then there’s Lincoln. When I grew up, we got a day off from school for Washington’s birthday and another for Abe Lincoln’s. Apparently, we were particularly bratty back in New Jersey, and the state did everything it could to get away from us little monsters, including celebrating two holidays in the same month.

In any case, sometime in the late sixties, having nothing better to do with its time, Congress decided to stick all federal holidays on Mondays and somehow combined Washington’s birthday with Lincoln’s and thus begat President’s Day. The only problem is that although most Americans think we’re celebrating President’s Day, we’re not. The holiday is still officially Washington’s Birthday, Lincoln’s birthday has been conveniently lost, and well, you get the idea. Your tax dollars at work.

So how does this all bring us to Iran? If you’ve been following Violet Blue’s excellent reporting on the crackdown on bloggers and social networkers in Iran, you’ll begin to understand how severe censorship can get in a truly regressive and repressive society. It’s deeply disturbing.

See also: Iran’s Deadly Cyber Police: Indefinite Detention and Execution for Netizens

There’s not even any tangible evidence of wrongdoing, and it’s likely web site operators and bloggers will be put to death, and that’s after torture.

Now, contrast that with the United States. Yesterday, I ran a very tongue-in-cheek gallery honoring some of our favorite presidents. Well, honoring them is probably going too far. Mostly, I mocked.

I imagined what pick-up lines would have been like for James Buchanan, our only bachelor president. I called Ronald Reagan a moderate and then proceeded to lampoon not just Newt Gingrich (low hanging fruit) but even Mitt Romney. I went to town with Bill Clinton and a company called Cigar Monster. I mentioned a blow-up Karl Rove doll and did a mission-accomplished dig with George W. Bush. And I even questioned the effectiveness of the current sitting president.

See also: Gallery: Presidents and their not so presidential apps

In Iran, they’d be pulling off my fingernails by now.

I was helped by other editors here at ZDNet, who gathered images and some background information. In Iran, their families would have been rounded up for questioning by now.

You know what happened after I went full monty mocking our leaders? You know what happens to me whenever I go fully monty mocking our leaders? Do you have any idea how often I mock our leaders? It’s virtually a full-time job. And, well, it’s not really full monty. I wear sweatpants.

The worst that ever happens is I get ignored. Sometimes readers get cranky. And then, on good days, I get a call from a staffer in a Congressman’s office, a chief-of-staff in an admiral’s office, or a special agent in charge from a three-letter law enforcement agency.

I don’t even get yelled at by these people (well, not counting our readers). But our government representatives often tell me how fun they find my writing. Sometimes, they’re nice enough to point me to additional information, or why they think my characterization of “their guy” is a little too harsh. Once in a while, I get asked to do some pro-bono advisory work.

In no case has anyone threatened to put me to death (well, not counting our readers). In no case has any federal official asked me to change my story, edit my story, or censor my story. Now, to be fair, I have access to a lot of sensitive information and have never published anything which is restricted. That’s part of why I’m trusted with sensitive information.

But, back to the point. In Iran, if you complain slightly or even are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you’re tortured and executed. Here, you’re either ignored or sent some white papers to read.

Many of you have wondered why I’m so pro-America in my writing, how I can possibly love a nation so flawed in so many fundamental ways. Well, now you know.

America is great because we have freedom of speech. The big reason we’re better: they don’t execute you for blogging in America. Sometimes your page rank goes down, but it’s not quite the same thing.

But — before you think I’m getting too jingoistic (look it up) — I need to point out a disturbing trend once again. The American government and American government policy is not trying to censor any of us. But lobbyists are. Special interests are. The companies we buy our tunes and flicks from are trying to censor us, and they don’t care how far they have to go to shut down our cherished free speech.

Think about that the next time a SOPA or a PIPA comes up as a bill. Is censoring us more like America or more like Iran?

See also: Chris Dodd and the MPAA: bribery or politics as usual?

I’m proud to be an American, but I’m not exactly thrilled with our lobbyists.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

66
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

"You ignorant slut!!"
jmoore125 1st Mar
Don't you read! A US president now has the authority to make you disappear without due process or notice. I'd prefer public execution. At least my loved ones would know what happend to me.
does ZDNet adhere to those same standards if your page rank drops? I have noticed that some ZDNet bloggers from early on have disappeared, never to be heard from again on ZDNet.

plain
@Mister Spock Maybe they were boring, or irrelevant?
@thetwonkey

Probably because they stuck to the "facts" instead of fanning the flames of controversy. I mean seriously, who wants facts when you can have fun with fanbois? wink
@thetwonkey, I apologize.
It appears that the complexities of human pranks still escape me, as I was sure people would have understood what I was attempting to say.

plain
1 Vote
+ -
Not only "America" (and perhaps ZD) have free speech...
Claude Balloune Updated - 21st Feb
@Mister Spock Nah- I'm still here; I just created a new ID.
ZDNET can't keep ME down!
But I'll take this more seriously when ZD starts pulling fingernails. Or America starts waterboarding.
Oh. Wait...

(Sorry- Can't tell you my old ID! Wouldn't want the ZD Ayahtoldyas to find out!)
If only Boring or Irrelevant applied to the politicians.
0 Votes
+ -
Let's put David on the spot
Dr_Zinj 21st Feb
If you came across classified information that showed the United States had violated the Constitution and several laws derived from it, resulting in deaths and lingering injuries to hundreds of citizens, and related and responsible offices of the Inspector Generals, and the Department of Justice refused to take action or allow you to do so; would you violate the NDA to publicly expose these crimes?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@Dr_Zinj If information came from a confidential or sensitive source that I was entrusted with by the government, I would not expose it. Period. I take oaths very seriously.

Now, as I did with the White House email case, when I found risks through external information sources, I did cover it extensively, and, in fact, that coverage is what led to some of the improvements in how the White House manages its data now.
@David Gewirtz ... That's some oath! I thought the concept of a whistleblower who discloses criminal activity was a protected status, and that the importance of stopping crime and criminals took precedence over maintaining secret oaths.

Why if that's not the case, then criminals in government can engage in ongoing widespread crime and shield themselves by improperly classifying all activities related to it.

You heard it here folks: what matters is allegiance to oaths, not allegiance to obeying the law.
0 Votes
+ -
@David Gewirtz ... (In my opinion, loyalty to an oath over loyalty to the law is fanaticism)

George Smiley: [on Karla] "He's a fanatic. And the fanatic is always concealing a secret doubt."
@David Gewirtz

Yeah...about oaths! That's what the German High Command said after they were defeated in the 2nd World War. Allegiance to an oath is one thing. But a blind allegiance to anything (including oaths) can be very dangerous.
0 Votes
+ -
@David Gewirtz ... "Ich schw??re bei Gott diesen heiligen Eid, da?? ich dem F??hrer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler, dem Oberbefehlshaber der Wehrmacht, unbedingten Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will, jederzeit f??r diesen Eid mein Leben einzusetzen."

in English

"I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."

The question I like to ask is, if you were bound by the above oath and you by virtue of your access to 'classified information' found out the true nature of the regime, where does your higher loyalty lie, to your oath or to mankind to make it known?

If you say that your higher loyalty is to mankind, then you've just signed on to the principle that sometimes leaking is justified.

All that remains is for us to haggle the price.
@David Gewirtz ... if one is asking a literal 'price' for information or disclosing it exclusively to the enemy or something, that's plainly espionage. Revealing information to the world, for free, to try to right a clear wrong is something else.
0 Votes
+ -
I wouldn't publish it...
John L. Ries Updated - 21st Feb
@Dr_Zinj
...but I would go to a member of Congress I trusted (probably a member of the opposition, but not necessarily).

Reply to HollywoodDog:

Definitely not Gravel. I was thinking of someone who did have a clearance, could be trusted to keep the secret and not abuse it, but see to it that any malfeasance was properly investigated. Back when I was actually applying for jobs that might require clearances, I had in mind a couple of people, one was a Democrat, the other a Republican, both serving on appropriate committees, and both with reputations for discretion and integrity (and I won't name either one). In any event, such an action would be a last resort.

BTW: Mr. Gravel was a Senator.
@John L. Ries ... then Gravel held a hearing of the committee he chairs late at night, where he was the only one present. When he was all alone, he took the entirety of the Pentagon Papers and (without objection) entered them in the Congressional Record. Presto - public domain.

Obama offered the lame excuse for his prosecution of Manning that the difference between Ellsberg (widely now considered a hero) and Manning is that the document were classified at a different level of classification.

True, but backwards. Everything Ellsberg disclosed was Top Secret. Nothing Manning disclosed was Top Secret.
@Dr_Zinj

"Seriously? David said they would send him white papers for him to read. This was in any of those instances where the "Official Office" of his particular misconducted for mocking their policies would be made more relevant. In which case would disclose at times sensitive information otherwise unknown to a journalist."
U.S. wins Twitter battle against foreign WikiLeaks collaborator

By David Gewirtz | November 12, 2011, 5:14pm PST

Summary: Let this be a warning to other foreign agents who want to cause harm to the U.S. Don???t.

...

Sometimes people amuse me. Take, for example, the case of Birgitta Jonsdottir. She???s the former WikiLeaks collaborator who???s crying foul because a U.S. court upheld the United States??? right to protect itself against her attacks.

This is no simple case of privacy, no matter what the foreign press would have you believe.

Jonsdottir is an MP, a member of the Icelandic parliament. That???s roughly analogous to being a member of Congress here in the U.S. She???s also a WikiLeaks collaborator, having last year enabled the trafficking of a top-secret U.S. government video through WikiLeaks.

Now, in a probe into her actions against U.S. interests, Jonsdottir???s communications via Twitter are being investigated by the U.S. Justice Department. This week, a U.S. court granted DOJ access to her Twitter traffic, which Twitter is, quite properly, complying with.

Despite the cries of despair from deluded privacy advocates being duped by foreign governments, this is not a violation of social networking privacy. Instead, it???s a government protecting itself from the nearly espionage-level actions of a member (a governing member!) of a foreign nation.


- HollywoodDog - 'deluded privacy activist'
0 Votes
+ -
Bonus question
HollywoodDog 21st Feb
@HollywoodDog ... The New York Times published all the same documents that Wikileaks did. Does every Wall Street banker walking down the street with a copy of the Times under his arm qualify as an espionage agent of a foreign government? Or just foreigners with funny names?
0 Votes
+ -
Should America tolerate Wikileaks or destroy it like any other national security threat?

By David Gewirtz | August 3, 2010, 7:27am PDT

...

I have to agree with Thiessen. If Wikileaks can???t manage itself and can???t control whether it???s releasing dangerous information, then it needs to be controlled. In any instance where our national security is at risk, America needs to take action.
0 Votes
+ -
"Dangerous information"
HollywoodDog 21st Feb
@HollywoodDog ... that is a very interesting application of the English language.

It could actually be applied to some things; surely the first amendment doesn't cover handing the recipe for atomic bombs to Al Queda. But embassy cables, which are not even classified Top Secret?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@HollywoodDog No, Wikileaks is not a blog. Wikileaks traffics in stolen information. Very different thing, and you know that. We've been down that road many times. A young, naive, troubled American service person was duped by a persuasive foreigner into betraying his oath and his country. That's vastly different from mocking Newt Gingrich.
0 Votes
+ -
@David Gewirtz ... Wikileaks did not steal information. Wikileaks published information. The act of someone passing information he is authorized to access to persons not authorized to access it may very well be a criminal offense. But once that information is released in to the world, it is not a crime to publish it.

If you maintain that it is, then the enormous, expensive, and very beautiful New York Times building should be raided at once, and its publishers thrown in to prison. After all, they too are trafficking in "stolen information" (for profit!). Or does stolen information become un-stolen when the Times downloads it from Wikileaks and publishes it in the paper? (I suppose it's not un-stolen when the aforementioned Wall Street bank CEO walks down the street carrying a copy of the Times folded under his arm either. Of course, those aren't the kind of people law enforcement in in the habit of troubling.)

Please note there is not any personal malice in my argument, but I am enjoying watching you in the predicament of defending the indefensible.

Perhaps where you stand on this issue depends on where you sit. You see nefarious foreign plots afoot with Wikileaks and Tehran no doubt sees them in its matters (not that I am implying legitimacy in that case - I'm not).

Sorry to trouble you - back to our regularly scheduled (and utterly harmless) Gingrich mockery.
@David Gewirtz Ah, them pesky persuasive furriners! And young troubled American lads. Isn't it always the way. If only we could get rid of these evil foreigners somehow.
And if only America would be the only country on this planet (except for those guys that serve our drinks and do our landscaping).
Ah, it's nice to dream...
@David Gewirtz ... Foreigners incite wars, manufacture drugs, sponsor terrorists, and breed disease; Americans cleanse the world of its impurities. Foreigners commit crimes against humanity; Americans make well-intentioned mistakes.
0 Votes
+ -
@David Gewirtz
in regards to HollywoodDog. I have noticed that he is closed to any point of view not aligned with his. He will not entertain an alternate point of view as he has steadfastly convinced himself that his view is the only view that can be correct. I sense that he is one of those humans that if he does not like a law, he interprets it to suit his needs.

He feels that it is not a crime to publish stolen information, so in essence he would argue that should someone steal a computer with classified information on it, and publishes that information, the perpetrator can only be charged with misdemeanor theft, as the computer cost less then 500 dollars.

Wikileaks was not legally allowed access to that information, and the young American service person was not authorized to release that information. At that point it became stolen information, so in truth Wikileaks was the recipientof stolen information, and they knew that.

Odd that HollywoodDog would argue that the person who knowingly purchased items stolen from him to be prosecuted along with the thief, yet would decide that since that same law does not work "in his favor" here, that that same law should now to be interpreted in a totally different fashion, or should not exist anymore.

He claims that you are "defending the indefensible", but it appears he has both yours, and his, roles reversed, as he is the one that is constantly on the defense, attempting to yet again defend his interpretation of laws that are not working out in his favor in reference to his definition of "right and wrong".

plain
0 Votes
+ -
Question for Mr. Spock
HollywoodDog 21st Feb
@David Gewirtz ... was the New York Times legally allowed to access that information?

If not, are they guilty of the crime of publishing "stolen information"?

Would you be so kind as to post a link to the law about publishing "stolen information"?
0 Votes
+ -
@HollywoodDog
but yet another attempt at which you fall short.

Would it not be easier for you to just post us to a link showing that it is not illegal?

And I am not talking about an opinion, I want you to show us exactly what the law regarding what can legally be classified as "stolen property".
plain
0 Votes
+ -
@David Gewirtz ... everything is assumed to be legal unless prohibited by law. The burden of proof falls on you to establish that "trafficking stolen information" is illegal.

It can't be that illegal. There was my corner convenience store, a pile of New York Times papers for sale full of reprinted Wikileaked cables, and no FBI agent in sight arresting the proprietor for selling the papers. The New York Times itself was not raided and prosecuted (and they've printed far more secret information on the front page recently including upcoming troop movements in Afghanistan, classified Top Secret).

So Mr. Spock, the burden of proof is on you to present a law you think was violated.

It's only in places like Iran or Mexico that one has to prove that something is legal.
@HollywoodDog
Yep. Time to start bombing Iceland. Or Sweden.
Thrash around and lash out at all these furriners with funny-sounding names! It's the American way.
America created the internet. Maybe it's time to destroy it.
Dr Zing, when the President goes on TV to brag about it, one realizes the myth of the 4th amendment for the common man. FYI, even our close neighbors like Canada have hate speech laws such that one can not tell a Jesus joke with out the threat of going to prison.
0 Votes
+ -
Huh?
D.T.Long 21st Feb
@dcbohn

Don't know much about Canada eh?
0 Votes
+ -
Don't come to Canada! It's a Christian POLICE STATE!
Claude Balloune Updated - 21st Feb
@dcbohn LOL! Have you ever visited ANY foreign country?
(Marriott beach compounds do not qualify)
Not so lucky. In America, the government monitors everything it can in the interests of 'National Security.' All it takes is a National Security letter, and a Fed can have whatever information they want about you without judicial review. With sneak and peek search warrants, you'll never know if your home was searched or not.

Lobbyists are bad, but the post 9/11 abuses of our government are worse.
@akaltman@... as long as you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Right?

Confine your speech to mocking politicians and other activities that don't affect anything and you won't be monitored, harassed and prosecuted.
@HollywoodDog

Today, perhaps, you're right. But think about the precedents that have been set, and it's a slippery slope of losing Constitutionally guaranteed rights, until one day we wake up and don't have any left.

Here's a rehash of the McCarthy era in today's news:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9224356/The_FBI_and_the_DOJ_want_you_to_report_suspicious_people_and_monitor_social_networks._Goodbye_liberty?source=CTWNLE_nlt_security_2012-02-21
0 Votes
+ -
I know, being facetious
HollywoodDog 21st Feb
@HollywoodDog ... look up the numbers on the types of crimes prosecuted using evidence from the patriot act.

That act had almost nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with dramatically expanding government power which it had always wanted.

I'll go out on a limb here; as long as you're singing the praises of the US government and bashing Iran, you're probably pretty safe.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
John L. Ries 21st Feb
The fact we can even have this discussion is evidence that we really do live in a free society. We have our problems, but I don't have to worry about anyone (even vigilantes) dragging me out of the house never to be seen again because I said the wrong thing.
Great, interesting article! Thanks!
0 Votes
+ -
From the article:
when ol??? George was born, it was on February 11, 1732, according to the Julian calendar. But when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752, the date George popped in the world suddenly became February 22.

A nice bit of history. However, you forgot to mention that, in 1953, the U.S. government overthrew the democratically-elected governement in Iran and installed the Shah. What we're dealing with today in Iran, and in many other places across the globe, is blowback. And it's a lot more up front and personal for those living in Iran today than it is for those of us in the U.S.

On the bright side, at least you didn't state (or insinuate) that Ahmadenajad holds the power in Iran.
0 Votes
+ -
He's a power
John L. Ries 21st Feb
@Rabid Howler Monkey
The Ayatollah Khamenei is clearly the de facto constitutional monarch, but I don't think he cares much anymore about the details of public policy; which would be under the purview of the President and Majlis (though he does have the authority to fire the former and both are elected from among candidates approved by a council of guardians he appoints).

As President, Mr. Ahmadenajad appears to rank second.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: He's a power
Rabid Howler Monkey Updated - 22nd Feb
@John L. Ries Not much of a power, though. Here's a link to a summary of Iran's existing governmental structure:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/middle_east/iran/structure.html

The President may, technically, be number two, but the gulf between the President's and the Supreme Leader's powers is enormous. Note the use of the word 'nominal' with regard to the President and the control over governmental matters beyond economic policies. And the Supreme Leader can override the President's economic policies as he has the last word on *all* matters regarding the state.

I still say Iran's President is a figurehead.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
@Rabid Howler Monkey "What we're dealing with today in Iran, and in many other places across the globe, is blowback."

To some degree, you're right. Some of our modern foreign policy is complicated by historical behaviors.
We are not as bad as they are is a lame argument. No we are not Iran but we are far far from what we used to be and getting father away everyday. Government can spy on us because they think we might be a terrorist for whatever reasons they choose. The whole mainland is now a battlefield and I can be put away in Guantanimo indefinitely and without recourse. The likelihood of it happening is minute at the moment. If another 9/11 happens the odds against me for writing these things will me go up. If the attack is of the Weapons of Mass Destruction kind the odds against me are pretty good. I don't like my odds in a Global Financial collapse that leads to a 1930s or worse depression either. The laws are in place and the national thought process is getting into place. For writing this most of the mainstream media would think I am a paranoid OMG "Conspiracy theorist". Once you get these labels put on you the brilliance or ridiculousness of your arguments are irrelevant. And if things get really scary why take the chance just put him away and throw away the key.
0 Votes
+ -
Speaking of Newt Gingrich...
HollywoodDog 21st Feb
Perhaps Newt Gingrich doesn't deserve all that mockery after all...

NSA call database
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States' National Security Agency (NSA) maintains a database containing hundreds of billions of records of telephone calls made by U.S. citizens from the four largest telephone carriers in the United States: AT&T, SBC, BellSouth (all three now called AT&T), and Verizon.[1]

The existence of this database and the NSA program that compiled it was unknown to the general public until USA Today broke the story on May 10, 2006.[1] It is estimated that the database contains over 1.9 trillion call-detail records.[2] According to Bloomberg News, the effort began approximately seven months before the September 11, 2001 attacks.[3]

The records include detailed call information (caller, receiver, date/time of call, length of call, etc) for use in traffic analysis and social network analysis, but do not include audio information or transcripts of the content of the phone calls.

The database's existence has prompted fierce objections. It is often viewed as an illegal warrantless search and a violation of the pen register provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and (in some cases) the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

...

On May 22, 2006, it was revealed by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh and Wired magazine that the program involved the NSA setting up splitters to the routing cores of many telecoms companies and to major Internet traffic hubs. These provided a direct connection via an alleged "black room" known as Room 641A. This room allows most U.S. telecoms communications and Internet traffic to be redirected to the NSA. The NSA used them to eavesdrop and order police investigations of tens of thousands of ordinary Americans without judicial warrants.

...

Commenting on the apparent incompatibility of the NSA call database with previous assurances by President Bush, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich told Fox News, "I???m not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people... I don???t think the way they???ve handled this can be defended by reasonable people." [25]

Later on Meet the Press, Gingrich stated that "everything that has been done is totally legal," and he said the NSA program was defending the indefensible, "because they refuse to come out front and talk about it."[26]

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told Fox News, "The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?"[27]
House Republican Caucus chairwoman Deborah Pryce said, "While I support aggressively tracking al-Qaida, the administration needs to answer some tough questions about the protection of our civil liberties." [28]
Former Republican House Majority Leader John Boehner said, "I am concerned about what I read with regard to NSA databases of phone calls."
After Iran gets the nuclear bomb they will be threatening everyone that says anything they don't like. Iran is exporting it's extreme theology through the Middle East and needs to be stopped.
0 Votes
+ -
The Iranians are coming! Run!!
Rabid Howler Monkey 21st Feb
@adinas As far as exporting "extreme theology" goes, nobody comes close to the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia. Name the country from which most of the 9/11 hijackers were from?

And with regard to nuclear weapons, Pakistan and North Korea represent much bigger threats today than does Iran.
0 Votes
+ -
You have perhaps heard that
ego.sum.stig@... Updated - 22nd Feb
Sunnis and Shiite Muslims have a fairly bad history vis-a-vis being nice to each other. That and both sides seem to have enough bad attitude, technical ability and spare martyrs. We do indeed live in fun times.
been paying attention, or you have been cooped-up in that liberal bubble of yours where you don't get to see the real world.


"25 Signs That The Nazification Of America Is Almost Complete "

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012021615632/life-and-science/culture-wars/25-signs-that-the-nazification-of-america-is-almost-complete.html?utm_campaign=8c08076699-Sunday_News_Edition2_18_2012&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Right+Side+News

While you might not soon be in danger of losing your constitutional rights, there are moves towards that, and eventually, the anti-constitutionalists will have their day. Obama, for example, would like to destroy our constitution and write a new on. Justice Ginsberg doesn't believe in our constitution either, and she's in the Supreme Court just to, basically, do all she can to counter the original constitution.

BTW, have you ever tried to say anything at all negative about Muslims or Islam? You might not have anything negative to say about that religion, but, when it comes to religious freedom, you can't utter a negative word about that religion, but, you can go all day writing and saying all kinds of negative things about Christianity, and the media and the government will ignore it; but, do the same about the Koran or about Islam/Muslims, and you'll get all kinds of threats against your life, right here in the good old U.S., "freedom loving" America.
0 Votes
+ -
Amazing that nobody's hauled you away
John L. Ries Updated - 22nd Feb
@adornoe@...
If we're on the verge of totalitarianism, then surely the Secret Police would be at least harassing troublemakers like yourself and the political commentators you pay attention to (maybe even have the FCC revoke some broadcast licenses).

Why bother with rigging elections when you can simply make opposing politicians that are too popular disappear?

Reply to Adornoe:

People can be concerned about and argue against overly large, intrusive, and expensive government without claiming that the "Nazification of America is almost complete". It's rather odd that the Bad Guys here in the States have taken over a century to do what Lenin, Hitler, and Khomeini each accomplished in less than a year, don't you think? What's even stranger is that you can say such things over a public web service owned by a U.S. corporation rather than having to pass paper documents hand to hand like dissidents had to do under certifiably totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union.

I suggest that you read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's books (available in any public library in the U.S. and many bookstores) for a description of what life is like under a real totalitarian regime. You can even do it in good conscience, as few people would accuse him of being a liberal. A couple to start with would be "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch" and "The Gulag Archipelago".

In the current context, I would say that rhetorical hyperbole of the sort you routinely employ is a form of lying.

Further response:

The blog you reference appears to be a classic reductio ad Hitlerum. The author is right to be concerned about some of the items he mentions, but claiming that they're signs of nearly complete Nazification is overkill, to say the least. I've mentioned some of the things that happen in real totalitarian states (and even authoritarian states like Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, which you strongly defended) and I'm not seeing them here. I'm not even seeing the sorts of street fighting, gangsterism, and vigilantism typically practiced by political organizations with authoritarian/totalitarian tendencies (where are the equivalents of the SA and SS, for example?).

I appreciate the fact that you're actually trying to reason with people with opinions that differ from yours, but you'll have to do better. You'll also have to have a bit more patience than Jonathan Swift, who complained that if England were really reformable, it would have happened within six months of the publication of "Gulliver's Travels" (see "Captain Gulliver's letter to his cousin Simpson").

Also, as I've said any number of times, rights can be respected or violated, but they can't be granted or revoked (though they can be forfeited through bad behavior). As recognized by the U.S. founding fathers, rights are moral entitlements, not merely legal ones granted and revoked by rulers, legislators, and constitution writers as they see fit (see the Ninth Amendment and the Declaration of Independence).
0 Votes
+ -
like yourself, who, even after reading what I posted, will continue to be in denial of those things which are actually occurring all around us.

So, isn't it true that the government, at the federal level, has been steadily growing for over 100 years, and most of it at the expense of some of our freedoms? Whatever you do, and whatever you say, wherever and whenever, is being tracked. Whatever you eat is being monitored, and whatever you purchase is being monitored. Whatever you say on any website or on any radio talk show, is being recorded and monitored.

Only a fool would deny all that is apparent.

BTW, what part of anything that I posted, or linked to, is incorrect or untruthful? Instead of just taking the generic road of saying I'm wrong, why not take my statements apart, piece by piece?

Being willingly blind to the truth is no way to go about life.
0 Votes
+ -
"You ignorant slut!!"
jmoore125 1st Mar
Don't you read! A US president now has the authority to make you disappear without due process or notice. I'd prefer public execution. At least my loved ones would know what happend to me.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix