search results matching tag: Dragnet

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (13)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (0)     Comments (27)   

Trump Wanted Armed Groups At His Jan 6 Rally

luxintenebris says...

don't bother w/33's postings anymore. most are just fools' gold.

did watch one of that pinched-face lunker videos some time ago...up to the point where he called others 'idiots' just before he proclaimed Thomas was the first black man on the SCOTUS.

not always fun to see such a self-own. mainly, because none of his hyena pack knew any difference.

a true fool.

so guess that makes bob a fool's fool.

for BK there are two paths; find the courage and admit your errors, or double down on dumb.

Can hear the Dragnet theme from here: dumb, de-dumb-dumb, dummmb

What a fool believes he sees
No wise man has the power
To reason away

lurgee (Member Profile)

radx says...

Hedges' latest article on surveillance and snitches includes pure gold in the form of Solzhenitsyn quotes.

It's been 12 years since I read the Gulag Archipelago and I haven't spent a single thought on it throughout this entire chain of surveillance revelations. The corrosive effect permanent surveillance has on you - the stool pigeons are a wonderful illustration of it.
Even those who acknowledge the chilling effect often qualify it as less corrosive than full-blown "Zersetzung", as if there were a clear-cut line between the two. Dragnet surveillance is Zersetzung.

Anyway, loved this one:

A remarkable fresh breeze was blowing! On the surface we were prisoners living in a camp just as before, but in reality we had become free—free because for the very first time in our lives we had started saying openly and aloud all that we thought! No one who has not experienced this transition can imagine what it is like!

And the informers … stopped informing.

eric3579 (Member Profile)

G. Greenwald's testimony and Q&A before European Parliament

radx says...

He was referring to the hundreds of millions of connections that the NSA was reported to be spying on every month. It was the first of a series of articles based on documents provided by Laura Poitras.

And as for the problem of Merkel vs the other 80.5 million of us: it was after the aforementioned ~500 billion connections a month and after we were told that "our" IXP (DE-CIX) was bugged by GCHQ, NSA and our very own BND. Merkel didn't mind, the responsible Minister didn't mind -- why would they, it wasn't news to them. But when it was made public that Merkel's private phone was being tapped as well, they had to show some indignation, because the election was closing in and they wouldn't want to look like the total lackeys they are.

That's the difference in reaction he was referring to. Our government doesn't mind us being the target of dragnet surveillance. In fact, they'd like to join the club and get access to all that information themselves. That's what the no-spy-agreement is all about.

BicycleRepairMan said:

"Targeting ordinary germans, by the hundreds of millions"
Germany has a population of 80 million. Way not to sound hyperbolic, Greenwald. Alright, gonna watch rest of video now.

John Stossel Gets Schooled on the 4th Amendment

9547bis says...

Two words: David Miranda.
Not American enough? Two more: Laura Poitras.

Not to mention, their supposedly smart/effective/necessary dragnet did not prevent them having innocent civilians that they kidnapped straight from allied nations from being tortured, raped, or killed. These people had nothing to do with terrorism, but they were profiled and pronounced "guilty by statistics".

VoodooV said:

demonstrate to me that they're using this surveillance to harass civilians or using it for some other demonstrably oppressive way then I might be on board.

blankfist (Member Profile)

radx says...

Snowden handed another set of slides over to the largest newspaper in Germany as well as a public broadcasting service. These slides include the names of telecoms that were involved in GCHQ's dragnet program.

The crème de la crème:
Verizon Business, Codename: Dacron, British Telecommunications ("Remedy"), Vodafone Cable ("Gerontic"), Global Crossing ("Pinnage"), Level 3 ("Little"), Viatel ("Vitreous"), Interoute ("Streetcar").

Many of these are customers of DE-CIX, the world's largest IXP, whose operators were adamant in their claim that no foreign service has access to their infrastructure -- no word about their corporate lackeys, understandably so.

And you gotta love how brazen they are in their admission that GCHQ's work is in the best interest of Britain's economy -- yes, economy.

And while we're at it: public broadcast journalists dug out a list of 207 US companies that are involved in intelligence gathering on German soil. Best comment was by the CEO of DE-CIX: these providers (re: Level 3) work in accordance with US law, even in Frankfurt. Not German law, US law.

Maybe we can still beat Puerto Rico in the race to become your 51st state.

NSA (PRISM) Whistleblower Edward Snowden w/ Glenn Greenwald

enoch says...

@dystopianfuturetoday

i think i got my argument down to one word.
took some time because you know me..
i comment like i think:rambling and incoherent.

the word is transparency.

if this dragnet is SO needed and SO vital to national security and catching brown people.
then lets allow this giant pig into the courts and lets discuss the value of this particular intelligence gathering.
lets shine a bit of light in those dark corners yea?

a healthy democracy needs sunlight and fresh air the breathe.

Democracy Now! - "A Massive Surveillance State" Exposed

enoch says...

@VoodooV
god i love you.

i did post some articles which reflect the expansion of power in regards to civil liberties and constitutional law.

but im with @Yogi
just because they 'say" they dont use that power does not mean they wont use it.historically it is quite the contrary.
once power is given it is ALWAYS used in some capacity.

but i agree with your contention about hyperbole and sensationalist media.
i also agree that for things to change it is going to happen from the people,

but for that to happen we must be informed and the government has done everything in its power to make this dragnet secret.
and thats really my main beef with all this.

secrecy.

which even by your own argument is not necessary.
we use facebook,google etc etc.

maybe all this attention might give us some much needed checks,balances and most importantly...transparency.

Democracy Now! - "A Massive Surveillance State" Exposed

enoch says...

http://www.aclu.org/reform-patriot-act

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/patriotact/patriotactprovisions.html

and for the person who mentioned that congress holds the most power in our legislature:
http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/documents/MARSHALL.pdf

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/congress-government-spying-votes-charts/65969/

http://www.civilfreedoms.org/?p=7260

i could literally do this all day.
please understand my friend i am NOT buying into any media hysteria.
i just do not trust power and the past two administrations have proven they do not deserve it.

another point i would like to make is my suspicion is not the mere fact of a metadata dragnet perpetrated by the NSA.
hell..if you have a facebook you know your info is being jacked.
no..thats not where my skepticism lies.
for while i am not wholly comfortable with a government organization scooping up massive amounts of data,what bothers me far worse is our government expressly barring (verizon in this case) from letting their customers know the very existence of the program.

i also cannot nor will i ever accept the tacit and,in my opinion,bullshit reasoning that this is all about counter-terrorism.

there is far too broad a brush that can be painted with abuse.
and it is the abuse of power that i am concerned with.

see:
patriot act 1
patriot act 2
victory act 1
victory act 2
military commissions act of 2006
NDAA of 2012

which brought us the great hits of the past decade:
torture
warrantless wiretaps
illegal wars
assasinations
persecution of whistleblowers
persecution of journalists

im sorry man but we are in fundamental disagreement on this.
you see this as a necessary tool for law enforcement and counter-terrorism
and i see a horrific landscape of possible abuses by a government i feel no longer represents the citizenry but is,in fact,an arm of wall street and multi-national corporations.

and the possibilities of abuse are massive.

chris hayes-jeremy scahill-the bush/obama relationship

enoch says...

@VoodooV
hmmmm.../taps fingers.
i dont think we are making any progress.
mainly because i dont know if you are directing your commentary towards me or the video itself.

understand i am not trying to impose my opinion on you as sacrosanct.
that is not my intent.
but i also think glossing over these events with generalities that we both are aware of serves nothing for the discussion.

i teach history and governments.

i am also highly distrustful of governments or to be more accurate:power/authority.

so lets change this up a bit.
let me ask you on how YOU perceive the current state of affairs.

1.do you feel,as some other people do,that this data dragnet by the NSA is a fake scandal? that is just hyped partisan politics and the government is only doing what is always has done?
and if so.why?

2.in regards to the estimated 125 million correspondence confiscated,along with the AP reporters emails and phone records.do you feel the US government is justified is mining such information? that the "war on terror" knows no boundaries and the government must be forever vigilant in collecting such information.

3.if you agree that the US government has the right to spy on its citizens then how do you feel about the fourth amendment and how it pertains to "reasonable search and seizure"? would this not be in direct conflict with that amendment and is dealing with its own citizens as 'suspicious"?

4.do you agree with the governments counter-argument that a.what they are doing is legal and b.if your not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.

i understand you are trying to give a more even-handed and more reasonable perspective concerning this but i truly want to understand how a differing opinion views all this.
my goal is to understand.

because i have been watching this unfold and the more that comes out the more it chills my blood.
historically these things always go in a particular direction and it is not pretty.
power wishes only to retain its power.

Democracy Now! - "A Massive Surveillance State" Exposed

enoch says...

@dystopianfuturetoday
i could not disagree more with your mr simon.

his article smacks of a "lets be reasonable" flavor but it lacks the meat of understanding.

they suspend habeas corpus and we do nothing.
they make it legal to target american citizens and we do nothing.
they create a giant dragnet to collect data from american citizens...all under the auspices of "national security".but dont worry.we dont READ your data..and we do nothing.
they flip the fourth amendment on its head and change "innocent until proven guilty: into "we have suspicions"

and we do nothing.

i guess this all comes down to perspective.
if one still believes in the ideology of a government "by the people for the people" then i guess i can understand a more..optimistic view.

but i cannot hold that such an ideology is still in practice.

i have watched this administration target whistleblowers,protesters and journalists.
anybody who sought to undermine the authority of this government.

i have watched as our government stacked lie upon lie in defense of their actions and when caught it is always the same excuse/reason:national security.

but here is a truth that has held over the centuries:governments lie

the american experiment will not end with a loud clash of ideals and a fight for freedom but rather a whimper and a sigh.

all because we did nothing.

a good article that addresses this very subject:
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/surveillance-nsa?page=0%2C0

Ricky Gervais Trolls Tim Allen

xxovercastxx says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Forrest Gump may be a cliche now, but his performance in it was great. He was great in Philadelphia and The Green Mile as well. For pure strength of acting, I think you've got to go with Cast Away. Not many actors can carry a movie all by themselves with only a volleyball to interact with. If you want a role that really steps out of the norm, try The Ladykillers.

Hanks may not be one of those guys who completely transforms himself for a role, but I still think he's solid. Tim Allen has never acted, to my knowledge. He plays himself in all his roles.

Ricky Gervais Trolls Tim Allen

Matthu says...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.
Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.
But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.
So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.


Also, Tim Allen's a crackhead.

Ricky Gervais Trolls Tim Allen

Winstonfield_Pennypacker says...

You know - quite frankly - I don't see why people think Tom Hanks is that great. I remember him when he first came on the scene in "Bosom Buddies". He was moderately amusing, but no more so than Peter Scolari was. He did some bit parts in Family Ties, and did that lousy D&D TV movie "Mazes & Monsters". He did nothing exceptional.

Then he went on to do crappy comedies like Money Pit, Dragnet, Bachelor Party, and Joe Vs. The Volcano. He wasn't very good in any of them. His acting in these shows was one-note. Swap Hanks in Splash with Hanks in Money Pit and there is no difference. He was servicable, but he wasn't that great.

But I think "Big" for some reason started making people think he was a good actor. In the 90s, studios were always trying to turn comedians into "serious" actors. Robin Williams tried it with Patch Adams and Good Morning Vietnam. Jim Carrey tried with "Truman Show", et al. With Hanks, it was A League of Thier Own, Sleepless in Seattle, Forest Gump, and Philadelphia. I see very little difference between "80's Hanks" and "90's Hanks". He isn't a better actor than he was way back in "Mazes & Monsters". He's still the same old one-note Tom Hanks. He just has a better movie. You could take a potted plant and stick it in Forest Gump and get the same result. Some of his performances like in Polar Express and Angels & Demons are cringe-worthy.

So I don't see why Tim Allen has to take the shot here. He's shown at least as much acting "ability" as Tom Hanks. Hanks just got lucky and happened to end up getting better roles and more credit than he deserves.

Obama vs. Obama on Afghanistan

Yogi says...

>> ^RedSky:

>> ^Yogi:
I know that leaving wouldn't be a perfect option however it's still the only option. Many many more people will die if we stay. We went through the same thing in Vietnam when people thought we should stay, it's wrong and we shouldn't. Although there will probably be some horrific deaths, there will be thousands more if we stay. We must leave.

To be honest, I'm beginning to think more and more that it's your mess, and your responsibility to fix it. Going into Afghanistan was just as ridiculous as going into Iraq. What were the odds that a slow, advancing military force was going to seriously disrupt a fluid cross-national terrorist organisation, let alone catch a single terrorist in its dragnet? Yes, the Taliban openly sponsored Al Qaeda but this doesn't change the fact there is no shortage of decrepit states and governments to which terrorist organisations can relocate like Somalia. It was obvious that if going in the objective was to topple a government, nation building would follow.
Yes, the US has a massive budget deficit and is in no position to fund wars, but equally I don't think you can morally justify bailing and seeing the people who trusted in your willingness to establish a semblance of a functioning state with human rights be rounded up and executed. Biden's plan of leaving a limited force to target terrorist activities will simply not be enough to prevent this. While the kind of parliamentary/ presidential democracy they're going for really has little chance of working because of the lack of pan-national trust and how dependant the political system is on patronage, I think a more decentralised model has a chance, and that's really what I think they should be aiming for.


I disagree, I don't believe it was ridiculous or a mistake. I believe it was instituting a war of aggression which is considered the greatest international crime under the Nuremburg principles. So what happens when someone commits a War of Aggression against someone else? Do we call for them to stay and clean up the mess? No that's ridiculous because asking a population to accept the rule of those who caused them to be in this predicament is laughable. We wouldn't force the Nazi's to stay in Poland and clean up their mess...they have to leave and pay them reparations.

Which is I think the best thing we can do, leave and let possibly the UN or Red Crescent work with Afganistan trying to figure it out while paying reparations. And invading army isn't required to clean up their mess when their presence is what's causing the mess.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon