Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Nosism or threat?

Posted by cait1 10 (My Page) on
Sun, Jun 9, 13 at 22:35


Quote
“If people can’t trust not only the executive branch but also don’t trust Congress, and don’t trust federal judges, to make sure that we’re abiding by the Constitution with due process and rule of law, then we’re going to have some problems here.”

'They' will have problems come election time or 'we' will have problems with them in the near future?
Remind me, how many hollow points has the DHS been hoarding?

(fixed typo)

This post was edited by cait1 on Tue, Jun 11, 13 at 23:57


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

A benevolent dictator is beginning to look good...


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Name that benevolent dictator. I'd like to see his or her credentials.
Rather amazing the HT crowd was rendered speechless by his comments. Their backs must be aching by now.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Thanks, Cait.

I've added a new word to my vocabulary. I didn't know one existed to describe referring to oneself as "we."

Whether the president meant the "royal we" or the "we're all in this together "we," I think he's right.

In his book, "The Gift Of Fear" security expert Gavin DeBecker warns people to be aware of efforts at "forced teaming." That was the first thing I thought of when I looked up "nosism" after seeing your post. The link below is from a domestic violence organization, but the message remains the same: Listen to your gut, and be alert. because there are warning signs one needs to recognize.

FTA: "Forced teaming: An effective way to establish premature trust because a “we’re in the same boat” attitude is hard to rebuff without feeling rude. [Forced teaming] is not about coincidence; it is intentional and directed, and it is one of the most sophisticated manipulations. The detectable signal of forced teaming is the projection of a shared purpose or experience where none exists: “Both of us”; “We’re some team”; “How are we going to handle this?”; “Now we’ve done it, etc.”

We're not "all in this together." The checks and balances have disappeared, leaving an executive branch unaccountable to anyone. We all know Ron Wyden knew it was wrong. What I didn't understand until now, is that there wasn't a damned thing he or anyone else could do about it. It took a 29 year old whistle blower to sound the alarm and wake up the American people.

Here is a link that might be useful: Intuition


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Hi Nik, you wrote:
"Whether the president meant the "royal we" or the "we're all in this together "we," I think he's right."

You think he mean't we're all in it together?

I don't see him as feeling any part of the population in general and the way he prefaced the statement makes it seem to me as if he drew a line in the sand making it an 'us' (govt) vs the population at large.

"We all know Ron Wyden knew it was wrong."

lol I'm gonna borrow and rephrase a quote from Clinton, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'wrong' is."

He undoubtedly broke the secrecy clause of his contract, and we know working for any spy agency they'll be a secrecy clause, but is it wrong? I think he did what our Representatives should have done, inform the constituents of the ramping up of surrveillance and intel gathering at every stage. There's no reason why that should be kept secret. None. We know spying goes on so be a real Representative and tell us. That way, we can tell the Rep that they can't do it without a warrant per person as the 4th amendment demands. Congress' actions are worse than anything Snowden did. Snowden isn't an elected official ripping up the Constitution. He's an American trying to make people aware that our government is breaking the rule of law.

To use your own words, Snowden listened to his gut, was alerted, and raised the warning alarm so the sheople would wake up and recognize the danger they're in from their own over-reaching government.

But all that's veering far OT. From what you wrote, and tell me if I'm wrong, you think he was saying that all Americans, including the govt, are going to have some problems here if we don't trust the govt. That's it.

To me it feels as if he implied that we have no choice but to trust the government, or else. In Gallup's 2008 poll, approval for Congress was at 14%, Dec 2010 it was down to 13%, went down to 10%, in Aug '12 and now it's only 4% meaning, of those polled, 96% don't approve of Congress - and you don't trust people you don't approve of. But, at least in my recollection, no president has ever come out before and made such a blatant statement as, 'if you don't trust Congress, Exec branch and judiciary (clarified with by doing right by the Constitution) then 'we're going to have some problems here'. Either that is an admission that they're all in trouble of getting the boot, and what politician doesn't want to be re-elected unless s/he's served 20 odd years or died in their position, or warning the citizenry they'll be the ones with the jackboot on their neck from those 'untouchables'.

My gut tells me these guys are in deep doo-doo and fearful dogs can go into attack mode. They have the ammo and advanced technology to do it.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

"But all that's veering far OT. From what you wrote, and tell me if I'm wrong, you think he was saying that all Americans, including the govt, are going to have some problems here if we don't trust the govt. That's it."

The wording is interesting, isn't it? Not terribly clear. Odd, given that lawyers are carefully trained, and very good at using precise language when it suits their purposes.

In any event, I think the president was using "we" the same way DeBecker says to watch for. To create a sense of safety and common purpose, to encourage one to dismiss that "gut feeling" that there's something not right going on.

I think the idea was to persuade folks it's in THEIR interest to trust government. Fortunately, it's finally dawning on them that government can't be trusted with the power it already has.

Then again, perhaps he was using "we" it the way an authoritarian might. A subtle use of "we" in place of a direct threat or warning to "you" to back off.

"My gut tells me these guys are in deep doo-doo and fearful dogs can go into attack mode."

I hope so. The sooner they remember who works for whom, the better for all of us. Those who claimed to have "oversight" of something they had never even seen, or could not talk about if they had, have a lot of explaining to do. Along with the White House, which never disputed James Clapper's whopper.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

New legislation is being introduced by Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, to reduce the power government has to spy on citizens. I hope there will be bipartisan efforts to put citizens, through their electeds, back in charge of what is done to them, purportedly for their own good.

FTA: "Their bill is the latest in a series of legislative responses to the revelations surrounding the NSA programs. Earlier this week, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced legislation to declassify the legal opinions used by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to justify the the NSA's surveillance programs. Both Udall and Wyden have signed onto the Merkley-Lee bill, which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would "take a look at." Another bill by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) would prevent the government from seizing the phone records of Americans based on "probable cause" without a warrant.

But despite the swift push by some lawmakers to make changes to the NSA programs, the White House and congressional leaders have shown little appetite for new legislation. President Barack Obama and leaders of both parties in the House and the Senate staunchly defended the surveillance as critical to national security. The president told reporters last week that "every member of Congress" was briefed on the programs, though many lawmakers, including Udall and Wyden, have disputed that claim."

Here is a link that might be useful: Huffington Post


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Might the real problem be the cost of ramping up agencies in charge of traditional human-centered intelligence gathering in an alien world of Muslim cultures and languages and ethnicities? Prior to 9/11 most of the major intelligence agencies had gone well along in abandoning hum-intel capabilities, relying on foreign governments and other sources for the hard intelligence sharing. The NSA was being ramped up for cyber spying and many of those function were being outsourced to the private sector. What could go wrong in the world in which the only superpower left standing was the US of A?

In the aftermath of 9/11 the US was left with the hammer of special forces, military responses, and later killing drones. To the military, every terrorist act is an act of war and requires an act of war in response and God help the region or country hosting the evil terrorists, nearly all of whom are non-state actors.

In the meantime the NSA and other intelligence agencies have worked up massive systems of dossiers on known, suspected, and individuals and organization supportive of "terrorism."

Every time I mention the word jihad, somewhere in a remote location that incident triggers software monitoring the internet for algorithms keyed to possible terrorist links. Enemies are identified remotely and condemned to die by drone. Heck, what could go wrong?


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

remember this one?

The Other Side of the Story
By GAIL COLLINS
The deck is always stacked when we debate keeping the nation safe.

Recently, we discovered that the National Security Agency is keeping an enormous file of our phone calls. In the N.S.A.’s defense, its chief, Gen. Keith Alexander, said “dozens” of potential terrorist attacks had been thwarted by that kind of effort. The director of the F.B.I., Robert Mueller, suggested it might prevent “the next Boston.”

How do you argue with that? True, the N.S.A. program had been up and running for years without being able to prevent the first Boston. And Alexander declined to identify the thwarted attacks, arguing that might aid potential terrorists.

But most Americans were sold. The words “terrorist attack” conjured up terrible, vivid pictures. On the other side was just a humongous computer bank full of numbers. If you didn’t do anything wrong, what was the problem?

Today, let’s try putting a face on it in the form of Brandon Mayfield.

A Kansas native, Mayfield went to college and law school, served in the Army, married, had three children and moved to Portland, Ore., to practice law.

His story begins with - yes! - an enormous federal database, in this case the one that collected fingerprints of Americans who served in the military.

In 2004, after terrorists bombed commuter trains in Madrid, Spanish officials found a suspicious fingerprint on a plastic bag at the scene. The F.B.I. ran it through its files and decided, erroneously, that it matched Mayfield’s. Further investigation revealed that Mayfield had married an Egyptian immigrant and converted to Islam - information the authorities apparently found far more compelling than the fact that he had never been to Spain.

Peculiar things then began to happen in the Mayfield house. His wife, Mona, returned home to find unlocked doors mysteriously bolted. Their daughter, Sharia, then 12, noticed that someone had been fooling around with her computer. “I had a desktop monitor, and it looked like some of the screws had been taken out and not put back in all the way,” she said in a phone interview. “And the hard drive was sticking out.”

Later, the family would learn that agents had broken into their home and Mayfield’s law office repeatedly, taking DNA swabs from the bathroom, nail clippings and cigarette butts, along with images of all the computer hard drives.

“I became very paranoid that someone was going into my room,” said Sharia.

The snoopers had warrants from the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA courts are supposed to keep investigators within the law while they’re secretly searching for terrorists. We have been hearing a lot about this recently, since the Obama administration keeps pointing out that the N.S.A.’s phone records project had the blessing of FISA judges. Last year, the feds made 1,856 requests to FISA judges and got 1,856 thumbs-up.

So there we are: Search of huge database produces a (wrong) name. Investigators get permission to search an American family’s house without their knowledge, from a secret court that does not seem to be superhard to convince.

One day, F.B.I. agents walked into Mayfield’s office, handcuffed him and took him away. When Sharia left school, her brother met her and told her that their father had been arrested. She assumed it was a joke.

“I said something like, ‘Oh -" good one, bro.’ Then my brother started to cry.”

For the next two weeks, Mayfield remained in jail, imagining a possible death penalty. His daughter recalls the family’s isolation, coupled with omnipresent radio and television reports about the alleged Madrid bomber. “School was a refuge in some ways from the reality of home, which was hell,” Sharia said.

Spain saved the day. The Spanish investigators were dubious from the beginning that the fingerprints at the bombing site were Mayfield’s; they had been hoping, perhaps, for a person who had set foot in Europe within the last decade. They found and arrested someone whose finger was a real match.

Mayfield was released. The government eventually paid him $2 million in damages and, in a rare act of contrition, issued a formal apology to him and his family. A federal judge in Oregon also found that the Patriot Act’s authorization of secret searches against American citizens was unconstitutional - a ruling that was reversed on a technicality by a higher court.

That was nearly a decade ago. “But you never quite get over these things,” Mayfield said. “It was a harrowing ordeal. It was terrifying.” He and his daughter are working on a book about what happened. Sharia is also going to law school. “I want to do civil liberties,” she said.

So there we are. It’s just one story. But I suspect the national willingness to give government a blank check on national security matters comes to a screeching halt at about the point where the agents tiptoe into the daughter’s bedroom.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

I had forgotten about the wrongful investigation and jailing of the Oregon man. What an ordeal and a real joke for those who insist that if you have done nothing wrong, the Police State will not bother with you. How can that be wrong? Except the human beings are fallible, stubborn and overwhelmed with weighted evidence streams leading who knows where but the workings of the data stream.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Well, at least he got $2 million in damages, although I suspect his attorney took most of it.

There was another one with some Christian Minister of a small rural church who had purchased copies of the Koran translated to English for his Church book club - which had him stopped by Federal agents when he tried to return from a vacation in Canada. Can't find it on the web, perhaps someone with better googlefu than I can locate the story.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Are the Feds ignorant of this fact: the Koran is not holy in translation but is only revered in the original classical Arabic. The translation cannot be the words of Allah as transcribed by the Prophet Mohammed (may his name be praised)?

Well, my Aunt Waltina used to smuggle Bibles and other RC tracts into Poland during the Cold War. She was never caught == wouldn't tell me how she did it.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Googlefu... is that kinda like kung fu, David? ;-)

Ben Franklin once said that "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

At one time, citizens were presumed innocent until proven guilty. Today, it's more like we're assumed to be guilty until we can offer proof positive that we are innocent, a turnaround from the original idea.

It seems that some people would rather force evidence to match a conclusion jumped to... perhaps to close a case, get a conviction, or for various other reasons... instead of allowing evidence to lead to the right conclusion.

Albert Einstein once said " You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Why do you care, you don't even live in the US any more?


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Thank you, momj47, for letting us know this forum is not open to just anyone. You must be living in the USA even if you are a citizen and likely still have connections here.

I didn't know that!

Should I start refusing to read any post from someone who is outside of the US or should I report them to the moderators? Maybe I should report them to the NSA.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Sun, Jun 16, 13 at 17:09

Not at all, but I don't think "we" applies in this case.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

It is Cait's OP and she is a citizen of the US (last I read) and voted in past elections (by her account). "We" seems to apply to the specifics of national identity.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

Aw, momj... still upset with me for calling him BO?
How could this not affect me and every person living on the planet? The NSA is collecting EVERYONE's data. A lot of people here in Australia were really angry when, a few years back, it was reported that all Aussie communications into the US was monitored - of course, the extend of that monitoring was not disclosed. And if you somehow think that the rest of the world is immune from what happens in the States, then you are living in a cave.
Everyone affected by what any US administration does, can use 'we'.

David, that story is horrific. I look forward to the book.

@Marshallz
"Might the real problem be the cost of ramping up agencies...."

Might the real problem be to many ABC agency cooks spoiling the broth? I'm sure your 'ramping up' includes the militarization of the IRS. The lines are so blurred. FISA is now a domestic court - or then all Americans are considered foreigners (I think that aligns with momj's thinking re: Americans living abroad needn't apply 'we' to comments concerning America)

"God help the region or country hosting the evil terrorists..."

Well then God help America because there are 'terrorists' lurking everywhere! /sarc


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

And the bogeyman lives under the bed... be sure to check before turning off the lights at night.


 o
RE: Nosism or threat?

"How could this not affect me and every person living on the planet? The NSA is collecting EVERYONE's data."

Thank you, Cait. You are a breath of fresh air.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here