Both Trump And Clinton Suggest Expanding Mass Surveillance, Bogus Watch Lists After Attack In Orlando
from the because-of-course dept
The script for what to do following a tragedy like the one in Orlando over the weekend is now quite clear: politicians want to appear “serious” about the issue, and thus they say stuff to appease people, even if what they say makes no sense. There was a lot of senseless rhetoric going around, of course, and we’ll leave the usual debates about issues we don’t cover on Techdirt to lots of other sites. But an issue we do cover is surveillance and bogus ideas like “watch lists” where a mere accusation leads to basic rights being taken away. And, unfortunately, it appears that both major Presidential candidates are advocating for greater surveillance and denial of civil liberties as a response to someone shooting up a nightclub and killing dozens of people.
Clinton’s plan? Expand the “terrorist watch lists” despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people who appear to be on the list for no reason at all, and whose lives are basically a living hell because of it. No matter, Clinton says let’s expand it:
“We need to look carefully at this,” she said. “Should we have a broader database? If someone comes to the attention of the FBI not once, but three times, that suggests that law enforcement needs to know, that people need to be more aware.”
Meanwhile, Trump, beyond the much publicized and repeated plan to stop anyone who is a Muslim from immigrating to the country (even though the shooter was born here), also encouraged a much broader version of the already idiotic “see something, say something” campaign:
He also said Americans need to be willing to call the authorities when they see friends, family and neighbors performing suspicious activities.
Chelsea Manning, who is serving an insanely long sentence for leaking documents, wrote a thoughtful and insightful piece arguing for why we should not toss away our civil liberties in response to these attacks.
We must grieve and mourn and support each other, but in our grief and outrage we must resist any temptations to let this attack ? or any attack ? trigger anti-Muslim foreign policy, attacks on our civil liberties or as an excuse to descend into xenophobia and Islamophobia.
However, an attack like this is carefully planned and executed to maximize attention by inflaming the passions of a helpless public. Because of this, the response can be more dangerous than the attack. The refrains of ?safety and security? have, for many years, been used as a tool by the powerful to justify curtailing civil liberties and emboldening backlash against immigrants, Muslim people and others.
Not for the first time, someone locked up on a questionable basis is making a lot more sense, and sounding a lot closer to the ideals of America, than either of people running to lead the country.
Filed Under: attacks, donald trump, hillary clinton, orlando, politics, see something say something, surveillance, terrorist watch list
Comments on “Both Trump And Clinton Suggest Expanding Mass Surveillance, Bogus Watch Lists After Attack In Orlando”
“.. surveillance and bogus ideas like “watch lists” where a mere accusation leads to basic rights being taken away”
Apparently everyone is on this list because our rights are being taken away. There is a list of those who still retain some of their rights … it is called the list of top billionaires.
So, we need to expand the watchlists because some one who was already on the watchlists committed an act of terrorism and him being on the watchlist did nothing to stop it?
Re: Re:
Politician logic right there.
But hey, this is what we voted for.
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
~Madison
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 14th, 2016 @ 11:05am
Unfortunately, nobody has the balls to say shit is going to happen and the government is powerless to stop all the crazies.
Re: Re:
Actually, I think the background is that he had been removed from the watchlist(s) for lack of sufficient justification to keep him there, and then he went and did the things which they would have been watching for.
So the rationale would be that he shouldn’t have been dropped from the watchlist, and achieving that would require broadening the range of what justifies being on the watchlist.
Re: Re: Re:
That only makes sense if he was notified that he’d been removed from the watchlist, and that doesn’t sound like any watchlist behaviour that I’ve ever heard of…
Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
She wants to ban the purchase of guns for anyone being investigated by the FBI while she is running for President while under investigation by the FBI.
Re: Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
Well, as long as she’s not trying to buy a gun we can’t accuse her of hypocracy, right?
[insert sarcasm tag here]
Re: Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
All while she dumps billions of arms into the hands of human rights abusers
Re: Re: Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
Hey… those are HER human rights abusers… not YOUR human rights abusers.
Know your place scum!
Re: Re: Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
Don’t forget she has accepted millions into her foundation from countries where the penalty for homosexuality is death. These countries also have a very poor record of treatment of women.
Re: Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
don’t forget while she is under the protection of armed bodyguards.
only she deserves to have guns for protection not the little people.
Re: Cognitive dissonance on Hillary's part
She wants to ban the purchase of guns for anyone being investigated by the FBI while she is running for President while under investigation by the FBI.
While being protected by lots of agents with … guns.
Apparently, guns are just something that other people don’t need.
Sadly, one of these two asshats will be President.
Re:
The requirements of presidency are
1: natural born citizen
2: 35 years of age
3: 14 years in country
Is there any reason we couldn’t start a write in campaign for some dead guy who was born before 1980 in the US and lived to the age of at least 14? I don’t see the requirement for a pulse anywhere in the constitution, and it’s quite possible a rotting chunk of fetid flesh would do better than either of the main stream candidates.
Re: Re: Re:
What makes you think Hillary or Trump has a pulse?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What makes you think Hillary or Trump has a pulse?
I know Dick Cheney doesn’t, though I wouldn’t want to vote for him either.
Re: Re: Re:
Frank Zappa it is then.
Re: Re: Re:
Gary Johnson will be a choice although extremely unlikely to win.
We have ourselves to blame
The sheeple only have themselves to blame. We run to the loving arms of the government to get them to control others, to ban behaviors and ideas, to protect us and a myriad of other things. They are only doing what a large portion of people are asking them to do. Yes, they are using FUD to help achieve that effect, but if we aren’t smart enough to see through that then we will get what we deserve.
Re: We have ourselves to blame
Exactly, just like regulation.
Oh please SAVE US FROM OURSELVES, The Terrorists, and Businesses!!!
The terrorists have already won. They barely have to do anything to drive the chicken shits of America crazy. Soon there will be random proctology exams at every door or gathering.
Re: I should engrave this on a brass plaque.
We build a civilization with the people we have, not the people we wish we had.
We have the same humans that everyone else does. You can blame the species for being idiots in certain ways (and yes, we have a tidy catalog of cognitive biases that haven’t caught up with social progress.) Either we work out how to stay rational and govern ourselves despite ourselves, or we fail and we die out while another culture figures it out.
Re: We have ourselves to blame
No…we dont. If the system hadn’t been corrupted top to bottom, then maybe I could see your point. Saying we only have ourselves to blame completely ignores the problems of money in politics and election fraud, and probably many others.
Re: Re: We have ourselves to blame
Look up the term “campaign fatigue.” It’s a real thing. Basically, we CAN be bothered to mobilise against SOPA, etc., as a short term goal but CAN’T be bothered to pay much attention to situations that require long-term thinking and constant vigilance.
We’re also allowing ourselves to be divided and conquered via binary politics and the culture wars. We can choose not to be caught up in them but… squirrel!
OLD SAYING
It would take 1/2 the people to Watch over the OTHER 1/2 to have the security you want..
Who is watching the watchers?
!0,000 cameras around a city..
it STILL TAKES..
1. someone to SEE IT HAPPEN ON THE MONITOR..1 person per 20 monitors??
2. TIME to get someone THERE..10 minutes Minimum..
is this any better NOW??
And if you are going to USE HIGH quality/High resolution Cameras…What a great target..anyone got a PAINT GUN??
Re: OLD SAYING
In ole east Germany 2/3 spied on remaining 1/3
ISIS Donuts
Dunkin’ Donuts had to pull an advertisement featuring celebrity chef Rachael Ray over her scarf. Michelle Malkin and other conservative bloggers had declared it to be a symbol of terrorism.
> “If someone comes to the attention of the FBI not once, but three times, that suggests that law enforcement needs to know, that people need to be more aware.”
So if you occasionally wear a scarf, and some nitwit neighbor or co-worker reports it three times, your civil liberties are gone. Nice.
Re: ISIS Donuts
Rightwing political correctness is alive and well!
…and bogus ideas like “watch lists” where a mere accusation leads to basic rights being taken away.
I didn’t think getting added to these type of lists even required a “mere accusation”.
It’s more like “mere suspicion” or even something as innocent as having a foreign sounding name.
Why do so many of our politicians hate their own country?
Re: Re:
They want to be kings ruling over slaves is my guess.
Call the authorities
Because no one called the authorities and the FBI never checked out Omar Mateen. Oh wait, yes they did. So please tell me what more paranoia will do?
When will someone call out the FBI for their incompetence?
Re: Call the authorities
When they realise that the easiest way to find the damn needle is to shrink the damn haystack!
Re: Re: Call the authorities
Their counter to this would be James Comey’s post-Orlando-shootings comment that “in addition to finding a needle in a haystack, we’re called upon to figure out which pieces of hay may later become needles” – that is, to figure out which people who haven’t gone the terrorist route yet are going to do it, so that the attack can be prevented before it happens.
I’m not sure I agree that they should be called upon to do this, but I can’t really argue that they aren’t being so called upon.
Re: Re: Call the authorities
When they realise that the easiest way to find the damn needle is to shrink the damn haystack!
No, no, no. The easiest way to find needles is to redefine “needle”.
Why does:
“Americans need to be willing to call the authorities when they see friends, family and neighbors performing suspicious activities.”
sound suspiciously like:
“Who denounced you?” said Winston.
“It was my little daughter,” said Parsons with a sort of doleful pride. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh? I don’t bear her any grudge for it. In fact I’m proud of her. It shows I brought her up in the right spirit, anyway.”
(Quote from 1984, George Orwell)
Re: Re:
A house divided will not stand.
If people could only see the dangers that the two parties represent.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
From the article
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Re: Re: Re:
1 party with 2 faces
whichever candidate gets elected just does the same thing they previously denounced to get elected.
Reducing terrorist incidents
This gentleman had more gun permits than anyone could ever use…and they did nothing….
Better, I think, to ask just how it is someone becomes disconnected enough that they can flip out without their friends getting them the help they need.
If we want fewer gun tragedies, a weapon needs to come with some fairly automatic social connections. Justice won’t hurt, either. Fewer people flipping out, less anger over injustice, less violence.
Not that more lives can’t be saved by remembering that 50 died once in Florida..but 100 die *EVERY DAY* on the roads, 100 die from firearms(2/3 suicide, yes..), and 100 die of opiate overdoses. But these aren’t news!
Re: Reducing terrorist incidents
But these aren’t news!
Unless they’re gay.
Re: Re: "But these aren't news!" / "Unless they're gay"
Hundreds of gays dying wasn’t news, which is how HIV turned into a pandemic.
One of Reagan’s gifts to us.
Re: Re: Re: "But these aren't news!" / "Unless they're gay"
Exactly. Remember that he and Nancy both laughed it off. I hope they suffered every day for the rest of their lives. I hope, that if there is a hell, they both burn in it for eternity, screaming in agony, begging for mercy that never comes.
Re: Reducing terrorist incidents
It is time to bring out this fun bit again:
President Obama could stop a whole bunch of terrorism right now. More (probably) than all the gun deaths in the United States every year.
He could shut down the CIA drone strike program.
500 sorties a year in Afghanistan. Dunno how many in Pakistan.
We make a point not to count the bugsplats (fatalities) very well, but drones average a kill rate of ten times that of piloted air strikes (per attack). We have software now to place our payloads just so, as to maximize kills.
Of what we do count, anything human that is (was) healthy enough to walk (i.e. not a crawling toddler or an infirm elder) is regarded as a militant on the grounds that they’re a potential recruit.
We don’t concern ourselves with whether or not a person of interest is at the target site. A village or encampment is enough to warrant a strike, on the grounds that we give the enemy no ground to go to.
So, correction: Our drone strike campaigns aren’t terror campaigns, they’re just simply massacres. The United Stated is murdering people for the crime of being a potential resource to terrorists.
And Obama could stop that shit any moment he chose to do so.
Three strikes.
If someone comes to the attention of the FBI not once, but three times, that suggests that law enforcement needs to know, that people need to be more aware.
Three strikes and you’re out, huh? I’m not surprised. This is the same Hillary Clinton that has said that any man a woman accuses of sexual assault should be declared guilty unless he can *prove* his innocence.
Re: Three strikes.
Well, except for good ole Bill.
Re: Re: Three strikes.
Well, except for good ole Bill.
Her original comment was that any woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should be believed (no exceptions). When it was pointed out to her that Bill had been accused of such, she then added the “unless proven innocent” bit and proceeded to declare that Bill had been “proven” innocent.
Re: Re: Re: Three strikes.
This is the same Hillary Clinton that has said that any man a woman accuses of sexual assault should be declared guilty unless he can prove his innocence… Her original comment was that any woman who accuses a man of sexual assault should be believed (no exceptions).
Exhorting the public to believe accusers and calling for the accused to be legally presumed guilty of a crime unless proven innocent are not at all the same thing.
Re: Re: Re:2 Three strikes.
Hillary did not merely say that the public should presume people guilty until proven innocent (although that would be bad enough). She was speaking of the legal process.
Now I realize that you didn’t explicitly say that she did, you just implied it. Hoping that no one would notice the difference? Too bad. Someone did. How very Hillary of you.
Re: Re: Re:3 Three strikes.
Hillary did not merely say that the public should presume people guilty until proven innocent (although that would be bad enough). She was speaking of the legal process.
Perhaps it would be useful to look at the actual quote. Are you referring to this?
“Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”
That is not saying anything about the legal process. If you are talking about some other quote, please provide it and then we’ll both be talking about the same thing.
Re: Re: Three strikes.
or her saudi financial backers. In that hell hole of a country any woman who is raped gets charged with adultery.
So far, the government has proven more than once it can identify potentials but can actually do nothing to stem the tide. Doing more of the same thing isn’t going to bring any greater effectiveness if data isn’t acted on.
What the government has proven, is only after the fact, can they be experts on digging up the data. Prior to the fact, they are hitting on near zero.
What amazes me in all this, for all the hoop-a-la over terrorism, fewer die from terrorism acts in the US than die from auto accidents. So where is all the major fuss in the news and by government officials over car deaths? It’s strangely mute when it comes to importance by numbers. So there is definitely an agenda here when it comes to terrorism that is not triggered by the damage done as much as it is triggered causes and the desire not to waste a crisis.
Long ago I observed that there are always congresscritters willing to go make laws to sound like they are doing good. More times than not it also seems like the laws they are making isn’t to protect nation and citizens but rather to cover their own butts.
Re: Re:
Don’t forget the 100,000 per year from medical errors.
Re: Re: Re:
“Don’t forget the 100,000 per year from medical errors.”
There ain’t a congress critter alive brave enough to take on the doctor industry.
If we act based on this to curb our rights, to attack foreign peoples abroad, it's a victory for the terrorists.
Every time we go reactionary to an attack, whether from a radical or a madman, all it does is make the us a bigger bag of dicks.
It was true with Paris and Brussels. It’s true today.
We’re trying to save America so hard, we’re killing all the reasons to save America.
We need to grieve our dead, comfort those hurt and bereaved and strive to be better to each other. Pay this guy no more mind than a freeway pileup or an industrial disaster. And remember that crime and homicides are down compared to most of the latter half of the 20th century.
I guess we can hope for a miracle to give us better options than the criminal and the fascist.
Re: If we act based on this to curb our rights, to attack foreign peoples abroad, it's a victory for the terrorists.
A victory for the terrorists and the government. It’s as if the terrorists and the government are actually partners, playing the old “good cop, bad cop” game. The losers, of course, are everyone else.
Re: Re: If we act based on this to curb our rights, to attack foreign peoples abroad, it's a victory for the terrorists.
A victory for the terrorists and the government. It’s as if the terrorists and the government are actually partners, playing the old “good cop, bad cop” game. The losers, of course, are everyone else.
Yet something DOES need to be done by our governments – but this is the WRONG thing.
Firstly the problem is not too bad in the west right now. Although the events may look significant the numbers killed are tiny compared to routine causes of premature death.
However we should be under no illusions about what could happen in the longer term. If we look at the situation in the middle east and the plight of ALL non-muslims in major muslim majority countries we should realise that that is the future we could end up with if we do nothing.
We should not tolerate the refusal of Saudi Arabia to allow the open practise of any religion other than Islam (and by the way atheism and agnosticism count as religions in this instance.). Many other Islamic countries are little better and if the state doesn’t impose the rules then commonly the mob will do it instead.
We should stop saying “but of course this is a misinterpretation of Islam” after every attack. This might seem impolite to our moderate muslim neighbours but perhaps it would be better to force them to defend their position themselves with chapter and verse. What happens now is that everyone shelters under the assumption that Islam is really just like any other religion. However if that assumption isn’t true then we need to find out fast.
(By the way, no major non-muslim thinker who encountered Islam from Sophronius of Jerusalem in the 7th century to Winston Churchill in the 20th would have agreed with that assumption.)
Re: Re: Re: It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
The Sauds aren’t a bag of dicks because they’re Muslim, they’re a bag of dicks because they push for intolerant policies and execute people for having religious beliefs other than their own.
Islamic State isn’t a pile of douchebags because they’re Muslim, they’re a pile of douchebags because they’re holding hostage their entire citizenry. They use children as informants. They torture their own. They ignore their own police corruption. They teach their children to be terrorists. They steal food from their own people…oh it’s Islamic State. That list just goes on and on.
But wait, Christians have been doing exactly this sort of shit since time immemorial. And here in the US we still have radical fanatics (including sects from some of our biggest churches such as the SBC) who want to abolish freedom of religion, persecute heretics and apostates, criminalize gays and atheists and re-chattellize women. But these guys aren’t assholes because they’re Christian, they’re assholes because they commit hate crimes and push intolerant policies.
But wait, then there’s our government, who tortures people, and keeps torture as a legally accepted policy when conducted by government agents. There’s our mass surveillance program, our brutal law enforcement agencies, our multiple drone strike theaters our FBI behaving like an espionage agency… because it turns out they’re just an espionage agency claiming to be into law enforcement.
And the thing is it’s not the agencies it’s the agents. People within the agencies, given a fuckton of lattitude often turn into real shitfuckers. But not because they’re Americans or even government agents of the United States. They’re shitfuckers because they do shitfucky things.
And so it is with Christians and Muslims and any other members of large groups. Sure, they may not agree with you, but plenty of us can disagree with each other, even vehemently, and not go full jackass over it.
By far, most of us, in fact.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
There are radical people in all every walk of life.
But yea… like your dis on Christians there.
Do us a favor.
Draw a picture of Christ and walk into a Church.
Next,
Draw a picture of Mohamed and walk into a Mosque.
Yea right, you wouldn’t dare you coward. Shut up and stop wasting air, more intelligent people than you need it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Behavior vs. Identity
Yea right, you wouldn’t dare you coward. Shut up and stop wasting air, more intelligent people than you need it.
Did I dis Christians? Or did I dis people who are ill behaved who incidentally worship Jesus Christ?
Let’s put this another way: Does Romney represent Christians and Christianity when, as the CEO of Bain Capital he buys up a company, borrows tons of money in its name, transfers the funds to Bain and then sells the company off to founder and collapse into bankruptcy, creating yet another sinkhole in our economy? Are Romney’s practices representative of Christianity or Christian doctrine? Or are they just the devices of an unethical executive manager of a company that exploits loopholes in hedge fund law for personal and company gain?
When President and Evangelist George W. Bush lied to the United States people about intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, when he sent the US military in to collapse a regime at considerable expense to the US people, employed mercenaries, implemented extrajudicial detention and torture, condoned war profiteering and ultimately brought about the very situation with Islamic State we contend with today, was the President representing Christianity? Did he represent all of Christendom? Is the Bush Doctrine consistent with Christian values? Or was he abusing his position as President of the United States to steer the immense US military resources for his own personal crusade?
Would Jesus do these things? Would he condone them?
Would you, Anonymous Coward?
I’ve mentioned before, that when you get organizations and ideologies with a large enough following, you’ll find villains and villainy enough in them just because they are peopled with naked apes, a general subset of whom just can’t help themselves but be jackasses and ruin the commons for the rest of us.
The first step to not being a jackass is to recognize you very much have a personal potential to be one. Jackassery is not beyond any of us. Too many people are eager to believe they wouldn’t possibly be Nazis even while they’re packing railroad cars into Poland. And they’ll even decide out what’s different from when the Gerrys did it and why it is therefore okay this time.
If I offended you, personally, Anonymous Coward, you’ll have to be specific as to how, because it sounds like you just didn’t understand what I said in the first place.
Bringing this back to my original point, we can’t judge groups or ideologies or institutions based on single actors, or even the more obvious subsets. This applies not only to religions like Islam or Christianity, but ideologies like liberalism or feminism or capitalism. It applies to companies like Apple or Amazon and agencies like the FBI and FCC.
Re: Re: Re:4 Behavior vs. Identity
When President and Evangelist George W. Bush lied to the United States people about intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, when he sent the US military in to collapse a regime at considerable expense to the US people, employed mercenaries, implemented extrajudicial detention and torture, condoned war profiteering and ultimately brought about the very situation with Islamic State we contend with today, was the President representing Christianity? Did he represent all of Christendom? Is the Bush Doctrine consistent with Christian values? Or was he abusing his position as President of the United States to steer the immense US military resources for his own personal crusade?
Would Jesus do these things? Would he condone them?
No He wouldn’t – BUT Mohammed would – and that is exactly the point!
Re: Re: Re:5 Behavior vs. Identity
When President and Evangelist George W. Bush lied to the United States people about intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, when he sent the US military in to collapse a regime at considerable expense to the US people, employed mercenaries, implemented extrajudicial detention and torture, condoned war profiteering and ultimately brought about the very situation with Islamic State we contend with today, was the President representing Christianity? Did he represent all of Christendom? Is the Bush Doctrine consistent with Christian values?
He was certainly anti-Christian in doing those things – because he removed the only constraint that was preventing the local indigenous Christians of Iraq from being ethnically cleansed.
Re: Re: Re:5 Behavior vs. Identity
Have you read the quran or are you just parroting what you have heard about how all Muslims are evil horrible people?
Re: Re: Re:6 Behavior vs. Identity
Have you read the quran
Have you?
Re: Re: Re:4 Behavior vs. Identity
we can’t judge groups or ideologies or institutions based on single actors, or even the more obvious subsets.
But we can judge them on the recorded content of the ideology and the behaviour of the founders.
All of the behaviours we are criticising are commanded in the sacred texts of Islam Koran or sayings of the prophet (Hadith) or are emulations of actions that Mohammed himself did.
I would also point out that some of the subsets are rather large and hence can’t be ignored that easily. I’m not talking about ISIS here – I’m talking about the mob rule that exists in Pakistan and some other Muslim countries. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia_Bibi_blasphemy_case
for example.
Re: Re: Re:5 Behavior vs. Identity
Yeah, based on your logic, the old testament would also have to be so judged, what with all that Wipe them out down to the last infant and calf stuff.
Since we’re allowing Jews and Christians to come to terms that human morality has transcended what their texts have to say, we’re going to also have to allow Muslims to come to the same terms.
Personally, I don’t like how we play fast and loose with ideology in general (not just religious ideology) and am a still a bit sore about social Darwinism. But I’m not going to ban or regulate people being religiously or ideologically stupid because that’s not fair to a whole lot of people.
We just need to figure out how to get them to understand despite themselves that they get subject to the same rules as those they hate.
Re: Re: Re:6 Behavior vs. Identity
Yeah, based on your logic, the old testament would also have to be so judged, what with all that Wipe them out down to the last infant and calf stuff.
Umm, no. When people talk about bad stuff in the Bible, they usually refer to things in the Old Testament (like you did) which preceded Christianity.
The New Testament followed Christianity. The Koran, likewise, followed Islam. So if you want to compare Christianity and Islam, it might be better to compare the New Testament and the Koran.
Re: Re: Re:7 Behavior vs. Identity
Well, just the new testament for those denominations who forsake the old testament.
And Dominionists.
And Calvanists.
And those who believe in Spiritual Warfare.
And those who believe in Jus Bellum
And anyone else who believes in an interpretation that advocates hostile action or aggressive state policy (e.g. capital punishment for all the gays.)
Which includes whatever denomination you are, Anonymous Coward, since you are, in accordance to your faith, calling to regulate, intern, exile or massacre Muslims.
Re: Re: Re:8 Crap. That is to say...
If we’re going to inflict a policy on Muslims that infringe upon their rights based on their scripture, we’ll have to apply the same policy to anyone else whose faith exhibits the same properties.
If that is advocacy of violence, that includes a lot of Christian denominations, including Catholicism (which includes not only the new testament, but Church tradition, including any policies decreed by the Holy See.)
And that includes Dominionists, Calvanists, Spiritual Warriors, Just Warfare Theorists… and you.
Re: Re: Re:8 Behavior vs. Identity
you are, in accordance to your faith, calling to regulate, intern, exile or massacre Muslims.
Please show me where I did that.
Re: Re: Re:9 Behavior vs. Identity
But we can judge them on the recorded content of the ideology and the behaviour of the founders.
Once you judge them, you’re not going to just waggle your finger at them, are you?
Maybe by judge you meant only in your head, so you’re just giving yourself permission to dislike those strange folk over there.
No, I took you seriously. I thought by judge you meant to try, convict and sentence. You meant that their religion should be against the law and incur penalties such as prison, exile, execution or reconditioning.
Would you care to clarify what you actually meant?
Re: Re: Re:10 To clarify...
To try, convict and sentence is what I meant when I said we can’t do it.
We can judge people in our heads all we want. The problem is when we turn it into action or policy.
Re: Re: Re:10 Behavior vs. Identity
I didn’t say or write that. Please stop trying to put words in my mouth, it makes you look bad.
Re: Re: Re:11 I see what happened.
Your stupid Techdirt-assigned marker looks similar to Anonymous Coward‘s stupid Techdirt-assigned marker. I confused you for him. You sure did make me look and feel awful dumb.
I’d rather you have told me then that you weren’t actually defending the Anonymous Coward‘s position regarding how we can judge Muslims according to the Koran. Otherwise I might not have bothered.
Perhaps you’d like to explain your position on that. Do you think that states or societies should judge Muslims or all of Islam based on the teachings of the Koran? Do you think that for what the Koran says, we should criminalize being Muslim? Should we intern Muslims? Should we exile or kill them? Should we regulate Islam in a way we don’t regulate other religions? Clarify that for me please, since that was the whole point of this thread.
Because is argument really comes down to that, and not whether the New Testament is pristine and free from calls to violence. This guy, for instance, preaches that the bible sentences gays to death and the Orlando shooter was right to massacre a nightclub full of gays. He also says that the state should intern gays and execute them by firing squad en mass. Do you agree with him? Do you believe that he is accurately representing Christianity? Do you think the bible says we should annihilate gays?
The problem is, he thinks it does. And neither you nor the Pope have any authority to say otherwise.
And identically, I don’t think we can judge all of Islam based on the most radical of Muslims.
Do you understand now? Is my position clear yet?
Re: Re: Re:12 I see what happened.
I’d rather you have told me then that you weren’t actually defending the Anonymous Coward’s position regarding how we can judge Muslims according to the Koran.
I would have thought that my lack of doing so would be enough.
Do you think that…
I wasn’t expecting an inquisition. But then, I suppose no one expects the inquisition.
Let me just say that I generally support freedom, including religious, as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom. For example, some have claimed that “true freedom” includes the “freedom to own slaves”. I disagree. I also disagree that religious freedom includes the freedom to impose one’s own religion on other people.
My observation was that if someone wants to compare and contrast Christian and Islamic and texts, using the Old Testament is probably not a good idea. I think most Christians consider the New Testament to have superseded the Old testament and to be their current guiding document. While most Muslims, I believe, consider the Koran to be their current guiding document.
Re: Re: Re:13 I see what happened.
I’m not sure we have any real conflict of interest.
I’m less interested in what texts say versus how people behave. I figured that we, as a society, still presume that individuals have agency, and therefore it is up to them what violence or wrongdoing they choose, regardless of whether it’s justified by scripture.
In short, a Muslim is just as responsible for his own actions as a Christian or an Atheist.
I’m not even going to opine whether it is better for one to do violence based on scriptural justification or do violence for some other reason. I’d really just prefer they didn’t do violence. And that’s where this conversation started in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:9 Behavior vs. Identity
here
Now, it’s entirely possible that you’re not making that judgement in accordance to your faith, but then it’s unclear whether you think we should be judging you based on your faith as recorded by the founders of the faith (as opposed to the modern tenets of the faith?), or based on your own personal actions and expression.
If you should only ever judge someone based on the original tenets of their faith, then how can you possibly account for bad actors in a good faith? Or good actors in a bad faith. Now, I’m not entirely certain that a bad faith even exists, except in the minds of people who are misinterpreting other peoples’ faiths, but even if you accept their existence, it seems impossible to actually apply your ideology to the real world without an unacceptably high failure rate.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
The Sauds aren’t a bag of dicks because they’re Muslim, they’re a bag of dicks because they push for intolerant policies and execute people for having religious beliefs other than their own.
and they do that because they read in the Koran and the hadith that that is what they should do. Go away and read it.
Re: Re: Re:3 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
Are you sure? The west practiced intolerance and executed heretics and apostates (or resistant heathens) for over a thousand years without their holy book telling them to do that.
You’re only speculating that they’re motivated only by their holy book (and would be kinder, gentler sauds if they had a different holy book).
The brutality of humanity exists both within and without Islam, as it does within and without Christendom.
And Christians do pull from the New Testament and Church tradition to justify their own immoralities, George W. Bush being a case in point. He felt his war was morally just and endorsed by God.
(As did Hitler with his, incidentally.)
Re: Re: Re:4 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
The west practiced intolerance and executed heretics and apostates (or resistant heathens) for over a thousand years without their holy book telling them to do that.
You’ve been reading a load of tu quoque islamic apologetics.
In fact such intolerance was very rare in Christian countries and usually only affected those who were close to the centre of power. Over 1500 years of rulers using Christianity as a tool to stay in power a number of such events – but it is poorly suited to this purpose and eventually subverted the authoritarian rulers.
Islam on the other hand was specifically designed for this purpose as Hitler noted:
“It’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion,” Hitler complained to his pet architect Albert Speer. “Why did it have to be Christianity, with its meekness and flabbiness?” Islam was a Männerreligion—a “religion of men”—and hygienic too. The “soldiers of Islam” received a warrior’s heaven, “a real earthly paradise” with “houris” and “wine flowing.” This, Hitler argued, was much more suited to the “Germanic temperament” than the “Jewish filth and priestly twaddle” of Christianity.
What is more violence was unheard of during the first 300 years of Christianity.
The first 300 years of Islam by comparison were an unprecedented litany of death an destruction. The first five so called “rightly guided caliphs” ( the equivalent of the apostles in Christianity) were all murdered by other muslims – several by each other.
Re: Re: Re:5 The Church sucked as a custodian of humankind.
You’ve been reading a load of tu quoque islamic apologetics.
Is that how you’re playing it? Are you reading your arguments out of an academic debate club playbook?
No, I make my own tu quoque arguments. And they’re applicable too, on the notion of reciprocity or equal treatment. When we pass judgement on persons affiliated with a sect, it follows in accordance to reciprocity that we have to pass judgement similarly on persons of all sects. If we are to intern, take to trial or execute Muslims for the crimes commited by their fellows, we have to do so with every other ideology in as like a manner as possible.
Do you disagree?
In the meantime, I’m sure you find that the middle ages history of Europe was plenty peaceful and tranquil what with everyone obeying the Church’s unflinching decree to discard their weapons, turn the other cheek and recognize even the lowest of the people as still Christ’s children. And the holy inquisition tortured or burned people alive only when they were really, really bad people.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
Islamic State isn’t a pile of douchebags because they’re Muslim, they’re a pile of douchebags because they’re holding hostage their entire citizenry. They use children as informants. They torture their own. They ignore their own police corruption. They teach their children to be terrorists. They steal food from their own people…oh it’s Islamic State. That list just goes on and on.
And the do all that BECAUSE Mohammed did all that or similar
Re: Re: Re:3 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
Um…no.
I don’t think there are any Jews left in the world who stone their adulterers, despite that is dictated in the Torah / Old testament.(I may be wrong. There are plenty of Jews who don’t stone their adulterers, or believe in capital punishment at all.) If Jews can transcend their scripture, then so can Muslims.
And besides which, the Church has a whole history of engaging in atrocities directly contrary to the teachings of Christ. So we get back to the whole human thing.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
But wait, Christians have been doing exactly this sort of shit since time immemorial. And here in the US we still have radical fanatics (including sects from some of our biggest churches such as the SBC) who want to abolish freedom of religion, persecute heretics and apostates, criminalize gays and atheists and re-chattellize women. But these guys aren’t assholes because they’re Christian, they’re assholes because they commit hate crimes and push intolerant policies.
But they do that kind of thing AGAINST the example of Christ and in defiance of the New Testament. They are assholes because they don’t follow the words of their Lord.
Muslims on the other hand have at least the Nurenberg excuse to fall back on – they are only following orders. The Christians who do these things certainly have the greater sin.
It is true that the problem with Christians is that they fall far short of Christ’s example – but thank God most Muslims are better than Mohammed!
Re: Re: Re:3 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
You know what is interesting to me? That it is common among many modern Christians and Jews to believe that the atrocities and crimes against humanity that were committed by the Hebrews, and the alleged WMD campaigns of Yahweh, were right and just, directly contrary to what the world community regards as acceptable acts of war (as according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) just because the acting agents are holy to them.
That shit scares the fuck out of me, because it’s one cognitive step to say well if God firebombed a city, so can we. And the thing is, we have. A lot.
So I submit that it doesn’t matter what the Koran says, people will be dicks, or they won’t. And they’ll do either on their own agency and volition. And we, as a civilized society, have to let them make those choices.
Re: Re: Re:4 It's not about Islam, it's about jackassery.
That it is common among many modern Christians and Jews to believe that the atrocities and crimes against humanity that were committed by the Hebrews, and the alleged WMD campaigns of Yahweh, were right and just, directly contrary to what the world community regards as acceptable acts of war (as according to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Geneva Conventions and the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees) just because the acting agents are holy to them.
Those human right conventions themselves are only there because of our Christian history. They don’t exist in the Islamic world. In fact the Organisation of Islamic countries has its own version of the human rights convention in which the standard rights are trumped by Islamic sharia.
So I submit that it doesn’t matter what the Koran says, people will be dicks, or they won’t.
Well I think you are being breathtakingly naive if you think that.
If that were so why did they suddenly start being dicks in the middle east around 620 AD when they hadn’t been before?
Re: Re: Re:5 Human Rights
Those human right conventions themselves are only there because of our Christian history.
Those human right conventions are only there because of European history.
If you recognize the scripture-based endorsement of the Divine Right of Kings, by which some serious douchbags got into power and shat all over everyone, and eventually some people grew tired of that and imposed checks and balances and the assurance of human rights, then yes, one can say that the Church facilitated the modern era recognition of Human Rights.
If this is what you meant, then yeah, I agree with you.
Re: Re: If we act based on this to curb our rights, to attack foreign peoples abroad, it's a victory for the terrorists.
Most of the big name terrorist groups were first created by the CIA, then “for no reason at all, went rogue”
Re: Re: Re: If we act based on this to curb our rights, to attack foreign peoples abroad, it's a victory for the terrorists.
Hey, throw us a bone. Those Libyan guys pinky-swore they wouldn’t use those weapons for evil! Like you wouldn’t have done the same…
Not to outdone, Newt Gingrich suggests
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed the creation of a new version of the controversial House Un-American Activities Committee to root out American citizens who plan to commit terrorist attacks in the U.S. “We originally created the House Un-American Activities Committee to go after Nazis. We passed several laws in 1938 and 1939 to go after Nazis and we made it illegal to help the Nazis. We’re going to presently have to go take the similar steps here,” Gingrich said in a Monday appearance on “Fox and Friends.” Gingrich also suggested that the U.S. will inevitably “declare a war on Islamic supremacists” living here due to the number of terrorist attacks that have been committed by American citizens, such as those in San Bernardino, California and at the Fort Hood military base. “We’re going to say, if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you are a traitor and you have lost your citizenship,” Gingrich said.
Per Talking Points Memo. I’m sure Herr Fuhrer Trump would approve.
Re: Not to outdone, Newt Gingrich suggests
Wait, I know the music. The words have changed only slightly…
Freedom rings with Jesus,
The stars and stripes unfurled,
Today America sings with us
Tomorrow, the whole world.
Sadly i cant say im suprised by this article. What i am suprised about is that i havent seen the argument put forth that he was let go three times “because enceyption”. I assume its still coming though.
Gary Johnson is the only anti mass surveillance candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
The victims are what matter. You? You're just Some Asshole
I can’t help but think of the Some Asshole Initiative.
Kill a few, or a few dozen people and become world famous for it, with your ‘message’ spread far and wide? If you’re some murderous sleaze-bag that wants attention and is willing to kill for it how could you possibly pass that up?
On the other hand if you’re never named, your picture is never shown, your ‘message’ is never mentioned, and the focus is entirely upon helping the grieving and the community? All the fame is gone, your message dies with you, and you disappear from history as nothing more than ‘Some Asshole’. I can’t help but think that if the news adopted that change then there would be notably less events like this, as those seeking infamy through killing would suddenly get nothing from it.
Re: The victims are what matter. You? You're just Some Asshole
I can’t help but think that if the news adopted that change then there would be notably less events like this,
People have been saying that for years – but in this case it doesn’t apply.
1. The argument assumes an obscure cause that needs to be highlighted. Islam hasn’t been that for nearly 1400 years
2.These particular terrorists don’t care about publicity in Western media – they care about the 72 virgins and following the orders of their prophet.
3.Even if we don’t publicise this there are others who will.
4. Terrorism in the west isn’t the problem – it is a pinprick. The real problem is thesituation of the minority religious communities in muslim countries (mostly but not exclusively indigenous, Eastern Christians who are quite unrelated to western colonialism). These are facing annihilation and we are standing by and watching – and in some cases we are actually arming the people that are persecuting them!
I do love how the MSM is ignoring some conveinent facts about what happened.
The whole gun free zone being a death sentence for those inside that club.
The fact that despite being on the FBI watch list that is supposed to prevent stuff like this from happening, this nutjob somehow was able to get access and buy guns.
Hilary and trump are exactly the same. wannabe dictators save I think Hilary will go for the slow errosion of rights and trump will immediately jump to stripping rights en masse.
Or the whole the police valued their lives more than the people inside that they chose to try and wait the killer out while he slaughtered a few dozen more. Guess storming someone armed with a gun is alot harder than swatting unarmed and un resisting people.
Re: Wow. Mateen was on the watch list?
To be fair, the watch list serves absolutely no purpose. It’s super arbitrary how you get on the watch list, and it’s over a million names long.
He was put on the list and then taken off, having never committed any serious crimes.
In my dreams, some FBI official realizes how dumb the list is and throws it out.
Lack Of Mental Health Services
The same event has been repeated again and again and again and will do so out into the future. Ronny Raygun gutted mental health services to give a tax kickback to the rich, because poor people suffering from mental health problems only kill other poor people.
So instead of costly mental health services you have, mass murder, mental patients dying in prison and target practice for trigger happy law enforcers.
Track record of mental disturbances, nothing done, people die, cops kill the crazy person, repeated again and again and again. Yep, keep waffling shite about terrorism, that’ll help, NOT!
I thought TechDirt would mention this troubling headline:
FBI Director Comey: “highly confident” Orlando shooter radicalized through internet
So what if the terrorist was born here? His terrorist parents immigrated.
What’s this repeated stupid PC argument “the terrorist was born here”? Most Islamic terrorists are not first but 2nd and even 3rd generation Islamists. 1st generation is usually too busy making ends meet, it’s the 2nd generation that starts murdering people, blowing themselves up and chopping people’s heads off. This is EXACTLY what is happening in Europe. Keeping the 1st generation out is common sense.
And in this specific case the immigrant father is an Islamist terrorist sympathizer himself. The murderer was bread by his immigrant family.
The question is: why import the Islamists in the first place? The PC chorus sings as if the Islamists are ENTITLED to immigrate to the West. They are entitled to NOTHING outside their countries. They created a mess there, their murder cult causing them to murder each other en masse, why does the West have to sacrifice the safety of its citizens to let the Islamists lead a more comfortable life?
Donald Trump is a Hitler-style populist demagogue. But just because it is he who shouts the slogans, make no mistake: keeping the Islamists out is no more than common sense.
Re: So what if the terrorist was born here? His terrorist parents immigrated.
Why stop there? Native Americans should really be banning those European terrorist immigrants, too. Given how many wars the descendants of those immigrants have started, I’m amazed they were allowed in at all.
Re: Re: So what if the terrorist was born here? His terrorist parents immigrated.
I like where your going MrTroy, it has potential, but IMO your thinking too small of a scale. I suggest we take it all the way to creating a dude in the sky that tells us what to do by burning bushes and carving tablets out of a mountain.. or we could even elevate a war mongering womanizing pedophile to the level of deity… then use either of them as an excuse to not ban, but to murder freaking EVERYONE that doesn’t think the way or believe the way we do. Now your doing something!!
Re: Maximum Poe.
I really cannot tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic.
Bravo!
Re: So what if the terrorist was born here? His terrorist parents immigrated.
There is a good eye opening doc on Muslims of France. Stage was set during ww1 when gov needed cheap meet and imported them from colonies, complete with building mosques in Paris. Now, century later, they pay the price.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/specialseries/2013/12/muslims-france-2013122082835640302.html
Looking for a needle in a haystack by creating more haystacks will not work. Pulse is proof. He used android, gay apps, fib inquires, all in the open and nsa still failed. Just consider that mere 1% of schmucks of his level may go undetected in broad daylight.
Re: Re:
Crazy thought here.
What if they saw this going on and decided to let it happen to further their push for more surveillance on the average citizen?
Much easier to pass anti freedom laws after a tragedy, when people are afraid instead of logical.
Why import Islamists
Trump is an ***hole but the article includes some unacceptable PC BS. If the terrorist was born in US this means his parents should not have been let in. That’s what happens in Europe – first generation Muslimimmigrants rarely engage in terrorism, it’s a 2nd generation that do it. In this specific case the terrorist’s father is a validated terrorist sympathizer and collaborator. If HE would not have been let in the terrorist would not have been born in US and this massacre of Americans would not happen.
WTF? The PC crowd is singing in unison as if these people have a RIGHT to immigrate to the West. They do NOT have such right. The RIGHT is with the indigienous Americans to be safe. The Islamists should stay where they are and clean up the mess they created with their murders and genocide there. Importing them with their alien culture, religious strife and murder cult to US makes ZERO sense.
Re: Why import Islamists
This is exactly the same view the Nazis had with the Jews. They labeled them all as dangerous and subhuman solely based on the actions of a few compared to the whole.
They used propaganda to label them as various things they were not, thus made most of the population believe their word instead of looking into it themselves and just talking with jewish people about it.
Maybe those of you that think this way about Muslims should just go and talk with them. before you start saying such crazy things as none should be allowed in our shops, homes or country.
Re: Re: Why import Islamists
This is exactly the same view the Nazis had with the Jews.
Actually it is exactly the same thing that the Muslims still have for the Jews.
Muslims are not the new Jews. Jews are the new Jews – Muslims are the new Nazis.
They used propaganda to label them as various things they were not,
Unfortunately the analogy fails because Islam really is what David is saying it is – if you look for yourself in the Islamic scriptures themselves you will find that he is right.
Re: Re: Re: The matter of precedent
What demographics other than muslims do you also want to profile based on the actions of a few?
Re: Why import Islamists
If the terrorist was born in US this means his parents should not have been let in.
If you have a way to determine which immigrants’ children will become terrorists without an unacceptably high false positive rate, lay it out.
Re: Why import Islamists
WTF? The PC crowd is singing in unison as if these people have a RIGHT to immigrate to the West. They do NOT have such right. The RIGHT is with the indigienous Americans to be safe. The Islamists should stay where they are and clean up the mess they created with their murders and genocide there. Importing them with their alien culture, religious strife and murder cult to US makes ZERO sense.
So you’re 100% native american, right? I certainly hope so, because otherwise making that claim after talking about ‘indigenous Americans’ and their right to be safe from immigrants becomes all sorts of hilarious.
At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law...
“If you see your neighbors doing something suspicious, say something to the authorities.”
“All of our problems can be blamed on that religious group so we need to get rid of them.”
Who said these statements and when: Germany in the 1930’s or USA in 2016?
Re: At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law...
Yes.
They said it too.
Our first step in going Full Nazi was to pretend that it couldn’t happen here.
Re: Re: At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law...
The second step was to start pretending that it’s only wrong when other people do it.
If they stop an attack, they say mass surveillance works.
If they fail to stop an attack, they say they need more mass surveillance.
They always win because they can and will do whatever they want.