12 ms·
> Whom are they protecting? Cause it sure is not the average citizen. But was there ever any indication to the contrary? How did we as Americans convert to th
by jMyles 9y ago
> Whom are they protecting? Cause it sure is not the average citizen.
But was there ever any indication to the contrary? How did we as Americans convert to the myth that our government, let alone our "intelligence" agencies, have any inclination to protect us or advance our interests? That has never been their practice ever.
Our government spent the better part of a century not only allowing 3.5 million of us to live in slavery, but actively facilitating and promoting it. Even after it finally put an end to this practice de jurie, it immediately allowed us to be enslaved as "prisoners", and today 2 million of us are in that situation.
I don't mean to bring up such generic anarchism here, but I think it's sharply relevant when considering questions like, "why do the CIA and NSA behave the way they do?" They were created and charged to do it. It's their job. We can debate about how best to end that job, but I really don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they ever had some high-minded democratic purpose.
- mk89 9y agoIf your comment is meant to be sarcastic, then I am failing to see it... Could you explain what you mean by enslaving as prisoner? So you would let a rapist free or what?
- galazzah 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Jim_Crow
- jMyles 9y agoNo no, I'm just pointing out that the 13th amendment to the Constitution didn't outlaw slavery entirely, but instead a clause literally beginning with the word "except" - can you imagine? "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except ..." It's candor and obfuscation at the very same time. Here's the rest of the text: "...as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." So now, today, we have more black men under the supervision of the "criminal justice system" (which, like the NSA, is not now and have never been truly tasked with achieving its formal goals) than were enslaved in 1860.
- mk89 9y agoThe concept of prison the way we intend it is relatively new (let's say a couple of hundred years). So I am not surprised to see that there are still some references to slavery here and there, because that was actually the punishment back then. The reason we have more blacks than white in prison is for dozens reasons: - legacy - cultural differences - social injustice Etc. Don't solve problems, ignore them, expect that people behave the way you want, wait until someone screws up here and here, let it escalate, ignore again and/or apply short term solutions, mix all this stuff, fast forward all of it, and you have the current situation. Just be lucky to be on the right side and have good parents.
- jMyles 9y agoI don't think a single iota of the prison disparity - not one - is attributable to "cultural differences". I also don't think that it is an accident. Drug prohibition was designed precisely - and initially sold expressly - as a way to control black and asian people, and later other people of color. > Don't solve problems, ignore them, expect that people behave the way you want, wait until someone screws up here and here, let it escalate, ignore again and/or apply short term solutions, mix all this stuff, fast forward all of it, and you have the current situation. I think that's pretty reasonable. That's pretty much the point I was trying to make about intelligence agencies as well.
- 9y ago
- s2g 9y agoPrisoners are allowed to be slaves under the 13th amendment. You don't have to free them to stop allowing slavery in prison.
- jMyles 9y agoI suspect that if prisoners are meaningfully unenslaved (ie, enjoy basic rights to body, fair wages, etc) that the system will suddenly realize that drugs aren't so bad after all. As I matter of legislative priority, however, I think it makes sense to work in the direction direction, ie, to work toward ending drug prohibition with an aim to making a substantial dent in what slavery remains in the USA.
- eloff 9y agoThere's a lot of people in prison for things that they shouldn't be, like marijuana possession. Especially blacks and latinos. The US jails about 10 times more people than other developed nations - there's something very wrong with that picture. In the land of the free you actually have the least amount of people actually living free...
- coldtea 9y ago>Could you explain what you mean by enslaving as prisoner? It means having 25% of the world's prison population but only 4% of the world's population. It means being a prison state. It means using BS reasons, like marijuana possession, to imprison a large part of your population. It means predominantly giving long prison sentences for small offenses, just because of an "Old Testament" idea of revenge -- that is carried forward in the culture from the days of the nutty religious minorities that established the country. It means having absurd legal constructs, like "3 strikes" laws. It means exploiting prisoners for free labor, and having private prisons, and other such practices, and being the shame of the western world (and large part of the developing world) in this area. It means people casually joking of people getting raped or attacked in your prisons. It means still having the death penalty in 2018. And other such things...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- DSingularity 9y agoI believe they behave the way they do because this is their strategy by design. I feel that during the Cold War strategists realized that being a democracy is a vulnerability. Were the soviets actually willing to go there and exploit it by manipulating the American public? Who knows. But that’s not how military strategy is created.
- stickdogg 9y agoThe Russians and Chinese manipulate the American public every day all day. Not to mention the Americans and Western Europeans with money and influence whose interests align with theirs. How do you think we ended up with president chump?
- Bizarro 9y agoHow do you think we ended up with president chump? No. The alternative is a crook.
- jMyles 9y ago...well, it's possible that that's part of the manipulation too.
- wavefunction 9y agoIt's not really an alternative if Trump is also a crook, which he is.
- ionised 9y agoAnd Trump isn't a crook? lol
- hnpromomessage 9y ago> How do you think we ended up with president chump? You watched too much crap TV and accepted it as reasonable fare. That assent, a small psychological step for you, a big collective "we are, indeed, collectively stupid people" for American-mankind, is what got you here. Don't blame the poor Chinese.
- fulafel 9y agoI think this is attributing too much agency to "government". Voters wanted slavery, and so public officials supported it. Voters wanted wars and a surveillance state after 9/11. Etc. (Same goes for the good things that the public sector does, of course) Yes there is inertia and self-perpetuation, like in any organisations, but not overwhelmingly much.
- wallace_f 9y agoI am not so sure about that. Did voters ever vote on the surveillance state? Wars like Iraq, Vietnam, etc, were created by lies that would not exist without this agency. The WMD lies and Gulf of Tonkin lies have been well documented in respectable news outlets, so it is not like these are at all conspiracy theories. Yesterday was May 4th, the anniversary of when the agency in government murdered unarmed, peaceful war protestors at Kent State, then 11 days later bayonetted about a dozen peaceful war protestors at University of New Mexico. These are not things free people compelled their government to do.
- fulafel 9y agoI'm sure we both know that voters vote for representatives, not laws, so that question is not applicable. But in general, there has been popular support for things like "patriot act", and wars, as measured in polls.
- mr_spothawk 9y agopolls are stated in such a way ... theyre part of the control
- called_it 9y agoThere has also been even more support for the opposite, so that's just more sophistry.
- fulafel 9y agoIraq war and patrioct act both saw more support than opposition in polls, when they happened (law passed, invasion was started). Wars did get less popular when they went badly, so you can argue that they would have been shorter if public officials would have retreated when polls turned against them. But that's a separate discussion.
- naasking 9y ago> But was there ever any indication to the contrary? How did we as Americans convert to the myth that our government, let alone our "intelligence" agencies, have any inclination to protect us or advance our interests? I don't think this is giving public servants enough credit. Politicians are a little more self-serving than those working in the agencies, so don't paint all public servants with the same brush. The problem is that what public servants believe is in the public interest just doesn't align with what you believe is in the public interest. There's always going to be a little give and take like this, and this evolution is what makes democratic societies effective. That said, there can't be any given and take without oversight, and that's the real problem here. No doubt NSA employees believe what they're doing is important and effective, but is it really? That's a debate we simply can't have because of the secrecy, and public trust in these institutions has eroded sufficiently, possibly with good reason, that the public can't simply have faith in the NSA.
- ndesaulniers 9y agoA "paperclip maximizer" of sorts?