3 ms·

> And what that does is that does not apply to any U.S. person. Has to be a foreign entity. Referring to a living, breathing human being with feelings, emotion

> And what that does is that does not apply to any U.S. person. Has to be a foreign entity. Referring to a living, breathing human being with feelings, emotions, needs and wants (just like any American) as an "entity" is what Rory Miller calls "othering" [1]. The point of othering is to remove the humanity from someone or from a group of people. It makes it easier for someone to monitor, torture and... kill someone else. And Americans are masters at it. People in the middle east, regardless of anything, are referred to by Americans as hajis. Gooks in Vietnam. And so on. It's subtle, but it works on Joe Public as well as it does on American soldiers invading some random country. It's inhumane. [1] Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected - http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594392137 http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594392137

sneak 13y ago
Yeah, Snowden pointed this out in his QA today: > More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal." It's insane that the president is openly declaring that they are more than willing to violate people's civil rights, just as long as they didn't happen to be born in the USA. (And what about dual citizens? Or US citizens like me that live abroad? OR THE SIX AND A HALF BILLION OTHER HUMANS WHO DESERVE PRIVACY TOO)
mtgx 13y ago
The media could help here, by instead of using the administration words in their articles, they'd be using their words - the normal words. Also, at every press conference where they say "entities", they could ask, do you mean "people"? Or something along those lines. The people in the media are American citizens, too. It would help if they'd try to defend their own rights, too, instead of being nice to the government, which they are supposed to keep in check.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  If "the media" were going to help, they could have done that at any time since 9/12/2001.
- weland 13y ago
  Yeah, but why would the media want that?

sneak 13y ago

Yeah, Snowden pointed this out in his QA today: > More fundamentally, the "US Persons" protection in general is a distraction from the power and danger of this system. Suspicionless surveillance does not become okay simply because it's only victimizing 95% of the world instead of 100%. Our founders did not write that "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all US Persons are created equal." It's insane that the president is openly declaring that they are more than willing to violate people's civil rights, just as long as they didn't happen to be born in the USA. (And what about dual citizens? Or US citizens like me that live abroad? OR THE SIX AND A HALF BILLION OTHER HUMANS WHO DESERVE PRIVACY TOO)

mtgx 13y ago

The media could help here, by instead of using the administration words in their articles, they'd be using their words - the normal words. Also, at every press conference where they say "entities", they could ask, do you mean "people"? Or something along those lines. The people in the media are American citizens, too. It would help if they'd try to defend their own rights, too, instead of being nice to the government, which they are supposed to keep in check.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
If "the media" were going to help, they could have done that at any time since 9/12/2001.
weland 13y ago
Yeah, but why would the media want that?