Community | July 23, 2010 | 30 comments

3,100 Firms/Agencies Involved In War On Terror - America Now A "Top-Secret" Surveillance State

source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38304293/ns/us_news-security/

Image
shanklinmike
Since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no-one really knows what it costs and how many people are involved, The Washington Post reported Monday.
A two-year investigation by the newspaper found what it called a "Top Secret America" that's hidden from public view and largely lacking in oversight.
The newspaper's investigation is based on hundreds of interviews with intelligence, military and other officials, as well as public documents and records.
In its first installment of a series of reports, the Post said there are now more than 1,200 government organizations and more than 1,900 private companies working on counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in some 10,000 locations across the U.S.
Approximately 854,000 people — or nearly 1 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington — have top-secret security clearanc............

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38304293/ns/us_news-security/
  1. groups:
    Community,   Opinion,   Orwellian Nightmare,   Military,   6 more
  2. tags:
    News,  News and Politics,  Politics,  Current TV,  17 more
  3.     
    |

30 comments // 3,100 Firms/Agencies Involved In War On Terror - America Now A "Top-Secret" Surveillance State

  • congoboy
  • ScottyT
  • iamaman
    • 0
      iamaman  
    • Image

    • Teabaggers Are Just 2% of American Population

      Who wouldn't want to join her, for sexytime?America’s most exciting political movement (according to newspapers that are all going out of business) is the Tea Party! Never before has this nation seen such “energy” (fat white people in lawn chairs) or “passion” (racist, misspelled signs). From snowbilly grifter Sarah Palin to chocolate-sucking giant-baby serial-divorcer has-been Newt Gingrich, it seems all the Republican fringe figures who can’t actually stay in office want a piece of the Teabagger Phenomenon. Well, there are not that many pieces to go around. Do not mistake the obesity of a particular teabagger for lots of individual teabaggers.

      Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/415238/teabaggers-are-just-2-of-american-population/#ixzz0uY...

    • 1 year ago
  • ScottyT
  • iamaman
  • iamaman
  • shanklinmike
  • cclark_productions
  • TomTucker
    • 0
      TomTucker  

    • Freedom! This is what the corrupt Dems/Reps give us along with 12.5 trillion in debt. No wonder people want CHANGE. Ha Ha

    • 1 year ago
  • unimatrix0
  • ScottyT
  • jonlemnh
  • shanklinmike
  • cztheday
    • -2
      cztheday  

    • "...top-secret intelligence gathering by the government has grown so unwieldy and expensive that no-one really knows what it costs and how many people are involved..." This statement has been true for the last 60 years -- not just since 9/11. Also, the evidence provided here does not prove the conclusion drawn. The number of people engaged in intelligence gathering is less than one-third of one percent of the people in the country -- and in no way proves that American is a "top-secret surveillance state."

      Shank, why can't you ever just make a point without resorting to alarmism and fear-mongering? While there may be more surveillance being done now than was being done a decade ago, America is decidedly NOT a place where your every move and every thought is being recorded by Big Brother for use against you later. Even the Soviets could not accomplish that -- and they actually tried to do so!

      I am sure you have no particular interest in persuading me that government has become too intrusive in the United States. But even if you were, you are certainly never going to accomplish that end with these Chicken Little stories akin to the popular notion in the 50s that fluoridated water was an attempt by "the government" (whatever the hell that means) to put mind-control drugs into our water system.

    • 1 year ago
  • shanklinmike
    • 0
      shanklinmike  
    • Image
    • cztheday:

      Thanks officer Barbrady... I appreciate the ad hominem attack. You are a good sheeple. For your information those are not my words but the articles.

      ...and fluoride for mind-control? When did I ever say that? What are you talking about? I have only simply argued that if I was to put fluoride in people's water I would either be in jail for contaminating the water supply or in jail for practicing medicine without a license. You are way off base and your attacks are now documented for history. This is not about fearmongering, I am just reporting the facts.

      http://godspeed.dk/officerBarbrady.gif

    • 1 year ago
  • ScottyT
    • 0
      ScottyT  
    • cztheday:

      I would think that someone who grew up under the Warren Court's "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard would, at least, have something constructive to say about the article (albeit rehashed from the Washington Post's revealing story published last week).

    • 1 year ago
  • unimatrix0
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • shanklinmike
  • trut
    • 0
      trut  

    • I really liked that Scotty, especially the first paragraph but the whole thing too. Shankilnmike`s assertion that everything on earth should be owned by someone is not the way I see the planet though. He would have us divide up the oceans and everything else to whomever would sign His `contract`.

    • 1 year ago
  • shanklinmike
    • -1
      shanklinmike  
    • Image
    • trut:

      I would encourage everyone to research the Tragedy of the Commons.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

      All of these interactions would be peaceful, and there would be accountability and conservation efforts for personal property. Politics is one giant Tragedy of the Commons

      The land will be divided up into government parcels under statism. If the Ocean would've had property accountability and had there not been sovereign immunity for government politicians, BP would've never been able to cap liability on the damages they created through natural law.

      The land will be "owned" by someone, but natural law dictates that only individuals, not nations are entitled to property rights. The Tragedy of the commons plays itself out everyday and we never learn from it.

      http://www.lp.org/issues/environment

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
    • -1
      trut  
    • shanklinmike:

      How can there be any freedom if every time you leave your driveway you are treading on someone else`s land, Mike.
      You have to carry your ideals to their logical end, not a short term bright spot just across the room.

    • 1 year ago
  • shanklinmike
    • -1
      shanklinmike  
    • trut:

      You act as if joint ownership is not possible. I have thought this through, and communities could still (voluntarily) have joint ownership over roads and regions. I also believe the cost would be greatly reduced and that the road system would be much more efficient. I understand your concern, but you must realize, easements would still be allowed under natural law or communal common law and most regions would have small roads for their regions. The spending would be much more local and never through coercive or forceful means. The ability for corruption would be like that limited to a concrete company today, which common law courts, mediators, and arbitrators would hear infringements for fraud, disagreements.... as they do today, but corruption would be limited because no coercion could ever be enforced, only mass education through free speech and consumer reports, underwriter's laboratories. I'm just saying, everything we do, we can do it peacefully and voluntarily. The corruption will always lurk in a coercion based society. Peace

    • 1 year ago
  • existentialist
    • +1
      existentialist  
    • shanklinmike:

      You guys are having an interesting conversation, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. Your idea of community ownership of roads and regions is a good one and I have also pondered it. It would be more efficient and logical. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that such system could likely not be implemented in the United States today. There are two main reasons I came to this conclusion. The first thing is that communities, in my personal experience, are not as tight-nit as they used to be and frankly people don't want to get involved. Second, people have become so accustomed to a big central government taking care of all of their problems, they are not going to willingly let the government cut them off (just look at all the fuss going around about unemployment benefits). The only way such change could come about in absence of a total collapse of US government, would be through a massive conspiracy to indoctrinate people through education and propaganda.

      I do have two questions for you as well. You bring up the commons dilemma, though I have a read a similar dilemma (i believe Kant proposed one) this is the first time I read the Tragedy of the Commons. How exactly would jointly owned small communities solve the dilemma? Especially when you take into account competition within and between communities. What is "natural law" and how does it dictate anything? To me natural law, much like (natural) rights, implies spirituality or at least a higher authority than man and creates excuses. I have tried to exorcise such terminology from my vocabulary.

    • 1 year ago
  • trut
    • -1
      trut  
    • existentialist:

      Mike didn't say community ownership, he said joint ownership. Everything in his utopian world HAS to have a human owner. In Mike's perfect world the streets would be owned by the inevitable king or corporate king in a decade or less.

    • 1 year ago
  • ScottyT
    • +4
      ScottyT  

    • Dear Mr. Shanklin,

      This article is not interesting because we do not get to expose the hatred, bigotry, and utter nonsensical and impractical mindset of America's libertarian movement. Such articles only serve to distract our common interest of living safely and securely under a government whose sole purpose is to further peace and harmony among ourselves and the nations of the world.

      We, the hypocritical who preach that it is immoral to steal from our neighbors while believing that it is perfectly justifiable to have our government steal for us, do not want your drivel posted on Current anymore. We will never be truly happy until all of your money is confiscated and given to those who will truly benefit from it.

      We, the self-proclaimed crusaders against every form of racial injustice in America, do not want you posting stories like this on Current anymore. We will never be truly happy until we expose you for the racist hatemonger you truly are--and the racist ideology which you espouse. Your cause only serves to divide Americans because only our government can truly educate and prevent the horrid face of racial injustice in America. Stop spreading your disinformation that people are capable of making right decisions without us standing behind them to insure they do so.

      We, the "it can't happen here" crowd, do not want you posting stories like this on Current anymore. America is great because our government keeps us safe, and it is every American's moral duty to sacrifice to the greater good of America's safety and security--even if it means giving up any and every constitutional guarantee in order to achieve such ends. Stop confusing people with this crazy idea that our government may not have our best interests in mind.

      We, the neo-conservatives who have hijacked the Republican party, do not want you posting stories like this one on Current anymore. We know what's best for America, so shut up and support our bailouts of failed banks and unquestioned support for a military empire that has boots on the necks of every citizen in every nation. How dare you question or criticize our cause? You unpatriotic commie bastard! You should be so thankful to be living in America as opposed to living under one of our puppet military dictatorships.

      We, the Democratic party, do not want you posting stories like this one on Current anymore. We know what's best for the American people, so shut up and support our reforms of reforms of reforms. It is your support for big business that has allowed these corporations to loot the American people of their hard-earned money, and you should be ashamed of yourself for not standing up for all innocent victims of this obsolete idea of capitalism you constantly tout. Your ideas are meaningless to our superior intellect and morality. So shut up and let us take care of you. After all, we are just one big happy family who just needs more guidance and support.

      We, the corporate press, do not want you posting stories like this one on Current anymore. The American people are stupid as cattle, and it is our duty to keep the American herd scared of each other and scared of threats abroad. It is our job to mislead the American herd into buying worthless products that they don't need. Moreover, it is our role as the fourth branch of government to frame the American political and social discourse. You have no business interfering with the minds of those Americans still capable of independent thought.

      Mr. Shanklin, the American people are not in need your peace, freedom and prosperity nonsense. The American people deserve freedom from want and freedom from greed. The American people deserve a safe society, and only the government can properly insure that the American herd continues to thrive. The American people do not need to think, nor do they need to aspire. And it is our goal that they never will have to do so again.

    • 1 year ago
  • shanklinmike
  • ScottyT
  • Brandon_Broze
    • +1
      Brandon_Broze  

    • Chilling, esp. the fact that 854,000 people have the potential to give our national security secrets to our enemies.

      Luckily, they rarely do.

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos