SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The people we elect aren’t the ones calling the shots, says Tufts University’s Michael Glennon. Others at SN have also voiced similar opinions so I thought this might be an interesting read for our members.
The voters who put Barack Obama in office expected some big changes. From the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping to Guantanamo Bay to the Patriot Act, candidate Obama was a defender of civil liberties and privacy, promising a dramatically different approach from his predecessor.
But six years into his administration, the Obama version of national security looks almost indistinguishable from the one he inherited. Guantanamo Bay remains open. The NSA has, if anything, become more aggressive in monitoring Americans. Drone strikes have escalated. Most recently it was reported that the same president who won a Nobel Prize in part for promoting nuclear disarmament is spending up to $1 trillion modernizing and revitalizing America’s nuclear weapons.
Why did the face in the Oval Office change but the policies remain the same? Critics tend to focus on Obama himself, a leader who perhaps has shifted with politics to take a harder line. But Tufts University political scientist Michael J. Glennon has a more pessimistic answer: Obama couldn’t have changed policies much even if he tried.
Though it’s a bedrock American principle that citizens can steer their own government by electing new officials, Glennon suggests that in practice, much of our government no longer works that way. In a new book, “National Security and Double Government,” he catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
[Related]: ‘National Security and Double Government’
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @03:30PM
There are four boxes to use in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
We're still barely working through the first three. What you're doing right now, complaining about it on the Internet counts as "soap." Keep doing it. Post your screeds here, on FaceBook, wherever. Talk to people about it. Yes, bitching on the Internet is part of your duty as a citizen.
Ballot hasn't had a chance yet. Next month is the first major election since the Snowden leaks came to light and the bulk of people got the message that the government is spying on everything they do. We haven't had a chance for people to listen to their representatives' stances on government spying and vote accordingly. Who knows, maybe people will vote for more spying. We don't know yet. I know I'm voting to re-elect my libertarian-leaning Republican congressman because when I wrote him a letter urging him to vote to cut funding to the spying programs he wrote me back a personal response and said "Yup, right there with you." So I got a good one. You vote for a good one, too, okay?
It'll be really interesting to see what happens in 2016. Government surveillance is obviously going to have to be addressed. There will be debate questions about it. The candidates will have to take a stance. Let's see what happens.
Jury's still grinding through the system, too. The EFF is working on it. Jewel vs. NSA and Shubert vs. Obama are going to be heard. Let's hear what the Supreme Court has to say about this.
My point is, the fact that people haven't taken to the streets with pitchforks and torches doesn't mean they don't care. It means they realize there is a slow democratic process to effect change in our society, and we have to let the machine work. It'll be years until we know the outcome. If it doesn't work, I don't know what'll happen afterwards, but telling people to take to the streets now is stupid.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 22 2014, @06:13PM
What box includes a mass work stoppage? Ain't ammo: nothing violent about it. Don't protest in the streets because then you'll be arrested and beaten, just stay home and stop working, that way only the perceived ring leaders would be arrested and beaten at home, which is a very small population. If 90% of the teachers stopped working until X changed, or 90% of the nurses stopped working until Y changed, or 90% of IT folks stopped working (GASP!) until Z changed, I think X, Y, and Z would change. I just don't see any political will to do any of that.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 22 2014, @08:56PM
Glib platitudes help no one. We have arrived where we are because those first three have failed. The last is reserved for shock value to act as a GOTO 10 statement. There is another stage that is called for now, and it is active resistance. Think hard how you can use your skills to expose and undermine the pillars of the status quo. If you're a network engineer, think of how you can shut the NSA out for good. If you're a hardware hacker, teach others how to make drones. If you're a low-level sysadmin, and you become aware of crimes committed by your bosses, leak the evidence to the blogosphere.
There are many things people like us can do that are effective, if we choose to do them and if we think freedom is worth getting up off the couch for.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by metamonkey on Wednesday October 22 2014, @09:40PM
Did you not read my post? The first three haven't failed yet. They're still being tried. Once we've had a presidential election and elected a pro-spying candidate (or one who promises to end spying and then reneges), then you can say ballot failed. Not yet. Once the EFF's lawsuits against the NSA have been lost, then you can say jury (I know judges aren't juries, but it fits the glib platitude) has failed. Not yet.
Agreed, there are things you can do in the meantime to make things more difficult for them, but ultimately this is a political problem, not a technological problem.
Okay 3, 2, 1, let's jam.