This article by Walter Russell Mead says a massive intelligence effort is an necessary corollary of Obama's position that the Global War on Terror is over, that we can return to a 9/10 mindset: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/06/06/public...:
Key bits:
"From the day he took office, President Obama has sought to defuse the war and decrease public concern about it....
"It is in many ways an excellent strategy, but it has one serious flaw: it leaves the President terribly vulnerable if a significant terror strike should succeed....
[ Details the intelligence effort required. ]
"More than that, he has to be able to act. If terror is to be nipped in the bud, drones must fire down from the skies. If the al-Qaeda leadership is to remain stunned, scattered and incapable of large scale actions against the United States, houses in Waziristan must mysteriously blow up. American citizens making war against their homeland must die, even if that means they don’t get to hear their Miranda rights first.
"President Obama’s core war strategy depends on massive intelligence capabilities that were undreamed of twenty years ago. It depends on the substitution of drones for troops. PRISM and similar programs aren’t a ghastly misstep or an avoidable accident. They are the essence of Obama’s grand strategy: public peace and secret war. To cool down the public face of the war, he must intensify the secret struggle."
This reads like pro-Obama propaganda. Why does Obama want to decrease public concern about war? I'd say he doesn't want a public debate about it. He doesn't want a public debate about PRISM/NSA either.
Last time I checked it's a staged paywall. You get X articles for free without any action, X+Y articles if you register, there may be another "free" stage, and of course you can start paying and that may have more than one level.
They compete with The Wall Street Journal, which is famously about the only paper that made a success of on-line subscriptions a long time ago.
There is a recurring argument that these sorts of paywalls are okay for submissions because you can run various circumvention techniques that remove them. Aside from the serious legal grey area there (it may fall under the realm of "hacking"), it is in effect stealing for those of us who abide by intellectual property rights.
Sites that implement paywalls understand that they eschew social news sites as a consequence. Abide by that understanding.
You have to admit, the US is doing a pretty good job with that $80 billion/yr.
I mean, what's the alternative? Spend $0 on secret data intelligence gathering? Of course not! I for one am happy to know that there are people on my side, looking for people who are not.
Furthermore, I can't seem to understand why people are so up-in-arms over US data gathering. I for one, have nothing to hide. Every crime I've committed online is so small, the NSA simply doesn't care. Obama said in his latest press conference, "We collect the meta data, not the data. We can see who is calling who, and if we need to listen to that call, we need to go before a judge."
I, a person of the people, am fine with the government spending this kind of money on secret data intelligence, because it keeps me safer. Period.
The individual in me says "Wow, that's a lot of spying". Yet, the larger, money-hungry side of me says "what service/product could I develop to get a chunk of that $80 billion".
That's just at the federal level. Total is about $800 billion[1].
The US is regularly on top of the OECD for spending per student in school. The idea that it doesn't spend much on education is one of those bad memes that never goes away.
This is exactly what terrorists want: the impact of a terrorist act is, in the end, measured in money much more than in lives.
They are not going to kill that many people in the end, what they want is to make people afraid and pervert all the freedom in a country. Because what they hate is our freedom, do not forget it.
EDIT: BTW, being wrong (if I am) is a cause for downvotes? Grow up, you people.
The terrorists do not want to see the U.S. turn into a police state.
The terrorists do not hate our freedoms.
The terrorists -- and specifically I'm talking about al-Qaeda and related groups -- want "atrocities against Muslims" to end, they want support for Israel to end, they want U.S. presence in the Middle East to end.[1]
Even though you have a point in that all this massive expense (and more) is a win for terrorists, I don't think they "hate our freedom". If anything, they hate those that cause them pain (like every other human being). The US have playing chess with the rest of the world for decades and they're starting to pay the price. This is not a war that terrorists started because they hated anyone's freedom (why don't they target Canada, then?), but the absolutely only resource they have against a superpower that's trying to crush them (putting dictators in other countries, etc).
[+] [-] hga|13 years ago|reply
Key bits:
"From the day he took office, President Obama has sought to defuse the war and decrease public concern about it....
"It is in many ways an excellent strategy, but it has one serious flaw: it leaves the President terribly vulnerable if a significant terror strike should succeed....
[ Details the intelligence effort required. ]
"More than that, he has to be able to act. If terror is to be nipped in the bud, drones must fire down from the skies. If the al-Qaeda leadership is to remain stunned, scattered and incapable of large scale actions against the United States, houses in Waziristan must mysteriously blow up. American citizens making war against their homeland must die, even if that means they don’t get to hear their Miranda rights first.
"President Obama’s core war strategy depends on massive intelligence capabilities that were undreamed of twenty years ago. It depends on the substitution of drones for troops. PRISM and similar programs aren’t a ghastly misstep or an avoidable accident. They are the essence of Obama’s grand strategy: public peace and secret war. To cool down the public face of the war, he must intensify the secret struggle."
[+] [-] gasull|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Herring|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Achshar|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hga|13 years ago|reply
They compete with The Wall Street Journal, which is famously about the only paper that made a success of on-line subscriptions a long time ago.
[+] [-] corresation|13 years ago|reply
There is a recurring argument that these sorts of paywalls are okay for submissions because you can run various circumvention techniques that remove them. Aside from the serious legal grey area there (it may fall under the realm of "hacking"), it is in effect stealing for those of us who abide by intellectual property rights.
Sites that implement paywalls understand that they eschew social news sites as a consequence. Abide by that understanding.
[+] [-] chm|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] omarali|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrokisky|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cstross|13 years ago|reply
NSA = National Security Agency.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gasull|13 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqN59beaFMI
[+] [-] elorant|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] film42|13 years ago|reply
I mean, what's the alternative? Spend $0 on secret data intelligence gathering? Of course not! I for one am happy to know that there are people on my side, looking for people who are not.
Furthermore, I can't seem to understand why people are so up-in-arms over US data gathering. I for one, have nothing to hide. Every crime I've committed online is so small, the NSA simply doesn't care. Obama said in his latest press conference, "We collect the meta data, not the data. We can see who is calling who, and if we need to listen to that call, we need to go before a judge."
I, a person of the people, am fine with the government spending this kind of money on secret data intelligence, because it keeps me safer. Period.
[+] [-] ovoxo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suredo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] newnewnew|13 years ago|reply
The US is regularly on top of the OECD for spending per student in school. The idea that it doesn't spend much on education is one of those bad memes that never goes away.
[1] http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20...
[+] [-] Sven7|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ivanca|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoster|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hga|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pfortuny|13 years ago|reply
They are not going to kill that many people in the end, what they want is to make people afraid and pervert all the freedom in a country. Because what they hate is our freedom, do not forget it.
EDIT: BTW, being wrong (if I am) is a cause for downvotes? Grow up, you people.
[+] [-] jmduke|13 years ago|reply
The terrorists do not hate our freedoms.
The terrorists -- and specifically I'm talking about al-Qaeda and related groups -- want "atrocities against Muslims" to end, they want support for Israel to end, they want U.S. presence in the Middle East to end.[1]
Terror sects aren't B-movie villains.
[1]: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/military/july-dec96/fatw...
[+] [-] manuelflara|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjdavis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]