The New York Times reported the other day that the United States military has been accumulating data on prospective recruits -- data they are allowed to collect under the USA PATRIOT Act -- and compiling it to be available for all sorts of potentially seedy uses. Worse yet, a private company has been contracted to assist in the process, and the Social Security Administration has loosened its regulations to allow the military greater access. The Social Security Number was never intended to be used as a national identification number, yet that is exactly what has occurred.
I am not bothered by the military's recruiting. Of course the military needs to be able to contact the prospective recruits. I am troubled by the increasingly aggressive methids and the idea that the military is compiling data to specially target certain individuals. It was reported that the fields include height, weight, and so on, but I imagine it could also at some point include notes such as family status and income -- information to cull more desperate candidates and identify them for special attention.
The practice has been in place since 2002, officials knew they were in violation of some procedures in May 2004, and have still not rectified the procedures. Families should demand that this type of personal information not be collected on their children all under the guise of increased national security. How far will the government go?
Read the full story.
-- Peoria, Ariz.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
How about Bush's recruiting pitch during yesterday's "address"? "And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our Armed Forces."
In a nutshell:
Terrorist!
Enemy!
Brutal!
September 11th!
God Bless America!
Hey anonymous, I have some news for you. We are at war!
Do you think that quote by our president is bad? Is that a bad way to persuade people to join the military?
I think Adam is correct that the President's words are not bad. In fact, I believe wholeheartedly that military service is one of the most honorable professions in existence. However, the fact that Bush needs to help recruit reveals the current world situation and the distrust developing between the citizenry and the military/government. People increasingly believe they can't trust their leaders; this is especially true after every reason given for entry into Iraq has been spun to a new reasoning or been found decidely false.
Still, Bush continues to link Iraq to 9/11, which I feel is irresponsible and simply wrong. Iraq did not have any involvement in 9/11. The 9/11 Commission, Richard Clarke, and the Downing Memo all confirm this. Additional mistrust is being built because of the other conflicting messages out of the White House (see Rumsfeld and Cheney for more). I sincerely hope that a volunteer army will be maintained in the U.S., but at the current rates of retirement and recruitment a crisis will be reached very soon as our resources and manpower gets spread more and more thinly.
What or whom are we at "war" with, adam? I got news for you: you've been duped. Bamboozled. Taken for a ride. Ripped off. For an outline of "war" policy, that speech was pretty damn vague. We'd be a hell of a lot safer if we declared war on automobile accidents, or at least intoxicated jet skiers. Perhaps you should (re)read (at least) the first couple of chapters of All Quiet on the Western Front. Lots of dead kids have been led down that road before.
How many times must you be patronized and lied to before you realize that Bush and Co. have no credibility whatsoever? Pure propaganda. It's enough to make Goebbels blush. All Bush, et. al. have done is given the 9/11 murderers exactly what they wanted. He's turned their desperate and bold act (remember--it was 19 motivated guys with box cutters and a few thousand bucks behind them) into a spectacular success. They did more damage to our national character and values than they ever dreamed.
I don't see how linking 9/11 and Iraq is necessarily a bad thing either. You could make the argument that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 directly, but he is part of the same radical Islam anti-american idealogy that the world was awakened to on 9/11.
As far as needing a larger military, it is actually quite sad we are not utilizing more powerful weapons in this war. I think a lot of it has to do with the constant whining of innocent people killed (as if that doesn't happen in war) from the radical left and the media that tries to display this war as negatively as possible.
Anonymous, we are at war with a group of people that are stuck in the 15th century because of their hatred.
You're trying to rationalize an act of war with automobile accidents? Classy. I could prove you wrong on quite a few levels that declaring war on automobiles would result in less deaths, but I won't humor you.
So do you believe that arresting or killing thousands of terrorists in countries all over the world is giving them what they wanted?
1. Once again, please tell me, specifically, who these people are. If they're so backwards, why are we so worked up and quick to capitulate to their medieval fear tactics?
2.You "could prove (me) wrong on quite a few levels that declaring war on automobiles would result in less deaths"? Is there a force of terrorists massing on the Mexican border that's capable of killing 50,000 or so Americans in the next year?
3. Yes. When, in the process, we've abdicated any moral high ground we had as a nation as well as abandoned many of our principles of individual liberty.
"You could make the argument that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 directly..."
Wha? "Could" make the argument? This isn't a rhetorical excercise. It's important (as well as very patriotic) to check your facts--especially when people are getting killed.
"...he is part of the same radical Islam anti-american idealogy that the world was awakened to on 9/11..."
First, only people who don't read newspapers, or never cared to concern themselves with anything outside their own sphere of influence, were "awakened" to it. Second, Saddam was/is about as far from radical/fundamentalist Islam as one can possibly get. Pick up a biography. In fact, I'm confident Bush understands the fundamentalist mentality better than Saddam ever would--because he's a fundamentalist too. That's something al Queda didn't count on.
Let's also remember two key points in the Iraq-9/11 "connection:
1. The United States installed Saddam Hussein as a stable balance in the Middle East after the Shah of Iran was overthrown and Islamic fundamentalists rose to power in Iran. Don't even get me started about how Americ was literally looking the other way as the Shah did 31 flavors of nasty to his people, especially his enemies. The United States then propped up Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. The United States also supported many of the people in Afghanistan who opposed the Soviet invasion in 1979. Those people became the Taliban.
2. Remember, too, that nearly all of the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, were citizens of Saudi Arabia. That's right, America's pal in the Gulf, a nation we support and whose politics and beliefs run counter to every sense of liberty and justice that America, including its current president, hold precious.
Bottom line is that we use people in the Middle East to our advantage as laong as possible or necessary. Then we screw them. We will fight a war with Saudi Arabia and with Iran within a generation, perhaps within a few years. Wait and see.
-- L.
Anonymous,
It's great to hear your voice, but it would be better if we could distinguish you from the many other "anonymous" ones.
By the way, Anonymous, does this type of rationalizing the war ("I don't see how linking 9/11 and Iraq is necessarily a bad thing either.") scare you too?
That's how war works. When you're fighting a war, you take whatever help from whichever country will help. Think of WWII when Russia was our ally (then who did we fight afterward?).
Anonymous, why can't you figure out that destroying all automobiles would result in less deaths? Are you only thinking in accident numbers or are you thinking of the consequences of walking everywhere?
"3. Yes. When, in the process, we've abdicated any moral high ground we had as a nation as well as abandoned many of our principles of individual liberty. "
...such as...?
You guys are forgetting that we aren't only in Iraq...as I stated earlier, we have made significant progress in detaining or killing terrorists throughout the world. Iraq is a stepping stone. Funny how you claim how bad Saddam was back in the 80's yet you still don't think we should remove him? How long did we "look the other way" during World War II?
I never said that Saddam Hussein should not have been removed from power. Also, the United States government has supported some doozies over time in Chile, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Phillippines -- the list goes on. As I said, we install these despots and use them until they become the scapegoats for our needs. Saudia Arabia will be different, though, because we did not install the royal family.
Russia (Soviet Union) by the way, we never actually fought. And they were just our ally to help us get an enemy that was mutually agreed to be worse. We never fought the Soviets but we had a tense stalemate until we lasted longer than they did. By the way, now look at where they are headed -- back to centralized power.
And one last item that should be sobering: We need to be more aware as to who is running the top agencies of our government. John Negroponte, who as director of national intelligence just this week gained more power in the FBI and Justice Department, was ambassador to Honduras in the 1980s when the Americans were doing all sorts of nasty things with rebels and drug lords and so on. My blog bud Superfrankenstein said to me once that we should never trust a president who has been director of central intelligence, as George H. W. Bush was in the early 1970s. Now, the second generation is just as bad or worse: John Poindexter, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney. These are nasty men who would sanction almost any act in the name of America. Do we have no standard of morality? Or, do we just turn a blind eye as long as we are safe at home (we think) and can say we are "spreading liberty and freedom" around the world.
At least with Iraq in the 1990s and the Soviet Union, we knew the enemy, and it was contained. It was stable. Pick a scab and it bleeds.
-- L.
do you remember the CIA, MI6, and Russian intelligence reports about WMD's and links to Al-Queda (the ones responsible for 9/11)? They proved to be faulty, but we couldn't have sat around and tried to figure things through while risking another more powerful attack. That would be an impeachable offense.
Loganite
You listed off a number of names in the intelligence community of the 70s and 80s and said that they were bad men who would do almost anything for America... then you said we should not trust them.
I am wondering, if these guys were in the intelligence community wouldn't they know more about all the wrong that America and all these countries were doing than most other Americans?
Also, in the intelligence community, were these guys the ones calling the the shots or were they just working under other authority figures of the 70s and 80s?
It seems to me that Cheney et al might have some unspoken motives for our presense in Iraq. Ther are many obvious things being said about these motives like oil, money, control, political power, etc.
Is it not possible that they just know of the evils done back in the day and want to make amends?
Also, could it be possible that they are somewhat pissed off with Saddam after being a part of his installation and seeing how he acted afterwards? I sometimes just wonder if they aren't doing this as payback to Saddam and as an act of contrition for past sins. Y'know? Make it right in the Middle East! Set up another government, but this time do it right and make it democratic.
Perhaps you'll disagree, but I think it might be nice to hear and discuss a completely new idea instead of slinging the same ole, same ole around.
So Adam and David, you're saying our leaders have probably lied to us about the justification for the war and it's ok?
Scary rationalization.
No no no no. A lie is when you state something that you know is false. Saying something based on research which later on proves to be false is not lying. That's a fact. So anyone who says the president lied to us about why we're in Iraq...well...they're lying.
What about Clarke's statements (proved true) and the Downing memo? Pretty damning.
The following?
“ He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
- Colin Powell in February 2001
“We are able to keep arms from him [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.“
- Condoleezza Rice in July 2001
read my last post.
I did and it only shows you don't care if they lied or not. We are becoming more and more aware that the war was forced and spin doctored to occur. Thus, Powell's and Rice's statements are all the more damning. Bush and Company lied, knew they lied, and continue to lie while their supporters want to avoid admitting it (much like Bush couldn't admit he's ever made a mistake as President).
Yes, we "found" them after he lied. Adam, you could have the President tell you he lied and you wouldn't believe it because he has never made a mistake as President (just ask him) and he is on his "crusade" to save the American, Christian world.
Post a Comment