[governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Hi, unless you are either royalty, or actually speaking for far more than yourself when you say "africans, asians and latinos", please refrain from using "we".

I for example am asian, and can confirm that you don't speak for me.

--srs (iPad)

On 11-Jun-2013, at 12:29, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Brown
> 
> Here we agree. There needs to be better oversight. But this is a truism.
> 
> How will it help Africans, Latino's and Asians? This is not just an American issue. Can we please include the third world, and Sen. Feinstein is an illegal warmonger just like Bush - we cannot share any confidence in her and I am surprised that this has happened under her watch and she is still respected.
> 
> See, we simply do not share your confidence. I hate to point it out, but this is precisely the reason why national solutions do not suffice.
> 
> I would recommend a broader world view, but we disagree on starting points, and the explicit/implicit American Exceptionalism of this point needs to be recognised as unacceptable for its lack of cosmopolitanism. What about the privacy and other rights of millions of people who have no stake in US oversight or democracy? Why are American's more equal than others on the internet in terms of activating their rights?
> 
> Apologies, but the perspective is too American centric. As an outsider, what should be of concern is if American people were lied to about the Iraq war, about their rights being protected (although the US technically has been under a state of emergency since 2001 - a state that needs to be proportionate to the circumstances, hence no posse comitas in the terrible tragedy that was Boston recently) after PATRIOT Act (just look at some of the horrible discussions on this to see what I am talking about) which is now confirmed to have been abused. Depending on the access these committees had to info will determine their complicity. This is only reasonable. But BigMedia in US and Uk are able to better manipulate political opinion without censorship - something that would make dictatorial regimes green with envy.
> 
> And the problem is they cannot tell you how well the programme worked. Just like they have to give the bankers money to save your 401k and pensions... this is not liberty, or choice, this is a a one sided involuntary bargain where ordinary folk pick up the costs.
> 
> We had told those who were playing rough to play as they must but be more sophisticated. They did not listen and were confident in their power (power they still have and which is institutionalised because I suspect the MAG will not tolerate legitimacy discussions except in the most round about way). Now they must stand by and justify their positions. In other words, this is not the time for civil society unity (as I said, that is to blindly misread the politics of IGC). Now is the time for principled unity, not hiding amongst the vulnerable.
> 
> In short, please do not presume on my (or some third worldist) political generosity at this time when the context has been that such generosity is like pearls to swine.... in some of the discussions I even had to beg for 'reason' even conceding that perhaps 'slaves make bad masters'... to NO AVAIL. Welcome to IGC. Nice if you hang out with the powerful, treacherous if you do not.
> 
> I am genuinely sorry, you are all Afghans now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 2013/06/10 08:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote:
>>> But, she added, ³Here¹s the rub: the instances where this has produced
>>> good ‹ has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all
>>> classified, that¹s what¹s so hard about this.²
>> That is what needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Can the good
>> things that come out of this be done if there is better oversight? I think
>> they can. In any hearings that come out of this I'd like to hear why they
>> could not work with better oversight. So far I have not heard any
>> arguments that convince me that the same results could not be achieved if
>> there was better oversight. I am not necessarily against governments
>> getting this data but there has to be oversight to protect against abuses
>> and it needs to be publicly disclosed what data they are collecting and
>> how it is collected.
>> 
>> Kerry Brown
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t