[governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program

[Kerry Brown]

I am offended by this post.

Kerry Brown

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob
> Sent: June-11-13 12:00 AM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance
> program
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
> 

-------------- 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