Smiley & West are taken to school by the dean of Beijing's top school.

 

 

Views: 25

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"In defense of America"

...an increasingly difficult position to sustain! 

Ha! Tavis,

The dean tossed you oranges and you answered with apples! You were lucky the discussion ended right there and then 'cause you sho' wodna like dem apples he thru back! Got out by the hair of your chinny, chinny, chin you did..LOL

..........and what's more, the man said that the us is going around the world making war on everybody!!! He said, "We're frightened.  How do we know that we won't be next?" Tavis, that situation called for a simple handshake, something to reassure his/them that every 'merican ain't a warmonger. I hope you apologized, afterall, what he said was true!

 

Wow, did Tavis invoke the human rights argument, seriously. I need to hear that whole exchange, not just that small tidbit. The only people in America that would have bought up human rights are the disillusioned ones. The ones who don't know that America is one of the worst places on the planet when it comes down to human rights. He used copout 101 right there to the fullest.

It took millions of people to stand up to get human rights during the 50's and 60's and after we got them the American justice system figured out a new way to take them away again. America needs to get our house in order before we tell other countries what's wrong with them.

Was Tavis really speaking for himself or was he just saying how many Americans would have responded to the professor's comments? If he was speaking for himself I'm surprised at his stance because there are very few countries that even approach the U.S. global human rights violations in the 20th and 21st centuries. Of course many of these human right crimes were carried out by intermediaries acting on behalf of the CIA and State Department, but crimes nonetheless.
Tavis could have saved that reply.. for TWO Wrongs don't make one RIGHT!!!  These are Unjust WARS and China ain't got nothing to do with this Countries INJUSTICES!!!  Tavis.. PLEASE!!!

Totally agree.. and if I didn't know better, sounded like Tavis was "kissing up" to Obama.. for being in yet another UNJUST War in Libya.. Oh, I don't know better.. he was!!!! 



Byron Woulard said:

Wow, did Tavis invoke the human rights argument, seriously. I need to hear that whole exchange, not just that small tidbit. The only people in America that would have bought up human rights are the disillusioned ones. The ones who don't know that America is one of the worst places on the planet when it comes down to human rights. He used copout 101 right there to the fullest.

It took millions of people to stand up to get human rights during the 50's and 60's and after we got them the American justice system figured out a new way to take them away again. America needs to get our house in order before we tell other countries what's wrong with them.

I must agree with this. I could write a book on how right TheTRUTH statement is. To see how badly America treats humans you may need to leave the country. Palestine and other Middle Eastern countries, Africa and so many other countries. Here in our country we jail and prison those who dissent America's warmongering decisions. Would anyone like the address of the priests and nuns currently doing time in prisons for protesting the American military corporate machine?

TheTRUTH said:

Totally agree.. and if I didn't know better, sounded like Tavis was "kissing up" to Obama.. for being in yet another UNJUST War in Libya.. Oh, I don't know better.. he was!!!! 



Byron Woulard said:

Wow, did Tavis invoke the human rights argument, seriously. I need to hear that whole exchange, not just that small tidbit. The only people in America that would have bought up human rights are the disillusioned ones. The ones who don't know that America is one of the worst places on the planet when it comes down to human rights. He used copout 101 right there to the fullest.

It took millions of people to stand up to get human rights during the 50's and 60's and after we got them the American justice system figured out a new way to take them away again. America needs to get our house in order before we tell other countries what's wrong with them.

There is a _whole lot wrong in the States, but your chances of getting killed, maybe tortured, maybe in front of your kids, or maybe getting your wife, son, or daughter raped just for speaking out are a hell of a lot different in the U.S. than in _many countries in the world. It is not that lots of bad sh*t doesn't go down *(can't say here, cause I live in Mexico), but there is just so much worse going on lots of other places. You could not say what you are saying with out fear in much of the world. That being said, we must remember that most of the worst of what is done by the U.Ss. gov, and powerful groups and people in the U.S. lands on top of people who do not benefit from any of the rights and riches that U.S. citizens benefit from. We must also remember that the poorest folks in the U.S. would be considered well off in much of the world. Yeah, back to apples and oranges a bit, and we for better or worse have quite the toolkit at our disposal as a nation so we_must strive to do much better than we are doing, for ourselves and for our race and planet. If not we will go down the road that  all "civilizations" have gone down after their relative moment of "greatness", and as these cycles are so very much excellerated now compared to any recorded history our colapse can come very quickly.  

Byron Woulard said:

Wow, did Tavis invoke the human rights argument, seriously. I need to hear that whole exchange, not just that small tidbit. The only people in America that would have bought up human rights are the disillusioned ones. The ones who don't know that America is one of the worst places on the planet when it comes down to human rights. He used copout 101 right there to the fullest.

It took millions of people to stand up to get human rights during the 50's and 60's and after we got them the American justice system figured out a new way to take them away again. America needs to get our house in order before we tell other countries what's wrong with them.

Tavis, I miss you on Tom's morning show and thank you and Dr. West for allowing me to join you on line. I've been following your trip to China and I must say this put the head on the body of your visit. Right on for your response and knowledge to understand, to be able to "always" speak your opinion is one of the most important freedoms a person can have. Carry on my "Brother". You do us proud!

 On the heels of the renewal of certain provisions of the PATRIOT ACT:

 

 

F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 12, 2011

 WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention. 

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.

“Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse,” Mr. German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the F.B.I. had frequently misused “national security letters,” which allow agents to obtain information like phone records without a court order.

Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau, which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general, had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.

“Every one of these has been carefully looked at and considered against the backdrop of why do the employees need to be able to do it, what are the possible risks and what are the controls,” she said, portraying the modifications to the rules as “more like fine-tuning than major changes.”

Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.

Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.

The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly. Ms. Caproni said restrictions on the duration of physical surveillance would still apply, and argued that because of limited resources, supervisors would use the squads only rarely during such a low-level investigation.

The revisions also clarify what constitutes “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant, which is subject to special rules — most of which have not been made public. The new manual says an agent or an informant may surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before those rules would apply — unless the goal is to join the group, in which case the rules apply immediately.

At least one change would tighten, rather than relax, the rules. Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally.

In addition, the manual clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter” — investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.

The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary. Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position — like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example.

The manual clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs. And it will limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States.

Since the release of the 2008 manual, the assessment category has drawn scrutiny because it sets a low bar to examine a person or a group. The F.B.I. has opened thousands of such low-level investigations each month, and a vast majority has not generated information that justified opening more intensive investigations.

Ms. Caproni said the new manual would adjust the definition of assessments to make clear that they must be based on leads. But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.


A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: F.B.I. AGENTS GET LEEWAY TO PUSH PRIVACY BOUNDS.

Pres. Obama is being used to destroy our liberties and destroy Africa.. an Evil Puppet..to be used as needed..or as required!!

LibyaWest said:

 On the heels of the renewal of certain provisions of the PATRIOT ACT:

 

 

 

F.B.I. Agents Get Leeway to Push Privacy Bounds
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 12, 2011

 WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention. 

The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.

The F.B.I. recently briefed several privacy advocates about the coming changes. Among them, Michael German, a former F.B.I. agent who is now a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that it was unwise to further ease restrictions on agents’ power to use potentially intrusive techniques, especially if they lacked a firm reason to suspect someone of wrongdoing.

“Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse,” Mr. German said, pointing to complaints about the bureau’s surveillance of domestic political advocacy groups and mosques and to an inspector general’s findings in 2007 that the F.B.I. had frequently misused “national security letters,” which allow agents to obtain information like phone records without a court order.

Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I. general counsel, said the bureau had fixed the problems with the national security letters and had taken steps to make sure they would not recur. She also said the bureau, which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general, had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.

“Every one of these has been carefully looked at and considered against the backdrop of why do the employees need to be able to do it, what are the possible risks and what are the controls,” she said, portraying the modifications to the rules as “more like fine-tuning than major changes.”

Some of the most notable changes apply to the lowest category of investigations, called an “assessment.” The category, created in December 2008, allows agents to look into people and organizations “proactively” and without firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity.

Under current rules, agents must open such an inquiry before they can search for information about a person in a commercial or law enforcement database. Under the new rules, agents will be allowed to search such databases without making a record about their decision.

Mr. German said the change would make it harder to detect and deter inappropriate use of databases for personal purposes. But Ms. Caproni said it was too cumbersome to require agents to open formal inquiries before running quick checks. She also said agents could not put information uncovered from such searches into F.B.I. files unless they later opened an assessment.

The new rules will also relax a restriction on administering lie-detector tests and searching people’s trash. Under current rules, agents cannot use such techniques until they open a “preliminary investigation,” which — unlike an assessment — requires a factual basis for suspecting someone of wrongdoing. But soon agents will be allowed to use those techniques for one kind of assessment, too: when they are evaluating a target as a potential informant.

Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others. But Ms. Caproni said information gathered that way could also be useful for other reasons, like determining whether the subject might pose a threat to agents.

The new manual will also remove a limitation on the use of surveillance squads, which are trained to surreptitiously follow targets. Under current rules, the squads can be used only once during an assessment, but the new rules will allow agents to use them repeatedly. Ms. Caproni said restrictions on the duration of physical surveillance would still apply, and argued that because of limited resources, supervisors would use the squads only rarely during such a low-level investigation.

The revisions also clarify what constitutes “undisclosed participation” in an organization by an F.B.I. agent or informant, which is subject to special rules — most of which have not been made public. The new manual says an agent or an informant may surreptitiously attend up to five meetings of a group before those rules would apply — unless the goal is to join the group, in which case the rules apply immediately.

At least one change would tighten, rather than relax, the rules. Currently, a special agent in charge of a field office can delegate the authority to approve sending an informant to a religious service. The new manual will require such officials to handle those decisions personally.

In addition, the manual clarifies a description of what qualifies as a “sensitive investigative matter” — investigations, at any level, that require greater oversight from supervisors because they involve public officials, members of the news media or academic scholars.

The new rules make clear, for example, that if the person with such a role is a victim or a witness rather than a target of an investigation, extra supervision is not necessary. Also excluded from extra supervision will be investigations of low- and midlevel officials for activities unrelated to their position — like drug cases as opposed to corruption, for example.

The manual clarifies the definition of who qualifies for extra protection as a legitimate member of the news media in the Internet era: prominent bloggers would count, but not people who have low-profile blogs. And it will limit academic protections only to scholars who work for institutions based in the United States.

Since the release of the 2008 manual, the assessment category has drawn scrutiny because it sets a low bar to examine a person or a group. The F.B.I. has opened thousands of such low-level investigations each month, and a vast majority has not generated information that justified opening more intensive investigations.

Ms. Caproni said the new manual would adjust the definition of assessments to make clear that they must be based on leads. But she rejected arguments that the F.B.I. should focus only on investigations that begin with a firm reason for suspecting wrongdoing.


A version of this article appeared in print on June 13, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: F.B.I. AGENTS GET LEEWAY TO PUSH PRIVACY BOUNDS.

 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by Smiley and West.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service