An interesting glimpse at America's past and what is has to do with Modern America.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Well I really couldn't come up with a clever title for this thread but anyways, I've been reading a book called "The Last of the Doughboys" by Richard Rubin. Aside from the interviews with those last surviving men and women who fought and served during The Great War it has chapters on things such as music from the era from Tin Pan Alley, how and why some of these persons the author interviewed lived to over one hundred years, etc. So naturally there's a chapter about the laws of the day in the US. So of course it includes the Espionage Act of 1917, from which Section 3 is cited "Whoever, when the United States is at war...shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years or both." And then in 1918 it gets even worse and much longer, "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall... say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds, or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States...[or] willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential, to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged... and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more then twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive or violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service."

The author also pointed out that 27 out of the 48 states had enacted Sedition Laws to imprison anyone who for whatever reason opposed the war that the US was involved in. In one instance "One case I find particularly chilling is that of a traveling salesman who, while passing through Montana, made the mistake of referring, in conversation, to Mr. Hoover's food regulations as a "big joke"; he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of seven to twenty years in prison. In all, nearly eighty men and women were convicted of sedition in Montana by the time the war ended. If you find yourself outraged over this, you may be gratified to learn that Montana's Governor did, eventually grant them all pardons. In 2006." As if that wasn't enough, the US Government backed and used groups of vigilante organizations with such names as: Liberty League, Nation Security League, Home Defense League, Anti-Yellow Dog League, The Knights of Liberty (really..), The Boy Spies of America and, The American Protective League which was founded by US Attorney General Thomas Gregory.
So 96-97 years ago anyone in the United States could be thrown in jail or fined or both for saying a bad joke, or saying that the Navy's uniforms looked silly, talking with a foreign accent that sounded odd, or being just plain lazy.

Now back to the present and my point, these days people in the US are worried, freaking out, wondering if they'll get killed by a drone if they speak out against their government, or putting their tin foil hats on so they won't get picked up by a spy satellite, or whatever their reason happens to be. Are the NSA programs really worse then what the US Government did back in the 18 months the US was in WW1? Well let me ask you these hypothetical questions. Have you seen a poster like this in 8 years? http://imageshack.us/a/img713/9660/2eos.jpg
Probably not. Have you been thrown in jail for telling a joke about the government, or something in the military is ugly, wrong, or just plain dumb or because your just being an on-the-job slacker? Again probably not.
Has some random person started chatting you up in a bar asking you questions about what your opinions on what the government is doing or why their doing whatever it is and if you give the wrong answer your on a one way trip to jail? Well you probably know that answer yourself.

Now I know that their are people who dislike, disagree, or downright hate what the NSA is doing, and there are those who are think the opposite and some on the fence. But is it really all that surprising that the NSA is using the Internet for the purposes of spying, or whatever? It really shouldn't be, as that's the way things advance. If there's millions of people on the internet and that's the best place for the NSA to look, as not only are enemies of the US online, the places for a possible attack are advertised online. Now I'm not going to say if I think what the NSA is doing is right or wrong, I'm just trying to look at this from another point of view.
This also begs for one of those "what-if" questions to be asked. So what-if the US didn't have the NSA, and there was an attack somewhere on US soil that could of been prevented by something like the NSA? Well the answer would probably be thus: The American people outraged by the fact that this attack could of been prevented, blame the government for not preventing it. The government in response says it will do a better job if protecting its citizens and therefore creates an agency that specializes in the tracking of enemies of the United States, and then were back to square one. Or there's the possibility of the government not doing anything. Which do you think would happen?

[Sailor Steve]

Have you been thrown in jail for telling a joke about the government, or something in the military is ugly, wrong, or just plain dumb or because your just being an on-the-job slacker? Again probably not.
No. But contrary to the idea of the comparison, I will say that what they did then was wrong and should have been contested.

So what-if the US didn't have the NSA, and there was an attack somewhere on US soil that could of been prevented by something like the NSA? Well the answer would probably be thus: The American people outraged by the fact that this attack could of been prevented, blame the government for not preventing it. The government in response says it will do a better job if protecting its citizens and therefore creates an agency that specializes in the tracking of enemies of the United States, and then were back to square one. Or there's the possibility of the government not doing anything. Which do you think would happen?
That's exactly what did happen after 9/11. It goes both ways, and different people will complain no matter what the government does, and sometimes the same people. I don't think checking everybody's emails would have prevented 9/11, and I think the NSA is wrong on this. Draconian "all or nothing" assaults on the American people are never right; not in 1776 or 1861 or 1917 or 2013.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

No. But contrary to the idea of the comparison, I will say that what they did then was wrong and should have been contested. I agree with you and back then some did, and still where locked up. "The most prominent of these was Eugene Victor Debs, the renowned labor leader who had already run for president four times on the Socialist Party ticket. Debs gave a speech in June 1918, in which he implied he was dismayed that nearby, three fellow Socialists were rotting in prison for speaking out against the war; a few days later he was arrested, tried on ten counts of sedition and convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison. He ran for president a fifth time, in 1920, from the federal pen in Atlanta, and won nearly a million votes- 3.5% of the electorate."


That's exactly what did happen after 9/11. It goes both ways, and different people will complain no matter what the government does, and sometimes the same people. I don't think checking everybody's emails would have prevented 9/11, and I think the NSA is wrong on this. Draconian "all or nothing" assaults on the American people are never right; not in 1776 or 1861 or 1917 or 2013. As the saying goes "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.". And I do agree that checking everyone's e-mail would of or even could of prevented 9/11, but its a needle in a haystack situation and someone's got to look for it.

[Sailor Steve]

As the saying goes...
The original, as far as I know, was attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

[Wolferz]

Idiocracy then idiocracy now. All from knee jerk reactions over events of the times.

It's all just water under the bridge with fish poop in it. Must be why it always smells fishy.:-?

[Aktungbby]

Well I really couldn't come up with a clever title for this thread but anyways, I've been reading a book called "The Last of the Doughboys" by Richard Rubin. Aside from the interviews with those last surviving men and women who fought and served during The Great War it has chapters on things such as music from the era from Tin Pan Alley, how and why some of these persons the author interviewed lived to over one hundred years, etc. So naturally there's a chapter about the laws of the day in the US. So of course it includes the Espionage Act of 1917, from which Section 3 is cited "Whoever, when the United States is at war...shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years or both." And then in 1918 it gets even worse and much longer, "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall... say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds, or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States...[or] willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential, to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged... and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more then twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive or violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service."

The author also pointed out that 27 out of the 48 states had enacted Sedition Laws to imprison anyone who for whatever reason opposed the war that the US was involved in. In one instance "One case I find particularly chilling is that of a traveling salesman who, while passing through Montana, made the mistake of referring, in conversation, to Mr. Hoover's food regulations as a "big joke"; he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of seven to twenty years in prison. In all, nearly eighty men and women were convicted of sedition in Montana by the time the war ended. If you find yourself outraged over this, you may be gratified to learn that Montana's Governor did, eventually grant them all pardons. In 2006." As if that wasn't enough, the US Government backed and used groups of vigilante organizations with such names as: Liberty League, Nation Security League, Home Defense League, Anti-Yellow Dog League, The Knights of Liberty (really..), The Boy Spies of America and, The American Protective League which was founded by US Attorney General Thomas Gregory.
So 96-97 years ago anyone in the United States could be thrown in jail or fined or both for saying a bad joke, or saying that the Navy's uniforms looked silly, talking with a foreign accent that sounded odd, or being just plain lazy.

Now back to the present and my point, these days people in the US are worried, freaking out, wondering if they'll get killed by a drone if they speak out against their government, or putting their tin foil hats on so they won't get picked up by a spy satellite, or whatever their reason happens to be. Are the NSA programs really worse then what the US Government did back in the 18 months the US was in WW1? Well let me ask you these hypothetical questions. Have you seen a poster like this in 8 years? http://imageshack.us/a/img713/9660/2eos.jpg
Probably not. Have you been thrown in jail for telling a joke about the government, or something in the military is ugly, wrong, or just plain dumb or because your just being an on-the-job slacker? Again probably not.
Has some random person started chatting you up in a bar asking you questions about what your opinions on what the government is doing or why their doing whatever it is and if you give the wrong answer your on a one way trip to jail? Well you probably know that answer yourself.

Now I know that their are people who dislike, disagree, or downright hate what the NSA is doing, and there are those who are think the opposite and some on the fence. But is it really all that surprising that the NSA is using the Internet for the purposes of spying, or whatever? It really shouldn't be, as that's the way things advance. If there's millions of people on the internet and that's the best place for the NSA to look, as not only are enemies of the US online, the places for a possible attack are advertised online. Now I'm not going to say if I think what the NSA is doing is right or wrong, I'm just trying to look at this from another point of view.
This also begs for one of those "what-if" questions to be asked. So what-if the US didn't have the NSA, and there was an attack somewhere on US soil that could of been prevented by something like the NSA? Well the answer would probably be thus: The American people outraged by the fact that this attack could of been prevented, blame the government for not preventing it. The government in response says it will do a better job if protecting its citizens and therefore creates an agency that specializes in the tracking of enemies of the United States, and then were back to square one. Or there's the possibility of the government not doing anything. Which do you think would happen?
I Like IKE: beware the military industrial complex...its so complex; Nice shot of Sir Douglas Bader!:arrgh!:

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

The original, as far as I know, was attributed to Abraham Lincoln: "You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. Just change fool to please and there you have it.

@ Aktungbby Yes it is a good photo of Group Captain Bader, I've been to Colditz Castle where Bader was a POW between 1942-1945.

[Platapus]

Here are some contemporary security posters

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctabu/3657942692/

[Sailor Steve]

Just change fool to please and there you have it.
I know. I was just sayin'.

[Wolferz]

Here are some contemporary security posters

http://www.flickr.com/photos/doctabu/3657942692/

The pictures of the desserts scared me.:timeout::wah:

[Bubblehead1980]

Well I really couldn't come up with a clever title for this thread but anyways, I've been reading a book called "The Last of the Doughboys" by Richard Rubin. Aside from the interviews with those last surviving men and women who fought and served during The Great War it has chapters on things such as music from the era from Tin Pan Alley, how and why some of these persons the author interviewed lived to over one hundred years, etc. So naturally there's a chapter about the laws of the day in the US. So of course it includes the Espionage Act of 1917, from which Section 3 is cited "Whoever, when the United States is at war...shall willfully cause or attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years or both." And then in 1918 it gets even worse and much longer, "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall... say or do anything except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of bonds, or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by or to the United States...[or] willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute, or shall willfully utter, print, write, or publish any language intended to incite, provoke, or encourage resistance to the United States, or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall willfully display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall willfully by utterance, writing, printing, publication, or language spoken, urge, incite, or advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or things, product or products, necessary or essential, to the prosecution of the war in which the United States may be engaged... and whoever shall willfully advocate, teach, defend or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this section enumerated, and whoever shall by word or act support or favor the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or the imprisonment for not more then twenty years, or both: Provided, That any employee or official of the United States Government who commits any disloyal act or utters any unpatriotic or disloyal language, or who, in an abusive or violent manner criticizes the Army or Navy of the United States shall be at once dismissed from the service."

The author also pointed out that 27 out of the 48 states had enacted Sedition Laws to imprison anyone who for whatever reason opposed the war that the US was involved in. In one instance "One case I find particularly chilling is that of a traveling salesman who, while passing through Montana, made the mistake of referring, in conversation, to Mr. Hoover's food regulations as a "big joke"; he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a term of seven to twenty years in prison. In all, nearly eighty men and women were convicted of sedition in Montana by the time the war ended. If you find yourself outraged over this, you may be gratified to learn that Montana's Governor did, eventually grant them all pardons. In 2006." As if that wasn't enough, the US Government backed and used groups of vigilante organizations with such names as: Liberty League, Nation Security League, Home Defense League, Anti-Yellow Dog League, The Knights of Liberty (really..), The Boy Spies of America and, The American Protective League which was founded by US Attorney General Thomas Gregory.
So 96-97 years ago anyone in the United States could be thrown in jail or fined or both for saying a bad joke, or saying that the Navy's uniforms looked silly, talking with a foreign accent that sounded odd, or being just plain lazy.

Now back to the present and my point, these days people in the US are worried, freaking out, wondering if they'll get killed by a drone if they speak out against their government, or putting their tin foil hats on so they won't get picked up by a spy satellite, or whatever their reason happens to be. Are the NSA programs really worse then what the US Government did back in the 18 months the US was in WW1? Well let me ask you these hypothetical questions. Have you seen a poster like this in 8 years? http://imageshack.us/a/img713/9660/2eos.jpg
Probably not. Have you been thrown in jail for telling a joke about the government, or something in the military is ugly, wrong, or just plain dumb or because your just being an on-the-job slacker? Again probably not.
Has some random person started chatting you up in a bar asking you questions about what your opinions on what the government is doing or why their doing whatever it is and if you give the wrong answer your on a one way trip to jail? Well you probably know that answer yourself.

Now I know that their are people who dislike, disagree, or downright hate what the NSA is doing, and there are those who are think the opposite and some on the fence. But is it really all that surprising that the NSA is using the Internet for the purposes of spying, or whatever? It really shouldn't be, as that's the way things advance. If there's millions of people on the internet and that's the best place for the NSA to look, as not only are enemies of the US online, the places for a possible attack are advertised online. Now I'm not going to say if I think what the NSA is doing is right or wrong, I'm just trying to look at this from another point of view.
This also begs for one of those "what-if" questions to be asked. So what-if the US didn't have the NSA, and there was an attack somewhere on US soil that could of been prevented by something like the NSA? Well the answer would probably be thus: The American people outraged by the fact that this attack could of been prevented, blame the government for not preventing it. The government in response says it will do a better job if protecting its citizens and therefore creates an agency that specializes in the tracking of enemies of the United States, and then were back to square one. Or there's the possibility of the government not doing anything. Which do you think would happen?


Well, it's not that the NSA thing is surprising, it's just that it is absolutely WRONG, just as the sedition laws that were in effect during WW I were.The Snowden case just brought this to the attention of what are so accurately dubbed "low information voters" by right wing commentators.These voters exists on both sides of the aisle and unfortunately do make up roughly half, maybe a little more of our country.People who just don't get it, who take "freedom" for granted, who live a life of blissful ignorance, who get caught up in things such as post 9/11 government worship that enabled the PATRIOT Act and furtherance of the police state in which we live, the same ignorant masses that got "caught up" in "Obamamania" in 2008 and even though so many has even more examples of how dangerous this man is, they ignored it, caught up in the reelection fervor and the dislike for for a substandard candidate(Romney) then months later, they are just angry over his many missteps, and the scandals such as Benghazi, IRS, etc etc etc. The same ignorant masses they are counting down for Hillary in 2016, because this large group of citizens feel they are "part of history" when they vote someone "different" in such as a black guy and next, a woman but are not aware that she will support the same, if not more police state style action.They just fail to see they will end up with the polices so many of them are just outraged by now, but because they think it's a woman's turn, they will support her or a large number of them will.This is what is wrong with America, so many people are still just too emotional, too indoctrinated, too reliant on the government for security, for well being etc.This is nothing new though, as the OP pointed out in WW I, so many people got caught up in the fervor of war, the patriotism, ignoring the fact we should have never been in that war, no matter how much that scumbag Wilson wanted us to be.

Now, top answer your hypothetical about if we are attacked again.The NSA and police state agencies/programs only give the illusion of security, not actual, real security.The Boston bombing is an example, the multiple near misses that have only not worked out because of the would be bomber's incompetence, not anything our police state has done.They vaguely refer to so called "foiled attacks", well I am sure they have been a couple but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.The reality is, we will be hit again, probably more serious than 9/11, it's not a question of if, it's when.The only way to stop this would be to stop foreigners from visiting, outlaw islam and keep serious tabs on anyone who is a muslim, but even then, it's not guarantee.However, we should not do this, this is, just as the NSA "wide net" style programs, unamerican and against the very core of our country.Let us not forget, it is unconstitutional ie illegal.Our focus should be to fight the mob mentality, the ignorance, so that when it happens, people are not so eager to give up the rights so many men have struggled for and defended over the years.The pieces of human excrement who support this should all be out of office and maybe even in jail.Some serious penalties need to be enacted for violated constitutional rights.Of course, that would mean the government has to play by the rules, they don't like that.

The "national security" argument is pure, unadulerated, BUNK. This morning John McCain was on one of the shows, talking about "young people see Snowden as a some kind of hero but he is traitor who violated his oath" etc Now, McCain was on MSNBC aka the Government's Propaganda Channel but wish someone could have asked.So where those who opposed Hitler despite their oath of allegiance wrong? Were they traitors? or heroes? They were, as we know, heroes.Snowden is a hero, he exposed to the ignorant masses, what their corrupt police state has been doing, and while the only thing it's changed so far is to get a weak promise from obama for "greater transparency", this is a fire that will not burn out, I have a feeling if it is fanned enough, the mid terms will be the day of reckoning for those who enable the police state.

[Ducimus]

Things like the NSA, the patriot act, the later encarnations of the NDAA, are a result of the proclaimed "War on terror". That is effectively a war without end, kind of like the "war on drugs".

What should have been said is, "War on Al qaeda", Or " war on Osama Bin ladin".. SPECIFIC targets. When a "War on terror" was declared, what was really done, was the fabrication of a boogeyman to rally the people against a percieved enemy in order to give the government all the excuses it could ever need to do whatever it wants.


History has already spelled this out for us:

Göring:
Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.

Gilbert:
There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring:
Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.


Doomed to repeat it, and all that.

[mookiemookie]

History has already spelled this out for us:

I was always amazed at how prescient that quote was.