Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Feds Create Massive Database of Phone Calls

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Feds Create Massive Database of Phone Calls
Mystic Gemini
unregistered
posted May 11, 2006 11:34 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Feds Create Massive Database of Phone Calls
Companies Turn Over Domestic Records to National Security Agency

By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.



AP
The detailed phone records of customers of three telecommunications companies are now part of a huge government database.

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

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

Jump Below: Q&A on the Program | Talk About It: Post

More Coverage: Spying Probe Abruptly Dropped

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

The three telecommunications companies are working under contract with the NSA, which launched the program in 2001 shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the sources said. The program is aimed at identifying and tracking suspected terrorists, they said.


Domestic Call Q&A


Does the NSA's domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?

In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones.

1/10

Source: USA Today

The sources would talk only under a guarantee of anonymity because the NSA program is secret.

Air Force Gen. Michael Hayden, nominated Monday by President Bush to become the director of the CIA, headed the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005. In that post, Hayden would have overseen the agency's domestic call-tracking program. Hayden declined to comment about the program.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, declined to discuss the agency's operations. "Given the nature of the work we do, it would be irresponsible to comment on actual or alleged operational issues; therefore, we have no information to provide," he said. "However, it is important to note that NSA takes its legal responsibilities seriously and operates within the law."



Retail sales, helped by late Easter, warm weather and gas sales, rise 0.5% in April
Rosenthal, former New York Times executive editor, dies at 84
UnitedHealth says options problem may cause restatement
Club where rapper Proof was killed closed
Jimmy Smith saying goodbye after 12 seasons in NFL


The White House would not discuss the domestic call-tracking program. "There is no domestic surveillance without court approval," said Dana Perino, deputy press secretary, referring to actual eavesdropping.

She added that all national intelligence activities undertaken by the federal government "are lawful, necessary and required for the pursuit of al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorists." All government-sponsored intelligence activities "are carefully reviewed and monitored," Perino said. She also noted that "all appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on the intelligence efforts of the United States."

The government is collecting "external" data on domestic phone calls but is not intercepting "internals," a term for the actual content of the communication, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the program. This kind of data collection from phone companies is not uncommon; it's been done before, though never on this large a scale, the official said. The data are used for "social network analysis," the official said, meaning to study how terrorist networks contact each other and how they are tied together.


CONTINUED
1 | 2 | 3 Next Page >


05-11-06 07:09 EDT


Copyright 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 11, 2006 01:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:50 a.m. EDT
USA Today NSA Scoop Not News

The USA Today "scoop" on the NSA's massive telephone surveillance program isn't really news at all - though liberal media outlets have been blaring the story as a shocking revelation all Thursday morning.

The Agency, the paper announced ominously, "has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans . . . The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime."

But as NewsMax noted in December - back when the New York Times tried to ballyhoo a similar story about the NSA's terrorist surveillance program - CBS's "60 Minutes" blew the lid off the agency's domestic wiretapping in Feb. 2000, when the Clinton administration was using it for all sorts of unauthorized purposes.

"60 Minutes" host Steve Kroft introduced the segment by saying:

"If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency."

NSA computers, said Kroft, "capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world."

Echelon expert Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told "60 Minutes" that the agency was monitoring "everything from data transfers to cell phones to portable phones to baby monitors to ATMs."

Mr. Frost detailed activities at one unidentified NSA installation, telling "60 Minutes" that agency operators "can listen in to just about anything" - while Echelon computers screen phone calls for key words that might indicate a terrorist threat.

Now, more than six years later, the big media is pretending that this is all brand new - something cooked up by President Bush in a mad rush to shred the Constitutional rights of every American.

But even USA Today had to admit in its own report that the NSA wiretapping program has "been done before, though never on this large a scale."

Judging from the "60 Minutes" transcript, Mr. Kroft would beg to differ on the scale question.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/11/105237.shtml?s=ic

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 11, 2006 07:49 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
MG if you get a chance to watch it this is going to be dicussed on ABC's Nightline tonight.


The Bush administration felt the backlash today from Democrats and Republicans alike demanding answers from the White House in response to a report in USA Today that the administration was secretly collecting the phone records of American citizens to build a database of calls made within the country. We'll check in with Martha Raddatz at the White House on the Congressional criticism and what we know about what the NSA's been up to.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 11, 2006 11:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes Mirandee, the worst nightmare of leftist terrorist supporters in the United States is that the government might identify them, track them and kill them before they can strike America again.

So, it follows naturally that anything the government does to quell terrorist activities is to be resisted by their ardent supporters.

The only problem for leftists who want to hand America another defeat is that Bush is not Lyndon Johnson. Bush will use the constitutional power of the office of President to identify them, track them and take them out to protect the United States and US citizens.

Sorry about that.

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted May 12, 2006 01:56 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop, obviously you have chosen to live the remainder of your life cowering in fear that there is a terrorist lurking around every corner just as the Bush administration wants you to believe but that is not my choice and it's not the choice of many people in this country.

Obviously your xenophobia and fear of terrorists convinces you that your freedoms as an American citizen are worth forfeiting for the greater cause just as Bush wants you to believe but I and many other Americans think our freedoms are worth holding onto at any cost.

It is not I who want America to fail, Jwhop. It is YOU who wants America and democracy to fail. It is not I who am a traitor to the Constitution that I took the oath to uphold when I enlisted with Americorps it is YOU who are the traitor to the Constitution. If that were not the case you would not be such a staunch supporter of a self-imposed dictator such as Bush. There has not been one thing that Bush has done since taking office that was not unconstitutional as the constitution is written. Bush interprets the constitution to mean what he wants it to mean just like the good dictator he is and morons like you who go through life with blinders on and minds closed believe everything he tells you.

Hitler also had his loyalists and Jim Jones had his loyal followers who not only drank the kool-aid for him but gave it to their children to drink as well.

Now I am sorry about that, Jwhop. Sorry for you and those like you.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 12, 2006 09:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I never give terrorists a thought in my everyday life Mirandee...only here..where it's impossible to not be reminded by you and other leftists that there's a fifth column of America haters in this country actively trying to deconstruct America.

It is not possible for any reasonable person to read what you..and some others write and choose to post here, to form an opinion you are not on the side of America's enemies. In fact, I've seen no evidence, none whatsoever, not even once, that isn't true.

You're part of the left to whom America is always wrong. You bit*h and moan about every supposed flaw, imaginary, real or manufactured in the minds of leftists just like you.

You are the friend of any country and any person who badmouths America. I remember you were simply beside yourself with anger when Americans decided we didn't need French wine because of French duplicity over Saddam....whom you supported, not America and beside yourself over "American Fries". I remember you were beside yourself when America decided we didn't need the Dixie Chicks who used a foreign audience to cast aspersions on the President of the United States. It's easy, oh so easy to see you on the side of the Soviet Union, on the side of the North Vietnamese communists, on the side of the little communist bast@rd Daniel Ortega and you were certainly on the side of the communist Ramsey Clark, International Answer and the Workers World Party, Islamic Jihad, Hamas and narco terrorists when they were marching in the streets of America to save Saddam Hussein's sorry ass. You and some others were salivating over the demonstrations against your own country.

So Mirandee, save your bullsh!t for the tourists. You are on the side of anyone who is against America and against any defense of America.

The President has the inherent Constitutional authority to do exactly what he's doing to root out terrorists and he also has the constitutional duty and responsibility to do so.

So, in spite of all the leftist whiners, Bush will do the job he was elected and reelected to do and the left will predictably whine, screech and wet themselves.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 12, 2006 11:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is no "right to privacy" to be found in the United States Constitution.

There is the right to be secure in one's person, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

But every search without a warrant is NOT unreasonable.

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:16 a.m. EDT
Poll: Strong Support for NSA Phone Surveillance

Despite a day of media hyperventilation over the National Security Agency's program to collect information on domestic phone calls, a new poll finds the American people back the operation by overwhelming numbers.

In a survey taken yesterday after USA Today blew the cover on the program, 63 percent of those surveyed said they supported the records gathering operation, with 44 percent saying they "strongly" endorsed it.

Just 35 percent said they were opposed to the collection of phone records by the government, with a mere 24 percent saying they "strongly" objected to it.

65 percent of those surveyed told ABC/Post pollsters that it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy."

A slight majority - 51 percent - said President Bush had done a good job surveilling terrorists without abusing the privacy rights of Americans.
502 randomly selected adults were interviewed by the Post and ABC News Thursday night, giving the survey a margin of error of +/- 5 points.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/12/91831.shtml?s=ic

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 12, 2006 11:42 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is the reason the leftist fringe radicals are going to lose the next election..in addition to all the other elections the radical left fringe have already cost democrats.

It goes without saying that from this date forward, any terrorist attacks within the United States are going to be laid directly on the doorstep of the radical fringe leftists in the Congress of the United States...not to mention all the nonsense spouting leftist groups.

Preventing the administration from exercising their Constitutional duty to protect the nation and the people of America will not be forgotten nor forgiven.

Friday, May 12, 2006 12:24 a.m. EDT
Dems Join Suit to Ban Terrorist Surveillance

Until now, Democrats had insisted that they didn't want to end President Bush's terrorist surveillance program, saying instead that the law merely needed to be changed to make terrorist surveillance inside the U.S. illegal.

On Wednesday, however - even before USA Today's bogus report about the NSA's phone number data collection program - 71 House Democrats signed up to sponsor a move that would make it illegal for the NSA to continue to monitor terrorist phone calls.

The liberal web site Raw Story reported Thursday:

"The 71 Democrats and one independent filed an amicus brief in two federal courts reviewing challenges to the warrantless wiretapping program in Detroit and New York, joining the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights."

"Both suits demand the program be stopped."

Predictably, Michigan Democrat John Conyers led the charge:

"As our brief makes clear, this Congress dealt with this issue authoritatively almost 30 years ago - warrantless spying on American soil is flatly prohibited," he railed.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/12/02558.shtml?s=ic

To the brain dead moron John Conyers and all other brain dead morons of the left.

Spying on American soil against foreign terrorists for national security purposes is not flatly illegal. Just the opposite is true...warrant or no warrant, as circumstances on the ground dictate.

IP: Logged

ozonefiller
Newflake

Posts: 0
From:
Registered: Aug 2009

posted May 12, 2006 12:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ozonefiller     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You know, it's not Hitler that George W. Bush really loves...

...it's Machiavelli!

Lets see:

Ma·chi·a·vel·li·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mk--vl-n)
adj.
Of or relating to Machiavelli or Machiavellianism.
Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Machi·a·velli·an or Machi·a·vellist n.

Machiavellian

adj : of or relating to Machiavelli or the principles of conduct he recommended; "Machiavellian thinking" [syn: Machiavellian]

Niccolò Machiavelli
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Machiavelli)
Jump to: navigation, search

Machiavelli, c. 1500, in the robes of a Florentine public official.
Statue at the Uffizi.
Bust of Machiavelli.Niccolò Machiavelli (3 May 1469 – 21 June 1527) Florentine political philosopher, musician, poet, and romantic comedic playwright. Machiavelli was also a key figure in realist political theory, crucial to European statecraft Renaissance and early Protestant Reformation, which shaped the behavior of nations to one another up through World War II. Machiavelli was one of the first people to study objectively--with what we might now call a scientific attitude--politics and government as they are actually practiced.

Background
Machiavelli was born in Florence, the second son of Bernardo di Niccolò Machiavelli and his wife Bartolommea di Stefano Nelli. His father was a lawyer of some repute and belonged to an impoverished branch of an influential old Florentine family.

Machiavelli served the Republic of Florence after the expulsion of the Medici in 1494, travelling to European courts in France, Germany, as well as other Italian city-states on diplomatic missions. During this time he would draw influence for his work The Prince from the European leaders he met. His first mission was in 1499 to Caterina Sforza, who appeared as "my lady of Forlì" in his work The Prince. In 1500 he was sent to France to obtain terms from Louis XII for continuing the war against Pisa. Louis XII was also the king who committed the five capital errors in statecraft summarized in The Prince, and was consequentialy driven out of Italy. Machiavelli's public life was largely occupied with events arising out of the ambitions of Pope Alexander VI and his son, Cesare Borgia, and these characters fill a large space of The Prince.

When Pope Julius II restored the Medicis to power in 1512, Machiavelli's name was found on a list of 20 persons supposedly involved in a conspiracy to oppose Medici rule, including co-conspirator and disputed friend Giovani Battaini. He was briefly imprisoned and tortured in the Bargello in Florence. It is likely he had no part in the plot, and he maintained his innocence throughout. When Pope Leo X became pontiff in 1513, himself a member of the Medici family, he secured the release of Machiavelli and sent him into exile. Machiavelli returned to Sant'Andrea in Percussina, where he devoted himself to literature. He died in Florence in 1527 and his resting place, as well as the tombs of his conspirators' friends and family, is unknown; however, a symbolic tomb in his honor can be found at the Basilica di Santa Croce di Firenze.

[edit]
Works and political philosophy
The best known work of Machiavelli is his political treatise Il Principe (The Prince). It was written in an attempt to return to politics as an advisor to Lorenzo di Piero de' Medici. It has been argued that The Prince is not representative of Machiavelli's beliefs, as his advocacy of tyranny seems to contradict his other writings. However, Machiavelli seems to have been in earnest when he argued the advantages of cruelty and fraudulence. Apparently, he was hoping that a strong ruler would emerge from the Medici family, uniting Italy by expelling the foreign occupiers. Since its publication, Il Principe has become a legendary handbook on how to become and remain a ruler.

However, most experts agree that Machiavelli's intention was not to advocate one particular policy over another, but to objectively record the various discourses of politics. It would not be accurate to accuse him of advocating the wicked practices about which he wrote. There are places in his writings where he says, in effect, that if the ruler is to save the state in a particular sort of crisis, or retain his own position in power, then he must be prepared to act against this or that moral principle; but even in these passages he is, usually, only stating an unpalatable truth, at least in the political circumstance of his time and place, which was Renaissance Italy.

Nonetheless, in the Discourses, which will be discussed with greater detail below, Machiavelli does offer his view of the ideal form of government when he compares the pros and cons of different forms of government, and reveals it as his view that a republic, where it has genuine popular support, is likely to be the best and most stable form of government.

The Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio (Discourses On The First Ten Books of Titus Livy), Machiavelli's second most famous work, focuses on the proper function of Republics, rather than the function of autocratic regimes discussed in The Prince. (Machiavelli notes this in the second chapter of The Prince, which begins with the line: "Setting aside republics, about which I have spoken at length elsewhere, I shall concern myself only with princely states.") The Discorsi, as the work is most commonly known, espouses a much less harsh and cruel method of government than the government suggested in The Prince. An analysis of the history written by the Roman Titus Livy, the Discourses uses anolgies from Roman history to study contemporary Italian politics. (For example, Machiavelli compares the way in which Roman generals used religion to manipulate their soldiers to the brief ascendancy of Savonarola in Florentine politics.)

Both of his major works talk extensively about uniting the Italian peninsula under one government.

[edit]
Machiavellianism
Main article: Machiavellianism
Machiavellianism is the term some social and personality psychologists use to describe a person's tendency to deceive and manipulate others for gain. Whether the gain is personal or not is of no relevance, only that the resulting actions are the goal and the means by which one achieves the results are only important insofar as it affects the results. Used to describe later works by other authors based on Machiavelli's writings—particularly The Prince—in which the authors stress the view that "The ends justify the means." These authors failed to include some of the more moderating themes found in Machiavelli's works and the name is now associated with the extreme viewpoint. Notwithstanding the mitigating themes in The Prince, it was viewed in a negative light largely because the Catholic church put the work in its Index – a list of books against the faith.

The word was also adopted by some of Machiavelli's contemporaries, often used in the introductions of political tracts of the sixteenth century that offered more 'just' reasons of state, most notably those of Jean Bodin and Giovanni Botero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavelli

The Prince
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

One of the covers of the book


This article is about the book by Niccolò Machiavelli. For other uses, see Prince (disambiguation).
Il Principe (The Prince) is a political treatise by the Florentine writer Niccolò Machiavelli, originally called "De Principatibus" (About Principalities). It was written around 1513, but not published until 1532, five years after Machiavelli's death. The treatise is not actually representative of his published work during his lifetime, but it is certainly the best remembered one, and which caused such terms as "Machiavellian intelligence" to be coined later.

The Book
[edit]
Short Summary
...The views expressed within The Prince may seem extreme; however, the text was written during a period of continuous conflict in Florence. Accordingly, Machiavelli's views were such that stability was paramount and the only government he believed could achieve this was a tyrannical one.

The views expressed in The Prince are often venerated as the methods an aspiring prince can use to gain power, and/or an existing prince can use to establish and maintain his reign. According to Machiavelli, moral principles must yield entirely to each unique circumstance’s requisites. Therefore, it is imperative that the Prince be willing to do anything necessary to maintain power; however, Machiavelli asserts strongly that above all, the Prince must not be hated.

The opening discourse of The Prince defines effective methods of governing in several types of principalities (for example, newly acquired vs. hereditary). Machiavelli tells the reader, assumed to be a member of the Florentine aristocracy, of the best ways to acquire, maintain, and protect a state. The methods described therein preach war and ruthlessness.

Next, Machiavelli explains the qualities the ideal prince should possess, modeled after Cesare Borgia. These are still cited in modern texts on leadership. The traits of an effective political leader are presented as:

a willingness to imitate the behavior of great men, e.g. those of Ancient Rome in particular, the book being written in the Renaissance
the ability to illustrate how government is necessary to the well-being of the populace, e.g. perhaps by demonstrating the consequences of yielding to mob rule by temporarily relaxing one's grip
a dedication to the art of war — if only for the state's actual survival
an understanding that apparent cruelties and vice may be essential to maintaining stability and power
prudence with respect to disbursement of one's own wealth
making efforts to appear religious to sway the "vulgar." Machiavelli extols King Ferdinand of Spain for using the cloak of religion to invade Italy numerous times — he praises the tactic yet hates the invasion of Italy by other monarchs.
the wisdom to seek advice and counsel only when it is needed
It seems that Machiavelli disregards the connection between ethics and politics, which disturbed many of his contemporaries. However, Machiavelli actually departs from the classical conception of virtue in altering the connection between ethics and politics by altering the conception of virtue for a prince. The prince should endeavor to be seen as compassionate, trustworthy, sympathetic, honest, and religious. But in reality, the duties of the Prince very rarely allow him to actually be compassionate, etc.

The last few chapters are concerned with the state of Italy at the time of writing (including "an exhortation to liberate Italy from the barbarians").

[edit]
Reader's Guide
[edit]
Introduction/Context
The Prince is widely regarded as the most influential book on politics ever written. Its observations on the human condition are as relevant today as they were five hundred years ago. In his book Machiavelli writes to gain the favor of the ruling Medici Family by offering advice on how might a prince gain power and how to keep that power. Although the modern connotation of a prince is a majestic man, who is destined to rule his people and is loved by all, the princes of Machiavelli’s time were by no means this romantic and were constantly engaged in wars and struggling to maintain power over their claims. The methods described by Machiavelli in The Prince can still be applied for use today as much as they could during its writing. However, certain principles should be taken into consideration for application in contemporary life, as the advice Machiavelli is offering throughout his book is intended only to serve the selfish interests of the prince and not the needs of the people.

[edit]
Author's Biography
Born in Florence, Italy on May 3, 1469 to an influential family, Niccolo Machiavelli received a quality, classical education, typical of the humanist traditions of Renaissance Italy. Throughout most of Machiavelli’s life, the Medici family was the ruling class of Italy. However, when the Medici family briefly lost influence in 1498, Machiavelli was appointed a position in the new Florentine Republic. In his new position, Machiavelli was given access to the major political and military leaders of Europe and traveled extensively observing the inner-workings of foreign affairs first hand. He also became close friends with Cesare Borgia of the powerful Borgia family, in which he alludes to countless times throughout The Prince. However, in 1512 the Medici family regained power in Florence and Machiavelli was exiled. He retired to the Florentine hinterlands where he authored many works, including: On the Art of War, History of Florence, Discourses on Livy and The Prince.

The Florentine Republic was restored, but Machiavelli was not appointed to his old position because many believed he had too many ties to the Medici Family. Machiavelli later died that same year, 1527. The Prince was published in 1532, five years after his death.

[edit]
Principalities (Monarchies)
To start, Machiavelli asserts that all states and dominions that have existed and have ever held power over men are either Principalities or Republics. Machiavelli will concentrate only on the principality in The Prince while discussing the republic in one of his other works, Discourses. Of principalities, Machiavelli asserts that all are either hereditary, new or mixed.

[edit]
Hereditary Principalities
A principality is a monarchial state acquired by either fortune or virtue, whose monarch is a prince. Of the three principalities, the hereditary principality is inherited from past generations through family succession and is easiest of the types of principalities to maintain. In a hereditary principality the people are automatically loyal to the prince, because he is of an ancient lineage and has the loyalty of the people instilled into his family name, therefore the people have a natural affection for him. Therefore, if outsiders disturb the throne, power is easily regained because the people have history and loyalty instilled in the former ruling family.

[edit]
New and Mixed Principalities
New principalities are created through military or civil acquisition. Mixed principalities are new territories that are added to an existing territory. Machiavelli identifies four ways in which a prince may acquire a new principality: by one’s own arms, by the arms of others, by evil means and by civil means. Machiavelli also identifies the ecclesiastical principality as a special case with the pope acting as the prince.

New principalities are more difficult to establish than those of hereditary principalities. When men adopt a completely new ruler they have expectations of better fortune and when the new prince does not meet those unrealistic expectations, hostilities usually ensue. In addition, a new prince is at the mercy of the people, and as Machiavelli states, “No matter how powerful ones armies, in order to enter a country one needs the goodwill of the people” (9).

Newly acquired territories with similar customs and languages are considered to be more easily established and maintained than territories with dissimilar languages and customs. All one must to do establish power in a newly acquired territory is to execute all living members of the ruling family and maintain the status quo, specifically the territory’s laws and taxes. After these measures have been taken, newly acquired territories may rapidly assimilate into a prince’s others. In summary, the new prince need change neither the laws nor the customs of the new appendage state, then as Machiavelli states, “men will live quietly.”

When in the acquisition of foreign territories with dissimilar customs and languages a prince must have both fortune and ability. For in the acquisition of an appendage state of various customs and languages dissimilar from yours, “many difficulties arise.” The best strategy in this situation is for the prince to physically reside in the new territory, so that he can quickly put down rebellions and can instill loyalty and fear into his subjects. In addition, a foreign prince would be less inclined to attack a territory when its prince is present. The next best alternative is to establish settlements in the new appendage state. Settlements are cheap and leave the inhabitants of the territory relatively undisturbed, while still asserting a prince’s presence in the territory. However, the worst alternative is to occupy the new territory with troops, which are expensive and causes everybody to suffer.

Importantly, a prince settling a new territory with dissimilar customs and languages must be aware of his surroundings, particularly the relative neighbors in the region. Machiavelli argues that a virtuous prince must protect and ally his weaker neighbors and weaken the stronger. In addition, at all cost, he must not allow a foreign power of equal strength to enter his surrounding territories.

Machiavelli cites the failure of King Louis XII of France in conquering Italy as an example to illustrate the importance of these principles. Machiavelli suggests King Louis made several mistakes:

1. Removed the weaker forces that originally sided with him

2. Strengthened the powerful (The Church)

3. Brought in a strong foreigner (Spain)

4. Did not reside in Italy

5. Did not establish settlements

Machiavelli concludes with a general rule:

He who causes another to become powerful ruins himself.
It should now be clear that all new principalities, at first, are difficult to control. In his next argument, Machiavelli identifies two ways of governing a principality. One of these ways is the absolute rule over the territory with the help of appointed servants, which was established in Turkey at the time. The other way is for a prince to rule along with barons who have acquired their positions through succession and have their own loyal subjects, which was the case in France at the time. Of the two, Machiavelli states, that The Kingdom of the Turks would be the hardest to conquer, but the easiest in which to maintain. While, in the French case, infiltration would be unproblematic, however controling any influence would be difficult (because of the lack of absolute power). This brings Machiavelli to his next point; there are three ways of keeping a principality that is accustomed to living under its own laws: destroy it, reside in it or collect tribute from it. However, the only sure way is to destroy it because there is always a chance that its inhabitants will rebel in the name of freedom, which once tasted is never forgotten. Thus, a territory that is used to having a ruler will be easier to control than a more liberal territory, such as a republic.

[edit]
New principalities acquired by prowess or fortune
For men who have become princes by means of their ability (prowess), the hardest difficulty is the acquisition of their territory. Once rule is established a prince’s prudent ability is all he needs for effective rule. A new prince might be tempted to set up new and innovative methods of government; however, Machiavelli warns that in that case, a prince will encounter many enemies who oppose the change or, on the other hand, pervasive supporters. Because – according to Machiavelli – generally, people do not take well to change. Therefore, as Machiavelli deduces, the only effective means of establishing rule is by force:

Force is the most effective and efficient means to do something and the virtuous prince will employ its leverage.
Machiavelli cites as an example Girolama Savaronola, the Dominican friar who held power over Florence with his prophetic sermons, but lost control because he was unarmed when his message was no longer welcomed. Machiavelli observes, "From this it follows that all armed prophets have succeeded and all unarmed ones have failed; for in addition to what has already been said, people are by nature changeable." He notes that princes such as Moses, Cyrus, Romulus, and Theseus could not have succeeded without taking up arms. Hiero of Syracuse is a modern example of a private citizen who used his abilities to rise to power. Although he had to work hard to establish power, once in control, his abilities allowed him to easily maintain it. Regarding men who have become princes due to fortune and put forth no effort, Machiavelli asserts, will face endless efforts in maintaining their power. With no loyal army or ancient institutions to stand on, a prince of a new state relying solely on fortune has little chance of survival.

[edit]
New principalities acquired by evil means
In establishing a new principality by evil means such as crime, a prince may win power but never glory. The road to power by means of crime is very rigorous and dangerous, and when power is established, the people are adverse and there is nobody to trust. Regarding the subject of cruelty, Machiavelli argues that proper cruelty is done early and quickly, so that the deed accomplishes the desired goal without making the citizens feel constantly threatened. Improper cruelty is one that is repetitious, which makes the citizens always wary of danger. As a general rule, harm should be inflicted all at once while benefits should be given little by little. Both harm and benefits should not serve as quick solutions for desperate circumstances:

Benefits must be conferred gradually so they are appreciated more thoroughly and harm should be inflicted all at once. Both harm and benefits should not serve as quick solutions to problems.
[edit]
New Principalities acquired by popular support
Another means for a private citizen to become a prince, which Machiavelli denounces, is by the popular support of either the common people or the nobles. From the conflicting desires of the people (not to be oppressed) and the nobles (wanting to oppress), comes three possible forms of government: monarchy, democracy and anarchy. A civil principality is born when nobles appoint one from their ranks to rule over the people, or when the people select one of their own to protect themselves against the nobles. He who comes to power through the nobles is less secure than one who comes to power through the people because the nobles will consider themselves equal to the new prince, while the people seek only to be protected from oppression by the prince. A prince must group nobles according to whether they support him or not. In dealing with nobles who are not supportive, the prince should judge whether it is because of their inherent lack of strong character, or because they are ambitious and care more about their own interests. Those of the former character, especially the competent, can be used because they are not a threat. Nevertheless, the ambitious and cunning nobles should be looked upon as enemies to be carefully watched. Whether a prince comes to power through the people or the nobles, he must win the support of his subjects, which is easily accomplished by not doing them harm. Machiavelli stresses the importance of keeping the good will of the people, because they are crucial in times of trouble. He qualifies this statement by saying that a prince should not expect the people to rescue him from trouble. If a prince is a man of courage and ability, the people will inevitably stand behind him even in times of adversity. A prince must therefore, be closely associated with his subjects and he must not rely too heavily on his advisors to lead, lest the subjects will become too dependent on the advisors, rather than on the prince.

[edit]
Ecclesiastical Principalities
A special exception among principalities is the Ecclesiastical Principality. Machiavelli states that among the princes, the ecclesiastical prince is the only one who, once in power, does not have to defend his power because it is rooted deep in ancient traditions of religion.

[edit]
Defense and Military
In having discussed the various types of principalities, Machiavelli turns to the ways a state can attack other territories or defend itself. The two most essential foundations for any state, whether old or new, are sound laws and strong military forces. A self-sufficient prince is one who can meet any enemy on the battlefield. However, a prince that relies solely on fortifications or on the help of others and stands on the defensive is not. If a prince cannot raise a formidable army and must rely on defense, he must fortify his city. A well-fortified city is not a likely target for attack and if it is, most armies cannot endure an extended siege. However, during a siege a virtuous prince will keep the morale of his subjects high, while removing all dissenters. Therefore, as long as the city is properly defended and has enough supplies, a wise prince can withstand any siege. The main concern for a prince should be war, or the preparation thereof. It is through war a hereditary prince maintains his power and a private citizen rises to power. Machiavelli advises that a prince must frequently hunt in order to keep the body fit and allow the prince to learn the immediate landscape surrounding his kingdom. Through this, he can best learn how to protect his territory and how to advance upon others similar. Likewise, for intellectual strength, it is advised that a prince be given to the study of great military men so that he may imitate their successes and avoid their mistakes. A prince that is diligent in times of peace will be ready in times of adversity. Machiavelli writes, “thus, when fortune turns against him he will be prepared to resist it.”

Mercenary forces are troops that are hired to fight for a wage. Machiavelli takes a strong stance against the use of mercenary forces. He believes mercenary forces are useless to a ruler because they are undisciplined, cowardly, and without any loyalty. Their only motivation to fight is for money. Machiavelli attributes Italy's demise to the use of mercenary armies.

Auxiliary forces are troops that are borrowed from an ally. Machiavelli warns against using such forces because if they win, the employer is under their favor and if they lose, the employer is ruined. Auxiliary forces are more dangerous than mercenary forces because they are united and controlled by capable leaders who may turn against their employers.

[edit]
Reputation of a Prince
Concerning the behavior of a prince toward his subjects, Machiavelli writes: "Many men have imagined republics and principalities that never really existed at all. Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good." Since there are many possible qualities that a prince can be said to possess, he must not be overly concerned about having all the good ones. Although a bad reputation should be avoided, this is not crucial in maintaining power. The only ethic that matters is one that is beneficial to the prince in dealing with the concerns of his state.

[edit]
Generosity vs. Parsimony
If a prince is overly generous to his subjects, Machiavelli asserts they will lose appreciation and will only greed for more. Additionally, being over-generous is not economical, because eventually all resources will be exhausted which results in higher taxes and will bring grief upon the prince. Then, if you decide to discontinue or limit your generosity, you will be labeled as a miser. Thus, Machiavelli summarizes that guarding against the people’s hatred is more important than building up a reputation for generosity. A wise prince should be more willing to be reputed a miser than be hated for trying to be too generous.

[edit]
Cruelty vs. Mercy
In answering the question of whether it is better to be loved than feared, Machiavelli writes, “The answer is of course, that it would be best to be both loved and feared. But since the two rarely come together, anyone compelled to choose will find greater security in being feared than in being loved.” As Machiavelli asserts, commitments made in peace are not always kept in adversity, however commitments made in fear are kept out of fear. However, a prince must ensure that he is not feared to the point of hatred, which is very possible. Above all, Machiavelli argues, do not interfere with the property of the subjects, their women, or the life of somebody without proper justification. Regarding the troops of the prince, fear is absolutely necessary to keep a large garrison united and a prince should not mind the thought of cruelty in that regard. For a prince who leads his own army, it is imperative for him to observe cruelty because that is the only way he can command his soldiers' absolute respect. Machiavelli compares two great military leaders: Hannibal and Scipio. Although Hannibal's army consisted of men of various races, they were never rebellious because they feared their leader. Scipio's men, on the other hand, were known for their mutiny and dissension.

[edit]
Honesty
History shows that leaders who practiced deceit almost always overcame those that lived by their word. Therefore, in accordance a prudent prince must not honor his word when it places him at disadvantage. A prince should appear to be compassionate, faithful, guileless and devout at all times. In conclusion Machiavelli summarizes, “A prince should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary.”

[edit]
Avoiding Contempt and Hatred
Machiavelli observes that most men are content as long as they are not deprived of their property and women. A prince should command respect through his conduct, because a prince that is highly respected by his people is unlikely to face internal struggles. Additionally, a prince who does not raise the contempt of the nobles and keeps the people satisfied, Machiavelli assures should have no fear of conspirators.

[edit]
Gaining Honor
A prince earns honor by completing great feats. King Ferdinand of Spain is cited by Machiavelli as an example of a lowly monarch who gained esteem by showing his ability through great feats and in the name of religion, he conquered many territories and kept his subjects occupied so that they had no chance to rebel. Regarding two warring states, Machiavelli asserts it is always wiser to choose a side, rather than to be neutral. Machiavelli then provides the following reasons why:

If your allies win, you benefit whether or not you have more power than they have.
If you are more powerful, then your allies are under your command; if your allies are stronger, they will always feel a certain obligation to you for your help.
If your side loses, you still have an ally in the loser.
Machiavelli also notes, that it is wise for a prince not to ally with a stronger force unless compelled to do so. In conclusion, the most important virtue is having the wisdom to discern what ventures will come with the most reward and then pursuing it courageously.

[edit]
Nobles and Staff
The selection of quality servants is reflected directly upon the prince’s intelligence, so if they are loyal the prince is considered wise; however, when they are otherwise, the prince is open to adverse criticism. As Machiavelli states, “A prince must have the discernment to recognize the good or bad in what another says or does even though he has no acumen himself".

[edit]
Avoiding Flatterers
A prudent prince should have a select group of wise counselors to advise him truthfully on matters only that he inquires of. All other opinions and suggestions from them should be ignored. Ultimately, the decision should be made by the prince and carried out absolutely. If a prince is given to changing his mind, his reputation will suffer. A prince must have the wisdom to recognize good advice from bad. Machiavelli gives an example of Emperor Maximilian II, who never consulted with others what he planned to do, and when confronted by his counselors of his plans, would change his mind so that no one knew one day what he would do the next.

[edit]
Fortune
Machiavelli argues that fortune is only the judge of half our actions and we have control over the other half. He compares fortune to a torrential river that cannot be easily controlled during flooding season. In periods of calm, however, people can erect dams and levees in order to minimize its impact. Fortune seems to strike at the places where no resistance is offered, as is the case in Italy. Additionally, a prince’s rule must be suited and adjusted for the times. A prince should imitate the actions of great men before him but only to a certain extent, then mimic them and adjust certain respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prince

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 12, 2006 12:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Machiavellian Bush????

Hahahaha, you people need to put your heads together and get your stories straight.

The oft repeated mantra is that Bush isn't smart enough to tie his own shoes.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 12, 2006 01:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
May 12, 2006, 8:15 a.m.
NSA NonsenseThe legal issues.
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

All hopes that the debate over National Security Agency surveillance would quietly subside were shattered on Thursday morning by an explosive USA Today report that the NSA has secretly collected a massive database containing the phone-call records of tens of millions of Americans. Anonymous sources said to have “direct knowledge of the arrangement” explained to the newspaper that the agency was able to persuade three major telecommunications companies to provide these records:

The NSA’s domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation’s biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.

The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their “call-detail records,” a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation’s calling habits.

In short, this data-mining operation allegedly involved collection of records regarding calls that were made—but did not, apparently, include the content of those communications.

As could be expected, the story’s publication was accompanied by a torrent of criticism directed at the Bush administration. A quick scan of liberal blogs shows that the program is being attacked as not only unwise, but also illegal. Yet for this to be true, an actual law must have been broken. Yet the two most likely legal authorities—the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—do not prohibit the alleged government activity.

FISA distinguishes between “electronic surveillance,” which collects the substantive content of electronic communications, and “pen registers,” which collect only the addressing information of electronic communications. Although the language of FISA is somewhat convoluted, information about what calls were being made that doesn’t involve listening in on the discussions themselves should be classified as a pen register rather than electronic surveillance under the statute.

However, the definition of “pen register” in FISA shows that the statute doesn’t regulate the government with respect to the technology at issue here. FISA states that the regulations governing pen registers do not “include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider.” That is precisely what was alleged in this case: The sources who spoke to USA Today said that the three participating telecommunications companies handed over information that was collected pursuant to their regular billing procedures. FISA does not implicate such action.

Nor would the Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures, make the conduct in question illegal. The Supreme Court held in Smith v. Maryland (1978) that government collection of phone numbers called does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that callers cannot have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the numbers they dial:

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must “convey” phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not “one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and “exposed” that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

In sum, the alleged government data collection described by USA Today does not, on its face, violate the Fourth Amendment or FISA. Of course, the fact that a government action is legal doesn’t settle the case: There may still be ample room to oppose it. But there is a rush among broad sections of the Left to declare illegal any Bush-administration policies with which they disagree without being troubled by such trivialities as what the actual, settled law says. Here, this reflexive reaction appears dead wrong.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross is an attorney and counterterrorism consultant. His first book, My Year Inside Radical Islam, will be published in winter 2007 by Tarcher/Penguin.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZjMDllOTRlYmFlMmQ3ZGEzNDJjNzExYjZiNGMxZWM=

IP: Logged

Mystic Gemini
unregistered
posted May 12, 2006 04:57 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Everyone where I live has always known that terrorism is a huge risk. But do we go around thinking about it every second?

No. Otherwise we'd be old and miserable right now......living in Florida somewhere :x


IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted May 12, 2006 07:41 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop, would you consider echelon's methods of search and seizure to be reasonable? Bottom trawl fishing passes for intelligence gathering with you?

And that neo-con crap about the Constitution neglecting to protect our privacy ... the governement's job isn't to grant me my rights like some sort of fattened lord of the manor handing out favors to the grateful serfs. The government's function is to PROTECT MY GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. And when it ceases to perform that function ....

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted May 12, 2006 08:01 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

i remember that kind of electronic flagging of keywords in telephone calls was part of the plot in the movie "enemy of the state"....1998....with wil smith and gene hackman......

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a