No idea how accurate a depiction of the speech this is, but the article is -- contrary to the title -- portraying the speech as having been warmly received, applauded, with one lone heckler. Now, whether or not one agrees with General Alexander, there are more courteous and productive ways to express yourself than yelling "bullshit".
> there are more courteous and productive ways to express yourself than yelling "bullshit".
I disagree. When chatting with Faust, I think it's better to avoid the drawn out conversation and just tell him to fuck off. This Alexander guy is a liar and a felon (lying under oath to congress) and has earned our collective disrespect. He deserves a lot more than "bullshit!" He's a domestic terrorist that's infiltrated the government as far as I'm concerned.
What matters is choosing a strategy that will be effective in exposing this intel-gathering to public scrutiny. One person shouting is not such a strategy.
It's the difference between individual catharsis and effective political strategy that produces an outcome.
So what would be a winning strategy in this scenario?
I don't think there is one. So let him know you think he's an arsehole while you have the chance because nothing you can say or do is going to change the general's stance on this issue. He's above the law and completely unaccountable. But he's not beyond being called out for being a bad person by another person, and I suspect that's the closest you're going to get to justice on this issue.
Well, you have to be prepared, and think out the consequences. You should have some leaders who are used to acting disciplined in public protest.
If you choose to shout him down (e.g., for a messy and still-controversial example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_Coalition_to_Unleash_Power...) you'd better have a united message and a goal, and media present. And it might still be a bit of a mess. (I had the privilege of attending a lecture on organizing by one of the leaders of this action.)
Other choices are to turn your backs on the speaker, or to walk out en masse.
I'm not sure there was time to prepare for this one, because these revelations are so fresh.
*
By the way, you seem pessimistic that this state of affairs can change due to grassroots action. I don't share your pessimism. When people find out the NSA has been scooping up their e-mail and Facebook chats?
It was kind of a flip thing to say; I was on a bit of a roll.
The argument, such as it is, would go something like this: Instead of physical terror, the policies Alexander pursues create a psychological terror that jeopardizes "our way of life". Instead of a fear of being blown up, we have a fear of persecution for what we say.
A terrorist thinks he is beyond the law and uses his limited power to create fear in a population in order to achieve his ends, which the majority does not support. That's a description that seems to apply to Alexander.
I know he's different, but he's definitely not as different as he thinks.
Well it's not like anyones going to make a salient and logical point and the NSA is going to turn around and say "You know what, you're right, this is wrong. We'll stop it immediately". So shouting "bullshit" at the top of your voice has the same effect, which is no effect at all. So no one is any worse off for this kind of behaviour.
That said, I think the audience should have received him with absolute silence. No applause, no heckling, nothing to betray the mood of the crowd. Let's see how the General Alexander feels about a thousand eyes scrutinising him with no clue as to what they're thinking or planning. Then maybe he'll have an idea about what it feels like to be on this side of the equation.
How on earth does shouting "bullshit" at him like an idiot fratboy make him any more likely to give your concerns any credence?
The best it can do is surprise him for a millisecond, then let him write you off as an "unserious" person to be briefly patronized and then devoutly ignored (or worse, add you to a list of "interesting" persons).
How on earth does shouting "bullshit" at him like an idiot fratboy make him any more likely to give your concerns any credence?
Why would you think that was the desired outcome? If I'd been the one heckling him, I can guarantee you my thinking would not have been anything along the lines of "I want this guy to listen to what I have to say, consider it carefully, and then decide something". Why? Because I'm pretty close to 100% sure that Keith Alexander doesn't give a flying fuck what I think about anything, and never will no matter what I say. Hey, in an ideal world, I'd be wrong, and I hope I am. But I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on it.
No, if I'd been there and been heckling him, it would have been solely in the hopes of invoking the "someone must go first" aspect of crowd psychology, and hoping to see him booed off of the stage... because I think having that happen, and having it reported that that happened, would send a powerful message to everybody involved... Alexander, members of Congress, the public at large, and other hackers.
then let him write you off as an "unserious" person to be briefly patronized
I don't see any reason to think that that isn't his opinion of everyone in the crowd from the moment he walked in. Remember, to these NSA guys, people like us are "the enemy".
When he stands on a stage and looks out at a crowd, he isn't seeing law-abiding, honest, hard-working American citizens worthy of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights - he's seeing a room full of "potential terrorists".
This isn't politeness on Welch's part. This is how every member of the upper tiers of the MIC should be treated by the entire country:
"Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness...Little did I dream you could be so reckless and so cruel as to do an injury to that lad...It is, I regret to say, equally true that I fear he shall always bear a scar needlessly inflicted by you. If it were in my power to forgive you for your reckless cruelty I would do so. I like to think I am a gentle man but your forgiveness will have to come from someone other than me."
When McCarthy tried to renew his attack, Welch interrupted him:
"Senator, may we not drop this? We know he belonged to the Lawyers Guild. Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
McCarthy tried to ask Welch another question about Fisher, and Welch cut him off:
"Mr. McCarthy, I will not discuss this further with you. You have sat within six feet of me and could have asked me about Fred Fisher. You have seen fit to bring it out. And if there is a God in Heaven it will do neither you nor your cause any good. I will not discuss it further. I will not ask Mr. Cohn any more questions. You, Mr. Chairman, may, if you will, call the next witness."
The examples you gave are of eloquent if harsh statesmanship from a sitting Senator, and I absolutely agree that is exactly what needs to be happening now. Ed Snowden is actually doing a really good job of it with his press releases, in fact.
But that's a far cry from yelling "bullshit" at the back of a conference room.
If we keep "turning the other cheek" we'll end up with broken jaws. I'm a polite individual but politeness will only get you so far. At some point people have to make a stand and say what is actually on their minds in as powerful a way as they know how.
Being rude also doesn't work as a method of political change? It doesn't, and in addition you alienate people who thing being civilised is a good thing.
Politicians are already one of the most reviled groups around, and that doesn't discourage them.
Stage effective, organised opposition that will actually threaten their plushy careers, then they'll listen.
