Slashdot Mirror

Their resources are limited, and they have much more important things on their plate at the moment. These people are real heroes. They actually save lives.

The ACLU is a one issue group.

How in the fuck were you moderated as Informative? You're hopelessly misinformed.

You, clearly, haven't so much as visited the ACLU Web site.

This is what the ACLU lists as their "key issues".

• Capital Punishment
• Drug Law Reform
• Free Speech
• HIV/AIDS
• Human Rights
• Immigrant's Rights
• LGBT Rights
• National Security
• Prisoner's Rights
• Racial Justice
• Religion & Belief
• Reproductive Rights
• Technology and Liberty
• Voting Rights
• Women's Rights

In case you weren't paying attention, that's a lot more than "one issue".

Look on their about page.

• "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

Except of course that they don't really mean that. See what they have to say about the Second Amendment.

• "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller."

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means, not the ACLU. They're engaging in political advocacy. It's their right to do that, but it's bullshit to pretend that they really care about constitutional rights when they obviously don't.

They think you have a right to say... whatever stupid, crazy, brilliant, inspired, idiotic, hateful, useful, useless, or wonderful thing you want to say. Period. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum. I can respect that.

Unless what you want to say is a prayer in a public place. The American Nazi party wants to march through Jewish and Black neighborhoods and those douchebags at the ACLU will represent them in court for free. Some woman drowns her kids in her bathtub and the ACLU will mount a legal offensive to spare her the death penalty. Some kid wants to thank God for being class valedictorian, and the ACLU sues him/her.

Fuck the ACLU, fuck them in their hypocritical asses.

LK

The ACLU is a one issue group.

How in the fuck were you moderated as Informative? You're hopelessly misinformed.

You, clearly, haven't so much as visited the ACLU Web site.

This is what the ACLU lists as their "key issues".

• Capital Punishment
• Drug Law Reform
• Free Speech
• HIV/AIDS
• Human Rights
• Immigrant's Rights
• LGBT Rights
• National Security
• Prisoner's Rights
• Racial Justice
• Religion & Belief
• Reproductive Rights
• Technology and Liberty
• Voting Rights
• Women's Rights

In case you weren't paying attention, that's a lot more than "one issue".

Look on their about page.

• "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

Except of course that they don't really mean that. See what they have to say about the Second Amendment.

• "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller."

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means, not the ACLU. They're engaging in political advocacy. It's their right to do that, but it's bullshit to pretend that they really care about constitutional rights when they obviously don't.

They think you have a right to say... whatever stupid, crazy, brilliant, inspired, idiotic, hateful, useful, useless, or wonderful thing you want to say. Period. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum. I can respect that.

Unless what you want to say is a prayer in a public place. The American Nazi party wants to march through Jewish and Black neighborhoods and those douchebags at the ACLU will represent them in court for free. Some woman drowns her kids in her bathtub and the ACLU will mount a legal offensive to spare her the death penalty. Some kid wants to thank God for being class valedictorian, and the ACLU sues him/her.

Fuck the ACLU, fuck them in their hypocritical asses.

LK

The ACLU is a one issue group.

How in the fuck were you moderated as Informative? You're hopelessly misinformed.

You, clearly, haven't so much as visited the ACLU Web site.

This is what the ACLU lists as their "key issues".

• Capital Punishment
• Drug Law Reform
• Free Speech
• HIV/AIDS
• Human Rights
• Immigrant's Rights
• LGBT Rights
• National Security
• Prisoner's Rights
• Racial Justice
• Religion & Belief
• Reproductive Rights
• Technology and Liberty
• Voting Rights
• Women's Rights

In case you weren't paying attention, that's a lot more than "one issue".

Look on their about page.

• "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

Except of course that they don't really mean that. See what they have to say about the Second Amendment.

• "The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller."

The Supreme Court is the arbiter of what the Constitution means, not the ACLU. They're engaging in political advocacy. It's their right to do that, but it's bullshit to pretend that they really care about constitutional rights when they obviously don't.

They think you have a right to say... whatever stupid, crazy, brilliant, inspired, idiotic, hateful, useful, useless, or wonderful thing you want to say. Period. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum. I can respect that.

Unless what you want to say is a prayer in a public place. The American Nazi party wants to march through Jewish and Black neighborhoods and those douchebags at the ACLU will represent them in court for free. Some woman drowns her kids in her bathtub and the ACLU will mount a legal offensive to spare her the death penalty. Some kid wants to thank God for being class valedictorian, and the ACLU sues him/her.

Fuck the ACLU, fuck them in their hypocritical asses.

LK

We tried that here, once.

Or twice.

The NRA is not a gun manufacturers lobby. Your politics are showing. The NRA is a Second Amendment lobby, has had very broad support for more than one hundred years, and BTW ranks legislators without regard to political party (though the Teapublicans bitch about it).

"If the ACLU stood up for all of our civil liberties and not a hand picked list, the NRA would fade to become a normal lobby group like orange growers or car makers."

Bullshit. The NRA is committed for the very long haul. The ACLU will never defend the Second Amendment because of their inherent bias against armed self-defense.

The ACLU sprang up specifically

http://www.aclu.org/aclu-history

defend the Left (at a time when Communism and Anarchism were violent threats worldwide) and that remains its obvious purpose despite attention-whoring when it defends cherry-picked radical right cases.

Actually they don't even have to do that since after 9/11 nearly 2/3rds of the US citizens officially live in constitution free zones thanks to "protecting our borders in the war on terror" so you might want to look at the map. Live in the orange? then whether or not the constitution applies to you is strictly up to the feds. Scary, isn't it?

The liberals that propound on "Civil Liberties", like the ACLU for instance, take the stand that the second amendment doesn't protect individual rights, and thus isn't a Civil Liberty


Social conservatives meanwhile, would like "Liberty" to be the rule and be applied to all, including all the Liberties that God gave man. By adding the Civil moniker in the front those "Civil Libertarians" do in fact place limits on Liberty that should be anathema to those who wish to conserve the Liberty of a Free People. If the ACLU ever decides that it is for the Liberty of all and backs ALL the Liberties of Free Peoples in the countries, and not just the ones it likes, it would have the support of the social conservatives. But then the statists would likely abandon it.

Sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do!

Go here and file a complaint. This is well-known as cross-discrimination and though what you did was rather gross, you in NO WAY should be punished for it. It is your body's NATURAL process of cleansing itself!! If your really lucky you should be able to sue and get a little money out of it! But if you do be sure to save it for college because college is around the corner and is getting really expensive hun!

Sometimes ya just gotta do what ya gotta do!
 
Go here and file a complaint. This is well-known as cross-discrimination and though what you did was rather gross, you in NO WAY should be punished for it. If your really lucky you should be able to sue and get a little money out of it! But if you do be sure to save it for college because college is around the corner and is getting really expensive hun!

... when your government threw habeas corpuse under the bus.

The book burning is just a side show. The terrorists already won.

At least there are some bloggers on the right political spectrum like this libertarian who understand the actual issues.

Unfortunately these days something that shouldn't be a partisan issue at all is pretty much completely ignored. The right windbags seem to confuse torture with patriotism or sado-masochistic fun and the lefties shut miraculously up once Obama came into power. So now the policy has the blessing of the US federal appeals court.

Have fun living in a country where due process is not a right but a favor that your government can withdraw at any time.

"Land of the free" what a joke.

"much like burning crosses in peoples front yards."

Burning a cross in a front yard belonging to someone else who doesn't approve = "intimidation".

Burning it in your own or a rented yard is protected speech given the right context:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/us-supreme-court-upholds-va-cross-burning-ban-sends-law-back-state-court-refinement

Not "Insightful" if you think about it!

That's a lie designed to give superstition a pass so SUPERSTITIONISTS CAN BAN ANYTHING THEY _CHOOSE_ TO CONSIDER "INTIMIDATING".

Burning any other _POLITICAL_ book would be fine, religion is _not_more_than_ superstitious politics, and burning inanimate objects is peaceful protest.

Burning a cross in a FRONT YARD (private property not belonging to those doing the burning) is intimidation.

Burning one elsewhere can certainly be protected speech:

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/us-supreme-court-upholds-va-cross-burning-ban-sends-law-back-state-court-refinement

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

I have absolutely no problem with using this technology at our borders, scanning cars parked on the departures curb at the airport, etc. I wouldn't want it roving through my neighborhood, though, and it probably won't because good luck prosecuting anything uncovered by this under normal circumstances (i.e. where Kyllo applies).

I would be all for it if it actually meant AT THE BORDER. The problem lies in "at the border" being legally defined as "within 100 miles of the border". According to the ACLU, two thirds of US citizens live within that range.

This is Obama's America, not Stalin's Russia.

Not Stalin's USSR yet, but Obama definitely represents a continued worsening of the neo-con BS Bush II took to heights once thought unsurpassable.

You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with theObama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies: ... Or because thePresident has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights.

Source: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/10/gibbs/index.html

You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with theObama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies:that they've done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House's apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because thePresident has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights.

Remember, a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for the status quo, no matter what BS they vomit during the campaign.

CHARLESTON, WV - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the United States Secret Service and Greg Jenkins, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Advance, on behalf of a West Virginia couple who were arrested at a Fourth of July presidential appearance at the state Capitol because they were wearing t-shirts critical of the president. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/secret-service-and-white-house-charged-violating-free-speech-rights-aclu-lawsuit The couple won the lawsuit. $80k in damages.

Both of which are international airports, with entry to the United States. And then there's this.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone

Actually you can be detained and searched up to 100 Miles from the Border.... It's the Constitution free zone... Roughly 2/3rd of the US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

"In a trend that we've seen across the country, police have become increasingly hostile to bystanders recording their actions. You can read some examples here, here and here."

You're getting distracted by the example. Most people agree that pictures of naked women or men, in an artistic conceptualization, is free speech and the dividing line between that and pornography is fuzzy. I would tend to want to protect your right to pontificate about the evils you see in our government and that includes holding up signs, shouting slogans and standing up on a proverbial soapbox, holding forth on your opinions. I also think you would agree that this is free speech.

But, in certain circumstances, courts (not always the Supreme Court) have ruled that one may be arrested for standing on the side of the road with a sign that says "The President is a War Criminal." And, during the last administration there were zones along motorcade routes that had prohibitions from you holding such a sign so that the President could, possibly, if he was looking out the window at the right moment, see your sign. The ACLU had problems with this practice. And it would seem that the Bush Administration thought that the 9-11 attacks gave them the pretext to abolish the First Amendment

.

Were these attacks on our freedoms to actually have seen the light of day in a courtroom, I believe the long precedents of re-labeling "speech" a "verbal act" in SCOTUS decisions offer the path that would have been gleefully taken.

According to Wirenius, the way you ignore the First Amendment in arresting someone for speaking, exercising press freedoms and so on, is to call it a "verbal act" and not speech, which is protected.

You're sure there are abuses? well so am I. In fact I have no doubt personally that the abuses far outweigh any possible good that can come of the classification system. Time after time throughout history the US government has classified information for the sole reason that it's embarrassing to those currently in power. Until we require a judge to review every classification for legality (and I mean every one from presidential orgies to black ops) the abuses will continue. The government's record on this is absolutely unacceptable.

Actualy, the government can ignore the constitution anywhere within 100 miles of the border as long as they say "border security!" while they do it. Do you live in the constitution-free zone?

So because everyone is speeding, you're accusing them of racial profiling ... by default?

If everyone is speeding, then it's very easy for the cops to pull over just the dark-skinned people and claim to have a legitimate stop. If you're a black guy pulled over for doing 70 in a 65 zone, you don't know if you just got unlucky, or if there's a pattern -- say, that black drivers are stopped four times as often as whites..

It takes a lot of examination of records on an on-going basis to show the bias.

So if that was gone, you'd be for nationalized health care?

No, I would still be opposed to it, but it wouldn't be on constitutional grounds. I don't happen to believe that putting the Government in charge of health care is the solution to any problem. But that's irrelevant. We don't have "nationalized health care". We have (or will have in 2014) an unconstitutional mandate that the whole of the citizenry do business with for-profit enterprise. The health care reform legislation was nothing more than a gift to the insurance industry.

But because they keep out of firearms (previously, they said they supported the 2nd Amendment but stayed out of it because the NRA predates them and does a better job of it, but now it looks like they are actually stating that they are as you say)

They don't "keep out of it" and defer to the NRA. They are actively hostile to the idea that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Don't take my word for it though, they spell it out plainly enough on their own website.

"The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

The pompous ass ... you'll abandon defense of your rights out of principle.

Go fuck yourself. I didn't say I would "abandon" the defense of my rights. I simply stated that the ACLU has no right to claim to be a civil liberties organization while they remain opposed to the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. The ACLU reads the Constitution as broadly as possible on every other issue except this one. They can discover rights that aren't even spelled out in the document (the right to privacy) but refuse to defend the notion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. They cherry pick the rights that they deem worthy of defending and have no right to claim the moral high ground when it comes to protecting our civil liberties.

For folks who want to record the cops (or anyone else) and be sure that the footage will get to the world instead of being destroyed when they steal your camera phone: check out the Gandhicam project. This is an app for your Android phone that lets you take pictures or video and automatically send it to the net, either by HTTP upload or by email.

This doesn't stop them from filing criminal charges afterward, but that's why you donate to the ACLU and the EFF.

I won't be supporting the national ACLU anytime soon. Seems that they love every bit of the constitution except the Second Amendment. Even after the Supreme Court handed down its Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) decision, they had the audacity to disagree with them and spout all sorts of non-sense about "the militia".

So, we can drop F-bomb all day long, but I don't have the right to self defense? What good is that if the one's on the receiving end of the F-bombs have all the guns??

At least some states chapters of the ACLU have differing opinions: http://onemansthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/05/04/nevada-aclu-supports-an-individual%E2%80%99s-right-to-bear-arms-2/

Links:
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

there is a way that is cheaper and more effective.

Family history.

With the exception of (not-nonexistent; but quite rare) conditions caused by a mutation or mutations that originated with you, not earlier in the line, or a fairly small number of well developed genetic tests, most of which you aren't going to get over the counter at CVS, you'll have a better chance of learning about the likely phenotypic consequences of your genes by looking at mommy and daddy

You are correct.

I just went through a stack of articles on this so let me see if I got it right.

There are two kinds of genetic diseases.

First there are the extremely rare diseases which are caused by a single mutation, like Gaucher disease. If it was in your family, you'd almost certainly know it, or you'd at least know that you have a problem in your family, because you would have had relatives who had it. Like most of the rare diseases on that list http://www.pathway.com/more_info/full_list_of_conditions (all of which you can look up in Wikipedia) it's a pretty dramatic disease.

One of them in the news lately was Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, which is worth looking up http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/health/research/11gene.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcot-Marie-Tooth_disease just because it's so interesting.

Second there are the more common diseases like breast cancer, colorectal cancer, coronary artery disease, diabetes, etc., which most of us will die from.

There are a few single-gene mutations that will usually result in cancer, like the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene for breast cancer, which occur in about 1 or 2% of the population.

But most of the other genes that are associated with those diseases only confer an additional 1% (or less) risk of the disease. That's the big frustration in genetic medicine. The doctor tells you, "You've got a genetic variation that, other things being equal, gives you a 1% increased risk of getting diabetes." How is that information going to change your life in any way?

Scientists think they're doing pretty well if they discover a gene that increases the risk of a common disease by 10%. Now 10% is the *relative* risk. If 5% of the population gets a particular disease, that gene will increase the risk to 5.5%, which is not much greater. So you've found out that you have an increase in the *absolute* risk of 0.5% from that one gene. (But you don't know anything about the dozens of genes affecting that disease that they haven't discovered yet.)

One of the problems with BRCA1 and BRCA2 is that those genes were patented by Myriad Genetics, which was charging $3,000 or more to test for that one gene. Many of the most important genes were patented, and one of the disadvantages of that was that it made it impossible to put together a cheap screen of all the common disease-associated mutations. Myriad just lost a patent lawsuit, and if that decision is upheld, we will be able to get genetic screens with every important known mutation. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-genes-and-patents But I can't tell from Pathway's web site whether they include BRCA1 and BRCA2 screening in their test.

Another problem is that mutations are caused by a defect in DNA. There are lots of defects. The Pathway test may be testing for one breast cancer mutation, while you have a different mutation somewhere else along the DNA strand that gives a protein with a different but equally damaging defect.

Now that I look at it again, I see that they don't include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease in their genetic screen. http://www.pathway.com/more_info/full_list_of_conditions (Maybe that's

Schumer added, “There is nothing more important than keeping New Yorkers safe from an attack. If anything was made clear on Saturday night, it’s that New York is a target. We need to do everything in our power to deliver the funding to protect New Yorkers.”

Judging by his press releases, he also takes credit for 1-5 federal appropriations for New York state per business day.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.

Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.

Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?

Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

But you don't get to decide that! That's what people such as yourself don't seem to want to understand.

You always throw up completely anecdotal "examples" of your claims of the "vast conspiracy" to ignore the constitution, but you seem to forget the little part in the constitution that says (Article Three Section 2, precisely):

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

That means that the judgement as to whether anything is or is not constitutional is not in the purview of ANYONE other than the Supreme Court of the United States ...that includes anyone playing arm-chair constitutional scholar.

If anyone feels anything is not being done in accordance with the United States Constitution, then you have a SUPREME RESPONSIBILITY to attempt (they would have to agree to hear it) bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

The fact that no one has tells me volumes.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Other than a few barely-acknowledged bill-of-rights issues, the US Constitution is universally ignored by most of the populace and pretty much all of the lawmakers. It's not even taught in law school anymore (just all the case law that provides cover for ignoring what the Constitution says).

Oh now that is bullshit.

the only way your argument works is if you are the type of person who ignores any amendments made to the Constitution even though ANY amendment is constitutional so long as it's passed according to the rules setup in the constitution itself.

You can't ignore them just because you personally don't think they are correct.

Oh, really? Are you sure about that? Certainly the Speaker of the House ignores it. Others don't think they are supposed to be the least bit concerned about it. Often the POTUS just signs executive orders to bypass all the rules whenever they want to create new rules

Bachmann: Sir, in the Constitution. What in the Constitution could you point to, to give authority to the treasury for the extraordinary actions that have been taken.
Geithner: Every action that the treasury and the fed and the FDIC is.been using authority granted by this bodyby the Congress.
Bachmann: And in the Constitution, what could you point to?
Geithner: Under the laws of the land, of course.

Then there are the Constitution-free zones

Napolitano on ignoring the Constitution also, the transcript.

How on earth do they make up laws like "Asset Forfeiture" and still claim to be constrained by the Constitution? They can't

There are a couple key points here that are missed without context that essentially everyone is missing it.
Maricopa Counties Sheriff has been on a 'arrest all the mexicans!' bender for some time; he's currently under investigation by DOJ for a variety of things, including civil rights violations, racial profiling, using department resources to wage war on political rivals/basically anyone who disagrees with him and this in turn caused ICE to strip him of his authority to arrest illegal immigrants (By federal law, only ICE has this authority).

So the response? Okay we'll make a state law and make it sufficiently vague that we are essentially legitimizing his practices (a prior quote of his was telling AZ citizens to arrest any mexican they saw driving with a cracked windshield [horrible advice, citizens arrests are just asking for lawsuits/charges]).
Some interesting reading:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/01/08/politics/main6071928.shtml - Sherrif Joe Arpaio Facing Investigation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/16/AR2008071602636.html - Ariz. Sheriff Accused Of Racial Profiling

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2009/03/15/20090315arpaio-politics0315.html - Feds' new tone puts Arpaio in hot seat

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/sheriff-arpaio-sued-over-racial-profiling-latinos-maricopa-county - Sheriff Arpaio Sued Over Racial Profiling Of Latinos In Maricopa County

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/arpaio - series of articles concerning the sheriff's activities .. like 15 years worth.

http://crooksandliars.com/logan-murphy/ice-strips-sheriff-joe-arpaio-immigra - ICE Strips Sheriff Joe Arpaio Of Immigration Enforcement Powers

et cetera, just hit google.

Also, while you're correct that the feds have the ability to throw up checkpoints, its *supposed* to only be legal within 100 miles of an international border; although in practice they just do what they want anyways. (i.e. on a bus trip from Seattle to Phoenix the bus was stopped by ICE in far northern Utah, everyone white was allowed off without much of a question, everyone who appeared mexican was in turn given the 'royal treatment')

In fact, keeping gays out of the prom (in public schools, not in private ones) has been illegal since 1980.

Let's see. His treatment of prisoners has been ruled unconstitutional on multiple occasions. He has raided an office of his own county without a warrant of any kind in order to seize emails that are to be used against him in court. His destruction of records has netted him a contempt sanction, and the FBI is investigating him for civil rights violations, intimidation of witnesses, etc.

These aren't idle accusations. They're at least serious enough to get the justice department involved. Even judges aren't immune from this mans corruption.

They're trying to impose harsh restrictions on their copyright but how does it effect consumers of competitors such as Jamendo?

That's what the media player searches are for. Cartels go after the customers of the legit services that don't participate in the cartel in order to keep everyone "in line". Since your "legally acquired" music has no sign (DRM) of being acquired from an RIAA-sanctioned music outlet, it must be illegal. Enjoy carrying around your invoices for every song you've bought from them and/or having your media player seized for months for "analysis" you commie pirate scum!

BTW, if you're anywhere in the shaded area, you can be subject to a border search at any time for any reason. And anyone driving in southern Texas can tell you that this is not theoretical. If you're living in the middle of the country, don't worry, I'm sure that the government will be happy to declare any airport with international arrivals to be a "border" (as well as any river that can be reached from a border) in order to protect the cowering masses from terrorists and illegal aliens and mp3s.

or, lets put it another way...

who cloned the first living animal?

if you mean the first mammal cloned: British scientists?

if an AIDs vaccine is found, where will that most likely be?

NOT in the US. Big Pharma makes loads of money treating AIDS. A vaccine would destroy that lucrative market.

Where was the Human Genome Project?

In the US. And while the HGP (funded by taxpayer money) did not patent the resulting data, other people (Celera) did. After a short bubble, progress in the field of Biotechnology is now at a standstill due blanket patenting. (well, if you listen to the other side, it is at a standstill because patent profits are in danger)

Apropos "patenting genes": ACLU: Breast Cancer gene patents ruled invalid covered on 60 minutes
One thing not mentioned in the CBS coverage is the fact that Myriad's monopoly on BRCA testing also blocks any independent verification of their results. Given that their testing method is based on genetic data from (a few?) white caucasian females, how can they be sure the results also apply to women from other gentic origins? What if -after the patents have expired- new research shows that the results were wrong? Will the women whose breasts and ovaries were needlessly removed get their missing organs back?

Where every newest generation phone designed (even the ones we don't have access to)?

The iPhone is a nice product, but there is ZERO new technology in it (Apple's patent portfolio notwithstanding).

Where was every major operating system in use on the planet designed?

OS have been relegated to commodity by now. (and, contrary to Microsoft Advertising, there has been actually very litte technological advance in that field.)

(even Linus came here to make Linux go from pet project to something real)

SCO called. They want their #1 FUD meme back.

Where was almost every major computer hardware component originally designed and conceived (NICs, math processors, video processors, storage tech, etc etc).

"originally designed and conceived": ages ago. Today most of that stuff is imported.

Again...who is it you think is leading us?

if by "us" you mean "the USA":

• automobile: Japan & Europe (GM could not afford to lose the european R&D labs)
• consumer electronics: Japan,Korea
• commodity hardware: Taiwan,Korea
• space technology: Russia,China,India,....
• nuclear power: Europe,Japan

The US might have the lead on atomic bombs, stealth fighters and Aircraft carriers, but -given the geopolitical situation- all of these are white elephants.

They're NOT pulling people aside because they're nonwhite. This has never been done.

It's been done. It seems like you've never talked to a non-white about what it's like to fly in the US. citation more etc etc

If you let white wheel-chaired grannies through without screening, where do you think terrorist will hides stuff? And don't tell me you trust all white wheel-chaired grannies, please.

Couldn't Warden have sent requests to the EFF to provide lawyers so he could fight an evil corporation to use freely publicly available information?

About once a month or so, somebody comments about a landlord doing something abusive to a tenant, or a school district violating its student's rights, or citizens being wronged by the police or Feds. Somebody else always responds, "Why don't they just get the ACLU to step in?"

True, the ACLU has over a half-million members. Between it's political advocacy and charitable foundation arms, it has over $120 million per year of revenue. Yet STILL, it can only be bothered to get involved with a tiny subset of possible cases. It is ultimately a political and public policy organization, and has to pick and choose the battles that will give it the biggest strategic impact with the smallest possible commitment of resources.

Meanwhile, the entire EFF staff could comfortably hang out at my house and watch a football game. Their annual revenue of $3.4 million is less than the average cost of ONE patent infringement lawsuit... and moreover, they're running a $400k annual deficit over there right now.

There's a reason why the EFF isn't lead counsel on any multi-million dollar pro bono lawsuits, and it's not because they "didn't get the memo". Rather, it's because that's like asking your local Boy Scout troop to fly down and singlehandedly fix Haiti. It bugs me when people assume that lawyers magically grow on trees to fight your political crusades for free. There is a very low ratio of real support for things like the EFF... compared to Slashdot babble about software patents, stealing MP3's, cracking video game DRM, and all of the other things people do to make-believe that they are "heroes of the revolution" or some such laughable bullshit. More people should put at least a few bucks where their mouths are and lend some support.

The ACLU has an interesting video regarding data retention and proliferation: http://www.aclu.org/ordering-pizza

It's not quite all here yet, but it's definitely not outside the realm of probability.

You're shooting at me? With what? I'm on the other side of the planet, pressing a button that drops explosives on your head. Tough luck if it's because you were wearing the same colour hat as Mister Terrorist.

"The ACLU's lawsuit seeks, in addition to information about the legal basis for the drone program, information about how the program is overseen and data regarding the number of civilians and non-civilians killed in the strikes. Estimates of civilian casualties provided by anonymous government officials quoted in the press and by various non-governmental analysts differ dramatically, from the dozens to the hundreds, giving an incomplete and inconsistent picture of the human cost of the program."
  --- http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-seeks-information-predator-drone-program

Its a US Constitutional Amendment and US Federal Law to have the right to own and bear arms.

The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

http://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0

"The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And it was Waco TX, and they weren't going to overthrow the Government, they were just nut jobs with a lot of guns that the Clinton White House and DoJ wanted to make an example out of.

What's done in war time on foreign soil against non-American citizens doesn't seem to fall within the domain of the American Civil Liberties Union.

IMHO, they have no right to call themselves a "civil liberties union" as long as they refuse to defend the 2nd amendment and continue to cling to the discredited notion that the 2nd amendment only protects a "collective" right. They interrupt every other amendment in as broad of a manner as possible while ignoring the plain text of the 2nd amendment and claiming that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

What a bunch of hypocrites.

The ACLU's already been campaigning against it for years: http://www.aclu.org/pizza/ Yes, the potential privacy violations are astounding. Yes, a national ID is a terrible idea. Yes, it's unconstitutional.

"Nobody can do that UNLESSS there is a cour order. It is the same as with your browsing habbits, your phonenumbers you called, the books you take out of the library and the money you spend with your credit card."

Your post states that a COURT ORDER is needed to look at these things, but then you reference the Patriot Act in your sig? In addition to the gag order provision you refer to, one of the most hideous elements of the PA was the "National Security Letter".

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/national-security-letters

"Through NSLs the FBI can ... obtain sensitive information such as the web sites a person visits, a list of e-mail addresses with which a person has corresponded, or even unmask the identity of a person who has posted anonymous speech on a political website."

The link shows details about several specific cases in which the NSLs (which do NOT require judicial approval) were used to obtain exactly the sort of information you're describing. In 2001, our civil liberties took a 200 year leap backward and we returned to the days when cops could write their own search warrants with no judicial oversight.

Aside: Our fearless leaders recently found the noble spirit of bipartisanship in renewing several parts of the Patriot Act which were set to expire on Feb 28. The house version was buried in a bill related to Medicare reimbursement, the Senate approved it on a voice vote, and the President signed it. More hope and change.

That is not going to help when they collect your DNA. In California, they must collect your DNA if you are an adult and have been arrested for a felony. It goes into the state's DNA bank, where they keep it forever and share it with the feds. The law allows people to have their DNA profile removed from the database and destroyed if they have been found innocent or released without charges; it is not an automatic procedure, it requires the person to initiate a lengthy process leading to a court order.

http://ag.ca.gov/bfs/pdf/69IB_121508.pdf
If the adult is arrested for a crime that could be charged as a felony or misdemeanor (i.e., it is a wobbler offense), the arrest is considered to be a felony arrest for the purposes of determining qualification for collection under Penal Code section 296.

http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-lawsuit-challenges-california-s-mandatory-dna-collection-arrest
In March 2009, Lily Haskell attended a peace rally in San Francisco and was arrested. She was not charged with a crime and was quickly released, but not before being required to provide a DNA sample.

"When your DNA is taken after an arrest at a political demonstration, it can have a silencing effect on political action," said Haskell. "Now my genetic information is stored indefinitely in a government database, simply because I was exercising my right to speak out."

"So if your DNA is on file, and is routinely compared to every new piece of evidence that comes in, an individual's chance of being framed by the birthday paradox is higher than one might think."

This is also the reason I'm so adamantly opposed to collection of my fingerprints as well as my DNA. Of course I'd like to help the police solve crimes. I feel it is my civic duty. But as rare as the cases are, I also know that innocent people have been accused or convicted of serious crimes on the basis of such evidence. The example that really bothers me for fingerprints is the case of Brandon Mayfield, but there are plenty of others, including people on death row.

We're told by some people that the innocent have nothing to fear. This just isn't true.

Even so, my sense of duty is pretty strong. If I were asked for a sample for an investigation as the submitter was, I'd have my lawyer involved. There would be a contract specifying the terms under which the sample was provided, an agreement for the subsequent sample and data destruction when the investigation ends, and some kind of penalty if the agreement wasn't followed. While such a contract wouldn't solve all problems, it might get the police to take the terms more seriously (Can't sign an agreement with these terms? No sample.), and if the terms weren't followed by the police I'd sue for breach of contract -- not much consolation if I was being falsely accused of a crime, but I'll take what I can get. I'm not a lawyer, but maybe the contract could be specified in such a way that the evidence would be excluded from use in any circumstance except the narrow one for which the samples were provided.

Man, I checked out that pizza link in your sig, and that is so cool! I wish the pizza place would be that good around here. I live in NYC and I can't even get them to leave their car to deliver pizza to my door, let alone all those other handy features they show there.

To be fair, the "Mike & Ike" claim was made by the kid. And he might be lying.

But the entire "what exactly was the kid doing" tangent is really just an attempt to justify the school's bad behavior.

Exactly. Even if he was taking pills, there's no way of ascertaining what was in said pills by just looking at a photo, but seeing as how they strip search 13 year-old girls nowadays for having advil, I'm afraid that this is seeming more and more like par for the course. Even if the pills were illegal, the school had no business monitoring him like that.

Doesn't anyone find this creepy where you allow some company to find your location and see how you associate with anyone at any given time. Of course throw in the Patriot Act.

FBI Audit Exposes Widespread Abuse Of Patriot Act Powers
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fbi-audit-exposes-widespread-abuse-patriot-act-powers

FOIA: National Security Letters (NSLs)
http://www.eff.org/issues/foia/07656JDB

FBI Employees Face Criminal Probe Over Patriot Act Abuse
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/exigentinvestigation

FBI Admits More Privacy Violations
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/06/2310206