Slashdot Mirror

Darn right. No, I do not consent to any search. Am I free to go? Lawyer. Those are pretty much the only things you should ever say. For why you should never talk to the police ( a class from law school), go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc And support the http://aclu.org/

Get back to me when Americans are being hauled away for expressing anti-Government views.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11796
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/aclu-defends-six-men-arrested-during-protest-president-bush-rally
And one more, for good measure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

Plenty more. Mind you, these are 'disorderly conduct' arrests, rather than 'traitor to the state' arrests. While you can be arrested for speaking out against the government in the US, you are highly unlikely to be disappeared; more likely highly inconvenienced. Still, it could happen.

Get back to me when Joe Biden assassinates Barack Obama so he can seize power.

This, fortunately, is vanishingly unlikely to happen.

But I wouldn't have put it past Dick "Dick" Cheney. =)

Grandparent post, though, was expressing valid frustration. These days, it seems like Congress is only listening to the lobbies, Wall Street, Big Oil, etc. ... In other words, everyone except us poor dumb schmucks who, oh yeah, ELECTED them to office. It grates on a person, and it gets frustrating and maddening. Protests, petitions, screaming at the top of our lungs... none of it is apparently making an impact.

FTFA, it is clear that who ever wrote it does not know about American Constitutional Law, American Civil Liberties, and Class Action Lawsuits. One can clearly notice that no one signed their name to this writing; what kind of person does not sign their name to a document they have created? It's not the kind of person that you'd bring home to show Mom, and Dad to. I can see the ACLU thinking, "Ka-Ching", to this law suit. So it's going to boil down to how much are the punitive damages here? How about 3% of Verizon's Gross Sales for starters? But how much are an American's Civil Rights worth? By Verizon's past business practices, not much. I cannot help but wonder when the Federal Government will get tired of Suspected Criminal Gangs "Wip Sawing" Federal Regulations. Maybe this "To Big To Fail" crap can be quietly crib smothered. "Monopolistic Practices, i.e. Global Market" are getting to be a pain in my empty wallet.

Three cheers for Steve Bierfeldt! Most people are sheep, and wouldn't even think of standing up to authority like this. Of those who aren't sheep, very few would do it despite the inconvenience of missing your flight and the implicit threat of going to jail in a country that no longer thinks it's necessary to give people trials. Listen to the audio he recorded on his iPhone. The TSA guys are cussing at him, and then you hear a loud noise that sounds like someone pounding on a desk. You can hear the stress in Bierfeldt's voice, but he's not backing down just because it's a psychologically intimidating situation. I consider Steve Bierfeldt to be a hero.

Except this isn't slander, it's parody. It appears you have the same blind spot Mr. Beck has.

But I will agree with you on Fox. Anyone has a right to stand up on a soapbox and say whatever they wish to. If anyone is actually looking to curtail their first amendment rights, then they are in the wrong. If anyone actually is doing so.

BTW if you're really looking for egregious crimes against the first amendment, W takes the cake.

Given power to shut down the internet at will, the excuses for doing so will only continue to grow.

Exactly. It's like Patriot Act all over again. It saddens and terrifies me how we let legislators pass such things. Reminds me of something discussed recently on Sons of Anarchy: People mostly just want the freedom to be comfortable, but because freedom is not comfortable, they end up sacrificing their freedom.

The problem is that the FBI has a track record of sticking it's nose into matters that shouldn't concern it. Even more so with the PATRIOT act. National Security Letters, anyone? The initial reaction to distrust anything the FBI does is entirely of their own making. If someone kicks random people in the balls, would you just stand there next time you saw them? Or would you cover your junk?

>>>US Residents are also fingerprinted and photographed routinely upon re-entry.

I'm surprised no one's discussed the *internal* border checks... even if you've never crossed an international border you can still be stopped and forced to submit to a search (in contradiction of constitutional law). It's ridiculous. http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

MAP of Constitution Free Zone: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html

>>>US Residents are also fingerprinted and photographed routinely upon re-entry.

I'm surprised no one's discussed the *internal* border checks... even if you've never crossed an international border you can still be stopped and forced to submit to a search (in contradiction of constitutional law). It's ridiculous. http://www.aclu.org/privacy/37293res20081022.html

MAP of Constitution Free Zone: http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/areyoulivinginaconstitutionfreezone.html

Your link and post have a highly biased slant on this issue. Calling another poster ignorant of the subject when making misleading statements yourself is hypocritical.

Here is a more factual description of those events.

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot_text.pdf Read it and weep, computer trespasser communications are treasonous under the Patriot Act.

Take 'em out back and 'off em, Danno.

Do you consider general Taguba, who conducted investigation of Abu Ghraib valid source?

His reliability is irrelevant, because the argument which you created based on his testimony is a red herring. The question wasn't whether every single American citizen conducts himself in accordance with international treaties - the question was about policy.

Here is the official policy. Look at conclusion, last paragraph - it is enough to claim "necessity" to provide justification for about any treatment, event that prohibited by Convention Against Torture.

Most relevant here is article 5, talking about spies and saboteurs ... Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?

Well, first off, it doesn't say that they have any rights, only that they should be treated humanely. It doesn't promise them a trial, either, it just talks about how trials should be conducted if we decide to have them.

Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Part of the quote you removed states: "They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person ..."
Besides you are setting up a strawman here. No matter if they "have rights" or "should be treated humanely" these rules were broken. Or maybe you consider rape (see Taguba's report) or multiple detainess beaten to death humane? If so, then despite your signature you probably are an American.

In addition to that, this section only deals with captured locals. If you capture, say, a Syrian fighting in Iraq, this section doesn't apply to him.

Also, the argument could easily be made that a good percentage of the fighters are mercenaries, in which case the conventions don't apply to them at all.

That's interesting assertion. Do soldiers from UK and other countries that got dragged into this mess by USA are covered by the convention? They are also not "local" to USA-Iraq war. What about hordes of mercenaries from companies like Blackwater?

Lastly, the conventions are hopelessly outmoded. Personally I think they need to be scrapped and either rewritten or abandoned entirely. But that's just a personal opinion, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.

Unfortunately I have to agree. The conventions are good thing in principle, but in fact they are enforced only against weak countries.

Like Iraq which ratified it in 1956?

Who's fighting Iraq? The American war against Iraq lasted a few weeks - a couple months at most.

Not really. It just changed into guerilla war. This happens about every time when occupational force has overwhelming advantage but local population don't want to just roll over and die (or obey puppet regime installed by their new masters).

That should have been made obvious by the fact that the militants keep blowing up Iraqi police officers, soldiers, and government officials, in addition to torturing and subjugating civilians. Again, this is a situation which the conventions fail to address.

"Iraqi police officers"? Guess what French guerillas were doing to Vichy collaborators during WWII. And they are considered national heros nowadays.

But doesn't homeland security get a 100 mile "constitutional free zone" from the border? IIRC they can pretty much do what the want in that buffer zone in the name of "fighting terrorism". It also kinda screws you if you live or work in Florida, since it means that state pretty much is an entire constitution free zone as far as HS is concerned.

BTW here is the link. Pretty fucking scary if you ask me that some suit can just decide the "constitution don't count" if you are too close to an imaginary line. There shouldn't be ANY reason why the constitution shouldn't count for a US citizen on US soil.

You can read the ACLU's press release here and its Freedom of Information Act request here.

I'm also curious as to what happens when information is encrypted. In the case of a non-citizen, they may be able to refuse entry if someone will not decrypt it, but they can't refuse entry to a US citizen.

You can read the ACLU's press release here and its Freedom of Information Act request here.

I'm also curious as to what happens when information is encrypted. In the case of a non-citizen, they may be able to refuse entry if someone will not decrypt it, but they can't refuse entry to a US citizen.

I have to disagree with your entire statement. Lawyers are busy people, a lot the local ones are my clients.

There are many forums to conduct the business of shaping democracy. This is their *business*, ask them, show an interest in being part of the democratic process that shapes laws. I'm sure the attitude will change.

They don't have time to learn more about anything other than law.

So have you actually taken the time to formulate an effective question in you mind so you don't waste their time when you ask it. You don't have to be intimidated, everyone is busy.

There is no way to educate someone who doesn't have a desire to learn, or who has themselves convinced that they don't have time to learn.

It appears you are making excuses so you can maintain your apathy. If you don't want to do something then it's a little selfish to undermine the will of those who are prepared to make an effort.

When the expert witnesses get cut off in the middle of their explanations, how in the hell are we supposed to educate anyone?

The courts are not the most effective forum to address these issues. Even the ACLU link above has a Technology and privacy section, start there and if it is not comprehensive enough, join the aclu and expand the scope of the discussion using you expert witness qualifications.

As professionals we can either accept the responsibility that comes with our profession or we can accept the ignorant calls that are made on our behalf. Personally I believe that only by shaping the way technology laws are implemented can the I.T profession garner the respect that it should rightfully carry.

The case on point is Hiible. Follow the links for more info.

The ACLU also has a very good resource.

This is OK, because it is just a higher quality version of whats happening already. If it gets any higher quality then that's a problem.

Infra red is a obvious requirement since all cameras have done in the past, is move crime around. So this instantly pushes even more crime to night, so they add infra-red. Now they can bust into anyones house with grow bulbs on suspicion of marijuana growing, etc, etc.

I don't have a problem with a camera recording, and definitely like the idea of them chasing down crimes in process with this technology. What I don't want to hear is a power drunk Mayor excited about all the new crimes he can arrest, that weren't causing any harm in the first place. Or about the prospect of wasting this much money improving something already proven to not reduce crime rates.

Well there is proof that the TSA did something just as inane in a different case, because the person being questioned recorded his interrogation. The ACLU is using the tape for the lawsuit against the TSA. Listen to it here: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/39922res20090618.html Unless you have a tape of your encounters, the judge will assume the cops/TSA/whatever never lie.

Unfortunately, they can and do: http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

Well, I don't like them because they keep forgetting about the Second Amendment.

The NRA and others already fight for those issues.

I didn't know before but ACLU opposes the individual right to bear arms. ACLU's position is that the right to bare arms is a collective right. I used to support them, but I longer can. It'd be fine if they held no position but in opposing an individual right, when all the other rights in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, I will no longer support them.

Falcon

For the ACLU, some rights are more equal than others.

Horribly disingenuous. The ACLU says in it's title it's about Civil Liberties.

And of course some rights in the Bill of Rights are civil rights whereas other rights in it are not? For the ACLU whereas every other right in the BoR is an individual right, the only right in it that is a collective and not an individual right is the 2nd Amendment.

Falcon

Passive would have been not posting anything about the second amendment on their site. By using the word "actively", I'm drawing attention to the fact that they had to go out of their way to post it, rather than the default of not talking about it at all.

If you'd rather, I could point to their about page where they say, "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." (emphasis mine) If they're not actually defending individual rights and liberties that the Constitution guarantees, then they are tricking the public at large into believing that. The about page continues to say that this "includes" certain rights, if they were only intending to defend those ones, you'd think they'd say that: "We currently focus on the following rights" instead of "These rights include". Under normal circumstances, say if this were the Shriners or something, I'd probably cut them some slack on the loose English. But given that the same page says, "Nearly 200 ACLU staff attorneys and thousands of volunteer attorneys handle countless civil liberties cases every year," I'd have thought at least one of those lawyers could have proof read the about page on their site. In fact, assuming that at least one of those lawyers took the time to read it and is competent seems like a reasonable assumption, which would imply that this was not intended to be an exhaustive list.

Actually, if they said, "We don't do second amendment stuff" I'd probably be okay with it. I can't speak for the OP, of course. As others have said, you need to pick your battles, and even with "[n]early 200 ACLU staff attorneys and thousands of volunteer attorneys" one can't expect them to take on every case where civil liberty is threatened. That's crazy. Unfortunate, but crazy. Of course, the pro-gun groups would claim that it's the second amendment that guarantees the rest... start with keeping rebellion as an option, and suddenly lots of others start falling into line.

As for their name, you apparently can read, but you can't comprehend. Their name was a convenient way to point out their double-standard. Just two minutes reading their website (the "About" page sounds reasonable!) and you'd see that they make the claim all on their own, nevermind the name.

(The NRA, aptly named at the beginning, has grown from its beginnings, or so its about page seems to imply, from just rifles through to education and training, and firearms in general.)

How the HELL could a "civil rights" organization worth anything NOT have a position on whether or not the 2nd Amendment confers an individual or collective right.

That's factually incorrect. The ACLU has LONG had a very specific position on the 2nd amendment.

In short, they don't like the second amendment, and thus refuse to defend it. I can understand people who support them in spite of that position (despite disagreeing with them) on the grounds that the NRA is arguably more powerful than the ACLU, and focuses solely on the 2nd Amendment, but I personally refuse to support a civil rights organization who picks and chooses which rights to defend, especially on the ground that they may, in the future, stop liking some other right and refuse to defend it. And I vote with my wallet.

No, but I have seen them stand up for a group of Nazi's, to help them be able to march in a demonstration that a local government (wasn't it a small town in IL) tried to prevent... They have a long standing history of working with people they don't like.. you know the whole "I disagree with what your saying, but I'll help you build a soapbox to say it from" kind of philosophy..

Because sadly, if you want the rules to apply when YOU need them to, then you need them to also apply when "THEY" get the shaft from them.

but too help you out, here is their EXACT philosophy on the second amendment.. From their own website . Note the key sentance: "We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. "

Why doesn't the ACLU just come out and say "We're not pro gun rights, we don't believe that self defense is a right"? Oh, they did:
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=aclu+second+amendment

Note that their stated position is that it is not an individual right. They have taken on what they see as 4th and 1st Amendment issues in gun cases, and individual chapters (Nevada) support gun rights, but basically, the official position of the ACLU is "that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right" (From http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html)

http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/gen/35904res20020304.html

If the ACLU's position was strictly, "We feel there already is a capable organisation defending this right, please see the NRA" then I'm sure the OP wouldn't have an objection. It's when they actively post a non-liberty response to the amendment that the OP is complaining about. They've chose a very restrictive view of this liberty ("restrictive" == "opposite of liberty"), and that's what the OP is complaining about.

Further, they even post that, "in [their] view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." The OP contends that this actually is a civil liberties issue, so takes offense that the ACLU would narrowly define civil liberties to just the ones they like - which seems to be exactly the opposite of what they purport to defend. It's the American Civil Liberties Union, damnit, not the American Civil Liberties That We Like Union.

At least, that's what I think the OP meant.

The real problem with this is that the University is asking the student to download and run software without properly identifying what it does. That's called "badware" by StopBadware, run by the Harvard Law School, Consumers Union, etc. Phrases like "exceeds authorized access" apply. And remember, this is a state school; they face the legal constraints on state actors. For example, the rule that "Most political advocacy is unacceptable" is a blatant First Amendment violation as applied to students. Report that to EULA Watch and the ACLU. The ACLU is already dealing with some other suppression of free speech by the CMU administration, so this probably won't surprise them.

It's not even clear whose Client Security Agent they're talking about. There's one from Cisco, one from Bradford, and one from Microsoft. The description mentions that it turns on Microsoft's automated updating. That means all the latest Microsoft security holes (like the one that makes Firefox execute Microsoft .NET content) are opened up.

Someone compared this to working for a company. It's not. As a student, you're the customer, not an employee. Also, in a corporate setting, if Central IT messes up your desktop machine, Central IT has to fix your desktop machine.

I agree that it is difficult to write a general rule to determine if a method patent should be granted, but in today's technological world there is a big difference between the concept of performing an action and implementing that action. Myriad's patent of the BRCA genes is a perfect example. It is fine to grant them a patent on a METHOD for detecting a mutation in the target gene but ridiculous to say that they should hold the rights to all methods that could possibly perform the same function (even if that method has yet to be invented). To me that is like someone discovering the internal combustion engine and being granted a patent for any process that turns fossil fuels into energy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/734169/-A-Deeply-Unfair-Cast-of-Mind

Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:22:20 PM PDT

May 21, 2009

At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation, and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Dick Cheney

• Garrett's diary :: ::

Setting the Conditions

August 31 to September 9, 2003

Major General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, leads a survey team to plan intelligence, interrogation, and detention operations in Iraq.

September 5, 2003

A JPRA (SERE) training team arrives in Iraq. Their visit includes Abu Ghraib.

September 6, 2003

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib.

September 9, 2003

General Miller delivers his recommendations. Guantanamo Bay should be used as a baseline. Interrogation in Iraq should be consolidated in one place. MPs should work to set the conditions for interrogation.

Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the JIDC Commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress.

General Geoffrey Miller

I had conversations with MG Miller on a couple of occasions.... Specifically, I recall he discussed the implementation of dedicated MP support to MI.

Captain Carolyn Wood

They [MPs] would be the bad guys and MI would be the good guy to gather information.

Colonel Jerry Phillabaum

Training

October 1, 2003

The 372nd MP Company, a reserve unit, moves to Abu Ghraib. It gets two weeks on-the-job training. Nudity, sexual humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation are all standard procedures when the 372nd arrives.

This is also the deadline date for centralizing and consolidating interrogation and detention at Abu Ghraib. Most other locations in Iraq are now intended as 72-hour holding sites.

October 3 or 4, 2003

3:00 or 4:00 p.m.

Military police transport a prisoner to the hard site.

One of them whispered in my ear, "today I am going to fuck you", and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That's what the American soldiers did.... When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called told me "faggot" because I was wearing the woman's underwear, and my answer was "no". Then he told me "why are you wearing this underwear", then I told them "because you make me wear it."

Kasim Hilas (#151108)

October 5

Three Guantanamo Tiger Teams arri

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/734169/-A-Deeply-Unfair-Cast-of-Mind

Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:22:20 PM PDT

May 21, 2009

At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation, and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Dick Cheney

• Garrett's diary :: ::

Setting the Conditions

August 31 to September 9, 2003

Major General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, leads a survey team to plan intelligence, interrogation, and detention operations in Iraq.

September 5, 2003

A JPRA (SERE) training team arrives in Iraq. Their visit includes Abu Ghraib.

September 6, 2003

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib.

September 9, 2003

General Miller delivers his recommendations. Guantanamo Bay should be used as a baseline. Interrogation in Iraq should be consolidated in one place. MPs should work to set the conditions for interrogation.

Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the JIDC Commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress.

General Geoffrey Miller

I had conversations with MG Miller on a couple of occasions.... Specifically, I recall he discussed the implementation of dedicated MP support to MI.

Captain Carolyn Wood

They [MPs] would be the bad guys and MI would be the good guy to gather information.

Colonel Jerry Phillabaum

Training

October 1, 2003

The 372nd MP Company, a reserve unit, moves to Abu Ghraib. It gets two weeks on-the-job training. Nudity, sexual humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation are all standard procedures when the 372nd arrives.

This is also the deadline date for centralizing and consolidating interrogation and detention at Abu Ghraib. Most other locations in Iraq are now intended as 72-hour holding sites.

October 3 or 4, 2003

3:00 or 4:00 p.m.

Military police transport a prisoner to the hard site.

One of them whispered in my ear, "today I am going to fuck you", and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That's what the American soldiers did.... When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called told me "faggot" because I was wearing the woman's underwear, and my answer was "no". Then he told me "why are you wearing this underwear", then I told them "because you make me wear it."

Kasim Hilas (#151108)

October 5

Three Guantanamo Tiger Teams arri

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/21/734169/-A-Deeply-Unfair-Cast-of-Mind

Thu May 21, 2009 at 08:22:20 PM PDT

May 21, 2009

At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation, and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.

Dick Cheney

• Garrett's diary :: ::

Setting the Conditions

August 31 to September 9, 2003

Major General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, leads a survey team to plan intelligence, interrogation, and detention operations in Iraq.

September 5, 2003

A JPRA (SERE) training team arrives in Iraq. Their visit includes Abu Ghraib.

September 6, 2003

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib.

September 9, 2003

General Miller delivers his recommendations. Guantanamo Bay should be used as a baseline. Interrogation in Iraq should be consolidated in one place. MPs should work to set the conditions for interrogation.

Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the JIDC Commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress.

General Geoffrey Miller

I had conversations with MG Miller on a couple of occasions.... Specifically, I recall he discussed the implementation of dedicated MP support to MI.

Captain Carolyn Wood

They [MPs] would be the bad guys and MI would be the good guy to gather information.

Colonel Jerry Phillabaum

Training

October 1, 2003

The 372nd MP Company, a reserve unit, moves to Abu Ghraib. It gets two weeks on-the-job training. Nudity, sexual humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation are all standard procedures when the 372nd arrives.

This is also the deadline date for centralizing and consolidating interrogation and detention at Abu Ghraib. Most other locations in Iraq are now intended as 72-hour holding sites.

October 3 or 4, 2003

3:00 or 4:00 p.m.

Military police transport a prisoner to the hard site.

One of them whispered in my ear, "today I am going to fuck you", and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That's what the American soldiers did.... When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called told me "faggot" because I was wearing the woman's underwear, and my answer was "no". Then he told me "why are you wearing this underwear", then I told them "because you make me wear it."

Kasim Hilas (#151108)

October 5

Three Guantanamo Tiger Teams arri

May 21, 2009

At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation, and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Dick Cheney

• Garrett's diary :: ::

Setting the Conditions
August 31 to September 9, 2003
Major General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, leads a survey team to plan intelligence, interrogation, and detention operations in Iraq.

September 5, 2003
A JPRA (SERE) training team arrives in Iraq. Their visit includes Abu Ghraib.

September 6, 2003
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib.

September 9, 2003
General Miller delivers his recommendations. Guantanamo Bay should be used as a baseline. Interrogation in Iraq should be consolidated in one place. MPs should work to set the conditions for interrogation.

Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the JIDC Commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress.
General Geoffrey Miller

I had conversations with MG Miller on a couple of occasions.... Specifically, I recall he discussed the implementation of dedicated MP support to MI.
Captain Carolyn Wood

They [MPs] would be the bad guys and MI would be the good guy to gather information.
Colonel Jerry Phillabaum

Training

October 1, 2003
The 372nd MP Company, a reserve unit, moves to Abu Ghraib. It gets two weeks on-the-job training. Nudity, sexual humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation are all standard procedures when the 372nd arrives.

This is also the deadline date for centralizing and consolidating interrogation and detention at Abu Ghraib. Most other locations in Iraq are now intended as 72-hour holding sites.

October 3 or 4, 2003
3:00 or 4:00 p.m.
Military police transport a prisoner to the hard site.

One of them whispered in my ear, "today I am going to fuck you", and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That's what the American soldiers did.... When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called told me "faggot" because I was wearing the woman's underwear, and my answer was "no". Then he told me "why are you wearing this underwear", then I told them "because you make me wear it."
Kasim Hilas (#151108)

October 5
Three Guantanamo Tiger Teams arrive for duty at Abu Ghraib. Their task is to help set up and develop

May 21, 2009

At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation, and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Dick Cheney

• Garrett's diary :: ::

Setting the Conditions
August 31 to September 9, 2003
Major General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, leads a survey team to plan intelligence, interrogation, and detention operations in Iraq.

September 5, 2003
A JPRA (SERE) training team arrives in Iraq. Their visit includes Abu Ghraib.

September 6, 2003
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib.

September 9, 2003
General Miller delivers his recommendations. Guantanamo Bay should be used as a baseline. Interrogation in Iraq should be consolidated in one place. MPs should work to set the conditions for interrogation.

Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the JIDC Commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress.
General Geoffrey Miller

I had conversations with MG Miller on a couple of occasions.... Specifically, I recall he discussed the implementation of dedicated MP support to MI.
Captain Carolyn Wood

They [MPs] would be the bad guys and MI would be the good guy to gather information.
Colonel Jerry Phillabaum

Training

October 1, 2003
The 372nd MP Company, a reserve unit, moves to Abu Ghraib. It gets two weeks on-the-job training. Nudity, sexual humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation are all standard procedures when the 372nd arrives.

This is also the deadline date for centralizing and consolidating interrogation and detention at Abu Ghraib. Most other locations in Iraq are now intended as 72-hour holding sites.

October 3 or 4, 2003
3:00 or 4:00 p.m.
Military police transport a prisoner to the hard site.

One of them whispered in my ear, "today I am going to fuck you", and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That's what the American soldiers did.... When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called told me "faggot" because I was wearing the woman's underwear, and my answer was "no". Then he told me "why are you wearing this underwear", then I told them "because you make me wear it."
Kasim Hilas (#151108)

October 5
Three Guantanamo Tiger Teams arrive for duty at Abu Ghraib. Their task is to help set up and develop

May 21, 2009

At Abu Ghraib, a few sadistic prison guards abused inmates in violation of American law, military regulation, and simple decency. For the harm they did to Iraqi prisoners and to America's cause, they deserved and received Army justice.

And it takes a deeply unfair cast of mind to equate the disgraces of Abu Ghraib with the lawful, skillful, and entirely honorable work of CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men.
Dick Cheney

• Garrett's diary :: ::

Setting the Conditions
August 31 to September 9, 2003
Major General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, leads a survey team to plan intelligence, interrogation, and detention operations in Iraq.

September 5, 2003
A JPRA (SERE) training team arrives in Iraq. Their visit includes Abu Ghraib.

September 6, 2003
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tours Abu Ghraib.

September 9, 2003
General Miller delivers his recommendations. Guantanamo Bay should be used as a baseline. Interrogation in Iraq should be consolidated in one place. MPs should work to set the conditions for interrogation.

Dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the JIDC Commander that sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/detainees. This action is now in progress.
General Geoffrey Miller

I had conversations with MG Miller on a couple of occasions.... Specifically, I recall he discussed the implementation of dedicated MP support to MI.
Captain Carolyn Wood

They [MPs] would be the bad guys and MI would be the good guy to gather information.
Colonel Jerry Phillabaum

Training

October 1, 2003
The 372nd MP Company, a reserve unit, moves to Abu Ghraib. It gets two weeks on-the-job training. Nudity, sexual humiliation, stress positions, sleep deprivation, and sensory deprivation are all standard procedures when the 372nd arrives.

This is also the deadline date for centralizing and consolidating interrogation and detention at Abu Ghraib. Most other locations in Iraq are now intended as 72-hour holding sites.

October 3 or 4, 2003
3:00 or 4:00 p.m.
Military police transport a prisoner to the hard site.

One of them whispered in my ear, "today I am going to fuck you", and he said this in Arabic. Whoever was with me experienced the same thing. That's what the American soldiers did.... When they took me to the cell, the translator Abu Hamid came with an American soldier and his rank was sergeant (I believe). And he called told me "faggot" because I was wearing the woman's underwear, and my answer was "no". Then he told me "why are you wearing this underwear", then I told them "because you make me wear it."
Kasim Hilas (#151108)

October 5
Three Guantanamo Tiger Teams arrive for duty at Abu Ghraib. Their task is to help set up and develop

Thats true, but there are also very clear boundaries (I'd assume you couldn't use the military-derived images to prosecute anyone, but TFA doesn't say), which make it much harder for mission creep to happen. Plus the ACLU is keeping a close eye, which personally makes me more comfortable with it. If anything goes beyond what's reasonable I'm sure we'll hear about.

How much help has the ACLU been able to give librarians after the PATRIOT Act was passed who have been issued a National Security Letter requesting information? The ACLU is still fighting National Security Letters today.

No, I fear government more than anything else and don't want them having any more power than they have now. I want government with less power not more.

Falcon

It's not clear to me FTA that he was "arrested" in the legal sense of being charged with a crime and getting Miranda rights read. I've been handcuffed and forced on the ground twice (wrong place, wrong time) but never actually charged with a criminal offense.

Some people, including perhaps this guy, react to police confrontations in a counter-productive way, and escalate a situation that could be defused.

In case you might find yourself in a situation where police aren't sure you're a good guy, print out and familiarize yourself with the ACLU "bust card".

And never talk to the police.

Really?

You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained, and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.

0/6 Cases in Criminal Justice relating to the Establishment cause
0/3 Cases in Discrimination
0/1 Cases in Free Speech
0/2 Cases in Immigrants' Rights
0/1 in Students' rights
0/1 in Unlawful Detention
0/2 in Voting Rights
0/1 in Women's rights

So far, you're 0/17, and that's only the 2008 workload. Shall I continue?

Grishnakh is pointing out that while the ACLU is rabid about "terrorists' rights", they have a much less aggressive stance on defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication.

ORLY? http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/internet/index.html

I think he's just ACLU-bashing, not comeone with a point.
From the "2009 ACLU Legislative Priorities" pdf, I see

• Surveillance reform
  Repeal the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
• Restore online freedom
  Codify binding open Internet principles to discourage public and private
  online censorship, to assure online privacy and to pursue equal access free
  from discrimination.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit challenging the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 the same day that it was enacted into law. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - could be compromised by the new law.[15] The complaint, captioned Amnesty et al v McConnell and filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution.

which look a lot like defending the freedoms of Americans, especially when it comes to electronic communication to me. They were on top of that one day one, punctuality is a virtue.

Took me a minute in google to find that information. I don't know if or why they don't get involved with that treaty. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to it. Maybe they're understaffed, out of their jurisdiction and over budget. Maybe they're reptilians who pretend to defend civil liberties but they really want to drain your precious bodily fluids.

He's ranting against the ACLU, against foreigners, and against opposing torture. And he's calling that "freedom-loving". If he's pointing out anything, it's his perceptions, and I'm pretty sure he's perceiving that through the lenses at Fox News.

Google is your friend.

And now to de-crapify your comment:

• ACLU of Tennessee is not currently suing, but they've sent letters to 109 schools doing this, saying that if someone raises this is an issue, they'll take the case.
• Affected, not effected
• I find that people generally think the ACLU are a bunch of nut jobs until the ACLU is on their side (with respect to gun ownership rights, illegal searches and seizure, and freedom to practice religion). It's only when atheists or progressives are represented that these people think the ACLU is being run by nut jobs.

they would like the ACLU more if they also duplicated the work of the NRA. Presumably that organisation doesn't fulfill its remit to their satisfaction, and they'd like the ACLU to lend a hand?

I don't want them to duplicate the work of the NRA, I just want them to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment protects a civil liberty that's every bit as important as the rest. Instead they claim that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." One doubts they would make the same claim about the regulation of free speech, hence they are hypocrites. Because of that, most people who care about gun rights can not bring themselves to donate money/join the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, eh?

The names of these people are known and should be published at every mentioning of this incident. From this article, we know the school administrator's name is Kerry Wilson. I think that the names of the "female administrative assistant" and the "school nurse" should be published as well, in every mentioning of this incident.

Since it doesn't seem like the courts are going to give any justice to this matter, then perhaps making sure that people know who they're dealing with when they think of sending their kids to schools where these people work might help make things clearer to the so-called school district when the school empties of children because parents want nothing to do with these people.

They had shit. Here's an older article concerning the case, before it got to the Supreme Court:

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/35964prs20080711.html

Here is the relevant info:

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, had given her the pills. Safford maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward all prescription medicines, including prescription-strength ibuprofen.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson presented Redding with the ibuprofen pills and informed her of her classmate's accusations. Redding said she had never seen the pills before and agreed to a search of her possessions, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had," said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

It was pure abuse of authority by a moron who didn't understand he didn't have any.

Here is information for the docket for this case from the US Supreme Court's web site. Feel free to show your support by joining Join the American Civil Liberties Union.

US Supreme Court - Docket - 08-479

I think the complexity can only aid corruption: crooks can hide behind complex rules and when they're in power they can make up even more complex rules which won't get challenged by the populace because no-one can understand the existing ones anyway.

Yep, that's the idea. Never even mind the slight of hand they pull in some states, where poor voting districts that are full of people who may not be interested in maintaining the status quo have their polling places reassigned at the last minute without notice, or the registration lists may be swapped, or just plain fudged.

Then there's the "moral turpitude" laws some southern states have - should you be convicted of a crime that suggests moral turpitude (like receiving stolen property), you lose your right to vote in that state.

In short, it damn near takes an Act of God to get a minority party into a high office - it's been done before, but it's rare.

When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."

How did I miss that before? That's a riot :)

Media is biased in so many ways, not strictly on "liberal" (a term I use loosely) or "conservative" (another meaningless label). For instance, when is the last time you've seen a reporter say:

"Listen you dumb shits, stop buying things you can't afford, get out of debt. No, you don't need that new flatscreen HDTV. Shop less, consume less, and save more."

Of course you never hear that, even with the profanity edited out. Because sponsors would have a fit and the network would lose revenue. There's no way the producers would allow that. Just like you'll never hear:

"We're headed for another Great Depression. Could be worse than the last one."

For the same reasons.

Well, ok, there's at least one guy saying these things on the air, but nobody likes him much; they tend to cut him short.

You'll also never hear anything that's anti-government in a bi-partisan way: about how 85% (or more) of the legislation that gets passed these days is inherently unconstitutional; about the insane 4th amendment violations across the nation; about how the "War on Drugs" is causing more problems than it (supposedly) solves; about what we did to make terrorists hate us in the first place.

And you'll certainly never hear anything about crazy IP laws going into effect or the RIAA cases (unless they win in court), because the media isn't about to serve up anti-media stories.

All commercial media has a pro-establishment, status quo bias, because that's who's in charge. The majority of our politicians, Republican or Democrat (I prefer the term "Republocrat"), are pretty much the same - they're all right-wing fascists when you take into account the full political spectrum that's available. Any "liberal" or "conservative" bias you may attach to it is meaningless compared to the bias that actually exists.

(why, however, the ACLU generally pretends the second amendment doesn't exist perplexes me).

The ACLU doesn't pretend the second amendment doesn't exist; they are neutral in regard to it, and take the interpretation that it's a collective right and not an individual one (more details). I also think they stay off second amendment cases because other groups (I can think of two of the top of my head) are much more well funded and hyper focused on it.

The ACLU will generally help those who ask for it when they think the person has had their civil rights violated, and has even been on the same side as the ACLJ when defending the right of students to pray in school. The ACLU is about as non-partisan as you can get.

Another point the ACLU makes is that they don't think that the possession of guns raises a civil liberties issue. As much as the gun nuts like to say that "the second amendment guarantees the others", we've seen that obviously isn't true. And who would want to live in a country where you would have to kill to exercise your freedom of speech? If all we have left to protect is the second amendment, we've got bigger problems on our hands.