Slashdot Mirror

Why only go back 400 years? Let's fight spam with the Magna Carta:

All Merchants (if they were not openly prohibited before) shall have their safe and sure Conduct to depart out of England, to come into England, to tarry in, and go through England, as well by Land as by Water, to buy and sell without any manner of evil Tolts, by the old and rightful Customs, except in Time of War.

See, spammers are merchants selling stuff, but not by the old and rightful Customs, in peacetime. It works, and the stretch is... just as rubbery.

Bring some 1297 smack down on em. It should be just as effective.

The 5th Amendment contains the phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

The 14th amendment contains almost the same statement, except that it applies specifically to the States. US Customs, however, is a Federal agency, and thus it is the 5th Amendment that applies.

He is most definately being denied property (the cables), and by UPS withholding from him the information he needs to appeal that judgement, he is being denied due process. How is that so difficult to understand? There are a lot of ways for the government to violate your rights besides throwing you in jail.

Really? I am so glad you believe in the Constitution, and have library skills. Here is some food for thought from that Constitution:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably
to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And from the dictionary:

Main Entry: abridge
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH [attempts to abridge the right of free speech]

(definition ironically abridged in order to satisfy slashdot's troll filters...) :(

Just because our illustrious government has been ignoring the constitution for the past century and you seem to think that the right to peaceably assemble and speak your mind are too radical to stomach does not make it so.

As for your reference to the "20th terrorist" I would be concerned too if I was a lawyer whose client was being charged with crimes which occurred while he was in jail.

As for your claim this guy is a "skinhead." Well, that is just unjustified, as he clearly is not. IN fact our government routinely protects skinheads and the Klan when they protest, even when they are in town to gloat over their recent killing of a black man by being dragged to death by a pickup truck. Protestors of logging, war, US-sponsored terrorism, racist trade agreements, and pollution, well, they are clearly dangerous and must be immediately gassed and attacked.

This is great - we don't need any demi-paranoid analysis to acknowledge that there are countries where the internet is censored in some way and where triangle + freedom create a relitavely safe way to exchange music. I mean ideas. either.

So A) howabout someone link to an explanation of how to set up a server and point triangle clients to you and
B) let's hear a little enthusiasm for freedom on the web - I recently searched, for example on "constitution united states" and found 2 sites willing to sell me 'chapters' of the constitution before I found the .gov site where it's published.
What's whrong with us, it seems like in some ways the internet has lost content since 1995 (when the gutenberg project was in full swing, muds and bulliten boards were all around and the microsoft EULA was, well, something no one read and it didn't matter.

*sight*

The name of the port director responsible should be available under the Freedom of Information Act [cornell.edu]. Very few government documents cannot be acessed, basically only military secrets and archaeological site reports.

Ronald Reagan effectively repealed these rights under EO12356.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is commonly thought to be from the Constitution, but this is not the case.

The Monroe Doctrine has to do with the United States having authority over the western hemisphere. The Marshall Plan was a program to help rebuild Europe after World War II.

The president just recently created a system of military tribunals where you can be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed without even being told the crime you were charged with, without the prosecution having shown probable cause before arrest, without hearing any evidence presented against you, without the ability to cross-examine witnesses, without your choice of counsel, without the crime specifically calling for a death sentence, without a presumption of innocence, without "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or even "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof, without public scrutiny, and without a right of appeal.

This system makes a military court-martial look like a hippy love-in.

Now please re-read the Declaration of Independence and tell me whether the guys that wrote it sound more like Bush or this punk "terrorist" kid.

The kid may have talked about overthrowing the constitution, but Bush has done it.

And if your response is that if you don't like it, you should change it by working your way up the corporate ladder until you are CEO of a large enough corporation so that you can buy yourself or a friend into office, spare me. Yeah, and if you don't like the U.S. government, why don't you go to some country the U.S. government is bombing or propping up some hellish dictator -- now that's a great idea!

Bush has made it perfectly clear -- you are either with him or against him. If you are against him, you are a terrorist and they intend to find you no matter what country you reside in. Clearly Bush is not quite that powerful, yet -- and one hopes that countries that care about human rights will be able to reign in some of his powers, but the point is that if you don't like the U.S. government you're only real options are to try to change it or keep your head down to avoid it's wrath.

And you won't change it by saving your pennies to work within the system -- with lobbyists, bribes, and the corporate media. The current system has evolved to make sure that we can't change it from within. At the same time, violence is only a successful tactic if you are already powerful -- if you are weak, it will only hasten your destruction (look at what happened to the U.S. militia movement after Oklahoma City). And advocating violence without the intention or the ability to carry it out is the height of stupidity.

The alternative is to organize where we have the most power (whether we realize it or not) -- with our coworkers or neighbors, in schools, professional associations, clubs, consumer groups, etc. And rather than organize for lofty meaningless phrases, organize for real gains that benefit us and those around us. Much of Bush's attack on Americans has taken the shape of less job security, longer hours, etc. at work. It is possible to resist these attacks, and it is much more effective if the resistance is organized and collective rather than disorganized and individual.

As passive voters and pleaders, we are powerless, but organized and actively fighting back where we have power can work -- that's how it has worked with every social improvement in the last 1000 years or so, at least.

Agencies shall maintain the storage and test areas for computer magnetic tapes containing permanent and unscheduled records at the following temperatures and relative humidities:

Constant temperature -- 62 to 68oF.
Constant relative humidity -- 35% to 45%

1234.34 Destruction of electronic records. Electronic records may be destroyed only in accordance with a records disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, including General Records Schedules. At a minimum each agency shall ensure that:

(a) Electronic records scheduled for destruction are disposed of in a manner that ensures protection of any sensitive, proprietary, or national security information.

(b) Magnetic recording media previously used for electronic records containing sensitive, proprietary, or national security information are not reused if the previously recorded information can be compromised by reuse in any way.

(c) Agencies shall establish and implement procedures that specifically address the destruction of electronic records generated by individuals employing electronic mail.

Agencies shall maintain the storage and test areas for computer magnetic tapes containing permanent and unscheduled records at the following temperatures and relative humidities:

Constant temperature -- 62 to 68oF.
Constant relative humidity -- 35% to 45%

1234.34 Destruction of electronic records. Electronic records may be destroyed only in accordance with a records disposition schedule approved by the Archivist of the United States, including General Records Schedules. At a minimum each agency shall ensure that:

(a) Electronic records scheduled for destruction are disposed of in a manner that ensures protection of any sensitive, proprietary, or national security information.

(b) Magnetic recording media previously used for electronic records containing sensitive, proprietary, or national security information are not reused if the previously recorded information can be compromised by reuse in any way.

(c) Agencies shall establish and implement procedures that specifically address the destruction of electronic records generated by individuals employing electronic mail.

For further information on RM, here's a white paper on electronic document management, and a powerpoint presentation on records management and DOD certification.

Finally, I suggest consulting the U.S. National Archives for formal guidance, or in Canada the National Archives of Canada.

For further information on RM, here's a white paper on electronic document management, and a powerpoint presentation on records management and DOD certification.

Finally, I suggest consulting the U.S. National Archives for formal guidance, or in Canada the National Archives of Canada.

This is one of the things I find most reprehensible about licenses and contracts in general, and the thing that our constitution was specifically designed against: The concept that your rights are inaliable. Nobody can take them away...

It was the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution, that speaks of inalienable rights. The Declaration speaks of three: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution deals a lot with securing life and liberty but says little about the pursuit of happiness. In fact, all the rights are alienable under certain common circumstances, primarily for criminals.

In addition, poverty has always been a practical constraint on the three inalienable rights. The reasonable fear of poverty also typically compromises liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So, in practice and in law none of the 3 rights are ever literally inalienable. If they were, there would be no prisons or poverty.

Given the limitations of your premise, I suspect there are similar limits on the conclusions you've base on it.

The US is pretty disliked everywhere I've been in Europe.

Glad those thousands of American soldiers in World War II didn't die in vain. If Europe has a problem, maybe they can reimburse the USA in those brand spanking new Euros for the money given to Post War Europe for reconstruction through the Marshall Plan. I would hate for high minded and principled European people to feel hypocritical about taking our money and support in one hand and dismissing us with the other. Maybe next time Europe makes a big boo-boo they can call someone else to solve their problems. I hear China might be interested.

Wake up! People have reasons for their actions. They may not be particularly intelligent, or sane, but they *are* reasons, and actions of that magnitude are born of many, many deep-seated reasons.

So in the case of WWII, you would have supported Chamberlain's coddling of Hitler? That did the British very little good. As with the terrorist, anti-semitic nature of NAZI-ism, I refuse to understand the logic of a perverse culture, religious belief or country. There is no need. The only recourse I see is to subdue that evil and rip it from the population that it rules over before it does the same to yours. You cannot achieve peace with an enemy that thrives in a blind fury of hate.

I admire your patriotism, but don't let it blind you to the way of the rest of the world. The "with us or against us" bullshit is juvenile at best and potentially deadly at worst.

Patriotism? How about common sense. I know those that wish us harm want us bickering among ourselves. They have a single focus and shown their resolve. We must reciprocate. What is truly deadly is the distraction of finding out who is behind us in this fight and will help in the goal of eliminating international terrorism.

Just look at what happens when our friends are supposed to be working on our side. The Inspector Clouseaustyle French airport security nearly led an American jumbo jet to an explosive end. Letting the Poster Boy for Terrorism on board a jet with explosives sneaks kind of makes me wonder if the French Government is taking this "War on Terrorism" seriously.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What Jackson actually said was, "John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can." Please note that name. Marshall was the first jurist to argue that the Supreme Court could review the actions of other branches of government. In 1830 this concept was still controversial. Now it's universally accepted. Recent presidents ignore the Court at their peril. Eisenhower enforced court orders he empahtically disagreed with. Nixon was forced to obey an order that cost him the Presidency. FDR, probably the most popular President in history, couldn't even get away with adding friendly judges to the court.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state that Congress must declare war.

The powers of Congress over the military and military actions are defined in Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power to [...]
To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The Authority of the President as Commander in Chief are defined in Article II, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

To summarize the above articles, Congress establishes, maintains, and regulates the military. The President determines how, when, and where will military force be applied.

When the Consitution was written in the 1700's, armed conflicts were rigidly defined, where the the combatants consisted of formally recognized governments. In such an environment a Declaration of War made perfect sense. This system worked fairly well until the Second World War, which was the last time the United States formally declared war..
The tradition context of war was challenged with the rise of the Cold War and modern warfare techniques such as guerrillas, proxy wars, and non-state combatants. As armed conflict evolved, the US government had to address the issue. In 1973 the War Powers Act (WPA) was passed to address these issues. The primary reason for this act was to establish limits on the Commander in Chief's ability to use force without the formal consent of Congress, as exemplified by the Vietnam War. The WPA allows the President to commit military actions without a declaration of war, as long as certain reporting conditions to Congress are met. The heart of the WPA is Section 5 (b), which establishes concrete time limits, and Section 5 (c), which gives Congress the authority to terminate military action.

________________________

None of the words or meaning in the Constitution has changed, either. It still guarantees Justice to All. This includes a fair trial, just as much as it includes the lethal injection as punishment.

The fundamental question here is do we treat acts of terrorism as a crime or as an act of war? The various rights to trial enumerated in Section III and the Bill of Rights apply only to crimes. By history and precedent, acts of war are not treated the same as criminal acts. For example, the Nuremberg Trials were military tribunals with convictions determined by a panel of judges, not juries. Similar tribunals were called for the Japanese military and government, instead of trying them in US criminal courts for the attack on US territory (Pearl Harbor)
The US has been consistent in treating the attacks of September 11th as a military action, not criminal, to include the application of military courts to eventually try Al Qaeda members. This is no different than the application of justice at the end of WWII.

That's essentially what this is, and last time I checked, phone taps still required a warrant, and warrants still require probable cause. As long as this ability is governed by the same laws that phone taps are, I will recognize it as a legitimate law enforcement tool. They bear the burden of proof in our system, and they need to be able to gather evidence.

Sure they could "require" me to give them my password or subpeona the information. I could also accidentally low-level format my harddrive or "forget" my password. Yes, that would open me up to prosecution for other crimes, but maybe those are less severe than the ones I'm being investigated for.

In the end, the FBI's actions are still governed by the Bill of Rights. For any evidence to be admissable in court, it still has to pass the 4th Amendment.

I shouldn't respond to AC's but...

I was one of the few in my high school class, many years ago, who didn't sleep through the "Rights vs. Priveledges" lecture. Were you?

A right is something that is believed (in most cultures) to be "inalienable" or inseperable from being. Personal rights are not granted but are guaranteed by our U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, freedom from persecution and freedom to bear arms are the most well known of these. Most of the other items in the Bill of Rights pertain to rights of people held for trial, and protection of their property and reputation (until found guilty).

The tenth amendment stakes out the rights of states to override federal powers, when such powers are usurped outside of the constitution, hence some footing for the States vs. Microsoft case, but the seventh amendment should guarantee Microsoft a jury trial since the alleged offense is valued at greater than $20, and the eighth prohibits cruel punishment or excessive fines (a double edged sword for Microsoft).

A priveledge is something completely different. It is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. You can check, Lawyer-Client priveledge is not in their. Priveledges are manifestations of custom that are expected, but not guaranteed.

Separation of church and state is one of these priveledges. If you check, you will find the Bill of Rights expressly says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What this means is that a state religion cannot be established, but that no laws can prevent someone from praying in public. The removal of all things with religious connotations is a priveledge extended to the ACLU and litigious agnostics, and actually inpinges on a constitutional right. Even some rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have loopholes that make them more priveledge than right. The third amendment, preventing the forced harboring of soldiers has exception provisions for times of war.

This brings me to the infamous Fifth amendment and it's counterpart the sixth. These are the two you site, the ones which have the strongest of weak ties to attourney-client priveledge. So that no-one can argue baselessly, I'll provide the text here:

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There's a lot of verbage to parse there, but you can plainly see that the word lawyer, attourney, barrister, soliciter, ombudsman, or advocate are nowhere to be found! "Assistance of Counsel for his defense" is provide for, but no additional explicit rights are granted. Remember, presumption of innocence is not the right, a fair trial is. The presumption of the framers is that this would be used to protect the falsly accused, not the truly guilty. Also, a clause is contained explicitly permitting the removal of this right for military persons and for everyone in time of war or "Public Danger".

In this sense, this eavesdropping is explicitly constitutional.

-- Len

America is headed for rainbow fascism. We all drive SUV's and have little american flags. You can be a part of it as long as you blindly follow our countrys idiot leaders.
You don't follow because you agree with what the laws say, but you agree because it was said by the leaders.

To quote the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket: "I am here to weed out all non-hackers" Ie: Get with the program and get in line.

Dont't be fooled, this is abuse. Its time to revolt against oppression. All the things that are in the Declaration Of Independence are true today, except we are more taxed today (on a % basis) then anyone was under the king! Our founding fathers said that we should violently revolt, so its certianly time TO SPEAK UP if nothing else.

• Bill Of Rights
• The Declaration of Independence
  
  

The Enigma Machine wasn't developed until the '30s.

Interesting OT side note concerning the Zimmerman Telegram, some feel that it is tied into the historical British support for a Jewish homeland, leading to the formation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. Valid or not, I don't know, but this is definately stuff I wasn't taught in school.

as a well educated person, i have never in my life seen a persuasive libertarian argument, and this is no start...

point 1:
In most localities, it is extremely difficult to get on the ballot unless your party got a certain % of the vote last time. But you can't get % of the electorate if you can't get on the ballot! Chicken and egg...

Okay, one thing i consistently hear from libertarians are arguments to the tune of 'well, no one is stopping you from doing [x], you're just too lazy to go out and do it...'

sorry if getting elected is such a big effort, but where exactly are the laws written saying that you can't go door to door and convince people to vote for your party via write-in votes?

Point 2:
Strategic voting, aka "I don't want to throw my vote away." The current "plurality vote" system allows someone that almost 2/3 of the voters did not want to win. (May the Best Man Lose. This encourages betraying your conscience to vote for the "lesser of two evils" to keep the worse guy out. There are alternatives, such as the Condorcet Method, which is essentially an improved IRV. If you don't have liberty of conscience...what do you have?

are you proposing a loose interpretation of the constitution? because last I heard voting laws were specified in the body of the constitution. I would say the same to your 3rd point.

if you want real answers as to why there is little/no libertarian representation in government, don't blame the electoral process or the voting public.

what do you want, government regulations to help out 3rd party candidates? that would be the height of irony. as would be caps on campaign donations.

i agree that just about anyone should be able to get on a ballot (within reason). however, you'll still lose as candidates that are willing to pass laws favoring big business get into office on the strength of those big business's campaign dollars. free market, people's choice - that's the libertarian ideal if i'm not mistake.

10990 -> 11612 -> 11807 -> REVOKED BY 12196
10995 -> REVOKED BY 11556
10997 -> REVOKED BY 11490
10998 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11000 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11001 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11002 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11003 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11004 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11005 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11310 -> REVOKED BY 11490

The interesting bit is that 11490 was itself revoked by 12656. PEO 12656, "Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities", is still on the books.

Of particular note is Sec. 102, which states in part:

(b) This Order does not constitute authority to implement the plans prepared pursuant to this Order. Plans so developed may be executed only in the event that authority for such execution is authorized by law.

As well it should... it's not within the Executive's powers to make law, only to regulate how its agencies carry out the execution of law defined by the Legislature.

10990 -> 11612 -> 11807 -> REVOKED BY 12196
10995 -> REVOKED BY 11556
10997 -> REVOKED BY 11490
10998 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11000 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11001 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11002 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11003 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11004 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11005 -> REVOKED BY 11490
11310 -> REVOKED BY 11490

The interesting bit is that 11490 was itself revoked by 12656. PEO 12656, "Assignment of emergency preparedness responsibilities", is still on the books.

Of particular note is Sec. 102, which states in part:

(b) This Order does not constitute authority to implement the plans prepared pursuant to this Order. Plans so developed may be executed only in the event that authority for such execution is authorized by law.

As well it should... it's not within the Executive's powers to make law, only to regulate how its agencies carry out the execution of law defined by the Legislature.

But the cotton gin made it's inventer jack. The guy who make the first tv also made jack from his invention. Kind of makes you wonder. Both inventions were made after patents were made available in the US, but the inventers both made zip. That also kind of makes you wonder.

To: Litigating Patent Holders
From: B.Franklin, Geo. Read, Jaco. Broom et. al.

Dear Sir,

We understand that you are planning to embark on certain legislation that will require the invocation of section eight of the document known as "The Constitution of the United States", specifically the clause that reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

We wish to remind you that this text is covered by modern copyright law. Should you find it necessary to refer to this clause, or any clause of the document, in your pleadings to the court we will require that you pay a reasonable and non-discriminatory fee. This fee will reflect the value of the document to the United States.

We trust that you will contact us before use or publication of our copyrighted material.

Kind Regards,

The Founding Fathers

I still say that my usage of your sentiments are draconian.

Say what? This sentence makes no sense. You've gone from using words that you don't understand to using sentences that no-one else understands.

Go look at your dictionary.com reference, "draconian budget cuts"

Guess what? Budget cuts are enacted by law makers, or people acting in an equivalent regulatory capacity.

The security you gain is it makes fugitives easier to track.

WTF!? How, exactly, does a voluntary ID card help track fugitives. You are apparently of the ilk that beleives that terrorists and fugitives will be anxious to sign up for this card, and will happlily check the box marked: "I am a violent criminal, please subject me to detailed scrutiny."

IF this card becomes mandatory, or in any way an unavoidable standard, it will clearly impact the rights guarunteed under the Fourth Ammendment.

If, as your pollyannaish argument suggests, it will remain voluntary, no one with anything to hide will ever use it. As such, it is a complete waste of time and resources.

Only criminals need fear this - you're not a criminal are you?

The causes are neither light nor transient, and you took that quote WAY out of context. Here's a bigger chunk:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
(you can read the whole document here)

The U.S. government was (according to the above) meant for securing unalienable rights.

It was not meant for intervening in foriegn military conflicts, or "fighting a war on evil", or monitoring common citizens' lives, or outlawing the sale of technology without approved encryption, or helping "american interests" by paying for McDonalds to advertise in Asia (yes your tax dollars really pay for that!).

If our founding fathers could see this country today they would be ashamed. I am ashamed, and you should be too.

"There ought to be limits to, uh, to freedom."
— George W. Bush, in response to a perfectly legal parody site.

Need I say more?

I'm not so sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will), but doesn't the USA have as it's very foundation the belief that all are entitiled to the Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/declaration/de claration.html

Wouldn't you consider protection from harm, especially harm that leads to death (as in a falling building) a Right to Life? Certainly if the harm were due to a fatal design flaw you would look to the government to prosecute those responsible for the collapse; and I'd venture that you'd want the prosecution to use every reasonable avenue to obtain evidence.

No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gave the Federal Government the power to collect income taxes and had absolutely nothing to do with war: it passed simply because 99% of Americans were exempted (that percentage is not an exageration).

I'm confident that a fundemantal ignorace regarding the facts of American history is in good measure the cause of the general /. paranoia.

Now, getting back to my origianl post: you're still faced with the question of citing a single example of a civil right rescinded during war time but never returned in the peaceful aftermath. American history actually shows that we can trust our government. Your paranoia, and that of many other /. members, is not only baseless, but actually runs counter to the example of American history. A good portion of this community has abandoned reason, and the proof of history.

good point. The margin Gore "won" the popular vote is smaller than the margin Bush "won" Florida

Huh?

According to the National Archives and Records Administration, at <http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/2000popres .html>, Bush's official margin over Gore in the Florida vote total was 2,912,790 to 2,912,253, a margin of 537 votes or about 0.009% of the total votes cast. Gore's margin in the nationwide popular vote was 50,996,582 to 50,456,062, a margin of 540,520 votes, or 0.5% of the total cast.

May I ask where you got your numbers?

First of all, the difference in the national popular vote was ~50,000 (not ~500,000) which is less than the total number of uncounted absentee ballots and well within the margin of error.

The National Archives and Records Administration, at <http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/2000popres .html> shows a difference of 540,520 votes. Do you have a better source?

Second, the US Supreme court voted 7-2 to reverse the Florida court's decision, and only 5-4 to get on with certifying the election results.

It was the 5-4 vote that stopped the recount. The US Supreme Court could have reversed the decision and allowed the recount to continue under what it considered proper conditions; the claimed deadline was not supported by law.

Third, you might want to reconsider saying "even if Bush really did get the majority of the votes in Florida, that wouldn't excuse the theft." because it was the Florida Supreme Court who first attempted to steal the election for Gore. It was the Gore campaign who first sought to change the rules and timeline of the process through legal action - and it was the Florida Supreme Court who first acted rewrite the election rules after the official results were turned in.

I haven't looked at the Florida Supreme Court's decision recently. As I recall, though, it required the recount to follow the "intent of the voter" standard specified in Florida state law -- which, under the US Constitution, is the controlling law for presidential elections.

Even if the FSC's decision was incorrect, that doesn't make the USSC's blatantly political decision correct. It's not their job to fight political bias with political bias. It's their job to make a decision based on the law and the Constitution. a job they failed to perform.

Fourth, the post-election counts done by the Miami papers prove that even if the US Supreme Court had not acted, Bush still would have won. In fact, they found that Bush would have even picked up more votes.

That's what the headlines said when the reports came out. If you read more than the first few paragraphs, you'd find that the reports included alternative numbers based on several different assumptions. Under some assumptions, Bush won; under others, Gore won.

Does anyone remember whether the Miami newspaper reports account for overvotes as well as undervotes?

Finally, there were "irregularities" in the counting process that took votes away from Bush as well as Gore, such as the military absentee ballots that should have counted but were thrown out.

I don't remember those. I thought that a lot of military absentee ballots were counted despite the lack of a postmark.

While I, too, am concerned that there will be attempts to ride roughshod over some of our civil rights, I think this piece is a rather inflammatory.

If you read the Constitution, you will notice that above all, the framers worked at balance. Balance of powers (executive/legislative/judiciary) and balance of rights. In the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment says, in part

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Note the word "unreasonable." This is a rather vague word; intentionally so. It is up to society to determine unreasonable search and seizures. There is no guarantee of absolute privacy. While I feel we should set the bar as high as possible, the example RMS uses of video recognition technology, especially in a public place, is certainly not unreasonable, given of course, that such technology does not result in hundreds of innocent people being held or detained inappropriately.

People are concerned about knee-jerk right wing reactions, lets not make the same mistake in defense of civil liberties and oppose everything that is suggested. Save energy for the battles that really matter.

While I, too, am concerned that there will be attempts to ride roughshod over some of our civil rights, I think this piece is a rather inflammatory.

If you read the Constitution, you will notice that above all, the framers worked at balance. Balance of powers (executive/legislative/judiciary) and balance of rights. In the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment says, in part

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Note the word "unreasonable." This is a rather vague word; intentionally so. It is up to society to determine unreasonable search and seizures. There is no guarantee of absolute privacy. While I feel we should set the bar as high as possible, the example RMS uses of video recognition technology, especially in a public place, is certainly not unreasonable, given of course, that such technology does not result in hundreds of innocent people being held or detained inappropriately.

People are concerned about knee-jerk right wing reactions, lets not make the same mistake in defense of civil liberties and oppose everything that is suggested. Save energy for the battles that really matter.

That will only be fair if there is some control over the court costs. The loser should only have to pay for reasonable court costs. If I hit my rich neighbor, I shouldnt be required to pay for the 30 lawyers he hired to make sure that I go to jail. I know I'm using a worst case scenario to make my point, but a law like the one you mention could easily violate the eighth amendment if implemented in the US without some kind of oversight. Perhaps only requiring the plaintif to pay both costs when the defendant is found not guilty, or only requiring the the losing side to pay for a cost equivalent to that of a court appointed attorney. Are there any exceptions like these in the European laws you refer to?

Sayeth t0qer:

I'm very surprised at slashdot, slashdot should be accused of treason right now.

U.S. Constitution
Article III
Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. (Emphasis mine)

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

We have this thing called the Constitution. You may have heard about it. You know, the instruction manual?

Right now, we're on a cusp. We do need to find the enemies of our country that have attacked us in such a cowardly manner and make then pay the necessary price. But we need to maintain the freedoms that make the country what it is. Otherwise, when this is all said and done, we could easily end up as a police state. I have no desire to live in such a place, so I will be doing what I can within the existing process to ensure that our rights are secured.

No, I don't understand. Because the Bill of Rights makes a clear distinction between "the people" (that's you and me) and "States". Read the Bill of Rights here and note Amendment 10 in particular. "The people" is just the people (not "the States"), and it's what's used in Amendment 2.

This page shows the official numbers for the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote by less than one percent. If you were to use this as a measure of conservativism vs liberalism (which is inappropriate) then it would seem that between 48.4% of those who voted are "liberal" and that 47.88% of those who voted are "conservative". (The remainder, I guess, are crazy people) These numbers fall exactly within the 45-55% range that the original poster cited.

Also, note that the total popular vote was 105,363,298, and the estimated population for the US in 2000 is 281.4 million. And while the popular vote may be a statistically accurate guess as to how the rest of the population would have voted, we may never know. 176 million is not an insignificant number of people (roughly 63% of the total) to not be able to account for.

As for your stats about the popularity of stem cell research, would you mind providing some sources to back them up? You questioned the original poster's sources but neglected to provide any of your own.

And finally, remember that there are three kinds of lies: A lie, a damn lie, and a statistic.

I believe that SCOTUS has jurisdiction over both cases at least from the American point of view. Article III section 2 of the constitution specifically gives it this power. Unless Dow Jones has holdings in Australia, they can essentially ignore the case until SCOTUS rules one way or the other. Same with DVD-CCA. Its quite obvious that the California courts never read the constitution.

The relevant portion of the Constitution:
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.

the right to a speedy trial (6th Amendment)? "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, ..." It seems that it's been several months since Dmitry was first arrested, surely he has the right to be arraigned within less than a week. But then again, you only have rights if you know how to demand them, as a russian he wouldn't know the ins and outs of American jurisprudence (not to imply that more than a handful of Americans know how to successfully demand rights from freedom violators)..

• • FDR single handedly removed all Constitutional restraint on the federal government
  ALL Constitutional restraint? So you're actually claiming no private citizen has won a court case against the US government on Constitutional grounds? That the protective powers of the Constitution aren't invoked every day?

And did you ever stop to question why there are so many cases that go to the Supremes on Constitutional grounds? It's because the Legislature and Executive have stopped viewing the Consitution as a guiding principle for their actions, but as the ultimate limitation on them. What FDR did was to say to the Judiciary "I'll pass any damn law I like, and you'll have to strike it down years later when it finally reaches you through the courts."

Do you see the difference? Laws are passed that the Legislature and Executive know are unconsitutional (heck, ~50% of the Legislature, and the previous President and her husband are members of the American Bar Association), but they basically don't give a damn unless they're pretending to champion the Consitution for propaganda purposes.

I used to make an effort to not be so cynical about politics, but then I took a good, hard look at what is actually going on, and realised that We, the People, have no say in deciding the laws that effect us. Laws are bought and sold at will, all wrapped up in the sanitised form of bribery known as "campaign contributions"

Gaa, I give up. Read this very short taster, and begin to get yourself a clue.

While theUnited States Constitution makes no provisions for or against the existance of copyright that does not mean it is not legitimate law (general reference, not disputing your point). Remember that The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Courts have taken this to mean (especialy under the 14th ammendment) that the Congress can make pretty much whatever law it wants provided that it doesn't abridge any specific or implied freedom as determined by the court. Furthermore, I find it highly unlikely that this Court is going to strike down Copyright as unconstitutional.

$50,000? And I thought the Eighth Ammendment stipulated that "Excessive bail shall not be required."

The First Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law" rather than the words "Citizens shall have the right". The assumption of Our Framers was that such rights were inherant in all human beings and they took steps to prohibit the government from walking all over those rights.

Cant you resist taking a shot at what you seem to consider a "liberal rag"? You need to realize that this article was about the NYT simply because they were one of the parties directly involved in the case.

Article 3, Section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

-http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/ constitution.html

So -- no treason has taken place by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry, although I wouldn't mind seeing the people responsible for this mess charged with such a serious crime.

Of course, if we could get the US government to declare war on the entertainment industry... than that would be a different matter.

Others detect a hidden agenda: an attempt by big business to stifle some of the cultural empowerment that the Internet represents. "This is the past trying to kill the future at a time when the future is down," said John Perry Barlow, a former Grateful Dead lyricist who is co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a defender of free speech online. "And it's happening in ways that are generally invisible to the public."

OK, he might be a "hippie", whatever that is, and an anarchist, but he's right. The ad hominem attack is the kind of thing I might expect from a "telecomunications consultant", not a supposedly independent and news organization interested in the public good. The drafters of this document might agree with the EFF. So do I, a flat topped engineer.