Slashdot Mirror

I suppose I should expect this from the ever-ready-to do its research Slashdot, but where are the sources for this article?

If you look at this "news site's" front page, you'll see a lot of the traditional conspiracy rantings and, when you look particularly at the traditional Kennedy conspiracy nonsense so typical of sites that have completely fallen off their rocker.

This isn't a news site. There's no good sourcing (yes, I followed the URL at the end, see below). The reference stated to this document mentions no such restrictions as those found in the Slashdot summary or the article.

There are certainly privacy issues at stake, but nothing near what this ridiculous article or the Slashdot summary make it out to be.

This is just piss poor. I know Slashdot isn't a news site, so I don't expect it to research things as thoroughly as a journalist would (granted, I expect little of journalists as well).

The most pertinent part of the executive summary of the regulation proposal in question reads as follows:

The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to prevent passengers that have been
identified as high-risk on government watchlists from boarding aircraft bound for or
departing from the United States and to prevent passengers and crew so identified
from departing on vessels leaving the Unites States. On April 7, 2005, the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published requirements for the transmission of
passenger and crew manifests for aircraft and vessels arriving from foreign
destinations or departing to foreign destinations (70 FR 17820). Implementation of the
"2005 APIS Rule" (named for the Advance Passenger Information System, the CBP
electronic system used to obtain electronic manifest information from carriers)
required that information on passengers and crew to be transmitted: no later than 15
minutes after departure for arriving aircraft passengers; no later than 15 minutes prior
to departure for departing aircraft passengers; at least 60 minutes prior to departure
for arriving and departing aircraft crew; at least 24 hours and as much as 96 hours
prior to a vessel's entry at a US port for arriving passengers and crew, depending on
the length of the voyage; and 15 minutes prior to departure for departing vessel
passengers and crew.

Are there privacy issues here? You betcha. And they've been discussed here at length. Do they approach what the article and its summary here state they approach? Not at all. Read the rest of the proposed regulation.

Come on, slashdot. Treat us like adults. Give us primary source materials and avoid the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

I will say this, though - If I'm wrong, and you find some nuance in the document I missed, please post and inform me.

I suppose I should expect this from the ever-ready-to do its research Slashdot, but where are the sources for this article?

If you look at this "news site's" front page, you'll see a lot of the traditional conspiracy rantings and, when you look particularly at the traditional Kennedy conspiracy nonsense so typical of sites that have completely fallen off their rocker.

This isn't a news site. There's no good sourcing (yes, I followed the URL at the end, see below). The reference stated to this document mentions no such restrictions as those found in the Slashdot summary or the article.

There are certainly privacy issues at stake, but nothing near what this ridiculous article or the Slashdot summary make it out to be.

This is just piss poor. I know Slashdot isn't a news site, so I don't expect it to research things as thoroughly as a journalist would (granted, I expect little of journalists as well).

The most pertinent part of the executive summary of the regulation proposal in question reads as follows:

The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to prevent passengers that have been
identified as high-risk on government watchlists from boarding aircraft bound for or
departing from the United States and to prevent passengers and crew so identified
from departing on vessels leaving the Unites States. On April 7, 2005, the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published requirements for the transmission of
passenger and crew manifests for aircraft and vessels arriving from foreign
destinations or departing to foreign destinations (70 FR 17820). Implementation of the
"2005 APIS Rule" (named for the Advance Passenger Information System, the CBP
electronic system used to obtain electronic manifest information from carriers)
required that information on passengers and crew to be transmitted: no later than 15
minutes after departure for arriving aircraft passengers; no later than 15 minutes prior
to departure for departing aircraft passengers; at least 60 minutes prior to departure
for arriving and departing aircraft crew; at least 24 hours and as much as 96 hours
prior to a vessel's entry at a US port for arriving passengers and crew, depending on
the length of the voyage; and 15 minutes prior to departure for departing vessel
passengers and crew.

Are there privacy issues here? You betcha. And they've been discussed here at length. Do they approach what the article and its summary here state they approach? Not at all. Read the rest of the proposed regulation.

Come on, slashdot. Treat us like adults. Give us primary source materials and avoid the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

I will say this, though - If I'm wrong, and you find some nuance in the document I missed, please post and inform me.

I suppose I should expect this from the ever-ready-to do its research Slashdot, but where are the sources for this article?

If you look at this "news site's" front page, you'll see a lot of the traditional conspiracy rantings and, when you look particularly at the traditional Kennedy conspiracy nonsense so typical of sites that have completely fallen off their rocker.

This isn't a news site. There's no good sourcing (yes, I followed the URL at the end, see below). The reference stated to this document mentions no such restrictions as those found in the Slashdot summary or the article.

There are certainly privacy issues at stake, but nothing near what this ridiculous article or the Slashdot summary make it out to be.

This is just piss poor. I know Slashdot isn't a news site, so I don't expect it to research things as thoroughly as a journalist would (granted, I expect little of journalists as well).

The most pertinent part of the executive summary of the regulation proposal in question reads as follows:

The primary purpose of this proposed rule is to prevent passengers that have been
identified as high-risk on government watchlists from boarding aircraft bound for or
departing from the United States and to prevent passengers and crew so identified
from departing on vessels leaving the Unites States. On April 7, 2005, the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published requirements for the transmission of
passenger and crew manifests for aircraft and vessels arriving from foreign
destinations or departing to foreign destinations (70 FR 17820). Implementation of the
"2005 APIS Rule" (named for the Advance Passenger Information System, the CBP
electronic system used to obtain electronic manifest information from carriers)
required that information on passengers and crew to be transmitted: no later than 15
minutes after departure for arriving aircraft passengers; no later than 15 minutes prior
to departure for departing aircraft passengers; at least 60 minutes prior to departure
for arriving and departing aircraft crew; at least 24 hours and as much as 96 hours
prior to a vessel's entry at a US port for arriving passengers and crew, depending on
the length of the voyage; and 15 minutes prior to departure for departing vessel
passengers and crew.

Are there privacy issues here? You betcha. And they've been discussed here at length. Do they approach what the article and its summary here state they approach? Not at all. Read the rest of the proposed regulation.

Come on, slashdot. Treat us like adults. Give us primary source materials and avoid the conspiracy mumbo-jumbo.

I will say this, though - If I'm wrong, and you find some nuance in the document I missed, please post and inform me.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

For starters, there is the ongoing medical marijuana debate. A bunch of states currently allow for the use of medical marijuana in their state. Federal law still has marijuana in the Schedule I category which means it has no medical use, so feds arrest users.
Medical marijuana is an easy one, as so many medical organizations support it.

The current drug czar also uses federal funds to campaign and lobby against drug laws reform at the state level.

The federal government also recently passed a spending bill which "would take away federal grants from local and state transportation authorities that allow citizens to run advertising on buses, trains, or subways in support of reforming our nation's drug laws".

Here is a quote from an article regarding assisted suicide, and the federal government's attempts to stop it by invoking drug laws: "Ashcroft... invoked the federal Controlled Substances Act, a law aimed at drug traffickers, and threatened to use it against physicians who prescribe drugs to help patients end their lives."

There are many other arguments to stop the drug war of course.. our constitution gives us the right to freedom of speech, which presupposes freedom of thought. Many drugs allow us to change how we think, so they should not be banned by the government. The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics makes this argument, which I personally find quite compelling.

I'm glad you asked this question, and hope I have given you some ideas to think about.

No it doesn't, I'm afraid. I wish it did, but this is in fact quite deliberate.

By seeing something as overt as this but letting it go, the public is subconsciously, (and not even very subconsciously at that), chosing to accept subserviance. The level of overt control is raised slowly, and the public lets it go at each level, until they have attained a completly defeated slave mentality.

The aim of the current war being waged by government against Americans is not to overtly defeat the populace. It's to lead the populace into a state of self-defeat.

That's how it works. --If they push too far with one attack, (Like this MATRIX shit), and the people start getting rowdy, then they'll immediately pull back and say, "Sorry, Sorry. Didn't mean it, we won't do it. --Well, except for maybe these little parts here and here." And then they'll try again in two weeks with something else. You cannot get them to stop, and you will not be able to find a rational agreement through legislation, because the enemy is not seeking balance; it is seeking total domination and it will not stop pushing and pecking until it has achieved its ends. The public, though dull-witted, is for the most part 'good and reasonable' which means that it will continue to act in good faith. Psychopaths, like Bush are not human and so they will never act in good faith. It's like a diode. The current goes in one direction only. You don't play cards with psychos.

There are exactly three responses one can take to this kind of tactic:

1. Haul the heads of government out of their offices and hang them all for high treason.

2. Get out of the U.S. before they haul you out of *your* office and send you to a camp. (Here's another with site with some photos, --one including a shot of a placard with a date stamp, reading "Jun 00", presumably indicating a construction date shortly after Shrub's election. This particular set of photos is of an un-manned camp, hence the ability to take photos).

3. Sit on your ass and try to pretend that everything will work out okay until it's too late. See, "Why I did not leave Nazi Germany in Time".

-FL

You know Howard Dean's campaign chair is Stephen Grossman, ex- president of AIPAC...

OH MY GOD! He is? Well, Jewish money is buying this campaign...

Dean's another blank slate. He's never done anything, and they're raving about him. When you see someone become the darling of the media, watch out for someone like that. You know they're compromised...compromised forever, you can't expect anything from them.

-FL

You know Howard Dean's campaign chair is Stephen Grossman, ex- president of AIPAC...

OH MY GOD! He is? Well, Jewish money is buying this campaign...

Dean's another blank slate. He's never done anything, and they're raving about him. When you see someone become the darling of the media, watch out for someone like that. You know they're compromised...compromised forever, you can't expect anything from them.

-FL

I did some searching. The earliest copy I can find of this message is August 17, 2002 a.k.a. www.FriendsOfLiberty.com, submitted by the user account "Anonymous" there.