Slashdot Mirror

The long anwswer is, yes we did.

Bin Laden wasn't funded by the CIA. He wouldn't have taken American money anyway, and didn't need it besides. We did fund some groups that were associated with his Arab mujihadeen, but not his group directly.

Source, please? You're incorrect; Bin Laden was funded by the CIA. Even the Identifying Misinformation page, so helpfully and ironically supplied by the government, admits that:

"While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA.

I love how he tells us that the CIA was engaged in a coverup and then expects us to believe everything that comes after that. The CIA was aiming for that deniability for a reason. There wouldn't've been anything to deny unless they were also directly funding the Afghan Arabs, along with funneling funds through ISI. The CIA is the one with the cash after all. You think just because Bin Laden's daddy was rich that he didn't need money? War is expensive, and rich people need money more than the rest of us because they're used to buying their way through life.

Even the Wikipedia article on OBL mentions the CIA connection. It's a widely known fact, but not one that you're supposed to bring up in public because, just like NSA spying, we don't officially acknowledge that it happened, even though everyone knows it has. That's government for you.

Oh and regarding Visa restrictions impacting foreign student enrollment, it's not just my opinion.
Although apparently, enrollment improved in 2005 after three years of decline as a result of efforts made on behalf of the departments of Homeland Security and State to streamline the visa process. So if anybody is spouting subjective bull, it's you, Mr. Reactionary Weenie.

Did you write this with a straight face? Forward-looking leadership? In a government?

It is rare, but it does exist from time to time.

Would you please be specific about which innocent civilians the US is killing and where? Do you refer to Iraq and Afghanistan? Or do you refer to abortion rights in the US? I'm confused.

As for the current situation in China, it is less severe than under Mao's regime for the majority of citizens. However, China does still execute more people per year than the entire world combined. China still utilizes reeducation through labor, essentially prison labor camps. Slavery. And there have been many recent reports of organ harvesting of prisoners for sale on the international market.

I'm sorry, but I still don't think the human rights situation between the US and China comes close in comparison.

Who care if the Republican are voted in again. Your answer seems to be the Democrats.

Political Parties are not where it's at. It never was and never will be. And by "it", I mean answers for the future.

In his farewell address as President, the other George (Washington), warned us against political parties. And since then, we promptly split into party lines:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac /49.htm

Have political parties ever spearheaded any worthwhile movement? Woman's suffrage? Civil Liberties? Hell, even Slavery? Not, if it cost them votes or it became the "right thing to do" with the public, meaning they got so late into the game as not to make a difference any longer. Look what parties make of issue these days to see the lack of courage in Washington to take any definitive action.

Have political parties caused you to stop looking at who you are voting for, and instead make you vote down the party line? Congratulations, you played into their hands. Are all Republicans really that bad, as to be always worse than their Democratic counterparts? Or the other way around?

Will it matter if the Democrats come in? Other than unions, won't they get funded by the same corporations as long as they follow corporate interests? And they will.

Hell, Jesse Ventura was one of the better Governors that there was in a long time. I wouldn't have believed it if I haven't seen it, but he was. And he was independent and not a career politician.

Why can't we vote more people like him in?

Think Independent. And Vote Independent. The parties won't fix jack shit. They have all their fingers smeared by the same pie and are beholden to the same interests.

If you believe that TV, movies, music, video games, 'etc are free speech (and, outside of Jack Thompson, I'm pretty sure most people do), then taxing them is unconstitutional. Remember - the power to tax is the power to destroy. As soon as they are legally allowed to levy a $1 tax on video games, they can just as easily make it $1 million.

I'm told that countries like Sweden still have pensions that pay out but that China has "reformed" theirs. $400,000,000 for Windoze ... big dumb US companies do the same thing. Hmmm.

I believe the Party will continue on its path of liberalization as a younger, more cosmopolitan generation of Oxford- and Columbia-educated Chinese accedes to power. Who needs revolution, after all, when you can build democracy from within?

I hope "liberalization" happens. Internet censorship and stories about political dissidents being murdered for sale of their organs make me think actual discourse is dangerous at best. Without a free press there is no telling what's actually happening, except that someone does not want the story told.

"Also, hauling out the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a defense is kind of silly, because the original poster would probably site that as an example of a broken law. That basically represents an argument by appealing to authority, and is also a debating technique to use when you have no solid facts or reasoning to back you up."

His "appeal to authority" was a citation of the equal accommodation promised by the Civil Rights Act. According to American law an American restaurant owner is forbidden from discriminating on the basis of race (even though the restaurant is the owner's property).

Finally, an appeal to authority is only an example of a logical fallacy when the person or source in question is NOT a legitimate authority on the subject. Any sensible person could see that you only bolster your argument by citing an authoritative source. In this case, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is quite clearly a legitimate authority on whether or not an American restaurant owner can discriminate on the basis of race.

According to testimony at the guilty plea hearing on February 20, 2003 , Tolleson and several employees of JT Technology LLC manufactured and sold various devices designed or intended to assist others in the unauthorized decryption of satellite television programming without payment of subscription fees or pay-per-view fees to DirecTV.

According to testimony at the guilty plea hearing on February 20, 2008 , Joe Hacker manufactured various devices designed or intended to assist others in the unauthorized decryption of music without payment of subscription fees.

Yes. It is.

Just take a look, the Defense Intelligence Agency has a "kids' site", the CIA has a kids' site, the NSA has a website, and even the State Department has a kid's site where you can learn exciting things about SecState Rice meeting Elmo...

Sure, some of them have a little bit of recruiting-type material on them, but most of it links back to the "grown-up" site and I've yet to meet a 4th grader who wants to be an analyst or diplomat when he or she grows up. There's a fair amount of "say no to drugs" material as well, which makes sense in any case.

I wonder if there's legislation somewhere requiring all government agencies to put up a kid's site. My money is that yes, there's some requirement somewhere for this. It's the only possible explanation for some of these exceedingly lame websites - they just gave them to an intern or flunkie to throw together real fast to meet regulations.

Yes they do. They were only too happy to do that.

kill 10's of thousands of people and wash thier hands of it

You don't think software they provide to help China find dissidents won't lead to thousands of political murders? We're talking about a country that harvests organs from political prisoners, on demand and brag about it. (short version).

You might be able to rationalize that by all the cool things you can buy for cheap down at the Walmart, but that's what working with a Communist country supports.

If that's not special enough or bad enough for you, why not look at the very negative influence his greed worldview supports. Massive propaganda in support of the DMCA and other abominations of law. The BSA and lawsuits against US public school systems for copying a text editor. How about their current stupid fight against the best the internet has to offer, Google and Wikipedia, because free information does not fit into their greedy world view? How about fighting the internet itself and pressuring ISPs to reduce their services based on their own crappy software? Microsoft has retarded US computer technology by a decade and ultimately are enemies of knowledge. That's evil.

My apologies, the link was corrupt. Foreign Aid Programs

Hi, how are you? I'm the mentally retarded child that donated money to help Tsunami victims in Asia. Private sector contributions

US Contributions Should we talk about how America responds to the aids crisis? famine? The tons of workers that volunteer time to help those in need around the world?

Based on your statement, the US responds to ANY stimuli with some type of war machine. I think the points I've made disprove your assumption and show you have a biased opinion of the USA. I'm sorry to hear that.

Or, we could be civilized and either initiate or sign on to an Internet Weapons Treaty (like the Outer Space Treaty). Oh, wait, that's way too PRE-911 thinking, isn't it?

the Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002

http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm

sec 2008
a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:

      1. Covered United States persons.

      2. Covered allied persons.

      3. Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government.

I remember watching a show on the discovery channel back in 2004, which showcased a paraplegic using a wireless brain implant as a mouse for a computer, and showcasing the research of Japanese scientists which were working on mapping brain signals, as to how memory is stored and retrieved, endeavouring to make a protocol for memory storage and retrieval for people with amnesia.

The EU has discovered how to attach neurons to electrical contacts? Eureka! According to the show I saw years ago, neurons naturally attach to the electrically conductive surface, when immersed in a growth formula, just as they naturally branch out and look for other neurons to attach themselves to, creating synapses.

Well, for instance, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are pretty soundly trashed by the PATRIOT Act.

The surveillance powers granted are in direct circumvention of the Fourth Amendment, whereby a judge must be asked for a warrant for law enforcement to conduct any action against a citizen. The argument against is that informing the "Terrorists" of what is going to be searched/siezed in advance (which is what the Constitution requires) is inexpedient. The problem being that, if you're not a terrorist, you're pretty much screwed and have no recourse because any warrants issued (if they were issued at all -- see the National Wiretapping problem) were issued in secrecy and to talk about them is a crime according to other sections of the PATRIOT Act.

The Fifth Amendment is violated because the actions law enforcement takes deprive you of due process. You're not allowed to see the "evidence" against you until you've been exported to Egypt for "questioning" and returned.

Basically: the whole reason the Fourth and Fifth Amendments exist -- to protect citizens against overreaching Executive law enforcement powers -- is trampled by the PATRIOT Act.

Please see: The Bill of Rights

Second - Cyber security is about securing information, which the department of homeland security has a lot of and are doing a poor job protecting it.

Third - Iraq was not terrorist free. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/20124. pdf

My dad - yes yes he does NOT live in China - has an even stronger opinion than I have. He firmly believes that people are getting paid by the US government to bash the Chinese government.

Some people probably do get paid to bash selected foreign governments. I don't have strong evidence for this. I am just biased. It's a good thing I don't run a newspaper.

Assemblyman Peter J. Biondi, what are you thinking?! This law is unconstitutional! In fact, it is really blatantly unconstitutional. Other posters (orthogonal) have articulated well why this law is plainly unconstitutional. To put it simply anonymous speech is strongly protected by the 14th and 1st Amendments to the US Constitution. In 1960 is one Supreme Court case (Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)) that made it abundantly clear.

For those who are unfamiliar with the US Federal system, a state such as New Jersey cannot have laws that conflict with federal (US) laws or the US Constitution. (See Marbury v. Madison in 1803.) When a state does pass a law that conflicts with the US Constitution or Federal laws that law must first be challenged by a regular person in court and then a court may rule the law is unconstitutional. I am skipping a ton of details here, but that is the general idea. This law if passed would not survive.

P.S. I am not a lawyer.
P.P.S. I strongly doubt the governor of New Jersey would sign this bill in the unlikely event it makes it through the state legislature.

Don't sell small business short.

He relished the task, launching a reign of terror which was brutal even by the standards of the Baath Party.

According to opposition groups, thousands were murdered.

Victims were made to drink petrol before being set alight or strapped to concrete blocks and tipped into the Shatt-al-Arab waterway.

Bodies were bulldozed into the ground and, according to aid agencies, Al-Majid was filmed selecting Shia prisoners for execution. It was for his earlier atrocities, though, that he gained his nickname. He masterminded chemical attacks on Iraqi Kurds in the 1980s.

On one occasion he rejected suggestions he had killed 182,000 people with the chilling reply: "No, it couldn't have been more than 100,000."

His most infamous outrage was the use of poison gas to kill thousands of Kurds at Halabja in 1988.

Human Rights Watch covers it.

The Telegraph has done a series of stories: here, here, and here:

Like thousands of other Kurds who lived in Halabja he had become inured to the frequent artillery bombardments launched by Baghdad's big guns across the valley.

It was not until he saw a yellow mist settling over the town that he realised this attack was different.

Within hours his five children had died an excruciating death. They were among about 5,000 Kurds killed by Saddam Hussein's poison gas on March 16, 1988, as he exacted a hideous revenge for their support of Iran in the Iran-Iraq war.

The Christian Science Monitor did this story:

The memory of every Iraqi Kurd is seared with vivid images of Baghdad's 1988 genocide against its own ethnic Kurds when troops loyal to the Iraqi strongman were under orders to kill every Kurdish male in northern Iraq between the ages of 18 and 55. During the Anfal campaign, rights groups say more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

Some 5,000 Kurds died during the gassing of Halabja alone. The photograph of a man shielding an infant with his body ? both killed by gas ? has become an icon of Kurdish suffering and of Iraqi war crimes.

Although a part of the defense establishment didn't believe it for a time, the State Department apparently didn't get the word even in 2001.

This site has photos.

Why this should be hard to believe when Iraq was actively using chemical weapons against the Iranians at the time, and more and more mass graves with thousands of bodies from simple mass murder each are turning up in Iraq, I'll neven know.

Saddam's government apparently even killed as many as 61,000 just in Baghdad alone.

The survey obtained Monday, which the polling firm planned to release

The documentation states you have to be a full time student.

Just so we're clear, the rules for the Ultimate Virtual Application Challenge indicate:

WHO CAN ENTER

To participate in the Ultimate Virtual Appliance Challenge (the "Challenge"), you must be at least 18 years old. The Challenge is open to individuals or teams of up to 10 people (the "Participant"), but not to corporate entries. By participating in the Challenge, Participants agree to be bound by these rules and to all decisions of VMware, which are final, binding and conclusive in all matters. To keep the Challenge legal and fair, we need to prohibit certain participants, see below.

.
.
.

PROHIBITED PARTICIPANTS

We want a fair and legal Challenge! Full and part-time employees of VMware as well as those who are performing internships during the Challenge duration and those involved in the production (including prize suppliers), implementation and distribution of this Challenge and their advertising or promotion agencies, parent companies, service providers, agents, officers, subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other persons or entities directly associated with the Challenge and members of the immediate families and/or persons living in the same household as such persons, are ineligible to enter the Challenge. Prizes will not be awarded to residents of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, or Syria.

Freaked my shit out when the parent said it's only open to students, and moderators should probably fact check a little better before slapping an Informative on something. My two cents.

The bottom line is that you don't have to be a student, you can't work for VMWare, and you can't be a rat bastard commie terrorist. I'll bet they write shitty code anyway. The terrorists that is.

Actually I'm suprised that North Korea is not in that list. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm Their spending is about 25% of GDP, and has 1.2 million people in the armed forces. Maybe the numbers we have weren't acurate enough for the report cited above.

I can tell you're just copying accusations from another poster. "Kuffar" isn't the proper grammatic word, so you're getting your so-called knowlege fourth-hand. This whole "Muslims are allowed to lie until they control the world" garbage I keep hearing smacks of the same prejudice as the Jews suffered because of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." It's propaganda that is always used when you want to get rid of people, "Sure they sound good in public, but in their secret meetings, they outline their evil plan."

If you're going to say that Surahs and Hadiths make murder allowable, I'd like you to prove it.

According to the US State Department's report, South America has more terrorism than the Middle East. You just hear more about the Middle East on the news. False perception, its like how people are more afraid of flying then driving, when cars kill so many more.

Good, now you can understand that just because terrorists or guerillas are "Christian," that doesn't make the religion to blame. From 1980-2003, the Tamil Tigers committed 76 suicide bombings, while Hamas did only 54. Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks. (source)Therefore, you can't blame the religion if secular-minded groups do it.

wait, you're saying that Al Jazeera, which is both based in and subsidised by a country that served as one of the major launching sites of the Iraqi invasion is too biased against the US without mentioning the other two media outlets: BBC, a government funded media outlet of one of the invaders of Iraq, and *snicker* USA Today.

Couldn't resist the troll for those who may not know. The UAE is not your typical "Arab nation". In fact, they are quite a bit more friendly with us than many other nations, Islamic, Arabic or not. Here is the State Department's take on the UAE. Actually some pretty interesting information to be had.

Actually, it's the 5th Amendment that does what you said -- hence the expression "taking the fifth".

The 4th amendment is as I quoted:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4th is the "unreasonable search and seizure" one. You can check out all of the first ten "amendments" -- which are not really changes, but things the founders felt needed to be emphasized, so they repeated them as the "Bill of Rights", which became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. All of the points they restate explicitly were present in either explicit or implicict form in the Constitution.

If you want to know what the founders really intended, you could do worse than studying the Bill of Rights.

Yea, right, we will just put economic sanctions China.

I'm not sure what definition you're using of "WMD," but to the US Government, a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon IS a weapon of mass destruction, period. Or rather, a 'weapon of mass destruction' is defined as a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.

This definition comes from the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which you can read here. However the way it's described -- not as an explicit definition, but almost as an implicit assumption, suggests to me that the term was used in this way for a significant time prior to this. In the US Code, it also includes radiological, as well as Chem/Bio/Nuclear weapons. (USG uses of WMD.)

However, your point -- namely that there are some weapons which meet the USG criteria for being a "WMD," but probably are not capable of doing that much damage (depending on the type and method of use), is very true. However saying that they are "not a WMD" is a bit of a large statement, because the US Government disagrees with you, and at the end of the day, that's who people are going to listen to and that's the definition that's going to be widely used.

I think that if you want to discuss 'true' WMDs -- that is, weapons which have the capability of inflicting a large amount of damage or number of casualties -- you are better off using the term "mass casualty weapon" or something else, rather than the term "WMD."

The Supreme Court had nothing to do with enacting rights for either minorities or women. It was done correctly, through Constitutional amendment and legislation, and not by activist judges. That is not their role.

See:

• The Thirteenth Amendment
• The Fourteenth Amendment
• The Fifteenth Amendment
• The Nineteenth Amendment
• The Twenty-fourth Amendment
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964

Without these laws (among others) in place, there wasn't a thing the Supreme Court could do about slavery, race or sex discrimination, or anything similar. It was perfectly legal.

{Sarcasm} Oh yeah. The holocaust is the same thing as wiretapping. {/Sarcasm}

    Get real people. This is not the government wire tapping Sarah from Alabama calling Pete in N.Y. City. The reason a vast majority of Americans don't have a problem with this is because they understand something I doubt you people do. Rather than see a bomb go off in some city in the United States, I would like to know why someone in America is getting a phone call from Al-Qaida. Plain and simple!
      Fact is, if something did happen you would be blaming Bush for not doing "everything possible" to stop it! You blame Bush for 9/11, and you people for some reason forget that the terrorists started attacking the U.S. under the Clinton administation. Remember the bombings at all the embassies around the world? Remember the bombing of the USS Cole? What was Bill Clinton's big a terrible responce? He lobbed a couple of missles at an empty building! Bin Laden considers America a paper tiger because of Clinton!!!
      Recently, Al-Qaida offered a truce in one of there messages. Do you think terrorists who thinks they are winning against their enemies will offer a truce? Nope. We are winning the war on terror. There is a war on terror, and America was late to even recognise it. You figure if someone was hitting you in the stomach you might take notice.

There are a total of 2,819 US civilian fatalities as a result of the September 11th attacks. There were more than 50,000 Kurds killed by chemical agents and this is but one single instance of the price of Saddam's tyrannical rule. As of today there are a total of 2,222 US military fatalities in Iraq since the war began. You may now decide by the numbers. The rest of my article...

Nuclear plants can only replace power generation sources. In order to evaluate the real impact of power generation sources which don't emit CO2, let's compare the amount of CO2 emitted by existing "electricity production" facilities to all the other uses.

Amount of CO2 emitted in the US by sector in 1998 (million metric tons carbon per year):
Electricity production: 549.8
Industrial: 298.9 (477.7 minus 178.8)
Transportation: 484.2 (484.9 minus .7 from electricity)
Commercial: 60 (238.4 minus 178.4)
Residential: 92.6 (284.5 minus 191.9)
(Source: Energy Information Administration (mainly page 25))

Bottomline: electricity production accounts for 550 while the other players sum up to 936. And those 936 will be very hard to reduce because we will have to hackor replace every internal combustion engine, every classic heater... But we need (Kyoto) to reduce those emissions by at least 60% before 2050. Therefore the theory "nuclar plants will solve the greenhouse gas problem" is, as far as I understand, JAAL (Just Another Awful Lie).

Any thingie able to produce grid-electricity without polluting is interesting, but some write that nuclear plants are the only way. This is... well, you guessed it... JAAL, because most clean sources (sun, wind...) can do it.

In fact even the coal plants can be much cleaner, for example trough some clever design. Will be, in fact, instead of "can be", because some are building them right now. And don't think of it as some european gadget, see FutureGen.

Those clean sources, and even the clean coal-plants, do not produce dangerous waste and are more easy to build, run and dismantle than a nuclear plant. And they do not run amok, Chernobyl-style.

> 4000 people from Chernobyl? Wherever you are getting this from must be counting
> everyone that died in the area for whatever reason

No. This '4000' figure comes from recent (2005, September) evaluation by pro-nukes and is is very probably way underestimated.

"Forget college, forget healthcare, we need radio bandwidth and tax cuts for the richest to help fight the terrorists."

Anyone else interested in seeing the person that actually modded this +5 Interesting? Lets not forget that In fact, the percentage of GDP spent on health is higher in the United States than in countries with government-provided health care and the government pays over 300 billion a year in grants towards college.

Heaven forbid we spent 1/200 of that on television. Crazy liberal whiners.

Well, you not entirely wrong, just mostly.

A passport does not "count for three" forms of ID. First, your birth certificate is not a form of ID, only proof of citizenship for the person named on the certificate. Your Social Security card is not a form of identification, only proof that the person named on the card has registered with the IRS and Social Security Administration. Your Passport is not a replacement for a driver's license, as you do not even need a driver's license to get a passport, and try whipping out your passport the next time you get pulled over for speeding. I also normally use my passport as a form of ID. I have never had a situation that called for two forms of ID, where they would accept the passport as more than one of those forms.

You are correct that a passport has "name, dob, sex, id number, image, address (also required to be physical " however, that address does not have to be verified. If you check the official U.S. passport site. You will see that you are required to bring proof of citizenship(Birth Certificate or Naturalization Certificate except under extraordinary circumstances), a valid picture ID (Driver's license, Government ID, or Military ID) with a picture in which you are recognizable, two photos, and the fee. When I got my passport a couple years ago it wasn't even mentioned that my permanent address on the form was different from my P.O. Box which was listed on my driver's license. On my latest driver's license, they did change it to my home address, but, since I don't have any "official" mail (bills, etc.) sent to my home address, they were content with the pile of junk mail with my name and home address on it. Amusingly, when I bought my new car recently, I had to take my second choice in lenders, because the first refused to accept my application without some "official mail" proving my residence. Even the (now proper) address on both my passport and driver's license was not acceptable to them.

Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df [state.gov] "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html [findlaw.com] '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)

Ok, it looks like you're a genius on the subject after a bit of googling. Whatever you're reading from, it's wrong, you're picking and choosing and you happened to pick some inaccurate quotes. Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus clause when he had the army arrest some guy running for governor for coming out saying he was a tyrant and stuff. Now that was way back during the civil war, the country was still in it's infancy. Nobody has ever come close to taking advantage of presidential authority as much as Lincoln did. Lincoln violated all sorts of rules during the civil war, he called for a naval blockade before he had even declared war on the confederate army, which is illegal and Bush faced with the same decision to strike at Saddam with a tomahawk before the war had officially started, turned down the opportunity. So the quote that each national crisis leaves us less democratic is complete bullshit. That may be the authors opinion but it's completely baseless and he aught to study history more. Furthermore, if you think the president doesn't have the authority to suspend the constitution during a national emergency, look into the topic of marshal law.

But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.

Once again, you must have a really short memory. I said the only thing that really matters is that the President is going with the consensus of congress and public opinion when he makes these decisions. I have repeated public opinion over and over, and really I think congress matters very little, congress right now is a joke, see what people think about wiretapping foreign phone calls, I think this will blow up in the face of anyone trying to use it against the president. No I'm not OK with deporting or otherwise rounding up all muslims in this country. That is a stupid question. You would make a good white-house reporter ;) If only the president (or press secretary) could be as blunt as I am.

Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.

What the hell does that mean? Is that like trying to say that it was justifiable to go to war in Afghanistan after 9/11 but now it isn't and we should be prosecuting people for wanting to go to war? This is an example of the short term memory of the public, that the public opinion can be influenced outside the scope of a certain duration, this is a political tool and I don't see any use argueing with you about this. It's all the same to me because I'm not your average dumb-ass who gets hi

Let's try to be polite here. I did read the whole thing.

There is no specific wording in regard to what the president can and can't do. It is intentionally vague.

"Intentionally vague" is not the same thing as "the President can do whatever he wants".

The president didn't break any laws.

That's the administration's position, but there is no consensus on that matter. Keep in mind also that Bush's primary justification for all this is Congress' authorization of the use of military force in Afghanistan after 9/11. Does this look like a use of military force?

The president has the authority to MAKE LAWS with executive order.

Executive orders cannot controvert statute or the Constitution.

The president has the ability to, and did declare a national emergency after 9/11. Google "national emergency presidential powers"

Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)

It made more sense during WW2 to intern the Japanese because of the nature of the threat and the strange times, with Hitler and the Nazi's and all. President Bush could TRY to do something like that but he probably wouldn't get very far, that would be ridiculous, Muslims in the U.S. have very little in common with terrorist extremists.

But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.

If you knew the whole story you would probably understand why it was justified in each case.

Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.

Is the NSA going to lobby congress to change the laws if they are doing something top secret?

No, but the President should. There are procedures for such things.

People don't give the United States much credit for all the good we do. I have a little puppy that had to have his coat of fur shaved off because it was all matted, so he gets cold and starts to shiver lately. Sometimes I try to wrap a blanket around him but he thinks I am trying to confine him or something, all I'm trying to do is keep him warm, but he doesn't understand.

Not a good analogy unless your puppy speaks English.

Remember, life then liberty. What good does liberty do if you're dead, or fearing death?

And what good is life without liberty?

Sure the odds are slim that you will be killed by terrorists, but you're essentially saying you want to have freedoms that you will NEVER ENJOY OR BENEFIT FROM PERSONALLY at the potential cost of human lives.

I benefit from the liberties this nation provides every day, and so do you, whether you realize it or not.

Terrorists seem to be a lot more dangerous than bears.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=w ashfile-english&y=2004&m=April&x=20040420175008dms lahrellek3.475589e-02&t=xarchives/xarchitem.html

how's this for informed?

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

George W Bush
April 20, 2004

Here is his full statement from that day:

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-381 579.html

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

George W Bush
April 20, 2004

Here is his full statement from that day:

http://usinfo.state.gov/is/Archive/2004/Apr/21-381 579.html

True, they are not equivalent, but that does not mean privacy is not a right. In the US its considered covered under the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated More on this here.

The U.S. has signed treaties to treat space like the Antarctic and pursue only peaceful exploration:

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

"The substance of the arms control provisions is in Article IV. This article restricts activities in two ways:
First, it contains an undertaking not to place in orbit around the Earth, install on the moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise station in outer space, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction.
Second, it limits the use of the moon and other celestial bodies exclusively to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for establishing military bases, installation, or fortifications; testing weapons of any kind; or conducting military maneuvers.
After the Treaty entered into force, the United States and the Soviet Union collaborated in jointly planned and manned space enterprises."

There are strict penalties for possession and use of drugs as well as for trafficking in illegal drugs. Singapore has a B>mandatory death penalty for many narcotics offenses. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.

Visitors should be aware of Singapore's strict laws and penalties for a variety of actions that might not be illegal or might be considered minor offenses in the United States. These include jaywalking, littering, and spitting. Singapore has a mandatory caning sentence for vandalism offenses and caning may also be imposed for immigration violations and other offenses. Commercial disputes that may be handled as civil suits in the United States can escalate to criminal cases in Singapore, and result in heavy fines and prison sentences. There are no jury trials in Singapore, judges hear cases and decide sentencing. The Government of Singapore does not provide legal assistance except in capital cases; legal assistance may be available in some other cases through the Law Society.

This is ser-i-ous shit. But the streets are clean, and you can leave your door unlocked. Guess it balances out.

They do. It's called the Congressional Research Service, and it's part of the Library of Congress. Their job is to write reports on issues that are of concern to members of congress. Reports are confidential unless and until a representative or senator decides to release them.

While the CRS doesn't seem to have a web site, many other sites contain lists of reports that are available to the public.

When you go, please formally renounce your US citizenship.

We don't want you back.

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship by Persons Claiming a Right of Residence in the U.S.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenshi p_777.html

Anything is possible, just not always probable.

what issues are there which you believe to be detrimental to freedom in New Zealand?

As a Kiwi expat I'm curious about this topic. Can anybody offer something?

A quick search yields some interesting topics: Ahmed Zaoui: Freedom or a fair trial, Human Rights Foundation, US Dept of State's report on New Zealand's human rights practices.