Slashdot Mirror
Freedom Flees in Terror
Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum has an editorial about the various and many restrictions on freedom that are following in the wake of the September 11 crashes.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Hey, get used to it. I'm not going to waste my time and energy prolonging the inevitable. If we don't lose our civil liberties today, we'll lose them tomorrow. Yeah, it sucks, but there's nothing you can really do.
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? ... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom -- go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you."--Samuel Adams
Fire from the skies and hatred from afar last Tuesday caused human carnage and suffering at an unthinkable level. They dealt terrifying blows to our financial institutions, our transportation and communications systems, our political and military nerve centers, and to a nation's sense of self and security.
Gaming Shizzle
September 11? What happened on September 11? I was busy learning for my exams, so maybe I missed the news.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
-Thomas JeffersonIf you're not on somebody's shit list, you're not doing anything worthwhile.....
There is a current mini-poll going on at CNN that asks "Would you trade in some of your personal freedom to be safer from terrorists?" From being in the area, watching 5,000 people die, and hearing constant new stories from friends and neighbors about their dead relatives, I can honestly say "I would gladly agree with giving up some of my freedom".
In fact, this is an issue that has gotten me angry before. These hotheads parade around in real life and online, waiving their "free speech" stickers, and they don't have an ounce or inkling of what really happened here. People have said to me, moronically, "I'd rather be dead than lose my free speech." I have to say, honestly, "What good is free speech if you're DEAD?"
How soon until we hear the phrase "Citizen, your papers are not in order." on a daily basis?
While i'm sure that this is an important issue to everyone here, but i don't think that it is necessary for slashdot to post a story every time some two bit sight posts it cookie cutter articles.
Just some food for thought. Who trained Osama Bin Laden in the 80's to be a terrorist (against the USSR)? The United States. Who funded Osama Bin Laden's terrorist activities with 45 million US dollars? The United States. Who condoned and supported terrorism? The United States. I just dont understand why it is ok for the US to terrorize other countries but not ok for terrorists to attack the US.
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, not just chemistry, reality!
The fact that the new Nimda virus uses Javascript to spread a worm on a system simply by browsing is a testament to how insecure and how evil Javascript is. Time to remove javascript from browsers or at least ship them with the shit turned off!
But what are his proposed solutions?
The First Great Tragedy is the attack and destruction of the WTC and ~5000 souls.
The Second Great Tragedy will be the trial and execution of Bin Laden.
I seriously doubt it will be a fair trial(guilty or not). With it will die the American Promise. If he did do it he has crafted the most ingenious attack yet. Why waste your own resources when your enemy will gladly tear itself apart trying to prevent the 'Next Big Terror'.
I could, hopefully, be wrong.
You don't exist. Go away. --SysVinit Halt
"We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security," said House Democratic Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo. "We're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had."...Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., repeated the warning: "When you're in this type of conflict, when you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently."
And yet only Barbara Lee voted out of concern for that. If congresspeople do truly see that their actions against the people's rights have huge consequences, and end up only extending the harms of the terrorist attacks, why do they vote otherwise? Because the public calls for extensive action. Because they want to look 'tough' on terrorism. Surely something should be done. But indiscriminate rights violations are not the way to respond to the attacks. It is a short-sighted knee jerk, with long-term consequences.
________
"And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion...." -- J.S. Mill
Yesterday morning (Tuesday, 18th September) there were about 100 raids all
over Italy, and 60 people taking in for questioning by police.
Under the orders of the State Prosecutor for Milan, Stephano DAmburoso,
there were police raids in twenty Italian cities. The State Prosecutor is
conducting an investigation against the movement "Solidarieta
Internazionale" which had actively supported the prisoners resistance in
Spain against the introductions Control Units (F.I.E.S.) as well as in
Greece. The movement is accused of involvement in the bombings of Church of
SantAmbrogio (28.06.00), the Cathedral of Milan (18.12.00) and the
Carabinieri Station [National Police] (26.10.99), all of which are in Milan,
Italy.
Undercover cops, Digos (Political Police), Celere (Riot Police/Swat Team)
stormed a squat, Villa Occupata, in Milan. The ground floor was ruined and
files and computer equipment were confiscated. 12 people were taken in for
questioning.
In Pisa, at 7am a private apartment and later the office of an ecological
group were raided. Files, particularly those relating to the support of
prisoners in Spain, as well as the computer hard drives were confiscated.
In Modena, police raided two squats, La Scintilla and La Rivalsa, and
evicted all the occupants of the La Rivalsa squat. Some people were taken to
the police station for questioning.
Similar coordinated raids in Torino, Padova, Trieste, Aosta, Nuoro,
Cagliari, Grosseto, Cuneo, Firenze, Catania, Orvieto, Venezia, Mestre,
Vittorio Veneto, Sacile and Mondovi.
To the best of our knowledge, all those taken in for questioning were
released by yesterday evening. 17 persons will continue to be investigated
under Paragraph 270bis. (Subversive Association and Subversive
Organizations, part of a very severe `Anti-Terror law)
All those targeted yesterday were Anarchists. As this is taking place after
the g8 Summit in Genoa and before the NATO Summit in Naples it is clear that
these actions were motivated by an attempt to surpress the organizing and
not only by the previous bombings sited by the State Prosecutor.
Pinelli Social Center in Genoa and Memorial to Carlo Guliani targeted by
fascist fire bombs
In the early morning hours on Sunday (16.09.01) two firebombs were thrown at
the Pinelli Social Center (Anarchist). No one was inside the center at the
time, however the interior was gutted and everything inside, including
computer equipment was destroyed. The following night, the memorial in
Piazza Alimonda to Carlo Guiliani (murdered by police during g8 Summit in
July) was destroyed by another fire bomb. These attacks are believed to be
the work of security services, either directly or through the encouragement
of local skinheads.
Repression against Migrants in Genoa
Yesterday evening, 74 people, mostly North Africans, were deported as
`threats to society. This is part of a broader campaign of State
Repression.
One serious legal charge dropped against protestor at g8 Summit in Genoa
The second protestor identified from photos around Carlo Gulianis murder in
Piazza Alimonda, Genoa, 23 year old Eurialio, who had been accused of being
an accessory to attempted murder of a policeman, had his charges reduced to
resisting a policeman.
www.genoaresistance.org
repubblica newspaper reports translated (english)
by black bollock 7:07am Wed Sep 19 '01
blackbollock@hotmail.com
all times for 18/9/01
Milan 12.20
Terrorism Police blitz also in Lombardia
Raids are taking place also in Milan in the context of an operation which
takes in various northern Italian cities among them Padova. In the
Lombardian capital four habitations have been raided and a palazzina
("little palace" squat?) in Litta ModignaniStreet, held as a base for
Milanese exponents of the anarco-insurrectionist movement.
Milan 12.50
Antiterrorism blitz, twenty people under investigation
Twenty people under investigation, all related to the area of anarcho
insurrectionism, in the inquest conducted by pm Stefano Dambruoso who
carried out the raids taking place in Milan and other northern cities.
The Gip Maurizio Grigo is evaluating the positions of those under
investigation. The hypothetical charge is that of subversive association
leading to acts of terrorism. In particular the inquest is focusing on
throwing light on who was responsible for the acts of violence carried out
with explosive devices which were found in Milan on the 18th June 2000 in
the Sant'Ambrogio Basilica (church), and the 18th December of the same year
on one of the walk ways of the spires of the Milan Dome (church).
Milan 13.50 Anti-terrorism blitz, 60 under investigation 60 people have been served notice that they are under investigation for association leading to terrorism, related to an inquest regarding the anarco-insurrectionist movement.
There have been 100 raids, still in progress, carried out in all Italy by the Digos of the Milan questura (police station). The inquest is particularly regarding the "International Solidarity" movement, some of whose components may be held responsible for the attempted attacks on the Sant'Ambrogio di Milano church, the Duomo di Milano and the Musocco-Milano carabinieri station (military police) (where a 150 gram plastic explosive letter bomb addressed to the military police was defused on the 26 October 1999). Some of the raids were on anarchist centres connected to the insurrection movement but that had nothing to do with FAI (the Italian Anarchist Federation) according to investigators. Some of the people involved in these raids had also participated in the demonstrations against the G8 in Genoa.
Trieste, 16.19
Terrorism: seized in the city of Trieste, information material and numerous documents have been siezed by Trieste Digos agents in the course of raids carried out this morning on the orders of the Republic's power of attorney of Milan. There were five raids overall (in Trieste) and they took place in private residences in the city and in the suburbs, particularly in the Carso area. During the raids no arms, ammunition or other explosive materials were found.
www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos07517.html
Work and be happy, Citizen!
To understand the present assault on freedom, it is necessary to understand the background. There are people who want to make war, simply that, as a way of acting out their own inner conflict.
What is the most important lesson of the terrorism? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.
I have tried to pull together information about this in an article: What Should be the Response to Violence? . The article is now considerably improved.
Bush's education improvements were
The interesting thing is that both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists are so similarly critical of American culture.
I actually agree with them to the extent that i'm all for having more spirituality in public life. But of course to me that means many different belief systems...
ourpla.net is your planet
http://freenet.sourceforge.net/
7 et C52nlUUQAgE/ContentOfEvil//
Go download/install the latest version, and take an active role in trying to protect freedom... while you still can!
Another shameless plug:
http://127.0.0.1:8081/MSK@SSK@9BRxNPeBdBVvWUIJb
Enjoy this site, while you still can!
force youre ways onto the people so everyone acts/thinks the same. then there will be no fear of disagreement.
Read it in light of this.
Eagle Eyes can save a Life!
Maybe this "intelligence failure" was not an accident. At this point the american people will agree to just about anything. Someone in the government could have seen this as an "ends justifies the means" method of saving us from future disasters. (by intentionally allowing something "small" (more than a few people, less than a nuke))
Either then, or during the Gulf war, "Imagine" by John Lennon was banned.
Both decisions appeared to be a bit strange, but were just as legal as resticting people from swearing on radio.
Australia, of course, has no free speech amendment. The USA does, for now.
the governments job is to tell you not to do things and force you to do other things.
either you are an anarchist and want freedom, or you want oppression.
Citizen, your task has been chosen!
you are either sick, twisted, or have no family or friends who died in the incident. Id tear off your head and shit down your throat except i have no arms and just went to the bathroom...damn amenities.
"You'll pee fire!!!"
You know my biggest fear isn't any loss of freedom, in the end the Supreme Court has a habit of shooting that stuff down for the bullshit it is. My biggest fear is encased in the following scenerio:
Let's say for the sake of arguement, they find people in the US who helped conspire the attacks on Sept 11. Now lets assume it was based of a broadened search that Congress allows. Okay, the person(s) responsible get convicted and go to jail. Now they appeal that search warrent used to tap your email, and insist they should have gotten a wiretap for it. The Supreme Court agrees and thows out ALL evidence based of the improper search and gives them a new trial. Now with probabally all evidence gone, someone may have to be se free. That's what I fear. Congresss being shortsighted and seeking a quick solution and in the end get no justice cause the laws used to find the people were unconstitional.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Yes, I would. I've been though a lot and I'm not terrified that easily. The concepts of freedom and liberty are only safe luxuries to those who have always had them; if you lose them for even a short time you come to a more mature understanding. You say, if I were there I'd be willing to forego a few freedoms for greater safety. I say, if you'd lost a few freedoms in the past you'd never agree to such an idiotic deal.
"I would gladly agree with giving up some of my freedom".
I won't, not now, not ever, not under any circumstances. I'm willing to fight to retain the liberties my (and your) ancestors fought and died for -- the same liberties which our country's enemies do not have, don't understand, and would be delighted to see us lose. Keep your eye on the ball, not the dancing chicken on the third base line.
Ben Franklin knew what he was talking about when he said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Get over it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. I would wager that most Americans, one year from now, won't see a difference in the amount of freedom they have, yet our country will have a much better chance at stopping madmen such as osama. Only slashdotters will bitch that the camera at the red light down the street might be taking pictures of their bedroom instead of speeders. Yet they will continue to live here and draw a paycheck. I for one don't give a rats ass if they tap my phone and catch me dialing a 976 number. It's better than what the typical afghanistan resident would get for such a "crime".
id rather stand free and die, then live on my knees
I'm no expert on the process, but I'm fairly certain that elected officials take an oath to preserve freedom, democracy, and the bill of rights. Following the attacks, supporters of what would amount to a policed-state, or a country under martial law (where the intelligence arm of the government would act as the military force), haven't even bothered to mask their intentions. They simply say things like, 'US citizens will need to lose certain freedoms in order for our agenda to be met'. This example is a little extreme; but it seems as much a contradiction as hitler sitting in the oval office, and running this democracy according to his interpretation of the constitution. The kinds of proposals being made in the house and the senate aren't just crossing a line, they're pissing all over the line. Particularly, legislation dealing with immigrants who've simply been suspected of illegal activity borders on fascism. I suspect that most politicians who support these measures, or have already voted to pass them, haven't even had the patience to actually read what they're writing into law. If they do know what they're doing, they should be removed from office.
well, I think that we are sliding down the path to becoming a police state. It's actually pretty popular right now.
:).
Don't beleive me? look at the latest gallup polls here.
What was particularily shocking was this:
Requiring Arabs, including those who are U.S. citizens, to carry a special ID.
49% supported this, and 49% opposed it. That is incredibly insane. Perhaps those 49% who supported it should be especially identified for being morons
April, 1942:
The civil liberties of thousands of Japanese American citizens were restricted during wartime. Later, this was called an atrocity.
To any senators or congressmen listening:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Today, there's no sign that an earthquake happened. The buildings are rebuilt, the highway is rebuilt, and everything is the same as it was, except that over 5,000 people are dead. Their families still grieve.
The only difference is that you can't take revenge on an Earthquake. You just move on, build stronger buildings, and help your friends who lost loved ones.
sick...but damn funny.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I'm sick of seeing this blown out of proportion over and over again. It's not an infringement of our civil liberties. It's just a radio network making recommendations to its stations on how not to offend the fuck out of their listeners the day after five thousand people were murdered. As far as I can tell that's just good business sense combined with a little sensitivity.
Other than that whole "give us your keys or we throw you in jail" thing, how's the UK when it comes to civil liberties? My wife was born there, and my understanding is that it'd be possible for me to become a naturalized citizen. That being said, what's the overall climate across the pond?
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
should be from the enough-already-department. look, we get it -- there are a lot of paranoid, left-wing, linux-worhipers on this site. jesus christ, you all make it sound like the usa is on the verge of being under martial law with no rights whatsoever. look, all that's being proposed are some extensions of the government's ability to sniff email and wire-tap specific people as opposed to phone numbers. they aren't gonna tatoo barcodes on our fucking asses and put cameras in our home bathrooms. you aren't going to have your freedom of speech taken away. sure, if you are doing something illegal or suspicious from a national security point of view, you are going to have to watch what you say on the phone or on email. but, geez, if you are doing something untoward that the fbi or cia is going to be interested in, you probably deserve to be caught. moreover, at least as email goes, no one, i don't care about pgp or any encryption mumbo-jumbo, no one should have ever thought email is private or secure. if you do, you're a fuckin' moron. above all, people, get a grip, as long as you aren't breaking a law (and yes the dcma, no matter what your opinion of it is, is the law and if you break it you deserve to be caught) or planning to blow up something, the government doesn't give a flying fuck what you do or say. this is still the usa people! i'm all for freedom AND security, so save your ben franklin quotes. it's been way over-quoted anyway.
finally, i have to ask: if this country's government is so on the verge of becoming a facist, dictator-ish police state, are we even free now? if you really think our country is like that, if our elected government is really like that, is the usa worth saving anyway?
a life without freedom is not life at all.
Yesterday on the one week anniversary of the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. I visited some veterans. They were in the cemetery near my home. While they didn't say much, their mere presence spoke volumes. In this particular plot, only people who died in service to their country are buried.
These brave men and women served and died for their country and our freedom. They left behind parents, spouses, children and other loved ones. They paid the ultimate price for our freedom. Row on row of simple white marble headstones that simply state the person's name date of birth and death, branch of service and in some cases a little more information.
Some cultures believe your ancestors' spirits talk to you. When you visit a place like this, searching for answers, something happens. Mere thoughts take on a deeper meaning and you gain an introspective that you can't find anyplace else. I guess in a way, I can say that I visited this place with questions and in their own way, the spirits of these solders and sailors helped guide me. I didn't get answers but I gained insight.
Is this war on terrorism going to be a war like Viet-Nam, or will it be like the war on drugs or the war on poverty? Or will it be something else that we have never seen before? I understand that this attack needs to be answered and frankly, I think we owe that to those that paid the ultimate price in all the wars that came before this one. They deserve that. So do the innocent victims and their families. So do the rest of us. I am no hawk and I find it hard to believe that I feel this way but damn-it, I do. Deep down in my soul, I do.
One of my fears is that our military is ill-prepared to fight this kind of war. I am afraid that the military will spend a lot of time chasing the shadows of invisible enemies. I fear that the generals will use their force when finesse is called for. I am afraid that this war calls for new methods, new polices, and special kinds of intelligence that the military will be slow or unwilling to adopt. I am afraid that innocent people will die. I am afraid too many solders will die.
It is clear to me that the terrorists have already scored a victory. They have successfully interrupted commerce in the free world and driven some important businesses to the brink of bankruptcy. I think that was their primary goal. The Statue of Liberty would have been a better symbolic target and the U.N. would have been a better political target. The terrorists depend on predictable reactions to further their damage. These reactions are costly and serve to destabilize our economy even further. Governments and business' take security seriously at times like this. While security is necessary, it is not "productive employment" in the sense that security guards, alarm companies, and other security related business' do not produce anything yet they do cost. These costs are ultimately passed along to the consumer of the products or in the case of government security, in the form of taxes. It does not take a genius to see that if this continues for long we will be in for a bout of recession and inflation. As a nation we will become less productive and our dollar worth less. If we allow this to happen, the terrorists will have scored another significant victory.
Another thing that concerns me is that it is possible that we as citizens of the most free nation on the face of the earth, we may be willing to give up some of our liberty in exchange for a feeling of greater security. There are a myriad small ways that this can happen. Perhaps the police will be more free to stop and check-out people meeting specific profiles. Maybe we start to allow ourselves to be subject to more significant searches before we fly or go to a sporting event. Maybe in the interest of security, schools implement security procedures that make classrooms less accessible to parents. Maybe our freedoms will be impinged on in less obvious ways, like "data-mining" used by government agencies in an effort to detect potential terrorists based on profiles developed by researching the habits of known and suspected terrorists. Maybe courts in the name of "National Security" will be quicker to issue wiretap and surveillance orders. Technologies like Carnivore and Echelon are truly frightening. The U.S. admits that Carnivore exists (it is used to tap email and other digital communications) but they do not admit the existence of Echelon despite the fact that the European Union recently voted to condemn it after being presented with overwhelming evidence of its existence. The day after the attacks the government acknowledged that they had tapes of the conversations between passengers on the hijacked planes and their families. How could this be if not for something like Echelon (and this would also indicate that Echelon is being use on domestic communications). I would not even be surprised to see the federal government tighten laws regarding the purchase, ownership and perhaps even registration of firearms of all types. I'm also concerned that the government may require recording information related to the purchase of some legal products that can be used for terrorism.
On top of all of this we will see new regulations in many industries designed to make them less attractive to terrorists. We are already seeing some of this. There are now more restrictions on airline travel. Knives and even nail clippers are now prohibited on aircraft! I think most of these procedures really do little to deter a determined terrorist but simply are a panacea designed to make travelers feel safer. In order to make aircraft more hijack proof they would have to remove all of the weapons that would be available to a terrorist on the aircraft itself. That would mean having to remove the fire extinguishers (which can be used as clubs) as well as the Champaign bottles from first-class which can be used as a club or when broken as a sharp object.
Are we willing to give up liberties to feel a little safer? Should we do this? No, those that fought and died in previous wars did so to guarantee the freedom that we are almost willing to give up today. We need to fight this war but just as importantly, we need to do so on our terms. We can not let the terrorists dictate these conditions. In order to be successful, we need to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. We can not change who we are or what we do because of an invisible enemy. If we do not do this we will no longer be a free people and then the terrorists will have won. This is what I believe the spirits of the solders would want.
This is America. Our nation was creating holding "(many) truths to be self-evident." These notions are intended to transcend time, most importantly that every man be free (of religous persecution, to have viewpoints not necessarily in line with the current gov't trends, etc.) to be free enough to pursue what he desires (make money, run his own church, whatever). When we enact LAWS _restricting_ these freedoms, we are IMHO throwing 300+ years of fighting. My fellow Americans need to learn there are things more valuable to _Humankind_ than life. The freedom to choose. People in many other nations don't get _choice_. Choice comes with responsibilty and perhaps we've been irresponsible (for the past 50-100 years!) but we should really do something to change. We have a unique opportunity here, amidst this travesty... One of the things we must keep focused on, however, is that which allowed us to get this far. We must observe and protect the Constitution of the United States. Keep in mind, the President (and pretty much anyone else who serves the Fed Gov't) _swears_ to do so on Inauguration day.
just my 0.02
-Bob
support isreals racist treatment of palestinians...
and probably a whole lot of stuff...
if that many people in the middle east ahte america they must have a good reason, and in this case they have a few.
If winning the fight against evil means restricting our civil liberties, then so be it. The last thing we need right now is people criticizing the government, and that includes people whining about restrictions on their "civil liberties". Come on, people! It's only by the grace of the US Government that you have those "rights" to begin with. And if, in order to sustain itself and protect the American people, the government needs to take back some of those privileges we've grown used to, you have nothing to complain about. You should be THANKING the government for letting you have freedom of speech for all those years.
Let's examine some of the issues MacMasters is concerned about.
"Critical" information? Well, if it's "critical" to the public, then it must be even more critical to terrorists, who will use it against us. The last thing we need right now is for information to be available to everyone. If you don't absolutely NEED a piece of information, you have no business knowing it, or attempting to get your hands on it. Anyone who has a problem with this is aiding terrorist and is exactly the type of person we need to fight.
How could anyone have a problem with this? If you are in favor of desecrating Old Glory, you have no business being in this country. Go to Afgahanistan, and join your ideological bedmates.
If you have a problem with my views, REPLY, don't moderate!
So was it the aliens or the cyborgs?
I get so confused with the plot of the X-Files, but i'm glad they're there to expose the government for what it is. A giant alien/cyborg conspiracy.
Its a good thing your so informed, we need more people fighting against the evil reason.
How did this really make it on Slashdot? and from a website called "whatreallyhappened" gimme a break.
Maybe if there were some theory about how Bill Gates is using XP as a tool to gain dictatorship..
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
What are we do do when the vast majority of the population desires a government that is in stark contrast to its Constitution?
I wish I knew the answer.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
dont forget all of southern and central america, and certain places in asia.
the US likes to set up right wing dictators that are extreamly brutal.
even now they are funding operations agianst leftist guirilas in columbia while ignor the right wing paramilitary groups that traffic more drugs than the leftist.
Of course, the protection of civil liberties is extremely important, but the protection of the lives of these same freedom-loving people is _crucial_. I don't doubt that the people murdered or scarred by these attacks wouldn't mind a limitation or breach of their liberties if they could have their lives back.
I'm getting sick of everyone saying "restricting freedom" and being blindly against the notion because it rolls off the tounge easily.
all of your "freedoms" are restricted for your OWN safety right now. you can't walk out on the tarmac because you might get hit by a plane taking off. and you can't drive a tank, fire an uzi in the bus station for fun, etc. drastic examples, but only to make the point that you arent free to do alot of things for your OWN SAFETY.
well now they need to make new rules to keep terrorists from blowing up more things.
so lets not call it restricting your freedom...you arent free. your just more unrestricted than other citizens in other countries.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
This is a much better article on this topic, if you ask me. Shit, even if you don't ask me, it is still a better article on the topic.
Cyber-Surveillance in the Wake of 9/11
"It's important to note with respect to the coordinated terrorist attack that this was not an Internet crime per se. It could have taken place without coordination across the Internet."
One other thing, didn't Katz just cover this topic? Whatever.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Prohibit encryption - I'm sure a law against strong encryption would make terrorists/criminals think twice about using it. Perhaps if we had a law against hijacking and murder then the WTC event could have been avoided.
Oh wait, by definition, criminals don't care about the law.
Ban flag burning? WTF would that do? Sure, I've never burnt a flag, and probably never will, but this is nothing but someone pushing their agenda and using this tragedy as an excuse.
Libraries and monitered internet access - this is about the only one I can see being semi-useful. However, what is to say that the ID card I present to use a computer is real? And gee...SSL and a web based mail server and you have no idea what is being sent.
I really don't mind hightened security in airports and the searching of my carry-ons. I am paying for the convienence of flying instead of driving. I understand the saftey reasons involve and that by prventing someone from carrying a weapon on, a change could be made.
But implementing measures that ciminals will bypass anyway is another matter.
As for the boss removing flags on a desk - whose company is it??? When it's your company you can call the shots. Don't like it - work elsewhere.
Stopping/filtering/snooping on email will have no effect on terrorist organizations. They're already encrypting everything. Banning (strong) crypto will have no effect either, they'll just keep using crypto (duh) and steganography. Requiring strictly authorized access to the Internet will no nothing either; you're in effect making every user equally suspect of terrorist activities and you still have to sift through terabytes of data.
Any decisions to restrict freedoms now (except from better security checks at airports and better immigrant screening) are irrational. It will do nothing to stop terrorism. It will just make a few people feel better and safer for a while (which is dangerous in itself). Any freedom-limiting decisions made now are purely political, for show, to be seen doing something against terrorism, so this won't happen again, and of course for the children, and will do absolutely nothing except limit people's freedoms.
"Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
Aieeeee!!! The big hole is scary(but strangely arousing)!!!
The enemies of the state should be victimized, not the loyal citizens of the state-these radical
islamic individuals in the united states who have nothing to offer save for their antipathy and contempt should be deported. It is reprehensible that these individuals have been entertained with
our tax monies, and that they can come and go in relative freedom while our freedoms are curtailed due to the ineffectual overreactions of political
pulpit pounders. This malaise of political correctness has given everyone a skewed look at
what motivates people. The civilized mans PC burden is utopian and naive. People are different., cultural ethics are different-the melting pot does not work.
Allowing the anti-flag burning amendment to pass sets a very unhealthy precedent. Historically, the Constitution has been used to GIVE freedoms to people (Prohibition is one of the few exceptions). The precedent set by such an amendment, however, is that it's okay for the government to tell you what to do with what you own.
Basically, this means that more laws like the DMCA will become acceptable to lawmakers and in the courts. I STRONGLY urge each and every American that reads this to write your congresspeople and representatives and to let your friends and family members know that this cannot stand.
Do we really need more DMCA-like laws? I don't think so.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
If we (justifiably or unjustifiably) reject the government's plans to "take away our civil liberties" in order to provide better protection for the country, what shoud the government do? If monitoring email, beefing up security in the country, etc. is not the answer, what is? For all who denounce the government's current actions or proposals as the path to a police state: what _would_ you have our government do?
The article was one one sided, and lacked any sort of journalistic integrity. Here's my letter to the editor:
Dear Editors,
I just got finished reading your piece on domain names that may have been warning signals of the terrorist attacks last week.
This article was horribly biased, and I hope a retraction and a more balanced and informative article will replace it.
The quotes in the article from Neil Livingstone have very limited view points that seem to waver close to extreme when it comes to attacking civil liberties.
Mr. Livingstone also seems a poor choice to quote on this matter, since his comments show that he doesn't understand how the domain registration system works on the internet.
Below, I've pointed out some passages from the article (specifically quotes from Mr. Livingstone) which show his lack of understanding on the technical details involved in registering domain names and his lack of respect for civil liberties and freedom.
It's not surprising at all. Hundreds of thousands of domain name records are created and changed every day. Most of the transactions are handled by computer, and human operators don't even look at the names being registered. I've been dealing with domain registration issues for many many domains, going as far back as 1994, and in that time, not once have I ever spoken to a human representative from the registration firms I've dealt with. This is involving hundreds, if not thousands, of domains that I've been responsible for over the past 7 years.
His sources? Mr. Livingstone couldn't have had sources on this matter. The records are quite public, as your story goes on to point out. Anyone with a net connection can find out when a domain was registered, and who the administrative, technical, and billing contacts are.
Privacy issues? ANYONE can get the information his "sources" gave him. It's not private to begin with. His attack on privacy doesn't have anything to do with the subject of the article, and seems very out of place.
And, evidently, he thinks that we should just forget about those constitutional protections that already allow this, once the proper clearance has been given by the courts in the form of search warrents.
It seems as if he's suggesting that due to a national tragedy, we can trample the constitutional rights of our citizens in order to ensure "safety."
In the future, I hope you'll present more balanced and technically accurate articles, with a broader sampling of opinions and viewpoints evident in the people you quote.
Thank you,
Ben Stanfield
--
Ben Stanfield
Executive Editor, MacSlash
ben@macslash.com
Sometimes I wonder who is really craving for war.
Do you remember seeing those palestinians boys rejoycing after the WTC crash ? Well I have just learned 2 things about this particular footage.
1- The boys were actually asked to rejoyce in front of the camera. It was setup. They were not told about the WTC events.
2- The reason they were not told is that nobody knew at the time. That footage was made in 1991. Yes people, made in 1991 and shown on all major US news on september 11, 2001.
I think this is a disgusting manipulation. (Although not very surprising for those who've read Noam Chomsky's book "Manipulating consent") Damn I'm just so sick of it.
All the folks moaning about loss of freedom have valid concerns, but they should be comforted by history.
War in the US has always led to a curtailment of freedoms, as it must.
We have our freedoms because we have won our wars. We have to make tradeoffs between freedoms and practicality.
With all of these (horrors) attacks on our freedoms, we are still far freer than we have been for most of our history, and more free than most of the rest of the world.
Yes, we have to be vigilant, but let's not be paranoid. Too many people on the net seem to be spoiled by never having been in a time of turmoil or genuine war. But we are at war now. There are people who have killed more of our citizens than in any attack in our history! And they hit civilians.
So keep an eye out, but knock of the absolutism and the whining. You aren't going to lose your rights unless the bad guys win. If they win, you will either convert to Islam, or die. And for females... well, bad news, eh?
The goal of radical islam is to convert the world to radical islam. Not normal islam, but a twisted, semi-marxist, extremist form of islam. And that is the enemy, and they are willing to die for their cause.
So why aren't you willing to let the government do its job. I think DMCA is more of a real threat than these security rulings.
The only good weather is bad weather.
What constantly stuns me about the American public is how much it seems that few remember their lessons from civics class on why and how the US was formed.
The founders of the US framed the constitution based around the fact that the natural tendency of government is to oppress its people and for this reason there are a number of safeguards in the US constitution (Bill of Rights, Seperation of powers, etc) that are there for the express purpose of preventing the government from oppressing the people. The current trend of assuming that the government knows best and won't abuse its powers runs counter to spirit that originally founded the United States and would have the framers of the constitution rolling in their graves.
Seems this is an appropriate place to toss out a couple of new attack-related sites.
First, Jane's Security has some ideas about who may be behind this attack... and it ain't bin Laden.
Second, Political Cartoons, a collection of attack-related cartoons. Some are worth a second look: you can draw opposing interpretations from them.
The Dalai Lama's letter to Bush. Worth reading twice: it's short, and important.
Bush's Language: why calling this a "crusade" is rather foolish.
Also, I'd like to apologize for a previous post in which I used the word "accident" in lieu of "attack." My mind was somewhere else, and I think it was trying to fool itself about the atrocity of the attack.
This can be a sick and cruel world, or a world of joy and life. I encourage you to encourage others to choose the latter. Let's stop the hatred within our own communities, as we try to stop the hatred between nations.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Way too many times does this editorial blend two concepts that are quite different:
PRIVACY: What you say only goes to your intended audience, what is meant to be read by you is for your eyes only.
FREEDOM of Speech: Being able to say what you want, where you want.
Restrictions on Privacy for increased safety are in my mind completely acceptable to increase my own Safety and ensure to some extent i'm not guna get blown out of the sky next time i fly. But that doesn't automatically mean my Freedom of Speech will be restricted. I can still talk shit about whoever I want with whomever I want.
I don't give a flying crap if the FBI reads all the steamy erotic emails i've sent to all my lovers. I hope they get off on it. As long as they don't stop me from doing it.
Just *think* what type of information government entities are after: Stuff that may threaten us. They're not trying to profile you. They're not guna sell any of their information to corporations.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's violence? How do you think it should have been solved?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The ability for all of us to sit on our duffs and spew ideas into slashdot is brought to you by freedom! I am not willing to give that up for a modicum of security. I will gladly keep freedom and there by choose how to keep myself safe.
As for public safety, that is why we vote; to elect the most capable people to keep watch on the outside world, not us.
Freedom and security are inversely related. That is, too much of one leads to not enough of the other. Like a fighter jet, minimum stability means maximum maneuverability. Of course you need some stability to fly at all, but too much makes a useless fighter jet.
"He who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither" -- Ben Franklin
Move to another country -- don't wreck mine
There are plenty of countries in the world with plenty of different choices in where they balance between freedom and goverment control ("security"). The U.S. is very rare and novel in the amount of freedom we have -- the overwhelming majority of the world is not nearly as free as we are.
If you would rather have less freedom and more sense of government provided security, why don't you just move to some other country that suits your needs better? Why do you insist on destroying that which makes the U.S. unique?
I hear that people in China don't have nearly as much freedom to burden them...
CNN has a poll going, over 190,000 people want more government involvement in their life, the poll is winning by 70 / 30.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
If you really feel that way, you're living in a fantasy world. Every 'in the interests of National Security' provision has been and will continue to be abused. No one cares about your private life? Hey, bright eyes - it's called the RIAA, MPAA, DMCA, Carnivore, and all this other fun stuff. You're completely blind if you think that MP3 trading and pr0n will go unpunished by the same country that screams "what about the children?!?!" every time TV shows a punch, or when teachers attempt to TEACH, instead of parent. You need to wake up and *see* what this government is doing to your personal freedoms. Don't care about your email? Why don't you just let me read it - hell, I won't *do* anything with it. Honest.
I can just hear Jack Nichelson's voice: "Where does he get all of those toys?"
0
t s/
w 2/
1 112000/1112411.stm
m l
a cy/robot.html
m l
m l
m
http://ai.about.com/library/weekly/aa072099.htm
http://www.forbes.com/2001/02/13/0213robot.html%2
http://www1.cnn.com/TECH/9612/11/interactive.robo
http://www.daily.umn.edu/daily/1999/12/07/news/ne
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_
http://internet.cybermesa.com/~haddrill/robots.ht
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97leg
http://www.it.umn.edu/inventing/98fall/cover/
http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/21/1934206.sht
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.03/robots.ht
http://ai.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa072099.ht
You know, you can't have it both ways. Either the acts of Sept. 11th were "war", or they were "terrorism". If they were "war", then perhaps its right for the US to go to war, but what is the war against? War itself? It wouldn't be the first time the country's government has been so inconsistent. If they were "terrorism", then why are we going to "war"? As many others have noted, the people who caused the tragedy of Sept 11th have real issues with the policies of the US government. If what you want is to declare war on those who have such grievances, go ahead, but its a huge number of people. If instead you wish to pursue the perpetrators of these hideous and cruel acts, I'm with you, but thats not "war" - thats an international criminal investigation. Trying to redefine such an activity as "war" to satisfy the most venal of human emotions, revenge, is a cheap trick. It won't bring us closer to finding the perpetrators or to a just and peaceful world in which these sorts of activities, on one scale or another, no longer happen with depressing regularity around the globe.
I keep saying this time and time again. Legislation only affects honest people. It does not affect the crooks and terrorists. I mean, honestly: if you're a terrorist who is going to deliberately kill yourself in an attack on a hated enemy, is fear of prosecution for sending an email going to stop you? It won't. They'll find ways around it, or use other systems the government hasn't thought of yet.
Let me explain what I mean by a "hated enemy" above. Many middle-eastern countries are basically ruled by tyrants. There are the elite few, who have unimaginable wealth, and then there are the poor people who make up nearly all of the population. These poor people are oppressed by their rulers so they're in a constant state of fear (and anger). The rulers, being smart, blame the country's problems on an external source, such as the United States, thereby shifting the hatred of their people. This is how they remain in power. It's very basic. (Read 1984... specifically the part that explains why Oceania is always at war.) And for some reason, they fail to point this out on the news.
Returning to our internal problems... I can understand why certain civil liberties need to be placed on hold at a time of war, as long as the object is to protect those liberties for the future. On the other hand, I think the government needs to start doing its current job before it makes up new responsibilities that it probably won't handle well. Look at INS, for example. They are so inefficient that I honestly doubt they can do anything to help. For one thing, I think their enormous backlog encourages illegal immigration. Now they're talking about giving INS more responsibilities, being totally oblivious to the facts (that they're horribly, terribly inefficient), and this is just one small portion of the government.
All of our rights and freedoms have significant restrictions:
Speech - Can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.
Press - Libel and slander.
Movement - Cant protest with 100 yards of abortion clinics.
The key is striking a just the right BALANCE. Difficult, yes, but the answer is not blind ideological adherence to principal without any concession to practical reality.
Congress has passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (local) against Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and others. A military deployment has begun. Russians think we will have a Sea of Bloodshed and others have said this will be worse than Vietnam. Frankly, I'm scared. This may be highly tacky; but I would like to know what kind of military devices we may have that would be both effective against terrorists and yet accurate (not like the gulf war) enough to avoid innocent casualties. And what about those ten million mines?
The US is dealing with a group of people, who are not going to obey the laws, are not going to play by our rules, who are not going to present themselves as targets in the traditional manner.
Thus there are some alternatives to how you can deal with them, attempt to stop them in a traditional method, which will fail. Or, change the rules of the game so you can have more room to maneuver.
You can morally joust all day long, it wont change some simple facts. The enemy will not fight in a conventional manner, thus the US has to fight using unconventional tactics. If changing laws and curtailing liberties is what is required, then that is what will be done to win.
Shrub said the war will be costly, if we thought money, we would be right, if we thought lives, we are right again, if we didnt think the price may include some liberties & freedoms, we are very wrong.
Liberties are as open to abuse just as curtailing liberties can be abused. We must find the balance that allows the US the most room to deal with these terrorist networks, while at the same time making sure, unnecessary steps are not being taken by the government to lock down the populace.
So far I havent read too much on what liberties might be targeted, it is up to us to determine and fight for what is neccessary and prevent what isnt. Government can write policies, that is what they are there for, we are here to make our thoughts and feelings known about those policies, before and during implementation.
make no mistake, things will change, how much depends on us. If the US wins against terrorism domestically, is up to us the people as to how much we will allow the rules to change, to allow it to happen.
Insert something insightful here, or I'll insert something painful there.
Disclaimer, I do not live in the United States. I live in a third-world backwater country which has a severe domestic terrorism problem, at least in the southern provinces...
Military action and curtailment of civil liberties as "solutions" to the terrorism problem are all ultimately temporary fixes, designed to treat the symptoms, not the disease. If the United States and its allies in the First World don't attempt to go beyond short-sighted military retaliation, they're going to lose this war even more badly than they lost Vietnam. Military response is a good thing here in the interim, but it must be combined with a wholistic strategy which addresses one of the main roots of the problem:
GLOBAL POVERTY
This is the biggest single reason why terror groups exist. The rest of the world feels disenfranchised and oppressed by what it perceives to be a big bully ramming policies down their throats which are designed to enrich him at their expense. Those of us who live in the third world, know that this accusation is not without basis. I am not justifying their approach to terror; I am giving what I see is the fundamental reason why these groups turn to violence. They feel unempowered, unable to control their own destinies; September 11 was the greatest blow they struck in this mad attempt of theirs to take the power back.
Terrorism has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, and has everything to do with power. Terror groups hide behind the mask of religious fundamentalism, but no major religion in the world countenances the acts of September 11.
Capture Osama bin Laden and they will have chopped one head off the Hydra. Two more will grow back in his place. The only way to defeat the hydra will be to attempt to change US foreign and financial policy to truly attempt to aid the nations of the developing world instead of screwing us over and enriching themselves over us. If the United States and the developed nations can truly be seen to be making a positive difference to the destinies of the developing world, then it will be much harder to motivate people to perpetrate acts of terror.
Attempting to restrict civil liberties within the developed world is another particularly short-sighted response to acts of terror. Such restrictions on civil liberties are probably going to increase not decrease, the incidence of terror, as it will also increase the ranks of the disenfranchised and oppressed within your country as well, and domestic terrorism will probably become all the more serious. But of course, this is exactly what the control freaks in your government want, as it will give them more excuses to further perpetrate their reign of terror.
A real long-term solution to the problem of terrorism will be to revise and rethink your foreign policy. If your foreign policy were not so baldly corporatist, so baldly and arrogantly benefiting the few at the expense of the many, international terrorism would begin to decrease. Naturally, military and police action would be a good thing, but it is ultimately a short-term solution only. That only sows fear, and ultimately all fear can be overcome, as the terrorists who crashed their planes into the WTC proved to us in the most graphic way possible.
The world is still big enough for all of us to live peacefully. But if some nations insist on grabbing the lion's share at the expense of those who have none, then there will be conflict, there will be violence, there will be monstrous acts of terror. They know they can't take on the United States head-on, Iraq proved that, so they will attempt to wage a world-wide guerrila war. World War III is here, but it looks like no other war in all of history. The only way to win it will be to change the rules.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
freedom.
As much as we want relief from this time of national duress, we simply cannot make ourselves more secure by
making fundamental freedoms less secure.
Is privacy a freedom? that's debatable. Show me exactly what part of the First Amendment protects privacy.
Consider two situations:
You live in former USSR, you're talking to your mom over the phone and you say Communism sucks. KGB happens to be snooping on you and sends you to jail. In this case, privacy was violated as well as freedom of speech.
You live in the U.S., you're talking to your mom over the phone and you start telling her how badly you think Capitalism sucks. FBI is listening and nothing happens to you. Why? you just stated a mere opinion, you did not threaten to bomb anything. Your privacy was raped, and while this creates a natural feeling of discomfort, you know your freedom of speech is intact.
After all, you don't have a problem with your luggages, handbags, pockets being thoroughly searched at airports. While you may not be happy with a security agent seeing that big dildo you have in your suitcase on his screen, you're glad they'd arrest you if it was a bomb. After a while you don't even think of it. Well there.
I think a stronger focus should be placed on Freedom of Speech itself and ensure its integrity while allowing limited compromises on privacy to protect the safety of the citizens. And I'm pretty sure this could be carefuly worded in legalese.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Today I went to the National Institite of Health in Bethesda Maryland for a checkup. At the shared entrance to NIH and the Metro station, I was stopped by an officer who asked where I was going, gave me a sticker to wear, and told me to pull in behind a line of about 10 cars.Interesting I thought, I wonder what is going on? Well, it did not take long to see that the line of cars I was now in was being combed over by a group of armed officers. When my turn came I was told to shut off the engine, pop the hood, and open the trunk. The officers searched my car in the areas mentioned and had my produce a drivers license (which was copied to a sheet of paper by hand) and then I was allowed to procede.When I reached the parking garage, the same thing happened again except this time they made me get out and open the hood and they searced under the car. One officer told me "just relax, everything is going to be ok" before he started his search. When I was asked how I was doing by another officer, I replied that I must have woken up in another country today because this is not America anymore. You could tell they did not want to be doing this. I cannot begin to describe how stunned I was to have this happen. If this is how we have to live in America now, I do not think that I want to be here anymore. And yes, I do know why they did it, I do understand the current need for such precautions, but this is not an acceptable way to live for me.
Wanna get high?
That the first freedom that should be removed should be a total ban on the phrase "in the wake of".
I also think that Peter Jennings should be whacked over the head for every time he used the word "infer" when he meant "imply".
Thank you.
For a long time the US financed and supported general Noriega in Panama.
But when he touch US interests (plan to nationalize Panama canal), general Noriega becomes the great drug villain and the US invade Panama.
The US financed and supported Saddam Hussein in its war against Iran and the Kurds.
When Saddam Hussein attacks Koweit (US interests), he becomes the great Satan and the US launch an all out attack against Irak.
Now the US also financed, trained and provided weapons to Ben Laden in its guerilla against the russian in Afghanistan. Today Ben Laden has turned against his old sponsor.
So naturally he has become the greatest terrorist on earth and the US gvt is launching a new war.
So, who's next ? I guess we just have to take a look into the CIA's payroll !!!
Most of your points make little sense in a political/policy sense, and are no more than far leftist propaganda.
>The CIA trained Osama bin Laden
The interference with the afgan war was a mistake, but there were reasons. Part of it was a response to the chinese/soviet interference in Vietnam. The second was to help maintain stability in the region, something necessary for american and western security. We must also understand bin ladin's anger and training has little to do with the current situation. American bases in saudi arabia are the major reason.
>Once again, intelligence agencies were useless
CIA involvement in the drug trade is little more than a conspiricy theory. And do you think Panama is better or worse without Noriega? We also can't forget the little strip of formally american controlled land through that country.
>There was plenty of warning
Are you saying that we should sever ties with a country because a terrorist does not like it. If you can honestly say that the governments of iraq, iran and afghanistan are better than saudi arabia, than your point is valid. Had it not been for the strength of their current system they would not be any better off than iran.
>George Bush had increased U.S. support for Israel
I know that you have a great irration hatred of Gerorge W. Bush, but increasing support for israel is not a bad thing. Helping a democratic country defend itself against undemocratic countries who wish its end and bomb its cities. Or we could just hear about palestinian children dying, forgetting that it happens after the parents shot at lsraeli troops first.
> Violence is Assumed. An NBC poll says 83% of Americans want military action
You seem to support your points by saying americans do not understand, and quoting a single "expert" to back your facts. Obviously this one person is smarter than the rest of the country, including every single analyist...sure.
>Weapons indicate weakness, not power. The best protection is being truly powerful
Your statment "this is very complicated to support this" seems to sum up this entire point, it is unsupportable and makes little sense.
>The U.S. government (not necessarily the U.S. people) has a history of thinking that violence is the answer
Vietnam was a mistake, but the US got involved because they were helping the French and could not manage to get themselves out. And how many kuwatis were killed by iraqis? How many civilians? Should have we let iraq keep it? How would have it affected out security? And look who was criticised for trying to keep out of two major wars. Look who helped form two internation organizations for peace. Its too bad the US has turned into a leftist lobby group and is completely useless.
The rest:
The rest of your points seem to deal with the conflict between the jews and arabs. I don't have the time to deal with each one seperately. The west as always meddled with the middle east. The americans were not the first, but with the collapse of the british and french empires (which happened because of the middle east), the americans have been left having to deal with it. We just depend on the region to much. While the sides were really created before American intervention, they have tended to stay with the legitimate sides. They helped israel defend itself against agressors, and helped legitimate democracys mainatin power. However with such a stanch division it is impossible to keep out of it completely. Policy can't alway make everyone feel totally equally. This isn't pre-school.
Well feel free to ignore oppsition, that will make sure you don't have to think.
If a cop wants to search your car, and you let him, your rights have not been violated, you have simply waived them. If the police are asking you for your video camera, and you don't want to give it up, say no, they can't take it lawfully. It hasn't sounded to me that any changes in the Government's powers are going to be too terrible. All I've heard is Ashcroft saying we need snoop warrents on people and not phones. As long as the authorization still is in the judicial branch and not the executive branch I think we're ok. The cops still need to demonstrate reasonable suspician to get a snoop warrent.
The backdoors to encryption software are another host of problems altogether. I hope, and I'm going to write some letters about this, our lawmakers will see what a silly effort this would be. I don't think the big-money special interests would allow it either, because it would be a major threat to lots of transactions that happen electronically. Like someone said earlier, all it would take is for one willing person to get this backdoor and whoosh! bank accounts start clearing all over the country.
The worst scenario is if Feinstien gets in on it and has her butt buddies over at MS write the software. We can pretty much count on it working for about 3 hours before someone cracks it and we're all running to the bank.
The terrorists will have won then.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
after reading the article...i feel like we are in the process of converting ourselves into another afgan.
have we had our time?? have we had our freedom?? how could some one lame can control this country from outside.
gosh.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
According to this article, retired CBS news anchorman Walter Cronkite has called for the immediate appointment of a censorship board to monitor the strict secrecy that Ashcroft has announced. Cronkite said that secrecy is necessary in the war against terrorism, but that the government should immediately appoint a board of journalists and historians that will be aware of all the government's plans and actions. Secrecy must not be used to protect political decisions or government failures, but only for military purposes, Cronkite said.
An interesting proposal. And I haven't heard a word breathed about it, except briefly at the end of that LATimes article.
--S
"I used to be a dilettante. Then I thought I'd try something else for a while."
"They can have my gun when they pry my cold, dead fingers from it."
I remember this quote from when I was a young child. I remember the Confederate flag being referred to as the "Rebel" flag. I remember the two sabers crossed above it. I remember from history class that a group of Americans fought the British to be free from the monarchy.
So many people seem to forget that last bit. Our freedom from the British wasn't won in a court of law, it was won on a battlefield after we killed a lot of them. Our freedoms have been checked by a court of law ever since.
Once the courts of law no longer protect our freedoms then where do you suppose we can win them back? A court of law? On the Internet?
I own weapons for a very good reason. I don't own them for hunting; I shop in the market. I don't own them for protection against burgulars; I have good locks on my door and appropriate booby traps. I own them because, some day, my government might come to take my freedoms from me. If you don't think they can then think again; they have before. Just ask Rosa Parks, or, for that matter, any black person from the South older than 60.
When my freedoms are taken away from me then it is my duty as an American to kill those that are trying to take it away from me. If I do not then I am not worthy of the title American. It is further my duty to protect the freedoms of my fellow Americans.
I don't want to kill people but I will if I have to. Remember, nobody EVER won a war by dying for his country; they won by making the other dumb sonofabitch die for HIS country.
If I am wrong for being willing to kill to remain free then I do not wish to be right.
When they come to your door to take your freedoms keep all this in mind.
Cirrocco - Son of Lance Corporal P.T.M. Sr., USMC, 1966-70, Grandson of T.H., USN.
Useless opinions, worthless observations, and more!
You are deluding yourselves if you think you have ANY freedom.
/.
My challenge is that you think about that last statement for 24 hrs before you answer. Don't answer with you lower brain, this is high order thinking.
But then, maybe this should be left to the jingoistic rabble-rousing that is typical of
I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
I'll *gladly* give up some freedoms like online privacy, heck i'll gladly let feds snoop on my phone to be safer from terrorism. You privacy freaks need to chill the fuck out.
No, YOU need to chill the fuck out! I didn't lose a leg in Desert Storm fighting for the Constitution to have some wet-behind-the-ears Generation X fucktard throw the Bill of Rights out the window.
Like we vets say, "If you haven't seen the shit, I don't wanna hear the crap!"
There's a Spider Robinson story that starts with a guy who's about to comit suicide. A robber pulls a gun on the guy and says, "Your money or your life!" Well, our protagonist has no quams about losing his life, and damned if he's gonna let that bastard have his money......
Back in the '30s, the big threat wasn't Palistinians... It was Jews. Hitler instituted all sorts of restraints on human rights to combat that threat. Ask the people of Germany about how safe they were in the aftermath.
I think it was Malcom X who said that:
people who are willing to surrender their liberty in the name of some minimal safety get -- and deserve -- neither.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I think the absolutism is destructive, even though my personal views are somewhat absolute in favor of freedom. And there *is* precedent for serious danger allowing the abrogation of some rights. It's often proved to be a mistake, but not always. Think about what the secrecy of the Manhattan project meant. Also realize that security succeeded mainly because nearly everyone on the project (and the press) wanted it to, not because of the threat of legal penalties or efficient government surveillance.
One proposal might be to put time limits on everything that impacts the Bill of Rights. Every six months, or a year say, they are required to reargue and renew the legislation.
Another way these laws could be made more safe is to limit their application to terrorism specifically.
I suspect it will be better to argue for reasonable limitations to these laws so that we can undo them more easily, and fear them less, than to argue with a quite understandably scared congress and citizenry. It will only get worse when there is another attack. We need to fight a battle we can win.
One thing we have to do though, is argue strongly and vehemently against anything that is counterproductive. Like weakening our personal, banking, or e-commerce encryption. Like using racial profiling without any probable cause. Like stifling peaceful protest. It would be unpatriotic not to point out that such ill-considered proposals would amount to shooting ourselves in the foot.
People are scared, some of the terrorists, some of the government. In a democratic republic you work it out to something both can live with -- not call the other side evil and unamerican.
However, it is well known that security is like a chain. A single broken link exposes the secrets, and cryptography is just one (very strong) link. There are many other weak links available to the government when they need to snoop. Just ask that mafia guy who recently got a free FBI keyboard sniffer.
I foresee the TLAs (three letter agencies) getting heavily into activities that circumvent the crypto measures that criminals and non-criminals attempt to use. They'll employ tiny electronic bugs, chemical tracers, Tempest snooping (eventually packed into portable devices instead of vans), computer trojans and worms, real-time monitoring of all global financial transactions, traffic analysis of the entire Internet, cell phone GPS data, face recognition, DNA sampling, etc. But most effectively, they'll hire a lot more spies who use social engineering techniques to just trick people into telling them what they want to know, or who infiltrate the bad guys' organizations.
I'm sure the spooks already know this reality, and they know that no criminal would ever use new broken crypto when old or foreign working crypto is available. Crypto backdoors are just the reaction of some clueless politicians. Likewise, too many people believe that if they have strong crypto then they have privacy.
Anyone who requires proof to substantiate this comment obviously hasn't been paying enough attention during the past week. It may well be that our airport security is lax, but these terrorists have circumvented the ultimate in security measures- the vigilance of those whose lives they put in danger on the jets that became their weapons.
we will be asked to sacrifice our freedoms, but will be no safer from terrorist actions-- especially terrorist[sic] that display the adaptibility, patience and savage will that these hijackers did.
Where there is a will, there is a way. These terrorists have proven that. Anyone who is willing to spend ten years in "deep cover" planning an attack won't be deterred by a simple curtail of their internet privelages.
It may well be that our airport security is lax, but these terrorists have circumvented the ultimate in security measures-
The primary security measures they circumvented were the lax ones, i.e. airport security. If our airport security was anywhere near that of other countries this never would have happened.
After all, %50 does have below-average intelligence.
However, the average itself must be pretty low for this sort of opinion to be this popular.
What about all the other Amendments (e.g. the Second, Tenth, and Twenty-Sixth)????
Uh ... I guess I caught you with your pants down, revealing your hypocrisy.
Ditto the Human Right of SELF-DEFENSE.
I believe Juanita
Haven't lost a war?
War of 1812
Korea, at best a draw
Vietnam
EXACTLY ... they say in New Hampshire "Live Free or Die"
I believe Juanita
No need to show you why since everybody already caught you in your lie.
Hey, aren't you glad you posted anonymously ? LOL !!!
- sigs are for wimps.
I just saw on the Discovery Channel special "Behind the Terrorists", an official make the statement that the metal detectors at airports were more of a 'psychological deterrent' than a 'physical deterrent' against terrorist acts.
This kind of statement is a poor excuse for the numerous lapses of the agencies which are paid to provide domestic security, and who failed miserably in the attack against the twin towers.
Why should anyone believe that the continued erosion of our freedoms as American citizens are anything more than a ploy by agencies such as the FBI to promote their own heretofore sloppy agendas.
But when he touch US interests (plan to nationalize Panama canal), general Noriega becomes the great drug villain and the US invade Panama.
Years before Noriega "pinnaple face" became a general, the Panama Canal treaty was already signed thanks to the general (who many believe Noriega killed) "Omar Torrijos Herrera" and Jimmy Carter.
US turned against Noriega when he went nuts. He had doctor "Hugo Spadafora" brutally killed, which led to scandal , a whistle blower, huge peaceful opposition, a failed cup, Noriega's suspencion of Constitutional rights, etc, etc.
US invaded, hundreds of Panamenians died, no more useless Panamenian Army. End of story.
You're so off, it's hilarious.
- sigs are for wimps.
It seems that either American politicians are extremely stupid or extremely cunning. About 90% of the limited freedom acts are only concerning lawful citizens. Do you really think that sniffers in ISPs' servers or a backdoor in commercial security program concerns criminals?
The terrorist attack has taken USA a great leap towards BigBrother (Orwellish) nation. Goverment agencies (CIA, FBI, NSA, etc) have become more powerful than ever before.. Do you really think that an agency that knows if a sheep shits in New Sealand doesn't know when the world's worst terrorist act is about to happen?
you said it. slashdoters live in a paranoia bubble. long live carnivore and the CIA you loosers. I have nothing to hide from my goverment.
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
Of course, you are right. But if they don't "give a fuck" about my private life, then why should it matter whether or not my personal data is encrypted? If it's because I _could_ be a terrorist, then they probably _would_ "give a fuck" about my private life anyways. Regardless, anything the government can have a backdoor into, other unknown people can get into as well. Put another way, how would you feel if every letter that you sent through normal post _had_ to be open, like a postcard, or else the feds might come rapping on your door to question you as a suspect terrorist? How would you feel if the same backdoor that allows government organizations to monitor any encrypted transaction was unscrupulously used by a nefarious individual to steal money from your bank account? And how would you feel about all this if these precautions were implemented and you discovered that it did absolutely nothing to deter terrorism? Terrorists don't abide by the law in the first place, so creating new laws to try to control their activities won't stop them. At best, we _might_ catch them before they do something -- but the presence of a law is not a guarantee. If you want that, live on an island, by yourself, with no outside contacts. I know that the feeling of a need to do something, _anything_, is strong with people right now, but we must not abandon the principles of the constitution of the USA or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These principles are bigger than you, bigger than me, and even bigger than the lives of those that were lost last week. We have no right to take any of those rights away from future generations.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
"Just out of curiosity, it's World War II. What is your answer to Hitler's violence? How do you think it should have been solved?"
First, you would have to start early. Non-violent methods, like violent methods, take time to have effect.
Second, the most powerful non-violent methods would use the fact that people are more knowledgeable about their inner reality than they were in Hitler's time. So, what I am about to say won't sound realistic for back then, because it presumes the knowledge that many people have today. Let's just talk about solving the problems we have today, rather than try to transport ourselves back to Hitler's time.
Third, achieve a complete understanding of what causes violence. Violence, including war, is caused ONLY by a particular kind of mental illness. There is NO other cause. If you understand that, and begin looking for that kind of mental illness, solving the problem of violence is not so difficult. It is still difficult, but not impossible.
When you understand that violence is cause by errors in brain processing, stopping violence becomes a troubleshooting problem. Stopping violence is a problem of troubleshooting errors in the human bio-computer. This is the kind of work many Slashdot readers know. Train Slashdot readers, and we have 1,000 or 10,000 technicians to put in the field.
Many Slashdot readers already know how hard it is to find a processing error. They have learned not to be intellectual wimps. If it takes 90 tries and two weeks to find an error in a C++ program, they know that's what must be done.
Fourth, there needs to be a recognition of how nutty things are today. I just watched an official on the September 19, 2001 CBS TV show "60 Minutes II" talk about the 1998 U.S. bombing of Afghanistan.
According to the show, the U.S. sent 60 cruise missiles, each of which cost $2,000,000, into a dry mountainous region where the total value of all the surrounding buildings was probably less than the equivalent of $10,000.
According to the local Afghanis on the show, the missiles costing $120,000,000 destroyed part of a mosque and killed a few children and adults. This was an expression of a need of a few people to act out inner conflict. Why do I say that? Because $120,000,000 spent on doing good works in Afghanistan would, literally, put you in a position to be elected president of that very, very poor country. The people who sent the missiles did not want to solve the problem. They wanted to act out their inner conflict, and make more problems so they could do more trouble-making later, too. Do you see why I say the only explanation is mental illness?
The official being interviewed saw no evidence of anything crazy about this back then. He still didn't, even after being repeatedly questioned.
Read Limbs of no body: World's indifference to the Afghan tragedy A million people died of starvation! This article was referenced in an earlier Slashdot story.
On the local news tonight, newscasters said that a huge number of jet aircraft have been sent to the Middle East. Ships are on their way also. This when they have absolutely no more clue about where to aim their weapons than before.
There needs to be recognition of how often a well-educated, well-dressed person looks you in the eye, talks in an elegant, logical-sounding way, and speaks complete nonsense.
I have considerable experience teaching people how much craziness there is in the world, and how to recognize it. A good student can learn a lot in 9 months to two years.
Fifth, recognize that the conflict in the Middle East has NOTHING to do with religion. People have been using religion as a way of justifying violence since before Islam existed and before Judaism existed. It's nonsense. There is NO connection. Violence is ONLY caused by mental illness. It's that simple.
Sixth, learn enough to recognize that Arabs have a real gripe. The U.S. has been meddling in the region for years. Saudis, for example, have a right to complain about their government. How would you like it if you were an American working for changes in the U.S. government, but the Saudi government was preventing the changes? How would you like it if the Saudis who were preventing improvements knew nothing about the politics and didn't even speak English?
Conflicts are solved partly with personal understanding and personal relationships.
Step seven is where it starts getting messy. An outbreak of mental illness like a war is composed of many mini-outbreaks. Your technicians must identify each one. Each one requires personal attention.
If it is Hitler we're discussing, it is necessary to recognize early that there is a potential outbreak. Warn everyone. In the early days, the Nazi movement was weak.
The result of working with each mini-outbreak is that you drain the energy out of the mental illness, and people go back to just yelling at their kids.
This isn't complete, but it is enough for a Slashdot post. There's more in the article: What Should be the Response to Violence? .
Bush's education improvements were
Times like this is when you must protest even more diligently to make sure our basic rights as Americans are not taken away or limited.
I don't _need_ the source to Linux. Hell, I've never even looked at it, but it sure is nice to know I can
I have an NEC Versa Note laptop. It contains a built-in network adaptor which claims to be a Tulip based 21143 card. The driver which comes with Linux doesn't detect dumb old 10mbit hubs properly - certainly not my one at home anyway. Works fine with more recent switches though.
If I didn't have the source, I could have done nothing. As it is, I've discovered a state that only occurs when I'm on the home network and patched the driver so it works, for me, in the situations where I need it.
I couldn't have done that under Windows. So yes, despite being an ordainary user, I have benefitted from having access to the source code for my operating system (and a 3 year Uni degree in software engineering with C++ as one of the languages and an emphesis on learning C as well).
All this breast beating by us geeks about freedom of speech and back-doors in encryption software is very nice. I got to watch all the good stuff real time, fun, no? I have friends who I will never see again, family who are most likely crippled for life with massive head trauma, and kids who want an explanation. Why is daddy crying? I live not too far from the WTC and get (-- notice, not past tense) to smell it. By the way, not too far is the other end of Brooklyn. Look at the space shots of the plume of smoke. It looked like it was snowing here. I would like to make several points that can be responded to separately, as they don't really have a thematic thread.
1) These guys don't use email and electronic communications a lot, the important stuff happens face to face. Most of this stuff is irrelevant
2)news is breaking that our old friend Saddam Hussian may have funded a lot of this. We may be back in Bagdad.
3)We are human and the people we appoint to govern are human, The only two real ways to protect American freedom is a free press and each of us taking an active part in our goverment, not just bitching on slashdot about it.
So the Soviet Union collapses and the one commodity that the Russians have in spades is disaffected out of work college educated people with no chance of gainful employment. Oh yeah there is one really excellent employer, The Russian Mafia.
So the Russian mafia which is not a bunch of criminals with some good criminal idea's, but rather out of work KGB and GRU operators with some brutal spetznaz thrown in are naturally very good at exporting Really Illegal Shit.
Since well hey, look it's 2001, one of the really lucrative commodities that Russian mob sees big things in is code. And hey, look at that there are thousands of out of work coders literally starving because there is no tech industry to hire them to make playstation 2 games.
Illegal code is very hot on the black market, because it's harder to get then trucks full of AK-47s. And billionaire terrorists (which I assume, just might shop at them black market mini-malls) have access to it. They do not need PGP, they do not need anything shrunkwrapped on a compusa shelf or that can be downloaded from a 31337 hAx0r jerk off fttp site.
They have probably read the Clancey novels (or at least "Executive Decision") and have a good grasp on state-department level crypto.
Okay so we all know this, so what exactly are they looking for? Are they looking for retarded saboteurs and sympathizers? If we presume they have access to Soviet quality crypto, how come we didn't piss away all our civil liberties when the soviets used to spook us?
Oh hell, I'm a big boy. I realize that the rights that we all take for granted have tightened and relaxed several times in US history. I am not going to be unreasonable when the government hands me a valid reason to ask me to suspend my crystal tower of individual liberty (when we are indeed in state of emergency) in order to annihilate an enemy that has been known to leave timed plastique charges in local starbucks...
But no. these are not valid reasons. These are empty explanations, you are either stupid or lying to us. Which makes us suspicious. Which makes you the bad guy. Which is fucking up all that national unity that George W. has told me that he expects of me.
So how about giving us an valid and articulate reason for us to let you borrow our liberties. Not that crap you feed the sheep. Then maybe we can talk. Otherwise how can I not see this as another act of terror and another assault to the American way of life that I would honestly stand in front of bullets to protect. (well I would probably do some ducking, but I would be there, damnit.)
Has this happened before? Yes.
Get used to it or leave.
This whole topic is moot. The US Constitution has now been suspended. In an egregious stretching of legal interpretation way beyond the breaking point, the US Government asserts it can detain legal immigrants indefinitely, without due process, Habeus Corpus, or a speedy trial. Nothing like this has happened since the Japanese internment camps in WWII. Here is the announcement:
r es ser/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/18/inv.ashcroft.p
Constitutional rights are guaranteed to all RESIDENTS of the USA, not just citizens. Equal protection under the Constitution is now just a memory. Bush has trampled on our most sacred political documents.
"He who would sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of safety deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin
And what is liberty, but the right to do what you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of another?
Letting the government take away your freedom, your liberty, is completely contrary to one of the biggest reasons the United States was founded to begin with!
If you don't want your liberties, don't want your freedom, then what the hell are you living here in the United States for? Move to China or something! In the meantime, those of us who actually value our liberty will protest every curtailment of it.
For the United States is powerful enough, in military and economic terms, to take the entire world down into the sewers of police statehood, and a worldwide government with the surveillance powers we're developing combined with the millions to one advantage in firepower provided by the weapons the U.S. government currently possesses is a stable form of government that can last thousands of years.
If you give up your freedom so willingly, you (along with others like you) may be damning the entire world to a life of slavery.
Is that what you really want? Think hard. The way things are going, you might not be free long enough to get another chance to answer the question.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
They could easily have destroid the statue of Liberty instead. But no, they left if for us to do.
Indeed, there's a long history of hidding messages in various forms. There's also a long history of catching it. As usual, I'll fall back on referencing David Kahn's "Code Breakers" for the particulars. Things such as hidding microfilm on a period in a letter, using the swing up vs. swing down in a cursive note have existed and have been caught by censors during various wars.
However, the main difference between that and systems like carnivore is that you used to have a human eyeballing these pages. Now it's impossible to get a staff that large (imaging trying to check every packet going over an MCI backbone).
Further, even if you wrote an expert system that could check the grammar and patterns of words in emails, it would most likely fail utterly, since the average person uses very individual (and odd) syntax in emails. Frequent misspellings, grammar missteps, and apreviations are everywhere. OTOH, conventional letters have a long history of established form where variation can be detected easily.
For that reason, such low bandwidth communicaion should be more that addiquate for the slow organization of terrorist cells. Virtually impossible to detect unless you're being targeted specifically (then you've lost anyway), and readily accessible. It's believed that important information is transfered face to face (ala the susspected meeting in Germany).
The funny part about the demands on civil liberties after 9-11 is that they haven't changed all that much since the days of CALEA. Then it was to save the children from kidnappers and child pornographers. Now it's to save the world from terrorists. I doubt either will be much affected by law enforcement's new toys.
-RB
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Yes, but if there is no more freedom to protect, there is no need to protect it. NO? There is something rotten in the administration. Let them do their jobs and in some years from now, Bill Gates will be your president...
Money has too much power...
This morning, I tried to set up hosting for a web domain aimed at delivering an anti-war message. I filled out the online subscription form, and was surprised to receive a phone call midday from the hosting company.
The fellow on the phone was quite nervous and apologetic. Based on the (admittedly inflamatory) domain name, he had figured out more or less the purpose of the site, and decided that they didn't want to host it. It wasn't that he/they disagreed (they may or may not have). It was fear: fear of retaliation from crackers, fear of attracting too much attention from the Secret Service or the FBI.
It's not true censorship, I'm sure I can get the site up somewhere, and I don't expect the government will close me down, but it is a sign that only certain kinds of messages are "acceptable" at the moment.
After all, look at me. This is the first time I've posted AC.
Ask your mother, I just finished up.
- Imad Mughniyeh apparently kills Beirut CIA boss William Buckly in 1984.
- So the CIA & Mossad jointly blow up 75 people, including Hizbullah's spiritual leader and Mughniyeh's brother.
- And then, in 1992, Isreal blows up the head of Hizbullah (and his wife and children).
- So, Mughniyeh blows up 92 people in the Isreali embassy to Argentina.
- So, Isreal blows up four more people in Beirut, including another brother of Mughniyeh.
- And then the implication is, Mughniyeh blew up (caused to be blown up) 4 planes, 3 buildings and over 5000 people.
Yeah, sounds like Isreal's assassination policy is a sure-fire winner.Best Joke Ever:
Three people on our street, as it happens, worked at the World Trade Center. They worked at a financial services firm called Marsh & McLennan, which lost more than 300 employees, many of whom were trapped on the upper floors of the north tower. Miraculously, all three were out of the office on Tuesday. They escaped, but didn't get off scot-free. Judy, who works in human resources, has spent the past week counseling widows and children on company benefits. Tim's office was on the 100th floor. Some of us were standing on the sidewalk the other day when he walked by. "My two best friends in the company are gone," he said. "The guy to my left and the guy to my right." He'd known them for 20 years. Both were exactly his age, 55. They each had two kids. How did Tim survive? He'd been in Houston on Tuesday for a meeting. "What do I do now?" he asked us, plainly not expecting an answer. Had he called the widows of his colleagues? "And tell them what? That I'm alive, and their husbands aren't?"
hahahaha!
Hi friends, here are 0.02 from someone who used to live in deep Communism (as a cub, of course). I think that monitoring private communications by *any* central authority is a bad idea, even if that authority had really good intentions. The problem is that an image you're receiving by monitoring private communication is incomplete by definition, and sometimes very far from reality. Many peaceful and quite normal people would look as madmen, terrorists, or perverts to you if the only way you know them is by reading their private mail. This would get fixed if you had a chance to meet them in real life, but that's hardly possible if you are monitoring hundreds of people. If you then need to decide which one of these hundreds is a terrorist, you are in very large risk of fatal error. (Remember that terrorists *know* about this and they will by intention build their communication so that they look 'normal', but the real normal people won't.) This gets far worse if the monitored people know they're monitored, because then many become a little paranoid and start to auto-censor or hide their communication subconsciously. The net effect is that you get a group of suspicious, neurotic and isolated persons, which is quite bad for social stability. I think that the possibility of abuse of the whole system is just a minor danger in comparison with its natural consequences.
KNOWLEDGE IS NIGHT! (prof. Abdullah Nightingale)
The article was an appeal to emotion without giving a detailed description of pending legislation. The first amendment was designed to protect speech critical of the government. It is not a blank check to say anything anytime, regardless of the consequences (yelling fire in a crowded building). These terrorists used the internet extensively to communicate. There is some investigative value to monitoring internet traffic. If such monitoring leads to arrests that might avert another major attack that is a good thing. One of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect the people from it's enemies. And as we've learned over the past week, the enemies are inside as well as outside the walls. Restricting the press at times of war is necessary to protect lives. Remember when there was live coverage of the U.S. landing in Somalia, giving the position away to factions who wanted those troops dead? That must never happen again. Total journalistic irresponsibility. The safety of those troops and the success of the mission overrides the public's right to know at all times. Folks, this is not a joke. These terrorists have no concern for self-preservation. We've seen that. We must come to grips with the fact that there is an element in this world that believe their ticket to eternal paradise is killing as many innocent people as they can at one time. Does anyone have ANY doubt that if they had access to nuclear or biological weapons they would hesitate for one moment to use them? That is threat we're facing, and for the time being that threat weighs heavier on most people's minds than a flag desecration act. So what's the magic number? How many innocents need to be slaughtered by these animals before it becomes acceptable to use more aggressive investigative techniques? 50,000? 100,000? a million?
It might be worth pointing out to the non-Americans reading just how freakily attached to the Stars and Stripes Americans are. (or maybe, worth pointing out to Americans how unusual their preoccupation with the flag is).
In the USA you can buy a national flag in every supermarket. I don't know where I'd go to buy a union jack flag (as opposed to a t-shirt, whatever) -- I'd probably have to find some sort of specialist ceremonial goods shop...
There was recently an interesting TV series called 'The Tourist Trap', wherein each episode a group of holidaymakers from a single country were exposed to a series of events designed to test their reactions. One morning, the holidaymakers awoke to find their national flag in ashen tatters, and their hotel deserted. The Brits reacted with nonplussed bemusement, a few giggles. The Japanese didn't really know what to think, teh Germans were stoic. The Americans threw an absolute fit; you'd have thought someone had killed their grannies...
I'm not criticising anyone, just pointing out some cultural differences...
Wasn't a law against flag burning the theme of the "Amendment to Be" song that replace Itchy and Scratchy in one episode of The Simpsons....?
Since we're all geeks here, let's try to move this debate onto technical topic. It's my judgment that the existence of steganography means that any ban on encryption will fail to thwart terrorists or any other criminals that law enforcement is attempting to monitor. And that's why I conclude that there should be no further restrictions on the use of encryption -- the bad guys will always be able to hide their messages, so a ban would only restrict people who have legitimate use of encryption.
If the government really wants to gain something by preventing the use of strong encryption with unescrowed keys, they'll have to go on to forbid the exchange of images, audio, and any other data with enough noise to hide messages. I don't see how this could ever be possible, not only in terms of civil liberties, but also as a matter of sheer practicality.
So the technical question is: Is it conceivable for law enforcement to detect hidden messages by analyzing Internet traffic? I know that stego is not necessarily easy -- if it's done poorly, patterns can indeed be detected in a file's noise, indicating that there's a hidden message in there. But my understanding of stego is that it can be done well enough to make message detection on a large scale completely impractical; enough to make a ban on encryption pointless.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
now the u.s. can finally show their military strength. now the u.s. government can finally do whatever it wants to fight nasty things like privacy. now the u.s. can finally hunt /bin/laden who keeps repeating that he's not guilty for those attacks. and last but not least all the u.s. citizens suddenly seem to have become extremely patriotic.
so, for me, it seems much more probable that this whole thing was planned by the u.s. government, as it seems to help the bush government a lot in following their plans. besides, i think it's RATHER improbable that terrorists who plan such an attack for months / years just leave their footprints everywhere. it seems MUCH more probable that those footprints have been laid by some f.b.i. (or whatever) guys. at least to me.
hunt me, i don't like the current u.s. government!
And the other address is completely unknown to whois.
Stephen Samuel wrote:
> Back in the '30s, the big threat wasn't Palistinians...
> It was Jews. Hitler instituted all sorts of restraints on human
> rights to combat that threat.
Please check some history books or talk to people who were living in europe then. Whatever gave you that impression was completely wrong.
Saying that back in the '30s, the jews were are threat is like saying that WASP are a threat to the USA today: completely wrong.
They were, a minority of the population, with a good part being members of the middle class. Combine that with a long history of antisemitism in europe (just like americans are very fond of racism), they made a prime scape goat.
The laws passed by Hitler were never about civil liberties (a concept that gained popularity only later), they were just designed to focus the mobs on the jews and to disown them in the most efficient manner.
The jews only became a threat later, during the '50s and early '60s, when israeli terrorists were using plane highjacking and bomb attacks to gain international acceptance for israel. They more or less invented plane highjacking and started a real fad with it.
One thing that I've found eerie about this whole thing is George Bush's total lack of a coherent plan. During a time of war or crisis the citizens of free countries only have faith in tyrranical leaders. Winston Churchill in WWII, for example, or Pierre Trudeau through his entire career. Rather than spending their time keeping options open and hoping for the best, they keep charge of the situation with a clear cut strategy and updates to the people explaining why they are being dragged along.
Tyrranical leaders in republican systems treat their citizens as adults, and go domn in history with favorable reviews. Of course, they're also nowhere near as dumb as the current pres. down there, and know how to read or deliver a speech.
Its been a week and GWB has apparently committed massive troop deployment, breaking up thousands of families without any plan set for what to do with the people he's just moved into the mideast. The public is left to its own devices to wildly speculate what the plan is because the truth is, the President has no plan.
Its behavior like that which makes the idea of freedom in North America seem so distant from the hearts and minds of the elected representatives.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
It's much easier to kill people in the so-called Third World than to help them.
Helping would mean sharing the own wealth with them. But as G. W. Bush said: "They wan't to change our way of life, which is unacceptable..."
Disclaimer: I'm not American, either
It seems that the American people (accidentally?) elected the right president for that task:m l (Text is German, but the images speak for themselves.)
http://autsch.rtl.de/weltschmerz/politixx/bush.ht
If you want to see curbing of free speech in "Times Of Crisis", look at what just happened to http://www.zmag.org. Where once were thousands of articles, there is now a single page saying that their ISP "lost" all of their data and all of their backup data. This is the magazine where Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, John Pilger, etc. make a lot of their new articles public.
but Im not worried about terrorism. Because I live in Brazil. STOP SAYING "AMERICA UNDER ATTACK"!!! America is not under attack, the USA is under attack, America is a huge continent!!!
We must be careful - conveniences (curb-side check in, etc.) are not protected freedoms. Freedom of speech is.
If the government wants to read our email (a convenience provided in many cases across a public-type utility - i.e. telephone system, heavily regulated) then (1) if you're not guilty of anything why should it matter because (2) if the 0.0001% chance that they find something nefarious, stop it and the public interest is serving by stopping a child-molester, terrorist or murderer, then isn't that the "greater good".
I'd estimate that between eighty and ninety percent of general aviation is still stuck. There's a lot of people that depend on general aviation for their livelyhood, and they're hurting as badly, if not moreso, than the airlines. President Bush and Congress need to reign the FAA back in; they're designing rules that do nothing but hurt Americans.
Here's the text of Part 1 of the NOTAM, effective yesterday:
...of `the idiot`
4 ,0 0.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/1,7371,33748
Freedom does you no good when you're dead.
Thanks for the thanks.
Bush's education improvements were
would only physical flags be protected, or would it also be illegal to have a screensaver that has a animation of a burning flag (possibly superimposed upon the text of the First Amendment) ?
what about video coverage of a physically burning flag? would possession of that that be illegal? or maybe just watching a video like that would be illegal?
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
Many of the political cartoons compare the events of 9/11 with Pearl Harbor and quote part of the famous "A date which will live in infamy" speech. This makes me wonder, have there been any speeches we will all remember this time?
oh, that's America. Name one other country in the world with "America" in it's name...go on, I'm waiting....
Is a competitive and desirable vehicle that does not consume oil!
We could even swindle the bastards by selling out all of our Oil assets in the Mid-east to Local (Arab) business' and governments, (ostensibly as part of a fearful retreat from the Mid-East) and then announcing to the world; "
"Hey look at this we've invented a viable electric car" boy sure glad we unloaded those Oil assets
in the Mid East before they became worthless...
If we did this, (and let Isreal fend for themselves) the Arabs would soon forget about us and go back to hating and killing each other as they always have and always will.
I didn't konw that art galleries provided not just art, but interpretations of art as well. Full service! I wonder if they provide cue cards for faux-intellectual cocktail party smalltalk involving their exhibits...
/bluesninja
Jeez, Ben, you're a journalist; you should know this. A quick scan of some other articles on that 'news' site reveals a strong anti-homosexual, anti-abortion, right-wing bias, with absolutely no back-up except porported 'interviews'. it's not a news site, it's a propangda mill.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
"Like the terrorists will use authorized encryption"
"And then, when the [insert thug group here] sees that they'll come knocking"
As long as most everyone else complies that will be true. But I think, particularly in the area of encryption, non-compliance (aka civil disobedience) will render this useless. If such a thing passed into law, and say 40% of US internet users continued to use encryption that was not vulnerable this would be useless. They will have a hard time throwing that many people in jail on a charge like this. Particularly if those people then quickly co-operate and decrypt the message to reveal a shopping list, or movie recommendation, or whatever. I'll grant you that they do this with "drug abusers" every day, but most drug abusers are not well educated intelligent contributing members of society. Ok, the drug abusers who get caught, particularly those that get shoved into the public eye. I will note that when someone of note gets tagged on a charge like that there is no real outrage in the country. Look at Robert Downey Junior. Most people just feel bad for him, or make some sort of excuse. Mainly because they don't see that he is really all that dangerous and what they are told about "drug users" doesn't match up. So I see a difference here between a war of that nature and the encryption war. There just aren't enough terrorists for them to point at percentage-wise amoung encryption users, so they'll have a much harder time selling it.
It's a simple matter of raising the signal to noise ratio to a point where they throw up their hands.
"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
--James Madison
What really amazes me here is the belief that restrictions in hich-tech communications will do anything at all to stop future terrorists from talking to each other.
Guerillas, terrorists and other underground organisations have through history been very inventive to keep information away from the prying eye of the enemy. Sure, Echelon-esque surveillance of Internet communication and constant radio scanning can prevent terrorist messaging (some of it, maybe only a small part of it) to be conducted.
But you can just as well coordinate a devastating terror attack with uinstructions written on a scrap of goddamn paper sent in a pink envelope with yellow flowers and a light touch of perfume.
Or scibbled down on a note in the back pocket of a "tourist".
Or why not word of mouth?
The bottom line is, this wont stop terrorism. It will find a way.
The suggested communicative restrictions are just the congress and white houses need to show that they are acting.
...um...like...a sig...
There is one thing that Congress seems to overlook. If someone is already going to commit suicide by flying an airplane into the World Trade Center, do you honestly think that they are going to give a fig about using encryption that would become illegal under some proposed bill? Strong crypto, with no backdoors, is already available for free download on the Internet. IF terrorists are already using it, what makes anyone think that passing some law in the United States banning the use of such crypto is going to make them stop? Such laws will do NOTHING to impede the use of such technologies by criminals or terrorist organizations, but will do everything to criminalize otherwise innocent persons, or will reduce the level of privacy enjoyed by law-abiding persons.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Pretty disappointing note from Dalai Lama. I guess I kinda expected something insightful. Instead, it's just "Oh golly, is violence the answer? Oh, whatever, you'll figure out what to do." How lame. Seriously, the letter looks like it was written by the spawn of the marriage between a karma whore and a politician.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This point isn't emphasized enough. The most a surveillance state could do is try to keep a list of all known cryptographic and steganographic methods, automatically scan for them, and punish anyone caught using an unlisted method.
But while Security requires a significant investment, Obscurity is almost free. Ad-hoc steganographic methods are easy to devise (several /.ers have done so) and
impossible to detect computably.
Terrorists and other organized criminals
are highly likely to use them in addition
to traditional cryptography.
Conventional intelligence methods may reveal the ad-hoc steganographic methods given enough time, but it would be naive to expect that a group of terrorists planning a one-off attack would fail to agree a brand-new method just for the attack in question.
Widespread surveillance is unlikely to help catch or detect them, and will only aid the prosecution of inept terrorists, unsophisticated criminals, and politically disfavoured civilians.
I've often
complained about how Linux has become harder and harder to use with the
extra security in every revision. It's no doubt going to get harder in
the future as computer scientists fear the software equivalents of
terrorism.
Originally it would automatically repair all filesystems on startup,
simultaneously. Now you have to log in with a password and manually
invoke the filesystem checker for every filesystem.
Originally passwords were stored in one passwd file. Now they're
stored in 3 password files. Originally telnet servers were enabled by
default. Today you need to generate 3 encryption key pairs, remove
several ssh cache files, and enable a sshd by hand before accessing the
system over a network.
Even tab completion now requires you to answer a prompt before getting
a directory listing. All these changes were due to bedroom hacked
network breaches of one type or another in the past. Imagine how tough
it's going to be in the next revision now that the country is on
terrorist alert.
"We must give up some of our freedoms to help combat terrorism."
The predictable words -- and actions -- are beginning to spew from political, military, and law enforcement officials and their supporters. For safety, for security, for the greater good, they somberly tell us, we must comply with their agendas. To be protected from terrorism we must submit to more restrictions -- on our ability to travel, our freedom from arbitrary searches, on the privacy of our communications, on our right to bear arms, on our ability to conduct business hidden from the prying eyes of government.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) has called for a global prohibition on encryption products without backdoors for government surveillance.
Travel regulators have banned knives on planes. (Does this mean even the pilots can't protect themselves and passengers against hijackers?)
ISPs who were reluctant to cooperate with the FBI's invasive Carnivore program are now rushing to comply.
The Senate has, in the wake of Black Tuesday, voted to increase the FBI's authority to tap the phones of anyone suspected of terrorism. As we've seen by all these other random restrictions, we are ALL suspects in the eyes of the U.S. government.
Perhaps most ominously of all, the Washington Post quoted House Democrat Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO) as making the self-contradictory, but entirely predictable statement, "We're in a new world where we have to rebalance freedom and security. We can't take away people's civil liberties . . . but we're not going to have all the openness and freedom we have had." The Post then went on to describe how every war or crisis of the last 100 years has been use to increase government power -- often in the most draconian ways. More Data Here Freelance supporters of the Surveillance State are rushing to urge everyone to comply. One liberal talk show host responded to callers who complained that Big Brother policies at airports were a problem, "Big Brother is the only thing holding us together!"
He offered no evidence to show how Big Brother made us safe on Tuesday, September 11.
WE MUST THINK FREE, NOT PATRIOTICALLY JERK OUR KNEES
Soon we may be at war. And as always at such times, we'll be expected to "pull together," "do what our leaders tell us is necessary," and sacrifice more freedom in the name of "safety and security" or patriotism. And, as the reality of the Day of Horror seeps in, who doesn't feel an urge to strike back, to "get behind our government," to "show those murdering bastards they can't push Americans around," and to "do whatever it takes to defend the greatest country on earth"? -- even if that means sacrificing individual liberty to "the cause."
Whatever happens from here on out, we need to remember that Big Brother is NOT holding us together -- that he never can and never will. We must remember that the kind of restrictions on the liberties of ordinary Americans that were entirely ineffective in preventing the attacks of Tuesday, September 11, 2001 will not magically prevent future attacks merely because their severity is increased.
What did all of Big Brother's efforts do to prevent Tuesday's slaughter? The violations of freedom we've already been subjected to in the name of safety -- airport x-rays, ID checks, disarmament, body searches, and the whole gamut -- became a sick a joke when the day arrived that we needed them to protect the country against the world's worst criminals. In fact, Daniel Pipes of the Wall Street Journal was quick to point out how the government's reliance on mass eavesdropping and tracking actually diverted resources from more effective anti-terrorism methods, such as actually studying and infiltrating genuine terrorist groups.
Yet now the government proposes a giant national effort to do more of the same -- to impose more ineffective, wasteful, and oppressive mass surveillance and restrictions.
New restrictions on the freedoms of non-violent people will do nothing to make America or the world safer. They'll make us less safe, as well as less free.
There are at least two reasons for this.
The first is that more restrictions, and more power placed in the hands of government, will simply, in the long run, create more rage and therefore more desire to strike violently. (As we also saw, some restrictions, like those that forbid armed citizens on planes, also make it harder for Americans to protect themselves and their country.)
The second is something we observed, tragically, though cell phone calls from four doomed, hijacked planes: the fatal passivity and dependence that seems to be becoming the norm in American behavior.
THE PASSIVE, UNTHINKING AMERICAN
It appears now that a handful of heroic passengers on one flight, having learned via telephone that two other hijacked planes had already smashed into the World Trade Center, decided not to allow themselves to be used as weapons of war. These passengers on United Flight 93 attacked the hijackers who were in control of the plane. Doomed in any case, they ended up dying in the woods and fields of rural Pennsylvania, rather than passively allowing their captors to get away with an even more horrendous mass murder.
We also know that, on at least one other flight --American Airlines Flight 77, which smashed into the Pentagon -- passenger Barbara Olson learned from her husband, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, of the World Trade Center catastrophe. During two separate calls, Mrs. Olson (a well- known author and conservative television commentator) asked her husband what the pilot -- standing next to her in the back of the plane -- should do.
Picture that. Passengers and crew have been herded -- and note that word well, herded -- to the back of the plane. Even the pilot, the leader, the chief decision-maker, does nothing. Can't think what do to. Can't act. Instead of attempting to save their own lives and the lives of others on the ground, what do they do? They expect a federal government official to make the decision for them. THE EVIDENCE SAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN FEEL EMPOWERED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN LIVES WITHOUT FIRST ASKING THE ADVICE OR PERMISSION OF WASHINGTON, D.C..
And why should we have expected otherwise? Americans have been told repeatedly never to resist crime, always to submit to any demand a thug makes of them. Always go along -- for safety's sake. Go along in order to avoid angering the criminal. We've been told always to submit, as well, to any demand made by anyone who appears to be "in charge." These people on Flight 77 -- and presumably on two of the other flights -- were apparently so paralyzed by their conditioning that they couldn't assert themselves even when the alternative was certain death.
Even as pathetically disarmed as they were, they could have battered the hijackers with their briefcases, with their shoes, their purses. They could have overwhelmed them with sheer numbers of bodies. They could have gouged at their eyes with fingers or car keys. Could have knocked them unconscious with luggage from the overhead racks. Could have tripped them, stomped on them, tied them up with cords from audio headsets.
But except on United Flight 93, they apparently did nothing. And so three planes flew, sure and true, into the heart of three American landmarks, slaughtering thousands.
THE ONLY TRUE SECURITY MEASURE: A BILL OF RIGHTS CULTURE
We must take back America as a country. We must make it free and independent again -- no longer the would-be ruler of its own people, and no longer playing at being the world's supercop. Only by doing that will earn the world's peace and respect.
We must take our own individual lives and independent spirits back from would-be rulers and criminals, as well.
If we consent, passively, to give up more freedoms -- even "temporarily," or "as an emergency measure" -- we'll be doing the opposite. We'll be less safe, less free.
To restore American freedom and personal courage, we must restore the Bill of Rights -- in our country and in our hearts and minds. If we understand the Bill of Rights, we'll understand what we're fighting for -- and why. If we let it slip away what's left won't be worth fighting for.
This means not merely having an intellectual or legal understanding of the Bill of Rights. This means not merely memorizing the Bill of Rights or teaching it to our children. This means understanding the concepts of individual liberty that underlie the Bill of Rights -- then living those concepts, breathing them, eating the, dreaming them, holding them as the most central values of our lives, in the same place we hold our beliefs in the diety, or our dedication to our families, or to truth or justice.
We must behave as free people, expect and encourage others to behave as free people -- and have zero tolerance for anyone who abuses freedom or uses his authority to violate the Bill of Rights.
If there ever was a time in history to get behind the Bill of Rights and promote it, it is now. If we yield to this mushy thinking that the road to freedom and safety lies in GIVING UP freedom and the Bill of Rights, then we might as well bow down in defeat right now.
If we don't defend our rights, we'll have no rights. If we don't defend ourselves, our family members, and our fellow citizens -- AND defend their freedoms -- then our lives will be no more valuable than those of cattle and sheep. And the America we end up with won't be the America we thought we were fighting for.
If you want to be a passive herd beast -- obey whatever the authority of the moment, be that a bureaucrat or a hijacker, tells you to do. Listen to their lies about "safety and security" and obey, obey, obey.
But If you truly want to combat terrorism or terror-war, learn the Bill of Rights, teach the Bill of Rights, and enforce the Bill of Rights with every action of your life.
FIGHT BACK WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
The Liberty Crew Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
I believe Juanita
You say he has a lack of a coherent plan....but if you were leading a military movement, would you be disclosing your exact plans to the global media? There's a slight logic flaw there. The bad guys get CNN too.
As for WHY we are doing it...if you can't figure that out yet, then I don't know what to tell you...but as usual...I'll try. First - When Bin Laden attacked the WTC, he didn't just kill Americans. He killed literally HUNDREDS of foreigners. (60-100 Canadians, ~100 Britons, 140 New Zealanders were still missing, as many as 250 to 300 Indians could be missing. Forty-one others had been hospitalized, and the list goes on and on. There were even Islamic people in there! The point is, is that these terrorists are completely mad. They have made it apparent that they will kill anyone, as long as they kill American's too. Even if I did something wrong as an American (which is another debatable subject), why in the hell should the guy next to me pay for it? THAT is a bigger attack on freedom and liberties than anything...it's often the death penalty - and for no reason. That's a pretty damn strong reason to take the man out in my opinion...and it makes it pretty clear that he is not a rational being to me. He's charismatic and well spoken...but completely fucking nuts. He attacked on American soil...but it's the WORLD trade center...and there are many hundreds of casualties from all over the planet. When Bin Laden went for the embassy's in Africa he also took out ALOT more Africans than he did Americans. He's a problem to more than just us here....those people had nothing to do with what he's bitching about.
And exactly how do you know ANYTHING about what Bush's plans or lack of plans are? Is mind reading another one of your strong points? Bush himself probably isn't making the exact military plans himself anyways...that's what the the military and it's leaders and strategists are for.
I just found something odd on my internet connection, and the only thing I can think of to explain it might be an ISP tap, perhaps a Carnivore box? It's just a theory so far. If it is a tap I'd assume it's catching the traffic of every user on my ISP. Here's the situation:
:)
I am in New York. I have 1 computer hooked to cable service, nothing extra or fancy on my end. When I do an outbound traceroute a new first hop has appeared. I'm pretty sure it appeared within the last day or two. The REALLY wierd thing is that the hop does NOT appear on an inbound traceroute! It is either skipped, or stealthed in some way. The IP address of the hop is 10.14.64.1. This is not a valid internet address (first number 10 is reserved for use on local networks). Tracert default mode tries to do a name lookup for each hop. The name lookup appears to cause a 10 to 40 second freeze on the first hop, and comes up blank. If I disable name lookup the tracert runs fine, no freeze.
It made me curious, so I tried a portscan. All 65536 ports came up empty, no open ports.
So, is there a simple explanation? Or am I the first to report a signature for detecting a Carnivore box?
Can anyone suggest any other ways to probe it for information? I am NOT going to mess with it in any way, so harmless information gathering only!
P.S. Officially Carnivore has been renamed to DCS1000 - "digital collection system". They didn't like the menacing sound of the name Carnivore when it started appearing in the press
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
The footage of Palestinians dancing in the street is not faked. See the Snopes commentary.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Blow a gaping hole, eh? Why can't freedomforum.org provide a rational explanation of what's really happening instead of throwing around catastrophe metaphors? Because then we'd learn the truth, that's why.
How many other examples are there of people/countries we supported just because they were the enemy of our enemy and it turned out badly? More thought needs to go into these actions before they are done.
Cuba and Iraq are just a couple.
... and it's a broken link.
a n/ fact/17may01.htm
The $43 million is in "humanitary aid" assistance;
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/sasia/afgh
Fact Sheet: U.S. Increases Aid to Relieve Afghan Crisis
($43 million to include wheat, food, health care, shelter)
- sigs are for wimps.
I think it was Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "We must never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
Thanks for the personally disparaging remarks.
Anyway, the people who physically controlled the planes are not what I was talking about. If that's the only thing you can find "wrong" with my post, then you have issues. I don't even like my thoughts. (Doesn't mean I don't still have 'em...)
The pilots in these attacks were simply tools. They were physical manifestations of some person's or organization's political/religious/personal agenda. Someone obviously doesn't like the people or policies of the U.S., and they seem to believe that killing innocent civilians will somehow further their agenda. Those are the people I was talking about. I don't understand how you failed to see that.
Think of World War 2. Did we try and convict the soldiers on guard duty at concentration camps? No, the leaders were to blame. The foot soldiers were just duped into a homocidal ideology. Are we putting Serbian soldiers on trial for the ethnic cleansings and whatnot that went on a couple years ago? No, it's Milosevic (sp?) that is to blame. Do we sue gun manufacturers for intentional shooting deaths? The person pulling the trigger is responsible for their actions. The gun is simply a tool. The pilots were tools.
The pilots were not the issue here. The architects of the plans are. Those are the people we need to find and make pay for their atrocities.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
It's called invasion of privacy. Why don't you do us a favor and start a grassroots movement. Call the FBI and tell them you give them permission to listen in on your calls, peer in your windows, and rifle through your belongings? You've got nothing to hide right?
Heck why don't you tell us where you live and we'll all stop by and watch your sleep, read your email, and look over your shoulder as you read slashdot?
As far as I'm concerned, my neighbor has the right to burn his flag, just as I have the right to call him a horses @$$ for doing it!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
So you know what people think, and can read minds. The minds of dead people no less. Mister, you are a better man than I.
The text, actually, is the foreword to his book: Amusing ourselves to death.
I don't doubt that the people murdered or scarred by these attacks wouldn't mind a limitation or breach of their liberties if they could have their lives back.
Explain to me what breach of their liberities would have done anything to prevent this? None. Improved airline pilot training wherein the pilots do not leave the cockpit when the stewardess is being attacked would have prevented the hijackings (commandeering of the cockpit) in all 4 situations. That is all that was necessary to prevent this trajedy. Improved training, not reduction of freedom, would have prevented this and saved all those lives. And none of those who lost their lives would have had their freedom reduced at all.
Are we willing to give up liberties to feel a little safer? Should we do this? No, those that fought and died in previous wars did so to guarantee the freedom that we are almost willing to give up today. We need to fight this war but just as importantly, we need to do so on our terms. We can not let the terrorists dictate these conditions. In order to be successful, we need to get back to business as usual as quickly as possible. We can not change who we are or what we do because of an invisible enemy. If we do not do this we will no longer be a free people and then the terrorists will have won. This is what I believe the spirits of the solders would want.
I am in total agreement here. I wish our elected officials would see that they are allowing the terrorists to win by taking actions to suppress the American people that will/do have no effect on terrorism except to make the people less safe.
I can't help but think the 4th amendment protects our telephone calls and email messages from being monitored without probable cause, and without a judge's order:
The U.S. Constitution, 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, 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.
Wouldn't my private email correspondances be personal effects and/or papers. Obviously, it's harder to classify telephone conversations. The 4th amendment was not written with any notion of email, telephones, or recording devices.
But what remains, is that we should have a right to privacy unless there is compelling reason to believe we are comiting some crime. I have no problem with the government seizing my computer and searching it, and attempting to decrypt anything I've encrypted if they have other evidence to suggest I've commited some crime. But the blanket scanning of email messages, and perhaps all internet traffic, strikes me as a major violation of this right, even under these circumstances. Do they really think terrorists are at this moment sending plain text email messages back and forth confessing crimes, plans, etc?
Perhaps this is only a temporary remedy, until there are no more terrorists in the world...
Heaven help us.
-Paul
"I'm nobody suspicious... That makes me sound even more suspicious, doesn't it?" - Spike (Cowboy Bebop)
Perhaps we should immediately begin setting up the framework for an organized civil disobedience campaign. Write servers and clients for us to all run on our systems that send packets of purely random garbage to and from each other. If it looks like cryptography, it must be, right? Let them haul me off to jail as they try and fail to crack the code.
Perhaps a large-scale gathering in a major city where we profess our grievances. Every third person can bring a megaphone. What are they gonna do, arrest all of us? I'd like to see them try. In the process, they'll be in gross violation of the First Amendment, and it will come back to bite them in the ass.
Go out and learn Arabic. Speak it everywhere you go. See what they do.
A minority can still make itself heard. What are other peoples' ideas?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It's all Hood
I'm up the block, and not across a mile wide river. I could care less if they blew up a hundred more landmarks killing a million people, so long as the rights, the RIGHTS, of those left are intact.
I felt the same way when I walked back into my apartment, still smelling the smoke and coughing on the dust floating in through the closed windows.
You can stop complaining when your accused of crimes your innocent of. Just lie and plead guilty. But if you try and take RIGHTS away, you've crossed a line worse than that of terrorists.
What good is free speech if your dead? It's the same as the right to read and to vote. What good is living in fear of a repressive regime? The hope that one day you won't have to. Only the most irrational of fools, who confuse emotion with reason would make such an idiotic, and irreversible choice.
If you don't want to fear terrorists, kill yourself. Then no one will ever hurt you.
.
But that's not even the real point people like you should worry about. All the safety checks and encryption backdoors in the world won't STOP this from happening. Your trading freedom for... nothing but fear. More laws do not stop criminals. That's why they're criminals in the first place.
Add an unbreakable door to a plane and the suicidal pilot - terrorist, Arab or just a guy breaking up with his wife - and no one can stop him from ramming it into ang building within a hundred miles of the point he diverts.
If you live farther south of canal st than I do, you can bitch, if not, STFU. Across the river. Indeed. Your as bad as Katz.
Increased security at the airports is not the issue. These people were not legally able to fly in the US, since they were not legally in the country. (At least 1, who was previosuly arrested and released in Vancouver).
Making something illegal twice is no more effective than making it illegal the first time. You can;t be "a little" pregnant.
Micheal's submission of Paul McMasters article ever got posted is beyond me....just another "short on facts long on retoric article" from the cheap seats....
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
You'd also be safer if police agencies could just throw terrorist suspects into jail indefinitely without a trial.
(or would you?)
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
just like Sam, does that count?
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Maybe it's because I live in NYC, but most of the people I am hearing are saying that we need to think of this in the short term, and the long term.
Short Term: Enforce the law of the civilized world and stamp out the terror organizations and the regimes and people who fund, shelter, support them. If we want to do our best to keep more innocent civilians from being harmed (and the people in these countries are already in oppressive regimes - think a fascist twisting of Islam - they should not be made to suffer even more) then we have to use ground troops and close range bombing. No more tossing $2 million dollar cruise missiles. Yes, many Americans think the dictators are lying when they say our missiles hit orphanages or hospitals, but this is used to drum up even more virulent anti-U.S. hatred. Just as many Americans are angry and stupid about it, yes normally they are just hard-working, tax-paying people, the people in these other countries are hard-working people, who on top of living in the lifeless desert, are oppressed by tyrants who wish to form an international republic cult of murder and stamp out the "evil" West. So, when we go in to whatever country we (the coalition, which has massive support) will go into, the more we need to act like cops arresting the bad guys (including the regimes, like the vicious and murderous Taleban) and not super-powers bombing a people into submission. Some will always see it their way, no matter what we do they will think we are evil for sending troops to their land. That's why the next part is so important.
Long Term: Help (through the U.N.) achieve stability and growth in these countries, and when these extremists try to overthrow a democracy, the U.N. needs to be willing to help the real government however it can, not with words, but with action to protect multi-ethnic democracies. This will take years. The U.S. (my country) needs to cut the crap with funding psychos to further some business interests. Letting business interests have too much influence has led to this disgusting lack of airline security we are now learning of. When told to increase security through safety reports, the airlines did nothing, and no one tried to make them fix it, and now 5000 innocent people - men, women, children - not to mention the thousands of innocent people worldwide who have been murdered this way. No more puppet dictators. No more CIA-funded murder squads.
THIS IS A TRAGEDY. THIS IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CIVILIZED WORLD TO COME TOGETHER AND MAKE A PEACEFUL WORLD FOR _ALL_ OF US, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE IN THE 3RD WORLD, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTRIES WHOSE REGIMES ARE CONSPIRING TO MURDER CIVILIANS. I AM AMERICAN. PART OF MY PRIDE IN BEING A NEW YORKER AND AN AMERICAN IS MEETING AND MAKING FRIENDS WITH PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD.
So:
UhjHie hoiRHoh iofwenbm Fmbnmef sdHfhioe HiI eDguH dHI huo hewF hiohuoFh ui oh uoeD hoh oi e4u iofheh jk jJd3Hi hu ovcxm XcvBZ bcDieJekNaew FrhJsbx CAs jeo KnrKrojg jh urbnK jfif jkePleK jf jrYw Gdj euq ee TreU id Hfj eOriuT dg eGhw jJekJ ywWhd Hfh Hked eXcv BZbc DieJe kNae wFr hJsbx CAsjeoKnrKr ojgjhu rbnKjfifjr YwGdjeu qeeT reUidHfje OriuTdg eGhwjJ ekJy wWhRH ohio fwenbmF mbnm efsdH fhioe
Which, comprises of my plans to crash a banana into the Whitehouse, and the source code to crack the newly proposed security devices in the SSSCA, could put me in prison for a very long time if i refuse to give up the decryption key, (even though its a load of gibberish (it took me 5 whole minutes to type all that with the carefully placed CAPS)). What about that silly little law (i don't no about the US, but we have it in europe) that gives people the right of freedom of speach...?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
London is a cool place. The cops are much better than they were ten years ago, which is a necessary prerequisite for the camera culture to be tolerated. If you commit a crime on a main street, you *will* be on camera; they look over the tapes afterwards if something really bad happened. Too bad the sheeple all wear the bloody same nike crap so it's hard to tell them apart.
If you are in the west end (main shopping/partying area), and see a fight and dial 999 (or 911 or 112 for you yanks and euros) there will be two or three cop vans there *within a minute* (they park on the back streets waiting for your call :-) ambulances take a fair while longer :-( if you ring them from a residential area though, don't hold your breath.
The murder rate is one tenth that of the US, but still ten times higher than Japan.
The cops use their judgement not to rigourously enforce certain laws, e.g. on porn, begging, shagging in the woods, smoking dope at a festival etc. unless you piss them (or someone else) off. In the past, some police forces were seen as too heavy-handed with those things. "Zero tolerance" applies to things like graffiti or carrying weapons. Being lippy to them can get you a night in the cells, so don't. Drinking age is in theory 18, but you can see 14 year olds in pubs and nightclubs in central london.
To become British, first she must get her british passport. Then you must both live here for three years before applying for citizenship. Then it takes a year or so to be processed. You must be of "good character" i.e. not done for anything more serious than a parking ticket.
They don't mind you being american but the US govt minds you being british (all that swearing allegience to the flag stuff you have to do every morning I guess) so you would have to give up your US citizenship. Rupert Murdoch had to give up his Australian citizenship to be allowed to buy Fox. I've got two passports myself, from a less jealous country :-).
As a bonus, you get EU citizenship which means you can live and work anywhere in the 15 countries of the European Union, but this comes after the three year period.
You can queue up at the wonderful "Lunar House" in croydon, which has been called "The biggest, ugliest, grayest concrete monstrosity ever made by man! It would look out of place in the most run down areas of Warsaw". Or a funky tribute to the space race. Croydon Rulez! don't believe everything that is said about it, even though it is true! At least house prices are less outrageous than in the rest of London.
What a sad, sad lie. Terrorism HAS SUCCEEDED in every sense of the word. America is in hysterics. This isn't just some extreme form of free speech we're talking about. The ability of the public to be informed of government activity is the only way for the public to intelligently guide our elected officials - to vote them in or out of office based on their actions.
In this thread I've seen the disappointing, disheartening statement, "What good is free speech if you're DEAD?"
Ahh yes. Life at the cost of freedom. Didn't Patrick Henry demand, "Give me liberty or give me death!" How complacent we've become. And we call ourselves patriots. I'm not talking about crusading and giving up our lives to protect porn or racist sites here. But the free speech of the press is the difference between a totalitarian regime and a free one. You control a populace by controlling what they know. There is an ominous tone in the latest freedoms we're asked to give up -- that we, the citizens of America are the threat to America.
Now is not the time to console ourselves with a false sense of security. Tightening down on her own people is not going to save America. I believe we will be biologically safe with our own troops patrolling the streets. Military fighters patrolling our skies. Every citizen injected with tracking ID chips. Sure, safe. Obviously fiction, but not impossible given the current sentiment of the people.
in the UK in general elections, even if you've not got citizenship. Try doing that in america :-)
I am just as free this week as I was last week, and I live in NYC. Being able to smuggle your hash pipe onto an airplane is not an inalienable right. Stop whining like a pussy about losing liberties you did not have coming to you in the first place. The only thing so far that is changing is that airport security is finally being taken seriously, though not seriously enough as we have heard from some workers at Logan, who say shit is still not tight enough. That, and the wiretapping powers of the FBI, which were already in place for drug trafficers, will now be made same for suspected terrorists. If they take it too far, we'll take care of it then. But you haven't lost any civil liberties since this happened, so don't lie like a punk bitch and say you did. You've learned nothing from this vile horror if you think you've lost your liberties at this point.
Our government, whose job it is to protect us, failed beyond anything we can imagine. We have to fix it AND maintain fairness and liberty, but for now, we have to go hardcore because these nasty pricks are all over the place here and we have to flush them out. I'll wait in line a little longer than usual for my safety, thanks.
> that's why laws could be *carefuly* worded to only allow actions to be taken upon eavesdropping if that eavesdropping clearly showed acts of terrorism in preparation.
Two assumptions, both wrong.
1.) You're assuming that everyone agrees on what "terrorism" means. We're discussing the same federal government that once defined unions as Communists and interred Japanese Americans during WWII because they were "dangerous".
2.) You're assuming that the governmental agents who would collect information serreptitiously would then use it only for legal action. Again, we're talking about the same government that handed over data about Martin Luther King's movements to white supremacist groups so they could harass him.
> there's gotta be some way to compromise.
There is. It's referred to in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
Virg
whinge about the idea that you might have to go through a metal detector before getting on a plane, cos it slows you down by 10 seconds, and suggest arming all the passengers instead to prevent problems. I think what people call "air rage" might mean that has less-good consequences.
The "slippery slope argument" is a well-known logical fallacy. The concept of "balance" counters this. Life is not a boolean.
Go to leicester square or something.
I note that the English flag has become a lot more popular in the last ten years - there are many places (usually associated with alcohol) that fly the St. George flag. After all it was silly taking union flags to english football games!
Govt. buildings have union flags, and big hotels have loads of flags. Pubs in soho have gay flags :-)
but I hear you named a state after it also...
In USian eyes means USA + Toronto (is that below the 54th parallel? )
ROTFL.
I went to this editorial hoping it would shed some light on the possible dangers too our liberties but most (not all, but most) of it was a lot of alarmist hot air.
The only two things that really seemed troubling were the remarks by Lott and Gephardt, and the FBI software monitoring email. However, it is hard to evaluate what the remarks really mean since they are not tied to any specific proposals. And I don't know what the FBI software is doing exactly so I don't know if it is a violation of our liberties or simply the extension of long held and appropriate police powers to a new technology.
The section on proposed legislation was again sort of vague. Reducing our access to government information is a valid good government issue, but it is not in itself a restriction of our freedoms. The Anti-Leaks legislation sounds similar but what are the specifics of the legislation that violate our rights to free speech. As for the Flag Desecration Act, sorry I just can't get that worked up about it one way or the other. I oppose it not because criminalising flag burning would be an horrendous violation of free speech rights but because it is a trifle not worth amending the constitution to address.
As for the rest of the article there is no "there" there. Schools banning prayer is a legitimate issue but it has nothing to do with this attack - if anything such restrictions of student speech imposed by ACLU lawsuits were eased rather than tightened by last week's events. Taking down a painting or changing a mural is no violation of free speech if you are the one that owns it. And confiscating video of a crime is called "gathering evidence" and violates no ones rights - it is one of the powers granted to government by the people for the purpose of protecting our collective rights.
The example that really undermines the credibility of the author is his complaint about "private or self-imposed restrictions on expression". These people are EXERCISING their free speech in choosing what they want or don't want to say. Who the Hell is Paul McMasters to tell them what they should say and that they are wrong to change their minds in light of the circumstances. The only disturbing example given is the wire service pulling a picture after threats by the Palestinians but that is not a violation of OUR rights as U.S. citizens it is a violation of Palestinians rights by the Palestinian Authority - most other countries in the world do not have a right to free speech, it is unfortunate but it is not new nor does it have anything to do with the current crisis.
I am very worried about the potential for this crisis to lead to a loss of our liberties, but part of what worries me is the fuzzy thinking about our rights by those like freedomforum who are defending them. If you cry wolf at everything you will lose all effectiveness. FreedomForum seems shakey on making distinctions between our "ESSENTIAL liberties" and the mere inconveniences associated with the legitimate exercise of governments policing power. I fear they would preserve my "right" to leak troop movements at the expense of more fundamental rights like my right to life if I am one of the troops whose location has just been revealed to the enemy.
The September 11 "crashes" were actually the September 11 "acts of war." Guess what, in wartime, normal freedoms are curtailed.
The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
You are making nonsense of what I said. I don't have time to defend it, but it really does work.
You said, "Thousands of Jews are being gassed every day. What's your non-violent solution?
This ignored my first statement. To completely prevent violence, it is necessary to start years before.
Bush's education improvements were
The 'founders' believed in balance. If you ever really read the bill of rights you would notice that they require search warrants but they DON'T BAN SEARCHES. Likewise, as long as the gov't obtains search warrants for specific suspects, email addresses they are acting in the spirit of the constitution by applying it to technology in the 21st century. That is what John Ashcroft is currently proposing, there is no legislation to indescriminantly monitor all email traffic. That would be an infringement of civil rights. But enabling the gov't to monitor electronic communications for specific suspects after a hearing before a judge is a good and decent function of gov't in the interest of public safety.
So how does this relate to Carnivore? As I understand it, from the reports that have been coming out, that the FBI has just been showing up with Carnivore boxes, and telling the ISPs to install them. No warrants for specific people, no wiretap orders, just install it. Also, as I understand it, the bill on its way to becoming law allows just that, no warrants, no subpoenas, no wiretap orders, just intall it, and let it sift through ALL traffic.
...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.
From Amendment IV:
There is no probable cause here, supported by any Oath or affirmation, and no "particular description" of the place to be searched. As such, no warrant can be issued for this action, so Congress has decided to do away with warrants.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Jesus H Christ. How many times are people going to post this same quote today? I guess people who can't think for themselves are doomed to repeat the same cliches over and over again.
More than a week has passed since that horrendous act. As more time passes, I become more amazed at how Americans are becoming more and more prone to brain washing by their media engine.
I am not going into some long rhetoric. Just read the facts below.. and tell me why no one made an issue of them yet?
Of the 19 people listed bhy FBI as those responsible for the hijacking, some are alife. They were not even in the US.. yet we still hear about this list and no one makes an issue. Read below..
Of those 19:
* Amir Bukhary: He died more than a year ago!
* Abdulaziz Al Omari: He is alife and was not even in the US at the time of the bombing.
* Saeed Al Ghamdi: He was in Tunisia at the time of the incident.
* This is not offically confirmed yet, but Abdullah Al Shahri's father said that his son is alife and was not in the US (according to AFP news.)
What is more, read this news item from Reuters regarding a taped phone conversation between a flight attendant one board on of the planes that hit WTC and a colleague. particularly, pay attention to what she said in regards to that the seat numbers for the actual hijackers do not match with the seat number of the suspected hijackers.
Why is everybody still convinced that it was Arabs who hijacked the planes. Why is the US government want to invade Afghanstan despite this very shady allegation and the very reasonable request by the Afghans that they be shown a proof that Bin Laden was responsible?
Something very fishy is being cooked. The Afghans, and probably even Bin Laden seem to be victims here as much as those people who died in the WTC and the other tragedies.
The ability of the American populace to find the actual truth and to find (and revenge against) the acual perpetuators of this crime are dying out with the media propaganda being waged now. Guys, do you want to kil innocent people and send your countrymen to Afghanstan to prbably die trying to kill those innocent people?
It is not your freedom that is being taken. It is your very mind and ability to think independently and arrive to conclusions independently.
And please tell me exactly how torturing terrorists well actually prevent more attacks, or make 5000 people come back to life? There is absolutely no reason for torture except for your own selfish, personal revenge. It's sick and disgusting. Grow up.
I think you miss-understood what I meant about building 3 towers. I mean it metaphorically. If they try to damage you, make yourself bigger and stronger. How are you supposed to fight something that gets stronger each time you try to destroy it?
The whole reason that they are attacking the US is because of the US foerin policy thing. Fix that problem, and help their people live by giving them basic things like water and irrigation systems, and help rebuild their buildings, and they don't have a reason to attack America anymore.
Sure, they do have cultural differences that will remain, like how woman are second class.
But if you think that is a good reason not to help a country in need. Then you are a fucken hypocrite. Because all countries and people have their flaws, just look at the prejudgeses in your own country.
The terrorists have already won this 'battle', 5000 dead, buildings destroyed, not to mention the 1000's of run-offs that it has caused, like the airline industry dumping over 50,000 workers etc. Blowing up the people who did this isn't going win the 'war', because as far as they are concerned, they have already won it.
The only thing that is going to come out of this 'war against terrorism' is more terrorist attacks, and more retaliations.
Maybe if the US gov put it's guns away, and treated this like a crime, and spent heaps on intelligence, and got them one by one, and slowly rain their operations into the ground, they would 'win the war on terrorism'. It's like trying to get rid of cockroaches, you aren't going to get rid of them by blowing up the house they are in, you have to be planned and patient about it.
It was reported late last week that it is possible that some of the suspected terrorists involved in the attacks communicated with each other using computers at public libraries in Florida. Police have received tips that many of the suspects used libraries in areas near where they were living. Like duh, lots of people use libraries.
_ page/0,5744,2882442%255E1702,00.html [The Australian]
But a librarian broke one of the golden rules of library privacy (Which is enshrined in documentation provided by the ALA http://www.ala.org ) by searching computer log-in records for instances of the suspects names. Betty Dejean who is the area's library director reminded other librarians that they could not release such information to police without a court order. Florida state law requires that all library records be kept confidential.
More here http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story
In the face of all the other changes to privacy and freedom, I am amazed that librarians managed to hold out. And damn proud, too.
During WWII the BBC passed messages over the air waves to the Resistance in Europe in the "clear". Messages like "Aunt Harriet says thank you for the turnips." or "The fish will ride the bicycle down Potters Lane thursday next." At various times of the day HUNDREDS of these messages went out. Gimme a break on the Internet.
All ready the US coppers are throwing Reporters in the can. They aren't gonna clamp down because some "Terrorist" is gonna pass the secret plans at midnight... they're gonna clamp down so that y'all wont get restive when the bad news starts to come back from the middle east.
I feel bad about the folks that got wiped out on the 11th and really bad about the kids that are left to figure all this out. But I feel worse about the US public that will be in the strangling grasp of Dubya and his backers/cronies. This is just the beginning. By the time it's finished, one way or the other, Orwell's apocalyptic view will seem like paradise.
Small minds discuss people; average minds discuss events; great minds discuss ideas.
e w& record=533
Mindless ones discuss music...
As a Libertarian my views are 'mostly' reflected by the LP party's official statement:
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=vi
The events of September 11th found me unemployed so there was very little to stop me from watching CNN 24/7. I focused my frustrations and feelings of helplessness on the following project.
http://www.fretmeister.com/
It's meant to make us laugh. If we can do that then hope is not lost.
Cheers,
Dustin
A Heartfelt "thank you" from around the world!
o u. htm
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~hankinhsd/thanky
Right, and those 30,000 would just be killed instead by stabbing, poisoning, dropping a piano on their heads, etc.
<p>If I wanted to kill someone, I'd probably use a gun because they're convenient. If there was no gun convenient, I'd get more creative. Such an old argument. Probably not even worth my time to type it. (But I did anyway. Heh.)
<p>And exactly what did Bush do that was even remotely racist?
------- I'm not really a geek. I'm a geek groupie.
"As I understand it, from the reports that have been coming out, that the FBI has just been showing up with Carnivore boxes..." Where are these reports? If these are legitimate there would be a court case in about two minutes. Neither site which started this thread discusses carnivore, they are concerned w/important things like allowing unfettered access to pornography in public libraries.
There is an assumption on your part that the U.S. gets wealthier at the expense of oher countries which is completely false. When the U.S. purchases items from other countries we are infusing that economy with cash that they otherwise would not have. We are NOT plundering their resources. Would you like us to stop imports? South Korea, Taiwan, and even Japan were dirt poor and we imported cheap products from them. Over time they have gotten wealthy even though they each support a higher population density then China. The U.S. helps the world economy by providing a market, exporting technology, and even direct assistence. For you to blame this on your problems and somehow says that this causes terrorism is appalling.
All the while, the bureaucrats, politicians and the uniformed people that refer to themselves as the military are sitting on their cowardly asses just absorbing money and getting fatter. Hope is that the Bush administration would notice this and do some house cleaning. First the military. Take the politicians, show boats and career minded pansies and replace them with people who understand and live the code of the warrior. Get rid of the people that only do things for themselves, the "Hey, look at my cute little uniform, look at my medals (hehehe, medals for cleaning your bunk), look at ME! ME ME ME!"
Pathetic pansies. I can't believe I almost became one. I have never seen a larger contingency of pathetic loosers and wimps than in the Chair Force, but when I see the other brances exhibiting the same thing it makes me weep. Please bring back the warrior and get rid of the self serving politicians!
I found your post to be moving and expressed many of my own feelings regarding the issue. I have been trying to compose a proper letter to my representatives, and I would like to ask your permission to use parts of your post in that letter. I am a Slashdot reader, not a registered user, and I could not find a better way to contact you, other than to post a reply. If you see this, please respond to me at:
pvandyck_99@yahoo.com
I would really appreciate it.
Thanks.
Please use it!
"He who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither" -- Ben Franklin