Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Civil Liberties Legislation Progresses
hillct writes: "The ACLU has a very good comparison chart of anti-terrorism provisions in legislation currently being considered by congress. It covers the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, the House Bill (PATRIOT Act) and the Senate Bill (USA Act), comparing it all to current law. We've all seen pieces of this information but the ACLU staffers did a great job consolidating it all." CDT also has a very good pdf guide to these about-to-be-passed laws. But the Onion has the best commentary.
The scary part about legislation like this is that once it is adopted, it tends to stay in place. Today's ant-terrorism initiaitve is tommorow's rationale of the cops to packet-sniff your ISP...
"need I say more?"
...umm yes because as it stands your post makes no sense and conveys no information at all.
"The Bush administration's anti-terrorism legislation has stalled because of one senator's concern that it will erode civil liberties. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., tried to hurry the bill through Tuesday, but Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., refused Daschle's request to let the bill go through without debate or amendment."
I'm glad to see that one of our representatives feels a responsibility to have this discussed before it's passed. The article's available through Yahoo's home page - it would seem that Feingold wants to change several key provisions of the bill.
All it needs is maybe some Sage. I suggest the team from "The Mary Whitehouse Experience". They've not been doing much satirical commentary, lately, despite the fact that they're probably the best there's been. (Even TW3 - That Was The Week That Was - was tame, in many ways, in comparison.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations.
Say, maybe these laws aren't so bad after all...
*ducks and runs* ... errm... *crouches down and runs* (don't want to offend the ducks)
How long before martial law is the norm? What will 'martial law' be like then? I've noticed instead of what don't we have the right to do, we now ask what do we have the right to do in the past century. Even under the strictest rules, if you want to bomb something, you're going to bomb something. Its up to intelligence agencies and police forces to find out who wants to bomb what, and then stop them. Laws are like fences. They sit there and hope to deter would-be criminals. But there isn't anything stopping someone who isn't deterred from breaking that law...We should just make bombs illegal. That would have about as much effect.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The suspension of civil rights during a war is OK by me - it's an old tradition and a sensible one. Are we having a war with someone?
The problem I have is that Constitution reserves the right to declare war to Congress. If we need war powers, fine, declare war. It sure looks like one to me.
Otherwise, don't mess with my Bill of Rights.
First off, I am happy ACLU has released this report and is lobbying against provisions limiting civil liberties. However, very a long time, I have been confused over the absence of the ACLU in fighting court cases and legislation curtailing digital liberties. I have not seen ACLU participate in DMCA cases or against proposed legislation such as SSSCA. As a result, I assume the ACLU has no argument over such laws.
But, given that ACLU has a mission, stating the obvious, to promote liberties, why has the ACLU long been absent on issues related to technology? Is it merely because there is an absence of techie members in the ACLU to advance such causes? Or does ACLU really dislike issues related to technology?
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
It was never proposed in any of the anti-terrorism legislation. Sen. Judd Gregg mentioned that he didn't like strong encryption recently and hinted at a bill, but AFAIK no bill has emerged from his office. I think key escrow is DOA.
sulli
RTFJ.
This is slightly off topic, however it does apply when you start thinking about what information is currently available.
A lot of information on the web has recently been deleted. While it is true that Google has much of this material cached, more and more information related to war, disease, and terrorism will go away.
While we need to worry about security, we also need to care about security. When folks get information, they can make choices. When choice is available, we have room for freedom.
This is a petition to keep people from taking your freedom. Stand up for your rights, please! Do it before it's too late. It's much more difficult to take back laws once they are in place.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
It will probably turn out that we're bombing camp grounds or something. Camp grounds, dirt roads, small runways...I don't see much of a need to take away our civil liberties. Life goes on, even without the WTC, and the people involved. Why should we all be less free? Might that have been bin Laden's real goal?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
It could be a sort of Zen rhetorical question. A sort of 'is it really important if I say more, or less, cosmically speaking?'.
Or he could just be a first post Troll who is wondering how much he has to write to get past the lameness filters. The subject is just a red herring.
Or perhaps I'm hungry. Yes that seems more likely. -- hhgttg
LibBT: BitTorrent for C - small - fast - clean (Now Versio
Obligatory quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
I am so tired of seeing that, no matter how approproiate it may be.
Invoking Godwin's law, clause 9/11: this discussion is now over.
www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance
If there isn't a torrent of letters and phone calls while such things still matter, each and every one of us will deserve whatever we get. Get off your as^H^Hslashdot and get on the phone, get a letter written, and get it to the post office. Now. These guys are intent on "protecting" us no matter how much harm they do in the process.
The is a petition to retain your Civil Rights at Defend Your Freedom dot org. I have seen stuff on this sort of thing from everyone including the KKK to the ACLU, Pat Buchanon, and Common Cause. Something strange is going on when people across the spectrum are bitching, not just the wierdos.
Heck, even the Department of Homeland Security sounds like something out of Nazi Germany. This is unfortunate given the allegations that the Bush grandfather made his fortune in trade with that country.
There is a whole lot of political dirty laundry out there that needs to be washed.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
From the CDT summary:
Interception of computer trespasser communications (House 105, Senate 217)-
Allows ISP's, universities, network administrators to authorize surveillance without judicial order
Who left these entities to decide what's right or wrong? IMHO, this is too much power left to entities not expert in the field of law.
What's even worse is that there is no expectation of privacy for "unauthorized use" although that term is not defined. So it's up to the individual interpreter of the proposed law. Even the downloading of an unauthorized mp3 can allow the tapping of all communications by that individual, with no time limit!
The effects could be far-reaching, from unnecessary accusations of terrorism, to less privacy in the workplace.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
Although America brags about its cival liberities. But when there is a threat Americans are so ready to give them up. It seems to be that real Americans are the ones who stand up in times of threat and disaster and say to the law makers that what they are doing is wrong. And like many times in the past history will look down on your desisions. Like gathering asian americans in WWII. Blacklisting "Comunists" during the Cold War. What ever happened to the addage Although I dont agree with what you say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
is any sort of justification. For instance, increased wiretap auhtority. Just how would it have prevented the attack of Sept. 11? What sorts of nasty things are terrorists doing that we can't combat with the current system? How would required back doors make us safer?
I'm beginning to see a purely visceral response: terrorism => we are in danger => police need more powers.
On another note, where is the debate? I keep hearing that there will be one, but has anyone seen a member of the administration make a reasoned defense of these bills? Outlined why they are needed? Responded to criticism? Has there even been any criticism in the major media? (links would be appreciated)
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
...post a link to the Onion today? It always gets beaten on on Wednesdays (when they update). Now it's going to take forever for me to get the infographic... *sigh*
Although I think they ran the best series of reaction pieces to 9/11 I've seen, particularly "God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule" and "Terrorists Surprised to find Selves in Hell".
Of course, with new info pointing to the fact that only ~6 of the 'jackers actually knew it was a suicide mission might lend credence to that last story...
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
This is the kind of knee-jerk, reactionary legislation that scares me most. "We need to destroy our freedom in order to save it." If we're going to just trample all over the Constitution of the United States, we might as well just merge the FBI and CIA into a new organization called the KGB and call ourselves the Soviet Union 2.0
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
Actually, yes. What the FuCk are you talking about??? Yes, they're the ACLU. So what about it?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Remember that Al Capone was put away for tax evasion, not murder, extortion, or any of a hundred other crime that he was responsible for directly or indirectly. If you make sure that it's very easy to become a criminal, then you can more easily pick them up, keep them off the street, and make sure they don't do anything bad.
I mean who of us doesn't break the occasional law? Maybe it's just speeding or making a copy of a friend's software or downloading an MP3 from Morpheus. They'd be happy to have an endless intermeshing of complex and confusing laws so that they can detain anybody before they become a "real threat".
What if tomorrow they outlawed uncertified, non-backdoored encryption standards. Then all of the terrorists who give two shits about our laws will still break them, but all of a sudden they can be arrested for these more minor infractions. This gives law enforcement a means to detain and prosecute them even if it isn't for the murder of thousands of people.
Sure, they'd also find all of these other people violating that law because we don't care to have the government being able to see everything at a moment's notice. But hey, what's the sacrifice of a couple crypto dissidents going to prison if we can make everybody safe.
*sigh*
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"The definition of "terrorism" is too broad, permitting the special surveillance powers granted in this legislation to be applied far beyond what is commonly thought of by the term. Under the definition proposed by the Administration, even acts of simple civil disobedience could lead organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to become targets of "terrorist" investigations."
n tr ibutors/kurtz071701.shtml
Well, I might get flamed for this, but...
While I do not support laws that infringe on any of the Amendments to the Constitution...
Some of the things that groups like the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) do...is terrorism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/search-results/co
"Eco-terrorism, sponsored by loosely knit groups like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, began in earnest in 1998, with the burning down of a mountaintop ski resort in Vail Colorado, the release of 10,000 minks from an Oregon mink farm, and the burning of a slaughterhouse. Eco-terrorism has proliferated since then, although, until recently, fear of provoking further retaliation has prevented targeted businesses from publicizing the problem. Biotechnology projects are the latest targets, with a fire set to the offices of a global biotech project at Michigan State University in Lansing and various experimental crop sites destroyed."
Events like that, terrorizing people that wear fur or leather, it's not right. In a society based on Common Law, like the US, those things that are not illegal are legal, wearing leather or fur, or raising minks for fur, isn't illegal and it's not right for a private citizen to attack that property. Many of the *LF groups are starting down the same path as Hezbollah and Hamas did in the 60s and 70s. If those domestic groups practice the same kind of distributed terror as Aryan Nation or Hezbollah, the Police and FBI should go after them with the same tools as they go after other "hate" groups.
PETA branding people for a choice of calories is no more right than Aryan Nation branding people for a choice of mate or church.
My interest in posting is to pose questions as to the various facets of the currently proposed laws could be improved to so that the various gov't agencies who are charged with keeping the rest of us reasonably safe have a better legal tool set with which to do so, without the significant loss of civil liberties.
So, what are the /. thoughts/analysis on these questions: Is the ACLU analysis spot on? extremist? Not harsh enough?... Are there other views on these various points that we should consider important enough to not protest all of the changes? and finally, my pet question: how can we get the ACLU as up in arms about the DCMA and the SSSCA as they are about these acts?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
The only place you have privacy is in a room in your house with no windows. Otherwise assume you are being observed.
If you have a credit card, your entire purchase history is in a database.
If you have a drivers license or ssn which you use to identify yourself, your activities can be traced.
You phone can be trivially tapped.
You are being videotaped in most public buildings whether you know it or not.
Your internet connection is the most trivial of all to tap and trace.
Use TiVo? You viewing habits are in a database.
Where oh where is this privacy you are trying to protect? At least a national ID card would make everyone aware of the fact that they have ZERO privacy.
I was reading this Onion story yesterday, and the problem I see with it, is that it's just too subtle.
Yes, you read that correctly, and I'm not being sarcastic.
I'd bet any major newspaper could run that story word-for-word, and the majority of US sheeple would not only believe it happened, but agree with the "government's" position.
It's just too subtle.
You have to love it when governments squeeze seemingly unrelated items into a bill they are trying to pass. Check out Secion 503 of the Patriot Act (emphasis mine):
SEC. 503. LIMITED AUTHORITY TO PAY OVERTIME.
Would someone please tell me how this helps in the "fight against terrorism"? Never mind that it seems like an awful lot of overtime, just how does it help the anti-terrorism cause to limit overtime pay? Employees of the above departments might be forced to work a lot more overtime given the new restrictions that might be placed on their work and this just serves to screw them if they happen to work quite a lot more. This just seems like a petty section.
ian.
ian
"Senator Blocks Attempt to Pass Bill"a ck s_terror_laws_2.html
h tm l#form
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011010/us/att
BTW, you can thank him for doing the right thing at:
http://feingold.senate.gov/services/contactrdf.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
The right to trial by jury would be abolished in all instances where the sentence was likely to be less than two years. This would include most prosecutions under sec. 296 of the Copyrights Designs and Patents Act (the UK's DMCA), as well as serious reputation-destroying charges such as theft, assault and drug offences, where defendants can at the moment insist on jury trials. To prevent "perverse" decisions, Auld also recommends that judges should be allowed to ask juries specific menus of questions about the facts of the case instead of innocent-or-guilty verdicts, reserving the final decision for the judge themself.
In a democratic system, the last ditch defence against a really bad law is that a jury can refuse to convict, in spite of the evidence, if they think that the prosecution is unfair or unreasonable. Cases thrown out by UK juries against the evidence in recent years include vandalism charges against GM crop protesters, official secrets charges against civil service whistleblowers and shoplifting charges against confused elderly people. Juries have also tended to be more critical of police evidence than judges and court officials; and to have had more relaxed views in obscenity and pornography cases.
Specific comment: Independent, Guardian /. yro yesterday; rejected).
General reports: BBC, Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent
(submitted to
And remember, as this week's NTK points out, bad UK law is often just version 0.1 for bad law in the US.
Not strictly true, according to the Jargon File:
sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
I was willing to stay and get anthraxed or fuel bombed. I am not willing to stay here and get dragged off by the new police state. Does anyone know how hard it is to emmigrate to Canada?
...not an absolute.
When the country was founded, there was a HUGE debate over whether "we, the people" could be trusted to govern ourselves. Those who favored democracy felt we did; those who wanted to create a mini-Great Britain didn't. So in the end, we got a balancing act in which we democratically elect representatives, in whom we trust to do the right thing. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, but that's besides the point. The point is, we have a hybrid system on purpose.
So in the wake of 9/11 we can expect the balance to be reopened for debate. The question is still and always has been this: can you trust an open society of common people to make the right decisions and act like good citizens? Or do you have to have a central government provide a high degree oversight and control?
I'm voting that we've still got what it takes. I hope the changes that get passed are minor ones. To do otherwise would be to give up on the "great experiment" that is the point of having a separate country in the first place.
Errrm, Onion == Satire News. It's fake. Ari Fleischer never said those things (well, not in as many words).
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
Something that hasn't had much attention is the proposal that would create a moratorium on new student visas. Apparently, one of the attackers was in the US on a student visa, so some lawmakers would like to deny entry to foreign students. This would have the side-effect of meaning that foreign students couldn't leave the US until they finish their education, or they wouldn't be readmitted (we have to surrender our visas when we leave and have our status reevaluated every time we enter the US). Personally, I wish I could go home for Christmas and spend the holidays with my family.
/. readership and I hope you know that, for what it's worth, your friends to the north stand behind you all the way.
I fully understand that Americans are frightened and need to protect themselves, but I don't think this particular proposal will have the intended effect. Students are a small minority of foreigners in this country and it's easier to get here other ways. If you just enter on a vacation, for example, you don't need proof of acceptance to a school or financial documents. I do agree that the student visa system needs an overhaul and better security, but not a moratorium. For that matter, in light of the terrible events on Sept. 11, the entire immigration system needs to be scrutinized. Anyway, I offer my personal condolences to the Americans in the
Everything the Administration wants to do, it can do right now if a judge approves. Yet the FBI isn't complaining that judges are turning down their requests for search warrants or wiretap orders in terrorism cases. So there's no problem. All this is just Ashcroft on a power trip. He should be replaced.
Again, I say: the Onion is bleeding satire. It's not real! Say it with me: "Ari Fleischer didn't say those things. Some incredibly astute writer for the Onion was able to make light of current events by putting a (slightly) absurdist spin on things." Repeat until it sinks in. Parody. Satire.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
The lack of judicial oversight, the broadened definition of "terrorism" to include common civil disobedience tactics, and the ability to continue surveillance after it's no longer useful to an investigation all sounds tailor-made for keeping tabs on and incarcerating political dissidents.
Time to waste more postage on my representatives...
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Personally, I think that when terrorists attack, that is not the time to quickly abandon freedom, judicial process, and other things that make our civilisation what it is: I think on the contrary that this is the time to hold on to these principles extra carefully.
A shame to see that in all the polls I have seen recently on CNN and in newspapers, whenever the question is about abolishing a civil liberty, roughly 80% is in favour. I sure hope we get back to thinking again soon.
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
The Constitution is supposed to protect us from the government spying on us in our private lives. The Bill of Rights reiterates this, saying "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" (Amendment #4). The bills currently going through would violate these ideas
On a side note, I must point out that the Constitution does not protect you from your ISP or other access/content provider spying on you or your activities. If they determine you are being bad and then go to the authorities, you could be investigated further, and probably legally.
Our best hope here is that after these laws pass (and they probably will) that a relatively benign case makes its way to the Supreme Court, and that they will strike the law down as unconstitutional.
In the wild there are no dumb lions tigers or bears. Only humanity subsidizes the continued existence of the stupid.
"Don't give up Liberty in the zeal to defend it."
What do you think? Keep the old one, or replace with the new one?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Judd Gregg (R-NH) obviously needs to move to a new state, seeing as NH is the "Live Free or Die" state.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
I don't agree with everything he does, but on the basis of that one vote alone he earned a lot of respect from me. He was a relative newcomer and began making waves almost immediately with his campaign finance reform bill (with McCain), and his willingness to protect individual rights even when it's politically dangerous to take such a stand (like with the CDA, and now this).
Hat's off to him. If he runs again, he gets my vote. (I'm in Wisconsin). Tonight I'll look up the snail address to send him some dead trees letting him know this. (It's important to tell your representatives when you agree with them just as much as it's important to tell them when you disagree.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm not one of your constituents, and I very rarely write to my congresscritters (as they seem to be more responsive to lobbyists demands than public good). I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to block the disasterous ATA (anti-terrorism act) and the Bush Administration's drive to completely shred what is left of our Constitution.
Their rush to defend our freedoms by destroying them chills me. I am more afraid of THEIR efforts than the actions of the most black-hearted terrorist, as it is abundantly clear which will have more disasterous long term effects.
Please continue to defend our civil liberties by preventing kneejerk reactionary responses similar to what we saw in the McCarthy Era and the Cold War.
"Freedom is like a rope made of several strands.
Weaken or remove one strand, and the rope is
weakened... There are bad people in the world,
ever watchful for opportunities to seize dominance
over others. For good people to stand idly by is
to welcome the erosion and eventual collapse of
all our freedoms." David F. Linowes
At the point where all freedoms are up for grabs, so is everything America stands for and is embeded in the Constiution. These crisis brings us incrementally closer to more rights losses, many of which are covert in the eyes of average Americans. If we want to protect are freedom, we must act now and set a precedent: under no circumstances will we give up our rights for utilitarian ends.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
http://www.aclu.org/action/usa107.html
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
Internet, USA: The online community was stunned when it discovered their favorite lampoon magazine, The Onion, was starting to run actual news stories.
"I was reading this article, expecting a laugh, but the laugh never came!" sobbed one long-time Onion reader. "I depend on the Onion to distract me from facts, and what do they do!" After speaking with us she left for her lawyer's office intending to sue.
Other online news entities were similarly stunned. Matt Drudge refused to talk with us; Joe Farah of World Net Daily simply stated, "it's war!" CmdrTaco of Slashdot said that "it'll be nice to have someone who actually REPORTS the news."
Obviously the best restriction on traditional liberties is no restriction. However, given the terrorist threat, the ACLU would be more helpful by saying what restrictions it thinks are acceptable or useful or even necessary rather than dismissing them all as if nothing changed on Sept. 11.
For instance, it says: "Few of the provisions being discussed are needed for the current terrorism investigations, so Congress should take the time to do it right." But it does not say which of the "few" it feels are necessary and that Congress should therefore act on expeditiously.
In addition, all of these acts are subject to judicial review under the Constitution. No Constitutional right can be removed by an act of Congress. If there is a problem, it is that some of the so-called rights we take for granted are not protected by the Constitution.
The ACLU only says a few provisions explicitely violate the U.S. Constitution: (1) Nationwide pen register/trap and trace orders and roving wiretaps, and (2) Criminal evidence uncovered using an intelligence (FISA) wiretap. It doesn't mention a Constitutional test for the others, which should be the first objection raised.
One question is whether the terrorists pose a greater real and immediate threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than the provisions mentioned by the ACLU. If so, the laws that are providing shelter for the terrorists are going to have to be changed.
The bill that Congress passed after 8.4 milliseconds of debate -- I forget its name, the one that basically gave the blank check to Dubya -- apparently is no different with respect to the Constitution from a declaration of war.
At least, that's what the talking heads have been saying.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
If all they did was observe passively I wouldn't care. But it doesn't *stop* with mere observation.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Why should that matter? We're sending our people off to fight and die somewhere. To them, it's a war. Why doesn't Congress declare it?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I do not think he would have had kind words for those who wish to restrict our liberties in exchange for a marginal improvement in "security".
A witty saying is worth nothing - Voltaire
Milwaukee, WI: The editors of The Onion, long considered one of America's best sources of satirical news, surprised the world today by retracting a story entitled "Freedoms Curtailed in Defense of Liberty".
One Onion staffmember spoke on the condition of anonymity. "It was just too realistic. People actually thought this was a real story! I guess that's kind of scary." He continued: "I mean, what do we have to do to, label every page with 'WARNING: Contains Satire, Witty Postmodern Observations and a General Sense of Cynicism'? Why don't people get it?"
"I mean, sheesh, we regularly run stories that anthropomorphise animals and quote God as using the f-bomb. How much more obvious can we be?"
The internet community was unavailable for comment.
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
You can find your reps mailing address at Contacting the Congress .
http://www.windmeadow.com/
1. There is supposed to be a state of constant war. Orwell states that this constant war is used to keep the people nationallistcally proud of their country, while suffering privations for the "war effort" Remember the theory that the bombs were dropped by Oceana itself (not suggesting in any way that the terroists were not responsible just emphasiszing that in order for docility there needs to be a constant anxiety about war)? The constant state of war also lends people to worry about the nessecities of war and not the niceties of freedom and comfort.
2. Every citizen a criminal. The only way to keep people in check was to criminalize everything, down to thought. The understanding is that if you can be caught at anything, you will watch everything that you do or say. If posting negative comments about the party (Bill Maher) got you tortured or killed, you'd be likely not to speak out. If thinking ill about the party could get you busted by the goon squad, then you would even fear yourself.
3. The most frightening thing about taking away liberties is that it is a slippery slope. Remember that once the Party had a modicum of power, it's only goal was power. Soon after a few generation, there would be no thoughtcrime or punishment, because man would cease to be man in any recognisable sense. In other words, there would be no thought as we know it and so no thought crime. Today it's internet, tv and newspapers, tomorrow it's your desktop, the day after, your home and in a few years, your children have no concept of home. Scary. All too real.
What we need to do is make a conscious decision to effectively protest this crime against America and technology by having a "Tech out" like if this gets passed that we just do our jobs like normal, but when we get home, don't sit in front of the screen. I know that's a lot to ask of people who live and breath by the I/O but there has to be an effective voice to speak out against our liberties getting trampled on in the name of freedom. As too often is the case, we are conscientious objectors with no active participation until there is no protection in place to allow participation. It happened to a very civilized Germany, It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in the former Soviet Union, it most certainly could happen here.
Speak up, speak loud and speak out.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
In order to justify it's positions, the ACLU uses an argunent that is vary simple to articulate but vary difficult to defend - that being, the Slippery Slope Argument.
Slippery slope arguments are notoriously difficult to make. In order to justify your actions using a slippery slope argument you must defend any and all instances of the situation you propose to protect. While I support the ACLU, you have to realize why their support doesn't have a much broader base than it does. I believe that support for civil liberties runs far deeper that one can see by looking at supporters of the ACLU because they have chosen to use this simplistic principle to articulate justification for their actions. They have created for themselves a political policy cul-de-sac from which they have yet to emrge. They find themselves defending the most morally reprehensible instances and people who find their civil liberties infringed upon. Potential supporters then look upon these actions and can't seperate them from the vary laudable goals of the organization as a whole.
While Slippery Slope arguments are common in civil liberties discussions, it is important that they don't act to drive away potential supporters of the overall set of principles.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
(the speech)
See:
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webamrcount
Note: This report covers events from January 1 to December 31 of 2000. By all accounts, the 2001 report will not be much different.
Reality has a liberal bias
I can see releasing 10,000 minks as being a crime, but terrorism? How so? Are refineries and factories that pollute the environment terrorists too?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Bacteria.
t hrax.html:
From http://www.bact.wisc.edu/MicrotextBook/disease/an
"The anthrax bacillus was the first bacterium shown to be the cause of a disease. In 1877, Robert Koch grew it in pure culture, demonstrated its ability to form endospores, and produced experimental anthrax by injecting it into animals.
"Bacillus anthracis is a very large, Gram positive, sporeforming rod (1-1.5um x 4-10um). The organism is readily cultivated on ordinary nutrient medium and grows best aerobically, but will also multiply under anaerobic conditions."
Wrong. It makes them terrorists, in my book. They euthanize (i.e., kill) animals and they equate animals to humans; ergo, they advocate killing humans. Ask them, they don't deny it.
They also steal pets from pet shows then kill them. Those are terrorist acts. Their aim is to terrorize people into no longer owning animals. Ask them, they don't deny it.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
It goes both ways, i'm sure you could pick out quite a few corporations that act against the good of society to the point of being deemed terrorists. (oil companies with their own private armies in 3rd world nations for example).
What do you think the chances are of any major global corporation being held responsible for their terrorist actions? (Hint: start with 0 and work your way down)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
U.S. government:
"We must take your freedom away so that you can continue to have freedom."
"Only violence stops violence."
Secrecy and weapons sales corrupt democracy: " What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
You picked a poor example. I can reconcile myself to corporate tracking of my debt payment habits. I find that a reasonable tradeoff for easier credit. I have a huge problem with my ISP (Time Wormer) having the absolute inability to manage without my SSN. I have a problem with stores tracking every purchase I make and tying them to me, not John Customer #235235632. I don't mind potential creditors knowing how likely I am to repay. I mind the fact that someone, somewhere knows every magazine I subscribe to, what sorts of books I buy, how often I eat Twinkies, my current and past medical condition, my address, phone number, how many kids I have and how old they are, and the list goes on. Worst of all, in many cases they're free to do WHATEVER they want with that data. I should be able to buy a DDJ, a WSJ, or a Playboy and have that info not go beyond the clerk, even if I don't use cash. I should be able to have genetic screenings performed without worrying that they might find something which would make getting life insurance harder, or impossible, or make getting a job more difficult. I should be able to eat Twinkies to my heart's content (actually I despise 'em, but that's beside the point) without wondering how long it'll be before the supermarket and my life insurance co partner and modify my rates based on my diet. Don't laugh, some people have seriously proposed it.
As always, there's a line of "reasonableness", for lack of a better word, which shouldn't be crossed.
And as always, it doesn't take the government to make this happen. It takes nothing more than enough of us saying no. No you can't have my SSN unless you have a legitimate use for it, no you can't examine my medical records before offering me a job, no I won't let you track my purchases in exchange for a so-called customer loyalty discount card, no I won't be your customer if you can't respect my privacy!
God help us
The suspension of civil rights during war is ok ? what is happening here for christs sake.
Suspension of civil rights is NEVER acceptable. Full stop. What happened a month ago can happen again today or next week or next year, all the talk of rhetoric and sabre rattling and bombing will never ever change the simple fact that one or 2 determined people who believe in their actions can get around almost any security.
After vietnam one would think that the US would have learned this fact of life.
Terrible things happen in this world and innocent people die - horrific acts of pain and suffering, murder, torture, rape etc.
Allowing the government to take away ANY of your rights because in the heat of anger you think it its a goos idea is not only insane its EXACTLY how Hitler gained power in Germany with minimal real support, how Lenin took Russia etc.
We need to be vigilant today and toomorrow and forever to ensure that the democratic process is never circumvented for any reason - we choose the government and the government should always be answerable to the public - NO EXCEPTIONS
What do we do in years to come if we give up civil rights now and the government decides that in a state of emergency to suspend elections and habeas corpus, to declare martial law or other actions ?
All the planes in the sky and the troops on the ground cannot prevent this sort of action happening again and throwing away civil liberties and democratic processes show those in the world who claim the US is a bully that they have a point.
We should always ensure that the power this nation and its allies wield is applied fairly and honestly with restraint and compassion - there is no need for innocent people of ANY race to suffer in the pursuit of any group of people - and this includes the millions of innocent Afghanis who have suffered through nothing but war for almost 30 years.
Lets not give away our freedoms, not now not ever.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
While it hardly matters where such hideous things first evolved, you might consider Stalin's campain against "wreckers" particularly chilling. As part of his attempt to undermine potential opposition (ie any profesional, priest, officer, or person who had ever read anything) he made them all into potential forgien agents. Films were made where the vilian took money from the Germans to destroy factories and harvests. It terrorized the whole society and shook it to the core. In a country with an accute shortage of competent engineers, engineers were put on trial, jailed and even executed for supposed sabotage. They made great scape goats for his faild social policies.
Hitler got most of his tricks from the old man of steel. Orwell, having survived the conflict between the two, imagined governments that were continously at war and lobbed missiles at their own people to keep them upset. Kill Goldstien!
We are not there yet, but SSCA, DMCA, and other oppresive laws aimed at putting desperatly needed IT folks in jail are ominous. The popular culture has not been kind to hackers lately. How do you like being portrayed as a criminal interested only in stealing music, spam, breaking into military computers and stealing credit cards? Perceptions are powerful and bad ones can hurt you.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In the 1940's the gov't didn't have the kind of technology that we do know. What George Orwell invisioned was a future with advanced technology that we have now for monitoring "inapproptiate behavior."
Also, George Orwell never said that a translation like this would happen over night. In fact, that would be impossible as long as we have people who are very enthusiastic about their rights. It will take genertations to get them out of the gene pool. But the threat of terrorist attacks on the US, on it's own soil (If Russia had tried to invade the US, we would have been in the same situation, but only magnified by 100), has made the transition process a little easier. You won't wake up tomorrow with Big Brother watching your every move. It will come incrementally over time, so you don't even notice the transition.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/10/ret.bush.media/in dex.html
It may seem like a good point. But what seems scary to me is that the Whitehouse has been trying to control slant and news since this thing has happened. The Bill Maher thing is one example, as is the fact that it was disproven that the Whitehouse and Airforce were targets that day, even though both Cheney and Rice insisted that it was true.
Something is up, and parnoid conspiracy theory aside, its getting pretty scary. Last night on Bill Maher, the republican strategist said that CNN was on the verge of being sued by the Gov for creating the Anthrax scare, cos they have been "right on the line of what the first amendment protects" (paraphrase, it was late). Its all too convienient if you ask me.
The War on Drugs has been responsible for massive amounts of federal asset seizures. I can't remember if it was Bush or Reagan, but one of 'em enacted a law that gave the federal law enforcement agencies the abillity to seize your goods if they even SUSPECTED you were involved in some form of drug trade or possession, and they don't have to disclose the "evidence" that led them to believe you were guilty. This resulted in a lot of innocent people taking it in the bung.
I see a parallel here in recent events. The government has just come up with another way to criminalize otherwise innocent people. We already have a greater percent of the population incarcerated than any nation (but, hey, it's good for the economy!).
The scariest thing, to me, is that if the government spent as much time and money trying to educate us about drugs, rather then spend it on propaganda, we might not have so many lives destroyed. Similarly, if we spent as much time and money on finding a peaceful solution to the terrorist problem, instead of bombing the hell out of people and whittling away at US Citizens' civil liberties, maybe we could get somewhere.
Meanwhile, I'm a bit scared that my political beliefs will get me thrown in a jail. Please, you may not agree that we shouldn't be bombing Afghanastan, and you may not agree with my politics, but every single American is in danger of losing our freedoms. And that's what we are supposed to be fighting for in the first place, isn't it?
Speak out!
The debate, though, is happening, albiet not in the mainstream press. (OTOH, the NYTimes has had several stinging editorials and op-eds, all against the measures - that's as mainstream as it gets, I guess.)
On the right: see this article - and on the left, this one is the only one I can find now. Excellent reading both, and you know something is up when the Nation and the New Republic agree! Or try this one, where Sandra Day O'Connor is quoted as saying "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country."
Whoa! This is the swing vote on the Supreme Court... say bye bye freedoms. Some days, I wonder where we're going, and why we're sitting in this handbasket...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
But much pollution is not legal. Corporations get taken to court for it. Sometimes they lose. Should they be tried for terrorism now when they pollute a whole town or other similar acts?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Friday and Saturday at the Wisconsin Academy of Letters and Sciences'
forum on the Bill of Rights
Representative James Sensenbrenner (R. WI) chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and will undoubtedly sit on the Conference Committee, which will wrestle out differences between the versions of the Terrorism Act the House and Senate eventually pass.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
The title of the Onion article sums it all up quite well:
This sig under construction. Please check back later.
This is complete nonsense. It is crazy to think the suspending civil rights can help the fight against the terrorism. It would be to get rid of what America should be most proud of. And people must be aware that the fight against terrorism is one that cannot be won. UK and Spain must still fight with IRA and ETA after several decades, and in conditions incredibly easier that the present case. This eagerness from the government about suspending civil rights means most probably the the terrorist attack is just a pretext. People should remind that the Dark Side is just easier, not more powerful!
Amazing isn't it? Yes, the last time the United States issued a declaration of war under the provisions of the US constitution was against Japan on December 8th, 1941.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/japwar.html
No such congressional declararion of war has ever been since against any other nation, including Vietnam.
PETA is to the ALF what the IRA is to the Real IRA. PETA want you to think they're more like Shinn Fein, but they're the IRA of the pet world. PETA are terrorists. And if you're a member, then you're supporting terrorism. Period.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.