Slashdot Mirror
Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today
The U.S. Senate passed its version of the "anti-terrorism" legislation last night. The Washington Post, CNN, and Wired all have stories. There are terrorists under every rock, and we must destroy our freedom in order to save it. Remember: gamblers are terrorists too. The House is apparently going to drop their version of the legislation and vote on a copy of the Senate bill.
oh sure reject my story then post it as your own
After reading the original story here about 3 weeks ago, I sent letters and emails to my representitives and congressmen. I even called an office. This is the first time I've ever done anything like this - I feel very strongy about this issue.
I received no auto-replies, no real replies, no acknowledgements, nothing.
Guess who's not getting my vote at the next election?
I swear, I'm gunna run for some public office and end this crap.
A friend of mine had sent out a mass email about the ATA telling all of his friends to "Sign this, we have to protect our kids!", yet it did not mention the actual text of the Act at all. Our government is using fear to pass laws, simple as that. The question really comes down to: Do you want to feel safe, or do you want to be free? Personally, I stand by Patrick Henry "Give me liberty, or give me death."
The sad thing about it, most Americans don't care enough to read up on the acts they are signing petitions to support.
visit my free wallpaper collection, wp.erasei.com
All right, related to the earlier story on our reps not paying attention to us, how *DO* we shine the light of reason into our government?
Perhaps it's time for more than letters, calls, and emails to our reps. Maybe it's time for a bunch of us to get together and get out in our communities and spread the word.
The reps may not be listening to a horde of geeks, but chances are good they'll start hearing us loud and clear if a more balanced mix of their constituents pipes up.
Now we have another problem (or rather a few). How *do* we get people (average Joe/Jane) to listen, and even discuss these issues? Everyone still seems on edge after the 9/11 attacks, but I'd like to believe that energy could be channeled in a positive direction.
Anyone got a site up specificially to discuss this stuff? I'll email all my friends the link.
Opression doesn't just occur overseas.
So, maybe I am giving too much credit to the checks and balances system, but won't these new laws still have to be upheld by a court?
an not in the US..
or afghanistan for another matter...
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Only Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) did not vote for this... and he tried last ditch efforts to include privacy.
Even my own, Sen Tom Daschale (D-South Dakota) voted for this, and I too wrote him a letter.
Sigh, I wonder what 'unintended' consequences this will bring about... how it will be abused...
And, I wonder how it will HELP... this is an anti-terrorism bill. I'd like to see some follow up someday that shows specifically how these new laws HELPED fight terrorism.
I hate the comparision, but this 'war on terrorism' is starting to feel a lot like the 'war on drugs'... and open-ended, make it up as you go sort of deal with no clear goals and lots of shady undercurrents.
And no one defined moment where we can say, there we've won, it's over...
Hatch is quoted "current law perversely gives the terrorist privacy rights.... We should not tie the hands of our law enforcement and help hackers and cyber-terrorists to get away"
First off, obviously Hatch doesn't know the differences between a hacker and a cracker.
Then the comment about giving the terrorist privacy rights... unfortunately terrorists are a subset of people... and this legislation is going to hammer PEOPLE's privacy rights - at least in the US.
Sorry to see this happening, and I sure am glad to be a Canadian right now.
Let's just hold a little /. seance and summon the ghost of Sen. Joseph McCarthy. You'll know you've succeded when the ghost of Dick Nixon finds a microfilm in the world's least sincere pumpkin patch and drags Linus off in irons...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
But then I remembered I live in the UK.
Unfortunately, what goes on "over there" soon enough comes round "over here".
What can a foreigner do to stop the "Leaders of the Free World" leading it up the garden path?
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment of your chosen title, but "Senate Trashes Civil Liberties;" is merely inflammatory rhetoric. I'd prefer that Slashdot editors list their specific grievances with the legislation and ask us what we think about those complaints.
to put on my asbestos suit.....
... ok ready..
First of all, this does not fall under the ben franklin remark about sacrificing liberty for safety etc etc...
terrorism is a semi-expensive business... it takes money to train people to fly a 757 into a tall building, pay off people, etc etc.
Osama and co. obviously is using one of the oldest tricks in the book to launder money.. gambling.. how many people complained when we shut down the mob run casinos in vegas? not many. why? because it helped shut down that element.
Osama and friends are more like pissed of rich boys than they are 'good muslims'. Chances are we wont find him, so the next best thing is to make it very crappy for him to live...
it's also been shown that they have used the net to transmit messages, and now maybe even TV.. if putting harsh restrictions on cryptography can hinder him as well, what all is lost? It's because of paranoia and people continually fighting the governments efforts that these people pulled off what they did. We complained about military spending, intelligence, etc... and now look what happened..
we say we want the govt to protect us, so when will we let them do their jobs?
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
but nobody even seems to care about the fact that Anthrax has been confirmed in New York City.
/. is like arguing for expanding civil liberities at the NSA. One ferverant zealot forum vs the other with no real middle ground.
Yes this is going to seem like a flame, but here goes my karma anyway...
You see, we need a balance between security and freedom. Obviously the previous balance wasn't good enough because Downtown Manhattan and the Pentagon were given a serious blow. Civil liberties are not ENDOWED rights, they need to be restricted to keep people safe, in times such as these. It is not A BORN right to be allowed to drive in downtown manhattan. Privacy is not a BORN right... it's a civil liberty.
Ok, we'll get them back after all this is over. Most of these provisions (the one the Senate passed in particular) has a SUNSET clause. Nobody seems to mention that. These are temporary restrictions to aid in the keeping the people safe.
But then again, arguing for restricting civil liberties on
How important will PGP be to you when your entire home is destroyed by bombs/planes or wiped out by plague?
Come on! It's called the "USA Act"* -- you'd have to be some kind of pinko commie terrorist bastard to vote against it, wouldn't you?!
* Yes really -- it's the "Uniting and Strengthening America Act."
"Despite my misgivings, I have acquiesced in some of the administration's proposals because it is important to preserve national unity in this time of crisis and to move the legislative process forward," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
Translation: I'm scared shitless to vote against any bill with "anti-terrorism" in the title. You really have to admire the lone dissenter, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, for having the sack to vote against it. Too bad he'll be lucky if the voters of Wisconsin don't hold an emergency election to kick him out, nevermind re-election. You know your in trouble when CNN is singling you out in the second paragraph.
If everyone just ignores all these stupid legislations, there won't be enough resources to stop them. The problem is, people respect their governments, countries, etc too much, instead of thinking of the world in terms of individuals trying to think freely and live freely.
Since the dawn of time, rulers from Kings to the modern pseudo-democratic governments have tried to convince their "citizens" from an early age that they have some divine right to rule. They don't. It's their ability to exert fear that keeps them where they are.
This advice stands whether you're an oppressed woman in Afghanistan, or a free-thinking American who wants to get on with his daily life.
Remember, once it was illegal for a black man to sit next to a white man on a bus. Do you think the black man was wrong when he sat in his seat? Exactly. Once upon a time, Freedom was anathema. Then, for a few decades, it came into fashion. Fight _vigorously_ to retain this glorious gift that so many have fought for.
Throughout the world.
I know Liberty Island has been closed due to the proximity of the 9-11 terrorism and a potential target itself. However I see this as a metaphor for the tightening of freedoms in USA.
How can I find out which of our esteem elected "representatives" added these riders? I sure would like to know if someone I voted for added something that I didn't like. Maybe then I wouldn't vote for that person next time! What about those who spoke out against it? I'd like to vote for them again if I can!
Im serious, dont be knee jerk about this, how about some details!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The link on the House dropping it's version mentions that the House is considering an amended version of the Senate's Act, to include expirations on measures.
What about the collective silence regarding the Federal Government's continued violation of the Tenth Amendment?
What about the disarming of law abiding American Citizens who wish to exercise their HUMAN RIGHT of self-defense not to mention their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
BTW, if you are between the ages of 18 and 45, a US Citizen, etc then by law (Federal & California) you are a member of the militia. Why then do they make it so difficult to "keep and bear arms"????
I believe Juanita
You really have to ask what freedom's are being protected? More and more it seems we won the cold war only to become what we defeated.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
Now, that's all well and good, but understand that these shell banks (often located in the carribean, when they're located anywhere) are also used by unscrupulous tax dodgers to make large portions of their income invisible to the IRS. So, this measure could also increase tax revenues substantially, since... well... it's not exactly the poorest of the poor who use these tax dodges :)
Not that it really justifies the bill as a whole. This just might be another interesting (and good!) side effect of it.
I hope you do run for public office. I've been considering it. Too many times we whine and moan about how bad it's getting, but we never do anything about it. It's time to change that. We need more clueful people in office. Heck, we'd probably have better government if we selected people at random from the phone directory.
Constitutionally Correct
From the Washington Post article:
One sought to amend a provision -- aimed at preventing cyber-attacks by terrorists -- that would permit surveillance of anyone who accesses a computer "without authorization."
Feingold called the measure overly broad, saying it could be construed as allowing surveillance of an office worker who violates company policy by making a personal Internet purchase on company time.
What and who defines "without authorization"? Your boss? Your IT tech? Your school? The bills do not provide such a definition.
Even a 12-year downloading a Britney Spears MP3 could trip this off, since it's a copyright violation.
This is scary, for it provides people too much power to invade privacy, all under the guise of "national security".
My family lives in New York City. My sister was telling me that she had to submit to a full body search when she went to a concert at Madison Square Garden earlier this week, and I expressed a concern for her civil liberties. She told me that she didn't, of course, enjoy submitting to a full body search, but that she would gladly give up some of her freedoms in these "terrifying times" if it would even potentially be a deterrent to terrorists. The thing that she (and many other Americans) do not realize is that the laws that are being enacted to enable the authorities to infringe on her freedoms in these terrifying times are a slippery slope-- as stated in the Washington Post article, there is no "sunset," or expiration, date on these laws. I sent her a funny article from the Onion this week, and she was offended: this is not something to joke about, she said. "I'm scared right now. I see soldiers on the street corners and it makes me feel awful, but if that causes one potential terrorist to think twice about attacking me or mine, I'm glad to have them there." I don't know how to respond-- I'm glad, as well, if they're a deterrent, but it's really a question of how imminent the danger is, and whether we can ever really know how imminent danger of terrorist strikes is. If we don't know (and how could we?) I'd rather have the civil liberties. Failing that, I'd rather know that, when the fear dies down, we'll be able to restore all that we've lost.
I think that the real issue is not that these bills are passing, but that they're passing without expiration dates; that they're potentially part of a much longer-term loss of our civil liberties. That is a slippery slope that we cannot afford to start down.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
Most of you all are too young to remember how much true freedom we used to have. Liberals have been responsible for taking it away bit by bit for years. Maybe, just maybe we might restore our liberty if we remove those non-citizens from our midst who should never have been here in the first place.
The world is not Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. The world is not Sesame Street. Moslems are not Americans with a different paint job. No Islamic country has freedom of speech, freedom of press, or freedom of religion. Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Jews, Bahais, Buddhists -- all suffer horrible persecution at the hands of Moslems--perpetrated by the very relatives the wog at at 7-11.
Each and every Islamic country you can name is a totalitarian nightmare replete with hand amputations, execution of homosexuals, clitorectomies, and all the other wonderful medieval practices which constitute Islam. You liberals should go live in those countries for a awhile, particularly you liberal gals. Seen how much you like it there.
Albeit sneaky to put a gambling item into an anti-terrorism bill, /.ers should look into exactly who wrote this bill and who's voted for it and against it. Keep in mind that with the way congress works, had this bill been voted out in committee, it could take quite some time for a new bill (with the good parts of this one) to get back into committee and pushed throught the house and senate. Many of your representatives may vote to push a bill through a committee looking to get it out there for it's good parts, thinking that the good outweighs the bad.
Do you think that just because this nation is in the midst of a war and crisis, that the lobbyists are any less active than they would normally be? Absolutely not. Remember most of the law voted into existence in this country is written part or in whole by lobbyists who are trying to obtain some political or corporate advantage by getting the law passed.
Okay, EVERYONE knows those crazed people who hijacked those planes used the internet, so as a response restrictions on Online liberties are necissary.
Though not many people know, they also used telephones! Doesn't this scare you, that a phone can be used for terrorist activities?! We should let the FBI wiretap everyone on a whim, so that we can be protected! But wait, they also used CARS! Can you believe that?! I guess that means renting cars should be outlawed and one should have to get govt approval to buy a car of their own! All these things and MORE need to be limited for our own protection.
Fucking stupid if you ask me.
Burn Hollywood Burn
This war won't be won, ever. It could theoretically last forever because it has nicely been described as a fight vs vague shadowy people who could be hiding in any country including our own.
Any such sunset clauses could last forever. Granted I haven't read it yet, but the summaries I've heard haven't put me at ease.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Im glad I live in Sweden.
since the moderators generally vote down things they don't agree with. However against half the provisions of this bill I am, I do agree with one thing: wiretapping an individual not a line. Before you hit that downgrade button, listen up. If I have email, a phone, a cell phone, wireless network access and all, I can easily just alternate or use one, none or all. In the old day, wiretapping your phone was sufficient. Now, its not. However, the protection is not gone... they still need a warrant, there is still a line of defense.
I do think voting down the amendments was a bad thing. Please read the bill or at least the summations before commenting. Overall this is a bad bill, but that provision should be passsed (with the amendments attached)!
Hey, I'm a Canadian too, and I for one have noticed that most stupid laws passed in the US, somehow get a carbon copy with a little Canadian flag stamped on it passed in our parliment... Usually about 6 months after it passes down in the US...
At this point, I'm pretty worried that Canada will pass something very similiar... Oh JOY!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
People in Afghanistan have no freedom. Does that mean they are perfectly secure?
What the Senate has passed reduces our freedom significantly without increasing our security one iota. Read the Act as passed in the Senate and explain to me how it would have prevented the 9/11 hijackings.
--
E_NOSIG
The problem with our elected officials is that they are representative of the people.
/. people, maybe it'll do some good. It's better than dying silent, people.
First of all, they're just as scared as everyone else. They've got spouses and children and grandchildren that they don't want to see dead. So... they come up with a way that they think will cut the cancer off at the root. Problem is, whenever such social surgery is performed, some good tissue always goes with the cancer. In war, we usually don't think about the good tissue until after the fact.
Secondly, they know about as much about technology as the average American. In other words, not all that much. Recent and proposed legislation, from the SSSCA to the DMCA back to the CDA, all point to a lack of understanding about how technology and technological societies work.
The results in both cases: bad legislation.
What to do in response to this? Don't stop trying. I sent my letters (actual, handwritten letters) to my constituent senators regarding the SSSCA today. I don't know if they'll do any good; however, maybe if combined with a few dozen other
Finally, my apologies for my anonymousness. I'm sorta new here.
nightelf
Rep. Michael Castle (R-Delaware), who unsuccessfully tried to remove the language through an amendment, said: "My concern is we're imposing an obligation on financial companies to check virtually all of their statements"...
Good to see they truly have my best interests at heart. That is, if I was a police chief or happened to own a banking conglomerate, which I don't.
Let's be real here, there have been people with little or no education for a long time, people who knew nothing about the political process, or what the king was actually doing, or what the dictator was planning, but everyone has always rallied around the concept of freedom. Jesus, what did people fight for for the last 6 millenia? And our countrymen would now lay down and give up so that they could be "a little safer".
President Bush, how exactly will a missle defense shield, email tracking, and shutting down online casinos do anything when the terrorists used box cutters, sent messages through the mail, and had money wired to them Western Union?
I think the great American democratic experiment is almost at an end... wait... a little longer... its done. So, what's up next? Oligarchy? Sounds good to me I suppose. Where do I send my RIAA tithes?
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ is the address to go to if you want to send a quick email. Letters are best but the vote is today.
As a quote from the movie 'red october' where when the generals from russia dflect to america, one of them says in bewilderment ".. i can travel without any papers?" -- capturing part of the essence of the freedom that is america.
With all the measures being taken in the name of security, we are starting to erode the frabic of freedom that america stands for. exactly what the terrorists wanted to do. their goal wasn't to put a hole in a tower. it was to put a hole in our freedom. and looks like our congress is helping them get there.
DMCA
SSSCA
USA Act
Now I think you Americans have also given up the right to call your country 'Land of the free'.
Someone will probably mod this as funny but really it's sad.
Sorry, we all lost this one. It's for sure that Bush will be signing this into law shortly.
The only way it will be changed is (1) through the courts, in the short term, or (2) after the war, when there is some dramatic abuse of the new powers.
Don't give up, though. Move on to the next issue.
No, the closure was due to a mysterious fluid leaking from eyes and flowing down the cheeks. Engineers are uable to find the cause of leakage.
For your right...
t yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttttttt
"Nobody's life, liberty or happiness are safe while Congress is in session" (Mark Twain I think but could be someone else)
I guess the one thing that really worries me about all this is not that the government wants to go after terrorists. I'm even willing to give them the benifit of the doubt about their intentions with the bill. The question I have is how do you define "terrorist"?
I know this sounds silly at first glance but it isn't. Everyone sort of assumes we know what we mean by a "terrorist" and Congress passed laws in order to help deal with them. But these laws will be with us even if we win this "war". And we as citizens will have to live with the consequences of them for years afterwards.
I think taking a significant amount of time to make sure the proposed rule changes don't cause more harm to the citizens than grief to the terrorists is not a particularly silly thing to ask for. Given the speed which with this bill was passed, I'm not convinced it will to more good than harm. I'd like to think it would but I've seen far too much to not be cynical about the prospects.
Hey complain all you want. I am in NYC right now pretty much shitting myself while reading about how Anthrax works.
It has been just about a month since I watched the first world trade center building collapse from the roof at work in midtown Manhattan. I have gone to two funerals for friends and family killed in this attack. I go through one of the largest commuting hubs in NYC every day, Penn Station, which is crawling with unarmed National Guardsmen.
Right now and forever on I have no problem allowing the government to track everything I do and who I do it with. I have no feeling of security in anything I do anymore, I don't care if our own government is watching me every minute as long as I don't have to spend another hour trying to find out when my doctor can take a blood sample for Anthrax testing today and even if he does take it if the result would even come back in time to do anything about it.
The rights that they are taking away are important and signifigant but if it allows terrorism to take place I must put my trust in the government because they are all I have right now. The government may be taking advatage of our rights, but the terrorists are taking advantage of our lives.
I plan on joining the thousands of others in this city by quiting my job and getting the hell out of dodge for a while; Mom, Dad, Sis I'm coming home! I wish it never came to this.
Have people read this article?
, 00 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47518
Democrats were similarly split, with ranking member Rep. John LaFalce (D-New York) saying that college students must be shielded from gambling's lure.
"The chief users of Internet gambling are not terrorists, they are our youths," said LaFalce. "Lots of different kids are given credit cards -- not one -- multiple cards. It's easy to gamble from dormitory rooms, or with wireless connections from campus quads, or with Palm Pilots any place."
Welcome to Puritan America. Our women don't wear veils, but let's protect our college students from sin.
US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor says she foresees unprecedented restrictions on democratic rights in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. She declared flatly, "We're likely to experience more restrictions on our personal freedom than has ever been the case in our country." Read the article here, or find it on yahoo etc - it was widely reported.
Do you see a check or balance anywhere in sight? I see a big blank check being handed to Congress by one of the justices on the Supreme Court, but besides that...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
but nobody even seems to care about the fact that Anthrax has been confirmed in New York City
So how will these laws prevent someone from putting some Anthrax spores in an envelope and mailing them to you? This is how the NBC reporter supposedly got the disease in case you didn't know.
Ok, we'll get them back after all this is over. Most of these provisions (the one the Senate passed in particular) has a SUNSET clause. Nobody seems to mention that. These are temporary restrictions to aid in the keeping the people safe.
This is incorrect. Read the Reuters article about the bill passing or any other major news story about the USA act. The Senate voted for No SUNSET on their version of the bill. That's right, congress believes ecret searches of the homes of suspects and treating people like the US is soviet Russia should become the new American way of life.
The House is pressing for sunset provisions to this law but the Senate is trying to convince them otherwise and according to the current slashdot article (you read the links right?), it looks like the House may have been convinced to throw out their objections except for a token disagreement about the wiretap sections expiring in 2004 but even that has provisions that allow it to be overruled if the government feels that it violates "national security".
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011012/us/attac
The House is saying that it won't pass this thing without some changes -- It specifically mentions the wiretapping clauses, and brings in the idea of money laundering as well (adding something that's potentially useful, whoda thunk?)
There is an chart at the ACLU that compares the differences between current law and the new laws that are trickling through the House and Senate.
I went to the San Francisco EFF event that discussed the scope of these bills. It was a great talk. I can't believe how broadly unconstitutional these new bills are!
If you read your quote, you'll notice that civil liberties were not mentioned aka civil liberties are not endowed. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness are the only endowed ones. They were envisioned to protect the people from the government, but now a lot of people fear that a greater threat comes from terrorists than from the gov't. The reasoning is not all that bad: if we can't protected against terrorists, is there any point in protected citizens from the big bad gov't?
I just hope we can find a better way than trouncing civil libertiesl
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Well, I can tell you from personal experience that they already search international mail anyway.
Gambling, tho? Gotta love that shit. "No, Mr. Feingold, we don't have time to discuss your concerns, but we open the floor to debate on internet gambling."
While it's sad to see our elected officials behaving like this, at least they're doing it while the nation is actually paying attention for once. The schmucks that we put into office really, REALLY don't represent us. Except Feingold.
I like that man more every day.
Greenpeace has set up an easy-to-use form that you can use to contact your Sentators and Representatives. Of course, it is appearantly too late to worry about your Senators. Perhaps a letter reprimanding them for their vote is in order.
God save us from a totalitarian State.
Democrats were similarly split, with ranking member Rep. John LaFalce (D-New York) saying that college students must be shielded from gambling's lure.
"The chief users of Internet gambling are not terrorists, they are our youths," said LaFalce. "Lots of different kids are given credit cards -- not one -- multiple cards. It's easy to gamble from dormitory rooms, or with wireless connections from campus quads, or with Palm Pilots any place."
Great, so now it's not just "for the children," but also "for the immature adults." Shouldn't college students be shielded from alcohol's lure too? What about drugs, porn, and the horror of late nights coding madly while eating snack foods and watching Star Trek? We must protect our college students, they represent our future! They can't be exposed to anything bad that might force them to make choices or even learn something! Next it will be young adults ("They start the families that will rebuild our nation!"), middle-aged people ("They fuel our rebounding economy!"), senior citizens ("Their wisdom and experience help guide a new generation!"), dead people, and everyone in between who will need protection from their own stupidity. When will people be forced to take responsibility for their actions? When will lawmakers stop using stupid people as excuses for new laws? When will all of these laws result in a population that is incapable of dealing with hardship because "big brother" kept them safe and warm all their lives?
it's REPRESNTATIVES rule, the MAJORITY vote in the REPRESNTATIVES, but the REPRESNTATIVES rule.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---
Bush II's "war on terror" just pulled the plug. All with the implicit endorsement of the entire Senate, save for that brave soul Russ Feingold.
In 10 years, will we even remember what it was like to be "secure in our possessions and papers"?
We defeated the Soviet Union....now we are on a path to become them.
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Change all of your e-mail, slashdot, etc... sigs to include words such as GOD, BOMB, ALLAH, etc... That should give carnivore a run for it's money.
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Today, I am proud to be from Wisconsin. I voted for Feingold and will continue to vote for him. Most of my friends will also continue to vote for him. I can only hope that he is not singled out for this.
People tend to forget he was co-author of the campaign finance legislation that passed the Senate earlier this year with John McCain.
*posted anonymously because I am chicken to make another 'bad mark' next to my name*
Sorry, needed to get that out, and my co-workers are tired of hearing my complaints all day.
Developers: We can use your help.
This is the internal modification to go with the external plan (that were already underway, but will now be accelerated through the use of terrorist hysteria):
External:
A: The OIL administration needs to control South American oil, i.e. Venzuela (our #1 supplier). Look for military intervention (under the terrorism pretext) after B is complete.
B: Control the Russians by trashing their economy (done already by World Bank and IMF) and then, build a pipeline through Uzbekistan (troops there already), Afghanistan (where is that evidence anyway?), and our new buddy, nuke-wielding Pakistan (obviously they will get a cut).
Now, when the oil runs out, they control global stockpiles and will profit from the high prices (all alternative energy technologies will be suppressed until they can be made inefficient enough that they can charge for metered use) that will be created by diminishing supply.
Internal:
Restrict OIL to industries, bar citizens from use except through exorbidant rates.
As the oil based economy falls apart, American citizens will be extremely disgruntled, in fact probably prepared to revolt eventually.
The first ever de-centralized media system (what the internet COULD be) will be comprimised and anyone who challenges the government, regardless of how correct they may be, will be branded a terrorist and subject to legislation designed to sniff out and destroy any organizations.
Look at the current propoganda and tell me something different is in the works, please.
Remember, The founding fathers felt that it might be necesarry for citizens to replace their government in certain circumstances. That is what is under attack right now.
This is the blueprint that the OIL arm of the capitalist family has been pursuing for a long time. The plane-bombings have provided a tailor-made excuse for accelerating the time line. ANd anyone who questions anything is an "American Hater."
Fuck this shit. I am leaving the country before such a thing is restricted.
Wake up sheep!! Question the shit you are being fed!
The only thing to fear is what the FBI, CIA, etc., get away with while waiting for the courts to toss this out, in whole or part. Next year will be an interesting election year, be sure to write these things down, go to campaign rallies and then call the representatives on the carpet for it! In the meantime, you can still make yourself heard by stomping into your local Senators branch-home-offices and telling them where they went wrong. Writing into newspapers isn't half bad, either, be sure to be articulate, tho.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Before people start quoting Franklin, let me point out:
a) The Army. What do people do in the army, except sacrifice freedom in return for safety?
b) Franklin was talking about "essential" liberty and "temporary" safety. Think about that.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
The Senate version does not have the same sunset provisions as the House. The House version expires automatically in a couple of years unless renewed; the Senate version has one section that expires in 2004, I believe, unless the president decides it's "not in the National Interest" and then it doesn't expire until 2006.
The House is on the verge of scrapping their version for the Senate version, too.
Obviously, we'd much rather pass feel-good legislation than actually kill the bastards who did this to us. Obviously, we rather throw away our freedom rather than fight to preserve it.
Terrorism is easy. Do you think it really took a great feat of intelligence to smash a plane into a huge building? Do you really think it is hard to make a bomb? The first 3 weeks of high school chemistry teach you basic reactions, including explosive ones so that you dont accidently blow yourself up in your school.
You can make laws to restrict freedoms all you want, but you aren't even going to slow anyone down unless you chain the whole population to a wall.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
There is nothing in this bill that would prevent a terrorist attack of this nature. Worrying about "cyberterrorists and hackers" has nothing to do with September 11, 2001.
How much communication do you need to organize this? Lets see:
"Hey Bob, let's hijack planes on tuesday and crash them into some big buildings." "OK Jim."
That's all it takes.
Much of the Supreme Court is composed of conservatives that will try to see if this legislation fits in with the tradition of American law. I'm hoping that they'll find that such drastic measures go way too far without some sort of acknoledgement that this is a temporary change in policy due to extenuating circumstances.
What bothers me most about this is that the government actions seem to be in a wartime mentality, without a declaration of war, or even a declaration of a state of emergency. If an event that preciptates the overhaul of our law enforcement system isn't a national emergency, I don't know what is.
Even under the current system law enforcement has had been cracking down hard on a rather dizzying number of people. For now we haven't heard about a lot of abuses, but they almost certainly will occur. I'm afraid that this is turning into another Red Scare, where anyone who associates with "known terrorists" is thrown in jail.
Can you imagine an anthrax spore of these?
Religious zealots that bomb abortion clinics are exactly the same as these islamic terrorists. So RICO was applied appropriately.
Freedom, Unity and Democracy...FUD...oops, Already taken.
(damn, I had a point and lost it....OOOOoo, those CD's are soooo shiney!)
Oh, yeah, it came back:
Get congress to add a "not-quite-porkbarrel" added to these:
Here is what we do:
Take all the laid off techs from *ell, Cow-way, and Q and train them as air marshals...only after pointing out to them that Sept 11 was the Kick while they were down.
(slight propaganda, slight truth)
You know darn well most of the ppl from Dakota and Texas will be armed already (blatant stereotype, work with me) and pissed about being out of work and filled with patriotism and keep training up for computer systems with them.
Can you imagine getting an email saying "I can pick you off at 1,000 yards or hack your systems in less than a 1,000 seconds...which do you want, Mr(s) Bin Lauden?"
Instead of the Dirty dozen just add a x 1000(0).
Just remember the words of Mark Twain: "Imagine you are an *idiot*, now, imagine you are a member of congress...but I repeat myself."
Moose.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
After the terrorist hoopla dies down (in a week/month/year/decade/century) someone/thing will challange these new items as unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court will then overturn these knee-jerk laws.
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
Slashdot could reverse the topic icon, if it wanted to...
sulli
RTFJ.
We all must stand up for the right of stupid people to be taxed.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
It basically sections things off into those that have passed, those on the floor, and those hanging around without any action. It also has the text of each bill, who sponsored, and any amendments made to it.
Unfortunately, it's not real-time, so the latest version of the Senate bill isn't up there (I couldn't find it), but for those who really want to get to the meat of what's going on, it's all here.
Thanks, LanMan! I checked out the links; the sites seem very relevant to current issues indeed. The amfcc site seems especially interesting, at least to me (seems to go into detail on issues like the ones discussed here on
Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today
Only one -- ONE -- senator voted against. Maybe it's not as bad as you think?
When I see bullshit inflammitory headlines like this, it makes me sick. Sick that someone is so stupid that they just assume that ANY legislation that expands the power and ability of the FBI is automatically bad. Sick that they can't actually identify what's wrong with the legislation.
And sick that he is using the same tactics that he accuses others of using: Using flaming rhetoric rather than facts to scare people into going along with him.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
lol, the problem is most americans are fucking morons. So bust ass and get rich so you can buy your own politician.
What is funny, is how the people that back this crap (and then try to JUSTIFY it) seem to forget that the very enemy we often fight against not only uses these very same justifications and tactics to subdue their and other people, but more importantly that is WHY we fought them and they were our enemy in the very first place.
It is sad when someone takes the lawyer approach to life and looks for ways and loopholes to pervert what has been said and done in the past, into a bastard child of tyranical subjigation.
What is even more sad, is the fact that these tactics are only usefull in punishing law abiding citizens and not the criminals that they are claimed to be against. That is what happens when logic and reason are put aside in favor of rhetoric and lawyering. You sir, should be ashamed. I sincerely hope I never meet you.
Terrorism is the new trend, already "used" by Israely PM Sharon to excuse himself for attacking his political opponents (ie Palestinians).
Ofcourse, and this bill gives a free passport, "the fight against terrorism" can be abused to fight your political opponents. A Canadian is not a domestic resident, is he? Nor am I. My fears for abuse come from my distrust in any government...
Bizar technology?
Do you now, or have you ever engaged in or supported terroristical activities directed against the United States of America?
-- Jo Jo McCarthy, jr.
We can expect precisely the same behavior over here in the States. Power needs to control. The government will never willingly return power to the populace -- such an act is simply not in its nature. It is only returned by massive, sustained acts of civil disobedience, for instance, in the legal viewpoint, the 60's were a reaction to the laws passed during the World Wars. It took an entire generation to restore some liberties lost during the previous decades of crisis. With this bill, we have just plotted a course for our children to follow.
Other posters rebutted you, but I should reiterate: civil liberties are in fact endowed, natural rights -- read the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, freedom and security are not polar opposities. It is largely because of our freedoms that America has developed into a vibrant, productive society capable of providing for everyone and thus removing the desperate incentives that drive terrorism. There are many places in the world far less free, with far less safety.
Oh, and I'm not worried about anthrax -- the infection rate is too low to be effective in the face of our fully mobilized medical resources. But there are other, simpler bateriums that can be spread in other fashions. My advice to you -- drink filtered water.
Ok, first I want to say that I don't think George Bush is a genocidal maniac. And I am not just making some off the cuff comment relation to the current administration to Nazi's.
Back in the 30's the Nazi came to power in a democratic country by creating public hysteria over the red menace. This got them in power. They then greatly extended the government powers because the reichstag (sp?) was set on fire so the gov't needed more police power to protect from such things happening again. After that the slope got very slippery indeed.
www.goatse.cx
You're welcome.
one drop of water doesn't make an ocean
and
one judge doesn't make up the Supreme Court
-- www.globaltics.net
Political discussion for a new world
I personally am very concerned with this new legislation. However, as soon as they begin to enforce this horrid disgrace of a law, it will bring a lawsuit, and it will go to the Supreme Court, and the law will be repealed. I do still believe the constitution will be upheld. Hopefully, the SSSCA will die before it gets to the point of requiring lawsuits to kill it, as we have seen, in purely technical fields apparently, the constitution does not apply, but, I do not believe this law will pass judicial review.
And try to pass legislation that they KNOW will get passed because of what happened on 9/11. Any
... ever hear of the SECOND AMENDMENT?!?! Plus, those CCD cameras hidden behind pictures n such wired to a VCR in the crawl space will make good evidence when I sue the pants off them.
other time it these types of laws would be struck down so fast it would make those damn congress critters head spin, but of course they are obviously playing on people's fears.
What is it going to take to get these people to wake the f!@k up? Sacrificing civil liberties for "feeling" safe is NOT the option (just like that Ben Franklin quote said).
It has everything to do with abuse. Those mongers that wanted the bill passed were waiting for anything, and I mean ANYTHING to get this stuff passed. So of course they wait for that weak moment, and SEIZE IT!
Obviously there is a reason I'm posting AC, because I'm sure the gov't would now think I'm an Internet terrorist for SPEAKING MY MIND and excersing my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS? I wonder if they ever heard of that thing called "free speech".
If its not corporations buying the congress critters, its unscrupulous politicians that take advantage of a horrific event(s). Sheesh.
The cops can sneak into my house if they want, but they better hope I'm not home
As others have pointed out, the majority of the statements in this post have one of the classic "political speech" structures:
The boogyman is bad, therefore we must ( spend more on pork | stamp out the muppets | vote for me in '03 | ...or whatever ).
The paragraphs few that do contain statements (e.g. the sunset clause, endowed rights) are incorrect. This sort of blather is not informative, interesting, or insightful.
-- MarkusQ
i'm not sure how or where you make the connection between unibomber styled anthrax delivery and the police being permitted to enter your home without your knowledge or consent... on a suspicion. they're two completely different issues. i mean... why not throw in a comment about abortion in response to this article?
understand this... these changes in law do not represent a direct or absolute threat to our way of life in the same way that random acts of terrorism do; but i find it impossible to believe that you are comfortable with the notion that your mail, email, car, home, pc, medical, financial and political records can now be accessed freely by any authority that has been given an anonymous tip that you might be a terrorist. the reality here is that(ie)this law, by extension, enables an angry ex-girlfriend armed with an FBI 1-800 number to have you investigated and/or incarcarated on a whim.
this is a sad turn of events. paranoia is a form of terror all it's own. if this new legislation doesn't make you feel paranoid... then you weren't bright enough to comment on this issue to begin with.
One of Feingold's amendments would still allow police to perform "roving wiretaps" and listen in on any telephone that a subject of an investigation might use, but cops could only eavesdrop when the suspect is the person using the phone. The amendment was rejected, 90-7.
Meaning that any public phone that a "terrorist" ever uses can have a tap put on it and _all_ calls made from that phone can be monitored. Is that a big loophole to get around the illegal search clauses?
Not like anyone uses them anymore anyway, but this seems like a good example of the sort of thing that could've at least been debated.
-beme
1971
Oh my fucking god. If I hear one more person complain about the misuse of the term "hacker" vs "cracker" I'm going to scream.
This argument is essentially the same as hearing a high school kid tell you "I'm not a skater, I'm a stoner." It's just a matter of semantics, and one that most people don't really care about anyway.
To most people, the word "hacker" denotes illegal activity. OK? You can argue all you want about what label gets slapped on you. But most people in the country hear "hacker", they think of some fat white guy trying to do illegal shit with a computer. IT IS TIME TO ACCEPT THIS AND MOVE ON TO MORE IMPORTANT BATTLES.
If you are fighting a battle to educate the world that "hackers" are harmless and "crackers" are evil, you are wasting your time on a meaningless fight. To most people, it's the exact difference between "trekkers" and "trekkies" -- who gives a fuck? Just stay out of computers that don't belong to you.
There are more important things going on right now, people. Don't rehash this whole stupid "i'm a hacker, he's a cracker" argument. Give that one up. Focus on the important shit. And believe me, there's plenty of important shit.
After the Sept. 11 incident at the WTC, I felt some emotions towards those events. Slight emotions of anger, frustration and perhaps fear. It seemed so distant.
Now after hearing about this latest law passed by the U.S. Senate, I feel even more fearful for myself and my friends. I work in the computer industry and because of that engage in various computing activities. It's in the U.S. government's and people's history to engage in the most far-fetched criminal charges against individuals (see Sklyarov and Prof. Felten). Now I'm afraid that what is an innocent gesture might be misconstrued as a felony, and the chances of this happening has increased with all this wire-tapping. Unfortunately, it costs money just to prove one's innocence! This one small move by the gov't. has achieved what all the distant stories of terrorism has failed to do, so far: scare me in my everyday living.
Pray, friends, that you won't be the next victim the gov't. sets its eyes on. It's not as far-fetched as it used to seem (see Brian West)
Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser." ...the USA Act still allows police to conduct Internet eavesdropping without a court order in some circumstances. [amemdments would have] Preseved the privacy of sensitive records -- such as medical or educational data -- by requiring police to convince a judge that viewing them is necessary. Without that amendment, the USA Act expands police's ability to access any type of stored or "tangible" information.
It's almost too much to belive. Agents of my government may now view all records related to me without warrent. Those records will now contain anything any "system admin" decides to collect about me. If enough computer records can be collected to convince a judge that my house should be searched, I might not ever be informed.
How long before the "system admin" is required to collect information? Might my competitors and enemies create false records for me? I'm sure the FBI will now be equiped with M$'s most secure tools. How can anyone be secure in their house and possesions knowing that their government may have bugged it? Do I have to sit behind a bookshelf to write this?
The potential for abuse is unlimited. Such observation can easily be used to harrass. By posting the comment, "Israel is unjust for driving the Palestinians out of their land and keeping them as slaves in concentration camps that lack plumbing, sewerage, power, medical facilities, and schools. It is beyond my comprehension that a people who suffered such things at the hands of others two generations ago could behave this way.", do I become a suspected terroist? Does the FBI then dig into my wife's medical records?
The terrorists have won. We are swiftly becoming the enemy we defeated in the cold war. Rights of free speech, publication and privacy are being stripped away faster and more permenatly than I had ever thought possible. You don't think encryption and the web as a collection of peers will survive digital rights managment do you? Say good bye to the free press of the digital era. With such massive ability to harrass, you don't think people will dare speak their minds about controverial subjects, do you? Say good bye to rational public debate. Our government will soon make the UK's privacy invading cameras and other Orwellian nightmares look like child's play. YOU WILL CONFORM AND CALL IT FREE WILL.
This legislation is perminant. God help the supreme court see it for what it is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I forget who said it, but it's true. If you're that worried about your privacy use strong encryption. And by the way, if you are worried about your privacy...what are you doing on the internet? ;^)
jason
Senate antiterrorism proposals:
-Non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism could be detained for up to seven days without specific charges.
-Greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects.
-Eases restrictions on sharing information between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officers.
-Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist.
Strengthens enforcement along the U.S.-Canada border.
-Expands current measures against money laundering.
-Eliminates the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts.
Um, what's so bad about that?
You think for a second any bill they pass will protect you or your fellow citizens from opening an envelope with poweder in it.
You want balance... you want to be a bit free... sorry but that just doesnt compute unless you make it relative to something. How long is a bit of string ?
*You* want to balance your freedom somewhere between a democracy and a fascist state, if you get your wish then dont call yourself free by international standards.
Do you you choose to be ignorant ?
It's being debated on the floor now:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm
Monday is a horrible way to spend 1/7 of your life.
Authorization of "roving wiretaps," so that law enforcement officials can get court order to wiretap any phone a suspected terrorist would use. Current law requires a court order for each phone number, which most say is outdated with the advent of cellular and disposable phones.
Allows the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely.
Allows law enforcement officials greater subpoena power for e-mail records of terrorist suspects.
Relaxes restrictions on information sharing between U.S. law enforcement and intelligence
officers about suspected terrorists.
Makes it illegal to knowingly harbor a terrorist.
Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service Inspectors and Immigration and Naturalization Service inspectors at the northern border of the United States, and provides $100 million to improve technology and equipment on the U.S. border with Canada.
Expands current measures against money laundering by requiring additional record keeping and reports for certain transactions and requiring identification of account holders.
Eliminates the statute of limitations for prosecuting the most egregious terrorist acts, but maintains the statute of limitation on most crimes at five to eight years.
/. fear so much?
I don't feel any safer, but I don't feel any less free either! Exactly what is it about more border guards do all the
For this article, shouldn't the accompanying US flag icon be flipped upside down, with the star field at the bottom? You know what I mean, the international distress symbol.
..."May I see your papers, sir?"
For all those who believe democracy precludes tyranny, wake up and smell the police state. Government and liberty are mutually exclusive. Any doubters, open a history book.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
-------
of course, posting this could get me branded as a terrorist...
"To allay the fears of some House members that the hastily drafted bill could have unforeseen consequences, particularly with regard to privacy, members of the House Judiciary Committee agreed that those provisions would expire in 2003."
2003 is a long time, but atleast they are thinking ahead and not just implementing a bill that can be widely interpreted. If they are concerned about privacy, they may have gotten some of our messages after all. The next big test will be to see how authorties will test the limits of the bill and/or what the bill allows. I have not read all of the articles or looked at the bills' text but from what i have read, i have not seen anything about having authorization to do surveillence, or just cause...can they spy on someoe who simply 'hasn't got a good look to them'?
Hopefully, they will think a bit before trying installing cameras in our homes, cars, offices, etc.
"One sought to amend a provision -- aimed at preventing cyber-attacks by terrorists -- that would permit surveillance of anyone who accesses a computer 'without authorization.'"
It is these people who scare me, whose senator made this day-brightening, wonderful statement?
-"unauthorized" computer access a terrorist act
with the word unauthorized as broad as it is, this means sending personal email from work where that is "unauthorized" is now a terrorist act, and based on that the FBI can now survail anything and everything you do, without a warrant.
(thats one, there are others but that stands out to me as the scariest one)
*warning, rambling rant attached*
Many people I work with seem happy enough to give up some freedoms to ensure that somehow they will be safe.
I always seem to get stange looks when I say 'fsck em! I don't want or need anyone's protection.' The powers that the government has right now are sufficient to get the job done. It's been one month since the WTC attack, and they have nabbed what around 600 people. They were able to do this without the aid of an anti terrorism act. Hell, would this new law enable the government to give us something other than 'we suspect that we might be attacked somewhere, sometime?' I doubt it.
This is window dressing when you put it next to what I personally suspect is coming our way from Congress and the President.
I don't know about anyone else, but I will fight for my liberties. I won't fight for the 'right' to burn lots of oil, make a profit, or for some corporation to be able to open their valu-mart without fear of it being attacked in some godforsaken corner of the globe. The dream and promise of America was never profit. It was freedom.
Hell, in the new america, you can start a war without having to declare it.
*end rant*
First - Currently it is not illegal to gamble in most states.
Second - If they want to make it illegal, why are they trying to make the credit card industry do the enforcing for them? It seems to me like they need to concentrate on making gambling illegal f that is their goal. I think we see this kind of overstepping a lot, and to say it is in defense of these attacks is despicablein my eyes.
MessEdUp
#/var/www/v
Irrelevant - the votes should have been counted.
Anyway, you're ignoring the ChoicePoint thing. And the ballots. The only correct solution was a revote.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Why would the senate oppose the sunset clause?
If the act is still valid after it has expired, one can simply renew it. There is no logical explanation as to why this clause should not be included. Yet they stopped it.
So my simple deduction is this -- they do not want to relinquish these powers once the threat is gone.
The way i see it, the natural state of any government is to oppress its people, and that is why the constitution was written in the first place. The government will always want more influence and control, and is swift to move in times like these, when citizens are dazed and enraged and crying for vengeance.
"Take away the right to say 'fuck' and you take away the right to say 'fuck the government.'"
Ah a nation of cowards gives up their nobility for some false secuirty, I am sure Osama Bin Ladin is filled with glee.
Hrm, it seems to me that monarchy, as an example, was a successfull form of government for much longer than a century.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
The police of the U.S. would be able, it seems, to access any record about an individual whatsoever, without warrant. Am I right here?
I heard "someone" on National Public Radio this morning interviewed. They were speaking about "network analysis", and the conversation was quietly interesting. NA covers credit card purchases, credit profiling,that sort of thing.
He said that law enforcement on the Federal level wants access to our marketing data.
You heard me right.
He said that businesses had more information about us than the government did -- implying, to me, some surprise that the government doesn't have as good a set of data on its citizens as biz does, and that that obviously, in the light of the new day, this should be rectified.
The Feds want to apply network analysis, the same kind of tech used to track your credit history, to be applied to everyone's data, so that they can work up a pattern of questionable behavior and jump on someone before they actually do a deed.
You heard me. Pre-emptive law enforcement.
Good enough for terrorists, for now. But remember, the current admin wants to expand the definitions of "terrorism" to someone who gets unauthorized access to a network or computer system. And I gor-un-tee that they will add more definitions of a "terrorist" as the decades wear on in their weary way.
We've lost a big one. One dissenting vote.
Americans are too stupid, and ignorant, to understand the freedoms that they are giving up, the implications of what they are doing for future generations and the current world, and to undertake rational risk analysis of the current, tiny, threat of the bin Laden nutcases.
Americans scare me.
you can go here:
http://feingold.senate.gov/ in order to email the senator directly from his page and give him props for what he's done. He was so majorly outvoted, im sure he'd love to hear it.
________________________________________________
No no no.
Your friendly neighborhood FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever agent is a very busy person, and can't read *all* email that comes his/her way.
Instead, your email was scanned by your friendly neighborhood FBI/CIA/NSA/whoever agent's 18-year old INTERN.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
After only reacking a little havoc and seing what happened i'd be dancing in the streats caves or were ever they are.
IF I was one i'm not though.
Terrorists are called this because the inspire fear. They are not called inconviencists because they planned it in all likelyhood it was just a handfull of people from wereever that decided to do this on the spir of the moment, heck they had a good 15 minuts or so to if need be shoot out the engines of the plane to force a landing...but that's a another ball of wax
:)
GOD RUBYRIDGE
BOMBS
CHINA
COMUNISM
EASTRIDGE
Your priorities are out of whack.
The part that pisses me off is that I submitted this same story before the Senate voted but Slashdot couldn't be bothered until after it passed to post the damn article. With the numbers of Slashdot readers, the ACLU alert going live on Slashdot immediately after it was posted might have put in dent is this beast at least.
~~ What's stopping you?
If we are to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave. We should exercise another of our freedoms to protect what we hold so dear. Few Americans know that this was passed or understand what it implies.
I have never organized a protest before, but I will gladly stand next to whoever does to protest this act.
Economic theories have nothing to do with this type of power grab/power surrendering.
Your header should read:
Welcome to the United Fascist States of America.
It's the correct adjective. Today we have embraced fascism as a way of life. It will take years, but this seed planted today will grow into a twisted, sickly tree.
Thing is, the people who live in fascist states are usually very happy. Crime is low (depends on what "crime" is tho), streets are safe, and you don't have to think very hard about the big stuff.
Remember, Americans should watch what they say. Or there could be.. consequences.
I just received this information below from Itzah Hokes, the reknowned
internet watchdog and stormdoor salesman. Please read and send to everybody
in the world. Encourage any and all to notify their senators and
congressmen about their opposition to this measure or just to have a nice
chat. This is urgent. The right to bear boxcutters is as American as
whine, cheese, the Widettes, the Coneheads, and sauerkraut.
Gotta Paypurcutt, the author, is a syndicated communist and president of
"Washington is for Liberals", a metropolitan DC thinkless tank.
National Boxcutters Association Moves to Preserve Constitutional Rights
By Gotta Paypurcutt
(UPS)
Cardboard, IL -- The National Boxcutters Association (NBA - not to be
confused with the National Balloon Association) moved today to head off
Congressional action requiring the registration of boxcutting tools,
primarily easily concealed boxcutters. These have come to be known as
"Tuesday Morning Specials". (The larger version of the boxcutter, the
hunting boxcutter or sports blade, is not included in the current
legislation.) The bill requires a 15 day waiting period for purchasers to
allow adequate time for background checks. Law-abiding citizens, NBA
members, and U-BOX (Union of Box Opening X-perts) members, deemed by the
ACLU and People for the American Way as a menace to society, will be
prohibited from purchasing such weapons whereas known criminals such as
black market traffickers, Osama bin Laden, Yassir Arafat, Mike Tyson, and
Geraldo Rivera will be allowed to receive and register their boxcutters.
Those of latter group, who already possess boxcutters, are fully expected to
acknowledge ownership and fall in line with this law. ACLU lawyer, I. B.
Libble, states, "Criminals are people, too, and have rights but we're not
sure about the rest."
Proponents of the measure state that at least one person is injured, maimed
or killed each year using boxcutters. In the hands of children, boxcutters
render coffee tables as "dead meat". "People have even been known to cut
cardboard with these things! RIGHT IN THE HOME! even when directions say
'Don't try this at home'", says Mr. Libble. Further, he says, "It is
obvious that boxcutters kill people. People don't kill people. That's why
they have to be registered." He cites a case in Toledo where a Stanley
boxcutter (not to be confused with Deck & Blacker, Betty Crocker, or Chevy
Like-a-Truck) is on trial for illicitly slicing a hotdog. Proponents also
claim that the registration of boxcutters makes them less lethal. A person
killed with a registered boxcutter is less seriously killed than one
without. They say that studies show that people wielding registered
boxcutters are more benign.
The president of U-BOX, William "Will" U. Slice, is outraged. He says
returning to the old fashioned method of opening boxes, that is, using small
handguns, is totally unacceptable. It requires too many bullets and if
anything inside is alive, it will be killed for sure. He claims that too
many of his workers were getting wounded with the previous method. The
simple act of performing one's job was too dangerous. The advent of the
boxcutter revolutionized opening boxes, he said. Workers say that the loss
of appendages, the lacerations, the blood-letting, and peeling oranges with
boxcutters is much preferable to the incessant, secondary bullet wounds from
the guns, not to mention the deafening sound of constant weapons fire.
The NBA claims that the constitutional right to bear boxcutters would be
violated by this law. NBA says that the founding fathers, and several
founding mothers carrying and nursing their founding children, intended to
put this provision to into the founding Constitution. They also cite these
founding persons who, following the Boston Tea Party, realized that
cardboard would eventually be developed and, further, would require some
quick method for opening, namely via the boxcutter. Reknowned historian
George Washington Jefferson Jones-Smith-Coopersmith Jackson claims that if
the masquerading Indians (AKA masquerading Native Western Hemisphere-ers)
had had a means to open the boxes in the first place, perhaps the tea party
would have been a more conservative celebration. He states that the right
to bear boxcutters allows the average citizen the right to arm
himself/herself against massive onslaughts of cardboard, initiated by an
oppressive, over-powerful, central government.
The NBA is a very strong lobby, claiming to have a membership in excess of
85 billion members, representing the inhabitants of several galaxies as well
as philatelists, local PTA members, Gus the mechanic, and Capt. James Kirk
along with the entire crew of Starship Enterprise going where no man has
gone before.
Anyone with investments in fence making companies and black arm band manufacturers are gonna clean up. Maybe Geeks should start wearing yellow pocket protectors.
Remember it's your patriotic duty to overreact and report your neighbors, parents, etc. and submit freely to full body cavity searches. If you can't lash out at the people responsible, you find the next best scapegoat and lash out at them. They know where you live. You are all doomed, bwah ha ha ha! (evil laugh)
Are your sure those donuts you're eating are covered with just powdered sugar and not anth...(Oh, I better not add unecessarily to the general level of paranoia)
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
You can only bring up the issue in court unless you actually have legal cause - i.e., something is actively being done to you that you're taking grievance with. You can't just sue on the grounds that you don't like the new law.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
No, the spectrum with 'security' on one end and 'freedom' on the other doesn't exist unless you are killing your own point by making security==slavery.
We HAVE freedom, though it is under assault. We WANT security.
The idea that freedom has to be compromised (and compromised the way the Senate feels is a good idea at the time) in order to get security is what is at issue.
There are many too many times when you get this kind of polar thinking, without anyone defining the axis properly. The 'problem' here is, I submit, 'it was feasible to fly aircraft into the WTC'. This is out-of-the-box thinking, folks, and though the nasty little man figured that one out it has actually been damned difficult for real terrorist activity to get moving in the USA. But what if we said "We have lots of security -assets-. Had they -done their jobs properly- we wouldn't have had incident X"? Why is it every out-of-the-box incident means the government TAKES something? Wouldn't it be in the government's -interest- to screw up on a routine basis?
The War on Some Drugs is like that. The War on Some Drugs is a cash cow for the Fed, some state and local governments, a bunch of police forces and, paradoxically, drug importers themselves.
So, using -existing- assets, requiring -competence- in their use, and holding government -accountable- instead of giving them free rein to shorten our leashes, is what we ought to be doing.
Prospects for a Post-Taliban Afghanistan:
The above article appeared yesterday at www.janes.com
"It now appears certain that any effort to
regenerate Afghanistan is predicated upon
the removal of the Taliban, and the terrorist
attacks upon New York and Washington
have given the US a perfect opportunity to
legitimise its plan to do just that (which
existed well before 11 September). "
The link for this discussion is :
www.janes.com
You draw your own conclusions in conjunction with the Caspian Sea Region oil link at the U.S. Department of Energy:
Caspian Sea Region
i once read (it may have been thoreau) "democracy is tyranny by the majority." America is not a democracy, it is a REPUBLIC (rule by law). objective law can be established to preserve everyone's rights and liberty. in a democracy, the majority could establish any nutty law. unfortunately, i fear that we're approaching not only a democracy, but a democracy ruled by a tiny percentage of the population (congress).
--
fight global cooling
Hear that sound coming from Congress? That's the sound of the Thought Police... and they're coming our way... Perhaps Bradbuy's "Firemen" (Farenheight 451) will be here shortly to take away our books. Afterall reading might inspire thoughts that contradict our benevolent leaders... which is almost certainly a terrorist activity. National ID cards too? why not just tattoo that ID number on our right hands and foreheads... it'll shorten the downward spiral to revelations a bit more... The events, both by terrorists and our government scare me more than ANYTHING else I've ever seen/heard/experienced. And while I can contact my representing government officals all day long it has no effect...
Big Brother is here now, we should thank him for our saftey... he know's whats best for us anyhow...
The online gambling provision is paternalistic and would be a pain for the banks, but isn't it illegal in the US already? At worst, this portion of the bill is redundant, and it seems it's being dumped in favor of the Senate version of the bill.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
We are not at War, War has not been declared.
/. giving a flying fuck? Hell, the various news sources are reporting it, yet none of them are discussing it - I would be up in arms, so to speak, if I had to report this on camera and in the paper or on the net.
This "war" is as much a "war" as the "war" on (some) drugs is a "war".
Congress has yet to declare War. I do not consider the United States at War until Congress declares war. The President does not, and has never, had this power - only Congress has this power. As of yet they have not exercised it. Yet they are rapidly declaring that the Constitution needs to be shredded (which you understand is happening). Such radical changes to the Constitution means something is falling apart - something is happening - and it must be real, capital "W" - WAR!
Why hasn't Congress declared War? Could it be that such acts as the USA Act would require a sunshine clause should War be declared - that is, that such acts would have to be rolled back once the War was over? Could it be that this so-called "war" can't be really won, and thus it can't be legitimately called a War? Thus, a sunshine clause would not help, since there would be no end? Or that if it can't be won, then a declaration of War would be a declaration of a perpetual War? Could it be that if we declare War, then the USA would be bound by various conventions (Geneva, etc) regarding War and POWs, etc?
WTF is going on - this is crazy - why isn't anyone outside of
I fear the day is dark, and getting darker by the minute. True, the sun still shines, but it means nothing if these shackles are being secured to my body...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Where does this Democracy rumor keep coming from? The US is not a democracy. Did you get a vote on the USA bill? No? In a democracy, you would. What we have is a republic, where you get to vote only on a guy that you HOPE will represent your interests and your only recourse if he doensn't is to NOT vote for him next time. When the damage is already done.
It seems we have the technology to become a democracy; the question now becomes whether lawmaking (well ratifying) is best left to those whose career is to study law, or if the average joe can vote intelligently. After reading adequacy.org and seeing how many people can't recognise satire when they see it, I have my doubts.
I have a feeling the current session of Congress is going to go down in history as McCarthyism Part II. That is, if it's still legal to say anything against the government. After all, if I speak out against the powers that be, aren't I encouraging terrorists, and myself a terrorist? Seems like more than enough reason to tap my phone and search my house without my knowledge....
m00.
on when American women will be forced to cover their face?
indefinite jailing without trial of noncitizens
:-)
Last I checked, non-citizens had no rights under the Constitution...  Not sure how the constitution applies to persons here with a visa, but it doesn't apply to anybody here without one.
"Momma didn't raise no dummy." - Airplane
So how is your brother anyway?
Prospects For A Post-Taliban Government
The above article appeared yesterday at www.janes.com [janes.com]
"It now appears certain that any effort to
regenerate Afghanistan is predicated upon
the removal of the Taliban, and the terrorist
attacks upon New York and Washington
have given the US a perfect opportunity to
legitimise its plan to do just that (which
existed well before 11 September). "
The link for this discussion is :
www.janes.com [janes.com]
You draw your own conclusions in conjunction with the Caspian Sea Region oil link at the U.S. Department of Energy:
Caspian Sea Region [doe.gov]
The analysis below is predicated upon the reasonable conclusions that a) because Bert is more likely to be a closet Steelers fan (note the "steely" grimace...), and b) the Chiefs or Redskins could be conceivably be mistranslated into Arabic to represnt an oppressed people whose homeland has been confiscated by the evil invaders.
Our conclusion, developed using all of the available CIA supercomputers, is that the above over/under betting plot is designed to undermine the free world, that anyone who makes this bet in an off shore Internet casino is a terrorist, because that is the only bet that Osama can reasonably make because either he offends Bert or the refugees...
*grin* Either that or it's time to go take our medication now... otherwise them FBI agents in white coats are gonna put me- I mean us back inside the padded -- click --
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I'd like to see a website that has all our rep's and how they've voted in the past. For me it's a matter of organizing the information in a way that makes sense to me. I'd like to know who to vote for based on how they've acted in the past, but I don't have time to keep up with politics!
The average Joe and Jane Person just want to feel safe and terrorist-free. They want to go back to their munchies and their pop-culture and their nightly-boring-grey-news. They don't worry much about rights or losing the freedom to talk about what they want these days...they are sheeps who just wanna float along, munching on their government-ok'd grass and thinking about how a certain celebrity is cool or troubled or had a boob job. They don't care now.
Which means, in short, that the rep's don't care about the thinkers, people who care about rights. even in a state of war. They care about their majority of votes...sheep.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Federal law enforcement, given shape and purpose by Ashcroft, an old Nixon/Reagan/Bush man, is grabbing everything they can off of the shelves, throwing it into a sack, and running for the exit before the spell wears off and the storeowners notice that they've been robbed.
I mention the Nixon/Reagan/Bush connection, not as a flame, but as a real indicator. Nixon, Reagan, and other very right-wing leaders hated the "liberal" press, believed that freedom was too free, and that law enforcement was hamstrung by civil liberties.
Let us not forget that Hoover, the chief of Fed law enforcement for almost a half-century, ran a despotic organization that nailed people he didn't like, blackmailed presidents and congressmen and citizens with information he obtained from spying, and was himself a security risk par excellence because of his secret homosexuality and cross-dressing.
Nixon used the CIA to spy on and destroy his "enemies", which he saw as threats to his admin and by extension the country. The "enemies" were the press, members of congress, and a hell of a lot of citizens.
The FBI and the CIA were limited BECAUSE of the actions of the leaders that championed more power granted to law enforcement. Too many of you are too young to remember why those laws were passed. The law was abused by quasi-dictators who wanted power, naked and brutal, over their enemies. And such power is never enough for those types of personalities.
Today, the beginnings of such power is being given back to the very people it was taken from 30 years ago. Literally. They didn't deserve it then, they don't deserve it now. no one does -- but they especially do not.
Additionally -- not a single thing would have been changed on September 11th had this series of powers been granted prior to the attack. Nothing.
The agencies responsible have all the power now needed to track and capture terrorists. They were doing so prior to the attack. The Feds just weren't mind readers, and the men struck simutaneously, and there was no chance to stop them.
Finally, it amazes me that people who hate government in our lives have no problem with the current admin making a naked power grab under the cover of "fighting terrorism".
They aren't going to wind up controlling terrorism. They are eventually going to wind up terrorizing us.
This article appeared yesterday at www.janes.com [janes.com]
"It now appears certain that any effort to
regenerate Afghanistan is predicated upon
the removal of the Taliban, and the terrorist
attacks upon New York and Washington
have given the US a perfect opportunity to
legitimise its plan to do just that (which
existed well before 11 September). "
The link for this discussion is :
Prospects For A Post-Taliban Afghanistan [janes.com]
You draw your own conclusions in conjunction with the Caspian Sea Region oil link at the U.S. Department of Energy:
Caspian Sea Region [doe.gov]
We could make laws simpler...because if you look at the early law, it was short and simple. Ever check out the constitution? A real democracy, without the republican part, could be done now, because of technology. The Law-making bodies we have are corrupt and simply reacting to polls anyways. A well-regulated, secure democracy would reflect what real people want. Then, we could hate each other, instead of politicians. And the only people who would vote would be the ones who cared...it's an interesting idea, anyways.
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
I read the post here and a number of the comments, all of which pointed out the dangers of tyranny. I should also disclose that the woman speaking about using network analysis to break terrorist networks on NPR today was on my dissertation committee.
While I see the point about tyranny, we are under attack by an enemy who has infiltrated our borders. Several have cited the declaration of indepdendence. There is another document, the Constitution, that allows the executive branch to suspend liberties in time of national emergency (used by Lincoln as a justification for suspending the writ of Haebeus Corpus). Just today, more anthrax cases were discovered. These may be unrelated to the attacks of 9/11, but they still constitute terrorism.
The House is insisting on sunset provisions for these extraordinary powers. It seems these are extraordinary times that require extraordinary measures. With sunset provisions, we can be assured that the extraordinary measures will not overly outlive their intended purpose.
Nice to see my elected official, Feingold, keeping some measure of sanity and not panicing. Like the rest of you I am going to remember this on election day.
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, the brave but one."
Jews, Blacks, now its "noncitizens"... does sound more PC than "rag-head" I suppose.
Only one -- ONE -- senator voted against. Maybe it's not as bad as you think?
When you have such agreement in any comittee, including Congress, it means one of two things.
Now that the government has a clearly defined enemy, we as a nation and a government are vulnerable to groupthink. This is when everybody agrees on something because they are afraid not to. In the Cold War, the term "Communist" was used to invoke groupthink and gave us McCarthyism and the Bay of Pigs. In the 90s, it has been "for the children". Today, it's "terrorism".
I've tried to examine the bill (S.1510, and it looks like line noise. I have to go to the press reactions, simply because IANAL. How many senators actually read this stuff?
--The basis of all love is respect
You may now return to the real world, the one based in science Fact, not science fiction ; )
Don't forget that one of the major tools that the government of 1984 used to control its population was constant war. I'm not accusing the US government of staging the WTC attack, however they do seem to be taking advantage of it in a similar manner.
I was at a talk by Naomi Klein a few weeks ago and she mentioned that she had heard a US Military official mention that they are expecting 20 years of war. Even if that is totally uncredible it still makes you think, "what if?"
1984 may have only been 17 years off.
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
I'm an American, and ASHAMED of it right now. He's right, and you KNOW it.
Here goes my karma to hell.
It occurred to me that in these troubling times, it could be a golden business opportunity to provide the services of enjoyable body searches for patron conscious event holders! Kind of like a walk through spa service that would make people feel good about being searched.
Seriously, I doubt that whoever the guard was that did the search actually suspected your sister of harboring anything dangerous or of being a terrorist. Was she searched in the name of fairness to avoid the appearance of racial profiling (justified discriminitory searches), or was this a more typical search done for out of venue refreshments?
Earlier this year, the PNC Park baseball stadium opened in Pittsburgh. Many people went to the games carying coolers of drinks, only to have them stripped at the gates. The old venue, Three Rivers Stadium, allowed fans to bring their own refreshments. The new one resorted to body searches for food and drink that were being brought in to avoid the exorbitant prices charged by the stadium vendors. After public outcry and several changes to the stadium's policy, some beverages were allowed in.
I guess my point is that this search may not have anything to do with the recent events, but we may be more attentive to them because of the attack.
-- LenThose are just a few examples. Granted, the U.S. isn't perfect (despite what our leaders want us to believe), but Afganistan is far from a free nation.
Damn, I even ran the whole thing through a spell checker, and then accidently hit submit before I corrected my errors...
And yes, I know I left the "h" out of Afghanistan the second time.
To my "representatives" I can only say: Way to go guys/gals. Hope you find new jobs in what's left of the private sector, because you just lost my vote.
I just flipped to a high numbered channel here, and it seems that "Anti-Terrorism" Legislation is losing in a vote.
However, I never can tell what they are voting on, but this would seem to be a good thing...
Is anybody also watching want to explain what is going on?
See what you can do with groups such as the ACLU to take any issues to court and challenge on constitutional grounds.
The ACLU? Are you kidding? They're too busy trying to shut down nativity scenes to worry about things like this. They are about the last group that I'd want to depend on to defend our freedoms. Oh sure, they'll go all out for you, as long as you pass their PC litmus test, but anything beside that...fuhgeddaboutit!
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
This legislation will result in demand for individuals skilled in the acts of message interception exceeding local supply. As a category of highly skilled worker, I suggest we do what has been done for other high-tech unfilled jobs: fill them with temporary visa (H1B) holders. Think of all the people abroad with stellar qualification we could hire - Former KGB, Stasi, etc. employees. This could be a real economic boon for the former Soviet Union.
How come none of the Repubs complained about the hand recounts that decided several important elections throughout the country?
How come the supreme court said that its ruling should not be considered as a precedent for future decisions?
You can check the discussion/vote progress here:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm
Looks like its splitting along party lines, at least as far as I could decipher?
We can mark the day they do it as the end of the 4th amendment and therefore the Constitution itself.
Welcome to the Fascist States of America.
Will they do anything about lotery? Do you wanna hear something interesting?
Here in Brazil a corrupted senator used to use lotery to "clean" his public stolen money. He used to bet hundreds of thousands dollars, and many times he won. Yes, he have even won the big prize all alone! He washed about 80% of his money this way, the other 20% was acceptable loss.
This dam act will only affect the regular citizen, and as RIAA efforts to avoid mp3 sharing over the internet will do nothing, nothing then make lawyers much more rich!
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Are these the right preventive measurements we should be taking?
There are three vague aspects of criminal law. They split them up into the classic criminal, the socio-behavioral criminal and the conflict criminal.
Now the theory behind the classic criminal is that he/she/they think out the crime before they commit it. Think about it in advance, look at the reprecussions, weigh the benefits and the detriments and make the decision.
To combat these criminals, a process known as target hardening and situational prevention. Make it harder to commit the crime, catch 'em in the act, make examples and make punishments harsh enough to scare them off.
But then you get to the other criminals. Socio-behavioral and conflict criminals.
Socio-behavioral criminals are affected by factors just as social pressure, social interaction, social dysfunction, behavior dysfunction and social moral development.
The general concept of preventing socio-behavioral criminals from emerging is to find the flaws in their society and environment and work on them.
A similar concept behind the conflict criminology.
A conflict criminal is suppose to be one who commits "crime" (crime by our definition may be rebellion by theirs) because of situations of oppression, injustice or inequality.
A conflict criminologist would also most likely disagree with the anti-terrorism package proposal set forth as one would believe that this would just increase the injustice, inequality and oppression, at least in the eyes of the "criminal". For them, the real prevention methods would be to set forth to equalize the people and lift any oppression.
Now of course, lets apply this to our own time. Osama bin Laden personally declares Palestine as a reasoning for America being devoid of safety.
My personal opinion is that this won't work, because Osama bin Laden is more a conflict criminal, or a socio-behavioral criminal, then anything. So are most of these terrorists. Whether we agree with it or not, the guns and tanks and other support we give to Israel is being used to occupy Palestine and expand Israeli land. Palestenian people are being killed by our bullets. Palestenian kids are standing in front of our tanks and throwing rocks (as a kid of 16 years old, I find it a bit crazy and a bit admirable for a kid of my age to throw rocks at a tank coming torwards them. It requires either alot of balls or so much anger as an injustice that you simply don't care).
So even if these changes to American privacy go through, how much good can they do before they're just being used against American people? Not only will the terrorists find other ways, but when someone is willing to give their lives to do something, it's very hard to stop them.
Perhaps we should look torwards our foreign policy before we jump the gun and "declare war". The relatives and friends of the innocent "callataral" people who may get harmed by our bombings are potential terrorists, and so are the relatives and friends of the terorrists we imprison. Punishment is necessary, I agree, but so is prevention.
I guess I can't say I'm surprised by this, shocked maybe, but not surprised.
Most of you who reside outside the US are probably thinking, thank god (or whatever diety(s) you might follow) we don't live there. But, look at history. If the US can be put in these shackles, how long before they lean on the goverenments of the rest of the "free" world to institute simular policies.
BTW I do live in the US, and I'm quite sad to actually ever see this day coming to pass.
God bless
Ron
Yeah, see what you have done?
Refuse to get involved, refuse to vote Libertarian keep playing with your legos and now we have a police state.
Look how we are still encumbered with that. The ramifications of quick judgements last for years. I feel that all measures to 'combat terroroism' should have limitations. That way we can have longer discussion to hammer out details that do not have the ramifications of the quick 'get it done now' quick fix.
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
which most say is outdated with the advent of cellular and disposable phones
Can't trust a pay phone anymore, and how many numbers does your cell phone have anyway?
Allows the federal government to detain non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism for up to seven days without specific charges. The administration originally wanted to hold them indefinitely.
So they wanted the whole fucking galaxy, and only got the Western Hemisphere. I'm supposed to be happy with that?
I am appalled with the manner is which this bill was forced through. Congress is so desperate to do something, that they don't care about doing the right thing. Read the Wired article. Three Senators say they:
- Agreed with Feingold, but
- needed to do something NOW!
What does that say to you about their state of mind on Capitol Hill?I have done a little nosing around the BBC and CNN, and I found that Bush had been planning to attack this country long before Sept 11. In fact, the goal was to hit them 'before the snows of winter', or rather, by the middle of October. I am sorry I don't have links to theses articles. But the article also stated that Bush was going in there whether Osama surrendered or not.
This war is not about terrorism. Collen Powell himself stated that we didn't have enough evidence to convict Osama in a court of law. What the hell are we doing, then?
I like to call it military masterbation. Think about it. What pulled the economy from the depression of the '30s? WW2. War always helps an economy. So instead of doing this diplomatically, or worse, trying to find out who really did it, why not just squeeze off a few missles and rounds of ammunition, give the boys back home something to build for the good of the nation, and we have a full fledged war engine again. Cold War, welcome back. Just taking the edge off so we can get back to what the Bush's enjoy most: creatin' a little war for oil and money.
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
shut your pie holes and go enlist in the US military. Soon to be manditory for citizenship anyway. You will learn to use a weapon, which could come in handy after we have defeated the Islamic masses and want to become a democracy again.
The ends this test of the emergency trolling system. Had this been an actual troll, it would have contained references to Nazism, profanity, and or the word "WH00T!"
---
That's his only concern? That's pretty pathetic. Personally, I would like all financial companies to check all of their statements for reasons which have nothing to do with terrorism.
What he should have been concerned about is that it's all a farce and they're punishing an industry for being successful, as far as I can see. I suppose it's also possible that the various Indian Nations (Or should I say Native American? Even though they're immigrants too) are paying them, but Vega$ is more likely. Or hell, maybe it's both of 'em, *and* the barroom video poker machines.
Whatever is behind it, the allegations that online gambling is tied to terrorism money laundering may be true, but defecating on all online gambling establishments as a result is ridiculous.
Amen, brother. Thank god a democrat is saying it. That's the line I expected the republicans to take on this issue. Maybe they're trading brains up there these days.
Well yes, that does go too far. This is not the way to punish these businesses. I'm a little unclear on "card numbers to be used on gambling websites", though. I thought that the only card numbers used on a gambling websites were those of the customers. Does this mean that if I tell a bank I'm going to use my credit card for online gambling, they won't give it to me? And if a court can make an assumption and rule on that assumption, well, that's a problem with our court system that we should be looking into right away. I thought that you had to prove someone guilty, not just assume they were. Well, I guess I haven't really believed that since childhood, but you know what I'm saying.
The only committee member who voted against the final bill was Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican from Texas.
Paul said the anti-gambling sections were about "whether the government should try and mold behavior. Over centuries governments have tried to do this.... Gambling is entertainment. We should not allow government to regulate entertainment." (Wired)
Damn right, Ron. You tell 'em. While we're at it, can I get a nudie bar in my town, please?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This whole thing is extremely depressing if you think about it (don't think too much :)
You know, one organization here decides to pursue their "cause", another committee over here thinks that now is a good time to push their agenda, and so on and so forth. Before we know it, layers of beauracracy and an inconsistent, "built-from-spare-parts Frankenstein's Monster" are all that's left of America.
As you can see, I am not so bitter that I believe it's a giant conspiracy of corporations vs. the individual. I feel that would require too much organization and participation on the part of corporations :) I do, however, feel that after big business, then the "million screaming voices, no two of which are alike" are not only getting their way, but they are drowning out the remaining rare and softly spoken rational thinkers (collectively referred to as "the voice of reason").
equating gamblers as terrorists. And aren't some money laundering laws unconstitutional?
and a bunch of other things that Feingold is against such as:
"Computer Tresspaser" is too broadly defined for comfort.
"Secret Searches"?
Viewing private records without a warrant?
There is more to this bill than the press releases are letting on.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
You know, maybe there really IS a connection between money laundering and online gambling. Just once, MAYBE, they aren't out to limit your freedom, but they're actually trying to make you safe in a time when safety has a high price.
Good god, I'm so sick of everyone bitching and moaning about how the government is trying to take away our freedom just for the fun of it. You people are idiots. Really.
What's going on? It seems as though we're losing our freedom, and it's because too many people don't realize what freedom is. Sure, /. readers understand the benefits of freedom of speech and privacy, but the reason so many "intelligent" representatives are voting against such freedoms is probably that the people they represent don't know what detriment such a decision has to the underpinnings of American Society.
Not enough people understand that the rights we are given in the constitution have made this country what it is today. Fear is what makes a dictatorship, and although we aren't fearing our governments (yet), our fear of terrorist attacks are giving the government more power to control us.
We should not become passive in times of adversity. People want to feel safe, but safety comes at a price. Jumping to conclusions about how to protect the country can only lead to safety without comforts.
--Americans are becoming too complaisant. But what can ya do?
-Thomas Jefferson, from the Declaration of Independence
Don't overestimate the importance of this legislation. It's a foolish piece of law, and yes, it invades on some of our personal freedoms, but is it so important? I think when all of this flag waving, go-America sentiment dies down, laws like this may be struck down or repealed..
Vote these jokers out while we still can vote.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
P.A.T.R.I.O.T.=Provides Abusive Tyrants Really Intrusive Observational Tools
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Aren't these the same "guys" who removed a provision about slavery from the Constitution as not to alienate the southern colonies.
Our forefathers were no better than us, folks. They were just as hypocritical.
Senator Maria Cantwell (from my state of Washington) made a great speech regarding this legislation.
1 2_01_statement.html
However, she did vote for it. That's what gets me: if they really don't think it is a good idea, why do they vote for it? She indicates that there is still the hope that it can be blocked later if not fully addressed.
http://cantwell.senate.gov/news/releases/2001_10_
Have you called your senators/representatives to express your opinion?
-core
True - but as others have pointed out, these dates have the ability to be renewed. Other posters have pointed out that Britain has had "temporary" anti-terrorism laws on the books for over 20 years, simply because the "sunshine clause" keeps getting moved further back.
What is the point of "sunshine clauses" if the sun never rises?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I am from South Dakota, and yes:
I AM ARMED...
And I am simply armed... I have friends that COLLECT weapons... guns, knives, swords, etc... and nobody I know finds that to be strange. It's just natural to own a gun, rifle, shotgun here.
When Y2K was the latest scare and I lived in the heart of St. Paul, MN, I came back to SD to my small home town, because I knew that I could survive damn near anything. Lots of guns, lots of food, lots of land, and lots of places to hand out for a long time.
Most major cities only have enough food within their borders to feed everybody for 3-4 days!!!
It wouldn't take long for major chaos to break out.
Now I'm back in SD, and you know what: I feel safe, and at the very least, I feel prepared. After years of -30F weather, lots of wind, camping out, killing and eating animals, etc... it would take a damn armageddon to kill off those of us in SD.
And I even found a decent tech job!
Interesting point, mostly because it's been debated for over 100 years. If you re-read the entire constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, it almost always refers to "people", not "citizens". Remember also that the country was founded by those seeking a new land in which to be free. Their frame of mind was encompassing all of those entering the country. In the beginning, foreigners could just walk into the country and be considered "people" protected by the constitution. That seemed to change over time as vast numbers of immigrants entered the country, and it's considered to be in the best interests of the country to separate citizens from others. But reading the constitution and other papers by the country's founders shows that no one within our borders was intended to be excluded from constitutional protection.
Looking at it from another perspective, we usually say that we are the shining example of freedom and democracy on this planet. Proving that should include extending those freedoms to all who want it (at least within our borders). Otherwise, we are just being hypocrites; freedom's great for us, but the rest of you are on your own.
My brother says "Mo fo butter layin me to da bone, jackin me up, tightly."
Developers: We can use your help.
Gotta love the inflammatory headline, a trademark of slashdot:
"Senate Trashes Civil Liberties; House to Vote Today"
Of course it _is_ true though.;-)
BTW, I just heard on CBS news that the house passed its so-called "anti-terrorism" bill. What a crock of crap.
-core
"He who gives up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
Again another said,
"Give me liberty, or give me death."
And these were people who lived through some harsh war-ravaged times.
We do not have a fucking democracy people.
People with money and power will always rule over the people without it.
Write to your congressman, write to the president, see how little effect if at all.
The checks and balances used to work in America, but after 200+ years, The Corporations and the Government own us.
Most Americans are clueless in general, like sheep on a farm. They all conform and follow the crowd. The sheep that stand out and rebel against the machine (government + corporations) will just get stomped on.
Everytime we fight against a bill or act proposed in legislation, the communities in the minority (like the technological nerds like ourselves) rally against them since we are the few communities with a clue. Then lets say we win, and the bill or act isn't passed. Is that the last of it? NO FUCKING WAY. They will wait until an opportunity arises and slip their agendas into some other Act or Bill and get it passed. We can not win.
That is the truth.
Americans are like happy sheep, feeding on the grass. They are fat and happy, all following the grazing herd. They are blind to the fact that there is a huge fence keeping them in, and that a week later they will be chopped up for hot dogs.
BUY GUNS.
National defense begins with your home. If police are responding to terrorist acts, you owe it to yourself to be able to defend yourself and your property and not rely on someone else to save you.
AC's cheerfully ignored
A police state is coming and there is nothing that you "nerds/dorks/geeks" can do about it. The DMCA will stand, SSSCA will pass, and the constitution will be permanently suspended. Dmitry is going to prison for life where he will be enslaved and raped and eventually killed. You dorks will be joining him in the concentration camps very soon. Say goodbye to your encryption, your Linux, your BSD, etc too you terrorists!
One of Feingold's amendments said that the government can only listen in on a call with their roving wiretap if the person named is on the phone. Since it was rejected, they can listen to every call you make if a targeted person ever visits your house.
So here is what's absurd about all of this... Look at the number of people who have died in terrorist attacks on US soil. And look at the number of people who are murdered each year, or killed by drunk drivers, etc. The numbers just don't compare. Now, if we weren't willing to compromise our freedoms to be safe from murderers--and make no mistake about it, there're more murderers walking than streets of America than ever there will be terrorists--and drunk drivers, who kill hundreds of thousands of people each year, why are we willing to do it to protect ourselves from terrorists? It's sad, but our government has simply used this situation to increase their powers and diminish our freedoms.
Interesting articles (though i didn't read the one about the Caspian Sea entirely). It confirms my personal belief that this "war against terrorism" also has strong economical reasons. The American arms-industries were in great need for more business.....and what is more ideal then a far-away war, and as a result of that delivers another Northern Ireland, but many times bigger and many more parties who all want to exterminate each other? Yummie!!
And if America gets control over some gas and oil in the process, well, it wouldn't hurt, would it?
Well, that's just my (insert Euro-sign here)0.02.
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
only criminals need guns. (the government also needs guns but they are not criminals. they need them to kill gun loving criminals like yourself). you are a criminal and certainly a terrorist.
They restrict everything their people do, and spy on them all the time. I think that most people in america wouln't even support this legislation if they really knew what it was all about. These old guys in congress are really out of touch with the real world.
These 'foreigners' are here because they were attracted to the American way of life, which has been advertised and bragged about. They appreciate what America stands for and want to be a part of it.
What a stupid thing to say!! Problems like these terrorist attacks can only be resolved if the people of the world come together. We are all human. Don't be so arrogant. It's people like YOU who are the problem, asshole.
Care to point that one out by Article and Section? I can't find it.
Constitutionally Correct
On a somewhat related note, free speech seems to be threatened from several directions lately. An article was in the papers here a couple days ago. This poor woman has been accused of hate crimes for criticizing US foreign policy.
Does it really surprise you after what michael did to the censorware project?
If we were not in the middle east for ONE purpose ONLY, oil as we all know it, and IF our government had not systematically SCREWED everyone they've ever dealt with in the Middle East maybe things would be different. It strikes me as WE are the force which is UNITING the muslim world just as the terrorist attack became the uniting factor for western culture. If the US and other western interests dealt with the Middle eastern countries on a more up front basis things would be better. I can hardly see the so-called Muslim world standing united without an immediate enemy to rally around. Now DON'T get me wrong, international terrorism is EVIL, and I condemn those responsible, but REALITY says people do not just become SUICIDE bombers for NO REASON.
If our country spent just a portion of the 30 BILLION we are gonna cough up in aid to our various allies and supporters for this mission, on say serious alternative fuel sources, we could leave the Middle East to solve its own problems. I doubt that the hardline interpretaion of the Taliban is going to spread like wildfire acrossed the muslim world unless the pressure of WAR with the WEST drives it.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Ladies, Gentlemen, Hackers, Geeks and Nerds, Welcome, Welocme to The New World Order.
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power - Benito Mussoli
from Oct 1, 2001
Here's an idea, why don't you and your Cumbuya friends move over there? Show them your ways. Teach them your ideology. Please, please do this. You are so enlightend; they will follow if you will lead! Drop us a postcard.
Okay, slashdotters, the challenge is this: corporate America needs to be offerred a new ideological alliance which won't involve placating fundamentalist monotheists. As Andrew Sullivan noted in last weekend's New York Times Magazine, "it is a war of fundamentalism against faiths of all kinds that are at peace with freedom and modernity."
So how do we do that? How do we build a political alliance that preserves freedom for economic activity (and emphasizes freedom in economic activity, rather than allowing corporations to band together to remove freedoms from individuals), while also preserving freedom from people who are too silly to see that their favorite interpretation of their favorite old text is not a direct order from the sort of God who would have us see free will as the crack through which evil enters an otherwise perfectly ordered creation (which is in fact the theology of our fundamentalists)?
How do we extend open source to make freedom even more of an economic imperative? Just as America has found some strange allies in its struggle, so must we find ways to radically realign our domestic political alliances to regain the freedoms our current unrepresentatives are surrendering in our name.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Daschale is one of the most money whoring knob polishers up on capitol hill.
I agree with the notion that we are dominated by corporate interests. I mean look, our Government is headed by the Major Oil Interests. Rice: Exxon, Bush: Zapata, Cheney: Halliburton.
The top media execs site on the boards of major oil companies.(damn, the link for support of the statement ain't working right now)
In any case, we have not been free for some time now. As pointed out in the book Culture Jam and excerpted on Adbusters American has a secret and untold history of corporate domination. From the article:
"A bitplayer in the official history becomes critically important to the way the unofficial history unfolds. This player turns out to be not only the provocateur of the revolution, but in the end its saboteur. This player lies at the heart of America's defining theme: the difference between a country that pretends to be free and a country that truly is free.
That player is the corporation."
The corporation chews up the human and the planet in favor of production and profit. I know that sounds communist, but.. Look at how the Corporation works. Because of this fact it will be easier for what I feel is the "Current Corporation" in power to continue to whittle away at the rights and the souls of the people in our fine country, because unfortunately the dominance of the media has uncanny abilities to manipulate as if through sorcery the minds and the hearts of a population. Because the Corporation has not the goals of the people in mind, it becomes easier and more useful to do this.
Another interesting link to a interview with Dr. Nancy Snow on the propaganda wing of the US Foreign Policy to sell a Corporate message overseas. Let me tell you, I spent a year over in Asia and the messages coming from us are intensly strong, pervasive, and have an amazing ability to render memories of us bombing a country to smitherreens to nil, as the chants begin: USA is #1!!!
Her book is Propaganda Inc.
Lastly, I saw this here a couple of days ago I think. I found it quite scary:
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering
trying to build a list of alternative news sources daily:
WAH
Care to point that one out by Article and Section? I can't find it.
Yes, it's under war-powers in Article 1 and speaks specifically to habeas corpus. There is a debate as to whether only Congress has this authority or whether the executive can exercise it also. In 1861, Lincoln determined that it was in his power to do so while Congress was out of session. Taney (Chief Justice at the time) ruled against it in his Merryman ruling.
Habeas corpus is the specific issue as regards the detention of immigrants.
It's the fact that they turned down the item that said the tap has to stop if the person is not using that phone.
So a terrorist uses a public phone and next thing you know they can tap that phone for as long as they want.
Well, perhaps not Libertarian as practiced, but the basic concept is sound.
Which is, in summary: "Consenting adults should be allowed to do anything they please, so long as it doesn't cause harm to non-consenting other's person or property."
It is the only rational modus operandi for a population that desires freedom and responsibility.
(Of course, that's not to say the public wants to be free or responsible. Indeed, I suspect they want to be ruled by a benevolent dictator, and handed everything on a golden platter...)
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
You really have to admire the lone dissenter, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, for having the sack to vote against it.
Barbara Lee calling for level-headedness in the immediate wake of the attack, Feingold thinking farther ahead than the next few months... ladies and gents, you have your best Democratic ticket for 2004. So, of course, it won't happen, and you'll get a choice between two of the same yutzes again... and a bunch of interesting alternatives everyone will tell you is a waste of your time... oy.
>Democrats were similarly split, with ranking >member Rep. John LaFalce (D-New York) saying >that college students must be shielded from >gambling's lure.
LaFalce. Damnit, the French have gotten an Agent into our government.
Excuse me? They need to be *shielded* from 'gambling's lure'?
>"The chief users of Internet gambling are not >terrorists, they are our youths," said LaFalce. >"Lots of different kids are given credit cards >-- not one -- multiple cards. It's easy to >gamble from dormitory rooms, or with wireless >connections from campus quads, or with Palm >Pilots any place."
Oh yes! Heaven forfend! They can drive, they can vote, they may fight and die for the idiocy that Congress may pass!
But the Earth would collapse upon itself if they were allowed to, say, drink or gamble.
You know what I find most disturbing? Some guy named Ron Paul from *Texas* voted against the final bill. Texas.
Why isn't this man on Bush's staff?
Why am I not living in Texas, so I could vote for him?
Remember also that the country was founded by those seeking a new land in which to be free. Their frame of mind was encompassing all of those entering the country.
:-)
And I would argue that those who were coming to this country then were coming to be citizens as trans-atlantic trips were not the most fun thing in the world to endure.
But reading the constitution and other papers by the country's founders shows that no one within our borders was intended to be excluded from constitutional protection.
I don't have a problem with that actually.  However, I do not think that constitutional guarantees and the privledges of citizenship should extend to those here illegally.
My brother says "Mo fo butter layin me to da bone, jackin me up, tightly."
Wait a sec while I get Barbra Billingsley.  I don't speak jive...
Get the facts and don't believe everything your government spoon feeds you. Even if Anthrax was an a terrorist attempt (which the CNN article denies), it's not an effective bio-weapon.
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Think about it for a second.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
About a week later, I got a very sincere-sounding form letter response. I can only assume my ticket got marked RESOLVED_WONTFIX
Biased News for Nerds. Only the view we think matters.
-- "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."
"Ah! Comrade may I see your papers please. Mother America wishes to make sure that her people are well cared for, and looked after. State security has to be very tight, and we don't want our homeland injured again. Comrade your papers appear to be in order, you may now use the computer."
Boston.com is reporting that the House passed the Senate Legislation with a 5 year sunset clause on some controversial topics. It passed 337-79, sounds like it's headed back to the Senate now...
load "linux",8,1
:)
You, my friend, are my personal hero for the day. Thank you!
the biggest change to the senate's version of the bill allows fFor a re-evaluation of itself after 2 years. this means one of two things: either in two years, they can re-write it to make it clamp down on more rights; or in two years, after the present issues settle, the whole bill could be revoked completely.
There's a direct correlation between the amount of freedom in a country and the ability of terrorists to get around. Why? Terrorists are people too! See, since terrorists are a subset of humanity, if you take away EVERYONE'S freedom(s) by default you also take away the freedom of the terrorists. See, it's called throwing the baby out with the bathwater and our representatives sure soom to be good at doing it! The only problem is this: These criminals and assholes WANTED us to change our ways because of them. By defination, that's what's terrorism sets out to do. In their paranoid fear, our 'leaders' have played right into the hands of the terrorists! The really scary thing is that only one Senator out of hundreds of those in Congress is/was smart enough to figure this out. In other words: The United States of America is being run by a bunch of morons! Finally, here's a copy of a FAX I sent my U.S. Senators last night (for them to NOT read and reply to of course)...... Dear Mr. McCain and Kyl, I'm most disappointed in both of you for voting to take away part of my freedom today. Under the guise of "Uniting and Strengthening America" you have in reality weakened America. Our country is supposed to be the land of freedom and liberty not a place where fear reigns supreme. Unfortunately both of you seem to have succumbed to this fear and as a result our freedoms are less tonight. As Republicans, both of you have spent your careers keeping our government's foot off the throat of the people. Today's bill allows that foot to smother us. It seems that out of 100 of you, only Senator Feingold understands what I mean. That's too bad. Tonight, the only metaphor I can think of that fits is: "We have found the enemy, and it is us". Sadly, today's vote proves how true this is. Mr. Mc Cain, I heard you on the radio Wednesday morning talking about how proud you were of the people of Tucson and the unity they showed by making a huge human flag. What you seem to have missed is the reason they did: to show the world that people of the United States of America will NOT let criminals and terrorists get in the way of the freedom it's taken over 200 years to get! Unfortunately, both your votes Thursday shows them just the opposite, and that's sad. Sincerely,
once you accept it in yourself you can continue to condemn it in other people !
Old age and treachery almost always overcome youth and skill.
Sen. Russ Feingold has never disappointed me in the six years I've followed is career. He seems to me to be the politician with more integrity than any other I know about. His vote against the "USA" act reinforces my high opinion of him.
Here's his statements about the liberty implications of the bills that are in consideration right now: feingold.senate.gov
...are an idiot and a sheep. The problem with laws are that the government abuses them. The broader you make the laws the more open for abuse they are. This law is a blank check for to the law enforcement authorities to walk all over our 4th ammendment rights.
Well Said.
People need to pull their heads out.
Sec. 3286. Terrorism offenses
(a) An indictment may be found or an information instituted at any time without limitation for any Federal terrorism offense or any of the following offenses:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4) Section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy) of title 49.
(b) An indictment may be found or an information instituted within 15 years after the offense was committed for any of the following offenses:
(1) Section 175b
You can read all the stuff here.
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
Puh-leeze, enough with the dire pronouncements and pseudo-intellectual attempts at treatises about rights and freedom & such. Spare me the sanctimonious BS from under-socialized nerds that can't communicate with real people enough to know that this is what the majority of the people in the US want right now. I don't think the gov't really cares about the likes of you wanking to kiddie porn or downloading warez. You're about as important in the grnd scheme of things as my cat's bum, or me for that matter. Wanna do something useful? Volunteer for the Peace Corps or the military or even locally. Lots of underfunded county agencies couls use free computer-related help. Till then, you are not the centre of the universe--
Thinking you have any freedoms at all. Mod me down if you want, but you children still don't understand the way it is.
Dream on brothers & sisters
I don't like big words..., does that make me anti-semantic?
back when it seemed texas wanted to be its own freakin country or when california was really a territory it made sense that the senator from california would represent california. But now that we are all pretty much the same, and specifically now that senators vote on FEDERAL LAW shouldn't I be allowed to cast a vote for all senators, as all have a duty to represent me and all have an opportunity to FSCK me over.
The people that make state laws should be picked by the state, but shouldn't I have a chance to vote for the few representatives who think like me, regardless of where they live?
You see, any substantially challenging philosophy will inevitably lead to hypocrisy. If you never go against any tennant of your philosophy, it must not be asking much of you.
The tennant of the founding fathers' philosophy that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights is a rather difficult one. They had trouble holding it when it came to slaves, and we are having trouble holding it when it comes to our entire nation in the wake of terrorism.
The founding fathers' were hardly saints, but their philosophy was correct, and despite everything else the Bill of Rights was their work.
What have any of us done to preserve that work, to justify abandoning it now? What have these senators done? They aren't hypocritical. They don't believe the philosophy but go against it. They are liars. They claim to believe the philosophy but don't. That's the difference.
The enemies of Democracy are
I suppose the only ``problem'' with the Cold War was that it ended... the Soviets seemed invincible enough in the fifties, but they eventually crumbled, and the military-industrial complex risked obsolescence.
Well, no more of that shit, we're at war with terrorism! Even better than being at war with drugs---even that couldn't screw us into getting national ID cards, but we can now be in a perpatual state of war, enough so that everyone's favorite cash cow can be fed monthly, to keep our country safe from a poorly-defined, literally never-ending threat.
These are new and interesting times we live in, my friends...
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Not seriously, but honestly what the hell were they thinking taking out the pentagon where our soldiers work instead of taking out the capitol building where the purchased assholes who make all the decisions work. If you hate america you hate congress much more than you hate the military.
Ok so DON'T fly a plane into capitol hill. Instead lets figure out who owns the senators and congressmen and take out their funding. We'll seize their assets and kill off the leaders of the corporate run government. Congressmen are merely pawns much like the hijackers themselves. The real leaders are not in caves but hidden behind incorporated organizations such as Disney, RIAA, RAETHEON, BOEING, SHELL, EXXON, GMC.
Kill these people and you'll send a very strong message that the people of the entire world are tired of letting a handful of INCREDIBLY RICH assholes fuck everyone else over.
This is EXACTLY what Franklin was talking about, IMO.
it's also been shown that they have used the net to transmit messages, and now maybe even TV.. if putting harsh restrictions on cryptography can hinder him as well, what all is lost?
The ability of banks to protect their customers from fraud, for example...
Look, encryption is used in SO many important ways today which form the basis of how we protect our financial infrastructure, among others. Penalizing encryption only makes it EASIER for a financial attack to work, and may not do much to prevent terrorism. For example, you also stated:
terrorism is a semi-expensive business... it takes money to train people to fly a 757 into a tall building, pay off people, etc etc.
So if we undermine the security of our financial infrastructure, then are we not making terrorism easier? Is this not what harshly penalizing encryption and/or published means of defeating it would actually accomplish? Why not just establish a government grant to these terrorist organizations? It would probably be more effective.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I can't believe they'd give 172 pages of terms a "yes or no" vote. this makes it extremely hard to pick out bits and pieces to omit or change. doesn't this seem a bit STUPID?
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 39 U.S. sailors; Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.
If Clinton had kept his promise, an estimated 7,000 people in New York, Pennsylvannia, and Washington, D.C. that are now dead would be Alive today. The blame lies at Clinton's feet.
Wow. You know, I've often thought about the irony of the number of people who die in car crashes, but I never put it together that way...
Where, exactly, is our War on Drunk Drivers? Why aren't we spending billions on intelligence to find out when people are leaving bars smashed? Why don't we have armed "Bar Marshals"?
How many people died from dietary problems? Where is our War on Bacon?
I get more depressed every day.
The enemies of Democracy are
In all the chest-beating about how to defeat "terrorism," there are some interesting things being said by folks who used to be part of the establishment. This article by Robert M. Bowman ( Lt. Col., USAF retired) titled "What Can We Do About Terrorism?" came across my email this afternoon. He makes the following interesting point:
"People in Canada enjoy better democracy, more freedom, and greater human rights than we do. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian embassies? Or Swedish embassies. No."
Too bad the spineless cowards in Congress couldn't get testimony from guys like this before they rushed headlong into a decision to take away our constitutional rights.
I think these laws do represent a direct and absolute threat to our way of life while it is terrorist attacks that do not.
No, really. My daily life is about the freedoms I have, the ways I can express myself, my privacy when I enter my home. My daily life is not about safety -- I know whenever I drive, I could be killed. I could be robbed, I could be murdered. I could be in a (non-terrorist caused) plane crash. I could catch a hantavirus. I could get cancer from food additives.
It is not the terrorist attack, but our response to it, that threatens the American Way.
The enemies of Democracy are
Well, since congress has seen fit to batten down the hatches, the friggin' least they could do is ban junk snail mail, since it could conceiveably be a means for transmitting biological agents. Oh yeah, throw in electronic spam while you're at it.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Its very interesting to see the US govts. reactions to the terrorist crimes in their country. I am from India, and since we have been having this problem for decades, we have strict laws that are said to hopelessly trample on whatever human-rights and civil liberties. And in the past, a lot of human rights organizations (Amnesty etc.) have condemned the Indian govt. actions against terrorism (not that the Indian govt. was completely in the right) and there was always a tacit implication from USA in terms of violations of human rights etc.
However, faced with their own crisis of a similar nature, the US govt. does exactly what the Indian govt does in terms of giving sweeping powers to the Police to snoop and pry and hold.
Personally, I think that its worth it to give up some personal liberties in the interests of greater public safety, and have no qualms about any of the privacy issues being raised (but thats because I dont care too much about privacy anyway... I am an anonymous coward, coz I can't be bothered to create a login). What amuses me is the classic US govt. double-standard (or should I say the "standard" US govt. double-standard), where whats good for the goose, is certainly not good for the gander.
Police use a very simple but effective method of determining suspects. When something happens, they ask who benefited most. That person becomes the prime suspect. Eg. A woman dies in suspicious circumstances, and her husband is the beneficiary of a large life insurance policy. The police will be dragging him in for questioning, and this makes perfect sense to everyone.
Now, let's be the investigators in the case of the WTC attack. Ask yourself who has benefitted the most from this event. If you really think about it, you'll probably arrive at a chief suspect that is different than what the goverment arrived at. But if you really thought about it, you should have no problem explaining why your answer and the government's were different.
That's the problem with really thinking. It's frightening.
Please keep in mind this is only my opinion, its not necessarily right, it's just what I think. (please don't flame me)
How long until you have to start worrying about your neighbour telling the thought police on you? I've heard from to many politicians call the tragedy on sept. 11th an 'attack on freedom itself'. If you believe the way to fight this enemy that is 'attacking freedom' you take freedom away, then what have you been smoking and where can I get some?
The land of the free my ass, You have freedom of speech if you only say what we want you too. Every thing on TV I see about the war says the same thing, never something they don't want you too hear. For example, when the plane crashed outside of Pittsburgh and I saw on the CNN that their was debris 7 miles away from where the plane crashed (which would indicate that the plane had been shot down). But of course that would make the government look bad. If they lie and say that the pilots saved the day this for one thing makes the American people jovial with a sense of pride thinking "Your every day American is a hero, who will kill terrorists to save the day", and for another thing the government doesn't have to explain why the killed civilians (even if it was the right thing too do, some might disagree). A win-win situation don't you think? And what do you know, 3 hours later on every major news station they never mention the wreckage again. Down the memory holes with that one!
As the USA starts to look more and more like a fascist country (no civil liberties, using the terrorism as an excuse too start a war against any country they want too) I'm thinking I should move up north before WWIII breaks out. Maybe when society degrades to bartering and its like Mad Max, all those hours I spent playing FPS's will come in handy? =)
Of course, I was not complacent before, either. It was our complacency that destroyed the World Trade Center and we are not looking for a quick fix, a gimmick that will allow us to go back to our complacent little lives. And those of us who do not believe that people are inherently good and who do not believe that the world is a safe place will go back to warning you sheep about the dangers of the world and you will continue to ignore us, safe in your cages of fear and wondering what went wrong every time someone else strikes a blow against you.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
i do not condone, at all, what timothy mcveigh did...
but i somehow understand it a whole lot more now.
:-(
I know this is going to seem a bit off topic, but does anyone remember the "Political Office" and the "Night Watch" from Babylon 5?
The episodes relating to Night Watch parallel very closely to both past and current reality. What's scary here is the possilbility for a similar progression. How soon before martial law is declared "for our own protection"?
Or will we simply "disappear" political opponents of the current regime?
How about the FBI "accidentally" leaking the fact that a Presidential or Senate candidate downloaded 200Mb of Porn in their college days? Or is sending torrid e-mail to a woman that's not his wife. Or hell, how about sending e-mail to his wife! I can see it now: "Senate Candidate Joe Schmoe sent e-mail to his wife indicating that he wanted to fuck her up the butt. Mr. Schmoe has been arrested since that kind of activity is illegal in his state..."
This law is one step away from making what Nixon tried to do LEGAL.
The folks at the Department of Homeland Defence don't wear arm bands...yet..
"That's no moon"... Obi-Wan Kenobi
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
You know, I was just thinking about this...
Can I, as a system administrator, consider a persistent spammer (and companies that allow them to operate without hinderance) to be 'trespassing' on my computer? The wired article has a mention of:
Right now, the USA Act says that system administrators should be able to monitor anyone they deem a "computer trespasser."
Does this mean I'm allowed to "monitor" the "tom lee designs" bastard who's been spamming me senseless with junk email I can't even read (Big5 encoded) and hinet.net who have gleefully allowed him to continue despite many repeated forwardings of the spam to abuse@hinet.net and, in desperation, support@hinet.net?
Does "monitoring" include port scanning, perhaps?....
Just a thought...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
A particular quote comes to mind:
"There is no way a country can satisfy the craving for absolute security - but it can bankrupt itself, morally and economically, in attempting to reach that illusory goal through arms alone. The military establishment, not productive in itself, necessarily must feed on the energy and brain-power of the country, and if it takes too much, our total strength declines" -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Even though this quote was more directed towards the military than law, the principles remain the same.
Neroon
I seem to remember some time ago that a hacker was just a poor golf player.
And isn't a cracker was a type of flat biscuit?
Just goes to show you how meaningless labels are and how pointless it is to argue about it.
Beige is a color, so is tan, so is off-white, so is ecru. Who really cares?
Bad is good, good is wicked, wicked is bad, good is bad?... Who really cares?
I was watching C-Span this morning in my room in Grand Junction, how did the house vote end up turning out? I was pretty fucking disgusted by the way the judiciary commitee was handling the bill. I mean you're not going to sign your name to something you didn't fucking read and changing the bill after the Senate passed it was just sneaky I think all the reps who voted for the bill are just foolish. It's sad that people in the heat of emotion can't seem to make rational descisions about their iminent fate. It isn't hard to see that the bill in its current form is pretty sweeping yet with no clear proof that it will lead to the accomplishment of anything. It seems to me its pretty retarded to make so sweeping and broad reaching of a bill. I'd rather see airline/airport security separate from domestic intelligence because the two are not necessarily interlinked. Something needs to be done about our current vulnerabilities to attack but taking away essencial freedoms is not the answer.Some are suggesting only those with something to hide (namely a C-Span caller from Tennesee) are opposed to a bill which would let government agencies set the fourth amendment aside. I think you'd havea different tone if it was your telephone they were bugging. Peoplewere complaining earlier about people profiting in the wake of the WTC/Pentagon attacks, the government is going the same thing corporations are. Congresspeople are using this to expand their careers and temporarily please their constituants. Does anyone read their fucking history? We've seen what happens when the government gives itself the ability to ignore the Constitution by which it is itself governed. To paraphrase both Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson, those who would give up a little liberty for a little safety deserve neither and will soon lose both.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
And who's definition of terrorist do we use?
Well, from now on, we're going to use the statutory definition, which includes those of us who violate Section 1030, as amended -- that is, those of us for whom another person alleges used a computer without authorization, or who exceeded authorized access.
Worse than the civil liberties hits, USAA is more dangerous for we programmers and technical people than you may ever have imagined.
All this hastle at the airport is about as useless as NT's control-alt-delete lockscreen. Let some dumb ass get on a plane with a box cutter. The women and children on it will rip the flesh off his bones. No group of Americans is ever going to be cowed on an airplane again. So, no one will try it again. Bombs in cargo are another matter, but all of the passenger checks are an inconvenience to the passenger alone.
The original definitions of hacker had nothing to do with computers. As applied to computer folks, RMS, Goldblatt and the rest of the MIT crew defined the archetype, per Steve Levy's book, "Hackers."
It wasn't until quite a bit later that the "other definition" joined in the fun, by all accounts I have seen. Certainly, I don't recall any authority for the proposition that unwarranted entry was an "original definition."
Head over to1 .h tm
n .h tm
:/
http://www.orlingrabbe.com/lfctimes/operation91
or
http://software.design.tripod.com/mirror/homeru
I'd advise having a few grains of salt handy, but does make for some interesting reading
Domestic Terrorism as defined in section 803 of the USA Act (S.1510) and section 309 of the PATRIOT Act (H.R.2975) includes activities that are dangerous to human life, violate criminal law, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
This definition goes far beyond the usual meaning of the word terrorist. For instance, it includes political protests in cases where the protests are dangerous and illegal, as in the WTO protests. These laws will be used to crack down on dissenters; Federal Racketeering laws (RICO) were used to prosecute anti-Abortion activists! So don't tell me that these laws will only effect terrorists. And despite the title, many of the changes are not even restricted to cases of domestic terrorism.
And you are completely wrong about the probable cause issue! The removal of judicial oversight is the main objection organizations like the ACLU have against this bill. For instance section 101 of the PATRIOT Act and Section 216 of the USA extend Pen Register or Trap Trace Orders to cover "dialing, routing and addressing". These orders, which formely were used to obtain a list of phone numbers called from a particular phone, have essentially no judicial oversight. They only require that an agent of law enforcement state that the information is likely to be useful in an investigation and the Judge must sign the order. There is no probable cause requirement for Pen Register or Trap Trace Orders, and now they are being extended to cover things like Web Sites visited, e-mails sent, and so on.
Current law gives the FBI the authority to conduct secret physical searches and wiretaps to obtain "foreign intelligence information." Section 218 of the USA Act and 153 of the PATRIOT Act replaces the requirement that intelligence gathering is the primary purpose with the requirement that it is a significant purpose. So the FBI can run around the probable cause requirement of a criminal investigation by tacking a foreign intelligence justification on the side. And there is no judicial review because this is a secret.
Amazing. You hit on all three of the major objections in your attempt to console us. Now do you see why those of us who read the legislation (or just visited the ACLU or similar home pages) are alarmed!!!
My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
freaking Communist News paper. We all know how much their heros, Trotsky and Lenin valued human rights and democratic principles.
What O'connor said is true, if she even said it. That's what we are all complaining about. It would be nice to see what she really said.
"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 [washingtonpost.com] 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 [afcomm.com] 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 [jpfo.org] Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.BR
I believe Juanita
I think if you look at history, you'll find that that isn't the underlying cause. Rather, many countries end up with evil, undemocratic governments because the population has lost power; often they have given up power freely in the hope of achieving order and security in their country. Sometimes that gamble works, but it is the irresponsible, power-hungry dictators that have a tendency to stay around. As Ben Franklin said: "Those who trade freedom for security soon have neither."
The US isn't all that far along that path, but it has definitely moved in that direction. This kind of legislation opens up the real possibility of serious abuse by government. People won't worry about it because they always assume that it's someone else that's in trouble because of it: "well, maybe increased profiling and surveillance of Arabs is OK", "I don't have anything to hide", and that sort of thing. The fact that Giuliani was playing around with the thought of doing an end-run around term limits is also a concern. And this kind of legislation has a "ratchet effect"--it will almost never get rolled back because, after all, what politician wants to be seen as "pro terrorist" or wants to be blamed when the FBI stands up and say "well, the politicians who voted to scrap these powers are responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians".
Read your history, and come to terms with the fact that the US political system isn't magically immune from evolving in undemocratic directions. And evaluate risks carefully. Then, make a reasoned decision as to whether giving up civil liberties is really justified by what is still a very small personal risk from terrorist attacks.
Moderators, please recognize that what Archfeld said, in the parent post, is true.
Archfeld says, "in the middle east for ONE purpose ONLY, oil as we all know it..."
"REALITY says people do not just become SUICIDE bombers for NO REASON."
and
"IF our government had not systematically SCREWED everyone they've ever dealt with in the Middle East maybe things would be different."
This is a quote from the official testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives of Unocal Vice President John J. Maresca, on February 12, 1998. He said, in part, "CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place."
For a link to this document on the House of Representatives government web site, and a document about the pipeline route, search on the word Unocal in: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Well, no, we didn't - those freedoms were denied from us right from the beginning...though admittedly, even if we had them, the few people wealthy enough to get their own nuke probably wouldn't be smart enough to arm them - there'd be nuclear warheads in living rooms all over the US blinking "12:00" in time with the VCR...
Interestingly enough - I once heard someone express the viewpoint that the meaning of the 2nd amendment was "it doesn't mean you should be allowed to own a machine gun, but it DOES mean that Arkansas should be allowed to have its own [i.e. owned by the State and not the Fed] nukes..."
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Let's try another more apropriate analogy. Does Ma Bell have the right to listen to all your phone calls because you are using her lines?
This is just an attempt to gain an unlimited number of free spys. Once they are in place, it will be called normal and justify the statement that "you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on the internet." It makes Carnivore look timid.
tell your friend usama I said there's flying robot
with his name on it, and it's coming from the good old USA.
Remember that Babylon 5 was first produced and aired during the eight-years of Clinton.
To better understand the Original Star Trek, one compares its episodes against events during the production of Star Trek (e.g. Cold War, Civil Rights, Flower Children, Enviromental Crisis, etc).
Likewise, one must also interpret Babylon 5 against events that were occurring during the production of Babylon 5 (e.g. Clinton Administration Criminality and Corruption).
For more info on the corruption and criminality of the Clinton Administration, please visit the "Progressive Review: The Clinton Legacy" and also "Progressive Reveiw:The Loneliest Mile in Town"
I believe Juanita
terrorism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group(Congress) against people (Americans) or property with the intention of intimidating (Prison) or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological(USA Act) or political (PATRIOT Act) reasons.
Who are the terrorists now?
-
Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth. - Lillian Hellman (1907 - 1984)
This is something that has been repeated many times here on /., and I've heard it from others who bothered to read any of those classics, like Fahrenheit 451 and 1984. Brave New World didn't need a state of perpetual war because the populace was kept blissfully sedated, and nobody was born smarter than the job they'd have to do- if they were smart enough to know what was going on they'd be in a position to benefit from the situation anyway.
I think the administration is painfully aware that 90% approval ratings have only one direction to go- way down- as soon as the war's over. It happened to Bush Sr. and Churchill too, so this war has to be extended as long as possible to maintain a militarized economy, repress domestically, etc., and get that all important re-election.
Probably that speech Bush gave a couple weeks ago is the groundwork for an 'Eisenhower Doctrine' with 'terrorism' in the place of communism. I think the large scale military part of this whole thing will fall apart before the end of the Afghanistan exercise, but the CIA and their cohorts are going to return to the tactics that got us into this mess in the first place- maybe more 'blowback' down the road will encourage further military confrontations.
I guess I'm kind of rambling here (on Slashdot, god forbid)- but it's somewhat comforting that a real perpetual war would neither be sustainable economically or tolerable domestically- but some kind of glimmering conflict somewhere all the time is probably par for the 'new kind of war'/'new world order' or what-have-you.
A terroris is....
wait, what was the definition of 'is'?
The House passed this bill BEFORE eveb looking at the Airport defense bill today.
The Airport Defense bill is being held up because Repubs like Delay are fighting it because it would federalize baggage screeners and security personal.
The Repubs are doing this for the security companies who want to keep their cheap McGuards and plush federal contracts at the expense of the safety of the flying public.
I don't think the security vs freedom dichatomy is accurate any longer. I think the true dichatomy is security vs profit of large corporations.
And that's the damn truth... as we as a country creep closer and closer to the bottom 50% of wage-"earners" paying no taxes at all, we get closer and closer to the main dangers of a democracy... The whites who hung black escaping slaves in the early 19th century certainly appreciated democracy because THEY WERE PART OF THE MAJORITY!
Oh, by the way, i agree with your post.
I say good for us being a republic.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
The story was posted at about 6pm (or 1800) GMT.
I only started submitting various versions of this story around 1pm (or 1300)...
2001-10-12 13:10:06 Senate Passes Anti-Terror Bill (articles,usa) (rejected)
2001-10-12 13:29:08 Senate Passes Anti-Terrorism Legislation (yro,privacy) (rejected)
2001-10-12 14:05:15 Senate passes Anti-Terror Legislation (yro,news) (rejected)
2001-10-12 17:27:54 ATA Passes in the Senate, revisions shot down (yro,privacy) (rejected)
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
So does this mean the makers of Deus Ex (Eidos) will be first up against the wall for inciting terrorism?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I am ashamed at what corporations and politicians have done to America.. however, none of this would be possible if the American people cared more about the directions they are being led in. I would say I'm much more ashamed at the level of apathy in the US, than I am ashamed at the people who we have chosen to run the country.
As for making drastic changes in our government, I think we could do a lot worse. It's not perfect here, but there are a lot of problems that we don't have to worry about. These are problems like not having clean water or medical care, or a 30+ million person AIDS epidemic.
At the same time, we need to work on the problems we do have. Our human rights record is pretty piss-poor, the drug war needs to end now, and it's true that we have a civil liberties problem. The solution, though, isn't just to throw everything out and start from scratch. Democracy can work - it's just up to the people to make it work. Last November, voter turnout was around 50%. That's terrible! No wonder government and law enforcement know they can get away with a lot.. they know that many of us just don't care.
Here's another Hatch quote:
Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. "It was worth it," he said. "Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union," he said.
From:
"Bin Laden comes home to roost"
but indeed a governmental form created to frustrate the will of majorities framed by men, principally Madison, who feared democracy WORSE than monarchy.
The bullshit "representational" system we are taught to worship for its "checks and balances" could just as well be called a "divide and conquer" system through its dilution of the power of the common citizens and the way it reserves minority veto power to an upper house (Senate) designed from the beginning as an elite institution as far removed from the popular will as any House of Lords.
There is no Constitutionally protected right of the people to vote for the offices of President and Vice President (in case anyone is doubting the drift of my comments), and no common citizen was allowed to vote for their Senator prior to reforms in 1913. The vast majority of people, even white males over the age of 21, had no voting rights in the states at the time of the US Constitution's draft and ratification, and the Constitution took no steps whatsoever to change that fact. About the only thing it has to say about the status of individuals under its power was that African slaves would be "represented" at a fixed fractional rate of white people in Congressional apportionment (but not allowed to vote of course). That is about it.
That's how far the United States is from being a democracy or otherwise morally acceptable form of government.
We may practice some "democratic" policies and from time to time in our past, enacted "democratic" reforms, but the United States of America in its core constitutional design in no way can be said to be democratic in spirit. Quite the contrary, it was designed to be a large republic in which the voices of the many would be divided and raised against each other while a powerful few quietly ran the country to benefit their interests and those of their friends.
How so many people ever got brainwashed into believing that the US stands for peace freedom and democracy beats the shit out of me. Propaganda from the Civil War era WW1 and 2, probably. As we drift further away from those times and away from the need for mass patriotism they created, we see the USA always reverts back to its old self and becomes more and more anti-democratic and more and more explicitly anti-egalitarian.
..but I wouldn't mind seeing them blown to bits. ;)
Irritating lot.
http://pebkac.net
I'd like to have seen a provision to close the Gun Show loophole. Although not if it was written as sloppy as the other points. Rather than trolling though, I'd like to know what other if there is some other detail that people think should have been included in the Bill.
Most people will disagree, but I feel that the
more open a society becomes, the better.
If we had no privacy, then terrorists couldn't
hide. And if the government had no privacy,
we could trust them, too.
Secrets are the root of all evil. If we remove
all secrecy in the world, the world would be
either at peace--or at least we'd better
understand eachother.
In fact, it's a necessity for real democracy.
--Matthew
This is just one of the numerous stories of slashdot's history to stuff thier political agenda down our throats. I'M TIRED OF IT! If I wanted a onesided viewpoint on polotics I would listen to RUSH LIMBAUGH! You guys at slashdot are just as bad as he is. You just support the other side. This is suspose to be a "News for Nerds" website. Not a friggen recruitment center for the democratic national commitee. STOP WITH THE FUQN POLITICS WILL YOU!? If you must do it at least try to be balanced and stop making yourselves look like a bunch of robots programmed for liberal FUD (on the linux OS of course).
Forth has no intrinsic right not to be trashed.
look at any beginner class and...
OH; You Meant the Fourth, as in Amendment....
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
The only difference between 1984 and 2001 is that the guy on the screen during the Two Minutes of Hate is named Osama instead of Emmanuel, and at the end he turns into a wolf instead of a sheep.
If you think 1984 was prescient, go back and read Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited by Aldous Huxley. We seem to be managing to bring both dystopias into being at the same time. Scary.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
There are plent y of real banks with offices that cater to American tax dodgers.
It would seem to be that if Congress, in its haste, creates new unconstitutional laws, it could end up sabotaging the efforts to bring these terrorists to justice. Congress would sure look foolish if bin Laden was able to walk out of court a free man because of some technicality.
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
Just like the war in Iraq didnt. These high tech wars only transfer money into few concentrated defense contractors that tend to keep that money and have very little impact on the economy.
I'm getting so sick of all this shit. Flamebait me. Every day all I hear is how much more I'm getting Fucked. I'm getting Fucked by My Govenment. I voted for someone I felt would make a difference, only to find out "my fellow Americans" have been scared into thinking there are only 2 ways to vote. Vote for the man, in favor of drilling for oil in Alaska. Or I could vote for the man, who is in favor of taking care of everyone by taking more out of my paycheck.
I also get to worry about having my life suddenly ceased by an airborne bacteria invented and made lethal by MY government. When did they ask me if it was ok? I've also got the unique responsibility of keeping an eye to the sky for airplane missiles. Fuck this shit.
I see all of this as the failure of my fore-generations. Petty hatered betters no one. MY life is at risk because someone was convinced by their neighbor/Cleric/Father/Schoolteacher to hate some noun. I get along with everyone. Indians, Afghanis, Spaniards, Africans, French, Pakistanis, and Italians all like me, they can't help it. I'm a good person. So why must I be fuel for someone's ambitions? Why am I persecuted for trying to pursue my way of life? I smoke pot, take ecstacy, drop acid, and spit on the sidewalk.
In short I have decided that America no longer needs my august presence, America can go fuck itself. I'm moving to Brazil, where the risk of getting killed by terrorists is much lower. They even have nationalized health care there. I can catch AIDS and live my life out for another $20 a month. The girls are hot to trot with young american boys, and from what I hear the surf is good too.
Before I move out of this fucked corporate republic, I plan on smoking a cop, or five. Oppress me no longer you rectal rocket scientists.
Youth Rebellion! Rise up and Kill your elders, what else have they done for you besides start digging your grave, before handing you the shovel when you turn 18.
ppl can pray in schools and they can also wear christian tshirts ... all this is propaganda
What they cannot do is have organized religion in schools. Thats quite different.
Executive are now and have always been liable for any crime committed in the service or auspices of a corporation. Corporations have *most*, not all the rights and duties of natural persons, although they do have perpetual existence and limited liability for civil, not criminal offenses.
But it will stop at Great Britain and not make the Europe mainland. This is because GB has traditionally had extremely close ties with the US. In the mainland I hope people think a little before passing this kind of shit onwards.
In less than 24 hours, a bill moved at lightning speed through all of congress. Thursday night just before midnight, the Senate okayed your rights to be minimized, and then on Friday The House of Representatives agreed -- just in time to knock of for lunch. technews.com, has the story about that, then follows up here about the revisions they had to all agree on. and just like that, you are now being watched by Big Brother. "In the climate today we're more concerned about security than personal privacy," says Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-Fla), like a ridiculous line fFrom The Onion. Meanwhile, here's an interesting article about Russ Feingold (D-Wis), who is out there fighting for you and me. (btw, I reference technews a lot because no-one else seems to care about all this, yet. to argue with Congress now would probably be Un-American.)
It is very easy for the government to prosecute you for your beliefs.
But you are right about the government - the government should not have any privacy. Thats why Cheneys refusal to hold open meetings was so worrying.
And also, liberals have traditionally been against personal freedom, liberty, responsibility, accountability and the ability to make the best decisions yourself that concern your own life. So, really, this is in no way a liberal slant. It could be considered by historians as 'conservative' in the sense of small government that does not intrude on its citizens, as opposed to big government that subjigates the populace 'for its own good' (read: Hillary Clinton)
Who cares if non-suspects conversations are caught? It is NOT ADMISSIBLE IN A COURT and thus no civil liberties are lost. As with all search warrants, the judge signs off on some very specific restrictions as to what type of information can be harvested. For instance, if I had been wiretapped for suspicion of drugs, and you called me and discussed YOUR drug issues (or for that matter if I discussed some crime OTHER than drugs) it is NOT ADMISSIBLE!
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
As I've been watching TV, reading the newspapers, browsing my favorate web sites, I've noticed the increasily draconian and authoritarian measure being proposed and passed.
From increased wiretapping power (including broader wiretaps and warrentless wiretaps), the creation of a whole new cabinet level office (The Office of Homeland Security, which in itself sounds like something from Nazi Germany), to National ID's, it seems that either our government is making a power play or we're getting what the majority of people want. Even the old issue of flag burning has been rehashed. The President's press secretary even said that we need to watch what we say. Even in it's full context, that statement gives me chills.
I've talked to many people who are *FOR* these measures. Their given rational is frightening: If you have nothing to hide, then why worry? This, folks, is close to being the manta about every authoritarian state that has ever existed on Earth.
People are so ready to give up their freedoms, their rights, and last shreds of privacy they have left in the name of saftey and security. Most of all, their even asking for it. Our government is more than ready to deliver, too.
A wise man who goes by the name Jello Biafra said it best in a song called "Full Metal Jackoff," from the album "Last Scream of the Missing Neighbors", done with D.O.A.: "Finally gotcha psyched for a police state."
Yes they do, Mr. Biafra. Yes they do.
As many of us who realize what these measure will do to this country, there are many more that just don't get it. Not only do we need to write and calls our representatives and senators, we also need to educate and inform those around us. Give them examples of previous increases in government power, and the resulting abuses.
May God save this country from not only the terrorists, but from ourselves as well.
--
Intelligence is definitely a recessive trait.
"terrorists are under every rock"
yeah they're also under every webbrowser, why is the US govnmt so busy killing your freedom to stop terrorism when it is still supporting and PROTECTING TERRORISTS. i.e. NORAID
I don't get how you guys can live with this hyprocrisy. You wanna proove this fight is with terrorism and not against certain religions/countries...start acting like it then.
I work in a Canadian casino as a table games dealer. By our provincial laws, ID must be provided for cash transactions of $10,000.00 or any small transactions totalling this amount. Even in a face-to-face enviroment, money laundering takes place. I regularly deal in out VIP room and see hundreds of thousands of dollars "washed" nightly. If it is this easy in a physical enviroment, it becomes even easier in an online casino. I do agree that some restrictions should be placed on these services. The regular online ganbler DOES NOT go through hundreds of thousands of dollars in short periods of time. Even if it honest, you should be prepared for a bit of a hassle when transferring signifigantly large portions of currency online. As for the casinos themselves, they are already fairly regulated, and although it will be a hassle, they should be prepared to deal with stronger security measures. After all, if it prevents terrorist acts like the WTC from happening, isn't it worth it?
I don't mind bias, but why can't you trust us to think for ourselves instead of insistently ramming your ideology down our throats. You should tell us what is wrong with this bill, instead of just calling it names. Really you are engaging in the same kind of mudslinging rhetoric that leads only to conflict (and in on an international level, war).
America, the land of the free
whoever told you that is your enemy.
know your enemy by rage against the machine
In my eyes a democracy means that our ideals and idea's should be represented in the government. I believe that the best way to achieve this, is to choose people/parties that have standpoints that are similar to yours. A 'pure' democracy where every law is voted on by the population will not represent the people's standpoints. Why?
I have no time to be an expert on every issue. I can't take all the evidence into account and make a good decision. I have to earn my living and have fun, the few hours left a day are not enough to be an expert on every issue. So instead of making a rational decision, I will just vote on sentiment. So we do need experts in the government to make law and journalists to check the governments work and lay out the facts to me in short. Every election I have a chance to decide if the guy/party I voted on is doing good enough.
Unfortunately (for you, as I'm dutch) the US has an extremely weak representative democracy. The focus on districts gears the national government towards local issues, instead of the national issues that they should govern on. The district-system has also effectively created the weak two-party system that has made your politics into a fight. The Democrats are in power, let's vote for our bills. The Republicans are in power, let's undo the things the Democrats did and do what we want.
I believe that the national votes should be counted for the whole country and not per district. This would mean that smaller parties (like Ralph Nader's party) would be able to get into congress. This will greatly increase the diversity of congress and will necessitate coalitions. Thus the political parties will be forced to work together. It will also mean that some minority groups will be able to get a seat in congress and will be able to air their views and question the decisions made by the coalition. Currently a party that has support of 49% of the population, can still be totally unrepresented in congress (if they are barely beaten in every district).
Of course there will always be conflicts between local and national concerns (like drilling off the coast of Florida). I will explain how the dutch system deals with this issue. The local government (chosen in seperate elections) chooses the people to represent them in the Upper House. The Upper House can turn down every Act of Parliament (but they may not amend). We choose the parliament's members directly, 15% of the dutch votes to a political party translates in about 15% of the seats in the Lower House.
Thus the politicians we have chosen (indirectly in our case) to represent our local views put a check on the actions of the 'national' politicians. This is IMHO much better than politicians that are chosen for both their local and national opinion (as they are chosen per district). Is it not true that many national issues have little relation with local issues? Examples include the missile defense system, international politics, etc.
Choosing politicians per district ties them very strongly to the opinions of a fairly uniform group of people. This leads to weak politicians who are afraid to do anything that will go against the sentiments of the local population. On the other hand, if he is chosen by a much more diverse group of people, spread out over the country, he will have the best chance of being re-elected by hanging to ideals. He might lose a few votes by going against the wishes of the people from a state or district, but this will be compensated by the people from the rest of the country who reward him for being steadfast (or will abandon him if he isn't).
A (random) example is an enviromentalist who chooses to forgo his principles when a polluting factory treatens to leave his state (and thus brings harm to the local economy). Such a scenario is much less likely with nationally chosen politicians.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
My friend, I personally do not disagree with the need for security, the question is, what type of security? I think a strong steal door design on jetliners cockpits is a more rational idea of security than monitoring 285+ million people. There are thousands upon thousands of businesses that have no more than 20 dollars on cash and the rest of their funds in time lock safes so that would be robbers are discouraged from even trying to take them. And if they do? Too bad, nobody can open it. Yet a multi-million dollar jetliner/potential missile is protected by a flimsy panel door and open controls for anyone to take. That is a problem in security. I believe the uproar you're seeing is in response to the fact that these new laws do *nothing* to protect anybody, yet they remove the rights that define us as free Americans. The masses see them as a way to "fight back" and think the laws only apply to the people responsible for the attacks. How untrue, they not only apply, but are targeted at average citizens. Yes security would be wonderful, but I don't agree with my rights being taken from me in the false promise of safety.
Beware blue cats moving at
I must commend your post. It's nice to see something like this in a sea of hair splitting. This country, it's philosophy, and it's heritage is based on liberty. That is it. Everything else is just fluff to keep things running smooth. When liberty is sacrificed there is no more "America" to defend. All that will remain is a massive ugly shell that once was a great nation.
Beware blue cats moving at
Uhm, what does W getting re-elected have to do with outrages laws being passed? I do hope you realize that when someone leaves office the laws they've passed don't leave with them. It's either that or you're possibly a little off topic. I wouldn't mind seeing him lose a future election, but what I'm more worried about is the damage he does while he's in office now.
Beware blue cats moving at
Who's to say Jim even needs Bob? What we need is a Carnivore for the brain and legislation to back it up before anyone even *thinks* of trying it again. We'll nip this whole terrorism thing right in the bud. God bless America. We all need to give up our rights in the name of liberty. Hrm, wait a minute....
Beware blue cats moving at
that is what they are doing!
they're bombing the hell out of the arabs, silencing our rights and legalizing searches everywhere possible.
AC, I can understand why you would mis-interpret my remarks. I did not intend to say that there was a conspiracy. I intended to say that the problems are caused by people who place money first in their lives, and have no moral rule against killing.
Bush's education improvements were
OK, I've perused (well, maybe skimmed) the 175 page 36,000-word draft resolution "USA Act V2.0." (a.k.a. PATRIOT Act in the House Judiciary committee). I've extracted one proposed section that, in my judgment, epitomizes its import:
SEC. 507. DISCLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL RECORDS.
Section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g), is amended by adding after subsection (i) a new subsection (j) to read as follows:
''(j) INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OF TERRORISM.--
''(1) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding sub- sections (a) through (i) or any provision of State law, the Attorney General (or any Federal officer or employee, in a position not lower than an Assistant Attorney General, designated by the Attorney General) may submit a written application to a court of competent jurisdiction for an ex parte order requiring an educational agency or institution to permit the Attorney General (or his designee) to--
''(A) collect education records in the pos- session of the educational agency or institution that are relevant to an authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense listed in section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of title 18 United States Code, or an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331 of that title; and
''(B) for official purposes related to the investigation or prosecution of an offense described in paragraph (1)(A), retain, disseminate, and use (including as evidence at trial or in other administrative or judicial proceedings) such records, consistent with such guidelines as the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary, shall issue to protect confidentiality.
''(2) APPLICATION AND APPROVAL.-- ''(A) IN GENERAL.--An application under paragraph (1) shall certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the education records are likely to contain information described in paragraph (1)(A). ''(B) The court shall issue an order described in paragraph (1) if the court finds that the application for the order includes the certification described in subparagraph (A).
''(3) PROTECTION OF EDUCATIONAL AGENCY OR INSTITUTION.--An educational agency or institution that, in good faith, produces education records in accordance with an order issued under this subsection shall not be liable to any person for that production.
''(4) RECORD-KEEPING.--Subsection (b)(4) does not apply to education records subject to a court order under this subsection.''.
Due to the current financial restraints, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off until further notice.
Carbon Unit # 149-34-xxxx
AC, thanks for the EXCELLENT link.
Bush's education improvements were
Not that anyone on /. would know any REAL non-porn women, but if you were to ask most women in the US--especially those with school-age kids--if they were willing to permit changes in the laws that would give more power to policing agencies, they would support it. Go ahead and ask, I guaranteee you that any "soccer mom" would answer in the affirmative. And since women vote, that's that.
/. gets you nowhere, nobody cares--maybe you should try waking up and SMELLING THE ROASTING FLESH that was 5-6000 people in the rubble of WTC. I'd bet 99% of you wankers have never been outside yer hometown
Ranting on
It's better to overdo government snooping and civil liberty restrictions now. If further acts of terrorism occur, it is better that they occur with the restrictions and privacy invasions in place. That way it will be possible to say that they were tried and failed.
If we argue now that it makes no sense to do random body cavity searches on, say, chipmunks, then heaven help us. If and when the next terrorist act occurs, there would be scores of hysterics screaming that "chipmunk lovers" had tied the hands of law enforcement.
"Despite my misgivings, I have acquiesced in some of the administration's proposals because it is important to preserve national unity in this time of crisis and to move the legislative process forward,"
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont.
Yeah, that's what America is all about... not debate over important issues, but blind obedience and bullshit unity.
Does Leahy have any conception of what his job is?
-Goliath
Thanks.
Pleeeease! This is a clear fiver!
...perpetuating fear in the populus in the hopes to pass oppresive laws...Weren't we fighting Eurasia last week?
I think that the goal is very simple and very clear: stop terrorism.
... are the increased wire-tapping powers given to the police going to bring in Osama bin Laden and his friends? Are they going to stop people sending anthrax viruses through the mail? I don't see it myself.
That's what the government will tell you, but what evidence is there that it's true? I seriously doubt it
I've had a read through this law and it seems to me that it's no way tough enough to do what it claims. To seriously crack down on terrorists in the US would require far more than this bill - it would require a full-on police state. Perhaps that's coming though, and this is only the precursor; a kind of warm-up for the main event.
In any case, so long as the US government's foreign policy supports terror against enemies (of the US government), any repression inside the US will be treating symptoms rather than causes.
In my view, the main point is the occupation of the middle-east oil-zone, starting with Afghanistan, then Iraq, Iran, etc. etc.
The domestic "crack-down" can help firstly by promoting war hysteria / jingoistic patriotism, and then by monitoring and actively suppressing dissent against the foreign policy "adventure" in the middle-east.
The government does not need guns, but they are criminals, so they can invent any excuse to made and sell guns. That's how capitalism works.
The government's job should be to keep everyone safe in the country, and out of fear. But your fucked president just saw the perfect excuse to start a new war and now everybody all around the world has fear. THAT is terrorism.
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
Who said capitalism is democracy???
Capitalism is burocracy!
Can't you see that?
The Corporations and the Government own us.
Yeah... how is it possible someone still get surprised by this? That's how capitalism works!
Most Americans are clueless in general, like sheep on a farm.
STOP REPEATING! STOP REPEATING! STOP REPEATING!. I said NO MORE cake for what has already been said for years. We all KNOW that. And if someone doesn't know, just look at who represents to the northamericans.
The sheep that stand out and rebel against the machine (government + corporations) will just get stomped on.
That doesn't give any more chances for being pacific. That's why happened what happened on the WTC.
They are blind to the fact that there is a huge fence keeping them in, and that a week later they will be chopped up for hot dogs
And you're one of them!
Be happy.
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
United States of Microsoft Suckers
I'm sure they would not be a monopoly if they were founded in the USSR.
They're product of capitalism and burocracy.
--- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
We, and this "we" is really problematic. If we in the West are all Americans now, what are Third World women and Aboriginal women to do? If Canadians are Americans now, what are women of colour to do in this country? And I'm open to suggestions for changing this title, but I thought I would stick with it as a working title for getting my ideas together for making this presentation this morning.
I'm very glad that the conference opened with Tina (Tina Beads, of the Vancouver Rape Relief Women's Shelter) and I'm very glad for the comments that she made, but I want to say also, just (to) add to Tina's words here, that living (in) a period of escalating global interaction now on every front, on every level. And we have to recognize that this level and this particular phase of globalization is rooted in all forms of globalization in the colonization of Aboriginal peoples and Third World people all over the world. This is the basis. And so globalization continues to remain rooted in that colonization, and I think, recognize that there will be no social justice, no anti-racism, no feminist emancipation, no liberation of any kind for anybody on this continent unless Aboriginal people demand for self-determination.
The second point I want to make is that the global order that we live in, there are profound injustices in this global order. Profound injustices. Third World women...I want to say for decades, but I'm going to say for centuries, have been making the point that there can be no women's emancipation, in fact no liberation of any kind for women, will be successful unless it seeks to transform the fundamental divide between the north and south, between Third World people and those in the West who are now calling themselves Americans.
That there will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until the Western domination of this planet is ended.
Love thy neighbour. Love thy neighbour, we need to heed those words. Especially as all of us are being hoarded into the possibility of a massive war at the...of the United States. We need to hear those words even more clearly today. Today in the world the United States is the most dangerous and most powerful global force unleashing prolific levels of violence all over the world.
From Chile to El Salvador, to Nicaragua to Iraq, the path of U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood. We have seen, and all of us have seen, felt, the dramatic pain of watching those attacks and trying to grasp the fact of the number of people who died. We feel the pain of that every day we have bee watching it on television.
But do we feel any pain for the victims of U.S. aggression? 200,000 people killed only in the initial war on Iraq. That bombing of Iraq for 10 years now. Do we feel the pain of all the children in Iraq who are dying from the sanctions imposed by the United States? Do we feel that pain on an every-day level? Share it with our families and communities and talk about it on every platform that is available to us? Do we feel the pain of Palestinians who now for 50 years have been living in refugee camps?
U.S. foreign policy is soaked in blood. And other countries in the West, including shamefully, Canada, cannot line up fast enough behind it. All want to sign up now as Americans and I think it is the responsibility of the women's movement to stop that, to fight against it.
These policies are hell-bent on the West maintaining its control over the world's resources. At whatever cost to the people...Pursuing American corporate interest should not be Canada's national interest.
This new fight, this new war against terrorism, that is being launched is very old. And it is a very old fight of the West against the rest. Consider the language which is being used...
Calling the perpetrators evil-doers, irrational, calling them the forces of darkness, uncivilized, intent on destroying civilization, intent on destroying democracy...Every person of colour, and I would want to say every Aboriginal person, will recognize this language. The language of us letting civilization representing the forces of darkness, this language is rooted in the colonial legacy. It was used to justify our colonization by Europe...
We were colonized in the name of the West bringing civilization, democracy, bringing freedom to us. All of us recognize who is being talked about when that language is used. The terms crusade, infinite justice, cowboy imagery of dead or alive posters, we all know what they mean. The West, people in the West also recognize who this fight is against. Cries heard all over the Western world, we are all Americans now. People who are saying that recognize who the fight is against. People who are attacking Muslims, any person of colour who looks like they could be from the Middle East, without distinguishing, recognizing who this fight is against. These are not just slips of the tongue that Bush quickly tries to reject. These are not slips of the tongue. They reveal a thinking, a mindset. And it is horrific to think that the fate of the world hangs on the plans of people like that. This will be a big mistake for us if we just accept that these are slips of mind, just slips of the tongue. They're not. They reveal the thinking, and the thinking is based on dominating the rest of the world in the name of bringing freedom and civilization to it.
If we look also at the people who are being targeted for attack. A Sikh man killed? Reports of a Cherokee woman in the United States having been killed? Pakistan is attacked. Hindu temples attacked. Muslim mosques attacked regardless of where the Muslims come from. These people also recognize who this fight is against. And it is due to the strength of anti-racist organizing that Bush has been forced to visit mosques, that our prime minister has been forced also to visit mosques and say, no there shouldn't be this kind of attack. We should recognize that it is the strength of anti-racist organizing is forcing them to make those remarks.
But even...but even as they visit mosques, and even as they make these conciliatory noises, they are talking out of both sides of the mouth because they are officially sanctioning racial profiling at the borders, in the United States, for entrance into training schools, for learning to become pilots, at every step of the way. On an airplane, who is suspicious, who is not?
Racial profiling is being officially sanctioned and officially introduced. In Canada we know that guidelines, the Globe and Mail leaked, the guidelines were given to immigration officers at the border, who to step up security watch is on.
So on the one hand, they say no, it's not all Muslims, on the other hand they say yes, we are going to use racial profiling because it is reasonable. So we have to see how they are perpetrating the racism against people of colour, at the same time that they claim to be speaking out against it. And these are the conditions, the conditions of racial profiling. These are the conditions within which children are being bullied and targeted in schools, women are being chased in parking lots and shopping malls, we are being scrutinized as we even come to conferences like that, extra scrutiny, you can feel the coldness when you enter the airport. I was quite amazed. I have been travelling in this country for 10 years, and I have never had the experience that I had flying down here for this conference. All of us feel it. So this racial profiling has to be stopped.
Events of the last two weeks also show that the American people that Bush is trying to invoke, whoever they are these American people, just like we contest notions of who the Canadian people are, we have to recognize that there are other voices in the United States as well, contesting that. But the people, the American nation that Bush is invoking, is a people which is bloodthirsty, vengeful, and calling for blood. They don't care whose blood it is, they want blood. And that has to be confronted. We cannot keep calling this an understandable response. We cannot say yes, we understand that this is how people would respond because of the attacks. We have to stop condoning it and creating a climate of acceptability for this kind of response. We have to call it for what it is: Bloodthirsty vengeance.
And people in the United State, we have seen peace marches all over this weekend, they also are contesting this. But Bush is (the) definition of the American nation and the American people need to be challenged here. How can he keep calling them a democracy? How can we keep saying that his response is understandable after Bush of all people, who stole the election, how can we ever accept that this is democracy?
Canada's approach has been mixed, it has said yes, we will support the United States but with caution. It will be a cautionary support. We want to know what the actions will be before we sign on and we want to know this has been Canada's approach. And I have to say we have to go much further. Canada has to say we reject U.S. policy in the Middle East. We do not support it.
And it's really interesting to hear all this talk about Afghani women. Those of us who have been colonized know what this saving means. For a long time now, Afghani women, and the struggles they were engaged in, were known here in the West. Afghani women became almost the poster child for women's oppression in the Third World. And, rightfully so, many of us were in solidarity. Afghani women of that time were fighting against and struggling against the Taliban. They were condemning their particular interpretation of Islam. Afghani women, Afghanistan women's organizations were on the front line of this. But what (did) they become in the West? In the West they became nothing but poor victims of this bad, bad religion, and of (these) backward, backward men. The same old colonial construction. They were in the frontline, we did not take the lead from them then, where we could see them more as victims, only worthy of our pity and today, even in the United States, people are ready to bomb those women, seeing them as nothing more than collateral damage. You see how quickly the world can change. And I say that we take the lead from Afghani women. They fought back against the Taliban, and when they were fighting back they said that it is the United States putting this regime in power. That's what they were saying. They were saying, look at U.S. foreign policy!
They were trying to draw out attention to who was responsible for this state of affairs, to who was actually supporting regimes as women all over the Middle East had been doing. Sorry, just two more minutes and I'll be done. So I say we take the lead from them and even if there is no American bombing of Afghanistan, which is what all of us should be working right now to do, is to stop any move to bomb Afghanistan, even if there is no bombing of Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have already been displaced, fleeing the threat of war--you see the power of America here, right? One word in Washington and millions of people are forced to flee their houses, their communities, right? So, even if there is no bombing, we have to bear in mind how many women's lives have already been disrupted, destroyed, and will take generations for them to put back together again.
Inevitably, and very depressing in Canada is of course, turning to the enemy within--immigrants and refugees, right? Scapegoating of refugees, tighter immigration laws, all the right-wing forces in this community, in this country, calling for that kind of approach. This is depressing for women of colour, immigrant and refugee women, anything happens, even if George Bush was to get a cold, we know somehow it'll be the fault of immigrants and refugees in Canada, and our quote-unquote lax border policies. So I'm not going to say much about it, but I just want to expose you to how, this...continues to be resurrected anytime over anything in the world.
In terms of any kind of military action, Angela Davis (an American activist) asked in the '70s, she said, "do you think the men who are going to fight in Vietnam, who are going to kill Vietnamese women and children, who are raping Vietnamese women, do you think they will come home and there will be no effect of all of this? One women in the United States?" she was asking this in the 70s.
That question is relevant today. All these fighters that are going to be sent there, we think there will be no effect? For our women, when they come back here? So I think that that is something that we need to think about, as we talk about the responses, as we talk this kind of jingoistic military-ism. And recognize that, as the most heinous form of patriarchal, racist violence that we're seeing on the globe today. The women's movement, we have to stand up to this. There is no option. There's no option for us, we have to fight back against this militarization, we have to break the support that is being built in our countries for this kind of attack. We have to recognize that the fight is for control of the vast oil and gas resources in central Asia, for which Afghanistan is a key, strategic point!
There's nothing new about this, this is more of the same that we have been now fighting for so many decades. And we want to recognize, we have to recognize that the calls that are coming from progressive groups in the Third World, and in their supporters, in their allies, in the rest of the world, the three key demands they are asking for: End the bombing of Iraq, lift the sanctions on Iraq, who in this room will not support that demand? Resolve the Palestinian question, that's the second one. And remove the American military bases, anywhere in the Middle East. Who will not demand, support these demands?
We have to recognize that these demands are rooted in anti-imperialist struggle and that we have to support these demands. We need to end the racist colonization of Aboriginal peoples in this country, certainly, but we need to make common calls with women across the world who are fighting to do this. Only then can we talk about anti-racist, feminist politics, only then can we talk about international solidarity in women's movements across the world. And in closing, just one word--the lesson we have learned, and the lesson that our politicians should have learned, is that you cannot slaughter people into submission, for 500 years they have tried that strategy, the West for 500 years has believed that it can slaughter people into submission and it has not been able to do so, and it will not able to do so this time either.
Thank you very much.
Prof. Sunera Thobani
Transcript provided by the Cable Public Affairs Channel.
These days they're called "activists". And, contrary to what you may assume, they do win victories and make real changes. If you study social history (that is, the history of what freedoms average people have throughout history, including the freedoms that come from having something in your wallet) without the blinders of "progress" or its opposite, you'll see that freedoms go up and down, and that they tend to go up only when large groups of people spend real energy getting together and holding the leaders accountable. A vote is only the first baby step in that direction - you need to develop your own media so that people can keep track of EXACTLY when their representatives stab them in the back; and your own networks, united by some actual common interests and non-politicizing activities to promote those interests, but able to be mobilized into protest when necessary. This is no easier or harder today than it was for the labor movement or the civil rights movement or (hmmm... a right-wing example to balance things out...) the Cristeros in Mexico in the 30s (that's probably BS, I hardly know anything about them...).
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
But the US in the form of the CIA have been stirring up shit for years. Our oil industry is hand in hand with BP. The bottom line is western financial interests have put themselves ABOVE the the interests of the people who live in the region. I am proud to be an American, but ashamed of MANY of the things the government does in our name.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I think that the anthrax scare now is certainly getting people more paranoid than the attacks on the 11th. I agree, what they did is not the best approach for accomplishing their stated goals, but then it's international politics, nobody ever takes the most rational approach. They take an approach that sort of achieves their stated goals, and also works towards their unstated goals. I'm not sure about your take on it, though - I don't think it's killing Americans as much as embarrassing or ridiculing the U.S. on a global stage. Sort of a "despite your military might and superpower status, a bunch of us got together and hurt you worse than anybody else did before" But yeah, that makes him the king of a whole lot more than just radical Islam.
itachi
There are two things that I see wrong with this.
1) If they take away all our freedom in order to "protect" us from terrorism, then the terrorists have already won, there will be nothing left to protect.
2) Every law should have to be voted on seperatly. No more of this "bundling" of special interest laws with legit stuff. I.E. Setting off nuclear weapons on the steps of the Capitol is a felony, and, oh yeah, you can't use your credit cards to play roulette in your underwear. If you don't vote for this bill, you are pro-terrorism, and No, we can't take the gambling part out.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"