Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Terrorism Law Passed
Saratoga C++ writes: "Today (Oct 25) was the day that the US Senate voted on if to pass H.R. 3162, the anti-terrorism law. I have the roll call for today from the Senate. The only person with a "Nay" vote was Russ Feingold (D-WI). Thanks Russ. The final turn out was Yes: 98, No: 1, No Vote: 1."
Although the contents of the bill are debatable, the Nay vote either takes a lot of courage, or a lack of brains. That funny sound is the voice of disapproval circulating the senate.
gus
.. if only.
I got lost in all the parlimentary process. The Senate voted for it with no expiration date; the house passed it, but with a presidential and subsequent congressional renewal clause in case of "unforseen abuses" (or forseen abuses, for that matter).
I believe this final version passed with a (four-year?) expiration date, but I'm not sure I got that right.
Does anybody have a definitive answer on this? (And no, "I heard X and Y" does not count. I'm talking about a link to and quote from a factually reputable news source.) If there is a time limit, what are the parameters?
How comes the anti-terrorism bill punishes law abiding citizens and not the terrorists? Enquiring minds what to know!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
To be patriotic is to be for MAN(look it up), I am a patriotic person and thats WHY I am against BUSH!
It seems like Russ Feingold is the only one that is really for america as it is meant to be, as it was founded.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
They were designed to move as slow as molasses; that way redical policy shifts don't happen to quickly. If Congress could act quickly they could do a lot of good, but they also could do a lot of bad.
Yeah, and there aren't any people who are against the terrorist attacks and against violations of civil liberties; those two things sound mutually exlusive to me (roll eyes).
Hopefully you are being sarcastic.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
Not that I'm a fan of the bill or anything, but if this is the only legislation that goes through as a result of 911, then civil liberties got lucky. It could have been a lot worse.
Bush to american citizens :
"All your freedoms are belong to us!
(For great justice!)"
...this is getting out of hand
Heard in the Senate the following day:
"Wow, that bill SURE must be popular! Look at how many hits the web version of the detailed summary got LAST NIGHT ALONE!"
Anyone who argues "Oh, I don't care if they invade my privacy, I'm not doing anything illegal." should watch the movie Enemy of the State. At first Will Smith has that exact same attitude, until the middle of the movie where he spins it around to "That's... None of your damn business! Leave me alone!"
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Terrorist 1 : Hey, I'm bored. Let's commits acts of terrorism today
Terrorist 2 : But, that's illegal now!
Terrorist 1 : Oh darn. Oh well, let's go fishing instead.
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Unfortunately, I only have a link to the FoxNews site, so excuse the decided lean to the right: FBI to Broaden Web Wiretapping.
This has been mentioned before, possibly even on slashdot, but it is probably worth repeating. Various comments from people who know suggest that the FBI will probably break the internet in trying to funnel it all through their Carnivore++ setup. If this really comes to pass.
Reading further down in the article, it would seem that the FBI is really just going to lean on AOL, earthlink, yahoo, hotmail/MS, etc to make sure it has unbridled access to email, but who knows for now. In the end, I'm sure it will all work out for the, um, best.
To all of you who think that this bill "trashes civil rights", as Michael "Slashbot" Simms believes.
Exactly how is your freedom and/or liberty curtailed by this bill? Exactly what are you unable to do now that you were able to do before?
Clearly, if civil rights have been "trashed", there must be endless examples. And by the way, "potential" abuses don't count. I want REAL examples.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I tried submitting this story myself, but guess they didn't like my version, or he got it in first.
Anyway, here's some commentary that I included with version I wrote:
American Civil Liberties Union
Center for Democracy and Technology
Yahoo! News
There's a lot of them. heck.
-
Extends electronic surveillance periods to 120 days from 90 days and for searches to 90 days from 45 days.
- Creates two new crimes prohibiting certain persons from possessing a listed biological agent or toxin and prohibiting all persons from possessing a biological agent, toxin or delivery system of a type or in a quantity that is not reasonably justified by a peaceful purpose
- Limits delay of search warrants when this authority would result in flight or property seizure
- Requires a court application to obtain student records
- Grants authority to the president to restrict exports of agricultural products, medicine or medical devices to the Taliban or the territory of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban
- Increases to seven days the length of time an alien may be held before being charged with criminal or immigration violations
- Defines terrorist activities but makes exceptions for people who have innocent contacts to non-certified terrorist organizations
- Enhances the secretary of state's existing power to certify groups as terrorist organizations
- Enhances data-sharing between the FBI and the State Department/INS and between the State Department and foreign governments
- Clarifies CIA director's role to set overall strategy for collection of information through court?ordered FISA surveillance, but no operational authority
- Increases CIA authority to investigate "international terrorist activities"
- Encourages CIA to recruit informants to fight terrorism
- Requires attorney general to develop guidelines for disclosing to the CIA foreign intelligence information obtained in criminal investigations
- Requires the attorney general and CIA to provide training to federal, state and local government officials to identify foreign intelligence information
- Sunsets electronic surveillance laws after two years with the authority for the president to renew in two more years
- Limits the use of Foreign Intelligence Service Act court orders to investigations of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities
- Requires investigations of U.S. persons be based on more than just First Amendment activities.
- Allows roving wiretap authority on electronic equipment, including cell phones
- Allows pen registers/trap and trace on particular phone numbers but restricts content collection
- Increases the number of FISA judges from seven to 11
- Expedites the hiring of translators for the FBI
- Allows seizure of voice mail messages
- Does not allow the use of information collected on Americans by foreign governments when that information was collected in violation of the U.S. Constitution
- Authorizes nationwide service of subpoenas for electronic subscriber information
- Expands list of items subject to subpoena to include the means and source of payment for electronic subscriber information
- Authorizes electronic communications service to disclose contents of and subscriber information in case of emergencies involving the immediate danger of death or serious physical injury
- Allows sharing of grand jury and wiretap information for official law enforcement duties
- Allows sharing grand jury and wiretap information that involves foreign intelligence and counterintelligence
- Does not allow disclosure of tax return information by Treasury to federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies in responding to terrorist incidents
- Triples the number of Border Patrol, Customs Service and INS inspectors at the northern border
- Authorizes $100 million to improve INS and Customs technology and additional equipment for monitoring the northern border
- Requires an integrated automated fingerprint identification system for points of entry and overseas consular posts
- Authorizes a counter-terrorism fund to reimburse the Department of Justice for any costs related to investigating and prosecuting terrorism
- Expedites disability and death payments to firefighters, law enforcement officers or emergency personnel involved in the prevention, investigation, rescue or recovery efforts related to any future terrorist attack
- Increases benefits program payments to public safety officers
- Coordinates secure information sharing among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute terrorist conspiracies and activities
- Expands fraud and abuse laws to cover computers outside the U.S. used to affect interstate commerce or communications inside the U.S.
- Replenishes the Justice Department's antiterrorism emergency reserve with up to $50 million; authorizes private gift-giving to the fund; allows service providers to use reserve fund to expedite assistance to victims of domestic terrorism
- Creates a new criminal statute to punish for terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against mass transportation systems
- Creates a list of offenses that will carry an eight-year statute of limitations for prosecution except where they resulted in, or created a risk of, death or serious bodily injury
- Defines maximum penalties for terror-related activities where appropriate, including life imprisonment or supervision
- Adds conspiracy provisions to some criminal statutes and provides that the penalties for such conspiracies may not include death
- Adds certain terrorism-related crimes to RICO and money laundering rules
I hope that everyone feels safer now"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
You can kiss your freedoms goodbye... but be careful, because THEY might see you.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Looks like it's got a 4 year limit at least...
m p/~c107bhnj7n:e89010:
This looks like the right text...
Or, for the link wary... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./te
I can imagine what the more pragmatic law-enforcement agents are thinking right now: "gee, this probably won't do a damn thing to stop terrorism, but think how many marijuana dealers we'll pick up now. yippee."
most of the freedom-smashing sections are specifically against aliens and non-residents.
And that's the worst part. We are a country that consists almost entirely of aliens -- very few of us have lived here for more than a few generations. I know few people that can't immediately tell me which great-grandfather came here, and from what country. One of the things that makes America great (and is the basis of our country, historically-speaking) is the opportunity that we present to people coming here to seek a better life.
So now we think it's OK to hold an alien for seven days before charging them with a crime. This will be the worst on migrant latino workers, the people that make this country run on a day to day basis, the most trod-upon class of Americans. (Yes, I called them Americans.) Sure, this has been passed in the name of fighting terrorism, but I guarantee that the INS is going to seize this opportunity to harass migrants, knowing that they can now threaten to throw them in prison for seven days before deciding that they're not going to charge them, given that they are here legally after all.
People saying that this law doesn't affect them are probably right. Because Slashdot users (I'd best cash on this) consist primarily of white males between the ages of 16 and 40 that were born and raised in the United States in middle-class families. So they don't give a damn about Mexicans, or poor laborers, or, gods help them, people of Indian or Pakastani descent. They're just looking at this bill and saying "hey, it doens't affect me."
I'll spare you the tired speech of "first they came for my guns, but I didn't have any, then they came for my..." etc. Our freedoms are being chipped away at. This bill is just the start, mark my words.
-Waldo Jaquith
If you took a poll, I'd bet the majority of Americans would be fully in support of whatever legislation was put forth. Even more so, I'd bet a poll of informed parties who had studied the bill would probably get the same result (but with a more narrow margin).
Most of America right now, for good or ill, trusts government and believes that significant measures should be taken to combat terrorism. So long as you actually do trust the guy in charge many of the provisions do make sense. And they seem even better with that sunset clause over many of them.
As far as I'm concerned this bill does represent the will of the people, and representative democracy has served its purpose in this case. Of course democracy also tried prohibition and any number of other failed experiments.
My point is that the voices against this legislation appear to be very much in the minority, a fact that can be easily overlooked here on slashdot. If this is law is truly a mistake then you needed not only to convince Congress but also convince your fellow citizens.
The population of the US is currently at about 285 million people. Your idea would mean that their would be about 30,000 members of congress. Think of the chaos. People say that it takes a long time to get legislation through congress now, well just imagine how bad it would be with that many representatives. Just imagine how much time that the House Rules Committee would have to allott for each debate. Nothing would ever get done.
When I signed up for college, my marketing details were broadcast to most of the free world on behalf of my beloved alma mater. I would rather the gub'ment poke through them while looking for bad guys than receive yet another offer for a class ring or some such garbage.
Why is it that this bill makes me think of Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution?
Why is it that Afhghanistan reminds me of Vietnam?
Am I rightfully very, very scared?
-Leo
Those boys from Texas sure know how to handle cattle.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
YOU and all that think in such simplistic, narrow-minded ways are nothing more than brownshirts. Don't know what a brownshirt is? Look it up. And while you are looking it up (use Google), consider this: a well-known commie pinko, Benjamin Franklin, once remarked that anyone that would give up some of their civil liberties in the defense of freedom deserved neither liberties nor freedom. Yes, I am paraphrasing Franklin, but that was the gist of his remark. And your sort disgusts me. Read this, from http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/ : In the darkest 1950s Cold War hysteria, when U.S. Sen. Joe McCarthy, R-Wi., was demanding that Congress toss aside the Constitution in order to hunt down the agents of his "red menace," a move was made by the Republican attorney general of the United States to expand the the use of information gathered through wiretapping in cases of espionage and sabotage. The proposal required Senate approval, which seemed assured as the shadow of McCarthyism hung heavy over the Capitol. One senator, Wayne Morse, a Republican senator from the state of Oregon, stood alone in opposition to increased use of wiretaps on the phone lines of those suspected of subversion. Wiretapping phones was, Morse said, "a police state tactic." When the attorney general pressed his case before the Senate, Morse countered that, "I am shocked that an attorney general of the United States should believe Gestapo methods are needed in detecting Gestapo elements." At every turn, and at considerable political cost, the Oregon senator fought the wiretapping plan. And his relentless defense of the right to privacy paid off. As Morse's biographer, Mason Drukman, recalls, "the bill ultimately died in the Judiciary Committee, one of the few measures of its kind to fail during the McCarthy era." Morse's battle against the wiretapping scheme was recalled this week when, in an equally hysterical moment, the Senate was again asked to massively increase the ability of a Republican attorney general to wiretap phones -- and, now, Internet communications. Again, one senator stood up to the rush to rip of the Constitution. U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold's courageous moves to challenge the most irresponsible and unnecessary components of Attorney General John Ashcroft's "anti-terrorism" agenda won him few friends in the Senate. The Wisconsin Democrat broke not just with Republicans but with the overwhelming majority of fellow Senate Democrats -- who were willing to sacrifice fundamental rights on the altar of Ashcroft's ambition. Ashcroft and his Senate allies have been promoting a grab bag of police-state proposals that will do little to reduce the threat of terrorism, while doing much to increase the threat to civil liberties. In addition to seeking permission to conduct "roving wiretaps," the Ashcroft proposal was written to permit greatly expanded computer surveillance, and to permit government agents to secretly search private homes. Feingold, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's constitution subcommittee, was as blunt as Morse when he stood alone to slow the Senate's rush to judgement. Feingold was not trying to tie the hands of the attorney general in the fight against terrorism. But he was trying to assure that the fight did not become a war on civil liberties. read more at: http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/
If you don't trust them in general to play by the rules, you are screwed - with or without this law. So get used to it!
For those on slashdot who are so scared of this bill, I would just suggest that they read a bit of history. In past wars, civil liberties were much more restricted than they are by this. In fact, in general an American has more civil liberties, with this bill in place, than citizens had just a few decades ago and certainly more than they had in the previous history of the country! IMHO this bill doesn't go far enough - it still affords too many protections to non-citizens.
We face a danger serious enough that serious technogeeks, not just politicians, have expressed great worry (Bill Joy, Steven Hawkings). That danger is the use of mass casualty weapons by individuals operating within our society. If the government can reduce that risk by increasing its surveillance capabilities, then it has a duty to do so.
In other words, stop whining! Good grief, most on this board have never even had to face the risk of being drafted into the service. Most never experienced a true loss of liberty, but some of us volunteered for it (military service) so that all of us can have what liberties we do have.
Most on this board have not had to face any serious risk of any sort, for that matter. Well - times have changed. The danger (always there) has now become apparent.
There really are people out there with the intent and the means to kill lots of innocent people - especially Americans. Would you rather the FBI have more surveillance abilities, or have yourself drafted into the large military it will take to crunch the rest of the world so they can't do this to us anymore. In WW-II we fielded an army of 30,000,000 people. We might have to do it again. I hope you are ready!
Your precious civil liberties (including many you take for granted that never were guaranteed to you) were obtained by people willing to give up their own liberties to get them for you. Grow up! Better yet, stop whining and enlist!
The only good weather is bad weather.
I wonder whether most people would agree with me or not. Unlike some people that say "this action should be considered terrorism", for me terrorism has nothing to do with the actions and everything to do with the intent.
To me, if Mr. X puts a bomb in a plane to kill his wife, that's first degree murder (though not terrorism). However if Mr. Y does the same thing for a political cause, it is terrorism, although the action is exactly the same. The same way, for me a serial killer is not a terrorist, though I think none is "better" of "worse" than the other,
Does that make any sense. Surely at some point it could be hard to determine the intent in a trial, but for me it's important to make the distinction. Otherwise you just end up with all crimes being labeled as "terrorism act" and the word doesn't mean anything anymore.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
The end of the world. Bin Laden won, thank you US senate for defending America.
/dev
So the problem was that terrorism was NOT illegal.. now I get it.
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I wholeheartedly agree. I was 3 months short of being able to vote for him back in '92, but I've voted for him ever since. It was truly amazing how he ran his campaing. Putting his oath on his garage door in big black marker. Travelling throughout the state in his minivan and using his hand as a map of the state to point out as to where he was going next (for those not familiar with the look of Wisconsin, it looks like a hand in a way). Truly speaking straight to the people and doing it, like you said, without running a single negative add. And to top it off using only his own money to run his campaign. This is why he's all about campaign finance reform with McCain. It's been no surprise he has won by landslides in subsequent elections.
On a little historical note...he's been doing stuff like this since he was in high school at Janesville Craig in the late 60's - early 70's. My dad was in his class and was his campaign manager for the student body. When he told me this way back when, I didn't believe him so I dug up his yearbook from '72, and sure enough...there he was..picture, signatures and all. Truly made him a hometown hero in my book and he's done nothing but solidify that image ever since. Honestly, I would not be suprised one bit to see him running or nomitated for president in one of the next few elections.
We're Doomed.
For what I feel is a cogent argument as to why everyone, even your mother, should use encryption, please read:
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
And you think Europeans didn't? Come on, what kind of argument is that?
The main historical difference is that until the mid-20th century, the US was an agricultural frontier society: if you didn't like goverment, you could move or change your identity (as long as you were white and male). Europe at the time already was densely populated and had a well-functioning administration in place.
It's only over the last few decades that the US has gotten the technology to track, supervise, and control its population. But now that it's here, the US political system has not caught up with it, and neither have the political sensitivities of the US population.
And even in its earlier periods, the US managed to almost completely exterminate American Indians, deny democracy to the majority of its citizens, and enslave blacks. The US does not have a stellar record of democracy, individual freedoms, or justice. And unlike those European countries, the US still has the same political and legal systems in place that allowed those abuses.
If abuses start, the public will speak out, and this bill will be quickly curbed.
If people risk their jobs, credit records, government surveillance, and being thrown in jail for being "suspected terrorists", "the public" will quickly become quiet.
I'm just wondering...
If and after we subdue the Taliban, wax Osama and clean out the major terrorist networks out there, do you think the US could eventually kill this new legislation because we wouldn't much need it anymore?
(btw - I don't believe that there are unlimited numbers of potential Osama Bin Ladens out there. If there were, they'd be at his side right now.)
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
December 31, 2005. Start around 6 or 7. BYOB.
Now imagine this, from the mouth of an Afghan:
Even in the darkest days of the Soviet invasion, we all knew that the Soviets loved the same things we did: a good days work at the farm, walks around the countryside, their children. Todays enemy just wants us to die - the more gastly the better. I'm glad that we decided to curtail some conveince to help weed out the scum, and I'm really glad that our government is brave enough to do somethig about it.
Our enemy appears to have nucluar capabilitys and obviously isn't afraid to use them: http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/mainn.html
Let's hope we can kill them all, before they kill us. These are not people who just have a differing viewpoint than us, or a different way of life. These are human debris that use the fruits of our civilisation to destroy us.
Our well measured response, at home and abroad, will save our lives, as well as save the lives of the vast majority of decent people in Afganistan: if we were sucuessfully attacked with weapons of mass destruction, we would suffer horribly, but many more good people would die in the fires of our retaliation.
A bit of violence and self sacrifice, now, will save lives.
They fight for the same reasons as you. They too want to defend their country and way of life.
Think about it.
... needs to be renamed "No Rights Online"
ker-plunk
With all that they threw in, looks like they still forgot to make it illegal to fly an airplane into a skyscraper!
And on the less bright side, the
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
We've reached a plateau with this legislation, really. It's so bad that if it were worse, it would only still be at the same level of bad. Or something like that...
... If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you."--Sam Adams
This legislation makes it legal for the FBI to read every line of every header on every packet that ever goes out on the Internet, without a warrant. That means that the FBI can legally quite easily maintain lists of who visits what websites, who sends whom e-mail, etc. This is analogous to how the FBI used to send people to follow dissidents and people with political beliefs they didn't like, and wait for them to do something they could exploit publicly to embarrass someone, or privately to blackmail someone (like they did to Martin Luther King, Jr., with his affair). Do you ever do anything at all online that you wouldn't want everyone in the world to know about? Then don't speak out too loudly against whatever ever-more-draconian things the FBI wants, or you may get on their radar. Ever do anything that's technically illegal, or can otherwise get you into trouble, even though whether it should is debatable? Like, gamble, protest (just ask the WTO protesters how often they get arrested for exercising this *right*, even peacefully), visit European or Asian pr0n sites where some of the models are 16 because it's perfectly legal in that given country, be gay and in the military, tear the tag off the mattress at the store, write literature or have performances that get deemed a violation of your community's standards, etc.? Just don't say anything about it or e-mail anything about it or visit any sites related to it, on the Internet.
Oh, and if you ever gamble online, you're helping terrorists to launder money, BTW, and don't be surprised if it gets you into a lot of trouble. Granted, no one has ever maintained that any major online offshore gambling houses are actually being used by terrorists to launder anything; this was just moralizing rightwingers using terrorism as an excuse to foist their morality on everyone else. And that is despicable.
And don't ever visit online boards filled with political dissidents and prograssives, like the Independent Media Center which is somethimes the only source of good information on and from protests--unless you want to get on a McCarthyesque list or get detained for questioning by the FBI. After all, they served the IMC with a search warrant this year after the WTO/IMF protest in Canada, which would have forced them to turn over all server logs so that the FBI could find out who was posting updates from the protest so that they could interrogate those people about some documents or somesuch which were taken from a police car (IIRC), and a gag order to prevent them from revealing it to site visitors. They warrant was quashed, being unconstitutional and all. But now, THEY DON"T NEED A WARRANT. They have license to gather all that data for themselves by directly bugging the Internet backbone. And if something they want slips through, or is encrypted and has its path scrambled by something like a Mixmaster remailer, then this legislation makes it very easy for them to get a warrant and search logs or install password sniffers while you're away without even telling you they were ever there.
Slashdot has already carried a story about the FBI's proposal to concentrate all Internet traffic at a few key points to that it can do just that sort of broad monitoring of every Internet user everywhere. Funny thing is, it's an idea which came to the FBI 2 years ago. Interesting how something the FBI has been secretly lusting after for years is now the answer to the present situation, eh? They're just opportunists who have been wanting this power, and the current situation gives them an excuse for circumventing the Constitution with only a single senator voting against their power grab.
And once the FBI has its closed boxes installed throughout the Internet backbone, is there any way to really prevent them from looking at more than just the header data that they can now get, legally, without a warrant? Recent studies indicate that there are thousands of illegal telephone wiretaps performed by law enforcement agencies each year in the U.S. With the power to instantly see what anyone is doing on the Net, probably with no one ever being the wiser, that is an even greater temptation to abuse. They will implement such capabilities into their closed and secret boxes under the auspices of needing the capabilities for when they get search warrants to read the data itself, not just its headers; and then no one is there looking over their shoulders to make sure they don't take peeks whenever they want, without warrants, or with a warrant that's just a rubber stamp from a judge in their pocket who makes it a secret warrant under this new law, that no one ever need know about?
And what is the FBI if not an agency which has proven its capacity to abuse power, along with its sister agencies like the ATF? The entire Reno administration in the DOJ was one long abuse of the people, from using pyrotechnic devices at Waco and lying about it for 8 years until it was proven by their own photographs and documents which had been conveniently misplaced, to the murder of two innocent people at Ruby Ridge (the man they came to arrest won a million+ dollar lawsuit against them), to deporting a minor child on very dubious grounds while his custody proceedings were still moving forward in a state Court, just to prove a political point, to lying to the U.S. Army to get military training for agents under a law that says agents can get military training only when preparing for an international drug bust, when those agents were serving a warrant for 1 count of selling a shotgun with a too-short barrel, to inventing allegations of child abuse in several cases which were later disproved, for the purposes of making a defendant who would have been vindicated look bad. And the Ashcroft DOJ is looking at least as bad.
Don't forget that Hoover may be dead, but his training and indoctrination methods are still very much alive at the FBI, where new agents are still taught according to principles he established. Terrorism isn't the greatest threat to freedom in this country; the DOJ is.
Ponder this Vietnam-era quote:
"The mushrooming of surveillance has been explained by the sense of panic
and crisis felt throughout the government during this period of extremely
vocal dissent, large demonstrations, political and campus violence, and
what at the time seemed the inauguration of a period of wide- spread
anarchy. While officials... suggested that these crises justified the
surveillance, they failed to recognize that the rights guaranteed by the
constitution are constant and unbending to the temper of the times..."
--Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 1973
And how about these old stand-bys:
"Implicit in the term 'national defense' is the notion of defending those
values and ideals which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be
ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the
subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the
Nation worthwhile."--Chief Justice Earl Warren, U.S. Supreme Court, US v Robel
"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for." -- Thomas Jefferson
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt to the House of Commons, November 18, 1783
"Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor
to have fewer rights than he had before, but to have those rights better
secured."--Thomas Paine, 1791
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty
when the government's purposes are beneficient . . . the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."--Justice Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices?
"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty."-- Thomas Paine
"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get
yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is
to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in the great struggle for independence."--Charles Austin Beard, 1874 - 1948
These are my "stock quotes" that I drag out on discussion boards and on USENET whenever I see a well-intioned post which goes against these words of wisdom from men greater than you or me, men who established or defended and defined the rights which we now enjoy as proud Americans. But I am not proud of my country at this. We have set a precedent which is terrible, and tommorrow when the President signs the bill into law we will have lost rights which it may take generations to recover--if we ever do. Sure, it's meant to be temporary--but it can be passed again, permanently, after we've gotten used to having no more 4th Amendment rights the moment we turn on a computer. Remember that the income tax which we now all pay so copiously was passed as a temporary measure to fund the Spanish-American War. Remember that Social Security, which we all still have to pay with no opt-out option, was a temporary measure to help soften the Depression.
Temporary things have a habit of becoming permanent in this country. Just ask the people who had to foment a Revolution to get out from under the burden of so many "temporary" taxes the English imposed upon their Colonies.
This is the sort of invasion of liberties which, historically, has slowly caused armed revolutions. Three hundred years from now, they may be studying this and similar events in high schools much as we study the small erosions of freedom which by themselves were considered nothing, but which together are considered the genesis of the American Revolution. Strong words? No, strong legislation. At best, history will judge the next years under this law as being not unlike a new McCarthyism.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
American slashdotter's should support his stand in defence of freedom, send him a email/letter, thanking him for is efforts.
You could also suggesting some of the better ideas/arguments from around here. Let him know that his stand is appeciated.
The government now can detain any of the above legal aliens for any or no reason for a good long time without providing any justification at all.
You prevent "terrorism" by creating legitimate reasons for war against the US?
1937: J. Edgar Hoover becomes head of the FBI. Within 25 years Hoover had so much dirt on everyone that even Presidents were afraid of him. Ever wonder why he stayed in power for over 30 years? J. Edgar Hoover ran this country for the entire period. He had more dirt on Kennedy alone to fill several books.
1950: Senator Joe McCarthy declares was on domestic communism. Over the next 5 years thousands, repeat thousands, of people were harrassed, intimidated, arrested, imprisoned and deported. In the entire time not one single communist was ever uncovered. Never mind that in a so-called free country we allegedly have the right to free speech, the press and assembly. Yet all these people were oppressed for exercising that very right.
1933: Hitler becomes Chancellor. Over the next 6 years he gains so much power, in large part by hunting down and executing anyone daring to disagree with him. This included hundreds of german students caught passing out anti-nazi flyers in libaries. They were arreseted and immediately shot! I don't have to remind you what happened next after he finished eliminating any remaining opposition do I?
Today: Congress hands the Executive branch the most power it has ever been given since the countries inception in 1776. The traditional balance of power that has up to this point kept the government in check is eliminated with the USA ACT, now giving the Executive Branch all the power it needs to fight domestic "terrorism" without Judicial oversight.
So ask yourself this. If the governments fight against terrorism is a just cause, then why does it need to eliminate parts of the constitution and the normal checks and balances to pull it off? One Answer: Because its real agenda has nothing to do fighting real terrorism. Now they have the power to eliminate any remaining dissent against their power base. A powerbase that gained power suspiciously if not downright illiginately. If Bush really had won the election, then why did the New York Times decide to *not* publish its poll findings? Becasue Gore actually won. We have an illigimate president in power who in less than a year has managed to take us headlong into war that may erupt into WWIII and the effective elimination of Constitution protections to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now they have the freedom to compile complete dossiers on everyone. Ever subscribed to 2600 magazine? Ever got a catalog from Loompanics? Ever baught a "alternative" book from Amazon? Are you a registered Libertarian? Are you a member of the Green Party? If so you have now been targeted. Lets just hope they don't try to paint you as a "suspected terrorist". Even the most harmless acts of computer intrusion could give you life in imprisonment - LIFE!
Assuming soneone manages to challenge these new laws in court, don't you think these anti-democratic croonies running our country will the case to get anywhere? Give me a break! They will harrass, intimidate, incarcerate anyone they deem a "threat" to National Security - read Threat to their power. This is a classic power play people! The most sinister one ever carried out in History. Assuming we make it through this - this will time will go down as one of the darkets in human history. Chinese curses indeed! History has repeatedly shown that once the balance of power is tipped too far in one direction (as it is with the USA ACT) it is never regained, excpet with the downfall of the regime itself - coup's, revolution or internal decay. Either way we are now in for a very long, dark and opressive time in this country. If you had any doubt before - We are now living in a Totaltarian Police State. Who is going to save us? The Russians? The Chineese? The Canadians?
www.enthea.org
People say that it takes a long time to get legislation through congress now, well just imagine how bad it would be with that many representatives. Just imagine how
much time that the House Rules Committee would have to allott for each debate. Nothing would ever get done.
Assuming that number of laws passed is a good metric.As for the taking too long bit, there are already big problems with laws being passwd without evidence that they were even understood let alone debated. Conbined with a big rider problem.
A simple solution would be a rule stating that a bill must have a maximum length of X sides of paper at Y point font size. (e.g. 10 pages 12 point.)
This is a relatively sad day for Americans who love the freedom that they usually take for granted. Lets hope (yeah, right) that Dubya doesn't sign it. Not that it would do much good, with 98-1 with 1 abstain passing it.
If you are a jurist sitting in on a case in which the defendant violated a law which you feel is unconstitutional you can try to convince the other jurists of your view and then dismiss the case because the law is unconstitutional. This then sets precedent for other defendants being tried under this law.
There may well be situations where jurists are relucant to do this. e.g. someone guilty of munder but charged under a "hate crime" type law.
Double jeopardy means you can't be tried for violating the same law twice for the same event. If the law was declared unconstitutional then you just charge them under other laws that prohibit flying airplanes into buildings and killing nearly 5,000 people.
Indeed it's not unkown for mass murders to only be charged with killing some of their victims. Each murder being a separate crime. With 5,000 victims even if they are never found guilty they'd die of old age long before they ran out of trials.
As discussed elsewhere, the incorporation of many violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the list of predicates for acts of federal terrorism now exposes many technologists to potential life sentences.
But there are some even more invidious changes -- the rewrite of the civil remedies provisions to eliminate the requirement of $5,000 actual damages for CFAA violations in many cases. In recent cases, the $5,000 limit has been the only thing between a mere allegation of exceeding authority and a cause of action.
Here's the typical scenario. Technology consultant does work for customer. Some difficulties arise between them, and they decide to go their separate ways. Technologist presents his final bills, customer stiffs him.
In the old days, the time-and-materials technologist had a slam-dunk collection action. "Your honor, I gave him a bill for time and materials, and he didn't pay."
Under the new regime, the deadbeat customer need only allege that a technologist's use of a customer computer exceeded authority, and there you are: a built-in criminal counterclaim for civil remedies. Because of the rewrite, one that is guaranteed to survive motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. One guaranteed to result in a settlement.
Yeah, terrorism absolutely required a change to the civil remedies of the CFAA. NOT!
Nor did it require the microsoft-friendly civil remedies exemption for negligent delivery of software resulting in hacking.
Terrorism had nothing to do with this bill. Nothing. It was the excuse, not the reason, for passing a bill that, were the provisions measured in the light of a different day, would never have stood a chance. This bill will not reduce terrorism, only liberty.
Indeed, upon passage of this bill, the terrorists finally won. Congratulations, America! Our representatives have finally done what bin Laden could not do: they have made us less free.
I guess it was far more important to discuss MSN, MP3s, ATI and the like rather than THE LOSS OF CIVIL LIBERTIES AND UNIVERSAL MONITORING OF NETWORK TRAFFIC. Good Job Slashdot! Toys are much more important than life, right?
-a.e.mossberg
Hear! Hear!
The terrorists are winning.
"Soccer Moms" talking about being scared to open their mail at home because of anthrax fear.
Our politicals voting on absurd anti-terror "prevention" measures, out of fear. Fear of looking unamerican/unpatratriotic. Fear of not being re-elected.
Terrorisms number one weapon? Fear.
----- LoboSoft specializes in Digital Language Lab
It's quite possible to try bin Laden in an international court in his absence, why is America afraid to do this?
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
It's been shown in a number of countries under a variety of laws that abuses will happen. That's not to say that every policeman is evil and out to get you, but enough lazy or corrupt or incompetent enough to abuse their position.
J-aims
--
Yo, whatever happened to peas? Join T( H)GS
Afghanistan is in the middle of a famine. It's bombing has severely impeded the efforts of aid agencies to get food in to the country. It is estimated that as a result 3-4 million people will starve this winter.
This is because two of the wealthiest, most powerful nations on earth are attacking one of the poorest, because they choose not to extradite someone from within their borders without proof. It should be noted that the west so far has not managed to come up with any definite proof that is was Osama that did it. But hell, go ahead anyway - kill a load of Afghans. They're only muslims after all.
It should be noted that the US doesn't exactly have a good record of extrafiting terrorsts itself, Haiti, for eaxmple has been trying to get the US to extradite a known terrorist for some time, and they have a great deal of proof of his guilt. By the way, he played a large part in the killing of 4-5000 people. That figure sound familiar?
Sorry, on this war, I'm with Chomsky.
It seems like Russ Feingold is the only one that is really for america as it is meant to be, as it was founded.
How likely is that? The Congress just spent months investigating Clinton on the grounds that just his statements, not his acts, threatened the Constitution. How likely is it that all those defenders of freedom have now abandoned their principles for no other reason than to deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights?
How likely is that some members of Congress that normally disagree on everything suddenly conspire to deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights?
How likely is that members of Congress who have been outspoken on defending the Bill of Rights in the past would suddenly drop that pose as if they never really believed in those rights at all?
How likely is that at this point in American history, Congress would be composed entirely of would-be despots and traitors with the sole exception of Russ Feingold?
Feingold makes some good points but I doubt he would claim to have a monopoly on patriotism or to be the only member of Congress to love freedom or to understand the threat of terrorism better than anyone else.
When you vote for a politician, you get anti-constitutional politics.
There is only one party that wants to get rid of all the unconstitutional anti-privacy anti-consumer anti-freedom laws, all of them: The Libertarian Party.
Why are we so surprised it passed? This post is NOT flamebait, its a wake-up call to those of you who think lobbying a democrat or republican is going to make a difference -- its not. The ONLY Libertarian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has an exemplery voting record. Looking up his campaign donations on OpenSecrets.org shows that big business doesn't bother lobbying him because he will not vote YES on any bill that is against the Constitution. They call him Dr. No in Congress.
We need more guys like him. Even if you think the LP goes too far in reducing Government, the only salvation to the 50%+ we all pay in taxes of all sorts, to the privacy we've lost, to the endless harassment of so-called "Big Business" is to vote libertarian, and only libertarian. Your vote is not wasted: our party received over 1.7 million congressional votes in 2000. No third party in history has ever received even 1 million (not even the Greens).
Don't point the finger at Congress -- you and all of your little friends have allowed these attrocities to continue. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, you're saying "YES" to each and every unconstitutional bill they turn into law.
No, they were terrorists long before they pulled out the boxcutters. Planning murder is an action in itself. If you don't believe me, announce your intention to kill the President and see what happens.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
However, I'm helping out now. Here's where you can snail-mail a donation. (How 'bout one of Russ' Wisconsin constituents tell them they ought to set up a PayPal account.)
Miko O'Sullivan
getting passed in Congress, makes me feel that if Sept. 11 sparked a 'war', then the terrorists are truly winning.
Their actions that day will have done more than they realize to turn their perceptions of the U.S., into a possible reality.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? - Joshua (Wargames)
We supported the Mujahadin (?sp?) against the Soviet invasion, mostly by selling them stinger shoulder-fire missiles and sending the CIA to train them. Eventually, the soviets pulled out, and (rejecting the 'policemen of the world argument) we left immediately. Well, the place fell apart into warlordism. Whoops! Maybe we should have stayed to help straighten that shit out?
Ohyeah, we aren't supposed to be doing that sort of thing.
Anyway, Pakistan started to get nervous at the rumblings on its border, and since they have a lot of citizens of the same ethnicity as the Taliban faction, they picked the Taliban and helped them gain power. The 'northern alliance' is mainly of a different ethnicity and opposes the Taliban.
You don't get labelled 'terrorist' if you only attack the opposing military... Nobody was plotting to blow up Buckingham Palace or Trafalgar Square during the war for Independence. I think it's time you 'learnt' some history of your own... and you might want to check out this.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
Look, Chinese people have been under a monarchy or totalitarian regime for over 5000 years. Yet there are more Chinese people than any other ethnic group in the world. Care to say something about this?
¦ ©® ±
No one ever takes power with the intention of giving it back up.
There will be an attempt to extend this in 2005.
The ACLU might as well start writing the speeches and picking its lobbyists now.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
> Does not allow the use of information collected on Americans by foreign governments when that information was collected in
> violation of the U.S. Constitution
Does this reduce the power of the Echelon system? It certainly seems like a large part of the use of such a system would be removed with this bill.
Visit the
As a Wisconsinite, I can say that I am proud to have this man as our Senator. While Russ and I may not agree on ever issue, I have found him to be a decent and honorable man.
All you folks out there who thinks his single "no" vote was unpatriotic, need to check in. When the FBI kicks down your door because you --==might==-- be a terrorist, you are not going to be so rightous.
I am a strong supporter of our country. I didn't vote for Mr. Bush, but I am behind him. I don't agree with him politically on a great many issues, but I support him during these trying times. I can support our government and critisize it at the same time.
Kudos to Senator Feingold for standing up for whats right, and looking beyond the current military action at the effect this kind of legislation will have down the road.
Here is something that Benjamin Franklin said that I like to quote:
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."--Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Links please. I'll believe that when I see it.
Whatever happened to JonKatz?
If you think Slashdot is news, please pass me some of whatever you're on.
Slashdot is the most biased, partial "news" website that I've ever come upon...
Do you like German cars?
The whole argument that the Taliban can be compairend to our noble foes like the Soviets is wrong. The Soviets had great reluctance to kill us, and we have great reluctance to kill them. Don't kid your self - Bin Laden dosen't have any reluctance to kill us.
Indeed, I agree that most of the Taliban fight to protect their way of life. Unfortunatly, those in the Taliban leadership and Al Quida fight just to kill us.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
yea and the Chinese government runs over anyone who protests with a tank. great comparison. Lets not confuse quantity of life with quality of life. Note that was not meant as an insult to Chinese people. Asscroft is going to go down in history as one of the GREAT FACISTS, and Dubya will be remembered as the president who lost freedom in the US. Great legacy
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
YOu have more freedom than any other country in the world...
...yet you still whine like children being told off by their parents.
Not anymore, we don't.
I would hardly cause this "being told off by our parents." More like having radio collars attached. Is it wrong to rail against having one's rights violated in such a blatant manner?
You don't deserve all the freedoms you have.
Everyone deserves the freedoms we have. It is a shame most governments would not see this happen.
Politically you are a lame, soft country...
You just called us the freest nation in the world, yet you think we are "lame" and "soft"? Please explain that, because I don't understand.
and its only your military that stops you being eaten alive by all the others out there who care little for your "Human rights" and other drivel you spout.
Perhaps. But this law isn't about the military anyway, so your point is utterly moot.
Yeah, Mark (?) Neumann, one of the Republican Revolutionaries of '94, ran an aggressive campaign. Feingold steadfastly refused to take soft money, and nearly lost as a result of this. That was an interesting year; Linda Smith, an ultra-conservative Washington representative, lost her senate bid partly because the RNC refused to fund her until the last minute because she too was a strong finance reform advocate. She's about as far to the right as Russ is to the left, but I felt sorry for her just on principle. I was shocked that Mitch McConnell didn't lose his position in the party after these twin disasters. I do not, however, think the DNC helped at all- they wanted to very much, and he resisted.
I met Russ once shortly after he joined the Senate- he gave us a tour of Congress (my dad knew him from the UofWisc). I agree with one of the posters above- aside from McCain, he's one of the only politicians I can feel good about. I may violently disagree with their political stands at times, but I honestly believe it's based on principle, not pandering. I'm afraid he won't last through next election- the GOP will rip him to shreds with their ads.
And I suppose if Gore had won (which he didn't) that we would not be in a totalitarian police state because there would be no private ownership of firearms (except criminals) and everyone knows that that is a sign of a fabulously advanced republic which is what we are supposed to be. I was liking everything you said but having GW at the helm is much better for me than that wooden fool that was trying to consolidate power by taking guns and the means of revolution away from the people.
Hello moderators, this is not offtopic.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
The bill has been signed. Let the fun begin...
/.ing a server used for buisness purposes now become a terrorist act? Down for two hours, make $3k an hour...
Hey, does
I hate to break it to you guys, but neither civil liberties, nor the Internet, are in any way dependent on America or the FBI. If your government starts doing sucky things, like abusing its ability to spy on peope, then the rest of the world will, sooner or later, simply turn you away. You can have all the invasions of privacy you want, as your economy crumbles, your trade with foreign nations dwindles, your international relations disintegrate and you are left isolated on a little piece of rock somewhere a few thousand miles from The Rest Of The World.
Check the recent European report on Echelon, and the comments it makes about abusing spying facilities to facilitate commercial espionage and gain advantages for American companies. Do you really think the governments of the EU will stand by and let your people take gratuitous advantage of ours? Granted our guys make silly decisions at times, too -- the recent "opt-out" decision on spam was expected, but still a bad idea -- but compared to the sorts of draconian measures the US government is pushing for now? "Land of the Free?" Don't make me laugh.
I think the American government forgets itself. You have a big military, and your government has a big mouth, but neither of these makes you the leaders of the free world. On the global stage, there are plenty of other countries capable of filling your shoes if you chose to behave irresponsibly. And right about now, I'd call having one of the most corrupt legal and political systems in the world pretty irresponsible.
If your government choses to turn a blind eye to that, or to make it worse, then in time it will have to accept the consequences of its actions. Whether she likes to believe it or not, America needs support from the rest of the world. You need it economically. You need it militarily. You need it in many other, less significant ways, too.
And yet, in the week when the new data protection legislation comes into force in the UK, making it illegal to send personal data outside of Europe without certain basic guarantees on privacy and security being in place, the US has passed legislation that pretty much rules out any American company from complying with those requirements. How ironic.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Perhaps true. After all, both sides had the technical ability to eradicate all multicellular life on the planet with nuclear missiles. Not a desirable outcome in anybody's ideological books. However, both sides were more than happy to let millions of people in other, smaller countries die in horrible, underhanded little "proxy wars" in order to satisfy their own imperialist designs. The Soviets were not "noble foes", they were as bad as the Americans in every way (and yes, worse in many).
Freedom: "I won't!"
I'm just making the distinction between two differing types of 'enemies'. The fist is a group with whom you may disagree violently with, but you can exist with and who can exist with you. Enemies in this category would rather live with their enemies, than die trying to kill their enemies. Classic examples of this kind are the US/USSR, Israel/Palestine.
The second kind of enemy is the one that would rather have everybody dead than suffer their enemy's existence. The US/Al Quida grouping is one these - and in that case, it's kill or be killed. I hope we have the intelligence to know that after we weed out few bastards in Afghanistan, that we realize the people who are left deserve our full compassion. We need to do to Afganistan what we did to Germany and Japan.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
This law is for your protection, for God's sake!
Oh, sure. That's what they all say. And why this bill isn't the narrowly-focused, precise law that a truly protective measure would be. And why it doesn't give the government anything it didn't have that it actually needed.
The alternative is terrorist proliferation and constant fear.
That's one alternative. It's not the only one. Another is the drafting of a law which binds law enforcement to ethical, Constitutional practices while still giving them needed tools, thus resulting in a nation, in the ACLU's words, "safe and free." Not like it is now.
But sadly, that's not likely to happen now. In time, you'll understand, and you'll see this law for what it really is.
We have had
1) Unreasonable laws that make every citizen a criminal
for quite some time. How many people in the US aren't violating some law? Probably none. there are so many laws, and so many are poorly and vaguely worded, and so many laws against "victimless" crimes, that just about everyone in America is a criminal. Fortunately, the police had no means to prove that we were breaking these BS laws. Until now:
2) Police can now search your house whenever they feel like it, without a warrant, and without even letting you know that your house was searched. So now police can search with wreckless abandon to find the people committing these victimless crimes in the privacy of their own home. Plus violate the privacy of the few people who AREN'T breaking any of the insane laws.
Another thing to worry about: What happens when a God-fearing second-amendment loving gun owner is in his home when the Secret Police try to come in to perform a search without a warrant? The Secret Police officer gets shot, his partner shoots the god-fearing US citizen, we now have two dead people and NO CRIME COMMITTED. What the fuck is up with this?
The years of life lost by Japanese Americans to the WWII prision camps.
Not to mention all the buinesses they owned that were lost or ruined.
When I hear the word "bipartisanship", I reach for my wallet.
When I hear the word "bipartisanship", I'm reminded of the fact that two-party systems are little better than one-party systems. In any decent democracy, you'd have "nonpartisanship".
Of course, anyone has permission to redistribute anything I write, for any purpose whatsoever.
;-)
Consider all my comments to be GPL'd.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
Poor and oppressed populations have high birthrates as well as high deathrates, but this is not true in China. The quality of life is of course far far away from Americans, but many people managed to live and improve under this environment. Compared to Chinese people, American people have a well-founded government with a reasonable Constitution. What the Congress has passed is something short-term. Yet, you seem to be pissed off by granting a little bit more power to the FBI. While it might not be good in the long term, I think that is understandable in the short term.
¦ ©® ±
Let's see. It's unpublished, yet you know that it shows Gore to have won. Care to illuminate the rest of us on how you came by this information? Did they come out and say, "We are not going to publish our research because Al Gore won." I mean, can you imagine how many people would drop their subs to NYTimes instantaneously upon hearing such a statement from the paper? Suddenly, because someone attacked New York, New York is filled with millions of changed people? They suddenly love GW Bush enough to care not one whit about whether or not he really should be president?
I do not have a signature
Thanks for the article, I am not partial to either Gore or Bush, but my own bias is that Bush did not win according to the rules of the game. But since the article quotes the people who would tabulate the count as not having tabulated the count (having already completed the ballot inspections), but saying they don't understand why they wouldn't go ahead since they are all set to do so and this step is trivial... well, someone is putting some pressure somewhere on this one. I'd hate to be on their staff-- wondering what that black van out front is all about.
I do not have a signature