Slashdot Mirror
How Has Post-9/11 Legislation Affected You?
goldspider asks: "I hope this is received in the spirit it was intended in. In a recent Reuters article, the Internet as a whole has been referred to as 'collateral damage' of the U.S.-led War on Terrorism, because of the perceived loss in privacy and online rights as a result of post-9/11 legislation. I am curious to hear about some specific examples of how this legislation has personally or professionally affected the everyday lives of Slashdot readers."
I can't think of anything that has directly impacted me as of yet, but there are things about the past year that are very disturbing.
The biggest thing is that the government appears to be milking the 9/11 event for all it's worth in steps, releasing little tidbits of the story and new footage or new suspects found every time it wants to pass something through the houses without causing too much trouble with the public. Whip the public into a patriotic fervor of such levels that they willingly give up their freedoms in the name of staying safe and 'free of terrorists'.
Examples would be the Citizen Corps program that Bush started, it's effectively eastern european 'secret police' all over again, call in your neighbor for suspicious activity and get them put on surveilance and possibly carted away. Also the 'Patriot Act' and a few other bills that are aimed at increasing the governments power over individuals, all in the name of 'freedom'.
So have I felt any solid effects of anything since then? No. Can I see a picture start to form the way they've been manipulating (or attempting to) the public to push forward an agenda? Yes.
>
>But, unlike most people, I use an insulin pump. Most security people aren't keen on seeing someone with a small mechanical device and tubes attached to their body. Also, the insulin, needles, lancet, etc all get a good look through. I get stopped and have my bags inspected pretty much every time I go through. It's made me use air travel as a last resort.
(Be thankful they don't make you drink the insulin the way they did with those women and their breast milk :)
How has the legislation affected me? Will, since those drooling $5/hour morons are now drooling $10/hour federal employees, and as a result of my poor ability to take shit from dumb fucks who think that Congressional Medals of Honor, 2-inch GI Joe guns, and bottles of breast milk somehow constitute security threats, but who, as federal employees, can now throw me in jail for saying "WTF?" and can also no longer be fired when they exercise poor judgement, I call on everyone who's had it with the bullshit to...
Take the car.
No security goons. No having to remain silent while Guido dildoes your girlfriend's crotch or copping a feel off your mom's bra. (Why yes, it was women in underwire bras who hijacked four aircraft and destroyed the WTC and damaged the Pentagon, how could I have thought otherwise?)
Plug that laptop with 20G of MP3z into the stereo system and hear your favorite music over the engine noise. (Delayed by a traffic jam? No matter, the music sounds better when you're not doing 80 MPH just to keep up with traffic!)
Every six hours, pop into a small town and eat a nice hot meal. Screw McDonald's - find a random greasy spoon and eat with the locals. Or surrender to your lusts and have a dozen fresh Krispy Kremes.
The roadways are still free. You can get there in the same amount of time, with a lot less hassle, and you can see all the things you can't see stuck in a metal tube through a six-inch perspex square.
See the American countryside in air-conditioned comfort or lower that ragtop and let the breeze blow your hair as you take that twisty 2-lane blacktop through the national park instead of the boring interstate.
Finally, remind yourself as you stop by each "scenic viewpoint" and snap a few pics with your digicam that there are things about America that are too big for 19 Islamic terrorists - or even a Hill full of idiotic Congressmen and a TSA full of unaccountable bureaucrats and their $10/hour lackeys - to destroy.
First of all, legislation after 9/11 has affected everyone here the same way that ALL legislation has affected us: by expanding government. The only way to pay for an expanded government is by raising taxes (at some level, either income taxes, payroll taxes, tariffs, sales taxes, or other government added fees).
This means less of MY money is available to spend on what I want to spend it on. Government steals from me to give to their friends (whether its defense contractors, or just the typical pork barrel recipients).
I read EVERY bill which passes through my Congressional Rep's hands (they're all visible on the web) and I have yet to see any bill yet that really "protects" us.
Now, my tax dollars are going to be used to help out Dubya's oil buddies when we go to war against Iraq, a country which has shown no provocation against me personally, neither through threats nor transgressions.
This is the biggest loss I think we all face. The loss of the right to use our hard earned dollars in ways WE INDIVIDUALLY want to. I could care less what my fellow Americans want to do with their money, but when they steal from me for their assinine programs, that's when I start getting angry.
Maybe soon I'll be saying "Costa Rica, here I come!"
Every newscast seems to have a nightly "War On Terrorism" segment -- complete with a waving flag, Shrub's face, and dramatic music -- when nothing of any real import has happened that day. Pure sensationalism. Even bloody NPR (which I still enjoy, in spite of their narrow-minded stance on low-power radio) gets on my nerves these days with worthless coverage.
Look, shit happens all over the world. It just finally happened to us. Sure we may get a 15-second blurb when a crowd full of people are mamed in a bombing in Ireland, but someone dared to bloody the nose of the world's "greatest nation" and suddenly George Bush scratching his ass gets a 5-minute segment on ABC News! I sometimes wish Mr. bin Laden would humble this country again because most people still don't get it.
What has had far less conspicuous coverage is the fact that that Shrub Jr. and John Aschcroft have siezed far too much power than is comfortable than most people. The popular media doesn't want to appear anti-patriotic. Just look at what happened during the entire Bill Mahr (sp?) incident!
It's sad, really. If bin Laden's goal was to attack the heart of the USA (it's freedoms), then he succeeded extremely well. The ironic part is that he coerced us (that is, the US itself) to destroy some of those freedoms on his behalf.
"LIBERTY + SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL:
This only applies to non-US citizens."
I'm sure that's very reassuring to Jose Padilla, the American Citizen who was born and raised in the US, who was arrested in Chicago in May and is now sitting in a US Military brig without any charges against him, and with no access to a lawyer or to his family. Oh wait, he probably can't read this. Hmm....
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"just the way you look can bring about great discrimination from fearful people"
lots of Geeks have known this their whole lives....
Its called being proavtive. speak out when you can, because if you wait, it might be too late.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Please do. We are too stupid to understand without you.
If they don't check people crossing the border, then that check point can be used to traffic unwanted items into the country.
Nobody "traffics" unwanted items. Every item "trafficed" into the US from Canada is wanted by somebody. Did you mean to say they can use that checkpoint to traffic ILLEGAL items? Well, yes, if they don't check people, people can traffic illegal items through that checkpoint. Even if they do check people, people can traffic illegal items through that checkpoint. Is there some point to your statement?
Here's an old story. Every day, a young boy rode his bicycle across the US-Mexican border into the US. Every day, the border patrol agent checked the boy for drugs or other illegal contraband. Every day, the boy had none of these things on him. The border agent was SURE that something was amiss, but he just couldn't find any smuggled goods on the boy. So, one day, he asks the boy, "What are you smuggling?" The boy tells him. "Bicycles."
If they do check people crossing the border, then noone will attempt to traffic unwanted items into the country.
Isn't it interesting how much contraband the customs people still manage to confiscate even though the mere fact they are looking for it, according to you, proves that nobody will try to bring it in?
Now, which is more difficult to bare? The inconvenience of the search, or another 9/11 style attack?
Both are difficult to bare [sic]. Since the 9/11 attack had absofuckinglutely nothing with people trafficing contraband into the US, checking people crossing the border for contraband will do absofuckinglutely nothing to prevent another 9/11 style attack. The excuse for searches in violation of the 4th Amendment is specious and an insult to anyone who values the freedom that our parents and sons and brothers and sisters and etc fought and died for.
In fact, the "searches" now being conducted at airline checkpoints are doing nothing to prevent another 9/11 style attack. People brandishing fingernail clippers are not a threat. Gramma and her knitting needles are not a threat. Achmed getting one of his buddies that works at the airport to smuggle in a big knife IS a threat, but guess who isn't going to be passing through the long lines at the security checkpoint? Right, Achmed's friend. And Beanbrain wearing C4 shoes is a threat, if he was smart enough to know that you don't use a lighter to trigger electric detonators, but guess who was told to "come back tomorrow please" by foreign "security" agents, instead of being arrested?
No, the solution to another 9/11 style attack has already been put in place, and it doesn't involve searching anyone. It is simply that anyone who tries it is going to get the shit beat out of him by other passengers and his death will NOT get him into Heaven and his family will NOT be honored for his sacrifice. He will be a laughing stock and his family will be disgraced.
The assumption that hijackers value their own lives is what cost the four airplanes on 9/11. The assumption that above all else, the hijacker will not kill everyone on board because he would die, too, is gone. Isn't it a shame that our mad dash for the feeling of safety will have actually hampered any passenger response to the next hijacker. Completely disarming the only people who will be able to act to save lives is stupid and counterproductive.
McCarthy, et al.
I believe the quote I'm looking for is "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
While Sen. McCarthy had good intentions -- protecting America from the Communists -- stomping on the Constitutional Rights of Citizens in the process is not an acceptable method.
One does not toss aside the Constitution simply because it gets in your way.
Yes, Communism was a real and dangerous threat. So, in his way, was Sen. McCarthy and the House UnAmericans Activities Committee. They both violated the rights that they fought so hard to protect.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Saddened because we blatantly refuse to accept any responsibility for the attacks...
Saddened because we were not nearly as 'patriotic' after the Oklahoma City bombing - one of own did that, right??Saddened because our civil rights are being thrown away for a thin veil of 'security' when anyone can tell you that you are not any safer today that you were a year ago.... It is just as easy today to buy weapons of mass destruction, hijack a plane, buy forged documents, illegally enter the country... nothing has changed except for your lack of freedom..
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
"I hope you live in a big city right down the street from him. Now say again you want him freed."
I wish I were. If he moved next door to me, I would immediately walk over and give the man a hug and thank him. He is the test case that will (hopefully) stop future administrations from trying to annihilate the Bill of Rights. He might be guilty, he might not be; I don't know and I can't make a sound judgement, nor can anyone else. Our government has taken away our right to judge him, and taken away his right to be judged by us.
If I were a judge and the case were handed to me, I'd order him freed immediately and order an investigation into his treatment in this brig. At this point, I don't care if he stepped off the plane with the bomb in his hands - you've violated virtually ever rule of law regarding the treatment of a suspect. Not only that, you've violated the spirit of the Material Witness law. In which court case was he to be testifying? To what crimes was he a witness? The answer, much the same as most of the other answers from the DoJ lately, is "we don't know."
Feel free to cower behind despots like Aschcroft. If you're too afraid to live free and too cowardly to engage in the difficult task of securing democracy for ALL , then bow down to your masters. I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm more terrified of my own government than I am of the "terrorists." This "heightened alert" that was put out today was lapped up by the media conglomerate lapdogs, who so dutifully played into Ashcroft's hands by terrifying the public into submission with fantastic stories of imminent death and destruction.
Your problem in particular is that you have continued to soak-in the ever-flowing river of hysterical cries of the Bush Administration. You've been trained for the last 12 months to believe that the price for security is less freedom. You've been told again and again that your benevolent government would never do anything not in your best interests, and that whatever laws are passed that may restrict freedom don't actually apply to you; only to those terrorists guys. You've been lulled by the soothing words of those in power who tell you that everything will be alright if you do as we say and don't ask questions. Well guess what, I'm asking questions, and I'm demanding answers.
I love my country. I love it enough to risk my own personal safety by speaking out against our despotic attorney general. It hurts me to think that everything our ancestors built for us could be destroyed; not by a foreign enemy, but by elected leaders. Folks, people make mistakes, and we made a big one putting these people in charge. I supported Bush all the way until the beginning of this year. Now I look at all that has happened and I say to myself, "my God, what have we done?"
The truth is that our best defence against any aggressor is now, and always has been our freedom. In the War of 1812, the White House and many other buildings in our capital city were burned to the ground. Our capital was nothing more than a smoldering ruin. Did we junk our Constitution? Did we enact sweeping changes in our laws? No. Our ancestors had the courage to stand by their convictions, and stood in the face of certain destruction proclaiming that they will either live as free men, or die. To those men whose faces we see carved into stone at Mount Rushmore, freedom was more important than life. Let history never judge us as the cowards who hid in fear, but as patriots and defenders of liberty who continued the proud tradition of staring death in the face and refusing to back down from our ideals. Sept 11 shocked us out of our complacency; don't let anyone use it as an excuse to destroy the very thing we puport to hold so dear.
So yes, I do wish I lived close to Jose Padilla's home. I would feel no less safe there than I do sitting right here. And at least then I'd have the chance to thank him for all he's done for our country, and to apologize for what we have done to him. If 200 million Americans raised their voices in chorus, calling for the freedom of Padilla, he would be home tomorrow. It is as much our fault that he sits in that brig as it is our government's. So what do you say we make sure it never happens again?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Actually, not all of them did openly. Several refused to answer the pertinent question "Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"
Still, anyone labeled a "Communist" was blacklisted. Pressure was exerted on filmmakers, studios and others and those so labeled frequently never worked again. Careers were destroyed, not on proof of criminal activity, but on expression of political belief. Political speech was supressed and persecuted.
I'm not talking "the advocation of the violent overthrow of the Government and Constitution", but expressions of sympathy or even simple ambivalence.
"...when that expression presents a clear and present danger to the continued prosperity of the United States as both the body politic and the people, actions such as McCarthy's were totally justified."
Where in the Constitution does it say that? Until Congress declares War -- which didn't happen then and hasn't now -- or you are a convicted felon, the rights of Citizens are not set aside for convenience.
The Government of the United States is stronger than that. Unlike China, the U.S.S.R. and others, we tolerate dissent and are not threatened by it.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Just flew into San Francisco this afterneoon and got searched *four* times. Now, there is nothing stange about that, becuase I flew one-way and had a lot of connections (got searched at each connection). The strange thing is this: I make a really spicy Habenero sauce, and just for fun, I carry it in a sealed medical waste bag complete with the biohazard flowers and multiple warnings not to open it. Didn't faze the inspectors one bit... Now my sewing kit, on the other hand, that instantly got them into a tizzy and it had to be thrown away.
So, in case you were unclear on the concept of safety in America:
Tiny sewing scissors with a blade capable of possibly cutting paper in about three-four tries - DANGEROUS
Mysterious biohazard bag containing unidentified red goo - NO PROBLEM
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Only in America would we have personal liberties taken away under the guise of fighting the war on terror, or am I wrong? Surely, I am. Video game ban in Greece, anyone? There are other countries that pull this shit. America is not alone. Anyone that's reading this from Canada, a European Union country, or any other nation, really, thinking that your shit doesn't stink, wake up.
But here's the real question: Why? What incentives are there for the leaders in OUR government to take away personal liberties? Do they get more money? Do they feel safer? Do they feel as if they're "doing something" instead of standing around "ignoring" an issue? It really boggles my mind. If someone can answer any of these questions for me, you'd earn my utmost respect.
The thing that really blows my mind is how we have so many new laws as result of the attacks on 9/11. I don't feel any more secure due to them. So why were they enacted? I certainly don't feel any safer knowing that murder is a serious crime if I'm walking around alone at night in a seedy part of a town I've never visited before. And I don't feel any safer knowing airline passengers can't carry toe clippers onto 747s.
There are two things I have learned from these attacks. Not only have I firmly cemented my anti-racist core, but furthermore, I have found, for lack of better words, that I am a "Logic Elitist." What's this, you ask? I have a strong hatred for those who can't backup their reasoning with sound, logical conclusions and reasoning. I hate stupid people.
We shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power. -PJ O'Rourke
ahh -- but didn't the terrorists think that we were self-serving businessmen with "irrational" motives which were not shared by the majority of the members of our dominant religion?
and maybe they think that america is just a shelter for their terrorists (a.k.a. afluent businesspersons who don't give a shit about the effect american foreign policy and private action overseas has)
is it just a different perspective? (and no, most of the world doesn't support either of the two sides -- esp. before 9/11)
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Your statement is the same braindead rhetoric I've heard repeatedly in response to those against Iraqi sanctions.
In saying that the people of Iraq want to live in the conditions they do, and that you would do something differently if you were there, says to me that you are either an extraordinary activist/freedom fighter/Arnold Schwarzenegger/death wish type hero, or a fucking liar.
If you believe that FIVE THOUSAND CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE deserve to die EACH MONTH because of a couple of thicked headed assholes in Iraq AND America, then you are a thick headed asshole. Have some compasion. Nitwit.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
You're a former penal colony. Who cares what the genocidal, racist country of Australia thinks? Take care of the aborigines before you dare to type a single criticism of the world's greatest country.
;- "The #1 threat to world peace in the world today". The USA is not loved. Get over it. It's tolerated, and only because everyones fucking scared of it. At the moment it's led by a psycopathic nutter who didn't get in on a popular vote, who has signed the death orders of hundreds of his fellow countryman and seems hell bent on Killing any country that disagrees with it. Actually dude I'll give you a hint;- most of the world is terrified of the US and believe the world is in big fucking danger, and that's not from terrorists, it's from the US.
Ok, let's get one thing straight. (1)Like america , Australia treats it's aboriginals like shit. I'm not proud of it, and I hope the fuck you aren't proud of your country ppreceeding over the genocide of the 200 nations. Secondly, FOR FUCK SAKE THE USA IS NOT THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. For instance many defence analysists have refered to the USA as , and I quote
If the USA's Middle East policies were the "cause" of 9-11, what is the cause of Islamic Terrorism in Kashmir, the former USSR, Malaysia, Indonesia, The Phillipines, Sudan, etc, etc, etc?
The problem is ISLAMIC TERRORISM, not the USA defending the Jews that have lived in the Middle East since before there was any such thing as Islam.
Whatever...... Just because theres overwhelming evidence that the US fucked up by installing Sadam Husain & the Taliban into power, it's OK, because USA #1 USA #1
Remember, if it weren't for the USA and the USSR most of the world would be speaking either German or Japanese today.
Oh yeah.. by the way I actually like americans, I just get wild when they put my country down and try to tell the world they are less then them. And I apologise to any americans out there, it's not really the best day for these sort of arguments, but a spades a spade, and I gotta call it.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
And if you are foolish enough to think that these so-called "security" measures are somehow "worth it," I've got a large bridge to sell you. Tell me, how many miles per year do you travel by automobile? Do you have any idea how much more likely you are to be killed by a car wreck than by a terrorist? The cold, hard fact of the matter is that majority of Americans are quite willing to make risk/convenience trade-offs on a daily basis which display far less risk aversion than would be needed to justify the massive inconvenience of current airport security measures. Alas, mention the "T-word," and all sanity flees the room on wings of silver. "If even one terrorist is stopped," we are told, "any price is worth it!" But this is folly, and should be identified as such. We don't think this way when purchasing insurance, and we surely should not do so when purchasing questionable security with our valuable time, freedom, and money.
I for one, will take chances for my freedom -- and, yes, for my convenience as well. Ironically, so will virtually everyone else, so long as the decision isn't framed in terms of a "terrorist threat."
-Carter
I don't want to come off as bashing you, because clearly your heart is in the right place - but I believe you are incorrect on that point. Iraq's internal food production is not sufficient to meet the needs of the population (and I suspect sanctions on machine parts may have something to do with this). Hence the oil-for-food agreement - if there were no need for imports there would be no oil-for-food programme - you can bet your life on that.
And poor nutrition is - of course - by far not Iraq's only pressing problem. They have few working ambulances. They have a shortage of basic medical equipment and materials like aneasthetics, as I expect you know.
Why then do the US and Britain repeatedly state that the sanctions do not ban the import of food and medicines? In the strictest sense they are not lying - but they are employing one of the cruellest deceptions imaginable. Medicine is not banned under the sanctions de jure, but de facto - in other words, the United Nations has refused applications to import medicines and medical equipment - sometimes citing "dual use" considerations.
The point is that Saddam Hussein - evil though he undoubtedly is - could not legally meet these needs even if he wanted to. The United Nations committee on Iraq sanctions - dominated by the US - has consistently denied applications for exemptions to the trade sanctions, which must be individually applied for, and which, even if successful, may take weeks to be granted.
I would like to see how an American would feel if the US - an undoubtedly dangerous nuclear state - had basic medical items sanctioned by the United Nations under "dual use" considerations. A foundational moral principle - that if an action is right for the US to do it must be right for any other state to do in equivalent circumstances - seem to be disregarded by many US "hawks". And of course "hawks" is a very relative term, since even most "doves" in the US congress will slavishly toe the Washingtonian line in the big picture (The honorable Barbara Lee excepted.)
Much more information on the sanctions is available, for example, here.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I'm from a former communist country and this whole thing makes me unconfotable. Not the terrorist, but recognizing the methods the US goverment is using. They just point to a such a familiar direction. Although I believe they will never manage to reach anything near the shit we had here, they still have quite a lot of inertia and damage is getting bigger every day.
.snaciremA eht uoY
Remember, of all the emotions FEAR is the most difficult to get rid of.
Here is my own little experiance of this. Even a dosen years after the communism fell, I still get nervous when crossing a border to a neighbouring country. And now it only takes me showing about enough passports or IDs for all the passingers in my car to the border cop (they usually don't check them). This is a pure remnant from when I was a kid and had experienced border crossings in a tense atmosphere.
Guess who were the people in former communist counties made affraid of before being told to act patriotic and encouraged to spy on each other?
In the 80's every press article about drugs rose straight to the front page to give me the impression that I'm surrounded by drug dealers. In the 90's every press article about school violence rose straight to the front page to give me the impression that I'm surrounded by homicidal teenagers. There was a brief break in there somewhere where I was scared OJ was going to kill me. Now we're in the naughts or whatever the hell you want to call it, and every press article about terrorism rises straight to the front page to give me the impression that I'm surrounded by terrorists.
It's all crap. One incredibly shocking event later (9/11, colombine... what was the news maker in the drug war? probably stars dying from drugs or the violence in Columbia) and the press does a Gilligans Island bit and they go from a three hour story to a multi-year obsession with the same topic. If you want to see flocking behavior, don't watch the birds, watch the press. Canada and the US had about the same levels of drug use in the 80's, but it was first on the American list of problems and somewhere in the twenties for Canada. Why? The press. Or maybe the Canadians have some good sense.
The ironic thing is that if you're reading for content, reading to try to figure out major trends in the world, the press was more informative about terrorism before 9/11 than after. Before 9/11, genuinely important terrorism-related news was the only news that would make the papers. If you saw terrorism in the news, it was a big deal - the government had thwarted something major or there had been an embassy bombing. World changing stuff. Now, if it has a terrorism angle it's front page material - even if the angle is something like "a man who might be a terrorist might have been caught at the airport. he might have had a nail file. there might be more news at 11." By and large each terrorism story is space filler in a space that has a proverbial "reserved for terrorism related news, regardless of if there's news or not" stamp on it.
It's like wheat and chaff. When it comes to terrorism, the press prints both these days.
Oh, well. At least the fact that our civil liberties are being used like an inflatable sex toy is coming to light. And, who knows? Five years down the road, something else Really Bad will happen and the press will be obsessed with something else. We should have a betting pool on the next big press fad. Personally, I'm predicting it'll be mega-storms caused by climate change. Some kind of giant hurricaine will level a nation to the dirt, and the press will drop terrorism like yesterday's news - which it already is.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)