Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Campaign Challenges Patriot Act
Nept sent in a pointer to this story about the ACLU starting a media campaign challenging the PATRIOT Act. Good to hear.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
From the article: Ashcroft: "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure"
Which freedoms endure exactly? Ones like not being able to round up US citizens and hold them in perpetuity without charges? Or maybe the freedom to be free from unreasonable search & seizure?
Sorry, but the only freedom I see consistently protected is my country is the freedom to use as much damn oil as you please.
The ACLU is also challenging the involvement of the US military in the DC sniper case, as reported by CNN. The "depend the Constitution" ad campaign mentioned is $3.5M large, which includes a million dollars worth of TV ads in 10 markets
Whoot! Keep it up guys!
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
I'm sure all of us would like to know: What does Barbra Streisand think about this?
Since the name is an acronym for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism", it should be called the USAPATRIOT act.
All uppercase, no space (because "U SAP AT RIOT" is just as good a decomposition).
Their only client is the Constitution. You may not believe this, but if those people do not have rights, guess what? You don't either.
Kickin' it self-righteous school.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said he welcomes the debate.
Yeah, right!
The ability to monopolize a planet is insignificant next to the power of the source.
It's obvious that the ACLU hasn't seen a law that it didn't dislike, but what's not so obvious is why is this posted here and not on The Drudge Report or the like.
Props to these representatives for voting against the Patriot Act.
in QUITE different modes of thinking. the bush administration only has in mind, well, if anything, is its short term goals. the whole patriot act is very similar to drm and palladium, as well as the eulas. basically:
"we take people's rights away and pretend we give them more"
how is this any different?? it is very nice to hear that the aclu is taking note of it and launching a campaign, but it would also be nice if they did the same on the digital front, where weight of such names (esp. in large campaigns) is very helpful.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Doesn't the government censor websites in Australia? That seems to suck to me.
The day the ACLU starts serving the Constitution instead of themselves is the day I get laid.
I hold a strong contempt for the USA/Patriot Act because it places the United States in a state of war, with no formal declaration of war.
The US Constitution has specific terms dealing with our country being in a state of war, and it also specifies that when the war is over, those limitations on our freedom also disappear. Instead, Congress has declared a "sort-of, kinda war" with no specifics, and with many permanent limitations placed on our freedoms. Similarly, Congress has not declared war on Iraq, it has merely authorized the President to order an attack on that country.
Has anyone seen the "freedom... cherish ads" that have been going around lately? I delight in the irnoy of the one where the kid is led away by men in black suites for trying to check out a book in a library that is "inapropriate." I wonder how many people out there realize that the same administration who is beind these ads is trying to go down that particular path?
Yes, the FBI is just able to get the list of the books you've been reading, and I don't honestly forsee any books being banned in this country any time in the near future, but I still don't buy Ashcroft saying he welcomes debate on this issue. More likely, he welcomes a token debate that really won't go anywhere.
And as much as this keeps getting bantered about, I don't think that the American people actually care about forking over their civil liberties in the name of national security. Maybe when they realize that their private information can be used/abused for other purposes, we'll be able to have a real national debate on this issue, but until then, as long as Bush takes a cue from Mousallini and keeps the trains running on time, the number of people who would like to see USA PATRIOT re-examined is definitely in the minority.
Listen, just because they call themselves "the American Civil Liberties Union" does not mean they defend all civil liberties, mostly just the politically correct ones. When is the last time you saw the ACLU take a pro-second amendment stance? Whether or not you believe in it yourself, you have to admit their name should be "Selective Civil Liberties Union" at most.
I am sad to see that some at slashdot are marks for a vaguely disguised political fronts, or maybe they arent marks but have an agenda of their own?
I scanned the EFF piece, and nothing lept out that really bothers me. Take roving wiretaps for example. That had to be done because crooks were getting cell phones, using them for a while, then ditching them. Under the old system, they could only tap the phone, not the crook. If I have unwittingly invited the next Mohommad Atta into my kitchen to use the phone, go ahead, tap it.
I've got an open mind, but they are going to have to make a more compelling case against this. I seriously doubt the whole thing is bad. Perhaps there are a few line items that should go, but I haven't seen anything that leaps out as unconstitutional on its face. Campaign Finance Reform disturbs me far more than this, and as far as I know /. hasn't said a word about that.
I'll give ya' one thing though: USA Patriot Act is a stupid name for a law. Pulllleeeze! They should have called it the cute cuddly kitten, Mom and apple pie law. Just try to vote against that, why dontcha?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Maybe saying this halves my fan list, but really - you should be alarmed in there in the US!
Okay, give specific examples where they are serving their own interests and not defending the Constitution.
Kickin' it self-righteous school.
Well, part of the Constitution, anyway.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Say it violates civil liberties, but don't say it doesn't increase our security. I'd like to see that claim hold up. That's just a rationalization they make to make themselves feel 100% okay with their work.
Attorney General John Ashcroft said he welcomes the debate.
Just as long as they don't make me dance! Damn those liberals!
"The FBI isn't interested in spying on America,"
Just some of the people in it.
"It was a terrible mistake to extend these [powers] to the Internet," ... URLs can often reveal credit card numbers or specific information that a person is looking for on a search engine like Google,
A person's internet usage should be a "safe" place where a person can do whatever they want.
So, in conclusion, debate == good, stupid-talk == bad
thats us baby - thaaaaaats us!
... criminal fuck" than an american though.
i'd rather eat a kangaroo and be a "goddamn
how well do you sleep at night knowing that the bulk of the world doesnt give a rats arse about whether you live or die, and while we may not publicly show it, many of us want to smile when we see things like the events of the 11th of september - not because innocent civilians died, but because america had the nearest large pole (or two) inserted firmly up their arses, and then twisted repeatedly.
you've got maniacal gunmen running around killing jane and joe random, and can't solve that.
you've got drug dealing cockface leaders who are going to blow up the world, and you voted them in!! (albeit under dubious dubbya circumstances)
and you've got yourself - a prime example of why the world hates america.
grow up, and come back when you've moved out of your parents basement little boy.
redneck cumdumpster.
----
Australian, and proud-ish.
Very unproud when yobbo tourist australians start chanting "aussie aussie aussie etc etc etc", but I guess that the few decent americans feel the same at the whole "U. S. A." chants too. as an old teacher once said to me "the things you see when you don't have a gun".
While looking to mod up some of the more rebellious posts in this thread, I was disappointed when I could not find anything that great. Then, like very good /.er, I decided to read the article after reading the thread and noticed that it comes from pcworld.com!?
You have got to be kidding me that the only outlet for reporting this is pcworld.com! Grated that the ACLU site had information on it, but with a 3.5 million dollar budget, do you think they could get a few of the major news organizations involved in this?
Maybe this is just the early stages where they are going after that small and oh so significant geek vote. And they are going to target the big boys next...but...PCWORLD.COM!? Oh well, here's to hoping.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
I seem to see this frustration in a lot of people. They have a problem reconciling a war without an actual nationality we are to be at war with. All I can say is you might need to expand your horizons because non-national militant groups may be the most common foe we face in this new millenium. I think it was forward looking of congress to deal with this and they may not have gotten it perfect in the first draft but they rarely do with anything.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
we have Richard Alston "The Biggest Luddite in History".
'nuff said.
Wow, I'm sorry your sex life is so bad.
More generally, the ACLU's constant preference for grandstanding over action and action in support of dubious `rights' such as the `right' to affirmative action or the `right' to welfare payments has driven away a lot of their former supporters (myself included).
If your looking for a group doing actual work toward civil liberties, you may want to check out the Institute for Justice.
Nobody gave a shit about those innocent people at Waco or Ruby Ridge. Well one guy did, and he gave the fucking feds what they deserved at Oklahoma City.
-X
Why not just say "pweease give me attention im so lonely ill be as obnoxious as i can just so people will talk to me" If you want some social interaction, go bag groceries.
I've never been prouder (more proud?) to live in Madison than I am now. Last night the city council voted to passed the "Resolution to Defend the Bill of Rights and Civil Liberties," which removes the city and its services and subordinates from participating in the PATRIOT Act. Seventeen of the twenty alders voted in favor of the resolution, two voted against it, and one (the hard-right conservative who's been lightening up lately) abstained.
This is what an effective local democracy gives you: people who implement what you think and feel in the local legislative body. Considering that our city council has a near-majority of Greens/ Progressives, I can't wait until we get a true majority on board. Really good stuff (and a hell of a lot of work!) may start to happen.
Speaking of local democracy, there's a conference on that very subject coming up next month. Community Power 2002 will be bringing in people from England, Brazil, Santa Barbara CA, Pennsylvania, and Hartford CT to talk about their experiences with l.d. We'll be planning for it here in our county, and possibly other communities if we get enough people from another place to do it. Should be good!
-- haaz.
quote:
"I'm glad I live in a country where the ACLU can criticize me and vigorously debate the issues," Ashcroft says. "I consider it my job as attorney general to make sure that this and all our freedoms endure."
Well, he never says that HE is going to debate with the ACLU or even listen to them; only that they can debate and criticise him. It's a politician's truth.
And what 'freedoms' endure? For him and the system he represents, it's the freedom to take our freedoms away and entrench us in a beaurocratic madness that will probably take decades to unravel- if we even do. For us, it's the freedom to work hard our entire lives to support a government full of people like him.
yay.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
They're getting on my last nerve. So the government wants to packet sniff. Big deal! The authorities just want to do legally what others can do illegally.
What expectation of privacy is there when one hits "send" and sends a bunch of data...where? Who knows, as long as it gets there. That's how the Internet was built. If bad guys want privacy then there are plenty of free tools they can use. And if you're not doing anything bad, what the hell do you care if your packets are intercepted? Afraid the FBI is going to tell your wife you're looking at chickswithdicks.com late at night?
I'm as much for freedom as the next guy...I spent 10+ years in the Air Force and I'm now in the AF Reserves. Why? Cool blue polyester? A couple hundred days in Saudi Arabia wearing the same tan shit day in and day out? No, to support and defend the Constitution, etc etc. So if the government needs a little more power to keep tabs on the bad guys, that's fine by me. In case you haven't noticed, ALCU, there's some wicked stuff going on right in your backyard!
And please, spare me the "this chain of bondage was forged link by link, and you didn't care as each link was slowly added...until it was too late!" I think Mr. Sniper (who's running around the area where I work) has taken away far more freedoms than the government has or will. Kids not playing outside? People ducking while they pump gas and running into stores, zig zagging? But yes, let's oppose efforts to catch the perp.
So, ALCU, to sum up, take your $3.5 million and buy some school breakfasts or lunches for hungry kids, build some shelters for battered women. That would do more for civil liberties than your defending the freedoms of bad guys at the expense of my safety!
Wow, that really went in a different direction than I intended. Well, back to work. Go on, nothing to see here. I'm done now.
A Rush Job
The bill is 342 pages long and makes changes, some large and some small, to over 15 different statutes.
No self-respecting programmer would write 342 pages of new code and put it into production after only a cursory review. Why is it that laws aren't beta tested? Why does it take such a huge momentum to get things fixed?
There is an interesting story about a man who has been a Canadian citizen for 15 years after moving from Syria when he was in high school. He was last month on his way back to Montreal he was routed through New York's Kennedy airport, two weeks later he was deported to Syria! Only after he was deported was the Canadian consolate contacted and no one has since been able to contact him. The US isn't just trampling over its own citizens rights but it is also violating the rights of citizens of other countries as well. And it will be interesting to see how the US plans to maintain its international support while trampling over other countries soverignty.
I stole this Sig
that has been abused by this law? I think your right, why don't we let our enemies, and those of the civilized world, use gaps in the law to destroy free people.
ACLU....great bunch....they defend NAMBLA as well. So if picking sides YOUR team is the same as NAMBLA?
Read the Art of War....our enemies are precisely following this work. An inferior opponent doesn't attack you head on but instead attacks you in the "seams" and uses your own weight(which is our economy, instant communication and 24x7 news) to terrorize our entire country. Our "seams" are unfortunately in the areas of civil liberties. These events(as horrible as they are) really are pinpricks when compared against the whole of our country. However they are having a much larger psychological impact. In this way the enemy wins.
Ask yourself where does one cross over from a civil protected discussion on how to destroy lives/terrorize and actual conspiracy to commit terror? Can law enforcement only act once there is blood on the street? If so I wonder what your position will be when its one of your children's blood on CNN.
Viai d=141&page=3 ]
i d=141&page=3 ]
[ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?
Everyone has been deputized, and everyone is under scrutiny: Even the
librarians are watching. Last fall, the United States Government
Printing Office ordered the Boston Public Library to destroy a CD-ROM
deemed to contain sensitive data. When I visited the BPL to see the
shelf where Source Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water
Supplies in the Conterminous United States: An Information Resource
for Source-Water Assessment, 1999 once resided, the woman at the
government documents desk referred me to the library's press officer
-- who, after providing the information, apparently alerted the
authorities
[ http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?
Why should the US declare war when the attackers don't? For the same reason that two wrongs don't make a right. Otherwise we're adding credibility to the arguments that the US is a "rogue state", lashing out at anyone we see fit, and that the rest of the world should fear and despise us.
How can we declare war against an enemy that resides inside no specifically defined borders? That's easy. Declare war against all members of Al Quaeda. Then work diplomatically with countries where we have some friends, and declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda.
Instead, we haven't even declared war against a group; we've declared it against a concept. "Terrorism". And the war looks to be permanent.
Now that is a great response. That is what I was looking for and why I made the original post. I jsut wish a alternative group that actually standsd for sensible freedoms would get more press. The ACLU is a bunch of fucking losers that only wants media attention and fights for the rights of the scum of the earth to get it.
See also [ http://listserv.muohio.edu/SCRIPTS/WA.EXE?S2=archi ves&q=woman&s=&f=&a=13+October+2002&b=17+October+2 002 ]
that while reading through comments, this was the forunte message I got:"It seems a little silly now, but this country was founded as a protest against taxation. "
Can't be too proud if you're posting anonymously. Well, despite you I'm still proud the US saved your ass from invasion in WWII
Oh yeah, Foster's sucks and I hope the dingo eats your baby. Ok, I don't really hope that. Now send back all the tourist money the US has spent there. Just PayPal it to me.
My prediction; every post above will wind up with an average of;+7, interesting, -9 troll, -7 Flamebait, -6 Off-topic, +5 imformative.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Boston Public Library routinely forwards to City Hall Reference Desk enquiries. The tactic used is the escalating of Reference Desk enquires to FOI freedom of information disclosure even for undeniably legitimate public information. The tactic of escalating Reference Desk enquiries so as to falsely attempt some kind of justification for reporting on public library users' reading is abhorrent and contrary to intellectual freedom. Especially as an obvious reprisal and attempt to deflect. BPL has used relatively more of the energies of personnel to do counterintuitively what would have been very simple, just make available legitimately public information or offer alternatives on Reference Desk enquires. If you can grasp the importance of it rather than playing the game of circling the wagons, you have a matter here that raises a question that solves other questions!
Keep in mind that the ACLU right now is fighting the NY state police, when they helped the INS and picket up people that had committed a felony, of letting their work/school visas expired.
The ideas that are in the PATRIOT Act are good ideas. Having roving taps, not on every one, but on criminal, and suspects, just makes good cents. Being able to put any one who comes to this country and breaks the law, under surveillance is a good move.
As a retired solider I will fight for my rights, but I will once again give up something I love to protect people. The first time it was my rights as an individual when I joined the Army. Now it is a right to privacy to protect the lives of my fellow fellow citizens. This I will do this I will defend.
If you are not willing to give up a few freedoms, which you will never notice when they are gone, to save a life. GET THE F*CK OUT OF MY COUNTRY. This is worth fighting for.
I may not agree with you, but I will fight to my death, for you right to say it. James Madison, The Federalist Papers
Something should be done about the violation of professional conduct by Boston Public Library President Bernie Margolis and his delegated officers of our public library including BPL Government Documents Department Reference Desk Curator Librarian Gail Fithian. Don Saklad dsaklad@zurich.ai.mit.edu Weblog guide to problematical Boston Public Library use http://zork.net/~dsaklad
"Really good stuff (and a hell of a lot of work!) may start to happen."
Hahahaha.
Yeah, that will be great - greens have a great reputation for their incredible ability to run local economies into the fucking ground as soon as they get the power.
The "Campaign for Freedom" public service announcements were produced by the Ad Council; you can view the PSAs online at http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/campaign_for_fr eedom/.
the ACLU brought the Scopes Monkey Trial. It lost. Or wait... did it?
-pyrrho
before this gets modded -1 Troll, nothing beats
"The War Against Terrorism."
Somehow, i think the creative one in the US govt.
was busy coming up with USAPATRIOT when the whole
war idea was contrived.
wired is also reporting the same story. click here to read it.
And here's the ACLU article on the onion:
ACLU Defends Nazis' Right To Burn Down ACLU Headquarters
Their only client is the Constitution.
Unfortunately their copy seems to be missing the 2nd amendment.
You, on the otherhand, OBVIOUSLY HAVE A STELLAR SOCIAL LIFE between posting on ./ and starting up new accounts http://yro.slashdot.org/~x0m3g4/
These people are best freedom fighters we have in American today! I give all I can to them whenever I can. Like Kurt Vonegutt said, this is not charity, it is insurance!
Thanks you, ALCU. I will send more when I can.
It's nice to see that the $50 I recently gave 'em when I joined is being put to good use. Perhaps it's time for another donation.
For those complaining about the ACLU and what they do, just remember that you don't have to like it for it to be just and Constitutionally correct. We may not like that Tim McVeigh got a fair trial, (I'm sure plenty would have liked to have seen him strung up in the middle of town and set on fire), but you've got to admit that it's what our laws, our traditions, and our Constitution mandate.
When I was considering joining the ACLU a few months ago, I looked through their various legal battles as part of my consideration. Some of the battles they fought quite frankly pissed me off (as I didn't agree in the least bit with what was being done), but when I sat down and thought about it from a Constitutional standpoint, I couldn't argue against that for which they fought. Just remember, that when the rights of any one citizen are in danger, no matter how scummy or worthless they may seem to us, all of us have our rights endangered.
I, for one, and a very proud member of the ACLU. I'm proud to be a part of an organization of folks who, above all else, believe that our laws, our freedoms, and our Constitution must be protected at all costs. To live without freedom is to not live at all. Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy. Obviously, to them (as it was to the founders of our nation), freedom is more important than life. If you ever question that ideal, ask yourself this question: Would you want your children to live in a society such as that which existed under the Taliban, or even that which exists today in communist China; where freedom of thought, word, and deed are rare? Assuming you don't, ask yourself if you'd be willing to give your life; if you're prepared to die to ensure your children have the freedoms you grew up with...
Think about that for a while...
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
As if posting under a new account isn't anonymous....
riiight. what about australia's gun policy?
In John Ashcroft's first big privacy test, he passed! Forces tried to get Ashcroft to open up the background check database for firearms (essentially turning the database into a firewarms registration database) and he opposed it. His perpetual politically motivated critics actually called this "responding to the gun lobby". And yes, I saw some of that very shilling on slashdot.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
Regardless of the context he has a very bad record of paying any heed to civil rights.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Don't be such a jackass. I love pr0n and thats what it boils down to.
-- haaz.
The point is, John Ashcroft is getting ye olde' fascist/nazi/hamburglar/etc/etc meme slapped at him because he is the easiest target. If you take a look at his actual record you find a different story (as long as you arent wearing ACLU beer goggles). As many times as I see Ashcroft's name mentioned on slashdot, it is almost always contained in some cheap swipe instead of a real criticism based on the facts of his record.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
grow up, and come back when you've moved out of your parents basement little boy.
redneck cumdumpster.
Well, I'm glad to see you chose to be the better, more mature person by not succumbing to petty name calling.
I mean, come on. Do you really believe you're a better person than the "redneck cumdumpsters" of whom you speak?
Maybe you need to grow up, i.e., learn not to stereotype people simply because they share a geographic location.
By the way, I personally sleep just fine knowing that many people don't like the U.S. What truly scares me is the possibility of more people out there being as ignorant as you.
By James Burnetti d=141&page=3
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/ArticleDisplay.php?
In that case, I hope the next terrorist attack happens in Madison! If it does, your alders will be out of office before sundown! I am sure that if the terrorists read about this, they will consider your find city a good place to set up their bases.
If terrorism succeeds, it will be because democracies are unwilling to protect themselves from it. Too many citizens are too wrapped up in themselves and their petty ideologies to realize that there are really bad people out there who will do really bad things to them, no matter how idealistic they are!
Grow up and get a life, before the terrorists take yours!
The only good weather is bad weather.
It's dubious that the USA saved anybody much from invasion in WWII, but hey, thanks for visiting back in 2000. Y'all come back now, hear?
I agree with you about Foster's, but then again, it was invented by two American bothers, and if you're buying it in the states, then it was made in Canada.
SO WHO SUCKS NOW, EH? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What a cunt, really!
Although I support local Democracy, if you read our Constitution you see that most local rights are overriden by Federal laws. This is one of them. Your local resolution means nothing in force, merely that you are morally disagreeing with the Feds.
Most local items with the classification "resolution" are of this sort.
A friend of mind was talking the other night about a topic like this and the talk switched to what a "right" really was. The way he likes to look at it a right is something that even your enemy deservers. Even the guy who pushed you down in school. As much as many of us Americans claim to love our freedom many do not seem to really believe it is a right guaranteed just because they are human any more.
It truly bothers me when I see the ex-military types posting about how they protected this country with their life and are then willing to watch others give up their rights. What did you fight for if not those 10 rights guaranteed to all men because they are human. It just so happens that the Bill of Rights is part of US law but the founders believed that all people were granted those rights.
One of my favorite movies is about a president who falls in love with a lobbyist. At one point his opponent ridicules him for being a member of the ACLU. The president stands up for himself and the ACLU and questions why any person serving this country is not also a member. It is a beautiful scene.
What about it? We don't have people walking around with automatic weapons, rifles or shotguns. At least i can walk down to the Supermarket without fear of being shot.
But i don't want to start a debate on gun control here. My original point was that Australia (being behind the 8 ball in technology) has an opportunity to see how the rest of the world runs and then learn from their errors. With the exception Senator Alston, Australia is quite open to new Technology and doesnt see fit to censor it as some here say.
(Also, no Australian drinks Fosters, contrary to what the international marketing boffins would have you believe.)
I refuse to have a sig... dammit!
I just saw one of the new ACLU ads (real player required) on this page, and I almost went nuts. It absolutely slams Ashcroft, and I'm about ready to send in another donation on that note. Keep ads like those coming, ACLU, and I'll keep my money flowing. That's a promise.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
You mean our policy of only allowing people with gun licences to own guns?
Isn't that what they do in most states of the USA?
I find this quote from the article disheartning
National security information is exempt from FOIA, Corallo notes, but the Justice Department will consider the ACLU's request to see if it can release some information.
this is in regards to a report being released to congress about the effectiveness of "the patriot act". Not only are we the people having are civil rights diminished for the sake of security but are also denied information on how effective these rules are in protecting us. My god, maybe the Federal government should just take away voting...they can't trust us with tools and information needed to make educated decisions so why not do the easy thing and just take away the right to make those desissions in first place.
Democracies die behind closed doors.
hook
"The back pedofiles, murderers, rapists, terrorists, etc. The little good they do is negated by all the bullshit they do. The liberal bastards can kiss my ass and will never get my support on anything."
"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up for me."
-- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945
Justice is blind, and all persons are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the rights of the lowest members of society are recognized, then everyone else doesn't have to worry about their rights. If you don't like the fact that our laws, our government, and our Constitution were created with the recognition that all (wo)men were created equal, then perhaps a country such as China is better suited for you.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Great post. Thank you.
>Well, despite you I'm still proud the US saved >your ass from invasion in WWII
The US did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for Australia in WW2. Not one damn thing. In fact, if it weren't for Australia, you would never have defeated Japan.
>Oh yeah, Foster's sucks and I hope the dingo >eats your baby. Ok, I don't really hope that.
Fosters DOES suck, I'll agree with that. You know why? It's because we export all our crap beers, the stuff that's not even fit for animals, and keep the good stuff for ourselves
>Now send back all the tourist money the US has >spent there. Just PayPal it to me.
News flash, 85% of tourists in Australia are from China, Japan or other rich Asian countries. The rest are mainly from New Zealand or Europe.
If you want your tourist money back, I'll be happy to send you the five cents I found on the floor yesterday.
Bloody yanks.
For a detailed, non-hysterical analysis of the Patriot Act, look here.
"Me mule wouldn't work in the mud. So I had to put seventeen bullets in 'er!" - Willy
I don't want to get in an argument with the criminals from down under, but China or Japan are rich countries? I suggest you checkout a recent financial magazine.
Yes, its true. The Adelaide Institute's (extreme right wing, holocaust deniers etc) webpage, http://www.adelaideinstitute.org, was recently shut down, because it apparently hurt the feeling of the Jews. It seems to be up now, and the WHOIS points to Aus, so I'm not sure whats happening.
Sadly, we have nothing like the very admirable First. They also silenced a woman (Olga Scully) in Tasmania who distributed anti-Semetic flyers.
If you don't like the fact that our laws, our government, and our Constitution were created with the recognition that all (wo)men were created equal, then perhaps a country such as China is better suited for you.
Errmmm, I don't think this is a fair comment as mostr of the Chinese are (bad) treated as equal by an privileged oligarchy...
But maybe you meant the way Israeli treat themselves according to their level of radicality...
Or maybe the way French people will judge their elite after the schools they attended instead of their human value...
Or maybe... well, there are too many examples, even in the US.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I agree. It will be because the democracies were so scared of the terrorists that we willingly handed over our liberties to the most venal group of fearmongers ever to grace public office.
If a bullet or shell casing is recovered from a crime scene, wouldn't a database, even if imperfect, narrow down the possible suspects?
I don't want to get in an argument with the criminals from down under
Good, because more convicts were sent to America than Australia, so obviously all Americans are criminal too.
Wishing a terrorist attack on Madison because they do not hold the same narrow minded views as you is something I find despicable and ignorant but to flame is not constructive, so I offer you food for thought.
The patriots who setup the American constitution understood tyrants and the human failings of greed and power lust hence the checks and balances therein. If these checks and balances are removed for whatever excuse, I would certainly smell a rat. Members of the Congress & Senate pledge an oath to uphold the constitution when taking office however; they have just granted Bush the ability to declare war which the constitution clearly forbids and I think this spells trouble.
Everything isn't a cut and dried as you or Bush like to make out, this simplistic view of the world where there are good guys in white hats and bad guys in black hats is childish and ignorant yet you tell others to grow up.
Some Americans who have retained some critical thinking abilities are realising the people in the white house hijacked a nations grief to throw the nation in to a perpetual war. People like you label these anti-American but let me ask you this: When has it ever been American to blindly follow a leader?
Real people will die in the upcoming war against Iraq, real families will grieve for the loss of loved ones and for what? OIL.
Here are a couple of links If terrorists did attack Madison, after going against the Ashcroft patriot act, who would it really help? Certainly Would remind me of the Lavon Affair or maybe closer to Operation Northwoods.
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
Uh, when have they taken an anti-gun ownership position on 2nd amendment cases, except on privacy issues? They generally go after underfunded causes when clients ask for their help... and 2nd amendment cases are rarely underfunded, nor do they call the ACLU. They call the NRA.
you know what I love? When local politics make declarations like this. When Bush started talking about Iraq, a SCHOOL BOARD from Woodacre, CA made a resolution to "be against any war with Iraq....blah blah blah.....violence stems from ignorance, fund schools more". This is the same as your bum-fuck town did. These local politicians just want to get in the paper so they can move higher in the ranks.
In short, what a retarded use of taxpayer's time. Are there no other matters to attend to in Bum-Fuck, Wisc? Oh wait, it is in one of those "plain states." Get a life you pathetic local politicians. And stop wasting taxpayer's time and money.
Not to mention, the second amendment is hardly in danger by the current Administration, or by the PATRIOT Act. Ashcroft in particular, while showing a willingness to basically scrap most of the first and fourth amendments, wouldn't even check to see if any of the 9/11 detainees in custody tried to buy guns, because such a check of gun records might offend the gun lobby.
Its time to end a cultural belief that is both backwards, intolerant, and full of hate.
Alla the false god and his goat fucking, camel cock-sucking, bitch butt monkey Mohammed!
It's a base irony, but I like it.
A libertarian public-interest think tank and law firm in Washington, D.C., the Institute for Justice has put itself in the forefront of the battle against racial preferences, desegregation orders, and affirmative action.
The Institute for Justice received substantial funding from
the Bradley Foundation.>
Which is also a backer of other far to the right organizations like the Heritage Foundation & the CATO Institute think tank.
It is also financed by the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch, a founder of the John Birch Society. David, a Libertarian, provides a significant amount of funding for the Cato Institute's $4 million annual budget. Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion. Forbes ranks David and Charles Koch among the 50 richest people in the country. Koch Industries has frequently been indicted for Environmental Crimes.
They also received substantial funding from the John M Olin Foundation . Ammunitions Manufacturer Olin gave considerable money to the Heritage Foundation and other far right causes.
The main activities of the Institute for Justice seem to be around school vouchers, the rights of companies to bust up unions, ending affirmative action, repeal of any laws regarding union contractors or minority contractors, fighting environmental legislation, and taking on eminent domain statues through the courts.
The collective agendas of those affiliated with them and their published works show their goal to be the complete privatization of all current government services.
Who's Who in the Institute
William H. Mellor
President and General Counsel. Mellor served as Deputy General Counsel for Legislation and Regulations in the Department of Energy during the Reagan Administration, a period that saw the steady erosion of government restrictions on Big Energy. From 1986 to 1991, he was President of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a right-wing think tank located in San Francisco that challenges environmental regulations, and was former Governor Pete Wilson's favored source of information regarding privatization and water rights. [From 1989 through 1998, the PRI received 8 grants totaling $337,500 from the Bradley Foundation.]
Clint Bolick
Vice President and Director of Litigation. Clint Bolick worked as an assistant at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was EEOC chairman. While working for the Landmark Legal Foundation, Bolick led the defense for the first Wisconsin school voucher program. [Between 1988 and 1992, the Kansas City, MO-based Landmark Legal Foundation received 10 grants from the Bradley Foundation totaling $592,700.]
When Wisconsin expanded its voucher program to include religious schools - the first state in the country to do so - Bolick defended the plan in court. While the State of Wisconsin officially defended the program, it was the Bradley Foundation that provided funding for the attorneys, who besides Bolick included the "independent" counsel Kenneth Starr. Starr, who made his living defending big auto and tobacco companies from consumer litigation, had also previously done work for Bradley.
Until Bolick began presenting himself as a defender of low-income African American schoolchildren, he had been most closely associated with attacks on affirmative action. He is the author of "The Affirmative Action Fraud: Can We Restore the American Civil Rights Vision?" published by the Cato Institute. It was Bolick who drafted a bill that would end all affirmative action programs on the federal level. And he had high praise for the landmark Hopwood vs. Texas decision, calling it "clearly another nail in the coffin of racial preferences."
-------------
It's always important to know who you get in bed with before you cut them a check. I'm not fully happy with any of these organizations. The ACLU fails to aggressively support a lot of things it claims to champion (such as ending the War On Drugs, or defending the rights of Gun Owners)and has taken some things too far to the left my taste. Even with the money coming in from Olin, Institute for Justice doesn't seem to be interested in those either.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
There comes a time, when one has to put aside one's normal political affiliations and realise that a government (any government of whatever political color) is drastically overstepping its mark. Clearly the Bush administration is such a regime. Committed Republicans should be just as (if not more) aghast at the inroads to current government is making into civil liberties
Positing Ashcroft's predictable repsonse to firearms registrations as his "first big privacy test" is simply too disingenuous.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
the free state project!
http://www.freestateproject.org/
"The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the nation and the world."
much more info available on the website. i haven't yet decided if i'm going to join, it's a serious commitment to make.
Now, I'm all for an organization trying to help protect our rights. But don't act like Bush is the first politician to overstep his bounds. I think that Al Gore would have been worse, personally.
/. posters seem more socialist than a libertarian, although I could be mistaken).
I agree about setting aside affiliations. I'll say right now, I don't think Bush is the best man for the job, but I think he was better than the primary alternatives at the time.
The libertarians are a good party, and seem to be gainning acceptence. Their last presidential candidate didn't seem very bright, but the party's fundamentals are there. I bet that a lot of the Democrats and Republicans on slashdot would probably be able to agree on libertarianism in many ways (except I think the
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
For reference:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From FindLaw:
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects.
From the ACLU itself.
IMHO, the Second Amendment is embodied and about exhausted by the existence of state branches of the National Guard. Guns are for pussies.
illegitimii non ingravare
What boggles my mind is that, in the face of pushing the limits of other constitutional protections, he refuses to impinge on the _privacy_ of gun ownership.
Not letting the government keep perfect records of who owns what firearms makes more sense if you think the government may turn on the citizens in violation of the constitution. Granted, usually only people in compounds is Montana or Texas think that, but there was a time you may remember, about 220 years ago, when it became necessary to overthrow the government with, yeah, guns. Then the clever people who did this put in a new Constitution which had avenues for ammendment and checks and balances and all sorts of good stuff, so we wouldn't have to go to war over it again. And then they put in some ammendments to make sure it worked as planned. Including the second one, which would ensure that people could have armed malitias, which would make the government think twice before abandoning those avenues of change and checks and ballances and such and switching to marital law.
If the government does plan to switch to martial law, and they have a list of everyone who can oppose them, then they just accuse those people of domestic terrorism or similar, raid their compounds, and eliminate the threat.
So that's really the catch-22 situation with the second ammendment. As long as the government doesn't try fucking with it, you don't need it. But once they mess with your right to bear arms, who knows which ammendment they'll take next, now that you can't fight back.
Of course, if you trust that W. and Co. are always working their hardest to protect everyone's best interest, and that the US government in general is just the most benevolent organization under the sun, you don't need to worry about it. Just eat your cheeseburges and wave your flag and do what Ashcroft says.
(no, i'm not really that paranoid. I just didn't want your mind to have to keep being boggled. My mind gets boggled sometimes and i hate that.)
1 - They aren't programmers.
2 - They aren't self-respecting.
3 - They aren't both.
Reading a lot of these comments it is plain to see that a lot of US citizens are deeply concerned and less than taken in by the lies comming out of the white house.
/. readers thanks for being smart enought for spotting what Bush is up to, the rest of the world can see it but its American that have to fight it, please try for all our sakes.
The comments here and the anti-war protests in the US point out that the media is lying about the public's support for the president.
So
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
A good read... Who would have though that the once democratic country is fast headed that way, with the support of the voters?
When corporations have too much power in capitalism, how is that different from government-controlled communism?
Spain has ETA, the UK has the IRA (and where does most of the funding for that come from... oh yes the citizens of the USA). And before someone says "That is just inside the borders of the country" remember that the IRA have commited acts of terrorism in other countries, have trained in Libya and have helped train terrorists in Columbia.
Yet only when the US faces a threat is terrorism something new....
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The US must also invade the US as they were informed of terrorists acting inside their borders before Sept 11th and did nothing. Plus several US Citizens have been arrested as terrorists, and someone somewhere must have been covering up for them before they were caught.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Firearms policies are the domains of the States, not the Federal Government. The Australian Federal Government has no constitutional right to make laws on firearms and it doesnt it. All the firearms laws are from the states.
omcio--
At least in the way I read this. Look at it again.
... against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination
... in order to-- (1) defend the national security ... and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
Here's the resolution from 1941:
the President is hereby authorized
And the one from now...
The President is authorized
These are rather open ended goals. I mean isn't it already the job of the military to defend us? Isn't enforcement process rather than a goal? From what I understand, Congress doesn't have the power to issue such open ended authority, does it? I mean it's supposed to have limits to its power...
"Give me 12 years, and you won't recognize America anymore." -Bush, 2003
read the Bill of Rights he made it all the way up to . . . One. Either that or his mother simply told him, " Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you," and he listened to his mother for once.
His appreciation of, indeed his very awareness of, the remaining nine seems to be shakey at best.
He certainly stopped reading before he got up to Four. The courts are finally starting to bitch slap him around a bit over this. His response? Ignore court orders.
Yeah, there'a a guy who believes firmly in the rule of law. Right.
KFG
The ACLU is a principled advocate for the rights of common citizens. The Cato institute and Heritage foundation are shills for the hyper-wealthy.
Successfully concentrating 70% of the country's wealth into 2% of the population - in a Democratic Republic like ours - requires convincing the electorate that this is somehow in their best interest. The Cato institute and Heritage foundation perform this function admirably. They need no help from us.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Funny you should cite China. Isn't communism all about everyone beyong equal (or we'll kill you)?
All the groups in the 'First the came for' are just that - groups. Being a member of them is not intrinsically wrong, and hence it is right that you should speak up against their persecution.
However, in the case of the groups mentioned by the poster you replied to, it is intrinsically wrong to be a member of those groups. It is intrinsically wrong to be a murderer, for example.
Paraphrasing as "First they came for the murderers, and I didn't speak up because I was not a murderer", for example, rather loses the power of the original quote. You would expect people to 'come for the murderers'. You would not expect them to 'come for the Jews'.
When relying on the wisdom of others via quotation, please take time to understand the implications of that quote.
Cheers,
Ian
The "libertarianism" that "a lot of the Democrats and Republicans on slashdot would probably be able to agree on" is also the common subset of Right Libertarianism and anarchism.
For a discussion of the differences between anarchism and Right Libertarianism, and why Right Libertarianism would never work in practice (hint: absolute propertarian systems result in massive inequality and subsequent revolt), check out the relevant section of the anarchist faq.
Brief summary: a "free market" where one of the participants has property, and the other does not, is not free at all. If someone owns the road outside my house, and I need to go somewhere, I *must* pay him whatever he demands. In fact, in a pure "free market" system, those without property have to grovel at the feet of the propertied even for food. Of course, people won't put up with that nonsense indefinitely, as we can see from the historical examples of Europe (various 19th and 20th century revolutions), China (Maoism), and Russia (to name some famous ones). The net result is that supporting Right Libertarianism is really just supporting "widespread suffering followed by massive societal upheaval" -- probably not what you are after.
If you want the workers to accept private property and inequality, you have to actively prevent the system from imploding by redistributing wealth downward in ways that the "free market" mechanism does not. This is what social security and government services funded by progressive taxes are for.
Not that I'm a fan of such an arrangement -- I'm just pointing out that it is much more stable than the arrangement that Right Libertarians advocate.
Indeed, the era of the US revolutionary war is long gone. But human nature has not one wit changed in the intervening decades.
If the English had not been armed then they would not have become American.
The US civil war was fought with many home-owned guns on both sides. The thought that an armed populace threatens a government with popular revolution is true. IF it is not then why have so many totalitarian goverments throughout history restricted the ownership of weapons? Or in some cases encouraged the populace to take up arms and practice with them to maintain proficiency? (Example: the requirement that English men over a certain age practice one time per week with the long bow?)
The government has control of its arsenal. And the people have their own arsenal. That is the barbaric foundation of peace among humans: we all recognize that we are all equally dangerous and therefore uneasily oppressed. Now we have to make nice and oppress using rules, and due process, and politicians. But in the end, the major arguments are solved with the death and destruction of combat. (Remember that the US Civil war was fought not over Slavery, as popular Union Propaganda stated, but over the rather dry question of the rights of the states verses the rights of Federal government. This was a political, governance question that ultimately had to be settled according the dictates of human behavior--war.)
The use of force has settled most of the major conflits in the world, one way or the other, through out history. Until human beings cease being human beings and evolve into something less violent, we will always need to be armed. Those less armed are enslaved by those more armed.
It's okay if you don't believe me; go read the tomes of history from the Hittites on up throught the modern era.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Really. I'd be far more scared to walk down the street in Australia than I would in America. After all, Australia has the highest burglary, violent crime, and overall victimization rates in the entire world (it only falls second in car theft, of which England and Wales are the first).
F news%2F2001%2F02%2F23%2Fncrim123.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2
Interestingly enough, the USA isn't even in the top 10 for the four categories of crime reported on, except for burglary (which it's 7th).
After all, didn't the US military invent the internet that you are all benefitting from (MILNET)?
In just one year we have lost thousands due to terrorists because of America's "open arms". We've given freedom to everyone-- including the most malicious of terrorists and the Patriot Act was designed to not make that mistake again.
Citizens locked up for no reason? Get real. A small amount of people have been incarcerated unjustly because they fit the profile of someone considered a danger to humanity.
The greater risk is to continue the status quo and let jetliners full of screaming passengers detonate across the US.
At one point we could have laughed at the suggestion.
Sorry, here's a link.
When most Americans talk about ensuring freedom, what they really mean is their own freedom--the ones they enjoy, not freedom in general. In reality, most Americans couldn't care less about the freedoms of other Americans. Some of them actively work to take away the freedom of others while classifying such freedoms as "immoral" or "sin." I may be overly pessimistic, but I believe most Americans are too selfish in the way they formulate their personal policies on freedom. In their minds, if they want to do it, it should be free, but if they they don't like others doing it, it should be outlawed. Key word--Hypocrisy.
We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.
Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft
Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(NOTE: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEN DEVIATES FROM PREPARED REMARKS)
December 6, 2001
Senator Russell D. Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who has been the Senate's most resolute critic of the administration's antiterror proposals, quickly took on Mr. Ashcroft over his testimony that criticism of the administration "gives ammunition to America's ene
mies, and pause to America's friends." He asked the attorney general if the series of Senate hearings culminating in today's session was somehow aiding the enemy. Mr. Ashcroft blandly replied that he welcomed the Senate hearings as proper oversight. "We need reasoned discourse as opposed to fear-mongering," he said. "This is the place where reasoning and discourse take place."
Ashcroft Defends Antiterror Plan and Says Criticism May Aid Foes
Communism is mandated economic equity. This is a much different idea from social equity, which is commonly believed to be a natural equity these days.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
They forgot to add 10 as well; so hard to remember, that pesky reserved powers clause.....
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(...) the ACLU's constant (...) has driven away a lot of their former supporters ( myself included ).
OK, everybody who actually believes the "myself included", raise your hand... hm... yeah, thought so. Ah, the joy of unprovable and unrefutable statements.
Is the role of the US army to enforce law and order during peace times?
There, now you know why it is not proper.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Incidentally, Charlton Heston (who is the head of the NRA) is also a member of the ACLU. Apparently, Mr. Heston recognizes the importance and validity of the concept of "division of labor," something that the original AC poster might want to consider.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
This is a valid point. The NRA is very popular and very powerful, and dedicated entirely to defending the second amendment. It makes more sense for the ACLU to focus on the more poorly defended amendments rather than duplicating the efforts of an organization that absolutely pours money into the defense of just one.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
I have yet to see anyone explain the true privacy concern of a roving wiretap.
:P
Then you haven't been paying attention. It's been done again and again.
And frankly, if you can't think of it yourself, then you're not trying very hard.
And John Ashcroft passed nothing. He doesn't want other, random people to have your info. He wants it himself. That's why he doesn't let civilians perform roving wiretaps.
The enemies of Democracy are
Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate in 2000 (and 1996).
Read his book Why Government Doesn't Work. It's a great read and I think you'll have a lot more respect for his wisdom after your read it.
Seems like if they threw $10 million advertising on the horrors of that lame vague piece of legislation they might be able to open voters eyes to somewhat near half-open on the topic. My 2 cents.
today is spelling optional day.
> The US did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for Australia in
>WW2. Not one damn thing. In fact, if it weren't
>for Australia, you would never have defeated Japan.
Is that what they're teaching in Australian schools these days? The statement that the US did nothing for Australia is 100% wrong. I won't deny Australia was a valuable ally, but vital? Don't know about that. Anyway, here are items for your further research:
- "Battle for Australia" - Australian forces fail to stop Japan's advance. Prime Minister Curtin asks US for help. link
- Battle of Coral Sea. Japan wants to invade Australia, must take Port Moresby (an Australian air base) first. US stops Japan (also in above link). link
- Aircraft operated by Australia in WWII. How many are of Australian design and manufacture and how many are from the US and UK? link
Thanks for playing.
that is more libertarian and therefore consistent
in protecting ALL free speech as well intruding governement. perhaps its the
institute for justice?
FWIW, this project has been given quite a bit of thought and planning by those involved. It is the brainchild of a Yale graduate student and they already have quite a few members who've made commitments. I am on the mailing list but haven't yet decided if I'd join. I must admit that after reading their essays and rationales, it is quite compelling...
James
so you gave a link to a bunch of left wing sites?
talk about following blind. youre right about lenin though.
too bad you dont realize he was talking about YOU, biznit
get out of ireland
> "We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. These are people who are dedicated to protecting liberty."
That must be why they patently violate rights against self-incrimination, statues of limitation, and age discrimination protections in all of their employment.
yes, dedicated to something they are. But, "protecting liberty" doesn't seem to be it.
Yeah, I'll try and remember that as I choke on some VX gas released at the shopping mall by one of Saddam's cronies.
I'm sure you're right. I'm not sure where you get the notion that the US has a duty to depose them -- especially with an undeclared war. I personally think communism is stupid and oppressive too, but that doesn't mean I would've advocated the US going into Korea and Vietnam to fight the red menace.
It's these muddy justifications for attacking another country that threaten to make the US look like -- or even turn it into -- an empire to rival Rome. If we are to go to war with another country, we'd better have good solid justification to do so -- and a real declaration of war to go with it.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. Nor, are they likely to end up with either."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
You should note that the 'right' of privacy is guarantied in the US Constitution. Most of the replies to this seem to think that this is a right, under the US Constitution, you only have a few rights (4) Four. In addition, they are, the right to Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, and finally the right to Vote. This is it, in none of the Amendments to the US Constitution, i.e. the bill of rights, do they guaranty our right to privacy; unreasonable search, yes, but this does not give privacy.
The people that I want out of my COUNTRY; are as follows.
Illegal aliens (not all aliens just the illegal)
Aliens with expired visa
People that will not scarifies minor freedoms to win
That is it, not a lot, just those that are not willing to give up something that is unimportant for some thing that is.
Freedom is not free; it has to be paid for with the blood of the innocents. (Yes I know this is a quote, but I cannot find from whom right now)
To reply to the attempted to call me a hypocrite, I am willing; unlike others, it now shows, to give up freedoms, which are not rights, to protect the whole. This is simple; you have to get sick with chemo, to get out the cancer. This I will do. It hurts to have a tooth worked on, but it is better in the end, this I will do. It hurt when I was shot, but I was able to kill/put down/take out the shooters with my SAW/M249 to save the Squad as we ran from cover to cover in Bosnia, this I will do. This I will defend.
I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to my death for your right to say it. Ben Franklin (I think)
I don't think the shooter is a military or police sniper for a couple reasons.
.308, 30.06, or .300, I'd think it might be a sniper trained person.
1. Wrong caliber weapon - a 5.45, shorty 7.62 or 5.54 NATO isn't a sniper rifle caliber. If the shots were
2. Shell casing left behind - Snipers police the area.
3. Tarot card left behind - That strikes me as a red herring
4. Shoot and scoot - A sniper wouldn't work that way. They'd go to ground where chances are they'd not be seen, then use a high powered rife with a scope, hit one and remain there, 500-1500 meters away from the hit, then leave calmly.
Lee Harvey Oswald or the shooter in Texas in the 60s worked that MO because it's the Military MO and they were Marine trained riflemen.
No, the goal of Islamist terrorism is not to turn the US into a police state. It is to demoralize the US by killing its civilians.
So far, I have seen few liberties handed over, willingly or otherwise. The worst recent handing of liberties has not been the Patriot Act, but the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform", which prohibts citizens from certain kinds of political speech! Interestingly, the very people who seem to have the most extreme views in exerting the First Amendment free speech clause are the same people who support McCain-Feingold. Go figure.
The way our liberties will be lost is by laws passed by reformers, not those out to protect out lives. The first purpose of government is to protect its citizenry. It is the only excuse to allow a lethally armed police force to police the people. But those who object to the Patriot Act are more happy using those police to arrest environmental offenders than to prevent terrorism.
The only good weather is bad weather.
First it will come for the terrorists and then it will keep coming for the terrorists until all the terrorists are gone. Then we will all breathe a sigh of relief, a wiser nation. I saw a photograph of C.Rice and other cabinet members ON September 11th. One of them was reading something, another was talking on the phone. You could see it in their faces. They were absolutely shitting their pants -- nobody had ever slapped those politicos in the face like that before. It wasn't just about doing their jobs and trying to lead, they were afraid for their OWN lives in a very real way. This thing was a wake up call. In times of peace, the right makes war against Americans -- that's true. That's how you get the things that Rev. N is talking about here, the McCarthy era, etc. However, in times of war -- REAL war, not cold war, where there is a very real, not imagined, threat to the future of this country and the safety of its people -- the right has more important things to worry about, and it would be wise for liberals like yourself, and former liberals like myself, to just let them do their jobs.
Let me ask you a question -- how are we going to catch those D.C. snipers if we can't tap phone lines? I bet you're still saying that it's probably a psycho -- even though some people have seen them now and said they were Middle Eastern looking. Wake up people, there is a war on. Psychos have a weird sex thing they do or have some bizarre twist to how they kill, or they kill a certain type of person, and they rarely work in teams. This sniper is just popping completely random people out the window of the van while his friend drives. A good marksman too, obviously trained. Shot an FBI terrorism analyst?!? And you don't want to let the government tap phone lines. Better wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late -- this isn't the 60's anymore.
"A prime example of what Lenin called a ?Useful Idiot?."
Holly fuck.
Do you know whom Lenin was referring to when he made these remarks?
Let me give you a hint - back then there were some people in western Europe and US who opposed confronting USSR on the basis that there are is no such thing as "good and bad guys" and viewing USSR as an evil empire was a basically very simplistic and intellectually lazy thing to do ?.
Not to mention that any sort of military action against Soviet regime was basically a plot of these at power to ?to throw the nation in to a perpetual war.?
Amazing, simply amazing.
Well written, but you make a number of mistakes...
First of all, I don't wish a terrorist attack on Madison. I wish that if there is a terrorist attack, it hits Madison rather than some place which is supporting our very real need to protect ourselves against these terrorists.
Second, the Patriot Act does not remove checks and balances. Checks and balances are in fact the mechanisms built into the constitution to allow the different branches of government to block each other. In the case of the Patriot Act, two branches have come together, with lots of compromising, to produce a set of laws. A third branch is available to strike down any parts of that which are unconstitutional. IOW checks and balances is about structural mechanisms, not the contents of laws. At least use the right terminology.
This discussion is about the Patriot Act. You bring up "the ability to declare war." This has nothing to do with the Patriot Act. Furthermore, given that this is an act of Congress enabling the president to make war, it is pretty clearly exactly what the founders intended. Also, if you would check history, the US has been in many wars, but only a few declared wars. Bush is doing nothing new in that regard.
You next imply that those capable of critical thinking "realize that... the white house hijacked a nations grief... perpetual war."
Wrong! First of all, the white house and congress responded to the peoples' justifiable anger. Second, many with critical thinking skills have analyzed the situation and agree with the president. If you choose to call this "blindy following," perhaps this is because you yourself blindly follow your ideology rather than reason. You may think the American citizenry, who strongly support military action, to be dolts and idiots who can be easily fooled. I have a bit more respect for them, apparently. If you really think we are all that dumb, why don't you support some sore of enlightened dictatorship by those "who have retained critical thinking" capabilities? As far as perpetual war, it is our opponents, the Islamists, who have in fact *declared* perpetual war against us. Did you perhaps not notice this fact during your moment of critical thinking?
Real people always die in war. This is not exactly a revelation! We did not start this war, but we have already lost 3000 civilians. These civilians were targeted. They had families too! It is the duty of the government to try to prevent more of this, and the Patriot Act contains a number of useful measures to help with this. It also contains some silliness, as one would expect of most acts where hundreds of congressmen have to disagreed. Don't be fooled by the name of the act. Congress always uses silly names for legislation.
You believe you retain critical thinking skills. Fine. At least provide them with some useful data to operate on. The sources you cite are hardly the only ways to find out what is going on. NONE of them address the current situation!
Your first two cites are full of lies. For example, Johnson did *not* want a war in Vietnam. Johnson was a fool, but not that kind of fool. Johnson inherited the war, believed that it was wrong to back out of it (he was right about that), and fell into a deep depression because of that war. Your source makes unprovable assertions that Johnson wanted the war for economic benefit. If that is what you consider critical thinking, it is telling!
Clinton did not block humanitarian aid to Iraq... Saddam Hussein instead did and does *hijack* that aid (which is mostly in UN allowed oil sales) to build weapons. But then, since the source was the notorious left wing UK Guardian, I am not surprised that it is full of anti-American nonsense.
Your first and third sources attempt to tell us that dictators use war to distract from problems at home. Duh! Gee, I guess none of us knew that or read Orwell. This is hardly news.
But it is also not evidence Bush's motivations. It applies much better to the Arab nations who have actual dictators, and who use anti-semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism to distract *their* population. It was this behavior by Saudi Arabia that directly contributed to 9/11.
I don't have the historical information to judge your fourth cite (the Lavon affair), but it also doesn't materially affect this discussion, so who cares. I can only assume you put it in there to imply that either Israel or Bush caused 9-11 on purpose. If that slander is what you meant, have the balls to say it directly.
Your fifth cite, which if it is true took place 40 years go, shows a silly plan like you *again* appear to be indirectly accusing the US of now. was shot down as soon as it got near a reasonable official. This shows the strength of our system.
The only good weather is bad weather.
VX doesn't choke you dumbass, it burns you and causes nerve damage. Most deaths from VX do not occur in the initial attack but from people coming into contact with undecontaminated object that were previously exposed to VX. It is what is known as a persistant gas. If starting to choke would be sign that you were exposed to Cyanide, Chlorine, or tear gas. How about you go learn some stuff on your own without just parreting the Fox news channel.
Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia, and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand.
You're being sarcastic, but I absolutely agree with your statement.
We don't have to declare war on all of them simultaneously; wars fought on multiple fronts are rarely successful. But maybe after a couple of governments get overthrown for supporting the killing of innocents, the rest of the world might wise up and stop condoning terrorism.
No civilized society can condone terrorism, and those that do must change their ways. If countries do not take care of it themselves with policy change, they must be taken care of by force.
Even if this leads to another world war, it is justified if terrorism is eradicated from the Earth.
USA P(for Population) AT RIOT, which is where they might be if someone doesn't ease off the pressure valve soon. :)
:)
Civil disobedience, anyone?
Pssst...I can also arrange defections to Canada, eh?
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.
It might be interesting if spam was stamped out just to make surveillance easier, though I wonder how these agencies would go about dealing w/ the Post Office in performing the same kind of trace?
-soup (GNUrd, Speaker to Machines) "Laugh at yourself- Why should everyone else have all the fun?" -Romanchek's 6th Ru
Join the ACLU and help out! I joined with a monthly donation of $10, and I never miss the money. They can set it up to be automatically charged to your bank account or credit card and it's totally painless.
If you spend money on products (which nearly everyone does), you're voting with your dollars. Make sure some of your "votes" go to something you believe in!
http://forms.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm'
People shape laws. Not the other way around.
I pretty much gave up on the ACLU when they decided that mandatory study of Islam, in the North Carolina government sponsored college, was perfectly OK. Fuck 'em.
a) The U.S. had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons on villages in Iraq. That was all Saddam, baby.
b) In the 80s, Iraq appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Iran was a known sponsor of terrorism, home to Islamic extremism, and a self-described enemy of the "Great Satan" of the West.
Again, the lesser of the two evils. It appeared to make more sense to support the mujahadin in Afghanistan than let the Soviet Union claim another satellite state.
If there was a failing here, it was that we didn't finish the job by continuing to help Afghanistan after the USSR pulled out.
A decade without the Soviet Union and everybody seems to forget what a menace Communism was (and is). Do you think that Vietnam under a Communist regime was more supportive of individual freedoms than one supported by the West? Please.
Go do some research on Stalin and Pol Pot.
Huh?
Spoken like a true puppet. Again, the spectre of the Soviet Union doesn't seem so awful when we've got a decade or so without it under our belts.
Like Afghanistan? Sure, you had plenty of rights there under the Taliban...assuming that you a) wore a beard, b) were Islamic, c) were a man and d) didn't oppose the government.
Like Iraq? Yes, another example of an enlightened society; a dictatorship whose leader has incited two wars, tortured his own people, resisted the will of the UN for years and diverts funds intended for food and medical supplies so he can build another palace.
Spot on, Sparky. Great post.
> I'm at my day job
Would you like fries with that?
> I 'm getting paid
minimum wage.
> I own a Penthouse
January, but the pages are stuck together.
> I'm a DJ at night
When I rock out with my Casio "My First Keyboard".
> Later!
Please, much.
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
I went to a local credit union to open a checking account and they wanted a finger print to open the account. They said they could require a finger print because of the patriot act.
What a bunch of crap.
Plz bear in mind flamers... that I have nothing to hide by giving my fingerprint, but I'll be damned if that is going to be used as a form of ID for a checking account or any other friggin account. =P
While I'm apalled at some of the things the Patriot Act allows, I can think of no better way to further alienate yourself from the average citizen than to publicly oppose something named the "Patriot Act" and enacted in response to so horrible a deed as 9-11.
I hope they make reasonable and careful arguments, or they'll become the poster children for what's wrong with people who oppose the act.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
Nope. Around here anyone that isn't mentally incompetent or a serious criminal can buy guns without a license. I, on the other hand, have a special license that lets me carry around a concealed handgun. While anyone can own a gun, you can just take it everywhere you want unless you have a license.
This is a Good Thing (tm), but it got me wondering. Has anyone else noticed that only the losers of the last election care about freedom at any given point in time? The ACLU didn't seem to mind Janet "The Butcher of Waco" Reno burning down children filled churches, nor sexual harassment at the presidential level a few years ago.
It must just be that the purpose of government, regardless of who is in power, is directly contreverted by the cause of liberty, and that the political ideologies are only so much window dressing used by parties which really are no different from one another.
Ow. Okay, now I'm depressed. I hate epiphanies.
So simply accusing someone of a crime is enough to deny due process.
I hope you get accused of a serious crime and get severely fucked over.
I personally think that we could be much harsher on criminals, I don't really care that much for those that commit certain crimes.
However before we throw away the key, lets make sure they're guilty.
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Have any of you actually read the key aspects of the patriot act? You think roaming wire taps versus fixed taps is going to change your personal freedoms at all? I suppose if you are a criminal it might make life a bit more difficult for you.
I'm not one to say that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about when it comes to these things, but you have to be a little bit pragmatic. The Patriot Act is narrowly enough focussed that it should be of little concern to law abiding citizens.
The slippery slope argument has screwed this country up on everything from reasonable gun controls to giving law enforcement a fighting chance against criminals.
There certainly needs to be a voice of opposition such that things balance out to right medium, but don't fool yourself, the ACLU clearly represents views that are too far to the left for what is good for the country. It should be called the american criminal liberties union -- call a spade a spade.
Not everyone agrees with that.
I don't care what someone is accused of, EVERYONE deserves the right to a fair trial.
Lets make sure before we punish someone they actually did it.
I don't like rapists or murderers or child molesters, but the mere fact that they are accused shouldn't be enough to disqualify them from their right to a fair trial.
Do your worst after we know we've got the right guy, not before.
That is the problem with the detainees in Cuba, that is the problem with the 'unlawful combantants', the unknowns within the country.
This is also what is wrong with giving enforcement too much power, they might unfairly trample the rights of people who have not done anything wrong.
That is why a judge gives permission before law enforcement can infringe on someones rights, to ensure that in their zeal to keep us safe and catch the bad guys they don't get too many innocents.
Yes it's rambling, but I'm not an english major.
Oh come on! Do you believe all propaganda or only most of it?
My guess is only propaganda from one party. If he believed all propaganda, he would be unable to do anything except stare blankly and slowly spin in circles...
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
A quick search of the new google news service brings up articles from the Washington Post, CNN, Seattle Times, etc.
First of all, I don't wish a terrorist attack on Madison. I wish that if there is a terrorist attack, it hits Madison rather than some place which is supporting our very real need to protect ourselves against these terrorists.
We don't have any more "need" now than we ever did. And if you've been following the news, it appears that even without the Patriot Act, the intelligence community had enough information to stop the attacks, but someone at the CIA didn't bother to pick up the phone to the FBI. Or was it the other way around?
First of all, the white house and congress responded to the peoples' justifiable anger.
Yeah...with a knee-jerk "We Got To Do Something " reaction.
As far as perpetual war, it is our opponents, the Islamists, who have in fact *declared* perpetual war against us.
So we should reduce ourselves to their level?
Your use of the word "challenging" is misleading, bordering on an outright lie. Most readers would infer that if the ACLU is "challenging" something, they have filed a court action, or have decided to do so. As the article you cite makes clear, they are simply "examining whether the order might violate parts of the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law prohibiting the military from direct involvement in civilian law enforcement." They might challenge it in the future, but have not made any such decision.
I thought that was Bill Gates? Or John Ashcroft? Damnit, make up your mind. Pick one Satan and stick with him.
And what the hell is a "terrosist"?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Great post about "what is a right?".
...and don't say rights can't be taken away. They can if certain conditions are met, like committing a crime for example. Unless you are talking about human rights, perhaps.
Now, the question is, when can you take away those rights and under what conditions? That, my friend, is the tricky part.
I agree that we have had a need for a long time. It was made clear by the *first* attack on the world trade center that we had enemies that were willing to murder people on an unprecedented scale for terrorism. The feckless Clinton administration, in spite of this, failed to do anything to improve our abilities to catch terrorists *before* they caused the problem. The Patriot Act contains a number of measures which do in fact help in that regard.
To you it is knee-jerk. I suppose that trite phrase is how you characterize such things. I think it a more accurate description would be "long overdue."
What makes you think we are reducing ourselves to their level? We haven't decided to sneak into THEIR countries and target civilians.
But, in fact, if they are willing to declare war on us by attacking our civilians, they deserve to face dire consequences. If they continue to do so, we may very well have to kill lost of people, including lots of civilians, to protect ourselves.
But it appears that you do not understand the difference between self defense and premeditated mass murder.
The only good weather is bad weather.
McCain-Feingold limits the sizes of bribes (also known as "campaign donations") to politicians. It won't prevent Granny from down the street giving a few hundred dollars to a senatorial hopeful, but it will (hopefully) prevent Michael Eisner from quietly ordering Congress and the Senate to extend copyrights, yet again.
Personally, I think all campaign contributions should go into a single pot, with every candidate getting an equal share of the cash to run their own campaigns. How long do you suppose the likes of Phillip Morris' board members will continue contributing, when they know that Greens will also be benefiting?
Sure, you'll get some higher-profile wingnuts who can then actually afford TV time, but would that really be so bad?
Communism is. China isn't. Anything with a ruling party isn't about equality.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
If Clinton has reacted, IN THE LEAST AMOUNT, for the murder of those army doggies in Somalia, the bombing of the Cole, the multiple attacks on the US embassies, the bombing of the World Trade Center, prevention of our foces landing in Haiti, and I am sure I am still missing some things, then maybe the two-bit terrorist bastards would be attacking us expect no response.
Clinton was OFFERED bin laden AT LEAST 4 times and he turned down the offer each time.
Am I saying that US actions do not build enemies? Nope. Of course any action by any country will create both friends and enemies.
But the only way to prevent such attacks is to put the fear of God into each of these people and to let them know that if they attack us then we will bring swift justice.
Tell Ashcroft what you think about the Patriot Act. You can send a free fax or email to Ashcroft from http://www.acluaction.org/aclu/mail/?customid=1222 44&MAILID=695001.
Can you name one country ever that called itself "communist" and mandated economic equality? I don't believe one ever existed.
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
They basically knew that it was to become a robust, distributed network for communications, and that universities were to be involved to share computer processing time. But I really think it was one of those "Heh, heh, give this to new guy!" type projects, which they gave to a DARPA guy (can't remember his name) to lead, not realizing he was basically a "hands off, let's see what happens" type of dude. How he got into the military with that type of attitude is beyond me.
Without him, DARPA funding, plus hooking up to freedom loving universities - the internet as we know it today would never have come into being In a way, the internet was a fluke, perhaps one of the "last harrahs" of the 60's - I mean, DARPA could have given it to a guy to have IBM work with AT&T and other large communications giants, coupled with businesses that used large computers, maybe a few R&D labs and think tanks (RAND, LANL, etc), and come up with a similar system - but it would be nothing like today's internet, not in the least.
That isn't to day big business or the government didn't have their hand in the current offering - but with luck and a little hands-off, we have recieved the legacy of a generation knew what freedom and liberty are about, and for this we need to protect it for the future.
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
You stupid child molestor.
Liar. The consortium of newspapers that counted the votes (the ONLY hand count done of all the votes) said that according to current Florida law, Gore got about 10,000 more votes than Bush did.
Only under "recount scenarios" did Bush even get to the tie that he did. When all votes were counted according to Florida law, Gore got a lot more.
The major difference was "over-votes" - someone punched the hole for Gore, then wrote in "Gore" in the write in section (to make sure?). According to Florida law, that is a legal vote for Gore.
That's why the five Republicans on the Supreme Court blocked a full hand recount, because Gore would have won.
Now, go ahead and call people names and make up lies. It's good to see you liars act out in public. It shows the type of people who support Bush.
If it prevents me from buying a $10,000 ad attacking or promoting a candidate (and it does, I believe), it has restricted my right to free speech.
I don't see anywhere in the first amendment where the rights are limited only to grannies.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Thank the Lawwward for John Ashcroft! He protects us from those pornographic nekkid statues. Best Attourney General since Meese.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
That seems to be the tone of various pronouncements of the ACLU and the left. But let's take a look at the "human rights violations" being cited by the ACLU. From the Wired article:
... They had no warrant, so she refused to grant them entry, but opened the door wide enough to let them view the poster, she said.
... Two cops arrived, asked Mandell what he had against the flag, and left after he explained the group's position. The postal worker told Mandell to return for his stamps the next day. When he did, a postal inspector took him into a back room to ask about the group's activities and funding."
1st case:
"Brown was questioned by the Secret Service after an anonymous tipster called the agency to denounce an anti-Bush poster hanging in her apartment.
For 45 minutes, they tried to convince her to let them into her apartment, to check if she had any maps of Afghanistan or pro-Taliban material, she said. "I kept saying no," Brown said. "Finally, I was like, 'I think the Taliban are assholes,' and they left a little later."
2nd case:
"Mandell was questioned by Chicago police and a postal inspector after refusing to use stamps featuring the American flag on a newsletter going out to 4,000 of the group's supporters.
3rd case:
" The group -- whose members range from high school students to a nun -- was pulled aside and questioned by a group of sheriff's deputies. The FAA couldn't be reached for instructions on how to handle the situation before the flight, and the airline put the group up at a hotel. They flew out the next morning without incident. "
So what have we got? Some law enforcement officers who fully respected the Bill of Rights and a couple of over-zealous clerks and bureaucrats. If these are the most horrendous cases the ACLU can come up with I can't see why anyone should take them seriously. Many years ago the ACLU served an important purpose, but sometime over the past 20 years they became just another far-left pressure group and shill for the Democratic Party. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this multi-million dollar campaign comes out just before an election.
For every "trust-fund hippy" there must be a hundred "trust fund conservatives". If you want to find spoiled rich kids with pie in the sky political fantasies, just talk to a "free market conservative".
There are two types of people; those who divide people into two types of people, and those who don't.
The parent comment has been modded down to -1. Yours has been modded up to 4. I guess the Bush haters have no mod points, and the Bush worshipers do. Bush and Ashcroft are nazis. If you disagree, don't moderate, respond.
How ya like dat?
You do realize that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, and is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, don't you?
The Constitution does not give us rights; we have rights, and the Constitution explicitly forbids the government from infringing upon some of them. It also includes the statement, as the Ninth Amendment:
The Tenth Amendment further circumscribes the federal government:
The Constitution does not grant the government broad, sweeping powers except for a narrow set of exclusions; it grants specific, narrowly-defined powers and prohibits it from acting outside the range of those powers. It is the actions of Congress and the Presidency that have turned that on its head, so that the government believes that it has the authority to control except under the narrowest possible interpretation of those things it is expressly forbidden to do.
Unimportant in your judgement -- but you automatically assume that your judgement is the only right one, and that anyone who disagrees must be mistaken. If we don't believe the way you do, we should get out of the country. *toss* So much for the principles you claim to be willing to defend.
How about this one, then?
When we are being asked to give up our liberties, we must look carefully at what our sacrifice is supposed to gain us. So far, all I've seen is the government creating more and more ways to shove its nose into citizens' lives, with no sign of the claimed increase in safety. Or abominations like the TIPS program, where the government wants to turn our population into informers to spy on their neighbors and turn them in to the feds if they see anything 'suspicious'.
Once we grant power to the government, even if it was supposed to be strictly limited in scope and for a limited time, the nose of the camel is in the tent. Go back and look at the claims (now proven to be bald-faced lies) that the supporters of the federal income tax and Social Security used to get those bills passed.
Every one of our freedoms that we 'sacrifice' brings us one step closer to doing ourselves what the Al-Qaeda terrorists tried to do -- destroy what makes America the country it is. Not everyone has the "my country, right or wrong" attitude necessary to drop to our backs and spread our legs every time the government tells us that it needs us to give up something; we want to see what we're being asked and what we will get for it, and decide whether the one is worth the other. And some of us will decide it isn't. We're not a monolithic culture, and if you want to live in one, you're going to have to look elsewhere.
I think you're mixing it up with something else. This is what I have been referring to:
a story on fox news but also discussed on CNN, New York Times etc.
I wonder if ending organizational personhood would be a solution to this. Organizations are not people, and should not have the same rights as people. Organizations should not be able to influence politics as much as they do. Let's say individuals can buy 10,000 ads (and do other things, short of bribery), but organizations like the ACLU or the League of Conservation Voters can't buy ads to influence elections.
Except then rich individuals could still buy ads, so instead of, say, disney running pro-copyright-extension ads, you'd just have Eisner doing it.
Oh well, it was just an idea...
ACLU is not "ignoring" gun owner rights, it is actively hostile towards them:
e s.cfm?ID=9621&c=25&Type=s
"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias"
from http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractic
were willing to murder people on an unprecedented scale for terrorism.
Unprecented? Hiroshima.
Exactly. I believe that limiting the rights of organizations is equivalent to the right of free association.
OTOH, corporations are granted special privileges by the government that may make it constitutional to regulate their speech. For example, they normally shield their owners from liability.
So... an unincorporated entity should be able to say anything one of its members are allowed to say.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Hiroshima was an act of war with a military/infrastructural target. It was against a country which had started a war with a surprise attack against us, and which had committed uncountable barbarities and war crimes during that war.
Furthermore, Hiroshima saved many more lives than it took.
Finally, why select Hiroshima as your example? How about the firebombing of Dresden?
The only good weather is bad weather.
"Paraphrasing as "First they came for the murderers, and I didn't speak up because I was not a murderer", for example, rather loses the power of the original quote."
My point was that the rights of all must be protect, lest we risk losing our own. Your quote, "First they came for the murderers, and I didn't speak up because I was not a murderer" makes more sense in the context of my posting if you consider the idea of everyone who's been accused of murder being rounded up by police and incinerated without so much as a trial, or any chance to defend themselves. Rework the quote as such and it makes more sense:
"First they came for those accused of murder, and I didn't speak up because I didn't murder anyone.
Then they came for those accused of terrorism, and I didn't speak up because I'm not a terrorist.
Then they came for those accused of other crimes, and I didn't speak up because I'm not a criminal.
Then I was accused of a crime I didn't commit, and by that time, there was no one left to speak up for me."
Make a bit more sense? That's what I was trying to get across by referencing that quote; my apologies if I was too vague.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
There's the fallacy in your thinking right there. Money is not speech. Campaign finance reform is about limiting bribes. The point is that each person in the citizenry has one vote, not that each dollar gets one vote. I realize that the legal system has accepted the tortuous logic that money can = speech, but even accepting that, it is hard to agree that that is a more significant curtailment of liberties than the Patriot Act, which directly restricts privacy and due process of law. The restriction on speech embodied by McCain-Feingold, even if I accept this ridiculous logic, is minimal -- sure it might prevent you from buying a $10,000 ad, but it doesn't prevent you from buying a cheaper ad, making a speech, writing a letter to the editor of the newspaper, organizing a political action committee, etc. Free speech does not mean the freedom of access to every possible media outlet under every circumstances, and it certainly doesn't mean the freedom to have your voice amplified by the size of your wallet.
The issue is not the supposed goals of campaign finance reform (which in reality are *always* the protection of incumbents). It is the constitutionality.
By your argument, then, freedom of the press is useless. After all, operating a press requires money.
Is it okay if I spend my $100,000 on starting up a newspaper and distributing it? It will, of course, support my candidates and oppose others.
Please explain to me why I should have this freedom but not the freedom to purchase the print in someone else's press output?
The only good weather is bad weather.
You and I have totally different philosophies; I do not agree that wars can ever be justified. It would be easy to refute your arguments but pointless as you are determined you are correct no matter how fallious you logic appears to other. I agree with Einstein's thoughts on the matter of war:
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
When you have lived through the horrors of war or maybe when people like Bush are sending your children to a far off land for a conquest of resources you might change your mind?
A journey of a thousand miles starts with a brutal anal raping at airport security
But again the point I was making is that money is not speech. Your right to spend $100,000 is not what the first amendment protects. And your right to spend that money on a press is only partly an issue of the free press; there may be taxes and other laws that restrict you from spending as you like. Say it with me now: Money is not speech.
We know now that the strain of anthrax used came from a highly secure US military lab. That greatly narrows what organizations could have planned and executed the attack. Could Al Quida steal biological weapons from Fort Detrick when they could have much more easily gotten anthrax from many other labs scattered throughout the world? In any investigation, the most important consideration is motive. Who stood to gain by passage of the USA-Patriot Act? And will the ACLU's challenge be enough to cause the killers to attack again, to persuade the masses to trade essential liberty for temporary safety? Tune in next time for the exciting conclusion...
(for an extensive analysis of the anthrax attacks)
I'm a kid? Hey - I like that. I haven't been a kid for over 40 years. I am also a Vietnam Veteran, dude.
So don't give me your trite phrases about war. Some of us have been around enough to know that the world just ain't that simple.
The only good weather is bad weather.
Yes, and now we are in complete agreement. Once again, there's nothing intrinsically wrong about being accused of murder - the thing that is intrinsically wrong is being guilty of murder.
With that clarification, we're back into using the quote to illustrate why you should speak out against the persecution of particular groups. So yes, that makes a lot more sense.
Cheers,
Ian
Read and weep... [kaleo.org]
A recent survey regarding Sept. 11 and free speech indicates 49 percent of Americans believe the First Amendment goes too far in the amount of free speech it allows.
I think those that care passionately about the freedoms we enjoy forget that a lot of Americans could care less as long as the government doesn't take their guns or raise their taxes.
"Congress shall make no law..." Ha! Be afraid, be very afraid.
Seattle voters: Monorail, Yes! [riseaboveitall.org] R-51, No! [no51.org]
FlashFXP is on a Trojan list here. It is said to "Actions: Hacking tool / Network Trojan "Places entries to share all possible drives without passwords in the registry."
Also, check up on Google and Groups.Google and look around. This program is generating too much noise for my liking.
Peek here as well.
Well, I just ran FlashFXP through a disassembler, XpT'99-WS32Dasm Ver 8.9 Program Disassembler/Debugger by URSoftware, and i got the cracked version and the full version. The cracked version is 11MB of ASM, and the uncracked is 28MB. That is strange to me. Also, if anyone reading this idiotic defense of FlashFXP, this is what a snippit of assembly looks like from FlashFXP [as you will see, its complete and total gibberish without comments and variable names]: * Referenced by a (U)nconditional or (C)onditional Jump at Address: |:0052D06D(C)
Version two has an interesting property. The un-cracked version is considerably larger that the cracked version when it is disassembled. I have read a lot about FlashFXP doing various unscrupulous things to protect itself from piracy and multiple uses of the same copy, etc etc. I have also heard that it does more than that, though I can not confirm this. What surprises me is that there was a large amount of cruft cut out by EQUiNOX - disassemble it for yourself, try IDA Pro 4.17 or W32Dasm v8.93. I can't even imagine a program doing as much as FlashFXP does and then have a considerable chunk of cruft cut out like the cancer that it is - it claims to be benign, according to Charlie's zealots, I am guessing it is malignant. I strongly believe now given this new evidence that FlashFXP could possibly be a Trojan, backdoor, gateway of evil - I don't know and don't care - this is a fact but subjectively to me it looks VERY fishy. It has promptly been deleted from my system. And reading Charles's and others who defend Charles DeWeese comments, I realize that in defending themselves they almost clearly give away their guilt of doing something surreptitious and undocumented. They claim people who don't have access to the source code have verified that it has no undesired behaviors. I don't know anyone who would EVER make that claim without the source code, and most people can't with no uncertainty audit source code to make the same claim. Its horribly upsetting that these people, most of which who have never seen the source themselves, are so quick to defend DeWeese. I don't know of any crackers claiming Flash FXP is clean, they may have no encountered undocumented behavior, but hey, if it was using port 80 through an Internet Explorer entry point, you would never know. I want to know all the libraries it uses, I noticed it has a file handle on index.dat [TaskInfo 2000 can do something like lsof in Win32, see for yourself what files and pipes FXP opens, and no, every process does not open index.dat, SecureCRT and Trillian don't, for example], which means it obviously does something with IE and its libraries. In fact, Internet Explorer is amazingly overpowered [especially with an OS that has no regard for user/privileged separation] and easily manipulated, it can be invoked invisibly, IE could be a proxy for FlashFXP and it could communicate at will even with Kerio or an app firewall, as everyone allows Internet Explorer. While I will not substantiate stacks on DeWeese, the facts as they are presented to me lead me to believe DeWeese has a lot to hide, and if this was a court and I was the Judge, I would uphold and order any requests for discovery regarding DeWeese's source code. It was done to Microsoft in court. But DeWeese is niche, low key compared to MSFT, so he could potentially leverage your computer in ways you would never suspect, and he is free from any and all ramifications. He has done one of the largest and most obnoxious CYA EULAs I have ever seen from a "down home grass roots" programmer. DeWeese or a minion has just lied in the thread, there is nowhere a cracking group advertises or sanctions applications to be Spyware or Trojan free. He has used the names of cracking groups without citing the source, and the misguided people are likely to believe him but he has never named a person other than himself that has [1] audited the source code or [2] reverse engineered the product completely, then audited the assembly of an inexorably complex object laden program to be undocumented feature free (which is illegal and his EULA indicated and threatens to invoke the DMCA and the federal authorities against those who threaten his intellectual property). What he says about the black ice using crackers is false, they can remove jumps to the lame routines which protect his software from pirates, but they don't also magically audit the program for all jumps to all subs that do any "strange" things. Please. And the Flash FXP platoon acts as though it has a camaraderie with people who aid and abet software theft. You cant have it both ways. You cant have 1MB of binary be surgically removable and not have it do anything but protect the software. They cant cite any sources or names of those who audit software, reverse engineer it or have sent eh source to certifiably deny this code is clean and above board. Users beware. They appear to be lying or hiding something. Defend yourself, and scrub those packets. Peace and may the powers that be shine a bright light on the champions of honesty and dedication to a job honestly and well done, the open source programmers.
A few of my friends have been bitten by DeWeese's shyster tactics. I have too. I can only say avoid this man. He will not answer questions directly, he will not tell you what is the payload of encrypted packets and he insinuates a symbol-less stripped binary created by an obscure (but good) compiler could be reverse engineered enough to prove it is not Trojaned. Its crap. Its dodgy crap. And until the encrypted payload is decrypted, and some source code is released, you have to take his word. And don't; because if you cant trust him to give you the free upgrades he promised because you have 5 computers at home and now you are a pirate if he detects you using FFXP_666 on any of them even if its not at the same time. Try a dual boot, and you'll get the blacklist. Try FFXP onWINE, you'll get the blacklist. Think before paying. This stuff is going to haunt you. And notably absent, OS X and a unice version. Guess he isn't very savvy at writing portable code, probably busy cutting deals with Ashcroft, Robert Mueller, Louis Freeh, Robert Holleyman [BSA],
Charles Deweese has written a good piece of software. however, I wonder what his true intentions are in knowing about his users. He will not sell his product anonymously. You will probably never see this on the shelves. Is he FED? Why is it that cracked versions of his products find out they are not legitimate? Why does his program make undocumented connections to the internet? I admit I did not bother reading the EULA, however I do not believe that a piece of software has the right to go behind a user's back and report to its maker. What is it reporting in these encrypted packets? Usage statistics? Version information? Spyware to the truest form of the definition if you ask this user. I will not use his software after discovering these subversive transmissions. I file it in the same bin that I file windows media player, Trillian, and many distributed network clients. I spy with my little eye a big $%#$ stain in the e-pigsty! He is quoted as saying "why do you care if you have nothing to hide?" in regards to selling his product with paypal, or any other form of anonymous sale.. Why would he care if he has nothing to hide? I SAY -5 to this program. I asked Charles DeWeese how it was he was making so much money of late. He replied, "I accuse people of piracy to generate more cash by revoking their registrations," then a series of nerdy Dr. Evil-esque snickers and self aggrandizing laughs. I was so disgusted by him that I ceased being his acquaintance after that. He seemed proud that he did these things. Also, to all the people who say "prove it," you cant. The packets are encrypted. You can't see the payload. Probably your site data and stuff gleaned from your system. A dramatization but can you prove its not true. This comment will be deleted by totalitarian fascists at GaytaNews. Hitler admins. Slashdot doesn't delete comments but you do, good responsibility to uphold the truth.
Direct quotes from DeWeese's license, he can only said "I did say this, verbatim." THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE AUTHOR FURTHER DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON INFRINGEMENT. THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT AND DOCUMENTATION REMAINS WITH RECIPIENT. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR OTHER DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT OR THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE PRODUCT, EVEN IF THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. "Software piracy will not be tolerated. We may release any information necessary to comply with the law, protect our software licenses. We will also work with law enforcement and fraud/credit agencies to ensure the safety of our information." Doesn't say piracy against CEDSoft, he means any piracy. So watchout. I am appalled DeWeese and his minions have so successfully pulled wool over everyone's eyes. This is as bad as the Nazis with the Reichstag fire! I can't believe Charles the totalitarian and his army of mediocritomatons had the review history wiped out here! He did that to mask the evil at hand. He has sold his own user community to marketers, and his program makes undocumented undesired connections to the internet. He has revoked registrations without cause, had possibly sent ftp saved site data to law enforcement, and frequently uses encrypted payloads in packets so packet sniffer can't tell what the packet has in it. I would hope for your sake you don't save passwords with FlashFXP, our your friends FTP site may become "exhibit A" in a federal court. Beware. DEWEEESE ALSO MAKES THE BETANEWS ADMINS DELETE BAD REVIEWS. THEY SPRY ADDS IN YOUR FACE AND DELETE CONTENT.
Embrace smartftp. Charles DeWeese has a batallion of goobers at his bidding. This program used to have a large history here at betanews and his minions got it deleted. He has newsgroups and he spread lies to cover up his true intentions. Anyways, be safe bro. It wasn't internet garbage. And smartftp only exists because DeWeese is dishonest. Be careful and don't use any sites you don't want the l/p public on, because DeWeese gets them ALL. Peace, honestly, and power to the people, the little people. John Ahscroft and DeWeese are cut from the same cloth.
FlashFXP is the root of all evil. Not only does this closed source call-home program get huge amounts of attention making all of us wonder if "Charles DeWeese the information thief" is 1) selling your information to marketeers, 2) pretending he can increase profits by threatening, as reported in some cases, paying customers with BSA actions and lawsuits or 3) trojaning your system for other nefarious activities the nature of which you will never be aware because he provides neither source or debugging symbols, and the binary is stripped. One thing is for sure. Be it here on BetaNews, or on Slashdot, or on download.com.com, there is more than a few people calling into question why FlashFXP does what it does, and what is it doing. I would recommend the use of WinPCAP, WinDUMP, and ethereal, along with the free for personal use application firewall, Kerio Personal Firewall (software with nothing to hide, such as KPF, is often free for personal use, and others, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSSL (a technology probably stolen by DeWeese and used illegally in FFXP) and Linux/GNU to name a few. With scary legislation in the US empowering copyright holders to DDOS your P2P networks, "root" your boxes in order to delete copyrighted content, and to make circumventing the mechanism by which an MP3 prevents the playing of an MP3 without a digital signature a felony, you can not trust software which calls home in an undocumented, undesirable way. This is the inroad by which these technology fascists will infect your computer with government sanctioned Trojaning devices. FlashFXP, when purchased legitimately, forces your to divulge HUGE amounts of information about yourself. You cant use cash and anonymously buy "shrink." Not only did I buy FFXP, but I exercised my right to fair use on more than one machine, the closed source binary was never run concurrently on more than one CPU at a time, yet my key got blacklisted. I have always been fond of OpenSource, but this and the EULAs for Windows Media Player, which also does various call home undocumented behavior, make not using OpenSource suicidal if you want a life where the government doesn't control and monitor your every key press. Best of luck in the brave new world, if we continue to support fascists such as Charles DeWeese in his never-ending pursuit to force you to be tithed for non-Novel software which is built upon the stolen intellectual property of others, and prioritized. This is by no means a call for legislated digital communism, but it certainly calls into question the value of something that is not transferable, the seller has not liability of the actions of, the right to fair use is forfeit, and they law claims they copyright holder can root your computer in order to enforce copyright. Software like this I should be paid to use! Not pay for it! Be careful. He has stolen from the public domain technology to implement this secure technology, SSL, then he uses it to hide from you the true nature of his communications with home-base, as he calls home and Jon.Ashkrofts your information. I'm glad I use SmartFTP and NCFTP and run KPF as a start in the line of defense against a Orwellian cabal of software and I.P. For all the would-be suckers out there, and that is what you would be for soliciting this guy, most of the complaints I have seen here are from older people, clearly, mature (not script kiddie types) that have had their honest to God license revoked without refund. Please be careful. If this man offered a shrink wrap product, there would be no problem - but he does not. He needs more control over you than that. I think he sends marketing data back personally. "If you choose to register FlashFXP, some personal information is required to complete the purchase. Things like your name/company, address, and billing information like your credit card number is collected. " Now with a rash of hackers stealing credit card numbers, and Charles storing all sorts or private information on you, you become VULNERABLE. In his EULA: "The license will terminate automatically and the software unregistered if you fail to comply with any of the above terms and conditions. The license may be terminated by either party at any time and without notice." He can TERMINATE the license for any reason. He could say, you have to stop using this, because you are a good paying customer and I don't care. He has done this. Listen to the huge community of Charles victims before you send him money. This program started out very good, ambitious. A refreshing rival to Cute, with better reliability and FXP capability. Of late, particularly after the 1.2 builds, this program has started to numerous things I am highly suspect of. This program has corrupted files on transfer, and has called home on me, apparently to "verify registration, check for update." I am confused as to why a paying customer is subjected to cross examination, to me this is a form of abuse. I recently tried a RC3 build, and was surprised that more things are broken than ever before, and reverted back 1.4. I am saddened that I have paid to buy into a crumbling, failing legacy which is bloating up, working less and failing its original design goals so drastically, all the while subjecting paying customers to offensive call home checks.
Betanews sells deletions of bad reviews to the highest bidder. I have saved and logged all deleted comments here. Censorship. Charles DeWeese chartered sellouts to delete ALL the history here. He used totalitarian tactics to censor an online community. Its pathetic. Fascist. Totalitarian. And all previous build before and most likely all to come. I implore every use of this software to be weary and on guard! I would have a good firewall with a drop all, allow exception rule set, ethereal, windump/[tcpdump on *nix], and a pcap lib, or use sniffer, and get ready to watch this thing with hawk eyes. Given the author's tradition of reporting usage, selling information to marketing companies, and revoking registrations without cause, we must be prepared for his latest Trojan horse. The program is delightful, irresistible, for it is feature laden, stable. But its target is warez users, and I strongly feel this warez-centric program serves to report to the government the biggest abuses. Remember, that the information he claims is benign is encrypted, so you will never see the payload of this machinations and undesired packets. He also uses port 80 to send information out on, so please be using an application firewall such as Kerio. I would not trust Charles unless he releases source code. We are already help hostage by a closed source MSCVRT, and other runtime libraries, any of which could perform undocumented tasks with encrypted packets, you might see packets but the nature of the payload is occluded. I strongly recommend that nobody trusts outgoing packets they cannot decrypt. Anyways, for the technically savvy, one should peruse through the packets this thing produces, and ask yourself, do you really trust some man who will not end these perpetual and consistent accusations by revealing some of the source code to allay the growing fears he is part of a dragnet cabal to capture people determined to be felon software pirates. He is a party to your own demise, the "Robin Hood" loopholes are closed, and Charles could make money off you and put you in jail. He makes money off of FlashFXP, he targets the warez community, the program sends packets that are extraneous to file transfers that are encrypted, he has revoked registrations without cause, he sells your information to marketers I have confirmed this through SpamCop, and he is in cahoots with federal authorities to help Trojan and compromise your computer.
The owners of Flash FXP used China like tactics to have a lot of reviews DELETED here. They also asked that Betanews block several reviewer's ip addresses from voicing thier opinions. So the owners of Flash FXP are so fearful of the truth coming out they have betanews DELETE reviews, block IPs of "liars". So that makes Betanews a propaganda machine that censors, and FlashFXP totalitarians that lobby to have opinions erase SELECTIVELY. notice that all the reviews weren't deleted, just negative ones. Betanews, you have lost your sense of fairness. I guess opinions are not welcomed here if they are not populist. PATHETIC.
I guess your firewall log is rubbish then, cause this thing sprays out a slew of packets when you start the thing up. All what look like gibberish when you take them apart. It definitely phones home. I tell everyone, if you don't need to FXP stuff, to avoid this app like the plague. There are plenty of better apps that aren't as clunky, don't phone home, and have 95% of the features that this thing does. I guess "Feature Creep" went from being an annoyance, to being an issue of adding spywarer into the app itself. I'm sure once the mystery is uncovered this thing will be put on the ad-aware nuke list...
Not only does this closed source call-home program get huge amounts of attention making all of us wonder if "Charles DeWeese the information thief" is 1) selling your information to marketeers, 2) pretending he can increase profits by threatening, as reported in some cases, paying customers with BSA actions and lawsuits or 3) trojaning your system for other nefarious activities the nature of which you will never be aware because he provides neither source or debugging symbols, and the binary is stripped. One thing is for sure. Be it here on BetaNews, or on Slashdot, or on download.com.com, there is more than a few people calling into question why FlashFXP does what it does, and what is it doing. I would recommend the use of WinPCAP, WinDUMP, and ethereal, along with the free for personal use application firewall, Kerio Personal Firewall (software with nothing to hide, such as KPF, is often free for personal use, and others, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OpenSSL (a technology probably stolen by DeWeese and used illegally in FFXP) and Linux/GNU to name a few. With scary legislation in the US empowering copyright holders to DDOS your P2P networks, "root" your boxes in order to delete copyrighted content, and to make circumventing the mechanism by which an MP3 prevents the playing of an MP3 without a digital signature a felony, you can not trust software which calls home in an undocumented, undesirable way. This is the inroad by which these technology fascists will infect your computer with government sanctioned Trojaning devices. FlashFXP, when purchased legitimately, forces your to divulge HUGE amounts of information about yourself. You cant use cash and anonymously buy "shrink." Not only did I buy FFXP, but I exercised my right to fair use on more than one machine, the closed source binary was never run concurrently on more than one CPU at a time, yet my key got blacklisted. I have always been fond of OpenSource, but this and the EULAs for Windows Media Player, which also does various call home undocumented behavior, make not using OpenSource suicidal if you want a life where the government doesn't control and monitor your every keypress. Best of luck in the brave new world, if we continue to support fascists such as Charles DeWeese in his never-ending pursuit to force you to be tithed for non-Novel software which is built upon the stolen intellectual property of others, and prioritized. This is by no means a call for legislated digital communism, but it certainly calls into question the value of something that is not transferable, the seller has not liability of the actions of, the right to fair use is forfeit, and they law claims they copyright holder can root your computer in order to enforce copyright. Software like this I should be paid to use! Not pay for it! Be careful. He has stolen from the public domain technology to implement this secure technology, SSL, then he uses it to hide from you the true nature of his communications with home-base, as he calls home and Jon.Ashkrofts your information. I'm glad I use SmartFTP and NCFTP and run KPF as a start in the line of defense against a Orwellian cabal of software and I.P.
Quote: Claims of invasions of privacy online are "baseless," says Mark Corallo, a spokesperson for the Justice Department.
What a load of spin (lies). I have posted similar comment a few times before - the logic is undeniable. Nobody has ever gave reasoned argument against it:
Ask Security Services in the US, UK or Indonesia (Bali) to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) that the government are doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from CNET [zdnet.com]: "Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols."
"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in the UK when government checked for dirt on individuals of the Paddington crash survivors group. This group was lead by the badly injured Pam Warren - whom they presume would have nothing to worry about, having her privacy invaded.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the LIES of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, big business steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment. Don't believe me? Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu, most many times over. Even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat. It is major Corporations illegally abusing and expand their brand using domain names - above other trademarks and all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Trademark and Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make these trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. They are aiding and abetting the pervertion of Law. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization - not connected with the corrupt United Nations WIPO.org !
(Full Article Text)
Counseling Ashcroft
The attorney general rarely makes a decision without first turning to Adam Ciongoli
Vanessa Blum
Legal Times
10-18-2002
Adam Ciongoli doesn't remember being formally offered a job at Main Justice.
Since joining John Ashcroft's Senate staff in 1999 as counsel to the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Ciongoli has drifted with the current of Ashcroft's political career.
Now, at just 34 years old, the Georgetown law school graduate is one of the attorney general's most influential advisers. As legal counsel to the attorney general, Ciongoli holds a place in Ashcroft's inner circle, helping develop the Justice Department's most critical and controversial initiatives.
"There are very few decisions made by the attorney general that do not involve Adam," says Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, who heads the DOJ policy shop.
Perhaps more important than his contribution to any specific legislation or policy proposal, Ciongoli serves as Ashcroft's sounding board and sparring partner on nearly all legal matters. Though it is always clear who the boss is, Ciongoli has made himself indispensable by giving frank opinions.
"Adam is a very insightful legal analyst," Ashcroft says. "He has participated in a wide variety of matters, from helping formulate, construct and shape the Patriot Act to counseling me on items related to border security and the new FBI guidelines.
"He is known for his willingness to disagree and to stress proposals in a constructive way. That's his nature," Ashcroft adds. "Our relationship is one I enjoy a great deal, and it's one that helps me do a better job."
Over the past three years, Ciongoli has been close by for some of the most pivotal moments in Ashcroft's political career.
When Ashcroft's Senate opponent, Missouri Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan, died in a plane crash and was replaced on the ballot by his widow, it was Ciongoli who stayed up nights preparing a challenge to the outcome of the election -- though Ashcroft decided against filing suit and eventually lost his Senate seat at the polls.
When Ashcroft got the call from Austin, Texas, that President George W. Bush wanted to interview him for the attorney general's post, it was Ciongoli who got on a plane to Springfield, Mo., that very night to brief Ashcroft.
As Ashcroft prepared for grueling confirmation hearings, Ciongoli went over his boss's record -- anticipating questions and providing rebuttal.
And when Ashcroft was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas, Ciongoli was among the intimate group of supporters there to witness it.
Ciongoli's dealings with the attorney general also extend beyond politics.
The two men frequently eat lunch together -- so frequently that Ciongoli can rattle off their regular order at the Full Kee Restaurant in Chinatown. (Shrimp dumpling soup for himself and -- fittingly -- General Tso's chicken for the general.)
They both enjoy discussing constitutional history and American culture -- the 6-foot-7-inch Ciongoli usually taking the more contrarian positions. In light-hearted moments, they are known to riff off each other with impersonations of "The Simpsons" television cartoon characters.
But there are significant differences between them as well.
Ciongoli, for instance, has never participated in Ashcroft's morning prayer sessions.
"I became aware at some point after I started working in the Senate that there were meetings in the morning," he says. "I never felt any pressure to attend. I never have attended."
Ciongoli is known inside Main Justice for having strong opinions and enjoying a good debate -- two traits he attributes to growing up in a large family.
The eldest of five, Ciongoli was born in Philadelphia. His father, a neurologist specializing in multiple sclerosis, moved the family 11 times before settling in Burlington, Vt., when Ciongoli was 7.
"I think growing up in my family was good training. There are a lot of people who have very strong opinions, and no one is shy about expressing them," he says.
Though his parents are both Republicans, Ciongoli says he underwent his own political transformation while studying history at the University of Pennsylvania. It was the late 1980s, and the university was mired in a debate over political correctness. Ciongoli -- who identifies himself as a conservative and a civil libertarian -- found himself siding with conservatives opposed to speech codes.
Upon graduating in 1990, he went to work for William Bennett, who headed the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
But shortly after Ciongoli arrived in Washington, D.C., for the entry-level post, Bennett stepped down. Ciongoli stumbled into a job with an advertising agency in New York and later applied to law school.
After being admitted to Georgetown University Law Center, he moved back to Philadelphia for a year, where he worked renovating a five-unit apartment building to earn money for tuition and lived with his grandfather -- the man Ciongoli calls "the most inspiring person in my life."
"I remember as I was growing up being fascinated that he appeared to be able to do anything," Ciongoli says.
Ciongoli himself is something of a Renaissance man -- a brainy lawyer with a passion for Italian wine who also knows how to install a toilet and fix a car engine. He lives in Arlington, Va., and is not married.
Ciongoli seems to have internalized the immigrant values of his grandfather, who moved to the United States from southern Italy as a child, never went to college, and worked tirelessly to create a better life for his family.
"I very much grew up with the idea that life is not about any individual generation," he says. "It's about the family."
After graduating law school in 1995, Ciongoli began building his conservative Republican résumé -- first clerking for Judge Samuel Alito Jr. on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then joining the appellate practice, headed by Kenneth Starr, in the D.C. office of Kirkland & Ellis.
As an associate at Kirkland, Ciongoli worked closely with several rising stars in the conservative bar, including Jay Lefkowitz, now a domestic policy adviser to President Bush, and Paul Clement, now principal deputy solicitor general.
In 1999 Ciongoli got a call from Clement, who had since left Kirkland to serve as chief counsel to the Constitution Subcommittee, chaired by Ashcroft. Clement was thinking about going back to private practice and wanted Ciongoli to consider taking his post.
"He not only had the academic background and smarts, but also the social skills it takes to be successful on the Hill," Clement recalls.
Ciongoli got the job, and as counsel to the subcommittee, tackled issues ranging from judicial nominations to racial profiling.
"The issue of racial profiling sort of popped up while I was there. It was an interesting issue in that it didn't break along normal party lines," Ciongoli says.
Indeed, Ashcroft began working with Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin -- among the harshest critics of Ashcroft's policies as attorney general -- to draw attention to the problem of racial discrimination in policing and traffic stops.
"I think what really resonated with the attorney general," Ciongoli says, "is the idea that the Constitution is colorblind. It does not permit government to treat citizens differently on the basis of race, particularly in the context of law enforcement."
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Ashcroft's opposition to racial profiling has been tested. Arab-American leaders have called the government's detention of more than 1,000 Middle Eastern men "massive racial profiling."
But Ciongoli says Justice has been careful not to consider race, or even national origin, when identifying suspects. Rather, law enforcement officials work with a profile that considers several factors, including passport origin. It's a fine distinction, but one Ciongoli deems critical from a legal perspective.
"After Sept. 11 we spent some time thinking about this. For one thing, the American public was actually saying, 'Why aren't you doing this?' But both the attorney general and the director of the FBI were very clear early on that we would not use racial profiling," he says. "People who look at what we're doing and say it's simply racial profiling are looking a little too close to the surface. "
On Sept. 10, 2001, Ciongoli and his father met Ashcroft and Ashcroft's wife, Janet, for dinner at I Ricchi in downtown Washington.
Twelve hours later, four commercial planes were hijacked, thousands of Americans were slaughtered, and the mission of the Justice Department became focused on just one thing -- making certain such an atrocity would never happen again.
In the following weeks Ciongoli worked with legal policy chief Dinh and others to put together the legislative package that would become the USA Patriot Act -- one of the most sweeping pieces of criminal justice legislation in a generation. Hastily written and negotiated through Congress in a matter of weeks, the Patriot Act grants unprecedented power to law enforcement, drawing criticism that it infringes on constitutional rights.
Ciongoli also began looking at a series of legal questions, ranging from the executive authority to close airports to the treatment of Taliban and al-Qaida detainees under the Geneva Convention.
He was one of four DOJ attorneys principally involved in drafting the administration's order authorizing military commissions to try suspected terrorists and writing the subsequent regulations.
"It was nonstop basically until the beginning of November. In that time and since, I've gotten to work on a number of fascinating legal questions and problems," says Ciongoli, who refuses to discuss in detail his projects related to terrorism. "To the extent that the White House asks the attorney general for legal advice, I get to participate in helping to craft it."
Ciongoli's hallmark, according to colleagues, is his ability to distill complex issues to their key components.
"In a department full of lawyers, he is a lawyer's lawyer," says Dinh. "He has an impressive ability to look at a problem and hone in on core elements that are critical to reaching a judgment."
Ciongoli's typical day -- though there are rarely typical days -- begins with a briefing at which Ashcroft and his senior staff hash through major issues requiring decisions by the attorney general. Depending on when the phone stops ringing, Ciongoli usually leaves the office around 9 p.m.
Each week Ciongoli participates in a meeting to review all civil litigation stemming from Sept. 11 -- which inevitably leads to discussions on case strategies, filing dates and court decisions.
He also acts as a liaison to the Office of Legal Policy and the Office of Legal Counsel, and advises Ashcroft on ethics matters, such as recusals. He frequently travels with the attorney general.
"It gets pretty tiring," Ciongoli says of a trip last December to meet with law enforcement officials in Europe. "We were in England for 10 hours before we got on the plane to fly to Madrid, where we were for 18 hours. And then we got on a plane for Berlin, and we were in Berlin for 18 hours."
Over the past 12 months Ciongoli also found time to argue a criminal appeal before a 9th Circuit panel in Alaska; build a wine cellar for his friend Clement, the deputy solicitor general; and teach a two-week course in constitutional law for Georgetown University.
Yet the weight of the moment is not lost on him. He seems to have an acute, almost intoxicating, awareness that his work is making history.
"Working here when things like this are happening is a once-in-a-generation, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Ciongoli says. "It's an incredible honor."
Ciongoli says he is not fazed by the department's critics.
"I think criticism is good. It causes you to focus your mind and your thinking and to anticipate potential problems," he says. "It helps remind everyone that we cannot get rid of the system we are trying to protect."
The Anthrax was posted by a US Citizen...
Thousands of people killed in attacks has happened before, hey Timothy McVeigh nearly managed it, and the crack down on people like him was... pretty much no-existant (he still holds the per-captia record as 19 people took part in Sept11th).
Terrorism was also supported by the US, Iran-Contra anyone ? Columbian Death Squads, Chilie. Sadam Hussain ? Israel ?
This is not new, look at other attacks in the Far East. Sure the scale was large, and it was horrific. But this really isn't something that didn't exist before Sept11th.
Oh and Sinn Fein used to be illegal when funds were channelled to it.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
It is not actually illegal to bring chewing gum to Singapore, nor is it a problem to consume chewing gum there. It is illegal however to buy or sell it there.