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)
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.
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.
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
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.
Only a fool would believe that we are going to simultaneously declare war on all the countries that Al Queda finds shelter in. So your first paragraph is a total straw-man argument.
The war on terrorism is poorly named. But a war it is. Your second argument is poor semantic one - basically you argue that since this is called a "war on x," that it must be a futile and cynical charade. That is a poor substitute for a real argument.
As far as the causes of terrorism, hopefully we are working to change them. But the "root cause" approach tends to be a failure in many policy arenas, including the one you cite (war on crime). Often the solution to some behavior is to deter and prevent, not "solve the root problems."
As far as the "missing" stuff you mention... you seem to imply that we are somehow at fault because we somehow mislaid this stuff. That is also sheer nonsense. We didn't mislay the 757's and 767's that caused the world trade center. Anthrax is easy to acquire for the determined - it occurs frequently throughout the world including the US. The *responsible* nations have kept smallpox under tight control. If Iraq has it (and they probably do), it is because one of the last outbreaks of smallpox was in Iraq, or because they bought it from the collapse of the USSR (I don't consider the USSR part of "we" in this discussion). Uranium is all over the place... it is hardly misplaced. Plutonium is likewise not likely to be misplaced, although again it may be on the black market from the former USSR.
Do you really believe we don't think twice when WMD's go missing? What planet do you live on?
The only good weather is bad weather.