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.
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.
Seems strange that they want to prevent the people who know how to stop snipers from helping. As long as the assistance is purely technical, I have no problem with it. Now if the military was setting up roadblocks and detaining citizenz, it'd be another matter.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
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.
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?
Maybe saying this halves my fan list, but really - you should be alarmed in there in the US!
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.
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."
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
The military is a sledge hammer by comparison. Or to quote the movie, The Seige: "The United States military is a sword when what you need a scapel". The only thing these orginizations have in common are guns.
This is utter nonsense. The military has all sorts of capabilities beyond the ability to exert large amounts of brute force. Many of these are technical means which are not available to other agencies.
US law enforcement, for example, is unlikely to have aircraft that can track thousands of targets at once (like JSTARS can), but this may be exactly what is needed to sort out a fleeing sniper from the rest of metropolitan traffic.
That is only one example of many capabilities the military has. These have no relationship at all to a "sledge hammer."
As far as slippery slopes go, there are very few areas of human behavior where there are clean boundaries. Almost everything we do involves "slippery slopes" with something innocuous on one end of a continuum and something horrible at the other. Thus the slippery slope argument is a silly way to look at things. It is simply an excuse for extremism - to stay at one extreme end of the continuum - and is often used to substitude for actual reasoning.
The only good weather is bad weather.
"declare war against countries which actively shield Al Quaeda."
t c that we've had laying around for so long that they've gotten lost. We're so used to having things around that could destroy the planet, that we don't even think twice when they turn up missing. I tend to wonder if any fully intact ICBMs are missing from their silos. Somehow, it just wouldn't surprise me at this point.
Excellent idea! Now we just need to get Congress to approve declarations of war against... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Palestine... oh wait, doesn't exist yet... Egypt, Jordan, Chechnya, Georgia (the country - relax you southerners...), and about a dozen or so other countries I can't think of offhand. You were talking about going after every single member of Al Qaeda who's being shielded by a recognized government, right? And don't forget to throw in France, Germany, and most of the rest of Europe, when they refuse to extradite suspected members of Al Qaeda to the US because they know we'll almost certainly execute them.
As for us declaring war on terrorism, let me summerize what that means. When using the phrase, "The War on ______ ", you have to understand what it means. To fully understand the situation, look at all the other "The War on _____"'s that we already have: The War on crime|AIDS|cancer|drugs|etc. Basically, when we don't like something, our politicians (usually the resident president) declare "war" on it. We never actually do anything to address the problem, the causes, or treat the effects; we just declare war on it. We've not cleaned up (or even made a difference in) crime, AIDS, drugs, or most others. We've only made progress in cancer treatment because there's so many different kinds of cancer, so the cancer industry doesn't have to worry about wiping out its cash-cow. So yes, "The War on terrorism" is going to last forever, will never end, will never get better, and will continue costing us, the taxpayers, money. Why? There's a hell of allot more money in "treating" the problem (biometric scanners, dBases, baggage screeners, radiation detection, bomb detection, etc) then there is in solving it.
Should we sit here and do nothing after Sept 11? Absolutely not; we should do something about it, but declaring "war" on it to make Americans feel warm and fuzzy again doesn't solve a thing. Find the causes, work to eliminate them; find the instigators, stop them from gathering followers; and for God's sake, find the missing anthrax/bombs/cesium/uranium/plutonium/smallpox/e
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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.
"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."
Who would dare vote against something called the "USA Patriot act"? Imagine what would happen come election time:
/against/ the USA Patriot act to defend you and your families. Senator Sensible voted /against/ the war on Iraq to safeguard this country. Senator Sensible voted /against/ the CBDTPA to improve the quality of your Internet experience and bring digital television to your living room. We want this godless unAmerican traitor shot or deported. We'll settle for voting him out of office. VOTE SENATOR PARTYLINE."
"Senator Sensible voted
Face it people, democracy is about swaying the masses and doing what's popular - not what's right.
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
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
Sure, if you'd like to pretend that the national guard was in place at the time the bill of rights was written. Trouble is, it came into formation about 130 years after the bill of rights was written.
Could you tell me, perhaps, why all the other Bill of Rights amendments- free speech, search and siezure, don't have to self incriminate, etc, speak of undisputed Individual Rights, but the framers just happened to let a State Power slip into a document listing individual rights? Moreover, if you read the entire document, the Bill Of Rights lists Inalienable rights given by our creator, i.e., rights that cannot possibly be revoked by an entitiy that didn't give them- the government. Throughout the constitution, the government, state or local, is assigned "powers" given by the people, whereas the people have "rights." Our Government, National, State, or Local, has no power that it hasn't been granted by the same citizens thereof.
Your "Guns are for pussies" statement is clearly flamebait; since when did trolls get mod points here? Regardless, here are a few quotes from some of the folks who were kinda important in writing the constitution:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
and you seem to be a fan of gun control; i suggest you check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.
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.
You couldn't be more wrong. Such local resolutions are very powerful. They can force a national debate, ultimately ending in a change in a law or policy. US support of apartheid South Africa was changed because of local movements and laws.
These types of resolutions have a fiscal impact as well. Federal agents often rely upon local police support in enforcing these laws. By banning local police support, residents are ensured that their local tax dollars are not used in a way they find distasteful. This has the added effect of shifting the cost to the national level. If enough communities take similar action, the cost on the federal government may make enforcement impractical.
As progressives say "think global, act local."
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus