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"
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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/.
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
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."
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 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
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.
Hey soldier, I served too. So what. You seem to miss the point of military service. You GIVE UP your rights (for a contracted period of time) to protect the rights of others. It's sad that you seem to have so much contempt for the Americans that you are protecting (by reading /.). So you have an understanding and appreciate the freedom? Good. How, then, can you in any way, support the loss of the freedom that you are paying for and so many have died for. You are right, "freedom aint free." Part of the payment is the courage to stand by our national ideals in the face of our aggressors.
-ignorant trolls piss me off
Um...the point of posting on /. was that the piece of the P.A. the ACLU is concerned with allows the police to monitor what websites are being accessed from a given computer. Never hurts to read the post to which you're responding.
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."
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."
Democracy, even the representational democracy of the United States, is only an experiment. Government as usual in most of the world is not as slow, cumbersome, or as checked. That is the beauty of this democratic experiment.
So when a zealot starts pushing laws (Ashcroft is the only attorney general--to date--who is so ashamed of breasts that he had the statue of Lady Justice draped because of her secondary sexual characteristcs) and starts proposing the slippery-slope of using the military for civil police action, or the scanning and logging and 3rd. party databasing of digital citizen information while telling us that it's for our own good then everyone under such a government has a right to be concerned.
The ACLU recieves a great deal of bad press from members of the entertainment industry (News Corporations affiliated with even bigger corporations who often seek to marginalize any opponents to legislation which benefits the parent companies of said corporations) masquarading as reporters and editors. They're often paid to perform a hack-job on the issues. What matters is that the ACLU lawyers involved are often broaching a case which may seem very unpopular, while at the same time seeking to overturn or have amended the technical flaws behind legislation which is sometimes passed with such carelessness and behind schedule that legislators have no time to fix it...then such repair falls to the courts and groups like the ACLU. Remember, laws in this country are passed for mostly the wrong reasons--money, or turning the high-tech ratchet of mind and movement control a notch or two tighter.
As consumers of the media, we only see what the big players want us to see. The ACLU is an easy target for the WhiteHouse press to use in order to build concensus, incite the patriotic, and then using sound-bytes like a preacher on crack; willing the soldiers of gawd onto glory, completely obscures the real issues that will matter once the crisis is behind us.
I've heard smarter people than me remark, "Trouble at home, make trouble abroad." It's supposed to be a Machivelli quote that should have us all understanding the current state of things. If you're not worried, then you don't understand what is happening.
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
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
Let's get this straight once and for all: Giving up our rights will not make us any safer. Every one of the terrorists who hijacked planes last September was already under surveillance without sneak-and-peek laws. Every one of them had a valid ID without national ID card laws. Not one of them made public speeches denouncing the US, without extra restrictions on political speech. All of them got money from known terrorist sources, without crackdowns on Muslim charities. It's already illegal to commit mass murder, without having extra penalties for vaguely defined "terrorist" activities. The PATRIOT act was a wish list that Ashcroft had mostly compiled before 9/11. And they got it from Congressional leaders without debate while they were still jittery about anthrax. (Just like Bush got a blank check for unilateral preventive war from Congressional leaders with little debate while they're jittery about elections.) Make no mistake: Ashcroft and Co. are hijacking the country, in plain view of the American public, and our elected representatives are doing nothing to stop it. By painting anyone who objects as unpatriotic, they're scaring people into accepting the destruction of our most precious values.
I'm an optimist though - it may take a few years, even a decade, but America will survive this assault in the end, because liberty is stronger than its enemies. History will not smile on those orchestrating the current mess; this period will be a blotch like the Red Scare, a time when America lost its wits.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
Ooooo! Look mom! The ACLU is spending $3.5 million on television ads! Hmmmm... just before an election too. Exactly how are these ads supposed to help us anyway? This is just smoke and mirrors. Make John Ashcroft the bad guy when Congress and a Democratic Senate passed the bill. PCWorld doesn't have enough to report on, so they got sux0r3d into pushing propaganda as a news article. Wake me up when there's a real court challenge.
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
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
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
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.
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.
One of the most vital portions of the first ammendment is the right to dissent. Never was this nation intended to elect a king and his cronies for four year! To those people who would diminish the rights of American citizens to dissent with the government, do realize that this is a fundamentally anti-American act and an attack on the principles that have held back the power of a tyranical federal government. Of course, the historical record is not spotless, however we have come this far in no small part specifically because the right of every citizen to stand up and say, "What the government has done is wrong."
What type of point can a person make while saying, "These political advertisements are POLITICAL! How are they supposed to help us?" They're supposed to help you by raising awareness in the voting public about these issues and garner support for a political dialogue among your candidates.
If you find a shell casing, often it will tell you nothing other than the caliber.
.300 Savage which fires great, it's not going to be in a Database since all the databases proposed are for licenced gun sales and new weapons.
AKs use a shorty 7.62 or 5.45 caliber round, there are about 45-70 million AKs world wide, so if you find that casing, you are still dealing with a haystack. Some American makers are switching to the AKs 7.62 beacuse the rounds are cheap.
ARs typically use a 5.56, as do other NATO standard battle rifles and Isreali made rifles. I'm going to ballpark a number here and say there are 15-35 million rifles out there firing a 5.56.
The shooter in the DC area is using either a 5.56 or a 5.45 caliber rifle, I've heard both on the news and the police have shown both an AR and an AK on the news as the weapon being used.
Now, a bullet will get you more information, but with the sheer numbers of weapons out there in the US-Canada-Mexico pushing the 300-400 million range, even if you get a bullet that you can run ballistics on chances are high than they won't be using something in your Database.
An example, I have a 54 year old Remington Model 8 in
As for the arguement that cars are licenced but guns aren't, well cars aren't meantioned in the Constitution now are they? If the 2nd Amendment is going to be infringed on, then why shouldn't we licence printing presses or computers? Both are capable of being used against the common good of the people.
The resolution directs that the Police Dept. not turn Video of protests over to John Ashcroft's facial recognition database.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
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.
Don't forget that cars don't have to be licensed unless they're intended to be driven on public roads.
If you want to give up your freedoms, then go live in a country where you don't have them; don't try to dictate what we should have to give up.
You are free to consider any of the freedoms you enjoy as a citizen of this country as 'unessential', but do not presume to make that judgement for everyone else. Or maybe you just can't see the fundamental hypocrisy of your last two paragraphs -- being willing to defend our right to hold our own opinion, even if it is different from yours, and demanding that we move out of the country if we disagree with you.
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
http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/08/22/Consumers/cdn_gun s020822
Saskatchewan, North have most guns per person, says study
Last Updated Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:34:58
REGINA - When it comes to owning guns in Canada, Saskatchewan and the northern territories are leading the way, according to a study by the Canadian Firearms Centre.
There is one gun for every person in the North and two guns for every five people in Saskatchewan.
In Atlantic Canada, there is one gun for every three residents. Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec all have the national average of one gun for every four people.
No, because he doesn't like people questioning authority. Affirmative action is the least of his issues.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Silly. They are not enforcing law and order. Furthermore it is not peace time. A hostile force has declared war on us.
They are assisting legally authorized civilian law enforcement. They are providing information. They are probably doing so while improving the skills of their staff, which is one of their missions, peacetime or other.
The only good weather is bad weather.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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 urban legend has been debunked. Check out snopes.com
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
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?
Very good question. The best start I can think of lies in the Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
In my view, the only good excuse for taking a fundamental, "inalienable" right away from someone is if that person is guilty of violating another's fundamental rights, among which are life, liberty, and property.
And even then, the law must bind the government to rules of playing fair. The proper job of a defense attourney is not to get his client free by any means. It's to make sure the government plays by the rules.
Running off on a tangent, I have yet to run across a good definition or litmus test for what "human rights" are, to differentiate them from "natural rights". The only written document I've seen defining Human Rights is a certain UN Declaration, with strikes me as overly broad in some areas, and completely useless in others.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
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.
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."
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.
There is one gun for every person in the North and two guns for every five people in Saskatchewan.
So that would be...uh...15 additional guns in total?
May we never see th
I'd like to hear a logical explanation on why it's ok for these states to ignore UN and torture their own people.
I'll try...
Because nobody seems willing to stop them.
Let's start with the rather agree-able premise:
- Genocide is bad.
What do we do about this?
- Imprision the guilty
- If resisted, kill 'em.
What then?
- Leave the country to figure that out.
- Install a new leader who is Not-Quite-As-Bad
- Encourage a democratic government.
Our record on all these "What thens" are, on the whole, terrible. This doesn't mean we shouldn't imprison/kill those who decimate their own populations, but I don't think we've found the answer for fixing the mess we cause by fixing the mess.
Also, I'm not sure about military action for humanitarian reasons, but I think there have been two (2) UN approved collective security actions: Korea & Gulf Wars. Simply, if there are no international repurcussions for genocide and other agression, whats going to enforce the fact that genocide is bad to those that carry it out? Doesn't failure to act mean that we don't disapprove of the genocide enough to stop it? That's a horrifying conclusion. It seems there's plenty of blame to go around.
If half a million people are killed in Rawanda in 1-2 months, and nobody stops it... it must be O.K.
Of course, I sense you're not satisfied with that state of affairs, and I agree.
.sig last updated Jan. 14, 2000
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.
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."
I agree with all of this. I don't think using the military reconnaisance technology to hunt the sniper is going to far or totally disregarding the status quo.
The military commonly helps with civilian activities. For example, it is routine to use them for search and rescue. The Civil Air Patrol (of which I am a member) is an Air Force auxiliary, and is the primary agency in most areas of the US for missing aircraft searches. And yet we sometimes use Air Force active duty assets to provide sensor support.
Likewise, it is not unprecedented to use military data for law enforcement - especially drug law enforcement (sigh).
The only good weather is bad weather.
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