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).
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Sure, if you'd like to pretend that the national guard was in place at the time the bill of rights was written. Trouble is, it came into formation about 130 years after the bill of rights was written.
Could you tell me, perhaps, why all the other Bill of Rights amendments- free speech, search and siezure, don't have to self incriminate, etc, speak of undisputed Individual Rights, but the framers just happened to let a State Power slip into a document listing individual rights? Moreover, if you read the entire document, the Bill Of Rights lists Inalienable rights given by our creator, i.e., rights that cannot possibly be revoked by an entitiy that didn't give them- the government. Throughout the constitution, the government, state or local, is assigned "powers" given by the people, whereas the people have "rights." Our Government, National, State, or Local, has no power that it hasn't been granted by the same citizens thereof.
Your "Guns are for pussies" statement is clearly flamebait; since when did trolls get mod points here? Regardless, here are a few quotes from some of the folks who were kinda important in writing the constitution:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
and you seem to be a fan of gun control; i suggest you check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ask the guys who fought in Vietnam what a militia is capable of. They know.
Unfortunately for your premise, you are misinterpreting the term 'regulate' as 'controlled, restricted, or governed by law or rule'. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):
The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:
The third definition is also inappropriate, because regulation for accuracy or function is somethiing that is done to the arms, not the militia.
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 29, described clearly what a well-regulated militia entailed:
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:
The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?
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.
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
Very eloquant and completely correct explanation of what "well regulated" meant to the Founding Fathers.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
Remarkably little content given the length of your post. You do manage, however, to:
- Roll out the usual scare words like `far to the right' (used, laughably enough, to describe the Heritage Foundation, which is about as mainstream a conservative group as there is)
- Attempt to smear the Olin Foundations philanthropy by pointing out that Mr. Olin made his money in explosives manufacturing -- I suppose you must be terribly opposed to the Nobel Prize, then, eh?
- Attempt to smear the IJ's record by micharacterizing their position on a number of issues
- Question the support for school vouchers in the minority community, despite the fact that it is poor inner city communities who are most hurt by having their children trapped in failing schools -- one reason that groups like the
Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity are some of the firmest supporters of School Choice
- Describe opposition to affirmative action as `racist' -- a dirty smear, and one that fails to explain how it could be racist to oppose race-based preferences.
So, in short, I'd have to say that your post tells us a lot more about your narrow biases and (amusingly) about how threatened you feel by groups like the IJ which are doing actual work for civil liberties then it tells us about the IJ itself.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.
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.
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)