Slashdot Mirror
Safe and Free from Patriot II
JJ22 writes "The ALCU has a press release about a full page ad they have running in the New York Times. See the ad here. It gives a list of some of the freedoms which were taken away under the Patriot Act, and lists more which Ashcroft is pushing for under Patriot II. Obviously, you should only be concerned about losing your liberties if you're a terrorist (or similar dissident)."
Obviously, you should only be concerned about losing your liberties if you're a terrorist (or similar dissident).
No, that's most definitely not the case. In the USA PATRIOT Act, the Attorney General and the President of the US are given the power to decide who is or isn't a terrorist. Not a court, not a judge, not the Congress. "Terrorist" is not defined. It's an unconstitutional power grab.
Dissidents are political creatures. Terrorists are criminals, not dissidents. I believe USA PATRIOT Act is an unconstitutional body of laws; therefore I am a dissident. Am I a terrorist? No, but the Attorney General has the power and privilege to decide that I am one.
These laws must be opposed. Because they are broad and unchecked, they can be applied to anybody for any reason, not just Usama or Saddam. It's how the RICO statutes got abused. Call your congresscritter today and tell em you want this law opposed, voted down.
The EFF has some analysis here.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
Mirror of the AD in PDF is here (patriot2_ad.pdf).
Did I miss something on the news? Did the 9/11 hijackers spend a lot of time reading?
I guess since they cannot censor books they dislike out of existence, they'll just persecute people who read them. Nice end-run.
If Muhammed Atta drank double-mocha latte's at Starbucks on a daily basis, and I order the same thing, does that make me a terrorist?
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Here's a little hint. I'd be a lot more likely to take the time to read the link and comment thoughtfully if you gave me some information instead of of subjecting me to your smirky asides about "jackboots" and "dissidents".
Unless your goal is simply to parade your concern for our admiration. Given that the top-rated post right now is from someone who was confused because you weren't heavy-handed enough (!), maybe there's no problem.
Guess what, it's citizens like me who take civil rights seriously but aren't concerned about striking the most ostentatious pose that you need to win over. On this issue, DRM, file sharing, IP law and all the other stuff you're the worst possible advocate for.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Patriot Act II makes it illegal to be a member of that known terrorist-loving group:the ACLU! Remember how Bush I tried to crush that dangerous group, but it has returned like Saddam to menance America!
We are absolutely lucky that we have Bush here to protect the government!
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
The United States is a Democratic Republic. This means we elect people to speak for us in hopes that they have the same belief as us. However it seems to me that as these people are now in office, they don't listen to us, but rather do what they think is best for us. From democracy to democratic republic. Next we will change to a republic. Then to dictatorship. Keep in mind this is an extreme, but with all these new acts that are being passed, it seems that is what the politicians want.
FOML: Rise to Power
The American Civil Liberties Union
The Free Software Foundation
Yet another scary aspect to this... Imagine that some organization that you've long felt to be a worthy charity suddenly becomes reclassified as a "Terrorist Organization." This may happen two ways, either it really was, and you weren't aware, or it really isn't, but it's politically expedient for it to be reclassified as such. In either case, you can get stripped of your citizenship and put in a dog kennel on Cuba.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
If the Americans start taking away people's citizenships right, left and center.
And they only have an American citizenship. Where do they go?
I am guessing Canada is going to see a lot of refugees soon.
~ kjrose
"The ALCU has a press release...
or possibly the ACLU. I'll check back in two days when this story is reposted just to be sure.
I would comment on this but I live in the U.S. so I better not.
Please God man, tell me you are not that naive!
Me, I'm scared to death of OUR government.
Break open your wallet kids and give to the ACLU. They are our only hope.
Bill
bamph
* claim to be refugee; before your hearing skip to B.C. and get a job at a pot farm, and generally avoid cops (except the one who is your boss)
* "I fergot mah papers, see, Mr. Mountie ? And I'm on me way to the boy's hockey game, and if I'm late I'll be missing me boy's ice time, you don't want that, eh?" Works better if you are white and dress in dirty flannel and drive a rusty pickup with no plates.
* learn a smattering of some creole half-french language, move to Montreal or Quebec, and claim to be culturally oppressed. This is the hardest because you have to learn at least 3 french words, but it may be the only way to get in and get on the dole if you are a war criminal or genocidist.
* Claim to be an American tourist, and ask directions to nearest strip club.
I am not really worried about GWB, Ashcroft & Co. I happen to think that they are honchos with a hardon for Saddam, and I hesitate to think of what might happen with the three of them in a dark room together ... but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.
The danger is setting a precedent. What if the next administration, or even an administration 50 years from now, is led by people as paranoid as Norman Bates? It's right there in the law, they can declare any group that opposes them to be a terrorist group and start the secret arrests.
Think about it, all you Rabid Republicans. Would you want Bill Clinton's administration to have the powers that you are so willing to give GWB? Or worse yet (gasp!) HILLARY CLINTON? She very well might run in 4 or 8 or even 16 years...
[ugh... sorry. last post was HTML formatted]
> but the ugly truth is, nothing this gang of idi^Wpoliticians does is likely to severely impinge on my lifestyle.
How can you be so certain? What they're doing is ludacris. The economy is in the shitter right now, no one trusts a damn person, everyone is living in fear (no help from the media here), the list goes on. What else do you need to consider what they're doing to be severly effecting your lifestyle? Granted you can still work and pay your bills, but for how long? The worst-case scenario at this point doesnt look oh-so-good. If what our ass-backwards administration says is true (weapons of mass destruction, all that propaganda) then why would there not be attacks against the US once a war erupts? Consider this...
1. Saddam doesnt like the US. Thats a given.
2. Lets supposed Iraq has extreme weapons (proof? who needs proof? not our government)
3. The US SINGLES ITSELF OUT AGAINST IRAQ. We're the ones pushing for war.
4. A US-led war would put the US in the front, therefore it would be strategic for Iraq to attack us before any other supporting nations.
By taking an "attack first, negotiate later" stance on this [US administration spawned] offensive we're putting our nation at risk. If the only way Hussein can stop a war against his nation is by defeating the US, then why wouldn't he use weapons of mass destruction on the US? It's logical to assume he would.
Bush et al have taken every measure to side-step actual conversation and debate with Hussein (CBS yesterday clearly proved this). Now who is a threat to "peace everywhere"? The nation who is attacking the other or the one that is being attacked because of accusations? One nation is thwarting every possible chance for peace and one may have missiles that go 20 miles further than they should.
And this is all neglecting the fact that some nations (cough, North Korea) have went out and SAID they won't stop nuclear weapons programs... but hey, they don't have the worlds largest supply of oil, so we're (the U.S. administration) okay with that.
At what point as the United States done ANYTHING logically in this whole situation?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I believe that we British should support the American Civil Liberties Union.
In fact - the people of ALL countries should - the ACLU are fighting for the Rights of everyone on this matter.
For those that have not read my previous postings on this matter:
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. This is a lot better for government than having a CCTV fitted into every home. The all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, 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" (meaning, 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 - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say 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 illegal.
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 ZDNET: "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. Or, just as dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I do".
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?
It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they are.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens - rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the shops?
Indeed - do government currently keep records of everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not. So then - is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep track of.
Would ANY person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be like having a spy living in your house.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more technologically aware, are you really that easily misled?
Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."
The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant Acceptance (for their propaganda).
It should be noted that the UK government will be violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have adopted.
Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."
You may be interested in the psychology of this type of surveillance. Here is a piece of text found on the Internet:
Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower. At any given time, guards could be looking down into each prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior - but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways. In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its very structure.
The government will be watching all you do.
You will be good people now - won't you?
Or else!
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
Scared? Wait until YOU are reclassified as a terrorist!!
Wow the US is going down. Please don't drag the ROTW down...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd really like to know whay this got modded down as Flamebait.
Is this some way of saying that these aren't questions or concerns that need addressing, or to stifle intelligent discussion by way of dismissing something like these as un-patriotic, therefore not worth the time?
Is there anybody at all that has even asked himself or herself this stuff?
Not right now, but when you're like Parsec and saying that the rich should pay even more and more and more, you end up with tax rates of 70%, so basically, you're MAKING more money, but you don't TAKE MORE HOME.
You have to ask what you are rewarding when someone finds themselves in these exhorbitant tax brackets. Nine times out of ten, at this level, you are rewarding someone for the priveledge of owning something, not their effort.
I, as a libertarian, am glad to say that I think corporate welfare is bullshit, if it's allowed in the manner it is. If it's something like giving a slight tax break to a company that promises to have a device that'll make our lives better (or a company whose invention now makes our lives better), I think it's warranted. Like BP and Honda from the previous examples, both companies who seem to be very close to practicalizing Hydrogen Fuel cells (I'd put my money on Honda, Honda has the spirit to survive, while BP I think is only doing it for PR). I don't agree with corporate welfare in the case of friends of prominent congressional or presidental figures. President Bush and Nancy Pelosi are perfect examples of the abuse inherent in that system.
Why should a corporation be rewarded extra for the labor of it's engineers? Why not reward the engineer instead?
"Social Safety Net"? I never brought up anything of that sort. I just think that taxes should be applied fairly. "Fairly" meaning that you are taxed in proportion. The best analogy I could apply to "Fair" taxation is to imagine a basketball game. You've got a guy like Kobe Bryant, who is a big star, and you've got some miscellaneous guy. They play and when the "misc. guy" makes a 2-point shot, they give his team 2 points. But when Kobe makes a 3-point shot, the ref only allows him to keep 1 point for his team, since he's so good at what he does, and the other guy isn't doing as good right now.
You have to evaluate fair in context of reality. What exactly are you rewarding when you reward someone a gross amount of cash for merely owning a piece of property. How does this get them to work harder? How does the difference in income help those who are willing to work hard, but don't have alot of money, to succeed?
I mean, if you're not for fair application of taxes, then just say so. You say you support progressive taxes, and that's you're opinion.
I am a firm believer in the ideals of Adam Smith, you know, that guy that you libertarian capitalists always support. Smith promoted something called the labor theory of value. Smith believed that people should only be rewarded for their labor, and that profit should represent the increased value of their labor over the raw materials of a product. He never would have approved of people making a million dollars a year to sit in a leather chair and direct a company. Smith viewed businesses and corporations as market imperfections. In fact, any institution containing more than one person was viewed as a market imperfection. The reason he viewed it this was was because people that operate in groups distort competition. However, he accepted that slight imperfections were ok. He NEVER would have approved of what we have today. Nor would he have approved of the fact that we allowed business to organize in groups, but not labor, thus tilting the balance of competition in favor of businesses. We have progressive taxes to correct these problems.
Here's a list of things I support:
1) A strong economy built on investment and low unemployment- You don't increase investment by taking more money from big investors. You don't increase employment by taking more money from employers.
Exactly how does keeping wealth concentrated keep unemployment low. The times that the economy has been healthy is when money gets shifted from those who have alot to those who don't. Examples include the dotcom boom, any of the wartime booms we've had, as well as increases in minimum wage.
2) Smaller government- Government has yet to solve any problem we've tasked it with, yet private industry is capable of doing it fairly fast for as cheap as possible, rather than extremely slow for as much as a team of government employees can milk from your pocket.
This is complete bullshit, and if you're wondering where the title came from, it's to this statement. From highways to the space program, to the creation of telephone networks, computers, the internet, has all started because of government initiative. The reason that there is so much anti-government propaganda is because the US government has one crucial flaw, it has the potential to become democratic. Corporations have no flaws, they are perfect tyrannies, which is why the mistakes of corporations are only pointed out when they become an absolute disaster, such as what happened with Enron. Those who have the majority of control don't want you to like government. They want you to destroy it, so that they can run the show. They want you to blame your standard of living on taxes, not on the fact that corporations have succeeded in flooding the labor market with NAFTA, and now the balance of competition will allow them to completely dominate labor.
3) Responsible government- Once we've cut down the government to a smaller, leaner, less expensive version of itself, I think the Speaker of the house, or other congressional leader, should make one or two speeches a year, detailing the new government programs they intend to implement at our expense. Call me crazy, but I'd like to know where my money goes without having to plow through 500 House Resolutions, Appropriations Bills, and a slew of current laws. I'd like to know the government is responsible. And I'd like congressional members to understand that if they want to spend our cash on idiotic things, they have to stand up on TV and talk about why it makes sense.
So you attack the beaurocrat in Washington, but not the one in the insurance company? How is that going to fix anything? What's worse, is if we allow industries to become monopolized, these tyrannies will be unaccountable. Is that what you want? It sounds like a far cry from liberty if you ask me.