Slashdot Mirror


Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent

955301 writes "As if it was unexpected, the New York Times (free reg...) has an article on attempts by our Congressional Republicans to eliminate the expiration of the Patriot Act. Everyone may thank Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah for getting this 9/11 snowball rolling, and the general population for our current leadership." There's another story in the SF Chronicle.

1,066 comments

  1. My God. by B3ryllium · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm glad I'm Canadian.

    1. Re:My God. by Randy+Rathbun · · Score: 4, Funny

      You guys got any more room?

    2. Re:My God. by B3ryllium · · Score: 0, Troll

      Tons. In fact, just one province single is twice as large as Texas.

    3. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Years ago I ran into an ignorant Texan who tried to say that Texas was larger than Alberta. *rolls eyes*

    4. Re:My God. by B3ryllium · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      fact site

      It appears that Texas is 700,000 KM, approximately. Still smaller than BC, but also larger than Iraq. Ah well. :)

    5. Re:My God. by Random+Frequency · · Score: 3, Funny

      sure, if you include the surface area of all those fat fucks.

    6. Re:My God. by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a Canadian living in Texas for the time being. Every time a local asks me what I think of it I never miss a chance to say I like their "cute little state."

    7. Re:My God. by atarione · · Score: 1

      Take me with you.... god I want to be Canadian.

      --
      actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
    8. Re:My God. by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

      Canada seems so big because of all the Mercator Projection maps out there. I had one on my wall when I was a kid; I still visualize Greenland as the biggest country in the world.

    9. Re:My God. by jeffasselin · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure, less than 10% of our territory is actually occupied!

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    10. Re:My God. by MSBob · · Score: 1
      Except that the habitable area is limited to roughly the size of El-Salvador.

      Don't flame this is from a fellow Canuck :)

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    11. Re:My God. by operagost · · Score: 1

      No one's stopping you.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:My God. by DemonMucha · · Score: 1

      And Alaska is over 1.5million SQ KM.....

    13. Re:My God. by tzanger · · Score: 1

      Bah. If you're going to piss off Texans, may as well show them that Quebec is large enough to encompass four Texases with room to spare. :-)

    14. Re:My God. by CommieLib · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm a Texan living in Texas. Whenever a Canadian asks me what I think of Canada, I say "I don't."

      --
      If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
    15. Re:My God. by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2, Funny


      Except, as we all know, the Canadian Km is worth only about 70% of a US KM!
      </HUMOR>

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    16. Re:My God. by John+Bayko · · Score: 1

      Yes - the actual size difference (including Alaska) is that Canada is about 6% bigger.

    17. Re:My God. by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      Except that the habitable area is limited to roughly the size of El-Salvador.

      Ditto Texas (though for different reasons). I take it you haven't had the occasion to visit the Lone Star State.

      In the immortal words of US Civil War (Union) General Phil Sheridan, "If I owned hell and Texas, I'd rent out Texas and live in hell."

      Done flame, this is from a Texan. Flames would be redundant.

    18. Re:My God. by John+Bayko · · Score: 1
      Hence America's next-to-last score in a world wide survey on geographical knowledge, conducted by the National Geographic Society. Mexico was last.

      Lest any Canadians get smug, Canada ranked third last - better than those Yanks, but...

    19. Re:My God. by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm a Canadian living in Canada.
      Whenever a...
      Hey, donuts!

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
    20. Re:My God. by escher · · Score: 1

      How's the job market up there?

    21. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once saw a flame-war between a Canadian and a Texan. There was some name-calling, to which the latter replied:

      Only a Canadian could call a Texan a "Yankee".

    22. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ignorant Texan? You must be joking.

    23. Re:My God. by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Compared to Canada, there's PLENTY of habitable territory in Texas. HELL, there are some places in Texas where you need winshieldwipers just to deal with all of the bugs going splat on the windshield.

      Nevada and New Mexico. Those are unihabitable states.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    24. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as Texans keep not thinking of Canada, everything will be just fine.

    25. Re:My God. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      good way to die.. ;)

      remember Texs is the "He needed killin'" state.

      since you're pissing off texans anyways, remind them that if we cut Alaska in half, Texas would be the third largets state....

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Texans aren't known for thinking much are they!

    27. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay there dickhead. Fucking redneck.

    28. Re:My God. by doggo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, seriously, how's the job market up there?

      People here can joke all they want, and make their flag-wavin'-'merikun "love-it-or-leave-it" snide remarks about Canadian immigration, but the way our country's been going lately has make me take a hard look at immigration.

      I'm older, and making a life change like this would be very difficult, but I'm sick and tired of all the bile out of the so-called "patriots" who've backed this so-called "administration". GWB and his cronies are looking more like Saddam than not. All this talk of "If you're not with us, you're against us", and "...all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do..." is starting to sound a lot more fascist than democratic.

    29. Re:My God. by codegen · · Score: 1

      As with most job markets it depends on what you want to work in and what you expect. If you are looking to work in the latest web/ecomerce/insertyourownbuzzwordhere at $120K then the tech downturn is as bad up here as down there. Networks in particular are badly hurting.
      But there is certainly is solid work at reasonable wages. One of my graduate students got two offers in less than two weeks last summer and tells me that they are currently hiring several more.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    30. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uncle Sam and the money-letting that is "renouncing citizenship"

    31. Re:My God. by DroppedPacket · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      has make me take a hard look at immigration.

      Bye. Don't let the border smack you on the ass on the way out.

      Er, you do know that there is no right to free speech in the Canada constitution, right?

      --
      I am not a resource! I am a free man!
    32. Re:My God. by Thatmushroom · · Score: 1

      You're not a true Canadian! A true Canadian would only be distracted by beer!

      --
      You zap the moderators with a wand of humor! The moderators resist!
    33. Re:My God. by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 1

      Dont go talking about your mom and dad like that.

    34. Re:My God. by jasonisgodzilla · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean there are actually other countries besides America? I mean sure, I knew there were some specks of dirts out there where shoes and soccer balls came from, and where we tested our bombs, but I never knew they actually had people and cultures. And you can find these places on a thing called a "map"??

    35. Re:My God. by Random+Frequency · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      phht!

    36. Re:My God. by RedCard · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me put this in perspective:
      When confronted by a violent protester, our prime minister strangled the guy himself.

      Conversely, Your texan president was nearly killed by a pretzel.

      Enough said

    37. Re:My God. by Jazu · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>Er, you do know that there is no right to free speech in the Canada constitution, right?

      REGIME CHANGE!!!!

      --
      My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
    38. Re:My God. by RedCard · · Score: 1

      They could always go to the Northwest Territories: 1,346,106 km^2, population ~37,360.

      And Alaska is over 1.5million SQ KM.....


      Yes, but the north-west territories used to be 3.5million square km, until we decided it was too big a few years back, and chopped it in half to create Nunavut.

    39. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean no freedom of speech like here:

      2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

      (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
      (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
      (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
      (d) freedom of association.

      By the way, this comes right out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Constitution Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/). Maybe you should do your reading before opening your mouth.

    40. Re:My God. by BollocksToThis · · Score: 2

      I'm a Texan living in Texas. Whenever a Canadian asks me what I think... I say "I don't."

      Excellent quote, thanks. Very true to life.

      --
      This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
    41. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which begs the next question..do Texans ever think about anything at all? Or is it simply that natural selection never provided the state's population with any brains to speak of?

    42. Re:My God. by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      How about a dose of "If you sensationalize your whining in a manner that belittles the real suffering of others, you look like an ass."

      If that doesn't suit you, how about a dose of "No one wants to hear your self-aggrandized rubbish anymore than that of a rabid nationalist's."

      Or you can just go on flaming others for flaming you for flaming them, while threatening to emigrate. That's really productive. Like anyone cares, really.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    43. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psh. You flamer.

    44. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Texan living in Texas. Whenever a Canadian asks me what I think of Canada, I say "I don't."

      No surprise there - Texans aren't exactly notorious for thinking about much!

    45. Re:My God. by pod · · Score: 1

      Not the least of that accomplishment is that our pm is french (ok ok, quebecois), which puts him pretty low on the hard-ass scale.

      --
      "Hot lesbian witches! It's fucking genius!"
    46. Re:My God. by Random+Frequency · · Score: 1

      and? its not like the freedom of speech is really being protected in the united states either.

      I mean, our leaders aren't using 1984 as a guide to the new world economy.

    47. Re:My God. by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      The nationalist is the one who wouldn't leave so following your superficial logic he should be heard, or something. assuming one were so bored to follow that train of thought to its conclusion, a wreck.

      Worst whine in the world:
      "Hey shut up cuz I don't care really. I swear I don't care. Really, I don't care a single bit about this."

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    48. Re:My God. by MattXVI · · Score: 1
      Well, it's not protected as an absolute. No more than any other 'right'.

      Considering how even stuff like, say, being a stripper, is construed as protected speech, then, one might say we're going to far lengths.

      --
      When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
      -Tom Jones
    49. Re:My God. by MattXVI · · Score: 1
      Question (I'm genuinely curious):

      Does the Charter you're referring to have legal standing similar to the US Constitution? Is it a sort of ultimate authority, by which the Canadian judiciary is bound to test legislation?

      The reason I ask is that most countries don't use their written constitution (if they have one) the same way the US does. They treat it more like we do the Declaration of Independence - nice inspiring thoughts, but with no legal standing.

      --
      When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
      -Tom Jones
    50. Re:My God. by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      No, its a legal document. We still have to amend the constitution, can't just lend lip service to it like some countries do.

      Besides, don't articles like this suggest that the US is treating the constitution lately like you claim other countries do?

      --
      Jeremy
    51. Re:My God. by LamerX · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you'd get eaten alive there, I would like to consider that inhabitable.

    52. Re:My God. by rodgerd · · Score: 1

      Why would you want them? If they've screwed up *their* country, what do you think they'll do to yours?

    53. Re:My God. by B3ryllium · · Score: 1

      They won't be allowed to run for office, and they won't be able to have weapons.

      They'll be like cuddly, annoying furbies.

    54. Re:My God. by renehollan · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      This Canadian lived in Texas for almost two years... little town called Allen, just north of Dallas.


      So anyway, first time I need an oil change for my car, a neighbour sends me to a particular place. Well, I pull up and a couple of what could be best described as "dawgs" come running up to the car, followed by the skinniest woman I ever saw, with long straight, plain hair.


      Next, two fellows who look like they fell straight out of a ZZ-top video tumbled out the door of the establishment and asked me my business. I explained I needed an oil change, and asked "how much?" "Cash or charge?" was the response "... 'cause we don't take charge". all the while looking me up and down.


      Well, when it came time to pay (cash), and I pulled out my money, my NRA membership card fell. Seing this, one of the "ZZ-top" fellows mentioned, "Son, you gonna fit in here juuuuust fine!"


      He was right.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    55. Re:My God. by dbrutus · · Score: 1

      Actually, what's going on is called a pissing contest. The Democrats are playing parliamentary games with some bipartisan PATRIOT act modifications to get at lone wolf terrorists like the Unabomber and starting to talk about adding amendments that weren't in the negotiated agreement. So the Republicans look around and ask themselves what will absolutely get the Democrat party to cut the crap and stick to non-controversial changes. What they came up with was if Democrats sponsor amendments, Republicans will sponser making the act permanent.

      In other words, it's a threat to stop some inside political bs, not an ideological commitment or program that's serious. But as expected the Democrat provocation is soft-shoed while the Republican nuclear response is treated like a stand alone initiative.

    56. Re:My God. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      In Australia, we have a cattle ranch which is bigger than Texas. The odd thing is that it is owned by Texans.

      No, this is not a joke.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    57. Re:My God. by shepd · · Score: 1
      >By the way, this comes right out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a Constitution Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/). Maybe you should do your reading before opening your mouth.

      I will if you will!

      33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
      In other words, it isn't worth the toilet paper it should be printed on.
      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    58. Re:My God. by Kaiwen · · Score: 1
      little town called Allen, just north of Dallas.

      Not sure what you mean by "just" (I used to commute between Dallas and Allen -- 45 min. to 2 hours, give or take rush hour on US75), but I know what you mean. If that skinny bitch was chawin' Red Man's and hocking on the pavement, I think I know her. That gal could plug a Big Buck's can at thirty paces - and that was just spitting. I'd hate to get caught staring at the business end of her Red Label.

      Lee Kaiwen,
      Taiwan, ROC

    59. Re:My God. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Not the least of that accomplishment is that our pm is french (ok ok, quebecois), which puts him pretty low on the hard-ass scale.

      Not to mention the evolutionary scale...

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    60. Re:My God. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      Bah. If you're going to piss off Texans, may as well show them that Quebec is large enough to encompass four Texases with room to spare. :-)

      What about number of weapons per capita? If you take that into account, you Canadians might quiet down a bit... :) (not to mention what that hot air in Texas does to a man's brain, there's a reason fundamentalist christian sects are popular in Texas)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    61. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could easily just drop the "of Canada" part. Y'all.

    62. Re:My God. by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      I am afraid that I really must question your literacy.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    63. Re:My God. by tzanger · · Score: 1

      What about number of weapons per capita? If you take that into account, you Canadians might quiet down a bit... :) (not to mention what that hot air in Texas does to a man's brain, there's a reason fundamentalist christian sects are popular in Texas)

      Well a high weapons per capita ratio isn't something I'd personally brag about. Hot air may affect Texans but just think of what frozen nuts do up here... Chretien just won't leave!

    64. Re:My God. by renehollan · · Score: 1
      Well, Dallas was 25 miles south, so, yeah, I guess it could be a two hour drive on a bad day.

      Please don't refer to her as a "bitch" -- the folks there were quite friendly and helpful.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    65. Re:My God. by Kaiwen · · Score: 1
      so, yeah, I guess it could be a two hour drive on a bad day.

      Trust me, it was, especially at the I-365 interchange. I understand they've rebuilt it and widened 75 since I moved away, so it sounds like things have improved a lot.

      Please don't refer to her as a "bitch"

      It wasn't intended in a derogatory fashion. In fact, the Allen girls I knew used to take it as a compliment -- a strong woman who could hold her own against the boys. Antonym: prissie.

      Lee Kaiwen
      Taiwan, ROC

    66. Re:My God. by renehollan · · Score: 1
      75 is a 4 laner, now.

      It wasn't intended in a derogatory fashion. In fact, the Allen girls I knew used to take it as a compliment -- a strong woman who could hold her own against the boys. Antonym: prissie.

      O.K. I see where you're coming from. Though in the 18 months I lived there, I hadn't heard it used in that fashion.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    67. Re:My God. by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      Eek...

      Surely, you can rise above " afraid that to to you ."

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    68. Re:My God. by Rares+Marian · · Score: 1

      God damn filter.

      Surely, you can rise above, "-I am phrase- afraid that -I am phrase again- -verb- to -verb- to -verb- you to -verb-."

      --
      The message on the other side of this sig is false.
    69. Re:My God. by RedCard · · Score: 1

      there are some places in Texas where you need winshieldwipers just to deal with all of the bugs going splat on the windshield

      HA!

      In parts of the country in spring, we have so many bugs that animals migrate further north TOWARDS the tundra to get away from them...

      Anyways, at least we don't have thunderwood, or fireants, or killer bees. (My current roommate's parents live in houston, I get to hear ALL the stories...)

    70. Re:My God. by Commutative+Monoid · · Score: 1

      Surely you can make sense. Preferably on multiple occassions.

      You can start by developing your train of reason with regard to your interpetation of my statements.

      Of course since you lack intellectual honesty, as you've demonstrated before, I'm sure you won't.

      --
      You have exactly 314 seconds to come up with a less retarded plot.
    71. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the best quote:

      " 'e got in my way, so I 'ad to take 'im out."

    72. Re:My God. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad it's a misquote.

  2. I am confident by Apreche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that one day, when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:I am confident by goosman · · Score: 1

      Although it could be a long time until it gets there and a lot of folks are going to be...er...inconvenienced by the provisions therein.

      We need to stop this madness before it grows stronger roots.

    2. Re:I am confident by Phosphor3k · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sure they will attach an amendment making it illegal to challenge the patriot act in court. They will also amend the amendment to make challengeing the legality of the amendment, illegal. In Facist USA, the amendments declare YOU illegal.

    3. Re:I am confident by VistaBoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, but trust me...we'll get them when we challenge the amendment that makes challenging the amendment illegal...

    4. Re:I am confident by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 0

      You mean we still have a constitution... damn. The way some people talk around here I thought Shrub and Ashcroft had snuck in a few changes to the original or maybe destroyed it.

      Nothing to see here, move along.

      #ifndef hearty_jibe
      #define hearty_jibe
      Neo-Cons: Proving physics wrong and that the speed of light can be broken, but only by dead old men spinning in their graves.
      #endif

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    5. Re:I am confident by sulli · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The PATRIOT Act, or the Supreme Court?

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    6. Re:I am confident by k-0s · · Score: 1

      I say let it be a battle to the death and whoever wins we'll kill by ourselves.

    7. Re:I am confident by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      Daschle's thoughts from the article: He predicted that Republicans lacked the votes to repeal the limits.

      Its good to worry about these things before they actually occur, but perhaps we are in the clear on this one... That being said - Im sorry to hear that Hatch is behind this... He is on the "good side" on a lot of issues involving corporate control over current and emerging technology... it seems like there is no one in Washington that you can stand behind 100% of the time.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    8. Re:I am confident by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sadly, from the comportment of the Scalia Five in the last elecion, and Scalia's recent comments that we have "too many" rights as it is, I doubt much that Scalia/Thomas and whomever Bush rams through wil overturn the current or the future PATRIOT acts.

    9. Re:I am confident by kaworu-sama · · Score: 1

      or the supreme court would be destroyed...

    10. Re:I am confident by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1
      we'll get them when we challenge the amendment...

      How can you if no one knows you've been arrested?

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    11. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that one day, when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.

      Sweet naive child, who imposed the current leader on the country? Here's a hint. It rhymes with Supreme Court
    12. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FIVE RECOUNTS...say it with me 'GORE LOST'.

    13. Re:I am confident by mattsucks · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, challenging the Patriot Act in court is by definition un-Patriot-ic, and therefore by suggesting this you must be a terrorist. That knocking you hear at your door is the FBI. Better water the plants and give the pets LOTS of food ... you'll be gone for a while ...

    14. Re:I am confident by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Why should we have to rely on SCOTUS to be the first, last, and only line of defense for civil liberties? Especially since it's not like we directly elected them.

      Kinda funny how things seem to work out better when the people have a buffer between their passions and their "representatives."

    15. Re:I am confident by annewinston · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I might point out the the current administration is also appointing judges to the federal, and soon supreme courts. Unless people write their senators and complain the US courts will be filled with Bush-ites and legal challenges to the Patriot Act will be rejected. It's important not only to vote, but to persistantly inform those in power of your objections to all the new threats to our civil liberties.

    16. Re:I am confident by Rev+Snow · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't be too sure. The Supremes just upheld a law that makes burning a cross at a gathering a crime. Not on someone else's lawn, mind you, but your own cross on your own property among your own people. That gets you three months in jail.

      A burning cross is ``an instrument of terror,'' they say, so First Amendment protection is not available.

      If the First Amendment does not protect ``terrorists,'' how will it be able to overturn the PATRIOT act?

    17. Re:I am confident by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful
      when the patriot act is finally challenged in the supreme court it will be destroyed.

      Looks like the Supreme Court is becoming the first resort of the opponents of a law, be it the DMCA or the PATRIOT act. This is wrong.

      The way things are supposed to work is to voice and consider these concerns before it is signed into law. Before it affects the life, liberty, and happiness of actual people. This is done by constituents voicing their concerns, and representatives acting on behalf of those concerns. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be in the business of correcting legislative stupidities (and in fact refrained from doing so in the Eldred case). The proper role of the Supreme Court is to clarify a law where lower courts have each reasonably come to different interpretations. They are, if you will, legal scholars with a final say.

      You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents. While I understand your frustration and lack of faith in your representatives, the risks here should be obvious.

    18. Re:I am confident by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      Awww, it's so cute that people think the Supreme Court isn't a puppet orginazation.

    19. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "on your own property among your own people"

      Among your own people? You smell kinda racist, don'tcha?

    20. Re:I am confident by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If our "representatives" would do thier goddamn jobs and live up to thier oath of office and stop passing obviously untenable legislation as a way of making political hay, then maybe we wouldn't need to go to the courts so often. This happens even more at the state level than the federal. Anyone who voted in favor of a bill that's declared unconstitutional should be removed from office because they've violated the oath of office. It's ridiculous.

    21. Re:I am confident by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      This is the same Supreme Court that made it legal for police officers to arrest drivers at traffic stops for any reason they choose, including speeding. I am not at all confident that they will challenge a law that broadens police powers.

    22. Re:I am confident by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      You really don't know that much about the PATRIOT act, do you? It was passed on October 26th, 2001. Congresspeople weren't allowed to read the bill before voting on it. The text of the bill wasn't pbulished until the president signed it into law. We couldn't really tell our representatives that we don't want something if we have no idea what it is.

      The only recourse with which we are left is the Judicial System. There is almost no way that we could get congress to repeal it, nor is there any likelyhood whatsoever of the President somehow cancelling it (perhaps with an executive order).

    23. Re:I am confident by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Funny

      What use is a phone call ...

      ... when you are unable to speak?

    24. Re:I am confident by outsider007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Supremes just upheld a law that makes burning a cross at a gathering a crime.

      not surprising since they're all black, but when did diana ross' backup singers get influence in the legislative branch?

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    25. Re:I am confident by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that if this becomes permanent, they will have succeeded in destroying the constitution.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    26. Re:I am confident by mfrank · · Score: 1

      And in related news, you are no longer able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

      And, just to be clear, it was a *state* law the Supreme Court was upholding.

    27. Re:I am confident by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Which isn't to say that previous democratic administrations aren't just as culpable, mind you. Been doing some reading, and it appears to me that Billy Bob set the stage for this with the anti-Terrorist legislation after the OK City bombing. One suspects that PATRIOT 1 was lying around someone's office for a longggg time, and Ashcroft just got to be lucky enough to rubber stamp it and pass it on up to Congress.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    28. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clarence Thomas was a dissenter. I'm sure his singing voice sucks, and he probably looks awful in a red sequined dress, but he did not agree with the law.

    29. Re:I am confident by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the way it's supposed to work is the constituents are actively involved in the process of government. This is supposed to extend FAR beyond voting. We can't even be bothered to do the FIRST thing: the apathy vote carries every election from the smallest municipal bond to the federal lawmakers to the president. Why should we expect the people to actually participate (develop true relationships with politicians and/or parties... starting from when they are local politicians, and continuing these relationships into the national arena.).

      Wait! A bunch of people ARE doing that... and guess what? They are creating a government that is an expression of their will!

      If you have not been a part of that process, it is your fault. If you don't vote, your vote is for "whoever wins" which is distinct from a vote for "nobody". If you don't participate in a party organization, the party assumes the candidates they select are just hunky dory with you, and that you support whatever policies and platforms they decide to run with.

      Too many people seem to have this idea that the political process begins and ends with a presidential ballot whenever the race comes around, and they don't even bother with it. The idea that the government is the net result of MANY, MANY smaller elections that they also did not participate in, is lost on them.

      So, when the government that they didn't participate in goes in a direction they disagree with, the only thing they can think to do is protest. The understanding that the current government is the result of decades of work by people who have actively pursued it is lost in the noise of the notion that the entire US government is the result of a single botched presidential election. So people delude themselves with the fallacious notion that removing the president will fix everything. They choose not to recognize just how limited the president's powers actually are -- because then they would be forced to acknolwedge just how many OTHER people are in government that disagree with their views.

      And then they don't show up for their mayor, state legislature, or bond elections... And they wonder why the government doesn't express the will of the people..

      I say "it DOES."

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    30. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are totally wrong. Did you read anything about the decision?

      "It may be true that a cross burning, even at a political rally, arouses a sense of anger or hatred among the vast majority of citizens who see a burning cross," O'Connor wrote. "But this sense of anger or hatred is not sufficient to ban all cross burnings."

      Only when a cross burning is used as a means of intimidation. If am having a few people into my backyard for a cross bon fire then that is hardly intimidation.

      Maybe you should do some research before spreading your bullshit.

    31. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah. The Supreme Court that has existed for hundreds of years with justices that have served an average of 19 years are now a puppet of a President that did not select even one of them. The last two Justices were both chosen by Democrats.

      You ignorant kids really annoy me. Finish High School Social Studies and the come back and post.

    32. Re:I am confident by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Don't be too sure. The Supremes just upheld a law that makes burning a cross at a gathering a crime. Not on someone else's lawn, mind you, but your own cross on your own property among your own people. That gets you three months in jail.

      No, they did not.

      The SCOTUS found that a law making using a burning cross as an instrument of intimidation illegal is constitutional. Just like a law making speaking to intimidate is constitutional.

      Burn a cross on your own lawn for some reason that doesn't involve intimidating someone--oh, like if you were an atheist and wanted to make a statement that "god was dead", or as a haloween decoration--and the 1st still protects you.

      The first amendment may be the most vital of the ten in the bill of rights--but it's hardly an absolute law, and the SCOTUS (and the people at large) have upheld time and time again that it can be abridged for causes that don't overly restrict the right of someone to hold and express any opinion they want with any number of people that they want.

    33. Re:I am confident by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If our "representatives" would do thier goddamn jobs and live up to thier oath of office and stop passing obviously untenable legislation as a way of making political hay, then maybe we wouldn't need to go to the courts so often.

      I agree. I'm just saying that voting them away is the designed solution to the problem. Relying on a side effect of an undesigned solution such as the Supreme Court means that things like the Eldred case get punted back to the Legislature.

      Anyone who voted in favor of a bill that's declared unconstitutional should be removed from office because they've violated the oath of office.

      Well, some laws live right on the border, so this is not a good solution, either. You need to consider that things like Affirmative Action, for example, may have been passed with the best intentions even though they are arguably unconstitutional.

      Point is, people who look to the Supreme Court to correct bad laws are looking for short term solutions. This is bad because by the time a law does get struck down, it's already affected many people. Worse, many bad laws won't get struck down. What you really need to do is to either fix your representation system, or fix your citizenry so that they are less apathetic or ignorant.

      The political system, like any system, needs maintenance. Your post hints at setting up an ideal automatic system (remove legislators who propose unconstitutional laws), and can only work as well as our foresight allows - which is to say, never as well as we'd like. Vigilance really is the price here.

    34. Re:I am confident by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      The problem is that most bills are declared unconstitutional many years after they were passed... long enough where it doesn't meet the planning horizon of an elected official (who is after all only concerned with making it through the next election holding their office)

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    35. Re:I am confident by XorNand · · Score: 2, Informative


      Get your facts straight before jumping on the bandwagon.

      Cross burning is only illegal if it is intended to intimidate someone. You can burn a cross in your own yard all day long, if that's simply your idea of art (assuming no local ordinances against bonfires or you have the proper permit). This is actually a victory for civil liberties; previously states could (and did) rule all cross burning was illegal.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    36. Re:I am confident by elmegil · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately with our "winner take all" system, it is possible, and in fact common for a substantial minority to vote against some bozo getting put into office, only to lose ANY voice in that arena of government until the next election. That, I believe, is a substantial contributor to the "apathy vote".

      If I vote libertarian every single election, voting my conscience and trying to be heard, it doesn't do anything to prevent my rights from being trampled by those democrats and republicans that actually end up being elected. If I swallow my pride and vote for whichever of the two main party candidates is the lesser evil, I still get my rights trampled on some issues because they don't represent all of my views. It's a lose-lose situation, and it leads to despair, cynicism, and dropping out of the process.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    37. Re:I am confident by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      There is almost no way that we could get congress to repeal it

      And there's your problem. The only reason those people are there is because you voted them in. If you can't even tell them to either repeal the law or you'll find someone else to do it, then that's the crux of the problem. That's what you really need to fix, because they can enact another one just like it more quickly than it can be struck down.

      The other possibility is that a majority of your citizens are perfectly okay with it. This is, after all, a period of overreaction following a national tragedy.

    38. Re:I am confident by coupland · · Score: 1

      But are they really your representatives, or are they someone else's? You act as if your righteous indignation will fall on listening ears. Are the representatives you refer to elected by the vocal minority who believe human rights are inviolate, or are they elected by the slack-jawed majority who are having a good-ol' time watching some more yellow-skinned people getting whupped on CNN? Honestly, how many Americans do you think have really read the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights? No, really... I mean it. I'm not American and I've read them all and you probably have too. But we're not running America, we're just trying to plug the leaks in the dyke. All the moral grandstanding in the world doesn't mean a thing when we've put idiots at the steering wheel. And I don't mean Dubya, I mean voters.

    39. Re:I am confident by zephc · · Score: 1

      drive off fast, and if they keep chasing you, dont forget: R1, R1, circle, R2, up, down, up, down, up, down.

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    40. Re:I am confident by GlassHeart · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately with our "winner take all" system, it is possible [...] to lose ANY voice in that arena of government until the next election.

      Worse, you may never have had a voice. For example, most states are written off during a presidential election as either Democrat or Republican, and nothing that either candidate does will change those minds. This results in a disproportional attention on the "swing states". Politically, a Republican president doesn't have to care about California's energy crisis, unemployment, or budget deficit, even if it means pissing off Republican Californians, because he's not going to win the state anyway.

      Basically, as the federal government becomes more and more powerful relative to the state, America needs a more direct way of electing federal leaders so that various minorities can be heard. Obviously, that's not really on anybody's agenda.

    41. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, seems to me that police officers can give you a ticket for speeding anyway. What's your bias against them doing it at a traffic light?

      Unless your meaning was that they could actually ARREST you for it, I.E. bring you in and question you etc.

    42. Re:I am confident by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "If our "representatives" would do thier goddamn jobs"

      They were elected for mostly three reasons:
      • Their party
      • Their looks
      • Their catchy campaign slogan
      If you're looking for somebody to uphold the US Constitution, you're obviously looking in the wrong place.
    43. Re:I am confident by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      One suspects that PATRIOT 1 was lying around someone's office for a longggg time, and Ashcroft just got to be lucky enough to rubber stamp it and pass it on up to Congress.

      You are so right. That massive document was drawn up in two weeks?? Horsecrap. It was drawn up during a period of years, lovingly detailed and polished.

      Someone in law enforcement or politics wanted that law badly, and was ready to shove it in during our nation's shock.

      WHO WROTE THAT EVIL THING? Why can't we get any answers anymore?

    44. Re:I am confident by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Laws that "live right on the border" shouldn't be laws. People who vote for them *should* risk being removed from office.

      Personally, I'd rather also see them do hard time... they have betrayed the country, and if picky reasoning proves that "they didn't really quite betray it", this doesn't make be think any more highly of them. Not that there's much chance of any of this happening.

      OTOH, I'm not sure that I would trust the current court not to use this as a techniqure for removing "unpleasant obstacles" from the legislature. One must always be cautious of unintended consequences.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    45. Re:I am confident by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1
      Well, surely every law about to be passed must first be cleared by your supreme court? Or is the system flawed in that way? And why are you confident of this? Do you really trust any body of the government? And if so, why?

      Maybe I'm just a bit cynical, I don't know.

    46. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you can't challenge the legality of an amendment to the Constitution. You can only repeal or modify the amendment (and/or the Constitution) via the amendment process.

      Of course, this means that you couldn't have "attached" an amendment to the Constitution on a non-amendment bill in the first place.

      IANAL

    47. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those comments were not directed to the general public, but to suspected terrorists. Besides, Bush's nominations is not a ramming, as you call it, he is merely fulfilling his duties of office. No different than any president before him. Also, one of the fundamental purposes of the Federal (not State and Local) governments is the protection of the freedoms of the people in the US to live and pursue happiness. That is exactly what this Patriot Act ensures, that civilians can be free of fear of terror, becuase the Federal government has the power to pursue "suspected" terrorist. Things have changed in the US since 9/11 folks, and appeasing an unwarranted enemy is not our chosen course of action. The Patriot Act is there for the protection of the decent, law abiding, community contributing members of the United States of America.

    48. Re:I am confident by Rev+Snow · · Score: 1
      Cross burning is only illegal if it is intended to intimidate someone.

      Yes, and PATRIOT is aimed only at "terrorists."

      I don't find either caveat particularly comforting.

      Basically, if the local jury finds your point of view sufficiently offensive, you're going to jail.

    49. Re:I am confident by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. As old guys retire, the supreme court gets filled with people appointed by the administration and approved by the congress. So the same people who championed the PATRIOT act are the ones picking who's going the be on the Supreme Court when those cases come up.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    50. Re:I am confident by osgeek · · Score: 1

      Read the decision again. It's not a crime if it's a "political statement". The SCOTUS specified quite clearly that burning a cross in itself is not a crime.

      Personally, I think that burning a cross anywhere (excepting tresspassing and such) should be an expression of free speech, but I'm glad that the SCOTUS did leave in the ability to burn one as a political statement.

    51. Re:I am confident by DarkZero · · Score: 1

      Unless your meaning was that they could actually ARREST you for it, I.E. bring you in and question you etc.

      Yes, it was. That's why I said "made it legal for police officers to arrest drivers at traffic stops for any reason they choose".

    52. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Electoral college' doesn't rhyme with 'supreme court'.

    53. Re:I am confident by parliboy · · Score: 1

      Exactly. On the same lines, a Federal judge who believe Microsoft's monopoly should be broken up should be fired. After all, that didn't survive appeal either.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    54. Re:I am confident by Rev+Snow · · Score: 1
      Did you read anything about the decision? ...Only when a cross burning is used as a means of intimidation. If am having a few people into my backyard for a cross bon fire then that is hardly intimidation.

      I read this article which says that one of the cases under review dealt with burning a cross on private land in rural Virginia. I interpret ``rural'' as ``away from other people,'' so who's being intimidated?

      (The other case reviewed did deal with burning a cross on a victim's lawn. I do not defend that, and have no problem with convictions in that case under other laws.)

      Another article reports the three month jail sentence.

      Now if these reports do not accurately convey the facts of the case, consider me corrected.

      Since others are accusing me of racism, I guess I should retort that I'm exactly as racist as the ACLU on this point.

    55. Re:I am confident by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Heh...if I recall correctly, the Patriot act was passed (near?) unanimously.

      Me thinks the terorists should have hit Congress instead of the WTC...that way they would have done some good.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    56. Re:I am confident by CleverNickName · · Score: 1

      The PATRIOT Act, or the Supreme Court?

      Yes.

    57. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats because there are no guidelines as to which moron is hired/voted for in our goverment.. ie.. BUSH..
      we need people in our goverment that have PHDs in diplomacy & other social/political profecions not morons that cant pronounce nouns straight..

    58. Re:I am confident by Noren · · Score: 1
      IANAL, but when a police officer pulls you over, you are under arrest. That's what being 'under arrest' means: it is illegal for you to leave your location(or police custody as applicable)- which is true during a traffic stop. (The fact that it's not in an actual police building isn't the important aspect.)

      There are rules for this; it's not legal for a policeman to forbid you to leave a location unless certain conditions for placing you under arrest are met. Police can ask you to stay in situations where you're allowed to leave, so it can be useful to bluntly ask if you're permitted to leave to determine if you're actually under arrest, and to establish that you were placed under arrest and not just voluntarily staying if the answer is no.

      It may not be a good idea to do this unless it's truly necessary, however- making a cop unhappy is rarely a good idea even if you've done nothing wrong...

    59. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason I suggested that your comment sounded racist is the way you said "your own people." Who the fuck are "your own people?" It had nothing to do with your arguement which seems specious, at best.

      Don't forget the other case mentioned in the CNN article:

      "In one case, two white men in Virginia Beach, Virginia, ended a night of partying by trying to burn a 4-foot cross in the yard of a black neighbor, James Jubilee. Jubilee later moved his family out of the neighborhood because of concern for their safety. "

    60. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "The Patriot Act is there for the protection of the decent, law abiding, community contributing members of the United States of America."

      Let me translate this for you folks. By that he means white christian republicans. everybody else hates america and is a terrorist.

    61. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah...fuck me. you did mention that article. well okay, i'll shut up, but I still hold to my other response.

    62. Re:I am confident by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      yes, the law has that huge flaw!
      That causes the SCOUS to be flooded with cases forcing them to pick and choose. Its the luck of the draw to get something overturned--hope you want to go to jail for it. Figure, the prosecutor is trying to get the harshest possible results and get "First Judgement" [yes, just as eagerly sought as First Post!] So even if your case is stupid on the fringe of the law you'll get full force just to try it out. In effect, the executive branches throw droves of people at the Courts burying them in cases--some good ones get thru to justice, and some innocent people get punished--but they had their "day in court" so it's fair [immoral for the exectuive branch-but legally fair]


      In My state michigan, our supreme court has Judical Review before the law goes into effect. They are allowed to judge on it before an innocent person is punished for breaking it! This causes the Legeslature to think twice when they are passing a law because it can immeditely be struck down. It also lets them go back right away and fix the law shortly after passing it rather than throwing it to future generations that know nothing about it to deal with it!


      I think the Founders left it to be combative to prevent corruption/collusion of the branches and the courts have traditionally considered themselves outside the Lawmaking process. They don't make 'um just judge 'um. Unfortuantely, with the "Patriot" act if you don't get a lawyer or trial, you can't overturn the law can you! The court can't rule on what they can't "see". Yes it needs fixed, but even if it was, the court would be overrun with more cases making fairness still a moot point. Unfortunately, the court can't find the other branches in contempt and lock them up-only voters can kick out CongressCritters-they're immune from most procecution in office, only congress can impeach the prez. Even if they do flat out break the law the third branch can't actually do anything about it. They can only react to actions by another branch, not take action!


      Maybe that should change. But it would take an amendment to do that. The states would have to float it on their own over the heads of congress making it an order of magintude more difficult, but it could be done. What would that amendment be? Judical review would be nice--the ability to call congress out for foolish laws up front would be a good thing.


      The only other thing is to make the Congress hold the Prez responsible for his departments. [of course you have to vote! to get them to do that!] Most departments answer directly to the prez...He should be solely accountable for his minion's actions! But Congress would have to start impeachment over that.. that's the only way.

    63. Re:I am confident by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      We couldn't really tell our representatives that we don't want something if we have no idea what it is.

      Um, why not? I'd think not knowing the law that is being voted upon is good enough reason NOT to pass it.

      Do you just walk out into the street without looking? Why aren't you going to have someone read the law before its passed?

    64. Re:I am confident by nexthec · · Score: 1

      You do realize that congress is exempt from ADA?? they have a tendancy to do that when they realize that what they are passing sucks balls.

    65. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tell you the HS kids get more and more savvy..

      You think the SC judges don't notice which way the wind blows. Psshawww...

      Come back to me when YOU get an education.

    66. Re:I am confident by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      The potential for abuse is far too great to offer any reasonable protection of liberty. The government unchecked may protect us from terrorists, but who will protect us from an unchecked government?

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    67. Re:I am confident by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1

      You mean the act that was john ashcroft was ordered to write by president bush to (paraphrase) "make sure this doesn't happen again"?

    68. Re:I am confident by kuroth · · Score: 1

      >You've basically replaced the rightful and designed role of hundreds of elected
      >representatives with the peripheral role of a dozen justices appointed by Presidents

      For varying values of "dozen".

      There are nine justices on the Supreme Court, not twelve.

    69. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is exactly what this Patriot Act ensures, that civilians can be free of fear of terror

      You mean like the terror I feel at the thought of being detained indefinitely without recourse to a lawyer or judge?

      Oh, you were talking about the other terrorists, not the ones detaining American citizens.

      Are you really so naive as to believe that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear? I'm grateful the Founding Fathers weren't such Polyannas.
    70. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do everybody complain about crocked politicians day in, and day out, yet when it comes to reelection time, they seem to get reelected? Does Marrion Berry come to mind?! Remember we are a republic (not a true democracy) form of government. We have the power to choose when it comes to reelection.

      You're probably the type of person who complains about politicians all the time. But when it comes time to vote, you don't. Maybe you should look in the mirror.

    71. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is where citizens armed with guns comes in. oh, but wait, liberal hippies dont think we have the right to bear arms, so i guess maybe we cant protect our rights by voting democrat!

    72. Re:I am confident by elmegil · · Score: 1

      And you know for a fact that this discussion ocurred how? Really, I am NOT apologizing for anyone involved in it. I think Ashcroft is the anti-Christ for being willing to go along with this travesty and many others, but I would not be surprised if someone only a bit lower down in Justice, a career guy, was the one who actually wrote it, and it had been around a while.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    73. Re:I am confident by russellh · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. They were elected for their ability to raise money and their willingness to do whatever it takes to get elected.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    74. Re:I am confident by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

      Actually, if we don't speak up and it becomes law....this is how it's SUPPOSED to happen. Checks and Balances. If Congress and the Pres both loose their heads, the Supreme Court is supposed to overturn these laws. This is what the Supreme Court is about!

      --

      Gorkman

    75. Re:I am confident by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      Ashcroft is not the anti-christ... he's not.. I don't know... slick enough I guess. I'm pretty sure he uses the constitution for toilet paper, and if nuclear war broke out his first concern would be to cover up all the naked statues.

      In short, he's the type of religious person who gives religious people a bad name. If everyone who sited god as their reason for doing something realized that, umm, hey, that was those darned suicide terrorists reason for killing 5,000 people, maybe I shouldn't base my governmental decisions on this... This country would be a hell of a lot better place.

      Side note: I'll bet you a beer the next abortion clinic bomber under this administration doesn't get brought up on terrorism charges.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    76. Re:I am confident by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      And Hates Our Troops, don't forget.

    77. Re:I am confident by lysium · · Score: 1
      Is truth eternal, or is it based on perception? If most people believe that the President has a great effect on government just by being elected, does this not make it truth -- if only partly? As time goes on, executive feature creep takes more and more of these presumptions as mandate.

      As much as I disliked his articles, I believe David Brin had a point with his critique of Star Wars. It has become apparent even to me that a large segment of our society does, in fact, want to be ruled, assuming that Good Guys are like Jedis; they weild awesome power in the name of all that is good and righteous. Unfortunately for all of us, the US sociopolitical system has yet to produce citizens of that fiber (except for, perhaps, one that got shot).

      Another rather important point is that our government was expressly designed to express the will of people (sex/race ignored for time being) with resources. Not your average dock-worker, black-smith, or farmer (refer to the Whiskey Rebellion), but the landed and moneyed. Do not forget, they were simply trying to correct a system where blood trumped money.

      So voter turnout can fix a lot of problems in US society, but it will have a -very- rough time fixing the money-power problem, because that is what our system is designed to do!

      ----------

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    78. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow this- If you have a ton of money you can hire someone to lobby for you.

      If you do not have a ton of money you have to work and dont have time to lobby for your interests.

      The result should be obvious. I am not sure why you don't get it.

    79. Re:I am confident by Rev+Snow · · Score: 1
      The reason I suggested that your comment sounded racist is the way you said "your own people."

      I see.

      If you want to know the full story, I originally had written "your own organization," but I changed it because I thought it made the Klan sound too respectable.

    80. Re:I am confident by Mr.Intel · · Score: 1

      That was one of the most poignent and insightful post on this topic I have seen in a while. If the government is by the people, then the people have ultimate responsibility for the government. If they don't like it, they are the only ones who have the power to change it! Too bad 'they' just don't get it.

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    81. Re:I am confident by jcoleman · · Score: 1

      At the root of the problem is the media and campaign finance.

      Think about how often you hear or read about the PATRIOT Act. Or the DMCA. Think about where you hear/read about them...online, in what traditionally would have been called "alternative" media.

      The mass media today is a corporate interest, paid for and run by the same CEOs that donate millions to campaigns. The CEOs of the same companies that hold the copyrights protected by the DMCA.

      ABC is a prime example. They are wholly owned by the Disney company. This is a direct quote from my congressman, Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), when I said to him, "Fight the DMCA" (He was standing in *my* office at the time, asking for my vote): "You can't tell Disney that they no longer hold the copyright on Mickey Mouse." Needless to say, he didn't get my vote last fall.

      The majority of the American public doesn't read news online. They don't read the alternative press. They rely on CNN and the networks to bring them their news. They read USA Today. They read their local papers.

      Do you think this mass media has any interest whatsoever in revealing the pitfalls and Constitutional ignorance of these laws? No, they want *their* laws passed by the congressmen they paid to elect. When they start spouting off about the Consitutional validity of the PATRIOT Act, they lose support from their congressmen. When they lose support, they've wasted their money.

      So you don't see any questioning in the media anymore. The media was traditionally seen in this country as "the fourth estate," and it kept the politicians in check. All they are interested in now is almighty dollar. And the country suffers for it.

      The public doesn't know the problems with the laws in this country. They just hear what the media reports, which is limited to 15-second sound bites of press releases and statements given at press conferences. Investigative reporting is almost non-existent at this point in history, and I weep for our country because of it.

    82. Re:I am confident by zdislaw · · Score: 1

      And I duly take of my mantle of self-righteous indignation and judgement. Along with my screen of "anonymous coward" (which I was using simply because I had not yet registered). Sorry for the misunderstanding.

      --
      bad sig...no donut.
    83. Re:I am confident by elmegil · · Score: 1
      he's the type of religious person who gives religious people a bad name

      I dunno, sounds like "an" anti-Christ if you ask me :-)

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    84. Re:I am confident by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      So, no bite on the beer bet... damn.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    85. Re:I am confident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right. That massive document was drawn up in two weeks?? Horsecrap. It was drawn up during a period of years, lovingly detailed and polished.

      Someone in law enforcement or politics wanted that law badly, and was ready to shove it in during our nation's shock.

      WHO WROTE THAT EVIL THING? Why can't we get any answers anymore?


      Ashcroft has been working on it for years, he was
      just looking for the right moment to make his grab
      9/11 was that moment. Check his history, he's been
      pushing his agenda quietly since the Ford Administration.

    86. Re:I am confident by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Let's see...my choices for President in 2000 were:

      - a looney right-wing religious fanatic with a deep hatred for anything not upper-class, white, and American;

      - a political tool of the democratic party and a consummate liar, lacking the spine to act independently of the wishes of his campaign contributors;

      - a socialist 'greater good' greenie wannabe dictator who's absolutely convinced that the only way to 'protect' the consumer/citizen is through...more government. More government acting according to *his* grand view of the Brave New World, of course.

      Yeee-eess. I must say, what a hopeful set of options. These 'choices' were reflected in miniature in all of my state and local elections as well. Crooks, fools, bigots, and would-be totalitarian idiots, one and all.

      I am *so* happy to be American.

      BTW, I voted for Gore. I voted for Gore because I hated the man slightly less than I hated Bush and Nader. It turns out I might as well have not voted at all, since the Supreme Court decided to ignore the process and choose the candidate themselves.

      Really, being an American just tickles me pink. My wife, on the other hand, is gathering information on what it takes to become a Canadian citizen and urging us to move to British Columbia. She has this odd idea that perhaps we'll have some 'terrorist' incident which, coincidentally enough, will result in national martial law and the suspension of elections come 2004...at least if Bush is losing in the polls, that is.

      I already got the accent from my grandparents, eh? I should fit right in.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    87. Re:I am confident by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Why would I join you on the same side of the bet? :-)

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    88. Re:I am confident by mink · · Score: 1

      As we have seen from the last 20 years, who is appointed isnt necessairly going to be beholden ot a party or idelogy, for the most part I respect the Supremes abilities to for the most part examine things from the standpoint of the constitution.
      In fact the Supremes are the last part of the system I think still is functional.
      Listening to them in the affirmative action case made that clear to me.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    89. Re:I am confident by mattrix2k · · Score: 1

      People voted on a law the couldn't read! I'm gobsmacked.

    90. Re:I am confident by Erik+Hollensbe · · Score: 1
    91. Re:I am confident by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      I should have said that we couldn't very well tell them that we don't want it if we don't even know that it exists. It was passed in record time. I didn't even hear about it until I read about it being used to secretly jail people.

      On a side note, we are now a police state. To people who still think that we are anything else, where other than a police state can citizens be arrested with no formal charges, held in solitary confinement for no publicly available reason, denied legal representation, etc.?

  3. God willing. by Pres.+Ronald+Reagan · · Score: 0, Funny

    The Partiot Act has already helped to catch many terrorists. If it is made permanent, who knows how much good it will do in the future.

    This is the well being of America here, people.

    --

    Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
    --Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:God willing. by slimsam1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, a few possible terrorists are caught at the tiny expense of the freedom and rights of 250+ million innocent people.

      --
      ...
    2. Re:God willing. by realfake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you back this up? Can you document how many terrorists have now been caught that wouldn't have been caught without it? Kindly provide links.

    3. Re:God willing. by Pres.+Ronald+Reagan · · Score: 0, Troll

      How many of your right have been violated by the federal government since the passing of the PATRIOT Act? None? Imagine that.

      The PATRIOT Act has only been used to catch terrorists, and it does that well. It MUST be kept in effect, lest terrorists overrun our great land.

      --

      Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
      --Ronald Reagan
    4. Re:God willing. by slimsam1 · · Score: 1

      What could you do if the FBI put a wiretap on your phone? They didn't even need permission from the courts. Well?

      --
      ...
    5. Re:God willing. by renehollan · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ya know, if we just killed all of the people on earth, there would be no more terrorists...

      Oh, wait. I said WAI......

      --
      You could've hired me.
    6. Re:God willing. by Circuit_Burnout · · Score: 1

      How much more dilluted could this person possibly be?

    7. Re:God willing. by k-0s · · Score: 1

      Please let this be sarcasm, please let this be sarcasm, pleeeaaassseeee.

    8. Re:God willing. by kilonad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's much easier for our government to protect our freedoms if you're willing to give up all but a few, so that they need only concentrate on protecting those few.

    9. Re:God willing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      dilluted

      I don't know. How much water did you soak him in?

    10. Re:God willing. by kilonad · · Score: 1

      Should have used preview. there was supposed to be a at the end of that.

    11. Re:God willing. by Blimey85 · · Score: 1
      Why would I care? I'm not a criminal, but if I were to become one, I sure the hell wouldn't conduct "business" over an insecure line that could be tapped. It's funny how some people will spend hours and hours trying to secure their home network which contains nothing of interest to anyone else, and then give out their credit card number on a wireless phone. I have a cordless phone and I also use my cell quite often. Neither are secure and since I do order things from time to time, the FBI listening in should be the least of my concerns. What if Joe Blow neighbor is listening for credit card numbers?

      I'm not worried about my privacy in this case because I'm not a criminal and I don't do anything that would attract the FBI's attention. If they want to tap my phone, I may be a little pissed that they are wasting tax dollars and their time on me, but that's it.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    12. Re:God willing. by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      That doesn't matter. Now the U.S. can legislate more and catch those ones! And when they run out of those, more legislation!

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    13. Re:God willing. by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Do the phone tapper detector things work?

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    14. Re:God willing. by glenrm · · Score: 1

      But a few terrorists with WMD can kill millions...

    15. Re:God willing. by Haelyn · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about my privacy in this case because I'm not a criminal and I don't do anything that would attract the FBI's attention.

      So, following your reasoning line, FBI should be able to break into your house without a search order, too. After all, you're not a criminal, and you don't do anything that would attract the FBI's attention. Fact is, if your govt. can poke its nose in your private life whenever it feels like doing it, be afraid. Be very, very afraid.

    16. Re:God willing. by arkanes · · Score: 1

      You're assuming that you need to be a criminal for this to happen. Despite (many) failures in the system up till now, the reason why it's (mostly) only criminals that get tapped phones is because there's a process of judicial review, which makes it hard for a corrupt (or even just pissed off and stupid) law enforcment officer to tap your phone. Now, with no oversight neccesary, it becomes even easier. Even if there isn't any large-scale consipiracy, or if the government as a whole doesn't start using it's power to suppress dissidents (not just fearmongering, as this is exactly what J. Edgar Hoover did), you're still at risk if you, say, personally annoy a police officer. There's been many cases of officers using resources to do things like stalk ex-girlfriends or spy on people they don't like. An open and transparent law enforcement system is the ONLY thing that can even attempt to prevent these sort of abuses.

    17. Re:God willing. by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Mr. Reagan, sir:

      I am so awed by that quote attributed to you:

      "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes."

      That quote will always be viewed as a insightful statement by one of our country's most revered leaders.

      SB
      *humor! guys!*

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    18. Re:God willing. by NoFX · · Score: 1

      Eben if they do, they won't find anything bad, so why the fuck should I care?

    19. Re:God willing. by rk · · Score: 1

      It's an interesting indicator on how creepy things are getting when a comment like this is modded "insightful" rather than "funny". Satire is dying.

    20. Re:God willing. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about my privacy in this case because I'm not a criminal and I don't do anything that would attract the FBI's attention. If they want to tap my phone, I may be a little pissed that they are wasting tax dollars and their time on me, but that's it.

      Have you ever picked up and read a US history book? Do you really think that Frank Sinatra did anything worthy of the FBI's attention? Yet they kept (and still have, i presume) detailed accounts of his sex life.

    21. Re:God willing. by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      yeah, which few? The right to consume and be sheep?

      Once we started the war on drugs. We got more drugs in this country.

      Now that we have the war on terror we will have more terror.

      Why? Because it pays, and makes people powerful.

    22. Re:God willing. by renehollan · · Score: 1
      erm, perhaps satire is "insightful" humour?

      Though, I was really expecteding to be modded down as off-topic, troll. I am as shocked as you are.

      --
      You could've hired me.
    23. Re:God willing. by OneEyedApe · · Score: 1

      Bad by your definition, or theirs? The problem with the PATRIOT act is its excessive potential for abuse. And people will abuse it, if they have not already.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all....
      --Thomas J. Kopp
    24. Re:God willing. by Circuit_Burnout · · Score: 1

      My bad...deluded

    25. Re:God willing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone has / does something bad. and any time anything can be grounds for being labeled a "terrorist" or whatever.

    26. Re:God willing. by mink · · Score: 1

      Depends on how the line is being tapped.
      Most of those detectors just show a change in the resistance of the phone loop.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  4. Not A Joke by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not a joke, just a question. What is wrong with the patriot act. Not crazy leftwing ideas but real examples of how this is so bad that any reward in stopping criminal acts is NOT worth the costs.
    I have no opinion on it yet but look forward to reading yours.

    1. Re:Not A Joke by bricriu · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.

      And that is un-American. Period.

      --

      AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
      - Reakk, Sluggy Freelance

    2. Re:Not A Joke by wherley · · Score: 4, Informative

      see the Electronic Frontier Foundations' Analysis of the USA PATRIOT Act here. After reading, feel free to contribute to the EFF here.

    3. Re:Not A Joke by rleibman · · Score: 5, Informative
    4. Re:Not A Joke by lavalyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One thing about "rights" is that for normal people to get them usually involves war, death, revolution, and lots of beheadings.

      Rights like the access to a fair trial in a reasonable amount of time. To be represented in court with a competent lawyer in the field. To be proven of guilt by a jury of peers.

      Rights like anonymous freedom of speech. Anonymous freedom of association. And anonymous dissemination and learning of information.

      What rights we lose now we will eventually regain in the mass deaths of some group. But that's just a "terrorist" act in and of itself.

      --
      Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
    5. Re:Not A Joke by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 1

      Any more to that like, you can't be a citizen, etc....

    6. Re:Not A Joke by jasonditz · · Score: 5, Informative

      A fair question, so here it goes.

      1. Redefines terrorism too broadly: the new definition includes previously protected free speech. If any person feels threatened (rightfully or not) by a lawful protest, then under the patroit act that protest is considered a terrorist act.

      2. New surveillance powers circumvent judicial review: Previously federal agencies had to get permission from the courts for wiretapping and other forms of covert surveillance. Under the Patriot Act the agency can arbitrarily label someone a 'suspected terrorist' and conduct surveillance without the court's permission. Moreover, that label doesn't have to be approved by any external agency... and the person gets no chance to defend himself.

      3. Abbrogates right to a speedy trial. Previously Constitutional protections guarenteed that a person could be held for only a very limited time without a trial... and they must be charged with a crime. Again, its a question of judicial oversight. Under the Patriot Act the executive branch can, at their own discretion, detain a person for an indefinate period of time. The only legal requirement is that the President considers them a national security risk, but again, he can keep detainees a secret, and there is no judicial review of the process. In fact, he doesn't even have to accuse them of any crimes or place them legally under arrest, just "disappear" them.

      Whether or not it successfully stops criminal acts, something which we can debate more or less ad infinitum since the government no longer has to report its actions publically, the primary effect of the Patriot Act is the greatly increase the powers of the Executive branch, and effectively neuter the Judicial branch.

      Its been publically admitted by many of the acts proponents that it drastically reduces the Judicial branches powers, greatly restricts personal freedoms, and grants the executive branch almost police state powers, but that was always prefaced with the promise that it was a temporary measure for a particularly volatile period. Now, the 'temporary' measure appears to be a permanent fixture, which is probably only fair since the "war on terrorism" itself will likely last longer than any of us will live.

    7. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rights like anonymous freedom of speech. Anonymous freedom of association. And anonymous dissemination and learning of information.

      Point to the part in the bill of rights where it says "Anonymous" anything?

    8. Re:Not A Joke by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      And that is un-American. Period.

      And anything that is un-American shouldn't be allowed in America!

      Uh... I think there are better descriptions of the reasons those things are bad. For example, they allow for violations of basic human rights.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    9. Re:Not A Joke by paranoic · · Score: 1

      And when they come for you, how will we know?

    10. Re:Not A Joke by Snaller · · Score: 1

      You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.

      Just like the people on guantanamo.

      And that is un-American. Period.


      Not recently...

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    11. Re:Not A Joke by Alu3205 · · Score: 2, Informative
      You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.


      No this is not correct. Technically you have to be labeled as a terrorist first. I belive a judge has to do this, so it isn't quite a police state yet. Not that I am defending the Patriot Act. However, what briciu said is untrue and would be illegal, as it violates the 5th and 6th Amendments.

      To answer the grand-parent post's question. The Patriot Act makes it easier to be classified a terrorist, and it has become much easier to invade the privacy of citizens. As a cynic, I think the government has been doing this for years anyway and would reguardless of this legislation. The Patriot Act simply makes the government better able to Act on this info. We have lost freedom, but it isn't 1984... yet.

      I encourage everyone to read the EFF and Cato analysis it only takes a minute and is broken down quite nicely.
      --
      Slashdot comments can be accurate, highly modded, or posted quickly. Pick two.
    12. Re:Not A Joke by Firefly1 · · Score: 1
      The only legal requirement is that the President considers them a national security risk, but again, he can keep detainees a secret, and there is no judicial review of the process. In fact, he doesn't even have to accuse them of any crimes or place them legally under arrest, just "disappear" them.
      My question then becomes, at what point does the President decide that it's simply easier to arrange for the 'accidental' deaths (after, as needed, interrogation using methods which would be widely hailed as illegal) of 'national security risks' than go through the bother of detaining them?
      To use a Hollywood example (Mercury Rising): some NSA official decided that the fact of a supercode happening to be crackable by a nine-year-old autistic has implications sufficient to justify murdering the boy and his parents, none of whom have committed any crime that would merit the death penalty. I suppose that official's actions would be 'legal', right?
      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    13. Re:Not A Joke by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Under the Patriot Act the executive branch can, at their own discretion, detain a person for an indefinate period of time. In fact, he doesn't even have to accuse them of any crimes or place them legally under arrest

      Ah "detention without trial", an effective counter terrorism measure, was used extensively by the old Apartheid government in South Africa to control "terrorists", especially in the "temporary volatile period" in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Well, that's what they said. This must be not as evil, must be different ... somehow ... please??

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    14. Re:Not A Joke by Mirus+Nex · · Score: 1
      2. New surveillance powers circumvent judicial review: Previously federal agencies had to get permission from the courts for wiretapping and other forms of covert surveillance. Under the Patriot Act the agency can arbitrarily label someone a 'suspected terrorist' and conduct surveillance without the court's permission. Moreover, that label doesn't have to be approved by any external agency... and the person gets no chance to defend himself.

      This one always gets me. On one hand you want free reign over the airwaves, to receive and do what you want with the signal (decode it, listen to it, watch it, etc...). Yet, OTOH, you don't want anyone else listening/receiving YOUR signals. So, it's okay to intercept police radio signals with a scanner but if you're neighbor is picking up your cell phone call on his scanner across the street he should be arrested... Quite frankly, if you send any signal out into the public you shouldn't expect it to be private any more. Personally, I don't use the phone that much and if the FBI/CIA wants to listen to me ordering a pizza they are welcome to.

    15. Re:Not A Joke by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, there are better reasons why those are bad. More like they're EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN by the constitution. Neat trick they pulled though, you can't challenge the PATRIOT act as unconstitutional because you're effectively tried by secret tribunal.. i.e. no way for it to get to the supreme court to be ruled unconstitutional.

    16. Re:Not A Joke by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Now, the 'temporary' measure appears to be a permanent fixture, which is probably only fair since the "war on terrorism" itself will likely last longer than any of us will live.


      Indeed - the war on terrorism that Hitler started hasn't really ended yet, has it?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    17. Re:Not A Joke by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.


      but why would the police or FBI need to give you a lawyer or trial if they already have proof of your guilt? Why waste my tax dollars?

    18. Re:Not A Joke by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Americans? Terrorists? No! Nevermind that US special forces often engage in "covert warfare" that is eerily reminiscant of terrorism (car bombs, assassinations, etc.) except we don't see it in the news here because it doesn't officially involve americans.

    19. Re:Not A Joke by Shadowlion · · Score: 1

      Just like the people on guantanamo.

      All of whom are non U.S. citizens, and therefore do not qualify for the protections afforded to United States citizens under the Constitution.

      Maybe you'd like to make a human rights argument, but as far as the Constitutional argument goes, you're out of luck.

    20. Re:Not A Joke by ralico · · Score: 1

      So we move the ball along in creating a new police state at home during the same time we are overthrowing one abroad. The difference is our leaders have learned to control better with honey than vinegar.

      --

      SCO to Hell
    21. Re:Not A Joke by elmegil · · Score: 1

      How about Jose Pedillo? Or more worryingly, since there does seem to be a strong likelihood that Jose intended harm (even though the Justice Dept now claims "he's a small fish"), how about Mike Hawash, who has no charges against him, and no explanation of why he's being held or kept in solitary confinement or strip searched every time he returns to his cell.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    22. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As we have seen with the near unanimous support for the war against Iraq, the ends justify the means. If killing that boy and his parents will secure America against the faceless enemy of terrorism, then by all means they should be killed.

    23. Re:Not A Joke by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      My question then becomes, at what point does the President decide that it's simply easier to arrange for the 'accidental' deaths (after, as needed, interrogation using methods which would be widely hailed as illegal) of 'national security risks' than go through the bother of detaining them?

      How do you know that this isn't already the case?

      Seriously. If they never have to produce the person, then how would you know that "detained" wasn't a euphamism for "shot and buried in the desert"?

      This is insane. There is a tremendous record of abuses of police and government powers even when those powers are covered by close judicial scrutiny. Now people want to give them even more power, but without the review, and actually buy that there won't be far worse abuse? No, I don't buy it. People who support this know what it will result in, and are either glad or don't care.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    24. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C:\my documents\ is the same as /usr on a unix system. Really - it's the same concept with a more friendly name: a folder, which every user sees as his own, in which he is to store his personal files. It's actually a very good concept on a multiuser machine, and windows' implementation of it is much like the unix one: My Documents is persistent across all machines on a network.

      So what exactly is so bad about it?

    25. Re:Not A Joke by Foxxe · · Score: 0

      Ok...Mr. never been falsely accussed. Let's say you're standing in the way of my success. Add a little annonymous phone call, a little white lie, whip it up in a big Patriot Act Pie and tada....you're no longer a problem for me. Better hope they don't decide to save some more money on detaining you and just go for the death penalty.

      No Due Process for you! You die now. Well, we were pretty sure he was guilty?

    26. Re:Not A Joke by Christopher+Bibbs · · Score: 1

      Actually, once you're on US soil (and Guantanamo is ours) you get all the same rights as a citizen unless the right is afforded only to citizens explicitly (like the right to vote).

    27. Re:Not A Joke by pballsim · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that when people who say, "Soldiers are protecting your rights, so don't say anything bad about the country or leave" can no longer say that?! If we have no rights, how do you defend them?

    28. Re:Not A Joke by extrarice · · Score: 1

      [quote]
      Its been publically admitted by many of the acts proponents that it drastically reduces the Judicial branches powers, greatly restricts personal freedoms, and grants the executive branch almost police state powers, but that was always prefaced with the promise that it was a temporary measure for a particularly volatile period. Now, the 'temporary' measure appears to be a permanent fixture, which is probably only fair since the "war on terrorism" itself will likely last longer than any of us will live.
      [/quote]

      Why does this bit remind me of Senator Palpatine's speech in Episode 2 regarding his assumption of power, and how he will "throw down that power" once the crisis is over? See episodes 4-6 to see how that situation turned out.

      --
      "Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
    29. Re:Not A Joke by Auzure · · Score: 1

      If you get convicted, and thrown into jail, there is always federal habius corpus, upon which the act can be struck down

    30. Re:Not A Joke by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

      You are correct sir. The Constitution extends to all "persons", not just U.S. Citizens.

    31. Re:Not A Joke by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      Better yet, call up the boys, tell him he's been selling crack to the nine year old kids on the block in exchange for sex. By the time they're through with him, he'll have no life and no stuff. (They'll keep it under the proceeds of crime, they have no compulsion to give it back in most states)

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    32. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the people in Guantanamo have two things going for them that *most* Americans don't:

      1. They are not US citizens, or even residents, and are therefore NOT guaranteed protection under our constitution.

      2. They were captured as military combatants who were NOT in uniform, therefore NOT protected by the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of POWs. According to military custom, combatants caught dressed as civilians or posing as a member of the opposing military are treated as spies and are subject to summary execution. The people at Guantanamo are lucky they were treated more humanely than they would treat an American POW.

      American citizens and residents ARE guaranteed the protections of our constitution, and we as Americans should be continually vigilant to make sure our rights are not slowly eroded or taken away outright.

    33. Re:Not A Joke by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      you can't challenge the PATRIOT act as unconstitutional because you're effectively tried by secret tribunal.. i.e. no way for it to get to the supreme court to be ruled unconstitutional.


      That's a very nice catch-22 indeed. Perhaps the ACLU or someone could file a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the various John Does affected?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    34. Re:Not A Joke by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      but why would the police or FBI need to give you a lawyer or trial if they already have proof of your guilt? Why waste my tax dollars?


      "Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
      "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first-verdict afterwards."
      "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
      "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
      "I won't!" said Alice.
      "Off with her head!" the Queen sounded at the top of her voice.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    35. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because life happens exactly the way things happen in Star Wars.

      Thank you, Captain Dumbshit.

    36. Re:Not A Joke by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      You forget a couple: mainly the fact that no-one was given the document before they voted on it. Yup, you read that right: the bill was signed intop law without being read! No due debate/process/diligence whatsoever.

      Another cute thing is that many of the clauses don't have a sunset clause...those parts are there to stay. And that concerns all of the surveilance aspects, including internet surveilance.
      It's not for nothing that I've been calling the US a police state ever since that thing got singed into law.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    37. Re:Not A Joke by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      The difference between a special forces covert op and a terrorist plot is that the terrorist plot is geared towards taking as many innocent lives as possible, while the special forces covert op is geared toward taking out an establishments functionality.

      Big difference.
      Oh yes, and neutralizing opponent troop movements that would happen to be in conflict with American troop movements, if there would be any.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    38. Re:Not A Joke by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      The police are public servants, are employed as police by their own choice, are given power to do things that would be illegal if a regular citizen did them (i.e. arrest people, shoot people, speed, etc), and in many cases have a history of abusing that power. So comparing the privacy rights of the police force to the privacy rights of a private citizen isn't valid.


      Also, the old "I don't care if the government spies on me because I have nothing to hide" gag only works as long as the government remains accountable to its own rules. Remove government accountibility for its own actions, and it won't be too many years before you do have something to hide... some egregious crime like voting for a third party or insulting the President or etc.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    39. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if you've missed the point, or if you're just playing dumb. It is currently (and always has been) legal for the gov't to passively eavesdrop on you without a warrant. In other words, it's perfectly legal for them to stand outside your house and listen to what comes through the wall without a warrant.

      What has been illegal but made legal now is active surveillance without a warrant. This includes wiretapping, setting up a "man in the middle" attack, and other actions intended to bypass security measures.

      The distinction here is whether or not reasonable steps are taken to ensure the security of the transmission. A court order used to be required for the government to bypass any security you set up, but not anymore. Get it now?

    40. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >you can't challenge the PATRIOT act as unconstitutional because you're effectively tried by secret tribunal

      that doesn't follow. i understand people's dislike of the patriot act, but this type of thinking is a bit of an over-reaction

    41. Re:Not A Joke by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      Amendment IX

      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


      That is, there are certain rights that people have, regardless of whether or not they are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

      And if you don't have rights to anonymity, then why the fuck are you posting anonymously? Answer: because we have that right.

      You, nor the government, has no right to know what I do in my free time, what books I like, etc. if I don't want them to, unless there is very clear evidence that I could be doing something illegal, in which case they have to apply for a warrant.

      Technically. I doubt they even need the warrant these days; but the laws on the book say...

      --
      evil adrian
    42. Re:Not A Joke by Evil+Adrian · · Score: 1

      Personally, I don't use the phone that much and if the FBI/CIA wants to listen to me ordering a pizza they are welcome to.

      OK, I'm calling your bluff: post your address. I'm going to visit your house to watch you through your windows, listen to your conversations, and follow you to work, since you're not doing anything illegal and have nothing to hide.

      --
      evil adrian
    43. Re:Not A Joke by Snaller · · Score: 1

      >Just like the people on guantanamo.

      >All of whom are non U.S. citizens, and therefore

      >do not qualify for the protections afforded to

      >United States citizens under the Constitution.



      No really? Wow. Who would have thought.

      Twelve years of failed diplomacy on the part of the UN to disarm Iraq, yet Bush and the US gets the blame.

      Not the US, just Bush - that's what you get for invading other other countries. That and probably a shit load of new bin ladens.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    44. Re:Not A Joke by ShadowDrake · · Score: 1

      > C:\my documents\ is the same as /usr on a unix >system. Really - it's the same concept with a more >friendly name: a folder, which every user sees as >his own, in which he is to store his personal >files. It's actually a very good concept on a >multiuser machine, and windows' implementation of >it is much like the unix one: My Documents is >persistent across all machines on a network.

      Do you perhaps mean "the same as ~"?

      The problems:

      1. It's got a long, overly cutesy name. My This, My That... did four year olds design this environment?

      2. Not everything saves there. Many apps, particularly older ones, don't store things there by default, so much of the convinence is lost.

      3. The name isn't insightful. If I sit down in front of a Windows multiuser machine, is "My Documents" analogous to ~marada, ~root, or ~someoneelse?

      4. Unlike ~, it doesn't store everything. Where are my custom settings?

      --
      It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
    45. Re:Not A Joke by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      that doesn't follow. i understand people's dislike of the patriot act, but this type of thinking is a bit of an over-reaction


      Okay, so suppose Jose Padilla wants to challenge his current incarceration as unconstitutional. How can he do that, given that he isn't even allowed to talk to a lawyer?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    46. Re:Not A Joke by Keeper · · Score: 1

      ...or for that matter, the fact that he isn't considered imprisoned, merely detained. Or any evidence you would use in your arguement in any court is sealed.

    47. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No; for the "books I like".... librarians must hand over any records of what books you check out. That is to say: "Anyone who cant afford to buy an old-ass book on their own MUST be at the library, and obviously its the poor people, so lets take those records for free without merit."

      They can take it without a warrant.

    48. Re:Not A Joke by ddimas · · Score: 1

      But it may be hundreds or thousands of years from now. Look at the span of time between the end of the Athenian Democracy and the American Revolution.
      I have a dreadful feeling about all this.

    49. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belive a judge has to do this...

      Your faith does not make it true.

    50. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you'd like to make a human rights argument, but as far as the Constitutional argument goes, you're out of luck.

      Given that Colin Powell was waving the UN Declaration on Human Rights around a couple of weeks ago for the US's global human rights report, maybe he'd like to read it sometime.

    51. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were captured as military combatants who were NOT in uniform, therefore NOT protected by the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of POWs.

      I'd be interested to see how many of them fell into this category, given that they were probably captured due to their known status as fighters for the Taliban:

      Article 3.2.6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

    52. Re:Not A Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go read the constitution. The rights are for all not just citizens.

    53. Re:Not A Joke by mink · · Score: 1

      My US constitution only talks of the configurations and rules of the 3 branches of government and the states rights.
      The Bill of Rights covers many of our protections, and in looking at them I only see referance to "people" or "persons" never "citizens", the parts about who can serve in elected office do specify citizens.
      So can you or anyont point out where this specific distinction is made? Why is it wrong to treat all people as if they are equal (read the preamble)?
      Isn't Bush supposed to be "compashionate"?

      I also saw this one:
      "AMENDMENT XV

      Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

      Section 1.
      The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

      Section 2.
      The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

      Isnt the purge of voter lists in florida in direct violation of this?
      It is later ammended to add sex as another thing you can not discriminate against, and again to prevent poll taxes being used to keep poor voters out, and again to prevent people 18 or older from being prevented from voting.

      wow it took 203 years to ratify the 27th ammendment. Ohio still hasnt ratified the ammendment that bans slavery.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    54. Re:Not A Joke by mink · · Score: 1

      "1. They are not US citizens, or even residents, and are therefore NOT guaranteed protection under our constitution."

      Can you please point out the part of the constitution that says the above?

      Only thing I see is in the preable to the declaration that talks about everyone being the same and all haing the same basic rights.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  5. That's if you'll retain the right to challenge it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    %subject

  6. Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge by joe52 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How are they going to stop you? Throw you in jail and not let you see a lawyer?

    Oh wait...

  7. Now, now... by aerojad · · Score: 1

    and the general population for our current leadership.

    The general population? Or the justices of the Supreme Court?

    That said, to get back more on topic, I hope some lawyer somewhere will have the balls to run with a case against the PATRIOT Act, and run far with it, taking it to the Supreme Court. By that time, hopefully, there will be some new court members in and maybe, just maybe, the general population will see how badly the act is fucking them over, and with popular support, something could be done.

    It is, after all, a nice dream.

    --

    SecondPageMedia - Wha
    1. Re:Now, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another mindless Democrat/Green spewing garbage.

      It was GORE who sent almost 100 lawyers to Florida to ensure the absentee (military) ballots were not counted.

      After FIVE RECOUNTS Gore LOST.
      Please MOVE on.

    2. Re:Now, now... by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "The general population? Or the justices of the Supreme Court?"

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but the president is far from the only job in the federal government. Seeing as how the whole damned House and a third of the Senate were up for grabs in 2000 and '02 (just like every election year), I am quite comfortable with blaming the voting public in general.

      Especially so when you consider that all President Bush has essentially done is rubber stamp any and every piece of legislation that comes across his desk, having yet to veto anything.

    3. Re:Now, now... by privacyt · · Score: 1
      Remember that the current Supreme Court voted 5-4 to install the Bush Junta, so I wouldn't bet on that Court to do anything about the PATRIOT Act. Even if some of the most shamelessly pro-corporate/anti-privacy Justices like Ruth Ginsberg or William Rehnquist retire, President Smirk is going to be the one nominating the replacements.

      Sorry to spoil your dream with my pessimism. :(

    4. Re:Now, now... by High+Res. · · Score: 0

      Or the people in Florida that couldn't trace an arrow to the right name, or the people in Tennesse that didn't vote for their home canidate, or Ralph Nader, or the people that ran Gore's horrible campaign, or 20 arabs that hijacked plains on 9/11, or...

    5. Re:Now, now... by k3v0 · · Score: 1

      getting a good supreme court to try this is fairly unlikely though, as GWB is trying to stock the court with a conservative republican. fortunately the senate has not allowed this to happen yet.

    6. Re:Now, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GWB is trying to stock the court with a conservative republican. fortunately the senate has not allowed this to happen yet.

      What the fuck are you talking about? Did I miss the announcement of one of the Supreme Court Justices stepping down? Do you think that Bush can just kick out justices whenever he wants? Can you even show were this has occured anywhere but in your head?

    7. Re:Now, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you want to do away with the electoral college (not popularly elected), the Senate (not proportional to the population), and now the Supreme Court justices?

      Yeah, it is a nice dream. What do you propose take their place? General elections? Population centers would overrun rural and suburban districts so much so, there'd be a civil war in 2 decades. The rural areas would lose, but you'd be happy with that, as a leftist? Ironic.

      The reality is, you just don't like getting your way. This is NOT extensible to all leftists; many I've run into have intelligent arguments. Yours, I am not afraid to say despite your claimed numbers, are certainly not.

      Just say you don't like the Constitution when it doesn't favor your opinion and be done with it, than these bullshit fingerpointing at some possible culprits. The SC was involved because it should have been. If you didn't like their decision, that's one thing, but it seems darn sure you've gone beyond that--you're saying they shouldn't have been involved (per the Justices--that is, after all, their freakin job)--which is perposterous.

      btw, the SC is a reflection of all the processes that came before it, from the nomination process to the approval of those nominations. Gore knew this. You knew this. It's part of the procedure if such a dispute occurs. Hell, I disagree with the mentality of the decision of the SC, but I do not dispute the procedure. You? You're just freakin unhappy about not getting your way. Welcome to life. The Republicans felt that way in 1992, when a different electoral procedure, that being a runoff (taking the top two vote getters and having another election) would have likely (despite all the leftist counterweight to such a claim) had Bush senior going a second term, AND had been a better reflection of the population's wants--where were you?

      btw, you want general elections, go somewhere else. The US has never had general elections for the President.

    8. Re:Now, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GWB: Wait just a second yall, there's a veto? We dint lern abut that in collage.

    9. Re:Now, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was unanimous.

  8. Chilling Effect by Ribo99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    That chilling effect you feel is not your lack of trousers...

    --
    I wear pants.
    1. Re:Chilling Effect by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      I find your lack of pants disturbing.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    2. Re:Chilling Effect by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Pants quotes from Episode 2

      Padme: You're not all pants, Ani.
      Anakin: Well, I SHOULD BE!

      Obi-Wan: Your pants are very impressive. You must be very proud.

      Jango Fett: Do you like your pants?
      Obi-Wan: I look forward to seeing them in action.
      Jango Fett: They'll do their job well. I'll guarantee that.

      Yoda: Mmm. Lost his pants, Master Obi-Wan has. How embarrassing. How embarrassing.

      Yoda: Truly wonderful, the pants of a child is.

      Yoda: Around the pants a perimeter create.

      Yoda: Clear your pants must be, if you are to discover the real villains behind this plot.

      Count Dooku: It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the Force...but by our skills with pants.

      Count Dooku: What if I told you that the Republic was now under the control of a dark lord of the Pants?
      Obi-Wan: No, that's not possible. The Jedi would sense it.
      Count Dooku: The Dark Side has clouded their vision. Hundreds of senators are now under the influence of a Pants lord called Darth Seatious.
      Obi-Wan: I don't believe you.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    3. Re:Chilling Effect by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      Considering that it is April 9th, and I woke up to the sight of snow out my (open) window, I have to wonder: what is the chilling effect, and how do I stop it? Damn that terrorist Jet Stream!

      (Or I could just close the window, but my Athlon XP tends to overheat when that happens. (Mainly due to overactive heat and a poorly placed thermostat.))

      (Oh, and I'm from Massachusetts, and no, snow isn't really "normal" this time of year, although it has happened in the past this time of year, so it's not unheard of.)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:Chilling Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people don't care about what you just typed.

    5. Re:Chilling Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious, but has anyone here, who is whining about how bad this is, been affected by the current implementation of the act?

      Or is it just purely fear? I get this feeling of mob mentality when I read these posts where people are saying their disatisfaction, but it doesn't seem to stem from personal evaluation of the act and its impact, but like a clique, because everyone else dislikes it.

      (I'm a Republican. Don't like the Patriot Act. But have not been affected by the Act either, which matters little, I know, and unlike probably most here, I've written to my reps, stating my disatisfaction that it was passed or could be extended, saying it should be repealed.)

    6. Re:Chilling Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if it's because I'm a hacker, but I just assume that if a channel isn't secure then "they're" listening.

    7. Re:Chilling Effect by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Sing the praises of pants!

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    8. Re:Chilling Effect by zcat_NZ · · Score: 1

      Curious, but has anyone here, who is whining about how bad this is, been affected by the current implementation of the act?

      Are Americans ignorant of history now, as well as geography?

      I would apologise for being inflamatory but I don't feel that it's unjustified. Your statement ranks right up there with "if you have nothing to hide"

      --
      455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
    9. Re:Chilling Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed it is your lack of trousers. Big Gov't says BEND OVER!

    10. Re:Chilling Effect by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Then you'll probably like this ;)

      http://matt.waggoner.com/pants.html

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    11. Re:Chilling Effect by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 1

      Sure it is... And the lube that the federal government is placing on your anus before they completely buttfuck you.

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
  9. google link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. What does this say about the "war on terrorism"? by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that an act like this indicates one of two things:

    1. The government knows damn well the "war on terrorism" is a total flop and will never achieve its goals.

    or

    2. The "war on terrorism" is a ploy to promote and sustain the government's move to seize more power.

    All things being equal, I'd say the first is more likely, especially since I can offer no theory of motive for the second. In either case, if ever the government did something that clearly demonstrates foul intent, this is it. Imagine the impossibility of the PATRIOT Act's effects ever getting nullified by ammendments.

    And don't forget what's on the horizon for the United States. It just keeps going downhill, doesn't it?

  11. Not a joke either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase
    a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    Benjamin Franklin

    1. Re:Not a joke either by Ken@WearableTech · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Everyone has seen this quote any examples like I asked?

    2. Re:Not a joke either by JonKatzIsAnIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      OK - then please explain:
      • licensing drivers of cars and pilots of airplanes
      • food handing regulations, along with restaurant inspections
      • environmental legislation
      • regulations governing the handling of explosives, hazardous chemicals, biological agents and radioactive materials

      A peaceful, free society depends on rules and guidelines to keep it so. Deciding on what laws to pass is a continual balancing act between the two extremes of anarchy and dictatorship. Either the Franklin quote has been taken out of context, or it's about time someone said that Ben was talking out of his ass.

    3. Re:Not a joke either by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      This is a joke, right?

      Anyone with any common sense will see that your examples have absolutely nothing to do with anything. ...walk along, nothing to see here...

      shesh...

    4. Re:Not a joke either by still+cynical · · Score: 3, Insightful

      # licensing drivers of cars and pilots of airplanes
      # food handing regulations, along with restaurant inspections
      # environmental legislation
      # regulations governing the handling of explosives, hazardous chemicals, biological agents and radioactive materials

      [sigh]

      Nothing you've listed involves restricting basic human rights. There is nothing in the Constitution about hazardous materials or operating a restaurant, but PLENTY about freedom from unfair or arbitrary detention or punishment.

      Liberty == inalienable rights.

      Liberty != everything under the sun you feel like doing.

      --
      Ignorance is the root of all evil.
    5. Re:Not a joke either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, 'freedom' is the right to do what you want AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT OTHERS [in a negative way].
      freedom is NOT the right to do what the fuck you want to anything or anybody.
      licensing drivers makes perfect sense, and this has nothing to do with limiting freedom. the owner of the roads (state, country, whatever) says that "you can drive here if you prove that you're a somewhat safe driver". i'm not quite sure of the laws in the US, but i guess this affects public roads and roads/whatever directly connected to these and publicly accessible.
      so, if you own your field or whatever that is not publicly accessible aren't you allowed to drive there?

      and i'm not even gonna argue for planes, the possibility for directly harming other human beings (or other's property, which it seems is valued higher in the US) would be very real if anyone were allowed to fly heavy metal objects carrying loads of fuel wherever they wanted...

      'freedom' is the ability to do things as saying whatever you want (if you're not threathening others), burning your own cross on your own property, burning any flag you own on your own property (including the US flag, if it's a symbol of freedom it is at the same time a symbol of freedom to burn that very symbol), the right to a fair trial, not being put in jail secretly etc etc...

    6. Re:Not a joke either by parliboy · · Score: 1

      The emphasis is on temporary safety.

      Licensing cars, food regs, and the other examples are intended to give long-term safety at the cost of liberties. While they don't reduce the danger to zero, they do reduce them drastically enough to make them worthwhile.

      The PATRIOT act is designed to give to have us give up liberties for temporary safety. Few believe that a determined terrorist organization will be deterred in the long term by the restrictions of the PATRIOT act. At the end of it, we're gonna be hit again, and the PATRIOT act will not have really curbed anything.

      This is the sort of thing I will expect even the Bill O'Reillys of the world to object to, as their whole argument is based around the need for additional safeguards during wartime and other periods of elevated threat.

      --
      "You're never ready, just less unprepared."
    7. Re:Not a joke either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Right. Laws can be good. Unfortunately, this is not a law. It is a grant of power to the Justice Department and federal law enforcement. The problem lies in the fact that there is no clear definition of what can and cannot be done by these agencies. This is what scares so many people. We are asked to give up privacy rights, particularly search and seizure rights, to people who we are supposed to trust. It is this concept which we must not only question but outrightly attack! No administration should ever ask the citizens of this country to merely trust them. To do so undermines our system of checks and balances, and throws acocuntability out the window.
      In the end this will all have been a great living history lesson. Growing up, I never could imagine how a society could allow slavery, the massacre of indigenous people, or internment of its own citizens. Now I see how truly evil the tide of complacency can be. I mean, as long as it's not me, right?

    8. Re:Not a joke either by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Silly boy, don't you realize that any quote, taken out of context, from a person dead for hundreds of years, is ineffable wisdom which simply cannot be refuted or debated?

      Remember, folks, this was the guy who thought that flying a kite in a thunderstorm was a pretty good idea.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    9. Re:Not a joke either by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      In the end this will all have been a great living history lesson. Growing up, I never could imagine how a society could allow slavery, the massacre of indigenous people, or internment of its own citizens. Now I see how truly evil the tide of complacency can be. I mean, as long as it's not me, right?

      Fabulous quote. Also, for complacency, also read indifference, ignorance and laziness.

    10. Re:Not a joke either by mrroach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you missed the word "essential" in that quote. Check ou the US Constitution for more info on which rights are considered essential.

      -Mark

    11. Re:Not a joke either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I defy you to find a specific, documented instance where Benjamin Franklin actually said these words. If you can, I defy you to prove that he said these words with this century in mind.

    12. Re:Not a joke either by metulj · · Score: 1

      If you can, I defy you to prove that he said these words with this century in mind.
      "Whatta fucking mess." -- October 21, 1769.

    13. Re:Not a joke either by plastik55 · · Score: 1
      I defy you to find a specific, documented instance where Benjamin Franklin actually said these words.


      Yawn. Franklin wrote and published these words in his Historical Review of Pennsylvania in 1759.

      --

      I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!

    14. Re:Not a joke either by DrTentacle · · Score: 1
      Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase
      a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

      Obviously, this doesn't apply here, as now you have purchased a little permanent safety! God bless the Republicans!
  12. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Keeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And how many years before 9/11 did we go without a terrorist act? And how many years before that were we hit by a terrorist act enacted by people who are not American citizens?

    So how do you come to the conclusion that the Patriot Act works?

  13. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by reelbk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sweet tap dancing Christ!
    I have a rock that keeps tigers away. I haven't seen any tigers lately, so it must be working fairly well.

    --
    - A real programmer uses $ cat > a.out
  14. Orrin Hatch looking for Supreme Court Seat by Kefaa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    His support for this is neither a surprise or unexpected. Look for him to sponsor if not introduce Partiot II in the next year.

    He has been named several times as a possible replacement for any of the retiring Justices. He now has to prove himself conservative enough to ensure his legacy and a possible shot at the Chief Justice's seat.

  15. So I guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its big news when a Republican Senator wants to expand the intelligence powers of the government( Something which i oppose) but it isnt news when Clinton pushed the 'Know your customer' plan back in the 90s?

    Just curious.

  16. Best Quote by talleyrand · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

    Riiight. So you will only speak on the condition of anonymity but all ordinary citizens are expected to forfeit that right? I'm sure the irony of that situation will go unchecked.

    --

    "My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake
    1. Re:Best Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You took the words outta my mouth.

    2. Re:Best Quote by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      "The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

      You beat me to it - I was just going to say the same thing. That speaks about the obviousness of this irony! I can't wait until someone leaks who said that.

  17. Re:jesus fucking christ... by aerojad · · Score: 1

    You haven't picked up your copy of the 9th edition of Newspeak, have you?

    --

    SecondPageMedia - Wha
  18. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by antaeogo · · Score: 1

    "A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former."

    Remind me, how many terrorist acts on American soil were there in the few years before 9/11?

  19. Now might be a good time to.... by bfields · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...join in the ACLU.

    --Bruce F.

    1. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

    2. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

      You misunderstand the purpose of the ACLU. They defend civil liberties equally for Americans of all races and religions. If you are a member of religion X and the government does something that (likely uses your money) to endorse religion Y, you have a problem. This is where the ACLU steps in.

      I assume you're Christian, so I imagine you would be offended if the government insisted that public schools engage in Buddhist meditations every morning. Now imagine how a Buddhist would feel if he had to participate in Christian prayers every morning. You get the picture yet?

      The ACLU interprets the Constitution and the rights and liberties protected by it. They work to support it without bias. One of those freedoms is freedom of (and from) religion.

    3. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      Ironically enough, I contributed to the ACLU for the first time earlier today... They are currently campaining to repeal the avaricious provisions that Florida established for the sale of private information gleaned from driver's license databases (social security numbers, medical history, etc.). I suppose I had two big reasons to contribute today!

    4. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jon+Abbott · · Score: 1

      What about these pages on the ACLU website? They've also held discussions with other civil liberties groups on CSPAN where the PATRIOT Act was unfavorably mentioned numerous times.

    5. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by websurf.net · · Score: 0

      That is actually untrue. When Christian students cannot have a Bible Study at school during free time, but all other groups can meet, I don't see our local ACLU joinging in to help protect these student's freedoms. When someone wants to post porn of 5 year old kids on the internet, the ACLU will fight tooth and nail to defend their freedoms. The ACLU is not for freedom, they are for anything Anti-Christian. My .02 Cents.

    6. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

      They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

      Not true:
      <a href="http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree. cfm?ID=12126&c=207&Type=s">ACLU on PATRIOT and PATRIOT II</a>
      <a href="http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree. cfm?ID=12225&c=207">List of ACLU actions on PATRIOT</a>

    7. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is actually untrue. When Christian students cannot have a Bible Study at school during free time, but all other groups can meet, I don't see our local ACLU joinging in to help protect these student's freedoms.

      Care to back this up? I've witnessed several Christian groups forming at my school, without difficulty. They were simply not school sanctioned, which is good. I've never seen reports otherwise.

      When someone wants to post porn of 5 year old kids on the internet, the ACLU will fight tooth and nail to defend their freedoms.

      When the ACLU engages in battles like this, they are not defending the perpetrator's freedoms and they are certainly not defending the perpetrator. They are defending the person's right to due process. Law enforcement is often overzealous in dealing with particularly disgusting cases. But in a free state, even the most disgusting of crimes demands due process be follwed within the bounds of the law, and not the mind of enraged law enforcement.

      The ACLU is not for freedom, they are for anything Anti-Christian.

      Unsubstantiated.

    8. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..and the NRA.

    9. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by operagost · · Score: 1

      He was referring to schools that PROHIBIT any VOLUNTARY religious celebrations or activities of any kind. Many schools won't allow students to have prayer groups or put up religious holiday decorations, for example. The left is so fond of misquoting Thomas Jefferson's letter about the "wall of separation between church and state"- which is meaningless because it has no weight- and forgetting that the first amendment forbids an ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION. That means, no STATE SPONSORED RELIGION. It doesn't mean you can't allow voluntary religious expression- that's just as bad as forcing a particular faith, in this case Humanism/Atheism.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by terrymr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How long before Ashcroft adds the ACLU to their list of terrorist charities ?

    11. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by websurf.net · · Score: 0
      This actually happens all the time in schools all over the country. Schools think that Seperation of Church and State means that Students cannot do anything remotely religious at school. Here are some cases:

      Good News Club V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL No. 99-2036

      Board of Ed. of Westside Comm. Schools v. Mergens, 496 US 226

      I believe in due process also, but the ACLU doesn't fight for due process, they fight for the rights of the pornographers to peddle child porn. case in point:

      The Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA). Through the CPPA, Congress amended the definition of "child pornography" to include "any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer generated image or picture" where:

      (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

      (B) such visual depiction is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

      (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

      (D) such visual depiction is advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression that the material is or contains a visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

      The ACLU is fighting to make child pornography legal.

    12. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

      Did you even try to find some boo shit? The ACLU has lots to say about privacy in general AND Patriot in particular:

      http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/PrivacyMain.cfm

    13. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

      The ACLU is too busy making sure no schoolchildren do anything to celebrate Christmas, and persecuting anyone who believes in a Christian god. They haven't said boo shit about PATRIOT, and it's doubtful they ever will.

      boo shit, for a start.

      Search on the word, 'patriot'.

      --
      Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
    14. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When Christian students cannot have a Bible Study at school during free time don't see our local ACLU joinging in to help protect these student's freedoms.

      Do you know what you are talking about? ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

    15. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither of those cases deal with one religion being denied while others are allowed, which is what the parent post was asking for.

    16. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 1
      This actually happens all the time in schools all over the country. Schools think that Seperation of Church and State means that Students cannot do anything remotely religious at school. Here are some cases:

      Good News Club V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL No. 99-2036 [aclj.org]


      This case backs up my point. First of all, the ACLU was not involved and the court made its decisions on its own. That write up states:

      The District Court ultimately granted Milford summary judgment, finding the Club's subject matter to be religious in nature, not merely a discussion of secular matters from a religious perspective that Milford otherwise permits. Because the school had not allowed other groups providing religious instruction to use its limited public forum, the court held that it could deny the Club access without engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. In affirming, the Second Circuit rejected the Club's contention that Milford's restriction was unreasonable, and held that, because the Club's subject matter was quintessentially religious and its activities fell outside the bounds of pure moral and character development, [*3] Milford's policy was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.


      Seems rather fair to me. As for the second citation, I really do not have time to read the whole thing. If it is anything like the first, my point stands.

      I believe in due process also, but the ACLU doesn't fight for due process, they fight for the rights of the pornographers to peddle child porn. case in point:

      Beneath this quote, you provide copy from a proposed law, but make absolutely no statements that demonstrate the ACLU is "The ACLU is fighting to make child pornography legal." The copy you provided does not indicate any motives on the part of ACLU.

      However, if I recall, that proposal would require ISPs to violate their privacy policy in sofar as to provide an easier mechanism for law enforcement to seize logs and data regarding users (without court order). That is very unconstitutional and should not be passed.
    17. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      And if you donate to the "ACLU Foundation" (instead of the "ACLU"), then your donation is tax deductible!

      ACLU and ACLU Foundation, What is the Difference?

      Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are fully tax-deductible to the donor; membership dues and gifts to the ACLU are not tax-deductible. This is because the ACLU engages in substantial legislative lobbying, which cannot by law, be supported by tax-deductible funds. The ACLU Foundation, on the other hand, conducts our litigation and communications efforts, and contributions to it are tax-deductible.

    18. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by realdpk · · Score: 1

      I've been wondering the same thing. The damn feds have it in my head that now I have to check everything a charity does before I give them money or used clothing or whatever. It's burdensome.

      I don't want to be disappeared 20 years from now because of what I do today.

      I know, I know, I'm a pussy. But I doubt I'm the only one.

    19. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congressional Republicans, in general, do not listen to the ACLU; their constituants (e.g. registered Republicans) need to voice their concerns (or we need to vote in people more sensitive to our concerns on this matter, whatever their party affiliation).

    20. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      I'd be happy to. I will join the ACLU the day they admit that the 2nd ammendment protects an individual right just like they claim the rest of the ammendments do.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    21. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by skajake · · Score: 1

      Probably the moment that the ACLU supports a terror organization..

      Ok, next question....

      Geez, we have some braindead people here...

      --

      ~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects

    22. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do they have any position on the 2nd amendment? I looked at their site, but couldn't find anything. Or has there just been no real threat to it? I'm not aware of any happening in the US - and not being able to sell handguns with no waiting periods or background checks at guns shows doesn't count.

      Something like Rock's disgusting billion-dollar registry would count... $%!# Liberals.

    23. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      They do, but you have to search for it.

      Their position is reasonably moderate, and exactly the constitution interpretation I'd expect from the Brady Campaign or similar groups, but it just doesn't jibe with the ACLU's rabid defense of the other civil liberties:

      We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.

      Compare to their general position on Criminal Justice:

      For the past generation, state and federal crime control policies have been based on the belief that law enforcement can solve the problem; more police, harsher sentencing laws, greater use of the death penalty. But today, with an unprecedented number of people behind bars, we are no safer than before. We are, however, much less free.

      The rights guaranteed to criminal suspects, defendants, offenders and prisoners were not included in the Bill of Rights for the benefit of criminals. They are fundamental political rights that protect all Americans from governmental abuse of power. These rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. They include the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure, the right to reasonable bail, the right to due process of law and the right to be free from cruel and unusual treatment. This "bundle of rights" is indispensable to a free society.


      I guess they can reconcile these positions, but I can't.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
    24. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Tony · · Score: 1

      Probably the moment that the ACLU supports a terror organization..

      That's the problem; the US PATRIOT Act doesn't define what a "Terror Organization" really is. It's essentially, "Any organisation that acts in opposition to the United States." Considering that the entire concept of the ACLU is to act in opposition to the US government when it believes the government is behaving illegally, that is pretty much the definition of the ACLU.

      The KKK is (historically) a terrorist organisation, but you don't see the government going after them. But the ACLU: won't be long, if we keep going the way we are going.

      "Mr. Taylor, have you ever been a member of, or sympathised with, the ACLU? Yes? You, sir, are an eeeevvvviiillll Pinko terrorist!"

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    25. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by phutureboy · · Score: 1

      ...join in the ACLU [aclu.org].

      IMHO, the Institute for Justice is a much more worthy organization, although it is not yet as well-known as the ACLU.

      Check 'em out: http://www.ij.org/

    26. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      How long before people stop believing that a bureaucratic organization is going to bring about a revolutionary change in government?

      Does anyone really believe the ACLU has any power? Against the country whose policy toward organizations like the UN and the World Court is basically, "The Finger?"

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    27. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by bfields · · Score: 1
      IMHO, the Institute for Justice is a much more worthy organization, although it is not yet as well-known as the ACLU.

      OK, I checked them out. I'd describe them as extremely conservative, and not the kind of a group I'm interested in. But, that aside, a search for "patriot" and "patriot act" turned up absolutely nothing of any relevance; have they done any work on this?

      --Bruce F.

    28. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by terrymr · · Score: 1

      Even the NRA isn't convinced that the 2nd ammendment protects individual rights, that's why they've never brought a lawsuit based on it to avoid a court ruling against the individual.

    29. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      I believe they exist to protect the original revolution. But did we already lose, and if so when?

    30. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although that post is flamebaiting in general, I will tell you a little story.

      In Canada, there was this one guy called Joe Clark, an anti-poverty advocate. First, he was labeled as a terrorist in Canada after leading an anti-povert rally in which the protestors were beaten to a pulp. The terrorist charges were eventually dropped as they were absurd.

      Then, one day, Joe Clark is invited to speak on poverty in US. He gets to the border, where he is detained, and after a long time is sent back to Canada; he is also banned from US on suspicions of terrorism.

    31. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by dspeyer · · Score: 1

      Well, IIRC PATRIOT I didn't define terrorism, but PATRIOT II defines it as violation of a law in order to effect government policy. I can't find offhand the ACLU calling for civil disobedience, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have. I know NAACP and AFL-CIO have, so they'll be terrorist groups if/when PATRIOT II passes.

    32. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? A large part of the problem of the US today is it's majority of religious nuts. You guys have unfortunately never had a "true" separation of church and state, and this will turn back on you in time. Why shouldn't school provide Raelian Text studies, Scientologist bible study, etc if they need to provide christian litterature? It's preposterous.

    33. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by NightHwk1 · · Score: 1

      Students have the right to distribute literature in school. If the school was distributing it (and this is a government-operated school), then there would be a problem.

    34. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      November 22, 1963.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    35. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by TamMan2000 · · Score: 1

      About the kiddy porn thing...

      (A) should be illegal, I don't think that the ACLU is against that, it is b c and d that don't necessarily victimize a child, or anyone for that matter. Those are the aspects of the proposal that the ACLU takes issue with. And I agree with them whole heartedly.

      Child pornography should be illegal not because of the thoughts it inspires (thoughts are not illegal) it
      should be illegal because of the children involved in the production who are not of the age of consent. If something appears to be child porn, but no child was involved in the creation of it, is made illegal we
      are prosecuting people for their thoughts, and that is wrong!

      --
      "I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
    36. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      No, Kennedy was a puppet who tried to cut his strings (which I'm proud of him for). We lost it when we created the Federal Reserve allowing European global banks into out country. :-(

    37. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by mink · · Score: 1

      I can only hope someone while being accused in the fashion of the McCarthy hearings adresses them the same way that one Californian broadcaster did. Heard a little bit of it on NPR one day, he knew how to flame people.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    38. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by mink · · Score: 1

      Have you tried asking them about it?

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    39. Re:Now might be a good time to.... by monkeydo · · Score: 1

      What would I ask them? Their stated position is quite clear. They will support almost any civil liberties no matter how tenuously connected to reality so long as they don't involve guns.

      The statement that they support "reasonable" regulation is also quite farcical considering the amount of totally unreasonable gun control legislation without so much as a peep from the ACLU. For example the ACLU has made no public statements about proposed national balistic fingerprinting; which in addition to not solving any crimes would be a total violation of not only the 2nd, but also the 4th, 5th, and 6th Ammendments, which they actually purport to care about. Can you even imagine the furor they'd make if the Bradys were proposing we fingerprint all citizens which actually WOULD solve crimes? The ACLU also made no public statement when Ashcroft was under fire for insisting on destorying NICS records as required instead of turning the over to the FBI which in addition to being a massive violation of civil liberties would violate the existing federal law under which those records were generated.

      So no, I haven't asked them, because as they and I know the majority of their members are Democrats and don't really support ALL civil liberties. I think they learned their lesson in Skokie: Support the liberties popular with their constituency.

      I really genuinely would be a card carrying member if it weren't for this hypocrisy.

      --
      Si vis pacem, para bellum
      The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
  20. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Steve+B · · Score: 4, Funny
    A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

    There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

    --
    /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
  21. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doh, too late.

    - Ant

  22. How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by rzbx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone remember the last Star Wars movie? The part where the Chancelor (I think) was given supreme power to build a clone army and he said afterwards he would step down. Isn't it sad when power is meant to be instituted upon an individual or group for a limited time, but when that individual or group gains that power they suddenly realize "hey I like this, I wanna keep it." The power of corruption with those in power is amazingly strong. Even worse fact is that those in power don't really think that what they are doing is wrong. We can't allow them to just extend an Act because they feel it is right. The people I'm sure don't feel like it is right.

    --
    Question everything.
    1. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by zoobaby · · Score: 1

      Why did you bring this movie up...I was trying to forget that it was ever made!!!

    2. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by glenrm · · Score: 1

      No Lieberman is the one you have to look out for, he is a clone of the Chancelor, if you doubt this look at pictures of these two men side by side. I would love to see is stand on "cloning"...

    3. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by mattgarnsey · · Score: 1

      yes, an extension of this bill will be as depressing as the last star wars... :)

    4. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the time I completed Zelda 64: Ocarina of Time. The hardest part for me was the idea of giving up time travel and going back to playing in forest. That's my reward for saving the universe from the dark forces??? I've a better plan: How about I go back to the forest and keep the ocarina as a memento? That seems a better deal :)

    5. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      Power Corrupts, but Absolute Power is Kinda Neat :)

    6. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even worse fact is that those in power don't really think that what they are doing is wrong."

      Are you insane? If they knew it was wrong, they'd be maneuvering even more, and, oops, sorry, you would have already been dragged out of your house in broad daylight.

      What a perposterous statement. I know a lot of people say the path to hell is paved with good intentions, and I sorta agree with that statement, but comparatively? Hell no. I'll take bad actions that reap from good intentions than bad actions that are directly caused by malicious ones anytime.

      You DON'T want to know what goes through a truly messed up person's mind.

    7. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by macshune · · Score: 1

      Information is power.
      Power corrupts.
      Study hard. Be evil.

    8. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You DON'T want to know what goes through a truly messed up person's mind.

      And yet, you took the time to tell us...

    9. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you guys *really* mod up a post as insightful that drew a comparision between the Patriot Act and Star Wars?

      Think about it now. Think hard. Harder.

      If anyone brings up Star Trek, I'm crackin' skulls.

    10. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      The power of corruption with those in power is amazingly strong.

      Perhaps you meant, "with those in power, amazing strong the power of corruption is".

    11. Re:How wrong, reminds me of Star Wars by cwj123 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I defiantly think we need to enact a law to remove the president from office after a war is over if they feel the need to declare one. I think it gives 'em more of a power trip then ever.

  23. You Assume Too Much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Your post does this site too much credit by suggesting 'journalism' is practiced by the editors.

    Simply linking to someone else's work and putting a spin on it is NOT journalism!

    1. Re:You Assume Too Much... by stalkdawg · · Score: 0

      fine then the editing staff is very liberal i think we all know what i meant

  24. Success??? by Pompatus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we've had the patriot act for about a year and a half now. The best justification I read in the article was that it MIGHT have "allowed the F.B.I. to get a warrant against Zacarias Moussaoui." There's a big difference between MIGHT have and definately would have.

    Somehow I don't feel any safer.

    --

    ----
    Squirrel ... It's not just for breakfast anymore
    1. Re:Success??? by sosedada · · Score: 1

      Actually that comment applied to the new act for getting lone terrorists that just got out of committee, not to the Patriot Act.

      As far as success achieved, I don't know.

    2. Re:Success??? by terrymr · · Score: 1

      So why would they need a warrant for a guy who was already in custody on Sept 11th ?

    3. Re:Success??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI might have gotten a warrant against Moussaoui prior to Sept. 11 (under then existant law), if FBI headquarters had listened to their field agents. But they didn't.

  25. survey says... by corvi42 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    and the general population for our current leadership.

    But didn't the general population vote for Gore?

    --

    There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
    1. Re:survey says... by operagost · · Score: 1
      You're right, they did. And how is that relevant? Maybe you need to read about how the Electoral College works. Then you need to ask yourself: should even the tiniest populated states (like Alaska) be required to have at least one representative in Congress? That puts things out of balance too. And wouldn't having a straight popular vote result in the "tyranny of the majority", since all cultural and regional aspects of federal elections would be discarded?

      Ask yourself if you're griping about the EC because it's a poor system, or because of your political preferences.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:survey says... by tuffy · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But didn't the general population vote for Gore?

      Judging by the voter turnout, the general population voted to sit on the couch and watch the results on TV, as usual.

      --

      Ita erat quando hic adveni.

    3. Re:survey says... by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      The general population didn't vote at all. I think they should have won :)

    4. Re:survey says... by oPless · · Score: 1

      What do you expect from a country that illegally liberates one country to free them from oppression then turns around and oppresses it's own citizens with an unconstitutional law (read illegal)

      I suppose no worse than the country where I live, whos prime minister (who is not elected by the public, but by his own party) who allows a budget that allows spending millions on aid, and billions more in 'defence' and 'anti-terrorist' spending yet refuses to pay what firemen are worth. Doctors, Nurses, Teachers etc don't get a fair whack either but they're not striking atm.

      Stupid politicians. Stupid voters.

    5. Re:survey says... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      But didn't the general population vote for Gore?

      The general population decided to be split down the middle and to let the results be decided by noise in the system.

    6. Re:survey says... by crhylove · · Score: 1

      nah.... i didn't vote because i wanted a valid election wherein real candidates like nader got to be in the televised debate.

      if not enough people vote they HAVE to have a new election, maybe one where valid candidates can be in the debate and make the corporate slave shit heads look how they really are.

      rhy

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
    7. Re:survey says... by Copid · · Score: 1
      At the same time, I'm not too upset at those people. My opinion on the matter is that if you need a bunch of people riding you to get you to vote, I'd rather not have you voting to begin with. What's the deal with people trying to get the lazy and uniformed to vote more often?

      Then again, there are a number of people who I'd rather not have voting... like the huge number of voters who can't tell you who the Secretary of State is. What will be will be, I suppose.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    8. Re:survey says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And even worse, just slightly over 50 million Americans voted for the imperialist/fascist faction...


      I doubt I'll ever forgive them.

    9. Re:survey says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a poor system because states in the middle of the country shouldn't be given the right to vote. They're all a bunch of fucking hick trailer trash and they should all be shot. Every last one of them.

  26. Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bush? by dh003i · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A: Hitler was elected fair and square.

    jj

  27. Patriot Act bans Franklin? by glrotate · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The parent asks for a specific example, and you respond with a quote. The question remains, what liberties are you referring to? Or can you name none?

    1. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Glock27 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The parent asks for a specific example, and you respond with a quote.

      In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. ;-)

      The question remains, what liberties are you referring to?

      Amendment 1: Free speech.

      Amendment 4: Privacy

      Ever hear of the Total Information Awareness program, for instance?

      Or can you name none?

      The main problem with it is that it continues (not starts) down the slippery slope of eliminating important Constitutional freedoms.

      How will you feel when the government installs a video camera at the bottom of your driveway...just to make sure you're not involved with any terrorist activities? Or when GPS-enabled cell phones become mandatory so your location can be tracked at all times if the phone is used? Or when you must submit a DNA sample to the government so your identity can be verified at any later date? Or the government begins tracking all your purchases and finances to ensure you're not involved with terrorism? Or when the government monitors all domestic phone conversations and email for suspicious phrases? You don't have anything to hide do you?

      America was NOT founded with that type of lifestyle in mind...quite the opposite! We'd better nip this kind of thing in the bud if we don't want lose our basic freedoms. Especially when losing those freedoms most likely will do little, if anything, to effectively deal with terrorism.

      For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me. ;-)

      I'll finish off with two more quotes:

      "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
      --Thomas Jefferson

      "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death"
      --Patrick Henry

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    2. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
      --Thomas Jefferson


      Oooooh boy. Yet another misquoting of Jefferson. He gets misquoted on slashdot ALOT, and 90% of the times that he isn't, he is taken out of context in a completely inappropriate way.

      As taken from here.

      A very famous quote, often attributed to Jefferson is:

      "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
      Indeed, this is a sentiment that is consonant with Jefferson's writings, and there are several genuine quotes that are similar to it. But Jefferson did not write it. Bartlett's "Familiar Quotations" credits it to John Philpot Curran, a contemporary of Jefferson. Bartlett's says it is "commonly quoted" as stated above. However, the original version is, in my opinion, much more interesting:

      "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
      Jefferson wrote the following, expressing approximately the same sentiments:

      "Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
      "We, I hope, shall adhere to our republican government and keep it to its original principles by narrowly watching it." --Thomas Jefferson to ------, March 18, 1793. ME 9:45

      "I do most anxiously wish to see the highest degrees of education given to the higher degrees of genius and to all degrees of it, so much as may enable them to read and understand what is going on in the world and to keep their part of it going on right; for nothing can keep it right but their own vigilant and distrustful superintendence." --Thomas Jefferson to Mann Page, 1795. ME 9:306

      Thus, it is easy to see how the quote in question might be attributed to Jefferson.

      While I agree that some parts of the Patriot act go further than I think they should, I am REALLY sick of the paranoid irrational reactions it's getting. It's not going to cause you to get locked up overnight...well...unless you are a bomb-packing terrorist - so why not work calmly and rationally to change the parts of it you think go to far? If you have a good point, make it, and it will stand for itself.

    3. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not. There are many in this country who consider our founding fathers terrorists.

    4. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so why not work calmly and rationally to change the parts of it you think go to far? If you have a good point, make it, and it will stand for itself.

      why not? because it's already gone too far for that to work..

      "Its too late to work within the system, yet slightly too early to shoot the bastards..." to paraphrase

    5. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by adri · · Score: 1

      Err, they can already triangulate your position relatively accurately using GSM (and I guess GPRS, PCS, etc.)

      Remember - if your handset can measure the signal strength to certain basestations to choose optimal ones to continue calls on, so can the base stations.

    6. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the correction on Jefferson. I'd seen this quote attributed to him many times, including in books. I did do a search before I posted it to make sure I was getting it right.

      I did find one I like just as well:

      "Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

      While I agree that some parts of the Patriot act go further than I think they should, I am REALLY sick of the paranoid irrational reactions it's getting. It's not going to cause you to get locked up overnight...well...unless you are a bomb-packing terrorist -

      I suggest you research the story of the Intel engineer who is being held incognito. He made a contribution to an organization that was not on any banned list at the time. I don't have a link handy, but it isn't hard to find.

      Further, why don't you respond to the various intrusions on privacy that are either happening already or on the way? How much of your privacy are you willing to entrust to the Department of Homeland Security?

      so why not work calmly and rationally to change the parts of it you think go to far? If you have a good point, make it, and it will stand for itself.

      That is precisely what I'm doing here on Slashdot. :-)

      Just as in Iraq, if enough (influential) opinion is changed, a tipping point is reached.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    7. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Glock27 · · Score: 1
      Believe it or not. There are many in this country who consider our founding fathers terrorists.

      Damn Tories!

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    8. Re:Patriot Act bans Franklin? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      I for one don't have too huge a problem with the loss of privacy. The cloak of anonymity we enjoy is largely a product of ultra-urbanization, whereby it becomes impossible to know more than a tiny fraction of people you see on the streets. Human history largely consists of smaller conglomerations where everyone knew everyone else and privacy was virtually unheard of. What I absolutely cannot tolerate is unequal information flow and losing the accountability we have over the government and it's minions. If Homeland Security wants to get information about me (i.e., more power over me), I will be for it only if We The People get additional abilities to watch what they do and curb their inevitable excesses. Cameras on the streets don't bother me, but publicly funded cameras that feed into a secret vault that only the rich, powerful, or well-connected can get into (Britain's approach of allowing you to pay $20 for a tape only if you are on it is pathetic) pisses me off.

      I suggest you research the story of the Intel engineer who is being held incognito

      The /. header for it read, "Intel Employee Disappeared by US", and someone responded by saying that that was a totally inappropriate tagline. He's only being held 'for questioning' and that fact is public knowledge, right? My first thought was, "This guy was grabbed from his home at night, has been tossed in a cell, has had no charges pressed, isn't allowed to see a lawyer or his family, and as far as we know, will not be released anytime soon. For all intents and purposes, he has dropped off the face of the planet. How is 'disappeared' not an accurate term?" Improving national security is a fine idea, but doing it with secret agencies conducting secret operations holding secret trials with not-so-secretly brutal results? They'd be totally out of control within a few years.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  28. The Patriot by termos · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Mel Gibson did WHAT?

    --
    Note to self: get smarter troll to guard door.
    1. Re:The Patriot by pi+radians · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Steven Seagal did WHAT?

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    2. Re:The Patriot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I only had mod points... Good one.

    3. Re:The Patriot by tomzyk · · Score: 1

      Idiots.

      Way too many blithering idiots on this site.

      --
      Karma: NaN
  29. Re:Saddam Hussein statue, dead at 12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only question remains- which embassy is Hussein hiding in? Some people say the Russian, but I'll bet it's either the French or the Candadian.

  30. Re:Saddam Hussein statue, dead at 12 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHAHA!! OMG man...you just mdae coffee shoot out of my nose. Finally a good spin on the old crusty Stephen King troll. Excellent work!

  31. Not general population's fault by matthewn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Everyone may thank ... the general population for our current leadership.

    Um, no. Everyone may thank five citizens and an obsolete and outmoded Consitutional body for the current leadership. See what you get when you let democracy break down, people?

    1. Re:Not general population's fault by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Oh, come off it. I voted for Gore. The election was, by all accounts, a tossup. You may at least thank half of the voting population for our current leadership. If half of us weren't brain-dead morons, then the supreme court and the FEC wouldn't have had the oportunity to fuck up so bad.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    2. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah your right.

      America should just be a majority-rules country.

      That way politicians only need cowtow to the states of New York and California, since thats where most of the population lives.

      And those of us in smaller rural states can just suck it since our votes wont mean jack-shit.

      The electoral college serves this very important purpose. If not for it, Lincoln never would have been president (he lost the popular vote - and by a wider margin than Bush) hell, maybe we'd still have slaves.

      All the democrats/liberals lost an election and are now all whining "oh the country is terrible! democracy doesnt work! waaah waaah wahaaahh"

      Guess what? You want to blame someone? Blame Clinton for being too busy date raping interns to keep from running his party and the country into the ground. Blame Al Gore for being a boring beltway stay-the-courser with no ability nor intention to lead. Blame the partys current leader (oh wait, it doesnt have one). Blame the democratic congress for not having an original idea in 30 years and basing each campaign on scaring old people and minorities.

      Blame yourselves. You lost, and you lost because you suck. You lost with or without florida. That's what made the whole thing such a damn joke. It didnt matter. The plan was to keep recounting florida until Gore won there, then move to another state. I guess they wanted to demonstrate the "new math" they've been forcing into classrooms for a decade and a half.

      This article is a troll, PATRIOT is not being made permanent.

    3. Re:Not general population's fault by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope.

      Gore won Florida, and with it, the election. Florida was, however, declared as being a Bush win. When the recount was about to show that Gore did win, the Supreme Court stopped the recount, saying it would 'make things very difficult for Bush to go on with his presidency.' Paraphrase, but that's the idea.

      An independant recount by media, later, showed that Gore won.

      Also, when the Dems tried to point things out like, oh, most of the military absentee ballots were illegally cast, the Republicans would cry foul; 'How dare you try to deny our fighting men and women of their votes?'

      Folks, Bush ain't your president.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:Not general population's fault by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1
      See what you get when you let democracy break down, people?


      That's beside the point, because the US government is not (and never was) designed as a democracy in the first place. It is a representative republic.

      Also, nothing broke down here. The system worked exactly as it was intended to. Just because you don't agree with the system doesn't make it "obsolete."

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    5. Re:Not general population's fault by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What did the Supreme Court have to do with the 2002 election?

      All of you had the chance to vote out any and every House member that supported the USA PATRIOT Act. Many of you also had the ability to get rid of any Senator. And yet you don't want any of the blame, you want to blame the Supreme Court that "appointed" President Bush, the very same president that has yet to veto anything Congress gave him since his term began. If you quit bitching about the 2000 election for five minutes and realized that this White House has literally allowed Congress to do whatever it damned well pleased, you might have seen this law coming to begin with.

      I also find it amusing that you blame the Electoral College, when the people, allowed to vote without thinking thanks to the Seventeenth Amendment, were the ones that overwhelimingly supported the incumbents that composed and passed the USA PATRIOT Act to begin with. Hey, it's not like over 90% of the folks you got to elect directly supported the bill or anything...

      No, what we have here is not a "break down" of democracy. The USA PATRIOT Act happened because of democracy! Both chambers of Congress are full of people who got their position not because of merit, but because they looked good on TV and had catchy campaign slogans. Why should they avoid knee-jerk reactions when they're there because of knee-jerk reactions? For the USA PATRIOT Act, you can thank both yourselves and your 1913 compatriots that gave you the ability to shoot yourselves in the foot like this to begin with.

      Did you even vote last year?

    6. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That way politicians only need cowtow to the states of New York and California, since thats where most of the population lives.

      Oh, as opposed to what it is now? Get real. NY, CA, TX et all *IS* where canidates spend most their time! Living in a small midwestern state, we're lucky to get a wife of a staffer for the vice president.

      All the democrats/liberals lost an election and are now all whining "oh the country is terrible! democracy doesnt work! waaah waaah wahaaahh"

      Hmm, maybe because Gore won the election? By half a million votes?

      Guess what? You want to blame someone? Blame Clinton for being too busy date raping interns

      Denided, fucktard. Blame the GOP for being so determined to go through every inch of one mans life to find some criminal wrongdoing, and upon comming up empty they manufacture charges by questioning him about his personal life until he lied.

      Blame Al Gore for being a boring beltway stay-the-courser with no ability nor intention to lead.

      Gore who spent over half his life in public service, as opposed to Dubbya who didn't get a job until he was 40? Fuck you.

    7. Re:Not general population's fault by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      Small nitpick. Democracy never got started in America, we're a Republic. Have been, probably will be for a while. This is why we elect leaders to make decisions for us, problem is, it requires an educated population and a transparancy of government, both of which are lacking of late.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    8. Re:Not general population's fault by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      An independant recount showed that Gore won by what margin? Given the incredibly tiny margins I've been told, you'd have to do about a hundred recounts to show anything statistically significant.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    9. Re:Not general population's fault by WotanKhan · · Score: 1

      And don't forget all the fence-sitter's that voted for Nader, and those who perpetuated the meme that there is no demonstrable difference between the two main parties.

    10. Re:Not general population's fault by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      And who was it that pushed it to the Supreme Court? Al Gore? Bush won the electoral votes. Read the Constitution.

    11. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An independant recount by media, later, showed that Gore won.

      And fifty other "independant" [sic] recounts showed that bush won. The recounts are pretty much as split as the election was.

    12. Re:Not general population's fault by JWW · · Score: 1

      Two points:

      First, another independent recount by the media found out that Gore lost. In fact I had never heard that there was on that showed that he one. Or did they have a different definition of hanging chad?

      Second, one of the reasons they had for throwing out the military absentee ballots is that they weren't stamped by an election representative, by NO FAULT of the VOTER. I don't know about you but throwing out someones vote because of someone else's mistake is a bad thing.

      Folks, Gore ain't your president either.

      I don't wish to argue semantics on this. Truly open minded liberals should be able to realize that if Gore was now president instead of Bush, everyone would not be magially happy, it would just change which group was pissed off.

    13. Re:Not general population's fault by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Improperly stamped? How about 'mailed past deadline?' 'Not witnessed?' 'Voted multiple times?' 'Sent ballots in from within continental US?'

      Now, admittedly, Gore is a Republican in disguise, but at least he'd have been legitimate.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    14. Re:Not general population's fault by Zelxyb · · Score: 1

      Um, no. Everyone may thank five citizens [supremecourtus.gov] and an obsolete and outmoded Consitutional body [fec.gov] for the current leadership. See what you get when you let democracy break down, people?

      Wow. Out of the 9 replies you had so far, none of them pointed out that, though people can argue back and forth about the president being elected or not, there is no argument about the Congress being correctly elected. The president doesn't pass laws.

    15. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a statistician, and you shouldn't (in theory) need to use them to count right.

    16. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo! Dipshit!! Lincoln won the majority and the electoral college. This is what pissed the south off, they did not matter in the election of the president. Civil War ensued... Oh yeah, if anyone is a troll, it's you, dickhead.

    17. Re:Not general population's fault by skajake · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could explain to me how a court finding an excessive ammount of recounting unconstittional as evidence that democracy is breaking down. That court did exactly as it was supposed to, it protected the consitutional right to election results after an alloted amount of recounts.

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but after the third recount, the florida electoral votes were decidedly GWBush's.

      --

      ~ Maintainer of the Skajake Projects

    18. Re:Not general population's fault by gearheadsmp · · Score: 1

      When you take into account that both the Democratic and Republican parties take huge sums of "soft money" from groups as varying as AARP and Jack Valenti's MPAA, there is very little difference - the politicos do what they get bribed to do, whether it's the passing of the DMCA or propping up Social Security.

    19. Re:Not general population's fault by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      The re-count did not show up the 80,000 Democrat voters illegally prevented from voting, by Jed Bush.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    20. Re:Not general population's fault by matthewn · · Score: 1
      Since the entire Supreme Court arugment is so tedious and nasty, tell you what, I'll cede your point. Florida was Bush's. Alas, that doesn't change the fact that nationwide, more people voted for Gore. Nobody disputes that. It took the Electoral College to put Bush in the White House, and for a country that envisions itself a shining beacon of democracy throughout the world, that's just plain wrong.

      As for the folks who respond "we're not a democracy, we're a republic," thanks very much for that insightful commentary; glad to see you paid attention in 9th grade civics class. You're missing the point.

      Americans have ignored the problem that is the Electoral College for a very long time. We used to say, "sure, it COULD elect the guy who got fewer votes, but that'll never happen again." Then it happened again. And there was a bunch of high-minded talk about fixing the problem, but we did nothing. It's not like we haven't fixed the Constitution previously in order to remove encumbrances on our democracy (despite "being a republic"). We should have done so again after the 2000 debacle. Given that it can take as long as 203 years to pass an amendment, I'll not hold my breath waiting.

    21. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. Your reading comprehension sucks.

    22. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice use of unfounded conspiracy theory. Way to go! I especially like your lack of evidence.

    23. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stand corrected.

      No wonder I did so bad on the verbal part of the GRE.

      And thanks for flaming me anonymously.

    24. Re:Not general population's fault by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "As for the folks who respond "we're not a democracy, we're a republic," thanks very much for that insightful commentary; glad to see you paid attention in 9th grade civics class. You're missing the point."

      No, you're missing the point and they don't know what they're talking about. The point is that we are in the United States. We are not a republic, we are a collection of fifty free and sovereign republics. How many countries do you know of require extradition procedures to be carried out to move prisoners within its own borders?

      We didn't vote directly for or against George W. Bush for the same reasons we didn't vote directly for or against John D. Negroponte.

    25. Re:Not general population's fault by volkris · · Score: 1

      No, everyone may thank the voting system that we (the gernal population) have maintained.

      Democracy is working well. It's doing pretty much what a democracy does. But you're right, it is beginning to break down. We're running out of ideal examples of democracy, things like lynchings and minority slavery.

      Boy those were the days... democracy was so much fun.

    26. Re:Not general population's fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bush won the electoral votes. Read the Constitution."

      Ahahahhahahaaahahaha you'r funny...!

      btw cant seem to get a copy of the Constitution?, apparently Ashcroft and the other Nazi's is "makeing some minor alterations"..

      Now fuck off, and go jerk off with the other nazi's !

      Sieg Bush

    27. Re:Not general population's fault by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 1

      The case is called Bush v Gore. Bush was the plantiff; he took it to the Supreme Court, and the Court, unconstitutionally, interfered in a valid electoral process reserved to the states. You read the Constitution.

    28. Re:Not general population's fault by JWW · · Score: 1

      No, he wouldn't have been legitimate!! That's my point, no matter the outcome there in no way in HELL you can get everyone to agree on legitamicy here.

      What your view of the 2000 election is is solely based on your political affiliation. There is no "right" answer that will satisfy everyone, probably not even an answer that will satisfy some.

      Note: You are making the assumption that the 2000 election is a zero sum game (a common liberal mistake), in reality it was a lose, lose proposition for the US.

      The fact that our government didn't disentegrate into complete anarchy is a testament to the structure of the union and its constitution.

    29. Re:Not general population's fault by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that I'm not American.

      Note: You are making the assumption that the 2000 election is a zero sum game (a common liberal mistake), in reality it was a lose, lose proposition for the US.

      Nonsense. Lots of people 'won' because of that election; just not the common man.

      The fact that our government didn't disentegrate into complete anarchy is a testament to the structure of the union and its constitution.

      Or, sad to say, a testament to the sheep-like quality of the plebecite. Whatever happened to the whole point behind 'the right to bear arms and form militas' being to combat gov't tyranny? The tree of liberty needing the blood of patriots every once in a while?

      I've said it before, and I'll say it again; any 'people's gov't,' such as the representational republic that is the States, stops working as soon as you get the concept of the Professional Politican.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    30. Re:Not general population's fault by JWW · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between casting your vote and bearing arms to put your man in office.

      I doubt may Gore supporters would be willing to die to put him in office. I know I sure wouldn't have been willing to do so to put Bush in office had Gore won.

      As far as it being a lose, lose situation. I think the american political system took a huge hit in 2000. From the perspective of the "good of the country", it sure looks that way. There is more political division. Being from "flyover country", I can say there are some serious regional issues too.

    31. Re:Not general population's fault by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Ah, but there's a subtle difference between 'going to war to put your man in office' and 'going to war to ensure a fair and democratic election.'

      Check, for example, how in Florida, hundreds and hundreds of black voters were illegally barred from voting.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    32. Re:Not general population's fault by JWW · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's another popular liberal myth.

      The Civil Rights commission couldn't actually find anyone to back that up with testimony.

      However, in South Dakota, Native Americans could be registered for absentee ballots and vote without being bothered to do any actual work. A deomcrat electon worker will be going on trial for forging absnetee ballot applications in the next couple of months.

    33. Re:Not general population's fault by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1
      The Civil Rights commission couldn't actually find anyone to back that up with testimony.

      But the NAACP won a civil rights suit over it.

      As I said, or at least implied, the system is fundamentally flawed. But, I cannot think of anything better to replace it; as you said, it's kept the peace in America for quite a while.

      But, oh well.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    34. Re:Not general population's fault by ces · · Score: 1

      Folks, Bush ain't your president.

      Sorry, according to the Constitution he is the President of the United States of America.

      He received more than the required number of votes from the Electoral College. He was sworn in on the Constitutionally specified day in the Constitutionally specified manner.

      While people may dispute how some of the electors were selected it doesn't change the fact that George W. Bush is President until impeachment, death, or the Electoral College chooses someone else.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  32. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by mugnyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So by this argument, and the discussion that will follow, upon the next act of terrorism on US soil that succeeds without prior detection will prove this Act misguided?

    I doubt it. This thing is here to stay. Until some progressive leadership realizes our immigrant population is dwindling because of harassment. "Thank God" the nationalists cry. But lets not forget, these are the people are outrank us in any tests of the maths and sciences, and they include some of the best entrepreneurs we have.

    Why not outsource then? If I can pay for the same skills overseas, I'll take it. Not all skills are outsourcable, I've commented on this already. What a great help to the EU and Asia! We're going to pump more corporate dollars overseas, meanwhile we try to shut down the surreptitious church funds and money transfer shops. Ironic.

    We're closing ours doors through fear. The effects are going to be subtle and long-felt. There's a marketing aspect here. Each time, regardless of usage, the Ashcrofts of the administration argue for "war time infrigements", we're fueling a isolationist platform. History has proven these moves to be limiting to only growth, and not much good otherwise.

    mug

  33. You don't know what you've got 'till it's gone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your government bodies across the board, and particularly your current administration, are shocking and disturbing to many outside observers (Canadian, here). Also shocking is the voluntary role of information control undertaken by your mainstream media. But you do have (for now) a very good independent radio program that provides a daily reminder of just how profound your country's constitutional crisis is: streaming at www.democracynow.org .

  34. Re:jesus fucking christ... by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

    freedom fries? patriot act? cant the (stupid) americans come up with NORMAL names for their stuff? i see 3rd Reich #2 not too far ahead...

    Uhh.. wouldn't that make it the er.. 4th Reich?

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  35. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by ChuckDivine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll second Keeper.

    And make a few observations of my own.

    We (meaning the U.S., Britain and allies) are in the process of defeating a country that tightly controlled its people. We did the same to the late Soviet Union -- another nation that practiced tight control of its citizens.

    Many historians argue that the Roman empire fell because it moved from a laissez faire model -- we don't care what you do as long as you don't try to sack Rome -- to trying to run peoples' lives.

    Tyranny works -- briefly. Then it destroys.

    --
    "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
  36. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by rleibman · · Score: 1

    If any bias, I see more Libertarian bias than anything else. Don't confuse being against the war or against the current administration with being pro-Saddam or pro-Dem.

  37. Right on. by Jerk+City+Troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just became a card carrying member. What about you guys? I am sure most of us can spare $35 dollars.

    1. Re:Right on. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, I'm signing up on the winning team!

      I expect to use my position to get fat confiscating the assets of all you unpatriotic godless smelly hippy anti-everything freaks!

    2. Re:Right on. by da_anarchist · · Score: 1

      Same here, got fed up with reading about all the crap Ashcroft is doing and decided to be proactive. I'm guessing that I won't be flying anytime soon when CAPPS II finds the credit card transaction for the ACLU...

  38. Mod the parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Somebody mod the parent up

  39. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by glrotate · · Score: 1
    And how many years before 9/11 did we go without a terrorist act?


    So then you believe that despite numerous calls to jihad from Bin Laden that Al Queda is taking a vacation and isn't attempting further acts of terror?

  40. Ulp by lysium · · Score: 1
    By that time, hopefully, there will be some new court members in[SNIP]

    Oh dear. I hope you are not counting on the kinds of judges that the current administration seems to favor. If Bush gets re-elected into a second term (probable), you can kiss a balanced court, and probably most kinds of abortion, good-bye for another generation.

    ------

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    1. Re:Ulp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know everyone always has that worry but seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republicans (4 Reagan, 2 Bush Sr., 1 Ford) and yet we still have abortion and for the decisions have not being politically based.

    2. Re:Ulp by lysium · · Score: 1
      Notice I didn't even say Republican. 'Religiously conservative' does come to mind, though. And isn't the tactic of wrapping said conservatives in ethnic packages just charming? Why do you think there was such an uproar over Clarence Thomas?

      -------

      --
      Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
  41. Get over it.. by Kwil · · Score: 1

    ..unfortunately, the whole Gore/Bush thing is already done. Try again in a year or so.

    What they're talking about is Congressional. You know, the guys who actually *write* the laws?

    --

    That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    1. Re:Get over it.. by kst · · Score: 1

      Yes, we need to move on, but I will not "get over it". There is no statute of limitations on stealing an election.

    2. Re:Get over it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove it. I want to see definitave proof. I don't believe any of your beliefs any soon than I would a preacher walking down the street. Belief without proof is religion, idiot.

    3. Re:Get over it.. by mohaine · · Score: 1



      There is nothing to get over.

      Presidents have aways been electected by Electoral College. It is in the constitution. To do anything different would be to steal the election.

      BTW, if really want to know about the Electoral College, look here:

      http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

      --
      (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    4. Re:Get over it.. by pi+radians · · Score: 1

      "Prove it. I want to see definitave proof. I don't believe any of your beliefs any soon than I would a preacher walking down the street."

      Wow, the same think could've been said about Bush's claims of WMD before the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the entire concept of the Patiot Act is not needing definitive proof.

      --

      sin(6cos(r)+5A)
    5. Re:Get over it.. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      There is no statute of limitations on stealing an election

      No, but there is a general window in which your peers will allow you to harp on it. That window has been closed now for quite some time.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    6. Re:Get over it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the Clinton harping continues...

    7. Re:Get over it.. by kst · · Score: 1

      No, but there is a general window in which your peers will allow you to harp on it. That window has been closed now for quite some time.

      I have difficulty understanding that attitude; perhaps you can help me.

      We had a coup d'etat in this country. It was relatively non-violent as such things go, but it installed an illegitimate administration that had actually lost the election.

      That administration is still in power.

      Just when did that window close? When would it have closed if the situation had been reversed (if Gore were in the White House even though Bush won the election)?

    8. Re:Get over it.. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      It has nothing to do with the electoral college. Jed Bush fixed the Florida vote, for his brother, using ChoicePoint Data Base Technologies, deliberately corrupt databases to prevent eligible voters from voting, specifically those who were inherently Democratic voters...

      To the tune of about 80,000 Democratic voters.

      Have a look at this fella's stuff on the Bush election theft.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    9. Re:Get over it.. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      basically the time to whine and act outraged was back then. If enough people had done this, maybe things would be different. But they're not different, they're the way they are so you need to get over it.

      If you don't, and you continue to bring this up then you can't be surprised when people roll their eyes at you, or humor you, or ask you to leave. That's the price you pay for being a conspiracy nut in a world that just doesn't care anymore.

      I strongly suggest that you get on with your life.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    10. Re:Get over it.. by kst · · Score: 1

      basically the time to whine and act outraged was back then. If enough people had done this, maybe things would be different. But they're not different, they're the way they are so you need to get over it.

      Thanks for the advice. My answer is no.

      [...]
      That's the price you pay for being a conspiracy nut in a world that just doesn't care anymore.


      Perhaps you hang out with a different set of people than I do. A lot of us still do care about it.

      The following is not necessarily directed at you.

      I find it ironic that a lot of the people telling me to "get over it" are the same people who spent 8 years denying the legitimacy of Clinton's presidency (and some of them are still doing so).

    11. Re:Get over it.. by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you hang out with a different set of people than I do. A lot of us still do care about it.

      Then discuss it with them. I'm sure there are also people who feel strongly about pants. but they don't try to make every slashdot topic about pants. oh wait..

      seriously though, just take a moment to assess how exactly your fixation on a long gone election is really helping you along your path.

      Also, I hesitate to mention that I did not vote for gw, it's not really relevant but in your mind it probably is.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    12. Re:Get over it.. by kst · · Score: 1

      The election is not "long gone". The administration it installed is still in power. It's the same administration that introduced the so-called U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, which happens to be the topic of this thread.

      (BTW, I just checked the record of my postings to Slashdot. It only shows me about the last year and half; in that time, I have not mentioned the 2000 election until this thread. I believe I mentioned it once before; it was topical there as well.)

      No, I don't think the fact that you did or didn't vote for GWB is particularly relevant to this discussion.

      I have one more question, in case you're still reading this, and I'm asking it because I'm genuinely curious about the answer. You referred to me as a "conspiracy nut". Is that because you think I'm wrong, because you think I'm right but "get over it" anyway, or is it something else?

    13. Re:Get over it.. by Stalemate · · Score: 1

      Assuming that what you are saying is true, is Florida the only state that gets to vote for president?

    14. Re:Get over it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proof of WMD? What proof do you want? Pictures? Eye witnesses? Dying people?

      1. in 1988 Iraq gassed kurds. There have people that witnessed living through it.

      2. in 1991 Iraq finally admitted to having a Chemical weapons program (also around the same time, again killed thousands of their own people)

      3. since 1991, many senior iraqi leadership have testified about Iraq having WMD.

      4. Around 1993? Weapons Inspectors find proof of a _nuclear_ weapons program.

      5. Since the first inspections, the UN has demanding Iraq to destroy its WMD programs. Iraq has not shown any proof of this, neither could weapons inspectors verify _anything_

      6. A defector testified that the 9/11 hijackers trained at Salmon Pak.

      7. After the fall of the Taliban, tracking shows a break off group forming in Northern Iraq. The Iraq regime gladly harbors their chemical weapons program, and proof has been found when they captured it. (There are many other such sites, however, somewhat "abandoned". expect much more new evidence to occur after real inspectors and informats can go in)

      You live in a cave.

    15. Re:Get over it.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where's the proof?, witnesses?, dbase operators? Why isn't Gore Pursuing this NEW scandal of fixing the DBase by voiding mostly black voters? What makes it 53,000, 80,000, or 180,000 and how would have Jed known to fix it at almost the exact amount just enough to win? Why do you think this has never been shown on TV on any news stations during the election? Surely the NY Times or NBC news would have?

      I guess Gore trying to throw out the absentee votes during the (re)count doesn't matter.... So much for every vote counting (it was just a mantra to gain supports for recount after recount and poisoning the ballots in the process)

    16. Re:Get over it.. by narfbot · · Score: 1

      I find it ironic that a lot of the people telling me to "get over it" are the same people who spent 8 years denying the legitimacy of Clinton's presidency (and some of them are still doing so).

      What? Why are you raising a false argument? I have seen no one deny the legitimacy of Clinton's presidency of being in office for 8 years! (from the two elections) However many people agree that he was a very bad president.

    17. Re:Get over it.. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      Of course not.

      The question your question raises for me, then, is how many corrupt state results are people prepared to accept before it's unacceptable?

      Is there an acceptable level of deliberate corruption of the democratic process?
      The corruption in Florida, was, frankly, huge; not a few dozen "dead people" voting: tens of thousands of eligible Democrat voters, blocked, deliberately.
      I'm sure Jeb Bush didn't know that it would have been Florida that swung the election for his brother, but, he had made the pledge that Bush would get Florida, no matter what, and he did. No matter what. With each state result having such significance, because of the electoral college system, such corruption can... well... make presidents.

      I just don't get how some people consider this a minor point, as if a fixed state result here or there, is somehow, not such a big deal.

      I have to admit my mind boggles at that.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    18. Re:Get over it.. by Stalemate · · Score: 1

      I agree, any state being "fixed" is unacceptable. I was just arguing for arguments sake. I'm not convinced that the election in Florida was really fixed, but then again, I haven't read much about it since the election so I don't really know what I think about it.

      The point I would make is that, if Florida alone being fixed was enough to elect Bush, then we (the people in general) probably didn't really want either one of them to be in office. I know when I voted I intended for whoever won the election to only be in office for 4 years.

    19. Re:Get over it.. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      If you want to read an autopsy of the Florida fix, and other stuff like that, you could do worse than read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy," by Greg Palast.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    20. Re:Get over it.. by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      It probably sounds like I get a percentage from sales of this book, but, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, answers all those questions.

      The proof is there. The Witnesses have had testimonies taken and recorded. The Database operators coughed to the corruption. Gore rolled over and played dead. The figures speak for themselves. Jed didn't need to fix it at the exact number (Bush "won" by 537 votes; 80,000 Democratic voters were barred from voting,) he just needed to do his best to fix the election, so his brother could at least win Florida.

      "Why do you think this has never been shown on TV on any news stations during the election? Surely the NY Times or NBC news would have?"

      And that should be the most scary part of the story if you're a US citizen: Salon.com covered it. The Nation.com covered it. All the major media outlets who even sniffed at the story... you know what it took them to stop?
      They phoned Jed Bush's office, asked him about it, and stopped when he denied that it was happening.
      The o major news outlets that covered it were here in the UK. The BBC covered it and The Observer & Guardian Newspapers broke stories on it.
      As the book I mentioned clearly states, most US journalists don't want to rock the boat, do the work, and their employers don't want to be involved in risky and costly investigations, so they often just regurgitate press releases.
      [A little like Google News!! :) ]

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
  42. Change your political party by zcollier · · Score: 1

    People complain about how nothing ever changes, yet they continue to vote for the same candidates. Elect Freedom.

    www.lp.org

    --
    $u(k 1t!!!!11!
    1. Re:Change your political party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get rid of that whack-job Harry Browne and I'll consider it.

  43. Libby's libbys libbys on the label, label, label.. by N8F8 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dude, you just referenced two liberal rags claiming the Republicans are pulling the sky down.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  44. i know how we look by RyLaN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    recently i got the chance to visit japan for two months. while i was there (august 30th - november 4th) i got a different look at the US. i heard the hubbub around the snipers from a completely different angle, and watched as the patriot act was passed.
    when i entered japan, the things important enough to be mentioned in english were: no firearms, drugs, intoxicants or pornographic articles. going back into america i had to take my compass out of my math bookbag, empty my tolietries kit and get rid of my scissors. it's completely ridiculous to do things like this to 13-14 year olds that only want to get back home. i decided then and there that something wasn't right. when i got home and raised the alarm, people accepted it mutely, almost like sheep. no one seemed to care that they could be taken away without any trial if the government wanted to, or that their isp could be forced to reveal weblogs or ip traffic from their account.
    i figure, since im already going to school where there are mostly 13 year old sheep, new zealand won't be much of a change..

    --
    At least the war on the environment is going well
    1. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when i entered japan ... no firearms, drugs, intoxicants or pornographic articles.

      going back into america i had to take my compass out of my math bookbag, empty my tolietries kit and get rid of my scissors

      Me, I'd gladly give up trigonomotry for drugs, booze and porn.

      BTW, those are airline regulations, it has nothing to do with the country or PATRIOT or anything else.

      Yeah, they're oft times silly, but then again you got some ragu goofball trying to blow up a plane by lighting his shoes.

      Now, if you really want to see some strict rules on flying, try hopping on an El Al flight to Tel Aviv.

    2. Re:i know how we look by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      when i got home and raised the alarm, people accepted it mutely, almost like sheep. no one seemed to care

      you are close. go visit a slaughter house and watch the cows marching in to their doom. they AREN'T forced they happily line up and walk in to their death because they are conditioned to their entire lives.

      This is the general american public.

      welcome to america.. Mooooooooo.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      when i went to school, i learned how to use the "shift" key to create what are known as Capital Letters. You might want to try it. It makes your writing much more readable.

      Just like proper usage of whitespace.

      Besides, why do you need scissors on an airplane? What are you planning to do? Cut coupons out of the airline mags? Compasses are pretty dangerous too - they have a point. Plus, most of the compasses I saw were crappy, and tore the paper up and didn't keep the arms straight and so made poor circles. Magnetic ones screw with the instruments.

      Besides, if you're 13 or 14, your opinion doesn't count, minor. Sorry, but it's true. Your opinion is totally and completely irrelevant. You still have a good seven years before anyone will care.

      So shut up and enjoy the ride...

    4. Re:i know how we look by csteinle · · Score: 1

      The new airline restrictions are mainly bunkum designed to make stupid people feel safer. Ask yourself this - which is a better weapon, the nail file confiscated from some woman's handbag that got her strip searched; the metal fork you're not allowed to eat with; or the bottle of vodka you bought at the duty free and then smashed over the seat in front of you?

    5. Re:i know how we look by mfrank · · Score: 1

      To be quite honest, none of those things will keep the other hundred people on the plane from kicking your ass six ways from Tuesday.

    6. Re:i know how we look by shadowbearer · · Score: 4, Funny


      Sheep don't moo. ;-)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    7. Re:i know how we look by extrarice · · Score: 1

      You, young sir, grew much in those two months. Don't be discouraged by the receiption of your warnings. Keep on alerting those you love, and encourage them to do the same and spread the word.

      --
      "Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
    8. Re:i know how we look by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      Frankly, who gives a shit.... Mooooo!

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    9. Re:i know how we look by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I lived just over 31 years in the US before moving to Brazil. When I came to Brazil in 2000, the US was the most respected nation in the world, and I actually found a bit annoying some Brazilian attitudes about Americans and the US. I thought many Brazilians were did too much brown-nosing and a**-kissing of Americans, and that they overvalued American things and didn't value the amazing things they have here. I can't tell you how many people asked me in 2000 and pre-September 2001 "you're here and you could be there? Are you nuts?" Fine-- the sum of all the knowledge of the US that those people had was what they've seen from Hollywood and maybe, at most, a visit to Orlando.
      In the two years since Bush and Co. have come into office, I have been amazed by what they have been able to do. I always believed the US Government had enough "checks and balances" that it couldn't move too far. Even the "Reagan Revolution" didn't bring very radical changes in 8 years. Since I always imagined something better than what I saw in the US (my teachers did too good a job teaching me the ideals and not a good enough job brainwashing me to think the US actually live up to them or even try), I found that inertia frustrating. How I miss it now. Bush and company, in just half a term, have completely undone all the good things Clinton did (tamed the absurd Reagan-Bush deficits and in so doing gave Greenspan the freedom he needed to make the economic boom of the 1990s possible, acted in a way that earned respect around the world, resolved the North Korean nuclear problem, etc.) and have made really surprisingly radical changes in both international policy and in the theft of what little bits of personal freedom Americans still had. Just because they hated anything related to Clinton, the Bushies ignored the US side of the deal that had stopped North Korea from building nuclear weapons, and as a result, NK expelled the inspectors, broke the seals, and moved the bomb-making materials around. According to estimates I've seen, they can make 1-2 nukes per month. Don't even get me started on Bush's "prevention" doctrine, which horrifies most of the world, and rightfully so. The six trillion dollar Reagan debt will look like chump change when Bush is done. He's currently got you looking at half-trillion dollar annual deficits, and that's without counting the costs of his wars and the subsequent reconstruction.
      The W "revolution," turning the US government into something at least as scary as Orwell' vision of "Big Brother" in _1984_, has had a profound effect on the views people all around the world have of the US.
      People all over the world now see the US as an imperialist power out of control. A lot of people here in Brazil are worried that the US may decide to take the Amazon. I find myself unable to tell them it won't happen, and I even have an idea of how they might do it. They could just apply the term "terrorist" to the FARC in Colombia and then use that as an excuse to send troops in.
      One thing for which I can thank Bush and his gang: nobody in Brazil thinks I'm nuts for being here and not in the US... and I'm pleased to see Brazilians starting to have more self-respect and being less willing to automatically think of themselves as being "beneath" Americans.
      I find it interesting that around 80% of the world's population is against Bush's second war, but people in the US think it's just the French. "Freedom Fries," "Freedom Toast," and all that (are people now supposed to talk about Freedom Bread, Freedom Doors, Freedom Braids, Freedom Kisses, Freedom Ticklers, Freedom Postcards, and Mr. Freedom on Family Affair?). Meanwhile, in the US, somewhere between 75% and 80% are in favor of the war. If you're in the US, ask yourself why it might be that a vast majority of Americans is in favor of the war and a vast majority of the rest of the world is against it. I have my own theories, but I don't think stating them here would have much value. I just ask you to think about it.

      --Mark

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    10. Re:i know how we look by geekoid · · Score: 1

      good for oyu.

      Remember most people are sheep. the trick is to convience the sheep leaders to your point of view. Or becmome a leader.

      At your age, If you want to change things study political science and law. Right now at nearly 40 years old, I regret not becoming active 20 years ago.
      I task you to learn how to invoke change.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...have completely undone all the good things Clinton did ...acted in a way that earned respect around the world, resolved the North Korean nuclear problem, etc.)

      Oh yeah... Clinton did a stellar job resolving the North Korean nuclear problem. Haven't heard a peep from those fellas about nukes since. Good catch there, Mark.

    12. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, sure.. a bunch of fat americans are going to kick my ass.. keep trying!

    13. Re:i know how we look by methodic · · Score: 1

      Not all of them my friend. Most are too lame due to lack of food and exercise.

      But then again, when youre pinned to a narrow cage where you dont even have enough room to turn around in for 3-4 years, death isnt that bad of an alternative. :)

    14. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. I'm holding a broken bottle, and a plane full of Americans are going to charge in and subdue me with their bodies.

      Who's going to be in front? That person is going to die, almost guaranteed (unless they know some form of self defense and have decent room to manouevre). The person behind him is probably going to die too.

      No Americans are going to do squat unless they feel sure that they are ALL going to die, and even then only a few will bother to move. Selfishness is too deeply ingrained.

    15. Re:i know how we look by Froggy · · Score: 1
      no one seemed to care that they could be taken away without any trial if the government wanted to, or that their isp could be forced to reveal weblogs or ip traffic from their account.


      Oh, that won't happen to us. That will only happen to bad men. The Government will protect us from the bad men. Bad men are scary.


      So if you notice one day that your hairdresser or your plumber or your kid's best friend isn't there any more, and nobody can tell you where they've gone, and people in suits and sunglasses start looking at you funny when you ask, don't worry. They were probably a bad man (or woman).


      Don't you feel safer now?

      --
      It is a woman's prerogative to change other people's minds.
    16. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gave Greenspan the freedom he needed to make the economic boom of the 1990s possible

      Are we talking about the same US? I thought it was the hugely overinflated tech bubble that brought about the economic boom and that Clinton did nothing to prevent it from popping at the end of his term?

      And as for Clinton's foreign policy - it didn't exist. His whole deal was let's hope that nothing happens. It was on his watch that the first attack on the WTC occured and that the planning for the second occured. He totally ignored all of the warning signs of anti-American feelings growing in the Middle East. Do you honestly believe that people started hating us only after Bush got elected? Clinton had no problem dropping bombs in Iraq to enforce the no-fly zone.

    17. Re:i know how we look by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      Quoth an Anonymous Coward...
      "Oh yeah... Clinton did a stellar job resolving the North Korean nuclear problem. Haven't heard a peep from those fellas about nukes since. Good catch there, Mark."

      Read a few more lines of my post. Clinton had resolved it. But the Bushies, upon entering, proceeded to ignore the US side of the agreement, so North Korea expelled the inspectors (inspectors that were there because of Clinton), removed the seals (seals that were there because of the deal with Clinton) and started moving the bomb-making materials around and producing bombs.
      The reason you've heard "peeps" from the North Koreans about nukes recently is because they got pissed off when Bush & Co. simply ignored the American side of the agreement.
      E7, Coward.

      --Mark

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    18. Re:i know how we look by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

      Quoth an Anonymous Coward:
      "Are we talking about the same US? I thought it was the hugely overinflated tech bubble that brought about the economic boom and that Clinton did nothing to prevent it from popping at the end of his term?"
      The economic growth seen in the 1990s and the inflated stock market were related, but not the same thing. The economic growth was real and unprecedented.

      "And as for Clinton's foreign policy - it didn't exist. His whole deal was let's hope that nothing happens."

      I see it differently. I think the deal with North Korea was an excellent example of how foreign policy, no matter what the Bush family thinks, does not have to be conducted with bombs. I'd say the President who has failed badly at foreign policy is Bush. And in North Korea, it's by ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away, and sending out Powell and Rice to tell the Sunday talk shows there's no crisis in Korea. When it was announced that Bush would be visiting Northern Ireland, it was hoped that he could help bring the peace process along. People openly hoped for Bush to somehow reproduce what they called the "Clinton Effect." When Clinton went there, tens of thousands of people turned out to see him and cheer for him. The only people Bush can turn out these days outside the US are protesters.

      "It was on his [Clinton's] watch that the first attack on the WTC occured and that the planning for the second occured."
      Hmmm. Clinton's people urged the Bush people to pay attention to Bin Laden and consider him a major threat. Advice ignored...

      "He totally ignored all of the warning signs of anti-American feelings growing in the Middle East."
      Growing? When do you think they've grown most? I'd be willing to bet you there were quantum jumps in anti-American sentiment in the Middle East in 1990-1991 and in 2002-2003. The difference between the two is that in 2002-2003, anti-American sentiment worldwide also jumped.
      "Do you honestly believe that people started hating us only after Bush got elected? Clinton had no problem dropping bombs in Iraq to enforce the no-fly zone."
      Of course people didn't start hating the US in the last 2 years-and-a-bit. But anti-American sentiment worldwide has grown noticeably. In 2001, after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, there was a lot of sympathy for the US expressed worldwide. Much of the world was supporting the US. But recent excesses have really upset most of the world. The goodwill of late 2001 has been squandered. I don't know if you can see in the US media what I can see from here (I'm guessing you didn't see the minutes prior to the official televised Bush speech to announce that the war had begun, for example...), but there really seems to have been a noticeable growth in anti-American sentiment worldwide recently. Friends in other countries confirm this impression. And I can tell you that I have personally noticed a strong change in the opinion Brazilians have of Americans. As I said, part of it is healthy (more self-respect, less kissing of American butt), but some of it of course is not.

      Just one more thing: I'm not a Democrat. However, I am forced to recognize that Clinton is, by far, the best US President of my lifeime (in descending order, I'd say: Clinton, Nixon, Reagan & Carter tied for third, Ford, and Bush the Elder. Bush the Younger has blown away Poppy so far. He's virtually guaranteed himself last place. Carter as a President gets no extra credit for turning into one of the greatest ex-Presidents ever.) Of all the Presidents of my lifetime, Clinton was not just the MOST fiscally responsible. He was the ONLY one who got close to being fiscally responsible in my book. Yes, I recognize that the "surplus" the government reported under the late Clinton budget included money from Social Security, which has been used since the Reagan years to hide the true size of the Federal Gov't's deficits. Yes, I also recognize that there's a bit of goofy accounting that goes

      --
      "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    19. Re:i know how we look by csteinle · · Score: 1

      That's also very true.

    20. Re:i know how we look by ratamacue · · Score: 1

      You are absolutly correct, and this is the primary reason I oppose all forms of "public" (government) education. Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that your "teacher" (government) has a much bigger agenda than acedemics.

    21. Re:i know how we look by mfrank · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the people on flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. Troll.

      If you're sitting in your seat waving around a broken bottle, hey, I'll kick back and watch. If you actually hurt somebody, or try to get into the cockpit, I'll be first in line to tear your head off. If it means that the people behind me have to pull my corpse off you before *they* can stomp your face in, hey, I'm cool with that.

    22. Re:i know how we look by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the people on flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania.

      You mean the plane where the 'official word' is that the passengers overpowered the terrorists, when it's just as (or perhaps more) likely that it was shot down by the military?

      Ha!

      You might feel angry enough to take on a weapon wielding fanatic, but the difference is YOU'RE afraid to die (hence your attack), but the terrorist is not. And they have beliefs they feel are worth fighting for. Besides that, the terrorist has no escape route, and a cornered man fighting for his life will fight a lot harder than you think.

      You're just someone who doesn't understand the word 'troll'.

    23. Re:i know how we look by QuadGoatBoy · · Score: 1
      Are you retarded? That's what he was saying. He said that Americans aren't sheep, they are more like cows going to slaughter. The only reason that I see your post fit to be 'Funny' is because you made a stupid reply. Do moderators mod up every stupid reply? If so, I should have much better karma ;).

      Quadgoatboy

  45. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by sik0fewl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe they're just assuming all geeks are intelligent?

    --
    I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
  46. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by SamTheButcher · · Score: 1
    So how do you come to the conclusion that the Patriot Act works?

    Seems that glrotate came to the conclusion via post hoc, ergo propter hoc

    Wait a minute, though. Isn't that a logical fallacy?

    ;)

  47. grab a speech by Joe McCarthy by lavalyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and do the following:

    s/communism/terrorism;
    s/USSR/Al Qaeda;
    s/Russia/Iraq;

    and you will see what the United States is about to become again.

    --
    Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
    1. Re:grab a speech by Joe McCarthy by devphil · · Score: 1
      and you will see what the United States is about to become again.

      A string of error messages due to unclosed sed expressions?

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    2. Re:grab a speech by Joe McCarthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To mee it seems different:
      s/Congress/Baath Party;
      s/Cheney/Saddam;
      s/USA/Iraq;

      And I too see what the USA is becoming. And that's not the point with the Iraq-war, but with the (new) law in the US itself, and the proponents of those laws. A horde of criminals (yes, who do you think provided Saddam with chemical weapons in the first place?) like Poindexter, Cheney and Rumsfeld are right now running the country, leading their mascot Bush.

    3. Re:grab a speech by Joe McCarthy by operagost · · Score: 1

      A winner? (see Berlin Wall)

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:grab a speech by Joe McCarthy by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      s/communism/terrorism;
      s/USSR/Al Qaeda;
      s/Russia/Iraq;


      s/communism/mostly gone;
      s/USSR/gone;
      s/Russia/technically democratic;

      I can't wait until we can similarly update your new terms.

    5. Re:grab a speech by Joe McCarthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As somebody who has been living next to Russia for over ten years in a free western country I can say that Russia is pretty far from democracy, Putin is turning Russia into even MORE totalitarian state than late Soviet Russia.

  48. Gotta suck by ZakF · · Score: 1

    Guess those thousand or so "terrorists" being held without being charged for any crime and without any sort of due process will be in jail for a long time to come. Worse yet if the Patriot Act is continued there will probably be thousands of more "terrorists" locked up just because some dumbass thinks they may have some relation to terrorists. Gotta love the stuff this country does somethimes.

    1. Re:Gotta suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when have POWs been given civil trials? NEVER. When have POWs had a right to trial? NEVER. Since when has a POW submitted a writ of habeaus corpas and/or simply released because of no charges (A stupid thing to do in war)? NEVER. Where are the speedy trials of American POWs by Iraq that they are entitled? Oh that's right... They just execute , stab, rape, and beat them! At least we are humane. Yes, our system works. In time we will release the prisoners, after the War on Terror, and when they no longer pose a threat.

  49. It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunch! by mustangdavis · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Patriot Act is unconstitutional. Period!


    Seriously, it was another "Act" that was passed by King George all those years ago that severely limited our freedoms that caused a revolution in this country ... and things like this will only lead to the same end ...


    As soon as this terrorist thing cools off a bit, this "Act" will be revisitied and decalred unconstitutional.


    Any "law" that gives the government the right to spy on people will not last ... and if laws like this are not repealed, then other laws with similar or worse implications will slowly be approved. The people simply won't tollorate it!


    I understand the need for security, but this has gone too far! What is next ... Patriot Act III: The gov't has the right to put cameras on every street corner, business, and suspected terrorist's home???


    Now I know this is a bit off topic, but this "Patriot Act" series has to come to a screeching halt! PA II, not yet passed, allows the US government the right to add 5 years onto a jail sentence just for using encryption when commiting a "crime" .... so if you don't report your USE tax (state taxes for purchasing items on the internet w/o paying taxes at the time of purchase), then you're going to jail for atleast 5 years since the purchase was made encrypted and, if you fils your taxes online, that was encrypted as well! Also (I don't want to protect hax0rs, but ...) if you break into a server using SSH, there is 5 years as well!!


    These "patriot" acts are just another example of big business paying off politicians to get rediculous laws into place that will protect their interests (even though it may LOOK like they are protecting the people).


    ... yet another reason the US "system" is in need of serious reform ... to prevent businesses from "funding" politicians to get these kind of crazy laws passed!


    To the US gov't: Stop wasting time on this kind of stuff and go find bin Laden!


  50. God willing it will Disappear! by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The PATRIOT is our most anti-constitutional act to date that most people can name. By nature of the erosion of liberties contained within it becomes quite possible to violate several aspects of the 4th amendment (among many others) to the point that they may as well negate it. Our government seems hell-bent on amassing as much power as it possibly can. With Ashcroft et al. in charge of defending our liberties, I can only hope that someone in government will wake up and propose a counter-act to this. That we stand by and have allowed this to occur is miserable, that government continues to exploit it borders on criminal. Laws are not always inherently moral, and this law is among the greatest examples of how ethics and law do not always correlate. How many "terrorists" this law has caught may never be known since the government has not authorized release of information of the people involved. Secret trials, evidence allowed based on word-of-mouth and witness testimony only, and imprisonment without due process are against the Constitution but allowed under the PATRIOT act. This fascist law must be eliminated to protect our nation's freedoms and prevent our overbearing, paternal government from becoming merely a Big Brother.

    We cannot allow this to continue. I will be writing my Congressmen and saking others to do the same. Laws like this are how Hitler, Mussolini, and numerous other dictators got started. Law is built on precedence, so if we allow this to continue the envelope will be pushed until new even more intrusive laws are allowed. Seriously, if we are allowed to treat non-citizens like lawbreakers without reprisal, how long will it be before we are allowed to treat citizens like lawbreakers mere for speaking against the government? Oregon is already proposing legislature that would allow peace protestors to be arrested on terrorism charges. How long before this is carried nationwide?

    Our rights are under serious threat from a government led by certain people that thirst for power. If we don't act now, it may well be illegal to act later. Call your reps and senators, spread the word, and let's try to kill this thing now before it becomes permanent law.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:God willing it will Disappear! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The PATRIOT is our most anti-constitutional act to date that most people can name."

      Now now, it's not like President Bush has had the entire Maryland legislature put under house arrest or ordered federal troops deployed to Baltimore to arrest anybody wearing red and white, or sent troops to silence the US Supreme Court or anything...

    2. Re:God willing it will Disappear! by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1
      "We cannot allow this to continue."

      put Clinton back in office.

      then all these brown shirt, born again, republicans who can't move fast enough to turn control over their lives to a "good, honest, christian" man like bush, will dimple their chads in the rush to make sure a dishonest, womanizing, atheist, pro-abortion LIBERAL never gets these sort of powers.

      can i get an amen?

  51. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck off you troll. If you hate bush so much, leave, we don't need morons like you in our country.

  52. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by whterbt · · Score: 5, Funny



    Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
    Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
    Homer: "Thank you, dear."
    Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
    Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
    Lisa: "It doesn't work."
    Homer: "Uh-huh."
    Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
    Homer: "Uh-huh."
    Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
    Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

    </obSimpsonsReference>

    --
    Too late to be known as Bush the First, he's sure to be known as Bush the Worst.
  53. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by k-0s · · Score: 1

    Sir, I want to buy this rock you speak of. Here is my right arm as payment. While you're at it I also want this sweet tap dancing Christ you speak of.

  54. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to be a troll, I agree with your statement that the reporting here is biased, but there was never any claim otherwise. The guys here post what they like, it's their judgement. No one forces you to read it. If you want unbiased reporting, turn on CNN. If you want extra editorials and a community to go with it, stay on slashdot. Or get a life and forget about world issues entirely. And if you want to whine about someone being "too liberal" or "too conservative", stay where you are, I'll be right over to kick your ass. (that goes for everyone else, too)

  55. Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understand by geekotourist · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Discussing this recently the analogy I came up with was: during wartimes or other extraodinary circumstances we've sometimes raised taxes to pay for it. These taxes can be necessary, but because they are taxes we want accountability, time limits, and proof that the tax monies are going where we were told they'd go. And as with all taxes we want cost benefit analyses to prove we're getting the biggest bang for the buck.

    The Patriot Act is a tax on civil liberties. Perhaps it is necessary. But we must demand at least as much proof of its necessity and review of its impact as we would a new tax. To require cost benefit analyses is *not* saying that it should be abolished, unless it cannot withstand scrutiny. And if it can't, why have it? If you're going take civil liberties out of my constitutional wallet, you better be ready to tell me where you're spending them and how well you're doing.

    For these reviews or cost benefit analyses, a minimum step would be to require them to meet the requirements from this well-written report:

    "...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:

    • It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
    • It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
    • The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
    • And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."
  56. We peaceniks told you this would happen. :( by privacyt · · Score: 1

    Is anyone surprised at the news that the Bush Administration will use its popularity following the victory in Iraq to expand the police state? Thanks, warmongers.

    1. Re:We peaceniks told you this would happen. :( by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      Oh please, this has nothing to do with the damned war.

      It has everything to do with people using a tragic situation to take away your rights as a citizen.
      So, you still for peace? :)

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  57. Will you people ever learn? by swtaarrs · · Score: 1

    Change the 'www' in the link to 'archive' so people don't have to register to read the story. Modified link

    1. Re:Will you people ever learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the first major slashdotting recorded on the archive server will result in them closing this loophole.

  58. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by tireg · · Score: 0

    sweet! where can I get one of these rocks? damn tigers.

  59. The general population is responsible. by raehl · · Score: 1

    Everyone who voted for Bush, plus everyone who didn't vote, plus everyone who voted for a legislator who voted to pass the act in the first place, plus everyone who voted for a legislator who will vote to eliminate the expiration of the act.

    It's all their fault.

    The Supreme Court just keeps us from having to have a civil war everytime election results are contested.

    1. Re:The general population is responsible. by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Supreme Court just keeps us from having to have a civil war everytime election results are contested.

      1. There was no civil war in 2000. There was just a recount, as established in Florida law. What happened was a massive and wel-financed campaign in both the courts and the cable news networks to shut down the recount.

      2. The recount was FINALLY proceeding according to law when the Supreme Court stepped in to stop it, citing (privately and vehemently) the necessity of stopping the Democrats on the Florida Supreme Court from enabling the recount.

      3. In a decision condemned by nearly a totality of constitutional law professors, Scalia stopped the election because the results of the recount might cast doubt on the legitimacy of Bush's election. Scalia also incredibly stated that their decision could not be a precedent for any other cases.

      4. If Gore had been the called winner before recounts had begun, there truly would have been a civil war, the radical right vs. the US. For the last 27 months, infinite lawsuits would have been filed, the RW press would have screamed about Gore's illegitimacy day and night, Gore wouldhave been accused of crime after crime, and the American people would be convinced that Gore stole the 2000 election. There would have been unremitting war against Gore.

      Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.

      5. Election results have been contested thousands of times inthe nation's history without civil war. That's the purpose of elections -- to prevent civil war. The Supremee Court unbelieveably shut down an election to bring closure wihout the messy bit about actually counting the votes, in order to put their ideological copatriot in power.

      6. In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won. Amazingly, the NYT headline declared Bush the winner, and the incredible results were swept into the dustbin.

      7. As a result of the Supremes declaring Bush the winner to "avoid a civil war", the Bill of Rights have been shut down. Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem. Tax cuts for the very wealthy will destroy the social safety nets in the yearsto come. Foreign investors are withdrawing from the U.S. Treaties have been trashed. Fear and marketing have been used toconvince Americans that Iraq took down the World Trade Center, and that lie has established the Holy American Empire's first conquest in the Middle East. The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.

      I'd rather have the civil war.

    2. Re:The general population is responsible. by bnenning · · Score: 1
      In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won.


      Using one specific method. In other methods, including the one that the Gore campaign argued for, Bush won. The election was a statistical tie, and was always going to be decided via lawyerball. The US Supreme Court may have been tilted toward Bush, but the Florida Supreme Court was definitely tilted towards Gore.


      Notice that, in contrast, railing against Bush's legitimacy gets one's microphone taken away, metaphorically and really.


      Sorry to disappoint you, but you are not oppressed and the secret police will not be coming for you tonight. If most people choose to ignore your rantings, that's your problem.


      Bush's people ignored Clinton's anti-terrorism advisor who beggedthem to make bin-Laden the number one problem.


      Ah, so 9/11 is now Bush's fault because he didn't do in 8 months what Clinton failed to do in 8 years. Gotcha.


      The USA has committed massive war crimes - not that anyone here cares - by invading another nation without provocation.


      Iraq invaded Kuwait. We kicked them out. In exchange for staying in power, Saddam agreed to a cease-fire. He has repeatedly and consistently violated those terms, which was sufficient cause to renew hostilities. But I'm sure the Iraqis celebrating their liberation in Baghdad today are glad to know that you would have preferred they remain under Saddam's tyranny.


      And yes, I oppose the Patriot Act, as do many conservatives. Sometimes it's useful to consider that maybe not everything "your" party does is right.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    3. Re:The general population is responsible. by Carmody · · Score: 1

      Very thoughtful post. And, after the impact of #7 's dust settles, somehow, people will blame the Liberals.

      --
      God is real unless declared integer
    4. Re:The general population is responsible. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      By your logic, anybody who donated money to a charity that was then labeled a "terrorist organization" is responsible for Sep. 11.

      I am not responsible for the actions of somebody I vote for.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:The general population is responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But I'm sure the Iraqis celebrating their liberation in Baghdad today are glad to know that you would have preferred they remain under Saddam's tyranny."

      I hate to cite personal experience but... I remember when they liberated MY country. CNN showed people happy with flowers on the streets. I still lived there at the time. We were all scared and even though our dictator (in SA) was not good he was better than fear we now had. The important part is that we were SHOWN to be happy.

      Morale: there's more than CNN news. If you want some more objective news I suggest you search at independant non-network coverage. It is considerably more disturbing.

    6. Re:The general population is responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'd rather have the civil war.


      Viva le revolution!


      Seriously, without campaign finance reform, without dissenting view in the mainstream media (about to get demolished when mike Powell and the FCC removes restrictions limiting the number of TV stations a single company can own), the only way we will be able to change our government in the future will be via revolution, and I doubt a peaceful one is possible with people like Richard Perl in positions of power with so much to loose.


      Civil war may be the only choice. Depends on how much of a sham the next election is...

    7. Re:The general population is responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf do you know about war

      be careful what u wish for

    8. Re:The general population is responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #7 was completely baseless. I can't believe how much a sheep you are.

    9. Re:The general population is responsible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "In the media consortium sponsored recount, Gore won."

      Using one specific method.

      Bwah! Yeah, that one little method which actually considered the actual number of votes cast statewide... You know, the method which, in principle, is the only one that should matter in determining who gets the electoral votes. But never mind that.

  60. Not bloody many. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Clinton presidency saw two acts of terrorism committed - two embassies were blown up, and the USS Cole was hit.

    And those are the ones you hear about. You never do hear anything solid about the ones they stop.

    My guess is that they're having a damnably easy time stopping yonder criminals bent on mass destruction now.

    'sides, I'm more worried about the DMCA. Governments, since the dawn of time, have screwed over the common man. It's all but the natural way of things. Corporations, though, feh. :P

    1. Re:Not bloody many. by Dan+the+Control+Guy · · Score: 1

      Your implication is that there is a difference between govt and corporations. Not with this administration.

      --
      When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro- Dr. Hunter S. Thompson
  61. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by terraformer · · Score: 1

    Al Queda attackes have occured, on average, every 18 months since Gulf War I. This includes attacks on other countries such as the one recently in Australia.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  62. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by HvacControls · · Score: 1

    You are not alone

  63. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by ninkendo84 · · Score: 1
    A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

    I also have a rock that keeps tigers away. I've been using it for years and haven't encountered one tiger. You can buy it for a small sum, if you'd like...

    --

    $ make love
    make: don't know how to make love. Stop
  64. +2 Troll? Hopefully not for long! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mods, this is neither on-topic nor adds anything to this discussion. Do your work!

  65. The flag icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anybody else ever notice that there's only 12 stripes on the flag icon? There should be another red stripe up at the top.

    1. Re:The flag icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been brought up a dozen times before.

      Basically it's Tacos little "fuck you" to America.

    2. Re:The flag icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      easy there cowboy

  66. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot is liberal? Where the fuck do you live? Go watch Fox News, I hear that Bill fellow is a real fucking hippie.

  67. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by micahmicahmicah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love how these types of post are always Anonymous. If you love this country so much, why post Anonymously?

  68. Hmmm... 5-8 years, depending. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    World Trade Center bombing - 1993.
    Some still claim that TWA 800 was an act of terrorism - 1996 - despite proofs to the contrary.

  69. Hatch?? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 1

    It's odd that Hatch would sponsor this. He's a conservative asshole, and a strange guy to boot, but he's always been well behind privacy rights in the past.

  70. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by privacyt · · Score: 1
    " A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former."

    Using that exact same logic --
    Ever since I started playing Starcraft, my house hasn't been burglarized. Therefore I can conclude that playing Starcraft scared away burglars.

  71. Here in Parallel Logic Land by SubtleNuance · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here in Parallel Logic Land, after Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Buildings...

    Christian Churches were banned because they were breeders of Terrorists.

    White Men with short haircuts were interviewed by the CIA to determine their Official Level of Loyalty.

    The military was disbanded because it gave Would-be-Terrorists skills and training to do their work.

    ???

    Oh wait, back in Reality, Totalitarianism and Fear Mongering only works when the boogie-man is OUTSIDE the borders and easily picked-out...

    America has always loved to rally in hate against an Enemy, how lucky this new one is so Evil(tm). Read my .sig

    1. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      Apparently somebody doesn't remember the bad rap that members of so-called "militia" groups got after 1995.

    2. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by cpeterso · · Score: 1


      of course, there are no Christian leaders declaring jihad and asking all Christian men to suicide bomb the US.

    3. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by Pres.+Ronald+Reagan · · Score: 0

      FBI's Ten Most Wanted Terrorists.

      Notice any commonalities between every person on that page?

      --

      Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.
      --Ronald Reagan
    4. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by autophile · · Score: 1
      • Christian Churches were banned because they were breeders of Terrorists.
      • White Men with short haircuts were interviewed by the CIA to determine their Official Level of Loyalty.
      • The military was disbanded because it gave Would-be-Terrorists skills and training to do their work.
      • ???
      • Profit!

      Sorry.

      --Rob

      "Mother says there are rats in the rockery."
      --Ratman's Notebooks (1968)

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    5. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by axxter · · Score: 1

      There are other interesting paralels out here too (I'm in .za)

      1) We had a law ubder the apartheid government oficialy called "Supression of Comunism Act" Basicaly it defined all 'comunist' organisations as terorist aroganisations and made memebership of them ilegal. The executive got to decide what a comunist organisation was (basicaly any vaguely left leaning party). As many of our current government were imprisoned under this act were safe from (at leat some) of the patriot act execces (for now)

      2) Last year a group of white right wing extrememists went on a bombing campaign (8 in one day - mostly train stations in black areas but also a Budist Temple) Damage was fairly minimal and they were quickly caught. However it emerged that they had ties to US right wing groupings, unseprisingly some like the KKK, but also to senior republicans. Now could we ask the US to extradite them (with no evidence) and if they refused acuse Washington of habouring International terrrists?

    6. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by ces · · Score: 1

      And your point?

      In the early to mid-90's it was so-called "militia" members and Christian cults. You do remember Waco, Ruby Ridge, and OKC?

      Persons of Arab decent happen to be the bad guys of the moment. Given enough time I'm sure we'll find another group to pick on.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    7. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Please read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm

      your not paying attention... Faith Based Initiatives..?

    8. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      2) Last year a group of white right wing extrememists went on a bombing campaign (8 in one day - mostly train stations in black areas but also a Budist Temple) Damage was fairly minimal and they were quickly caught. However it emerged that they had ties to US right wing groupings, unseprisingly some like the KKK, but also to senior republicans . Now could we ask the US to extradite them (with no evidence) and if they refused acuse Washington of habouring International terrrists?


      do you have any links on this?

    9. Re:Here in Parallel Logic Land by axxter · · Score: 1

      Hi,

      try this (If the link doesn't work the article is - "Bizarre fantasy of the 'Karoo Klux Klan'" 8 Nov 2002) From the article:
      While the danger is not yet over the plot appears to have been foiled. On Monday the police caught one of the alleged ringleaders, a former army officer called Tom Vorster, who had been on the run for six months and is believed by police to have been in contact in recent years with white supremacist groups in the United States. (my emphasis)

      Another article in the print media I can seem to find online, explored the links in greater detail. As I recall they traced links to the KKK and ohter whiter supremacists groups. They also indicated that mambers had met with Newt Gingrich and other GOB figures. Its unlikely however that they suported the Boeremag (lit. famer's force) - though they would have some issues (like oposition to afermitive action in common). Then again people are being held under the patriot act on far more tenuace links...

  72. Title doesn't say it all by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Congress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent"

    Well that's not at all accurate.

    It's not been voted on. Hell all the articles about this story state clearly "the move is likely to touch off strong objections from many Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress." Or that "Congressional Republicans, working with the Bush administration, are maneuvering to make permanent."

    Where are we at in this process? Is the President signing it? Hell no it's being discussed. Discussed, not being voted on as we speak, discussed.

    The best part is down at the bottom of the SF Gate piece.

    "But political jockeying over separate, bipartisan legislation sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., appears to have given Hatch the chance to move on the issue much earlier than expected. The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, such as a terrorist group."

    1. Re:Title doesn't say it all by debest · · Score: 1

      It WILL be made permanent. Come on, its called the "USA PATRIOT" act: how will it look for a member of Congress or Senator to vote against something like this? Regarless of which party he/she is in, in the next election his/her opponent's primary attack will be ".. VOTED AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT!! WHAT KIND OF AMERICAN IS HE/SHE!?!? HE/SHE SUPPORTS TERRORISTS!!"

      It would be political disaster to vote against this. There may be legitimate opposition to this in government, but most of the media and political enemies would be merciless in their attack. If ANYONE votes against this, it would surprise me.

      I hope that this somehow manages to get tossed by the courts, but I'm somehow not optimistic.

      --
      Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
    2. Re:Title doesn't say it all by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't get thrown out by a Federal Court, then it's not unconstitutional.

  73. Trust Big Brother! by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Oceania has always been at war with East Asia!

    Listen, friend. I voted for a Republican, a Democrat and a Green in the 2000 elections. It has nothing to do with your indoctrinated misconstruction of what "liberalism" is and everything to do with the government put the screws to liberty. I'd rather pay 2x the taxes, get a good education for it and be able to say, do, and think as I feel and please. Get your head out of the FoxNews warnography peep show and into what is going on.

    You aren't alone. There are millions of people who'd rather be able to drive their SUV using cheap gas to their chipboard mansions in the suburbs, all the while, thinking that Big Corporation contrivance equals freedom. The irony is: we are "liberating" Iraq, but Bush, Cheney, Karl (Goebbels without the whimsy) Rove, et al. are using the memory of all those people who were killed at the WTC, in Afghanistan and, now Iraq, to set up their own control of your totality.

    I repeat: Oceania has always been at war with East Asia!

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Man, you're a little confused. I'm not sure where you were "indoctrinated", but I'd be willing to guess it was a government school. We've had government controlled schools in this country for how long... at least 50 years... and we're in the bottom rung of the educational ladders. At the same time, we're spending more on education than any other country. Obviously the taxes you're paying for your wonderful education just aren't doing the job they're supposed to. Here's a solution: Pay half the taxes, but hire people that actually WANT to teach! Get rid of tenure, and hire people with a passion for educating children. "Liberalism" stands for 1 thing, and that's the belief that the good of most of the people overrules the good of some of the people. "Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government. The basis for "conservatism" is that each person must make their own decisions for their own good, and they must be held accountable for those decisions. Being a Libertarian myself, I believe that the government exists solely to protect its citizens... and I certainly don't believe that requires 35 - 50% of my salary per year. I educated myself, I took the time and money to learn what I know, I made the effort to get a job, I work hard at my job, I earn my paycheck, and I should be allowed to spend it as I wish. I don't want to pay a social security tax that I'll never see again. I can't figure out what the hell FEMA actually does, and there's no reason at all I should lose 20% of my paycheck for income taxes. The other thing I'd like to point out is that your jealousy and hatred of the "rich" people in this country is appaling. I'd be willing to bet that you've never even considered that the "rich" people actually WORK for their money, did you? My father is pretty rich... earns a very good living. He came from a family in the lower income brackets, but studied hard, and works 100 hours a week. It paid off, and now he owns a couple businesses and still works all that time. Now tell me the truth... would you like to be able to drive your SUV (or vehicle of your choice) using cheap gas to your mansion in the suburbs? If you say you don't want a mansion, you're a liar. It's called the American Dream. It's the idea that you can go from having nothing to having everything (not literally). Isn't it possible, at the very least, that the rich people in this country worked so hard in their younger years that they actually deserve to have some time to fly around the world in a hot-air balloon if they wish? Isn't it possible they deserve that right? Wouldn't you be a little upset if you worked for 60 hours a week and didn't get paid overtime or didn't get any appreciation for it?

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    2. Re:Trust Big Brother! by stalkdawg · · Score: 0

      Big corporation mean big amounts of jobs which is better then a socialistic jobs program. I would rather drive a hybrid you should not catagorize all people from one side of the isle just because you pay for cable and see fox news.

    3. Re:Trust Big Brother! by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      Education: Here and here.. So there goes your premise.

      Yes. The "rags-to-riches" American Dream! Y'know, there are no classes in America, don't you? Well, not in the Marxist sense of classes. You do have the haves (The Bushes come to mind), the have-nots (the "missing" America that no-one is really a part of), and the have-debts (slaves to corporations ran by the haves who have been tricked into believing the are acutally part of the upper class).

      and there's no reason at all I should lose 20% of my paycheck for income taxes.

      You gotta have those roads to drive your SUV to the golf course that sorta looks like Augusta National so you can park it next to the guy who sorta looks a lot like you. Tee time is at 430!

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    4. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Government schools are so horrible, we're the subject of jokes around the world! And those two examples you gave are PRIVATE SCHOOLS. You're more confused than I thought. So you're saying that we should do away with my interpretation of the American Dream and go towards Marxism? OK, sure... that seems logical enough. After all, all the Haves were obviously bred from birth to possess and acquire, all the while, plundering the lower classes. I mean, honestly, Henry Ford, Michael Dell, JD Rockefeller (I can't remember how to spell it), etc. were all born into families that already had $50 billiion in assets, so they must be the Haves. The Have-Debts must be people who work all day long for a measly wage, which is barely enough to survive on... which would obviously lead to borrowing money, and a high debt-to-income ratio. It seems perfectly logical to dismiss the idea that if one can't afford something, they shouldn't own it. After all, everyone IS actually equal, right? Education, background, skill, talent, etc... play no part in earning money to spend on things you want, right?

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    5. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to butt-in, but I think you missed the point completely. I am not even going to point out examples of how badly you missed the point, but if you re-read your first comment and his rebuttle you might 'get-it'.

      My god, this got off topic. Anyway, if you are still confused, the two schools are the schools he went to. An example of exactly how a school could be run properly with the correct funding perhaps? Not sure... reread plz.

    6. Re:Trust Big Brother! by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      The example of the schools is that I do not have a basic public school education although I am studying for a PhD at a land-grant institution (paying for it out of my own pocket).

      The rest of your rant, is at best, non-sensical. Americans carry some of the highest per capita debt ratios in the world. They have one of the lowest savings rates per capita in the industrialized world. Most of that debt is owed (by the middle classes) either to large corporations or, ironically, to themselves in terms of governmental deficit spending, something, again ironically, reversed under Slick Willy, but lustily abandoned by Bush when he got his fingers in the cookie jar. Corporation get fat handouts despite obvious market trends showing that thet should be out of business (Chrysler, US Airways, etc). This is not to protect jobs because they cut jobs in order to get the cash, which they weasel out of paying. It is to protect the assets of the wealthy who own the corporations. Sure, the middle classes invest (primarily in Mutual Funds, IRA, 401ks, etc) but their debt-to-savings ratios are upside-down. It is nothing but a maintenance situation capitalized upon by the rich and by corporations to pad their pockets. For every superrich, pulled themselves up by the bootstrap story, there are thousands of "I bent over to grab my bootstraps and got kicked in the ass" stories. Still, we can always dream.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    7. Re:Trust Big Brother! by arkanes · · Score: 3, Insightful
      How fucking hard is it to think in a clear, rational manner rather than just slapping demonizing labels on anyone you don't like. Liberalism is a moronic label thats painted on anyone you think is taking away your money.

      Here's a brief rundown - it's the idea that people are important. That by being a member of society, you have an obligation to all the other members of that society. That people should work together to provide for the common good. You would be dead right now if it weren't for the things you're poo-pooing. You didn't educate yourself - nobody does. You can't.

      I DO work 60 hours a week (often) with no overtime. I'm forced into that work model because this country treats people as a resource rather than citizens, and thus I'm expected to compete to keep my job. I'm sure your father is a very worthwhile person, but it's a simple fact of economics that not everyone can be successfull - in fact most people can't. Think about it sometime. And, to a liberal, that fact means that we have an obligation to make sure that our own ambition doesn't take the food from anyone elses mouth or the roof from over thier head.

      I don't have any solid figures, but I would be astonished if I were wrong when I said that 90% of the people making over, say, 100k a year (not rich, but upper middle class) came from (at least) lower middle class backgrounds. This is where your taxes go - to provide opportunities for people without rich parents.

      Now, it's not done perfectly and I'm as annoyed as you with the amount of taxes taken out of my check, although military spending accounts for more of it than anything else, so if you support that you might want to re-think your ranting. But the principles, the concepts that lead to this sort of thing, are perfectlly sound, and, in fact, are one of the reasons our country even still exists. Take a look at history, with the massive gap (far more than in America today, although it's growing) in the standard of living between the upper class and the poor. The American Dream was the rise of the middle class.

      Guessing from the synopsis of your life story, I'd bet that you've never been truly poor - that while you may have worked hard, you've never needed to make choices like whether to feed your children or clothe them. Those are hard choices - the kind that nobody should ever have to make, and they pretty much take the wind right our of arguments like "work harder and everything will be okay".

      If you were TRULY a libertarian, you'd want to do away with inheritence. Think you have what it takes to make it on your own? How about, at birth, all children are placed in a big pit (we can use Texas) and only the strongest are able to dig themselves out. That way, your parents won't provide you with anything. Your success won't be measured by the accidents of your birth.

      Lastly, let me just address this little tidbit of bullcrap: ""Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government."

      Bunk. Liberals believe that the goverment should take care of the people, period. It's that simple. I certainly don't worship or thank my government, but my social beliefs are liberal by any definition. I believe it's my obligation, as it is yours, that by being a member of society, and a citizen of this nation, to support everyone. To provide for common education. To provide a path for people to better themselves. The "free market" does not and cannot do any of this, because it inherently does not produce a profit.

    8. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > Listen, friend. I voted for a Republican, a Democrat and a Green in the 2000 elections.

      <oldjoke>

      Who the hell do you think you are, Mayor Daley? :-)

      </oldjoke>

    9. Re:Trust Big Brother! by RoboOp · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "Liberalism" stands for 1 thing, and that's the belief that the good of most of the people overrules the good of some of the people. "Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government.

      I can't let this go by without a challenge.

      You are wrong from an intellectual, philosophical, and historical viewpoint.

      Might I suggest that in the future if you wish to expand on a subject, that you do your own reading and research, rather than rely on the definitions the latest demagogues and politicians wish to pour into you?

      If you say you don't want a mansion, you're a liar. It's called the American Dream.

      Not everyone's dreams are limited to the "bling-bling" sets of a "YO! MTV Raps" video dude.

      --
      "First you get the Linux, then you get the power, THEN you get the women"
    10. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      but it's a simple fact of economics that not everyone can be successful

      It's a simple fact that economics is not a zero-sum game. But you seem to be saying that it is.

      If I mow my neighbour's lawn and he gives me $10 which I use to buy lunch, which one of us has screwed the other?

    11. Re:Trust Big Brother! by arkanes · · Score: 1
      Economics, on a broad scale, IS. Ask an economicist what would happen if America had a 0% unemployment rate. You think that every single poor person in America could become not-poor? Of course not, because them doing so would just increase the cost of living (supply and demand, remeber) until they were poor again. Any given person might be able to become successfull, but the propaganda that anyone can do it if they just work hard is exactly that.

    12. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Ask an economicist what would happen if America had a 0% unemployment rate. You think that every single poor person in America could become not-poor?

      As naive as it sounds, yeah. You're not talking about economic principles. It's possible for everyone to work hard and do well. What you're talking about is more sociological. Some people are useless, either lazy, stupid, or incapable. These people won't do well, unless we create a system that rewards laziness, stupidity, and incapacity.

    13. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...unless we create a system that rewards laziness, stupidity, and incapacity.

      Worked for the current US president...

    14. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      ...unless we create a system that rewards laziness, stupidity, and incapacity.
      Worked for the current US president...


      I don't think I'd characterize his presidency using any of those terms. And whatever the characterization, I think that GWB will be rewarded again with another term.

    15. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Now that you've explained your position a little better, I think I understand what you're saying. Just giving 2 examples of schools that seem to be doing fine, without any other information at all, and expecting the opposition to surmise your point is asking a bit much from anyone.

      You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, so it doesn't surprise me that you didn't go to public schools. Perhaps if you did, you would know that many teachers simply don't want to be there. They don't care about the education of the children... they're just there for a paycheck. That's why private schools excel. Public schools, like any government-run organization now-a-days, have quotas that must be met, and more often than not, those quotas require hiring someone based more off skin color and ethnicity than skill or talent for the job.

      Now for a little math lesson...

      The 2003 budget of the United States (www.whitehouse.gov) has $47.6 billion for the federal Department of Education. The Dept. of Education has 4,710 employees. If you divide $47.6 billion into 4710 employees, each employee has an average of $10.1 million dollars available to them, for salary, building, bills, supplies, etc. Most people look at that and say "Holy Shit! ... But what about the Department of Defense?" The Dept. of Defense has $330.6 billion in the budget, but also has 2.3 million members of the Military, and 667,750 civilian employees. Added together, that's around 2.9 - 3.0 million employees. If you divide the total budget into the number of employees, you get... uh oh... only $110,020. Suddenly it doesn't seem like too much, does it? Let's go down the rest of the departments:

      Agriculture = $76.6 billion / 131,385 employees = $.583 million per employee
      Commerce = $5.5 billion / 37,000 employees = $.14 million per employee
      Energy = $19.1 billion / 15,000 federal + 100,000 contractors = $.16 million per employee
      Health and Human Services = $459.4 billion / 65,000 employees = $70 million per employee (isn't government health care great?)
      Housing & Urban Development = $30.9 billion / 10,300 employees = $3 million per employee (another drain)
      Interior = $10.3 billion / 69,718 employees = $.15 million per employee
      Justice = $23.1 billion / 129,679 employees = $.18 million per employee
      Labor = $58.6 billion / 17,432 employees = $3.4 million per employee (yet another drain)
      State = $15.9 billion / 28,967 employees = $.55 million per employee
      Transportation = $60.8 billion / 118,447 employees = $.51 million per employee
      Treasury = $16.8 billion / 150,532 employees = $.11 million per employee
      Veterans Affairs = $51.5 billion / 207,028 employees = $.25 million per employee

      Granted, everything there is absolutely abhorrent compared to most evil corporations, but the government is losing more money on Education (right after Health Services) than any other department. Who's getting all that money? Obviously not the children, since our test scores are so bad. I think you get my point about education...

      I know Americans are stupid. It's because of the bad education they recieve that they can't see the long-term effects their decisions will have. It's also because of Democrats in the White House that we're plagued by such horrible things as Labor Unions, Social Security, and Welfare, all of which are designed to let the government step in and give people more money for not doing anything. Unions had a place at one time, but when they won't take a 5% paycut to keep their jobs, it becomes clear they want a government-run airline, like Amtrak. That way, their jobs will be secure. (How many manual labor workers do you know that make $100,000? The Airlines have plenty... baggage throwers mostly.)

      I'm not trying to argue that the current government hasn't made bad choices. One of them was starting the department of Homeland Security (or Defense, I can't remember which at the moment). (Wha

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    16. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Here we go...

      I'll address your points starting from the top of your post (and for the benefit of those on a 56k, I won't quote you, because it would be a 15-page post...

      Paragraph 1: Many liberals stand for one thing while many other stand for something slightly different. I label them all "liberals" because they basically believe in the same thing. Any label, no matter how simple, is not always correct. Saying so is just nitpicking. Want proof? Define "rock" in the simplest terms, and I'll give you examples of a rock that doesn't apply.

      Paragraph 2, 8, 9: I suppose that's why socialism works so well, right? Because the government takes care of its people? Socialism and Communism are ridiculously idealistic. They only work if people are inherently good, and that's just not the way it is.

      Paragraph 3: You're FORCED to work 60 hours a week because the country treats you like a resource? I think you're confusing the country with your boss. Ever consider that your boss just is an idiot who thinks he can drive you to work 60 hours a week without you feeling burned out? Sounds like my last job... but then again, when I had that job, I knew my option was to get the hell out. Now I have a better job... I work less and get paid more. Nobody's forcing you to work there, unless it's you.

      Paragraph 4: I think you're basically saying that you need money to make money. You may be correct. However, before we go any further with that argument, could you define "Middle Class" for me?

      Paragraph 5: Fact: The Department of Defense has a budget of $330.6 billion, and supports 3 million employees. You want to see a drain on the budget? How about the Health and Human Services department and their $459.4 billion for only 65,000 employees. Yet I don't hear you complaining about health care.

      Paragraph 6: That depends on your definition of poor. If you define it with the hard choices like feeding your children or clothing them? No, I haven't... I can't afford children yet, so I don't have them. I also don't have a 60" plasma TV... for the same reason.

      Paragraph 7: I have no idea where you're getting your libertarian arguments. As stated, I believe the government exists solely to protect its citizens. That's it.

      Paragraph 8, 9: Why should the government take care of the people? Isn't that each individual's job? Look on your tax forms... the little blank that says "dependents"... do you put "the rest of society" in there? Are you really THAT dependent on the government that you must have them take care of you? I don't want to support anyone else in this country because, to be quite honest, my philosophy is that if I don't know them, I probably wouldn't like them, and I certainly don't want to support someone I don't like. Do you hand out money to everybody that asks for it, just to help "take care" of them? In that case, I would like $10 million please.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    17. Re:Trust Big Brother! by runderwo · · Score: 1
      Hey, I don't mean to condescend or anything, but you might have your notions of libertarian philosophy a little confused. Libertarians do not believe that people should not help or support each other; they simply believe that we should not be forced to do so against our will. Taxing us to redistribute wealth elsewhere is causing us to donate money to other people against our will, and libertarians do not support that.

      Personally, I'm not rich. But when I see friends or folk in need who seem deserving, I'm generous. The reason why I'm generous is because I know my money is going to a worthy subject and not someone who is just going to waste it on drugs or other pointless consumables. I'm much less generous (to the point of saying No) when I don't know to whom my money is going or what it will be used for.

      I think you might be taking Libertarians as a whole to be cold-hearted bastards, and using that as a basis to argue for state-sponsored existences because you feel that poor people have no way to get money otherwise. I won't argue that there are cold-hearted bastards out there, but in a libertarian society, the poor people need to show that they are worthwhile recipients of charity (e.g. that they will use it to improve their state rather than piss it away) rather than expect a check every week from the all-encompassing government. Is there anything really wrong with that picture?

    18. Re:Trust Big Brother! by Aapje · · Score: 1

      Some people are useless, either lazy, stupid, or incapable. These people won't do well, unless we create a system that rewards laziness, stupidity, and incapacity.

      How do these people dare to become handicapped! I guess that bad luck is a good reason for someone to starve.

      --

      The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
    19. Re:Trust Big Brother! by arkanes · · Score: 1
      I understand the fundamental objection to taxes (I'm going to broaden your argument to include taxes of all kinds, not just welfare, because that's basically what you're saying here), but, in my opinion, letting individuals decide where to put thier own tax money has serious consequences for a large society, especially one like the US where we're so geographically spread apart. You said yourself - you won't donate money to support people who you yourself don't know. The idea of taxation is that you're giving money to people with the time to spend finding out who needs it and giving it to them.

      Everyone deciding on an individual basis where to put money is basically a pure democracy (doesn't matter what you vote for if there's no money behind it). On top of that, it's a democracy based on wealth, not on votes - a system like the one you're describing result in an almost instant death of the middle class, and an incredible split in the distribution of wealth.

      Back to welfare - I know it's annoying when you see people or adds about the crack addicted woman who has babies she mistreats for a bigger check. But, in truth, no only are those people the minority, the money spent on them is an infitismal fration of your taxes. I work for a state agency and the money we've wasted on unneccesary software licenses this year alone would feed probably a thousand welfare mothers. And even that is a drop in our budget.

      The reason why this is played up is because it's an easy thing to get emotional about - if you really want to talk about money going where it shouldn't, look at pork barrel bills and (especially) military contracting. The money there thats basically given away is exponentially more than every welfare cheat in America manages to steal.

      I'm not saying it's okay, but I'm saying focus your attention where it matters. From a more pragmatic point of view, it's probably cheaper to let people cheat than to spend the money you'd need to add the beuarocracy neccesary to track down the people cheating.

  74. Re:My God its full of stars! by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    They could always go to the Northwest Territories: 1,346,106 km^2, population ~37,360.

    Some of it is quite pretty, and with diamond mines the #1 growth industry, it'll be a good place to be. If you have warm clothing.

    --
    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
  75. You shouldn't have noticed that because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT.

    All that post did was confirm that it worked and they got you.

  76. As a Utahn.. by Xunker · · Score: 0, Troll
    As a Utahn, may I be the first to say (or second, or third, as the case may be):

    Orrin, You Stupid Stupid Fucker.
    --
    Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
  77. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by Scrooge919 · · Score: 1

    This is perhaps the most intelligent post in response to the article. No partisan propaganda, just a logical, well thought-out idea.

  78. No terrorist acts??? by Don+Calamari · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about that nut who shot up the Airport in CA last July 4?

    What about the DC sniper?? Those dudes ran around a highly populated metro for nearly a month before they got nabbed on a lucky break.

    Neither was prevented by this act that was SPECIFICALLY designed to combat this type of "lone wolf" terrorists.

    And, BTW, I don't care what the media calls them; these two examples are terrorist acts.

    1. Re:No terrorist acts??? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disagree, but by your reasoning, any violent crime would be considered terrorist activity. I know that I'm splitting hairs, here, but that's exactly what we need to be doing right now. Otherwise, we may as well just lump everything even remotely scary into one big category and label it terrorism. Truth be told, any fool shooting up an airport is no different than any of the countless drive by shootings that happen all over the country. Would you call those acts of terrorism? On a small scale, maybe, as the acts themselves do inspire terror to the residents of the neighborhood. Do they support such a travesty as the Patriot Act? Certainly not. Violent crime, however awful it may be, is a part of life. That sounds like a terrible thing to say, I know, but it's part of the risk of living in a free society. To blindly label violent crime as terrorism, especially during a period of time where the mere mention of the word causes widespread panic and paranoia, is purely irresponsible and, pardon my french (er, freedom), ignorant.

      I'll grant you that the DC sniper incident is a rather gray area, but I'd not be so hasty as to brand it terrorism. Personally, I would consider him little different than the Son of Sam, albeit a bit more random with choice of victims. Call him a serial killer, that is what he is. Of course that does not make the crimes any less tragic, but the label does not belie the crimes. Calling him a terrorist, however, does.

      Remember to consider the motive behind the crime. It will greatly aid you in ascertaining the true nature of the criminal. To quickly duck and cover behind the word Terrorism will only more quickly fuel the fires of a governing system that tends to use fear as a tool to control masses by slowly tightening its grip under the guise of safety and protection. And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist here. It's a blatantly obvious fact that our liberties are in dire straits right now. Why muddy the waters any more than they already are?

      Anyway, my apologies if you take offense to my reply, I do not mean to offend.

      --
      mcp:kaaos

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  79. That is nothing compared to PatriotII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very important because it catches the Justice Department in a bald-faced lie. The Justice Department claimed that the secret legislation brought into the House was only for study, and that at this time there was no intention to try and pass it. Now upon reading S. 22, it is clear that the leadership of the Senate is fully aware of the Patriot Act II, and have passed these riders out of their committees into the full bill. I spent two hours scanning through S. 22 and, let me tell you, it is a nightmare for anyone who loves liberty. It even contains the Our Lady of Peace Act that registers all gun owners. It bans the private sale of all firearms, creates a Federal ballistics database, and much more.

    Here

    I tried to submit this as a story to /. but it never made it.. Keep up the lego stories while the police state forms..

  80. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>And how many years before 9/11 did we go without a terrorist act?

    Answer: 8 years. Ramzi Yousef & Co. tried to take out the WTC with a bomb-laden (funny how that rhymes with Bin Laden) van back in '93. How soon we forget.

    That's not to say that there haven't been other attempts since then; but given that we prevented them without PATRIOT...

  81. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Matrix272 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CNN? The Clinton News Network? Yeah... they're not biased at all... *sarcasm* Are you serious? Get a life and forget about world issues entirely? My god. You're actually advocating a dictatorship by saying that. Think about it. If everybody "forgot about world issues", then nobody would care what the government did, and a dictatorship would eventually arise, like it always does when nobody stops them. The only way to change things for the better is to NOT forget about issues.

    --
    "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
  82. OK, so what's the solution? by jbarr · · Score: 1

    While I agree that too much government involvement in our lives is not a good thing, what do you, the /. community think is a good solution to provide the government with tools to be able to combat terrorists? Obviously, we can't have it both ways, or can we? What do you think?

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Terrorism is a never ending war.
      It is designed that way.
      Do some research, who benefited from 9/11?
      Look ..
      here
      here

      Do a search on 9/11 psyop.
      THINK for a minute before you wave the flag.
      Hitler burned the reichstag, nero burned rome the same tricks keep working.

    2. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by privacyt · · Score: 1

      Better intelligence analysis is the solution. As we now know, the FBI had enough information to prevent 9/11. The problem was that no one was piecing the clues together. So the PATRIOT Act--which means a massive expansion in the quantity of info that the government collects--is NOT the solution. The solution is to better analyze the information that we have. Indeed, as anyone familiar with the concept of "white noise" will tell you, it can even be counteer-productive to be flooded with useless information. (How helpful is it for the government to compile information on what books people check out, for example?)

    3. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The FBI had enough information, but no authority to prevent it, even if the clues all came together to paint a pretty picture.

      Such is the dilemma. Our criminal laws are reactive ones, ie, you arent guilty until after you comitted a crime. What could they have done? Sat FBI agents on every flight that day and arrested the hijackers after they pulled the knives/boxcutters?

      Because they couldnt have done anything based on the hearsay inadmissable evidence they gathered before hand.

    4. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by privacyt · · Score: 1
      The FBI had enough information, but no authority to prevent it, even if the clues all came together to paint a pretty picture. Such is the dilemma. Our criminal laws are reactive ones, ie, you arent guilty until after you comitted a crime.

      You'll be happy to know that conspiracy to commit mass murder is indeed a crime. So Muhammad Atta was already guilty of a felony before he even stepped on the plane.

    5. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I don't think they were doing that bad of job before 9/11/01. All in all, how many terrorist acts have occured on US soil in the past decade? 2 pop to mind, Oklahoma City, and the destruction of the WTC. Other than that, I don't remeber much in the way of terrorist acts happening in the US. Before that we had the first WTC bombing, but really, not much else. The current govenment has sold the people a bunch of lies, we are not in that much danger from terrorists. And certainly not in enough danger to authoize secret arrests, and holding people indifinatly with publicly charging them with a crime. Fact is, statistically, you're more likely to be killed in a car accident than by a terrorist. Remove the pillow from your head, go out and enjoy your life.
      The "War on Terror" is nothing more than a propaganda war meant to drive patriotism and allow the govenment to do somethings that we might otherwise not allow. Personally I'm not buying, this whole thing is a crock. Yes, terrorism happens, and its going to continue to happen, no matter how many civil rights are striped from us.
      An in order to head off the people decrying me as a liberal Bush hater, I voted for the guy, he scared me less than Gore. But, I'm damn well not making that mistake twice.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    6. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time someone asks "well, if you don't like the Nazi tactics of the Bushies, then what tools do you propose the government use to fight terrorism" I just have to ask: has it occured to anyone that they already had the tools to fight terrorism and just didn't use them effectively, properly or at all?

      There's good evidence that "the government" already knew who the 9/11 suspects were, knew more or less what they were planning and did nothing.

      If you give someone a shovel and they either refuse to pick it up and dig or they use it improperly and someone gets hurt, what's the purpose of giving them a backhoe? If they can't use a shovel properly then we sure as hell don't want them driving around a 5 ton machine with big steel claws!!!

      Maybe the solution is that "the government" should get off their fat, overpaid asses and use the tools they've had for decades to fight terrorism instead of insisting that they need bigger tools.

    7. Re:OK, so what's the solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't think they were doing that bad of job before 9/11/01. All in all, how many terrorist acts have occured on US soil in the past decade? 2 pop to mind, Oklahoma City, and the destruction of the WTC."

      Geez you yanks just dont master the whole long term memory thing do you ?

      Terrorist attacks in the US in last 2 decades:

      - WTC attack 1 (remember ??)
      - The terrorist coup attempt against Clinton
      - The (succesfull) terrorist attack on your elections (the one in Florida)
      - Ashcroft in office (BOOOM)
      - The terrorist that foiled our almost succesful
      pretzel attack.

      The list is endless, SNAP THE FCUK OUT OF IT AMERICA, YOU ARE F00BAR'D !!!

  83. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Gumshoe · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Fuck off you troll. If you hate bush so much, leave, we don't need morons like you in our country.


    If you don't like hearing a dissenting opinion, why don't you go live in a country that doesn't allow one? You freepers make me laugh.
  84. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Let's see:

    September 2001 - WTC and Pentagon bombings.
    August 1998 - US Embassy Bombings.
    April 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing (US Citizen).
    February 1993 - First World Trade Center Bombing.

    That doesn't include the various hijackings over that involved Americans. I also don't see the point in distinguishing between US citizens and foreigner attackers. It doesn't matter to those who die.

    Just because you are an ignorant child doesn't mean that we all are.

  85. No, it would be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reich 3.51. The fourth revision would mean it was perfected, ghu help us.

  86. anonymous by jobugeek · · Score: 1
    "The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us," a senior department official said on condition of anonymity.

    What? You don't want your name attached with the fact you are happy about spying on people. Shocker.

    --
    I'm not drunk, I just have a speech impediment. And a stomach virus. And an inner ear infection.
  87. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're all alone..

  88. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice to see that you are willing to support the new police state.

  89. Sun set on the USA Patriot act? by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

    Rediculous!

    The Sun Never Sets on the American Empire.

    Why should it set on Her acts?

  90. If that wasn't enough-- by lysium · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Did anyone see the context in which the Patriot extension was raised?

    Another secret warrant law, this one to help speed the capture of "lone wolves," that is, terrorists who work without affiliation to a terrorist group. See the problem here? This is all about targeting individuals and making it even more secretive than it already is.

    The decent into madness continues, unabated.

    ------

    --
    Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
    1. Re:If that wasn't enough-- by crashnbur · · Score: 1
      The decent into madness continues, unabated.

      Unabated? Assuming the madness of which you speak is a society of little to no individual freedom, then the descent is far from "unabated". We have been fighting and slowing the descent for decades.

  91. Surrrrprise!!!! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    Well, the FBI seems to have found a new form of crack with those "secret warrants" -- which of course prevent anyone witnessing their being carried out from disclosing they were carried out and subjects the parties to such warrants to being jailed indefinantly under secret charges.

    Can we say "police state"?

    So, who's surprised that these "temporary losses of freedom" are now on the fast track to being the new mandate to lead to farther reaching Federal policies?
    Sure now it's terrorists, but then becomes a model for dealing with "potential" murderers, rapists,drug dealers...

    I strongly urge every one here who is a US citizen to write email and/or snail mail to their state senators TODAY.
    Forward the links to everyone you know and urge them to do the same.

  92. I like the assumption.... by Lester67 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    that Gore wouldn't have done the same thing, had he won.

    1. Re:I like the assumption.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wouldn't have done anything. The liberal left never does anything. They have no moral foundation to judge as evil even someone like Saddam.

    2. Re:I like the assumption.... by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Gore would have done everything binLaden asked. Anything to avoid war. Anything to avoid making waves.

      Gore would be an appeaser.

      That and he probably would have signed PATRIOT also and anything else that was spoon fed to him.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    3. Re:I like the assumption.... by mrkurt · · Score: 1

      Hey campers, I think FroMan here is Rush Limbaugh!!

      Whoops, my mistake. If you were really Rush, you'd be bashing Clinton and not Gore.

      --
      Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
    4. Re:I like the assumption.... by spun · · Score: 1

      You like that assumption? It's your assumption, why wouldn't you? At least, your post is the first place I read that assumption. If someone had said that earlier in the discussion, wouldn't it be more appropriate to post your little quip in response?

      No, you are doing what conservatives always do: creating a straw man argument to try to make your opponents look stupid.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:I like the assumption.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like that assumption, you'll love this one: had Gore been president, 9/11 would not have happened.

    6. Re:I like the assumption.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something being done by congress, not the Bush administration.

  93. General population? by sulli · · Score: 1
    No, you can thank the undemocratic Electoral College system that severely favors small states for the current situation. The Florida mess notwithstanding (though I'm a Democrat I think Bush won Florida), any system that gives the win to the candidate who loses the popular vote needs to be reformed.

    I mean, come on, California has as many senators as South Dakota. No disrespect meant for South Dakota, but 34 million people ought to get more senators than 750K. Since electoral votes are allocated by Representatives + Senators, there is something severely wrong here.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:General population? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      (though I'm a Democrat I think Bush won Florida)

      Wow, I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who voted for Gore but isn't completely divorced from reality!

    2. Re:General population? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      but 53 EV is far more than 3 EV that SD could ever hope to muster. My take is we need to base congressional representation (and Electoral votes by extension) on the population of the smallest state by pop in each census. Say Wyoming (the smallest state by pop I think) has 1 million people, Kentucky has 5 million, and California has 34 million, they get 1, 5, and 34 house seats (plus their 2 senate seats). Now the only real question is if you round down or round up between the even multiples (if ND has 1 million and one, do they get 1 or 2 house seats, I say 2). The capping of the house at 435 seats is nuts.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    3. Re:General population? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a reason, though why every state gets two senators and no more. This way, while the big states can ram legislation through the House, they don't have that same power in the Senate; every state is on equal footing. Keeps the big states honest and the small states happy.

      That being said, I also think the electoral system should go NOW. But it's not gonna happen, simply because the Republicans gained way too much because of the 2000 fiasco to have any reason to change it. (Dems probably would do the same, if the tables were turned).

    4. Re:General population? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Representation in the House is based on population. That's the balance to the state based representation in the Senate.

    5. Re:General population? by no+soup+for+you · · Score: 2
      I mean, come on, California has as many senators as South Dakota. No disrespect meant for South Dakota, but 34 million people ought to get more senators than 750K

      They do -- California gets 54 votes, and south dakota gets 3... That's two senators and a miminum of one house representative.

      --
      If you blog it...
    6. Re:General population? by kst · · Score: 1

      ... though I'm a Democrat I think Bush won Florida ...

      I don't.

      Consider the thousands of people who were illegally denied the right to vote because a private company incorrectly listed them as felons. (There was probably no way to recover those votes after the election.)

      Consider the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot, a Republican-sponsored mob that deliberately interfered with the vote count.

      Consider the unambiguous overvotes that would have been counted in Gore's favor if Florida's election law ("clear intent of the voter") had been followed. (This is probably the clearest indication that Gore won the election.)

      This CNN article is typical of the reports on the NORC recount study. The headline and the first few paragraphs tell you that Bush still would have won -- but if you read the entire article you'll find that they examined several possible scenarios, some of favored Bush and some of which favored Gore.

      We've been told repeatedly, by people who should know better, that we should just "get over it". We do need to move on (there's no realistic hope of correcting the results of the 2000 election) but I will not "get over it". There is no statute of limitations for stealing a Presidential election.

    7. Re:General population? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's some reality for you conservatives and suckers out there.

      http://www.fair.org/extra/0104/declare-election. ht ml

      http://www.fair.org/activism/usatoday-recount.ht ml

    8. Re:General population? by robkill · · Score: 1

      Go back and read the history of drafting the Constitution. The bicameral legislature is a compromise to prevent the most populous states from running roughshod over the less populous states in Congress. Similarly, by having the House apportioned by population, states are represented proportionately to population.

      Look at it this way, do you *REALLY* want the 15 most populous states dictating the laws to the other 35? That was tried once before by controlling which new states were admitted, and we had the Civil War as a result.

      --
      DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
    9. Re:General population? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The capping of the house at 435 seats is nuts.
      Exactly, the needs of the people are greater than 535 legislators can serve. How about increasing the Senators to 3 per state and doubling the number of Representitives. Maybe this would allow the legislature to investigate issues and punt some of the braindamaged legislation in commitee.

      And ammend the constitution for direct election of the Executive office
    10. Re:General population? by sulli · · Score: 1

      I disagree, South Dakota would have no trouble with 53 electron volts of energy!

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    11. Re:General population? by bnenning · · Score: 1
      No, you can thank the undemocratic Electoral College system


      Regardless of the merits of the Electoral College (and there are some), it's incorrect to assume that if we used a direct popular vote then Gore would have won. Both Bush and Gore would have campaigned much differently; for example, they spent hardly any time in Texas or New York because the electoral results were a foregone conclusion. Voters would act differently as well; probably quite a few in TX or NY either didn't vote or voted for a 3rd party candidate because it was obvious who would win.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    12. Re:General population? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      No, keeping 2 Senators per state is fine, the US Reps just need to be adjusted I think I'm going to do a JE on election reform in the US though.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
    13. Re:General population? by eglamkowski · · Score: 1

      Adding more congress critters would only ADD to the amount of braindamaged legislation in committee. And we've already got pork enough already without adding another 150 pork projects to the barrel. I'd prefer FEWER congress critters, not more.

      --
      Government IS the problem.
  94. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

    socialism and communism have never (and will never) worked, but the "inteligent" liberals of this Earth keep pushing for them? Denying concrete evidence is not a sign of inteligence, it is ignorance at its highest levels.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  95. Reminds me of this quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When they took the fourth amendment, I was quiet because I had nothing to hide.
    When they took the sixth amendment, I was quiet because I was innocent.
    When they took the second amendment, I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
    Now they've taken the first amendment, and I can say nothing about it.
    1. Re:Reminds me of this quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then shut up.

  96. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by jd142 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I think you are alone. When ever I read Slashdot, it sounds like most of the people are either conservatives or libertarians. It seems like there's very little liberal bias here. At least to this liberal, you all seem awfully damn conservative.

  97. Plus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The morons who yell about this also can't seem to tell that the part in itailcs are the submitters comments, and are not those of who posted the story.

  98. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Rooktoven · · Score: 1

    Another gutless AC. Tell me-- are you a typical "brave american"?

    --

    Acquiescence leads to obliteration
  99. Suck it to Senator Orrin by Busty+Amateur · · Score: 1
    You can throw darts at his mug after making it your desktop wallpaper.

    Image is available here, conveniently sized at 1280x960.

    It may damage your screen, though, and you may be forced to go to the library to check out a book.

  100. Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent by Faramir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those who don't have time/inclination to read the article: Congress is not making the PATRIOT act permanent. The article says that Orrin Hatch is attempting to make the act permanent. Many Congressmen agree; many disagree. Let your representatives know what you think. But know that this is not in the works already. This article's title is horribly misleading.

    1. Re:Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent by privacyt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Many Congressmen agree; many disagree.

      I hope you're right. My fear is there'll be some pork barrel projects tacked on to pacify dissenting Republicans and Democrats, and it'll pass. Furthermore, our courageous Senators and Representatives are deathly afraid of being labelled un-patriotic in the wake of Bush's wildly popular liberation of Iraq.

    2. Re:Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent by dumbArtMajor · · Score: 1
      Maybe, but they are attempting it THIS WEEK, so they can get it through before anyone notices. And lest we forget, it's a Republican Congress...

      From the article:
      Republicans may seek to move on the proposal this week by trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.
    3. Re:Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent by Mac+Degger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      True...but the mere fact that it's being considered should be enough warning that your government has gone nuts. Just like TIPS. And TIA.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    4. Re:Congress IS NOT going to make PATRIOT permanent by dr.badass · · Score: 1

      The fact that something to disgustingly unamerican as the USA PATRIOT act was even passed to begin with doesn't give me a whole lot of faith that this move won't be well-recieved. The fact that a very influencial Senator is pushing for this years before the original act is scheduled to end makes it outright terrifying.

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
  101. If you're tired, try FOX by NickFusion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At the risk of my karma:

    Liberal bias in Slashdot. Bah. Set up another straw man, I'm tired of hearing about liberal bias. Have you looked out the window recently? This country is so far right, we can't see left from here.

    If it's really a burden for you, there are plenty of sources for you. I would recomend FOX and CNN for starters. They are very right-friendly, and you will feel very comfy there. No one will question government motives, no one will ask embarrasing questions about corporations. You can safely dream that this is the same country portrayed in "Leave it To Beaver."

    Thanks for stopping by, and sorry for making all this liberal noise about rights & privacy. I mean really, what were we thinking?

    As a final note, I'd caution you about the internet, it's a rough neighborhood, and you may bump into some ideas that aren't the same as yours. I wouldn't worry though, It'll all be cleaned up in a couple of years. I hear Disney's buying it.

    --
    What were you expecting?
    1. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Matrix272 · · Score: 1

      Bumping into ideas that aren't the same as mine is fine and dandy, as long as they make sense. Embarassing questions about corporations? Like what? Could you be a little more specific with those embarassing questions? I'd like some examples, if you please. Every bad corporation you bring up, I can bring up 10 good corporations. This little thing called Capitalism works pretty well, I hear. Privacy? What, you mean like registering with the government in order to purchase a gun in a few weeks? The only reason the left is concerned about privacy is that at this point, it's against what the right is about. Don't believe me? Take a look at the former administration and their views on your "privacy". Remember that Hilary Clinton said "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." It doesn't sound like she has YOUR PRIVACY in her agenda... at least in 1993. Don't believe me? Here's one right from USA Today (March 11, 1993, page 2A) "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...". Who said such a horrible thing? Bill Clinton. Look it up yourself. Don't take my word for it.

      --
      "It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
    2. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by NickFusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hehe. When I said we're so right, you can see left from here, I'm not just talking about republicans, sorry. While I could rally to Clinton's defense by saying that's that's just one quote versus, oh, say, the Patriot Act, and the castrating of the Freedom of Information Act, that would be too easy.

      I my opinion, we have a two party system in name only. I practice, we are sliding toward an aristocracy (at best), and facism at worst. Democrats are Republicans that live in working class districts. My hope for them died when their spines surrendered to their wallets.

      For every cancer cell inyour body, I can point to ten helthy cells. Horray for you.

      Capitalism works great...for those with the capital. Just like freedom of the press is great for the owner of the presses. Not so great for the poor. Or, the unemployed. Any of those hanging out on /.? Are you happy with the attention you're getting from the government on the economy? Are you enjoying the low mortgage rates on houses too expensive to contemplate?

      The great 90's economy of the Clinton Era (since you seem to like talking him) was a big shell game pulled off on the backs of the retirement accounts of the working poor & middle class. That we're only noticing this now is nobody's fault but our own. But hey...the War Show is on...who got time to pay attention to all this hand-waving?

      Bye bye karma...it was fun while it lasted...};^)

      --
      What were you expecting?
    3. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Thanks for stopping by, and sorry for making all this liberal noise about rights & privacy. I mean really, what were we thinking?"

      Don't you dare assume that my distaste for this piece of legislation puts me "left" on your little left/right scale. I am a citizen of the United States and the State of Louisiana and that is all that matters. I am neither "republican" or "democrat," "left" or "right." I refuse to be pigeon-holed into your little "with us/against us" mentality that both you and the original poster seem to support. If you insist on classifying everybody on that silly little scale, please feel free to label me as "against you." Both of you.

    4. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      YOU'RE RIGHT!!!! GOVERNMENT CAN FIX ECONOMY PERFECT IF JUST GIVE THEM POWER!!!

      If corporations are so blindingly powerful (and seemingly bent on wrecking the lives of the consumers that buy their products), then how powerful would government have to be to stop them?

    5. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Pave+Low · · Score: 1
      How's this for an example of the liberal bias on slashdot that sensible people here are complaining about?

      An idiotic comment equating Bush with Hitler is "insightful".

      Please, don't piss on my leg, and tell me it's raining, and don't tell me there's no liberal bias on slashdot because you would be wrong.

      --
      SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    6. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by cronian · · Score: 1

      The big corporate executives make their money from stocks. First, they start a company, and obtain startup capital. They then bribe politicians, cheat consumers, and use bogus accounting. Meanwhile, they get their employees along with gullible investors to pump up their companie's stock. Once the stock goes up enough, they sell their shares which they either start out with, or get really cheap with stock options. Once they have louted all the money, then they let their company burn, and move on.

    7. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All true except for the First, they start a company..
      I'd say it's more like they (and their buddies on the board) give themselves stock, and then ...

      Result: October 24, 1929. Black Thursday.

    8. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by NickFusion · · Score: 1

      You're right. My apologies. That's the problem with sparring with ideolouges. You end up framing the debate on their terms.

      So here's my stance, as free as I can make it from the traditional political spectrum.

      Pro Corporate: Suprised? How else are you going to feed 8 billion people?
      Con Corporate Pillage: We have been robbed blind by the current system. How does your retirement account look these days?

      Pro Democracy: Best system yet devised for governing. I sincerely want ours to work.
      Con Monied Aristocracy posing as Democracy. Who does your senator work for? You?

      Pro Freedom (and Right)of Speech: Possibly the most valuable freedom we have.
      Con Concentration of Media in small number of Hands. Con dillution of the Freedom of Information Act, that let's us know what our government does in our name. Con the dillution of our freedom to have a little privacy (not a right, but every bit as important).

      Con a government that asks us to trade these hard earned freedoms for the magic beans of "safety."

      Con a government that speaks in the name of the American People, but refuses to acknowledge that the nation speaks in many voices, voices that question more often than preach.

      No one ever said living free would be safe or comfortable.

      I don't have answers, but I sure as hell have questions.

      --
      What were you expecting?
    9. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      Don't be too harsh. The Left-Right thing is ubiquitous, well-worn and slips easily off the tongue.

      For an alternate schema, try The Political Compass.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    10. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, AC or not you are just dead wrong.

      Capital isnt HAVE and have-not, its created.

      If you dont believe this, im afraid no dialog can follow.

      When I do work for someone and they pay me, that wealth was created( WE BOTH got something out of the deal).

      Wealth isnt just paper. It is backed up by goods and services. This is like 5th grade economics.

      Please wake up, you sound ridiculous.

      If you cant make money in the US, your an idiot( and I mean that in the best way ).

    11. Re:If you're tired, try FOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1: Karma-whoring mention of karma.

  102. i quit by silicongodcom · · Score: 1

    ladies and gentlemen, the terrorists have won.

    1. Re:i quit by MasterRa · · Score: 1

      no shit.. it's over now..

  103. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

    At least it's legal this time, old J. Edgar Hoover did this stuff under the table years ago.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  104. Don't blame me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I voted with the majority...

  105. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not quite alone. Other people thinking like you are on the White House as we speak.

  106. Review != not renewed by geekotourist · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I question his basic and unquestioned (by the media et al) assumption that to have a sunset provision equals the law not being renewed. If the Act has been a "demonstrated success" then they should have no problem getting those portions of the law renewed. Doesn't he have annual reviews? Those don't automatically mean he is fired, no? Don't we review the performance of our Congresspeople every 2 or 6 years? This latter review certainly doesn't mean that the reviewee is gone.

    They act as if sunset provisions = not caring about the law. Quite the opposite, I think. Sunset provisions mean that a law is so important that it is worth coming back to, over and over again. Is it such a hard thing to ask that Congress spend at least as much time on "Review of Changes to Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights in Response to Terrorism" once a year as they do to "What Shall We Call Deep Fried Potato Strips In Our Cafeteria?"? Or that they spend as much time each year reviewing it as they did in passing it in the first place? (which was, unfortunately, just a few hours as I recall: Congresspersons didn't even get a chance to read it, not all 300+ pages)

  107. So in the future.. by Snaller · · Score: 1

    ..the home of the free will be in Iraq?

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:So in the future.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least after what we've seen today.

    2. Re:So in the future.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No the patriot act will work in any country especially occupied territories. Have you forgotten the new world order?

  108. computer scientists on strike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you ever wonder what would happen if all computer scientists went on strike for a week agins something like this?

    Maybe slashdot people should have a poll on this.

  109. Ok since you want to go that way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a job you stinking filthy hippy. I would love to see examples of how you speed bumps would have solved anything.

    1. Re:Ok since you want to go that way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Get a job you stinking filthy hippy. I would love to see examples of how you speed bumps would have solved anything." ...

      Is that you Ashcroft ???

      You there???

      - Nuke Texas -

  110. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you but...

    Do you realize you still pay a tax on your telephone service to finance the spanish american war?

  111. This News Report Brought To You By... by devnullkac · · Score: 1

    As it happens, when I view the story, I see this advertising image. Interesting message, I think: Don't be afraid, be a PATRIOT.

    --
    What do you mean they cut the power? How can they cut the power, man? They're animals!
  112. Re:My God its full of stars! by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what does it take for a current US citizen to emigrate and become a Canadian citizen in those territories?

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  113. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God you're a moron.

    And whoever modded you up is a moron.

    And everyone who does not understand the electoral college in america is a moron. Lincoln also lost the popular vote, yet became president. It's set up so a very populous state (like New York) cant nullify the opinions of a small state (like Rhode Island)

    And anyone who hasnt even a basic grasp of how Hitler came to power in Germany is a moron, (hint; it wasnt 'elected fair and square')

    Bah.

    Fuck slashdot and these troll articles.

  114. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Mikeytsi · · Score: 1

    You're mistaking Slashdot for a news site. Slashdot isn't a news site, it's a discussion board. If you want news, go to the AP.

    --
    I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
  115. You might want to check the name for sarcasm... by Zirnike · · Score: 1
    You might want to check the name for sarcasm...

    Welcome to /., Mr. Ray-gun!

    --
    I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
  116. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by stalkdawg · · Score: 0

    UNBIASED news on CNN now thats a funny statement

  117. that's just nothing by flamelord · · Score: 0

    compared with the rest that quitly been going on behind the scenes. Take for example executive order 13292.

    http://cryptome.org/eo13292.txt

    This gives the Bushler and Cheney the right to classify information. Information that may be classified under this e.o. is quite broad; for example information can be classified if in ANY WAY RELATES TO:
    "(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods....
    (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;"
    and of course the ultimate cliche: "(h) weapons of mass destruction."

    Why grant the president these special powers in this e.o.? We already gave this monkey the right to go to war (a power only meant for congress) and he abused it.

    Now we give this crook the right to cover up his illegitimate "foreign relations or foreign activities"? Bush made the criminal decision to start an unprovoked attack, and he should pay the price for it and rot in jail rather than be allowed to cover his tracks.

    IMO the the United States of America as it was meant to be is over. Gone bye bye.

    Your views may differ.

  118. Overthrow the dictator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey! Seems we have to overthrow the dictator in Washington and his evil minions. He's obviously
    oppressing his own people with PATRIOT and DMCA..

  119. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by operagost · · Score: 1

    It's way too early for you to say the "war on terrorism" is a total flop. So far it's driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan and taken control of Iraq. This is in only about 15 months.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  120. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by akozakie · · Score: 1

    Actually, if I were in Al Queda, I would not attack the USA now. Outside - yes, and that still happens, but I'd let America destroy itself from within.

    Without attacks this was bound to happen. Sooner or later someone would get the idea "This works! Less civil rights = more safety!". This is already a win for terrorists. Now, whether they wait patiently as your representatives take away your rights, effectively weakening (!) the system and losing public support (not just yet, totalitarism creeps in slowly), or just wait until you are already very concerned, but most "normal people" feel safer than ever and _then_ strike - it's just a matter of choice. Both actions will be devastating.

    Face it, the terrorists have won. The Patriot Act is a proof and it won't stop here. I'm glad I'm not american. Unfortunately my country "follows Americas lead" in everything, so it won't be long...

    Good luck guys. If America doesn't wake up before it's too late, we're all doomed. I was born in communism and I really don't want to see it again as "antiterrorism" in umpteen years.

  121. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by master+control+progr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Muslim clerics have been calling for Jihad since the late 1970's to no avail. Members of Al Qaeda commit terrorist acts because they're terrorists, not because they're Muslim.

    --
    This is my sig.
  122. Fight Back! by radicalsubversiv · · Score: 5, Informative

    This legislation can be stopped. It only takes 40 Senators to filibuster a bill, and if the Democrats are willing to show some guts, there might be enough pro-civil liberties Republicans to shoot it down there, too.

    Immediately go the ACLU's action page where you can send a free fax to your representatives. It'll take you all of 15 seconds.

    Next, call both of your Senators and your representative. Politely but firmly demand that they vote against this. Make clear that how your senator votes on civil liberties issues is very important to you.

    If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote (PDF document).

    Write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Doesn't have to be a great work of prose, just give an example or two of how the PATRIOT Act threatens the constitution. Give the Ben Franklin quote. Letters to the Editor is one of the most read sections of the newspaper, and politicos read it closely.

    Tell your friends. Sure, some people get irritated when politics gets brought up, but that's a small price to pay for the future of American democracy.

    Lastly, act on your belief when election time comes around. Donate, volunteer, and vote for candidates who are on record supporting constitutional liberties.

    1. Re:Fight Back! by shamrock_shake1 · · Score: 1

      You obviously didn't read much into it.

      I'm willing to bet you're an environmentalist, who is pro-life and anti-war. One of those types who protest cause there's something to protest about... and you do it all in the name of Democracy, even if you can't tell me the difference between democracy and a republic.

      Please please please become educated before blabbering opinions.

    2. Re:Fight Back! by DigitalRover · · Score: 1
      This legislation can be stopped. It only takes 40 Senators to filibuster a bill, and if the Democrats are willing to show some guts, there might be enough pro-civil liberties Republicans to shoot it down there, too.
      Yeah, because they sure jumped on board to vote it down the last time.
    3. Re:Fight Back! by fishbowl · · Score: 1


      >If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote

      So you can be one of the roughly 50% who elect our government through apathy!

      I'd be surprised if it wasn't an explicit goal of some campaigns to discourage people from voting. It might be easier to persuade someone to stay home than to convince them to vote for your party.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:Fight Back! by volkris · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, fillibuster it. Good idea.

    5. Re:Fight Back! by Prohest · · Score: 1

      "If you haven't already done so, Register to Vote [fec.gov] (PDF document)."

      Unless off course you are black and living in the southern part of the "New Reich", in which case you need not bother.

    6. Re:Fight Back! by AtariKee · · Score: 1

      And I'm willing to bet that you're one of those bleating Fox News disciples, letting the media and your friends dictate your political beliefs. The nonsense that you spew is the same mantra the rest of those ultra-right-wing nuts use when someone disagrees with them.

      I'll also bet you use the words "liberal" and "leftist" about 100 times a day, because Bill O'Reilly told you to.

      If there's anyone that hates America more, it's the "The US is not a democracy, it's a republic" Nazis who would love nothing more than the US to become a police state. And they say that Democrats (I am strictly conservative Republican, btw, and not a nutcase hillbilly like so-called other "Republicans"; i.e the Bush Administration) want to control others lives.

      So, sit down, turn off the news; it obviously does the thinking for you; read the constitution, then come back and talk to us when you are no longer an America-hating, pro-fascist Nazi, ok?

      --
      "You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
      "Thank you, Master Control"
      -Sark and the MCP
    7. Re:Fight Back! by shamrock_shake1 · · Score: 1

      Heh, well, actually, I hate Fox news, and Bill O'Reilly whines about children too much... which is actually my whole point. America has gotten too soft. Alot of people care too much about things beyond their control. The whole "What about the children" thing Bill O'Reilly spews out is a prime example of how people react.

      My argument to the top of this thread was education. People protest war because war is bad. They don't think about what is going on outside their bubble of perspective. People protest about the environment because pollution is bad. They say "Don't pollute ANWAR!" But have no clue what the environmental hazards may be. People are against the Patriot Act, but have no idea what the good points of the Act are.. just the bad ones.

      I'm not saying all is good in the world and bomb everyone. All I ask is know what the heck you are talking about.

  123. YES IT IS. by Soulfader · · Score: 1
    I'm tired of reading this crap.

    The simple fact is that had the public really had a strong preference one way or another, there wouldn't have been a Supreme Court case to decide the issue. The general population's indifference brought us to where we are today.

    This holds true for the current occupant of the White House and for the existence of USA PATRIOT: an unrelated travesty, since Congress passed it--not the President. Do you honestly believe that things would be so much better if a different man were in the White House? How would that have changed USA PATRIOT?

    Your last sentence is the only insightful one. "See what you get when you let democracy break down, people?"

    Blaming the current state of affairs on the Supreme Court or the system (the rules to which all partipants agreed beforehand) is a red herring.

    1. Re:YES IT IS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of Congress wasn't granted the time to read the whole PATRIOT act before it went to vote, without debate, without ANYTHING.

      Maybe the problem is a little bigger than you think.

    2. Re:YES IT IS. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This holds true for the current occupant of the White House and for the existence of USA PATRIOT: an unrelated travesty, since Congress passed it--not the President.
      But the President holds Veto power over the Congress
      If the President doesn't like a bill he has the duty to veto it. If the Congress can gather a super-majority they can override said veto. And the Supreme Court can overturn any and ALL laws that they deem unconstitutional or send it back to be fixed. Having the SCOTUS decide the outcome of an election was an abuse of power that the founding fathers probably were more afraid of than having a "terrorist" blow up 3,000 people.

      The checks and balance of power is what makes America so great!

    3. Re:YES IT IS. by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "If the President doesn't like a bill he has the duty to veto it."

      That's not his only option, but anyway...

      "If the Congress can gather a super-majority they can override said veto."

      In the case of the USA PATRIOT Act, it already had that "super-majority" you describe and then some. I'm pretty sure I can count the number of Congresspersons and Senators (combined) that opposed the bill (or even just abastained) on one hand. That kind of momentum would have steamrolled any veto effort flat.

  124. History Lesson by f2professa · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a history lesson for all of us to read. "On March 2, Hitler was asked by a corespondent of the Daily Express whether the suspension of liberties was permanent. He answered in the negative saying that full rights would be restored as soon as the Communist danger was over. The reality was that the decree of February 28th established what would become the normal order of things under National Socialism - arrest on suspicion, imprisonment without trial, the horrors of the concentration camps. This condition would persist until the end of the Third Reich."

    --
    Someone, please shake me from this wide-awake nightmare.
    1. Re:History Lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When, ironically, the Communist Russians seized Berlin. ;)

    2. Re:History Lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep, human nature remains the same as man does not learn from history... he only repeats it.

  125. Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Justice Department officials in interviews today credited the Patriot Act with allowing the F.B.I. to move with greater speed and flexibility to disrupt terrorist operations before they occur, and they say they wanted to see the 2005 time limit on the legislation lifted.

    ...apparently no one got the message from Minority Report, did they? It seems to be sanctioned now to prosecute "criminals" before they actually commit the acts that make tham criminals. Haven't we already been through the Salem Witch Trials enough? This bears far too much resemblance to McCarthyism for my taste.

    I second everyone who is in favor of voicing displeasure to Congress, and I add that it may be high time to begin getting petitions together for a referendum posthaste.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by shamrock_shake1 · · Score: 1

      No. I'm saying think first, form your own opinion based on knowledge, and then spread the word. I went to an anti-war protest rally, and asked three questions.

      Why are you here?
      What is the worst part about war?
      What is the largest risk a post-war Iraq faces when Saddam's regime falls?

      You'd be amazed at what I heard. 1)Why are you here? because someone else wanted to go and I'm with them. 2)What is the worst part about war? People dying. 3) Post war Iraq? Uh... Finding a new leader.

      People had no clue about Iraq.. and I bet a few of them could find it on a map. If I brought a globe with me I would have asked.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by rumba · · Score: 1

      I set you in charge of cleaning up the depleted uranium. Put your ideals where your mouth is.

  126. Learn from Europe, fools! by Endimiao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You should learn from europe. We had our own internal "terrorist groups" to deal with, but we never stoped being a somewhat carefree society, oposed to the current state of North-American paranoia. Try visiting europe *preferably with a Canadian passport right now*, and you can feel the lack of fear in the air, other than the concern about the current US administration. We dont give more importance to any "terrorist" than we would give to "organized crime" and "serial killers".
    The difference is pretty moot.

    1. Re:Learn from Europe, fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but we never stoped being a somewhat carefree society

      As long as you don't try to sell Nazi memorabilia.

  127. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by stalkdawg · · Score: 0

    it would seem like there were very few drunks in a bar to a drunk i would suppose as well.

  128. worse than patriot 1 by AbdullahHaydar · · Score: 1

    Patriot
    2

    Basically, if the government declares you an enemy combatant (which it can do
    for any reason without any due process), you can be stripped of your
    citizenship under Patriot 2!!!!!! (no current law exists anywhere in the US
    which can strip citizenship)

    --


    Suicide Booth: You are now dead! Thank you for using Stop and Drop, America's favorite since 2008.
    1. Re:worse than patriot 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and hopefully Peter Arnett is first to get the boot. Maybe patriot 3 can lock up anyone who voted for Gore.

  129. Get rid of the US Senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real issue should be how to get rid of the US Senate. This is the most undemocratic elected
    group of representives in the western world. It is an anachronism from the the 18th century. It's too easy to buy senators from small states.

  130. Contact your reps! by cjpez · · Score: 1
    Contact your congresspeople to let 'em know what you think about it! Unless, of course, you're all for the PATRIOT act and all. In which case please don't. :P

    /me ducks

  131. Re:My God its full of stars! by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks to our moderately socialist government, you actually get paid to live in those territories ... but I don't know if emigrants get that. You could start looking at the Government Canada website, if you want.

  132. Hatch, Mormonism and the Constitution by scottennis · · Score: 1

    Hatch is a Mormon and Mormon's believe that one day the Constitution of the US will "hang by a thread."

    In that day, the Mormon belief goes, the Elders of the Mormon church will rush in to rescue it.

    I wonder if Hatch believes he is rescuing the Constitution here or if he is trying to hurry it's demise so that the Mormon Elders can come in to rescue it.

    Remember, this is the same guy who wants a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit flag burning.

    (Note: Before you flame me for being a Mormon basher, please note that I myself am a Mormon and my views on Senator Hatch have nothing to do with my views on my religion.)

    1. Re:Hatch, Mormonism and the Constitution by mrkurt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hatch is a Mormon and Mormon's believe that one day the Constitution of the US will "hang by a thread." In that day, the Mormon belief goes, the Elders of the Mormon church will rush in to rescue it. I wonder if Hatch believes he is rescuing the Constitution here or if he is trying to hurry it's demise so that the Mormon Elders can come in to rescue it.

      It sounds like the same logic some fundamentalist kooks believe in: they are trying to breed a red heifer, because according to Revelation, it is one of the signs that Jesus will come again. If people are doing something to follow some kooky belief, I question their sanity. This is why the fundamentalist kooks are so pro-Israel: the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem must be destroyed, and the Jewish Temple rebuilt, they believe, before Jesus comes again. (The ancient Jewish temple was on the site of the present Dome of the Rock, where Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven.)

      Remember, this is the same guy who wants a Constitutional ammendment to prohibit flag burning.

      As a mainline Christian, I consider a law against flag burning to be idolatry, because you are raising a symbol of the state up to be a symbol of reverence. Apparently Christian rightists forget about one of the commandments: "You shall not make an idol for yourself... you shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Ex. 20:5)

      The "PATRIOT" Act is just part of the plan on the part of Reichsfuhrer Bush and Co. to create a fascistic state, with a Christian Rightist ideology that they at least pay lip service to. Making this law permanent would be a big mistake.

      --
      Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
    2. Re:Hatch, Mormonism and the Constitution by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1
      "You shall not make an idol for yourself... you shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Ex. 20:5)
      Always wondered about this one. What is the cross, if not an idol, that you bow down to? The statues of the Virgin Mary?
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    3. Re:Hatch, Mormonism and the Constitution by mrkurt · · Score: 1

      I am a mainline Protestant, so no Virgin Mary is in the picture. And I don't bow down to a cross; it's just a reminder of Jesus on the altar, not an idol. And cross-burning as a form of protest, well, at least in the U.S., it's indicative not of anti-Christian sentiment, but racism. Whether anyone should be prosecuted for that is a matter of hot debate.

      --
      Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
  133. Write your Congressmen by mysterious_mark · · Score: 1

    Write and email your senators and representatives, stop the madness, save our constitutional rights. MM

  134. the revolution can happen today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All we have to do is get organized. That's what the corporate culture has on us: organization. That's it.

    1. Re:the revolution can happen today by smack_attack · · Score: 1

      Shut up you goddamn hippy. All you people every spout is corporate this and corporate that. If you want to start a revolution KEEP going to work and just fuck everything up there for as long as you can. Eventually it will collapse in on itself from failure.

      That's how the revolution will be fought, not with guns but with intelligence.

    2. Re:the revolution can happen today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you geeks whip it out for every passing whore. jerk off next time, it's safer.

  135. troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    troll posted to slashdot front page. w00t

  136. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by mike_mgo · · Score: 1
    I realize this is a joke but..Hitler was never elected. The Nazi party never won more than about 35% of the vote, even in the few elections after Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933.

    He was appointed by a coalition of right wing parties whose leaders though that they would have control over him.

  137. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can think of a motive: the Republicans are annoyed at continually losing control of the congress and the presidency to the Democrats.

  138. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Emugamer · · Score: 1

    hehe according GWB he undoubtedly is

  139. Historians 100 years from now will say . . . by privacyt · · Score: 1
    First, the Supreme Court appointed Bush. Then he was given broad police powers not in the Constitution. Then his foreign policy based on pre-emptive war was approved.

    The coup was successful. All that remained was to make his war powers permanant.

  140. What an excellent quote to gain karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...without actually answering the question.

    1. Re:What an excellent quote to gain karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please explain how an anonymous coward gains karma. ;-)

  141. Bush won fair and square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In reality, Bush won fair and square. Bush won the exact same way the others (including Clinton, Nixon, Carter, FDR, Hoover) did: he won enough states to get enough electoral votes to win. That is how he did it, and that is fair and square.

    1. Re:Bush won fair and square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you even *watching* the news during the Floriday debacle?

      The GOP used damn near fascist tactics to *stop counting the votes* which was *what determined where Florida's electoral votes went*. Furthermore the supreme court decided that the votes should not be counted in a decision *precisely split upon party lines*.

      Make up any shit you like, but we will not forget what happened in Florida.

      We have always been at war with Oceania.

    2. Re:Bush won fair and square by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Did you actually follow it? I did and wrote a report on it. There were two recounts that were completed in Florida, and all counts found that Bush won it every single time. Forida then certified the vote by law. Gore went to the Florida Democrat supreme court to get a third biased recount in those three counties. This was illegal as the florida court overturned their own election law. So then the US Supreme Court struck it down because the vote recount was already done not that it wasn't done. Don't you get it? Gore tried to overturn the election!

  142. I Honestly felt safer under Clinton by Ozor · · Score: 0

    As an American I honestly felt safer under Clinton then Bush. The first year of Bush presidency was to over turn all the laws the Clinton passed (enviromental, economical, criminal, ect.) The poeple of this country need to walk to washington and rip of the constitution cause it isn't beign followed anymore. Our country needs to close it borders and stop medeling in foriegn affairs, (IE Somalia, Bosnia, Chili) Let be Americans first and help our selfs first. How many people would 300 billion put to college, or pay for health care. WE need to WAKE UP.

    1. Re:I Honestly felt safer under Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except of course the fact that all three attacks on US soil occured or were planned during his terms - both WTC attacks and Oklahoma City.

  143. It's not just Republicans... by Alu3205 · · Score: 1

    I found the submission extremely biased and full of rhetoric. Congressional Republicans? Give me a break. I don't see Democrats fighting for my rights any more than Republicans. Look for yourself, Democrats passed the Patriot Act too. Remember we can get screwed from both sides of the isle.

    And finally, please do not just complain and Slashdot, write a letter to a Congresscritter, inform others, and vote. The system will not fix itself.

    --
    Slashdot comments can be accurate, highly modded, or posted quickly. Pick two.
  144. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by GooberToo · · Score: 1

    ...and if you were in touch with the American electorial process, you'd see that Bush was too....which has nothing to do with anything...

    *cough*..hint...popular vote DOES NOT elect the president! Period!

  145. wait a second by k3v0 · · Score: 1

    what if there is another terrorist attack? what rights will we have left for them to take? these laws need to pace themselves....

  146. He did not steal it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There is no statute of limitations on stealing an election"

    The only theft that happened was the attempted theft by Gore by lying in court with frivolous lawsuits and tampering with ballots.

    As it turned out, the real winner won and went to the White House, and the vote tampering attempt was rejected.

    The President did not steal anything; he won fair and square the exact same way Clinton did twice.

    1. Re:He did not steal it. by kst · · Score: 1

      The only theft that happened was the attempted theft by Gore by lying in court with frivolous lawsuits and tampering with ballots.

      Uh huh. Just one question: If it was Gore who brought "frivolous lawsuits", why was the case called "Bush v. Gore"?

    2. Re:He did not steal it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your question is a shallow puddle. The question should be: "Why is the case that was brought before the Florida Circuit and Supreme Courts called 'Gore vs Katherine Harris?'" Yes that's right... GORE INITIATED THE LAWSUITS. Now think about it for a minute... Why did he do that? That is because the TWO completed recounts failed giving him a win and he wanted to try it a THIRD TIME. Now do you understand why the US SC overturned the illegal partisen Florida SC decision? Only one recount was required by Florida law afterwhich it was certified. And all recounts have proved that there were no significant difference or issues.

  147. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The time to act is now folks. Here is how to contact your representative/s.

  148. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by MarvinMouse · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was told that if you grind up all your money and mix it with some salt, anywhere you pour that, bad guys will stay away... Really, it'll keep all the bad guys away.

    Defence Budgets

    --
    ~ kjrose
  149. Yes, and that scares me by geekotourist · · Score: 1
    Once a bureaucracy is used to the money they fight like territorial bull moose to keep it. Taxes rarely go, and in that sense the analogy isn't the best one (but then few analogies are one-to-one matches, else they'd just be examples or analyses).

    But as a starting analogy I think it is powerful, because it links in with some politicians' (Republicans especially) stated desires to demand accountability and cost benefit analyses for new regulations or current taxes. A permanent change to our civil liberties should demand as much review as a new regulation on air quality and pollution control equipment, no? And we should review it as much as we do regulations to make sure we're not mandating outdated technologies or trying to fix a problem that no longer exists?

  150. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 words on why #2 is totally possible...
    "new world order"

  151. declassification by flamelord · · Score: 0

    (b) An agency head may exempt from automatic declassification under paragraph (a) of this section specific information, the release of which could be expected to: (1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or a human intelligence source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method; (6) reveal information, including foreign government information, that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

  152. Re:My God its full of stars! by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

    You just have to ask nicely and have lots of money.

    --
    You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
  153. Al Gore invented the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bush won, Gore lost. Perhaps we might have been better off with Gore. He could reason with Saddam and Iraq. After all, he invented the Middle East (somewhere between the time he wrote the Constitution and took the initative in creating the Internet).

  154. yep yep yep by andih8u · · Score: 1

    As usual, everyone is convinced that the government is going to swoop into your house and arrest you for doing a web search for porn. Relax. Get a grip.
    The government also has the right to buy you property against your wishes as long as they give you fair compensation for it, which they could deem as being a dollar, but they haven't done that have they?
    So if this act allows them to monitor people who are extensively searching for bomb making instructions and using hotmail to contact afghanistan...so be it.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:yep yep yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government also has the right to buy you property against your wishes as long as they give you fair compensation for it, which they could deem as being a dollar, but they haven't done that have they?
      No But a "fair" price is a hell of a lot more than a dollar..... This is where the "fourth estate" comes into play... as much as I hate the press this is one instance where they can actually help. If I decide to publish the wrong doings of the government the press will demonize them all to hell and I get what I am entitled to a "fair" price for my property not some bean counter's idea of what my property is worth.

      Believe it or not the press has more power/influence than any law that say ~280 people can think of that would abuse same power.
      We need the "free" press that is able to show both sides of a situation; as opposed to only getting the "party line"

  155. Freedom... by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

    Isn't it time that US people start voting for a change? you might surprice yourselfs in the effect... People who let these law's made deserve no freedom...

  156. What was that word? I remember - "Gleichschaltung" by CharonX · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Reading the story made me remember two words that ran shivers down my spine... "Gleichschaltung" and "Ermächtigungsgesetz".
    Don't get me wrong, I do not wish to compare the Patriot act to those horrors of the past, or imply that the American Democracy is at stake.
    And still, making an act permanent, that radically cuts civil rights for (the citicens' or the states'?) safety summoned those two horrors up.
    And thus I must agree with another poster's Benjamin Franklin quote:
    Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  157. You should be thanking me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was the one who wrote the original Stephen King spinoff. I did a similar one last week for Chemical Ali. These are just copy & paste knockoffs.

    He (or someone else) added the statue angle. That's good. I'm glad to see new angles.

  158. Supreme Court has nothing to do with it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the Supreme Court did was say that there was no need for the umpty-umpth recount.

    It had NO difference: Gore ended up losing that particular recount once it was held after the election concluded in a proper Constitutional fashion. Just as he lost all the counts before it went to the Court.

  159. Oceania has always been at war with East Asia by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Of course, the US could never do anything so monstrous. No! Never! Trust George Bush. "We are fighting evil. And this will take a long time." "The war against terror could take a very long time."

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    1. Re:Oceania has always been at war with East Asia by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      funnily no country has been in a war against good yet.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Oceania has always been at war with East Asia by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      funnily no country has been in a war against good yet.

      Yes. It started back in September of 1940, IIRC.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    3. Re:Oceania has always been at war with East Asia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are referring to some historical event other than the start of WWII then, no YDRC. The British declared war on that occasion, in 1939.

    4. Re:Oceania has always been at war with East Asia by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, afaik, all countires involved were fighting 'evil' opposing countries inhabited mostly by evil pigs.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  160. Elect Libertarians = Elect Kooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Libertarians are like right-wing nutty laissez faire Republicans, except they are also in the back pocket of the crack cocaine pushers.

    If you like Steve Forbes smoking a bong, you'll love the Libertarian Party.

  161. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    WTF is this modded "informative"? Maybe you should all go to "how stuff works" and find out how the Electoral College works. Then consider whether the practice of assigning at least one house rep per state is fair. After all, that gives Alaska a lot more represenation per person than, say, New Mexico.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  162. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    News flash. Congress has been split(Senate) or in control of Republicans since 1994.

    Presidency since 2000( Bush won after 5 recounts ).

    Whos is losing control again? I think its the leftists.

  163. whining about politics... by HBI · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...gets you nowhere. There's a reason why the government is like it is today, and it isn't the application of money - the fact that the government isn't skewed even more Republican has to do with personally wealthy Senate candidates the last few elections throwing their fortunes into the race. Instead of a 52-47 split you might be seeing 56 or 58 Republicans there. Think Jon Corzine or that woman in Washington State. Or even resurrecting the dead like Frank Lautenberg in NJ - if not for him, that seat would be an R too.

    For a long time the Democratic party has been shooting itself in the foot and in this latest rush to war they have continued to do so, with ill-timed antiwar remarks as well as completely spineless repudiation of the same remarks, at inopportune moments. Make up your freaking minds already, or have a strategy!

    How about turning that funeral in Minnesota into a political rally? Paul Wellstone and his family might not have been bothered, but the undecided public certainly was. Insert foot in mouth again.

    Opposing the tax cut in 2001 wasn't very inspired either. How do you oppose a strongly presented tax cut without alienating voters? Pretty much impossible.

    The Gore persistence in the 2000 election claims cost them big - there is no question about that. The Democrats came out looking like the bad guys there, no matter what the "appointed president" wackos care to spout off about. Gore was the whiner, Bush was laid back about the whole thing, and this came off clearly to people. The real battle is in the court of public opinion, represented by those who aren't committed to one party or another. The zealots all have their particular axe to grind.

    The people running the Democratic party are all Clinton-sponsored and brought up in the hubris of the aforementioned administration. This was the same administration that weathered the President getting a hummer in the Oval Office closet, the murder of one of their close associates in very suspicious circumstances (Vince Foster, of course), $200 haircuts on the LAX takeoff queue, holding up traffic a couple hours, 8 years of investigation due to their shady '80s business dealings, and i'm barely scratching the surface. Yet, Clinton survived.

    Too bad none of the current Democrat leaders have the ability to manipulate public opinion at that level. They must think they do, however, because they continue to operate as if they can explain away any stupid transgression or idiotic point of view they might espouse. That power belonged (and belongs) to Bill Clinton himself.

    Of course, we could look beyond Clinton himself and point at the House Post Office and House Bank scandals to show the idiocy of the Democrats. They _had_ to know that this kind of thing would have come out eventually, but they waited for it to bite them in the ass. These are politicians? That garbage went a long way to losing the House and Senate for them in '94.

    In short, looking back on the last 10 years and how the power shifted (remember that in 1993 the House, Senate, and the White House were Democrat), one can only blame the Democrats for their own woes. I don't see them as providing an adequate counterpoise to Republican domination of America. Until the leadership is completely dismantled and replaced with competent politicians, you can expect this situation to persist, at extreme cost to our civil liberties.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  164. Predicted newspaper headline from 2050... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

    "Dancing on the streets of Washington as Arab coalition forces liberate the people of America!"

  165. What is wrong with that? Way to go Joe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vast majority of McCarthy's "victims" were actual Soviet agents (i.e. members of the Soviet communist party). He broke the back of the Stalinist Left in the United States. Good for him!

    1. Re:What is wrong with that? Way to go Joe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so full of shit. Scary, man!

    2. Re:What is wrong with that? Way to go Joe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get some help !(or commit suicide, both works for me)

  166. I tried it by jeti · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Enjoy the result:

    SENATOR JOSEPH McBUSH
    Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia
    February 9, 1950

    Six years ago, at the time of the first conference to map out the peace - Dumbarton Oaks- - there was within the Iraq orbit 180,000,000 people. Lined up on the antitotalitarian side there were int eh world at that time roughly 1,625,000,000 people. Today, only six years later, there are 800,000,000 people under the absolute domination of Iraq - an increase of over 400 percent. On our side, the figure has shrunk to around 500,000,000. In other words, less than six years ago the odds have changed from nine to one in our favor to eight to five against us. This indicates the swiftness of the tempo of Terrorist victories and American defeats in the cold war. As on of our outstanding historical figures once said, "When a great democracy is destroyed, it will not be because of enemies from without, but rather because of enemies from within."

    The truth of this statement is becoming terrifyingly clear as we see this country each day losing on every front.

    At war's end we were physically the strongest nation on earthand , at least potentially, the most powerful intellectually and morally. Ours could have been the honor of being a beacon in the desert of destruction, a shining living proof that civilization was not yet ready to destroy itself. Unfortunately, we have failed miserably and tragically to arise to the opportunity.

    The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have ben treated so well by this Nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this Nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthliest nation on earth has had to offer - the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in Government we can give.

    This is glaringly true in the States Department. There the bright young men who are born with silver spoons in their mouths are the ones who have been worst.

    Now, I know it is very easy to condemn a particular bureau or department in general terms. Therefore, I would like to cite one rather unusual case - the case of a man who has done much to shape our foreign policy.

    When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, ws not to work for the terrorization of China. Strangely, however, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging taht we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that terrorism was the best hope of China.

    Later, this man - John Service- was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the Terrorists secret State Department information. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution was forced to resign. Two days after Grew's successor, Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary of State, this man -John Service- who had been picked up by the FBI and who had previously urged that terrorism was the best hope of China, was not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted. and finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions.

    Today, ladies and gentlemen, this man Service is on his way to represent the State Department and Acheson in Calcutta-by far and away the most important listening post in the Far East...

    Another interesting case was that of Julian H. Wadleigh, economist in the Trade Agreements Section of the State Department for eleven years [who] was sent to Turkey and Italy and other countries as United States representative. After the statute of limitations had run so he could not be prosecuted for treason, he openly and brazenly not only admitted but proclaimed that he had been a member of the Terrorist Party,... that whi

    1. Re:I tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      thank you for your time and effort! You are really showing some hussle!

  167. Be more specific by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For example, they allow for violations of basic human rights.

    How so? Which ones?

    1. Re:Be more specific by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      You're right. Humans have no rights. We should feel free to commit war crimes against them (we can't be proscecuted because we took our ball home and refuse to play with the International Criminal Court, which we are... International Criminals that is), we can feel free to turn civilians into pink mist, after all, they were human and we all know that humans do bad things, we just pre-empted them.

      You are right. Humans have no rights and when the U.S. Government comes for YOU, we'll remember that and act accordingly. You are human, aren't you??

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    2. Re:Be more specific by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head, if people can be held without the ability to contact anyone on the outside, then there is no way for us to ensure that human rights are not violated. It might not be made explicitly legal, but we could easily have gross violations of human rights due to these changes, legal or not.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  168. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare you spit on the graves of the millions who died so that you can post on this site. How dare you spit on the grave of the millions of jews who were massacred by the Germans. How dare you spit on the graves of the millions who sacrficed everything they had to support this country during the war.

    Comparing Bush to Hitler is a disgusting display of your ignorance of history. I demand an apology on behalf of all those you ungraciously insulted and demeaned.

  169. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by valdis · · Score: 1
    As soon as this terrorist thing cools off a bit, this "Act" will be revisitied and decalred unconstitutional.

    Ahh.. but you see, that's the scary part. The Supreme Court has to wait for an appeal to be filed before it can rule on it.

    And it's hard to file an appeal if you've been dissapeared and don't have access to legal counsel.

    Seen on the Politech mailing list today - this guy can't file a writ of habeus corpus or anything.

    http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,58382, 00 .html

    >Intel programmer Mike Hawash, detained as a witness by federal authorities
    >in what appears to be a terrorism probe, will be held until at least the
    >end of April, according to a court order released on Monday afternoon.

    And:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca lnews/13 4671013_detained08m.html
    http://www.portlandtribu ne.com/archview.cgi?id=175 18
    http://www.freemikehawash.org
  170. Extrapolating by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

    While we're at it why don't we legalize torture as well. It would make it much easier to get extract confessions from suspected terrorists.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:Extrapolating by Cached+Hit · · Score: 0

      umm...i thought it had already begun

      --
      "look ma! no hands!!!" - random amputee
  171. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Totally aside from the stupidity of the name, it's declared objective, which is the "worldwide elimination of terrorism", is both logically impossible to achieve, as well as unprovable whether or not it ever has been achieved. Exactly like the war on drugs, which it's often compated too. Both are little more than political fictions to allow expanded police powers with less oversight. From a historical point of view, consider the war on organized crime, another total flop which gives us crap like the material witness laws.

  172. Posting NYT Articles by YetAnotherName · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Dear Slashdot Editors:

    By now, you know of the trick of replacing the www in a New York Times URL with archive in order to bypass the free registration screen. In order to serve your readers better, please start doing so in the article bodies that you post.

    For example, this link uses this "feature," and is far more convenient to your readers who wish a certain (if small) level of privacy.

    Thank you,
    Your loyal readers.

  173. Sneaky! by mechBOY · · Score: 1

    So my own theories about the war being mostly a distraction might be true?! And to think, I was only kidding about that. Looks like the controll system is getting better at bushwhacking the guardians of our civil liberties. Oh, stupid me! I forgot that the people who guard our freedoms are..... us. Should we just bend over now, or put up a fight? Red pill, blue pill..... decisions, decisions!

    --
    Crank the gears and dead ahead!
  174. Who REALLY runs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A horde of criminals ...like Poindexter, Cheney and Rumsfeld are right now running the country, leading their mascot Bush."

    There is nothing criminal about them, nothing at all. And they are led by Bush, the one we elected, the one with the real power.

    1. Re:Who REALLY runs by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      Poindexter is, in fact, a criminal. He's not a convicted one, because Congress gave him immunity for testimony, but he did in fact do them. "Poindexter was convicted of five felonies in 1990: conspiring to obstruct official inquiries and proceedings, obstructing Congress (two counts) and false statements (two counts). The convictions were overturned by an appellate court on the grounds Poindexter had been granted immunity in his testimony on the matter before Congress." (from here).

      I've never really understood the whole anti-Cheney, anti-Rumsfeld, or even the anti-Ashcroft thing. Anti-Bush, I get; people think he's stupid. I don't; I think he's inarticulate and is willing to play dumb to get what he wants; but I do understand why they don't like him. Ashcroft is an Atty General, and they're notoriously anti-freedom (gads, just look at Reno). I think the subordinates are playing their parts in the government; for example, if you trust the AG to be a good little boy and not try to expand police powers of the government, you're a moron. The holder of that office should be hounded day and night by Congress, regardless of the party in power. They didn't do it under Clinton, though, and they aren't doing it under Bush.

  175. One can only hope that Hillary Clinton by multiplexo · · Score: 1

    will be elected in 2008 and that her first presidential act will be to order the permanent incarceration of all Republicans under the powers of the new PATRIOT act. It will be no less than these bastards deserve for passing legislation such as PATRIOT and for mindlessly backing Bush after 9/11.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    1. Re:One can only hope that Hillary Clinton by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      We might have to wait on Chelsea for that one.

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    2. Re:One can only hope that Hillary Clinton by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1
      What disturbs me is that, though I'd vote for her to vote against Bush, I really don't see her as being that much of an improvement. The conservatives see people like Hillary as bogeymen (okay, women) specifically because they're expected to wipe out civil liberties, and hurt our system of government by turning it into a sort of 'mama state' in which Hillary is all benevolent and decides everything- tripartite government? Congress? who needs it?

      The fact that it's the Bush people who've delivered a more tangible threat in this direction doesn't mean the Democrats are necessarily to be trusted along those lines either. In fact one of the big terrors for conservatives about passing stuff like that, IS the prospect that Hillary will get in, and hey presto! Suddenly a liberal wench has the kingly powers, horrors!

      Some of the smarter conservatives understand that it's the very concept of giving ANYBODY those kinds of powers which is the problem. Even if they (for some godforsaken reason) consider Bush, Ashcroft etc. to be utterly benevolent, wise, trustworthy and good, the hero-GOPers still do not get powers that overrule our system of government. They're not kings...

      And as such, the very notion of locking up all the Republicans when a new regime seizes power is appalling, no matter what they've tolerated- and again some of them are very unhappy with what Bush and co. have presided over. They get upset because they are ready to deprive the GOP candidates of their vote if civil liberties and freedom keep being assaulted and government keeps getting more USSR, but where are they going to go? It would be like asking _you_ to vote Bush on the grounds that the Democrats were taking too much corporate money, which they do...

      Pretty messed up, all of it...

  176. TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by danoatvulaw · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You can be detained, without being charged, indefinitely, having been investigated under a sealed warrant, an unsigned warrant, or no warrant at all, and then be denied access to a lawyer.


    Please tell me where in the patriot act they did away with the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION? I found nothing in my reading of it that says persons may be detained indefinately without charge. I noticed that there is an increase in wiretap ability of the government, but anything that says you can be held without charge indefinately is not only ludicrous (sp?), but facially unconstitutional.

    Yes, it is clear that the powers of the government to spy via this law are greatly expanded, and may not be constitutional. However, I simply do not buy into the FUD that so many have that the US can just whisk you away in the middle of the night on secret charges, and do it legally. This is not communist russia.
    1. Re:TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by mattrix2k · · Score: 1

      No, but its getting closer every day to fascist Germany.

    2. Re:TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by J.+J.+Ramsey · · Score: 1

      "However, I simply do not buy into the FUD that so many have that the US can just whisk you away in the middle of the night on secret charges, and do it legally."

      You should have watched this Sunday's "60 Minutes." You can be whisked away indefinitely without even being charged at all.

    3. Re:TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by danoatvulaw · · Score: 1

      If that is the truth, then could you please point me to the portion of the act that allows it? As a law student, this goes against everything I have been taught up to this point. Note that I'm not trying to start an argument here, just find out the truth of the matter. It seems unconscionable to me that a US citizen can just be taken constitutionally.. so until I see it, I don't buy it.

    4. Re:TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by juju2112 · · Score: 1

      Here is the information on Mike Hawash.

    5. Re:TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by smasherbob · · Score: 1

      The only information I discovered on that site was that the creators are his "friends". I see nothing that disproves the fact that he could be a material witness.

      Not that I'm saying I support this or anything, but it just seems like they're grasping at straws here. I'm pretty sure the government has a good reason for detaining him and didn't just say "hey, look, an arab guy, get him!"

    6. Re:TOO MUCH FUD FOR ME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point - it is bad that we don't know why he was detained.

      If governments could be trusted to not abuse its powers, then obviously there would be no need for any restrictions on government powers.

  177. Something stinks around here... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

    and it isn't just my socks.

    A little while ago, Patriot II was leaked. There was an enormous hue and cry about it.

    Whups, Plan A didn't work, let's try Plan B....

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  178. We are now... by Luxviaest · · Score: 1

    About a foot away from becoming more Red than our lovely communist friends we fought so desperately against for the last fifty some odd years. I think it's far past the time to begin communicating to our legislatures that it is indeed our freedom that makes this country so wonderful, and that when those freedoms are rolled back without regard for those they were set in place for, we become no better than those we seek to hinder through their placement. I deeply hope that intelligence will shine through, and that our "elected officials" (president withstanding) realize the gravity of their decisions.

  179. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is comparing Bush to Hitler a dissenting opinion? It is nothing more than the typical trash that comes out of the mouths of those who are entirely ignorant of history. Anyone with a 5th grade education should be able to tell you the difference between Hitler's Germany and Bush's America. To even make the comparison is a disgusting example of how unintelligent and ignorant most Americans are.

    After all - almost half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

  180. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that the electoral process was handed off to the FUCKING SUPREME COURT when a recount was called.

    Maybe the entry in How Stuff Works should go something like : If you need the Presidency and you aren't going to get it, don't worry if you have a right-slanted Supreme Court to give you the job.

  181. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by smcavoy · · Score: 1

    Wha?
    So it was illegal (and immoral) before, but hey they made it the law now, so it ain't that bad.
    Next we'll be hearing marijuana's bad, cause it's illegal.

  182. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by N7DR · · Score: 1

    I vaguely recall from history books that there used to be a tax on income, which was temporary and was imposed in order to fund a war. I wonder whatever happened to that tax? Not unnaturally, they called it "income tax".

  183. Morons. . . by Garund · · Score: 1

    I think the original poster was using hyperbole to make a point. Regardless of how the American system of 'democracy' happens to work, (and doesn't, as evidenced by the recent undoing of the civil charter, among other things), I think this was less a troll than it was a flailing stab of frustration at the heart of bullshit-central.

    In the final analysis, I'd not be surprised to see Bush out-do Hitler in terms of both deed and scale.

    1. Re:Morons. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the final analysis, I'd not be surprised to see Bush out-do Hitler in terms of both deed and scale.

      Um... You need to go back and reread history.

    2. Re:Morons. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of how glorious it will be. Another Holocaust, but this time not the jews but the LIBERALS. YES IT WILL BE GREAT.

    3. Re:Morons. . . by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      That's a son of a bitch for us liberal Jews in the world...

    4. Re:Morons. . . by Garund · · Score: 1
      Um... You need to go back and reread history.


      I'm going to wait for another eight years. Then I'll go back and read history. I'll start with your post and work forwards.

  184. Good point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a good point, considering that racists and anti-semites are big among the ones opposed to Bush.

    A few weeks ago, ANSWER had a pro-Saddam rally in Washington. As the thugs waved their signs with anti-Bush cartoons on them, several anti-Jewish groups spoke on the podium.

    Then there is the University of Michigan. The racists are so angry that Bush has weighed in against the University's policy to deny admissions to people who have the wrong skin color.

  185. And this is why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we have the Second Amendment. Armed citizens can overthrow a tyrannical government as a last resort. I really hope it never comes to that though.

  186. Re:My God its full of stars! by suicidal · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ask Clinton... Oh wait, he was just dodging the draft.

  187. Why the Electoral College must go by master+control+progr · · Score: 1
    Population of:

    New York:19,011,378

    Rhode Island 1,058,920

    Electoral College Votes of: New York 33

    Rhode Island 4

    Votes per Electoral College Vote:

    New York: 576,102

    Rhode Island: 264,730

    Think about it. A Rhode Island vote is effectively worth 2 New York votes.

    --
    This is my sig.
  188. "and our general population" by Fefe · · Score: 2, Funny

    We can say a lot about Americans. That they are stupid egomaniac boars who don't know anything besides their own country, that their education system is horrible beyond repair, that they think with their cruise missiles, ...

    but we can't blame them for the current government.

    It was not voted by the majority of the US voters.

  189. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by Darth_Michael · · Score: 1

    I'm authoring my first /. comment just to say that this parent should be modded to +1000. Good points all around, very reasonable accomodation of both the liberal and conservative views, IMHO. Now, if only our congresspeople were so enlightened...

  190. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Mr_Matt · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's way too early for you to say the "war on terrorism" is a total flop. So far it's driven the Taliban out of Afghanistan and taken control of Iraq. This is in only about 15 months.

    Mr_Motti: Don't try to frighten us with your apologist's ways, Operagost. Your sad devotion to hackneyed cheerleading has not helped you conjure up Osama Bin Laden, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Iraqi hidden weapons of mass dest...

    Darth Ashcroft: *choke* ...I find your lack of jingoism...disturbing...

    Moff Cheney: Enough of this! Lapdog, release him!

    Darth Ashcroft: As you wish.

    *thunk*

    Moff Cheney: This bickering is pointless. Lord Ashcroft will provide us with the location of all terrorist bases by the time the new PATRIOT Act is operational. We will then crush our opposition with one swift stroke.

    Shrub: Yaay! Can we use the nookular weapons?

    OK, so maybe it's not this bad yet, but the more we piddle around with every crooked third-world dictator, the more I'm reminded of the constant war-making in "1984". War is Peace! And we still haven't caught OBL yet...are we still trying, even?

    --


    But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.
  191. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Lincoln also lost the popular vote, yet became president.

    Oh really, asshole? Which one?
    1860
    Abraham Lincoln, Republican 1,867,198
    J. C. Breckinridge, Democrat 854,248
    John Bell, Constitutional Union 591,658
    Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat 1,379,434

    1864
    Abraham Lincoln, Republican 2,219,362
    George B. McClellan, Democrat 1,805,063

    In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote but won the EC. In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and and the EC, but won the presidency.

    Thanks for feeding the ignorance you irresponsible piece of shit.
  192. Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by I_am_God_Here · · Score: 1
    Never give money to the ACLU they often help NAMBLA!!!! see google



    If you want to protect your right you could actually consider getting off your lazy ass and writing someone, as opposed to giving someone you never meet your money and hoping they do what you asked them to.

    --

    Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
    Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
    1. Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't like somebody. Therefore we should violate their rights! The American Civil Liberties Union should not defend people we don't like! They don't deserve civil liberties. You are confusing defense of a group's rights with defense of what they do. I don't like what you are saying. Therefore I should not defend your rights???

    2. Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1
      They've also defended the KKK and neo-Nazis. And I very strongly disagree with and dislike all three of these groups. But that's not the point. The reason we have the First Amendment, which the ACLU defends above all else, is to protect all speech, even unpopular speech that offends a lot of people. Censoring the KKK or NAMBLA is just as unconstitutional and wrong as censoring the NAACP or the Christian Coalition. Saying you believe in Free Speech yet don't agree that NAMBLA has a right to say what they want to say is hypocritical.

      When no one has unpopular ideas, then we won't need a First Amendment. Until then, I think we need to make sure we've got groups like the ACLU around to help defend it.

    3. Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I support BOY RAPE SO I SUPPORT NAMBLA VIA ACLU

      Cross burning isn't free speech either.

    4. Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by I_am_God_Here · · Score: 1

      Is yelling fire in a crowded theater free speech? No because people will panic and get hurt.

      Mabye I am not making myself clear. It is against the law for a 64 year old to have sex with a 10 year old and a form or rape. Should Nambla have the right to tell people to break the law(Rape children), how to break the law, etc...?

      KKK, neo-Nazis, and Christian Coalition pick on other races(first two) and ???(I'm sure the last one picks one someone). They target adults, adults have full reasoning capablities, and debating skills to defend themselves. Children don't and wouldn't be able to match up in a physical fight. Furthermore children are "awkward", they have meny emotional insecurities the sickos pray on. I am not so foolish as to think kids can be protected all the time but should the endangerment of children be protected?

      --

      Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
      Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
    5. Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      Should Nambla have the right to tell people to break the law(Rape children), how to break the law, etc...?

      Don't expect to change a First Amendment absolutist's mind with "won't someone please think of the children" pandering.

      Don't expect to change the mind of an adjudication absolutist, either.

    6. Re:Screw the ACLU, they help NAMBLA by AssFace · · Score: 1

      you really don't want to read any literature or history of the Romans or Greeks then - you will get so tizzied up that you will probably have a heart attack.
      You are also going to want to avoid learning about cultures where life is harder and people don't live very long.
      While you are at it, don't even think about the Native Indians - their crazy mixed up ways are going to make you... well, it will likely make you want to give them alcohol and some disease ridden blankets.

      I mean, I suppose you could maybe take a step back and look at things from a different viewpoint culturally and throughout time - but it sounds like that sort of things gives you the heebies - and I don't blame you man. seriously - if everyone isn't just like me, then this world will just go to hell in a handbasket. It is all of those different fuckers that make me sick. Fucking this place, they are.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  193. Recount? It happened anyway, gore lost again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Except that the electoral process was handed off to the FUCKING SUPREME COURT when a recount was called."

    There were counts and recounts before the court was involved. Gore lost them. He even lost the unnecessary (and illegal, according to Florida law) recount that he had asked for that the Supreme Court denied him.

    The Court made no difference. Gore kept losing no matter how it was counted.

  194. How to stop this from happening by dunkstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All we need to do is find one law-enforcement dude to arrest every single congressman that would be likely to vote in favour of this.

    Do we need a reason? Nope : cite the Patriot act.
    The unlimited detainment period need only last until after the bill gets crushed like the rights of the people under it.

    People will say that's an abuse of the Act and we'll win by demonstration of the very thing we're protesting against. If they don't complain then the bill will vetoed anyways. It's a win-win situation.

    1. Re:How to stop this from happening by spun · · Score: 1

      Sure we could find a law-enforcement dude to do that, but then some law-speaking guy would get a judge to declare a bad court thingy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  195. bypass registration page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can read the story here without registering.

  196. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by WCityMike · · Score: 1

    Please explain. I'm curious.

  197. Re:Dog willing. by cheeseSource · · Score: 1

    And the United States' WMD's haven't killed anyone...

    --
    (Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
  198. All makes sense now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  199. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by csteinle · · Score: 1

    Yes. Do you realise the reason that there was such a long time period between the attempting car-bombing of the WTC and the 11th Sep tragedy was that groups like this don't do anything while you're alert? They wait until you're not paying attention. There won't be any "anti-western" (for want of a better description) terrorist attacks on US soil until the US gets complacent about them again. Right now it's too difficult - and more importantly less shocking - as everyone is on edge and paranoid (PATRIOT or no).

  200. Mr. Thomas Jefferson said it best.... by InfoSec · · Score: 0, Redundant

    A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither.

    --

    Wherever you go, there I am...
  201. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > He was appointed by a coalition of right wing
    > parties whose leaders though that they would have
    > control over him.

    Sounds like Bush.

  202. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if you've ever read a history book, but I'm afraid I have to tell you that Hitler reached power perfectly legally. In the Weimar constitution, the (directly elected) president - at the time, Paul Hindenburg, besotted with old age - was allowed to appoint a chancellor if he thought it necessary, which was increasingly the case towards 1933. This is how a government was formed by NSDAP and DNVP with Hitler as chancellor, the NSDAP already being a very substantial fraction in the Reichstag. His chancellorship was later affirmed in the normal way, so yes, he WAS elected fair and square.

    He only turned the Weimar republic into his dictatorship *after* legally attaining power, and he did it by perfectly legal means, starting with the "Ermächtigungsgesetz" which basically allowed the government to pass laws - even unconstitutional laws, as long as they didn't actually break the Reichstag, the Reichsrat or the president, not that that made any practical difference - without needing consent from the Reichstag. This law was passed in the regular way; it was originally limited in its duration to 1937, but of course the government now had the power to prolong it at will... and it all went downhill from there as you know.

    It may be worthy of note that Hitler and his party's extremist views gained a lot of popularity through "fighting terrorism", particularly after the Reichstag was torched by a madman - it has later often been suspected that this man was actually planted by Hitler And Friends, but this has turned out to be false, although it certainly was very convenient for them. On their initiative, the president passed the "Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat", which in its basic premise is eerily similar to the Patriot Act (though it goes somewhat further than that and with some differences). This, I assume, is what the original poster meant.

  203. actual copy of the act by SourceHammer · · Score: 4, Informative


    Is it just me, or is it hard to find an actual copy of the act?

    Patriot Act (text)

    --



    Open source development is my way of competing with the low-cost programmers in India...
    1. Re:actual copy of the act by doce · · Score: 1

      no more difficult than any other act...

      --
      woof!
    2. Re:actual copy of the act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, that's what the reps were saying on their way in to vote for it.

  204. Not all Conservatives are behind this by Windcatcher · · Score: 1

    Not by any stretch...if anything, the acrimony is coming fast and furious.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888978/ po sts

    1. Re:Not all Conservatives are behind this by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      That whole site is absolutely fascinating. I'm pretty seriously socially left, but what startles me is how some (not all) of the Conservatives take the Constitution and the form and INTENT of our system of government very, very seriously. They've been reading the same history I have. They cite Madison, so do I. Amazing to find a type of common ground with these people who, if they knew me, would probably want to burn me at the stake, and yet I know with absolute certainty that if I carefully stick only to Constitutional beliefs, in all sincerity, they'll take me as one of their own- 'cos w.r.t. that type of conservatism, I _am_.

  205. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by csteinle · · Score: 1

    Australia? When? Am I totally out of touch and have missed something?

  206. Why bother with a atory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why bother even posting a link for this type of weekly bashing? Just call the story "Let the Bush bashing begin" and then have all you liberal morons start whining about how Bush stole the election, is evil and has done x, y and z to destroy the US.

    As much as i hate the Patriot Act it was BIPARTISAN that means both parties were for it and the majority of both voted for it in Congress. Even now, according to the story, Schumer (D-NY) is in on making this shit permament.

    And while your slaming the Dept. of Homeland Security as a Republican Gestapo remember that the department was proposed by a Democrat (Leiberman) and the Republicans were initially against it but gave in on it because they knew it would be political suicide to oppose it at the time.

    I hate the patriot act and i'm not in favor of the Homeland Security Department either but you can't lay this at the feet of just one party, both are responsible. Call your elected representatives and tell them you are against the extension of the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II instead of sitting around whining about how Bush "stole" the election.

    1. Re:Why bother with a atory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if the US congress is BIPARTISAN, then i've got TWO RIGHT HANDS.

  207. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by arkanes · · Score: 1

    Idealism does not mean a lack of intelligence. Notice the spelling. There's nothing wrong with the ideals of either socialism or communism, nor are they neccesarily incompatible with democracy.

  208. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clinton didn't get a 50% majority the popular vote in 92 either.

    How come no one on the left seems to remember that?

  209. Orrin Hatch by AZPhysics · · Score: 1

    So, he's the best senator in the world when he fights Microsoft and the RIAA, but he has made a secret pact with the devil over the Patriot act? Could it possibly be that people holding political office are not just one-dimensional? Could problems be more than one-dimensional? Could different times lead to different solutions? Try to be less-reactionary in your political pronouncements.

    1. Re:Orrin Hatch by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1
      Really. I'm a Vermonter, and our Pat Leahy has been speaking up quite a bit on the subject of Iraq- he's been sending out mailings to voters establishing that he's speaking out on the subject. At the same time, I just read that he's one of the people whose name is on the bill for the original Patriot act...

      To me it seems to suggest not that Hatch, Leahy etc. are correct in finding different solutions for different times, it suggests that even people with some right ideas can be tragically, dangerously wrong in other ways.

      It's a great pity we cannot elect people who are _serious_ about, for instance, maintaining constitutional protections. It means that even the friendlies are vulnerable to bartering. Demand 100% of a protection be discarded, then accept 50% as a compromise. Repeat...

  210. Be thankful for your electoral college by freeweed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Be happy you don't have a system like Canada, which pupports a Senate, that doesn't actually do anything. We like yourselves have 2 major groups of lawmakers - but our Senate just passes any law that comes its way.

    The problem? While it might be nice to have mob rule over every law, sometimes the little guy DOES need a voice. 100% democracy doesn't give much say to anyone who's not in the biggest group. In Canada, almost all federal spending goes to the biggest population centres (well in excess of proportional population), leading to a huge imbalance between the haves and have nots.

    Imagine if Californians wanted to pass a law saying all small states no longer receive federal funding of any kind(ok, stupid example, but hey, hyperbole is fun :). Under the US system, this law wouldn't go anywhere. The senate prevents tyranny of the majority. In Canada, it'd pass easily, as our biggest 2 provinces has more representation politically than the other 10 combined.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Be thankful for your electoral college by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly the issue the Bicameral Congress was designed to prevent, Tyrany of the Majority. However the Senate keeps dropping the ball.

    2. Re:Be thankful for your electoral college by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      In Canada, almost all federal spending goes to the biggest population centres (well in excess of proportional population)

      Also strangely, the biggest population centres have the biggest GDP, pay the most taxes, and are extra-proportional by most other metrics. It's almost as if network effects applied to social structures as well. For example, the Kitchener-Waterloo, ON area has the same GDP as New Brunswick. NB has twice the population and thousands of times the land area.

      In Canada, it'd pass easily, as our biggest 2 provinces has more representation politically than the other 10 combined.

      Er, either you meant "the other 8 combined" or "the other 11 provices and territories combined".

    3. Re:Be thankful for your electoral college by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Also strangely, the biggest population centres have the biggest GDP, pay the most taxes, and are extra-proportional by most other metrics.

      More to the point, the biggest population centres are the net payers of tax dollars and the poorer areas are the net collectors of tax dollars. You'd think the big population centres might be a little bummed about the net drain of their efforts.

  211. Two cases by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    The two most known cases are Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi. You can google them yourself, but here is one of many articles describing their cases.

    Since people can be tried and executed in secret under this act, there is no telling how many more have gotten in trouble like this.

  212. A serious question by njdj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    [The Patriot Act] grants the executive branch almost police state powers,

    How do you justify the word "almost" in that sentence? In the USA today, the government can make people simply disappear. The USA already imprisons a larger fraction of its population than any other developed country, and the Patriot Act has barely started to have an effect. What more do you want before you are willing to describe the USA as a police state?

    1. Re:A serious question by jasonditz · · Score: 2

      I justify almost in the sense that at least citizens who aren't members of obscure religions, ethnicities, or political organizations theoretically have some rights.

      If Patriot Act II passes, I will cheerfully remove the almost.

    2. Re:A serious question by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      What more do you want before you are willing to describe the USA as a police state?

      Revocation of the right to vote for a better government.

    3. Re:A serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Revocation of the right to vote for a better government.

      You mean like in Florida last time?

  213. .sig doesn't say it all by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    "War's Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace." William Tecumseh Sherman

    You must not be from the South. Ole Sherm is considered by many a war historian to be a war criminal of the first order, and a proto-typical one to boot.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  214. Serious question.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    OK the patriot act really does scare me. the fact that it totally ignores our constitutional rights is downright wrong. I'm not so scared of being physically spied on, but where the internet is concerned I dont like the fact that the Govt can just spy on our net connections at will.

    My question is: If I bought a T1 connection, could I still be spied on? I don't know that much about it but its my understanding that a T1 is essentially a direct line to a net backbone. That would mean that the govt would have to spy on the whole backbone to spy on me right? If I were to use some crappy consumer ISP like AOL or Comcast or something, they could just ask that company to spy on me and my line. But if I have a T1, there is no middle man. right?

    If my above assumptions/guesses are completely wrong, I would like to hear some suggestions on how to surf more anonymously (not the usual annoying proxies and crap that scr1pt k1ddi3s use).

    1. Re:Serious question.... by valdis · · Score: 1

      Hint: The *OTHER* end of your hypothetical T-1 is in somebody's wiring closet. And you'd have to go to OC-12 (622 mbits/sec) or maybe OC-48 before you severely challenged the current level of traffic sniffers.

    2. Re:Serious question.... by doce · · Score: 1

      a T1 is not, necessarily a direct connection to a backbone. in fact, in most cases it's probably not. hell, T1's don't even have to go into the Internet. put very, very simplistically, a T1 is just a big ass phone line. where it goes really depends on whom you buy it from.

      --
      woof!
  215. The Red Scare by Gunnery+Sgt.+Hartman · · Score: 1

    I thought Senator McCarthy had died. This all sounds very familiar to the sixties and his witchhunt.

    --
    [ ]
    1. Re:The Red Scare by I_am_God_Here · · Score: 1

      Actually McCarthy was very accurate on who was a communist. What he did after that, the trials, hearings, grandstanding..., was unjust and unfair.

      But if he was a witch hunter he found witches, he shouldn't have tried to burn them at the stake.

      Of course I could be bias because there have only been really two politicians from WI(my state of birth) that are in/famous. (The other being Robert La Follette, a populist republican who almost made a run at the White House)

      --

      Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
      Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
    2. Re:The Red Scare by qzulla · · Score: 1


      Uhm that was in the fifties.

      qz

  216. if only it were FUD by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    " I simply do not buy into the FUD that so many have that the US can just whisk you away in the middle of the night on secret charges"

    Mike Hawash and others are being held without access to a lawyer and without being charged. And they are not being told how long they will be held or when they will be charged.

  217. Everything I needed to know about the American gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I learned from "Attack of the Clones":

    Meanwhile, the Republican Senate votes to suspend democracy and to become a dictatorship. It grants "temporary emergency powers" to Supreme Chancellor Palantine (Ian McDiarmid). He pledges to form a militaristic regime to subdue the separatists. So this is how to fight evil: form a totalitarian state, deny your citizens their civil rights...

  218. Back to politics by pkinetics · · Score: 1
    I was wondering when they political manuevering would begin around this.

    Its not a question of if a terrorist attack will occur, but when. Knowing that, the Republicans are making something so absurd, that the Democrats have to oppose it. The result is Dems will look like the good guys now, but incompetants in the future. Reps will look like they had foresight and vision. If nothing bad happens, it looks like it did it's job. If there is finally enough political backlash regarding civil rights, only then will the Reps be in a little trouble.

    Why a little? How much does an individuals privacy weigh against the sense of security and stability of society?

    Looking back, the Japanese interiment during WW2 wasn't illegal at the time. It was defined as necessary for the security of the nation, as well as for their own well being.

    In retrospect, we think differently. Society's perceptions of the situation have changed.

    Hindsight and second guessing don't accomplish anything in the future. It only proves that we make mistakes.

    Are they making the right decision now? Who's to say. Figure they have prevented one terrorist attack, saving the lives of 300 people, and returned a somewhat sense of security that we have forgotten, is it right?

    Individuals are smart. Society as a whole is stupid.

  219. So, how can I effectively act on this? by jps3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, as someone very inexperienced with communicating with government, what can I do about this? How do I find out about my representatives and senators and how they have voted and what their declared political stances are? How can I effectively communicate my concerns to them? What can we do as a community to apply pressure to them? Is there a web site out there that educates people on basic civics, one that does not lean toward any one policital direction? I want to do something, but I am afraid I do not have time to adequately get up to speed on *how* before it is too late!

  220. General population?? by Gefiltefish11 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    "...and the general population for our current leadership..."

    Excuse me! Didn't the "general population" ask for a different leader of the free world??

    The dope currently at the head of the US was appointed by the Supreme Court. Don't blame the rest of us for any messes him and his fascist puppetmasters have gotten us into.

  221. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>To the US gov't: Stop wasting time on this kind of stuff and go find bin Laden!

    Are you a horse? If it's not in your field of vision, you don't think it happens?

    WTF do you think we are doing? Gee we only got the top brass of Al Qaeda except for Bin Laden so far. I guess that means we gave up already?

  222. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny...some of us think you armchair "nuke'em all" hawks should be the ones fighting hand to hand over there instead of our troops.

  223. ... or if you know what to challenge. by Aram+Fingal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Part of the problem with the activities carried out under the act is that they are very stealthy. You may not know that your rights have been violated.

    Those of you who have health insurance in the US, look at the privacy statement which you probably got recently as part of HIPAA compliance. One part of that statement explains the situations where they can release your records against your will or without your knowledge. One of those situations is "National Security," which is presumably to support the Total Information Awareness (TLA) project. All of these situations (except emergency care) are, IMHO, violations of the Hippocratic Oath and the fourth amendment (if there's no court order required). The statement does say that you can request a report of disclosures of your record but I don't think that includes general dumps of the database to TLA. You would not know that your rights have been violated.

  224. You all agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All comments read so far are at best unredeeming, at worst ignorant. It wasn't Jefferson who said anything about sacrificing liberty for safety deserves neither, it was Franklin. And no, Star Wars is not a suitable example for political models.

    Why aren't you people as critical with your values as you are your operating systems? You reject M$ marketing but wholly embrace the media. You're not very consistent with your critical thinking.

    Regarding being Canadian... Canada has FAR more draconian practices. How much of your own money can you keep? It's not easy to be so smug and smart when you live in what is essentially a socialist country, and hence, absent in contributions to technology and living standards. Canada is known for shit, because Candians don't do shit.

    Also, Hitler wasn't fairly elected moron (you know who you are), Hitler violently forced himself into power. Man some of you will do anything to piss a little on George Bush.

    550 opinions and all of them are consistent. Why post anything more?

    I know little about this Patriot Act. But I do understand that the worst portions of it apply to visa violators and non-citizens. Seems like a logical course of action given the current cirumstances.

    1. Re:You all agree? by valkraider · · Score: 1

      I know little about this Patriot Act. But I do understand that the worst portions of it apply to visa violators and non-citizens. Seems like a logical course of action given the current cirumstances.

      Man I love when people start out by disclosing they don't know what they are talking about. What *I* know is that it is a slippery slope. Once we give up one little thing - then it is that much easier to give up just a little more. Sure, Bush is not Hitler - and we are not Nazi Germany. But the parallels are there folks, and they are scary. Sure, we have to agree that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. But there were none before that either - and we had all our rights in-tact then... The simple fact is that the government needs to do a BETTER job with the data they already have - not screw Americans to get more data, that they will just neglect anyway. I can't wait to tell my grandkids what it was like to live in a free country... They won't even understand. Heck, I remember a time when you could ride a bicycle without a helmet, shoot fireworks more than 10 feet high, and own a dog without 30 licenses and permits... A chinese friend just told me that in China - they don't have rubber bullets.......

  225. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by demonlapin · · Score: 1
    I think he means the nightclub bombings in Bali, which were as squarely aimed at Australians as a nightclub bombing in Tijuana or Cancun would be at Americans.

    BTW, for those in this thread, don't forget Khobar Towers.

  226. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 1

    umm, despite the propaganda to the contrary, I don't recall hearing that France fell apart anytime recently, and from what I gather, they are pretty much a socialistic society. Perhaps, if we have any French people left on this board, they can confirm/deny this, but I think that they are pretty much a functional socialist society.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  227. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1
    Oh really, asshole? Which one? 1860 Abraham Lincoln, Republican 1,867,198 J. C. Breckinridge, Democrat 854,248 John Bell, Constitutional Union 591,658 Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat 1,379,434 1864 Abraham Lincoln, Republican 2,219,362 George B. McClellan, Democrat 1,805,063 In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote but won the EC. In 1824, John Quincy Adams lost both the popular vote and and the EC, but won the presidency.

    Somebody mod this boy up... oh wait ... damn AC

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  228. This isn't surprising...or even that necessary: by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

    Thing is, many of the clauses in the Patriot act don't even have sunset clauses.

    So even if this particular congress critter doesn't get his way, you guys are still fucked.

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  229. freedoms by Zed2K · · Score: 1

    So exactly how has all your freedoms been denied? Last time I checked all mine are still there and nothing has impacted my everyday life.

    But thats ok...if some of you want to get all "dramatic" about it thats fine...makes for funny reading.

  230. Amendments IV and V by mcwop · · Score: 1
    Amendment IV
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

    Amendment V
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Honest question. It seems that searches are allowed so long as their is reasonable cause, and a Warrant. And holding someone for offenses in case of conflict is allowed as well. How does that Patriot Act differ? I can't find a decent comparison between precedent based on Amend IV + V and Patriot Act. Unfortunately, much of the analysis seems to contain hyperbole without fact.

    --

    "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

  231. Give me a break Slashdot! by Reverend+Raven · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    This whole thread is nothing more than a mindless, left-wing sponsored bash of President Bush, his administration, and Republicans in general. Not one argument has been presented on WHY the Patriot Act shouldn't be extended. You take this and other websites to push your agenda which this country DOES NOT agree with and HAS rejected time and time again.

    American will no longer allow those who consider themselves to be more intelligent than the average BLUE COLLAR citizen to sit back and badmouth us. The BLAME AMERICA FIRST camp is loosing steam. The average citizens are NOT tollerating these anti-American stances.

    You complained when we secured our country. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. A testiment to how the system we have put in place WORKS. It has secured and will continue to safeguard this country and our people, while you whine, uninformed, about matters that effect all of us.

    You are the same people who take to the streets to protest our war in Iraq. We have just freed a nation of people who were inslaved to a brutal, evil dictator. Would you care to tell the overjoyed, newly freed Iraqi citizens who are throwing roses at our troops that we have no business there?

    This nation is doing what is in the best interest for US, not the UN or the world. We have taken care of the world both economically and militarly since the 1940s, and now we have to band together and do what is necessary to make AMERICA secure for AMERICANS. And if you don't like it, SHUT THE HELL UP.

    But it is okay. While you post to the Internet and demand that the Government unsecure itself, I sit comfortable knowing that these laws and policies are preventing another 3,000 innocent CIVILIANS from being murdered. I sit comfortably knowing it's harder for someone to make L.A. into a gigantic radioactive mushroom cloud.

    So I hope people like Slashdot reader continue their level of young, uninformed nonsense. It only helps strengthen my side's cause.

    --

    --Reverend Raven
    Desperate days demand dire deeds.
    1. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No you shut the fuck up.


      What was that saying about patriotism being the last refuge of a scoundrel? Well it looks like for the BLAME AMERICA LAST crowd, patriotism is the first refuge for the whole fucking group.

    2. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I sit comfortably knowing it's harder for someone to make L.A. into a gigantic radioactive mushroom cloud.

      You say that like it's a good thing.

    3. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Funny
      We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. A testiment to how the system we have put in place WORKS.

      *sigh* Do we have to shoot down this stupid argument again?

      Oh, all right....

      I have a magic anti-tiger keychain. I know it works because I haven't seen a single tiger since I started wearing it.

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    4. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

      This whole thread is nothing more than a mindless, left-wing sponsored bash of President Bush, his administration, and Republicans in general.

      Yes, this is a fully sponsored bashing. I am expecing the residuals check right ... about ... now.

      BTW, nice troll, Trolly Trollerton!

      --
      Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
    5. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by saddino · · Score: 1

      Would you care to tell the overjoyed, newly freed Iraqi citizens who are throwing roses at our troops that we have no business there?

      No, but I'd tell them that even though they may think this new freedom means they can finally say anything they want without fear of persecution from Mr. Saddam Hussein, they'll still have to deal with people like you telling them to "SHUT THE HELL UP" when they try to exercise their new found right to criticize the government.

    6. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by carbon+68k · · Score: 1
      Would you care to tell the overjoyed, newly freed Iraqi citizens who are throwing roses at our troops that we have no business there?
      I thought our talking heads were always saying that Iraqi fighters were only trying to look pro-Saddam to improve their chances of not being killed by Saddam's regime.

      Has nobody else thought that Iraqis celebrating the arrival of U.S. troops are just trying to look pro-American, to improve their chances of not being killed by U.S. forces?

      Let's see how ordinary Iraqis feel about whether or not we have any business there after Saddam's been removed, and the war proper declared over...

    7. Re:Give me a break Slashdot! by Frodo2002 · · Score: 1

      Flame or troll, I'll bite. This thread is neither mindless, nor left wing. First of all, there is no real left wing in America. Go and look up your definition of left wing if you don't believe me. Second of all, go and read the literature. It has been observed over and over again that the centerists (which is what I would call most people posting to slashdot) are more epistemologically sophisticated and make sounder, more reasoned arguments than right wingers such as yourself. And indeed it is the case. Go and read what people have posted. YOU are the one which is uninformed. You have not cited ANY evidence, but instead have resorted to causal stories (note I did not say "casual") which is noted in cognitive psychology as a "reasoning bias" (A more famous example is the gamblers fallacy). Moreover you reveal your complete lack of intellingence by spelling "enslaved", "inslaved". Which in turn leads me to believe that you probably do not understand what "epistemology" is, let alone a causal story. Ah well, a little rant makes me feel better anyway. Who cares if you cannot understand. And by the way: No one here doubts that Saddam was a brutal dictator. Being against a war in Iraq does not mean that I support Saddam at all. I am NOT sorry to seem him gone and Iraqi's have all the right to be happy. I feel however that the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians is an unacceptable way to go about removing him.

  232. Re:Libby's libbys libbys on the label, label, labe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You will like it, like it, like it on the table table table

  233. Re:.sig doesn't say it all - Offtopic by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Nope. I am not from the South.

    And Sherman didn't do anything that didn't need to be done to put an end to the war.

    Many point to Lee as the "good" general and Sherman as the "bad" general in the war but ignore the fact that Lee was on his way up into Gettysberg looting for supplies. Had the Confederacy won at Gettysburg and started a march across the heart of the Union, would that be a war crime?

    As for Sherman - what war crimes did he commit? When one side of the war was still keeping slaves I find it difficult for them to point at the other side and talk about "crimes."

  234. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by terraformer · · Score: 1

    Yes, that is what I meant to write. Thank you for clarifying for me.

    --
    Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
  235. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare you, sir.

    I demand an apology on behalf of all those you ungraciously insulted by openly supporting and participating in the public defacation on the constitution and Bill of Rights and then dishonoring the blood, sweat,and tears that where spilled to put and keep it there by laying the blame on those who cry foul.

  236. Electoral Colleges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You Americans constantly complain about your electoral colleges, but let me tell you -- as a Canadian -- it's not much better to have every person's vote count the same. Because of the way our voting system works, our government is elected by pretty much one province. The entire country would have to vote against our capital province in order to elect a different leader.

    We need to have a balance between number of people and land area. Voting either by province/state or by people alone is unfair.

  237. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler killed millions of people. Implemented programs of castration for the undesirables. Raided entire countries, pillaging and killing thousands of civilians. Burned books, implemented an (wrong) idealistic philosophy at a social level.

    And you think he equates to Bush? Are you insane?

    Worse, the mods have resulted in giving his post a 3. Ya know what? I think the mod system is broken. We should take over /. because of this, dotcha think? Prepare for a regime change.

  238. what it takes to become a citizen of Hoserland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    About $250,000US and a plan to create a business that will employ Canadians. Otherwise, wetback, stay in the US.

  239. How can this go on? by cascadefx · · Score: 1
    The Kyl-Schumer measure would eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, such as a terrorist group. Advocates say the measure would make it easier for agents to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who are not connected to a foreign group.
    What the hell is wrong with this country? I can't believe this stuff is even being considered anymore. It boggles the mind..

    The funny (or not) thing is that Joe Average American has no idea about what this measures are set to do. It is too boring to read about so they skim, and kind of agree, and then move on.

    I just don't see a stop to this avalanche without public opinion shifting which doesn't seem like it will be any time soon.

    1. Re:How can this go on? by slykens · · Score: 1
      Kyl-Schumer

      While it might be fun for our "enlightened" friends to try to blame this on Republicans only, guess who the Schumer is on the bill name listed above?

      That's right folks, our favorite bastion of liberalism Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

      There's plenty of blame to go around, so let's be fair about it.

    2. Re:How can this go on? by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1
      I only just noticed myself, 'lone wolf' means NOT affiliated with any foreign group?

      So basically this means, if you are hostile to the administration for ANY reason you can be disappeared, on the basis that you're a terrorist?

      I suppose things looked pretty intense in the McCarthy era too. I guess it has to swing to the point where the regular person in spite of concerted propaganda goes 'wait a minute'. That doesn't always happen- in Germany, in the 30s and 40s, the regular person thought Nazism was just fine, refreshing change from the shame of Versailles, and in Soviet Russia (insert slashdot wisecrack here) the propaganda side was pretty much totally effective. Now America is facing both of those pressures. I'd like to think Joe Average is capable of objecting to a combination of the above regimes, and the peace demonstrations are evidence of _some_ resistance, but it's hard to say whether it'll matter, at this point.

      One thing to remember is, when something seems impossible but real (like the dot-com era, for instance) it can be a sign that it's not as real as you think. Unhealthy conditions propped up by faith in their continuation can really collapse quickly. I'd like to see the 'Patriot' stuff collapse quickly, but it really depends on having it be established enough to cause people problems.

      Not rich white senators- it won't have to cause government people problems. If it causes enough Joe Averages problems, they'll turn, and you won't hear a word about it in the press until the bubble bursts.

  240. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by sparkyman · · Score: 1

    I thought I heard somewhere that any new tax was permanant, while any tax "cut" expired after 10 years.....Pretty obvious what the goals are.

  241. They want what we want... by ArcaneLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Another senior official who also demanded anonymity"

    Funny how these senior officials demand the same right to anonymity that they wish to take from us.

  242. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    at least Hitler had a brain.. and they managed to control a good part of the world. 6 million, don't give me that shit. there weren't even 3. israel still collects reparation to this day.. the shrub (bush jr) is a dictator by every measure and when you wake up you'll realize what a poilce state you live in. bush has turn the US from one of the most desirable places to live to the least.

  243. Hmmm... by snol · · Score: 1

    So your point is that if there's something to protest about, you shouldn't protest?

  244. And on another note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a New Yorker married to a Sooner. Whenever people ask me about the University of Texas I say, nice little football team, too bad they don't win anymore.

  245. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by trg83 · · Score: 0
    September 2001 - WTC and Pentagon bombings. August 1998 - US Embassy Bombings. April 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing (US Citizen). February 1993 - First World Trade Center Bombing.

    1. INS failed us; 2. Outside of the country, CIA can spy without Patriot Act; 3. Trained by the U.S. Army, known mental case; 4. We allowed Yousef to enter the U.S. on an IRAQI passport

    The problem here is NOT the lack of spying power. It's simply an inefficient bureaucracy that's not doing its job.

  246. Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge by robson · · Score: 1
    How are they going to stop you? Throw you in jail and not let you see a lawyer?

    Oh wait...
    Best reply ever. Caught me completely off-guard.
  247. all of you are now suspect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hey there all you /.ers. i have thouroughly enjoyed reading comments posted, but with all due respect, aren't all of us now undersurveilence for *speaking* out against our government? its rediculous. let the Patriot act live and we will all be suspects soon enough

  248. HELL YA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    While I agree with you I am going to pick a point.


    American will no longer allow those who consider themselves to be more intelligent than the average BLUE COLLAR citizen to sit back and badmouth us.

    Actually in my experiance it has been the elite, the professors, some in the church, the intelectualls, and those born with money that hate america.


    We have just freed a nation of people who were inslaved to a brutal, evil dictator.
    In the process of freeing, not free till we put Saddam's head on a pike as proof.

    p.s. Are you a real preacher? Your sermons would kick arse.

  249. the solution - ICC by shaunyb · · Score: 1

    the american right seems to be ignoring the recent production of the International Criminals Court (ICC). It is a global, impartial jury instituted by the UN, whose sole purpose is to bring to justice terrorists and war criminals. Bush has rejected to comply with the ICC, claiming that it interferes with our sovereignty and could be used against US military forces. It is ignorant for a nation to believe that it would be just in punishing a terrorist itself who committed acts again said nation, because of the obvious bias that every individual from that nation would have.

    The only solution to terrorism was just rejected by the president. Dont try to tell me that there is no solution.

    1. Re:the solution - ICC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only solution to terrorism was just rejected by the president. Dont try to tell me that there is no solution.
      OK I will not try an tell you a solution exixts but
      trying to exact a solution using "democratic or republic" principles is going to be difficult. For example Lets vote on an international language/currency/set of laws and each person gets one vote.... we have too many "cultural" differences to decide on any one idea being good for the majority. Can English speaking people be a world-wide majority? It already is the pseudo language of choice on a variety of fronts i.e. Airlines,the Internet. You probably couldn't gather 3 people that could agree on what to order for lunch let alone 6+ billion people to "agree" on what language to communicate with. The United Nations is a novel idea whose time has passed. The UN was supposed to solve the "Hitler" problems that we were having; but having the US/UK/China/Russia and whoever else has veto power makes the entire UN debacle worthless 1 country can say NO and the "international community" is forced to go along if they want to be seen as team players.

      As an American father with a son in Kuwait I sometimes question whether we are really doing this to improve the stability in the region or to keep our economy from getting any worse.

  250. Re:Libby's libbys libbys on the label, label, labe by dumbArtMajor · · Score: 1

    That doesn't mean they're wrong.

    Can you give us an example of a conservative paper that would invalidate these two as reporting false information?

  251. Good Point by kentyman · · Score: 1

    Good Point

    --
    You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
  252. don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you ask nicely, EU might launch "Operation American Freedom". We will start by bombing the living daylights out of you, and then we will surely be welcomed as "liberators". Just make sure to remember this in the future ("remember" means you have to be 100% loyal towards us and be yea-sayers for all time to come, or you'll be classified as Big Mac-eating imperialist monkeys).

  253. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by bnenning · · Score: 1
    The Patriot Act is a tax on civil liberties.


    That's a good one. Republicans should also consider whether they want the powers of the Patriot Act wielded by a future President Hillary Clinton. (And note that many conservatives do in fact oppose it).

    --
    How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
  254. Common Cause Megavote by vtechpilot · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a previous article, Sarcasmooo! (267601) pointed out to me the Common Cause Megavote. The megavote is a easy way for people to get notifications via email about how their elected officials have voted and plan to vote on current bills. While its nice to have /. cover stuff it feels is important, there is a great deal more about the governments actions that I want to know about.

    --
    Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
  255. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by b!arg · · Score: 1

    So our attack on Iraq was part of the war on terrorism? Hmmm...what terrorism is that going to stop? All the terrorism that was sponsored by Iraq? IANAE (I am not an expert), but as far as I can tell the only terrorism Saddam Hussein engaged in or supported was against his own people. So let's see, I guess we will then need to invade Iran, Syria, hmm...China? Whoa...that would be fun. How about a good deal of the African Continent too. Oh yeah, Ireland. Let's say we go for Ireland and Sinn Fein next. Oh wait, they're generally caucasian. Hmmm...that might not be very popular. Then there's a whole host of Central and South American countries and let's not forget Southeast Asia and of course North Korea. That should then stamp out terrorism once and for all...don't ya think?

    --

    Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful
  256. ICC is not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yale says its a bad idea, and I am gonna guess Yale has a better idea about good law vs. bad law then you do.

    1. Re:ICC is not a good idea by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      OMG...

      With that logic, I can well say that Microsoft says that Linux is bad, and I'm gonna guess that Microsoft has a better idea about server software than you do.

      That's very skewed logic, my friend. I see why you posted that as an AC.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  257. If you're tired, try thinking for yourself by nanojath · · Score: 1
    You almost get there... but not quite. Damn straight: Democrats are just as privacy unfriendly, and corporate friendly, for that matter, as Republicans. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless, like most polarized labels. 'Fact is, neither of the parties are doing much to uphold their supposed causes. What they do is make hay, play politics, snipe at each other... and keep the American public nicely divided. Meanwhile, we get a bunch of, primarily, well-to-do lawyers running the country at the behest of the corporations and wealthy individuals who finance their increasingly grotesque campaign budgets.


    You point to Democrat inconsistencies as if the Republicans were not guilty of inconsistencies. I present the American Voter, ladies and gentlemen. Blind or merely stupid? Smaller, less intrusive government? Yeah, right. Pro-life... but the death penalty is A-OK even though it is demonstrably true that the judicial system puts innocent people on death row. Fiscally responsible... and welcome to a bright new era of massive deficit spending! But hey, don't get me wrong. Democrats are NO BETTER. My personal favorite is advocates of drug law reform supporting Democrats, who are responsible for many of the most draconian additions in drug law policy in the last two decades.


    While y'all idiots are playing debate society, this nation has been soundly hijacked by a tiny minority of movers and shakers, and our representatives don't even remotely represent us anymore. The majority of people are too stupid and incapable of true logical analysis, thanks to years of the dumbing down of society, to be blamed for it. But there are a lot of people here that are clearly smart enough that you ought to be ashamed of yourselves for letting these clowns define the dialogue. Have fun discussing important issues.

    --

    It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries

  258. No... by Reverend+Raven · · Score: 1

    No retard, we have had attempted terroritsts attacks against the United States since 9/11. But thanks to the SYSTEM, none of them have come to fruitation. Hm...

    Planned attacks + Security System = No successful attacks. Oh yeah it doesn't work. ;)p

    --

    --Reverend Raven
    Desperate days demand dire deeds.
    1. Re:No... by Steve+B · · Score: 1

      Oh, your magic anti-tiger keychain is working, too?

      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    2. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, where's your proof? Anyone can say something works.

    3. Re:No... by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      And how would you know if there really were or were not any planned attacks? The government could just put out a press release every six months saying that they had stopped the latest evil attack on the Fatherland...err, Homeland and that the terrorists have been shipped off to Cuba. Whether or not any of it happened is irrelevant - people like you can wave their flag a little harder while having Big Brother's fist jammed a little more tightly up their ass.

      Enjoy your cage.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  259. Right to Privacy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The american people are not given a right to prviacy by anything other then their faulty understanding of the law.
    The only thing that the goverment is not allowed to do is pretend to give you privacy and then not. If a resoloution was passed stating that the residents of the U.S. should never expect privacy, then that would be that. It would not then become illegal to try to attain privacy, you just shouldn't be surprissed if you fail.

  260. www.corporateswine.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    www.corporateswine.com

  261. Re:.sig doesn't say it all - Offtopic by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Just pointing it out. He introduced -- or first put it on the world stage -- the concept of total war against civilians to end a war. It is important to remember is that most of the opposition he faced was home guards (old men and boys). The siege of Savannah was no piece of cake though. And "bummers" -- irregulars who followed the army -- were a scourge of biblical proportions. Not a great legacy given the 20th Century.

    Had the Confederacy won at Gettysburg and started a march across the heart of the Union, would that be a war crime?

    Yes. There are no good guys in a civil war. Even Shelby Foote points this out. I am ashamed of the fact that the place I grew up in and I love for all its wonderful idiosyncracies, etc. was a place where other people were enslaved.

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  262. Re:My God its full of stars! by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 3, Funny
    Ask Clinton... Oh wait, he was just dodging the draft.

    Yeah. While Baby Bush was AWOL. Snorting up lines of coke and drunk off his ass, no doubt. Hypocrite.

  263. No. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    ...Are the representatives you refer to elected by the vocal minority who believe human rights are inviolate, or are they elected by the slack-jawed majority who are having a good-ol' time watching some...

    No. They are elected in a contest between to groups of bribe-taking* liars as a consequence of expensive sound and video bytes, where everyone is convinced that these two are the only choices. Most people decide either that neither one is worth voting for, or that they can't tell who is lying more. But nobody else can afford a major campaign, so you don't hear any other sides. (Except bizarre turns like last time, when the Republicans funded Nader's campaign.)

    E.g., I'm not convinced that Gore would have been any better (he was a big fan of government spying on the populace), but he would have had to work hard to be much worse. Of course, he was the designated looser, being the most boring candidate that they could find. That he came close enough to winning to force them to be blatant despite the subsidies to Nader speaks volumes for how distasteful people found Bush. That many of them don't still find him as distasteful speaks volumes for what people can get used to.

    My representative is my representative. One of my Senators frequently votes as I would desire. The other only votes decently after a prolonged letter writing campaign. And both Senators voted to allow Ashcroft to be selected... so neither represents me well.

    * By this I mean that they accept campaign contributions in the full knowledge that they are expected to vote in a way favorable to the donor.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  264. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow... you have a warped sense of history, and are truly ignorant.

  265. Hatch is bluffing by JimRay · · Score: 1

    I'm easily the very last person in support of anything that comes from a Republican, especially a wank like Orrin Hatch, but the Republicans are likely bluffing on this to get a bill pushed through without amendments from the Democrats.

    [From the NYT article]
    Right now, bi-partisan legislation in the Senate is being considered to "eliminate the need for federal agents seeking secret surveillance warrants to show that a suspect is affiliated with a foreign power or agent, like a terrorist group", a so-called "lone-wolf" bill. The Democrats have said that they want to add a few amendments to keep these types of secret warrants in check. Orrin Hatch parried by saying if they add these amendments, he'll add an amendment that kills the sunset clause on the Patriot Act.

    Here's the tale-tell quote: "But an aide who demanded anonymity said of the 'lone wolf' bill: 'We support this bill as it is and that's how we want to see it passed. If the Democrats want to amend the bill, then we will offer an equal number of amendments to improve the bill as well. We hope the Democrats will stop holding this bill up.'" Kinda makes your skin crawl to think that this is how gubmint works, doesn't it?

    Yes, the Bushies seem to be in favor of continuing the Patriot Act ad infinitum. And why not? They're all rich white guys, they only care about rich white guys, it's not like the Patriot Act is ever going to be used against them.

    The good news is, they haven't formally proposed legislation to do such a heinous thing (yet), though, they're just in the middle of a pissing match with the Senate Dems. Keep calling, writing, faxing your congressman and make sure they know you won't ever support this kind of breach of civil liberties. Do it now, before it's too late.

    --
    My other computer is your Windows box
  266. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by zurab · · Score: 1
    "...I have suggested that any [proposed new law] must meet a four-part test:
    • It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need.
    • It must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose. In other words, it must be likely to actually make us significantly safer, not just make us feel safer.
    • The intrusion on privacy must be proportional to the security benefit to be derived.
    • And it must be demonstrable that no other, less privacy-intrusive, measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose..."


    Any law may be written to satisfy these parameters, and at the end you end up with communism or variation thereof.
  267. American democracy, military intelligence, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Florida electoral role tampering, the "Patriot" act, cronyism, deals with criminal monopolies: the sooner someone invades America and introduces democracy, the better.

  268. This is just a distraction. by zipwow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This sort of thing is like the first step in negotiations. "How much? A million. A dollar. How about 500k? Done." What if you had asked for two million?

    The negotiations are happening up-front in congress:

    "we almost had the votes for this, we can probably accomplish that."

    and more deceptively in the public:

    "Look how we compromised! There's three awful bills we didn't even pass!"

    This, of course is like a murderer saying, "I'm not a bad guy, look at all the people I didn't shoot!"

    I like the poster that referenced a bumper sticker:

    I love my country. Its the government I'm afraid of.

    -Zipwow

    --
    I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
  269. Really? Reminds me of the burning of the Reichstag by $uperjay · · Score: 1

    Step 1. 'foreign terrorist' destroys 'important national structure'
    Step 2. 'popular nationalist leader and ruling party' pass legislation to restrict civil rights in favour of 'national security'
    Step 3. something. maybe fascism?
    Step 4. PROFIT!!!

  270. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what happened to the "war on drugs"? They just used 9/11 to broaden thier powers, now they can sit back and use those new powes for "other" criminal investagations. very convenent. i live in the detroit metro area. And i can vouch that this is true. the state police now search most cars going west bound within a 25 miles area form the us/canada border. it has been in the news, and they are bragging about the "war on terrosism" has aided the "war on drugs". now they can use MILITARY equipment for these tasks. we are now in a police state, our own american military equipment is used aginst our american citizen. (but for the good terrorism, riiiight) i hate the goverment now....

  271. Is writing your congresscritter effective? by extrarice · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I just went to the House of Representatives website to find the mailing address(es) of my rep. According to the page I found (last modified March 3rd, 2003), quote:
    NOTICE ON MAIL DELIVERY TO US CAPITOL
    Because of the discovery of biological contaminants at the Capitol complex in early October, normal mail deliveries to offices in the House of Representatives were suspended. Months later, new screening policies have been implemented. Still, normal mail service has not yet fully resumed.
    Despite this inconvenience, please be assured I greatly value your comments and feedback.
    If you have an urgent matter, please consider contacting any of my three offices by telephone.


    How are we supposed to effectively communicate with our reps? E-mails can be easily ignored, or not even checked. Phone calls do not produce a permanent record. Faxes also can be ignored (if a fax line is listed). How can we contact these people and be sure that our concerns are read and recorded?

    [activate paranoia]
    Could it be that the govt. *started* the anthrax scare to shut down mail delivery? Maybe they didn't want to hear the public's concerns to the new laws they are working on. If they don't notify the people that the mail delivery is shut down, how are we to know that they're not listening?
    [deactivate paranoia]
    --
    "Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball."
    1. Re:Is writing your congresscritter effective? by presearch · · Score: 1


      Could it be that the govt. *started* the anthrax scare to shut down mail delivery?


      No, what the anthrax scare let them do is have full, unsupervised
      access to all of the Congressional offices so they could go thru
      all of the files to find out all sorts of useful information. It was
      so clean, so ingenious, you almost have to admire it. Everyone
      runs out, they've got keys to every room, every file cabinet.
      Things could be moved around without any questions. Guys
      carrying out boxes in and out that nobody wants to get near.
      Bug planted, spyware installed. Anything to get and maintain
      power. But me, I've learned to love Big Brother.

    2. Re:Is writing your congresscritter effective? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I have gotten a reply to every e-mail I've sent to my representatives. Bear in mind that the reply will come via snail mail and may take 2-3 weeks to get to you, but as long as you are a constituent, they'll generally reply.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:Is writing your congresscritter effective? by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I've sent a couple of letters post-anthrax scare via the USPS and received USPS replies in a reasonable amount of time. This was a few months ago, but it wasn't that long ago.

    4. Re:Is writing your congresscritter effective? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Try writing to the district office. Only the DC offices got targeted. The back-at-home staff may still be reading physmail.

  272. Give me a break, sad excuse for a troll. by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
    This whole thread is nothing more than a mindless, left-wing sponsored bash of President Bush, his administration, and Republicans in general. Not one argument has been presented on WHY the Patriot Act shouldn't be extended. You take this and other websites to push your agenda which this country DOES NOT agree with and HAS rejected time and time again.

    Actually, I think there are more posts about how to get to the NYT article than 'bashing' Bush. I would venture to say if you asked the 'average joe' what he thought of the govenment's new abillity to put him in jail for an indefinite amount of time, he'd say, "WTF? What are you talking about?"

    American will no longer allow those who consider themselves to be more intelligent than the average BLUE COLLAR citizen to sit back and badmouth us. The BLAME AMERICA FIRST camp is loosing steam. The average citizens are NOT tollerating these anti-American stances.

    I happen to know that questioning the way the country is run is NOT anti-American. I love this country. I hate what is being done to it for the sake of this false sense of 'safety'.

    You complained when we secured our country. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11. A testiment to how the system we have put in place WORKS. It has secured and will continue to safeguard this country and our people, while you whine, uninformed, about matters that effect all of us.

    I think we had two terrorist attacks before the Patriot act was put in place. A testament to how well the *lack* of the Patriot act WORKS. The absence of 'attacks' proves nothing.

    You are the same people who take to the streets to protest our war in Iraq. We have just freed a nation of people who were inslaved to a brutal, evil dictator. Would you care to tell the overjoyed, newly freed Iraqi citizens who are throwing roses at our troops that we have no business there?

    I'd go and tell them but I don't want to get a bullet in the head from the Iraqi troops that *don't* want us there. Roses? You must be watching Fox News.

    This nation is doing what is in the best interest for US, not the UN or the world. We have taken care of the world both economically and militarly since the 1940s, and now we have to band together and do what is necessary to make AMERICA secure for AMERICANS. And if you don't like it, SHUT THE HELL UP.

    So my being 'quiet' will make the US a better place? It sounds like you'd rather live in a dictatorship than in the land of free speech. I think I'll keep speaking, and so can you! Isn't this country great? We can agree to disagree that you're intelligent.

    But it is okay. While you post to the Internet and demand that the Government unsecure itself, I sit comfortable knowing that these laws and policies are preventing another 3,000 innocent CIVILIANS from being murdered. I sit comfortably knowing it's harder for someone to make L.A. into a gigantic radioactive mushroom cloud.

    As most people who use Sept 11th to justify everything, you are dead wrong. These 'laws and policies' don't do anything to protect the US from terrorists. You might want to see how many terrorist meetings you can find in a library. Or be a good citizen, and turn in your fingernail clippers. L.A. could be 'attacked' tommorow, and there is nothing in the Patriot Act that would prevent it.

    So I hope people like Slashdot reader continue their level of young, uninformed nonsense. It only helps strengthen my side's cause.

    People like you are the source of 'nonsense'. We /. readers are at least aware of the stupid, ineffective laws that 'your side' are trying to pass, while sleepy America votes for their new "Idol".

    If I ever meet you, I will kick your ass. Let's see your Patriot Act save you from a punch in the eye.

    Thanks.

  273. They've had time to review it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since they enacted it, a year and a half ago, don't you think they have had time to see it in action? Now tell me, specific evidences of widespread Constitution disregard by the government because of this? Seeing they do want to amend it, do you think that they understand at least some of the changes going in?

  274. Religion vs. Cult by asv108 · · Score: 1

    So who decides what is a religion and what is a cult? The problem with having voluntary activities is that if Billy Joe Bob wants to have a chrisitan prayer group, I should be allowed to have a devil worshiping group. Do you think any school, especially ones who would have prayer groups, would let me hold a devil worshiping group?

  275. Lets stop this from happening by circusnews · · Score: 1

    Start by reading this, then do something about the problem.

  276. OK, Repeal PATRIOT. What's your alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so if we repeal PATRIOT, is there another, more palatable way to protect the nation and stop the bad guys?

    I am as uncomfortable with PATRIOT's loosening of checks and balances as the next guy. Do not take this post as support of it.

    I do clearly understand that the purpose of the most objectionable concept in the act -- the secrecy -- is 1) to favor prevention over commission of terrorist-level crimes and 2) to prevent detainees from issuing coded instructions.

    Problem: In a world where a lone individual or small group can ever more quietly plan and spend ever smaller amounts of money to commit ever more spectacular acts of mayhem, destruction and death, how do we go about stopping him or her?

    We can't just shrinkwrap ourselves like we did our pill containers in the 80's after the Tylenol poisoning scare. And, while the terrorist boogedy-boo has been going on, the Unabomer, the anthrax letters and the recent DC sniper case are a wake-up call that sufficiently intelligent and innovative criminals may be quite able to get away with their crimes indefinitely, only getting caught due to their own lack of diligence.

    Add to this that advances in technology and easy access to knowledge (remember, information wants to be free :-) ) mean that the means of executing acts of terror are only going to get cheaper, faster and better (sorry to borrow from NASA) in the future.

    So we need to be able to catch a new breed of adversary: the highly-educated, genius IQ, otherwise totally sane guy who is rationally convinced that Americans are lesser life forms and must all be exterminated because he believes we let our dog leave a calling-card at the altar of his church. And he either has a relative in the portable-arms business, or he knows exactly what ordinary ingredients he can buy from the drug store, the hardware store, the grocery store and the nursery store to carry out his plans.

    (I'm just wainting to hear about someone building some kind of rocket launcher from fertilizer, ammonia and a 'Wi-Fi Antenna' Pringles can. :-) But I digress.)

    Yeah, I know, if you want peace, work for justice. A noble and laudable sentiment. But let's face the reality that there are people in the world who will hate the US no matter how saintly we ever behave, because us being the bad guy is the lynchpin of their worldview. If you don't believe that people can be so closed-minded, you've never met a ditto-head in person.

    And if they don't hate us, it'll be the British, or the Mexicans, or the Spanish, or the Russians, or the Israelis, or the Grand Duchy of Fenwick for that matter. We'll just be a convenient playing field. Brains splattered on the wall have a characteristically similar look everywhere.

    In order to deter all this from happening in our neighborhoods, our Administration appears to have chosen to play the 'I'm Insane Old Chief Inspector Dreyfus and if you don't hand over Clouseau to me, I'll vaporize the world' card.

    Some critics of this card theorize that the world's response will be to arm themselves against us all the more. Maybe so. Personally, I think it will play out more like the scene in Blazing Saddles where Bart points a gun to his head and takes himself hostage. If the US is Bart, perhaps the rest of the world will act just like the idiot Rock Ridge citizenry did and freeze in fear while we walk backwards toward the sherrif's office.

    Back to the serious, though. OK, You're in charge. Your mission is to protect our Constitution plus the lives of 280 million constituents, about half of whom use you as their surrogate bullseye for whatever unfocused hostility and aggression they harbor.

    And quite a few people with money to give your reelection campaign want you to adopt their point of view, not because of the money of course, but because it's the right thing for America.

    And there are a bunch of yahoos somewhere out there ready, willing and able to kill themselves and thousands of your constituents in the ultimate 'Animal House' parade prank revenge, all for a handful of raisins.

    As Karl Malden once said in an Amex commercial, 'what do you do? What *do* you *do*?'

  277. He goes by Abdullah Al Muhajir by Best+Post · · Score: 1

    The same Abdullah Al Muhajir (that's the name Jose Padilla uses, don'cha know) whose case was reviewed twice by federal judges, both times finding his detainment valid? Yeah, I thought so.

    1. Re:He goes by Abdullah Al Muhajir by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      I'm not up to date on Jose Padilla's case. What are you saying? His detainment was found illegal? Is he a citizen? Did he fight for the Taliban?

    2. Re:He goes by Abdullah Al Muhajir by IndependentVik · · Score: 1

      The same Abdullah Al Muhajir (that's the name Jose Padilla uses, don'cha know) whose case was reviewed twice by federal judges, both times finding his detainment valid? Yeah, I thought so.

      Oh, you mean he goes by a muslim name! Well, hell, that changes everything! Thanks for straightening us all out. After all, it's much easier to be in favor of illegal detainments when they only happen to types of people we don't like.

      And just because we have two idiot judges who favor ideology over the actual, you know, law doesn't mean a whole lot in my book. Hell, last time I counted we had five of them in our highest court.

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    3. Re:He goes by Abdullah Al Muhajir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't call Muhammad Ali "Cassius Clay" do you? And what makes you think that a pretentious ass like you knows more about law than judges who have passed law school?

    4. Re:He goes by Abdullah Al Muhajir by IndependentVik · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what makes you think that a pretentious ass like you knows more about law than judges who have passed law school?

      Oh, that's just insulting. I'm not a pretentious ass, just a plan ole' regular ass.

      As for your other comment, I don't think I know more about law than the frauds on the high court, I just happen not to ignore what little I do know when it's politically convenient to do so. Besides, using your argument, a layman would have no business contesting the Dred Scott decision

      Huzzah!

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
  278. A few quotes... by agroman · · Score: 1

    Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
    --Benjamin Franklin

    What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.
    --Thomas Jefferson

  279. Cool, now for a religious leader. by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    Oops, they already have one... Now who will liberate the USAsians?

  280. Re:My God its full of stars! by DroppedPacket · · Score: 1
    just dodging the draft

    Come on, fair is fair. He didn't dodge the draft by going to Canada. Keep criticism honest or it is meaningless, like the stuff below.

    --
    I am not a resource! I am a free man!
  281. 2nd amendment already protected!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dood, think about it - the 2nd amendment already has a tenacious, rabid, and effective support organization. it's called the NRA. join it if you want.

    but contribute to ACLU too, because they help protect THE OTHER amendments.

  282. Those darned republicans by gryf · · Score: 1
    Notice that the proposal Hatch is talking about is merely a rider onto a bill Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has already submitted that would actually put into law some of possible consequences of USA-Patriot Act that bother civil libertarians.

    If Hatch's clause were added as an ammendment to Schumer's bill, that would make Schumer's bill more likely to crash and burn. If that's what you want, root Hatch on and tell your senator to dump Schumer's bill.

    When griping about the USA-Patriot act, please remember that it was a bipartisan effort, half of the law was written by Patrick Leahy (D-VT).


    Why are self-promoting civil libertarians so anxious about infringements against the first ammendment or the fourth, but never the second?

    --

    #-#
    Ad Astra Per Aspera
    A rough road leads to the stars
  283. Re:Yay for America by bheerssen · · Score: 1

    The makeup of the House and Senate was very carefully thought out by the founding fathers. And the reason for it's architecture is as valid today as it was then.

    Originally, there was to be but one electected legislative body. Some state representatives (to the first constitutional congress) wanted the legislature to be made up of an equal number of members from each state. Representatives of more populous states rightly saw that less populous states would have undue power over them. These representatives wanted the number of legislators from each state to be based on the population of that state. The problem with this is that populous states would wield power over the less populous states.

    So a compromise was reached. The legislature was split into two houses - the Senate and the House of Representatives. The compromise stipulated that the two houses would have to agree on a bill before it could go to the president for signing. This neatly solved the problem. If the House passes a bill that unfairly benifits the populous states (such as a bill that would approve highway funds only to states that were in the top 70% in populations), the senate would surely reject it. The inverse also holds true.

    That's the theory anyway. It mostly works.

    The electoral college is another situation entirely. I agree that it has serious problems, but the problem isn't in how the electors are assigned, but with the institution itself. It need to be changed drastically if not abolished entirely.

    --
    (Score: -1, Stupid)
  284. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by RatBastard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The "War on Terrorism" is a power play, just like the "War on Drugs" is. Each is used as an excuse to furter erode our rights and freedoms. Each is used to increase the powers of the Executiv Branch at the expense of the others. Each is used to grant even greater powers to law enforcement agencies. Each is used to remove judicial oversight from the actions of law enforcement.

    The War on Drugs is a dismal failure. Drug use has not abated. The War or Terror(ism) will also be a failure. It will not make the world a safer place. But neither of these "wars" was meant to do what they told us they were for.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
  285. politicians and power by gobbligook · · Score: 1

    power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    politicians are elected to represent the people, eventhough I am not an american, but a canadian, this still should be true for all citizen representative governments. Why is the US fighting Iraq, if they seek to control their citizens (although not nearly as harshly) in such a way to remove their freedoms? Why did we fight in WWI,WWII, and the other conflicts for freedom, when we allow our politicans to take our rights away?

    I do not want to suggest the US government is corrupt, but rather suggest that sometimes the elected representatives loose sight of why they were elected, and by whom. It is up to the people to make them accountable.

    Canada is not all sweet and nice either, and the citizens tend to "roll over and play dead" when faced with conflict (not war, but political polarity on issues), we also do not keep our government accountable for the most part either. But we do have a constitution that the government cannot change without a nationwide vote, and that constitution guarentees all canadians freedoms. Do the americans have this or something similar? Because if they do, now is the time to stand up and argue for your rights.

  286. Why am I not surprised? by XSforMe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    NT

    --
    My other OS is the MCP!
  287. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by matrix29 · · Score: 1

    News flash. Congress has been split(Senate) or in control of Republicans since 1994.

    Presidency since 2000( Bush won after 5 recounts ).

    Whos is losing control again? I think its the leftists.


    Go get that trachea shaved some more Lanky Skanky Ann "The Man" Coulter. Your lies don't cut it here. The recounts were constantly interrupted by SUPERFRAUD Criminal Traitor Mass-Murderer Sadistic Satanist Cannibal-Child-Molester Fraud President George Worthless Bush and his lawsuit-happy James Baker. SUPERFRAUD Bush sued and sued and sued to stall the recounts while KKK-Distraction-Clown Katherine Harris was busy ballot-tampering more votes up under SUPERFRAUD Bush's Criminal Traitor Mafia-Cocaine-Slut Jeb Bush's orders.

    The ACTUAL hand recount was completed in the summer of 2001 but then SUPERFRAUD Bush (after whoring out the Lincoln Bedroom to his PIONEER donors for $100,000 donations, and after having more of his ENRON buddies play "Let's ram a Japanese fishing boat with an American nuclear submarine and kill all aboard", and letting ENRON black out California with their criminal scams along with jacking up energy prices across the nation for 3 months, and having John "Satan's Devoted Whore" Ashcroft go masturbate frantically with Crisco while Arthur Anderson Accounting shredded criminal evidence in dumptruck-sized shredding machines while ENRON followed suit, and saying "Arsenic is just dandy for America's kiddies, etc... outrage after outrage) went on vacation for a full month in August despite having repeated warnings about a terrorist attack (which SUPERFRAUD Bush funded with taxpayer dollars to the tune of $42 million dollars) and then when the World Trade Centers burned to the ground SUPERFRAUD Bush was later heard to joke in a room full of Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminals "Meanwhile in North Carolina pResident Bush jokes about hitting the Trifecta:

    Remarks by the President to Robin Hayes for Congress and Elizabeth Dole for Senate North Carolina Republican Party Luncheon

    "And we've got a job to do at home, as well. You know, I was campaigning in Chicago and somebody asked me, is there ever any time where the budget might have to go into deficit? I said only if we were at war or had a national emergency or were in recession. (Laughter.) Little did I realize we'd get the trifecta. (Laughter.) But we're fine."

    Sure... mass-murder and a ruined economy are always HILARIOUS! What a jolly bunch of HIDEOUS HORRIBLE GHOULS these Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminals must be!

    Go back to HELL you shit-eating GOP=KGB WHORE and take the Son of a Demon SUPERFRAUD Bush with you.

    --
    "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
  288. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

    Call me in a few years, France's (and Germany, another Euro socialist state), have enormous social responsibilities to its citizenry beyond the US example of Social Security, the number of people contributing to the pool to provide the services is declining while the users of services are increasing, a disaster in the making for their treasuries. The US does have an enormous debt (5-6 trillion, depending which numbers you read), but as a ratio to GDP or yearly tax receipts is exemplary (1:2 and 5:1, respectively). France and Germany have to find a solution to their problem and cutting deals for cheap oil from Saddam was one of the options they were trying to use, now that that has been cut off, the decline will be quicker.

    --
    09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  289. Re:Libby's libbys libbys on the label, label, labe by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Dude, you just referenced two liberal rags claiming the Republicans are pulling the sky down.

    Like, shaa, bro. You talkin' 'bout this den of commies or the pit of socialist vipers?

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  290. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Gumshoe · · Score: 1

    Hey, Cool. My first flamebait mod. I'll wear it with a badge of pride as it proves my point.

  291. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by error0x100 · · Score: 1

    Motivation for 2, google for "PNAC". Note that there are strong ties between PNAC and the members of the Bush administration. If they are serious about carrying out their plans, they will quite likely need to be able to quell the inevitable protests within the US.

  292. Beer-puter by RedCard · · Score: 1

    You're not a true Canadian! A true Canadian would only be distracted by beer!

    And a CANADIAN SLASHDOTTER would be distracted by a beer-puter!

  293. Through the snow; into the forest. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm "phatdawg", I just can't log in right now.

    I was a peace protestor until I realized the peace protestors were becoming extremists in their own right, for once the war started, not having a war or simply stopping the war became unrealistic options. But they continue protesting for no war instead of moving on to the next fight. We lost that battle. The best we can do now is win the war and mobilize all that now-wasted energy into fighting to get the power to wage war back into the hands of the people... and the senate.

    The great thing about Clinton was that he didn't really do much other than go around the world smiling, as if he was on tour, and telling everybody how great things were. What better for a president to do! He let the larger body of congress make decisions and went about his business in the oval office.

    Ah, but that was before 9-11 you say. The same 9-11 perpetrated by mainly Saudi Arabians? Led by a former CIA weapons recipient cum revolutionary? The same 9-11 in which airliners were out of range for over a 1/2 hour before the disaster when common protocol is to intercept those out of contact for 10 minutes? The same 9-11 in which all the scrape was sent off so fast as to make an investigation impossible? The same 9-11 that was to be investigated by an unprosectucted war criminal? The same 9-11 timed to hit symbolic targets on a symbolic day?

    Sorry big brother, I do not love you (props to Orwell). This country, with movies that average several cuts a second and an internet that allows for instant access to everything, has forgotten how to synthesize information horizontally. Sure, we can understand an electron and scale that up to a supercomputer, but... well, connect the dots.

    One of the most profitable periods in world history. Tons of money was moved around. The .com era.

    A power crisis orchestrated by Texans.

    An election in which the results were very very close... so close, the supreme court had to call it in favor of the losing candidate (popular votes).

    The largest bankruptcy in history without a solid investigation. A bankruptcy connected to the White House.

    The bubble bursts. Tons of people are out of work. Bad for the people, great for businesses.

    A spectre of campaign financing reform with a very important gap, "soft money", left out.

    9/11. the stock market is closed. America stops.

    When it restarts:

    Patriot Act, allowing for people to disappear.

    A War on afghanistan (central in a pipeline from the mideast to the far east/russia)

    Labeling countries moving the the Euro as a backing of their economy as an Axis of Evil.

    Invading Iraq.

    Missles astray in Iran.

    How many pieces do you people need?
    We operate on a worldwide interconnected network where everything can be traced. Cell phones (which are more personal than a home phone), the internet, email, ODBCII (the car stuff that keeps service records)... 1984 is here. I was in san francisco and counted 26 cameras from the Hilton to the convention center. And your not going to tell me that those cameras are all on secure networks.

    The Patriot Act and it's part II are just the next in a long line of bullshit, living under the guise of patriotism.

    Free thought is dangerous to control, hence why we have schools that don't teach as much as acclimate people for the business world. When I went through college, my ideas mattered less than if they were in on time. Be a good worker. Pay your taxes. Shop. Consume.

    Do you see a pattern?

    We had the control, until we stopped voting becuase the political action campaigns promised to corrupt whomever we voted for.

    And the best part? We foot the bill for our own enslavement in the form of 28% or more of our weekly paychecks... while the elected loot social security.

    I respect homeless people who choose to be homeless (other than by drugs or situation). They at least have go

  294. WE LOVE HITLER BUSH! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1

    In porn, you'd like to see it. In the president's office, not really.

  295. AND IF they fabricate the benefits? by JohnDenver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What are you going to do then? Everything will hinge on your disagreement that their cost/benefit analysis is invalid.

    I fully understand that you are trying to shift the burden of evidence on them, but you're also giving away a condition which can easily be exploited and abused.

    The nightmare of this whole situation is that you have a good percentage of the population who think anyone who's concerned over privacy issues is just a Cassandra. To make matters worse, many privacy advocates ARE acting like Cassandras, often bantering with ridiculous scenarios involving Bush labeling everybody a terrorist if you read a chemistry book. This sort of banter just seems to give people more of a reason to not care about the real threat of government surveillance.

    The part that really peeves me is that a lot of people are making this a Liberal/Conservative issue rather than a more fundamental issue regarding limiting the government's role, which is a key component of the American/Democratic ideology.

    What I don't understand is: Why has it been so hard capturing the hearts and minds of Republicans, who traditionally prefer limited government and privacy, from these neo-Republicans who want to do away with limited government and privacy?

    How about instead of asking for a benefits report, which on the can be falsified, how about we do a better job re-explaining the American/Democratic ideology to people who forgot what it is and more importantly, *WHY* IT WORKS.


    Example questions that need explanation:
    1. Why can't we trust law enforcement to not abuse their power? (Look to the 3rd world for answers)
    2. How does the limiting of government involvement in regulating industry (Think DMCA and other laws which protect business models) help the economy?

    Again, why aren't we trying to get both Republicans and Democrats to align with us? Aren't we non-partison, anti-industry-regulation, limited government group?


    Both parties hurt our causes. The Democrats opened the flood gates for lawyers to infiltrate our industry with all sorts of rediculous Intellectual Property schemes, while the Republicans aim to do away with privacy via the Patriot Act.


    Republicans generally hate lawyer infestation, so let's try to exploit that while they're in power. ...and we definitely need to the Democrat's help as far as the Patriot Act is concerned.


    --
    "Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
  296. That's what you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As soon as this terrorist thing cools off a bit, this "Act" will be revisitied and decalred unconstitutional."

    Just like income taxes? You know those were explicitly unconstitutional until Amendment 16 was added, don't you?

    Unfortunately people can't assume the government will do what is best. If they want a law changed, they have to make it so that legislators can't ignore them. Do you think that teenagers got the voting age lowered to 18 by sitting around and hoping the government would notice the issue.

    And as for the "terrorist thing" going away. How long did the communist finger pointing and name calling last before the cold war ended?
    Do you honestly think this will die down anytime soon? Especially when you take into consideration the fact that terrorists aren't (necessarily) communists. Their economy is not going to fold out from under them. And if these terrorists do go away, what then? More will be there to take their place. This isn't going to end when bin Laden and Hussein die. There will always be another bin Laden or Hussein or Hitler or Napoleon or Khan right their to take their places. Though, I do agree that the Patriot Act needs to go.

    I may only be 20 yrs old, but I can tell when the government is screwing me over.

  297. Dear General Publc: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU SUCK!

    Regards,

    The Super-Elite

  298. Re:My God its full of stars! by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what does it take for a current US citizen to emigrate and become a Canadian citizen

    Usually what it takes is an unpopular war to which the US citizen in question is opposed.

    I'm an American, spent a semester at a Canadian school and took a class that was taught by an expatriate American professor.

    Vietnam sparked one exodus of Americans to Canada about 30 years ago.

    It will be interesting to see how the United States' Middle East venture in Iraq plays out over the long run; there's still plenty of opportunity for it, too, to spark a similar migration of Americans to Canada.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  299. Reply: I am confident [NOT!] Capitalist Republic . by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    We are a Constitutional Democracy occupied by a Capitalist Republic.

    The new "Jim Crow" model disenfranchises citizens on the rule of financial/class value.

    Citizen Equality is non-existent, Justice is purchased, and human dignity determined by Capital value not character.

    OldHawk777

    Reality is a self-induced hallucination.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  300. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what you're saying is communism is good?

  301. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Rasputin · · Score: 1
    So then you believe that despite numerous calls to jihad from Bin Laden that Al Queda is taking a vacation and isn't attempting further acts of terror?

    They caught terrorists before the "patriot" act - remember the guy caught at the BC border? They acquired sufficient evidence to catch the 9/11 hijackers without the "patriot" act - the FBI just blew the follow-through. How is it you think that this execrable act accomplished anything?

    --
    "I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
  302. Just tell me when... by kcb93x · · Score: 1

    ...And I'll be there. Seriously. Let's get say, 3 million geeks/nerds/technophobes together, and fight this! If we all overrun downtown DC, think about the problems. They'd hear us, alright.

    Peaceful protest, a sit-in in the capitol. Or the judiciary building. I've been out there before. Spring break, 2001. Fun place. 'Cept for the World Bank protesters, that shut down about 25% of the city for a few days. Couldn't go that way.

    I'm ready to stand up for my rights, but by myself noone will listen. (Or at least really care to listen)

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  303. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by matrix29 · · Score: 1

    How dare you spit on the graves of the millions who died so that you can post on this site. How dare you spit on the grave of the millions of jews who were massacred by the Germans. How dare you spit on the graves of the millions who sacrificed everything they had to support this country during the war.

    Comparing Bush to Hitler is a disgusting display of your ignorance of history. I demand an apology on behalf of all those you ungraciously insulted and demeaned.


    Aren't you the most pathetic little PSYOPS GOP=KGB WHOREBOY yet? Perhaps a comparison between SUPERFRAUD Bush and IDI AMIN is more too your liking. Both are regarded as being dead from the neck up and both distracted their opponents by being the buffoon long enough to slit the laughing person's throat. Both are really ignorant and have played that ignorance up to hideous levels so as to distract and disarm the force of their opponent's willpower.

    However, the USA-PATRIOT-DEATHCAMP-ENABLING-ACT duplicates absolutely the horrible laws of the Nazi murder & steal movement. Here is a statement that any sane person will recognize, "Hitler did not televise the DEATHCAMPS on TV. He knew that doing so would offend the useful fools that supported him unquestioningly up to now." SUPERFRAUD Bush would not televise the DEATHCAMPS of today either and the GOP=KGB WHORE MEDIA would also refuse to tell the truth to the public either.

    We are a BIG NATION. An entire city of people can be slaughtered in a day with no one the wiser. If then the people that question what happened to the slaughtered town show up, the USA-PATRIOT-DEATHCAMP-ENABLING-ACT empowers the GOP=KGB WHORES to seize the questioners under "anti-terrorist" reasons quietly and execute them secretly. Remember that the Attorney General can deny ever American their citizenship instantly now, kidnap anyone, execute that person in complete secrecy, and dispose of the body ALL LEGALLY RIGHT NOW. Does anyone reading this here think John "Satan's Devoted Whore" Ashcroft is above abusing that power when he has gladly abused every power given him before?

    The logical conclusion is that YES there are DEATHCAMPS operating RIGHT NOW and kidnapping innocents and murdering them RIGHT NOW because that is what the GOP=KGB WHORES want so they can rob America's National Treasury under the illusion of war, forcefully bankrupt the nation entirely, and seize the property of all Americans at whim while executing the owners of said property.

    Know your murderers America.
    Are they the "tree-hugging" Liberals or the "make everyone into a criminal" Criminal Traitor Republican Traitor Criminals?
    Who will imprison you unjustly and steal your property? The "Save the Whales" crowd or the "Lock and Load" GOP-KGB WHORES?
    Who is more nuts? The "Recycle your Bottles" Liberals or the "Ronnie ROTTEN Reagan was right in smuggling cocaine into America so we could smuggle guns to the Contras and use George H.W. Opium/Cocaine/BCCI/Money-Laundering Bush to fund the GOP=KGB rise to power"?

    I see the most crooked, evil, sinister, rotten, lousy, shameful, horrible, lying, stealing, whoring, insane, inbred, bunch of sub-human trash currently occupying the White House and GOP-KGB WHORES like you cheer them on with your dim-witted hands clapping like flippers on a seal.

    Go back to HELL and take your Son-of-Moloch SUPERFRAUD Bush demon-baby with you.

    --
    "Face it, a nation that maintains a 72% approval rating on George W. Bush is a nation with a very loose grip on reality.
  304. Re:What was that word? I remember - "Gleichschaltu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
    tal ks about the Nazi program to control everything

    but I can't find any pages on Ermächtigungsgesetz except ones in German, and sadly I cannot read German.

    Perhaps you would be kind enough to spell out what the word means (denotes, and no doubt, connotes) ?

  305. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but electoral votes are determines by per-state popular votes. Gore got more votes in Florida, so if we followed the spirit of the law, he'd be President. Not that this would necessarily be a GOOD thing, but the man won the election fair and square. All he lost was a case in court.

  306. Re:.sig doesn't say it all - Offtopic by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I would say that the Romans introduced total war a long time before Sherman did.

    Of course he had to live off the land, 62,000 troops, 14,500 horses, 19,500 mules, 5,500 cattle and 2,500 wagons cut off from supply trains. Confederate soldiers in the field were no better than Sherman and his 'total war."

    "I hope to God he (Wheeler) will never get back to Georgia." - CSA Secretary of State Toombs to CSA Vice-President Stephens.

    "Private homes are visted, carpets, blankets and other furniture they can lay thier hands on are taken by force in the presence of the owner" - Charleston Mercury on Wheeler's men.

    It is also important to remeber that Sherman didn't just face "old men and boys" in Georgia. Wheeler had 3,000 cavalry against Sherman's 2,000 under Kilpatrick. 10,000 regulars sat in barracks down in Augusta. And Bell had 40,000 regulars heading towards Thomas's Army of Tennessee.

    If Sherman when faced those old men and boys, it's not because the South was weak, but because the South didn't send it's regulars to fight him. If Hardee, Wheeler and Bragg had hooked up and entrenched slowing down even a part of Sherman's army, then all might have been lost.

    "General Sherman ought to have been totally defeated and ruined, but the sad fact will be handed down to posterity that while Sherman's minions were devastating the country with fire and committing outrages against defenseless women, the men of Georgia staid at home, or at least a portion of them, trying to save what they had." - Texas trooper with Wheeler.

    "Now that war has come home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent carloads of soldiers and ammunition, and moulded shells and shot, to carry war to Kentuckey and Tennessee to desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at thier old homes, and under the Government of thier inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect and early success." - Sherman to the mayor of Atlanta.

  307. Laughable Quote by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 1

    "The Patriot Act has been an extremely useful tool, a demonstrated success, and we don't want that to expire on us,"

    My ass! Demonstratable to who? Everything the agencies do under the act is a secret and the public has no lawful way to find out how/why they are using/abusing their powers. If they can't demonstrate the usefullness to the public, then in my opinion it needs to be stopped.

  308. good bye and good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn. You guys might as well just amalgamate with Iraq - ain't much difference in your rights and freedoms, eh?

  309. Re:.sig doesn't say it all - Offtopic by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Great reply. Thanks.

    I would say that the Romans introduced total war a long time before Sherman did.

    Well, Josephus points out that the Romans usually made the offer of "look, surrender and submit or we're putting everyone to the sword." A great deal of Roman conquests were made on the back of this tactic. Of course, old Josephus was a bit of a toady....

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  310. Screw y'all! by longbottle · · Score: 1

    HAH! I voted for Harry Browne in 2000... Not my goddamn fault, you stupid bastards.

    Enjoy the new regieme.... /me starts hitchhiking to Canada

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity. I enjoy every minute of it!
  311. "Patriot" act my ass -- Benedict Arnold act. by skintigh2 · · Score: 1

    I propose we all stop referring to this bill as the "Patriot" act. That cheapens the word Patriot.

    Patriots fought and died for freedom. This bill kills freedom.

    America is the land of the Free and the home of the Brave. This anti-freedom bill was passed by cowards so scared to death of terrorists they can't trust the people who elected them.

    Bush says the terrorists hate our freedom and attacked it. By that definition, those who voted for this bill are terrorists.

    This bill is counter to the fundamental rights America originally broke away from Britain over.

    I propose we refer to it as the Benedict Arnold bill from now on, as it is an act of treason against our principles.

  312. Re:.sig doesn't say it all - Offtopic by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    I was thinking of the Second and Third Punic Wars and what the Romans did to Carthage.

    The Huns and other Mongol advances across Asia and Europe are also pretty total war-ish.

  313. armed society by joshuaos · · Score: 1
    For my money, one of the most effective ways to deal with terrorism would be to get the highest possible percentage of the population to carry concealed weapons...but perhaps that's just me. ;-)

    I agree! An armed society is a polite society, and I'd much rather be shot by anyone other than the police, or at least, anyone doing it for reasons that are theirs, not because they were told to do it! If you have a personal motivation to shoot me, I can at least respect that! I'd rather deal with terrorists than the police any day!

    Cheers, Joshua

    --

    When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

  314. Privacy an essential liberty? by bigmattana · · Score: 1

    I must say that I am against the Patriot Act. While invasion of privacy went on before it, now it is just to dang easy for them to invade our privacy.

    That being said, what makes you think that privacy is really an "essential liberty"? I mean, the only people who get real privacy are the ones with enough money to afford a place to live. Homeless people do not have the luxury, yet we all act like it is an inaliable right on par with freedom of speech or freedom of religion. There is nothing about freedom of privacy in the bill of rights. People quote the the 9th, but I just don't see it as being as important as those specifically stated. Why do people get so bent out of shape about stuff like the Patriot Act, but not so much when other basic rights are being challenged?

  315. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all, that gives Alaska a lot more represenation per person than, say, New Mexico.
    Huh Are you on crack?
    IIRC there is "about" 1 House representive for about every 500-600,000 people and every state gets 2 representives in the Senate. So at a minimum each state gets 3 votes in the Electorial College.
    The trouble is 48 states make it a "winner" takes all in the Electorial College. Only Nebraska and Maine allow the votes to be split up. So if Gore wins the popular vote in a congressional district but loses the overall vote state-wide he still could get 1 vote for the electoral college.
    We have 435 congressional districts which each have a vote in the Electoral College all but say 11-12 are forced to vote on whoever wins state-wide This should be changed! It should be changed to whoever wins the popular vote in EACH congressional district gets the Electoral College vote. Ever wonder why candidates spend enormous amounts of money campaining in CA,TX,NY,IL and don't spend a dime in states like AK,MT,NM,WY?
    Because campaining in those states give you a large portion of the required 270 electoral votes needed to win. IIRC you can carry what is it the 7 largest states and lose the other 43 states and still become president.

  316. Missile Command strategy... by wikthemighty · · Score: 1

    It's much easier for our government to protect our freedoms if you're willing to give up all but a few, so that they need only concentrate on protecting those few.

    Completely unrelated (or is it?) but did anybody else play Missile Command like this?

    You know, where you let all but one of the cities die as soon as the game becomes difficult, so that it's easy to keep playing?

    I'll let you derive your own thoughts about how this may be happening to us...

    --
    "There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
  317. Re:My God its full of stars! by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm an American, spent a semester at a Canadian school and took a class that was taught by an expatriate American professor.

    Us real Americans call them draft dodgers.

    --
    Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
  318. Paying "attention" costs too much! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    It really does!

  319. The legislation in question by Comrade+Pikachu · · Score: 1

    S.113

    This looks like the right bill. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    Again, according to the article, Senator Hatch (a co-sponsor) may attempt to attach a repeal of the sunset provision of PATRIOT to the above bill.

  320. Ever Been to Ireland...? by TibbonZero · · Score: 1

    See topic...

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
  321. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by spun · · Score: 1
    Dumb analogy. I bet a drunk in a bar would notice if a bunch of AA zealots walked in and started preaching the evils of alchohol. And truely, at the slashdot bar, I see about 50 conservative AA zealots per drunken liberal ;-)

    What have you got against liberals anyhow? The American Heritage Dictionary via yahoo reference defines liberalism thus:

    A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
    Is that really something you are opposed to? Or do you listen to too many talking heads on the Teevee telling you that liberals are bad, dumb, and out to take your money?

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  322. current leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and the general population for our current leadership.

    We currently have excellent leadership. What's your point? I'm just glad there wasnt one of those bloody liberals in office during this war. Then we'd all be in some REAL shit.

    Just my 2 cents.

    1. Re:current leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldent you be @ the Hitler-Jugend meeting now ???

  323. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Keeper · · Score: 1

    No, I believe that they'll continue to do what they've always done. Al Queda didn't just pop into existance. They've been around for a lone time, committing many terrorists acts abroad.

    The law enforcement branches in this country have all of the power they need to get their job done. It's been shown that law enforcement agencies had all of the informationed needed to stop the events of 9/11, except it didn't get the attention it needed (ie: a process problem, not a "laws keep us from doing what needs to be done" problem).

  324. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by spun · · Score: 1

    While I "agree" with you about the "Patriot" act and the need for "reform," I must point out that "overuse" of "quotes" makes you sound like a "whacko."

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  325. Re:My God its full of stars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Us real Americans call them draft dodgers.

    Riight... it's obvious which glass of cool-aid YOU drank. If you really believe that, ask yourself where your last two presedents were when the country was calling for them. If serving in the forces and fighting in far off lands is such an act of patriotism, why do all the successful americans (ie: the rich ones) avoid it like the plague? Shouldn't they be proud to serve their country and pay back for all it gave them?

  326. Why did we still walk into it! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
    Lucas makes lots of comparisons of the Empire to Nazi Germany, of the Emporerer to Hitler! He's a '40s buff. We know Palpatine's a monster, but we see how he got there! Both times, innocent parties were manipulated to get the ball rolling. That was the whole point of the "staged" attack on Naboo [World Trade Center?] and of the impending war with the seperatists. [afganistan/iraq] When it was written I'm sure it was meant to be a jab at society's laziness, but it's proving to be almost prophetic and spookily accurate!

    Cliche or not, it's exactly what's happening right now. I'm not enough of a nut to think someone knew about 9/11 and allowed it, but most certianly, unelected members of govt. used 9/11 to pass laws using good intensions and fear that normally never would have been considred. [remember "Patriot" was tried several times and never made it out of committe before 9/11!] Now George wants a war, and has made no indication of backing away from Iraq after we're done or of stopping the war machine from fighting another "enemy"!

    We're now at war, and that makes us a legitimate target for our opponents--that's not terrorism, it's just war! In wars innocent people die--That's why many people didn't want one! BUT, Should one more "terrorist" act happen [I wouldn't put the next one past a conspiricy theory!] I forsee one more press conference telling us George is taking control during wartime--I'm sure he'll give it back too!

    A week, a month, a year--expect it to be comming or get up and vote/impeach these guys out of office!

  327. how to avoid the 'free registration' hassle by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

    fyi, go to the linked URL, then edit out the first web addr and change the www to archive and then you'll be able to read the article without that STOOPID registration crap!

    ie, change this url:

    old url

    to this:

    new url

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  328. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.

    My guess would be that the squids were a little disheartened by the enormous backfiring of their little plan to promote the removal of U.S. troops from Squidland.

  329. Yes, which is why... by 955301 · · Score: 1

    I said our current leadership, not "it's the Republicans' fault". The title I submitted was a little less inflamatory as well. And it's the article's reference to the "Congressional Republicans" to which I referred in my article posting.

    I personally believe the party system is way off course from what utility it used to bring to the table. That's all parties, btw. Not just any one. party.

    I'm unaffiliated.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  330. JUST TRY AND SILENCE THE PEOPLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The one document that binds us all together is that which was created at the beginning of this great nation, with the sole purpose to protect the freedome of the individual person. You cannot silence the general public with threats of spying and secret police, the great nation of america will prevail against theis unconstitutional act. There are ways to prevent this, the patriot act will fall, not by means of terrorism, but by the means of the people of the united states. JOIN TOGETHER AGAINST THIS ACT!!!

  331. Woops - Wrong again! by Sliced+Bread · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    What is everyone yelling about? Most ideas that come from a SF are going to be skued to far left. So, it gets the Lefties all in a tizzy. Everyone should relax. The government always does the right thing! ...

    Seriously, the people in Oakland, CA deserved it. professional protesters? shoot 'em.

  332. Hoo boy.... by deanj · · Score: 1

    Great. Getting advice on legislation from the Chronicle and the Times.

    Best advice. Read those left leaning rags, then read some right leaning rags. Read the right and left blogs.

    Then decide.

    Don't get your news from one side or the other. You're not going to get the whole story.

  333. Orrin Hatch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might remember shortly after Sept 11, when the administration balked at giving intelligence briefings to Congress. One of the main reasons was Hatch. The terrorists and their allies were using cell phones, which the US govt was listening in on.

    After a classified briefing, Hatch informed the press that we were getting great intelligence from cell phone snooping. Surprise, surprise, that source of info dried up. When he was questioned about it, it was everyone's fault but his own. If a Democrat had pulled that stunt, they would have been crying out for a treason trial.

    I have no respect for Senator Hatch.

    P.S. For those thinking of emailing your reps and senators, don't bother. For some reason emails are discounted almost as much as petitions. Fax or even better mail a letter. They take more note of those.

  334. Left or Right or Wrong? It's all good. by crashnbur · · Score: 2, Informative
    Not every Republican favored the PATRIOT Act, and not nearly every Democrat opposed it. In the House, the vote was 337-79 (Republicans 207-3 and Democrats 129-75). In the Senate, the vote was 96-1 (one Democrat voted Nay, and three Republicans did not vote).

    Left or Right or Wrong, it doesn't matter. Okay, so Republicans ultimately favore life over liberty, and Democrats ultimately favor liberty over life (this is an oversimplified generalization given the comments I've read here so far). Neither is more admirable than the other, and the constant bickering between the two sides is exactly what our system of government is designed to facilitate.

    The result is a continuous national awareness of threats to both our lives and liberties, and therefore the best possible protection of either given assaults on the other. Sure, the balance fluctuates, but it is exactly that flucuation that keeps us aware of our political discontents. Isn't this exactly what we want?

  335. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Totally aside from the stupidity of the name, it's declared objective, which is the "worldwide elimination of terrorism", is both logically impossible to achieve, as well as unprovable whether or not it ever has been achieved.

    It's also logically impossible to eliminate crime on the streets; therefore, we must let all criminals go free.

  336. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Keeper · · Score: 1

    Exactly my point. Without the patriot act it took 8 years to commit a subsequent terrorist act on US soil. So how after less than a few years can anyone conclude that the Patriot Act is doing anything?

  337. Making people tired... by sploxx · · Score: 1

    Isn't this a very good working tactic - i.e. a "salami tactic"?
    You introduce a bill over and over again, and if it does not work, you make some "adjustments", let it pass and several month/years later, you implement more of your "goal"?!

  338. Rome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rome falled because its economy was based on slave work, which was extremely inefficient.

    The same thing happened with The Southern Conferedation.

  339. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There ARE cameras on my street corners (helping protect poor innocent people from those who would terrorize them with speeding), there are cameras in every business, and there are webcams in everyhome. All it takes is a bit of a tweak to the already-in-place-BEFORE-it-was-legal eschelon system and these go online to Unkie Sam.

    I wish I could say that there would be a revolution to take back our rights, (and maybe I underestimate Joe and Susie American with their two kids across the street), but... if it came down to that, I forsee all those who love and cherish freedom leaving the country (or getting arrested) and the rest of the sheep sitting on their arses watching whatever crap the networks are throwing out at primetime, hoping that things will get better..

    The Patriot Act is designed to do two things (and it does them well) - expose those who have issues with government control and make those who have money more of it (in combination with wonderful laws like the DMCA, etc).

  340. Remember this about Sen. Hatch .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    He doesn't take a crap without checking with the Mormon church on what toilet paper to use. They command and he obeys. Welcome to the new christian america.

  341. Example of the broad definition of terrorism by SiMac · · Score: 1

    It's possible to apply the definition of terrorism to George W. Bush, Al Gore, or any other elected official if you can prove that they sped on the highway, because it's a violation of state law attempting to coerce the civilian population.

  342. Police state is about how, not how many... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    The Patriot Act] grants the executive branch almost police state powers,

    How do you justify the word "almost" in that sentence?


    If you are telling me that 49% of the people should go to jail because it's a law made by a democraticly elected set of representatives, where you assume such things as "guilty until innocent" "right to fair trial" and all the other things normally granted by to a person on trail, I find that acceptable. Wierd but acceptable.

    If 0,1% of the population disappear as "suspected terrorists", are held without charges, lawyer and trialed in secret or not at all, not by the people, or held indefinately, I find that unacceptable. Am I the only one?

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  343. I saw Episode II also!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We give them the power and ask that they return it to "the people" after the threat has passed... Long live the Republic!

  344. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially hilarious considering there are well-established links between CIA and then-'freedom fighter' (back when they were against USSR) and now terrorists who financed themselves with drugs. Nobody noticed though.

  345. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    I've never seen this bias on CNN. Could you provide some examples, as it seems like moderate corporate news to me. It certainly doesn't rub off as liberal.

  346. Thank who for our current leadership? by LamerX · · Score: 1

    Everyone may thank [...] the general population for our current leadership.

    Uhm, last I checked, the general population DIDN'T vote for our current leadership...

  347. Hence the catch "that most people can name" by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 1

    Granted, your example concerning Taney and the SCOTUS of 1861 bears hearing out given their pro-slavery stance. Unfortunately most Americans can't tell Roger Taney from James Buchanan from Adelai Stevenson etc. I'd say the Alien and Sedition Acts rank up there for some of our worst anti-Constitutional legislation as well, perhaps the flurry of anti-Communist legislation bears major anti-Constitution violations as well. But your example is quite valid.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
  348. Don't Vote by whig · · Score: 1

    http://www.FuckTheVote.org/

    --
    Peace and love, y'all
  349. And if our district votes for only one party? by Dukeofshadows · · Score: 1

    I know that my Senator is opposed to extension of the Patriot Act and that the guy who ran against my representative last term was a sacrifical lamb (he barely got 20% of the vote). There are those of us who ardently oppose this legislation and whose voting districts are heavily controlled by one party or another that their voice is never really heard anyway (Republicans in Massachusetts, Democrats in parts of the South, etc.). For some of us, the SCOTUS is the only shot we have to get our voices heard and to see our ideals of this nation given a chance. Some of us got out there to register voters and see if we could make a change from the ground up. Heck, I still have questions about the Florida situation because of personal experience with one county's political situation and the fact that it was in the hands of the brother of one of the candidates.

    I have written to my representative to try to get things done and get the word out concerning laws of interest to my profession. There's no way in heck he's going to lose in this district and the senator that just got elected barely won, and that was only because el presidente came down and went on the stump for him. Neither of these guys is likely to vote against the Patriot extension if it comes up for a vote, but I want to see it gone anyway, so I hope the SCOTUS intervenes.

    Elections these days only concern that 5% of the people who both vote and who don't always vote with the same party. If you can control that sway vote you can win almost any given election. And in some districts (like mine) the straight-ticket voters of one party dominate so heavily that the same party has controlled the same positions in the area for years. In short, for at least a few million of us the SCOTUS us our only real shot at seeing some legislature we don't like getting eliminated. Our representatives don't always represent our interests, but their party more than anything else since they know that they will get re-elected as long as the party is kept happy.

    --
    As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
    1. Re:And if our district votes for only one party? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Our representatives don't always represent our interests, but their party more than anything else since they know that they will get re-elected as long as the party is kept happy."

      IMO, campaign finance laws have something to do with this as well. While the accountability of sources is always a good idea, placing limits on who can donate how much to whom seems to only have ensured that most campaign donations are funneled through either the PACs or one of the two major parties (third parties apparently don't count). If the money is going to be donated to candidate X one way or the other, preventing the donor from giving to X directly only serves to make the parties and lobbyists more powerful.

  350. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well we have 8 years of Clinton to blame for all that. Its a good thing then that we didn't get another 4 years with Gore.

  351. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was gonna call you an idiot, but you beat me to it.

    Btw put that tin foil hat back on, the black helicopters are coming...

  352. Samuel Johnson was dead right when he said ... by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1
  353. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yeah, but in the meantime the current regime can mobilze the U.S. into voluntarily giving up their civil rights, their promised tax cuts, and the environment - all in the name of national security agaist the elusive foe.


    Great excuse to keep the defense budget sky high too.

  354. Thats It... by dcviper · · Score: 1

    I'm officially embarrassed to associate myself with the US Military....
    I'm gonna run a NAVPERS 1336/3 Special Request/Authorization Chit. R/R PERMISSION TO DESERT AND DEFECT TO CANADA...

    --
    Ummm, err, say what, now?
  355. Someone.. why should I not be scared? by Lostman · · Score: 1

    When I read what is possible under this act...

    I just get very very scared...

    It seems as if the moment you elect an official, they join the government in order to stop the rights of its citizens.

    Surely there is a reason why I should not be this scared-out-my-ass. . .

    Please. If you can say "They are just blowing it out of proportion because..." please do. I need to feel a bit more safe at the moment.

    I dont care about moderation, just please reply. This has unnerved me quite a bit.

    1. Re:Someone.. why should I not be scared? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be scared. Be happy. There's nothing you can do about it.

    2. Re:Someone.. why should I not be scared? by scoobywan · · Score: 1

      There is one really good reason not to be scared of any of the politics in the world, it's called free will. My points being this, the things I don't do I don't do because my morals play part, not because the law says I can't. Most of the time, just as long as what you do doesn't affect a mass of people, the law is so side tracked they don't know what's going on anyway. Yeah, this stuff that they're passing now is kinda scary, but, think about it, they are the government, they've been using loop holes for years to do things. They laws they pass just makes it legal for them to use the stuff in court that they normally can't. If you're really scared, just don't use the phone, use the net, and use a good encryption scheme :). Honestly, I think if those guys with the currly white wigs that started this country saw what was going on, they'd roll over in thier graves. Sorry about ranting here, just woke up, and haven't had enough caffine yet.

      L8r,
      Scoobywan

  356. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Because of the Terror Act (called by some the Patriot Act) and similar erosions of our ability to speak freely.


    Wake up. There are no freedoms anymore. Anything you say can be used against you - by simply expressing dissent, you can be labeled un-patriotic and a terrorist.

  357. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
    Tax is a perfect analogy. Income tax was enacted as a temporary measure to fund, if I recall, World War 1. Income Tax never left and neither will the Patriot Act once formalized. The government admits no accountability in passing it and they won't listen to your pleas for a repeal. This is about power, the utilitarianism you espouse is just another tool in its pursuit.

    Defeat the Act now or accept that your grandchildren will know of democracy only through history books.

  358. Pot, meet Kettle by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

    A car is speeding towards a tree. Someone calls out "That car is going to hit the tree!" You object that because bumper hasn't yet met bark, it won't? Extremely powerful and influential elements are at work to remove a minor part - the Sunset Clause - of a very large Act. Judging by the almost complete apathy of the American puplic to its passing, it looks to me to be a cakewalk. Claiming it's not going to happen is far more misleading that saying it is.

  359. Isn't this being a tad overplayed? by DaemonGem · · Score: 1

    Much as I agree with all of you, I must say that it seems you are all overreacting a bit. The Article Heading says "ongress to Make PATRIOT Act Permanent". Stricly speaking, this is not possible. Any future Congress can repeal the act. However, that doesn't excuse the criminality of the matter.

    Even if the PATRIOT Act becomes semi-permanent, I suppose we can only hope that it does get repealed relatively soon.
    -Dae

    --
    "Alle reden vom wetter. Wir nicht." - SDS Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund.
    j00 4r3 3n73r1ng l337 w0r1d.
  360. What to do by elijahb80 · · Score: 1

    This scares the living hell out of me. I'm not worried that the Patriot Act has given "the government too much power to spy on Americans". Rather, I am worried that the government has (and will have) too much control over our actions. The current situation with Mike Hawash (and I'm sure there are many others) is simply unacceptable. There is no situation that comes to mind that would warrant such an infringement upon an American citizen's rights. I am afraid, deathly afraid, that this is only the beginning. Really now, lets get some progress... or maybe just abandon Ship.
    P.S. really, we have the electoral congress to thank for the current leadership

  361. We might become like China (ugh!). by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the prime reasons that we do not want the Patriot Act is that we do not want to create a country like China or a culture like Chinese culture. Read "Why the Chinese are Different from Westerners". In Chinese society, there is no' regard for human rights. Tibetans are regularly tortured and killed. When we implement the Patriot Act, we are taking the first step to becoming like a Chinese nation.

  362. Now I see it... by LittleBigLui · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... the "liberation" of Iraq wasn't about oil or WMDs (did anyone ever believe this?) but to bring DEMOCRACY to Iraq so you Americans can flee your police state. Now that's clever.

    --
    Free as in mason.
  363. Hoodwinked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While you're all arguing about the role of the courts, the spirit of america, or the source of freedom... consider a few things.

    The much revered founding fathers did not create the american version of freedom for all people, in fact they specifically did so in a deal to alleviate the tax burden imposed on them by the british... but this is nothing new.

    The document from which freedom as a legal concept originates is the magna carta... a document signed at knifepoint for the sole purpose of giving tax breaks and executive powers to the venitian merchants who settled in england after being thrown out of europe. Freedom for the people was merely a by-product of legal autonomy for the oligarchy.

    The wording of such documents are always for the benefit of those who draft them, and as such "legal terminology" has led to centuries of deception by those who understand it against those who don't. To you and I, a citizen is an individual, with rights, freedoms and perhaps even a soul. To the legal profession (at least those in the know), a citizen is a possesion of a corporation... did you really think the oligarchies would just give up their posessions?

    To the naked eye, the current world stage has uncle sam out front leading the charge, with the uk bulldog panting in the background doing its master's bidding... however LEGALLY, this is not the state of affairs. The chain of ownership goes all the way back to the crown, a corporation wholly independant of the english monarchy born in the 15th century. You know these entities as BANKS.

    Constitutions are flimsy, but title deeds are rigid. The almighty american dollar and the US federal reserve are private assets owned by the crown, and in terms of their legal obligation to state, they have none because they are literally soverign in their own right (think... vatican).

    The manouvre to exclude public debate from the legislative process, even so far as to exclude the will of the people from the electoral process is an ancient slight of hand, although the slight of hand was not in the revoking freedom, but in the granting of it in the first place.

    It is far easier to control the will of 5 supreme court judges, than it is to control several billion voters.

    To what extent will corporations go to to protect their interests, and who exactly owns your judges?... check out Bob Kolody's adventures in the 9th circuit.

    To determine their diabolical purpose... let your paranoia be your guide ;)

  364. That depends... by raehl · · Score: 1

    Did they know the charity was engaged in supporting terrorists? If so, then yes, they are responsible.

    When you're voting for a candidate, you should check to see if that candidate is going to vote to trample your rights when they get into office.

    1. Re:That depends... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      My point is, you can't predict how a pol is going to vote. Hell, how many "liberals" voted for USA Patriot? For DMCA?

      More to the point, how do you find candidates who will not be bought by corps the moment they set foot in office?

      In other words, I don't believe anybody who wants power is fit to wield it.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  365. And you're surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And you're surprised?

    They couldn't pass this stuff normally, so instead they get it shoved through during a crisis by preying on peoples fear and distress. Then once they have the foot in the door, they shoot the poor bastard they claimed to be helping...

  366. You are f***ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since terrorism cannot be completely eliminated, no matter how hard one tries, Patriot (newspeak) Act will rule over the USian sheeple cattle.

    You poor suckers

  367. "inalienable rights" by lamp540 · · Score: 1

    In case you needed a reminder...you don't own your body.

  368. Your two last sentence by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Sound like something you could hear in Soviet russia (to paraphrase a signature I read on slashdot) and CERTAINLY sound like somehting my DDR friend told me when I visited DDR long ago.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Your two last sentence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in case anyone else was wondering what DDR stands for other than double data rate (RAM) and dance dance revolution, it was also Deutsche Demokratische Republik (the former East Germany)

  369. Harmless Act by BagMan2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Patriot Act is harmless. I seriously doubt the majority of posters on this board have even read it, or understand the changes it actually makes compared to what we have had forever.

    The spying ability everybody is paranoid about is simply common-sense stuff, hardly a serious invasion of the average joe's privacy by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect most people are simply repeating the misinformation they heard the last time the subject came up.

    The government can't simply spy on anybody, they have to get a warrant. The problem with the old scheme was that they had to share classified intelligence information with an open-court in order to justify the warrant, a process that by its very nature screwed things up. The new scheme simply allows them to deal with a court that has been given security clearences and keeps the proceedings secret in order to obtain the warrant. The same checks and balances are in place. This hardly effects the average joe, as the only reason the government would even use this special court is if the proof for getting the warrant were classified.

    Then there are a few other things like roaming wire taps that everybody cries about. Boo hoo, so they have a warrant to tap your phone, but if you walk across the street and use the pay-phone, they can't tap that???? How is that an invasion of privacy (remember, they have already justified a wire-tap on every phone they think you might use). It's only common sense that once you get a warrant to tap a particular person that the tap should be on the person (and follow that person) as opposed to being on a particular phone they might use.

    I'm sure there are few other clauses that many would find objectionable, but the vast majority of them are common-sense and trivial changes to systems already in place.

    The problem is, groups like the ACLU see any movement no matter how minor in giving the government power as a massive power-grab and infringement of the constitution.

    Slashdot readers should educate themselves...the American public may certainly be sheep, but slashdot readers are no better, they just have a different shepherd.

  370. Screw the constitution. by trotski · · Score: 1

    Screw the constitution!

    The constitution also says that you can have guns, as well as keep several wives;

    The problem is the constituition was made up by a bunch of rebellious millionaires (much like Osama Bin Ladin) 300 years ago! This is the 21st century for christs sakes!

    I don't give a fuck about terrorists free speech or any other of their rights, they're terrorists and therefore they HAVE NO RIGHTS. If the constitution gives them rights then it's the constitution that is wrong!

    The patriot acts protects us from terrorists, plain and simple; if our government didn't put it in place, image how many hundreds of thousands would have died.

    --

    "Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
  371. victim of the Patriot Act by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    www.freemikehawash.org

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/04/ 19 0223&mode=thread&tid=103

    whos going to make my Intel cpu's now? :(

  372. Interesting situation by be-fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My brother, 13, recently went to a mock UN conference for middle school students. The question under debate was biased reporting in the media about Islam. The suggested resolution that a committe of several dozen of these young teens came to was that some limited censorship of the media by the UN would be an acceptable price to pay to get rid of bias in the media. These were all intelligent kids, who know far more about the political world (they still remember their American history classes and like learning about international subjects) than most adults. They're all well-meaning, idealistic young people. Yet, the still made a very stupid resolution. My point is that it does not take dumb people with evil intentions to make bad laws. Rather, it takes exeptional people with the noblest of intentions to make good ones. Something important like the Patriot act should not be written under duress. Decisions about how long it should last should not be made in the middle of a patriotic frenzy during a war. The rather low-caliber individuals already in Congress are barely qualified as it is to write something this important. Having them do it, under these conditions is a sure recepie for disaster. If we need any law right now, we need one that prevents the government from making permanent legislation during times of war.

    In summary: the Constitution is hard to amend because the founding fathers realized that few of their sucessors would be up to the task of changing such an important document. Only those that can convience not only a majority that voted for them, but most of those that didn't as well, should be able to make such a change. Only those people are qualified enough to do so.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  373. Suspicion Breeds Confidence by Domini · · Score: 1

    It's great how Sci-Fi becomes reality! :)

    Way to go Orson Wells!

    1. Re:Suspicion Breeds Confidence by Domini · · Score: 1

      Argh... always confuse the two...

      %-)

      Bostly because: George Orwell's pen name was derived from filmmaker George Orson Wells.

  374. Idealism by abertoll · · Score: 1

    Ideally yes... however, I'm glad to see that this is proving that the system is working to some extent. Even though the original idea was to create the laws the people wanted first, it's nice to know that the system of checks and balances is working fairly well even so many centuries from its inception.

    --
    "he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
  375. Heinlein was an optimist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When will George W. "Nehemiah Scudder" Bush call himself the 1st Prophet?

  376. Re:Q: What's the difference between Hitler and Bus by BBird · · Score: 1

    These are scarry times. Hate creates more hate. Destruction, lies and threats increase tone every day. Please US citizens -- get rid of this guy.

  377. IRA by meadowsp · · Score: 1

    What about the IRA which was funded by the USA?

  378. Watch your gov by jplopes · · Score: 1

    If i was an American i would begin to watch very very carefully to what my gov is doing. Right now in America if you say "terrorist" you can do anything to anyone.
    There was a priest in Germany during the Nazis. I dont know exacltly what he said but it was something like this:
    "First they came after the jews, then they came after the, protestants, then they after .... and so on. Then they came after me, and I had no one to help me"
    This may sound exagerated, but if the Patriot Act becomes effective...

  379. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    Agree completely. I have often wanted to point this out to politicians when they are considering passing similar laws. I would just love to ask them in their street interviews "Would you trust the opposition with these powers ?" , and of course if they say "no" then ... well "then how can we trust you with them ?"

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  380. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by kyshtock · · Score: 1
    Any "law" that gives the government the right to spy on people will not last ... and if laws like this are not repealed, then other laws with similar or worse implications will slowly be approved. The people simply won't tollorate it!
    You are a bit naive. If the legislative crap really hits the proverbial fan, there will be no choice. The people WILL tolerate, and even cherrish, or go to jail. I really doubt that the average American will raise against any opressive American system, as long as it has stars and stripes on it and you tell him it's for he's own good.

    It happened before. Russia, Germany, you name it. Remember, "1984" was inspired from real life!

    --
    Bite my shiny metal... oops... Nevermind!
  381. Re:Patriot Act seems to have worked. by spaten-optimator · · Score: 1


    Homer: "Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm."
    Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, Dad."
    Homer: "Why thank you, honey."
    Lisa: "By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away."
    Homer: "Oh, how does it work?"
    Lisa: "It doesn't work."
    Homer: "Uh-huh."
    Lisa: "It's just a stupid rock."
    Homer: "Uh-huh."
    Lisa: "But I don't see any tigers around, do you?"
    Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."
    </obsimpsons>

    --

    --
    Disclaimer: The above statement probably includes half-truths, because real truth is too complicated.
  382. ... no-reg link by muffen · · Score: 1

    As usual with articles on New York Times, you can swap out 'www' to 'archive' and no reg is required.

  383. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by ces · · Score: 1

    Or do you listen to too many talking heads on the Teevee telling you that liberals are bad, dumb, and out to take your money?

    Please get it right, us liberals want to take your money and give it to the crackhead welfare mother in the ghetto, put your children in foster care, make you take public transit, take away your house and make you live in public housing, ban eating meat, teach peganism in the schools, ban christianity, and turn all women into lesbians.

    Did I forget anything comrades?

    --
    Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
  384. BS - people will tolerate it ! by gosand · · Score: 1
    Any "law" that gives the government the right to spy on people will not last ... and if laws like this are not repealed, then other laws with similar or worse implications will slowly be approved. The people simply won't tollorate it!

    You know, people like to say this, but they don't really mean it. What do you mean by "won't tollorate[sic] it"? What will they do? Nothing. They'll drive their fat fucking ass to McDonalds in their SUV, while talking on their phone to their spouse that they hate, asking if they want the super-size or the super-fucking-duper size freedom fries.

    People will tolerate it. All you might see is a Fox News report about it, in between the reports on the latest revolutionary diet and the current Hollywood scandal. The American public doesn't care about what their government is doing, because if they do care all of the local sheep will bleat at them "liiiiibbberaaaaal". And it isn't limited to our public, even our officials were ignorant enough stage a "protest" by renaming food with the word French in it, even though french fries are Belgian, and french toast was created in New York.

    Americans are happy in their ignorance. Shortly after 9/11, there was true compassion and solidarity. But it waned very quickly, and soon there were towel-head slurs, T-shirts with Bin Laden on them with a crosshairs on his face, and business as usual. And if you think I am un-American, you are wrong. I love this country for all of the good, but I want to see it change for the better. I don't like the way it is turning out, it needs to change. We are a joke in other countries for good reason, and if you react to that with defensive attitudes like "Fuck them, we are the USA" then YOU are part of the problem. And it doesn't matter if GWB was right about Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction, the way he went about it was wrong. Liberate Iraq my ass. Yes, it is good that they are liberated, but it is funny how the same people who make the towel-head jokes are suddenly the ones supporting the so-called liberation. When this is all over, I am betting that it will be a matter of weeks before I hear my first deragatory joke around the office about the Iraqi people.

    Bush is part of the fucking problem. The Patriot Act is part of the problem, and most likely if you live in the USA YOU are part of the problem. And I don't have any easy answers, so don't ask for them. Whey does everything have to be an easy answer? If everyone would just wake up and see the problem, the real problem, then they could start to change. If you can't see that, then you are a short-sighted sheep, just waiting to be led to the slaughter.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  385. Thank God for our Current Leadership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're actually doing what government is supposed to do: protect its citizens. The only people who would worry about the Patriot Act are those who are breaking the law or planning to do so.

  386. I would enjoy it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would definitivly enjoy it since I do not care about US civil liberties since they do not care about our.

    And I truly hope that in time for Patriot Act II there will be another bombing that will make the senate willing to override their constituion once again.

    And at the time for Patriot Act III I hope there will be a civil war between americans and the goverment which will devaste all United States and send it back to the stoneage like the dick suckers you are.

    Fucking imperialists, and im not left wing morons, im actually neither. Communists are my enemies but I would never want to be ruled by capitalists where the ones with money decide my fate. I want to be ruled by the Law where every man is equal infront of it no matter how poor or rich he or she is, where my rights are upheld and my freedom is safe.

    So go fuck yourself dumb ASSes americans!

    Shame on you! SHAME SHAME SHAME on you, you pathetic coward people shooting 10 year olds because you shit on your pants thinking he will once take revenge on the invaders!

  387. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

    Sorry about all the quotes .... just trying to make a point ...


    The so called patriot acts, in my opinion, aren't too patriotic, at least in the sence that most people think of when they think of what the USA was founded upon.


    I only use quotes like that when I am ranting and raving about somethig that really pisses me off (and when I'm trying not to use any vulgar words that may make me look a witless fool).

  388. You obvioulsly haven't read the Patroit Act ... by mustangdavis · · Score: 1



    ... and you lack any type of long term vision. That much is obvious. This is the kind of law that just doesn't restrict the rights of terrorists, but of the masses. Besdies, who's definition of terrorist are we using, and who makes that determination? Bottom line: This law is VERY frightning!


    ... that is all I have to say.

  389. MOD THIS UP!!! by mustangdavis · · Score: 1



    ... but I don't know if it should be Insightful or Funny ....


    Great post! ... and I agree ... there are too many people sitting on their asses that will be lead to the slaughter house if something isn't done with our sorry ass, big company backed government. I can't wait to be a part of what is coming within the next ten years (hopefully) when people FINALLY wake up ....


  390. Re:Texas, USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Y'all found any chemical / bio weapons in Iraq yet?...

  391. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oceania has always been at war with Terror.

  392. Don't get me started on Japan... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when i entered japan, the things important enough to be mentioned in english were: no firearms, drugs, intoxicants or pornographic articles. going back into america i had to take my compass out of my math bookbag, empty my tolietries kit and get rid of my scissors....

    This is OT, but...
    When 9/11 occurred, our attention shifted to the poor airport security. All you see are just a quick fix, but still they've picked a few people up (old lady was caught with a loaded firearm in her purse).

    The US had to deal with something we're not experienced in dealing with; homeland terrorism. It's not easy to find the suspects in a land that was found by immigrants.

    Every other nation has their share of immigrants but not to the level of the US. (Queens, NY has the highest concentrated mixed population in the world. One zip code has around 200 different cultures.)

    You go to Japan, the numbers are not likely. Besides, this is a nation that based it's constitution never to raise it's militant arm again.

  393. A classic quote... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or more commonly misquote. What Pastor Neimoller said was:

    'First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.'

    Subsequent editorial efforts have edited out the communists and social democrats, and promoted the jews.

  394. Lone Wolf by Alsee · · Score: 2, Insightful

    trying to attaching it to another antiterrorism bill that would make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against "lone wolf" terrorism suspects.

    Lone wolf, better known as "common criminal".

    Opps, correction: Lone wolf suspect, better known as a suspect. For any given crime you gererally have several suspects. Therefore most suspects are in fact innocent. Also note that they they are particularly interested in targeting people in advance of a crime that may or may not occure at some point in the future.

    The primary effect of the antiterrorism bill would be to make it easier for the government to use secret surveillance warrants against innocent people.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  395. Re:Fighting this: an analogy Republicans understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Communism IS good. It's just that all of the implementations (so far) suck.

  396. appointed, not elected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >and the general population for our current leadership More likely the U.S. supreme court.

  397. Canadian constitution by John+Bayko · · Score: 1
    33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
    In other words, it isn't worth the toilet paper it should be printed on.

    It goes further than that - any such legislation expires after five years, and can't override certain rights.

    Elsewhere, the rights are stated as not absolute, but subject to such limits as are necessary in a free and democratic society. Libel and slander, for example, but also hate speech is also a crime (in principle - convictions are exceedingly rare).

    And so on. It's a complex legal document. The upshot is, that:

    1. Yes, freedom of expression (not just "speech") is guaranteed in the Canadian constitution, and
    2. Yes, it is binding on the government - in fact, it is the document which created the Government of Canada and gives it all authority it has, as passed by the British parliament, before amendment rights were turned over to the governments (federal and provincial) of Canada.
    This also means the courts get to decide what "necessary" restrictions are, and the people get to decide whether to allow their rights to be overridden. In Quebec, "La loi 101" (the language law) limits the use of English in business signs, and because it overrides freedom of expression, must be renewed every five years. When the population elects a government that doesn't want to renew it, it will disappear.

    The courts have filed down the edges of the law as well into its present form.

    1. Re:Canadian constitution by shepd · · Score: 1

      Well, seems you have a better handle on this than myself, so perhaps you could explain to me why the anti-hate-speech laws that are in the criminal code of Canada can exist when they are clearly in contradiction of section 2 of the charter?

      I mean, that's not even a provincial decision, and, AFAIK, that isn't renewed every 5 years.

      Just wondering... there's a lot more laws that don't get renewed that are in contradiction to that section as well.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    2. Re:Canadian constitution by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
      ...explain to me why the anti-hate-speech laws that are in the criminal code of Canada can exist when they are clearly in contradiction of section 2...

      The anti-hate-speech stuff is presumably justified by the principle mentioned by the previous poster: "the rights are stated as not absolute, but subject to such limits as are necessary in a free and democratic society".

      ...that's not even a provincial decision...

      Wouldn't matter. The Federal government is theoretically as able to use the "Notwithstanding Clause" as a provincial government is.

      ...there's a lot more laws that don't get renewed that are in contradiction to that section as well.

      Plenty of laws which seem to violate one part of the Charter have been found by the courts to be constitutional. You can't conspire to commit murder, for instance, despite freedom of expression.

  398. Re:Dog willing. by glenrm · · Score: 1

    So? We could have nuked Baghdad but we didn't, we did it the hard way to save lives all around, open your mind just a little bit, just because we nuked Japan is no reason to take the threat of terrorists with nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons lightly. The future - VOIP, Code Morphing, and 802.11!

  399. issue hypocrasy by at_kernel_99 · · Score: 1

    What I don't understand is that when the government wants to collect data on gun owners, conservatives unite & claim constitutional rights to arms, infringement of privacy and the like and shut the measures down. But when the government wants to collect unspecified data on potentially anybody in the US, conservatives jump on the patriotism bandwagon.

    If a group were interested in stopping this legislation, a step in the right direction might be getting the conservative movement to understand that citizens' rights, including those to keep and bear arms, are at risk.

  400. Re:What does this say about the "war on terrorism" by mlush · · Score: 1
    The War or Terror(ism) will also be a failure.

    The War on Terror will not be a failure, it will inspire a whole new generation of terrorists to provide ample justification of Patriot act II and III

  401. FP of a different nature... by slimsam1 · · Score: 1

    Fifteen hundredth post!

    --
    ...
  402. Re:It won't last, don't get your panties in a bunc by spun · · Score: 1

    Hehe, sorry I went for the cheap shot about the use of quotes, I'm not usually a grammer-nazi. The patriot act is one of the most unpatriotic things this country has done in a long while. Lack of oversite and official secrecy always lead to bad things. We are moving closer and closer to totalitarianism every day. People think that because we have a democracy and consititutionally protected civil liberties, we are immune to fascism and totalitarianism. We have been the proverbial frogs in the pot for some time now: as those that seek power have slowly turned up the heat, the people have barely squirmed. My only hope is that in their hubris they will over reach themselves and show the world what they truely are.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  403. IOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    or rather to say it better IMHO, this should not be an attack on conservatives. Instead it should be correctly viewed simply as what it is: yet another attack on liberties and freedoms by big government. The result being not more but less security yet all with a great big heap of "good intentions" that cost billions. Add a further long term degrading of security due to the sheepish complacency from the false sense of security (i.e. "Well I feel so safe since 'someone did something '")

    If you want to be insulting first point out that such action is traditionally done by liberals, especially evidenced by the last 20 years of democratic action. (that will really hurt bad... trust me I have seen it) Then you can point out that such a policy is the equivelent (and admittingly the much more serious and dangerous) of blanket punishment of an entire school class (high school) due to the idiotic actions of a few vandals. No, there will be no "fess up" or any willful snitching but you can bet on alienating the law abiding students that much more now. Remind them that Stalin (and Hussein for that matter) use such arguments of "this is for my.. I mean the states... I mean your own good" just like many of the supporters of actions like these in the US will argue.

    As for your comment about the second ammendment, many Republicans and conservatives echoed sentiments of "the Bill of Rights are inexoriably intertwined" and even Rush Limbaugh said once, "You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one."

  404. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by spun · · Score: 1

    As opposed to conservatives, who want to take your money and give it to coke-head CEOs in Texas, kill off public transit and make you drive an SUV, take away your house for growing medical marijuana and make you live in jail, ban vegetables in school lunches (hey, ketchup is a vegetable, right?) teach people how to burn pagans at the stake, make christianity mandatory, and turn all women into baby factories.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  405. Canada's senate by John+Bayko · · Score: 1
    Be happy you don't have a system like Canada, which pupports a Senate, that doesn't actually do anything. We like yourselves have 2 major groups of lawmakers - but our Senate just passes any law that comes its way.
    Canada's political system is very complex and subtle, and acts in ways which aren't obvious. The Senate, for example, is not meant to be democratic, but to provide "sober second thought" to legislation, by people who don't have to worry about re-election.

    As an example, the Canadian anti-terrorist bill was blocked by the Senate and sent back to tbe Commons because of many concerns that civil rights violations were being rammed through due to popular demand, leading to extensive revisions before it was finally passed.

    In practice, it's often used for political maneuvering as well. As an example of that, when the Supreme Court struck down abortion restriction laws, the Conservative governmnet passed new legislation to satisfy its conservative constituents amid loud, public debate. In the Senate, it was quietly killed unnoticed - the best of both worlds, satisfy the constituents, and avoid further legal controversy.

    The senate also reviews policy - reports on deciminalizing marijuana, as well as the Kirby report on medicare have been very well researched and influential. The former is a topic that elected officials don't want to touch, but unelected Senators are free to address. The second gives additional weight to the Romanow report, by coming to basically the same conclusions independently.

    Canadian politics is rarely as simple as what meets the eye. I don't think it could function without the Senate - though I would like to see Senators elected, I wouldn't want to see them worry about re-election, because that would hinder a large part of their function.

  406. What does the PATRIOT act actually mean to you? by Xyde · · Score: 1

    Hello - I've been living under a rock for the past few months, plus I'm Australian so I haven't been paying too much attention to this, but can someone explain in plain English what the PATRIOT act actually means, or allows?

    Thankyou.

  407. Re:That's if you'll retain the right to challenge by Lord_Sy · · Score: 1

    That's how Bushism works.

    --
    --- "pero toda poesía es hostil al capitalismo"
  408. Nah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our freedom-loving president would never sign such a fascist bill into law.

  409. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by stalkdawg · · Score: 0

    i have nothing against liberals it is interesting that you assume i must just becuase i point out a certain trend i see in the articles on slashdot. Good liberals are general good people the problem is with the uneducated left like those moron protesters. Also if there are so many conservatives as you say they must not be posting becuase just about every post that replyed to mine (98%) were liberal if not screaming liberal.

  410. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by stalkdawg · · Score: 0

    honesty ... i am suprised you have time to post aren't there taxes to raise so you welfare receiptents can have more babies for me to support? Hey while your at it why don't you go kill a few innocent fetus'es and then march against the killing of convicted murders. As far as the women into lesbians i don't see anything wrong with that carry on.

  411. Re:Dog willing. by mink · · Score: 1

    Just out of curiosity, but how many forign terrorists have use nukes, bilogical or chemical weapons in attacks on the US?
    So far except for one domestic terrorist AFAIK there have only been conventional means used to attack us, I dont see this as having changed significantly.
    I'm not saying terrorists are nice people, but for the most part they dont need to get all fancy, and it's so much easyer to do the suicide bomb thing.

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  412. Re:Slashdot's Liberal Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, no, no. Turning women into lesbians is bad, we should be turning them bisexual so all us guys can have our three-ways.

  413. Your Sig (off topic) by mink · · Score: 1

    Logans Run movie?

    --
    Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  414. Re: Erm�chtigungsgesetz by CharonX · · Score: 1

    Well, it was the law that allowed Hitler to get his final grip on the power.
    It allowed him to pass down laws without requirement for the parlament or other legeslative organs, effectively concentrating all the power on him.

    --
    +++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
  415. egomaniac boars? by iamweezman · · Score: 1
    We can say a lot about Americans. That they are stupid egomaniac boars don't know anything besides their own country, that their education system is horrible beyond repair, that they think with their cruise missiles, ...


    Or we can say a lot about you, who obviously has an ego and thinks that they know more about other countries than everyone else. It might be true in many respects that the US educational system has many follies, but it is revered by many, including the japanese (whom seem to many as the paragon of education), as an amazingly supportive system that fosters creativity. The sheer amount of inventions and ideas coming from the United States far outsells the physical exports from the US. Sure there are problems with our educational system, but why then are we the only nation that exports more services than physical goods.


    Oh, but now you'll say that's my ego, but I'm not saying we're better because of that. I'm just trying to say look at things before you form such an opinion. Things aren't so black and white.