Slashdot Mirror


Justice Department Proud of Patriot Act Slippery Slope

frank_adrian314159 writes "Yahoo News is reporting that the DoJ has been using its increased powers under the US PATRIOT Act to pursue common criminals. DoJ Officials have been holding seminars on how to use increased wiretap powers against (non-terrorist) money launderers and drug dealers. One example in the article is the guy running a meth lab who's now up for a life sentence for 'manufacturing chemical weapons' instead of the much shorter sentence he would have been facing under the current drug laws. Wonderful, huh? Who didn't see this coming? Of course, you're a law-abiding citizen, so you have nothing to worry about, right?" Patriot Act II will allow any Federal agent to demand records from anyone who interacts with you, with no judicial oversight whatsoever.

163 of 1,108 comments (clear)

  1. I, for one, welcome our... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Federal Government Overlords....

    Oh wait, we've had them since 1776. DOH!!

    1. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by weaponx71 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No.. youve had them roughly since 1931.
      Its called a Social Security number.
      You have just been branded for the Feds meat coral.

      Reclaim your US Nationalism title and live as United States Americans were suppose to live.

      And does anyone else see the IRS as another "King" that we should revolt against?

      I am sure most will completly disagree with all of this, but before you do, just do some research.

      One thing you should be worried about is the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately owned bank.. hmmm my constitution says thats a big no no...

      go ahead.. look it up..
      have fun earning you freedom.

      http://familyguardian.tzo.com/Subjects/Taxes/tax es .htm

    2. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by soloport · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't find this funny, at all.

      I used to vote Republican (ten years ago). Now I say: TAKE BACK YOUR FREEDOM, USoA!!!

      Vote Democrat!!!

      I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats!

      No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!

      (If it can be stopped at all.)

    3. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!

      Regime change doesn't happen over one (election) night.. if people voting for third party candidates weakens the democratic candidate and causes a republican to win, who cares? If republicans are all that bad, then being under republican leadership for another four years would only strengthen the backlash against them. I think it's more important to increase the percentage of third party votes more than anything. The politicians will get the message.

    4. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4 more years and we'll be living in Soviet Russia.

    5. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly! I mean, look at the latest fabrication of the Republicans. They're claiming that a hurricane of all things is going to strike the east coast of America. Ask them exactly when or where, and they'll give you some malarky about how unpredictable the weather is. Looks like those new laws haven't done much if they can't predict where the "hurricane" will hit.

      Even better, they're warning people to both cover their windows with plywood AND to evacuate their homes. The notion that you can make a house air tight with plywood is ridiculous enough, but it does little good if the people aren't even there!

      Face it, the Republicans have trumped up this "hurricane Isobel" nonsense to spread fear and panic to the masses. Luckily, you all have us Democrats to tell you about this farce. Take it from us, the best thing you could do, even if a hurricane were to magically hit, is to stay _home_. In the event of an actual hurricane, the roads will be needed for rescue crews and linemen to repair the electrical and telecommunications infrastructure. That's what the roads are there for, after all. Even if your neighbor is in trouble, don't go to help! Call 911 and let the authorities handle the situation, because after all, who's going to be better trained for these situations, you or an impartial team of workers hired and trained to be able to prioritize these things properly?

    6. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by jonasj · · Score: 5, Insightful
      No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!
      We should all go vote republican because they pose the biggest threat to our worst enemy? That's like saying that Apple is Microsoft's largest competitor on today's desktop market, so all those who are anti-MS should go buy a mac. "No. Don't use Linux; BSD; Hurd. That will only weaken the one system left that can help STOP this madness!".

      No! The republicans and the democrats is one party with two names! Voting for one is just as bad as the other.
      --
      You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.
    7. Re: I, for one, welcome our... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


      > I try not to be/think "partisan". But the truth is, the best possible chance Liberty has of making a comeback is (just about) anything non-Republican. The best possible chance of getting any non-Republican power back is in the hands of the Democrats! No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!

      I agree with your sentiment, but only reservedly: if you think back to the congressional votes on the "patriot" act and the war, you have to conclude that the Democrats - with a few noble exceptions - are only going to stand up to what's going on if there's a political advantage to doing so, or a political cost to not doing so. Most of them, I suspect, would be all to happy to have these same tools in their hands.

      If you vote in the Democratic primary for this kind of reason, make sure you vote for someone who spoke out against things when it was a political liability to do so, not one of the windsocks that changes with the weather.

      Sadly, some of the far-right nutcases have a better track record on this than the crowds of Democrats do.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Ickster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because if they don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard might get in.

      --
      --- Usually, those that believe in absolutes are ignorant, fools, or both.
    9. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Verteiron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After 4 more years under a Republican it's the backlash again the entire USA that will be the problem. It only took Bush 2 years to turn near-universal sympathy for the United States into near-universal fear and/or hatred. Just imagine all the damage he could do with 4 more...

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    10. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by fenix+down · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, but you miss the sexy, sexy point about the Federal Reserve. It's not privately owned, it's a corporation, which up until the mid-19th century, were chartered organizations created by a government to perform a strictly limited function that was necessary for the public good. There wasn't any point in forming a federal agency to run a bank back then, since the government was still allowed to regulate anti-capitalist collusions like corporations.

      Instead of appointing an "Electrical Engineering Czar", they used to offer a charter to some investors so they could start a university. Instead of Social Security, they would've offered a charter to some insurance guys to start a retirement fund that was controlled enough to ensure that it wouldn't collapse and the guys wouldn't steal the cash and run to Mexico.

      Ah, back in the day we just contracted out for what we needed. If we wanted to find out how bad the air was at the WTC, we'd call up NYU and have them write up a report. But I'm sure that'd never work.

    11. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by ottothecow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but this is different...you can make any choice you want, but if not enough people make the same choice as you, then none of you get to keep it. Your analogy is flawed, but what if there was a big software vote, and everybody had to use the winners system. Then would you vote beos, or would you vote for the only candidate at the time that stands a chance

      --
      Bottles.
    12. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by JCMay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are correct. The one party that can STOP this madness is, of course, the Constitution Party, the only party that promotes constitutionally correct government. A vote for the other parties is wasted on those that would further the decline of the American Experiment.

    13. Re: I, for one, welcome our... by Bendebecker · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Reader, suppose you were an idiot; and suppose you were a memer of Congress; but I repeat myself."

      ------------Mark Twain

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    14. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by MulluskO · · Score: 4, Funny
      A massive tax cut for the rich (while killing off all sorts of social programs at the same time).
      Bush said, "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum," so you're obviously wrong.
      --

      Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
    15. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Tellalian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!

      Yes, don't vote for who you think would best represent your views. Instead, vote for who everyone else is voting for.

      At the risk of sounding off-topic, let me point out that the idea of a third-party "weakening" the first two is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone developed an informed opinion by doing a little research on all the possible candidates, then voted for who they wanted, ignoring fear-mongers like the parent, our political system could have a positive impact.

    16. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by nmos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No. Don't vote Independent; Green; Libertarian. That will only weaken the one party left that can help STOP this madness!

      Yes, voting for the guy you figure is "slightly" less of an ass has gotten us so far already how could it fail us now?

    17. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      near-universal sympathy for the United States

      Travel much? Anti-Americanism isn't new. The US was already feared and hated. Also, this isn't the first Republican president. Or weren't you keeping track? Other countries have been getting away with the same stuff we pulled in Iraq for centuries. Crack a history book sometime.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    18. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by bcboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > No! The republicans and the democrats is one party with two names!

      That sounded plausible until W took office and we learned just how quickly a bunch of idealogues can plow this country into the ground. Borrowing a metaphor, W is so far to the right he's in the break-down lane. If you can't tell him from Clinton, you are in a bad way.

      It's time for anyone who believes in freedom and representative government to get involved in the Democratic Party. Really. Go to the meetings. Volunteer. It's your responsibility.

      If you really want to vote Green, work inside the Democratic Party in support of instant run-off or Condorcet voting, and vote Green after it passes. We have to pull together NOW. The alternative is to lose your country.

    19. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by sholden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but September 11 generated an amazing amount of goodwill towards the US. Not from the Middle East (and parts of Africa and Asia) but from Europe and from countries the US hadn't screwed with much more than economically.

      That is almost all gone now.

      Europeans have not only lost the goodwill they had, but ended up with more "hate" then they had prior to those events.

    20. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Afty0r · · Score: 3, Funny
      Bush said, "By far the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom end of the spectrum," so you're obviously wrong.

      The majority of his tax cuts went to those at the lower end of the ethical spectrum.
    21. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by xQx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bush also said he could win the war against terrorism, and that it's completely unlike the war against drugs...

      It's not really lieing as such, because he believes what he says... but just because someone says something, doesn't make it true.

    22. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by Hellfire99X · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think what he was actually saying, was that when the events of September 11th happened, the world was kind of shocked. They dropped most of their hatred for the U.S. and actually felt sympathy.

      Then, Dubya decided to do everything that you've listed above and fscked all of that up.

      Please read the entire post before responding.

    23. Re:I, for one, welcome our... by MrResistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you can make any choice you want, but if not enough people make the same choice as you, then none of you get to keep it.

      My answer to this arguement (and to people who don't vote because "it makes no difference") is: What if everyone who thought like you do actually voted according to their real beliefs?

      Even if the candidate you vote for doesn't win, you're still sending a message to the winner (assuming he's smart enough to realize it, which rules out the current administration) that somebody believed in what he was saying and maybe that needs to be looked at a little closer and given some consideration.

      Politics in this country is determined by the voters, and currently that seems to mean the elderly and religious. That's hardly a representative cross-section of the America I know. If everyone who was elligable actually got off their asses and voted I think the political landscape would change dramaticly, and even more so if they voted for what they really believed in rather than just the next best thing that has a real chance of winning.

      What that means is: the only reason we have a 2 party system is because we keep voting for them.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  2. It's a cliche, by EverStoned · · Score: 2, Insightful

    but 1984 has finally caught up to us. Big Brother is watching you, and the people who you come in contanct with.

    1. Re:It's a cliche, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you got to love the doublespeak. Using the word "patriot" to discribe a law designed to negate parts of the Bill of Rights. How patriotic...

  3. Print the article... by kitzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and take it into the voting booth in November, 2004.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    1. Re:Print the article... by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wouldn't it be easier to just remember not to vote for anybody with a "D" or an "R" next to their name?

    2. Re:Print the article... by darkov · · Score: 2, Flamebait

      At least you get a vote. I live in a country that just follows the US like a lost puppy and adopts their policies blindly.

      Anyway, you shouldn't be so surprised by these turn of events. The practical definition of a terrorist to the current US government is "anyone who disagrees with us".

    3. Re:Print the article... by halo8 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      an open Question to american voters (like in CA or FL)

      will you be voting for Nader and the green party in 2004? (or whoever isnt a "D" or "R"

      or will you be voting for the lesser of thoes two evils this time around?

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
    4. Re:Print the article... by darkwiz · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...and take it into the voting booth in November, 2004.

      Agreed. And remember, Congress voted 357-66 in the house, and 98-1 in the senate. Which means, despite the rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidates - at least 69% of Democratic representatives (and 96% of Democratic senators) voted for it as well. So be sure to print off this sheet as well (pre-emptive google cache: here)

      Give all these assholes the boot: vote against the incumbent!

    5. Re:Print the article... by rmohr02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It depends on where my state is. If my state is overwhelmingly for either side, I will give my vote to whoever the Green Party chooses to nominate. If my state is close, I must do whatever possible to keep W from getting a second term.

      And if Dean or Kucinich is the Democrat's nominee, I wouldn't consider either the lesser of two evils. (But if it's Kucinich, he'll most likely win my state--his home state--with an large majority, so I'll vote Green.)

    6. Re:Print the article... by OmnipotentEntity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is, everyone's mind set is "I'm going to keep that guyA out of office by voting for guyB." Or visa versa.
      So, the small parties aren't voted for, because no one thinks anyone's going to vote for them.
      In this nation people no longer vote for who they want. They vote against who they don't want.
      And THAT is the true enemy of democracy.

      ___________

      --
      "Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
    7. Re:Print the article... by s.fontinalis · · Score: 2, Funny

      "But what if we vote for a third party candidate?" "Oh, sure, you can do that," Kang replies, "and throw your vote away!"

    8. Re:Print the article... by Guppy06 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Where in my post did I use the word "libertarian?" Hell, one of the people I ran against last year was a Libertarian.

      However, there is one major advantage that Libertarians have over both of the two major parties: They don't have the Dems' or GOP's dismal track record. Note that everything you have in your post is pure speculation about what might happen if the Libertarian Party became the dominant party, while Ds and Rs have had over a century of power brokering for us to look back on and say "no" to.

      Ultimately, the solution is not to pick one party over another but to reject the concept of political party membership outright. Anybody who runs for public office while a member of a political party (any political party) is trying to serve two masters, and that conflict of interests should be a black mark against the candidate in the eyes of the voters. In this supposed "Information Age," voters have all the tools needed to research all candidates and make their decisions based on the individuals in question, not based on dilluted party philosophy.

      And if you still don't like any of the choices you see before you, then put yourself on the ballot. Anything is better than being just another non-voter.

    9. Re:Print the article... by DeltaSigma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree with you. I've always voted for the exact person I wanted in office. Until now that is. This time I'm going into this with both eyes open. I'm doing everything I can to get Dean into office. Sure, he's not everything I want, but he's a hell of a lot closer than Bush is. It's too difficult to get a sharp change in politics. That's why I'm going Dean, he'll end this neocon tangent with a nice curve towards the prevailing of civil liberties. When his term is up, perhaps I can worry about making my anti-bipartisan ideas known again...

    10. Re:Print the article... by FFFish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Listen up: you ain't gonna have a vote in 2004.

      Mark my word, a crisis situation will be manufactured that fall. The US Vote will be delayed until the war machine succeeds in rally the people into Mom & Apple Pie unity, all set to elect Bush.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    11. Re:Print the article... by mcpkaaos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...one major advantage that Libertarians have over both of the two major parties: They don't have the Dems' or GOP's dismal track record.


      Yeah, but only because they're never elected for anything.
      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    12. Re:Print the article... by Scudsucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They don't have the Dems' or GOP's dismal track record.

      A track record is better than no track record.

      Ultimately, the solution is not to pick one party over another but to reject the concept of political party membership outright.

      Thats nice in theory, but doesn't work out in practice. Green Party members voted for Nader rather than Gore in 2000, even though Gore probably fit at least 75% of their party's platform. All they accomplished was letting Bush into office, and look how the last couple years have gone.

    13. Re:Print the article... by Nucleon500 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it would be very interesting if instant runoff voting was established for presidential candidates. Since your vote also includes your second, third, etc. choices, you don't have to worry about wasting your vote. It might make the political landscape much more interesting. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

    14. Re:Print the article... by Malcontent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just exactly what is the difference between a conservative and a republican?

      Is Ann Coulter a concervative? Is she a republican? Why should it matter to me when she calls me a traitor and says that I hate America?

      --

      War is necrophilia.

  4. I Understand Now by jlaxson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

    If I chug enough gasoline, I'll die. Let's put the Oil companies away for 12 years to life! For that matter, drink some bad water from a lake and you'll die. Put the Big Bang away for 12 - life!

    --
    On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
    1. Re:I Understand Now by ScriptGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The point he was making was that any substance known to man "has the capability to cause death or serious injury"
      Chalk, WD-40, gasoline, soda, cigarettes, et al have the capability to cause serious injury or death when consumed and to some extent contain toxic chemicals.
      Thus this definition is seriously flawed and could be used to arrest people even if they haven't done anything wrong (aside from working for Dow Chemical).
      As a CME major, that scares the crap out of me.

      --
      Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
    2. Re:I Understand Now by ComputerSlicer23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Okay, cigarettes are *NOT* designed to kill people. They are an age old tradition that dates back at least since the 1500-1600's in this country. I'm not sure how long it's been in European countries. It just so happens that cigarettes slowly create health problems, that eventually you die of. Christ, Turkey has trace amounts of some nasty stuff in them.

      Cigarettes are designed to be addictive. If tabacoo companies could find a way to make them addictive and healthy, they'd do it so fast it'd take your breath away (pun intended).

      Oh, I'm not a smoker. Never even tried one. My father died of lung cancer when I was 20. He smoked 4 packs a day of Pall Mall unfiltered for 40 years. I'll never smoke, I generally remind people that they shouldn't smoke, and that's it unhealthy.

      However, to say that "smoking is designed to kill people", in a discussion about a law that is the result of an idiot attempt to stop terrorists is just intellectually dishonest. Smoking isn't designed to be harmful, like flying planes into buildings is harmful, or like blowing up a Ryder truck full of Diesal fuel and fertalizer is harmful, or going to holy sites in Isreal and blowing up buses full of people. It's designed to optimize the amount of money Tabacco companies make. If they could make you live longer while you did it, I'm sure they'd be up for it, it is an increased revenue stream if you lived longer... *grin*

      Personally, I have no problem with people who chose to smoke. I have no problem with people who chose to drink alchol. I have no problem with people who want to use illegal drugs assuming they are law abiding and responsible. I don't want to pay to rehabilitate them, and I don't want to pay their medical expenses. If they do those things, I've got little to no issue with people who pick that as their form of enjoyment or relaxation hobby/habit.

      Kirby

    3. Re:I Understand Now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Taking that to its logical conclusion: since most bottled water comes from France, this means the French have been manufacturing and supplying WMD to unsuspecting American citizens for years!!

      Invade France!!! ;)

    4. Re: I understand now by Frodrick · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Okay, cigarettes are *NOT* designed to kill people.

      Quite so. However, that is not really the issue here. Read the Definition again:

      "Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as 'any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury' and contains toxic chemicals."

      Clearly there are two conditions that can be considered as "Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction" under that definition:

      1) if a substance was "designed" to cause death or serious injury AND contains toxic chemicals, or

      2) if a substance has the capability of causing death or serious injury AND contains toxic chemicals.

      It is undoubtedly the second, catch-all (and probably "unconstitutionally vague") definition that is being used to prosecute the crystal meth lab. After all, most dope dealers do not intentionally design their product to kill their customers as it tends to put a damper on repeat trade and word-of-mouth advertising.

      And - with a bit of a stretch - it could just as easily be used to prosecute those manufacturing cigarettes, alcohol, or gasoline.

  5. Great by secondsun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?

    --
    There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
    1. Re:Great by Unregistered · · Score: 4, Funny

      What's so bad abut Vadar?

    2. Re:Great by Adam9 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Compared to Bush... not much

    3. Re:Great by Felinoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Before 9-11 I was a conservitive.
      After 9-11 I'm a radical libral...

      And my opinions haven't changed.

      --
      I don't actually exist.
    4. Re:Great by ratpack91 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least Darth used to be a good jedi, and he did the right thing in the end

    5. Re:Great by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 5, Insightful


      When did a campaign of "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader"?

      Bush's entire campaign was a disconnect between hype and reality. "Compassionate Conservatism" was a campaign slogan that sounded good, but Bush never made a real attempt to back it up. (How is a guy who sets a new record with the electric chair a compassionate conservative?) It was fun to watch Bill Maher ridicule the Republican parakeets like Tom Stoppard and Ann Coulter who repeated this tripe on his show.

      -a

    6. Re:Great by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah yeah, blame it all on the White House.... I am Bush, the great and powerful! Ignore the 535 members of Congress behind the curtain!

      Let us not forget that 530+ members of congress voted in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act. And some of these very same members of Congress are now also all over our televisions with the Democratic primary debates and what-not. Heck, IIRC the only Democrat candidates that didn't vote in favor of USA PATRIOT were the ones like Dean and Sharpton who just happened not to be members of Congress at the time.

      I find it darkly humorous that some of the very same members of Congress that are decrying the current situation in Iraq are the ones that voted "Uh... I dunno, what do you wanna do?" instead of, say, voting to declare/not declare war. They could have spelled out exactly what the president could and could not do in Iraq and exactly what the goals were, but that would have required Congress to have, y'know, a spine. Taking responsibility and all that.

      If they're so unwilling to exercise their rights and duties as members of Congress, why are we supposed to believe that they'll be any different in the White House?

      November of next year, do yourselves, your country, and your species a favor and don't vote for either major party. They've both shown themselves to be derelict in their duties as public servants.

    7. Re:Great by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      He would kill or imprison people that annoyed him.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    8. Re:Great by Gumshoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After five minutes reflection:

      Apologies for the use of profanity, but this subject just pisses me off (there I go again). It's just that I wish we would all get off of our collective backsides and do something about this creeping fascism. It's difficult I know, to stand up and be counted if all that's promised is imprisonment or death but quite honestly, I don't care anymore. Freedom is too precious for me to do nothing but stand and admire the swiftness with which our liberties our disappearing.

      I hope to see you all at the poll booth. Perhaps it's an empty gesture but the democratic process is all we've got left.

  6. Why not go after the tobacco companies next? by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all their definition of a chemical weapon of mass destruction is:

    Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

    So why don't they go after the tobacco companies since they're manufacturing substances that meet these criteria? Oh wait, the government gets taxes from the sales of these products, nevermind.

    1. Re:Why not go after the tobacco companies next? by Murdoc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. I present to you now the most serious threat to human life and liberty today. It is a Chemical Weapon of Mass Destruction that is more pervasive and insideous than any other known today. It exists in every country, and can even be found in modern homes. It is a major componant of acid rain, and is found in large quantities in ALL forms of cancerous tissue. It is colorless, oderless, and deadly when inhaled. I submit that humankind will not be safe until every molocule of this toxic substance is permentantly destroyed.

      It's chemical name in scientific circles is... Dihydrogen Monoxide, and it must be stopped.

      Thank you.

      --
      Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know. - M. King Hubbert
  7. Chemical WMDs by MoonBuggy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If a chemical weapon is "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" then where does that leave manufacturers of (for example) petrol. That can cause death or serious injury, but I don't see the government throwing them down for life...

    Yay for double standards o_0

    1. Re:Chemical WMDs by Unregistered · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can they book the guys that fart in the car on a rainy day so you can't open the windows?

    2. Re:Chemical WMDs by eyeye · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Double standards? Doesnt the US military give its soldiers Methampetamine?

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    3. Re:Chemical WMDs by timmy+the+large · · Score: 3, Informative
      No. I believe they give their guys dexidrine or dextrastat(probably misspelled). It is a form of speed and methamphetamine is on of its ancestors, but it is much cleaner, less addictive and taken as a pill.

      Most meth people make today is based on the so-called nazi recipe and is much harsher. However when you get down to it speed is speed.

      Oh, and dexies can also be prescribed to adults with ADD or in some cases of obesiety. Which is how people usually get them.

    4. Re:Chemical WMDs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's spelled dexedrine and dextrostat, respectively, and it is dextroamphetamine (called dexamphetamine everywhere outside the US), which makes it a part of the amphetamine family of drugs, to which methamphetamine belongs.

      And there is nothing inherently "unclean" about methamphetamine. It's just that your basement meth-lab isn't nearly as careful nor as accurate as a pharmaceutical company would be. Prescription-quality methamphetamine (i.e. Desoxyn) is just as "clean" as you would expect any other drug to be.

      I'm using dexedrine right now as a treatment for adult ADD and it has radically changed my life for the better.

    5. Re:Chemical WMDs by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Double standards? Doesnt the US military give its soldiers Methampetamine?

      At one time they did on a widespread basis. I suppose that it's possible that some elite black ops type units are still issued them.

      But on the grand scheme of things. When falling asleep WILL be fatal, and taking some meth might be addictive the choice is easy. They can send you to rehab for meth addiction, they can't rehab you from a 7.62x39mm bullet hole in your face.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  8. Ob. Brockman. by $hecky · · Score: 3, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Republican over--

    Wait a second. No I don't.

    --
    You never know who will get one.
  9. Campaigning by the Executive Branch by maomoondog · · Score: 5, Insightful

    John Ashcroft has been touring to gain popular support for Patriot Act II. Nevermind that his speeches are invitation-only, to "safe" crowds of police officers in order to avoid inevitable protests... is anyone else creeped out that the executive branch has so many characters making such public efforts at lawmaking rather than just the execution of law?

    1. Re:Campaigning by the Executive Branch by kaltkalt · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their logic is: "We don't want to tie the hands of prosecutors behind their backs," said Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, "and it's our responsibility when we find weaknesses in the law to make suggestions to Congress on how to fix them."

      So constitutional protections are now marketed as "weaknesses" which need to be fixed. That whole 4th amendment thing is just a big loophole for criminals and evildoers who want to kill us because they hate our freedoms.

      --

      Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  10. But that sort of thing can't happen here. by Whammy666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't that what people used to say. Well guess what. It is happening here. Right now before your very eyes. Remember that when 2004 rolls around and be sure to thank Dumbya and his minions by sending them packing.

    1984 was never meant to be a how-to guide.

    --
    When all else fails, run.
    1. Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful



      Oh no people will never say anything bad about Bush, because you'll lose your job and be labeled a terrorist if you do.

      Lets also reminded the Media is controlled by Mr.Bush, just look at FoxNews, MSNBC, etc.

      The police, the media, both controlled by Mr.Bush, so who will you vote for this election?

      Be careful, make the wrong choice and someone might think you are a terrorist, a traitor, or unpatriotic, ask Anne Coulter.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. by Angry+Toad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But who's the replacement? Will he (or possibly she), be much better. Will they be WORSE?

      Gephardt or Dean worse than Bush and the Cabal of Evil (R) - this is astoundingly unlikely. There's a WORLD of difference between a somewhat incestuous old-boys network and the all-out symphony of stupidity, evil, and greed we've all been witnessing since 2000.

      Really. This is important. If you're under the impression that the Democrats the and the Republicans are the same then I humbly suggest without flaming that you haven't been paying attention for the past couple of years. Something dark and terrible is starting up in the USA.

    3. Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. by platipusrc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One question. How are we supposed to vote him out of office when the people that control the voting machines are on his side?

      --
      And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
    4. Re:But that sort of thing can't happen here. by lone_marauder · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do a google on "lippo group", then "vince foster". You'll find considerably more evidence for what I've put forth than exists to demonstrate the Bush is engaged in a war of imperialistic expansion to take control of the world's oil supply. I believe that last statement, by the way. I was talking to a successful Chinese businessman after 9/11, and he was convinced the US would invade the middle east, taking Iraq, Iran, and Syria. So far, we've conquered one of those places, and have threatened the other two.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
  11. And everyone loves Republicans right? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful



    I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit. Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa, Billions for this and Billions for that as if we have money to just throw into the fire, and then as our so called homeland security, we now spy on each other and use the patriot act as some kinda control against the people?!

    I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative, Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    1. Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? by HanzoSan · · Score: 2, Insightful



      I know this, you know this, but the republican turds who think George Bush can do no wrong just because he has an R next to his name cannot see this.

      I dont know what the difference is between voting republican or democrat, the only reason I'd vote democrat over republican is because democrats seem to understand the economy, and at least they flat out say "We are going to raise taxes"

      I'd rather have my taxes raised to pay for stuff in this country than to pay for stuff in Iraq, Afganastan, Africa, etc.

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? by cpeterso · · Score: 3, Interesting


      I don't understand why many Libertarians vote Republican. Republicans are neither fiscal nor social libertarians. The Republican party is full of religious fundamentalists and Big Brothers. It has now been documented that Republicans spend MORE than Democrats. So why would a libertarian vote Republican?

      Libertarians (and I consider myself to be one), please look beyond the Republican party in 2004!

    3. Re: And everyone loves Republicans right? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting


      > I want to see some conservatives comment now on how Republicans are "conservative". Republicans want even bigger government than the Democrats. I am tired of this, everytime I read the news paper or watch TV George Bush is asking for more money for stupid shit.

      You are on the virge of enlightenment: the anti-big-government, anti-careless-spending rhetoric isn't associated with a political view, it's associated with being the party out of power.

      > Hundreds of billions for building schools and hospitals in Iraq, Billions for Africa

      Since the current Administration is dead-set against spending your tax dollars for the same damn things here at home, you would do well to ask what he and his supporters think they are buying with all that spending.

      > I cant understand the logic of these Republicans, they seem to be far from conservative

      IMO, "conservative" and "liberal" aren't very solid concepts, and certainly don't describe the differences between Republicans and Democrats very well. E.g., if I want to 'conserve' our traditional 'liberties', am I a conservative or a liberal?

      > Republicans seem to want Global Government which scares the shit out of me far more than the big US gov democrats.

      These days the Republican party is a big bed full of strange bedfellows. Principally the Three 2-R's : the too-rich, the too-religious, and the too-right. They don't really have many interests in common, but they don't have too many interests in conflict either, so the party can cater to them all simultaneously. (And golly gee, look who the party has catered to for the past 2-1/2 years.)

      But what you're referring to is a pretty small constituentcy, the neocons. They seem to come in several flavors, but the one of concern here is the Wolfowitz clique at the Pentagon (n.b. - civilians, not the military), who have a self-serving idealism that says that the world would be a better place under a "benevolent" hegemony by the USA. These are the scariest of the lot right now, since they're going to get us all killed in WWIII if Iraq doesn't embarass them out of power. (They existed at least as far back as the previous Bush Administration, but they didn't have much actual influence on the governance of the country until 911 gave them a chance to press their extremist views on a feeble-minded President who had surrounded him with advisors from the oil industry... a dangerous combination when the Middle East is the topic.)

      Some slight good news is that there is a growing falling out between the neocons and the supply-siders. Sadly I didn't bookmark it, but someone - Slate, IIRC - recently ran a story about the flame war heating up between two groups of conservative editorialists, one that thinks intervention in Iraq is the ultimate good; the other beginning to think it evil to the tune of $87 billion...

      FWIW, I read somewhere that one legislator suggested dismissal of the neocons as a pre-req for signing off on the $87 billion. It looks as though this particular brand of extremist is rapidly losing face, and I wouldn't be surprized if they are sacrificed on the alter of public opinion as the '04 campaign heats up and it becomes easier to start looking for someone to blame than to maintain the pretense that everything is rosy. But we certainly do need to run them out of Washington in a hurry, so we can get started cleaning up the mess they made.

      It occurs to me that if we can get a Democratic President and substantially Democratic Congress, we may be able to get Republican legistators to turn against the "patriot" act as a manifestation of the bug gum'mit they so heartedly despised when they were out of power, and will surely despise again next time they're out.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Some Libertarians agree that Democrats and Republicans both create bigger government, but at least Republicans SAY they want small government. But if you ignore party rhetoric and simply look at results:

      - Democrats spend LESS and want to INCREASE personal/social freedoms
      - Republicans spend MORE and want to DECREASE personal/social freedoms

      Actions speak louder than words, so I will probably vote Democrat in 2004.

    5. Re:And everyone loves Republicans right? by cpeterso · · Score: 4, Interesting


      yes, I was the original poster. I came to libertarianism from the Left/Greens, so personal freedoms are slightly more important to me than freedoms for "Big Business". That's why I can't bring myself to vote Republican. I gave up on the Left/Greens because they don't recognize how an efficient, competitive market can be used to create good.

      I won't vote for the Libertarian Party presidential candidate because I would rather get Bush out of office. I will vote for other LP candidates.

      As you pointed out, tax cuts without spending cuts (or with spending increases we have now) are actually tax INCREASES for future generations.

      Regarding Republican spending, here is a news article about a USA Today study that shows that Republican-controlled state legislatures spent more than Democrat-controlled state legislatures from 1997-2002. If the state with a Republican-controlled state legislature also had a Republican governor, then they spend even more. most frugal combination: a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor.

      "USA Today Study: GOP state legislatures beat Democrats in spending"

  12. Land of the free ? by IanBevan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Are you guys in the 'States going to have to change your country's description ? Land of the free ? I think not. It seems to me that if you stay on the right side of the law, you *may* be OK, but stray, even a little, and the state can use ridiculously arcane and morally almost indefensible laws to serve 'justice'. In most cases, it seems to me that these laws are to protect (1) companies, and (2) the state itself. Perhaps one of the problems is that the distinction between these two entities is becoming grey ?

    It seems odd to me that in one of the great democracies, individual freedoms and rights are becoming more and more compromised. The real concern for me is that American culture permeates just about every Western culture. Does this mean that the American legislative way will soon arrive here in New Zealand ? I hope not - but it's interesting to see that Australia seems to be using the USA as a role model recently.

    1. Re:Land of the free ? by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Interesting


      Are you guys in the 'States going to have to change your country's description ? Land of the free ?

      Keep in mind that the US named themselves "the land of the free" back when slavery and apartheid were in full force, and that they have consistently lagged almost every other Westernized country in granting equal rights.

      -a

  13. This is good by CausticWindow · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally the US government has unveiled some dangerous chemical WMD.

    Too bad it's produced in the US, by a US citizen and for recreational purposes.

    Go USA.

    --
    How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  14. Abuse of "anti-terrror" legislation. by MartinG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, many people didn't see this coming, and I just can't understand why. History has repeatedly shown that when any authority is given powers it WILL use them whenever it feels, and it WILL eventually abuse them.

    It's similar to the recent case un England where demonstrators at an arms fair were detained using anti-terrorism measures.

    I find it ironic that people demonstrating against the sale of weapons, some of the same kind used by terrorists are then arrested using laws designed to reduce terrorism.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    1. Re:Abuse of "anti-terrror" legislation. by antiMStroll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In short: no government system should be built on trust. There have been those screaming about this for decades as each new threat hype brought with it the 'tools' to maintain public order. Bush and Clinton are interchangeable in this regard, the latter's War on Drugs did much damage and was debated fiercely on this forum. Can the process be reversed so late in the day?

  15. Re:I'm Proud Too by madMingusMax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh jesus christ..it's people like this that scare the bejesus out of me, even more so than the Patriot Act itself. Prosecutors are using the law, that's not the issue. The issue is that the law is fucked up! Expanded wire tappings not requiring a judge's signature..the ability for prosecutors to listen in on attorney-client conversations without their knowledge, the list goes on. And, for what it's worth, I sure as hell don't think someone cooking up crystal meth should be charged as a god-damn terrorist. I much prefer to sit back and allow darwinism to purge the idiots from our midst.

    --
    Don't be a zoa (zealous overbearing ass), be happy!
  16. It was once said... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    -Benjamin Franklin

    If the federal government persists in the behaviours that it has been engaging in lately, all that they'll do is force people who care to either leave the U.S., or to engage in rebellion.

    I hope that the courts start thinking with some sanity, and dismiss entirely charges against people, despite their illegal acts, because of the treatment that they're receiving at the hands of law enforcement officials in charges and the like. If someone is doing something illegal, like manufacturing an illicit substance whose creation process is relatively dangerous, they deserve the trouble that they'd get, but they do no deserve to be branded "Terrorist". The DA or police who came up with the charge deserve to be sued for libel.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:It was once said... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The war on drugs has been going on since the late 1960s and has always enjoyed overwhelming public support.

      Further, the evidence is that punishments are never "too extreme" as far as the public are concerned. Even here on Slashdot, the more horrific aspects of the American prison system are considered a laughing matter. The notion that the public is going to get up in arms about a lab operator making illegal drugs being sentenced to life imprisonment is dubious at best. Most still consider opponents to harsh sentences to be in favour of light or non-existant ones. "You're against the death penalty? You mean you want people like Charles Manson to be roaming the streets?" Er, no.

      I would really like to see some solution to this quagmire, but I can't. People are rarely concerned about injustices if "bad people" are the victims.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  17. Ebay by lord_paladine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Heck, even Ebay (via PayPal) has been charged with violating the Patriot Act. Are we only seeing the beginnings of this kind of abuse, or will someone with deep pockets step up to the plate?

    Also of note, here is the full write-up of the wire tap law from Cornell

  18. Terrorism? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    cat=terrorism -- its nice that theres a dedicated category for terrorism news articles.

    terrorism
    n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments.

    Crack labs are violent? :\

  19. Rhetoric.. by MrPerfekt · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is the point where people spew out "If you don't like it, leave!" in a standing tall, patriotic stance.

    I do believe this is the final straw for myself. I will be permanently leaving the country as soon as financially possible.

    It would incredibly interesting if the emmigration rate soared in the next few years from the US. I guess we'll wait and see.

    --
    I just wasted your mod points! HA!
  20. Now that sounds like a blanket law.... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is there any substance not lethal in high enough doses? Btw, the "contains toxic chemicals" part merely restates the first part - the very definition of toxic is what is harmful to people.

    I imagine even water is outlawed under this law, after all you can drown from it. Polluted water at least. Nevermind air, which is definately lethal if injected into the bloodstream.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  21. Ever see Ashcroft on TV talking about this by kaltkalt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I saw him on FoxNews with Tony Snow last week (safe haven for him, no tough questions). He was saying how little the patriot act does and how "we still need judges to sign all these warrants, it's not like we do anything on a whim." His basic spiel was "oh come on, it's nothing! Really, we would never use it in a bad way, trust us! We love jesus! Praise!"

    We can only hope 4 year terms run in the bush family. And I voted for dubya.

    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  22. 6 months?!? by ThesQuid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Quote from the article:
    A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.

    Six months?!?!?? I think the drug laws are kinda whacked, but do you blame a prosecutor from trying to get a stronger sentence any way he can? The guy was manufacturing meth, fer gawd's sake. Not like he was smoking a doob or doing an occasional line.

    1. Re:6 months?!? by ratpack91 · · Score: 2

      yeah that's all true but life's a ride. going down the road at 20mph all your life ain't living. Your previous point didn't explain why crystal meth is worse than anything else. it just showed that chemical x becomes lethal when taken in quantity y, where y is 50 times the recommended dose. hell you might as well give him aspirin or i dunno ... vitamin A. kids don't learn from examples forged to give the "desired" result. Too much generalisation and exaggeration make people lose trust in their "teachers".
      I'll keep the my alcohol and drug manufactures for now thanks. They didn't con me or kill me. The cigarette guys on the other hand managed to take the whole world for a ride, stick the knife in and then ask for money, twisting the knife on their way out.

    2. Re:6 months?!? by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Informative
      Six months?!?!?? I think the drug laws are kinda whacked, but do you blame a prosecutor from trying to get a stronger sentence any way he can? The guy was manufacturing meth, fer gawd's sake. Not like he was smoking a doob or doing an occasional line.

      From the Federal Bureau of Prisons (PDF, 4.8 MB), median sentences in months for various classes of offenses.

      207. Continuing criminal enterprise

      135. Homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping

      121. Robbery (use of violence or the threat of violence to deprive another of property)

      92. Sex offenses

      85. Drug offenses

      76. Weapons, explosives, arson

      67. Burglary, larceny, property offenses

      51. National security

      38. Immigration

      30. Courts or corrections

      27. Extortion, fraud, bribery

      19. Banking and insurance, counterfeit, embezzlement offenses

      Noting that these figures are for federal prisons only (YMMV locally), it seems to suggest that drug offenses are usually punished relatively harshly. If the guy was running a meth lab, and the prosecution actually had a strong case, he would face a significant prison sentence. Possession of 5 grams (about a sixth of an ounce) of methamphetamine carries a federally mandated minimum five-year prison sentence--if it is his first offense. Quite frankly, any prosecutor that has to resort to "weapons of mass destruction" claims to incarcerate a guy running a meth lab for a significant period of time is either lazy or incompetent.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  23. People always get... by alizard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    the local government they deserve.

    When you discover that your latest rant about your taxes in some neo-fascist political forum gets you a midnight visit from the Feds and afterwards, you are never seen or heard of again, you won't get any sympathy from anyone. You won't deserve any.

    One of the few comforting things about the "criminalization of dissent" is the certainty that some people like you will get exactly what you deserve. From a government you're stupid enough to trust.

  24. Just like the old Soviet Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very much like how the Soviet's used to do it. If one read the Soviet era constitution, citizens in theory were told they had all sorts or rights and freedoms, including to due process, and that these could only be violated for the most heneous of crimes, such as treason. On the other hand, the Soviet treason laws were written so that anyone could be easily and effectivily charged under them :).

    Today, in America, we now say due process and freedom is to be enjoyed by all, except those potential or suspected terrorists. Again, the problem is that our terrorist laws being so written that anyone may be charged under them.

    And we now have our very own gulogs to boot. What a fitting description for both Guantanimo bay, and for the military brigg in Virginia where several actual American citizens have been held for close to a year now without any rights whatsoever.

  25. Re:I'm Proud Too by Vyce · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ding! I prefer that they legalize, homogenize, and tax the holy fark outta drugs. We can get rid of dealers, we can get rid of drugs supporting terrorism (wow!) and we can purge some of the idiot pool. Aside from that, the "War-on-Drugs" is completely unwinnable. You cannot win a war against your own tax payers.

  26. Re:I'm Proud Too by mr100percent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well said, but I don't totally agree.

    I agree with you that we need to throw the book at more people (drug dealers, mafia), but I don't advocate throwing out all our old laws that dealt with it, and replacing them with one big "Evil is illegal and subject to death penalty" law.

    The Patriot Act (and sequel) is too vague, gives the government powers that are too broad and have no oversight. Don't you remember how Schwarzenegger wiretapped his wife's phones and carried out full surveillance? He had no oversight in that instance. I think we should fix the numerous drug laws, not supersede them all with one vague and broad bill.

    I'm worried about the idea that the government can pull up my record of video rentals, phone calls, and library books, and there not being anyone who has to approve of it (like a judge or jury).

    Worse, if the FBI came to my place of employment, I would be forced to hand over my pharmacy and health records of any person over to them. They may not have or need a warrant, only a badge. Congress unanimously passed the HIPAA privacy acts for patients, and some guy with a badge can just walk in and take everything without caring about the other laws. How do I know this isnt just some cop who wants to see if his wife has VD?

  27. Re:I'm Proud Too by eidechse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Typical 'tough on crime' idiocy. You forgot to say 'Give a fair trial and hang 'em' or maybe 'It's time to clean up this town'.

    The US legal system was not set up to make it easy to stamp out crime. It was set up to ensure due process, and protect the rights of the accused.

    Sentences for the guilty aren't intended to match with your naive and/or hyper-literal application of a legal definition.

    As for raising kids...irrelevent.

    Lastly, it's every citizen's DUTY to be aware of what government does with regard civil and legal rights. It is also every citizen's duty to challenge any abridgement of those rights.

  28. Didja see this? by mrpuffypants · · Score: 5, Informative

    Crowd plays the "Imperial March" from Star Wars as Ashcroft enters building: story

    And while I can't find it there was also, at a Patriot Act "whoo-ha!" rally, a protestor that directly addressed Ashcroft and said "You're fired" and told him that what he was doing was wrong. You didn't see any of that in the liberal media, however...

    1. Re:Didja see this? by RickHunter · · Score: 2, Informative

      That story's great! The Imperial Death March was a particularly nice, if not-so-subtle, touch.

      Its especially interesting how the lower levels of government, even ones as large as Boston, have been actively working against things like the Patriot Act. Aren't there a couple dozen towns and cities now that've passed laws requiring their law enforcement officers to do the minimum necessary in response to any "PATRIOT"-related requests?

    2. Re:Didja see this? by sagallagherstarr · · Score: 3, Informative

      As of today, 14Sep2003, the ACLU list 162 communities that have made resolutions (or, in a few cases, binding ordinances) against the USA PATRIOT Act. See their list here.

      --

      Scott
      --
      Scott Gallagher-Starr
      Assistant Director, North Bend Public Library
      North Bend

    3. Re:Didja see this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Three states--Hawaii, Alaska and Vermont--and 112 cities, towns and counties have passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act on grounds it gives the federal government too much snooping power. Some have refused to enforce it."

      Quoted from Patriot Rebellion Keeps Growing.

  29. Great, now we can go after the *real* criminals! by ian+stevens · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the article:

    Prosecutor Jerry Wilson says he isn't abusing the law, which defines chemical weapons of mass destruction as "any substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

    This legislation allows us to go after the real criminals, namely the tobacco companies, and their weapons of mass destruction. It would be easy to argue that cigarettes fall under this loose definition. If a successful case were built against the tobacco companies, their executives would serve time in prison. Even if there wasn't a conviction, the case would bring to light the vague definitions proponents of the Patriot Act use to abuse its power. Tobacco companies may think twice about financing a president which pushes for legislation which could be used to convict them of serious offences against the state.

    --
    ian
  30. Where are we going? by SenatorTreason · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, Uncle George!
    Where are we going in this handbasket? Me and the USA have to go pee!

  31. America.... by Mastadex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Home of the Not So Free....

    --
    A morning without coffee is like something without something else.
  32. Re:Putting Away Meth Makers Is Wonderful by FLoWCTRL · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In the part of the country where I live meth labs are a major problem in many counties. Prosecutors using these new procedures are seeing their arrest, conviction, and imprisonment rates increase.

    That all sounds pretty wonderful to me. If you're making meth, you're dealing in death and ruined lives.


    If you think the laws banning the manufacture of certain drugs are inadequate, then ammend them. Make them more serious than murder and rape... oh wait, they already are... The drug dealers and manufacturers are supplying an existing demand in a blackmarket that was created and is maintained by your government's disfunctional prohibition laws. If you are going to mandate what people can and cannot put into their own bodies, what they can and cannot buy and sell, then you are going to have a blackmarket for those things.

    This has absolutely nothing at all to do with "terrorism" or "chemical weapons". Permitting the abuse of these laws is the first step down a steep and dangerous slippery slope of corruption and oppression. Wake up, you fools!

  33. Re:Premature pontificators by MartinG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    unless the suit actually holds up in court,

    Well I don't know about all the anti-terror laws in the US, but here in the UK people can now be held without charge indefinitely if they are terror suspects. There may not be a test "in court" because it may not even get there for an "indefinitely" long time.

    That is why these so called anti-terrorism measures that give special powers such as holding without charge must not be used for "normal" crimes. The usual safeguards such as courts may not even be in place.

    --
    -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
  34. Why go after them, let's start with Morton first by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is a known fact that one full cup of regular table salt is a lethal dose. And those terrorists at Morton crank out hundreds of tons of this "weapon" every year.

    Sue them!

  35. Vancouver's Pretty Nice by billstewart · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Back in the 70s, when the reason to consider moving to Canada was to avoid being drafted into the Vietnam was, as opposed to being shot by Americans in the War on Terror, the only part of Canada I knew much about were the Frozen North, e.g. Toronto and Montreal and Hudson Bay. Fortunately I was in the last year of the draft lottery and got a good number; I'd probably have done conscientious objector instead of leaving (and by the way, the same people who chanted "America - Love it or Leave it!" got really pissed if you left.) It wasn't till years later that I went to Vancouver and Victoria and discovered how gorgeous that area was.

    But moving there won't do you much good, because that obviously labels you as a Subversive Anti-American, and it's just as easy for them to wiretap you 100 km north of the border as 100 miles south of the border, and the Feds kidnap Americans from Mexico so they'll probably try Canada too, and it's presumed that if you're not going there for Subversive Anti-American Reasons, you're going there because marijuana possession is temporarily not illegal in Ontario and readily available in BC as well, so you must be going there to score drugs for your import business, which still makes you an Illegal Combatant.

    Australia's pretty nice, though it's a bit on the socialist side and some of the states are run by right-wing bluenose politicians, and the beer's not any better than American beer, though they do have more of it, and they're more friendly and less polite than the Canadians.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Vancouver's Pretty Nice by abigor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nah. Come to Vancouver. The cops don't care about pot, the women are totally gorgeous, it almost never snows in winter, you can go skiing, windsurfing, and suntanning all in the same day, and hey, there are even jobs. We're hiring electrical engineers and Linux programmers where I work. So there you go.

      Of course, the American DEA has been threatening to open an office here, and there have been reports of black helicopters flying over the city looking for grow-ops...so maybe you have a point.

    2. Re:Vancouver's Pretty Nice by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It goes to show just how socialist certain sections of the Australian public have gotten when a government that pays people unemployment benefits (so long as they continue to seek work) and operates universal health care (so long as they don't take out private insurance) can be called "ultra conservative"

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    3. Re:Vancouver's Pretty Nice by abigor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I can only speak for B.C., since that's where I live. Vancouver has a tech website called bctechnology.com that has job listings and, more importantly, a directory of tech companies here. So far as I can tell, though, Toronto is the place to be, but it's also a much larger city (Greater Vancouver has somewhere around 1.5 million people, Toronto is, what, 4 million?)

      Otherwise, check monster.ca and so forth, not so much for specific postings, but to get a feel for what's available. Really, if you want to move here, you should show up in a city and start looking around in person - I honestly don't know what my boss would do if he got a resume from some guy in the U.S. that wasn't immediately available for an interview. Come here, check out the city and the employment situation, and talk to some companies. I think moving to a whole different country is a big decision, and Canada is more different from the U.S. than you might realise.

      So far as the legalities of working here, it's pretty easy for Americans with skills and so forth, especially if you have a job offer. I know several Americans that have come here with zero problems. The site to visit is http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/ (sorry, too lazy to make the link.)

      Anyway, I hope that helps.

  36. Re:How's the weather up in canda? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    sadly this is the problem in our country (and I guess I fall into this category along with 99.9999% of everyone else).

    Instead of standing up and fighting the bullshit going against our freedom we sit idly by and watch it happen.

    Who else knew that this sort of bullshit would start coming? I surely did but what did I do about it? NOTHING.

    For two reasons... People in my age bracket are not yet old enough to have a strong enough voice. We are looked at as protesters and not as lawmakers. The fear that me protesting (and not lawmaking) against this sort of legislation will land me in prison. Hell, I must already be earmarked on some sort of subvert list. I get stopped nearly everytime I fly. Whether or not you sport a beard isn't the line between normal and terrorist.

    Instead of moving away from the problem someone needs to start a movement against it.

    I wish it could be me (so everyone says).

    Guilty as charged.

  37. PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime by jbs0902 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    One example in the article is the guy running a meth lab

    1) I fail to have any sympathy for a guy who runs a meth lab.

    2) The sad fact is, Patriot Act or no, in the US and most "civilized" countries there are so many laws that the police can pick you up anytime they want for breaking the law. They just have to care enough to target you and figure out which of the gazilla laws you inadvertently broke.

    The "if you're a law abiding citizen" comment, misses the mark. There are so many laws, none of us can go through life without breaking some law. None of us are law abiding anymore, regardless of our intentions.

    Also, the sentencing is so Draconian nowadays that the penalty for fighting the arrest and losing makes a plea bargain much more attractive. Given the choice between a 20 years minimum sentence and a 2 year plea bargain, most people take the plea bargain. The 20 years just scares them too much.

    The problem isn't "those damn Republicans." Remember many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act. The problem is the political system. Rarely does a politician get elected because they voted to repeal a criminal law. Rarely does a politician get elected for being "soft on crime." Willie Horton anyone? Left or Right, you get votes by promising to protect "the public" and their children. That means you pass MORE laws, even if the existing laws are adequate, because that shows you did something. You pass TOUGHER penalties, because that shows you did something.

    That is why we end up with drunk driving laws that set the blood alcohol level at a value lower than the margin of error on the testing devices. And, when this is pointed out to the legislature they just change the margin of error on the test. Not by changing the test, but by changing the definition of margin of error. (Next up, Congress sets the acceleration due to gravity at 11m/s^2.) Because, we HAVE to be tough on drunk drivers "for the children."
    That is just one example of the stupid and unreasonable results of the "democractic" political system. I am sure you have your own examples.

    I am not supporting the Patriot Act. I wish it and the system that created it wasn't so. But, don't act like this is new. Don't act like the Patriot Act is an exception. And, don't act like the US and only one party is the US plays this horrible game. It is played by both sides, all over the world, all the time.

    1. Re:PA or no, the police can pick you up anytime by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      1) I fail to have any sympathy for a guy who runs a meth lab.

      Fair enough. But do you really think that he deserves a life sentence? Rapists and murderers get less than that.

  38. Compassionate Conservatism was So Last Millenium by billstewart · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Look, none of the *important* promises Bush made during the Last Election were for *you*, and he's paid off on most of the ones to his friends in the military-industrial complex.

    "Compassionate Conservatism" become synonomous with "slightly to the left of Darth Vader" on 9/11/1, when Bush could get away with his normal political positions instead of having to pretend to be compassionate.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  39. Ranting and hating. by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Remember when Dubya said that he was a compassionate conservative who wanted to teach little kids to read, and get our manufacturing jobs back from those 'filthy' Mexicans. Remember when the man could barely speak the english language and was just a jolly little fool who did absolutely nothing besides oversee a sudden plunge in the economy and then came up with the brain dead idea that giving tax money to people who traditionally don't spend money?

    I really miss those days. When That's My Bush was on television, it was okay to question the government and even though lots of people were unemployed it was still a pretty good time.

    In case you didn't note, this is going to be a rant. Two years and three days ago, a bunch of Religious Conservatives hijacked a couple of plains and showed the US (Succesfully this time) that crazy people mean buisness. The largest terrorist attack on US soil was no longer in the hands of a crazed American, but in the hands of a bunch in another country, and thus things became scary.

    The World Trade Towers were chosen because not only did a great number of people work there, and that their destruction would be economically crippling for the area and damaging to the US, but because they were symbols of what the United States stood for.

    In reaction to these attacks Americans suddenly took up and saw that all of these freedoms which we enjoy and espouse (but don't abide by in countries where we pick up cheap goods from, like China and the Middle East {that's right, gas is cheap in America, come on Europeans, stand up tell everyone how much taxes impat your gas prices}), allow people easy access to pretty much whatever they want. Yup, apparently the fundamental principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were total anathema to the dogma of security. Benjamin Franklin pointed out that fact and the converse, that a society cannot have both freedom and absolute security.

    Esentially, 9-11 has been used to pass a Neo-Conservative agenda of global tyranny and domestic oppression. I emphasize the Neo part, because I know many conservatives, they are wonderful and nice people who have many good ideas. These people, a mixed coalition of reps and dems, are responsible for a campaign of silencing all opposition and enriching themselves and their allies upon the spoils of wars.

    It is intersting to note how someone brought up 1984 earlier, it is mentioned in that book how war or the idea of such activity is wonderful at putting large populations into subservient moods. Notice how we have gone from a War on Terror (where we didn't find Osama or even put an end to the Taliban, or stop terror), to a War on Iraq (where we didn't find Sadaam and are busy ruling it like fuedal lords and expending 150+ billion on what was supposed to be a short and sweet little engagement). The American people are being manipulated in a very base manner into thinking that anything but pure agression will get us killed, and that if we vote for anyone but this psychotic faction that we will all die in some sort of hellish confligaration of biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

    I for one see that pretty much everything this administration has done has a negative value. They have done much to obfuscate their agenda and to make them appear to be 'compassionate' but those agendas were never pursued, the heavily pushed "No Child Left Behind act" has absolutely no funding and even if implemented it was only going to require more idiotic tests and dropping out of school. Where is the Aid to Africa? Where are the morals and where is the trust that we were promised in 2000? We have simply replaced blow-jobs and S&L scandals, for corporate patronage, more S&L scandals, financial mismanagement, and corruption. And Ari Fleischer and the rest of the crew lies to us as much as the Iraqi information minister lied to the people of Iraq.

    Next year, when the fields narrow we need to get out there and force a change or else things will start to head from bad to worse and we will see freedoms and liberties that we once took for granted picked off one by one all in the name of some kind of security that we will never attain as long as our country remains self-centered and militaristic.

    1. Re:Ranting and hating. by softspokenrevolution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All right... I had typed a lot earlier but then I accidentally closed the browser, it's probably better that way because now I can sum up.

      First, while it is very nice to inform someone when they don't know something, it makes you look like an ass when you don't tell them what it is. Basically double Mitzvah when you let someone in on your precious knowledge, because unlike money, it's usually more valuable when shared (kind of like love).

      Second, I am well aware of American history and our tendency to crack down on civil liberites when bad things happen. I can think of Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War, and the internment of otherwise loyal Japanese citizens during WWII, the jailing and attacks upon dissidents during WWI and WWII, and the internment of otherwise loyal muslim citizens aftr 9-11. After at the very least the second (we tend to forget Lincoln's little act in the face of you know, ending slavery and affirming the power of central government over states rights) item (and for some of us the third) we look back and go, "Hey, that was kind of a dumb idea, all it really did was make us look like the people we were trying to fight against." And after all of these we say, "You know what, civil liberties are good things," and then we start apologizing (for the most part) to the people who got shafted.

      Hey, I hate, I'll admit it. I hate a lot of things, like people who manipulate and harm others, people who infringe upon inalienable rights (like rapists, murders, tryannical dictators), the fact that there are little kids that go without healthcare, the fact that there are people in our country struggling to make ends meet.

      For the record, I kind of admire the Shrub. He's got balls, big brass ones that he likes to let hang out for the world to see. He sticks to his guns through thick and thin, those are some good qualities to have. I don't agree with many of his policies, but I still admire some of his qualities.

      As for all of this war nonsense, my big problem is how wars have to be fought, by a bunch of kids against another bunch of kids. It reminds me of a scene from the third episode of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where Zaphod and others are being fired on by two Galaxy cops and they're saying, "We're a couple of caring and sensitive guys, who you'd probalby really like if you met socially."

      I agree with trying to free people from the crazy Taliban in Afghanistan and trying to find Osama to bring him to face justice (the kind with a jury). I odn't agree wiht replacing one group of nuts with a group of militant warlords who still opres the peopple, and then abandoning the coutnry when poll numbers start to slide and a more attractive war looms. I agree with getting rid of a crazy man who dumps chemical weapons on people just because they have different fathers and different views, a man who does not let his people express their own views and ideas. I don't agree with lying about the motivations and falsifying a relathionship between him and the other guy, I don't agree with invading without accepting the responsibilty of having propped his regime up and having supplied the chemical and biological agents to him. I odn't like how the people of Iraq were supposed to start getting involved in July (when we thought the warw as going to be a bit longer than a few weeks) and even though we swept in over the course of a few weeks, Iraqis only have a show in their government.

      America is a nice country, it's appeal is the freedom and equality that it offers under the law. The idea of America isn't about God or some immutable force that fail to adapt to changing times and new understandings, it is a secular culture that believes in the inherent value of humanity. I believe in an America where the officers of the law (those that make them, those that allow them, and those that enforce them) are beholden to the people and not to the pockets of some giant whose sole concern is profit. I believe in the America of continuous change and

  40. More Paranoia by KrancHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Geez.. you guys are right... It sucks that GWB is oppressing free speech and stuff. I mean, nobody can complain about the Patriot Act, Ashcroft, or the Administration without getting charged as a terrorist or getting arrested or just disappearing. I mean, there has to be hundreds of former slashdotters, indymedia types, and the like at the Death Camp in Guantanemo. My eyes have been opened to the truth. Bush and Co. are the Third Reich. Heil Ashcroft. And the media. Don't get me started about the neofascist government control of the media. Obviously, Al Franken's number one book slipped through all the government censors, but I bet they won't that happen again!

    P.S. That was sarcasm.
    P.P.S. I don't like the Patriot Act(s) either. I don't think its the end of life as we know it. Get a grip. Please. Leftists are so pathetically terrified of Bush and his administration its almost amusing. The amount of paranoia and blind hatred way surpasses the paranoia and blind hatred the right had with Clinton.

    --
    Trolls: The high-tech version of those morons that scrawl obscenities in public bathrooms.
  41. Re:Putting Away Meth Makers Is Wonderful by timmy+the+large · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yes, Meth can ruin peoples lives. So can drinking. Actually drinking ruins more lives than any other drug but tobaco. The real problem with meth is enviromental. You have guys all hopped up on meth mixing very volitiale chemicals and doing a poor job of cleaning up after themselves.

    The laws that need stiffening are the enviromental ones. If you want to take a dangerous substance and use it thats fine, but I don't want to have to worry about being harmed by your polluting the ground water and land around us. This goes for chemical companies too. I dont care who you are, if you harm other people its wrong. Harming yourself is a choice though. I don't know why this country decided one day that it knew best and I had to do what I'm told. US citizens are not unruly children that the goverment needs to set nap times for!

  42. State Government - Not Feds... by sglider · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the article:
    A North Carolina county prosecutor charged a man accused of running a methamphetamine lab with breaking a new state law barring the manufacture of chemical weapons. If convicted, Martin Dwayne Miller could get 12 years to life in prison for a crime that usually brings about six months.
    In the zeal of one of the commenters (finding a comment on Slashdot is like finding a needle in a stack of needles), he blamed said legislation on the Patriot Act, and not on the State government's reactions to the Patriot Act. Those are subtle differences, but very important for the common citizen. We may or may not have much say in the National scheme of things (The DoJ will do what they do until they are stopped by the courts) but state-wise the average joe has alot more say in matters, so long as they actually take part in Goverment. You would be surprised what you can do when you get a mass mailing to your State Assembly (in North Carolina's case) about something.

    --
    War isn't about who's right. It's about who's left.
  43. Ummm ..... by riptalon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Who are you going to vote for? I don't remember many Democrats being opposed to the USA PATRIOT Act when it was voted on. I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone to vote for who wants it repealed. The only time the "democractic" process will actually deliver change is where you can find some very rich people who are affected by a particular issue. In this case I think you are out of luck. Laws like this are ment for ordinary people only.

    1. Re:Ummm ..... by zrail · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only person in the entire congress to vote against the USA PATRIOT act was Senator Feingold of Wisconsin (my home state). If he ever runs for president he can count on my vote for that fact alone, never mind his excelent track record.

    2. Re:Ummm ..... by rmohr02 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And Senator Feingold was one of 67 members of Congress to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act, but the only Senator to do so.

  44. This was always the idea by Amtiskaw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you really think Ashcroft gives a damn about terrorism? Before 9-11 he was focused on crusading against pornography, drugs and all the other things which are against his particular view of christian morality, and that's still all he really cares about. The patriot acts were never about fighting terrorists (at least not to the DoJ), they were about implenting the kind of laws that they needed for their moralist authoritarianism, but which they couldn't have gotten passed otherwise. I suspect Bin Laden would be quite approving of the kind of fundamentalism many members of the current US administration display.

  45. And blind ignorants by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In addition to MartinG's point about the "due process" (or lack thereof) under UK anti-terrorism laws, the government in the UK is also trying its best to collect personally idenifiable data on any "troublemakers" whenever it can. Even if you're just arrested and formally cautioned for something -- without ever seeing a courtroom, never mind being found guilty of a crime -- your fingerprints, DNA, etc. will be taken. If you choose to accept the caution, it will disappear from your record after a few years, but would anybody like to bet on where the fingerprint and DNA data goes and for how long?

    Using inappropriate legislation to gain this sort of personal information, which historically has been liable to abuse at a later date, is simply wrong. There is no pontification here, it's just the cold, hard truth.

    The yes, the US government does and will abuse personal freedoms and due process in a similar way if it can. Remember how many people are still being held in the camp at Gitmo, and that's from the last war. How long exactly is processing them and charging them with some crime supposed to take?

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  46. Glorifying Mission Creep by Effugas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Speeding is illegal. Suggest that every car should have a sensor that detects itself speeding, and automatically assesses a fine to be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction, and watch people recoil in horror.

    Underage drinking is illegal. Suggest that random door-to-door searches for alcohol be employed to enforce that particular set of laws, and watch respect for the law diminish to nothing.

    This does not mean there is not a critical purpose for GPS-based tracking devices (yes, even covertly deployed) and canvassing a region, for there certainly is. As uncomfortable as Patriot makes us, we cannot deny there are circumstances that indeed justify significantly more zealous investigation and prosecution.

    But the circumstances matter.

    To those whose powers are wide, their interest must be narrow. To those whose interests are wide , it is a matter of life and death that their powers be kept narrow. A team dedicated to the prevention of nuclear terror must not have their procedures threatened by, say, a "moral police" seeking to police adultery! Gloating about mission creep and the utter inability to keep sacred maybe the only saving grace of Patriot ("really, we just want to go after those who want to kill us all") is astonishing.

    This is a slippery slope that costs lives. I cannot believe I am hearing it praised.

  47. Name change... by MrBlue+VT · · Score: 4, Funny

    I propose a name change. How about instead of Justice Department, we call it the Ministry of Love?

    1. Re:Name change... by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Informative
      call it the Ministry of Love?

      you've already got one, m'lad. they're called the project for a new american century - the think tank that came up with the whole notion of making u.s. foreign and domestic policy more "pc" (patriotically correct). it's all on record here:

      official pnac site:
      http://www.newamericancentury.org/

      analysis site 1:
      http://www.pnac.info/

      analysis site 2:
      http://pnacrevealed.com/

      read 'em and vote.

    2. Re:Name change... by desenz · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always prefered miniluv. Its so much less to think about. At least, thats what our friends at the minitrue say.

    3. Re:Name change... by Hentai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Get a load of this.

      --
      -Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
  48. Exactly by Mmmrky · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is the problem. Look around. Just about everything we use in day to day life could be considered a chemical weapon.

    It give the prosecutors way too much power to selectively apply terrorist laws to situations that don't demand them in order to increase the penalties.

    Think the sentances for meth are too low? Raise them, don't try to apply terrorist laws.

  49. Fascism? by YaiEf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It has been a much abused word here in Europe where rightwing parties have been accused for being fascist - however, it seems the current American administration is getting close.

    From Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
    An extreme rightwing political system or attitude, which favours strong central authority and does not allow freedom of speech.

    Patriot I and II pretty much goes for the strong central authority and DMCA + some patriot goes for freedom of speech. Perhaps not a perfect fit - but it's still quite sad.

    Don't get me wrong. I love americans and their country - it's just that the slope is rather slippery post 9/11 - and it really seems to be going down hill at a very fast pace. I have no idea what this will eventually lead to - and hopefully the people will stand up and demand their freedom be given back. Otherwise we in Europe are probably screwed as well - events in America often forebode what is going to happen here.

  50. VICTORY Act by sagallagherstarr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The VICTORY Act (Vital Interdiction of Criminal Terrorist Organizations Act of 2003) would appear to be a retargeting of PATRIOT II. Quoting the article linked below:
    [The VICTORY Act] seems to be an attempt to merge the war on terrorism and the war on drugs into a single campaign. It includes a raft of provisions increasing the government's ability to investigate, wiretap, prosecute and incarcerate money launderers, fugitives, "narco-terrorists" and nonviolent drug dealers. The bill also outlaws hawalas, the informal and documentless money transferring systems widely used in the Middle East, India and parts of Asia.
    See the article in Wired for a quick summary, and google VICTORY Act for a longer list of items to check. This looks like a bad one - who in power will choose to denounce the war on (some) drugs?
    --

    Scott
    --
    Scott Gallagher-Starr
    Assistant Director, North Bend Public Library
    North Bend

  51. Re:How's the weather up in canda? by kaltkalt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I may. But having a "we'll destroy america as much as we want to, and if you don't like it you can leave" attitude doesn't seem very positive to me. It kinda rings of the "if you aren't doing anything bad, you have no reason to fear government cameras in your home" argument.

    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
  52. Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data by dan_bethe · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data. Read that article and click to rate it if you like it, at the bottom of the page, for the benefit of the casually browsing public. Here are some choice excerpts:
    "A suspected terrorist could be released, free to leave the country, or worse, before the trial," Mr. Bush said. "This disparity in the law makes no sense. If dangerous drug dealers can be held without bail in this way, Congress should allow for the same treatment for accused terrorists."

    Despite Mr. Bush's concerns, Justice Department officials said they knew of no specific instances in which a person charged in a terrorism case had fled after being granted bail.

    (snip)...Mr. Bush's proposal, he said, "means that there are no effective checks and balances. It's very worrisome."

    Civil rights lawyers, defense advocates and some former prosecutors say they see no need to broaden the Justice Department's powers so markedly. Under current law, they say, terrorism investigators can typically get a subpoena in a matter of hours or minutes by going through a judge or a grand jury.

    "[L]aw-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act because its most intrusive measures would require a judge's sign-off."

    My own colleague Matthew writes, "This is ingenuous. While the law does require a judge to sign off on the warrant, it mandates that the judge *does* sign. In other words, the judge is required to rubber-stamp whatever the police want; it is not true oversight."

    You know how Teddy Roosevelt was so against the trusts (megacorps that were above the law and beyond mere monopoly, a la Standard Oil) because they were more powerful than the government in so many ways, hence offending his own megalomaniacal sensibilities? Apparently, the U.S. Government today is disappointed about the fact that modern megacorps had taken on the role of Big Brother via image recognition, data mining, and monopolistic practices. In the face of such competition, they apparently feel the need to get their anti-Constitution on. Pull out the big guns!

    I'm done debating the competency of our current Presidential administration or the legitimacy of the Presidential office. In the face of this perpetually double edged sword, I just want to keep both the terrorists and the government in check.

  53. Re:I LOVE THIS MODERATION SYSTEM by Izago909 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Simply amazing, how the same slashbots decrying "CENSORSHIP!!" at every turn have no problem doing it to others where it suits them.

    I don't see a single person crying censorship. Please cut and paste an example. Just because someone moderated it as a troll doesn't mean it's censored. I mean, you could read it... right?

  54. It's true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It's really true. Someone like Dean is now considered to be far left, but in fact his policies would have been considered center less than a decade ago (look at his fiscal policy history, and you will see what I mean; he even pleased the Republicans in his state for what he did with the state budget). The fact is, the whole political paradigm has shifted far to the right, and we're still in the shockwave of the effect.

    The fact that this shift has happened will catch up to us when we realize we don't have any public schools, or any public services for that matter. Hey, would you like to burn your trash rather than have the city pick it up? You too can be like rural americans! Well, services might still exist, but they'll be run by corporations, and we'll have to pay out the ass for 'em. Maybe people will like it better that way though. Maybe the constitution and democracy is just outdated.

    Anyway, it'll be a sad day when the public school system is eliminated. Then you can say goodbye to racial equality and equal opportunity. Oh wait, we don't care about those things anymore...

  55. The Patriot Act, Part III by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    Oh, I have a good idea for a good new law... Let's call it the Patriot Act, Part III. It'll give the government powers to track down and burn any book that contains information the government doesn't like. To save tax dollars, the government would decide that instead of going through all the books, it'll simply burn them all.

    Books would be classified in the Terrorist Penal Code as Weapons of Mass Instruction.

    It would be illegal, punishable by death by burning, to possess or traffic in any such materials banned by the government. For the convenience of the guilty, the government would offer the choice of being burned at the stake or in a huge bonfire.

    To enforce compliance, the law would allow any federal agent, or anybody claiming to be a federal agent, to enter any property, with or without permission or the use of force, to search and seize anything, to beat up, rape, arrest, or kill anyone, and to charge the party being investigated any "reasonable" fee for the aforementioned services.

    Of course, under the new law, acts of real terrorism, as in blowing things up and killing lots of people, would fall under civil code, like intellectual property laws. Thus, if you are killed in a terrorist attack, you would have to sue the terrorist in small claims court.

  56. Unfortunately by aliens · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know what people are going to vote for? The guy who says 'I will tax you less', 'I will give you more money'.

    He could also want to bring back segregation and most voters wouldn't care because he's not going to take their money.

    The USA's culture has changed considerably since the 70's. Greed is now God. All anyone cares about is themselves and their possesions. Hell that's what's killing the American Family. Let's see, why do mommy and daddy work 80 hours a week each? That's right so he can afford an upper-middle class life.

    Man that's so worth it isn't it? I mean you get to have your kids driven to school by the nanny in the new Lexus. Isn't that the American Dream?

    20 years, that's how long I give this society before it collapses on itself. Civilization won't end, but you won't recognize the USA that's for sure. A lot of people aren't going to want to be part of the rat race any more.

    --
    -- taking over the world, we are.
    1. Re:Unfortunately by sexylicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think a good portion of it is the fact that many American families think they have to send their kids to college and pay for it out of their own pockets.

      In my opinion, it's good for parents to save for their kid's futures. But the kid should only go to college if they want to. Too many times while I was teaching classes during my graduate schooling, I would see and talk with kids whose parents paid for everything. That's fine if the parents can afford it, I suppose. But the kids didn't usually have the desire to be in college.

      College isn't for everyone.

      The other thing that I noticed between my education and the education of people I know is that I paid out of my own pocket for the schooling. That means that I had some personal incentive to work my ass off and do well. Otherwise that 1200 per quarter (undergrad; 2000 per quarter, graduate) was meaningless. Having someone else pay for your classes doesn't allow you to appreciate the classes.

      The one thing that parents _should_ teach their kids is to find something they like doing and do it. That's far more valuable than, "Here's 40 grand. Go to school."

  57. But.. by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cigarettes are designed to be addictive.

    Meth (as in this case) are designed to be addictive. Dead people don't pay money for drugs. I fail to see the difference...

    Kjella

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  58. Get It Right! by vigilology · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The more you keep calling it the 'Patriot Act', the more people who don't know better, and yourselves subconsciously to a point, will think this thing has some relation to patriotism. Stop being two-faced. Practise what you're preaching and call it what it is - the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

  59. John Titor by drwho · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This sort of thing is making

    John Titor's claims seem frighteningly credible.

  60. Marx Quote Above by JCMay · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think we're well on our way on both counts. The increasing intolerance for any public display of religion, and the increasingly large entitlement programs would, I think, prove that.

  61. Some inconvenient facts for you to chew on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realize that:

    a) Democrat senators voted FOR the Patriot Act 48-1,

    b) Reno & Freeh tried to obtain the SAME POWERS, without a Nine-Eleven pretext,

    don't you? So, I think I'll just forego your advice & continue to vote Libertarian.

  62. RE: Taking back our freedom? by King_TJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait a minute! We're supposed to "Take back our freedom!" by voting Democrat??

    Who was in office when the DMCA was signed? Bill Clinton. Umm, what party was he a member of again?

    Here's the frustrating thing. I've talked to so many self-proclaimed "Democrats" who have plenty of good ideas, but don't seem to cohesively and logically put all of it together. They'll make statements I completely agree with, but then turn around and claim that members of their beloved party are all for those statements - when they're clearly (and publically) opposed to them!

    Meanwhile, yes, Republicans are really screwing up the country too, in the name of "freedom and democracy", no less.

    THIS is why the Libertarian party exists! Right now, nobody who can do basic math would sanely argue that a Libertarian candidate has good odds of getting elected next term. Still, what you CAN do is research the candidates on the major 2 platforms and pick out the ones who side with Libertarian beliefs. Next election, whatever you do - DON'T just pull that lever to vote for everyone on one party! Pick and choose the people who are doing the right things, no matter what title they run under. These days, you have "Republicrats" and "Demicans", and lots of people in between.

  63. The truth of the matter by RussP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All right all you yahoos, let's get to the truth of the matter.

    --
    I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
  64. The terrorists win? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, basically, Ashcroft and friends want to build a government where those with power can look ingo anything they want, imprision anybody they want...

    Wait a second, that's exactly what the Taliban had in Afganistan and Saddam had in Iraq. It's starting to blur the line between who's friend and foe here...

    Luckily, the legislative and executive branches can't take away all our liberties alone. The judicial branch still has the chance to strike down any law that goes too far accross the lines of the Constitutional protections. I mean, a court can still order that "the Feds" an give accused terrorist access to question another accused terrorist for evidence to be used in his defense... rule of law hasn't broken down totally around here.

    Or has it?

  65. A favorite quote of mine by AgentUSA · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

    James Madison - 1788

  66. Re:I'll take that job. Got more details? by kaladorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would enjoy moving to a country where the politicians have their heads on straight. The for the sake of all you hold dear, don't move to Canada. The only reason Mr. Bush's accusedly-authoritarian government isn't deemed second rate to Mr. Chretien's de facto dictatorship is that the USA is much bigger and more noteworthy and we keep our aspirations to quash the voter and free thought at home, and don't export them quite the same way. The Canadian Prime Minister has been gobbling up powers to make himself more potent for the last several years (or at least, the rate of gobbling has accelerated). Media concentration, underfunding of any kind of watchdogs, using the Courts as an excuse, etc.... and we've never had the underlying strength in our Constitution that the US has to begin with. Canada is a place for the thoughtless masses. In the USA, you may think you've got a tough choice for who to vote for. Up here, we might as well not bother as the new de-facto King shall cruise into his new appointment sometime in November... or February... or maybe we'll have two leaders (eh? how does that work?) for a few months.... I really hate the feeling the next election is going to be the first one in which I take the 'refused ballot' option to register a protest. I'm used to voting fot the least of the evils, but it is getting so bad that the least is still almost unconscionable....

    --
    -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  67. prevention of illegal search and seizure by Simoriah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seem to recall when one of the complaints against the government in this country was the government's ability to search anything they wanted without prior permission or notification. We kicked them Brits out 200+ years ago.
    What stupid ass thought it'd be smart to start doing this again?

    I, for one, am sick and tired of my civil liberties being destroyed for the sake of anti-terrorism. Why is it a good idea to let my doctor fork over records to the gov't and make it illegal to tell me about it? We all know that the systems out there get exploited. What'll happen next? You go to your doctor and get put on an anti-depressant... 10 years later, you apply for a gov't job, they pull your medical records, and you get denied the job because you were once a "psycho" on anti-depressants?

    I'll gladly vote against anyone that's for this anti-rights bullshit

    --
    "It compiles, SHIP IT!" -Overheard at Microsoft's development lab
  68. slightly different by mlong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if the poster read the article where it said that the guy with the meth lab was charged under a new NC state law and not under the Patriot Act? So that really has nothing to do with the justice dept. or anybody outside of NC (although obviously it sucks for NC citizens running meth labs).

    --
    //m
  69. Salt is the least dangerous of Morton's products.. by camusflage · · Score: 2, Informative
    From their PR File
    Morton becomes Morton Thiokol, Inc. when it merges with Thiokol Corporation. Among Thiokol's businesses are:

    Dynachem Corporation, a Tustin, California, electronic materials manufacturer credited for developing dry film photoresists processable in water-based systems.
    Ventron Corporation, a Danvers, Massachusetts, manufacturer providing 90 percent of the free world's requirement for sodium borohydride.
    Carstab, a Cincinnati, Ohio, manufacturer of stabilizers for PVC.
    liquid polysulfide polymer (LP(R)) used as a sealant for insulating glass, secondary containment and other applications
    solid rocket propulsion systems (Thiokol was an industry leader, starting with NASA's Scout launch vehicles and the Air Force Discoverer programs in the 1950s)
    automotive airbags (Thiokol began development in 1968.)
    --
    The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
  70. Nonsense by Loundry · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Greed is now God.

    The notion of greed is completely subjective. Is it greedy to own a 27" television when you could have bought a 25" television and given the difference to the poor?

    All anyone cares about is themselves and their possesions.

    As if blanket assertions like this were ever helpful.

    Hell that's what's killing the American Family.

    I expect doom-and-gloom statements about the "health of the American family" from Fundamentalist Christians. Now Leftists invoke it as well. Yet another way that I see Fundamentalist Christianity and Leftism as the similar religions with different gods.

    Let's see, why do mommy and daddy work 80 hours a week each?

    Perhaps the American corporate culture has something to do with working its employees harder. It's completely understandable in this cruddy economy. I can think of several people who are in this situation right now.

    Man that's so worth it isn't it? I mean you get to have your kids driven to school by the nanny in the new Lexus. Isn't that the American Dream?

    Leftists (and college kids) often whine about this mythical person who meets the following qualities:

    1. Has no interest in parenting their children
    2. Has no interest in their marraige
    3. Has no interest in hobbies
    4. Has no interest in friendships
    5. Has an overwhelming, extreme interest in buying things to impress strangers, make up for low self-esteem, or make up for small penis size

    I think this person is a boogeyman; i.e., this person does not exist except in the argument where his/her (mythical) existence is beneficial to the argument.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  71. Wonderful, isn't it? by Cinematique · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This really goes to show how little our constitution means, 4th Amendment be damned.

    But the thing that really frightens me is this... most people are so turned off to politics that things like the Patriot Act slip under the radar. What's worse... a majority of those that actually are involved in our political system choose to be a Democrat or Republican, as if they're their only options.

    In 2004, I want G.W. Bush to get out of my government. Sadly, it'll have to be done with a Democrat, and it shouldn't be that way.

    After skimming the surface of the German government, I can't help but wonder how different America would be if several parties were in control, not just two. Any Germans care to enlighten me?

  72. I for one welcome our new... by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    no, wait, our 95-98% incumbent Congressional overlords.

    They don't give a damn, because we never hold them to account. What, really, should we expect?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  73. Re:Something to think about... by RevSmiley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes I do
    A bunch of Iraqis ar doing it right now without much problem.

    It's OK to lie if you are a liberal left wing Demokrat.

    --
    As you can see I don't care about my karma.
  74. Cigarettes finally illegal by illuminatedwax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...Or at least they apparently are illegal to manufacture in the state of North Carolina. I'd say that cigarettes, if anything, is a "substance that is designed or has the capability to cause death or serious injury" and contains toxic chemicals.

    Which is the definition of a chemical weapon of mass destruction.
    Start prosecuting, fellas!

    --Stephen

    --
    Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
  75. Solutions, please by wayward_son · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All I hear on this thread is "Bush sux0rz - vote Democrat" or "Dems are just as bad - vote Libertarian/Green"

    What I want to know is if anyone has any solutions to the problems at hand?

    Democrats, what is YOUR plan to fight the war on terror? How do YOU plan to keep another 9/11 from happening? If the PATRIOT Act was so bad, then why did the majority of Democrats vote for it?

    While I'm at it, what is YOUR plan to stimulate the economy? What is YOUR plan to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan?

    Quit complaining and start coming up with solutions.

    I do see shades of 1984 in recent events. If the Democrats can't come up with anything more than complaining, Bush will beat Dean (or whoever else gets the nomination) in 2004 like Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984.

    1. Re:Solutions, please by Quila · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the PATRIOT Act was so bad, then why did the majority of Democrats vote for it?

      That's easy:

      1) It was rushed through so fast that few actually had a chance to read it.

      2) In the immediate post-9/11 environment it would have been near political suicide to vote against it.

      That's why you are now finding lots of public debate and congressional criticism of PATRIOT II while there was none for v.1.

    2. Re:Solutions, please by Knobby · · Score: 2, Informative

      Rather than repeat, and possibly misstate, the positions of the candidates I'd suggest you take a look at each of the candidates issue statements.

      Most of the candidates have answers (or ideas) for each of these questions posted on their page. There is no single unified platform for the democratic party at this point.

  76. Re:I'm Proud Too by chthonicdaemon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One of the things you seem to be missing in these arguments is the right to due process. It sucks being arrested for one crime when you committed another (less serious) crime.

    The meth lab is not a terrorist unit. It just isn't. It is against the law, but not a terrorist activity to make drugs. Now, using the patriot act to convict the guy for terrorism when he was cooking up drugs is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right.

    Once any means justifies the end of putting criminals in jail, the whole judicial system crumbles, because we have to try to avoid putting innocent people in jail. The whole legal system is skewed toward this goal. Move away from that, and we haven't really won anything.

    --
    Languages aren't inherently fast -- implementations are efficient