Slashdot Mirror
Deconstructing the Patriot Act PR Campaign
Aaron writes "The Center for Democracy and Technology offers up an interesting point for point rebuttal to the the claims made via the 'rah-rah-esque' DOJ's website, part of the PR campaign (including Ashcroft speaking tours) to convince the public the Act is good for them. I think this Broadband Reports article also brings up a good point: among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight. The UN this year even launched an investigation into the use of the system to spy on UN diplomats without much fanfare."
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.
Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?
If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!
Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!
First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. (click here to download the 280MB MPEG from BitTorrent)
Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website
Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!
If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here.
If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.
This post brought to you by Penisbird , a proud member of the GNAA
G_____________________________________naann_______ ________G
N_____________________________nnnaa__nanaaa_______ ________A
A____________________aanana__nannaa_nna_an________ ________Y
A_____________annna_nnnnnan_aan_aa__na__aa________ ________*
G____________nnaana_nnn__nn_aa__nn__na_anaann_MERI CA______N
N___________ana__nn_an___an_aa_anaaannnanaa_______ ________I
A___________aa__ana_nn___nn_nnnnaa___ana__________ ________G
A__________nna__an__na___nn__nnn___SSOCIATION_of__ ________G
G__________ana_naa__an___nnn______________________ ________E
N__________ananan___nn___aan_IGGER________________ ________R
A__________nnna____naa____________________________ ________S
A________nnaa_____anan____________________________ ________*
G________anaannana________________________________ ________A
N________ananaannn_AY_____________________________ ________S
A________ana____nn_________IRC-EFNET-#GNAA________ ________S
A_______nn_____na_________________________________ ________O
*_______aaaan_____________________________________ ________C
um, dolor. Nunc nec nisl. Phasellus blandit tempor augue. Donec arcu orci, adipiscing ac, interdum a, tempus nec, enim. Phasellus placerat iaculis orci. Crasa sit amet quam. Sed enim quam, porta quis, aliquet quis, hendrerit ut, sem. Etiam fe
First post! Rainbow 6 on XBox LIve rules! Actually, it is kind of cool. I may actually have to get Live myself.
Tips for avoiding a search under the patriot act.
The sites seemed slow already, here are some mirrors:
Setting the Record Straight: An Analysis of the Justice Department's PATRIOT Act Website
I get all my political news from BroadbandReports.com --- accept no substitutes!
we wouldn't be in this situation. Shrub used the "fear card" America gave him after 9/11/01 to rip up parts of our constitution. IANAL, but how codified law can supplant the Law of the Land doesn't make sense to me. Anyone else?
Last night on the West Wing, there was an inspiring quote from Benjamin Franklin:
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. "
This came to mind earlier today when I walked past an ACLU table on campus. They were gathering signatures for a petition against the "Patriot" Act. I'm glad someone is fighting for my freedom.
"Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001". I don't think the article gets it right once.
I remember seeing you in your chatroom. YOU TOTALLY FAIL IT!
Thats all we need, hrm I think this guy is a spy, lets spy on him... No privacy, nothing. This concerns me. I thought all the proceedures were put into place to protect ones freedoms, and privacy?
"The same thing we do every night, try to take over the world" -The Brain (Pinky&the Brian)
1) It will keep us safe. We must abandon all rights. We need it. 2 ). It'll destroy us. Our rights are gone, we must stop it. -- Is there a middle ground? How do we find it and what is it?
There is an ongoing discussion of the patriot act which can be found at the Nero Tech Center
but things would be 100 times worse if Gore or any of the democrat wannabes were in office.
The Patriot Act has served it's purpose. It's time for it to go now.
-- $G
I think that many people are finally latching onto the concept that freedom to live safely is more important than freedom to be a criminal.
Now before everyone begins to quote Ben Franklin, please consider that he lived in a very different era where the ability of a very few to cause significant harm was simply not available. He was saying, don't let the gov't take my gun because I may need it to protect myself from intruders or even the gov't.
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC. All the privately held guns in the US couldn't stop a military attack by the federal government, if the government really were so inclined to attack its own citizens.
The only thing that could have stopped those two airplanes successfully is if the proper surveillance structure were in place to notice that strange things were a'brew. The systems were in place, but they didn't communicate the problems effectively. That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11.
You can quote dead white men all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that in the past two hundred odd years society has changed significantly and a single individual's ability to wreak widespread havoc has been increased million-fold.
Please note that the "nero-online.com" domain is owned by the troll who posts the GNAA trolls. Don't click his link(s).
Are government agencies really allowed to do this? I suppose the DOJ is allowed to "educate" people about the law, and propogate the legal positions of the justice department - but any five year old can see that this monolog is advocating legislative policy (the extension of the PATRIOT act, among other things), using federal money.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
forget it. organise your community, overthrow the corporate government.
I don't think anyone in the Bush Administration are humans at all, but are, in fact, crab people.
"Crab People! Crab People! Walk like crab, talk like people!"
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
I agree. What in the hell is the middle ground? Everybody says NO to the patriot act, but does this have to be polar?
How would YOU change the patriot act?
Life is like pants... fit in or you don't fit in.
"... Shrub....
Can't even use his real name? I wonder if the rest of your post is non-factual.
There are plenty of bad points to be made about "PATRIOT", but partisan posts like yours make the anti-PATRIOT movement appear to be nothing but sour grapes in the political game.
nothing to see here, move along
I also wish that those folks who argued against the PATRIOT Act would get more publicity. These are things people need to be aware of and to think about. If it wasn't for /., I would never have known those people even existed or have read their arguments.
There is no spoon or sig.
No offence, but I'm sick of all the whining about this legislation or that politician and how this is the beginning of some new slippery slope. Open your eyes, this slippery slope started a long time ago.
When 9-11 happened, you should have collectively taken a deep breath for a moment and cleared your head before handing your faith to these bastards, because, quite frankly, when 9-11 happened, they took a deep breath for a moment and cleared their heads, and promptly began to calculate how to use that tragedy for their own agendas.
Oh, so you've deconstructed the lies, eh? Whoopeeshit. Sit your heckling ass down and be quiet, because that's all you're doing. Every single moment that you do NOT spend getting rid of these bastards is a moment that you're helping entrench them.
Bush was almost right, except he got it backwards. You're either against them, or you're with them.
"ACLU table on campus. They were gathering signatures for a petition against the "Patriot" Act. I'm glad someone is fighting for my freedom."
This is the same ACLU that time and time again fights to censor individuals whose speech happens to be of the "majority religion". This is the same ACLU that has an entire division devoted to encouraging the government to deny people rights if they have the wrong skin color (all in the interest of "diversity").
The US goverment doesn't want to protect us, they want to get reelected.
If they wanted to protect the USA they would do something to secure our borders. It does no good to post a guard at your door/airports and leave the network/borders unprotected.
A friend of mine was getting a security clearance. One day he came home and told his wife not to give money to Greenpeace any longer. Appearantly, just donating money to them was enough to cause concern. I wonder what it would be like for us "little people". Some file is kept on us and phone calls monitored every once in a while?
George W Hitler? Sorry, you don't know your history. George W is much more like FDR and Churchill: he is fighting against the anti-semitic genocidal tyrants, just those two heroes of old.
You're a terrorist now. Prepare for Guantanamo.
DOJ CLAIM: Peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy cannot be considered terrorists under the PATRIOT Act's new definition of domestic terrorism.
Under the PATRIOT Act, a violation of some criminal law involving risk of serious injury must occur before a person can be labeled a domestic terrorist. But it is easy to see how if an anti-abortion activist blocks traffic as part of a protest, or swings a sign and hits someone on the head, he could be labeled a terrorist. Such activities should be illegal, but they should not be subject to the threat of being labeled terrorism, triggering application of draconian law enforcement powers, such as the power to seize property D including cars, boats and homes.
My reply
DOJ CLAIM: Peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy cannot be considered terrorists under the PATRIOT Act's new definition of domestic terrorism.
Under the PATRIOT Act, a violation of some criminal law involving risk of serious injury must occur before a person can be labeled a domestic terrorist. But it is easy to see how if an jaywalker blocks traffic as part of a protest, or trips and hits someone on the head, he could be labeled a terrorist. Such activities should be illegal, but they should not be subject to the threat of being labeled terrorism, triggering application of draconian law enforcement powers, such as the power to seize property D including cars, boats and homes.
Of course - A judge still has to ok the jaywalker or abortionist to be a terrorist - But let's not let silly facts get into the way of another overblown attack on the patriot act - which few (if any) of the people against it have actually read it.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
And drop little tin foil hats with their 'the top 10 flaws in the constitution' printed on them.
go back to Steve 'rim' jobs ... you panther-penis suckin fag!
Constitutionally Institutionalized
I am the unpatriot,
for not standing behind
the man blind.
You are the patriot,
for standing in line
no questions in mind.
That no patriot can stand such an odius piece of legislation which tears apart our civil liberties and turns the Constitution and freedoms our forefathers fought so hard for into courtroom toilet paper. I love my country, that's why I want a government bound to the Constitution and that doesn't send us abroad, as John Quincy Adams put it, in search of monsters to destroy. We built the beast that seeks to annihilate us because we paid lip service to our founders' timeless advice and made-and empowered-enemies in foreign lands.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
From the Director of Public Affairs at the Department of Justice:
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; passed in 1978) court to issue orders for business records in international-terrorism or espionage cases -- just as federal grand juries have long been able to obtain the same records through subpoenas in ordinary criminal cases. Records can be obtained under section 215 only through a court order (not, as Mr. Lynch states, through a "subpoena"), and only if the court determines that the FBI is legally entitled to them (the FBI has no authority to issue such orders unilaterally).
Section 215 of the Patriot Act does not make it "a crime for anyone who has been served with a subpoena to speak to anyone about the matter." However, Section 215's confidentiality rule is necessary to protect our national security, and is based on nondisclosure orders that courts always have been able to enter in ordinary criminal cases. For example, the judge in the Kobe Bryant case may order the news media to refrain from divulging information about the alleged victim's personal life, in order to protect her privacy. In the same way, if we were to serve a court order on a flight-training school to find out if a Mohammed Atta is taking flight lessons, we obviously would not want the school to tell Atta, who might then accelerate his terrorist plot. As with any court order, the FISA-court can consider sanction, but the Patriot Act does not make such violations criminal offenses.
We do enthusiastically welcome debate about the Patriot Act and invite all Americans to learn the facts about this important legislation by logging on to www.lifeandliberty.gov. Our new website includes an overview of the Patriot Act, its entire text, statements from Members of Congress explaining the law, factual information dispelling some of the major myths perpetuated about the act, as well as other information.
Read the whole article here, which is in response to another article on the same website.
Another Patriot Act article.
by giving it up
"when 9-11 happened, they took a deep breath for a moment and cleared their heads, and promptly began to calculate how to use that tragedy for their own agendas."
You mean, the republicans... right?
You do know that the DOJ uses a handful of select judges "specializing" in these kind of cases. Right?
Help fight continental drift.
"Those who would give up essential liberties for a measure of security deserve neither liberty nor security."
-Benjamin Franklin
GWB is spending too much but that doesn't stop the wannabe's from trying to get more money into the government. The government doesn't need more money. It needs less bullcrap. And that's what democrats understand even less than republicans.
Oh this is so typical. Post some anti Bush rhetoric and an article about "Deconstructing the PR Campaign" crap. It's so damn predictable this stuff it is astounding. And I am sure we can count on more opinions from more pimple faced little dweebs who believe they know everything about living because they have a little education and can type. Surely they must know better because they have a caustic whit.
What is this land of the electric car driving liberal whiner world? I wish Slashdot didn't have such a stigma as being such a land of techie liberal weenies. Sounds like blather coming right out of the People's Republic of Cambridge, MA.
Next, the second amendment makes quite clear that its justification is the need for a "well-regulated militia." This amendment is the only one in the bill of rights to have a justification of any kind. Thus, the interpretation is different, even if it uses the term "the people."
Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.
Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.
Official ACLU Stance
Bill of Rights
Countries are pushed by the US administration to detain people without charge. A Canadian citizen was deported to Syria because the Canadian government refused to detain him. Syria also refused to detain him at first but after some pressure by the US they agreed and emprisoned him for a year, torturing and questioning him until they finally let him go. It's too bad, I'm sure Saddam would've done a better job at torturing that guy.
r ?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid =971358637177&c=Article&cid=1065651010305
article here: http://www.torontostar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServe
Where do we draw the line in too much? I mean the government feels now that without the Patriot Act you have no life or freedom, but this isn't the case.
The Patriot Act IMO is too undefined. It talks about terrorism and what powers the justice system has but it doesn't really ever define terrorism. In the long run it's a lot like statistics, you can make the numbers read however you want. The Patriot Act is the same way, the government just has to justify somehow that something is "involved with terrorism" and then its fine to apply the law. Does anyone remeber the ads that said marijuana supported terrorism? How about that recent drug bust that used the powers of the Patriot Act? I hardly doubt 10 years ago people would say a drug dealer was on par with terrorist orgnizations like al qaeda. I believe its already been mentioned that pirating movies and software is an act of terrorism. I mean come on!
It wouldn't at all suprise me if eventually, if we don't stop this, the government gets "paranoid" of the people and believes everyones a terrorist, and who knows what laws might be in affect by then. People just need to wake up and realize that no amount of laws and removal of freedoms is going to make you completly safe in this world.
With that in mind, the presidental elections are coming, do those of us that support having the act removed have any choice of canidates that want the act removed? Probably the better question is: Have any canidates voiced that they too support the removal of the act?
Post Office, HUD, Armed Services, and many other federal agencies and offices have PR budgets; surely, you have seen their TV commercials?
The whole point of delegated federal agenicies is so Congress can delegate its responsibilities. The whole purpose of federal agencies is to operate independently in their respective areas, so Congress doesn't have to do everything. It would kind of defeat the purpose of Congress delegating to agencies if it told them everything to do!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Scrap the "Patriot Act" and replace it with the otherwise identical "Terrorism Surveillance Act". The problem here is that this bill could be about anything and some people will violently defend it because the name implies opposition equates non-patriotism. Others will fight it just as vehemently just because they hate being cornered into someone else's definition of patriotism. See other postings in this forum for examples.
This bill is nothing about patriotism (which cannot be legislated except maybe in Soviet Russia, Communist China, etc) but is instead about expanded law enforcement powers concerning terrorism detection and prevention. So let's rename the thing to something that actually describes what it is about and get on with rational debate about its actual provisions instead of getting all in a bother over the emotions tied up in the name.
Neither you, nor the mods who moded you up, even know what the 2nd adm says!
Please read it, and the rest of the DI and USC before you post/mod on this subject again.
I don't know anyone making that comparison. For one thing, there is no freedom to live safely. You can lose all your freedom and be "safe," or you can have freedom and take the normal risks we all face. But you cannot have freedom and safety, not entirely. So if safety is what you want, kiss your freedom good-bye.
Now back in the real world, the rest of us recognize that freedom and safety exist on opposite sliding scales. The more free you are, the less safe. For example, if you allow people the freedom to cross the street against the light, you take the risk that they will get hit by a car. If you physically prevent them from being able to cross against the light, that risk goes way down. Their safety (at least with that one risk) increases. Of course they could still get hit by a falling safe, but hey, that's life. It's full of risks.
So what you should have said is: Freedom to live means you are less safe. Safety means you are less free. Now all you have to do is figure out where on the sliding scale you would prefer to live.
Are most people willing to give up a lot of their freedom in order to gain safety? Seems that way. Sadly for them, they probably aren't that much safer for true safety is more of an illusion than anything. Life has risks. Deal.
"The Germany this time is Israel and the US, nerd"
No, Israel now is like the jews back then. (it's just the jews in mostly one place). The bad guys want to exterminate the Jews, then and now.
"Phantoms of terrorism and aggressivenes precipitated the invasion of Poland"
If there is any parallel: then Saddam's invasion of Kuwait = Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Because Echelon pre-dates the Patriot Act by many years? Because the two are not tied together in any way? Because Echelon network is mostly in foreign countries (I have never seen any verifiable proof that Echelon hardware is in US), and therefore cannot be used to intercept strictly domestic US communications (as Patriot can)? From your link,
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
What makes you think your freedom of speech would be worth anything in the event of a government coup?
What I find even more clear than the wording of the Second Amendment (which I disagree with your interpretation on) is the numerous and repeated acknowledgement by our founders that the second amendment is an individual right in their bids to the colonies for ratification of the U.S. Constitution.
By the way, neither the military nor the police are obligated to protect the individual, but the public at large.
[...] Alisa's [a child killed in a bus bombing atatck] father, Steven Flatow, has said, "When you know the resources of your government are committed to right the wrongs committed against your daughter, that instills you with a sense of awe. As a father you can't ask for anything more." [...]
So pathetic. Nothing to do with the natural pain of a father for his demised child, but...
"Come on guys, don't even dare criticize an act that allowed a good father to mourn his daughter"
Fuck the government. They just take everything as propaganda material.
Let's overcome our weakness.
"Well the world is a different place. "
It isn't. What happened on 9/11 is in many ways less severe than what happened on December 7, 1941.
But that's really beside the point. If the act of fighting an enemy makes you like that enemy, than you've lost far more than 2 ugly buildings and 3,000 lives; you've lost the reason that makes you special, different, and better.
We used to hold the moral high ground in so many things, today, I feel like we're no better than China or Russia in terms of how we treat ourselves.
No, the world didn't change on 9/11. What changed is we forgot who we are and who we stand for. And for that reason, we must elect a new president. One who knows what the hell he's doing, and one who has actually read the Constituion.
Perhaps Ashcroft will be tried for treason some day. I think he's the worst thing to happen to this country since McCarthy.
There is nothing peaceful about the Greenpeace group. They will burn your house/business down, vandalize your property, and advocate violence.
Why were you giving them money in the first place??
But the First protects stripping and flag-burning, at least according to the ACLU, which takes the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth to ridiculous extremes, but suddenly gets all original intent and textualist on us when it comes to RTBA. I smell an agenda, not a protector of liberties.
Yeah, the states demanded a Bill of Rights to ensure that the government's powers were protected!
The ACLU, for whom the Constitution is a means, not an end.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Ben Franklin and Winston Churchill both said, but in different words:
Those willing to sacrifice freedom in exchange for security will have neither and deserve neither.
[The Patriot Act] allows victims of computer hacking to request law enforcement assistance in monitoring the "trespassers" on their computers. This change made the law technology-neutral; it placed electronic trespassers on the same footing as physical trespassers. Now, hacking victims can seek law enforcement assistance to combat hackers, just as burglary victims have been able to invite officers into their homes to catch burglars.
I think they just didn't play the Game of Life enough.
Let's overcome our weakness.
The Bush Administration seems to be having public relations trouble. Besides the creation of LifeAndLiberty.Gov, the administration has also created Freedom.Gov, a site dedicated to glorifying Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I believe that the creation of these sites indicates that the Bush Administration is taking a new approach to their critics. Instead of answering their critics directly, the administration is using websites to bypass them and sell their propaganda to the American Public. By wrapping their issues in pseudo patriotism, they believe that the average American will overlook the opposition and support the administration because it is the "American thing to do".
I also believe that the administration is starting to see opposition in Congress. On the LifeAndLiberty.Gov site, there are two sections dedicated to Congressional Opposition. I believe this indicates that the PATRIOT Act is starting to see more criticism from Congress.
-Valen
I thought all the proceedures were put into place to protect ones freedoms, and privacy
No, you've got it backwards...they are there to protect you from freedom and privacy.
Not really related but..
On the way to work today, I heard a commercial on the radio about trying to get funding for bridge repair work in DC. The reason they need the funding and the purpose of the bridge repair projects was for none other than terrorism. The line was something like "to ensure the 300,000+ commuters and government officials could use the bridges to evacuate the city following an act of terrorism nearby. Hello!! those same 300,000 commuters and government officials already use those bridges twice a day every day of the year following an attack from the "end of workday". How is a fresh layer of asphalt/concrete and some rust repair going to change the situation for terrorism? I guess I need more bandwidth in case of a terrorism attack so I can reload CNN faster.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
With Google's IPO around the corner, Microsoft has been giving serious thought into buying out Google.
The fears of the Slashdotters that Google would turn evil has come true.
R.I.P. Google.
According to Gallup, a majority of Americans believe the federal government exerts either the right amount of power or not enough power. It's over 70% total.
Most Americans Don't Feel Government Threatens Civil Rights,
It seems, thankfully, most people would prefer the government actualy do something about terror, rather than complaining about being watched while surfing the Net in libraries, before the next 9-11 happens.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
shut the fuck up i am so sick of this damn quote assholes like you always use out of context dumb fuck
It wouldn't be, but planning to put up pathetic resistance doesn't change anything. When it comes to an oppresive government, the difference is analogous to having an OS with security holes you're not allowed to patch (restrictive gun laws) and being allowed patches that do nothing or just change the backdoor (permissive gun laws). The only difference in the real world is that the latter means you're putting stupidly overpowered lethal weapons in the hands of citizens. This is not an argument against handguns and hunting rifles. This is an argument against the laws advocated by gun lobbyists intended to allow assault weapons, since these weapons cannot even serve their sole useful purpose, defending against oppresive government.
He's already done a bunch of other stuff like sell out the identity of US agents... which is paramount to an act of terrorism.
He's also lied and [not very] secretly arranged things for his buddies to profit from current atrocities.
He's even lied about who hung a damn banner on a ship proclaiming "mission accomplished".
I think he's one of the worst possible people you'd want there. It's not even that he's evil, he's just a dumb child and hangs out with the bad seeds who tell him what to do.
Ahhh, yes. There's the name calling "don't talk if I don't like it" attitude of an American! out of context? It means what it means "asshole"!
Note that a militia is not under the direct authority of the U.S. Armed Forces. One could argue that the 2nd amendment does not explicitly guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, but it does explicitly give groups of citizens that right. Of course, those citizens have to stare their weapons somewhere.
In other words... I'm John Q. Public. And I'm a militia of one.
All the more reason for the citizens to be able to defend themselves.
I beg to differ. See my previous comment about being a militia of one.
Disclaimer: I have no end of gratitude and respect for joe who is overseas right now getting sh!t done. Having said that, I think you have a little too much faith in your local police and your state's notional guard. I've personally worked with guardsmen who haven't touched their 20-year old rifles in over a year. And I should trust someone like that to defend me? I've met guardsmen that I wouldn 't trust to load a water pistol without wetting themselves, let alone defend me. As far as police are concerned, I have a friend who was on the police force in my area. While he was in, it was a standard practice for each officer to not only carry a registered sidearm, but each one also carried what they called their "fire and forget" pistol. Each cop had an unregistered handgun, one that could never be traced back to them. I don't trust people like that to defend me, but I do feel a compelling need to be able to defend myself from them.
I'm not saying that every citizen has a clear need to be walking around with a 50-cal. It would make life more interesting, but that's besides the point. The "gun nuts" cling to their weapons for the same reason so many slashdotters cling to the F-bomb. If I don't have the freedom to say "FUCKFUCKFUCKETYFUCKFUCK", then who's to say you have the freedom to say whatever's on your mind? The same is largely true of gun control: what the gun nuts fear is a state where the only people with firearms are the criminals and the police.
Yes, my only tool is a hammer. And you're starting to look like a nail.
If I knew of anyone giving money to Greenpeace I would personally slit their fucking throat myself. That is one of the most violent organizations on the planet.
I don't suppose the person getting their throat slit could much mind - since they obviously support the concept of killing another human to further their agenda - they surely wouldn't mind me killing another human (them) to further mine... that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?
...and before anyone hands me the crap of "stooping to their level" let me assure you that I have no problem in that regard. I can be sophisticated and enlightened when appropriate and barbaric when the situation dictates.
If your friend's wife is really educated about Greenpeace and still supports them she (and he) deserve to be skinned alive. There are a lot of alternate environmental activist agencies that are actually peaceful in their endeavors.
Ahhhh, but Echelon is supposed to be for spying on non-US citizens and if it truly exists it is almost certainly illegal. Any evidence Echelon uncovers of a danger to national security is useful as it can be kept secret even from the defense due to national security concerns. But any evidence Echelon uncovers about domestic terrorism, financial or political crimes, etc. cannot be introduced in court lest Echelon be unmasked!
The government needs a 'legal' tool that allows them to spy on the people which is admissable in a domestic court of law.
Come play Moral Decay!
I'm sorry if I just don't get it, but I did not really see any mention of anything that actually refuted any of the DOJ claims.
All I see is a bunch of clarification of the points that would not have been appropriate to mention at a press conference (the likes of which the soundbytes were taken from).
I also notice that none of the new powers can simply be used willy-nilly. They all require the permission of a judge (who may well interpret the warrant request as, well, unwarranted).
It still beats getting all your information about patent law from SCO or Acacia.. It really is sad to say that Broadbandreports is probably a more objective source then our own (gasp) attorney general.
No, no, no no, NO!
The famous "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" is NOT about guns. You could not be further from the truth.
The quote means exactly what is says- if you're willing to give up your freedom, you didn't deserve it in the first place- because if you truly valued and appreciated your freedom, you'd understand that being truly free has risks- the risks that someone will abuse that freedom.
That risk is the price you pay for being a US citizen, and in this day and age it is such a minute risk it is absurd(WTC=3000 people, once. Highway deaths EVERY YEAR? 40,000. Heart disease deaths EVERY YEAR? 700,000).
Ben Franklin is flipping in his grave as Bush and Ashcroft- who have done more damage to our personal liberty than anyone else in our history- call themselves "patriots"; they are lying, grandstanding cowards- little more than scam artists who have show the public a future where the Bad Man With The Turban goes away if they just bend over at the airport. True patriots are willing to take the risk so that they remain free. Sheep are willing to trade their freedom for safety.
Please help metamoderate.
The second amendment reads as follows
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
That's right "OF THE PEOPLE" is a part of the second amandment.
If you believe that the second amendment is no longer needed, fine, that is your right. You must lobby to get it repealed. As long as it is a part of the constitution, we can't ignore it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
to ask for to identify the The Center for Democracy and Technology as a leftwing group, wouldn't it?
Dawn of the Dead
For some reason, the phrase "donating to them while simultaneously sucking at the government teat is ill-advised" gave me a tremendously hilarious mental picture and a good belly laugh.
Thank you for that.
The site you used is highly biased, and that bias is evident in the quoted statement.
.45 when he gets out of prison. Criminals are not the issue. Law abiding people like me (and presumably you) are.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source when it comes to Guns or abortion. That's life. Biased and inaccurate are not the same thing. If we're debating whether or not the crack dealer a few miles down the street should date my baby sister, I'm going to be VERY biased against it; that doesn't mean that I'm not right.
Third, you must agree that some limits are highly justifiable. Just as one cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, a convicted violent criminal should not carry firearms.
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No reasonable person thinks that the bank robbing crank smoker who just got parole should be handed a
Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
And?
You're deluding yourself if your think a sub-machine gun will keep you alive in the event of a military coup.
A few misc. handguns did just that for the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
Who says that the second amendment is just about protecting yourself from the federal government? State and local governments can overstep their bounds too. Have a peek at this http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
The military and police will defend you in other significant scenarios.
They have no obligation to protect ME from anything. If my house gets robbed, I can't sue them. If I get murdered, my estate can't collect damages because they didn't want to come to my house. I am the only one responsible for my safety.
Even restrictive gun laws (like in Canada) allow you to have self defense in much smaller scenarios (i.e. robbery).
If Canada is right while we're wrong, feel free to emigrate.
I can't think of any situation where gun-nut friendly laws would have a net benefit.
This statement tells me everything about your bias that I need to know.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This is not an argument against handguns and hunting rifles. This is an argument against the laws advocated by gun lobbyists intended to allow assault weapons, since these weapons cannot even serve their sole useful purpose, defending against oppresive government.
You really need to study up on history. The FBI's own statistics show that semiautomatic rifles are used in less than 1/2 of 1% of all gun related crime. Why is it so important to ban them if they're not used by criminals?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If you like this level of "security," why don't you just move to China? They have plenty of this kind of "security" there.
SEC. 362. Slashdot comments regarding USA Patriot Act:
(1) replace all instances of 'SCO' with 'Ashcroft' in paragraphs 3-4 of comment posted under topic 11 on 03/13/03, subsection 2
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 309 the following new item:
'FUD'
(3) previous statement in section IV is amended by adding at the end the following:
'begone civil liberties'
Well-organized usually implies that organization is not an automatic state. A one-person militia is automatically perfectly organized.
All the more reason for the citizens to be able to defend themselves.
You have Ebola. Is it all the more reason to take antivirals? No, you say? They don't really have any effect? (Sorry for the annoying sarcasm)
Disclaimer...
The national guard and the reserve are quite different from the real thing. Also, what's the alternative to having a strong military defend your interests against another strong military? Whether you trust the military or not, they're your best bet.
Regarding the police officers, a card-carrying ACLU member is the last to trust the police blindly, but your interpretation holds little weight. How does an overly powerful firearm protect you better from manipulation by the police than a pistol? You already said that they have pistols. I never said anything about your not having something equally powerful. I just don't think a submachine gun is justified.
I'm not saying that every citizen has a clear need to be walking around with a 50-cal.
Exactly.
The same is largely true of gun control: what the gun nuts fear is a state where the only people with firearms are the criminals and the police.
Such a state existing and automatically being oppressive is empirically denied, not that I support the formation of such a state. If our democracy can't limit some actions or states (such as ownership) in the true public interest (not USA PATRIOT act garbage), then we're screwed already.
Since this is slashdot, I have to say something inaccurate that doesn't even support my point: I live in Texas, and our mobile phones come equipped with bullets instead of cameras. You might think Bluetooth is useless, but it really does help aiming.
I come from an educated family in Canada. My dad went to a prominent Ivy league school in the eastern US. He lived there for a long time. When I was little, I wanted nothing more than to go to school in the US and immigrate.
Now, I dread crossing the US border because of the draconian powers granted customs officials. I am scared of American police. I think I would like to live anywhere BUT the United States - and choose to do so. I look at ineffectual security measures that do little besides make the ignorant feel more secure. Are people not taught in schools that freedom has a price, and that price is bloody? You cannot guarantee security and maintain civil rights. Yet the people give their freedoms away so willingly! "Watch Lists" are kept. The government spies on it's citizens. Millions and millions of Americans are locked away in prisons. To avoid their own consitution, prisoners are kept in a foreign communist country for "interrogation". These are not things people should be proud of!
How many more people are there like me? How many investment dollars is the US economy missing out on? Worst of all, is the average American aware of how their country's image has fallen in the eyes of the rest of the World? Probably not.
It seems like the ideals the USA was founded on have been long forgotten, and perhaps the "Great Experiment" that started with the blood of real patriots in 1776 has come full circle and ended.
Don't forget that the Patriot Act passed both houses of Congress. By a wide margin.
So instead of demonizing the man in charge of prosecuting our nation's laws why not blame your representative in congress for passing it?
Furthermore, I believe the government should act deontologically when it comes to rights. If there's any legitimate use, then it should be legal (though possibly regulated). My argument is based on principle: semi-automatic weapons do not have any uses among citizens that do not deserve heavy regulation (or even banning). Your utilitarian arguments do not sway me. I know utility is the normal justification for gun control, but I think deontology is more consistant with my other positions in politics and supports my reasoning adequately.
According to Gallup, 67% of people believe in ghosts.
Those polls don't prove anything, except most people are ignorant. You don't need a poll to figure that out.
Second, my point about the military is that, in that unlikely scenario where they take power and oppress everyone, no survivalist has the means to stop them, so why try (and let every other civilian try) and risk all the consequences of doing so?
Third, you say bias is inherent and needn't cloud accuracy, yet you accuse me of bias at the end (which I admittedly have), implying such inaccuracy. That implication is contradictory. Also, by my recommendation to seek a less biased source, I was not labeling myself as such.
Finally, Canada is an example, and when foreign nations have good model policies, the response of a democratic republic (like the U.S.) should not be "move there if you like it" without any self-examination and consideration of reform.
Unless of course someone on the plane(s) had a gun, and used it to shoot the hijackers.
Dangerously incorrect, except, as you say, in the case of armed pilots.
Let's leave out the pilots for a moment, and consider potentially armed passengers. Which has been suggested many, many times.
If personal firearms were allowed in the cabin, then the hijackers would have also had them. The only used boxcutters, because those were legal. Sharp, small, fits in a pocket. And legal, at the time. They could just as easily have used a Swiss Army knife. They brought the maximum legal device that would accomplish the mission.
Now, we introduce firearms into the cabin. Legal and approved. How many people actually carry on a daily basis? 2%? Maybe 2 people on a hundred person flight. All the hijackers have to do is load up with 4 or 5 legally armed people.Immediately, they have an automatic 2-1 advantage. On top of that 2-1 numerical advantage, the hijackers would have the advantage of position, timing, and practice. Station one guy in the back of the cabin, and wait for those two armed passengers to show themselves when the fireworks start. Boom, shot in the back. No more threat from the passengers. They can then carry on their mission.
In a surprise attack, the attackers almost always have the advantage.
Armed pilots are a different situation. Many are ex-military, and also have the advantage of warning, and a very narrow entranceway.
Maybe you should move?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Words matter. Use them at least sort of correctly, please.
I almost included this in my original post, knowing with absolute certainty that some leftie elitist would chime in about how dumb people are. So here goes.
You lefties are all for constitutional democracy, except for the democracy part.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Predictable as always, never off track and never lose an advantage.
Most of it has to do with what a governing body is able to exercise over it's citizenship and (circumventing and suspending bothersome civil rights) to fit a constantly narrowing profile of normalcy.
I can't (sarcasm) wait (/sarcasm) to see how this shit is going to shape the class system within the United States. It'll be instruction on new crimes and how to commit them on larger populations. The fbi's infamous boomerang effect or otherwise known (within the box) 'chicken and the egg' profile gets more stupid as time goes on.
They should go back to bulling high school students, at least the impact was limited.
The amendment was written when everything west of New York and Pennsylvania was wilderness. The Brits tried EXACTLY what our govt is doing now...put away your guns and WE'LL defend you from Indians. Of course when they attacked small villages, the "Army" was usually there in a...week...too bad you're all DEAD.
So, when it comes to 9/11, we should all be packing...the govt should ENCOURAGE it!!!! The only terrorist attack to be unsecessful was the one resisted by the PEOPLE. On top of that, with "disallowed" cellphones and in violation of most of the sissy "anti-terrorist" policies.
Unfortunately, Militias should be formed by the PEOPLE. By default the National Guard doesn't count because they get their funding from the Army and report to both military and state government officals. Militas serve to protect OUR homes, not our "country" not at the whim of a prez who's trigger happy. That's why they cannot report to any branch of federal govt directly [perhaps local or states though] The ability of the states to keep the homeland defended strips the feds of much of the control they've gained over the years....the feds would have to convince states to give up thier troops...which would be exempt from drafting...and they have GUNS to not be taken forcibly...get it! But again, just like voting, THE PEOPLE have to do this on their own! It can't be done for them!
Because the use of Echelon in this country is clandestine and illegal according to the Fourth Amendment. The Patriot Act is the attempted rollout of the legal use of Echelon. If U.S. citizens accept the Patriot Act it makes things like Echelon more useable. Sure they can use Echelon now, but they cannot use the results in a U.S. court as a basis for prosecution. The Patriot Act would change that. We're sort of between the right to privacy and the state in which the Patriot Act would invoke.
The Patriot Act is a horrible thing and we should reject it. It continues the trend of concentrating power into fewer hands.
You can quote dead white men all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that in the past two hundred odd years society has changed significantly and a single individual's ability to wreak widespread havoc has been increased million-fold.
A friend and I had a discussion about this proposition last year; specifically, suppose you have a group of terrorists/whatever and want to kill a lot of people. It doesn't have to be specific ones; random will do. What, then, is the ratio of the number of people you can kill to the number in your organization? And I'm talking more or less average people, perhaps with some moderate funds, not Bill Gates or people with access to nuclear labs.
We concluded that it was on the order of 10 to 1, with more if you're really lucky or think up a creative new attack, and has been true for a long time. For example:
Police protection has dramatically increased, especially in response time. You used to be able to get a small group with crude weapons and go on a killing spree; this does not work anymore.
The organization directly required to finance, find and train suicide bombers, and forge documents for the September 11 attacks may be assumed to be a couple hundred, so this attack also falls into the order of 10:1.
Even if the Aum nerve-gas attack in the Tokyo subway had worked, it would be hard-pressed to kill ten people for every cult member whose finances and expertise it used.
The fires in California were started by a handful of arsonists, and killed a couple dozen (will continue to rise?). In the past, about the same would be true: the fire would spread wider but kill fewer due to density.
The Unabomber only killed 3 people. The Trenchcoat Mafia killed 13 at Columbine; even if they had succeeded in the bombings, the would have only killed a few dozen. Palestinian terrorists typically kill no more than a few dozen in their suicide attacks, and these require several people to coordinate.
To kill a lot of random people with a high-tech attack, bombs or poison would have to be the way to go, but even with the Anarchist's Cookbook, you'd be hard-pressed to kill very many. The only attack I've been able to find that has far exceeded this killing ratio has been the Oklahoma City bombing, at 168:3 or so. I will assume that this is more or less an outlier: bombings are fairly random, and there have been many carbombings with far less spectacular results, including the recent ones in Iraq.
There are much worse attacks predicted as a worst-case scenario, but even these, with moderate estimates, can be shown to be about 10:1 or so effective. A nuclear bomb in New York would require a government's cooperation; stealing one would be near-impossible, and if you could buy one on the black market, Osama would have by now. Nerve gas in crop-dusters might work, but it would be terribly hard to pull off, would require a large technical staff (as Aum found out, the stuff isn't easy to make) and a brisk wind would save a city. Poisoning the water supply is much trickier these days than it used to be, and probably wouldn't kill many more people than it used to because they would notice quickly. Starting an epidemic is better understood nowadays, but also much easier to treat and contain.
So, your point needs some modification. High-tech stuff is not that much more effective at killing people than guns.
Disclaimer: I'm interested in becoming a security researcher. I don't plan on implementing any of these measures, and any criminal (certainly any terrorist) could probably think of better ones.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Saddam would pose a threat to us if he got NBC weapons or was about to get them and planned to make them availible to terrorists to use against us. North Korea fits the category of a legitimate monster to destroy. Iraq, based on the little evidence we've seen, didn't.
Our founders would still not support intervening to make the world a safer place. Who would we attack next? Where would it end? Our founders recognized that this "logic" taken to its natural conclusion would bury us in imperial overstretch, debt and cripple us as a world power. So who is it next? China over Tibet and Taiwan? The Sudan?
I have nothing against supporting violent liberal revolutions against Marxist and Fascist regimes. I cannot though see anything but folly in going after every nation that rattles its sabres at us. The only way to be taken seriously is to use your military in a very strong show of force. If you get little bits involved here and there you weaken your ability to bring overwhelming force to bear on a single enemy and only embolden the pissants who want a piece of you.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Well, we can still talk about how much we dislike Bush, his cronies and (currently) the PATRIOT Act.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
I for one welcome the year 3535, when everything I think do and say is in the pill I took today.
You are so right. All that says, is that many people have been properly swayed by the massive propaganda machine set forth by the US gov, not much more...
Being educated is elitism. Lets all just stay dumb and do as we're told no questions asked. Its so much easier to be told what to think.
The fact that MOST Americans don't mind having their liberties stifled and/or taken away, doesn't make it any more ethical or easier to swallow.
Not one of your arguments supports the posession of anything more powerful than a handgun or hunting rifle.
None of your argumens supports banning them.
Second, my point about the military is that, in that unlikely scenario where they take power and oppress everyone, no survivalist has the means to stop them, so why try (and let every other civilian try) and risk all the consequences of doing so?
No one is suggesting that a lone gunman with an AK-47 would be able to stop the entire US military. There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. They outnumber the military by a factor of 8 to 1. You also assume that none of the members of the military would refuse to carry out illegal or immoral orders. When president Clinton had a survey taken among the Marines as to if they would be willing to open fire on American citizens if they resisted gun confiscation, the majority of them responded "No". If such a scenario were to come to pass, we'd have a sizeable portion of the military on our side.
Third, you say bias is inherent and needn't cloud accuracy, yet you accuse me of bias at the end (which I admittedly have), implying such inaccuracy. That implication is contradictory. Also, by my recommendation to seek a less biased source, I was not labeling myself as such.
I pointed out your bias, because you implied that bias is indicative of inaccuracy.
Finally, Canada is an example, and when foreign nations have good model policies, the response of a democratic republic (like the U.S.) should not be "move there if you like it" without any self-examination and consideration of reform.
Good, just like bad is subject to subjective interpretation. You have the right to think that the Canadian system is better, most Americans disagree with you.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I never said my ideas would create a utopia, though a 1/2 to 1% reduction in gun crimes would be great. Also, 1/2 to 1% is not 0%, so obviously some criminals do use them.
Um, no. Not 1/2 to 1%, less than 1/2 OF 1%. Meaning Furthermore, I believe the government should act deontologically when it comes to rights.
You have the right to that belief, but you're wrong. From a deontological point of view, one can justify ethnic cleansing because most of the people in a given place may think that it is for the best.
If there's any legitimate use, then it should be legal (though possibly regulated).
Legitimate or not, constitutionally protected trumps that.
My argument is based on principle: semi-automatic weapons do not have any uses among citizens that do not deserve heavy regulation (or even banning).
Crime prevention. Hunting. Collecting. Recreation. All of which are legitimate uses, but the fact that firearms ownership is constitutionally protected makes none of that relevant.
Your utilitarian arguments do not sway me.
The purpose of this debate is not for either of us to sway the other. It is not possible. You have made up your mind, I have made up mind. If you were to try to persuade me that black licorice is delicious, you'd be wasting your breath. Same here. It is to sway those who are undecided.
I know utility is the normal justification for gun control, but I think deontology is more consistant with my other positions in politics and supports my reasoning adequately.
I don't care. Be it deontology, or the flip of a coin. Your justification for your position on this is meaningless to everyone except you.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
now, firstly I am from Australia where we have VERY estrictive gun laws. That is all because we have the WORLD RECORD for the single greatest mass murdering... no matter how hard you try, you just have not been able to top the 'Port Arthur massacre' (on an aside, it is a little ironic that it occured at the site of one ot the worst gaols that was ever built in Australia. The gaol has not been in use for anything other than tourism for about 100 years, I think.)
Read what you wrote just here:
When president Clinton had a survey taken among the Marines as to if they would be willing to open fire on American citizens if they resisted gun confiscation, the majority of them responded "No". If such a scenario were to come to pass, we'd have a sizeable portion of the military on our side.
Now, what I'd like you to do, is take off that goofy red hat of yours (ok, I am just taking the piss here, no need to get shitty) and think for a moment. The one argument I keep on hearing from Americans about their 'right to own guns' is that the second amendment allows gun ownership for the people so that they have the ability to overthrow the government (that is what it sounds like, ok...) Read that bit you wrote that I quoted one more time. What does that last sentence of yours say? The marines would be on your side. If that is the case, you really don't need to own AK47s and the like.
The onus should be on the owner of the gun to PROVE THAT HE/SHE NEEDS IT. A submachine gun is not required for hunting squirrels. An AK-47 is not needed to keep crows away.
But that argument is not going to win you over. I know that. After all "I have the right to own how many guns, of whatever type I want" you would say. Did you ever stop to think that the one thing that your country needs is a "Bill of responsibilities" as opposed to your "Bill of rights."
Think about it...
I am not stubborn. I am right!
"among the groups attacking the Act, why do so few of them bring up Echelon? It already gives the government much of the surveillance ability they claim they're lacking, and without congressional oversight."
While Echelon is problematic, its purpose and use appears limited to threat analysis and corporate espionage. The potential for abuse is absolutely astounding, but it isn't something that's legal, and it isn't something that (so far as we know) has been used to gather evidence against anyone for a court case. Echelon is a difficult and touchy issue to bring up, partly because it would appear so integral to the member-nations' security, but mostly because so little is known about it.
What it comes down to is this: you can't attack every single problem at once. You go after the big stuff first, and then you come back for the rest as you can deal with it. Echelon is blatantly unconstitutional and violates so many international laws and treaties, it would take a pack of lawyers years to determine the totality of its illegality. The main problem these people have is the 'legal' (as per current law) violations of individuals' rights, or the potential thereof. If the FBI were illegally searching peoples' homes or records, or were illegally seizing all sorts of objects or information without probable cause, then it would be up to government oversight to reign them in. In this case, agents of the government are legally doing these things, and that's why these groups are jumping all over it.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
... the U.S. is an illegal monopoly ...
just like it's best friend Microsoft
So it realy surprises me not that
things like this get brushed under the paranoid eye of the masses so easily, with zero fanfair.
It really is, no surprise, whatsoever, to me.
If most americans had half a brain... we wouldn't be in this situation. Shrub used the "fear card" America gave him after 9/11/01 to rip up parts of our constitution. IANAL, but how codified law can supplant the Law of the Land doesn't make sense to me. Anyone else?
It's a valid question and I hope whoever moderated this "Troll" gets metamodded to hell. Do you guys see "Shrub" and automatically select "Troll" from the dropdown? There is nothing trollish about asking a serious question that needs to be asked. A number of constitutional rights have just been undermined by a statute. WTF?
It doesn't strike anyone as unusual how quickly the PATRIOT Act trotted up to the plate before the hysteria was even over? This was a blatant abuse of the public trust. It had nothing to do with 9/11 (like something else going on right now that I can think of) and was clearly a DoJ wishlist that had been piling up waiting for a moment of national hysteria with a Congress and Senate very politically desirous to be seen "doing something".
This is the moment where we are waking up and finding ourselves in bed with tyranny. Time to ask ourselves what the hell we were thinking!
The old "fire in a crowded theater" argument regarding the limitations on rights is constantly misused. This example refers to the rights of a property owner to make use of that property. By yelling "fire", you deprive the owner of the rights to own and operate his/her theater as he/she sees fit. That is purely a civil matter.
No.
You're correct that the 'falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater and causing a panic' argument is widely misused. It dates back to Schenk, which is no longer good law, having been replaced by Brandenberg. And no one ever remembers to quote the part about it being a _false_ cry of 'fire,' though it is perfectly legal and quite commendable to cry 'fire' if it's for real, nor that it is only objectionable should it result in a panic. (given the inflammability of theaters in 1919, a panic would likely result in people being injured or even killed)
BUT you're wrong as wrong can be when you get into this nonsense about property. That's just stupid.
The reason put forth for that type of limit on speech is that it results in grevious physical injury to people, and thus shouldn't be permitted. Similarly, if someone spoke to a mob causing it to lynch someone, or someone spoke to an assassin, causing him to murder someone, though the speaker has engaged in nothing more than speech, the immediate effect of that speech is harmful, and that's why he's not free to do so.
I STRONGLY suggest that you read Brandenberg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which is the CURRENT law on the subject, or at least read the decision in the case that the fire example dates back to, Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52 (1919).
'Cos right now, you just look foolish.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What about the questions surrounding the U.S. Government's knowledge of 9/11 prior to the event itself?
What about the fact that the U.S. Government trained and armed what would become Al Queda in the first place?
What about the fact that the U.N. Weapons Inspectors couldn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Saddam had no involvment in 9/11, despite the general cloud of confusion that the President has spread over that particular issue. Quite a few experts maintain that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. as long as he was left alone. I won't say the world isn't better off without Saddam but it's the motivation and execution that bother me.
Does none of this inconsistency bother you in any way?
My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?
If the USA PATRIOT Act stands ... terrorists would have won.
And I suppose 9/11 was the only time that people have ever been murdered, eh? What about Hiroshima?
Terrorism triggers an overt response from the authorities. The response may make life more difficult for everyone, or it may be much more extreme, alienating the community with which a terrorist is identified and creating new sympathisers.
See my journal, I write things there
If you have to justify a right to someone, then it's not a right; it's a privilege.
After all "I have the right to own how many guns, of whatever type I want" you would say.
Yea, and in this country, that's all you need to say.
Are you implying that the First Amendment doesn't protect flag-burning? It's clearly a form of speech and thus protected. And perhaps doubly so as part of a peaceable assembly. The matter of stripping is somewhat removed (being that it mostly concerns private business) and I abstain from weighing in on that issue, as I stronly believe that legislating morality is very clearly wrong (as a matter of personal, not legal, opinion) and would tend towards polemic on such a matter.
The Constitution has always been a means for everyone. It's a living document, open to interpretation at certain points, and vague at others. It was very clearly meant to be that way and the flexibility it affords is one of the major reasons the document survives today.
For all the criticism that the ACLU endures, it's important to note that they serve an important role in our society. Someone needs to stand up for civil liberties at all costs, no matter what, even in cases that the vast majority of people are inclined to disagree with it. The ACLU is this tireless champion, our Sisyphus eternally pushing the boulder of totalitarianism up the slippery slope. On individual case matters, the ACLU may be wrong or right, sensible or indefensible, the good guys or the bad. The ACLU happens to be wrong on the matter of the 2nd Amendment, although so do most gun lobbyists who ignore that gun control and assault weapon bans do not abridge the right to keep and bear arms. This should not be used to evaluate the ACLU as a whole, since there are many more cases in which the ACLU has been on the right side of things.
"You have no clue what kuwait is. Kuwait was part of iraq in 19th century.. in begining of 20th century britain invaded south part of iraq and created province Kuwait."
You have no clue about Kuwait. Kuwait as a political entity is actually older than "Iraq". "Iraq" was artificially cobbled out of different territories long after Kuwait came into existence.
Besides, just because something was part of an ancient empire does not mean it still belongs there. Should Australia re-join Britain, whether or not the Ozzies want this? Of course not.
"In 1990 Iraq merely wanted kuwait back. "
No, in 1990 Saddam wanted to forcibly annex Kuwait to Iraq. What Iraq wanted had nothing to do with it.
"If everyone still wants to wipe the jews.. don't you think it might be actually something wrong with them?"
One of the root causes of antisemitism is that the Jewish people have a strong sense of heritage and community (perhaps stronger than any other group) so they tend to prosper. Lazy thugs easily get jealous of them.
" So many people just can't be wrong.. "
So that is your argument? Actually, they can be wrong. It is nothing more than a tradition of lazy greedy thugs being jealous of hard-working and productive people.
"Problem is in jews parasitic nature"
It is the opposite. The Jews as a group tend to have been harder working and more productive: the lazy thugs want to leech off from or steal from them. If you aren't doing so well in life, get off your lazy ass and work. Instead, you seem to want to get off your lazy ass and assault Jewish people because they DO work.
Hi there, I'm not actually a US citizen but a couple of points in this discussion piqued my interest..
- Is the patriot act the same thing as the thing in Quantananmo? As far as i can gather from the news, the place where people are interned is owned by the US military, it's not actually US governments soil. I'd appreciate if someone could correct that.
- On the little Gun control issue that developed in this discussion: someone said that if they didn't have guns they wouldn't have freedom. Um. I live in Republic of Ireland, we don't have guns. Most of the police don't have guns. We have freedom. Oh wait. There is one part of ireland that the people do have guns in. Northern Ireland. Where people have been shooting each other for many years. Although it's not fair to say it's all the guns fault. Sometimes they use bombs. Are bobms constitutionally protected in the US?
The discussion on the patriot act in some ways reminds me of the internment laws they used to have in northern ireland, although they didn't call it such a pretty name. They simply locked up suspected terrorists with no trial. For years. I'm sure they did lock up some actual terrorists, and they only locked away a few dozen innocent men.
Anyway. Apologies for any errors in the above. I only learn things from movies and tv these days.
And finally on a completely different topic: are the french really as unpopular in america as trans-atlantic tv makes out? They helped you win your war of independance!
No Patriot Act will stop terrorists. All it has done is lockdown regular Americans going about their business and create a unwelcome sense of unease. The cynic would say that with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, then some other Federalist State has to take up the reins of totalitarianism but its more serious than that.
Stop the cause not the effects of terrorism. Seriously look at where US aid funding goes. For every dollar the US gives to one side, you create resentment on the other side. Don't you feel a little resentful when someone in US society (pick your minority) gets Federal funding from your taxpayer dollar and you don't ? Well extrapolate this into the global arena and welcome to resentment on a global scale and boy are they pissed.
If your going to give aid then pass it through the established non-aligned aid agencies like Medecin Sans Frontiers and do some real work that helps foster friendships not make enemies.
For every aid dollar thats tied to a trade agreement or used for defence purchasing or used as carrot or stick is a dollar that some terrorist wants to stop and they will go to the source of funding to stop this aid flow.
I've nothing against aid but the way its been effected to date has helped kill those on 9/11; not good value for money.
>>Finally, the U.S. military has incredible power.
>All the more reason for the citizens to be able to defend themselves.
The 2nd Amendment does not entitle you to non-nuclear parity with the government.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
So, would any of the valiant protectors of our freedoms care to mention what they dislike so much about the Patriot Act? (Apart from the name of course... "Patriotism, that's like so... *shrugs*")
You can get extra brownie points if you point to stuff that is actually in the USA PATRIOT act, and not just make the usual Ben Franklin quotes.
(Ye know kids, sometimes trading freedom for security is a perfectly desirable and valid choice.)
I read a book once, wish I could remember the name, but it was a collection of letters the founding fathers wrote to each other while they were drafting the Constitution. They debated issues, and brought up _this exact issue_. Franklin was asked by someone if they thought the law would still apply when the wars were over, and Franklin replied 'The wars will never be over. If a war ends, we should be prepared for another.' Two pages pass... 'It's my opinion that every man, woman, boy, and girl should know how to use a weapon to defend his or herself. The only way for this to happen is to allow the people to keep guns.'
Note: This was paraphrased. It's been a while since I've read the actual letter, so I don't know the exact quotes.
Deontology would not allow ethnic cleansing unless it's considered "right" by other means first. Deontology is not a system for judging whether individual actions are right or wrong if they are 100% right or 100% wrong. Deontology fills in the numerous gray areas by giving a means for weighing whether an action of mixed moral implications is overall good or bad. In deontology, good never outweighs the bad. So, if you think even a part of ethnic cleasing is wrong, its implementation is entirely wrong under deontology. You could, however, justify such actions under utilitarianism if you could prove how it was "greatest good for greates number." I think you have the two systems confused.
...you can feed'em information, but you can't make'em think
It also means more criminals use bats, knives, etc to commit crimes, so we should make those illegal too.
Now before everyone begins to quote Ben Franklin, please consider that he lived in a very different era...
...where the ability of a very few to cause significant harm was simply not available.
Ben Franklin was also directly involved in the outdated language found in the Constitution. I guess that's not important to you since it was written in a different era - unless you're being selective in what you consider relevant.
With the exception of nuclear weapons, people then had access to the same weapons we have today (albeit rudimentary versions). Guns, explosives, rockets, and even biological. The scales are different, but the ability still existed.
Liberties no longer mean anything to you if you die because you opted against an effect measure of security.
Bush Jr isn't a Nazi. That was his grandfather. While it's true that George HW rose to power on blood money (and George Dubya followed behind) simply being an evil overlord with dictatorial desires doesn't make you a Nazi.
While we're on the subject, let's just delve a little into Franklin's inspiration. Ben and all the Founding Fathers read John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. As Locke makes clear in the beginning of Chapter 8, the very purpose of civil society is to exchange some natural liberty for the safety and comfort of a community. But don't take my word for it; here is Locke's (you should read some chap 1 to see what he means by 'state of nature'):
So when we get beyond all the demagoguery, the real debate that should happen is how to trade off freedom and security. And maybe how to allow the next generation the freedom to make their own choices after we've made ours.Confession: I've already moderated in the topic, so I've got to post this anonymously. I didn't notice the misquote until after a few mods. Having posted I won't mod any more in this topic.
http://austin.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id= 9239&group=webcast
Here's a recording of a speech & Q/A given by the co-author of the PATRIOT act - Viet Dinh.
Please mod this up so others may see it.
Geeks will never make it. To survive today you have to have business principles. The American Democrat party today encourages socialism and communist methods with mob psychology to cause knee jerk reactions. Stupid people are easily swayed by incendiary baseless claims - MIT graduates with long beards and pony tails are just as useless as the bum begging for change at Harvard Square.
Sadly, the world's young elite talent is easily fooled into believing that "everyone should be poor together" and "everyone should work the farm collectively for the common good."
Screw you.
Why do you think Microsoft is what it is? Socialism? Communism? Fairness for all?
Maybe you want to wallow in misery but I don't. We only have about 40 years to enjoy in our lives if we're lucky - I don't want to spend my 40 years living in a government-supplied grass hut with government-supplied healthcare.
Microsoft's business methods aren't fair, but nothing is fair - anyone who believes there is fairness in life is a fool.
So stop complaining about Bush and Ashcroft because they remind you of your parents' disciplinary actions and grow up.
Buh
> Personally, the govt spying on me doesnt bother me a lick, its what is done with the info they collect is where it gets sticky. I have no problem with the govt expanding its powers to spy/probe whatever as long as they are used legitimately.
Well, since the USA PATRIOT Act allows for undisclosed searches, and also prevents disclosure, and removes the need for accountability, how exactly do you propose to ensure that it's all being used legitimately? To toss a perfect example in the mix, it's perfectly legal under the USA PATRIOT Act for the President's staff to conduct an investigation of each of the Democratic presidential candidates, for the purpose of mining up dirt about their personal lives for use against them in the 2004 campaign. Well, okay, it's patently illegal, but then they can do the investigations without judicial oversight and they don't need to disclose that they're doing it, and they can't be held criminally liable for what they dig up, and if by chance they turn up anything that's actually a violation of law, they can enter the evidence in a court and the defending candidate can't have it removed from evidence under the Fourth Amendment. A coworker who is by trade a criminal attorney reviewed the USA PATRIOT Act and this scenario, and could find no legal reason why this couldn't happen. So, your orignal statement is correct, except that there aren't that many people as yet who consider a "Democrat" to be a "criminal". Now, if you intend to tell me that there is nobody in power in the government today who would think of doing such a thing, then I must stop taking your views seriously.
Do you like that?
Virg
From an article in WND.com
Okay, I have to respond to your post, since it's the most grievously incorrect.
> Seems to me that any amount of guns greater than zero would likely stop a handful of men with boxcutters.
Of course, if it was legal to take a gun on a plane in the U.S., the terrorists would have stuck with boxcutters instead of bringing their own firearms. For religious reason, I can only presume. I can't believe this weak an argument even qualifies.
Virg
Microsoft is where it is by riding IBM's coattails, strong arm tactics, and anti-competitive practices. If you are so against communism and socialism, I would think you would be in favor of a free market and competition. Microsoft has no regard for either, so it is strange you would hold them up as an example.
Your point seems to boil down to "people are assholes, so get used to it and stop whining". If that's so, why don't I just come over, kick your ass, and take your stuff? Or maybe we should just disband the police and judicaial system. Justice and redress of grievances seem to have no place in your philosophy.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
like the ALF and the ELF.
like it or not, those are terrorist groups. greanpeace gives money to them. its no more complicated than that, AC.
Is there some reason you put that in quotes? I'm sure you can give me at least one example of "permanent security" off the top of your head?
Exactly. It is plain that our government and many lobbying groups do not expect adults to be able to behave as adults, or perhaps do not want adults defending themselves?
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
If you can afford it the 2nd amendment _does_ give you the right to parity with the government.
Nukes are restricted by international treaty. Personally I don't think that governments are responsible enough to be trusted with them.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
If you can afford it the 2nd amendment _does_ give you the right to parity with the government.
So, if you become rich beyond your wildest dreams, you'd rather spend it on HumVees, Harrier Jets, Apache Helicopters, and associated firepower?
Give me the scaled-down decadance of a bubblebath with Keira Knightly, Elisha Cuthbert, and Jeri Ryan, thank you.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
I'm not sure your substitution sheds any light on the issue. Does militia mean the whole population? Does electorate? Also, I thought strict contructionists thought that every word in the Constiution had direct meaning... nothing is there for decoration, elaborations, examples, to improve flow, to explain why etc. I'm not a strict constructionist myself, so maybe I misunderstand.
As a historical example I would point to the town square cannons you see in a lot of small towns. These were often purchased and owned by private citizens, and were major military hardware in their day. Kinda like having a tank now. Perfectly legal.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
all this talk about how "bad" the patriot act is. im curious if anyone can present more than hypothetical situations that could happen and maybe present a _real_live_case_ of patriot act abuses. who has had their civil liberties stripped? who specifically and when?
so.... we cant admit a mistake of the past and correct it? i dont understand why cause in the past we gave funds to (oh yeah get your facts straight it wasnt al-qaeda) the group bin laden was fighting _for_ at the time that we cant change policy? how old and stubborn are you? things change.
Fighting for Liberty is like Making Love for Virginity....
> My comment can be quoted whenever, wherever, so long as you bloody well provide attribution! >
Hey amateur political scientist,
Obviously America is not a direct democracy. I am well aware of the framers' intent to avoid direct democracy and the Madisonian "tyranny of the majority."
But America has aspects of both democracy and republic, so it is both or neither. Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law
See: State initiative process, Arnold, the fact that we vote for national representatives.
A democratic republic (or representative democracy) is technically an elected, representative government based on consent of the governed. The US has a democratic republic, since we choose our leaders by voting (yes, I know about the electoral college - see below). The United Kingdon is a republic - a monarchial republic. China is a socialist republic, based on a dictatorship.
So not all republics are democracies, but some are, at least partially.
Your post is off-topic though, since I never said that America is a democracy. I said libs were against democracy.
I say this because they have a very small plurality. Quite simply, their ideas would never survive popular referendum. Thus, the left opposes nearly every ballot initiative, and constantly tries to thwart the will of the people in court, with lib judges (see: ACLU).
Unassimilatible
BA, Political Science
JD, Law
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The primary responsibility of the flight crew is to fly the aircraft.
When there's trouble, put the plane on the ground and deal with it. Don't add the additional variable of 30,00 feet of altitude.
gewg_
There is a rising clamor for the Patriot Act to be dismantled, for the 'security vs. privacy' reasoning, but should it be?
Who, exactly has been inconvenienced by this act of self-preservation? The media has been clamouring for victems, yet none serface. Why is that? Consider this, if you will. (Recently posted elsewhere, here at Slashdot, as well.)
Where does privacy end and security begin, and visa-versa? Is the threat from internal terrorists over? Are we secure in our homes, workplaces, and skyscrapers; or, does the threat continue?
If we are not yet secure than what price will we pay for privacy now? It's nice for you and me to have privacy but should those who would plot to destroy our civilization have the privacy to make their plans?
Our Constitution is a wonderful document, and should endure forever, but it is not a suicide pact, after all. During times of war certain liberties have always needed to be suspended (temporarily, as in 'sunset clause') for the greater need of preserving it.
This "we all have to be free and at total liberty to do whatever we want," is an emotion that should have been put to rest when we were weaned from our mother's teat. We all have to live together; and, that means that we all can't do whatever we want, whenever we want.
It's time to grow up and hope that our leaders can get this job done before the F**cking do-gooders screw it all up and we're all bowing to Mecca.
So far they are.
Remember that there are also built-in safe guards within our Constitution that secure our continued freedoms. Things like "term limits" will stop any Commander-in-Chief from becoming too powerful. Things like our Congress, that can and do make laws with sunset clauses built-in so that we get our liberties and freedoms back once the problem is settled.
The Patriot Act has such a Sunset Clause, did you know that? It will just go away on it's own. It doesn't need your, or anybodies, help. Our (Republican) Congress did well by us there.
All this decent does, when presented too early (like now), is to embolden our enemies and make the job harder and more dangerous for our troupes. This is a political tactic to draw out the war in order to make the current administration look bad so that some pin-head can win the next election and get more of our people killed. Please don't fall for that trap. You are being played.
Some of our politicians, especially the liberals, don't care about who dies or who wins, as long as they get elected. That is their mission, the rest is just theater to them. Don't fall into that trap, and it is one. Remember, we were attacked and we are responding in a way to insure that we won't be again. That is how it should be.
It's time to grow up. The world is bigger than your basement. Don't let them play on you this way.
They live, while you sleep.
We need to protect ourselves. The current administration is doing that. The term limits and sunset clauses will put everything back the way it was before 9/11, just without the threat of further attacks. Won't that be nice? Isn't that worth something? Think about it.
It's a hard world out there and the boogey-man does want to kill you!
Good night!
Keeper of the terrible karma ---
I believe Mr. Franklin said it best: "Those that can give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety will get neither."
We're all going to die someday. I'd rather have a year of freedom than decades of the illusory safety of the gulag.
-Technowitch
now, firstly I am from Australia where we have VERY estrictive gun laws.
The Australian people have the right to choose whatever rules they want to live under. As do we in the US. Here we have chosen to preserve the right of firearms ownership.
The onus should be on the owner of the gun to PROVE THAT HE/SHE NEEDS IT. A submachine gun is not required for hunting squirrels.
That isn't the way it works here. A right doesn't need to be justified to anyone's satisfaction.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano