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."
I get all my political news from BroadbandReports.com --- accept no substitutes!
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.
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?
The Patriot Act has served it's purpose. It's time for it to go now.
-- $G
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Shrug. The privately-held guns in Iraq seem to be doing a reasonable job.
There are numerous precedents for things such as the Patriot Act. They have usually been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, but they have always stuck around until they reached the point of being struck down. For example the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were blatantly unconstitutional and designed to give the government the power to crack down on their opponents. Of course it wasn't taken out until 1840, not exactly a quick response.
Then of course we had the Espionage Act and Sedition Acts during WW1. Similar things in WW2, the relocation of Japanese-Americans... all sorts of precedents have been set in this regard.
Reflections of Unconstitutional Precedence
TImeline of American Hegemony
The goverment does not care if the laws that they pass or the actions that they take are unconstitutional. That is the one thing history has taught us again and again. It doesn't matter at all unless the Supreme Court is going to rule against them. These sorts of unconstitutional practices will be allowed almost without fail. Perhaps years later public opinion will shift and people will add another chapter to the history books on unconsitutional precedents.
Hopefully the SCOTUS gets the balls to do something about it. Although I highly doubt that our current court will become involved. We already know how they rule on major issues that affect our country. The precedent is to allow the govt to do whatever the hell they want, worry about the Constitution later. Especially when the ideologies of the different branches of govt meet.
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
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!
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.
Why would you think that anyone would need to protect themselves from the gov't? Could it be because of the threat of tyranny? Let's turn this around, shall we? Couldn't this act be the very sort of thing that you claim he was talking about?
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.
First thing. 19 people killed 3,000 people. This is 157.89473684210526315789473684211 people killed per killer. If we assume that your statement about a millionfold is correct, then in Franklin's day, the same killer could have killed about 0.00015789 people. That is, no one could be killed unless 6,333 other people worked together. This is obviously wrong. There were murders without mobs of 6,333 people in the past. OK, so there may be an increase, but not as much as it may seem, I would hazard. Furthermore, if we look at the number of deaths relative to the size of the population, it would likely be lower. Indeed, on 9-11, only one in one hundered thousand people living in America died. More died in car crashes, more died from the flu, more died from alcohol than died on 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was a horrible thing, but let's keep perspective, too. For an example of perspective, consider that anywhere from 7784 to 9596 Iraqi civilians were killed by US troops since the War in Iraq started (source). Given this, how do you think that the Iraqi people should react? I leave you with these thoughts.
#define DRM chmod 000
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC.
Um. Am I the first to suggest that the PATRIOT act wouldn't either?
Terrorists of today could reproduce 9/11 quite well (though with different targets, of course). The only difference is that the government is given more power. The only people subject to the power are innocent.
Not to mention, am I the only one who thought it strange that 9/11 was used a reason to go to war against Iraq? Why not use "I was mugged on my way to the store" as an excuse to go murder everybody in your office....
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
" ...such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC..."
I call bullshit on this argument. Don't even try to convince me that if someone had a gun in those airplanes that they would not have been able to stop a bunch of razor toting fanatics.
The biggest fallacy is the assumption that 'times are different' and therefore protections we enjoyed in earlier times do not apply. Again - bullshit.
I have news for you, people have not changed all that much, and one bullet in the forehead will kill you as fast in 1895 as in the year 2003. The destructive power of an airliner was available since the first one flew back in the 1920s. The only difference is the will of someone to try to use it. That does not justify flushing the Constitution down the toilet to make ignorant people feel 'safe'.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
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?
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.
A WWII veteran said to me one time as we were watching news coverage of a protest:
"Those who compare Bush to Hitler do a disservice to all those who fought and died in WWII and an even greater disservice to their cause
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Unless of course someone on the plane(s) had a gun, and used it to shoot the hijackers. Which might explian why the airline pilots union has been campaigning to let its members carry guns in the cockpit.
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
However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC.
Oh, I don't know. You sit me on one of those flights with a gun and they are not going to hijack that plane. At least they are not going to order it slammed into a building after they do.
"But you couldn't get on the plane with a gun!!!!" True, but your scenario doesn't make a lot of sense either way. NOT possessing guns wouldn't have prevented 9/11 either. (And may I ask, how did a debate on the Patriot Act turn into one about gun control?)
That's what the Patriot Act is all about, getting these systems to finally work properly so that we can stop another 9/11.
No. As you admitted yourself, we had the intelligence, we simply did not communicate it properly and did not fit all the pieces of the puzzle together properly. The Patriot Act is about increasing the government's ability to spy on us. Once they've decided we're not a threat worth watching, as they evidently did for the 9/11 hijackers, the PA has no effect.
And this one is just ridiculous: 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.
Do you know that Martin Luther King, JR. was spied on by the FBI? And we all know what a terrible terrorist he was, with all his sit-ins and peaceful protest! The movement to repeal the law isn't about protecting criminals, it is about protecting people who are doing nothing wrong from unjustified surveillance. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from the government, not from terrorists and regardless of how many more people a single individual nutcase can now kill in one fell swoop. History has proven that government, like most people and organizations, will abuse any power they are given (DMCA, anybody?). The solution is not to give it to them or to ensure what authority they have is locked down so tight it is as hard as possible to abuse.
Apparently these dead white men understood what freedom meant better than people today. If I have to die because a law like the Patriot Act is repealed, I would consider myself lucky to die for freedom. Thank god people like Franklin and Jefferson, true American patriots, were there at the founding of this country and not cowards like yourself.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ahhh, preach it Mr. Dead White Man.
It's clearly being used beyond is "intended" purpose, i.e., to track down terrorists. As this article describes it has been used in hundreds of non-terror cases already.
And if you think that every one it has been used on was guilty, look up bridges in the want ads.
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 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
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.
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
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.
I was on the jury of a murder trial that included just such evidence
And what did that evidence tell you? "Oh my god! that person read Stephen King, he MUST be a murderer?!"
What can one possibly read that would be so important to a case that the fact the person had read it had to be entered into evidence? Did they not have any other evidence? "Yeah, we were at a loss and we had exhausted all our leads, so we took a trip to the library and picked up this guy reading an Agatha Christie book about a guy who got stabbed in the back, and well, our stiff got stabbed in the back, so ladies and gentlement of the jury, ignore the wookie and find this man guilty."
In all seriousness, name ONE thing that can be learned from a book that makes it "interesting" to the law enforcement. How to kill a person? CSI is a faster teacher. How to make this poison or that poison? Look under your sink.
And finally, did the FBI have a case against this man, and then got these library records to back it up? Or were the library records their entire case until they pulled more evidence up? If it was the latter, what is to keep them from arresting everyone who checks out a murder mystery at least for conspiracy to commit murder? "They checked out the book, they must have been thinking about killing someone.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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!
Not to mention, am I the only one who thought it strange that 9/11 was used a reason to go to war against Iraq?
Shockingly, over half of Americans surveyed just before the Iraq war began thought that the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks were Iraqi. In reality, 90% of them were Saudi, but some creative language from the White House hype machine (and a lack of clarification from the media) convinced a gullible public otherwise.
(Score:-1, Wrong)
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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 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?
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.