China Detains Internet Essayist for Subversion
romcabrera writes: "Reuters reports that 'Chinese authorities have detained a civil servant, whose essays are banned by Beijing on the Internet, on charges of subversion'.
According to the article, China has created a special Internet Police Force which 'blocks some foreign sites and shuts down domestic sites posting politically incorrect fare'."
They take censorship very seriously over there. Frankly, it would surprise me more if they didn't detain him.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
I just came back from making a deposit in my checking account. This took rather longer than it might have. In front of me in line was a young girl and her mother trying to open a junior passbook account.
For those that don't know in America we have program to teach school aged children savings, banking and the benfits thereof. (Everyone sing, "Tupence, carfully, prudently. . ")
These poor people were unable to open said account because the child did not have a driver's license. The Patriot Act imposes certain requirements on the mere opening of an account ( a simple, contractual business transaction involing a matter of cents) even applying to accounts available to only schoolchildren.
The mother was not allowed to swear for her own child and use her own ID, even though the law makes her the legal custodian of the account.
In the opinion of the bank's lawyers only a driver's license in out state complies with the Patriot Act's requirements. Specifically even the child's Federally issued Social Security card or Passport did not comply with the Federal ID law for opening any banking account.
Recently Howard Dean and his closest associates were directed to go stand in a "Free Speech Zone" corral while on their way to a political function, because they were carrying signs that said "I'm For Dean" and this was deemed to be a protest and thus restricted for "security" reasons. The security personel were, of course, were in error, but actually the law allows this sort of behaviour. The fact that security personel can even think that supporters of the leading Democratic Party candidate, and the candidate himself, for President is "protesting" for supporting himself is scary, nevermind issues of the right to assemble and protest.
Ashcroft is promoting laws that would allow the government to take into custody, without warrant and even without a charge, anyone whom they held to be "under suspicion" and such people could be held indefinately, without representation, indeed without any necessity on the part of the government that they had done so.
There's a word for such people: Desaparecidos
Go ahead. Google on it.
You're right, Ashcroft isn't a Nazi, but that's rather like saying you've just been eaten by a leopard, not a panther.
Think things can't get worse? This is America, after all. Well, I would argue that protections that this can't happen in America if the very protections that are designed to prevent it from happening are held to be void.
I would also suggest you Google on leopard+spots+change.
KFG
It's a typo on the georgewbush.com site. Check your original citation (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/2 0031022-12.html)
In the context of the speech, it's pretty clear "seek" is correct. He's talking about his hopes for the future.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.