Slashdot Mirror
FBI Can Inspect Bank Records w/o Court Orders
AlexZander writes: "Thankfully, the so-called 'Patriot Act II' was discovered last year and the public outcry that ensued was enough to get the bill tossed out the window. One of the goals of that act, however, has made it into law under the radar of the community at large. However, on December 13th, President Bush signed Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (the relevant section is 374) into law, which among other things, grants the FBI the power to obtain financial information without a court order from a judge. It also expands the definition of 'financial information' to include car dealerships, jewelry stores, insurance companies, and other stretches of the definition of 'financial institution'. Wired News has the story here."
"The best parts about this is that the law prevents the business that gives up the information to the FBI from telling their customer about the request. Oh, that and the new law only requires a "national security letter" from a field agent stating that the information reqested is part of an investigation relevant to national security.
Yikes!"
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
It is easy for them to define "investigating for possible terrorist association" as anything they want.
You'd be amazed how much of this info is available commercially. Now the FBI is on even footing with the average private investigator.
But, really, bank records? Its not like its the usual dirty laundry like how much porn you have on your computer... unless your doing something illegal, what reason would you have to hide it? (I honestly am inquiring... I'm sure /.ers can help me out here...)
IAALS.
Wow, I'm glad I live out of the USA.
Obviously the pursuit of the USA freedom value means lack of privacy.
I hear you can't even go to the toilet on certain air flights any more. Crazy! Not my idea of freedom.
Did the FBI fail to stop 9/11 because: 1) They didn't have this law? 2) They were still fighting the cold war and largely unprepared to fight Islamic extremists? I vote #2. But instead, we give these guys #1.
The temptation to just have a peek at: your ex's/neighbour's/brother's_business_rival's/... records will be more than some people can resist.
Quite appart that there should be a right to privacy.
The problem is that you may not be doing anything illegal, however your pattern of deposits and withdrawls may make you look suspicious. Before you know it you could end up being held/charged for something totally innocent.
Can you say police state?
"Every security scheme that is based on secrets eventually fails." - Steve Jobs
It sure is! Unfortunately, we're a republic. Apparently this fact means that our constitution is a nothing more than a set of decent but arguable suggestions.
Damon,
http://actionPlant.com
"I wonder how many more infringements upon freedom and privacy intelligence agencies can sneak past our apathetic, uninformed legislators."
About as many that can sneak past apathetic, uninformed voters.
If we constantly have to fight for our freedoms, can we ever say that we are free?
What?
Why is that surprising when less than 50% of eligible voters actually bother to vote. From that link: In a global context, the average US voter turnout in the post-World War II era ranks below 137 other nations in elections for heads of state. . Why blame democracy and the legislators when less than half the population bothers to vote?
9/11 occurred not because we didn't have enough information. We had enough. The various government agencies just didn't bother to share that info with each other. And yet instead of fixing communication problems and our usage of currently available data all we get is a bunch of laws giving the government more data that they won't make proper use of.
Honestly, some days I just want to march up to my elected leaders and throttle their necks. They just don't get it.
1. Carp about it on a geek forum
2. Ignore it - after all no one really cares how much money you spend on chewing gum from chewinggum.com
3. Find out how your congressperson voted on this issue, and call their office, then write a letter to them about it. When you get the standard form letter back from them, go see them to discuss this issue. If that doesn't get you what you want, use your geek skills to build a community forum site and use that to attract folks who can develop a coordinated campaign to contact congresspeople all over the US to get this law changed.
Democracy can work. If this is really a big deal to you, then invest your time figuring out how it can and should be undone rather than whine about it here.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
They can't. Congress cannot change the constitution. Read it.
I'm so sick of hearing "if you are innocent... why do you care?" It's called the 4th amendment - our founding fathers didn't want the government to be able to search us without judicial review - without proving they had SOME case - and without our knowledge.
I'm innocent but I still don't want my rights violated. I don't want to be randomly searched, spied on, etc. I don't want the FBI or anyone looking at my medical records, bank records, etc. And I believe that for any person in the U.S., if the government or FBI didn't like you, they could put together "proof" that could get you locked up for life - not that they need any proof anymore.
If my home was searched, they'd find maps, atlases, sharpies, box cutters, CD-RWs, and a long list of other "terrorist equipment". I have books talking about how to protect your privacy, so I must have *something* to hide. I have books of a highly libertarian slant - I must be plotting to overthrow the government! I have a poster of the empire state building on my wall. The poster is there because I think it's a beautiful building, but the FBI could use it as "proof" that I planned to blow it up.
My financial records show I frequently buy computer equipment - I must by a computer terrorist! I make a cash deduction of $100 about once a week - I must be buying drugs! I wrote a check to a person with a foreign sounding name - he must be a member of my terrorist unit!!
Government abuses have run rampant the last couple of years - anyone who's opinions differer from the government can have their right to travel violated.
There has been NO terrorist activity in the U.S. since 9/11. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy but it sickens me that republicans have turned it into an excuse to create a police state. Let's face it - the terrorists won. The U.S. has lost or is in the process of losing all the freedoms they hated us for.
This is SO educational! -- Kintaro Oe
It bugs me that they've eroded the 4th ammendment even this much.
When they blast passages through the mountains with dynamite to build roads, you don't say they "eroded" it.
Slippery slope? The slope is a smoking crater. The rubble is being loaded into a dump truck and hauled away, and they weren't planning on noticing.
Everyone got mad when the Mayor of Chicago bulldozed an airport in the night, despite public outcry. Now the President and Congress are doing the same thing with the Bill of Rights. And yeah, I'm pissed.
The enemies of Democracy are
Most of your personal information is limited to a small group of people. That includes:
...
The fact that it is known by people who _need_ to know about it to help you shouldn't be used as an excuse to allow access to a third party. They should be required to prove that they need access.
Otherwise, you'll end up like we almost did in Canada, with a single database linking all federal departments.
Would you really like to see the FBI/IRS/etc doing trend analysis and deciding who to investigate further based on differences from normal behaviour?
For an example of what can be done, look at fraud prevention at credit card and phone companies. One of the biggest things they do is "velocity checking" - flagging fraud based on the time/distance between two points.
I really don't want the FBI doing that to me. Single white male, travelling alone with single day stays in the US, with only carry on luggage.
Yep, at US customs I get flagged as a smuggler - until I start talking about Telecommunications protocols and their eyes glaze over. :)
Jason PollockDon't kid yourself- they still do.
Are you living in the same world as the rest of us?
America used to be diplomatically effective without having to use force. They did so by leading the way with treaties like SALT, SALT II. They were the prime funders of the UN. They were signatories to most international treaties.
Today, America is effective because it has told everyone that YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US. You don't win mindshare that way. You win resentment.
If you don't see what's going on with the EU, the leftist governments in South America, the rampant hostitlity towards America in teh Middle East and Southeast Asia...well, all I can say is you need to play less videogames and look out your window.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Democrats and Republicans BOTH do the WRONG stuff for the Right reasons. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is just one one of many cases where the the wrong thing was done under the reasoning of protecting the population from themselves.
America, has become, the "Land of the sheep, home of the terrified". People are scared that they may lose all the comfort provided by the Welfare loving Democrats or the Military Spending of the Republicans.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH. It isn't the Government's responsibility to do anything but to Provide COMMON defense and PROMOTE the general welfare. THAT IS IT.
The fact that all these laws have been passed is PROOF that the terrorists have achieved their goal, to TERRORIZE. People are SCARED, and the MEDIA feeds the fear.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It would also help if the two parties weren't so chummy.
Oh, to have gridlock again.
I usually get my paycheck cashed at a local lottery station that cashes checks on the side for a small (1%) fee. I've been working for a corparation that pays really well, and I routinely have a paycheck over a grand in size. That changed last week when the lottery station told all of it's customers that "due to new regulations that would incur greater cost to the lottery station, they will no longer cash checks over $1000." I'm now forced to deposit the check in a bank. I hate banks. I know, there are built-in safeguards for my money there, but I cannot help but remember the S&L scandal of a few years back. Lots of people dealt with those guys too, same way, and there were some who lost money by having positive account balances that were not protected by law (FDIC)(I think) Seems our government thinks we all are suspicious. Looks like it's time to rattle the cages of the politicians again, and come up with a way to track terrorist money that does not tick of the average american citizen. I'm scared of the new governments zeal. The distiction between the US and the old USSR is getting smaller and smaller, and we all know how their brand of socialism turned out. Almost total bankruptcy. I've been wrong before, but I'm seeing things now that I do not want to see. And I'm scared.
You know, if I were an agent of a foreign government or organized crime, I would love these no-warrant+gag rule laws being passed. Now all I have to do is impersonate a government official, go into some business demanding the information that I want, and they have to hand it over without a warrant, and they can't even tell anyone they did so!
On a side point here, but has anyone else noticed how recently Bush & co has been using the excuse of 'terrorists' and 'security' in the same way that IngSoc used Emmanuel Goldstein and the Rebellion to maintain order and keep everyone nicely focused and under control? There hasnt been one single terrorist bomb etc in the west for over a year now, and they have had plenty of chances to do something, now they're just using the excuse of 'security' to get whatever they want. (Air Marshalls anyone?)
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I don't recall seeing any mention whatsoever granting specific powers of any kind to the FBI in excess of what is stated in the constitution. Of course no one really cares about such details when guys with guns and facemasks to hide their identity are dragging you out of your house in the middle of the night for extrajudicial executions. We are not too far from it now.
Nearly everyone is missing the fact that December 13, the day that Bush signed this bill, was a Saturday AND the day that the capture of Sadaam Hussein was announced. Does anyone smell a rat here, besides the one in the hole that the US (or the Kurds) discovered? What a great way to keep the news of the signing a bill that further pecks away at the Bill of Rights than to do it on a weekend and when another really big news item is released. The media appears to be complicit in publicizing only what the administration wants the public to know.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
I'm currently re-reading the ultimate conspiracy (and so much else) novel of all times: The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
:)
The following quotes fit all too well:
"...When communism replaces fascism as the number one enemy, your small-town conservative will be ready for global adventures on a scale that would make the heads of poor Mr. Roosevelt's liberals spin. Trust me. We have every detail pinpointed. Let me show you where the new government will be located."
Drake stared at the plan and shook his head. "Some people will recognize what a pentagon means," he said dubiously.
"They will be dismissed as superstitious cranks. Believe me, this building will be constructeed within a few years. It will become the policeman of the world. Nobody will dare question its actions or judgements without being denounced as a traitor. Within thirty years, Mr. Drake, within thirty years, anyone who attempts to restore power to the Congress will be cursed and vilified, not by liberals but by conservatives."
(...)
"To crush the opposition, we will need a Justice Department equivalent in many ways to Hitler's Gestapo. If your scheme works - if the Mafia can be drawn into a syndicate (...) we will have a nationwide outlaw cartel. The public itself will then call for the kind of Justice Department that we need. By the mid-1960s, wiretapping of all sorts must be so common that the concept of privacy will be archaic."
I'm waiting for George W.B. to start building the pyramid-with-the-eye on the top of the White house any day now
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
As long as the supposed terrorist threat is enough that people will allow this stuff to happen, the terrorists are winning.
Don't vote for any representitive who voted for this law. If enough people do, they'll get the picture. The new guy may not be any better, but at least he'll be worried about re-election. The to parties are so similar it doesn't really matter weather a republican or democrat gets electd, so vote against incumbants that sign this shit.
I just did.
Easy lookup at http://www.senate.gov.
Remind them that election time is just around the corner and you'll be considering his/her reaction to this issue when you hit the voting booth.
by that definition, civil rights activists were terrorists. This says that if you do anything that is in violation of a state or federal law, is dangerous to your life or others, and you do it it to influence the policy of a governement...then you are a terrorist.
I hope so, but as it stands right now they could keep you in the can indefinitely while they investigate, without charges and without access to an attorney -- just because they suspect you.
In my book, that's a violation of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. At least.
It seems like everything to do with the war on terror is focused on 'follow the money'. Why? I mean, I understand that Bush, Cheney and everyone they've ever personally known have been cash fetishists. Therefore they assume everyone that they oppose is after their cash. Is that what it's about?
Sep. 11 budget?
19 airline tickets, bought ahead online.
Motel room, rental cars.
(maybe) an efficiency apartment in Florida to sit around a table and plot evil for two months.
Boxcutters.
Total cost? $8000? I could slap that on my MasterCard.
Terrorism is not at all $$ expensive. That's sort of the point. So what do they think they'll find by all this new power?
Common criminals, mostly drug runners, whose assets they can seize.
Acually what Congress (and a runaway Executive of the same political party) can do is IGNORE the Constitution. Which if you read it (the USC together with the article at the top of this thread) is basically what the Executive (FBI) is already doing.
Yes, I think this is a clear case of a 4th amendment violation, indeed a whole policy intended to VOID and break it, and so clear a violation that it breaks the category. Don't need a court order to go rifling through a citizen's bank accts? Shit then why did we bother having a Constitution at all if its rules against unwarranted searches can be ignored at a whim?
I think the Constitution's Framers knew ALL ABOUT about the possibility of "seditious" forces or "terrorism" or whatever you want to call it: after all they THEMSELVES were armed revolutionaries against their legitimate government. Arguments that "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" and therefore Mrs. John Asscleft shall be allowed to paw through citizen's private information at will simply because it's expedient is the most breathtakingly cynical perversion of this country's committment to liberty in its history.
I've seen the Constitution violated before, but the perps eventually were called to account. The other branches did their job or at least faked it. The perps didn't always go to jail, but they suffered disgrace and the fear of being caught. Never before -NEVER- have I seen the Constitution dispensed with in broad daylight --simply WAIVED-- with breezy arguments that "everything's changed: that was then, but this is now" and "the Dear Leader needs your civil liberties melted down in order to fight terra."
Change the Constitution? They don't have to change it when they can just use the compliant and ignorant corporate media to convince the public that if the gummint does it, it can't be illegal. They just leave the Constitution's words in place and pretend the meanings have changed. Done deal, and oh yeah you're Un-goddamn-American if you dare protest what they're doing.
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
Buy firearms and lots of ammunition. As long as the population is armed, the government can't have complete control. If you want freedom, be prepared to fight for it because soon you may have to.
I'm not so naively optimistic to think it'll ever get fixed, though. Oh, well.
Litigious bastards
Your post has me thinking, and mentally crafting a letter to whoever is the one to run against the guy I want out.
"I will vote for you, and contribute to your campaign. If you betray my trust, I will vote for your opponent in the next election, and contribute twice as much to his campaign as I did to yours."
Maybe. I feel icky about money in politics, but it is there, and it's more important to me to not get screwed than to attain some ideal society where money and politics never intertwine.
But you're absolutely right -- until we start punishing the elected officials for screwing us, then nothing will ever change. Alas, I fear they have learned that they can get away with it too deeply, and moreover I fear they may be right.
The enemies of Democracy are
The information is mine because it is only about me and it is not public. The employees of the institution retaining the information about me are under legal restrictions about what they can do with that information, which to me means the information is not theirs.
I think a better response would be to ask him what he thinks has changed about the nature of the information, it's storage, and the criminal investigations that this information should no longer be protected by the 4th amendment. I mean, a judge had to be convinced that the information was relevant to the criminal investigation of an individual before this law was passed. What changed? The fear of terrorism. But this bill doesn't limit the power to terrorist investigations, so what is the purpose of changing the status of the information in regards to the 4th amendment?
What is his reason for asking citizens "why not" when they don't want to grant law enforcement more power rather than asking the law enforcement agency "why" when they ask for more power?
What changed is he became a threat to the US. It's all well and good to be propping up the monster when he's somebody else's pain in the ass.
"Once he's OUR pain in the ass, then he's gotta go."
It's the American Way after all...
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
Ever heard the joke that everyone is within six degrees of Kevin Bacon? Insert any known terrorist's name in his place and it'll still hold true for most people.
Existing anti-terrorism laws are so loose that essentially anyone can be investigated/wiretapped without a real court order.
The Patriot Act even added a loophole to the wiretap act to render it null when communications pass through a digital switch or router, thus allowing wiretaps with only a search warrant if they do it right.
And finally there's a special FIFA court which they can all go through to get any and all surveillance approved. Not a single request to that court has been denied in over 15 years.
The 4th amendment's wording is flexible enough that none of this blatantly violates the constitution. They're just steps backwards from the level of privacy we're all used to, and many bills are worded to hide to extent of of their impact. The law is getting pretty scary in the US these days.
So, since I'm confident that you friend, and the majority of people in the USA are not going to let just anyone go through those records, its safe to say that people expect, rightly, for this information to be private. In short, the flaw is inherent in the first supposition, the very word PRIVATE. Just because one other person has access to some data does NOT suddenly make that not private data. Thats absurd, the definition of private is not "Only one person has access to this information". Thats closer to a secret, but even the word secret doesn't require there to be only one party TO the secret.
You'd think a freaking lawyer would understand the importance of understanding the meaning of words. Private does not imply lack of access. I suggest you ask your lawyer friend to buy a dictionary and to look up the word "private", consider a new profession, something perhaps along the lines of PR perhaps, where its not so important that you get the words right.
Regardless, you friends flaw lies in the presumption that for something to be private it can not be between more than one party. That is simply not the case, either in terms of the very definition of the words or even, in your friends OWN domain, according to lots and lots of case law. I sure hope your friend is not close to taking the bar. He or she really needs to study some more it would seem.
Finally, the real test of your friends opinion on this can be tested by simply asking him, or her, for a copy of all their phone records, financial records, e-mails, web logs, video rental records, library records and travel records - and then posting them on the Internet. If they handly turn them over, then your friend is something far worse than hypocrite, had they refused the request to had over their private details of their lives, but rather a real fool.
Have fun stealing their identity though!
Python
The title of this article says "banks" -- but in actuality the Patriot Act II refers to any business whose product could conceivably be used for money laundering. This means all financial institutions, gold dealers, pawn shops, hell, you could theoretically launder money through Wal Mart so they could look up your transactions there. Credit card records are included.
Think about that for a minute. Joe-Stupid is going to get a subpoena related to "Terrorism and National Security" and, out of fear, automatically assume you guilty until proven innocent. Furthermore, you're probably still guilty after you've been proven innocent, and even if you're not... well, let's play it safe anyway. Why would they try to tip you off?
Once uncle Sam turns his eye on you, nobody will ever want or be able to help you.
people stuff money into mattresses, so I guess stores that sell them count as 'financial' too.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The FBI doesn't have to justify searches under the PATRIOT ACT with terrorism. If they can apply it to a corruption probe into a strip club owner in Vegas, a gurantee in the Intelligence Authorization Act that it would only be used to combat terrorism wouldn't make me feel any better.
Apparently, section 374 of The bill is the relevant section.
They accomplish this treachery by patching bits and pieces of the "Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978" without making any explicit references whatsoever to what the patching will do. It doesn't halp that some bills have sections that patch a patch for a patch, so that it's nearly impossible to figure out what the final result will actually say, much less what it means.
Forget line item veto, what we really need is an all or nothing law, so that a bill may repeal or replace in full an existing law but may never simply modify. Any replacement may NOT include any other text by reference, only by explicit copy.
That might actually fix some small part of the non-sense.
"The 4th ammendment isn't being violated here because the information in question isn't "yours". It belongs to the financial institution.Since it is accessable to a subset of that financial institution, it weakens any argument that the information is yours since it's available to a number of people besides yourself."
The same could be said for my medical records, documented interactions with my attorney(s) (as in memoranda), documented interactions with my therapist, a crisis counsellor, etc.
My medical records are accessible to any doctor or nurse conducting my treatment, hospital staff including clerks, my medical insurance agency (to an extent), and a whole host of others. That doesn't negate my doctor-patient confidentiality, nor does it mean the doctor or hospital can put my medical records up on a billboard for the world to view.
Any documented interactions with my attorney would be handled by his secretary/assistant, colleagues, or others with whom he may consult in order to further my case. This doesn't negate the fact that all that information is privileged, and that my lawyer would be enjoined from discussing it over lunch with his high school buddies for laughs.
Similarly, my therapist would also be held to a high standard of privilege. While (s)he may discuss me as a patient with colleagues to work out ways to help me, they may not write a book about me without my permission, even if it does not specifically name me, assuming it has enough information to allow a reasonable person to conclude that the book could refer to no one else besides me. The fact that a number of people may handle the information my therapist compiles about me does not negate that privilege.
A crisis counsellor will usually be the most vigilant with regards to confidentiality. If a crisis counsellor (such as a rape counsellor) does not have the complete confidence of those they counsel that what's said between them will never be revealed, then the job of that counsellor goes from incredibly hard to downright impossible.
The fact is, society has recognized that there are situations where the greater good is served by protecting information about people, regardless of what other good may come of its use. The number of people handling the information is irrelevant, so long as an expectation of privacy exists and one can reasonably expect that information to remain private. Personal financial transactions have had a long tradition of being privileged information, with few notable examples. Consider this: if your personal bank published on the internet, every record of every transaction you've ever had with them (including bank accounts, mortage payments, financial status, etc), would you be of the belief that a lawsuit against the bank is reasonable?
Besides, if there is no expectation of privacy in your dealings with a financial institution, and therefore nothing unreasonable about government agents seizing that information, why do they need national security letters at all? The Constitution sets a very simple standard in very simple language - you need a warrant to seize that which you would otherwise have no business seizing, and that warrant must be supported by oath or affirmation. Either the government may seize the information at will, or it must get a valid warrant. The Constitution does not provide a maybe, sometimes, grey area, if, but, or "wiggle room" of any kind to the government - it says what it means and it means what it says. The Constitution restricts the powers and activities of the government; not the other way around.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
"the guy is an ex-Chicago gang member."
What does this have to do with an American citizen being imprisoned by his government for 19 months with no lawyer, no trial, no jury, no judge, no contact with family, and no hope (from his perspective) of salvation? You know, if he wasn't with Al Qaeda before he was locked up, he most certainly has every reason to be now. To quote a great artist:
"Land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy."
"I've come into contact with Chicago gang members and I'd like to see a lot more of them imprisoned"
Without a trial? On what charge? If someone sells drugs, you put him on trial for selling drugs. If someone kills someone, you put him on trial for murder. This isn't colonial England, and we don't have a king with the power to lock people up in the Tower of London, nor drawn and quartered. In this country, we give everyone the chance to prove their innocence, or to come clean about their actions.
That's what seperates us from the brutal bastards we're fighting.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
is not that we have allowed our government to act like stormtroopers from a 3'rd world country. Instead it is that congress voted against pat. act. II, but supported it when it was buried and they would not be blamed directly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I somehow don't think complaining to the local DA (who's responsible for California law) is gonna have a heck of a lot to say about how the FBI conducts itself under Federal law. But if you wanna knock yourself out, please complain to Attorney General Ashcroft. I'm sure he'll pay plenty of attention to your concerns ;)
--
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
Ronald Cohen of East Windsor, N.J., said he could see the World Trade Center site from his office, and he doesn't worry about privacy issues any more.
"Anything they do is a good thing. I have no problems with it, "he said.
Nathan Irby of Baltimore agreed, saying the program may be a small invasion of privacy, "but it's justified because they have to take every precaution after 9-11."
Still another person agreed.
"In today's world, it makes sense for the FBI to look at these lists, and they'd be crazy if they didn't do it," said Paul Van Oost of Melbourne, Australia.
Does anyone else see a serious problem with attitudes like this?
I think if you look into treaties to limit arms, etc, you will find that they are worthless. They are merely politcal fodder for politicians to hold up for an unsuspecting public.
:q!
I think you ment "The end can always be made to justify the means"
The problem is that it is very hard to quantify
the benefits an individual obtains from privacy. It is therefore, quite easy to justify removing those rights.
So, what you're saying here is, when the minority of people in Paris are white, the majority of people are going to vote themselves out of the country? Who's bullshitting, again?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the significance Paris plays in the history of France. When that city becomes minority white, and that is projected to occur in 10-20 years, people will realize much more so that their civilization is on the way out. That is what conquering groups do, they displace the native inhabitants. Your sentence is incomprehsnsible to me, but I hope this clarifies things for you.
Twenty percent doesn't sound like much of a majority to me.
Did I say it was a majority? It is a start, and that is the LAST election which occurred just over a year ago.
Are Nazi assholes. If your race is so damned masterful, then why do you feel the need to spout these racist fantasies? Does it help you sleep better at night? Don't worry about it. When you people are a mere 1-2% of the population, we'll still let you work the drive-thru window. Or maybe you can pick tomatoes for us.
No, I am not a racist. Nor do I feel that white people are "masterful" as you put it. If that were the case, they would not be in danger of losing their homeland. What I do believe is white people have a right to their small continent, just as Jews have a right to Israel and Arabs have a right to (without that sliver of Israel I suppose). The foreign population of France has no reason to be there, they have their own countries. They should pursue their own destiny there. Why is that so much to ask?
If the vision you have is one of enslaving the white race, I am sure you will be met with resistence. Isn't it better to not allow the opportunity for groups to exploit one another? Why should races coexist where the majority exploits the minority? What I do know is that any time a foreign people displace the original inhabitants of a particular land, the result is full of bloodshed. People do not give up their homeland without a fight.
It should give you pause when a solid fifth of a country aggrees with me. What happens when that fifth becomes a half? Right now, there is a sufficient number of young frenchman who see their 1000 year history disappearing before their eyes. These frenchman are tired of their sisters being raped, the high taxes to pay for foreigners, and the lack of low end jobs that shift to the minority races. They walk down the streets of their historic capital and they don't even feel like they are in their own country.
It is amazing what several million young men can do, given the impetus. I think you will be surprised what happens.
Maybe it is destined for the people of Europe to be displaced, but I can assure you it won't happen without a fight.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Is it any coincidence that Saddam was "captured" on the 14th of December?
Me thinks he was rolled out as a diversionary tactic just like good ol' Osama will be proclaimed dead from kidney failure or "captured" shortly before the '04 election to improve Bush's ratings.
listen pal, being the most mindless, hated, filthy, warmongering, debt-ridden, unethical nation does not sucess make.
those 'socialist' timebombs have a higherstandard of living, and a more likely chance to survive challenge. America is going to collapse or start WWIII the first time some challenge arises that requires new-thinking and change.
the plutocratic status quo has you all so wrapped up in America-as-religion you couldnt see the forest for the trees.
The investigators need more than information to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent (actually, "not guilty" is what we do in the US). They need the motive and accountability to prove not guilty, or to just give up if they don't really know. Even with safeguards, cops today (and since time immemorial) have been framing people, usually just to take the easy way out.
I also point out that the US system requires the prosecutor to prove you guilty - it doesn't require the defendant to prove themself innocent. But everyone knows that - what are you talking about? Moreover, with Patriot I, II, and whatever else they're secretly signing into "law", the day is coming when the cops charge *you* directly for the cost of framing and executing you, as in the movie Brazil and other Kafka-inspired futurist scenarios.
It's obvious that cops should only have limited powers of investigation when they have less information, and the degree of involvement in the alleged crime has less proof. Proof comes through a scientific process of evidence, tests, and deduction. Not because the cops think you did it. If anything should be changed, it's a way to make the public and the proven guilty pay for everyone's defense, removing barriers to justice.
--
make install -not war