Slashdot Mirror
Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
Adam9 writes "According to Yahoo/AP, a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations. The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-Sept. 11 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project."
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's great that this is the first blow towards stamping out parts of the Patriot Act, but it's not winning the whole war.
I hope that Maher Arar sues the pants off of the US Government. To quote the article:
The Syrians locked Arar in an underground cell the size of a grave: 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high. Then they questioned him, under torture, repeatedly, for 10 months.
I hope that this man gets compensation for what he had to endure. I'm crossing my fingers that in the process of him doing so that most of these police-state laws that have gone into effect go the way of the dinosaur.
This isn't 1943, and this isn't 1984. The law should reflect that.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
News at 10.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Finally, I'm freed to give this advise!
"Darl, what you are doing is wrong, stop it."
Maybe now he'll listen.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It's awesome that the Supreme Court has finally examined and ruled this part of the Patriot Act unconstitutional. However, this particular section of PATRIOT is only the tip of the iceberg that denies constitutional rights to individuals.
What Slashdot readers and other techies should be particularly concerned with is that, under the Patriot Act, the definition of terrorism now encompasses many computer crimes which have nothing to do with terrorism. Deface a web site? You're a terrorist. It also allows wiretaps and other intrusions without the hard-nosed rules that usually come with warrants, as long as it's placed under the crime of terrorism -- which now includes even minor computer crimes. The EFF has posted its detailed analysis of the Patriot Act, and how it affects people concerned with electronic freedoms here.
While this is a minor victory, hopefully this is the first of many parts ruled unconstitutional.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation made a very good speech last year at DefCon about the dangers of the Patriot Act.
They have an analysis on their site about the Patriot Act and what it means for us.
Here's also another article about why we should be concerned about it.
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
What do you think of this? He want to put readers in all computers that you have to login to with your goverment issued ID before you can get on the net.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5147158.html
COMMENTARY--After Howard Dean's unexpected defeat last week in Iowa, public attention has focused on his temper, his character, and that guttural Tyrannosaurus bellow of his not-quite-a-concession speech. But Dean's views on Americans' privacy rights may be a superior test of his fitness to be president.
Dean's current stand on privacy appears to leave little wiggle room: His campaign platform pledges unwavering support for "the constitutional principles of equality, liberty and privacy."
Fifteen months before Dean said he would seek the presidency, however, the former Vermont governor spoke at a conference in Pittsburgh co-sponsored by smart-card firm Wave Systems where he called for state drivers' licenses to be transformed into a kind of standardized national ID card for Americans. Embedding smart cards into uniform IDs was necessary to thwart "cyberterrorism" and identity theft, Dean claimed. "We must move to smarter license cards that carry secure digital information that can be universally read at vital checkpoints," Dean said in March 2002, according to a copy of his prepared remarks. "Issuing such a card would have little effect on the privacy of Americans."
Dean also suggested that computer makers such as Apple Computer, Dell, Gateway and Sony should be required to include an ID card reader in PCs--and Americans would have to insert their uniform IDs into the reader before they could log on. "One state's smart-card driver's license must be identifiable by another state's card reader," Dean said. "It must also be easily commercialized by the private sector and included in all PCs over time--making the Internet safer and more secure."
The presidential hopeful offered few details about his radical proposal. "On the Internet, this card will confirm all the information required to gain access to a state (government) network--while also barring anyone who isn't legal age from entering an adult chat room, making the Internet safer for our children, or prevent adults from entering a children's chat room and preying on our kids...Many new computer systems are being created with card reader technology. Older computers can add this feature for very little money," Dean said.
There's probably a good reason why Dean spoke so vaguely: It's unclear how such a system would work in practice. Must Internet cafes include uniform ID card readers on public computers? Would existing computers have to be retrofitted? Would tourists be prohibited from bringing laptops unless they sported uniform ID readers? What about Unix shell accounts? How did a politician who is said to be Internet-savvy concoct this scheme?
Perhaps most importantly, does Dean still want to forcibly implant all of our computers with uniform ID readers?
Unfortunately, Dean's presidential campaign won't answer any of those questions. I've tried six times since Jan. 16 to get a response, and all the press office will say is they've "forwarded it on to our policy folks." And the policy shop isn't talking.
Then there are the privacy questions. To curry favor among the progressive types who form the backbone of his campaign, Dean has positioned himself as a left-of-center civil libertarian. He's guest-blogged for progressive doyen Larry Lessig, embraced the Brady Bill and affirmative action, told audiences on the campaign trail that the Bush administration has "compromised our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism," and pledged to repeal parts of the USA Patriot Act.
It's difficult to reconcile Dean's current statements with his recent support--less than two years ago--for what amounts to a national ID card and a likely reduction in Americans' privacy. "Privacy is the new urban myth," Dean said in that March 2002 speech.
"I know of no other Democratic candidate who has this v
Howard Dean wants a federally mandated identification chip (linked to your state id) and id readers in EVERY computer. You'd even need it to access the internet, with limits on your access based on your information! Talk about big brother.
It wasn't the USSC, it was a Federal District judge.
Basically they wanted to advise a group of people on how to peacefully resolve a dispute.
This was a case of a super-vague law that prohibits someone from engaging in speech that basically no ordinary person would even find to be controversial speech. I'm surprised that the DOJ even threatened them with enforcement of this in this case. It should have been obvious to them that pursuing some white hat like this would just bust their pet law.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Does this mean I can smoke weed again without supporting terrorists?!?!?!? :P
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
There is nothing patriotic about it if you have any love of liberty or freedom.
a federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated foreign terrorist organizations.
phew... now I can safely continue to consult for microsoft...
G-Force music visualization
If someone can rule it unconstitutional and not be labeled a terrorist, then more rulings against this are in the future.
Mod "Overrated" instead of replying "I disagree with you," you coward.
It just seems to me that it's bad policy on a person's or organization's part to lend support to groups that are engaged in terrorist activities. How can you truly know if you're being a good humanitarian, and helping out those who are being repressed within the terrorist group, or if you're just furthering their goals by helping out people within their group?
is that you become that which you fight against. Isn't it ironic, that if these terrorists really do hate our 'Freedom,' that is precisely what we are giving up to fight them? Sounds like they win, in that case.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Seriously, a ruling of this type not only rectifies a bad law but serves to remind people that bad laws can be changed. Lord knows I needed some good news like that.
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
It's unbelievable that we have an attorney general that this concept eludes entirely. No wonder he lost an election to a dead guy before dubya found him.
Remember, when you vote for Bush, you're voting for the "package" deal.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
I'm glad it's that part, and not the part that says the PATRIOT Act will expire. It'd suck if that part got ruled unconstitutional.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I'd merely like to point out that this "Part" of the Patriot act is just that, a part of it. This still isn't dealing with any of the true hard issues, such as eavesdropping without a warrant/court order, forcing libraries disclosure of a persons activities, and so on. This is not trully a victory for anyone who really cares about Pravacy, or rather "Your Rights Online." Merely a victory for everyone trying to take a quick shot at this administration.
What's another word for Thesaurus?
-Steve Wright
Immediately after 9/11 opposition to just about anything labeled "anti terrorism" was practically nil. Only now are common citizens who have been in the dark starting to realize that not everything being sold under the label is really good for them. Court decisions are just the beginning; hopefully the taboo of challenging anti terrorism measures wears off for politicians and the public too. If the general public was aware of what is really in PATRIOT the pressure for politicians to repeal it would be pretty huge.
To make an undernet then. Will be redundant, unlike the DARPAnet.
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES! Mod me down if you must, but I cannot contain the joy I felt when reading this. It pained me to see people sacrificing freedoms for security but it thrills me to see people who are truly brave fighting to protect what is truly precious about the United States. I may be frightened at the possibility of dying, but I will die first before I relinquish my freedoms for the sake of "security." The Patriot Act was a step towards victory...their victory. All they wish is to destroy our way of life. How sinister a plan is it to frighten us into destroying it ourselves? Not today. Not while I still breathe. Not while people are willing to fight.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Librarians around the United States, heaved a sigh of relief.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust!"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
otherwise why is it now legal for the feds to search through your post mail?
Does anyone care to say why the ACLU (apparently) wasn't fighting this case? Things like the patriot act are why they are recieving more donations than ever (from people like myself), and now they don't even appear to be involved? Gah!
<RANT>
Glad to know my money isn't being wasted on those pesky civil rights, so it can be spent where it's really needed; making sure it's legal to secretly kill babies, and leagl for homosexuals to get married.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
This was a low court ruling, not the US Supreme Court. The ruling can be appealed by the US government.
A lot of people are saying that this is only a small part, that we should not get excited about the ruling. It seems to me that this is one of the first ones to face the scrutiny of a federal appeals court and, if so, that this is a good sign that other sections of the act will be similarly stricken down.
Even with the Supreme Court we have now, one would expect most of the act to end up in the dumpster once it has to face any kind of scrutiny in a court of law.
I was happy when I read the headline. I've been against the Patriot Act since it was first mentioned on EFF.org. After reading the story, it looks like only a minor section of the Patriot Act was ruled on, and it was only decided on by a district court. I'm no law expert, but it seems like cases like these get turned over in the Supreme Court all of the time. I hope that this trend will continue. Maybe the whole dang thing will die after the sunset limit. Until then, I'll keep wearing my tinfoil hat and refusing flu vaccinations.
-
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
That someone is YOU, at the next presidential elections!
(You can impeech anytime you want to, starting now).
was declared an enemy combatant and relocated by the Ashcroft Ministry of Truth to sunny Guantanamo Bay.
I'm sure that I'm distinctely in the minority here, but I think the criticisms of the PATRIOT Act are entirely blown out of proportion. I've actually read the PATRIOT Act, and I see very little that matches the wild claims that have been levied against it.
Take for example the infamous Section 215 that civil libertarians claim allows law enforcement to search your library records. Except this power requires the consent of a federal judge, no library records have ever been searched, and such provisions have already been used in other criminal cases. Library records were searched in the hunt for Andrew Cunanan, the man who shot fashion designer Gianni Versace in 1997, and to hunt down the Zodiac killer in New York in 1990. Yet no one raised a fuss about these searches. It is clear that there is a direct double standard at play, fueled by ignorance of the law.
Most of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act specifically extend already existing powers specifically to fight terrorism. Most of them were already codified in law under earlier racketeering statutes such as RICO. Yet no one seemed to question those moves then.
The fact remains that our rights were abused far more heinously during the War on Drugs and the term of Janet Reno as AG than they ever were under Ashcroft. No-knock warrants are far more suspect as far as civil rights are concerned than extending provisions of RICO to terrorism. I fail to see the logic of a system that gives greater protections to Mohammad Atta than it does to Tony Soprano.
If PATRIOT is repealed, it means that that such basic elements as tighter information sharing between federal agencies will be struck down as well. Had those protections existed in 2001, the events of September 11 would never have happened. Several 9/11 conspirators were pulled over just before the attacks - but because the police didn't have access to immigration records or terrorist watch lists they were let go with only a warning. Another event like that is simply intolerable.
The fact is 9/10ths of the arguments against PATRIOT are based in a sense of partisan politics rather than a rational examination of law. Had PATRIOT been a creation of Clinton Administration I doubt anyone would be talking about it, but in a country where partisanship overwhelms common sense on both sides rational discussion about the best way to protect this country from the clear and present danger of terrorism is difficult to find.
SCO has announced that they have sold a UNIX licence to Al Queda. Unoffical reports also indicate that Osama Bin Laden was one of the primary developers of the UNIX operating system.
if you were a lawyer or not...
Wonderful to see that the beta testing of Liberation that took place in Iraq was so successful that you decided to try it at home, too! Question is, when are you going to release the fullversion in the American market as well?
According to the State of the Union address the Patriot Act is essential to the fight against terrorism! What are Americans to do?! We had all better start stocking up on plastic sheets and duct tape again. Good thing none of them stinking Democrats have been able to successfully attack the 2nd amendment under Bush's watch. I'd hate to lose those vital rights. How else could we defend ourselves?</angry sarcasm>
In all seriousness, this won't have much of an effect on personal privacy for average Joe and I imagine the powers that be will do everything in their power to keep the steamroller running, but a good swift kick in the nuts to the Patriot Act can only be a good thing for those of us that appreciate civil liberties.
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I was arguing to a friend how I disliked various parts of the Patriot Act. He stated that all the provisions of the act were already legal under various other laws, and that the Patriot act just solidifies them in one law. True or not true?
Veramocor
It's the most outrageous violation of free citizens' rights since the Stamp Act.
I have read some posts saying that 'terroist' organizations may or may not have anything to do with 'terrorism' but I still dont understand why they are calling this a victory for civil liberties. I agree that the patriot act is infringing upon our civil rights, but I do not understand how attacking it in this way will accomplish anything.
It seems to me that if an organization is truely 'terrorist' then experts should not be supporting or advising them, regardless of weather or not their advise has anything to do with violence. It seems safe to assume that any sort of support or advise will in some way help the organization to continue its operations. If these organizations are dedicated to social change by means of violence, and I think most of us agree that that goal is less than exlemplary, then I see no reason why it should'nt be illegal to provide them with advise or support.
I think maybe we need to think more before we applaud this as a 'victory against the patriot act'. I think instead of strikeing down this particular item, we should instead make it more effective by maintaining an accurate and upto date list of truely terrorist organizations in the world.
IMHO if these organizations become 'handsoff' for experts, so much for the better.
Jainith
The one, the only.
the whole damned thing is unconstitutional. anyone who voted for it should be considered a traitor, shot, hung, drawn, and quartered on the National Mall. Fuck the federales.
It's also the most consistently overturned court, so this ruling is definitely not the final word.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
I was getting worried... it's kinda sad though that it took 2 years (!!!) for any Judge to make such a decision.
Now, to get the rest of it ruled as such...
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
..news.
I am sorry that 500+ USpeople cannot hear it........(and about 10000Iraqi's).
I went around cube to cube (hey, I was on break) sharing the gist of the headline, and I got a unanimous [pardon the french] "about fucking time" from EVERY SINGLE person, except one guy who just clapped slowly. He's an odd one...
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
Just for the record, MY senator - Russ Feingold - was the ONLY one to vote against the Patriot Act. And, from what I've heard, getting a Republican lapdog into his seat has become Karl Rove's pet project.
(At least that's what Russ keeps saying in the campaign contribution letters I keep getting...)
--Chag
this is stupid....if a Terror group seeks Expert help from somw one in the US, that expert is now a co-consperitor.
I thinkthe Judge did this just for political reasons, KNOWING the Supreme Court would over turn the ruleing.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.
It ain't funny. It's far too close to the truth and it should scare the living shit out of every single America.
But then again, the majority of Americans feel that airline safety has increased dramatically since they started banning and confiscating finger nail clippers. I know I felt safer when they banned curbside check in. Didn't you?
Remember:
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
I read through the article and it seems like the judge is asking for it to be reworded rather than stricken, and the piece in quesiton is only the expert advice portion, not the pre-existing portion concerning materials/resources.
So while the people who are jumping up and down for joy about pieces being over-ruled may have to wait for a while, I'm personally happy that we are looking at suggested corrections. I don't by any means think the patriot act is perfect, but I much prefer people trying to improve on it rather than just throw it aay all together.
Whee signature.
I have virii on my linux boxen!!1
Also, I feel that regardless of the merits of Dean's plan, restrictions on the internet will eventually be placed on the internet by our Republican congress, as it is in their best interest to do so (Imagine the money it would make corporations and private sector groups! Talk about a money pit...)
Anyway, I think Howard is trying to appeal to those who feel he isn't tough on security, and having government mandated IDs WOULD be a way of decreasing spam/viruses etc... It's just not a very good way.
Blah balmama blahblee bloo blaa blahh = You tamil tigers need to sit down and talk with Shrilanka about your differences without violence = aiding foreign terrorists.
Blah bloumomama bemomo buani blah blah = You tamil tigers need to light a sack of crap and ring the doorbell and run = aiding foreign terrorists.
What's really best for a foreign group? No dialog and isolation leading to FUD, or positive communication? The act should be specific. I'm glad that we have checks and balances.
Namaste
I'll also note that the court involved is the relatively insane 9th circuit court, which has an extremely poor record at having its rulings upheld by the SCOTUS.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
This is not the First Post. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST POST! YOU FAIL IT!
fgfdhghfghdgfhgf
Terrorist: A non-government actor seeking political change through violence directed intentionally against civilian populations.
I don't think that governments engage in terrorism, but that's just semantics. Doesn't mean I don't think they do bad things, though.
Aparently someone didn't see the news.
U.S. Productivity Best In 20 Years
2003 home building best in 25 years
2004 Economic Forecast Best in 20 Years, Conference Board Reports
I first heard this news on CNN which isn't exactly pro-Bush.
Man, normally I don't like it when people complain about others not reading the article however this needed to be said,
READ THE FREAKING ARTICLE! WHY? BECAUSE IT SAID A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED IT UNCONSTITIONAL NOT THE US SUPREME COURT!
OK, big deal right? Wrong! It makes a very big difference between a federal judge says something and the a supreme court says something. A comparision could be along the lines of Linus Torvalds vs Linus from Peanuts.
... is getting in the way of your security.
I'd rather die under it than live under Ashcroft.
Dennis Kucinich too voted against this monstrocity. We somehow need to encourage other presidential candidates to vote against this. Like, say, a pledge to vote for any presidential candidate that would repel PATRIOT Act.
Illegal combatant, it must have read?
I bet, in 50 years, people will upon that part of our history as one of the great shames of the early, new millenium.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
so long as you buy the weed grown at your local high school.
My school's greenhouse had some marijuana mixed with tomatoes that were sold through the local farmers co-op. True to the government's stranglehold on the press, they instituted a recall without the incident making the news.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
"PATRIOT ACT" It's an acronym, not a word.
"Patriot" is no better spelling than PatRiot.
for what it's worth.
If the expert is providing advice related to terrorist activities, then they're party to a criminal conspiracy. If you'd bother to RTFA, you'd see that this is related to the overbreadth of the language in the law. It covers someone giving advice on how to persue peaceful means to acheive their goals -- obliterating the impeteus to commit atrocities.
as far as I know, interagency cooperation has always problematic because agencies compete for funding; agencies thus hoard information because it will help them get funding.
1) How does the PA ameliorate this?
2) How does killing the PA mean that the interagency cooperation provisions cannot be passed separately (what makes it unconstitutional on its own?)
I wasn't a fan of the previous administration (although I am liberal and dislike GWB fairly intensely), but the extra provisions in the PA overstep a lot of bounds. For example, the library provision also forbids the donors of information to notify you of a search, a provision that is not consistent with previous law. In addition, I don't believe that a search for library info. has to be approved by a judge, but only by a clerk - this significantly lowers the barrier to getting a warrant.
The admission (I don't have the pointer right now) that the PA is being used primarily to go after nonterrorist criminal activity doesn't give me any reason to accept the promise that the PA will not be misused with anything other than a large bag of rock salt. The evasion and doublespeak on the PA's support website doesn't make me trust the people responsible for enforcing it any better. The attempts to add powers to the PA under cover of secrecy do not amplify my (already miniscule) faith in the ability of the PA to achieve its designed goals.
Giving trustworthy people the sort of power embodied in the PA is questionable - eventually power corrupts (although absolute power is "pretty neat" (Clancy, from somewhere else). Giving that power to someone many consider untrustworthy is a mistake. The words, evasion, and untruthfulness of the current administration do not lead me to trust them with the power the PA invests in them. I trusted WJC more than I trust GWB, and I wouldn't trust either of them with the PA.
I keep saying this 'cause its true.Oddly enough-for you people-many "hard right" politicos and pundits are stronger on civil liberties than your whiny,simpering Communist Democrat crushes.
In general both parties and especially the bureaucrats suck on issues of liberty.
But as you buttfuckers always remind me Government is your friend-Corporations are EVIL!
Congrats on the record, Taco!
It just seems to me that it's bad policy on a person's or organization's part to lend support to groups that are engaged in terrorist activities.
Imagine, for a moment if you will, that some group X is labelled as a terrorist group by the government, and this group's members happen to think they're not terrorists and don't support terrorism. There are two groups of professionals they might desperately like to hire, lawyers to plead their case, and public relations experts to present their case clearly. It's only fair in a free society that the accused be afforded a chance to defend themselves in this manner.
He was detained and tortured by Syria.
How does that make the US government responsible fo r his treatement at the hands of a foreign government?
I can just see the ambulance chaser lawyers advertisments:
"Ever had 3 generations imprisioned in a North Korean slave labor camp?"
"Call attorney Jim Hactler to get your rightful compensation from the US federal government!"
But when any part of a law is declared unconstitutional doesn't that make the entire law void? The only way to superceede the Supreme Court's ruling on unconstitutionality is to amend the Constitution.
Learn something new.
now if we can get rid of the statute that enables "law enforcement" less checks and balances and the portion that enables indefinite confinement without lawyer or family visitation/contact of those classified as "combatants" (even US citizens). So much for due-process as guaranteed by the Constitution. I've said this before and I'll say it again; the Patriot act is one of the most unPatriotic pieces of legistature known to man, especially since it defies the very spirit of the Constitution, the common foundation of our society.
You know...the more I think about it, I get the feeling that both Ashcroft and Bush failed their history classes.
The worst part is that I also get the feeling that Stalin/Lenin won without a fight.
My guess is the original PATRIOT Act writers wanted something like the "Giving Aid & Comfort to the Enemy" laws, but couldn't quite figure out how to get around the provision that they only applied during wartime (since Congress hasn't declared war on them, it can't apply).
Chip H.
Bless the West Coast.
Of course the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned. It's geographically located in one of the fastest changing parts of the country (and world, for that matter), deals with the highest proportion of novel legal situations, and often must make determinations where there is no legal precedent. Those are the basic reasons it's decisions are overturned slightly more often than other circuits.
Please stop propagating Neocon distortions. If you want to be a conservative, fine. Please use sound arguments and avoid misrepresentations. It's a prerequisite to play the game.
Who do you think is "my guy"? Everyone has sold out.
by combining rationales they save all that money they spent on previous propaganda...
So, if the Hezzbolah (sp?) calls you up wanting to know how it can cease it's violent activities while still acheiving it's goals, you would deny them?
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
This is why I recommend people read the PATRIOT Act before commenting on it. For reference, the specific statutes that accomplish this are Title II Section 203(b) which increases the ability for law enforcment agencies to share wiretap information and Title II Section 203(d) which allows for the sharing of data accumulated in FISA searches.
Furthermore, Title VII also specifically modifies the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) to remove specific statutory limits to information sharing between law enforcement agencies.
That is simply incorrect. From Section 215:
Furthermore, it is only logical that the government have the right to delay the notification of a search. (The PATRIOT Act does not allow for notification to be cancelled, but delayed under such time as the threat of a terrorist attack is no longer a concern.) If there's a reasonable suspicion that someone just put a nuke under San Francisco, the very last thing we need to do is tip off the terrorists before we've had a chance to find it.
Why is it that the one part of the Patriot Act that is actually meaningful and somewhat beneficial is the one declared unconstitutional?
I really need to find another country to move to.
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, raises the knife, and charges. You are carrying a Glock .40, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the Glock have an appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with killing just me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1 ? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have a paint and weed day, and make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
Conservative Answer: BANG!
Who is going to outlaw Porn?
In Canada it was Progressive Feminists.
Yes, it's happening, but it's not necessary. The reality is that, in a way, 9/11 was Ashcroft's wet dream: an opportunity to get what he wants in terms of J. Edgar Hoover-like control in the aftermath of a tragedy. Nevermind that the things he gets have nothing to do with terrorism, often. It's just things that have been on his wish list.
There are things that the US needs to do to fight terrorism that have little or nothing to do with civil liberties. As such I see a true fight against terrorism as a good and fair one, potentially. The US needs to lock down its infrastrusture, for one thing. Examples are reservoirs, chemical plants, etc. No one's civil liberties are abridged by this, and these have been isolated as likely targets by terrorists in the future.
In truth, keeping closer track of "visitors" (ie, visa holders) to the US is probably inevitable, but that's not something outside the realm of common sense anyway. It's the tactics Ashcroft's office is taking in the name of fighting terrorism that is disgusting, not the fight itself.
Editors should limit front page posts to technology and science posts. Political and legal stories should involve technology in some way. Otherwise, post all political and legal stories, to be fair. Not just the ones that fit your political agenda, editors.
They probably made it so that Orrin Hatch's aide won't be in danger of serving a life term for computer intrusion.
In the future, I suggest you label it "Crunchy Raw Real Unboned Dead Frog" if you want to avoid prosecution!
All's true that is mistrusted
The problem is, this ruling really does not change much of anything. The DOJ as a lot of appeal left before this hits the USSC. One thing that could help, is if other little parts of the act could be shown to be unconstitutional before this hits the USSC. If as a whole, it can be show to be flawed in many many ways, perhaps they would just knock the whole thing out?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
As far as I know, giving aid to the enemy is treason. The US government has decided to, as per it function, define these groups as 'the enemy.' Certainly a strict interpretation of both treason and aid leads one to believe what those individuals and organizations were doing was highly illegal. The PATRIOT act providing an inbetween ground to discourage what is obviously pretty rare behavior before steping up to the thermonuclear flyswatter and rendering the need for two eyewhitnesses unecessary.
I'm not a fan of these laws either. But in this case, fine charge them with treason, and if they can prove it to a jury, hang the idiots. I'm all for a right way and a wrong way of doing things, and I'd be the first one out there bitching about an illegal wiretap, and how that invasion diminishes us all. But this isn't that kind of thing. It's an extremely random and poorly thought out descision. At best it's akin to legitimizing shell companies for money laundering or other perposes.
as usual! you all fucking suck!
FUCK YOU ANDERSON COOPER!!!
Aparently someone didn't see the news.
m e= %20FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=10732809 040%2070
The Finical Times a bastion of impartial financial news describes the Bush administration's economic policy as akin to a teenager with his parents Ferrari. To paraphrase the Bush admin was given the highest performing economy in history and seems determined to drive it beyond the performance envelope and into a tree, despite the disaproving head shakes of the adults on the side of the road.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagena
As to productivity quip, you'd be productive too if you thought that you were going to loose your job despite the fact that your compnay is making money again.
The problem of fighting violence with violence is that you become that which you fight against
Just what is it we become? I doubt we will become zealots killing in the name of religion, though this would please some. No, you just want to float some ill defined evil as that which we will morph into. Please explain to me how you fight violence without using violence? Most would agree that self defense is a inalienable right. If my only reasonable way of bringing an attack to an end is to kill my attacker, then I would say it is justified and not evil.
There is a large percentage of Slashdot posters that think the US is irredeemably evil, or the the Bush administration is evil. That somehow a better, gentler, kinder foreign policy would have staved off these woes. Why is this believed? What evidence is there that the other major powers in the world are less evil than the USA, because if they are not less evil, why would react positively to selfless acts on the part of the US? 911 would have happened whether Gore won or not, planning for it was in progress for years before the actual event. We will never know whether a Gore administration would have dealt with the crisis better or not, this isn't my point. My point is that Global Terrorism wasn't brought to us as result of the 2000 year election, it was brewing for a long time and finally arrived.
I for one am a tit-for-tat with a little bit of forgiveness, the only long term winning strategy. And while I may get shouted down for this belief, I think this is just the trend the USA seems to show on the world stage. We have racial divisions and religious divisions and political divisions within the USA, but from all this contention comes a moderation to all view points, which is reflected in our foreign policy.
I am not defending the Patriot Act, I have not read all of its particulars, but I am saying we do have to react to foreign aggression (provoked or not). Just moaning about war is bad, violence is evil will not make the world better as its adherents think it will.
Certainly we have overreacted in some areas to terrorism, our freedoms are in peril, but we must also make sane choices to preserve life and limb. Merely succumbing to an endless liberal litany of we-had-it-coming-for-not-being-nicer will solve nothing, and never really asks the question about how effective being nicer actually would be. Where's the proof? I'm not saying we shouldn't be to a degree tolerant, but we can't be appeasers either.
One last world, not all other political systems are just "different". I hesitate to use the world evil, but I do believe a system that respects freedom of speech and freedom of religion are superior. I am an agnostic, but thank GOD I live in a society that doesn't tell me how to worship. I have no problem with our government pursuing strategies that will open up closed societies to this which democracy and secularism which I believe are more enlightened views.
Letter To Iran
You said a mouthful. If the US would stick to its own business, there would be less injustice in cases such as this one.
I agree that his mistake was his travel arrangements through a hostile place like New York. No sane person would travel through there now.
Is the Patriot Act written normally? i haven't read too many laws, but the PA is written differently (as a modifier to existing laws) that the few I have seen. Is this SOP?
It would seem like negotiations with Arafat to end the Palestinian/Israeli are a violation of this same provision of the patriot act, since he fronts Hamas whose military wing is a terrorist organization, if the claims by the article are true.
it's biased, but....
l
www.moderateconservative.com/v1i19thcircuit.htm
It quotes the same figures as jjohnson - it doesn't back it historically, however, so Posner's conclusions could still have been accurate (1985-1997). This, however, is recent (2002). The criticisms it levels are reasonable.
Neoconservative Answer: Damn wife and kids must have been disloyal, attracting a thug like that. Suspicion of their disloyalty is the best proof. BANG, BANG, BANG. They won't do that again. Before things die down, let's see if there are any more thugs I can sell weapons to.
The PATRIOT act is very dangerous. It is a wonderful relief to see it challenged. Even if enacted with good intentions (a dubious claim at best), there is no organization that would not abuse such power. If you think otherwise you are terribly naive. Do not trust the government blindly.
My grandfather was kidnapped and interrogated for five years by the Polish secret police because they were absolutely sure he was a spy. He wrote a book about it. It's an excellent read for anyone who wonders about the dark side of "national security".
That all seemed, at the time, to be a failing of communism. But recent events remind me that it can happen any time and place that the people pledge thier uncritical allegiance to their leaders.
I love this country and want it to be the best it can. With that in mind I keep a close eye on those in charge to be sure they don't run amok. I wish more people did. I hope enough do. The leaders have certainly been running amok in the past few years.
Cheers.
we will always have the rest of the Constitution.
hold on, i still have to help mayor haggar save his daughter (my girlfriend) from the madgear punks that kidnapped her. send in the bionic commando.
---
I would like to encourage you to watch this great lecture streamed through the internet. Prof. David D. Cole of Georgetown University Law Center explores the parallels between the first Red Scare, the era of McCarthyism and todays equivalent... terrorism. If you have a good internet connection with Real player and an hour of your time, I would recommend catching this enlightening lecture. To learn how denying the civil liberties of others may later trample on your very on liberties and rights in the future. Parts of the original Patroit Act are in this lecture as well.
"Freedom and Terror: September 11th and the 21st Century Challenge Freedom"
by Professor David D. Cole, Georgetown University Law Center
Real Player streamed lecture
The lecture is available by webstream on demand:
http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/webstream.htm
For more information on the Academic Freedom Lecture Series please see:
http://www.umich.edu/~sacua/AFL/afllecture.html
----
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't trade unionists.
THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
THEN THEY CAME for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Niemoeller, Lutheran Pastor.
Currently, judges are the strongest defense of our liberty. Their branch of government has always been the most circumspect, out of necessity for their relatively unchecked power (compared to Legislative and Executive government workers). But the age of integrity as a check to power, if it ever existed, is certainly gone now. Before we descend into the necessity of ongoing oversight of judges to protect their integrity, how can we citizens feed back to them, to encourage their continued defense of our rights? Sure, the top judges are up for election, but those are the least considered candidates, most subject to party mechanics and insider agreements. How do we stay involved, so we get the same priority as the corporations with so much more access?
--
make install -not war
and that's the problem. Most of the terrorism we've dealt with at home (in the US) has been US nationals, and people who might otherwise be difficult to characterize. Getting rid of all the Arab-looking people? Well, then, the Black Muslims will take their place. If it isn't them, it could be a militia member off his medication, an environmentalist going after housing, or an anti-abortion person shootting doctors or blowing up clinics. There is no one to kill, or rather, to get rid of the problem, you have to kill everyone. Which is not exactly a practical solution.
Conventional war usually has some delineation of ground - thus combatants are grouped (imperfectly) base on geography. In wars where this has not been the case (Vietnam, establishing the peace in Iraq), we have been unsuccessful precisely because of the inability to distinguish bad from good without killing a lot of good people because no such delineation exists. A war against terrorism is worse because it doesn't have to be motivated by any single distinguishing characteristic such as race - it is driven by ideas, and ideas can't be killed unless you kill everyone who has them. Since it's hard to know who has an idea (particularly if they are silent about it), fighting this war as a "kill them before they kill you" action on any sort of large scale is doomed to fail miserably, while destroying the freedoms it claims to preserve. On small scale, "kill them before they kill you" can work but only in the presence of specific knowledge on people and their intended acts and targets rather than vague assumptions about race and ideas. (I'm not impugning you as a racist or closed-minded - just that the selection criteria for such action will tend to be the easiest to use (and race has been one of those), while the ones that would actually be effective are so drastic as to be counterproductive.)
The US is supposed to defend freedom, not destroy it.
I've been waiting for this to happen so I can give my expert advice to foreign terrorist groups to fly planes into their *own dang buildings*!
"On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union 2004
How long before this is a real headline?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Then praytell me why are there terrorists attacking our troops in Iraq? During a presidential election year? With a host of democrats saying we should pull out of the country?
They're not terrorists (attacking an invading military force is not terrorism, whether or not it professes to be a liberating force) and neither are the majority of them supporters of the old regeime, if this is synonomous with terrorist in your eyes. Get your facts straight.
They want Americans to either A) criticize these democrats for criticizing the war, and thus damage our right to free speech, or B) exert enough stress that the American people elect Kerry, Edwards, Dean, or Clark, and the new president pull the troops out of Iraq. That is why they are attacking us, at least in Iraq. There are of course, other goals, such as spreading their radical Islam. (Note: I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion. I will not abide though, anyone who kills innocents in the name of whatever god they believe in.)
Nope, they (terrorists in general) want American troops out of the Middle East. They don't give a damn about how much freedom of speech you have, and I doubt all that many of them really care which God(s) you choose to believe in.
rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?) Anti-war people are not suggesting we go on as before; rather, this is what pro-war people are suggesting. America is attacked by crazy fundamentalists with marginally legitimate greivances. Does it (a) attempt to bring the criminals in question to trial, and (through other means) settle the greivances, or (b) invade a few more countries and piss off a few more million people?
OK, so maybe there are sections of the Patriot Act that are truly unconstitutional, but I do not think this is one of them.
What part of the Constitution gives someone the right to assist any other person/group/organization? The freedom of speech? I think that's stretching it. But OK, but what if you were to give them something? That's not protected under the freedom of speech.
And if it's unconstitutional, then why is it OK to give them "good" advise and not "bad" advise. What determines what is "good" and what is "bad"... wouldn't the first ammendment be the first ammendment no matter whether it's good or bad?
But of course, this was the 9th District Court, and they haven't made a constitutional law decision that was actually based on the constitution in some time. Basically, the 9th just gave the OK for rogue organizations within the U.S. to give Al Qaida strategic information about oh... nuclear plants or chemical plants... without the risk of penalty.
Good job 9th!
1. is not an html tag.
2. qoute is not an English word.
3. You turned off html formatting (otherwise the erroneous tag would not be visible).
I don't know if I would agree with that, but you do imply that there are civil rights abuses happening. With that, I agree wholeheartedly. That should change, and repealing many parts of the Patriot Act would be a good start.
The US government was not the only party complicit in Maher Arar's deportation. The Canadian government allowed Arar to be deported after US government officials consulted with Canadians.
What's ironic is that Maher Arar should be suing Canada first. If not for the Canadian government's acceptance of Arar's deportation to Syria by the US, Arar would have been sent back to Canada. The Canadian government officials are as complicit in this as anyone else, and probably more so. To the US, Arar was a non-resident alien. To Canada, he was their citizen. It should've been Canada stepping up to bat for Arar.
The job isn't over yet. Find the rest of it unconstitutional, like it is.
Oh fuck it. Who am I kidding? I'm moving to the middle of nowhere, so when Emperor Bush starts WWIII, I'll at least have a chance to survive.
The USA reminds me of the Roman empire, but with better plumbing.
The Patriot Act is itself federal law, and only needs to conform to the Constitution (what many of these posts are about). Any other law simply got ammended when it passed, or worked around.
Really? Since when?
Well think about it, who provides the greatest source of training, equipment and 'expertise' to terrorist groups throughout the world?
There is nothing patriotic about the Patriot Act. Absolutely nothing. I'm glad something is finally being done about it, if only in an indirect way.
Domain name registration for $8.79 per year
879domains.co
If you dare speak up against this, we'll call you unpatriotic!
t ml
http://www.bushin30seconds.com/view/06_small.sh
Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
It's a good strategy, in general. Ghandi used the term 'Ahimsa' which isn't really non-violence, but least violence. Very rarely is killing the least violent means to solve a problem. Sometimes it is. When it is, though, it's never as clear as we'd like it to be. Thoughtful people use it as a last resort.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
If the White House and Congress can talk about passing a constitutional amendment specifically banning gay marriage with a straight face, how much longer do you think it will be before the USA PATRIOT Act is made constitutional by altering the constitution itself?
99% is a pretty damned big majority to be up against...
>this power requires the consent of a federal judge
Lawyers disagree with you. They work for the ACLU, so some bias is possible. From aclu.org:
"The judge exercises no discretion: he must issue the order upon receipt of the FBI application asserting that it seeks the records in connection with a foreign intelligence investigation, or an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. This information can include extremely sensitive information such as: medical records, mental health records, financial records, video rental records, fingerprints, DNA samples from a person's hair, employment records, records of employment-based drug testing, and immigration records maintained by non-profit agencies. "
You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers...
Did you even read his definition of terrorism? The part about violence against civilians? This was not an m.o. of the founding fathers, you fucking idiot. Go whine to your Democrat overseers.
We're all analytical types. Let's think about "designated as terrorist" for a while.
The logical questions are who gets to do the designation, and what proof do they need to provide.
The executive branch gets to declare people and groups "terrorist". There's no judicial review. The FBI doesn't have to show a judge proof or even evidence of terrorist activity or plans.
That's a lot of power to give anyone. It's like telling someone your root password. Before you do that you'll naturally ask "Do you need it?" and "Can I trust you?".
The US won the Cold War without the executive powers given by the Patriot Act. That's evidence against need. Not conclusive, since Al Qaeda is harder to deter than the USSR was, but something to think about.
Will the government ever declare someone a terrorist incorrectly? One official called the Branch Davidians "terrorists". Their many faults did not include terrorist acts.
Excuse me...but
W
T
F...
How is that neoconservative?
That's just some moron with a gun!.
And before you start to make a poorly thought out joke, there are differences.
Look, I'm a conservative, and I feel really alienated by so much bashing on slashdot. I'm one of you guys in so many respects. I'm against DMCA, almost all of PATRIOT, for freedom of information. Yet it seems trendy and "fun" to just bash Conservatives (note that I say conservatives because I dont consider myself "republican"). There are good conservatives on the boards and it's really unfair and insulting when we're treated like the lowest common denomenator. Being a conservative doesn't mean being some gun toting idiot who mistreats his wife and children as you imply. Nor does it mean being some crazed "national security" zealot. It means, contrary to popular belief, that you believe in small government, small. It means you want people to make their own decisions and be responsible for them. God, it doesn't mean you're some kind of fascist!
Please, before you start bashing all conservatives on this board think about how many good conservatives there are on slashdot and that we don't like being treated as second class citizens.
-------
A conservative that has yet to get his account on slashdot
This seems like a pretty weak ruling to me--the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional not on First Amendment grounds, but for the due process amendments--the fourth, fifth, and sixth. The ability to give legal counsel to someone accused of being a terrorist is not so much an issue of free speech but of the right to an attorney. If--when--this makes it to the Supreme Court, it will most likely be overturned, but when we get a case for one of the due process amendments it'll be harder to deny that the PA is unconstitutional. Of course by then they'll probably have added a provision making it impossible for those convicted of terrorist-related charges to appeal and we'll all be screwed.
And, as always, IANAL... but my entire family is, so I get to listen to them jabber about things like this day in and day out.
They're different guys. The Iraqi Resistance is an entirely different kettle of fish from Al-Qaeda. The Iraqi Resistance is fighting for various reasons like loyalty to Sadaam or distake towards an American government, which are different from Al-Qaeda's reasoning.
Anyway, sometimes people die. Sometimes in large quanities. Yes, we should punish Al-Qaeda and put them in jail, no question about it, but geez, people overreacted to September 11th. You can't get too emotional about how deal out punishment. You have to look at it calmly.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional
Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 4:54 PM EST (2154 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.
The ruling marks the first court decision to declare a part of the post-September 11, 2001 anti-terrorism statute unconstitutional, said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who argued the case on behalf of the Humanitarian Law Project.
In a ruling handed down late Friday and made available Monday, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said the ban on providing "expert advice or assistance" is impermissibly vague, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments.
John Tyler, the Justice Department attorney who argued the case, had no comment and referred calls to the department press office in Washington. A message left there was not immediately returned.
The case before the court involved five groups and two U.S. citizens seeking to provide support for lawful, nonviolent activities on behalf of Kurdish refugees in Turkey.
The Humanitarian Law Project, which brought the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs were threatened with 15 years in prison if they advised groups on seeking a peaceful resolution of the Kurds' campaign for self-determination in Turkey.
The judge's ruling said the law, as written, does not differentiate between impermissible advice on violence and encouraging the use of peaceful, nonviolent means to achieve goals.
"The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," the judge said.
Cole declared the ruling "a victory for everyone who believes the war on terrorism ought to be fought consistent with constitutional principles."
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The parent is correct, I read through the speech and the entire thing is in the context of reducing identity theft while maintaining one's privacy.
Also, he specifically says that the states must lead the effort, and the federal government cannot do it. So take off the tinfoil hat, Dean isn't that bad.
#1. Those "terrorists" are "freedom fighters" or "resistance". They are fighting against our occupation of their country. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be attacking us.
#2. Iraq will not be a Democracy. Unless you believe that the last regime was a Democracy. There are too many sides that are too heavily armed by various 3rd parties (such as the US). We went in without laying the groundwork for a Democracy.
#3. Bush is ALREADY planning on pulling the troops out. He's advanced his "schedule" for turning the government over to the Iraqis. That doesn't require any new president be elected.
#4. Iraq was a SECULAR state. Iraq was NOT spreading "their radical Islam". But more and more Muslims are seeing the current "War on Terror" as a war on Islam. You don't hate me yet, but if I started setting fire to your house and shooting at you, you'd quickly learn to hate me. That's what the US is doing in Iraq.
#5. Iraq had NOTHING to do with the WTC attack. Why even bring it up if they had nothing to do with it? Unless you can't tell the difference between Osama and Saddam. Which supports #4's war on Islam.
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches."
-and-
"I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion."
Hmmm, seems you're a little bit confused as to what your beliefs are.
The facts of the case are that a relatively low-level RCMP (ie. police) official was asked if Canada wanted him back and the RCMP officer said no. Canadian Foreign Affairs (equivalent to State Dept.) was not involved in the decision; nor was there any sort of due process.
To make matters worse, it is technically illegal in the United States to deport a person to a country that practices torture, which is why Mr. Arar ended up in Syria via Jordan. Technically speaking, Arar was deported only to Jordan, with the tacit understanding that the Jordanians were going to pass him to Syria, a subcontractor, if you will of U.S. intelligence. It could have been worse: Other Middle Eastern countries are also used as such subcontractors, and some of them are of the "disappear and never heard from again" variety.
It is also interesting to note that under U.S. law, the potential deportee is to be asked what country he would like to be deported to, and is to be sent to that country unless officials in said country refuse to take him. The lone RCMP officer in question was taken by U.S. officials to be speaking officially on behalf of Canada.
I suppose that Technically Speaking, everything was done according to the letter of the law with respect to Mr. Arar. The U.S. officials were just following orders . Makes one proud to be an American, eh?
If I may offer something to think about:
The reason that the U.S. has the patriot act (and the reason Canada has a similar law now) is because people demanded that the government do something about the threat of terrorism. They wanted security, and they couldn't understand why the laws weren't protecting them.
However, none of the hijackers (as I understand it) ever committed a crime, until the morning of 9/11/2001. Our basic values say that it's a persons actions, not their thoughts, that are punishable. If our laws reflect those values, there's nothing we can do to prevent this type of terrorist attack (short of getting fewer enemies).
Therefore, while these laws run directly against our most cherished values, they are the only defence against the threat.
For that reason, there is no real defence. It's a no-win situation. If we continue to play by these rules, we've already lost.
How do you fix it? Step 1: learn about the history of the middle east, and specifically what the west has done in the last 50 years to really piss off the people there. Step 2: admit we were wrong. Step 3: apologize. Step 4: sign a final deal, compensating the Palestinians for their loss. Step 5: try not to get ourselves into this mess again.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Wow, has Bush got you conned.
You, along with too many American's, can't tell the difference between Iraq and bin Laden.
Do you honest to god believe all that bullshit that you're saying?
Do you vote with that brain?
Who cares what the terrorists want you to do?
what do you want to do... react? or provoke?
live free...
I thought the headline said "Part of Constitution Ruled Unpatriotic"
I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy
No - Bush is the pussy, and you, by extension are as well.
Here's why:
After the first plane hit the first tower, all aircraft should have been immediately grounded, across the country. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Furthermore, the second plane that hit the other tower flew OVER McGUIRE AIR FORCE BASE.
The place "to fight back" was over the skies of New Jersey, on the morning of September 11th.
Furthermore, the attack was carried out solely by Saudis and Yemenites. Our country responded by attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. WTF? If we were to take an honest militaristic approach to this problem, we should of invaded those two countries. After all, their people attacked us. But, we failed to respond appropriately, and therefore are playing right into the terrorists' hands. Don't you realize that the Saudis are recieving a nice windfall in their sales of oil since we removed a competitor from the picture?
WE ARE DOING OUR ENEMIES' BIDDINGS. And "neo-cons" who think that the way we fight our enemy is by attacking our enemy's enemy, and yada yada yada about WMD, is nothing more than TREASON.
So, to respond - all these new inconviences in the airports are truly useless as a method to "fight back". Using our military to down airplane #2 when it was as much as 400 miles off course, and clearly headed straight for NYC would have been the proper way to "fight back".
Beyond that, parking ICBMs in orbit above Mecca and Medina would have been also an appropriate way to "fight back" as opposed to doing the Saudi's bidding in Iraq.
The failure of the military to stop the second plane on its way to NYC is UNFORGIVABLE. We have a massive THREE TRILLION DOLLAR defense industry that can't stop a single, lumbering sub-sonic aircraft. The man in charge is solely responsible for those attacks - George Bush.
I frelling hate the man, and not ony am I a Republican but a Mormon too :-p
Leaving in Utah, I will do my damned best to get the man out of office ;-)
No, but you can freely advise any sketchy arabs passing through about where to get the best buds at the lowest rates.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
"I am a God fearing Christian" ...
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"
I hate to point this out to you but you are a case study in what is wrong with modern, institutionalized Christianity, especially in the U.S.
If you were really a follower of the teachings of Christ and really understood his teachings you would realize Christ was the ultimate "pussy" to use your derogatory term. He was most certainly the most committed pacifist you could ever find.
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Matthew 5.38-41
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Matthew 26.51-52
If Christ were alive to see people like our President or the officers in our military, tell you about what devoted Christians they are and then rush out to kill people in his name he would be devastated. No matter how justified they think they are, they are committing a hypocrisy of immense proportions.
There are only two paths, you are truly Christian in which case you would be a pacifist, a pussy to use your term, and you wouldn't kill people, no matter how much you were provoked.
Or you are using Christ's name out of political and social convenience because you have to be a good Christian to be elected President or rise in the ranks of the military or in many respects to be an accepted member of yout community especially in the U.S., one of the most fanaticly "Christian" countries. I'm pretty sure the later is the case for 90+% of the Christians in this country. People like the Quakers seem to be the only people who really understand Christ's teachings. Most of the supposedly Christian churches are institutions Christ would have abhored. They are social institutions worshiping him as an idol, regurgatating his teachings but never really listening to them, and certainly not understanding the most basic tenents of his teachings.
Most of our politicians and military officers should admit it. They are Machiavellians or Nietscheans to whom power is the true religion. Christianity is a badly worn facade of social convenience. Deep in their hearts they don't subscribe to it because it is a "pussy's" religion. George W. Bush no doubt found Christ about the same time he realized he and his family wanted him to be President.
@de_machina
Yes, far inferior to an attorney general who actively seeks out and kills American citizens ..
I assume you're referring to the Waco siege. While I have no strong opinions about Janet Reno (pro or con), I think you're leaving some basic facts out of the equation here. The Branch Davidians (the "American citizens" you're referring to here) were in violation of several firearms laws at varying levels. Law enforcement authorities obtained a proper warrant and served it on February 28, 1993. If you're keeping score, that was almost two weeks before Janet Reno was even sworn in as Attorney General on March 12th. In the resulting raid, four federal agents were murdered by these same "American citizens" that you are (apparently) defending. These were men with families, and they were just doing their job. I've never understood why it's not okay for the government to enforce the law, but it's all fine and dandy to kill law enforcement officers.
Janet Reno made the best of a bad situation. Even though she had only been in office for a couple of weeks when the final raid happened and had very little to do with the plan for the final raid and how it was executed, she took full responsibility for it. She was, after all, the Attorney General at the time that it happened. But there's a certain amount of logical inconsistency here; we are told that we cannot blame President Bush for the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 because he had only been in office for eight months before it happened, but we can blame Waco on Reno even though she had only been in office for a couple of weeks. (For the record, I don't blame 9/11 on President Bush.)
You know that the FBI/ATF bent over backwards to bring the Waco siege to a peaceful conclusion, don't you? They repeatedly tried to negotiate with Koresh, offering food and other basic supplies if he would just release some of the children from the compound, to which he replied (literally) "kiss my ass." The way that the situation resolved itself was tragic and there will probably always be questions about it, but the basic fact of the matter is that the Branch Davidians had 51 days to end the standoff peacefully and they chose not to. And I've never understood the mindset that can dismiss the murder of law enforcement agents, particularly in the post-9/11 era.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
East Asia or Eurasia?
Now watch this drive.
She works for the Ottawa Citizen.
Mod parent up!! I'm sooo sick & tired of self-proclaimed "Christians" who haven't the slightest CLUE what Christ actually taught.
i had the exact same opinion as you did (that allowing the terrorists to radically change the freedom-loving united states into a police-regieme would mean that they had in a sense 'won') but this is an unimformed opinion. Al-Quaeda does not wish to turn the united states into a police state, or take away your freedom. they wish to kill you. there's a slight difference here. There are what, three demands right? 1. get israel out of palistine 2. get american troops out of saudi arabia. 3. i can't remember the third item.
1) isreal is still screwing around in palestine. 2) afaik american troops are still in saudi arabia(although there's talk in conservative circles of nuking/going to war with saudi arabia) 3) i'm pretty sure they havn't accomplished #3 even though i can't particularily remember it. so what have the terrorists accomplished? nothing! fuckall! they accomplished pissing off roughly half of all americans to the point where using tactical nuclear weapons on nations that even harbour terrorists (despite declared neutrality) is on the radar...
and iirc due to the radical islam puritainism that these specific terrorists (al-qaeda and allies) follow they are going to try to kill jews and americans, period. do not collect 200$ do not pass go. just fucking die, you corrupt american satan spawn.
the type of regeime that these people want to see may be more like the type of regeime that the united states is falling into (fascism) but this is by no means their intent or goal. mabye the united states, in their perfect world would be a police state fascistic nation, after it has been completely demolished and built up as a holy massive shrine of the accomplishment of god's true chosen people(ie overthrowing the great american evil).
know the best part? there's absolutely nothing you can do, beyond pissing people off, due to the dynamic nature of the conflict, and the interdependancy of all nations in the globalist world. i personally don't think that i, as a canadian living nearby the US border that i'm going to die of nuclear attack, but biological/chemical isn't out of the question as a 'leading potential cause of death'. (/ranting)
and to keep on topic? i can only hope that the canadian government takes a hint from this and begins to repeal some of the godawful nasty law they have put into effect here(which if i recall, is much more dangerous and threatening than the american patriot acts were, considering, and more permenent considering our lack of specific constitutional protection,..unless i'm mistaken on this. hrm. it has been awhile since i read the constitutional documents of this nation. anyways...)
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Please, before you start bashing all conservatives on this board think about how many good conservatives there are on slashdot and that we don't like being treated as second class citizens.
Have the decency to read thoughtfully before you claim I bash good conservatives. The poster referred to conservatives. I referred to NEOconservatives. The distinction has been quite clear for anyone willing to make a distinction in my reponse and in national debate, except for neoconservatives who try to claim to be reepresenting all conservatives.
Those in power, who are neoconservatives, are clearly behaving like facists, more likely to imprision you without a trial, shoot first and ask questions later, arm the next dictator and trying to drag the rest of the conservatives along with them.
I was an active conservative Republican for 20 years until the recent behavior of Bush and company makes me so deeply ashamed to be associated with them, that I have become completely unaffiliated. I did not change, but they changed the party. I remain a proud conservative. Good neoconservative, on the other hand, is in my book an oxymoron.
If the US wasn't dependent upon foreign oil, we wouldn't have been over there in the first place, and there would have been no reason (however twisted) for attacking us.
You don't see many Africans bombing buildings over here.
Why?
We aren't occupying any African countries, that's why.
(And before you bring up the Lockerbie bombing, note that that occured after Reagan bombed Libya.)
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have.
George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements."
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
They see an opportunity to demoralize Americans, and elect a democrat to the Presidency. Then of course, said democrat would pull the troops out of Iraq. That's at least their plan.
There's a difference between "terrorists" and "Iraq". At least prior to the WTC attacks, "iraqis" and "terrorists" were considered totally different groups. Somewhere along the way, of course, we've turned them all (including north korea) into some homogeneous "axis of evil". When I talked about troops in the Middle East, I was mainly referring to the pre-9/11/01 middle east, when the region had remained very militarized by the US ever since the Gulf war. Hell, ever since we sent the CIA in to help the Ba'ath party take over iraq so they could fight the Iranians. (The same ba'ath party that Saddam soon rose to power in). Realistically, terrorists weren't expecting to acheive all their goals by a single WTC center. Perhaps they wanted to hurt the US as much as they could, but it'd seem a little too ambitious if they were to hope for the USA to squander millions, if not billions trying to equip pilots with handguns, adding extensive metal detectors to every big building or museum, and trying to find cures for countless possible "biological weapons" of terrorists. To get Bush to actually take money from his own education "no child left behind" plan, from social security, all to wage war with all these invisible enemies that are supposedly plotting against the US.
Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened?
I agree that we can't just not do anything either. Maybe giving pilots handguns is a necessary feature. Even though most terrorists wouldn't bother to bring bombs or any metallic weapon to a museum, perhaps the extra protection of museums is justified. It's always good to be prepared in case there's another smallpox outbreak, i suppose. Or for that case, ebola, anthrax, "SARS" or any other ailment you could think of. I'm all for that if it's a chance to increase our scientific knowledge. Then comes the patriot act. Remember, under the propoganda from the government in Soviet Russia, the people probably never "heard" of anything infringing on their rights any more than the "Patriot act". Today I can maybe put up with a random luggage search in an airport, but what happens when it becomes a random strip search? Or maybe random house searches? Where must we draw the line? Of course, the trusty judicial branch of the government should take care of all those "drawing the line" things for us, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize those infringments while they are in effect. We know something's wrong when millions rush to buy duct tape and water as "anti-terrorist" measures. Like I said before, it's not even the government that I'm talking about, it's our own irrational fear. As for Iraq and Afghanistan, how many of us remember how Afghanistan was described before we invaded? They were indeed considered a sovereign nation, and they were asked to hand over "suspected" terrorists. Now, we just killed "every one of those sons of bitches" and called them all terrorists. Even more sovereign of a nation was Iraq. I was never even totally against the war, though certainly not because I believed we were "liberating" the people, but on the off chance that the oil deals would save the US's economy enough that we would have time to research Nuclear power, Solar power, or anything else that doesn't involve fighting for the hundred-million-year-old carcasses of plants and animals. As for fighting the terrorist, it should be pretty clear that the countries we have spend hundreds of billions of dollars on so far aren't the terrorists we are looking for. We are slapping any convenient country with the label of "terrorist" and killing "every damned one of those sons of bitches". Meanwhile, as we satisfy our need of revenge, we've made far more enemies than we've eliminated.
PS: Although I wholeheartedly would've supported the toppling of the Soviet Union during the cold war, it was in that fight that the US personally trained Osama Bin Laden AND created the means for Saddam to rise to power.
is the same in the two cases
a) the blood has allready been spilt in isreal/palistine/afghanistan/iraq/.../and to a lesser extent panema/cuba and a whole pile of other nations that are not conerned with this conflict directly
b) the blood has allready been spilt due to the patriot act.
there is now going to be a massive backlash, if it takes five, ten, or a thousand years against the american empire as it stands (and *hopefully*(but i wouldn't count on it) the multinationals that make up it's backbone). people around the world, are pissed off. their sons have been murderred, women raped, villages bombed and children limbless from american laid Motorola Land Mines(tm). tens if not hundreds of thousands have died or will die of thirst and hunger due to american wars. people just don't forget these things. osama bin laden may be out of the picture but the people who he trained are not all gone... and so long as there is one fanatical person left and widespread resentement to support them there will be a revolt/strike against america.
this is why lesser developed nations and fanatical islam is now imposible to turn away from their bloodlust against america at this point, and due to the sheer number of them out there, and the tendancy to turn moderate islam (due to local wars) is going to pose an infinite supply of bodies to throw from their cause at america.
this alone, however should not piss off rational, developed nations and their people. i have no idea what isreal is doing or what nation they just recently attacked(not palistine). why? because it doesn't affect me *today* and i think a lot of people in first world nations feel similar to this. but between the patriot act and some of the other actions(specifically using unilateral force against united nations decree, but there's a long list) similarily, the united states government has pissed off the rational, democratic world. by promoting torture, and radically conservativism backed by corporate money, they isolate themselves from the people elsewhere. which hell, may not be a bad thing. why does america need support from any other nation? they can take on the entire muslim world(Because they have not yet learned to seperate the dangerous sections from the moderate) and not have any sort of reprocussions, after all, right?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
If the US would keep its nose out of other countries' business, we wouldn't have all of the problems with terrorism that we now have. George Washington said it best: "Avoid foreign entanglements." Why don't Americans understand this??? This country (US) has such an aversion to taking responsibility for its actions it is sickening! <mode=whine>It can't be my fault, I'm a victim! He/she/it/they/the dog MADE me do it!</mode> Hmmm, let's see, we mettle in the affairs of the Middle East for a couple of decades, support coups and terrorists in the "war" on Communism, and then look around and wonder why we just got slapped by the pawns we've been manipulating? 9/11 was a terrible event - I don't argue that, and I pray for the people who lost their lives. But the US has displayed nothing but cowardice-in-bully's-clothing, feigning ignorance & innocence, in its handling of the aftermath. We (Americans) all just need to grow up!
...one step at the time. That part of the law has been decleared unconstitutional will probably mean that the rest of it will undergo closer scrutiny - the kind of calm, reflected rational consideration that simply wasn't possible when it was signed.
Coming at a time when most of the US population was ready to nuke a few countries off the map, you can hardly claim that Congress was unaffected either. Hopefully, the Patriot Act will go down in history as the McCarthyism of the 2000s - the "War on Terror" will go on just like the Cold War did, but not at that price.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength"
And don't forget:
America is at war with Saddam. America has always been at war with Saddam.
America is at war with Osama. America has always been at war with Osama.
time 6.14.02 reporting doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
America is fighting a new kind of war.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Amen, Brother!
Ethics is what you say you do. Morals is what you actually do.
ince when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
Since when has Osama Bin Laden been hiding in Iraq?
Maybe you'd rather hear it from the President himself:
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."
Obviously a follower of the old testament...
This comment does not exist.
"....but some of the enforcement powers in PATRIOT have also made a difference in our ability to avert another attack on the scale of what we saw in 2001."
Really? How do you know? Your argument is the same as saying this rock keeps away tigers. How do I know it works? You haven't seen any tigers around lately, have you?
Your government hasn't exactly been open and said "We foiled 13 major attacks last year due to PATRIOT."
No, instead they've cloaked EVERYTHING in secrecy including how the hell they allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place, and then asked you to enhance their powers to prevent another such event.
Wake up America, and smell your freedom disappearing one PATRIOT at a time.
Visceral Psyche Films
The reason the poster you reply to took exception, is because, in effect, you DID trash conservatives..by lumping "those in power" (Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld) as "neoconservatives" is flatly incorrect. The persons above are NOT neocons, they are conservatives. The only people labeling them "neocons" are the enraged liberals, who are enraged mostly by the fact that the American people reject their philosophy. Proof of that is easy..evey liberal running for office has to "spin" his campaign to the center, and dare not reveal their true agendas, for they know that if they revealed their true core values, they'd have less chance getting elected than Hannibal Lecter.
In related news from Canada, the equivalent of the Patriot Act in Canada is facing some problems as well. After 9/11, something resembling the Patriot Act (although not as damaging), called the Anti-Terrorism Act (Bill C-36), was passed in Canada. Needless to say, it strips all sorts of liberties. Unlike the US Patriot Act, the Canadian one has gotten little criticism throughout the years (this isn't that unusual because liberties aren't a big concern of the populace in Canada.) However, something changed all that last week.
A reporter for Ottawa Citizen was raided and many assets (including computers, notes, etc) were seized by the RCMP. For our neighbours down south, RCMP is kind of like the FBI in USA. The RCMP used powers in received after 9/11 to carry out this raid. There have been some controversy, with media organizations taking the matter to court. This is very important to the media because the recent action is an affront to protection of media sources. My feeling is that the Anti-Terrorism Act will be changed. Unfortunatley, the changes will be cosmetic--governments don't like giving up newly found powers.
As a side note, it is crazy how all this is playing out. If you are from Canada or know a little bit, you would know that there is this controversy over the 'Mahed Arar case'. This raid was related to it. Some guys were dissing me last week right here on Slashdot for claming that someone was rogue or lying (CSIS, RCMP, or the high-level govt official). I guessed that CSIS was rogue but the two posters who, needless to say posted anonymously, thought otherwise (either these people were naive or likely CSIS employees). Given the recent events, I wonder if these guys (assuming they are not a party to the mentioned organizations) have changed their opinions.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
didn't work so well, did it troll?
If by terrorists you mean Al-Qaida, most of what you say is not correct. It seems you have fallen for US govt propaganda again.
;)
Everything you say would make sense if any of it were true. Unfortunately for you, most of what you say is misleading. Groups like Al-Qaida have not established themselves in Iraq yet. USA (or the so-called coalition) hasn't faced Al-Qaida in Iraq yet (except for some minor attacks possibly). The vast majority of attacks in Iraq are from remnants of the past government, unemployed disgruntled people, revenge attacks, patriots defending Iraq, and various ethnic attacks. Al-Qaida has done very little in Iraq. Perhaps their only major attack has been against the Shiite cleric around 4(?) months ago.
The terrorists have us in what I liken to the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't tic-tac-toe game...
I agree that Usama bin Laden's goal is to get USA into a paradox, similar to what you allude to. However, Iraq isn't it. Iraq is pretty much a US imperialist mission--has little to do with terrorists, WMD, or anything (Al-Qaida was not present in Iraq in the past). Usama bin Laden's goal, in my opinion, is to force USA to invade Saudi Arabia, and hence causing a holy war. Invading Saudi Arabia will necessarily cause a holy war because once you start bombing Mecca and Medina, that's pretty much a holy war (similar to what would happen is someone started bombing Vatican City).
I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy.
heh... A God-fearing person swearing--I wonder what God will think of that
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
"You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches"
You do realise that they did all die in the planes that they'd hijacked?
Good rebuttal.. good job... :)
But to the original poster's credit, he never said he was a Christian. All he said was that he fears God. It is quite possible that he is a God-fearing non-Christian. In fact, don't evil people fear God yet are evil? I'm not a Christian but doesn't Satan himself fear God?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
Certain ones in power, including those you name, have clearly adopted the neoconservative agenda, or the neoconservatives would not wield such power.
Ashcroft is no conservative in the tradition of conservatism, all for big government and big brother intervening in everyone's business. Sure, there were always those called conservatives who were less oriented towards personal liberty and responsibility and more towards legislating their own religious crusades and granting government monopolies, but I don't think they dominated until today.
Rumsfeld is clearly a neoconservative, warhawk, and one of the biggest parts of the problem and insecurity in the mideast -- pursuing the same strategy with nuclear-secret-exporter and terrorist supporer Pakistan replacing Iraq who used to be his convenient lapdog to use to slaughter Iranian populations.
I am a conservative, and Bush does not represent me on most significant issues because he no longer advances respectable or rational forms of conservative policies in issues that matter, nor is your attempt to spin it as an attack of the liberal left, who I also fundamentally disagree with credible. There are as many liberal war-hawks there who are trying only now to make the war an issue after having supported it for political gain.
You sound like another neoconservative trying to further usurp the good name of the conservatives who don't accept war-mongering, runaway deficit spending, disregard of constitutional rights, that a few years back we would have thought only the Liberals capable of in their quest for forced leveling of society. Many conservatives have been usurped by neoconservatives in this fashion and no longer stand up for conservative principles due to party affiliation. If the shoe fits, wear it, but it is not clear to me that the poster I was previously responding was neoconservative or party-loyal, however much as you may try to usurp his position and declare his reasons.
Hi. I just logged in to add you to my friends list :)
TheTilde
The US government & media is trying to convince everyone that there are ever increasing hordes of bloodthirsty terrorists that want to destroy Western civilisation. While terrorism is definitely a problem, it has been blown totally out of proportion by obsessive media coverage... According to this analysis by the US stater department 2002 saw the lowest incidence of international terrorist attacks (that is with 9/11 factored in, but IMO 9/11 was a catalyst staged by an alliance of certain energy- and weapons industry concerns, the Bush family and their close friends in the Saudi Royal family).
Now you may start modding me down, crying conspiracy theory and regurgitate the FUD that you have been fed...
WOOHOO!
Finally!
Ninnle takes off!
Ninnle posts everywhere!
"It is quite possible that he is a God-fearing non-Christian."
Sorry, the parent specified that he is indeed a "God fearing Christian". The exact quote is "Note: I am a God fearing Christian, but have no hatred of Muslims or the Islam religion. I will not abide though, anyone who kills innocents in the name of whatever god they believe in." The poster then goes on to say "You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches". Now, you can't kill "every damned one" of them without killing innocents; its a fact of war that innocents get killed, except now the act is sanitized with the term "collateral damage", which is a big help to anyone trying to justify ignoring the first commandment (which applies equally to Christians, Jews and Muslims, incidentally. Unfortunately, they don't seem to apply it to each other). The killing of thousands of innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with weapons of mass destruction was justified, apparently, because the fanatical heathen Japanese, as the propaganda of the time painted them, would rather die than surrender. Does that sound vaguely reminiscent of something you may have heard recently...on CNN, perhaps...?
"In fact, don't evil people fear God yet are evil?"
No, that's the point: if they really, genuinely feared God, would they risk eternal torment for short term gain? Conversely, the various churches maintain that atheism is a sin (and hence evil), yet are all atheists truly evil? I submit that they aren't; I am an atheist, since I can't bring myself to believe in a being that would divide his followers into three groups and set them at each other's throats, yet I have a very strong sense of ethics (disregarding the "miracles", I think Jesus said and did some pretty cool things, and as a mortal is a good role model). From my perspective, I cannot kill, not because I fear God, but because life is all there is and therefore the most precious thing we posess; I do not have the right to deprive anyone of their life. Yet Christians seem to have no problem killing "in the name of God" (look at the rate of executions under GWBush in Texas, for example), even though their religion expressly forbids it. Its there, in writing, direct from the hand of God folks: "Thou shalt not kill". Full stop. No sub-clauses, no exemptions.
"...doesn't Satan himself fear God?"
Actually, no, Satan does not fear God. In fact, Satan (or Lucifer, to use the correct name, "Satan" is a corruption of the Roman god Saturn) is in fact the original fallen angel; that is, he was cast out of Heaven for having the audacity to question God's authority (for clarity I am not a Satanist, because if there is no God to create Satan, then Satan can't exist. In my opinion evil exists, but it exists in the motives and actions of mortal men, not as some guy with horns and a pointy tail).
A final thought: why do so many Americans describe themselves as "God-fearing" (even in jest)? Feeling guilty about something?
In case you are wondering, a hobby of mine is criticising door-to-door God salesmen for their hypocracy in failing to observe the teachings in their own book. You have to know your subject.
PS: Thank you, Sivaram Velauthapillai, for being a thoughtful contributor. Your posts are always enlightening.
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge (what kind of God-fearing Christain are you?)
He's a typical "God-fearing Christian".
and i appear to have been misinformed myself. i thought they were 'demands' as in 'if these demands are met we will stop killing your people on sight' where in reality, the wording of the 'fatwa' released by mr. bin laden appears to just say 'they are evil, they have wronged us, our blood is on their hands, kill them all' and that there is a movement to use america as a catalyst to jumpstart the creation of the new islamist state. american's are now a permanent fixture in the sights of declared enemies. fascinating.
anyways, i really don't think that any of al-qaeda's plans are that deep...but it doesn't seem like anything other than ancient greek dialectic would be needed to presuppose for it...so...i'll remain undecided on this.
yay religious fueled funedmentalist whacko's, eh?
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"We must do something, this is something, let's do it!"-Sir Humphrey Appleby, referring to how politicians make decisions.
(For USAsians, "Yes, Minister" is a very clever and biting political satire/sitcom from the UK set in the halls of Westminster. It probably hasn't been on TV there in a long time, if at all, but it is worth watching if your attention span is longer than the space between commercials. Warning: no slapstick, no one-line insults, brain must be engaged)
I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer.
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
How wonderful that there are morons who don't learn from history. You'd make a great fascist if you had enough influence to matter at all.
If you're stupid enough to think we attacked Iraq because of their (complete lack of any) role in 9/11 you are beyond help. Just go back to listening to Rush and watching Fox News and yelling "Sieg Heil!" whenever they show a photo of GWB.
Better that 100 times as many people die in future terrorist attacks (and if I'm one of them, so be it) than that we lose the freedoms that make America great. Of course, I expect the reality will be somewhere in the middle. More people will die, and some freedoms will be lost, but we won't hit either extreme.
How about Steve Mann being detained and having his equipment damaged?0 3/14/20512 28&mode=thread&tid=172)
2 Fstory_page%2F0%2C4459%2C8445414%25255E10230%25255 E%25255Enbv%2C00.html)
(http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/
Or more recently, Australian record producer & music journalist Ian "Molly" Meldrum
(http%3A%2F%2Fentertainment.news.com.au%2Fcommon%
The list of innocents detained under these measures goes on longer than my HTML abilities (BTW, I have a personal grudge against Meldrum, but its the priciple involved). I am yet to see news of anyone detained for a real crime related to terrorism under this law.
as for the Founding Fathers, you might look into the history of the United Empire Loyalists who were eventually forced to flee to Canada as refugees, to say nothing of their views on expansion into *Indian Territory*. Every nation has aspects of its history and mythology which are a bit nasty, and the US is no different.
RCMP=Royal Canadian Mounted Police
It seems they are stuffed and mounted.
CNN isn't exactly pro-Bush ??? What are you smoking ?
The US President is not truely elected by a popular vote, yet that is what the southern Iraqis are demanding for themselves. The US electorial college causes such anomalies such as the 2000 election of a president with the 2nd highest number of popular votes. And the 1992 election of a president with only 43% of the votes (thanks to Ross Perot).
It was worse in the past. Originally the States elected the Senators and President. And women, blacks and landless couldn't vote.
> After the first plane hit the first tower, all aircraft should have been immediately grounded, across the countrY
So, you expect all air traffic to come to a screeching halt as soon as a single air traffic accident happens? Every time a plane crashes? Remember, after the first one, we thought it was tragic, not an attack, so grounding all other planes would not have been considered by any sane person.
Not to mention that as soon as the pilot told the passengers they were going to land (if the plane hadn't already been taken-over), the terrorists could jump up and take over then. The end result would be the same, except more chaos at airports.
> parking ICBMs in orbit above Mecca and Medina would have been also an appropriate way to "fight back"
Do you have a brain? Do you realize the amazing backlash that would occur if we did anything like that? Geesh.
> The failure of the military to stop the second plane on its way to NYC is UNFORGIVABLE
But since they didn't know it was going to have an "accident" as well... See above.
Please think before posting your bullshit, it would make all our lives nicer.
> bombing Vatican City
:)
Ooh, thanks for the grand idea!
> > I rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy.
> A God-fearing person swearing
Uh.... "pussy" is not a "swear word."
You have likewise been added to my friends list (after looking at some of the other posts in your history to be sure).
I have not looked at the Quakers, but I do think that the Universalist Unitarians have a pretty good handle on understanding and living by the teachings of Christ.
Of course, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is corrupt in their values, but I'm sure you know that. I do wonder as to the percentage, though, but I'm not sure how you'd go about trying to calculate something like that. There are also extremists amongst the Jews and the Muslims, and I'd really like to get some sort of metric of "true believers" versus "not really".
I also think that many misled "Christians" really do believe what they're preaching. Maybe the minister with the sign reading "God hates fags" is just badly misguided and can't see the basic contradiction in even the first two words of that sentence.
(For the record, I was raised in a very laid-back and accepting Presbyterian way, but I'm trying to figure out what to call myself now. I'm going with Unitarian for the time being, but I'm always checking out new directions. It's not that my core beliefs are really changing, but a question of expression.)
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Additionally, there should be something in the presidential oath of office about upholding the constitution, so that a president with any moral fiber at all would think twice about signing such a blatantly unconstitutional law.
I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in God. But I have a lot of respect for people like you. It's rare to see someone as courageous as you are.
As for Nietsche, he was misunderstood. He was a pacifist. He did value power, but not power over other people : power over oneself. He did value war, but not war against other people : war against our own mediocity.
Once we leave and civil war is over, the people you term "terrorists" will be the "freedom fighters" if their side wins. That's how it goes. They fought against the US invasion and killed US sympathizers.
;)."
Just as we bomb buildings which house "terrorists" and "terrorist allies". But we are the "good guys" when we do it.
"They are members of an ethnic minority and a fascist political party fighting to preserve their own supremacy over the ethnic majority - I think "freedom fighter" is too kind a term, they are NOT in fact fighting for "freedom.""
They are fighting against the foreign invader (us).
Just as our Revolutionary War heros are "Freedom Fighters" to us (even though they owned slaves and women had no rights) and Benedict Arnold is a "traitor".
Which is the PROBLEM when you go to "war" against labels. Which is why we won't succeed in Iraq (the same as we're losing in Afghanistan).
"I will allow that it is not shown that he had pursued a relationship with Al Quaeda specifically his relationship with terrorist groups in general is NOT controversial."
"terrorist groups in general"? Again with the labels. If you can't identify your enemy, you will not be able to defeat him.
Saudi Arabia has more VERIFIABLE ties to "terrorist groups in general" and al Queda IN SPECIFIC. But they aren't being invaded.
Even the US has a history of providing funding and weapons to terrorist groups in South America.
"in general" is NOT sufficient to invade a country.
"But we were all assured that "everyone lies about sex" and that Clinton was the soul of truthfulness about anything substantive... I'm shocked
So, that sounds like you don't believe what Clinton said, yet what Clinton said was used as support in the previous post. It doesn't go both ways.
"I have know way of knowing the quality of intel that went into the Clinton administration claims about an Iraq/Al Queada relationship."
Sure you do. The same reports SHOULD have been available to Bush and Co. After all, the CIA wasn't disbanded when Clinton left office.
"What has come out into public domain looks like a lot of highly reliable evidence of a merely circumstantial nature and a lot of very concrete evidence but of unknown reliability - Stuff that wouldn't hold up in a court of law but is the stock in trade of intelligence agencies."
Nice try. But using antonyms doesn't fool anyone.
If it was highly reliable, it was not circumstantial.
If it was concrete, it was not of unknown reliability.
"Really? why?"
Because Hamas is focused on Palestinian/Israeli issues. NOT on Iraq's issues. In order to move the Muslims to support Iraq, he'd have to make it a RELIGIOUS point. Which is what al Queda is all about.
"But it is headed by a secularist, and you don't address the fact that Bin Laden was more than willing to deal with the U.S. during the war against the Soviets."
Osama was willing to take the money and weapons, but his actions were STILL about getting the invaders out of that area. He fought against the Soviets and, when they left, he fought against the US.
The US supported Osama, Osama did not support the US.
"He was also willing to fight for the Saudi's against Iraq even though he considers them to be apostate."
Again, Osama is RELIGIOUS and Saddam is SECULAR. Fighting against invaders and secular governments is Osama's deal.
"Bin Laden is a religious fundamentalist - but he has shown over and over that he is willing to work in temporary alliances with those who he despises against common enemies."
He is not an idiot. But he does have very deeply held beliefs.
He would NOT fight BOTH the US and the Soviets AT THE SAME TIME.
But, once one enemy is defeated, he will turn on the other enemy.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is NOT something Osama believes.
And that is why the US has so many problems dealing with him and people like him. In the US, profit is everything. It doesn't matter how different your "partner's" values are, as long as you can make cash on the deal.
Which is why the Taliban was hosted IN TEXAS during Bush's reign there.
> (And before you bring up the Lockerbie bombing, note that that occured after Reagan bombed Libya.)
t ory/0,3604,509 150,00.html
Not to mention the doubts about whether Libya was really responsible.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s
rant
You do realise that the people that were on the plane were the low-level grunts, some of who probably didn't know what they were in for, and that the people who did the planning, handled financing, and gave the orders were not on the planes, don't you?
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
I don't think George Washington envisaged multinational corporations.
How many times has the US government influenced (politically or militarily) other countries for the good of US interests when those interests have been economic?
Whether you call someone a "terrorist" or "freedom fighter" doesn't matter. The winner gets to choose the terms and who goes in what category. And we aren't the winners in Iraq.
"We have already won in Afghanistan. Our goal was to root out a particular enemy (Al Queada) having Afghanistan become stable, peaceful and contented is a secondary goal - nice if it happens and worth trying to achieve but in the end not of terribly high importance to us."
Wrong. If we don't turn Afghanistan into a stable, peaceful Democracy, al Queda will be back. They're still recruiting and fighting there.
"These bits of evidence (and others) are undisputed, they are reliable in and of themselves, but as evidence of a relationship they are only circumstantial."
You have trouble telling a "fact" from "evidence". Not all facts are evidence. Therefore, you cannot have "circumstantial evidence" that is "highly reliable". You can have a fact and that fact can be "circumstantial evidence". Or you can have evidence that is "highly reliable". But you cannot have "circumstantial evidence" that is "highly reliable".
"They were BOTH particularly focussed on ending the American presence in Saudi Arabia."
Really? Where is the evidence that Saddam did anything to end it?
If he didn't do anything about it, then he doesn't seem "particularly focussed" on it to me.
"It would be incredible if they didn't at least consider coordinating their efforts to bring that about."
Now you're confusing evidence with supposition.
"He did work with the ISI which despite it's religious factions was part of an "apostate" government (they had a woman president for Allah's sake!)"
And I've already been over Pakistan's support of the Taliban which shared Osama's view.
Your "evidence" sounds about as good as the "evidence" that Iraq could launch "WMD's" in 45 minutes or less.
You start with a supposition (Osama and Saddam were cooperating) and then you pick "evidence" that supports that (in your mind).
That's the same practice that turned the 45 minute claim into
"WMD's will be found any day now" into
"WMD's will be found eventually" into
"he had WMD programs" into
"he was developing WMD programs" into
"he wanted WMD programs" into
"WMD's weren't the reason we went to war. Saddam was a bad man."
But, then, I'll never be able to convince a conspiracy nut that no conspiracy existed.
actually to say God hates is not a contradiction, God hates many things. You are correct though in saying that God does not hate fags because fags are people and that indeed would be a contradiction to his word. More correctly you might say that God hates the spirit of homosexuality or something along those lines. For example as a christian the Word instructs you to hate evil, not just dislike or disapprove of it, but hate it with all your heart. Many a people though become confused with how to execute on hating evil and end up hating people, which is not part of Christs plan for his church. Gold old George W has had some serious execution problems himself, but that's another post.
He's a typical "God-fearing Christian".
Meaning?
And you're basing that on what exactly?
Your claim that all of the terrorists died on the planes seems very far fetched, to me.
Meaning?
I was unaware that my meaning was unclear. I used "Typical" in its typical way. Oh wait, you don't know what the word means. Here you go.
Just to clarify, I was pointing out that his attitude is extremely common among "God-fearing christians".
I thought murderers were supposed to be tried and sentenced, not slaughtered to sate your rather frightening desire for bloody revenge
Ha! Funniest thing I've read in a while! You actually think that Osama bin Laden would show up for his court appointment? Please tell us oh great Anonymous sage, how do you plan to bring him to justice?
Nope, they (terrorists in general) want American troops out of the Middle East.
Wow, have you forgotten Israel? Are you suggesting that terrorist focus more on the US than Israel?
attempt to bring the criminals in question to trial, and (through other means) settle the greivances
Considering they mostly want total destruction of America and the western world, how do you suggest we "settle" the grievances? If we cave in the slightest bit or pay heed to any of their demands then we are thereby justifying their terrorism as a means to enact change. I seriously doubt that is the message you want to send to the world.
Nearly half of all people are below average
It was also Jesus who said:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)
Nearly half of all people are below average
Grow up and what, take our beating "like a man"???
Nobody doubts that we helped Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Noriega, and others when it was in our interest, but that's just part of a little game called "foreign policy". Everybody plays the game including France, Germany, and Russia, but the difference with the U.S.A. is that we don't stick with friends who turn on us!!! We don't avoid war to protect debts owed us like some cravin' little coward.
If you want to be friends with us, you have to EARN it -- Germany is beginning to understand that, France has yet to learn, and Russia is mixing things up in an effort to convince the rest of the world that they really are still a global superpower.
I have no problem with our government playing hardball with other countries, and I have no problem taking the consequences -- because it's a mean fucking world out there and not as nice and warm as it is in your little corner!
The bottom line is if you are a good, I want you on our side, but if you are a fucking asshole, I want you to fear us. After 9/11, that IS the reality for most REAL Americans...
This is where, I believe, religion differs from spirituality. You're right. Almost all (if not all) religions make silly, often provably wrong, assertions about the real observable universe. In my understanding, spirituality deals with the unobservable universe. This part of the universe may not exist, or it may exist in a state yet to be discovered (see the magic of the lodestone, etc). I don't pretend to know whether a spiritual world exists or not. I accept the fact that I don't know and can't possibly know everything there is to know about the universe. If there are other forces or facets of this universe that we can't sense, I'm not ready to take the leap of faith and positively say that they don't exist.
Now, I brought up that whole spirituality thing to say that if there was a God, it would be nearly impossible to prove or disprove its existence. Of course if that god was sentient and (in the case of most of our religions) of a human-minded persuasion, it would be meddling in our affairs all of the time (I think). The Judeo-Christian god seems to alternate between an overbearing father figure and an infant throwing a temper tantrum. I have a really hard time believing that that god exists. I don't think that a couple of bad god images discounts the possibility of any god. An omniscient, omnipresent god would likely not be sentient (what a bore it all would be!). In general, that sort of god sounds like the entirety of the universe itself (or something like that). Of course, I'm just speculating.
I don't believe in both positions equally. Rather, in the absence of definite evidence, I refuse to believe in either one. I don't discount the idea that there is some kind of invisible, ethereal alien in the room with me. Now, I'm not going to give that idea any weight while I live my life, but I wont declare that I know for absolute certain that there is no alien sitting next to me. I just refuse to make [avoidable] decisions based on faith. I refuse to declare positively that there is a god or isn't a god, because that decision requires a leap of faith, either way. I will pospone that decision until there is solid proof either way.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
The Bible is not the easiest document to interpret, and even scholars often make mistakes in doing so. Translation is difficult enough without the added difficulty of inherent lack of punctuation in original texts. e.g. consider a letter in the New Testament as a basic (though entirely unformatted) slashdot reply, not knowing what is a quote and what is a comment, or where sarcasm begins or ends, or exactly who in the multitude is being addressed.
In fact, the Bible appears to be contradictory in many cases unless you allow for contextual possibilities. Hence, the extent of Jesus' pacifist nature is debatable when considered in context with the rest of the Bible.
I would suggest to you that "resisting evil" is as much a fundamental tenet of Christianity as is compassion and forgiveness (which is ostensibly one of the sources of Christian "pacifism")... in fact, they are largely orthogonal issues (one can both "resist evil" and be compassionate and forgiving).
e.g. Did Jesus turn the other cheek? Jesus' physical eviction of the non-violent "money-changers" is perhaps the most obvious example of Jesus himself not even tolerating "evil" in the presence of the temple.
Of course, pacifism (the peaceful resolution of disputes) is a very noble goal, with which, I suspect, Jesus would agree. However, the "ultimate" pacifist seems to be commonly defined as "one who will never use physical force to resolve a dispute", with which, I suspect, Jesus would not agree.
Hence, the pertinent question is, at what point in a conflict should attempts at peaceful resolution be abandoned for the sake of morality and justice?
No, not grow up and "take our beating like a man". It's "grow up and take responsibility for what we've done".
I agree friendship has to be earned - but that goes both ways. It's not "friendship" if you repeatedly beat and subvert your "friend" and then get high and mighty when your friend slaps you back. When that happens - we've got 2 options:
1. Hit back harder in the hopes you scare them into submission (which guarantees continued animosity)
2. Take the hard stance of humility and say "Alright, we've both had our digs - let's call a truce and work together"
Bush chose #1. I don't agree with his decision. But #2 is very difficult - how do you not violently react, while not giving the impression you are weak. It's walking away from a fight with your principles and nobility intact.
Obviously, terrorists won't just let us call a truce & walk away. But the "foreign policy" equivalent is to recognize how we contributed to that situation, and start making changes in our foreign policy. I'm not saying we can avoid conflict entirely (unfortunately), but a think reacting non-violently after 9/11 would have really helped strengthen our position as a global leader - we had everyone's sympathy at that point, and we could have forged some serious relationships to deal with terrorism on a global scale. Instead, we threw away their sympathy, dusted ourselves off, and kicked some arse. Now the world crowd is standing there looking disgustedly at us.
Just my $0.02 - it's a bad situation either way, and Monday-morning quarterbacking won't change it, but maybe we can better prepared if (God help us) there is ever a "next time".
Bush postponed the war on terror to go clean up the mess his dad left in Iraq, squandering our army's morale and readiness in the process. I don't expect my friends to kowtow to me and enthusiastically help me do something dumb.
"rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer."
Wow, nice terminology, the use of the word "pussy". Also nice use of labels to try to make your argument SOUND rational and to put down any opposing view. Nice way to attempt preventing someone to exercise their right to freedom of speech without being criticized before saying a single word. Now to respond to your actual statement.
To use the exact same wording as you did (because supposedly, it's cooler and makes the argument sound oh so much better...supposedly), since when are you supposed to let several thousand people die as their ulcers eat out their stomach due to hunger that's not satiated and just go on as if nothing had happened? The same number if people, if not MANY more, die from hunger every day. EVERY DAY. And you're saying we need to go overseas and attack some people that had NOTHING TO DO with the towers falling, just because you were forced to view the death occurring on your local news station, as opposed to on your local street or a nearby city or a distant country where people aren't as lucky to have the convenience of fearing terrorists because they need to fear where their next meal will come from? Because people died from a terrorist attack, that's something to get angry about and try to fix, but when someone's dying a much more wretched and horrid death because nobody's willing to give them a piece of bread, that's something to completely ignore and even get angry about if they attempt to get that food (i.e. - insults on people who are on welfare "eating away the money from our pockets").
In short, you're basically trying to exemplify your point and ignore everything else out there. I'm sure many people would rather die from a terrorist attack than by starvation. I know I would. If you have enough compassion to mourn and avenge the death of a few thousand people who died from a terrorist attack on a building that only happened one day, you SHOULD have enough compassion to notice and attempt to aid in feeding starving, possibly homeless people, the same number or even higher of people who died on 9/11 dying EVERY DAY in this fashion.
As a closing note, though this is wrong of me to say because it's a major assumption, I hope you're not one of those people that try to get "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" banned because it reminds you of 9/11, ignoring the fact that the movie is so named because of the book, which was in turn created 50 YEARS before 9/11.