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."
Unfortunately Bush 2 would have you believe that it is Congress' duty to "act now" to keep the PATRIOT ACT in effect. Thinking otherwise would be unpatriotic. Terrorist.
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
There is nothing patriotic about it if you have any love of liberty or freedom.
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'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.
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.
And to name it "PATRIOT" is among the worst cases of Newspeak I've seen in quite some time. I can't believe how they even dared to give it such an ironic name.
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'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.
Yeah that is the argument however if you look at the "new" definition of terrorism...."any person or group that seeks to question the US government" something like that. Well dont we as citizens have the DUTY to keep our government in check? How is that going to happen with this law on the books. Worrysome and knee-jerk from our leaders in washington. they seem to have done it just so they can say look at what we did we are trying to protect you and the CHILDREN. Bah
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
Define Terrorist.
There's not really a good way to define it that doesn't lump US in that category.
For those that say "you just know", that's not good enough.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
> 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.
Do the words "Innocent until proven guilty" mean anything to you?
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
It's also the most consistently overturned court, so this ruling is definitely not the final word.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
They don't have to be terrorists, just declared terrorists by the US government. And what, exactly, is a terrorist? Would the US founding fathers be considered terrorists today? Seriously... think about it. The word terrorism is used to put many people in the same group, not just suicide bombers and airplane hijackers.
It was the 9th Circuit Federal court, who usually do the right thing and then get overturned on appeal by Scalia and the Supremes. So, this is about as effective as singing folk songs and waving placards in the designated "protest" space at least one mile distant from wherever Bush is fundraising today.
Meanwhile, the much-worse provisions of Patriot II were tucked into the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress last week. So, if you want to make a difference, call up your congresscritter and mention how relieved you are at this temporary reversal of Patriot I and how you really don't want to see more of these unamerican laws passed. You could also donate money or time to interest groups: EFF, EPIC, ACLU, whoever's most likely to throw Bush/Ashcroft/Cheney out of office, etc.
Remain calm! All is well!
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...)
the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.
I try not to trust Declan's relatively yellow journalism any farther than I can throw it, but assuming his article IS accurate, it's entirely possible that Dean's views have changed in the last two years. Keep in mind that he's referring to a speech Dean made in March of 2002.
This isn't to say that Dean HAS changed his views, but when someone quotes a two-year-old speech as evidence of a person's current views, I get a little suspicious. Hasn't Dean said anything about this idea since then?
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
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.
Though I remain an ardent supporter, Dr dean poses an ineffective solution. Families and villages have been raising children for many of thousands of years without 'enforcement by governing bodies' and it works out fine. We have progressed and evolved under this non-zero summed game. It is the natural way of things to take care of themselves.
I repeat, we have made near constant progress. Why do we suddenly feel that government must be responsible for keeping our youth off of porn? It does not make sense.
But as I implied, we are all human and we all progress together. Howard Dean is no different. I have had views as my past self that my present self does not agree with. I suspect that the same is true with Dr Dean.
This should be posted on it own headline.
"I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
then they have, in a way, won
More than "in a way"... they will have won, period. It's not like they expect the US to give up and remove all our military from the middle east or anything like that, terrorists have been attacking other american territory and other countries for a long time. Their goal is to cause chaos, to make people live their lives differently, by what the terrorists dictate. Exactly what they want is for the US to waste millions on extra metal detectors or anti-anthrax machines, or to give up our freedoms. By "fighting back" and installing all sorts of extra security features, we are only playing right into the terrorists' hand. Fighting back is not trying to guess their next move and save a few peoples lives, but to continue normally, not wasting our money on anti-terrorist measures, and instead spend that money to prevent the deahts of the thousands that might die from poverty, that might become victim to an underfunded education system, the thousands that will die because our great country doesn't want to provide the money for a working free health care program like even Canada has, just because we need to invade a country like iraq in case they attack us first. Terrorists aren't the real threat. Our own irrational fear is what we should be worrying about.
When the PATRIOT act was signed into law, I didn't like a lot of it, but I was one of the people saying "don't get your panties in a wad. Congress and the President are doing their best at legally stepping up enforcement, and due to the urgency they're doing so by re-treading RICO laws. Anything which turns out to be unconstitutional will get struck down by the courts, and life will go on."
Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system. This is how our system of government is supposed to work. Bravo for American government!
There's still a few more elements I would like to see struck down, 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. Our democratic system of checks and balances is not perfect, and certainly not efficient, but it seems to work better than anything else that I've seen.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
Sure enough, some of those provisions of the new law are being tested against our constitutional rights via the court system.
On the other hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now (most Senators and a sizeable # of Congressmen are either lawyers or have been in service for a number of years) to have been able to make the decision that its unconstitutional and not even bothered to vote for or sign it in the first place.
Passing something with so many bluntly unconstitutional clauses, just to say "we're doing *something* (even if for now its the wrong thing)" is just plain poor leadership.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
You've just described the French resistance, the founding fathers, the mujahudeen, the contras, the African National Congress, and a host of other US supported rebel groups, except the US didn't support the ANC and still considers Mandela to be a terrorist. Anyway you left out the part about whether or not you agree with their cause. That's the key that distinguishes between a terrorist and a freedom fighter/rebel group.
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.
It will be proof that the system works if and when the appeals are exhausted and the ruling still stands.
Our democratic system of checks and balances requires that checks are possible. If one man can order anyone, US citizen or not, locked away for life without charge and without even the ability to see a lawyer, we have no "democratic system of checks and balances", we have a king.
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.
If no one 'got their panties in a wad' do you think we would be seeing any of this act declared unconstitutional?? Don't kid yourself. Our system of government works because people get mad about this type of b.s.
If Congress and the President were 'doing their best' and temporarily doing a power grab to defend us poor Americans from the evil terrorist infidels, then why didn't they include a sundown measure in the act where by it would expire after x,y,z number of years? This would give the president and the other branches the power they 'need' while making sure that our civil liberties aren't permanently eroded. If the powers granted in the act turned out to be necessary- then congress could vote on the act when it came up. Congress would have had the time to review the act and maybe read the thing. PATRIOT was pushed through congress in how many days?
The whole act should be repealed- not just parts. I do not believe it has made a difference in our ability to 'avert' another attack. It has been widely known for some time that agents had identified and reported the 9/11 senario as a vulnerability- those reports and warnings were ignored. I am not convinced that the PATRIOT act has helped us do anything but tighten the grip our government holds on us.
Our government is not perfect, and this is a great example of why it must change. No act should be hurried through Congress because our President wants to go to war and his opposition is being called unpatriotic. We shouldn't have to be going through the act and fighting to get parts of it stricken three years after it was passed. This act should never have been there in the first place.
This is a failure of our government not a triumph. It took freedom away and we are now fighting to get it back.
"Those who would give up essential freedoms for security, deserve neither freedom nor security." - Ben Franklin
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.
When the US government starts handing over people to the Korean government for information extraction and then acts shocked that they get tortured, these innocent victims of the US government will hope Bush hasn't totally destroyed all avenues of legal recourse.
He was a Canadian citizen travelling in accordance with normal laws and the US took him prisoner and gave him to Syria specifically so that he could have information extracted from him (without so much as consulting on it with Canada). This was done in New York.
I suppose in the twisted minds of Bush loyalists, it was reasonable to give him to Syria with no due process or consultation with Canada and they were shocked when they heard how he had been treated by such a civilized nation as Syria.
Now some other nations like Brazil are starting to retaliate for Bush's complete disregard for international decency and law toward travelers, and I wish it were only Bush loyalists who sufferred the effects.
"I call this ruling proof that the system works."
Well... You might be hard pressed to convince Mr. Arar of that, at least in the short term.
Further, and more disturbingly, you're essentially saying that the government can do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING it wants to in the short term, since it will only be bound by the constitution after the significant amount of time it takes to challenge it in court.
So?
I look for one thing in a president.
Keep congress in check.
That is all... and that is something this one has done piss poorly.
For the record, president's don't create law. But, everyone here knows that... right?
P.S. It may be a bit cynical to only expect one thing from a president, but I've come to realize that expecting more is pretty unrealistic.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
The fact that many in congress are or were lawyers doesn't mean much when you consider they most of them voted yes on the bill before having a chance to read it.
Perhaps you could explain how the French Resistance, the Founding Fathers, etc. directed violence against civilian populations, as the parent poster noted.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
"When you want to catch a wolf, do you send a sheep? No, you send another wolf."
Seems to me you would end up with a whole pack of wolves...
When you want to catch a wolf, you use a human. If you want to wipe out wolves you change the habitat in such a way that it does not support wolves. I'm afraid the climate lately has been very friendly to wolves.
[-- Trust the Monkey --]
I think that on the third hand, there's enough legal education and know-how in the system right now to know that any legal recourse against such an unconstitutional law will take about 3-4 years. About the length of most governmental appointments... *hrmmm*
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.
Still works, but stretched to the breaking point. I don't like the idea that 9 appointed judges are the last thing left between me and tyrannical laws. So many of the freedoms I'm most greatful for seem to have been handed down by the Supreme Court... why aren't our elected legislative and executive officials doing a good job of upholding constitutional rights in the first place?
If we could get "freedom" to be more than a catch-phrase in election politics, we could prevent laws like this from being signed into law and used to threaten and abuse groups in the first place.
we will always have the rest of the Constitution.
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.
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?
How TF did this get modded as insightful? The Patriot Act, specifically the provisions that were found unconstitutional, allow for "secret detentions" where lawyers could not consult for those who were "terrorists" (in this case Mr. Arar). Well, that's great, but if a prisoner can't see the charges against him and neither can he obtain a lawyer, he's screwed... and that's what happened to Mr. Arar.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The "French Resistance" was against Nazi Germany in world war 2. Those nobles with kids were decapitated in the French Revolution. Resistance and Revolution are separated by 150 years or so.
The tea at the Boston tea party was owned by the British East India company. Founding investment in the firm was overwhelmingly from the British Monarchy of 60-80 years previous, and the firm enjoyed a royal monopoly, and employed British military personel as its "para-military" security forces, ergo it was a government front organization.
Sorry, but that's 0 for 2. Your history teacher needs to hunt you down like a dog and make you give your high school diploma back.
Who is John Cabal?
why aren't our elected legislative and executive officials doing a good job of upholding constitutional rights in the first place?
Precisely because they are elected, my dear Watson. Being elected, they are beholden to the swaying to and fro of the public. Elected officials are always thinking about the next election, and thus anything they can do that says "I did something" is viewed as a positive, even if it's later shown to be unconstitutional. The wronged Congressman can then say "well, I did my part but those liberal/conservative judges knocked it down" and still gain the voter's support.
That is why the framers of the Constitution specifically wanted our government to be a troika of a sorts. The Executive and Legislative branches are elected and can follow the will of the people. The Judicial branch is not elected and thus (in theory) not subject to the whims of the passing fancy of a public mob. This is a Good Thing, because it's times like these that judges are called upon to do unpopular things. The fact that they can do so largely without facing the ire of voters means they don't have to worry about their political skins like elected officials do.
You know, the longer I view the Constitution, the more brilliant I think the framers were. Truly men of vision, trying to set down a system of fair, just laws in which freedom could endure. What a shame we've made such a mess of it since then.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Lost heads during the resistance?
Surely, you are thinking about the revolution. Which is something completely different.
And the difference between throwing tea overboard and blowing up a building is that no one can reasonably expected to get hurt by some tea thrown overboard. Acts of property distruction are just that (or maybe even lumped in with vandalism-- not terrorism). Explosions are messy, and in a populated area (i.e. in a house) an explosion can reasonably be expected to hurt someone.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
When it comes to the Patriot Act and a continuing parade of followons I think you need to think out of the box about why we are blessed with them. I would argue that the Patriot Act didn't entirely happen just because of 9/11. Rather 9/11 was a convenient excuse for the Bush administration to do a lot of things they wanted to do anyway but they couldn't get away with until they had 9/11 as an excuse.
If you scoff look at the war on Iraq. They wanted to attack Iraq and depose Hussein from the day Bush was inaugerated. Cheney, Perl and Wolfowitz wanted to and wrote about it years before that. 9/11 just gave the Bush crowd a convenient excuse. The fabricated a bunch of unproven ties between Iraq and Al Quida and trumped up non existent WMD's. Presto, they have an excuse to take down Iraq and radicly alter the world to conform to their world view, or at least they thought. It remains to be seen if Iraq turns in to more of a problem than it was under Hussein when the Shia's try to take the power that is their right in a real democracy (though I wager the U.S. will prevent any election that isn't rigged).
I'd argue the Patriot Act is also just a manifestation of the desires of a right wing administration that wanted repressive laws to enforce order and to stifle dissent, 9/11 just made it feasible to pass them. Right wing adminstrations like everyone to either agree with them or shut up. When an administration can spy on anyone without judicial oversight, watch everything you read, everything you buy, they make people live in fear and most people living in fear keep their mouths shut. Ideally they make everyone shut up without even arresting anyone. Though they will arrest and intimidate a few that keep dissenting. That is the thing they want most out of the Patriot Act, an end to criticism of them and a cowering populace.
The fact is the current administration loves 9/11. It is the best thing that could have happened to Bush. Before it happened his popularity was declining and he was looking like a one term President. Afterward he is a towering figure of strength, hard to beat, vote for him or America will go down in flames. Since 9/11 nearly every speech Bush gives is laden with the words terror and terrorism juxtaposed with freedom and patriotism. You are either with us or against us. If you disagree with us you are unpatriotic and soft on terrorists or practicly a terrorist yourself. Every speech is designed to drown America in fear so you will turn to them to "save" you from terrorists lurking in every shadow. The war against terror will never end, and they are the only ones who can fight it, so you have to keep them in power from now to eternity. Fear is a mind killer and the Republicans are using it to great effect to stiffle dissent and to protect their hold on power at all costs.
So the 9th circuit overturned one little piece of the Patriot Act. Well the 9th is the most overturned court and the most reviled by the right wing. Its a propaganda boon for them to say, there they go again, they are a bunch of left wing loons, they aren't with us, they are against us, they are practicly terrorists themselves. See why we need a bunch of right wingers in all the courts. Even if the Supreme Court does overturn this its one little piece and the Bush adminstration will just come back with a bunch of new pieces to replace it. They can currently pass dangerous laws a lot faster than the courts can overturn them. They probably put a few garbage pieces in, in the first place, so a couple would get overturned, people would cheer, and the really bad stuff would still be there.
If you want to get rid of the Patriot Act pretty much the only option is to put Bush and the Republicans in congress out of power in the next election, though we are bucking a head wind in the form of giants piles of cash to brainwash people through TV and the threat of rigged elections thanks to Diebold and the Pentagon's SERVE. The Democrats suck too but I think we all remember now why Republicans t
@de_machina
may be if you get your head out of your ass, you will notice that there is a world out there, that not only the usa exists, that you are a country that is actually important in politics and economics, but you will also realize that you have no real importance in human history, that you are just another empire that will eventually disapear.
You will also notice that there are lots of people arround the world who like nonesense violence as much as the average USA president or USA 13 year old boy, with the big difference that they live in a 3rld world country that has been stoled by you over and over again, so he hates you in a way we can't even understand.
So since he doesn't have a college to go, a wife to protect, a job to take care of, since your country has taken care over the years of taking all those things away from him, he doesn't have anything to loose, so all he has left is try to kill as many yanquis as he can. I am not in that situation, i think i can fight against you in a more low-level, self-protecting, and effective manner, which is work hard to see my country recover from what you have done to it; but i understand him, and in his situation, i would do exactly the same thing.
I Think you just got what you asked for.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
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
#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.
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
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 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
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
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!
"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?