Slashdot Mirror
Viet Dinh Defends The Patriot Act
Grrr writes "Wired News has posted an interview with Viet Dinh, who worked on the PATRIOT Act for the Justice Department. In the past he said, "Security without liberty - it's not an America I would want to live in." And also, in this interview, "I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers rather than from the men and women of law enforcement and national security who seek to defend America and her people against that threat." Several of his replies are (predictably / necessarily / discouragingly) less than direct."
Quit agitating about the PA or the DMCA or anything - just smile and nod! Take a lesson from our Communist Brothers, you only get a quick trip to the Gulag (American Homeland Version) or a nice IRS audit.
but everyone around the office calls him Charlie.
The 'experts' who cry that the sky is falling every time the wind blows a leaf to the ground have done a great disservice to the American society and security by magnifying privacy issues beyond reason. The Patriot Act is not perfect, indeed, but the privacy concerns that are always brought up by privacy watchdog groups are usually already handled effectively in the code itself.
If your watchdog barks at every breeze that rustles the trees, you aren't getting any good information from it. Maybe it's time to start looking for a new watchdog or to take security into your own hands.
I have been pwned because my
Even before September 11th, the national intelligence agencies had a backlog of information (so for example, certain messages about 9/11 were only translated after the fact.) It's even worse now. They simply have too much data, and not enough people/computer power to interpret it.
yeah, stop protecting me!
/ss
isn't the objective of terrorism to terrorize people? the more "ACTs" we have the more obvious we're really really scared of terrorists.
now not only people are terrorized by terrorists for physical dangers, they're also terrorized by their own government for privacy invasion.
How so?
I usually see posts like yours. Rarely do I see reasoned posts which elaborate.
In the interest of fair debate and converstation, list your reasons and if possible, point to the particular pieces of legislation.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
"Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
It took someone from a communist country to change the US into a totalitarian State.
Everyone was uber-patriotic and wanting to kill any Middle Eastern man who looked at them wrong.
There was actually not much debate in Congress. The Patriot Act passed through very easily. The only problem was that it takes away our checks and balances system of government, which is part of what makes American such a great country.
Don't trust me, though. Read what one website said: "The FBI can now access your most private medical records, your library records, and your student records... and can prevent anyone from telling you it was done.
The Department of Justice is expected to introduce a sequel, dubbed PATRIOT II, that would further erode key freedoms and liberties of every America.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
Some people never can be satisfied 'less they push somebody else around.
How would something that you claim is so horrible get voted into law then?
Same way hitler managed to convince his people that 'jews' were the enemy.
Its called scare tatics.
I highly doubt the DESTROY part where you say we lose our rights. This thing had to be voted for by hundreds of senate/congress men.
Well, you can doubt all you want. Doesn't change the fact that america has made a mistake by following those who have already failed in history. And no, millions, like yourself, were duped into this law by sensless fear.
Untill america gets a clue, things wont improve.
"I do, however, recognize that the act has been mischaracterized and misunderstood and has engendered a lot of well-meaning and genuine fear, even if that fear is unfounded."
Woah he is taking a stand against unfounded fear, isn't that what he is in the business of selling?
Just look at any discussion. Anonymous Coward is a known troll and agitator! It's true. It's true!
He once said that he was drawn to study the government because he "had seen government that did not work," and he was drawn to the Republican Party because of his hatred for communism.
Anybody who would be drawn to a political ideology purely based on what they oppose is, in my opinion, a dangerous person. Especially when mixed with the power, money and support that an organization like the Republican party has.
Do we really expect one of the authors to be impartial and objective?
Disinterested third parties are the analysts we should be interviewing.
NO, they are wrong. There is a distinct difference between liberties and safety! I don't see how people can be duped into believing that terrorist groups affect liberties!
The only reason they affect liberties is because Congress passes things like the Patriot Act. Otherwise, all they affect is safety.
Terrorists affect SAFETY, Congress affects LIBERTY. Get it straight, and we can all stop falling for this crap coming from Washington. If they said these terrorist groups were the greatest threat to our safety, then I'd buy it. But they are, however, NOT a threat to our liberty.
The Patriot Act is the threat to our liberty, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights when it comes to searches and siezures, and the right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial.
Government disheartens me. So do the people who buy crap like this from them and cannot draw the distinction for themselves. Just my (flaming) two cents.
This isn't supposed to be flamebait, but mod it as such if you think it is.
While the US has previously imprisoned people without access to council, these were in dire times, World War II, US Civil War, etc. While some could argue that these are equally troubling times, I find the argument problematic.
In both of the above examples, the very existence of the country was at stake, in one of the two, half the US had broken off. The other, millions of people decided to declare war on the US (Germany, Italy, Japan, etc). Despite the tragedy that was 9-11, the entire attack was planned by dozens of people and executed by about 20.
My second problem is the open-endedness. The suspensions of due process in the above cases were understood as temperary and were lifted as soon as the war was over. These days, presidents don't seem to declare war on things that can possibly be ended by a peace treat (drugs, poverty, terror, etc). Tell me, Mr Bush, is the war on terror going to be over before or after the war on drugs?
The suspension of due process indefinitely is an abomination to liberty, which I could've sworn was what we were fighting for in the first place.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
and I'll say it again. Gun laws dont keep guns out of the criminals hands.
How about we get all the illegal aliens out of the country and lock down the borders.
Then, make some less restrictive immigration requirements so people can come over here LEGALLY. (I know of many who wish to, but can't... a problem I attribute to all the illegal immigrants)
Then, and only then, should we be worrying about allowing unconstitutional wire taps, searches, seizures, imprisonment, etc... Those things should only be thought of as a last resort.
And it's not the last resort. It's just what the government wants - not what's best for the people.
Well, in my opinion anyway.
As for the threat of Al-Queida... Well, one simply wonders why Osama Bin-Laden was 'allowed' to escape anyway. US Occupation of Afghanistan should have swallowed the middle-east until we captured him. Instead, we went to Iraq for an easier - more exposed target.
If Osama was cought/dead - we wouldn't even be hearing about this wonderfull work of constitution-warping legislation.
You really don't have a clue, do you? You think the fact that a bunch of little piggies feeding at the corporate trough represent anyone but their own greedy little power hungry selves? You think because after being subjected to a bunch of hot-button advertisements, people actually vote for them, that they somehow represent the best interests of the population?
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
the old saying "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you will tend to see every problem as a nail". maybe that's why everybody's treated as terrorists now.
This question is a bit slippery because it is difficult to name civil liberites at all. Even the ones that aren't being taken away. It might be a better measure to ask people how they feel about their freedom. Do people think twice about doing certain things that they might not have done before. Do they feel their privacy is being encroached upon. Are they more worried now about what the government can do to them.
Civil liberty is a gut feeling, not a simple enumeration.
Being locked up for no listed crime, with no represnetative, for being of a certain faith and descent, is what i would term a violated civil liberty.
Just look at the history of law enforcement. They begged for the ability to seize the property of drug dealers, and were granted that power by short sighted politicians. Now that power is used to steal cars from people never even charged with a crime - in complete violation of the Constitution, but what's the shredding of that moldy old paper when stopping evil drug dealers?
-- Will program for bandwidth
Come on, folks, of course he's going to defend the PATRIOT ACT - he wrote the damn thing. Of course he's going to defend its enforcement - he helped enforce the damn thing. And of course he's going to be vague about the illegal/unconstitutional parts of the act, or of its enforcement - you think he wants to go to prison?
I support Viet Dinh's use of his 5th Amendment rights in this article.
What I don't support is the many parts of this act, and its enforcement, that are illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, and so far beyond the scope of Federal powers as to shock the imagination. I'm about ready to start looking into how we can find a strong libertarian presidential candidate who has a good chance of being elected. Along with a willing Congress, I'd like nothing more than to see the Federal government stripped down better than an unattended Corvette in south-central LA on a Friday night.
I want to see the Federal government up on cinder blocks, with the states standing around checking out their new goodies. Things are getting out of hand. We're spending more than $400 Billion a year on our military, just so we can stretch it to the breaking point by playing parent to the world. We're spending... well, we don't know how much we're spending on the very intelligence agencies that watch our every move. Why don't we know how much we're spending? Sorry, that's classified. Well, what are you doing with my money? Sorry, that's classified. Why is it classified?! It's my money! Sorry, that's classified. Well what am I getting in return for my unknown investment? Safety. Could you be more specific? Sorry, that's classified.
It's about time for a change. I wonder how much longer it will be before Americans can get together enough courage to dismantle the bulk of the Federal government. Are we ready for 10 - 20 years of readjustment, the end result of which is far more freedom and a return to the Constitutional Republic we once had? Or shall we sit on our collective asses for a bit longer while Uncle Sam's goons start doing random cavity searchs to see what we might be hiding?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
The Patriot Act is now being used for non terrorist cases.
I guess I would trust Bush'es administration a tad more if they were not using the excuse of 9/11 to prosecute organizations such as Green Peace. A more or less complete story can be found in The Miami Herald. If they are capable of using such antiquated law as ''sailor-mongering,'' (intended to deal with people would board a ship and use liquor and prostitutes to lure away the crew) to prosecute organization that is trying to stop illegal logging, how can you trust them they won't use Patriot act in some insidious way?
A religious war is an adult version of a fight over who has the best imaginary friend
The war on terror has finally, as some critics always warned it would, whipped up a dangerous hysteria. It just so happens that the hysteria has taken hold among critics of the war on terror. They argue that the USA Patriot Act is a combination of the Alien and Sedition Acts and Kristallnacht, in a smear campaign that threatens to roll back policies that have made Americans safer after Sept. 11.
The campaign includes over-the-top editorial writers (the Cleveland Plain Dealer calls the act "the seed stock of a police state"), raving civil libertarians (American Civil Liberties Union: "a disturbing power") and chest-beating presidential candidates (Howard Dean: erodes "the rights of average Americans"). According to Wisconsin's Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, you should sell your stock in Amazon.com -- the Patriot Act has made Americans "afraid to read books."
The challenge to critics should be this: Name one civil liberty that has been violated under the Patriot Act. They can't, which is why they instead rely on hyperbole in an increasingly successful effort to make the Patriot Act a dirty phrase.
Many of the new powers under the act -- such as "the roving wiretap," which allows the government to continue monitoring a target who switches phones -- aren't really new. They give counterterrorism investigators the same powers investigators already have in mob cases. Opponents of the act must explain why Mohammad Atta should have greater freedom from surveillance than Tony Soprano.
The fact is that federal authorities cannot do any of the nasty things under the Patriot Act that critics complain about -- electronic surveillance, record searches, etc. -- without a court order and a showing of probable cause. A federal judge has to sign off on any alleged "violation of civil liberties."
Two particular provisions of the act rile critics. The Republican-controlled House -- demonstrating that uninformed hysteria is bipartisan -- recently voted to ban funding for Section 213 of the law. Under Section 213, law enforcement can delay notifying a target that his property has been searched. These delayed-notification searches require a court order, and they can be used only when immediate notification would jeopardize an investigation.
Such searches already existed prior to the passage of the Patriot Act, and the Supreme Court has upheld their constitutionality. Federal counterterrorism investigators have asked for delayed searches roughly 50 times during the past two years, and the average delay in notification has been about a week -- hardly totalitarianism.
Another target of critics is Section 215. It allows investigators to seize documents -- including, theoretically, library records -- from a third party if they bear on a terrorism investigation. The ACLU says that this means the FBI has the power to "spy on a person because they don't like the book she reads." But this is another power that already existed. Grand juries have always been able to subpoena records if they are relevant to a criminal investigation. The Patriot Act extends this power to counterterrorism investigators and requires a court order for it to be used.
Critics want to eviscerate these sections of the act, and more. They should bundle their proposals together and call them "The Zacarias Moussaoui Protection Act," after "the 20th hijacker," whose computer wasn't searched prior to Sept. 11 due to civil-liberties concerns. We have already forgotten the importance of aggressive, pre-emptive law enforcement. The locus of forgetfulness is the Democratic presidential field, as Rep. Dick Gephardt, Sen. John Edwards and Sen. John Kerry all voted for the Patriot Act and now attack Attorney General John Ashcroft for having the temerity to use it.
Out on the Democratic hustings, it's as if Sept. 11 never happened. Of course, no organization contributed so much to the lax law enforcement that made possible the murder of 3,000 Americans that day than the ACLU. Mohammed Atta and Co. should have remembered it in their prayers as they screamed toward their targets. If the ACLU gets its way on the Patriot Act, some future successful terrorists will want to remember it in their prayers as well.
I bet it'll be modded as flamebait, but it's my oppinion anyway, so I'll post it.
I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from Bush and their sympathizers rather than from Al-Qaida.
This works this way: An unjustifiable attack to other countries (like Iraq) leads to more anger from its citizens and even other countries. Now we have not just one group of loons who hate the US (Al Qaida), but many.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Yeah, because, you know, Al Qaida has hundreds of representatives in every town and city in America. Al Qaida knows where I live. Al Qaida expects a check from me every April. Al Qaida builds my roads, and runs my schools, and comes to my house every day. Al Qaida can get primetime speechs broadcast at any time. Al Qaida has tanks. Al Qaida has a million men and women ready to storm any place on Earth with overwhelming firepower within hours of being given the order. Al Qaida has nuclear submarines. Al Qaida has over a thousand silos in middle America, brimming with thermonuclear might.
In a head to head battle between the US and Al Qaida, I'm betting on Al Qaida.
I'm also looking to buy a bridge, and maybe a beach front condo in Arizona.
"Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
The Holocaust was nothing if not a near-infinite series of "relatively minor problems."
Fuck Godwin. I reserve the right to learn from history, even if you don't. If you're not scared half out of your mind, you're not paying attention.
It's pointless to compare the US with Nazi Germany because everyone knows that Nazi Germany had kickass uniforms (they were like totally boss) and the US ones are just plain ugly.
Yeah, tell me that when we bump into each other in the concentration camp city 10 years from now.
Then again, with that mindset, you'll probably be one of the guards.
www.infowars.com This website is full of fact concerning the Patriot Act.
I think that somebody who doesn't understand the distinction between correlation and causation has no business whatsoever rewriting the Constitution.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
But that's how it starts. As a relatively minor problem. Holocaust magnitude tragedies are only the consequence. I quote from my own website "quotes" page:
Hermann Goering
"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or 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 peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
(at Nurnberg trials)
I'd be very interested in someone asking Viet Dinh substantive questions about specific concerns raised in the Patriot Act, but I'm unable to draw much of any conclusion from reading this article, especially not the same alarmist conclusion that the story submitter has drawn.
Another interpretation I could make, especially based on the story submitter's comments, is that the critics of the Patriot Act are equally incapable of discussing the ramifications of the Act as are its supporters. Unfortunately, it's the job of the critics to do a good job criticizing and they get far too hung up in rhetoric and name-calling to take most of them very seriously and given that the law is now on the books, I think they're going to need to change their tactics if they want to have any substantive effect.
Oh crap, I seem to be falling prey to the standard media script of analyzing process rather than issues.
Hasnt anyone noticed that anything bad that happens get s/^/al Qaeda/g attached to it. Sure they're some shitty losers, but heck I'm starting to think our own gov is just as much of a loser for a) using al Qaeda for every damn excuse to justify some shoddy law b) claiming al Qaeda any time something happens. Now there silly little slashdotters if you don't follow our terrorists color coded M&M system, go against RFID tags that watch you while you shit, create disharmony because your VoIP, PPP, DHCP, connections are monitored, hell your whole life is monitored... you just might be a terrorist.
Get real. "There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain
MoFscker
Considering the moderating history of characters like you, I doubt very much if this guy is just trolling for karma points. He is, as distinguished from folks like you, actually expressing a political opinion about a specific piece of legislation, the so-called Patriot Act, which you obviously haven't read or you wouldn't be calling for specifics. That you're not bright enough to see the writing on the wall just puts you in the category of a lot of Germans before World War II. It doesn't make you objective and it doesn't make you enlightened. It just makes you look stupid, which isn't surprising because you obviously are. Some folks take freedom seriously. Others have the Constitution printed on toilet paper and think it's funny to wipe their butts on it. Guess which category you fall into? You want to give away your rights, go right ahead. You try to give away MY rights and you will answer for it. You think the Republicans will be in power forever? Don't take any long odds on little George staying out of jail for subversion of the electoral process. Stealing elections is a federal crime.
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin
President George Dubious Bush was on the tube tonight asking Congress to pass a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage. I guess he must figure that for every constitutional amendment he destroys the right thing to do is to put one back.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Yeah, for all their faults, you have to admit the Germans always had a talent for aethetics. Sometimes they do something goofy, but for the most part their aesthetic creations are excellent. By contrast, American aesthetics are usually crap; just look at American cars for the last 50 years.
Now that's informative.
From the article:
If indeed that is your fear or that is your perception then engage in the democratic process. Back up your argument, back up your belief with facts, marshal evidence in order to convince those who are engaged in the process of governance.
Vinh's attitude is that he is "governing" and that we have to come to him with information to change his mind. He does not view himself as a public servant obviously. It is his job to convince the citizens of the United States (not the "governed of the United States") that he needs the tools he has asked for. It is his job to convince the citizens that hsi approach is correct. We do not need to "convince" those who are currently tasked with governing the country. We need to vote their political masters out and get some people in with better attitudes.
YOU CANNOT PRESERVE FREEDOM BY DESTROYING IT
I hate to seem like I am shouting, but I am shouting. What the Patriot Act does to the civil liberties of citizens is unconstitutional and wrong. There is no way that any part of that law should be renewed. It is essentially a declaration that the terrorists won. This is not what I want, and I don't think it is what the American people want to say to the rest of the world.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Couldn't these statements be turned into the following?
Now he sounds more like a Palestinian suicide bomber.
I *DO NOT* write this in opposition to Israelis or in support of Palestinians, or vice versa. That is merely the example I chose. Substitute the name of whatever nation and suicide bombers you want.
My point is that this person cites the fact that, as a young child, he saw bad things done to has parents, and the resulting hatred, as major influences in his life. This hardly seems to be the person to make objective assessments then write an act such as PATRIOT. By my reading of the article, he is a fanatic and an extremist, the very disease he claims to be fighting.
thanks Slashdot
Have you ever considered that the ability to live without fear for one's safety is (a) liberty?
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Dinh: I think it is very easy to employ sweeping rhetoric and personal denunciations. I think it is much harder to back it up with facts and concrete examples. [...]
And it is much harder still to back up any sort of reasonable discussion up with facts and concrete examples when the people defending the act in question also have discretion over the facts and concrete examples that are released for public review.
I forget what 8 was for.
Read the constitution. There is no explicit constitutional right to privacy. The "Right to Privacy" is based on an interpretation, privacy regarded as an "implied" right, i.e. useful for persuing liberty and hapiness. But the interpretation could just as go the other way. I personally beleive in "reciprocal privacy", i.e. everything the government is allowed to know about me, I should be allowed to know about everybody on the government payroll -- especially Ashcroft.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers
A threat to American liberty? Sure they're a threat, but how on earth can a small, loosely knit band only really capable of random destruction threaten liberty? They may threaten building, airplanes, and (heaven forbid) a city, but the exact same destruction is wreaked on a larger scale around the world by natural disasters.
You need a large army, militia or police force to threaten liberty.
:wq
Perhaps because they are afraid of being thrown in jail if they do?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Well, obviously some part of it has already been rules unconstitutional. That's a start. If it shows anything, that is:
1. The legal process is finally getting it right
2. It is about time!! More than 2 years after it was made into law
3. There was obviously something wrong in it. Who would doubt there's more.
Read it for yourself, so next time, you'll know what you're talking about.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Believe it or not, there are some of us who are here by choice, and not birth. And we treasure the amazing liberties that we have here, and not in our countries of birth. What a Vietnamese refugee knows about the hunger to live free of worry from his government and free of worry from the enemies of his government could speak volumes about the U.S., but you're to busy making bad analogies to listen.
I mean, really. When you see a post like the parent, ask yourself: does this post *really* provide information that people don't already have? Is it really "Insightful", or is it simply a restatement of Slashdot policy?
Then, when you've cast a bit of doubt, check poster's history. Note that he posts early, NEVER posts anything other than regurgitated obvious stuff, posts similar headlines EVERY time... Note that many people (including yours truly, I admit) have outed the guy for misrepresenting himself as such things as professor at a nonexistent school, professor at a community college,professional programmer, etc. Note that he posts at -1 most of the time, because he's a known troll and karmawhore.
See, I wouldn't normally feel the necessity to out every karmawhore on Slashdot - but you MODs keep falling down on your duties.
It's not "+1, Informative" if it's wrong; it's not "+1, Insightful" if it's obvious. If you can't tell, don't mod it either.
Thanks.
Give me liberty or give me death - gta3
According to Viet Dinh toward the end of the article: USA PATRIOT and similar legislation will be necessary as long as we are "fighting terrorism." If you think he is correct, then you probably believe that the Iraq war had everything to do with Terrorism, and you are probably the caliber of person to whom I would like to sell this bridge I own in New York.
These people MUST realize that the "War on Terrorism" is a necessarily perpetual one. Is Viet therefore proposing that we give up our civil liberties indefinitely? Whether he knows it or not, that's what he seems to be proposing.
As long as Americans are willing to believe that politics is over their heads and that they shouldn't worry about what goes on in Washington, the way is wide open for some dynastic madman to install himself in the White House without even being elected, and start waging unprovoked wars in countries most Americans can't recognize on continents most Americans can't name.
As THE most powerful nation on Earth that claims to be, (of/by/for) the people, its citizens have a great responsibility to keep their civil servants accountable. If you ask me, most are allowing themselves to be distracted from that responsibility.
And Communism is Totalitarianism.
I'd say those are more "left" than conservative.
Frankly, this appears to be the entire Democratic Platform for 2004. I have heard nothing but "Hate Bush" from Democratic Party since 2000.
pot.kettle.black.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
After after he got kicked off american idol.
I have the utmost respect for those who engage in this (national conversation), even when I am unfairly maligned because those persons are willing to engage in order to advance the national conversation and contribute meaningfully to our process of governance. Somebody once said that democracy is not a spectator sport. We should all applaud each other for getting into the game and risking injury because of it, because at the end of the day we all win if we do engage.
...he at least is able to regurgitate THAT maxim.
This is what you call chickens coming home to roost.
To think fascist policies are the result of our most ignoble war.
Who'da thunk? Who indeed...
Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU
The Constitution also doesn't grant the government the right to organize a standing army or collect income taxes... and your point is?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Is to secure liberty.
Yes, this does reduce safty in some areas, but that is the price you pay to avoid the real risk involved in allowing desaparacidos.
On the whole it's a pretty good bargain.
If we do not remove liberties than the people who died on 9/11 (I'm a New Yorker, so that list includes acquaintences and directly affected family members) did so as patriots protecting liberty.
If we use 9/11 as an excuse to remove liberties then they died so that we might all be less free and subvert the constitution.
If I've gotta die I'd rather do so for liberty, not a police state.
KFG
And you obviously missed the whole point of the outrage against the Patriot's act, and the sick irony of a Vietnam refugee having authored it. I don't know anything about your situation. Maybe you do understand the US culture and love of freedom, but to me, the Partriot act is as ironic as the old joke "we had to destroy the village in order to save it". Go home and read "A bright and Shining Lie" then lecture me about Vietnamese and their understanding of American liberty.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
No 'ability' is a liberty. That is the old Socialist argument that says, "Who cares if I'm 'free' to own a Lexus if I can't in practice?" Liberty simply means that you have a right to *attempt* to do something - that doing so is not illegal.
Forgeting for the moment that you don't even have the balls to hide behind a pseudonym, and also forgeting that folks like you complain on the one hand that folks don't give enough specifics when the whole corporate methodology consists of hiding behind a smokescreen of secrecy and proprietary IP, and on the other hand come up with silly little reposts like this that simply consist of hurling an epithet (look it up if you own a dictionary), what really galls me is that your definition of "troll" seems to be anyone who dares to think about anything but computer code and video games. People died for the freedoms you once took for granted, and not just guys in silly Revolutionary War garb, but millions of men who fought the forces of--no, not naziism and fascism, but--stupidity and ignorance and just plain tunnel vision during two world wars. But then you don't have to worry about the draft any more, so it's "Rah Rah Rah! for the home team and bring me another beer, Mabel" while the folks who joined up to elevate their status in society get shot and mangled and crippled and shipped home in a box as the folks we just "liberated" begin to understand that George's promises of free elections are no more true than his mythical weapons of mass destruction. How dare you....
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
What is privacy? Your privacy ends once you open your mouth and speak. Your privacy ends once you post something on the net.
Want privacy think for yourself and shutup and listen and move on.
He falls into the same trap as Senator McCarthy, by destroying the very thing he seeks to protect in his zeal. I remember stories of the neighbourhood "stazi" agents in the former East Germany, and thought what a horrible sort of place to live. Of course I would fight to the death to avoid having to live in such a society. Then you read about initiatives such as TIA and the PATRIOT act initiatives, and wonder if we really won the cold war after all....
This danger exists on both the right and left of the political spectrum. Censorship and repression in the name of "political correctness" is the other side of the coin.
In one way at least, Al Queda has won the war on terror - they hate the idea of a free, tolerant, pluralistic society, and they have managed to make ours considerably less so.
My rights don't need management.
That's a very good point! Though the fear is often irrational, and people fail to understand that their safety is much more jeopardized by riding in an automobile, living unhealthy lifestyles, etc. than by what some group of religious extremists is capable of doing. The Patriot Act is an affront to our constitutional rights as citizens, and really sets the stage for all kinds of abuses should they need a new scapegoat someday. Our only hope is for it to be struck down as unconstitutional.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
How about all those UN resolutions and the 11 years when nothing was done?
Nothing was done about what? The complete lack of threat from Iraq to any other nation?
If international law alone is so important (IE enough so to go to war because someone is ignoring some memos from the UN), why is the Emperor and his corporate advisory board so adamant that US citizens must be immune to the ICC?
The real reason wasn't just to get saddam, it has changed the middle east
You're right - in a few years, the Middle East (except for Israel of course) will be entirely under hardline Islamic law.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
And, I think it's super-important to state baldly:
Suspected terrorists are ENTITLED to these civil liberties. I don't care where we found them (Afghan sheep fields or Boston, MA), they are human and are entitled to human rights.
I think too many people think that Constitutional liberties apply only to American citizens. The Constitution enumerates restrictions on the US Government, enjoining it from infringing on liberties that were "endowed by our Creator".
I think Mr. Dinh totally fails to understand this.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
How the parent poster can refer to he Patriot Act as a relatively minor problem is beyond me. But history has shown that you (and Goering) are correct. In a nutshell, what you're talking about is incrementalism.
... I know what can happen.
Few societies willingly accept totalitarianism in one gulp, which means that citizens must be weaned onto it in small steps. Make no mistake: the Patriot Act (and many others like it) is a first step. In spite of the many rationalizations used to justify its continued existence, laws such as that really have no place in civilized society, much less the United States of America. Just don't get too complacent: I'm sure many Germans prior to the rise of the Third Reich felt that it "couldn't happen here" but they were wrong. Hey, I've seen Sliders
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Actually, the threat is mostly from your fellow citizens, who just don't care enough. Many have forgotten that democracy and freedom have risks, and the only way to protect them is to recognize, and ignore, that risk. If I stand a .00005% chance instead of a .00001% chance of getting blown up on a plane- but I and my fellow citizens remain free(ie, i didn't have to take my shoes off, didn't have to hand over "papers") so be it. If you aren't, you are a -coward-, and you can damn well pack your bags and move somewhere else, because America was founded by a bunch of guys who got -really- tired of exactly this kind of crap. What gives -you- the right to take -my- freedom, for -your- illusion of security? Franklin said it best: "They that give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Nevermind that the risk is infinitesimal; in one year, +10x more people died on our highways than did in all the planes+buildings involved in the terrorist attacks. Every three days more people die of heart disease than died in the terrorist attacks(700,000 people a year, roughly). Nope, I can't have universal healthcare, but I can have Johhny Ashcroft breathing down my neck.
Planes aren't being hijacked because we stop the dreaded nail clipper from coming on board.
Exactly. Further- if you want proof of just how ineffective these measures are, look at countries where "security" is tightest. Israel, for example, is indisputable proof that no matter what you do, you just can't stop someone determined enough; when they stopped Palestinian men, women started strapping bombs to themselves. Then there's England; no end of security procedures did little to stop the IRA. Those video cameras in London, which practically outnumber people, have yielded no drop in crime; same goes for their thousands of radar-speed cameras; in fact, speeding's gone -up-...
Please help metamoderate.
Dinh: There are a number of provisions within the USA Patriot Act that have a tremendous effect on our war against terror. However, they are tools that can be used in general criminal investigations as well. At no time do I think that anybody intentionally sought to elide the difference between the two.
How about the fact that it is called the "Patriot Act"? Who thought it was for use against US citizens? It was sold as a way to combat terrorism, that is why it was given such a "Patriotic" name.
There was never any proof that more than one attack was ever planned. In fact, one attack was more than sufficient to do the worse thing possible: the begin of the American public to accept having their entire right structures being ripped from them.
Yes, just remember one simple fact: Hitler was elected. And his whole plan for government was clearly stated, both in his book "Mein Kampf" and in the Nazi Party program. Read William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" for further details.
"I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers rather than from the men and women of law enforcement and national security who seek to defend America and her people against that threat."
It seems to me that the only person(s) capable of restricting, denying, or otherwise effecting MY liberty are those individuals in authority to whom I am supposed to defer. That would be law enforcement, national security and those who rule them. Al-Quaida and its sympathizers have no control over me, none. I can't recall ever having to obey their rules, or having them tell me what to do. Attitudes like this piss me off to no end. I am not an infant, I can bloody well take care of myself, and I would thank my fellow Americans if they would stop acting like babies, expecting to be coddled by the powers that be and their tools.
Always remember that a jail also protects those within from those on the outside.
Don't take any long odds on little George staying out of jail for subversion of the electoral process.
I don't believe he'll get caught. He probably did what Nixon should've done...burn the tapes.
What?
" Did he refuse to incriminate himself under oath in this article?"
Yes, he did - when he provided vague, inaccurate, or offtopic responses to questions whose truthful answers would have had him admitting illegalities.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen
dan dooft het licht....
H.M. van Randwijk
When the people give in to tirans
they will loose more than body and spirit
then the light will extinguish...
my translation to english.
I'm drawn to libertarianism because it opposes government so I'm a dangerous person?
If the only reason (or biggest reason) you are a libertarian is because you are opposed to government, then yes, you are a dangerous person.
Listen, I'm an anarchist, I'm opposed to government on a much greater level than you are. But anarchism's opposition to the state is not what sold me on the idea.
I was sold on the idea of huge town halls filled with debate, with free education, networks of mutual aid and cooperatives, and what could only be termed an 'open source' society.
Once in a while I meet somebody who was attracted by anarchism only by virtue of what it opposes.
I distance myself from them as much as possible.
Well watch out motherfucker and that goes for whoever modded your bullshit comment "insightful".
Ah, I never should have even bothered responding to this, but I figured I should clarify a bit.
If you're going to karma whore by plagiarizing someone, it only works if you don't post anonymously.
But for how long?
The problem isn't necessarily that we can't trust law enforcement officials; its just that's not how our system works. Our system is based on transparency and accountability, because in the long term it works better.
The last time the US was in a situation like this was after WW2. Things looked, if anything, bleaker with the communists advancing throughout the world. We let agencies run wild on the "desperate times/desperate measures" theory. They ended up doing a lot of stuff that was just pointless, like experimenting with LSD on unwitting citizens, or having our legislature take part in a witch hunt that was in the end turned out to be run by a pathetic liar.
The institutions that did these things didn't start being disgraceful and stupid; indeed they were not entirely or even mainly so. But they ended up doing a lot of things they wouldn't have otherwise just because they had a license to operate without outside scrutiny and criticism.
Panic is not a good mode to run a war in. The Patriot act is just congressional platform for political posturing that doesn't do anything real for security. It's all a big sideshow. The 9/11 hijackers could have been stopped with the laws we had then, had we only taken the threat of air piracy seriously. We could have stopped them then if we had the will. Years later now we still don't have the will. Sure the air travel system is a bit more secure, but it's only a matter of time before somebody who is not a prankster sneaks a weapon on board or walks/forces his way through an unsecured perimeter.
What we really need to do is hard, expensive work. We need to do a lot more scrutinizing of critical facilities and hire armies of people to secure them and more armies of people to check up on the those guys. Sure, we're doing a little of that, but it is not even within two orders of magnitude of say the Iraq effort, which is absurd when you consider their relative security value (note I didn't say Iraq had zero value; it might have had some but on balance probably has negative value). What we've got, however, is the Patriot Act which does nothing for our security but gives our elected representatives the all important political "cover". Look! They're passing laws! They're having debates! They're talking about security! It's harsh! Like brusing your teeth with Clorox!
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
::deep breath::
/. and bitch and moan all we like but if we aren't doing anything about it, it's like... uh... pissing in the wind.
/. could be if everyone got out and just voted?
Okay kids, here's the thing. We can all sit on
Can you even fathom what a political power the members of
Don't like what you see? Don't talk, do.
Wan't a coup? Fine. Let's have one in November.
S
bah.
Asking a Vietnam refugee... About civil liberties is like asking Jack Valenti about fair use.
Wrong. Asking a Vietnam refugee about civil liberties is more like asking DVD Jon about fair use. Jack Valenti knows nothing about fair use because he never lost the right; a Vietnamese refugee has losh his civil liberties.
My parents fled from Castro's regime in Cuba (which came to power in when they were teenagers). Consequently, they have a deeper appreciation for liberty than any natural born American I have ever met. Why? Because they had liberty and it was taken. They don't want to get it taken again. I imagine that Vietnamese refugees are similarly inclined.
"A people that values its privileges above it's principles soon loses both" - Dwight D. Eisenhower
How about if I just say "AMEN?"
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
-- Ben Franklin
:)
mix_master_mike
vafrous
...Please remember folks, the death weilding cyborgs are only for your security, and for the protection of your liberties. We hope you enjoy your mandatory consuming experience... Take that as you like, I like to take it with humor, others enjoy alcohol, large quantaties of alcohol.
In World War II the Germans produced beautifully engineered planes. Their planes were of unsurpassed quality.
They were also far more expensive to build than the American planes, which were cheaply built with modern mass-production techniques. The German planes were much more expensive to build and maintain, and easily outnumbered.
As a further point, it's really a mistake to sit here in America and compare 'American Cars' to the small number of expensive non-mainstream German cars that happen to get imported to the US. Your sample is badly skewed. You need to include some Trabants in your sample set, for one thing.
---
is that we provided for them an apparatus that they could abuse to achieve their means. Some patriot act powers may be necessary, but for god's sake, do not let someone walk into this country and 'discover' an apparatus by which to control the populace maliciously.
I was in Manhattan on the day, and still remember everything. I, however, do not want the heroes of that day, of all generations of americans, to have wasted their lives because a panicked public demands prophylaxis.
All I can do, however, is vote.
i am so very tired....
Actually, I agree with you that our current government doesn't uphold the Constitution, as I understand the original intentions of our founding fathers. How would Jefferson have felt about a Constitutional Ammendment defining who can and cannot marry? The point I was trying to make is that the Constitution, like the bible, is subject to interpretation. Hell, Constitutional scholars are still arguing about the Second Ammendment, which seems pretty cut and dried to many. I stand by my original point -- the "right to privacy" is a right created by the Court, based on their interpretation of the Constitution, not a right explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. And the principle that all rights not explicitly granted to the government are reserved for the people has been violated since day one. Furthermore, I'm not sure you could run an effective government based on that principle, as it is impossible to foresee all possible future circumstances and therefore reserve all possible necessary future rights.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I was all for the PA until they used to for something other then terrorism, that is when they raided a strip club in Vegas and shut it down, using the PA for an excuse, how can anyone say that it is a law that has been absused?
Oh no! You mean the system actually WORKS? You mean the unconstitutional bits are being struck down?
Pay no attention to the above. Continue to contribute frantic amounts of money to civil liberties groups. Make sure you vote for the donkeys, etc.
---
Umm, you failed civics didn't you? :) If you look at your amendments:
:).
Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
And that my friends, is why the 16th amendment is the most hated. The standing army thing is probably justified under the elastic clause. You can look that one up
You've obviously never read "The Turn of the Screw," by Henry James, which points up the fact that sentences are not limited to a few words, but can be perfectly grammatical and quite effective literarily and still take up, in the case of the aforementioned James novel, as much as a full page and more, though this kind of extended sentence structure does require a certain intellectual prowess on the part of the reader not normally required of those, like yourself, who feed on a steady diet of comic books and technical manuals, but then, I would expect nothing less from this bastion of Linux and Java and Microsoft bashing, an attitude with which I heartily agree but do not allow to get in the way of my other interests including the reading of books with sentences of more than a few words, an enumeration of which I will leave to the reader's imagination. Touche!
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
You are right, I forgot to conclude my post.
I was actually trying to say that kicking out ONE piece of the Patriot Act after 2 years is a proof that the system barely works, as there is still plenty of crap to kick out in there. At this rate, it'll take 50 years.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Have you read the Project for the New American Century, and other papers published by the ideologues driving your country's policy, or have you only listened to slogans on the "tele-screen"?
Got a map handy? Maybe a globe? A copy of a RISK game board would do.
Look at our Northern border. Damn. Stretches thousands of miles, doesn't it? Did you know that since there are no natural obstacles, like say, a horrific uncrossable chasm, any schmuck with a pair of hiking boots can just walk right in?
Now look South. Yep, that big long blue line is the Rio Grande, one of our natural borders to the South. Guess what? You can wade across the bloody thing. The biggest natural obstacle to entering the US is the Southwestern desert of Arizona and New Mexico.
Why do I think that a bunch of Arab terrorists might be familiar with living in desert conditions?
By the way, the War on Drugs has been trying, with fairly serious military hardware, to "seal the border" for years, which of course is why no one could possibly buy anything illicit in a heartland city like St. Louis.
The US is not Japan, a nation with fairly stiff natural borders. Hell, we're not even Armenia.
Say it with me. We could have an army of sleepless "Squiddies" from "The Matrix" patrolling the North, and an army of Terminators and HKs patrolling the South (Yeah, I know, Reese thinks the HKs are easy to dust) ...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Just cause you came from a repressive government doesn't make you an authority on the US values of liberty. You certainly may love liberty here in the US, but don't tell me that you're qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject.
Our concept of liberty is a somewhat subtle and contradictary thing. It involves tolerance of low-level civil disobediance, basic distrust of all forms of government and law enforcement, and most of all, the understanding that the only true guarantee to liberty is in the Bill of Rights and it's fair interpretation by the courts.
Congress doesn't give us freedom, Viet Dinh's law doesn't give us freedom. The FBI surely doesn't give us freedom. The only thing that gives Americans freedom is the Bill of Rights. Until you understand that, don't lecture me on freedom and American values.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
"the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers" - What the heck? When did al-Qaida get the right to toss me in prison without a trial and never tell anybody where I am or why? I mean sure, perhaps they'd like to kill me... but deny me liberty? I think not.
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
How can so many posters miss the obvious? The greatest defense against terrorists, WMDs, and losing your job is a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage. Scheeesch!
"...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
The Holocaust is not unique nor extrodinary. The same thing would not be impossible, or even that unlikely if a charismatic, young, power-obsessed fanatic tried to take over a public building to protest the degredation of "traditional values" here, even today. Look at the blind following Roy Moore got for dumping some cheap corporate art in a lobby somewhere, and he's ugly, a mediocre speaker at best, and the police never even shot any of his followers or put him in jail.
Look, just fuse together Roy Moore, Che Guevera, Kevin Mitnick, L. Ron Hubbard, the guys from Queer Eye, Martin Sheen, and Fred Phelps, send them back to the Great Depression, and have them run for president on the platform of "Kill the Lawyers, Take Their Money". What do you think's going to happen?
That's the strength of fascism, it's not political, it's social and artistic. It's a near-foolproof method of gaining power in a free society, and it just so happens that it appeals to, and works best for, vapid power-fetishists who often happen to be prone to bouts of genocidal mania once they get to the top. The most stunning thing about the Holocaust is that they managed to pull it off before the whole mangled system collapsed in on itself.
So how are a bunch of whaco towel-heads going to take away my freedom? What're they going to do? Burn the constitution?
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
They never said they hate the idea of a free, tolerant, pluralistic society - they hate the result brought to them because of it....
... things he considers sins against Allah). If you read the whole letter you'll notice a lot of it has to do with Palestine....
Did ANYONE EVER read the letter from Bin Laden to the "United States".
Here's an article from the Observer containing the full translated text.
Here's some key pieces of the text for those who are too lazy to click on the link:
Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.
a) You attacked us in Palestine:
(i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.
And here's a part regarding liberty and freedom...
(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:
(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.
Again, it's out of context, you need to read the letter to understand the point he's making.
I don't necessarily agree with what he's saying, but let's get the facts straight. It's not that they hate a free society, but they hate the fact that this free society allowed the oppression they've supposedly felt.
I have a feeling that if history occured differently, there would be a bit more acceptance for the things he argues against later in the letter (such as gambling, drug use,
I wouldn't go that far. Plus, 40's-era clothes would look a little odd in modern times. A better idea would be to hire Germans to design our current uniforms. American car companies would do well to do the same, since American designers obviously have no concept of what an attractive automobile should look like, as evidenced by this
What do modern German military uniforms look like, anyway?
what about liberty without liberty? (that phrase itself sounds like some food product; fruit juice without a single drop of fruit juice.
"Where the department has suspected people of terrorism it will prosecute those persons for other violations of law, rather than wait for a terrorist conspiracy to fully develop and risk the potential that that conspiracy will be missed and thereby sacrificing innocent American lives in the process."
- 04 -Tue-2003/news/22512794.html
I wonder how many lives were saved when the DOJ used police powers implemented under the Patriot Act to go after the owners of a strip club:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Nov
Thank God we were saved from those terrorists cleverly disquised as a topless dancers.
______________
-----Lick Bush in 2004, the Supreme Court says it's legal!
The Patriot Act is the threat to our liberty, effectively nullifying the Bill of Rights when it comes to searches and siezures, and the right to a FAIR and SPEEDY trial.
Very true! To me FAIR means Identical. The government should (I know, just a theory) treat every citizen identically. Everyone should come before the law as equals.
Obviously you haven't seen the new Marine camo yet... Can you say "Waffen SS"?
It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
chiu` hom nai khong duoc ngu? ngong. chiu` ngai` mai khong duoc di ve^`. dai. qua', o^ng dinh, dai. qua'!
We are talking about the Patriot Act in the Debate Team at school. I am unfortunately on the afirmative side of the resolve "The safety provided by the PATRIOT Act outweighs one's right to personal liberty." I looked up liberty with KDict, and sure enough, I couldn't find a thing in the definition that the PATRIOT Act effected. Privacy is not a part of liberty, nor is the right to information about why your liberty has been taken away. If you want my openion, I don't care for privacy, and I trust the government not to detain people for no good reason (at least not very often). What bothers me about the act is the cost.
Center for Student Developed Education Policy
Non-mainstream? Are Volkswagens non-mainstream in Germany? Are there any uglier than this or this? I sure haven't seen any.
It was sold as a way to combat terrorism, that is why it was given such a "Patriotic" name.
Or maybe it was called the USA PATRIOT Act so that anyone who speaks out against it can be called un-patriotic.
is that while the interviewer was attempting to illustrate the fear people may feel about the patriot act, it hardly at all actually specifically cites the offending sections. Except for section 215, the interviewer doesn't specifically say the parts of the patriot act that are damning.
By not mentioning the specifics of the act, and instead talking about how people are afraid of the act, this report manages to, surprise surprise, actually stir up more fear (hence all the posts on slashdot.)
What I would like to see is a specific breakdown. here's what patriot act ACTUALLY SAYS and here's what the constitution says, and show me differences. then I can make an opinion. Here's why X is bad, here's why Y is bad.
Also, shame on you if you posted against the patriot act in this thread and have not actually read it yourself. you shouldn't trust the trolls around you to summarize it with their slant.
I for one thought Viet's response to the one accusation, section 215, was actually reasonable. The powers he mentioned exist and have existed on state level and make sense nationally.
and finally, to those who say that our greatest threat comes from our own government: Physical violence against citizens in the most blatant way, murder, is preventable. Each one of those twenty hijackers made a conscious effort. America did not deserve it. not one person who died deserved it. And it could have been prevented had a decent enough intelligence effort been put forth. If the government did NOT put forth efforts to protect us, it would be abdicating its duty.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
the quote by Ben Franklin
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
This may be a somewhat appropriate forum to make sure that people know about these two bills that might get passed:
R .163:8 9:
HR 163 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.
S 89 http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:S.
Pretty much, if you are persuiing higher education, that no longer matters, and you can still get drafted. Also, if I read it correctly, it states that everyone HAS to mandatorily serve under military service.
I cannot stand the nazi Bush regime, and their total disregard for our status as human beings.
SuPz.orG
Yeah, contemptible. An AC post that inflamatory indicates a lack of willingness to be accountable for the comment.
The real problem with the "War on Terror" is... there is no end. When all the Muslims are dead, something else will be classified as terrorism. Unions, "file-sharers", hackers, cable television thieves...
The government of the United States should be concerned with INCREASING my liberty and privacy; not the opposite. If they want to pass a law regarding oversight of law enforcement activities... why don't they pass one INCREASING oversight?
Only one thing will save us and the world from our out-of-contol political system and wannabe emperors... eventually, we will be so far in debt that tyranny will bankrupt itself.
Bush is the most transparently corrupt and immoral president in modern United States history. He does not value our democratic traditions. The only thing more putrefied than Bush and his administration; is the heart of every citizen in the United States who voted for him. We get what we deserve.
You Are Being Flamed Because
[ ] You posted a Religious Thread
[ ] You posted a accusation with no proof
[ ] You posted a thread containing 1337 talk
[ ] You posted a me > u thread
[ ] you posted a worthless offensive thread
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You committed crimes against pork biproducts
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[ ] You haven't read the FAQ
[ ] You don't know which forum to post in
[ ] You just plain suck
[X] You posted false information
[X] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] You doubleposted
[ ] YOU POSTED A MESSAGE ALL WRITTEN IN CAPS
[ ] You posted racist crap
[X] I don't like your tone of voice
[ ] You are not civilized enough to post in these forums
[ ] Yuo mispeled evry sengle wurd.
[ ] Your parents are related
[ ] You and your wife are related
[ ] You dated my sister
[ ] You dated my brother
[ ] You made love to my dog
In Punishment, You Must:
[ ] Give up your AOL Internet account
[ ] STFU & GTFO
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Read the f****** FAQ
[X] Call Bush and inform him he sucks
[ ] Go to your room with no supper
[ ] Apologize to everybody on this forum
[ ] Go stand in the middle of a Highway
[ ] Recite the Greek alphabet backwards
[X] Take a bath in bleach
[ ] Drink out of a spitoon
[ ] Eat my ass
[ ] Grind a rail on your sack
[ ] All of the above
In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] 1 R 1337
[ ] Pwned
[ ] GG no re
[ ] Blow me
[X] Get a life
[ ] Me > u
[X] Never post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[ ] Go to hell
[ ] Your IQ must be 7
[ ] Take your s*** somewhere else
[ ] STFU & GTFO
[ ] Learn to post or f*** off
[X] Go jump into some industrial equipment
[ ] STFU botter
[ ] All of the above
I am completely baffled how a man who had his father taken away and "reeducated" by the communist government can be so cavalier about giving more power to those in power.
My only guess is that because communists overtook his country first, that he thinks that the overtaking is where the greatest danger lies. But it just doesn't wash to fear al-Queda will take over Washington. The danger is a policy of giving too much power to those in power. It doesn't matter if they're righties or lefties. Stalin and Hitler proved that as far as I'm concerned. Power is the problem.
Anyways... what do I know. My grandfather was kidnapped and tormented during the cold war for five years by the Polish secret police because they were sure he was a spy. This guy had a similar experience with his father. He wrote the PATRIOT act, I think it's the worst thing to happen to America in a long time.
Sigh.
I wonder how long until /. is closed down for being subversive and a danger to America? After all there is some fairly radical thought around here, like freedom of speech even if it goes against large corporations and the status quo. Ideas that could give people information that might make it difficult for gov'ts to hack into their systems for information. The overall trend in the western world to continue tightening the grasp of irrational fear instead of dealing with the possible causes of terrorism frightens me. I lived during the height of the Cold War and even that seemed benign compared to gov't behaviours lately.
My God, look at all the rhetoric. Yeah, let's kill the patriot act, and then what? Which one of you actually steps back once in a while and thinks outside of the boxes you are all trapped in? Which one of you has been hurt by the patriot act? And don't feed me any mumbo jumbo, I want to know which of you actually were dragged away from your families, kicking and screaming while your wife was holding your crying children, telling them that you would be back, knowing it was a lie? Where are the storm troopers? The Gestapo? The Gulags for political dissenters? Hello? Black and white, here, no grey area. Which of you have had car batteries attached to your testicles to force you into admitting lies that would incriminate others? How many mass graves are there in this America you all seem to think is turning into a totalitarian state? Quit feeding on your own psychosis and think for yourselves for a change. Liberty without security is a short romp in the park. Security without liberty is no life for me. Security and liberty must be in equal balance, or we are all doomed. For too long, we had no security because of the yammering of nattering nabobs of negatavism like I see posting here. Who is going to stand up for America? Who is going to be standing there drawing fire from the "feel good, anything goes" mindset? Who is going to clear the monsters from under your bed at night? Oh heavens, monsters have rights, too!!! (I am after all, the Ticklemonster, so who should know better, eh? ;) ) Jesus Christ you people get more rattled up about our government trying to safeguard our liberty than you do about people trying to crush them.
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
just remember one simple fact: Hitler was elected.
That is categorically untrue. Read Steve Kangas' discussion of this common misconception at http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power. Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.
I see. But we don't have to worry about that in America, because we voters elect our President.
Actually Thomas Jefferson stated that he believed the constitution to be a living document, and that each generation should have thier own. So I think he would be more concerend that we were trying to interpret it the same way as the founding fathers.
We are stuck with the policy considerations of 9 old people who spent their whole life studying the past, because the constitution is more or less unamendable. With the right 5% of the population you can block any amendment.
Look at how beign the last 10 amendments to the constitution have been
27 - congressional pay raise occurs in next term
26 - voting age 18
24 - poll tax
23 - DC residents get to vote for president
19 - women's right to vote
These are all no brainers in today's society for various reasons.
25 - presidential succession
20 - presidential term/succession
This was important to spell out in order to make sure the government worked in a crisis
22 - presidential Term limits
21 - legalization of alcohol
18 - alcohol illegal
These are true policy decisions made by the country. And really these pale in comparison to the previous 17.
I think right now at this time and this place the greatest threat to American liberty comes from al-Qaida and their sympathizers
Actually according to a pentagon report the greatest threat is from a changing environment and it's consequences on global societies.
The terrorist threat is arguable greater today then it was 3 years ago. Fighting "terrorist" militarily is like squeezing a pimple it only makes it worse and takes longer to heal. Terrorism is best countered by emphasizing ideas (such as liberty , equality, education) and centering a foriegn policy more on these ideals then self-interest.
Please tell me, without resorting to calling me a german, which of the rights granted to you by the constitution have you lost? You haven't actually lost any at all. No matter what happens, you are protected. How many thousands of innocent people did our government incarcerate? Less than 900? Do you know first hand why these people were incarcerated? Care to get back to us when you do? Ah, that's right, you will be able to, won't you? And why, might I ask will you be able to? Because you LIVE IN FREAKING AMERICA, STUPID. opps, I'm sorry, I get carried away.
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
There is no such thing. There never will be such a thing. There never has been such a thing.
Sorry to break the news to you.
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
He once said that he was drawn to study the government because he "had seen government that did not work," and he was drawn to the Republican Party because of his hatred for communism.
So he went from one totalitarian government to another totalitarian government?
And the day came when the risk to remain closed in a bud, became more painful than the risk it took to blossom.
I read somewhere that as population increases in density, individual rights suffer to maintain order. I think the PA, along with other various trends in loss of personal freedoms and individual liberties and increasing world turmoil may be at least partly a function of the increases in world population densities. Up till relatively recently in history, there has always been unexplored/unsettled lands for citizens who had "had enough" of their gov/empire/whatever to go to, and be free of _any_ power but their own. In the past, citizens could just vote with their feet. Not these days. I just hope that the civilization here can last long enough without imploding until space travel becomes viable as a way to escape
overbearing/overwhelming gov control. Seems to be a very slim hope, at the moment.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I did. In the end, one fact stands out: Hitler was elected. He didn't have the support of the majority of the people, but he was elected, nevertheless. He was elected according to the law of his country, just like GWB in 2000. The law was flawed, there were several circumstances, etc, but, according to the letter of the law, Hitler was democratically elected chancellor of Germany in 1934.
Then why is "providing for the common defense" in the constitution?
No.
The only true guarantee of liberty is for people -- every one of us, or enough of us to outvote the sniveling scum who bend over for tyranny -- to stand up for it. If you don't vote, you cannot expect the courts to be any good, since elected officials appoint the judges. If you squirm your way out of jury duty, you give up your most potent right of review over the acts of law enforcement and other arms of the government, in exchange for temporary convenience.
Freedom is no more a gift from judges and lawyers than it is a privilege handed out by kings. Freedom is ours by our nature, as long as we care to defend it.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of freedom: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. No, make that: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Use in that order.
On October 26th - a date which will live in infamy - the President signed the USA/PATRIOT act, officially known as HR 3162. And you should well note that, according to Representative Ron Paul (R) of Texas - as reported on November 9th by Kelly O'Meara of the Washington Times' Insight Magazine - the bill had not even been printed and members of the House could not read it before they were compelled to vote on it. O'Meara wrote, "Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new bill were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it." Most of its provisions have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Under this so-called anti-terrorist measure:
According to the US State Department, around 20-30 Americans are killed by foreign terrorists each year. Typically, ZERO of these attacks are on American soil. In many cases, the attackers were no doubt unaware that their victims were Americans. For example, when Chechens took over a Moscow theater, there happened to be a few Americans in the audience.
The 2001 attack was the big exception: 3000 Americans were killed that year on US soil.
However, to put this in context, about 40,000 Americans are killed every year in auto accidents.
So this is what we're sacrificing liberty for: a phenomenon that is typically less than 0.1% of the threat from auto accidents, and didn't evern break 10% in the worst year ever.
Dude, things are bad. I used to think that "things were good" now I'm not sure. I started making some observations, always a bad idea in this day and age. My first clue is I can no longer send air cargo. So you think I'm crazy? Call up 1-800-DLCargo (Delta Air Cargo) and try to ship something. I was talking with one shipping consolidator who was worried about medical and blood supplies going bad because he couldn't meet forthcoming regulations to inspect *every domestic *package. Yeh, this makes a lot of sense.
/rant
Gee, I now have to present 2 forms of ID at the airport in order to fly to the lower 48. Oh, got ti show up 2 hours early also.
Your papers please!
I guy here in Alaska had his home (a log cabin) destroyed by customs who thought he was "suspicious." Oh yeh, I forget to mention they did this because his wife had a deadly "pipe" in her purse. They took a quisinart to his cabin then told him to go f*ck himself. P.S. The feds have it out for anybody they smokes dope.
I have a number of other stories exactly like this. Like this one for example...Take for example the time the feds ripped my truck apart (quite literally). They saw a nice pelican case in the back (with a digital camera in it). I was standing there bitching to customs quite verbally about this. When they finally asked what I wanted from them (as they were tearing my truck apart) I responded "Welcome back to Alaska?" They told me in uncertain terms to "go f*ck myself."
By the way did you know we have a number of large anuses up here in Alaska? Did I also mention that for every 4 dollars Alaskans pay for federal gas tax (supposedly for the roads) we only get 1 dollar back in highway aid? Exactly what do the feds spend it on? Oh, wait thats classified. Here, try an experiment. Call of your local FBI office and ask for a copy of their budget and names of officers. Is this not the definition of "secret police?"
Try this on for size... What are the names of all the enemy combatents incarcerated in this country that are full U.S. citizens? I checked, this is classified information (WTF!).
Try this on for size. Which country incarcerates the highest percentage of its population? What are the top four countries for number of executions per capita?
We just hit iraq with 350 tons of depleted uranium (almost pure urananium 238). Sure alpha particles are harmless. Remember we only did it for the WMD...
Yep, must be a liberal crackpot.
Azurite is fine covellite is mine.
And were repeatedly declared 'legal' by Janet Reno during the Clinton administration. Either party would have done this, Al Gore would have simply made the destruction of the 2nd amendment priority where GWB chose to destroy 1 and 4. This is hardly the "People's will". The people generally do not vote. It is not because we are lazy. It is because the candidates we have are preselected by monied organizations who have their best interest in mind, and not that of the people. I have a suggestion to illustrate the true will of the people. Put "None of the above" on the ballot and then see who wins.
My fuck, sometimes my blood boils over when I read fascist bullshit like this. The Patriot Act is an excuse to control you Americans. It has nothing to do with the vague War on Terrorism. The War on Terrorism is an excuse, IMO, for a cabal of corrupt bastards to stay in power irrespective of elections and make more money than they already have.
What has this got to do with stupidity? Please, two days ago it was on the news on all across the globe that the German intelligence service had given Marwan al Shehi's name and telephone number to the CIA more than two years before the 2001 attacks. And everyone knows about the FBI field agent who was simply ignored. Not only this but your intelligence agencies ignored Al Qaida until they went ahead and bombed you in your own country, or have you forgotten the bombings of the Tanzanian and Kenian embassies and the USS Cole?
It was almost written in the fucking heavens that someone was gunning for the US badly. Terrorists hadn't stopped at bombing places in Europe before and they had even tried to bomb the WTC in 1993, yet no one gave a damn.
The Patriot Act wouldn't have stopped any of those attacks. A ziny bit of intelligence would.
Previously on /. I've seen discussions on what method is best - email, snail mail, telephone calls, in person interviews.
Common sense says in person would likely be the best, provided you are really up on a subject.
[pipedream] /.ers should try and form a concerned citizens group of some kind. Then one /.er from each state could approach his/her congress critters with the consensus views. Being from such and such citizens group might have more weight than just being a solo citizen.
Maybe
Geeks for rational use of technology or somesuch.
[/pipedream]
As far as writing/emailing/telephoning goes. I am in a Legislative Drafting class which happens to have a few students from the hill (i.e. who work in congress as staffers). Due to the past /. discussions debating which was the better way to contact congressional members, I did raise the question. I was told that it didn't matter - your 'vote' would get tallied with the other 1000s that come in.
While they didn't say it. I suppose it would be more worthwhile to keep letters to your congress critters short and to the point. Polite and respectful, of course, but I would guess there is no need to research or put lengthy reasoning behind your views. Just set forth that you live in their jurisdiction, what issue you are writing about, and your position on it. Only if you are passionate about the issue, have your reasons at hand, have the time to spare, etc. would writing a lengthy treatise on why your position is the best be worth it.
This way, you can afford to write several letters stating your position on a variety of issues instead of one really detailed letter that probably will not do anything more than be a tick on some tally sheet. More letters = more ticks on more tally sheets.
Just my 2 cents.
On the other hand, I see where Gideon got the right to an attorney even though he couldn't afford one, Roe (actually Norma McCorvey) was given the right to have a safe and legal abortion, and Miranda had to understand his rights before what he said could be used against him.
These are cornerstone decisions protecting US liberty that the fsking politicians didn't have a thing to do with.
Voting is good, voting is proper, but the bottom line is that we the people have very little power in chosing honest and wise politicians.
The reason that California now has an action movie hero for a governer is because in the last election we had to choose between two major slimeballs and the people here were ready to try anything other than another career politician.
I wished to God that you were right and that we could just vote in a good government. The reality is that we can't. The only thing that keeps the government in check is the Bill of Rights.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
One thing to consider is that Castro's regime represented an increase in liberty for most Cubans. Prior to Castro, it was ruled by a brutal dictator (Batista), who was supported by the American government. While Castro may have restricted certain political freedoms, the fact is that most Cubans are far better off today than they would have been under Batista's rule. So the point is that while people may seem properly motivated (opposed to Castro, terrorists, etc), it is often the government and liverty they claim to love which has actually created those problems. Imagine a Vietnam where we had helped Ho-Chi Minh (excuse the spelling) instead of forcing him to go to the Chinese for independence from his white colonial rulers, or a Cuba where we had supported a democratic government instead of the more economically conveninent Batista.
I'd say the Bill of Rights would count as "essential liberties", wouldn't you?
quote still works for me.
How does that give you the ability to live without fear?
The best way to support the US war effort is to continue buying American products.
At the time the constitution was written, we were under the articles of confederation, a hastily contrived union that got us through the revolutionary war. It had flaws, big ones. That is why a constitutional convention was held, to try and fix these flaws. (bored yet?) The part that you quoted from the constitution is from the preamble. All of the things listed in the preamble to the constitution were serious flaws in the articles of confederation. As for the common defense part, Congress, under the aarticles of confereration had no authority to raise funds for the military, beyond asking the states for money, which they could, and often did refuse or fail to do. 'Common defense' means military.
Ben Franklin was of the opinion that the declaration of independance was a far more fitting preamble. Oh, and since he was the only man who had a direct hand in both documents, his opinion should matter.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
From the perspective of the people who actually run America -- the ones whose money determines which politicians get elected and which laws get written -- Liberty means uninterrupted consumption and business activity. It means freedom from distracting influences that might discourage people from buying things they don't need with money they don't have. It means freedom from the ravages of common sense.
People do have fundamental common sense, at least at an instinctive level. When they feel insecure they don't spend as much money. When they feel safe they are more willing to go into credit debt. The virtues of Self Reliance and Common Sense, once held in high esteem in America, have been the enemies of Commerce since about 1950, when the Advertising Industry came of age and discovered that it could get people to spend money like idiots. Anything (terrorism, environmentalism) that disrupts buying habits is automatically evil.
The WTC destruction was much less deadly than various processes of product-induced death and suffering that we've learned to ignore. 3000+ people got killed. That's how many people have been getting killed by drunk drivers every couple months since about 1960. Alcohol's a big industry, so the government doles out enough money and PR to placate the vocal minority that really gives a shit, never really doing anything that will fix the problem. Same routine with tobacco. Money and PR for lung cancer. Business as usual. Same for artery-clogging fast food. Money and PR for heart disease. Business as usual.
What made the WTC destruction a threat to Liberty was that it scared the shit out of people in a way that they couldn't be soothed to ignore. Something that could reawaken their normal instinct to stock up on canned food, stay home this vacation and maybe put off buying that 42-inch TV for a while, because You Never Know.
Loss of consumption = loss of Liberty. Even the President routinely refers to the American public as "consumers" rather than "citizens." Liberty means easy access to lots of shiny new stuff, and gracious companies willing to let you get in debt to them for the rest of your life, so you can't afford to quit your job. So STFU and get back to work.
Regarding the 6-week deliberation period of the Patriot Act:
And while the process was very quick, it was also the most deliberate process that I have seen in Washington, D.C.
ALL THE MORE REASON TO BE SUSPICIOUS OF IT YOU FOOL!!!
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
What you have to add is that the holocaust was a secret mission and (cynical) a gigantic waste of ressources needed for warfare. Perhaps that was the reason why the allied forces never dropped a bomb on ausschwitz train station.
Here's a novel idea for you (not just Americans, but us Brits as well, although we suffer terrorism to a lesser extent)
:-)
Since you can't (a) bomb terrorists into submission (bombing Afghanistan and Iraq didn't work, how many more countries will you bomb before you realise this? With our direct experience of the IRA I would have thought we of all people would have known that) and (b) defend effectively against terrorism (another poster mentioned Israel's inability to stop Palestinian suicide bombers), how about considering option (c) - trying to figure out why these people hate you so much and trying to defuse the hatred? Surely that is a far better way of achieving peace than passing Acts which only serve to restrict normal people without actually doing something about the problem?
Patriot Act and others are part of the vicious circle, not the solution. Terrorist strikes. Government doesn't want to consider (c) because it would mean admitting it was wrong. Government restricts people's liberties without fixing the problem. People grow resentful. Government manages to pull the spin that terrorists caused this problem, rather than Government power-hunger and short-sightedness. People decide they hate terrorists more than power-hungry politicians and vote for governments that hate terrorists. Governments continue to piss terrorists off for their own ends, who continue to strike, and so the circle continues.
Solution: Government admits it was wrong, fixes what drives people to blow themselves up in protest, circle of hatred ends, everyone lives happily ever after. How difficult would it REALLY be to give Israel its own state within the USA, or some other Israel-friendly nation (Jerusalem, I know, but you can build a bigger better New Jerusalem, point out that God is not limited to one small country, and that once we have peace with the Palestinians, Jews can visit the Original Jerusalem(TM) just like Muslims can freely visit Mecca, or Christians can freely visit Rome)?
Yes, I am considering running for PM
No offense, but Congress (not just one administration or one judge) as a whole many, many, years ago instituted the policy of "military tribunals" and the classification of "enemy combatants" to combat situations exactly like the boundryless and extensive network of terrorists we're fighting. Numerous judges through the years have given these classifications merit, and they are historically parts of our countries international legal system. If I follow a few rules, I can keep myself from being held as an "enemy combatant".
1) Don't fly to the Sudan to attend terrorist training with an Osama Lieutenant.
2) If I happen to be in the Sudan and the US invades for whatever reason, don't pick up a gun and start firing on US troops.
3) Don't raise financial support for organization on the Feds list of organizations that support terrorism.
Is that really too much of a restriction on my freedom? I don't think so. It only takes one of these terrorist bastards to take you (and a *whole bunch* of the rest of us) out, and rip this country a new one.... again. The Feds have a job to do, so I'm going to let them do it with the tools Congress has given them. It isn't going to take another 9-11 for me to support this act.
Now using this act against non-terrorists (if it isn't meant for that) is a different story. That would be wrong. So far, I haven't heard of any innocent person being wrongly convicted or having his privacy invaded because of this act. If I do start hearing of those things, I'll ask that the act be changed (not necessarily repealled).
For now, as I see it, better safe then sorry. No judges have even ruled that a criminal has been wrongly prosecuted under this act, much less an innocent person (though some criminals have been prosecuted, and will have their day in court). We can always change the act if it gets out of hand, or the judges who hear these cases can rule on the Acts constitutionality or enforcement. That's what Federal Judges are for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but for now I think safe is better then sorry.
Strange thing is we never seem to see the riots on the streets as the American people overthrow their oppressors by force. Just how far do they have to go for you to act? Or do you not really believe in such violence after all? Seems that constitutional right was just talk after all.
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
I can't wait until the war on terrorism is over and there is no more terrorism
Yeah, and I can't wait until the war on drugs is over and there are no more drugs.
It's just as likely.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
dear america,
a couple of years ago 3000 of you (and brits and others) died. out of a population of 300 million.
every year far more than 3000 of you are murdered with guns, by your own people. [cant find find the link i'm thinking of here]
Your biggest threat is not terrorists, but yourselves.
America, you ARE at liberty.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
After reading this I fear for whoever is SUSPECTED of a crime, not only terrorism. The Patriot Act allows the authorities to charge a person of terrorism and hold him, without a public trial.
Subject says it all...
Have you ever considered that the ability to live without fear for one's safety is (a) liberty?
Lack of fear for one's safety is extremely dangerous.
People fear they will face disapproval. People fear their family members and friends will die. People fear their own deaths. Each of these fears is a normal and healthy product of the reality that the world is not a "safe" place; without these fears, people would be reckless.
Without these fears people would feel there is no consequence to them for their most destructive actions.
Religious leaders have for centuries encouraged people to be "God-fearing", to raise their awareness of the consequences of their actions.
The job of the government is not to make people free from fear; that would simply encourage the kind of actions normal people are afraid of.
A suggestion that people ought to have the "liberty" to live without fear is, in effect, a call for anarchy.
...no one in congress actually reads the laws s/he votes on.
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
See for yourself. (Sorry, uses Flash.) Click on the images along the right to see the various uniforms currently in use.
You can also see the military ranks here. 'Heer' is the Army, 'Luftwaffe' is the Air Force, 'Marine' is the Navy, 'Sanitaetsdienst' is the medical service.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
Viet Dinh? What, named after the country? What I really need is someone from Vietnam telling me how great the Patriot Act is.. They seem to have it down in 'Nam.
Yes, furry little friends o' mine. The name of the game is communism. And we're edging ever-so-closer to it's methods in the good ol' US of A. Shame, shame, shame!
Must-not-watch TV!
Then why did he help write the damn thing at all? The PATRIOT Act is a direct affront to the Bill of Rights. There is no getting around that fact.
Also, Mr. Dinh is buying into the myth that al qaeda is a bigger threat to the US than our own government. Let's see now:
Al Qaeda == small, relatively insignificant (on a whole-nation scale) pin-prick attacks that can only do damage to "America" if we let them cow us into submisssion.
US Federal Governemnt == Pervasive, all-encompassing central organization that can do serious damage to civil liberties.
Yes, if there is another terror attack, people will die. But if there is tyranny in America, a lot more people will die.
Of course they were fembots.
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
the only way you'll get real change is by getting all the independants together in one room, getting them to pick a respected nonpartisan figurehead (you'll never get the likes of Nader, Buchanan etc to agree to follow "the other guy"), and then have them all run that person as the most boring middle-of-the-road candidate whose only non-caretaker policy goal is to bring in instant runoff voting for the Presidency
it's in their interest(s) the long run, because under the current system, as individuals the best they can hope for is to be irrelevant
so it should be easy, right? >)
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty, nor security."
/not/ allowed to keep any information, or investigate any United States Ciziten. They are supposed to be watching the rest of the world, while the FBI is supposed to keep tabs here. They were kept as separate enities to protect a citizens right to privacy. The CIA is allowed to use methods that the FBI cannot.
Thomas Jefferson said that, and I believe that if he were alive today, he would flee America to start a country where the government doesn't invade your privacy to protect everyone from what you might be capable of. I believe that he would guarantee everyone's Right to Privacy, and state that every person deserves thier life, thier liberty, and thier pursuit of happiness to be un-infringed by thier government. I beileve that he would see today's legislation as infringing on his liberty, and that he would be aghast at what has happened to his ideals, and to his country.
It's my country too, but I have to remember that I can't read what ever I please at the library without it coming up in a database in Washington. They already have the power to pull up the names of every single person who has ever checked out any book in any public library. What makes you think they haven't already? That kind of information at thier beck and call, and you think they haven't looked at it?
Think about that next time you go to the library. Do you remember every book you've every checked out? You can bet Washington does. Have you every read about anything Islamic? In an attempt to understand one of the fastest growing religions on the Earth, have you un-knowingly cast your name into a very large hat of, "persons of interest"?
The other thing that bothers me is the FBI and CIA sharing thier info. While, yes, it is a good thing that intel groups share thier info, and possibly better see terror events coming, it allows the CIA to indirectly monitor the comings and goings of U.S. citizens, which is expressly forbidden by thier charter. The CIA are
But with the sharing of information, the walls come down. The CIA can analyze and categorize data that it was only supposed to collect on other citizens of the world. It allows them to send us through the same filters it uses for terrorists, and what do you think the FBI will do if you fall into the same category as nineteen Egyptians with box-cutters?
Do you think the FBI is going to say, "Well, yeah, thanks CIA, that's good to know, but he is a US Citizen, so we're going to protect his privacy, and liberty, and not investigate(interrogate) his immediate family, co-workers, friends, loved ones, classmates, old baby-sitters, retired teachers of this young man."
Sure
There are no gods but ourselves.
Save American Lives?
9/11 ~ 3000 killed.
cars ~ 60,000+ killed every year.
smoking ~ tens of thousands killed and more every day. (Increasing your health care costs!)
Tobacco is Terrorism and
Smoking is a biological weapon.
If they want to save American Lives:
Ban the sale of tobacco.
If they want to save American Lives:
up the car safety test speeds X 2.
'Terrorism' is bad, but it is the everyday stuff that gets most people killed.
How about stopping the crack-heads?
You are far more likely to die from
'common crime' and high risk behavior
(smoking / overeating / hypertension)
than some sort of political cause.
The problem with building a police state
(with all good intentions of safety and security)
usually ends with the power in the hands of some totalitarian.
The few in power abuse that police state system to hurt the many. In the USA, perhaps the 'total information awareness' data will be exploited for economic gain, or to remove the 'unwanted' people, like democrats.
Part of the problem is that the first past the post voting system tends to deliver governments which over-represent large minorities.
For example, the Labour party in the UK got around 43% of the total vote. That's a minority. The first past the post voting system gave them 412 seats out of a possible 658 or 62% of the seats in the House of Commons, that's a big majority which pretty much allows them to do what they want with legislation. A large minority now governs country.
The thing is, the first past the post system is a throwback to when representatives were individuals and didn't owe their loyalties to a party machine. These days it takes a party rebellion to derail the plans of the government and it causes swings of power back and forth between extremes.
The US electoral college system has a similar effect on representation.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
You think the Republicans will be in power forever?
Do you think the replacements will be any better? Kerry and Edwards both voted for the invasion of Iraq, and for the Patriot act. A lot of what Bush is doing now is just an extension of Clinton's policies.
Precisely.
To further elaborate: Any terrorists we have thwarted since 9/11 have been thwarted not so much because of the provisions of the PATRIOT act, but rather because of our heightened attention to their real threat. Particularly the case mentioned above about the Washington Sniper (who honestly I wouldn't put in the same class as al Quaeda; not international terrorists) was broken by good old fashioned police work, and congratulations to those who did that work.
And what about that college kid who got box knives and such onto a plane? PATRIOT didn't stop him. It wouldn't stop anyone else who was more malicious. The only thing we've done that really concretely addresses THAT part of the threat is reinforcing the cockpit doors (and hopefully the bulkheads on either side), and perhaps the additional traffic in air marshals.
Add that to the already occurring abuses of the act (despite Johnny A's assurances to the contrary) and I can confidently say the PATRIOT cure is far worse than the disease.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I think Benjamin Franklin put it best in 1755.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.--The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, vol. 6, p. 242 (1963).
Bartleby
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"Yes, the "people" (the majority) choose who obtains power"
r tycand.h tm
Unfortunately not. Sizable minorities choose who obtains power. In the UK for instance it was around 43% of voters, which is a minority for a start and around 25% of the total population decided who would be governing the country.
e.g.
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/e01/pa
In the US in 2000 famously, the electoral college elected George Bush over Al Gore even though Gore recieved more popular votes. Both candidates with minorities of the popular vote BTW and both with around 25% of the population voting for them. So, again no, the majority don't choose.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Your right. As a reaction of what they did, we are voluntarily giving up our "way of life". The freedoms and due process that our laws provide are being bypassed, and people think its un-patriotic to say anything about it.
What I don't understand is why it took so long for people to realize this. When Bush started this, everyone stayed silent. Only recently did the Democrats come out and begin talking about these issues...
My parents moved to this country to get away from opressive governments only to find that we too are going the way of those governments abroad...
I hope people wake up and get involved with the political system before its too late.
Acutally, you are wrong about this:
The only thing that gives Americans freedom is the Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights merely enumerates a few inherent rights of humans that the Founders believed were so important that they should be pointed out to the world. It doesn't *give* us those rights, nor any rights at all for that matter, because they believed that we are all born with them.
One of the reasons that this is such an important distinction to make is the ever-growing perception that government in general, and the US Federal government in particular, exists as the repository of our rights as citizens.
This isn't true at all, you see, and directly opposes the Founders' vision of a minimal Federal government existing only for those purposes clearly stated in the Constitution.
Regards,
dj
If you follow Jefferson argument that "all men are created equal" to it's logical conclusion, then the banning of slavery naturally folllows, but the claiming that people that happen to be attracted to people of the same gender have LESS rights then people that are attracted to people of the opposite gender does not. Furthermore, a very small percentage of people are born true hermaphrodites... are they then denied the right to marry ANYONE, because it is not clear whether they are male or female? Or do they get more rights than everyone else, and can marry either a man or a woman? The Constitutional ammendment which are president is currently proposing with a straight face definately conflicts with the concept of "equal protection". Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves. (Oh, and for the record -- I'm married to a person of the opposite sex.)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Because the Democrats are better, right? Face it, the whole political system in the US is a fiasco right now. The Dems and the Republicans are just different sides of the same kickback/political favor/corruption tarnished coin.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
OK, Hitler killed 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. What about the 600 million Africans that Americans killed during slavery?
"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race"
Excellent answer. It would get you an A+ in 6th grade Civics. Unfortunately, you show appalling ignorance of today's reality. I suggest you put away your Civics book and do some reading.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
LOL just LOL. Youre entire comment just LOL.
But to be specific:Obviously we are facing an enemy unlike any other we have ever faced before.
Many countries have had to deal with terrorists for centuries. We have faced enemies that werent there before. Remember all those commie bastards that killed all of us. Or how about those damn Japs while they were locked inside camps. And just screw those Jews wreaking havok on the German economy. Gotta kill em all.
So just be careful not to mess with Big Brother, because he's out to save his ass and he's pissed off
I still remember voting against Big Brother. God those were happy times. Ohh I am glad he is taking this seriously. These 3,000 deaths, 10 years since the last attack btw, are so much worse than the 30,000 people dying on highways every year. Or how about the 18,000 getting murdered each year. Those people dont matter at all. We need to care about the corporate assholes that were in these buildings. I say its too bad they missed Ashcroft at the Pentagon.
This is a new and different era, and it will take time and sacrifice to adjust to it.
Dont be so full of yourself. This has happened before over and over again. Read a book once in a while. France is still struggling with terrorists every day. Israel has been working with terrorists ever since they became a country. This is old news.
From what I understand, this is nothing new. Classified "enemy combatants" have been allowed to be so detained
Ford threw that policy long ago. If I remember correctly the resolution numbers were 9066 to instate and 7000 something to remove. Look at the books, thats why they needed to reinstate it again. And we are not in a war now. The gang members outnumber the Al Quaida by the thousands. Why dont we pick a target thats actually causing damage.
And in general read what I said, the point of this law is to remove the Judicial branch from the process. This takes care of all your Justice Dep't crap.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
I could have sworn each was knocked down due to a terrorist attack.
40 years later, you would still see bumper stickers saying "Remember Pearl Harbor".
2 and a half years after our generation experiences something similar, the press is already re-writing it as an engineering flaw.
Cheap does not mean ugly moron. Even some of the most expensive "American" cars out right now are ugly as dog poop.
Don't fret, Bush will just have the unconstituional parts amended to the constituion.
All your base are belong to us!
You might wanna read up on the Constitution yourself there, jerky. "Providing for the common defense" is in the body as well as the preamble.
If they said these terrorist groups were the greatest threat to our safety, then I'd buy it.
Psst! Wrong. Airliners falling from the sky by themselves are a greater threat. Trains derailing are a greater threat. Car accidents are a greater threat. Even hairdriers are probably a greater threat...
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
I read it. He lost the first election, but his thugs did a good job of identifying and intimidating people who voted against him, and he did a good job of forming coalitions and duping other powerful and influential people. Germany was not a true democracy in the '30s anyway (political parties had street armies for one thing).
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
The problem is that the most patriotic people are often the most willing to give up freedom for nothing. Persecuting people for insufficient patriotism (like McCarthy, and now Bush) is only done to limit freedom and grab power.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
- Patrick Henry
Who will guard the guards?
And some of the more expensive European-designed cars are ugly as sin, i.e. the traditional Saab design line.
But I won't call you 'moron.'
---
Oh please. Clinton never had the daily onslaught that Bush receives from his public enemies. No even close. Bush has to contend with every liberal organization in America gunning after him with lies and deceit. Clinton actually had Republican support for most of his major legislation like NAFTA and welfare reform. Most of Clinton agenda (outside of Universal Health Care) were passed not because of Democrats but because of Republicans.
I don't see any Democrat billionaires sponsoring personal lawsuits against Bush. I don't see them conducting extensive investigations that yield evidence of not one single crime.
Then what the hell is George Soros doing? Hmmm? He is pledging millions and millions of dollars to investigate and defeat Bush. And yes Clinton was found guilty. He was impeached. He escaped other prosecutions because witnesses fled the country or rolled over like Webster Hubble famously said on tape.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
No "Providing for the common defense" is only in the preamble. the phrase "provide for the common Defence" is in the body
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
First, Free Choice is the classic head-in-the-sand argument for people who really don't want to understand the problem. If smoking, drinking, overeating and so forth were simple matters of Free Choice, then we wouldn't have multibillion dollar industries built around helping people quit smoking, quit drinking, quit overeating, etc. There wouldn't be any demand.
Secondly, getting killed by a drunken idiot on your way home from work isn't a matter of choice, any more than getting blown up in your office by an airliner.
Thirdly, I was defining Liberty in terms of what I think it means to the people who make the rules. They want the American public to be free enough to run through the maze and look for the cheese, but not so free as to be able to move the walls around.
"This is a world where eradication of the enemy is seen for what it is: a symptom of the problem, not a solution." - www.thematrix101.com
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Somebody makes a valid analogy for one point of comparison and then someone else, who doesn't understand the rules of logical reasoning, interprets it as meaning that all points are similar.
Nobody said that American society has become the same, or even remotely similar to Nazi Germany. Nobody said anything about the Holocaust. What was said was the way that Hitler convinced the Germans that Jews were the enemy is analagous to the way Bush convinced Congress (and the American people) that the PATRIOT Act was a good thing. And that way was "tactics".
While I find the description ("tactics") to be very vague, the analogy is valid. Hitler used "tactics" to convince the German people. Bush used "tactics" to convince the American people. Hell, you could say the same thing about a salesman selling you insurance. Analogies only compare specific points and nothing more.
I would have made the analogy a little more specific though. The "tactic" in both cases was playing on fears. First, you make someone very afraid and then convince them that your "product" will make them safer. It's an old tactic, and it tends to work. The problem is that people get really pissed off when they realize you've actually screwed them over.
I should have saved some mod points for your post. It makes an excellent point. It illustrates the problem with invoking Nazi Germany as a reference to anything. Comparissons to Hitler and his ilk can be done in rational ways but even if they are worded perfectly someone else can take that comparisson and and twist it until the author comes off as hate filled nut. Using the Nazi's in any political discussion should always be avoided if possible.