Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Sues FBI Over ISP Records
An anonymous reader writes "One of the provisions of the infamous USA PATRIOT Act is the ability for the government to force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order. MSNBC is reporting about a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in secret because of another provision in PATRIOT that prevents public disclosure of these matters. The gag order was dropped when the Justice Department agreed to not take any action against the ACLU."
We've seen what the republican elites have done for us. What would these democratic elites do?
Raise taxes for corporations, creating more outsourcing. Appoint whack-job judges that will only rule if it appeals to their viewpoint, not even looking at the constitution (right-wing does this as well).
Radicals or neo-conservatives running the government is like Al'Qaida or the KKK running religion.
another bumper sticker:
"When Clinton lied, no one died."
Heh I like your sig.
You need a little revision to it.
The Liberal Media [airamericaradio.com] Finally a response to ignorant hatemongerers. Staffed completely by ignorant hatemongerers.
Nice try, but if you actually listened to it you would know that they debunk lies with *facts*. This demonstrates that they are not ignorant.
Nor do they promote hatred, unlike psychopaths like Ann Coulter et al.
What makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
That's what members of the herd said to Galileo. But to answer your question, the words of the men who wrote the constitution.
they have the right to think anything they want,
And I have the right to call them hypocrites.
The 2nd ammendment really has an ambiguous wording, and to not acknowlege that is dishonest.
In a vacuum, you'd be correct. There are reams of pages from the men who wrote the constitution that support my interpretation.
Good people can interpret it either way.
No. They can't.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Second amendment rights advocates do not believe this either. The ACLU knows that. They're using verbal gymnastics here.
I'd tend to agree actually with the verbal gymnastics but you have to remember the ACLU's target audience - the "bleeding heart liberal". Now, I'm pretty left of the aisle, but not exactly a bleeding heart. I'm a member of the ACLU but don't feel that ACLU money should be spent on the 2nd amendment. I'm personally concerned with 1,3-9,13-15 though I think the 16th amendment is horrible. I tend to think the NRA does a good job with the 2nd on its own.
In terms of gun control, well (this is why I'm not exactly bleeding heart) I think they're sort of silly. I mean, you're never going to get rid of all of the illegal arms out there and you're not going to make a truely sizeable dent unless you have an almost police state. And if it comes to that I'd rather have some hunters with rifles hunting deer than the Ministry of Truth. Keep the 5 day waiting period to attempt to cap some domestic violence issues, and try to foster programs to keep kids out of drugs and crime. Then again, programs that actually would have some sort of impact there don't get the media coverage of seized guns or some cheap soundbite for a re-election campain. Why pragmatism and politics have to be so far apart I'll never know.
And well, this has probably pissed off both sides of the aisle (though I don't know where the aisle is anymore) and I'm going to karma hell. Oh well, g'night everybody.