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."
USA == Land of the not so free.
troll. besides what makes you think the ACLU has a slated view of the bill of rights
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
So would Slashdot turn over identifying information to the FBI et al if it was requested? What's the site's position on this?
> The American Civil Liberties Union is challenging the FBI's use
> of expanded powers to compel Internet service providers to
> turn over information about their customers or subscribers.
> People who receive the letters are prohibited by law from
> disclosing to anyone that they did so. Because of this legal
> gag order, the ACLU was forced to reach an agreement with
> the Justice Department before a heavily edited version of the
> lawsuit could be unsealed.
"PATRIOT Act"? Damn you, Orwell and your Newspeak!
So the ACLU was suing to protect Americans' privacy from the government prying into ISP customer data. But no one knew about it, since there's another law that prevents the ACLU from telling the public. So they're basically fighting for our freedoms in secret?
It reminds me of that light from the classic show, "The Prisoner": "Why don't you just lock us all up and be done with it?"
I call upon the self-proclaimed conservatives who never tire of claiming they're against "big government". Stop for a minute punctuating every sentence with "terrorism," and "support the troops; we're at war!" like some sort of right-wing Speak and Spell. Remember this on election day: Bush believes the PATRIOT Act should be renewed and celebrated. There's your big government, pal.
Sheesh. Someone get me a valium.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
going to limit the ability of the RIAA to get the names of people downloading misic. i mean if the gov't can't do it, then why should the riaa be able to?
I'll be s/he's referring to the 2nd amdt that the ACLU likes to ignore.
Kudos to /. for recognizing that PATRIOT is an acronym... you rarely see it properly noted as such.
Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism
or the "real" meaning...
Providing
Americans with
The
Real
Incentive to
Overlook
Tyranny
Oh, he's probably referring to the fact the ACLU typically forgets all about that second ammendment...
force companies that hold personal information, specifically in this case, ISPs, to turn over their records without a court order.
As opposed to the warerant-mill judges the FBI already have who give 'em out like candy, this just made it official, the FBI has been using the constitution for toilet paper for decades
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Parent is not a troll, mods just didn't get it or disagreed... either don't mod things you don't understand, or leave them alone. You're here to mod for the benefit of discussion, not your own personal agenda.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Thank God for the American Civil Liberties Union. For everyone who hasn't done so yet, I recommend visiting the ACLU website as well as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and donating, even if it's just a small amount. Help keep America free.
This is a special excite
This
Maybe you don't agree with a lot of their suits or think they waste resources and time on foolish pursuits, but this time they hit the nail on the head. Hopefully we'll open up the little breach in the PATRIOT dam that'll grow big enough to topple it.
And don't forget:
"President Bush has been pushing Congress to renew all of the Patriot Act before it expires next year..."
Vote.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
So far, We've seen media-described breaches of all of these in the DoJ, FBI, and Military holdings in the military base in Cuba.
Why do we still have this president again?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions
Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 6
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790). 7
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842). 8
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796). 9
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777). 10
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. 11
And about time this is happening, too.
I'm always amazed at Americans who consider being a "card-carrying member" of the ACLU a bad thing.
Sure, you may not agree with some of the individuals they protect, but it is comforting to know that there is an organization that will protect the rights of anyone, irrespective of personal opinions/feelings/politics.
The USA is supposed to be a country based on the Constitution, and was founded with the belief that every individual has natural rights that need to be protected -- against the government, against the majority, against those in power. These ACLU folks are every bit as patriotic as the folks in the armed forces doing their duty overseas that the current presidential administration loves to trumpet about. To see true patriots go up against the so-called "PATRIOT Act" warms my heart.
Does anyone else find the fact that they can't even share the details of the lawsuit with us incredibly scary?
Whether the rest of the PATRIOT act remains or not, we should at least have the right and opportunity to free and open public debate about it.
Hide all the details when you're looking for information, sure, but don't hide the details and criticisms of the act. That is exactly the sort of thing that we all have a right to know.
I think that this is a good move.
It is unfortunate that the P.A. even was passed.
I spent some time studying the US constitution this semester, and although I havn't looked at the P.A., I suspect that it breaches the writ of habeus corpus in the US constitution.(Its not even in an amendment- its in the original document)
Writ of Habeus Coprpus: A summons to a gaoler demanding that they present themselves and their prisoner to the judge, so that the gaoler can give an account of why the prisoner is being held.
/b
|f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
You were saying?
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
Troll moderation is right. The ACLU takes care of all the ammendments that the NRA doesn't take care of. It would be a waste of time any money for the ACLU to duplicate the efforts of the NRA.
The reality is that many right wingers have a serious problem with the ACLU, because the ACLU takes on cases that they consider to be "liberal". The ACLU isn't interested in the politics of the situation - they protect Republicans and Democrats alike. They even defend some people who are quite morally despicable, such as racists.
But, those racists have rights too, and they must be protected.
So, when you hear people like this DAldredge railing against the ACLU because they don't take 2nd ammendment cases, what you should understand is that these right wing buffoons really HATE when the ACLU takes on liberal cases, but they don't have a rational reason for opposing the ACLU. This bogus charge that they don't care about the 2nd ammendment is ALL THAT THEY HAVE.
And even the ACLU is being honest about their position. When it comes right down to it, the ACLU doesn't think that the 2nd ammendment was talking about individuals, but state militias. But, this opinion does NOT cause them to litigate along those lines. The ACLU stays out of that conflict to concentrate on areas where there is nobody else fighting for the preservation of rights.
DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Why don't you take the them to task for ignoring the other 9/10ths of the Bill of Rights? Seems like the ACLU's up about 8 ammendments on them.
Since the current administration views the Presidency as answerable to no entities, domestic (judiciary, congressional, public) or foreign, they will keep attacking the Constitution as long as they are in power. And they will do this with a free conscience becasue they are incapable of even imagining that anything they do is wrong. After all, God put them in place to do it all.
I believe that you misunderstand the situation.
The ACLU is not challenging the FBI's ability to request ISP customer data from suspected criminals or other shady figures.
What it is challenging is the fact that under the PATRIOT Act of 2001, the FBI can now do this "without a judge's approval."
"The ACLU lawsuit contends that the USA Patriot Act...expanded the FBI's power to use national security letters by deleting parts of an earlier law requiring that there be some suspicion that the subject of the probe was linked to spying or terrorism."
Thus, in the past the FBI had to go to a court and get approval before they received authorization to access all this data. Now, however, they don't need to show any reasonable suspicion. That's what the ACLU is arguing.
I can't type with this fucking wrist splint..... 5 more weeks till i can type properly again.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Let's disregard the whole argument "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about" routine. Consider for a moment that you haven't done anything wrong, but your ISP's records are requested by the FBI via an NSL. So, there goes your privacy. Maybe you cruised a pr0n site or two, maybe you shared some freely-distributable music. Does the fact that the FBI can investigate you without cause scare you? It should.
From the other side of things, it's nice that the government can just barge right in to grab the information that's needed... but... I wonder; if the FBI can demand such information without reasonable suspicion, and without court order, what's the point? To make it faster? More secret? What is it about obtaining a warrant that takes so long that it warrants (pardon the pun) circumventing judicial approval? From what I understand (and please feel free to enlighten me), as long as there's reasonable suspicion, there should be no roadblocks to obtaining a warrant. So what's the point of this portion of PATRIOT? Looks like more government power to me.
Name the country that used the following law enforcement tactics
- Authorizes the use "Secret" Search Warrants that may be carried out without the recipients knowledge and prevent the recipient from discussing said warrant and search with anyone including legal council, which do not define the nature of the search in any means.
- Makes it a Federal Offence to discuss any "secret action" taken by law enforcement by any knowledgeable party.
- Where National Security reasons apply allows suspects to be secretely detained only on law enforcements "reasonable" suspicion and to be held indefinitely without any formal charge nor the ability to seek council or contact anyone to infomr them of their detainment.
- Allows for Court proceedings to be held in secret and all records thereof to be sealed from the public.
Select the answer from the Following List
A) Soviet Russia (USSR)
B) Nazi Germany
C) United States of America
D) All of the above
I don't know why this is "-1 Troll." The parent post has a valid point about the hypocrisy of the ACLU.
Wired reported in another story about a lawsuit against the government for it's failure to destroy certain database records (emphasis added):
Yet Slashdotters bitch and complain when the state of Florida wants to retain driving records for 3 months.
Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU, has stated that
Never mind. I know exactly why it was modded "-1 Troll."
I am a huge supporter of the ACLU, and I have to agree that they pay only lip-service to this part of the Bill of Rights. Clearly, the whole nonesense about the National Guard being the "militia" mentioned is just a convenient gloss-over for those who don't think a repeal of the 2nd Amendment is feasible.
But, I ask you this -- isn't it better to support an organization that does protect the majority of the Bill of Rights vigorously than to let all our rights fall into oblivion? Let's get behind protecting as much as we can -- not tearing down those who don't match up to every one of our expectations.
Sometimes, you have to choose the half-full glass to get anything at all, or choose the lesser of two evils...
Trying to smear someone every time their name comes up is trolling, plain and simple.
troll.
Yeah, but I've previously gone on record as believing that not all trolls are without merit and have garnered a few troll moddings myself.
besides what makes you think the ACLU has a slated view of the bill of rights
Probably statements like this, taken from their website:
If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
It doesn't even really make sense, it's the sort of "logic" that allows you to justify anything.
I think he got the count wrong though. The ACLU only has 8 ammendments in their version, since they leave out the one that everyone else leaves out as well, the most important one really, since it provides the rights that most people argue we don't have.
That would be the Ninth Ammendment.
That one was put in there to appease the Hamiltonians who argued that an explict Bill of Rights would be used to limit rights by falsely interpreting the specific wording, allowing Congress to make law that the Constitution gave them no authority to.
Looks like old Alex and the boys nailed that one dead on I'm afraid.
KFG
Check out the ACLU's page on the challenge. There's info on the (redacted) complaint itself, a press release, and related cases and efforts.
Well, I know for a fact that there were several thousand detainees in the Tri-State area about a year ago who were being held for months without even being charged. I think that qualifies as a violation of habeas corpus.
Then there was an additional throng who had been ordered deported two or three months previously, but who were still being held.
Here.
--Ryv
Once upon a time, a young bull and an old bull were standing on a hill, overlooking a valley full of cows.
The young bull said to the old bull, "Hey, old bull, let's run down into the valley and maybe we can fuck one of them cows!"
The old bull turned to the young bull with a wizened eye and said "No. We walk down. We fuck 'em all."
Upon hearing this, the young bull was enlightened.
People of all nations deserve HUMAN RIGHTS, the Bill of Rights guarantees that for those under its jusisdiction.
While foreigners may not be covered by this, to argue that they don't deserve rights and are 'terrorists' without any checks or balances is arguably arguably inhumane.
Well said. The typical "libertarian" reply that because that the ACLU doesn't litigate over the 2nd amendment that NOTHING they do is worthwhile is illogical and like you said mainly a cover for people who just dislike them because they perceive the ACLU to be liberal.
Maybe, MAYBE you would have a reason not to support them if they actually litigated AGAINST your interests, but if they don't then what exactly is the problem? Any money you would donate would go towards things you would support, none would go against your interests, but because they don't spend money on every case you would want them to you're going to refrain from supporting them? It's stupid, it's illogical, and it's intellectual cowardice.
Cite more examples, please.
I would argue that since the ACLU is an integral part of the story, discussion on the ACLU is perfectly valid. Also, just because a post is curt or uses sarcasm to make the point, that does NOT automatically make it a troll.
The ACLU has refused to take a position on the 2nd amendment. They need to take a position on this one if they're going to take a position on the other nine in the bill of rights. They can't legitimately pick and choose their level of participation and claim to be a "Civil Liberties" union. I think that point is perfectly valid, and I think that the poster is perfectly within the bounds of good etiquette and taste for bringing it up for discussion, if in a sarcastic and wry manner.
I maintain that it's not offtopic because it discusses, if on a tangent, an integral player in the story. If Slashdotters want to discuss such things, why should the mods say they can't? It was only at two. The neurotic people who set the threshhold to +4 will never see it, and anyone at a measly 2 can simply ignore it. I also maintain it's not a troll just because it uses sarcasm to make a point.
Those are just my views on moderation, however. YMMV.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Im neither a lawyer or an american, but even i can see that this whole thing is totally unconstitutional to the point where you have to wonder: if bush came right out tomorrow and said "the bill of rights is null and void" would there be mass protest? or would there be a little poll on the cnn website?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
We need to consolidate surveillance and records retention into a new, single-purpose institution that is publicly accountable, culturally engineered to protect civil liberty and subjected to very strong oversight.
Surveillance is less of a risk than insecure records retention that is accepted as a secure evidentiary process. Private collection leads to the risk of diverted or subverted records. Public (government) collection would synchronize retention with collection.
Private retention is accountable to no one, yet will always be one security breach away from misuse. Public collection and retention will slowly but inexorably improve in accountability.
Surveillance of retained data (a.ka. audit controls) is the only path to accountable surveillance.
Judging from a quick check of your posting history, not all your posts are on topic according to your above reasoning.
Just because you don't agree with a fucking post doesn't make it a troll.
-0-0-0- But wouldn't this apply equally to speech? Can you imagine the ACLU making this its basic position on the 1st Amendment?
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to engage in all kinds of speech, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on newspapers, protests, or flag burning. If indeed the First Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to freedom of speech, then it must allow individuals to cry fire in a crowded theater, commit libel and defamation, and threaten and harass with impunity. Yet few, if any, would argue that the First Amendment gives individiuals the unlimited right to freedom of speech. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any speech, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict speech, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
That sounds about right, but you don't see the ACLU giving up its strident defense of the 1st Amendment. I think there's obviously something else going on here.
-0-0-
I did not write the above, I got it from http://www.unlearnedhand.com/archives/000096.html
Well, they're not like everyone else. For example, they're not like the large number of organizations that seek to increase censorship and decrease freedom. The ACLU chooses what causes to champion, just like everyone else, but they don't choose to champion one right while working to shut down another.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Troll? You people amaze me. Everyone gets their panties in a bunch over the cause du jour. I don't come to /. for political news I come here for tech news. If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it.
I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it. It's not worth my time. Why do you think the DOJ removed the gag order? Because there was nothing sensitive at risk. It's working the way it's supposed to.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
1933:
Reichstag burned
Attack blamed on communists.
Enabling Act is imposed giving special powers to Hitler.
2001:
Twin Towers destroyed
Attack blamed on terrorists.
Patriot Act is imposed giving special powers to Bush, et al.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall under the pseudonym S[tephen] G. Tallentyre.
The stigma about being a card-carrying member of the ACLU is just that, a negative stigma. It's not something to be ashamed of though. Would you be ashamed of being a card-carrying member of the EFF or EPIC? There's nothing shameful about asserting your rights.
You all seem to forget that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government is not required to comply with Constitutional restraints when they legislate for the United States - see Art. 1 Sec.8 Para. 17 of the U.S. Consitution. What is the federal government definition of "United States"? According to Art. 1 Sec.8 Para. 17 of the U.S. Consitution, the "United States" is defigned as federally owned properties and territories. 90% of federal legislation does not apply outside of the "Federal United States". 90% of fedral law does not apply to 95% of the American public. Study the U.S. Constitution. "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it". - 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 "An unconstitutional act is not law..." - 118 US 425 p. 442 Remember the rule... "if you don't know your rights, you don't have any". "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" -Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797
Is the point of this story that he should have said "make love to?"
I have the card in my wallet.
http://archive.aclu.org/library/aaguns.html
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
OK, OK, I'm with everyone that decries the abomination and desecration of the Constitution that the "Patriot Act" is.
Let's move on, though.
Beneath the knee-jerk reaction is a reasonable intention: what can be done to better protect a free society from being victimized by terrorists?
Is it not possible to craft legislation that achieves this goal in a more effective manner with less infringement of individual liberties?
[I've been a fan of Bruce Schneier and his observation that more effective and more economical security policies, for computers and for the broader arena, are frequently overlooked.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
After reading all these post and knowing what I know, I really don't see what the problem is with the Patriot Act. If there was no Patriot Act, you guys would bash the President for not having something in place. But yet there is something in place and yet you still bash? I hope you understand that the Patriot Act passed with only 3 no votes. So even if he did veto it, it would still be enacted. So you all should be bashing your local congress/senate person for voting for it, rather than lashing out on somebody who doesn't have all the power you guys think the President has.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
"Also, this website was only created a week ago. The research and writing take time, so please be patient. The essays will be posted (behind schedule of the deadlines I originally set) when they are finished to my liking; I would rather post a satisfactory product late than one which is rushed and incomplete. This is only a side-project of mine, on top of classes, studying, and work."
Member of Orkut? Annoyed with spam?
The ACLU provides abortion and family planning services? That's news to me.
Furthermore, the situation between the ACLU and the NRA isn't nearly the same as between the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. For 2nd ammendment rights, the first name you think of is NRA. Everybody who cares about 2nd ammendment rights belongs to the NRA.
It is a fact that the ACLU was the first organization to argue for abortion rights. Got that right off the link you provided. Therefore, the ACLU isn't duplicating the efforts of other agencies. The other agencies are duplicating the ACLU with regard to their legal actions.
But, as I said before, the ACLU doesn't provide family planning services, those are provided by Planned Parenthood.
In other words, you got nothing.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
somehow I don't think that 800 thousand bogus hotmail addresses and fradulent names are going to make the FBI sing and dance. But that's just what i think.. who really knows what's going on, with a fumble-mouthed ignoramus in charge of the country, and the inhabitants a bunch of repressed spineless bozos.
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
Whoa, I used to live in Toledo (moved to Idaho in 2000). I had read about this back when the uncapping story hit Slashdot. It's interesting to hear from you. I just read your interview with BBR. That is just one example of the FBI abusing their powers, which I think the PATRIOT Act makes too easy.
I'm really torn about this ACLU thing because I hate them and what they normally do. In this case, though, they seem to be doing the right thing. I did a paper about reverse discrimination my senior year in high school, and found lots of examples in my research of the ACLU suing companies out of existence for not hiring the right kinds of minorities, even when they are in an ethnic neighborhood, 100% of the workers are minorities, just not the right ones, according to some.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.
The ACLU's position on the 2nd amenendment can be used to weaken their arguments for the others. If "the people" in the 2nd amendment only applies to states, what's to stop some fascist legislators from trying to claim that "the people" in the first amendment only applies to the states as well?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Wow...someone else on the planet saw 'Colors' too, hmphh.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
Hmm, i thought it was "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters"
What about the NRA which also fights for your rights...the right to protect yourself and your family.
Creative Demolition
If some goverment functionary wants to snoop through my ISPs records to see that I spend 80% of my time online surfing for porn let them have at it...I am not going to worry about it because the courts will settle it.
So you also don't mind if they hold you as a "material witness" during the course of their investigation? You don't mind floating the bill for your lawyer? And if you can't afford one (of course the state will provide you with a very competent one to stand for your defense), what about all the time you lose at your job or with your family? Or the unnecessary embarrassment - who's going to hire you from now on? Your name has now been stained unneedingly.
If you want to go through all of that over nothing, be my guest.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
ACLU membership- 20 dollars a year. Knowing that at least some people are trying to stop this insanity from going any further- well, you know.
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
Yeah... ...
Well...
Your mother uses Windows!!!
(haha... it's a joke)
Not Free(as in beer). Free(as in "I'm free to beat you over the head for being a dumbass")
No judge has turned down a request for wiretap in years...
Creative Demolition
Ok, the grandparent post was refering to the fact that 90% of slashdot readers are more liberal...
I was responding by using another slashdot stereotype (primarily that windows is the worst OS ever blah blah blah)
See, it's at least kind of funny
Not Free(as in beer). Free(as in "I'm free to beat you over the head for being a dumbass")
The constitution protects the right to engage in all those types of speach, however it does not protect you from being found criminaly or civily liable for the consequences of those actions, hence if you yell fire in a crowded theatre and someone is trampled to death, you will be tried for manslaughter. If you cause damage to the theatre by people panicing and seeking alternate exits, you are liable for the damages. If you threaten or harrass another person this is a matter of you impinging on their rights, and as such criminal. So the speach itself is not illegal, it is the way it is used, just as we have the right to bear arms, but if you use your gun, or your sword, or your knife, or pike to take a life, you are tried for murder. Libel and slander are both civil laws, and as such, don't realy have the same limitations. after all you are perfectly free to print libelous materials, so long as you can pay the damages.
That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
The dem's unoffical (maybe even OFFICAL) motto during the mid 1800's was "The White Man's Party".
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Keep in mind that the governments of Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany are no longer in power. The US can't say the same, so for the posters who have been flying off the handle: of course it's not the exact same because the US isn't finished yet! Among other things, the government is trying to drum up support to make the PATRIOT Act *permanent*. Is this a good idea given the history of nationalized secrecy? THIS is the major point of the original poster, for United Statesians to keep their eyes open and realize the histories of the path that the US Government *may* be going down.
And let's not even get into the absurdity of the Bush Administration's cynical attempts to invent exceptions to the Geneva Convention, since this thread is already in severe danger of going Bozon-nuclear.
While the USSR and Germany were leftist movements and the US is rightist, the government's promises are the same: that the citizens will be safer and better off if they let the government do what they want. Secrecy only benefits those with the secrets.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Now all my amendments get the attention they deserve.
I'm suprised these guys don't join forces. Neither the 1st or 2nd amendment would last long without the other.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
free fax
I'm probably going to edit the default text after I read up on whether adding a law is a more reasonable response than just urging my congressdrone to repeal PATRIOT altogether, but it looks like you could use it to express any opinion you wanted.
mitch
Name the country that, if you were a citizen of said country and made your comment, would not put you in prison (or just put a bullet through your skull):
Canada gets ignored. AGAIN.
Get with the program eh, I'm trying to start a Slashdot meme, as "Beowolf Clusters", "Does it work in Linux" and "You insensitive clod" have become hackneyed.
Let me guess: you're a tax protestor, too.
If you want to overthrow the government, get off your ass and do it. Don't play legal pussy-foot games.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
The while point is this. I think everybody agrees teh feds have a duty to investigate threats. If they have the duty to investigate threats, they should also lawfully have the right to do so. Hence the Patriot Act.
But the whole problem is who will protect you from the feds?
Looking back, would you still agree the CIA gave Irak money and training, would you still think the training of guerillas and therefore interacting with local politics in secret was right (panama for example, but there are more examples)?
My point is this. If there is no way to control what the CIA / FBI is doing, god (in any form) knows what they will do, and sadly there ane more then enough examples of abuse of their power.
That's why the police needs a court order to get tap phones. And that is also why the feds shouldn't be allowed to demand information without any court.
To make it absurd : you wouldn't want the police to walk in to your house without a court order, just becaust they want to investigate you for whatever unknown reason.
Privacy is terrorism.
I agree that the way that the 2nd amendment is ignored or distorted is unconscionable. In spite of this, I'll gladly support a group that defends 95% of my enumerated rights, and work on the other 5% through different channels and organizations.
I would do the same, if they merely ignored the other 5%.
Unfortunately, they actively work against the other 5% - a 5% I take very seriously. It goes far beyond such trivialities as printing up posters of the Bill of Rights with the 2nd deleted.
For instance: When a crook in New York City cracked a safe and stole a gun, then used it in a crime and shot somebody, they provided lawyers for the shooting victim to sue the gunowner whose gun had been stolen.
Sorry. But now that they've done stuff like that, they'll have to do an explicit turnaround, rather than just (maybe - how could you tell?) dropping back to benign neglect, before I can support them regardless of how much good work they do on other issues.
If men are to be precluded from defending thmselves from violent oppression, mere speech is of no use to us; The right to keep and bear arms may be taken away, and unable to do more than bleat we may be dragged like sheep to the slaughter.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Is the point of this story that he should have said "make love to?" ;)
Hmmm, picture that for a moment.... and I can tell you aren't from farm country. Bulls don't sidle up to a cow, and bat their eyes, and break out a bottle of champagne, and spend an evening of silly flirtations, capped with an early evening kiss on the cheek, in hopes of coming back the next night for a romantic evening of "love making". They just come up behind the cow, jump up on 'em, and start thrusting away.
But then again, I suppose you consider a film of Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson going at it all sweaty and graphic to be a romantic flick, all full of "making love" and stuff.
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
It seems obvious to me that all men and women have certain rights which belong to them as human beings. If the state won't let us exercise these rights, then the state needs to topple. Nobody gave me the right to go to mass on Sunday, it's my right and I was born with it. Try and stop me and you'll see just how useless a hunting rifle really is. The constitution is worthy of protection not because it gives rights, but, because it protects people in the exercise of those rights.
The ACLU isn't interested in the politics of the situation - they protect Republicans and Democrats alike.
As shown in the case of Rush Limbaugh.
is the widespread belief that a descent into true tyranny is impossible in the USA.
When the average American hears tales of abuse of the Patriot act, he thinks of ACLU bleeding hearts protecting terrorists. At most, he might be able to conjure up government agents using personal data to catch a tax-evader or getting a list of a citizen's favorite pron sites. He concludes that this isn't so bad if it helps combat terrorism.
We've been taught to think of America being "the land of the free" and having a superior political system to the rest of the world. Therefore, many of us have difficulty making the connection between giving the government more power to go after "bad guys" with the possibility of such powers being used to quell political dissent.
I feel that we are firmly on a road that will lead to an dictatorship in the USA. We've given up important rights and more are sure to follow. Eventually, opposing views will be squashed to the point where only certain "approved" candidates will even be allowed to run for office (ala pre-invasion Iraq).
-- scsg
As long as we are the freest nation in the world (with shit like the PA being passed that won't be too long) we will also be the most violent, the most dangerous, and the most open to attack by individual nuts.
Actually we AREN'T the most violent, most dangerous. Risk of death from violent crime among every major racial/ethnic group in the US is typically lower than it is for the same ethnic group in their country of origin. Lower for whites of English descent than in England, for blacks of African descent than in Africa, for people of Japanese descent than in Japan, and so on, for people of Spanish-Indian descent than in South and Central America, and so on.
We have a higher average violent crime rate than some other countries mainly because we have allowed and encouraged (and even sometimes forced B-( ) immigration of large numbers of members of violent cultures, but haven't forced them to completely abandon their cultures. Crime tends to be mainly within each group rather than between members of the groups. But crime goes down as the members of the groups assimilate and/or acquire means of self-defense. (Risk - of victimization or crime commission - for a black US citizen of African descent but middle-class or higher income and status is no different that that for a white of European descent.)
Add in the risk of death and injury from acts of war and there's just no comparison. Most of the rest of the world gets into major tribal warfare and rounds of genocide about once per generation (although this has been cooling out a bit since the invention of the Atom Bomb). The US hasn't had a major civil war since the mid 1800s, and most of its casualties come from bailing out the rest of the world.
And there's plenty of evidence now that the solution to the remaining "problem" is more freedom - specifically more gun-toting. Not only is violent crime highest where guns are most restricted, lowest where they're most prevalent. But now we know that it's BECAUSE they're restricted that crime is high, rather than the other way around. CCW has been legalized in progressively more of the US over the last decade or so, and within a couple years of legalization in each area - about the time people actually the the paperwork done and you start having a significant number of gun-toters - crime in the area drops like a rock.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The ACLU is highly unlikely to get involved in the speech cases organizations like The Fire do. http://www.thefire.org/index.php
The perception that the ACLU will not defend or take "right" cases is grounded in fact, this & their failure to support the 2nd, and their continuing support of government sanctioned racism & sexism has led them to rightly be considered left wing shills.
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
Usually the laws are worded so the site/ISP has to turn over your records AND it is illegal to notify you.
But suppose your ISP or other site offers a pro-active privacy notification. In other words, every day the ISP sends you an email certifying that they have not provided any of your records to law enforcement. The day that notification doesn't come, you have been notified. Then the ISP or site wouldn't have to violate the order by notifying you.
Bush is opportunistic, and I really don't like him, but he didn't directly order or participate in the Twin Towers attack. Whether his ineptitude allowed it to happen or not is debateable.
Among the least-disputed facts is the great friendship between Bush and the Saudis, that, among other things, led him to give permission for all Saudis including close relatives of Osama to leave when all Americans trying to fly were grounded and continue to be treated hostilly. We could go on about numerous issues like supporting the Pakistanis in the face of obvious evidence that they have proliferated WMDs to all our worst enemies, etc. while claiming to lead a war to eliminate WMDs. Is this all attributable just to ineptitude? I think he is committing real crimes against the people, and is not above some sort of indirect involvement at least in the twin towers attack.
Do you feel this way because you are unaware that the Bush administration has declared war on pornography..?
Or is it because you imagine that the attention of a FBI employee would be necessary to monitor your internet activities? They've already got Carnivore, an automated system to do just that. If the FBI needs no justification or advance approval to use it, do you find it hard to believe they'll watch us all?
Maybe you think your porn habit is too trivial to warrant attention from the FBI. Folks who swap music online probably felt the same way... until the FBI started raiding schools.
Not true, the concept did exist then. It was called a select militia (see here see the second quote by richard henry lee) What you are correct about is the fact that this is not what was meant by 'militia' in the second amendment.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
That's the most ignorant thing that I've heard all week. You're a right wing wacko.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
You'd believe that argument only if you never read the ammendment. The 2nd actually includes the word "militia" in it. The others don't.
OK, here's a clue for you. There have been many more smart people than us arguing the situation for a very long time. What makes you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong?
Now, I grant you that you might be right and the ammendment acutally gives the people as well as militias the right to own guns. Now, how about this? You take my gun from me and I pop a cap in your ass.
In other words, I'm a liberal gun nut, and you're preaching to the choir. I don't care that the ACLU believes different than me, because they have the right to think anything they want, AND they do a hell of a lot of good work that I benefit from.
But, for you to argue that their position on the 2nd ammendment weakens their other arguments is absolutely ridiculous. The 2nd ammendment really has an ambiguous wording, and to not acknowlege that is dishonest. Good people can interpret it either way.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
even though most of you have never read it, nor have any idea what it actually does.
I'd be willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader is more informed than the typical Joe on what the PATRIOT Act is and means from the articles here. I am also willing to bet that the typical Slashdot reader opposes (more strongly than the average Joe, at least) the PATRIOT Act. This is an interesting correlation.
As for reading it -- the PATRIOT Act is a very large piece of legal text, and reading the thing in its entirety and original form is not, I think, reasonable to expect everyone to do. It might be a good thing, but I have never read my state's full legal code, even though I am governed by it and could go to jail for violating it.
May we never see th
The ISP's name was kept secret, but you may be able to deduce it from the redacted brief
In the following excerpts, I have made the number of asterisks proportional to the size of the censored words:
Plaintiff ***** is an Internet access ************ business incorporated and located ***********. [Long block of censored text] sues on its own behalf and on behalf of its clients.***** is an Internet access ************ business located and incorporated ** **********.
***** provides a number of Internet related services for its clients.
***** has both paying and non-paying clients.
***** possesses a wide array of sensitive information about its clients. With respect to any particular clients, ***** may possess [long block of censored text].
Some of *****'s clients communicate anonymously or pseudoanonymously.
Some of *****'s clients are individuals and political associations that engage in controversial political speech.
Some of *****'s clients maintain accounts with ***** specifically because of *****'s commmitment to security.
So, we can be reasonably sure that the ISP is NOT:
It's probably a more obscure provider. Any guesses?
Good people can interpret it either way.
No. They can't.
And that's why you're a moron. You're such an ass that you think that everyone else is an ass. This is a basic problem with conservatives and their "thinking". It's all black and white, when the real world is not.
So what are you going to do? Put everyone you disagree with up against the wall?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The reality is that many right wingers have a serious problem with the ACLU, because the ACLU takes on cases that they consider to be "liberal". The ACLU isn't interested in the politics of the situation - they protect Republicans and Democrats alike. They even defend some people who are quite morally despicable, such as racists.
I don't have a problem with the ACLU skipping over some of our "inalienable" rights. I have a problem with them standing up for one right, and actively working to infringe on another (I consider pushing anti-arms propaganda on members actively working to infringe). If they don't care for the Second Amendment, let them just say, "we don't support this one." If I am a member of both the ACLU and NRA, the net result is that I've done nothing with respect to my *Civil Rights* listed in the Second Amendment.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Israel::USA as Pepper::Spike (Remember your Looney Toons)
Every unlucky accident and hideous crime (but especially the catastrophes) in the region and world are reported, and avidly digested, on a daily basis. Monitored alarm systems, gated communities, SUVs, hell even the suburbs in general: I would say that the society encourages self imprisionment naturally, making coercive authority unnecessary.
====---===
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
And that's why you're a moron. You're such an ass that you think that everyone else is an ass.
I think that people who try to re-interpret the constitution to limit individual rights are either lying or ignorant.
So what are you going to do? Put everyone you disagree with up against the wall?
No you idiot. My support of the 2nd amendment is about making sure that they don't put all of us against the wall.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You may believe that the Patriot Act is G.W's tyrrany and that Conservatives are "evil", but I assure you, there are very few people in Congress right now who are opposed to it, regardless of party affiliation.
Sure?
The PATRIOT Act got a lot of people pissed off -- ordinary folks, even. It contains a lot of rather Orwellian bits. A bunch of organizations were very vocal about it, and there was a TV campaign run against it.
Because John Kerry firghtens the hell out of me on so many different levels, and I am convinced that if Congress re-ratified the Patriot Act, Kerry would _NOT_ veto it.
First, we already know what Bush did -- he *didn't* veto it. Kerry is an unknown.
I would be interested in hearing your support of your claim that Kerry would be more in favor of expanding ease of government surveillance than Bush. The only Kerry input I've heard on the issue has been regarding revalations that the FBI was building a file on Kerry for his antiwar work during Vietnam. Kerry stated that he was disturbed about the extent to which the FBI was able to monitor and build up such a complete file.
I feel lucky today that 9/11 was an attack by planes and not a nuclear weapon. Until Islamic Societies mellow out, we _WILL_ have that risk. I personally am convinced that its not a matter of "if", but rather "when".
This is one thing I have a problem with. You have people in a large number of places that are frightened of US oppression, have little means of fighting back conventionally, and have reached the point of desperation that they are willing to give up their own lives to try to advance anti-US efforts. I cannot understand how invading a country, occupying it, establishing martial law, suppressing the press, and placing in power a puppet government is going to solve this problem. Iraq never attacked us. Individuals living in the Middle East did because of fear and dislike. Bush has, instead of solving the problem, made things worse with Iraq.
Taking on Saddam Hussein is not an easy thing to do. In fact, attacking Saddam has already knocked one President out of office and it may very well knock another out. The Bush Administration was fully aware of this when they made the decision to invade.
That's not the point. I have issues with:
* A president misleading the American people, the people who hired *him* to do his job. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, and in taking the move to attack Iraq, Bush severely damaged America's reputation abroad -- the US has not caused negative waves like this for a long time. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. I think that Bush could at least be held to the standard of being honest when it comes to issues relating to leading the country (and issues germane to us forcing young men and women of our country to die -- if we do so, it should damned well be with honest information).
* True value of his decisions -- whether they really damaged the United States. Bush has tried (and failed) to support invading Iraq with each of the following claims or implications: "Saddamn backed terrorists", "Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction", and "Saddam is a clear and present danger to the United States". Every single one of these was shot down. The latest that I've heard from the pro-war movement is "the world is better off without Saddam". I'm not entirely sure that this is true. The man was definitely a hard man, and had at one point in history flaunted the United States. He invaded another country for their resources. However, he had been slapped back, and showed no signs of trying to do the same thing again. Iraq is not a gentle place, and there is no guarantee that whatever structure eventually takes place will be better, for either the people of Iraq or of the people of the United States. We had spent a good deal of effort and money understanding Saddam. Saddam
May we never see th
DAldredge, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You're a partisan mudslinger first, and an American second. I doubt that there's any room in there for much appreciation of the Bill of Rights, and the affirmative good that the ACLU has brought to its defense.
DAldredge is a long-term troll. He's had a well-earned place on my foes list for quite some time now. He was just trying to provoke a response.
May we never see th
It has been said that the only way
to control a society is by force, by
persuasion, or some combination thereof.
The rabid dictatorships of the last
century primarily used force, with rigid
control of the press, to rule. True
democracies (life, liberty, fraternity)
have relied upon the concensus of the
governed to rule. Unity of the people
in common cause has been (historically)
obtained by a sense of nationalism,
frequently spurred by the (sometimes
purceived) existance of an external
threat.
Government shrouded in secrecy; great
effort to pry into the privacy of the
individual; secret arrests without formal
charges; star chamber judicial proceedings;
attacks (real and psych-op) against the
opposition (party) organizations; the media
(and public opinion) in control of the few;
an oligarchy of special interest multi-national
corporations; a pattern of official obscuration
, half-lies, and double-speak: these are not
traits of a democracy, but are of a dictatorship.
Has the (historically recent) democratic
experiment called the United States of
America fallen so far from the wisdom and
grace of our founding fathers to be
subjected to such an outrage?
Must the American citizen/voter be forced
like Diogenes with his lantern, forever
vainly seeking for an honest man?
I kinda skimmed thru the posts and didn't see mention of this ... I am in the process of buying a new home and one of the papers presented by my mortgage company was an acknowledgement that all information concerning this transaction was going to be entered into a federal database required by the Patriot Act. The wording on the 1 page paper was "You must sign this".
Will the next purchase of an automobile require this too?
How about the next time I go shopping at Walmart?
You and Lord Kano are correct. Thank you for your lucid comments.
is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"
I'm a 'third party' swing voter (meaning I haven't found a party I can entirely agree with enough to become a card-carrying member - No, don't go posting a link to the Libertarians as if I've never heard of them. I have, and I don't agree with them enough to support them, although they do resonate with me on some issues and I have voted for their candidate on several occasions.)
Anyway, the point is that I often ignore the Republican vs Democrat issues, knowing full well that I'm voting for neither one, and that on the issues that matter most to me, they aren't that different from each other.
But I've been a major fan of Feingold ever since the Communications Decency Act (part 1). He voted that down (even though it was just a rider on a larger telecom bill), for a number of good reasons he cited in his statement about his vote. Most importantly he said it was wrong to enact laws that define stricter standards of free speech for new mediums as opposed to existing ones. Why is it that things a newspaper can get away with in print should be disallowed for an individual to say online? The fact that the new medium of the internet is quicker, more open, and turns everyone into a publisher, shouldn't be a reason to get stricter on it - just the opposite, really." Feingold was the ONLY SENATOR to oppose the bill. The ONLY ONE. The vote was 98 in favor, 1 abstain, and 1 against. Feingold was that single voice against it (and the supreme court ruling that declared it unconstitutional afterward vindicates his stance.)
That took courage. That took guts. I became a big fan of his on that day and started paying more attention to his voting record. I don't agree with every vote, but the ones that are really important, on issues where congress was trying to move the country to a more totalitarian format, Good Ole Russ was there as the (usually) lone dissenter - saying that no issue is more important than the freedoms of our citizens down the road, that selling away our future rights to take care of an temporary problem is not good policy, even when that temporary problem is something as big and momentous as a major terrorist act killing thousands.
He was also the lone dissenter in the Patriot Act. Again, a very brave thing to do given that opponents can use that to paint him as a traitor, and they probably will try that tactic.
I've sent him a letter (on dead trees, since that tends to get more notice), stating that as long as he keeps it up with this kind of stance against selling out freedom to gain temporary security, that he will continue to have my vote (Yes, I live in Wisconsin so I can do that). The letter also stated that I don't agree with him on lots of his other votes, and that I am not a Democrat, but that no issue is more important today than this one, and so the fact that he's the only one in office with the guts to stand up to these bills means he has won me as an ardent supporter. (And I closed with the famous Ben Franklin quote about giving up freedom for safety and deserving neither.)
I was pleasantly surprised to get a snail-mail reply to this letter, and some of the things in the text of the reply make it clear that it was not just a form letter, as it made explicit references to the fact that I said I am not a member of his party but support him anyway. It was not written by him, but by a staffer (and it was honest enough to say so explicitly), but the gist of it was that the senator had received a lot of similar letters in response to his patriot act vote, too many to answer them all in person, but that the senator's standard response to all such letters was to let people know that he does plan to continue this trend of voting, no matter the consequences.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The Patriot Act also keeps some data managment work from being shipped into the USA from other countries. For example, the province of British Columbia will not allow medical care work to be contracted out to operations in the Excited States because the Patriot Act trumps patient confidentiality.
So the Patriot Act perversely encourages "offshoring" and discourages data from being sent into the States.
I think you are mistaken.
.
.
.
.
To compare the course of the current administration to past administrations in world history is hardly a knee-jerk activity. The underlying forces at work may differ, but the similarities are incontrovertible. Considering how things turned out in the past, fear is totally appropriate - though you mistakenly label it paranoia. If you are not frightened, I'd say you expect to be inducted into the 'elite few' in the new regime. Being mistaken on that point will lead you to heartbreak later.
Don't kid yourself that the USA will never jail (or execute) someone for making a publicly unkind comment about the government - just five years ago, would you have thought it possible that the FBI could be permitted to seize data about you from a third party without a warrant? Now think five years ahead about what you can't imagine now.
Done thinking? It could get even worse than that.
I'm so glad I don't live there. Have fun when the revolution comes, hope you're on the right side.
As an aside, that's a painful abuse of the word reactionary.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
They seemed quite enthusiastic about the idea at first, but they chickened out in the end.
They won't admit that they ever even considered it now.
Wow... you know you've been reading Slashdot too long when at first glance you think that says "Not another GNU nut!"
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I like the analogy that mathematician used: The Electoral College is like the world series. The winning baseball team isn't the team that can score the most runs; it's the team that wins the most games. The Electoral College forces candidates to win *states*, instead of winning in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. (because that's where the most voters are).
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
BTW, the PATRIOT Act is not without precident. Abraham Lincoln, who most people would associate only with the emancipation of the slaves, declared Martial Law during the Civil War.
He routinely jailed newspapermen and shut down news papers critical of his administration. Like today's victims of PATRIOT, they had no recourse and were held in military prisons indefinately.
It was a bad idea then, and the PATRIOT Act is it's equally immoral PC equivalent today.
So come November, I will be voting for the first time in 20 years for a third party candidate.
I can't vote for Kerry, and my throw-away vote may help him win, but I can't vote for Bush either.
I'm sure some will think that my position is a canard planted by those sneeky Democrats. It's not.
But the vast majority of Republicans are more fearful than principled. As a result, PATRIOT is not an issue that the party worries about.
Who the hell moderated the parent as a Troll?
Is it trolling to shine the light on something so clear as this?
Give me a break.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
I wrote: "(Rumsfeld rejected an agency request for more funding/agents/analysts devoted to terrorism the DAY BEFORE 9/11)."
That was of course Ashcroft, not Rumsfeld, who rejected the request for additional counterterrorism funding on Sept 10.
Tough to keep all the Sith straight when you're late for a meeting. ;-)
Listen! I am so sick and tired of this NO WMD shit - did you spend months of your lives in Saudi Arabia enforcing No Fly Zones under Clinton? NO!
Did you watch as daily the number of missiles fired at US and UK pilots by the Iraqi's increased to roughly 40 or 50 shots a day - the only thing keeping them from being successful shootdowns being the skill of the pilots, and effective countermeasures (including ones you can't read about at JANE's yet)? NO!
Did you bust your ass filling chaff and flare containers, and have a $80 plaque bought and paid for by those same pilots out of graditude that you were doing your job and letting them come home to fly again tomorrow hanging on the wall beside your desk? NO!
Guess what, I FUCKING DID!
THERE are a MILLION reasons we should have been in Iraq long before 9/11 - how many countries do we let try to kill our boys on a daily fucking basis before we do something - it was so commonplace that you didn't hear it on the news but I saw it with my own two eyes. I do not support Bush in the upcoming election strictly because of my stance against the PATRIOT act. BUT, and make no mistake about it - NO ONE doubted the existence of WMD's in Iraq before the war - even those opposed to it - further do you realize you could bury enough WMD's to kill the populace of the planet in an area smaller than a football feild - in the middle of nowhere - have you ever been to Iraq? There is plenty of uninhabited areas that could have millions of said areas hidden in them and no one would ever know.
Clinton is the one that called for regime change in 1998 (November 14, 1998 to be exact.) Iraq did support terrorism (paying the families of Suicide Bombers $250,000.00 as a reward, openly and overtly) and the ties to Bin Laden, while not fully 100% provable are highly likely - few debate this.
China doesn't shoot at our planes on a daily basis, and at least tries to be a productive member of the international community and is willing to come to the table and discuss issues, and occasionally make concessions.
Yes, we were the aggressor, but it put an end to the cat and mouse game of the US and UK pilots putting their ass on the line daily to enforce the NFZs in Iraq and the majority of the populace in the country is glad we are there (but that doesn't make for good news stories.) I suggest that an average of 367 attempted shootdowns of coalition planes per year for more than a decade to be plenty of reason to exert military force upon a nation. But, then again, I'm one of those that served the US Military while no one cared or gave a shit about the Military because two towers in NY hadn't been attacked successfully, I'm one that didn't have people protesting in the streets to bring my ass home while I did my stints in the sandbox, I'm one that didn't get a $700 extra rebate from the car manufacturers because I put my ass on the line - no instead I was turned down for vehicle loans BECAUSE I was in the military.
Those of us that served before 9/11 in Operation Southern/Northern Watch, are sick and tired of people who fail to look at the whole picture because it wasn't spoonfed to you by CNN - STFU or admit that it was fine and dandy with you for us to allow the Iraqis to attempt to kill me, my friends, and my coworkers, but it's not ok for my friends and my coworkers to defend themselves now.
War is shit, and there is always an arguement against it, but sometimes we have to do what we have to do. Suck it up and accept reality.
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
Slashdot should expect a NSL from the FBI for slashdot id 597113 any time now. :)
You're not flamebait, but I think you don't go deep enough.
In the grand scheme of things, Bush is nothing more than a figurehead. He cannot be anything more because he will only be in a position of influence for eight years at most. People behind the scenes who are around for decades (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc) have much more influence, but even they aren't the ones running the show.
If you want to know what's really going on, you need to realize that these laws, talk of id cards, RFID, etc, have one end: control. It might not be readily apparent to everyone, but I think it is definitely true. The oft-mentioned "security" we will have will be by our being controlled. The specific objective is the restriction of free will with respect to certain boundaries, but that's another discussion.
Now, ask yourself: who or what needs control (of 80% of the economically active population by 2013, per a UK agenda) and why?
Any thoughts?
You see Kerry would proclaim that he actually vetoed one version of the bill before he signed it.
Kerry hasn't taken one firm stand on ANYTHING his entire political career. Right, wrong, or indifferent Bush has his convictions and is sticking to them.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Let's see, the ones that said that they refused the search warrant for the PC?
How about the one where they said that the FBI couldn't help searching for two of the hijackers the weeks before the attack?
Or maybe we can got back to COMMISIONER Gorelick's memo that "went beyond the requirements of the law" in regards to implementing the "wall" required by FISA.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Dennis is a member of the House, Russ is a member of the Senate.
With all due respect, when a president asks America to go to war for some reason, that reason better turn out to be true. I certainly would have supported an invasion of Iraq on the honest grounds of disposing of Saddam (if nothing else, to end the cruel embargo). People are mad because Bush lied to America to get what he wanted. People are dying for it. That's reality, and him and his defenders need to accept that.
Plenty of people knew/suspected that Iraq had no WMD, like our good allies, Israel. This is ignoring that our own CIA had serious doubts about WMD claims. And it ignores that we had inspectors on the ground looking for these weapons - war wasn't needed for a more effective inspection.
Iraq did support terrorism (paying the families of Suicide Bombers $250,000.00 as a reward, openly and overtly) and the ties to Bin Laden, while not fully 100% provable are highly likely - few debate this.
That payment was not towards anti-American terrorism, which is the important thing in this topic. And you are completely opposite on reality with the Bin Laden - Saddam linking. The vast majority of experts suspected otherwise, and still do. Not even a strong suggestion of evidence has turned up since the war.
Those of us that served before 9/11 in Operation Southern/Northern Watch, are sick and tired of people who fail to look at the whole picture because it wasn't spoonfed to you by CNN - STFU or admit that it was fine and dandy with you for us to allow the Iraqis to attempt to kill me, my friends, and my coworkers, but it's not ok for my friends and my coworkers to defend themselves now.
Let's be honest here - did the Iraqis come over to you on non-Iraqi soil and attack? Of course we aren't happy about Iraq trying to kill our soldiers, but you speak as if it was some act of unprovoked military aggression that should naturally lead to a US invasion.
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
that reason better turn out to be true.
Gee, so it's ok that everyone that recieved kickbacks from the oil for food program who didn't want the gravy train to end to be wrong when they said that Iraq certainly had WMD, but if you were on the side supporting the war you aren't allowed to have made the same mistake. - With all do respect if you answer yes, you are a being rather two-faced.
No one knows for sure if they had them or not - everyone has theories. We may never know - but because our President believed the same thing that the great Clinton (that so many people still kiss up too) doesn't mean that he is Stupid or a Liar - it means he made a decision based on the information available.
That payment was not towards anti-American terrorism, which is the important thing in this topic.
Why is it important? is it because innocent American's and Brits that happen to be visiting Isreal and die when someone blows themselves up to get 72 virgins for eternity should be considered for the same protection as Americans and Brits at home? Does that make it OK with you? Since it wasn't on US soil afterall.
did the Iraqis come over to you on non-Iraqi soil and attack?
I'd love to be able to answer that question simply, but let's just say that all the guys that were caught several times attempting to shoot down unarmed aircraft going into and out of PSAB, in Saudi, weren't from Wyoming. And shooting at an Aircraft for simply flying over your air space enforcing a cease-fire treaty you signed, is enough to justify ending said cease-fire and starting a shooting match.
All that said, my point is WMD was never the main reason for many of us that support the war, and those that cheapen the efforts of Southern/Northern Watch by using the war in an ANYONE BUT BUSH PLEASE! campaign should consider what they are doing when they say they are supporting the troops, because they are not!
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
You missed the "we can't let the FBI help you search for him" memo in your list.
The fact is that the PC subpoena was turned down because of the worry about the separation of intelligence and criminal prosecutions. That being the mythical situation that drove Gorelick's memo. (Confirmed by others or not, it was still her move to extend the requirements beyond those of the law and she should certainly be testifying before the commission not asking questions. Should we go into the fact that the law firm she works for is defending Saudi princes against 9/11-related law suits?)
Things that PATRIOT did help. Roving wire taps. People use more than one phone these days, being able to tap them all with a single request is important. Sneak and peak. A procedure for performing a search of a suspected terrorist without alerting them. Despite the complaints of many people it STILL requires a judge's approval.
Frankly, all of the objections about the Patriot Act have been based on bad information, hyperbole, or out right lies. This ISP complaint being just that when they claim that there was no judicial oversight.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
They are doctors so they already are licensed and registered.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Saudi's (including some members of Osama Bin Laden's family) were allowed to fly inside the U.S. during the two days after 9-11, to prepare to leave the country. Check it out: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
And, back to the argument.
If you believe so strongly in the 2nd ammendment, AND the ACLU doesn't do anything against the 2nd amment, and plenty for the other ammendments, they why do people hate the ACLU so much?
Because they are partisan politicians, that's why.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
If I am a member of both the ACLU and NRA
Congratulations, you are NOT an oxymoron. You seem to have your entire Bill covered properly.
the net result is that I've done nothing with respect to my *Civil Rights* listed in the Second Amendment.
So, a few pamphlets sent out by the ACLU can completely negate everything the NRA does? I think that is just a tiny exaggeration. I also think the ACLU should keep their gun opinion to themselves, but it is the right to free speech. Not all speech is the same as activism.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Vote Nader! He's never voted for any law!
Populus iamdudum defutatus est!
This sounds like one of those bogus stories that people repeat because, if it were true, it would justify their beliefs.
I have never heard of the ACLU helping to sue one individual simply for causing a physical injury to another (directly or otherwise). That's just not what they do.
Prison abuse, yes. Discrimination, yes. Denial of due process, yes. Robbery, attempted murder, or negligence? No, those aren't considered civil liberties issues.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
In Amendment V once again you ignore the "but clause:"
How could you not describe the Guantanamo detainees as falling under this clause? They were detained by the military in Afghanistan or Iraq!!Lastly, and most clearly Amendment VI:
Guantanamo is clearly not a crimnal prosecution. It is entirely a war and military matter.Read my blog: HansMast.com
When J. Edgar Hoover was running the FBI (as his own private, little fiefdom), he had a chip on his shoulder regarding Martin Luther King Jr. He had his agents tail him, and when they put together enough photographs of King with his mistress, they delivered it in a package to his front door, knowing King's wife would receive it.
King's "crime" certainly wasn't infidelity; it was being suspected (according to J.E.H.) of being a communist sympathizer. But, hey, if they could put the squeeze on the "perp" -- or whatever colorful language they were using to describe MLK -- I guess they figured it was okay.
This is what people in government do. Believing that they are the ones fighting the good fight (or as these simpletons like to put it: catching the "bad guys"), they hold themselves above the law in an "end justifies the means" mentality.
The whole point of putting restraints on law enforcement is to check the human beings in law enforcement from acting as if they hold some kind of heavenly mandated impunity separating them from the common folk.
Even if you have "nothing to hide," it's your right to be free from wanton, arbitrary government snooping.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Must have been cast by the very few congress critters who actually had a chance to read the bill before voting. At the time, they were in their own panic over the anthrax thing, and had no copies to read. The fact that they held the vote anyway is so irresponsible it's hard to believe, but it seems that some of them now are going to use that as an excuse for voting for it. Don't let them get away with it!
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.h tml