Slashdot Mirror
Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site
phr1 writes "According to the Washington Post, the ACLU was forced to remove a paragraph from their online press release, that specified what kind of information FBI agents could request under the Patriot Act that the ACLU has been suing over. "
They said its time to get Mr. Bush and his Nazi party out of the white house.
This would be a useful item to offshore. Anyone care to put up a mirror of the current page before the Google cache updates?
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
I don't think so.
Who defends the ACLU when their liberties are infringed? The ACLCLU?
They should've just redacted it using Adobe Acrobat. :-)
N/T
I wonder what the legal standing of this story is, documenting actions which have been done under the auspices of the Patriot Act. I'm glad Slashdot posted it, in any case.
This sort of thing sickens me, metaphorically and physically.
RD
wierder.
I'm gonna call the Justice Department's Grammar Nazi Brigade on you.
I have posted a copy of the censored paragraph on my weblog. Enjoy!
Mod down, disgusting dead baby jpeg.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Surely what a FBI agent can request would be defined in the PATRIOT act itself, and the ACLU would be free to describe the content of the act itself?
Or am I expecting too much of the US government...
ACLU --"I have 2 freedom of infomation cards" FBI --"I have 1 Patriot Act card" Dealer (read as Supreme Court) --"one of a kind beats a pair..."
Sig removed by order of FBI Patriot ACT
Don't feel like subscribing.
But being ordered to remove information pertaining to the specifics of an ongoing legal case is not censorship.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Does anyone know of job openings in British Columbia for a computer programmer with two years' job experience?
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
ACLU Was Forced to Revise Release on Patriot Act Suit
Justice Dept. Cited Secrecy Rules
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 13, 2004; Page A27
When a federal judge ruled two weeks ago that the American Civil Liberties Union could finally reveal the existence of a lawsuit challenging the USA Patriot Act, the group issued a news release.
But the next day, according to new documents released yesterday, the ACLU was forced to remove two paragraphs from the release posted on its Web site, after the Justice Department complained that the group had violated court secrecy rules.
One paragraph described the type of information that FBI agents could request under the law, while another merely listed the briefing schedule in the case, according to court documents and the original news release.
The dispute set off a furious round of court filings in a case that serves as both a challenge to, and an illustration of, the far-reaching power of the Patriot Act. Approved by Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the law gives the government greater latitude and secrecy in counterterrorism investigations and includes a provision allowing the FBI to secretly demand customer records from Internet providers and other businesses without a court order.
The ACLU first filed its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such demands, known as national security letters, on April 6, but the secrecy rules of the Patriot Act required the challenge to be filed under seal. A ruling April 28 allowed the release of a heavily censored version of the complaint, but the ACLU is still forbidden from revealing many details of the case, including the identity of another plaintiff who has joined in the lawsuit. The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one.
ACLU lawyer Ann Beeson said the court order also means that she "cannot confirm or deny" whether the ACLU is representing the second plaintiff. The group is the only counsel listed in court documents.
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Justice lawyers said that both paragraphs violated a secrecy order and that the ACLU should be required to seek an exemption to publicize the information, court records show. Justice spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment yesterday.
"It simply never occurred to us that this information would be covered by the sealing order, because it's completely non-sensitive, generic information," Beeson said.
The dispute was partly resolved yesterday. Marrero ruled that the briefing schedule could be publicized, along with edited versions of other court filings. But the paragraph describing the information that can be sought remains absent.
=-=-=-=-=-=
my god. WTF is wrong with the government of this country?
Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
How long before Slashdot is forced to remove this comment specifying what kind of information the ACLU was forced to remove from their online press release, that specified what kind of information FBI agents could request under th*&69#@...[NO CARRIER]
-Hmm...I got a G+ invite, better remember to remove the request from my sig...-
The idea that our government is 'protecting' us by feeding our culture of fear and banning legitimate free speech...from the frikin' ACLU!!! [Yosemitie Sam mode on] %#@$#%$
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe.
"It's all just meme meme around here"
Anyone have a link that doesn't require registration? I'm sick of telling the WP over and over that I'm a 99 year old woman from Azerbaijan.
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
How come neither of the Slashdot stories or linked news stories actually has a link or URL to the ACLU press release that was edited? (Did I miss it?)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
We should all be expecting letters from the DOJ that we will not be able to discuss.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
I also love that we have no idea how many of these letters have been sent or what the results of any of them have been.
Our rights as Americans are being destroyed, slowly through the use of legislature. Why do you think they don't want us to see what's on there? Because they have something to HIDE. Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe this is a matter of 'national security' that excuse seems to get anything through the house and the senate. If the government does not want us to know what laws we cannot break, maybe the laws are outlandish, maybe they're blatent violations of personal rights. Who knows, since that information is not allowed to the public. Not lettin people know what the government is allowed to do, reminds me of Soviet Russia under Stalin. They lived in fear. We do not yet live in a totalitarian government, but not letting people know what laws we have, is one small step twoards it.
The Patriot Act was enacted right after September 11'th. This was when there was fear in everybody. But, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither"
OMG OMG OMG WTF OMG WTF BBQ STFU RTFM, OMFG OMG OMG OMG ROFL LMAO OMG WTF STFU ROFLMAO
I did. The ACLU web site accepts donations.
I've never done something like this before. I rarely write letters to politicians, and I don't make donations to political parties. But as I get older I realize that if I don't start putting my money where my mouth is, I may not be heard.
Take back your country.
I thought I knew all the tricks the trolls use. But this one got me. Son of a bitch. yuck.
- tom -
I mean, imagine you are an FBI administrator with a real love of America and freedom. Suddenly, you are given these insane powers by the Patriot Act, powers that you know to be unconstitutional and just plain bad for a democracy.
If I were in that situation, I'd go after the ACLU. How better to get the law repealed, while keeping your job?
Or they could be evil bastards. Either one.
Also, how can it be illegal to disclose the types of things that may be requested under the law? We can't be subjecting people to laws they are not even allowed to know about now can we? This sounds more like the behavior of a certain former leader the US just ejected from Iraq. Say it ain't so.
What? Saying what the government can do under the patriot act is illegal?
Given that the act itself is made publicly available by the justice department itself(warning: PDF), can we expect the DOJ to take action against itself in the near future?
That anyone managed to snag a copy before it was removed? Perhaps a link to a cache image? Preferably something that isn't a link to Goatsx.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Note that the Post article itself quotes the paragraph that the ACLU was forced to remove. Heh.
The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
And three paragraphs up...
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Nice one, Washington Post!
Wikipedia saves the day again! All you need to know about the ACLU!
someone should get it over to them ASAP, before it disappears.
This is all very distressing. These fascists must be stopped. I wonder when they'll have our Kristalnacht or when will these neocons burn down the Capitol Building. These are dark days we are living in.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The relocation experts from Guantanamo have chosen an especially sunny cell near the shore.
Is it just me, or is the ACLU seem to go from being good guys to being bad guys. It seems that some things they back are morally justified (like this one) and other seems to be just plain stupid (flag, GOD on Tshirts, etc cases?) I don't want to generalize too much, but maybe some people should shed their thoughts on the whole thing. I personally have a feeling of "uh oh" what the hell is the ACLU bitching about now kind of thing whenever I read an article just because of the bad taste they leave in peoples mouths after picking on schools kids for freedom of speech issues, etc but then get surprised when they actually take the correct side of an issue from time to time too.
Thoughts?
Here's Google's cache of the offending press release. Judging from the story link, this looks like the censored text:
"The ACLU has led opposition to controversial portions of the Patriot Act, filing a challenge to Section 215, another provision that allows the FBI to gain access to sensitive records, and filing briefs before the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to oppose expanded wiretaps. With support from a broad right-left coalition, the ACLU has also encouraged passage of approximately 300 local resolutions against anti-civil liberties portions of the law, and has urged Congress to leave in place the "sunsets" for Patriot Act provisions set to expire in 2005."
"The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule in the case. The ACLU will file a summary judgment motion on May 17, 2004; the government will respond on June 7, 2004; all briefing will be completed in July 2004. The court is likely to schedule arguments in the case in late summer 2004. The case is assigned to Judge Victor Marrero."
But wait! I went to the ACLU's actual page and found the same text. Cruising through the most recent press releases turned up a new release that tells the story. Long story short, this story's already out of date (the info has been reinstated)! That doesn't mean that the government didn't fuck up, just that at least one judge hasn't lost his/her mind.
This is a boring sig
How handy!
But then, since I'm not registered there (and WP does require registration now), I was only able to reach the article from the link on /.'s home page, and not from the same link at the top of the thread's page.
How interesting!
I get a warm feeling inside knowing the Bush administration is busy protecting our freedom from the likes of Al Qaida and the ACLU. Freedom of speech is highly overrated. Just ask Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro or Saddam or even those brave and forward thinking U.S. legislators who passed the DMCA.
... makes it illegal to read the Patriot Act. This was a story on The Onion some time ago (sorry no link, access to The Onion archives is now for paying members only).
A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the -
(A)
name;
(B)
address;
(C)
local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D)
length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E)
telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F)
means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3)
A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
"Freedoms Revoked in Defense of Liberty"
From the article: The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Phew, I'm safe! My internet isn't really a connection service for me, I only DOWNLOAD my kiddie pr0n!
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
Laws may be leaner there.
Does any and all of this remind of you of Mcarthyism? Where McCarthy sent his FBI drones out after anybody who mentioned anything liberal or against "his" representation of U.S. policies?
Remember how anyone who spoke out against the USA was labelled a communist and harrassed by the FBI?
Now when you are not a huge advocate of US policies and speak out...you aren't labeled a communist...you are labeled a terrorist.
Interesting how history repeats itself. Bush=Ashcroft=McCarthy.is that the removed paragraph is now printed in full in the Washington Post, a publication orders of magnitude more popular than the ACLU's website.
...
Gotta love the law of unintended consequences
Imposing Libertarian views on everyone online since 1992.
I've never been so ashamed to be American than now. It really upsets me that Donald Rumsfeld can go to Abu Graaib and make jokes about not reading the newspapers any more. Boy, that's real funny Don. It's like Bush making the "funny" video about not being able to find any weapons of mass destruction. Not everything is a laughing matter. There are some things which aren't laughing matters: our civil rights, the respect and trust of the rest of the world, and the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqis.
With the increase of destructiveness available to sociopaths, any society must abrogate some rights of its citizens. E.g., nobody much minds that we may no longer carry box-cutters onto jetliners.
But, what's the non-partisan litmus test that tells me whether some new abrogation is a net win/necesssity, or instead embodies the authoritarian ill intent of the evil bureaucrat? (...already assuming those are mutually exclusive...)
Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
I would just like to point out something. While September 11th was tragic, and we should do everything within reason to prevent another one, only 3,000 people died. I say only, not in any cruel sense of the word, but when compared to the number of people who died in car crashes alone last year, and the year before(43,000 each year) I think we are over-reacting. Imagine if we put $200 billion into researching safer, lighter cars(which could consume less fuel) instead of the war on terror. What if we started to say that people cannot drive(outside of a few reckless individuals of course) could not drive? I know with all the speed traps and what not that people really hate it seems we are giving up our civil liberties when we drive, it pales in comparison to what Ashcroft is doing. Maybe as a country the US should take a second to step back and to look at things more objectively....
Who am I kidding, that will never happen
The frenzied /. Bush-haters will love this story. They will not RTFA, which describes the revision as a secrecy order protecting disclosure of court-related information material to the case. Bush is not "out to shut down the ACLU" which is what the narrow-minded, maniacal, anti-Bush swarm will believe. Hell, they practically have him holding the leash.
For a group that does 90% of the job, they do a damned good job at that 90%.
Too bad the mass public doesn't know that these kind of government antics are going on right underneath their noses.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Paul Wellstone was the only one who opposed the Patriot act. (And then he dies in a plane crash. Conspiracy theorists love that part)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If that asshat gets another 4 years, he's a "lame duck." Beleive it or not, there's things even BUSH won't do, for hurting his chances of reelection... Call me a member of the tinfoil hat crowd, but after seeing this, I wouldn't be surprised if another 4 years gets us a secret police force.
Come to Canada, yae.
Warning to all: Do not click on that link. Ackbar says, "It's a trap!"
My userid is prime!
the bush nazi party can't get another 4 years. they've already set us back 30 years.
I nominate this post as the most MORONIC /. comment ever.
Without objection...
What the citizens can do to a corrupt government can make the Revolutionary war look like a game of quake. Hell, in WWII, even the *French* had a small underground.
To a bystander this looks like Kafka in action. He was criticizing the Soviet system and the apperant lack of rights of the small man within the gearwheels of power. The rights of the people is what stops the ones in power from abusing their position and is important in any political system. Communism could have worked if it had those checks and balances as well as american corporatism will fail without them. America without free speech is just a totalitarian regime with election teaters playing in the media every now and then.
How do you choose between bad and worse? Do you people feel that its your own people who become presidents or are they choosen beforehand and you just choose between the few "approved" candidates?
Once slipped the rights of the people is utterly hard to recover and sometimes as history has shown us impossible.
Dont you wonder what the founding fathers would think if they saw america of today?
HTTP/1.1 400
In Soviet Russia.............
Man, I can't even finish the joke, because it would be:
(A)Too Ironic.
(B)Liable to get me a ticket to Gitmo.
(C)Foolish to criticize the government without using 50 anonymous proxy servers.
(D)Too Ironic.
Today's show is brought to you by the number 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0: 25
If there's a law that is in order, is restrictive, but anyone can go and read it and just don't do the prohibited thing, or do the forced thing, it is some kind of freedom restrictions, but may be within reasonable limits.
If there is one law which forbids something and another which makes publishing the first one secret and learning WHAT exactly is forbidden, so you just know there are certain things you're not allowed to do, but you won't learn what those things are, until you face the court for violating them... That's a state of terror.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
This reminds me why I want to get the fuck out of this country. Ah well, four(ish) years of college, then I'm gone. Canada, perhaps, or NZ.
*this is sarcasm*
But there weren't any Green party senators when the PATRIOT act passed! We should all vote for Nader!
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
I agree with him completely. And I would rather take my chances with some idiot with a box cutter than have my girlfriends luggage ripped apart every time we fly because she keeps forgetting to remove her eyebrow scissors from her toiletry kit.
Sacrificing liberty in the name of security is like being the kid who never makes friends because he's afraid to leave the house. He might be safe, but he's going to be fucked up in the head.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
I think I should mention here this link: America's 25 Fastest-Growing Big Companies. They're mostly oil companies - e.g. seven out of the top 10 on the list.
here are two links to MP3s that every person should listen to. you might not like howard, but his points are valid and the things he speaks about are scary.
stern speaking with rep. serrano, d-ny; 8MB
rep serrano speaking on the house floor; 1MB
sure, this is mostly about the fcc and indecency fines, but it's also a first amendment issue
The way I read that second press release, the court first ordered TWO paragraphs deleted from the web site. The later reversal restored ONE of the two paragraphs. I'm not sure about this. I will examine it further when I get a chance, or (easier for me, at least) maybe someone else here could look into it.
I am posting these diffs so that people who copied the original, criminal version of the press release can do their part for the war on terrah by updating the file, and keep this information out the hands of terrorists, money launderers, drug cartels, and baby-eaters. They hate us because they hate our freedom, our way of life. Remember 9-11-01!
--- doubleplusungood.txt 2004-05-13 17:37:43.421516424 -0400
+++ fixed.txt 2004-05-13 17:40:42.569281824 -0400
@@ -12,8 +12,6 @@
"It is remarkable that a gag provision in the Patriot Act kept the public in the dark about the mere fact that a constitutional challenge had been filed in court," said Ann Beeson, ACLU Associate Legal Director. "President Bush can talk about extending the life of the Patriot Act, but the ACLU is still gagged from discussing details of our challenge to it."
-The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by "electronic communication service providers."
-
In legal papers, the ACLU argues that the National Security Letter provision violates the First and Fourth Amendments because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards. The FBI can issue a National Security Letter without obtaining prior judicial approval, without demonstrating a compelling need to justify the disclosure, and without specifying any mechanism that would allow a recipient to contest the demand.
The lack of such safeguards, the ACLU said, allows the government to unmask anonymous speakers, violating a tradition of anonymous speech that goes back to the Federalist Papers. Protecting this right is especially critical given the large number of Internet users who use pseudonyms to engage in legitimate political speech.
Jury?
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
Oooooo... Secret information! Your turn!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
What I'm curious about is the parallels between our situation and 1930's Germany. A lot of people here compare the Bush government with the Nazis. Some similarities are clear. But what I can't quite figure out is this:
What is the motive for the Bush government to institute these acts of censorship?
In 1933 the Nazis cited the burning of the Reichstag (likely engineered by the Nazis, of course) as proof that Hitler's government needed more control to ensure safety. But that was a totally different place and time. 1920's-1930's Germany was a pretty unstable place, what with two completely different governments, a famous hyperinflation, etc. Therefore, given the instabilities, it was pretty easy for Hitler to convince people that he needed more control. He then leveraged that into a total police state.
Obviously Bush isn't going to do that here. Why is the government doing this? What do they stand to gain? They're all going to be gone relatively soon (4 years at the most!) anyway. If, on the other hand, they revoke the 2-term limit, THEN I'll become really worried.
My userid is prime!
A New York federal judge has just reversed the sealing order in the PATRIOT Act challenge. I just took a look at the aclu.org site and saw the press release. I thought I'd let everyone know before the backlash st-... ooops. I see I'm too late.
You might want to actually review his story. He was not a citizen of Syria. He fled Syria many years before, came to Canada (and IIRC had a family in Canada), traveled in the USA, was detained, sent to Syria, tortured for information based upon US accusations, held in a tiny jail cell, and finally returned to Canada. How can you say this is a small thing? To this man, it will likely change his life. How would you fare under the same circumstances? If you're not a US citizen on US soil, apparently the US government can do anything to you they wish. Oh, and in case you meet that description, don't get complacent. Patriot II is designed to allow your citizenship to be revoked so that you can be treated in the manner outlined above. Great country, eh?
I let my membership in the ACLU lapse some years ago. (I thought that they picked or were baited into silly and counter-productive fights that merely discredited them.) But now I will renew my membership.
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
Though, I do like the irony of him rotting in jail for being a drug abuser.
Gladly. In fact, I'll make sure I'm in whatever floor the plane hits and I'll watch the fucking thing come in. I'll lament the fact that I'm going to die and all that I'll miss, but I'll be glad that I at least got to die a free man instead of living my miserable life as a sniveling coward hiding under a safety blanket of artificial security.
See, what so many of those people who piss their pants every time the Bullshit Rainbow changes don't seem to understand is that the reason that we got this country is that people were willing to die for the ideals that it promises. We may not be perfect, but the people that really get it are willing to try, and we're sure as fuck not going to roll over our freedom just so a bunch of whiny crybabies can pretend their government could actually protect them anyway. Welcome to America. Please enjoy your stay on the bones of all those people who weren't afraid to fight and die for it and for you.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
to solve our government problems is to prevent
their secrecy. We need to create a movement
where *all* candidates take a stand on one
simple issue: will they allow all their public
dealings to be recorded and put in the public
domain.
Those that have something to hide or an agenda
to keep hidden (which is probably 99% of them)
will say something about security. The only
need for secrecy resides in a very few elements
of military decision making. All other policy
decisions, especially those that go before
congress, must be compeletely on the record.
The fuckers are supposed to be "public servants",
so let's make them be just that. Servants don't
have privacy. If they really want to serve us,
then they don't want to hide anything, right?!
The only time they are not on record is when
they are in rooms with their spouse that have
no communication devices.
Simple. This will be the only way to draw a
line between the persons who seek to serve the
community and those who are seeking to serve
themselves.
I'm sick of this shit.
Peace & Blessings,
bmac
She will send all ACLU lawyers and Republicans to the same reeducation camp in Alaska.
1. None, as I was out of work. Thanks, Bush! When I had a job I contributed $200/year to the ACLU. Based on my paycheck, that was a healthy sum.
2. They are RIGHTS, not priveleges. If they apply to anyone, they apply to everyone. Rights are like muscles; if you don't use them, you lose them. They must be defended equally across the board if they are to have any meaning. That doesn't make it charity. That makes it RIGHT. Why is this so hard to understand?
Are you really saying that only popular viewpoints should be protected? Or are you just saying that only YOUR viewpoints should be protected? If so, you are just as bad as Rush is. I suppose you should be thankful I still support your RIGHT to say what you're saying.
It's one thing to complain about how bad these things are, especially in a forum where nobody is likely to disagree with you, and another to actually do something about it. What can we do? How about making every effort to beat Bush and the Congressional supporters of the Patriot Act in November? You can send up to $2000 to the candidates before the party conventions (I think) - why not put your money where your mouth is? Or if you are lucky enough to live in a state that is actually up for grabs (e.g. not California and New York) do some campaign work for your favorite non-Bush candidate...
It should be regime. I always say regime. It tells the listener exactly what you think right away. This is a violent and corrupt *regime* centered around a president who WAS NOT ELECTED. There is no legitimacy here, hence Bush is not entitled to the more polite word "administration". Notice all enemies of the US govt are called regimes and all friends are called administrations. There is a reason.
They are not Anti-Christian:
example
More like anti-censorship and anti-theocracy.
Here's one I heard today:
What is the difference between Bush and Saddam?
-
Bush has weapons of mass destruction.
That the ruling party could change any of the laws as they see fit, including resetting district lines to make sure they stay in power. I mean, isn't that what democracy is all about? Stealing an election that you lost, then doing as much damage to a country as you can in 4 years. Come on, all this happened after a very popular democratic president got a blow job. Of course all who oppose the republicans should suffer! I'm sorry, I'm ranting, but this country is 50-50 divided between to extremes moving further and further apart - there is no longer a middle and I suspect another civil war may be the best way to resolve the problem.
Test 1 2 3 4
I really hope everyone here is going to vote this election.
I am.
Jeremiah
But...
Damn me if they're not on the right side in this one.
And the brethren went away edified.
Remember Clinton's appointments? Remember how long they were delayed? Yeah. This is not new. The Democrats are just returing the favor to the Republicans. Anyone who expects something different next go-around is smoking crack.
Something tells me you're going on a trip with the men in black.
Dude. Jesus sucks.
...that FBI agents are or were patriotically motivated or concerned, rather than just some jocks who wanted an ubercool G-Man badge and gun.
Like all civil servants, policemen and women consider the laws and rules protecting general public freedoms to be onerous, irksome, and unnecessary. They would have them all repealed in a flash if they could (and it's beginning to appear that they can...), while stating that they would never abuse the public's no-longer protected-by-law freedoms, and that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear".
We are all very, very fucked.
Godwin's Law is a quaint relic of a simpler time.
-- It Came from C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
Doesn't the Patriot Act actually specify anywhere what it is that the authorities can request ? If it does then surely the part of the act that has this information should be freely available.
Mod up the washington post for printing the paragraph :)
Oh yeah, the continued shredding of the Bill of Rights. How long will it be before the DOJ censors this site too. Its clearly a threat to national security.
OTOH, perhaps we could start a pool to guess when it is finally completely gone.
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
That's the sound of the federal government stepping all over our civil liberties again. Let's see Georgie-boy there has in effect has recreated America circa 1773, we already had a King George we don't need another.
Supposedly the US believes that a person who freely joins a country is just as much a citizen as one born to the land (other than that not being a president clause). The behavior of the officials sending Arar to Syria says otherwise: this should frighten any naturalized US citizen. The US sending Arar to Syria was an expediency issue: they could outsource the extraordinary rendition(*) they wanted for Arar. His Syrian past was convenient to the US officials wanting to work on him. (*torture)
Here are links to 24 articles about Arar and his torture, and here is what his lawyers write
I can't say how wrong that is. If you actually read what they published it provides no specifics about the actual case other than dates. That is of about 0% interest to a potential jury. Besides what you said is untrue. You can publish information about an ongoing trial. I know because I've done so. The publication wasn't challenged because of jury selection but because it contained "secret" information that the government feared (I don't buy it but this is the argument) would jeopardize national security.
This is not a gag order but a protective order.
And no, there is no guarantee they can say what they want when the trial is over. This is under protective order which is only to be broken if the protective order is removed which will not happen without another legal fight.
Here are the paragraphs that were removed, (per the Washington Post)
[The dispute over the ACLU's April 28 news release centered on two paragraphs. The first laid out the court's schedule for receiving legal briefs and noted the name of the New York-based judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero.
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' " ]
"ACLU Was Forced to Revise Release on Patriot Act Suit" - washington post - news.
Let's make everyone happy: ...One nation, under FUD...
lexbaby
"Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce
Where are all these alleged Bush supporters, anyway? Texas? I'm beginning to think they're a fabrication of Fox News...
One thing about the current administration is that they may be "moral" but they're not "nice" people. I grew up with far too many of that type [preachers, lawyers, businessmen] ...and while they may have "morals" and self-discipline they are every bit as angry and hate-filled as the gang members in that brawl the other day...they just don't use curse words to get back.
Presumably the FBI wants to keep it a secret because it will be embarassing when it comes out. It's probably some overbroad order against an ISP or telco.
This was normal Senate procedure, and the current opposition party has been much more restrained in using the filibuster and other procedural tactics to block judicial appoinments than the Republicans were under Clinton.
The right-wingers get all bent out of shape when unqualified and certifiable nutjobs get blocked, but they forget the long list of decent Clinton nominees that got jobbed.
Ashcroft himself bore false witness against Judge White, intentionally, knowingly distorting the man's record to score a few political points. That's against one of the Commandments he wants to see up all over the place. Maybe he should read them.
I have to object to your notion that use of the word "censorship" in this case is just "spin".
:
Look up the definition of 'censor'
Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
If US justice department agents examining the ACLU website in order to supress objectionable information isn't censorship, what is it exactly ?
Yes, all court secrecy rules impose some level of censorship. It's still censorship, and it's not at all clear that the ACLU can say anything it wants when the case is over- the point is that the extent of the court secrecy is vastly increased in this case exactly *because* it's the use of the Patriot Act which is at issue.
I'll believe we live in a free society when the government stops censoring people "to protect the children" or whatever. Until the FCC can't stop someone from screaming obscenities or showing whatever images they want, your 'freedom' is limited ( i.e. conditional, i.e bullshit ) at best.
Some limited censorship of court documents and information related to ongoing cases might be OK at some point to protect individuals before they're found guilty, but even that type of protection is problematic at best- it prevents transparency in the courts and a host of problems arises- and it's *still* censorship.
Freedom... yea, RRRRIIIIIGHT !
... if you VOTE next time - it may be your last chance...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
In the newspaper article:
The second paragraph read: "The provision under challenge allows an FBI agent to write a letter demanding the disclosure of the name, screen names, addresses, e-mail header information, and other sensitive information held by 'electronic communication service providers.' "
so the ACLU can't disclose that, but the newspaper can.
Uh-oh, I think I just heard the sound of more legal filings to get that redacted from the story
e to the pi i plus one equals zero
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
-- Benjamin Franklin
= 9J =
If the ACLU defends the far-right loonies, you get peeved and stop donating. If they don't defend them, they're fscking hypocrites and the entire purpose of their organization is negated. Which do you think is worse?
The reason the ACLU exists is to fight for *anyone's* right to speek freely, no matter how bizarre or offensive that speech may be to the ACLU's members. Defending someone's right to disagree with you is the highest possible expression of free speech.
0 1 - just my two bits
Howard Dean was the front runner until Faux News and CNN put his "scream" on a continuous loop. They've both since stated that they may have overdone it.
This is why media consolidation is the enemy. The media is not biased to either left or right. The media is biased to easy profits.
Chocolate rations are UP!
FreeBSD for the impatient.
I'm voting Republican, again.
As I've written before, I believe that half of congress needs to go. Where we differ is on which half.
Does anyone have a mirror of the censored information? Wayback machine, perhaps?
You, and most people, have NO idea just how bad it already is.
Right now, there are people in prison in the U.S. who have been
there for well over 5 years without being charged, much less
having been to trial. I have met with these people, and I have heard their stories, face-to-face.
There were more than just one or two of these poor sons of nitches, so the odds of some sort of mass lying phenomenon are very small indeed.
Those who would dispute my claim are only displaying their ignorance, OR revealing their desire to keep this kind of stuff
hidden.
And yes, this is some seriously scary shit. Why do you think I
am posting as "AC" ?
Yeah this is scary alright, bu scart what isy is that BOTH people who have a shot at being president this next term had a hand in passing the PATRIOT ACT. Who the heck do we vote for? I really wish we had better choices because I can't seem to trust anyone that is running...
Creative Demolition
Even though I'm Christian I feel exactly the same way! Personally, I'd prefer that stuff like the ten commandments be left up and another body allowed to contribute, but realize that many of these "religous outrages" have been deliberately perpetuated by members of the Far Right within the last 20 years or so... the 10 commandment thing is only 4-5 years old and the Judge in question was told up front by other Judges not do order the monument in the first place!!!! The "Under God" thing in the Pledge of Allegiance was also recently ADDED BY religous people in the 1950's changing the Pledge after more than 50 years....but it's an "outrage" to change it back.
If the "Conservitive Christians" weren't condoning the rape and tourture of HomoSexuals by police, the framing and police murder of suspected [and guilty] drug dealers, and the terrorist bombings of law abiding abortion clinics the ACLU wouldn't be nearly as powerful as it is now.
The last 10 years in particular, "conservitive" DAs and lawmakers have been making more and more extreme laws that violate the rights of every single citizen, not just the "bad guys".
Of other note, every single one of the "Christian Conservatives" spouting such trash has spiritually fallen into dispare... Guys like Fallwell and Swaggert were only the tip of the iceberg..I know Many, many "normal" pastors and decons that spouted such extreme trash and they all ended up living the very way they condemned!!!!
Frankly, I oppose where this is going because one day very soon the pendulem is going to swing the other way and those "Conservitive Christians" are going to be Public Enemy #1 and We'll be the ones who actually get rounded up and shot...under these very rules we're passing to "protect" the country!!!
How about....
"MICHAEL JACKSON hasn't seen article about Justice Department Censoring ACLU Web Site"
Or
"KOBI BRYANT in Court; Court Rules ACLU Violated Anti-Terror Law"
At least they'll get read.
You point to one of the most compelling reasons to not trust the ACLU. They are so clearly dishonest about the second amendment that I don't believe anything they say without confirming it from an honest source.
The ACLU thinks you are too dumb to read the second amendment and intepret a simple sentence. Here they show that they care more about their own agenda(whatever it may be) than actually preserving the constitutional rights we cherish.
"..with liberty and justice for all who having nothing to hide, and/or enough money, and so, nothing to fear."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
One of the guys who is running against Russ Feingold is running ads right now specifically attacking Feingold on his voting record for the PATRIOT Act. The funny thing is, this guys name is Russ Darrow, and he made his millions selling cars! A politician who used to be car salesman? I can't stop laughing. I don't think I agree on Feingold on any issue other than his opposition to the PATRIOT Act, but I might just vote for him anyways.
Funny that I went to B&N today to replace my copy of 1984...of course my purchase was probably flagged and labeled UNAMERICAN. Yay Bush!
One that explicitly spells out the fact that the govt works for the people. We need a Constitution that explicitly restricts the power of the govt in areas political, and one that empowers the people in the areas political. For example, the Constitution should give the people far more voting power and power in intiating and shaping laws. The Constitution give us proportional representation.
The Constitution should spell out severe punishments (e.g., death penalty) for elected and appointed officials who violate political rights of the people (such as we have in this case).
Are you with me?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
I for one welcome our (censored for natio(censored for(censored for(Stack Overflow please contact your(censored
So this is what 1930's Munich felt like.
if(!toilet_paper) roll.replace(new roll);
and he's circulating a petition to that effect to try and get Rummy to resign.
- I'd prefer not to.
"Separation of Church and State is and must remain a solid wall."
The problem here seems to be to many people that the separation clause (and many other constitutional issues and rights) have been interpreted by the judicial system according to whatever the current political/personal biases of the particular judges at the time are, as well as 'legislating by judicial decree' instead of being limited to interpreting the constitution. This effectively negates/pre-empts the legislative branches' powers. This skews the balance between the branches of government, as well as bypassing the process put into place by the founders to alter the constitution. The founders, as far as I've been able to tell, wanted freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. If enough people felt that a change is needed, then passing a constitutional amendment would succeed. That was how the founders designed it. These days though, all that needs to be done is get the judicial branch packed with judges who share a certain philosophy to effectively rewrite the constitution without checks and balances, or the consent of the governed.
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Take a look at *all* of your options (including Bush and Kerry!), then make up your mind who to vote for, and most importantly, vote for who you think will best do the job...
If more people did this, that is vote their conscience instead of "who is most popular by the exit polls", or whatever other inane reason is given - we would likely be a hell of a lot better off today...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I saw a video of Rumsfeld the other night that was broadcast by the Daily Show and Rumsfeld actually said this:
"But one thing appears reasonably certain, and that's that those who make allegations of a culture of deception, of intimidation or cover-up need to be extremely careful about such accusations."
Wow. That's from a DOD Town Meeting, May 11, 2004
This is what we're dealing with people.
On the other hand, if you are anti-Bush and believe he and the rest of the administration are a bunch of war-mongering criminals why would you believe they would allow Bush to lose? If the Republican-controlled Supreme Court decided the election in 2000, then what are we going to see in 2004?
Wellstone was the only one to vote against invading Iraq.
Feingold was the only one to vote against the PATRIOT Act.
I suspect both are quite principled men, and pleasantly unswayed by the emotion of the moment.
May we never see th
If you're feeling philosophical, try this one:
Or maybe this:
Someone ought to send a book of these things to G. W. Bush, David Blunkett, John Ashcroft and a few other choice "representatives" in the US and UK.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In a way this reminds me of the good old Communist China a few decades ago. Especially the trials where:
1. You were assumed guilty until proven innocent.
2. They were allowed to beat and torture you until you confessed.
3. Best of all, they never tell you what the actual charge was or who informed on you, so even if you wanted to confess to stop the pain, you couldn't. Which means they just kept on beating and torturing you...
Fortunately for my grandfather one of my Communist party officials liked him (when he was young my grandfather helped him a lot after his dad died) and used to risk his own neck to throw a stone with a piece of paper wrapped around it through my granddad's window at night detailing the charge so my grandfather could "confess" as soon as he was brought to trial to avoid the beating and torture. "Yes, I did steal Mr Lee's chickens last week."
Hmmm...Never I thought I'd see this "the charge itself is so secret we can't tell you" thing in the US as well...At least they tell the *person* charged what the charge is I suppose. I wonder if you can tell your lawyer?
...for christ's sake. Yes, the people at the top are responsible. It's their affiliation that matters. That's the way it works. The people in charge now absolutely refuse to be responsible for anything- there's no accountability. Two of the top people in this mess couldn't even be bothered to read a 60 page report made available to the world online detailing the abuses. THE top person- W- probably hasn't read it yet. I guess pictures saved him the trouble. The men who made the decision to invade that country and put those troops in this position to begin with were Republicans. However you feel about the war, that is fact.
My good looks paid for that pool, and my talent filled it with water.
Are you claiming that the Nazis were normal people except the part about rounding up Jewish people???
Yes. Milgram Experiment. Stanford Prison Experiment.
This was perhaps best summed up by Lord Acton: Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.
May we never see th
Actualy, I have no doubt. There is ZERO intellectual honesty on Slashdot.
Don't believe me? Watch how this is modded.
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to religion ..
Guurgh.. corrected statement:
On top of that, "civil union" is an opportunity compared to marriage...
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Oh, and before you all squawk too loudly about censorship, ask yourself why I, person with excellent Karma, posted this anonymously? After all, I never called anyone "Hitler" or call them a traitor. Hypocrites.
And why would they, when one of the largest political organizations does it on their own? The NRA has vastly more money than the ACLU does...wtf would you waste money duplicating efforts rather than taking up cases that no one else will?
I hereby propose the creation of a new mod point, -1 Tinfoil Hat.
Or, since this is Slashdot, perhaps that should be +1 Tinfoil Hat.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Datum 2. If you watch politics for enough decades, you will *notice* it doesn't really matter which R or D is in the white house, or controls congress, they play good cop/ bad cop back and forth with their various constituencies, but you always get more or less the same results, more whopper government, more bogus laws, more freedoms stripped, higher taxes, more debt,more reallystrange foreign wars that you find out years later were based on lies and were scam wars,and more destruction of the backbone of the US, the productive middle class. Again, pretty obvious. When people say they voted for their idea of the lesser of two evils, they are admitting to being scared, tricked, or just didn't really care enough to NOT vote for one of those evils. Pitiful really. they didn't want to "waste their vote", even though the only 'wasted' vote is one not cast.
Of course, none of that matters now because...
#3 the elections are now officially hijacked, what little remnants of honest voting used to exist are now gone, you'll "elect" who THEY want to be in there, and THOSE guys get told what to do from international very large power and money interests. We were WARNED this would happen, and we ignored it.
#4 the only rational plan is something completely & radically different from "politics as we know it", because the old ways of doing things WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME OLD WAYS. IT ALWAYS HAPPENS. It CAN'T give you anything BUT that, it's basic math. NOTHING will change, you will always get the same results if you copy what you just did.
mabhatter654 wrote: "Frankly, I oppose where this is going because one day very soon the pendulem is going to swing the other way and those "Conservitive Christians" are going to be Public Enemy #1 and We'll be the ones who actually get rounded up and shot...under these very rules we're passing to "protect" the country!!!"
This one paragraph of yours needs to be modded up to +5 Insightful, and I'd trade every point of /. karma I have to do so if I could. Too bad I'm coming into the thread so late...
You've just nailed on the head the EXACT problem that the self-righteous, the self-annointed never seem to freakin' get! Listen up folks - YOU will not always be in power! Your only hope for fair treatment when others take the helm is to ENFORCE EQUALITY FOR ALL WHEN YOU ARE IN CHARGE!
Pardon the yelling, but so few people seem to actually undertand that.
-MooseByte, Marine Corps veteran, Stunned, ashamed and disgusted beyond words that 27% of fellow Americans polled felt the torture at Abu Graibe was actually justified. 1/4 of our population are no better than Saddam himself.
Or, in more typical slashdotter terms "I call bullshit".
:-)
Sometimes, you have to be willing to break an unjust law, AND, pay the consequences, to get other people to really see the absurdity, so that the public at large begins to want something done. And yes, it's the deliberately getting caught part and having your (public, I hope) day in court that has to happen to finish the job. Unless they grab selected ACLU staffers and ship them off to Guatanamo, of course. Ouch.
Not that I have done anything like this, mind you, but I can certainly see the rationale behind it.
Did I forget to post this AC? Oops.
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
Works for me.
Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com. :)
The very name "Patriot Act" is intended to con people into thinking that a law more suited for a fascist country is benign and all-American, necessary to protect mom, the flag, and apple pie. They named the law carefully:
so that it would have this appealing acronym. I say we shouldn't go along with the scam. Don't call it the Patriot Act. Let's call it HR 3162.Where was the NRA when the Patriot Act was passed? Oh, that's right -- off polishing their guns instead of defending liberty. Like usual.
But Abe finished that idea with the Civil War.
Does this sound like unreasonable search & seizure to anybody else? It certainly does to me ... when the government doesn't have to justify its actions to a judge or disclose their actions to anybody else.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
frightening story...
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
You hit the nail on the head.
There is a method to effect the change that some people want, it's called a constitutional convention.
They know it'll never happen (because they're so far outside of the mainstream) so they get the judges to do it, and it all has the guise of legality.
It is, in fact, a rewriting of the constitution, without the consent of the governed.
-John Ashcroft, 12/6/2001
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
I think it has been proven quiet well that a bunch of determined yahoos with severly out classed weapons CAN make a significant resistance when they are fighting on their home turf and the folks with the Big Guns dare not go for a scorched earth policy.
And yes, your right, it would screw the pooch for the whole country. As I like to say "I used to be an Anarchist till I realized how much I like my indoor plumbing." But like a nuke, some weapons are better used as a deterrant than on your enemies - Thus the importance of an armed populace. Mind you I don't want a gun in my house. But I want to right to obtain one if I feel it necessary.
first, there is nothing to stop them from ammending the constitution to do away with the term limit (and this political climate is the perfect time to try that).
second, changing the constitution would not be absolutely necessary. all that needs to happen is for the government to declare a state of emergency and then take over all means of production, transport, etc because of FEMA (and yes, it can be used like that). everything can come under control of the current government, including the current government. democracy goes out the window and what is basically martial law can be enstated...
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
This one series of strips (it was in The Dilbert Principle) where they have secret meetings to produce this secret policy document, which all of the employees are required to follow, but none of them are allowed to read. PHB: "Just work on your project, and I'll tell you when you're doing something wrong." Dilbert: "I'll just go back to what I was doing then." PHB: "NO!!!!" Of course, it turned out that PHB wasn't let in on the document either ;)
As hard as Adams tries to be bizarre, he just can out-bizarre real life.
starts posting everything as AC...
between "layman" and "academic". I think that it's been misused by neo-conservatives to create a false divide between the "ordinary Americans" and "those leftist urban fuck-nuts".
To see a decent example of what he's talking about, check out The Political Compass. I'll be the first to admit that the questions have a liberal bias, but my friends in GA took the test and ended up about where they thought appropriate, so it can't be TOO skewed.
Seriously, though, if you're going to say that McCarthyism is a fiction made up by the "Liberal Media", then I expect you to claim that the Holocaust was a myth perpetuated by those damn Jews and that mankind never landed on the moon.
Even if you ARE seriously making that statement, there are irrefutable episodes in history where Americans have made a mockery of our own Constitution.
Why should I argue rationally with someone being irrational? I'll just mock them instead.
BTW, elections being hijacked is nothing new. Kennedy wasn't likely the first, either. Just remember also, the electors (you know, the people we are actually voting for on election day - as opposed to the candidates whose names are on the ballot) don't have any obligation to vote for who they're pledged to vote for (other than one of honor, and who was the last honorable man you saw in politics?). They could all go in and decide to elect someone who isn't even on the ballot if they wanted to!
This system was devised for a reason, and not for practicality: the founders never really believed in democracy, they were just "new money" who wanted to be rid of the incovenience of the king (or, more to the point, the incovenience of the king's taxes). To be blunt, American democracy has never worked the way it is billed to work, and still works exactly the way the founders intended. It was, and is, a boldfaced lie - a charade to delude the ignorant by making them believe they have a voice in government. Marx said religion was the opiate of the masses, but I say democracy is the real culprit.
Aristotle held that all republics eventually degrade into oligarchy. Some would say they all start that way, too.
> people in the military, nearly all would hesitate before killing
> Americans.
Two words that prove you're wrong:
Kent State
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Extracted from Cleland drops a political grenade
More here.
Using "Max Cleland" as a symbol of "what is wrong with America" is becoming a bigger lie than the mythical Republican attacks on his patriotism.
am i really a coward now?
/. for years and man, what a hornets nest this place is for rocks like that article.
ive been reading
There are differences between abuse and
t! lots more t! hooray, hooray for t!
Someday we'll all be negroes
...for fear that my Republican point-of-view will be flamed and then modded down as "troll". It seems any article about anything remotely political (even though this is completely political) gets everything and anything blamed on the Bush "regime" (as you left-wing NUTS like to call it).
I'd like to remind ALL of ya'll that the USA PATRIOT act passed OVERWHELMINGLY with a majority of both republicans and (shock, horror, awe!) DEMOCRATS.
I've started an Australian political party based pretty much exactly along those lines (see sig for more info). Sadly I'm not getting any exposure and don't have the funds to get it, so I seem to be getting nowhere.
You may like to download my Party Constitution and read my other documentation/web pages. The Party is completely open in ALL its dealings, and it is constitutionally mandated to be so. Anything less, as you rightly elucidated, is a travesty of the political process as it should be.
Thanks for showing me that there are more than a few people who think the same way.
Visceral Psyche Films
We've seen this before. Does this not remind anyone else of the end of Joseph Heller's novel where the police are rounding people up?
"Under what law," they are asked. "Catch-22" they reply. "And what is Catch-22?" "Sorry, one of the clauses of Catch-22 states that you are not allowed to know the contents of Catch-22."
Anyone here who hasn't read Catch-22 might want to give it a try. The PATRIOT act is Catch-22.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order."
-- Ed Howdershelt
... with you on it never really was run the way it was supposed to be run. And it usually de-evolves into an oligarchy,most true,and I think it's happening,the goal being two class society run as technofeudalism, the new aristocracy running the show with just advanced tech and comforts.
The WORDS back then were very good though, certainly one of ther better attempts at humans organizing some sort of government. The failures were obvious, slavery being the most notable example.
I am hoping that something like the FreeState project can suceed, get at least one state in the union back to a more-true constitutional bent, and to serve as a catalyst to other states. There are some other efforts being made in other states, starting with electing a constitutionalist as the chief executive in the governors office. Jesse Ventura blew it when he got in,just blew it, sad to say. One that stands out is Richard Mack running in utah, he has the first coalition of some third parties (libertarians, constitutionalists, I think some other parties) and other independents and break away R's and D's effort that seems to have a fair chance of success. I don't agree with allhe thinks (hard to get any two humans to 100% agree obviously), but he comes pretty dang close. Who knows, he might get in. Utah is especially hit hard by the federal government, for a variety of reasons, so he has a chance. I don't live there but am shipping him a few clams for his campaign soon, because I think it's really important to get the ball rolling on breaking this stranglehold on our government "as a whole".
Have you ever read about the "northwoods" documents? Worth a google if you've never seen them. Goes along with your example of the Luisitania (and also the sinking of the Maine), and allowing the japanese to attack at pearl, and not meeting them out to sea instead. And we just lately have been getting confirmation with the release of the LBJ tapes about the "tonkin gulf" attacks being a complete sham. it was thought, but not proven, until just lately this was the case.
Too bad it seems to take decades and generations to find out the truth, my hope is that by primarily using the internet, truths can come out faster and they'll have a harder time spinning them into oblivion.
9-11 has enough rat-smell to it to make the nearest cheese factory guys real nervous...
You've got all your information from US propaganda. The situation there is quite different than they tell you.
First of all, chechens were a minority living in hill area (only hill area) until USSR formed. Flat part of Chechnya is actually Russian land, Kossaks lived there. During USSR period several lands were transferred to Chechnya -- soviet rulers cared only about ease of management.
Second. When they decided to break up they did ethnic cleanising. They expelled more than half million of Russians, killed tens of thousands and FUCKING NOBODY in the west gives a fuck. Why? Because it's in west's geopolitical interests to maintain hot spot there.
Third. They HAD their independence. Between first and second chechen war they had more than two years. Eltsyn was forced by the west to accept surrender and chechens were left alone after the first war. And almost everyone was convinced that if chechens want their independence then they can have it, we'll just maintain tight border. But chechens created massive slave trade and kidnapping operations all around the region, thousands of people were kidnapped, many were killed who could not pay the ransom. It was on such big scale that it even touched me, one of my relatives was kidnapped (about 200 km from Cechnya), brought to Chechnya and then killed when ransom wasn't paid (it was impossible to find $50000 for all of us when average salary of $200/month is good). Later chechens assembled an army (quite serous) and attacked Dagestan (this is a part of Russia adjacent to Chechnya). Their leaders did not speak about independence. They alredy had it. They spoke about all muslims killing all non-muslims. They spoke about expanding shariat rule. But people of Dagestan are quite culturally different from chechens and caused serious resistance themselves, helping our army. The war in Dagestan and explosions of buildings in Moscow where chechens killed several hundreds of innocent people were final things that made us say "ENOUGH!".
Fourth. Their region has nothing to produce and sell. There is a lilttle amount of oil, enough to produce domesic fuel, but not enough to warrant a pipe or even railroad transportation. This region always was subsidised by USSR! If isolated from Russia 3/4 of them would die from hunger (Russia is sinking incredible amounts of money and food there to feed whole region).
This is one of the finest examples of american and european hypocrisy. They care about liberties and freedom only as long as it suit their own political and economic interests.
Congress did have access to the full text, but they didn't have time to read it. The White House pushed Congress to approve the bill, and Congress voted on it and approved it. Even at the time, individual legislators were complaining that they hadn't read it, and no one else had either. Congress voted to pass it anyway, with almost no opposing votes.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
Dude, It's all about how they are doing it. Yes, during the Clinton years republicans would vote to not approve a judge. This is a power given to the senate by the Constitution. The difference here is that the judicial commitee is blocking the vote from happening, because they know that the judges would be approved. This is not a power given by the Constitution. If you do not agree with what the outcome of following the Rules set by the Constitution will be, you may not simply forego them through a trick of procedural rules.
Nicely (and nicely succinctly) stated.
How to get around this:
"You can't say what kind of information FBI agents can request under the Patriot Act."
"Can we say you said that we couldn't say what kind of information FBI agents can request under the Patriot Act?"
"No."
"Can we say you said that we couldn't say that you said that we couldn't say what kind of information FBI agents can request under the Patriot Act?"
"No."
"Can we say you said that we couldn't say that you said that we couldn't say that you said that we couldn't say what kind of information FBI agents can request under the Patriot Act?"
"No."
"Can we say you said that we couldn't say that you said that we couldn't say that you said that we couldn't say that you said that we couldn't say what kind of information FBI agents can request under the Patriot Act?"
"Arrrrrrgh!"
They'd crack eventually...
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Actually, it turns out that the abuse is much more widespread and was encouraged from high up the chain of command. These kids were congratulated for 'getting results.'
Actually, it is starting to look more and more like this was not a case of systematic abuse instigated high up in the chain of command. Instead it is looking more and more like the acts of a relatively small number of junior soliders who were turning the prison into the site for their out of control sex party with elements of bondage and discipline. There may have been some involvement from the military intelligence side, but it seems likely that if it really existed it was in the form of low level, informal contacts, not a systematic policy.
He doesn't want to tolerate dissent, but he can't overplay his hand. Our system has checks and balances to presidential power, and he's removing them, one by one.
Nonsense. Our system of government has as many checks and balances as it ever did.
For example, Karl Rove committed treason by blowing the cover of a CIA operative. Why hasn't he been tried?
Maybe because there isn't any evidence that actually is what happened? Unlike your fantasies the real world requires actual evidence.
Numerous people in government have complained that Bush is trying to eliminate his critics.
And maybe when there is a shred of evidence of real, substantial wrong doing we will start to worry. Until then those claims are just hot air.
The house of cards that is big business finance is starting to topple (e.g. Enron, WorldCom)
This happened already, it was called the Great Depression. Men like Adolf Hitler faught to fight the power of International Finance which then and now is controlled by a fanatical religious cult that refers to themselves as God's Chosen People.
We had the greatest war ever in the history of mankind over this very issue, and you think the failure of a few companies is at all relevant?
There are more of us than there are of them, so they need to use a range of dirty tricks to prevent us from removing them from power.
Yes, and that dirty trick is democracy, which is actively manipulated through disloyal forces that control the media.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
...of PATRIOT Act is that you do not talk about PATRIOT Act.
I respect your opinion, but I do object strongly to "government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife." This is one of the key underlying problems with religion today. I'm not saying that religion and government should be mixed. But, religion is just as much about this life as it is the next. From religions' point of view, this life is part of the same purpose and existence as the next life. Thus religion should not be discounted as a very effective means to keep things in order. I'm not saying that religion should ever be imposed on anyone, but never underestimate the power for good that self imposed religion can play.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
High Springs Florida citizen Chas Chiodo was jailed by the Gainesville Police Department for "obscenity" because he waved a poster with a humorous cartoon protesting the Bush administration.
i cl e?AID=/20040513/LOCAL/205130334/1007
http://www.gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art
OK, so congress basically gave the thing a rubber stamp, which is how the republic often works in crises. But give them credit for making sure it expired eventually. Goodness knows no politician could vote to repeal it and be labeled unPARTRIOTic.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
We really did base a lot of our productive growth on extremely cheap oil and by extremely cheap products from overseas that we bought with petrodollars.
I think the gravy train is over, we are cruising on inertia now more than anything. And as we watch, the dollar is being quietly abandoned as the world's reserve currency. I think almost ALL made up money digits from this nation or that will gradually lose worth, to be replaced with tangible products. The oil producers are sitting in the pilots seat now, from here on out, along with the manufacturing titans, notably china.
... I have seen,including the analysis of others and my own, points to a severe crisis around the end of this decade to the middle of the next decade, and it might go all the way to total war. The demands for oil are rising so rapidly, and the *apparent* supplies shrinking so fast, something is gonna pop. there's enoug oil to more or less support what we have now currently, but there sure isn't enough to make any sort of middle class for another few hundred million chinese, indians, moslems, africans, latin americans, etc, it simply cannot be done, there aren't enough raw materials in the world for that, and oil and water are #1 & 2 respectably. You can't have the bulk of the planet living like americans and industrialised europaens. It can NOT be done now, not enough energy or materials, but the pressure is for exactly that to happen.
whoops
China thinks the same. They are averaging a 10% aggregate increase per year in military spending, and all of it is either tasked to assymetrical and cyber warfare, or to conventional force-projection warfare. And they make no distinction between civilian and military assets,and in that case, they have the most ships and planes in the world already, ie, the biggest navy and air force. Granted, these are not all pure warfare machines, but they think quite differently, they think nothing of putting cruise missiles on a normal freighter in a container for example. they now have a missile frigate. That's how they think, use a "force multiplier". They are, without any doubt what-so-ever, getting ready for the next war, and they plan to win it, and a primary military directive (that you can read, they don't even hide it) they labor under is "first strike and hard strike is the best strike".
We stand a better than even chance of getting our butts kicked, hard. China has no other option than to expand by 2010 to 2015 time period, and all the clues point to them prepping for it now. It's as obvious as the japanese build up before we embargoed them before ww2, or the buildup of the german military forces in the mid 30's. It's REAL obvious.
Now china has never really attempted that on any huge scale, but there's a first time for everything, and they will have the advantage of having literally millions of technicians/workers/students/business men already deployed overseas, which means a large part of them will be dual soldiers, and they are heavy into areas of interest vital to the US now. For example, they are all over mexico, inside canada a lot, in venezuela, and various places in africa, including the sudan, a rowboat ride across from saudi arabia. Lotta other places, too, they are always buddying up to the various oil producing nations. There's a reason for that, and it's because the abacus comes from there, and they know how to count, and the numbers say "#$%^&^&!!!11!, we bettah do something!" to them.
Makes ya stop and think what the heck is going on here with our current foreign policy and trade practices..
Does Jesus give you blow jobs?
Wow... look at how much emotion is being spilled over this blatent, but minor act of censorship. Anyone can look up the text of the PATRIOT act and find the content of the article that was deleted. So, while we are wasting our time and energy on this little gem, what else are they up to? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
What we really need is a ten day waiting period and a background check before you can buy a congressman.
"Chandler v. Miller
Struck down a Georgia law requiring candidates for political office to take a urine drug test on the grounds that it violated the candidates' Fourth Amendment right to privacy.
Grutter v. Bollinger/Gratz v. Bollinger
Providing a strong endorsement of affirmative action in higher education, the Court held that public universities have a compelling interest in creating a diverse student body and that race may be treated as a "plus" factor in the admissions process."
I have no problem with either of those laws. Private universities can do whatever they want, but any school that takes public money should be required to follow the same discrimination rules as businesses - no discrimination based on gender, religion, ethnicity, etc, I don't want to quote that long a list. Will the ACLU really fight so hard for minority rights in areas where whites are the minority? I don't think so. I'm not saying they're being overtly racist, but they're focusing their efforts in the wrong areas.
That issue aside, I think ALL government employees on ALL levels SHOULD be subjected to mandatory drug testing... You can't name me one religion on this planet with a rule against peeing in a cup, and you'd be digging very deep to find one that doesn't allow someone to give a blood sample. People need to stop screaming that things violate their rights when someone comes up with a good idea that puts them at a disadvantage because they're doing something stupid, illegal, or both.
similar secrecy surrounds recent join terrorism task force (fbi, local police squads of ill-repute, etc) arrest of B. Mayfield in Portland, OR. On apparently trumped up "charges". ACLU so far is not involved. For a minor commentary on ACLU in Oregon see here .