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.
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!!!!
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"
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.
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?
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.
It is goddamn scary that a U.S. citizen even has to consider posting information on foreign ground to acheive freedom of speech and press. What has gone so wrong...? Are there no longer visionaries in government?
FFS, if you do have such a page, host it in the U.S.A. Don't run off to India with your tail between your legs. Chrissake, take over a government website and host it there, then print out a copy, walk up Capitol Hill and tape it to the wall.
As a Canadian, I'm proud our country maintains relations with Cuba.
:(
As a Canadian, I'm sorry to say that our greatest friend and ally is responsible for the greatest human rights abuses occuring in Cuba at this time.
Fortunately I have great faith in individual American citizens...but frankly your government blow...and sucks at the same time.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
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.
From the article:
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.
So, this law is so secret that even challenging it must be done in secret, and if the law exercised against you, that must also be kept secret.
Phew. And here I thought the War on Terror might cause us to compromise the principles we're fighting to defend.
A forthcoming addendum:
"..with liberty and justice for all who having nothing to hide, and so, nothing to fear."
They are NEVER the bad guys. Simply because you don't like the form of speech or the civil right that they are defending at any given moment doesn't make them good or bad. They are, de facto, good. Please keep in mind a quote by Supreme Court Justice William Brennan: "If there is a bedrock principle of the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This applies to flag burning (as a veteran, I'm for it as valid political speech). It also goes beyond the First Amendment to ALL the other Amendments. Separation of Church and State is and must remain a solid wall. Offensive speech must remain protected regardless of your (or anyone else's) sensibilities. The ACLU is there to ensure this for the most offensive to the most inoffensive. There is no such thing as an OK and minor violation of Constitutional principle or of ANY Constitutional Right.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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. ..."
The National Rifle Association does.
More music, fewer hits
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
The law forbids targets of national security letters to disclose that they have received one.
Joseph K. called. He wants to know if you know anything about his trial.
I read that even Congress didn't have access to the full text of the bill when they voted on it. Why should you.
Weird, I always thought the first amendment was more "powerful" than the second one...
If you think that freedom to practice religion means that you are free to infringe on other people's religions by placing your God's image and commandments in public arenas, you aren't thinking hard enough. The only way that a society can exist with freedom of religion is if every religion's philosophies are treated equally in the eyes of government. If you expect your ten commandments to be posted in a courthouse, you should expect the religious laws of every other person in the community to be given equal time. And how hypocritical would that look, when the first of said commandments is "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me?"
The ACLU is doing what it always does: it's trying to protect the rights of the minority from being squelched by a well meaning but misguided majority. There is no shame in having a secular government. After all, government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife. If you think the two should be mixed, then mix them in your church -- and expect the Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Ba'hai, and Zoroastrians in your neighbourhood to do the same. Render unto Caeser what it Caesar's, man.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Sami is not a US citizen.
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!
I really hope everyone here is going to vote this election.
I am.
Jeremiah
Must be really hard to charge people, eh?
Questions:
1. What is a large sum?
2. Are these groups based on location or on affiliates as listed by the State Department Terrorist list?
3. Is this consistant with his past behavior?
4. How did he amass a "large sum?"
I haven't read anything about the case to be honest, but it's best to question when you see discremancies like this.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
You whittisism is in vein of the single most important and overlooked idea behind the second amendment. The amendment was not only for defence against a British invasion but also for defence against a tyrannical federal govt. Jefferson wanted more than a right to bear arms, he wanted a constitutional right to revolution. The current form is just a PC version of his idea.
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
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
What are the oddds that the "Justice" Dept. goes after the Wash. Post for that? I LMFAO when I read that. They basically flipped off the DOJ then proceeded to turn around and moon them.
So we now have laws that we aren't allowed to know about. Greeeaaaat.
I can't stand either Bush or Kerry. Though I do like the gridlock idea. Or do I push for a 3rd party candidate to bust the only-2 choices?
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
It is not unconstitutional to vote against judicial nominees that you do not agree with. This is all the Republicans did to the Clinton nominees that they didn't like. If this is all the Democrats in the current legislature were doing, I would have no problem with it.
But this isn't what they are doing, is it? The constitution states that a majority (51%) is required to confirm judicial nominations. We currently have the majority as required by the constitution to confirm these nominees, but the Democrats are using obscure senate rules (not constitutional rules) to change that requirement to be a super majority (66%). That is not constitutional. If you don't like them, vote no. Don't try to weasle out of it just because you know you are going to lose.
Implicit in this is an assumption that governments need to be overturned by force of arms. I think that this is incorrect, force of arms is one means (and IMHO is the least appropriate means to do so). Recent history has shown that a well armed government can be overturned when there is enough discontent in the the population, with resorting to arms.
Check out the fall of Suharto in Indonesia for example. Dictactor overturned by discontent.
meh
Trying to link freedom and taxes is bizarre. I can see how capitalists would think so (since they consider taxes and hence social programs as evil), but the argument based on comparison is weird.
Anyway, there aren't any libertarian (left or right) countries. I don't think there ever can be. Libertarianism (as it originated on the left) is not a "system". Rather it is just a style of governance, if you will. My feeling is that you will always end up with a left/right econopolitical system that dominates libertarianism. For instance, I think you would always have a systme like anarchism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, etc being used, rather than "libertarianism". Most Americans who call themselves Libertarians are Right-Libertarians or Conservative-Libertarians. Therefore, it follows that conservatism will triumph over libertarianism. It is not a coincidence that the many Libertarians don't even support 50% of libertarian principles (like non-agression, legalization of drugs/prostitution/etc, etc). This is why 90% of what Libertarians seek will come from the left-wing that they hate. For instance, equality for homosexuals, and legalization of drugs will be due to the left-wing. In the end, Libertarians amount to nothing!!!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
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.
...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.
Any source for this? Or is an anti-Bush accusation enough to get you modded up?
It was widely reported in the news. Did you bother to try a simple Google search? Or do you just go around making unfounded attacks on any commie-mutant-traitor who says anything that might refect badly on Bush?
Hell, the orignal poster never even mentioned Bush! Jeez, I know Bush is a schmuck, but not every comment about the government doing something stupid is a direct attack on him. It's not ALL his fault.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
-John Ashcroft, 12/6/2001
*****
Dear Mary,
I yearn for you tragically,
A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
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.
Commit offences to any religion? What are you smoking? You can't avoid offending everybody no matter what you do. God in government? You offend the atheists. No god in government? You offend the Christian right. Sorry, but you crietria for deciding what is allowed is horribly flawed. It doesn't even allow you to do nothing, let alone something.
The proper criteria is this: The Government cannot take away or grant rights or priveledges based on religious belief or parctice, and cannot regulate or prohibit any religious belief or practice. (save those practices that violate others rights, eg. human sacrifice etc.) Having 'In God We Trust' on our money does not violate any of this, Neither does the 10 commandments in courthouses. Or prayers in schools, as long as grades, graduation eligibility for school office (class prez.) etc. are not predicated on participation (or lack of) in the prayer.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
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.