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. "
I can't wait to see how the Bush babies try to spin this one. I expect a flood of right-wing apologists to appear in the thread soon telling us that a) it isn't that bad, and b) somehow, Clinton was worse.
Think about it. Not only do we have a law which allows secret investigations and arrests, and prohibits the accused from telling anyone about what's being done to them -- but apparently, the powers granted to the government by the law are themselves state secrets! This has gone beyond evil into insanity. When did my home become the Unites States of Kafka?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
Just think what they (the Bush regime) could accomplish with another 4 years. Scary thought isn't it.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
I must have missed the news about the government rounding up Jewish people.
It won't be the Jews this time. It'll be the Muslims. Or maybe just the "potential terrorists".
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
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.
"...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
---Hermann Göring
If you're wondering whether this is happening in America, ask Max Cleland.
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?"
True, and while I don't love Kerry, he is the lesser of two evils. I don't doubt for a minute that voting for the Patriot Act was largley due to political pressure. That seems to be the case for most Democrats. Voting against the "Patriot Act" would have been political suicide at the time.
Time makes more converts than reason
Kerry voted for PATRIOT.
He's no savior.
True enough. However, the main effect of the 2004 election, in terms of civil rights, will not be in who the President is, but the people he appoints to the federal courts (note that there will almost certainly be one Supreme Court vacancy in 2005-2009, perhaps two, and of course plenty at lower levels) and as Attorney General. Kerry is no angel, but I really don't see him appointing anyone like Ashcroft, or any of Bush's recent judicial appointments.
It's also worth noting that given the time at which "USA-PATRIOT" was passed, and the speed with which it was rushed through Congress, very little meaningful opposition was possible. IIRC, only one Senator (Feingold?) actually voted against it. That doesn't let Kerry off the hook, but IMO people can be excused for doing dumb things in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Now, two and a half years later, it's a different story.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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 can't wait to see how the Bush babies try to spin this one.
Who says it will make news at all? Somewhere there's an unexplored angle of Michael Jackson or Kobi Bryant's trials that has not received full media saturation.
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.'
Bush is still trying his first 'enemy combatant' cases which will determine whether he can have Americans detained at will without charge, trial, or the right to talk to the outside world.
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.
Even Hitler tried to legitimize his power before dissolving democracy completely. Bush is still in the phase of rooting out dissent in government and consolidating his power. For example, Karl Rove committed treason by blowing the cover of a CIA operative. Why hasn't he been tried? Numerous people in government have complained that Bush is trying to eliminate his critics.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
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.
You help him make his point, only it's not Jewish people. You're not hearing about all of the Muslims that they're keeping down at Guantanamo without charges or evidence or notification or anything like that. And that's the problem with this administration and the Patriot Act - georgie's boys can do whatever the hell they want and just say "It's a secret - you can't stop me".
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.
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.
"True, and while I don't love Kerry, he is the lesser of two evils."
I hope you're not basing that on 20/20 hindsight campaign promises intended to earn votes. The truth of the matter is that the country is so divided about what's happening here that either way, a large number of people are going to be unhappy. Either they'll do too much to stop terrorism, or they won't do enough. Niether situation is ideal, and the bitching will not die down.
You wanna be mad at somebody? Point to the asshole that thinks the right way to express himself is to brainwash people into flying planes into buildings.
"Derp de derp."
Yes, and that's the point that everybody crying about Bush and his policy fail to realize. At its absolute worst, Bush will only be in office for 8 years. Max, can't run again. Not to mention, that Congress is close enough right now, that the democrats have a good amount of control still, especially in the Senate. We've seen waves of stuff like this going back all the way. Hell, in 1789, Congress passed a law that said you couldn't say anything bad about the government! The sedition act of 1789, was passed and sunseted (is that a word?) in 1801. And I'm not saying that nothing bad happens now because of the actions of the Bush administration, but 224 years is a long tim, and this isn't the first time that anything like this has happened. And you know what? It won't be the last. The beauty of the american system is that we can screw up and the ill effects won't harm us incredibly much. Whatever goes wrong, can be changed. Its happened throughout American history. Now again, I'm not saying we should rest on our laurels, in fact, not resting on our laurels is why we're able to correct our mistakes. When the people see that something doesn't work, they have to change it. And this is where the real power in American government comes from, the people. Don't like something get it changed, go out and do something. Give money, volunteer, write your congresspeople, VOTE. Whatever, but the system doesn't work (well it does work, but you have to make it work for you) if you're not doing something. Whee, I've ranted enough. But the point remains, go and do something, don't post on slashdot how Bush is a nazi and we'll all get the mark of the beast or something. The system is there. It was designed for us to use, and if you want to stop and/or prevent abuses of it, get involved.
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
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
There are a lot of ways to spin it.
On is to use a headline that says:
"Justice Department Censors ACLU Web Site"
Another could be:
"Court Rules ACLU Violated Anti-Terror Law"
What's important is being able to recognize when somebody's spinning you.
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.
Personally, I'm voting for Kerry because he's from a different party than the majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm counting on political gridlock to prevent the Democrats AND Republicans from achieving anything close to their goals. Kerry supported PATRIOT and the Iraq invasion. If the Democrats were in charge of Congress, I'd be campaigning for Bush.
hmmm, fair enough. We do seem to get screwed least when neither party has enough power to push through something without help from the other side.
Twenties Retirement
2) Most politicians didn't even read it before they voted on it, which is why there's a minor backlash against it now from both parties.
Yeah, that's partially how the unconstitutional redistricting in Colorado got through last year; a lot of republicans realized after the fact how bad it was, but they were told it would help them and didn't bother to read it before voting for it.
Personally, I think anybody who votes for something without reading it first (or at least, having a staffer read it and tell them what it does) ought to be voted out of office.
Twenties Retirement
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
If Kerry comes in, you can be sure the Republicans will return the favor.
Were you living in a cave during the Clinton years? The republicans were a lot more likely to block judges than the democrats are now. It's called "hypocrisy", and it's the single defining characteristic of the modern republican party.
...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.