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. "
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.
Who defends the ACLU when their liberties are infringed? The ACLCLU?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
Invoking Godwin's Law in a first post? Wow. Game over.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
Kerry voted for PATRIOT.
He's no savior.
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.
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.
I officially declare this thread over.
"...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.
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.
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".
we have a law which allows secret investigations and arrests, and prohibits the accused from telling anyone about what's being done to them
I've wondered, when someone receives a "National Security Letter" -- since it's illegal to reveal you've gotten one -- how does the recipient go about getting a lawyer?
"Law Offices."
"Uh, hi, I think I need a lawyer."
"What sort of legal services do you need sir?"
"Uh, I can't say."
"You can't say?"
"No, that's illegal, but I need a lawyer, to help me with this thing I can't talk about. You know, a secret lawyer for secret charges."
This is not the United States of America I learned about in school.
But then neither is sending Canadian Maher Arar to Syria to be tortured, or exposing an undercover CIA agent for petty personal revenge, or setting up secret U.S. prison camps for 10,000, or Military Intelligence encouraging torture in those prisons, or lying about the reasons for going to war.
Wake up -- this is the same administration that ignored warnings of 9/11. Why do we keep rewarding this secretive, authoritarian, and incompetent administration?
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
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.
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.
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
Huh? I am from Wisconsin. Feingold was the only one who voted against it. Thank God for him.
The record is here.
Wellstone voted Nay... don't you just love misinformation. Conspiracy theorists love that!
What's this? Bush has appointed Federal judges? I thought the Democrats had stone walled every judge he's nominated in the past four years. If Kerry comes in, you can be sure the Republicans will return the favor.
No, they blocked the 4 most objectionable nominees out of 100+. The rest were confirmed.
Get your facts straight.
Oh yeah, equating box-cutters and speach makes a lot of sense. As if some terrorist were going to take over a newspaper by threatening the editorial staff with a vicious tongue lashing and fly the Op-Ed section into a nuclear reactor!
The current administration, and their cowardly lackies, would like you to believe that security can be bought by the sacrifice of civil liberties. Unfortunately (for their argument, at least) there is no proof that this is true. Most civil liberties (gun ownership included) don't materially enhance the ability of a dedicated sociopath to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The loss of civil liberties, however, greatly reduces the ability of the citizenry to resist corrupt and despotic governments, or even to be aware of the corruption and despotism.
moviepig continues:
First, most bureacrats (also known as civil-servants, which are non-partisan positions to begin with) are not evil, they are simply lazy and rude. They've got no great desire to do you harm, but also very little desire to help you out.
Second, given the current domination of all three branches of government (as well as the media) by one party, and given that their agenda is obviously malign to most of the citizenry, any litmus test that identifies the current administration's policy objectives as anything other than pure and good is bound to be labeled a partisan agenda.
"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
That seems to be the case for most Democrats. Voting against the "Patriot Act" would have been political suicide at the time.
Three points:
1) Russ Feingold voted against it. It'll be interesting to see if this comes back to bite him in the ass - he's up for re-election this fall. I hope he makes it; he's one of the few politicians in either party that I respect (even though I think the campaign finance reform bill is unconstitutional).
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. Fortunately, at least some people paid attention. The Republican committee chairman responsible for vetting the bill before it hit the floor (I forget his name) actually read the original version that Ashcroft submitted, and deleted significant portions. Apparently the original allowed suspension of habeas corpus, and the chairman's response was something along the lines of "WTF?" (Of course, the administration seems to be getting away with that on its own; I hope the SCOTUS slaps them down.)
3) The bill was designed to fix some of the more obvious intelligence failures leading up to 9/11. Although there's a lot of nasty stuff in it, people recognized immediately that some changes would need to be made. So, they were in a hurry to pass the bill because it was obvious that they'd been caught with their pants down. Which, of course, meant that they voted without thinking.
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
I really disagree with your entire characterization of EVERYTHING.
Neither Democrats NOR the Republicans are doing much of anything to stop terrorism since the Taliban fell. There were no terrorists in Iraq, and now we're handing it over to Al Qaeda. So we're HELPING terrorists there, like it or not. Every intercepted cash transaction is NOTHING compared to the sheer amount of power we are busily giving them in the Middle East via Iraq.
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.
Kerry will take this country in the exact wrong direction--the same wrong direction it's going under Bush. But good old fashioned party politics will make sure it goes there slower. I used to be disheartened to say things like that, but I realize that's just how it is. I'd vote for Erwin Rommel if he was running, because he's not a Republican. And he's not bad in the desert either.
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.
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
At its absolute worst, Bush will only be in office for 8 years. Max, can't run again.
;-)
Why?
Have you not noticed the part about tearing up the constitution?
So... lacking a constitution... why can he only be in office 8 years?
I'm sure that when it does come... they'll "promise" to restore free elections "as soon as possible" and this will all be "temporary".
Step #1 - Make sure any of those pesky "militias" authorized by the constitution won't get in the way... check. (They've been sent over seas.)
Step #2 - Control information channels... check. (New law allows for more ownership of media outlets in major metropolitan areas.)
Step #3 - Make people feel "lucky" to have a job and be able to support their family. This keeps them too damn busy to pay attention to you... check. (Unemployment rates drop because people don't even apply any more, or have been unemployeed so long they drop off the rolls.)
Step #4 - Have your "friends" count the votes... check. (Less than one percent change can throw the election. Get electronic voting put in place and make sure there is not a paper trail.)
Step #5 - Remember that after the election you are still commander in chief for a few months and that "anything" could happen requiring you to call for martial law. Especially if the really bad thing kills the president elect and vice-president elect.
(Whoa... what happens then?)
Just a few items for a fiction novel.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
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
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.' " ]
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.
Broke the story?!? As in 'made sure it was published as a one line story on page sixteen of the entertainment section?' When did YOU first hear about it? Why wasn't something done in January? And who besides the poor patsies at the bottom did they demote?
Court martials for the people who did it, honorable discharge for their superiors, slaps on the wrist for THEIR superiors, and the Secretary of Defense gets called "The Best Defense Secretary Evar."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Because the ruling class of which he is a member is scared.
The house of cards that is big business finance is starting to topple (e.g. Enron, WorldCom)
Third world countries are starting to say no to unfair trade agreements.
The internet allows much easier communication between those who oppose the ruling class.
People are wising up about using the law to keep the actions of the government in check.
Some of the facts about the support of the US and European ruling class for Bad People such as Pinochet, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are coming out.
There are major troubles coming our way, caused in part by the actions of the ruling class (e.g. Global Warming, The exhaustion of fossil fuels, chemical poisoning of the ocean)
I think that what we have is a case of some people doing some bad things and then covering them up and continuing to do worse and worse things in order to stay in power.
There actions make perfect sense from their point of view (assuming you take ethics out of the equation). 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.
Dan.
...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.
That's really a narrow minded, uninformed perspective you have there, no doubt propagated by the media. It's as accurate a characterization of the ACLU as the myth that Al Gore Invented the Internet or the woman who sued McDonalds for spilling coffee was frivolous. If you do the research you find the media spins these things wildly out of control, or else finds the most atypical fringe examples and amplifies them as if they're locoust-sized plagues about to decend upon all mankind.
Here's a classic example of how left-wing the ACLU is:
It's funny how right-wing pundits will harp for hours about three hippies chaining themselves to a tree for hours, and conveniently ignore the arrest of several hundred people who gathered in a park in Washington D.C. to protest the war.
The ACLU has done much to help all different groups regardless of political ideology. Here's just a sample:
Reno v. ACLU
The Court struck down Congress' Communications Decency Act, which was an attempt to censor the Internet by banning "indecent" speech, ruling that "the interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship."
Board of Commissioners v. Umbehr
Government contractors cannot be subjected to reprisals, such as the loss of a contract, for expressing their political views.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
A state prohibition against the anonymous distribution of political campaign literature violated the right to anonymous free speech.
Lebron v. Amtrak
An artist argued successfully that Amtrak had been wrong to reject his billboard display because of its political message. The Court extended the First Amendment to corporations created by, and under the control of, the government.
Ladue v. Gilleo
A Missouri town's ordinance that barred a homeowner from posting a sign in her bedroom window that said, "Say No to War in the Gulf - Call Congress Now!" was deemed to violate the First Amendment.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
A city's ban on the ritual slaughter of animals as practiced by the Santeria religion was overturned as a violation of religious liberty since the city did permit such secular activities as hunting and fishing.
Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health
In the Court's first right-to-die case, the ACLU represented the family of a woman who had been in a persistent vegetative state for more than seven years. Although the Court did not go as far as the ACLU urged, it did recognize living wills as clear and convincing evidence of a patient's wishes.
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.
Lawrence v. Texas
The Court struck down a Texas sodomy statute that criminalized private acts of sexual intimacy between same-sex couples, expanding the privacy rights of all Americans and promoting the right of lesbians and gay men to equal treatment under the law.
Chicago v. Morales
Struck down Chicago's anti-gang loitering law which disproportionately targeted African American and Latino youth who were not engaged in criminal activity, and resulted in the arrest of 45,000 innocent people